progress report - ospar commission...2.2 geography and hydrography 19 2.3 ecosystem structure and...

ProgressReport

Fifth International

Conference on

the Protection of

the North Sea

Fifth International

Conference on

the Protection of

the North Sea

20 – 21 March 2002

Bergen, Norway

PREFACE ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 9

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................................................... 10

1. BACKGROUND FOR THE FIFTH NORTH SEA CONFERENCE ............................................................................................... 15

2. THE NORTH SEA ENVIRONMENT ............................................................................................................................................ 17

2.1 Introduction 17

2.2 Geography and Hydrography 19

2.3 Ecosystem Structure and Functioning 20

2.4 Socio-economic Importance of the North Sea 232.4.1 Intrinsic value of nature 232.4.2 Tourism and recreation 242.4.3 Renewable resources 242.4.4 Non-renewable resources 24

2.5 Human Impacts 252.5.1 Priority Class A – highest impact 252.5.2 Priority Class B – upper intermediate impact 26

2.6 Development of an Ecosystem Approach 272.6.1 The concept 272.6.2 A developing framework 282.6.3 Ecological quality objectives 292.6.4 Monitoring 30

3. THE PROTECTION OF SPECIES AND HABITATS IN COASTAL AND OFFSHORE WATERS .............................................. 31

3.1 Introduction 31

3.2 Threatened and Ecologically Important Species and Habitats 323.2.1 General framework 323.2.2 Criteria for the identification of species and habitats needing protection 333.2.3 Ecosystem effects of fishing 333.2.4 Marine mammals 353.2.5 Seabirds and shorebirds 373.2.6 Benthos 39

Contents

Contents

3.3 Conservation, Classification and Mapping of Habitats, and the Development of a System of Marine Protected Areas 423.3.1 Classification and mapping of habitats 433.3.2 Development of a system for marine protected areas 443.3.3 Habitats, including Natura 2000 453.3.4 The Wadden Sea 45

3.4 Non-indigenous and Genetically Modified Organisms 463.4.1 Non-indigenous species 463.4.2 Genetically modified organisms 48

3.5 Assessment of Achievements 493.5.1 Threatened and ecologically important species and habitats 493.5.2 Conservation, classification and mapping of habitats, and the development of a system of marine

protected areas 503.5.3 Non-indigenous species and genetically modified organisms 51

4. FISHERIES .................................................................................................................................................................................... 53

4.1 Introduction 534.1.1 Fisheries and ecosystem effects of fisheries 534.1.2 Status of North Sea fisheries 544.1.3 Main goals and actions agreed at the 4NSC and IMM 97 57

4.2 Further Integration of Fisheries and Environmental Policies 57

4.3 Application of the Precautionary Approach to Minimize Adverse Effects of Non-indigenous Stocks and Species and Genetically Modified Organisms 59

4.4 Rebuilding or Maintenance of Spawning Stock Biomass 594.4.1 Priorities for the elaboration of stock assessments and forecasts 594.4.2 Target and limit reference points 594.4.3 Measures to ensure that fishing mortality rates are in accord with reference points 614.4.4 Criteria for safe biological limits 614.4.5 Recovery plans 614.4.6 TACs and other appropriate measures 624.4.7 Protective measures for aggregations of spawning fish 634.4.8 Reduction of fishing capacity/effort consistent with the fishery resources 634.4.9 Actions to ensure that fisheries do not hamper the rebuilding or maintenance of stocks 64

4.5 Protection of Juvenile Fish, Crustaceans and Molluscs 654.5.1 Minimize or ban discards 654.5.2 Avoidance of by-catch of juvenile fish, crustaceans and molluscs 654.5.3 Minimize high-grading 66

4.6 Protection of Species and Habitats 664.6.1 Development of selective fishing gear and restriction on fishing in areas that require protection 664.6.2 Avoidance of ghost fishing 674.6.3 Environmental assessments of new fishing practices 67

4.7 Protection from Activities other than Fisheries 67

4.8 Control and Enforcement 684.8.1 Develop and apply more effective and consistent control methods 684.8.2 Develop further cooperation and transparency in control and enforcement 694.8.3 Satellite monitoring 694.8.4 Exchange of data 69

Progress Report

4.9 Science,Technology and Economic Impacts 704.9.1 Facilitate and conduct research 704.9.2 Effects of fisheries on the ecosystem, especially beam trawling and industrial fisheries 704.9.3 Research needed for the development of an ecosystem approach 704.9.4 Incentives to encourage more support for protection and sustainable use of resources 704.9.5 Socio-economic effects 714.9.6 Ecological and economic effects of a discard ban and monitoring of discard level 71

4.10 Information and Involvement 724.10.1 Improve the provision of information for fishing communities 724.10.2 Involvement of fishermen and other parties in the decision-making process 72

4.11 Reporting Related to the 1995 Esbjerg Declaration – Joint Actions Norway–EU 73

4.12 Assessment of Achievements 754.12.1 Guiding principles, management objectives and strategies 754.12.2 Status of North Sea fish stocks 754.12.3 Further integration of fisheries and environment policies 754.12.4 Rebuilding or maintenance of spawning stock biomass and protection of juvenile fish,

crustaceans and molluscs 764.12.5 Protection of species and habitats 764.12.6 Control and enforcement and further collaboration 764.12.7 Science, technology and economic impacts 764.12.8 Information and involvement 77

5. THE PREVENTION OF POLLUTION BY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES .................................................................................. 78

5.1 Introduction 785.1.1 General progress since the 4NSC 785.1.2 Main actions/goals agreed 80

5.2 The 50/70% Reduction Target 805.2.1 Data reported 805.2.2 General overview of progress on the 50% and 70% reduction target 845.2.3 Detailed information on substances and related sources 845.2.4 Reductions achieved since 1995 93

5.3 The One Generation Target 935.3.1 Cessation of discharges, emissions and losses within one generation (25 years/2020) 935.3.2 Selection processes (DYNAMEC (OSPAR), COMMPS and WFD (EU)) 945.3.3 Identification of substances of equal concern 955.3.4 Implementation processes and achievements 95

5.4 PCBs and DDT 985.4.1 PCBs – main sources and existing legislation 985.4.2 PCBs – transformers and large capacitors (with more than 5 dm3 PCB) 995.4.3 PCBs – Small capacitors and open applications 1005.4.4 PCBs – measures to prevent losses from contaminated land and sediments 1005.4.5 DDT 101

5.5 Substitution of Substances and Products 1015.5.1 Substitution of products 1015.5.2 Substitution of hazardous substances 1025.5.3 Substitution of specific substances 103

Contents

5.6 Pesticides 1075.6.1 Pesticides which should have been strictly limited or banned 1075.6.2 Pesticides detected in the North Sea or posing a risk 108

5.7 BAT/BEP 1085.7.1 Development of BAT/BEP 1085.7.2 Development and use of clean technology and treatment technology 111

5.8 Contaminated Land and Waste Disposal Sites 1115.8.1 Contaminated land 1115.8.2 Waste generation and waste disposal sites 1115.8.3 Recycling of plastics 112

5.9 Economic Instruments and Voluntary Agreements 1125.9.1 Environmental taxes 1125.9.2 Voluntary agreements 113

5.10 Integrated Product Policy 114

5.11 Assessment of Achievements 1155.11.1 Assessment of the achievements on the 50% and 70% reduction target 1155.11.2 Assessment of other achievements 1165.11.3 Further work to achieve the one generation target 1165.11.4 Future reporting on targets 117

6. REDUCTION OF NUTRIENT INPUTS TO THE NORTH SEA .................................................................................................. 119

6.1 Introduction 1196.1.1 The problem of eutrophication 1196.1.2 State of the environment 1206.1.3 Agreed measures 120

6.2 OSPAR Strategy to Combat Eutrophication 1206.2.1 Adoption of the OSPAR Strategy to Combat Eutrophication 1206.2.2 The Common Procedure to Identify Eutrophication Status 1206.2.3 Ecological Quality Objectives for the Greater North Sea 1216.2.4 Is a 50% reduction in input of nutrients sufficient? 122

6.3 The EC Water Framework Directive 1226.3.1 General 1226.3.2 Correspondence between the OSPAR Strategy to Combat Eutrophication and the WFD 122

6.4 Discharges, Losses and Inputs of Nutrients, using the HARP Guidelines 1236.4.1 Background 1236.4.2 Data submission 1246.4.3 Nutrient discharges and losses at source 1256.4.4 Riverine data 1316.4.5 Nutrient Inputs into the sea 131

6.5 Urban and Industrial Sewage 1336.5.1 Background 1336.5.2 Implementation status 1336.5.3 Implementation improvement – prospects for the future 135

6.6 Agriculture 1366.6.1 Progress made 136

6.7 Atmospheric Emissions of Nitrogen 1396.7.1 Introduction 1396.7.2 Progress within the European Commission, OSPAR, Norway and Switzerland 1396.7.3 Progress within the UN-ECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution 1416.7.4 Progress within OSPAR 142

6.8 Assessment of Achievements and Progress 1426.8.1 OSPAR 1426.8.2 Urban Waste WaterTreatment Directive 1436.8.3 Nitrates Directive 1436.8.4 Sensitive areas and vulnerable zones 1446.8.5 Atmospheric emissions 1446.8.6 50% reduction targets on discharges and losses of nutrients into surface waters 144

7. THE PREVENTION OF POLLUTION FROM SHIPS ............................................................................................................... 146

7.1 Introduction 1467.1.1 Areas of environmental concern 1467.1.2 Main actions agreed upon 147

7.2 Air Pollution 1477.2.1 Action agreed upon at the 4NSC 1477.2.2 Reported progress 147

7.3 Oil Pollution 1497.3.1 Action agreed upon at the 4NSC 1497.3.2 Reported progress 149

7.4 Hazardous Substances 1507.4.1 Action agreed upon at the 4NSC 1507.4.2 Reported progress 150

7.5 Non-indigenous Species and Sediments in Ballast Water 1517.5.1 Action agreed upon at the 4NSC 1517.5.2 Reported progress 151

7.6 Reduction of Waste and Development of a Zero Discharge Regime 1527.6.1 Action agreed upon at the 4NSC 1527.6.2 Reported progress 152

7.7 Enforcement and Illegal Discharges 1537.7.1 Action agreed upon at the 4NSC 1537.7.2 Reported progress 153

7.8 Accidents, Including Insurance, Compensation and Liability 1557.8.1 Action agreed upon at the IMM 93 and at the 4NSC 1557.8.2 Reported progress 155

7.9 Assessment of Achievements 1577.9.1 Cooperation as an achievement 1577.9.2 Main achievements 1577.9.3 Lack of progress 1587.9.4 Overall assessment 158

Progress Report

Contents

8. THE PREVENTION OF POLLUTION FROM OFFSHORE INSTALLATIONS ........................................................................ 160

8.1 Introduction 1608.1.1 Human pressures 1608.1.2 Impacts on the environment 1608.1.3 Main actions and goals agreed 162

8.2 Discharges of Oil and Chemicals 1628.2.1 Total discharges of oil from offshore installations 1628.2.2 Oil-contaminated cuttings 1628.2.3 Produced water 1638.2.4 Oil spills 1638.2.5 Use and discharges of chemicals 164

8.3 Levels and Trends in Contamination 1648.3.1 Drilling discharges 1648.3.2 Components from produced water 1668.3.3 Monitoring results 166

8.4 Efforts to Reduce Discharges of Oil and Possible Effects on Fish 1678.4.1 Oil on cuttings 1678.4.2 Oil in produced water 1678.4.3 Monitoring of effects on fish 167

8.5 Efforts to Reduce Discharges of Chemicals 168

8.6 Implementation of Management Systems 168

8.7 Investigations of Effects of Produced Water and Further Development of BAT and BEP 169

8.8 Decommissioning of Offshore Installations 170

8.9 Assessment of Achievements 1718.9.1 Drilling discharges 1718.9.2 Produced water 1718.9.3 Offshore chemicals 1718.9.4 Decommissioning of installations/cuttings piles 171

9. MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES, INCLUDING WASTE .......................................................................... 172

9.1 Introduction 172

9.2 Discharges to the Marine Environment from European Nuclear Installations 173

9.3 OSPAR Strategy with regard to Radioactive Substances – Progress and Achievements 1759.3.1 Progress within OSPAR 1759.3.2 Achievements through national action 176

9.4 Establishing a Framework for Protection of the Environment 177

9.5 Management of Radioactive Waste 1789.5.1 Presentation of the new IAEA Waste Convention 1789.5.2 National waste treatment strategies 178

Progress Report

9.6 Anthropogenically Enhanced Concentrations of Natural Radionuclides 1809.6.1 Technologically enhanced NORM in oil and gas production 1809.6.2 Discharges of production water 180

9.7 Assessment of Achievements 1819.7.1 Discharges to the environment and management of radioactive waste 1819.7.2 Protection of the environment 181

10. DEVELOPMENT OF HARMONIZED REPORTING PROCEDURES ....................................................................................... 182

10.1 Introduction 182

10.2 Harmonized Quantification and Reporting Systems for Nutrients 18310.2.1 Identification of key issues 18310.2.2 HARP Guidelines 18310.2.3 Experience with the use and need for further development 183

10.3 Harmonized Reporting Systems for Hazardous Substances 18410.3.1 The HARP-HAZ Project 18410.3.2 What has been achieved? 18410.3.3 Experience with using the HARP-HAZ Prototype and the need for further development 185

10.4 Harmonized Reporting on other Issues 186

10.5 Assessment of Achievements 186

ANNEX 1:HISTORY OF THE NORTH SEA CONFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 187Background 187Bremen, 1984 188London, 1987 189The Hague, 1990 190Intermediate Ministerial Meeting, Copenhagen, 1993 191Esbjerg, 1995 191Intermediate Ministerial Meeting, Bergen, 1997 192

ANNEX 2:STATE OF STOCKS IN THE NORTH SEA AND ADJACENT SEAS ................................................................................................ 194

ANNEX 3:PRESIDENCY CONCLUSIONS – EUROPEAN COUNCIL, GOTHENBURG 15 AND 16 JUNE 2001 ........................................... 197

ANNEX 4:PROPOSALS FOR ECOLOGICAL QUALITY OBJECTIVES IN THE NORTH SEA ......................................................................... 200

ANNEX 5:REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 202

ANNEX 6:ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 206

9

The North Sea Conference in Bergen is the fifth ina series of International Ministerial Conferencesconcerned with the protection of the North Sea environment.

At the Fourth International Conference on theProtection of the North Sea (4NSC) in Esbjerg,Denmark in 1995, the Ministers established theCommittee of North Sea Senior Officials (CONSSO).The tasks of CONSSO are, inter alia, to reviewprogress in the implementation of the actionsagreed upon by the earlier North Sea Conferences,to take an overview of the marine environment andaction being taken to protect it, to consider the needfor further actions, and to prepare for the FifthInternational Conference on the Protection of theNorth Sea (5NSC). Norway, as host to the 5NSC,has the chairmanship of CONSSO and has estab-lished a North Sea Secretariat to support CONSSOuntil the 5NSC has taken place.

The following parties take part in CONSSO:Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, theNetherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, theUnited Kingdom and the European Commission. Inaddition, several neighbouring countries and inter-governmental and non-governmental organizationstake an active part in the meetings.

This is CONSSO’s report on progress to the 5NSC.The Progress Report has been compiled in order to

provide participants at the 5NSC with an overviewof the measures taken and the results achieved todate. Its primary purpose is to report to Ministerson how the North Sea Conference Declarations, inparticular the 1995 Esbjerg Declaration and theStatement of Conclusions from the 1997Intermediate Ministerial Meeting on theIntegration of Fisheries and Environmental Issues,have been implemented.

A detailed account of how the North Sea States andinternational organizations have implemented thecommitments of the North Sea ConferenceDeclarations is contained in chapters 3 to 10. Theseaddress the following issues: protection of speciesand habitats, fisheries, hazardous substances,nutrients, ships, offshore installations, radioactivesubstances and the development of harmonizedreporting procedures. Each chapter concludes withan assessment of achievements, which summarizesthe main areas of progress and, where relevant,identifies lack of progress in implementation.

In addition to presenting the actions taken to con-serve, restore and protect the North Sea, the reportpresents the North Sea ecosystem and the develop-ment of an ecosystem approach to the management ofhuman activities affecting the North Sea (chapter 2).

Preface

10

The water quality and biodiversity of the North Seaare affected by the various human activities of thedensely populated states bordering the North Sea.Nutrients and pollutants are distributed throughthe North Sea by the currents and transportedalong the Norwegian Trench out into the NorthAtlantic.

The North Sea is a biologically rich and productivesea area, due in part to large inputs of nutrientsleading to high primary production, the basis for all food chains. The intricate webbing of the foodchains in the North Sea makes the ecosystemdurable, yet vulnerable to major alterations such as overexploitation of single species.

The North Sea provides goods and services to thehuman population. The value of this is not readilyquantifiable, but fisheries, tourism and oil and gas

production are economically the most importantactivities.

Over the last few years the need to take a cross-sectoral, integrated approach to environment-related management has become evident. At theIntermediate Ministerial Meeting in 1997 (IMM 97),Ministers responsible for the environment and fish-eries in the North Sea agreed on the developmentand application of an ecosystem approach to manag-ing human activities that affect the North Sea.Much work has been done by North Sea Stateswithin the frameworks of the EU, the OSPARCommission (OSPAR) and the International Councilfor the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) to implementthis agreement. A framework for an ecosystemapproach has evolved, with the development of ecological quality objectives as an important part.

Executive Summary

11

Main Achievements

An important achievement since the last North SeaConference in Esbjerg has been the adoption in1998 and entry into force in 2001 of a new annex tothe OSPAR Convention, Annex V on biodiversity. Inaddition, important strategies with regard to protec-tion and conservation of the ecosystems and biologi-cal diversity, hazardous substances, eutrophication,radioactive substances and offshore oil and gasactivities have been adopted by OSPAR.

Species and HabitatsOSPAR has made substantial progress in thedevelopment of criteria for the identification ofthreatened and declining species and habitats. The implementation of its biodiversity strategy willcontribute to an integrated view on the specificmeasures necessary to conserve, restore and protectecologically important or key biodiversity specieswhich are threatened or vulnerable, and theirhabitats.

Within the European Community, the designation ofNatura 2000 sites is important for the conservation,restoration and protection of species and habitats.Red lists of biotopes, flora and fauna of the trilater-al Wadden Sea area and the German North Seahave been developed. The Agreement on theConservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic andNorth Seas (ASCOBANS) adopted in 2000 a resolu-tion setting a maximum limit to the total annualremoval of small cetaceans as by-catch in fisheries.The EU has banned the use of drift nets in order toprotect small cetaceans and certain other non-targetspecies. The Trilateral Wadden Sea Cooperation hasadopted a Seal Management Plan. The adoption bythe UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in1999 of the International Plans of Action for theConservation and Management of Sharks and forthe Reduction of Incidental Catch of Seabirds inLongline Fisheries are other important internation-al initiatives. Some progress has been made in thedevelopment of technical solutions to avoid andreduce by-catch of non-economically exploitedspecies in fisheries. In 1997, the International

Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted guidelinesfor the control and management of ships’ ballastwater. Its current aim is to reach agreement upon alegally binding convention on the control and man-agement of ballast water and sediments in 2003.

FisheriesThe European Community and Norway have madegood progress in adopting guidelines incorporatingthe principles, objectives and strategies agreed atIMM 97. Norway is in the process of finding waysand means to implement ecosystem-based fisheriesmanagement.

Advice based on the precautionary approach wasput into practice by ICES in 1998, and nowconstitutes the basis for the setting of quotas in thebilateral agreement between Norway and the EU.

As an integral part of the annual Norway–EU quotaagreements, an emergency recovery plan for codwas implemented in 2001. New technical measures,limit reference points as well as management objec-tives have been established for several stocks.

Norway and several EU Member States haveestablished bilateral agreements regardingcooperation on control and surveillance of fisheriesactivities.

Hazardous SubstancesThe inputs of many of the traditional hazardoussubstances are decreasing. Since 1985, the NorthSea States have substantially reduced emissions,discharges and losses of the 37 hazardous sub-stances included in the percentage reduction targetsset by previous North Sea Conferences. The settingof specific reduction targets for inputs and emis-sions of hazardous substances has been an impor-tant stimulus for achieving reductions. The targetshave largely been met, thereby contributing toreduced pressures on the North Sea environment.The more far-reaching target of the phasing out ofhazardous substances within one generation hasbeen taken up and is being implemented by OSPAR,and in a modified form, in the EU WaterFramework Directive and the new EU ChemicalsPolicy. Transparent reporting was achieved byapplying the first version of the harmonizedreporting procedures (HARP-HAZ prototype). This

Executive Summary

12

represents an important basis for achieving harmo-nized, useful reporting in other relevant frame-works.

NutrientsIn 1998, OSPAR adopted its Strategy to CombatEutrophication. OSPAR’s main objective with regardto eutrophication is to achieve and maintain by2010 a healthy marine environment where eutroph-ication does not occur. In relation to this, OSPARhas made substantial progress in assessing theeutrophication status of the various parts of theOSPAR Maritime Area through the developmentand application of the OSPAR Common Procedurefor the Identification of the Eutrophication Status ofthe Maritime Area.

The development of Harmonised Quantification andReporting Procedures for Nutrients (HARP) result-ed in a set of nine guidelines (of which eight wereadopted by OSPAR 2000). They collectively coverquantification methodology and reporting require-ments for all major nutrient sources, retention insurface waters and nutrient inputs to the sea. Thus,the first steps towards transparent, harmonized andcomparable quantification have been taken.

Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands,Norway and Switzerland have all reached the 50%reduction target on phosphorus between 1985 and2000 from sources in areas draining into definedproblem areas. Sweden has reached a reduction of33%. The report from France was insufficient toallow an assessment of its progress towards achiev-ing the 50% reduction target for phosphorus. Forthe period 1985 to 2000, none of the North SeaStates reached the 50% reduction target on nitrogenlosses/discharges from sources in areas draininginto defined problem areas. The report from Francewas insufficient to allow an assessment of itsprogress towards achieving the 50% reductiontarget for nitrogen. The UK, which has to date notidentified any problem area with regard to eutrophi-cation and is therefore not committed to the 50%reduction targets, achieved a reduction in inputs ofphosphorus of about 40% but saw little underlyingchange in the inputs of nitrogen.

Although it is ten years since the adoption of theEC Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive(91/271/EEC) and the Nitrates Directive

(91/676/EEC), there are still major delays andshortcomings in their implementation by most ofthe Member States. The full implementation ofthese two directives is a necessary step towardssuccessfully combating eutrophication of the coastalwaters of the North Sea.

ShippingSeveral international instruments are in placeaimed at reducing the emissions of nitrogen oxides(NOx) from traffic, ships and combustion plants. The adoption in 1999 of the Gothenburg Protocol toabate Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground-Level Ozone will, once fully implemented, contributeto the reduction of NOx and ammonia emissions.

The North Sea States have succeeded by concertedaction within the International MaritimeOrganization (IMO) in getting agreement on severalof the goals as set out in the Statement ofConclusions from the 1993 Intermediate MinisterialMeeting in Copenhagen and in the EsbjergDeclaration. The most important are theInternational Convention on Liability andCompensation for Damage in Connection with theCarriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances bySea (the HNS Convention) and the agreement tophase out organotins acting as biocides on shipsglobally. However, the various measures within IMOaimed at reducing discharges of oil, controlling sul-phur oxide (SOx) emissions and preventing the lossof hazardous cargoes are also important. Reductionof waste from ships can be attained through theimplementation of the IMO guidelines for theimplementation of Annex V of the InternationalConvention for the Prevention of Pollution fromShips, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78). The EuropeanParliament and Council Directive on Port ReceptionFacilities covers the proper disposal of such waste.

Offshore ActivitiesDischarges of cuttings with oil-based drilling mudshave ceased after the full implementation in 1996 of PARCOM Decision 92/2, thereby reducing thedischarges of oil from offshore activities to lessthan a third in 1999 compared to 1985. OSPAR hasachieved progress in regulating uses and dischargesof chemicals and oil in produced water. It has alsoagreed on a strategy to set environmental goals andto establish improved management mechanisms.

Progress Report

13

OSPAR Decision 98/3 on the Disposal of DisusedOffshore Installations prohibits the dumping, andleaving wholly or partly in place, of disused installa-tions within the OSPAR Maritime Area. It recognis-es the difficulty of removing certain categories ofinstallation, such as concrete installations and thefootings of large steel installations, and provides forderogations to the general ban in accordance withan agreed assessment and consultation framework.

RadioactivityDischarges of radioactive waste have in generaldecreased. The new International Atomic EnergyAgency Waste Convention, which entered into forcein 2001, will be important in ensuring the safe han-dling of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive wastemanagement. Increased attention is being given tothe protection of the environment from detrimentaleffects caused by radiation. The International Unionof Radioecology has presented a first approach to aninternational framework for protection of the envi-ronment from radiation.

Remaining Problems and Future Challenges

A major challenge for the future is to ensure theimplementation nationally of the significantinternational instruments, notably those of OSPAR,the European Community and IMO. When imple-mented, these instruments will lead to fulfilment ofmany of the actions agreed at previous North SeaConferences.

Species and HabitatsSince the adoption of Annex V in 1998 there hasbeen progress within OSPAR in identifying speciesand habitats in need of protection and conservationmeasures. OSPAR intends to complete the identifica-tion criteria and a priority list of threatened anddeclining species and habitats by 2003. Practical andlegal tools are needed to avoid the release or spreadof non-indigenous (alien) species and stocks andgenetically modified organisms, which may poten-tially have adverse effects on the ecosystem andbiodiversity. The EUNIS (European Nature

Information System) habitat classification systemmust be further developed to include information onbiota. Furthermore it must be validated, and thehabitats have yet to be mapped.

FisheriesIn order to ensure the full application of theecosystem approach in fisheries management, theimplementation according to agreed principles, ofstrategies and actions agreed at the IMM 97, mustbe enhanced. Sustainable fishing practices shouldbe further developed in order to reduce by-catch ofnon-commercially exploited species, damage tobenthic species and habitats and overexploitation of fish stocks in the North Sea.

Hazardous SubstancesAlthough the North Sea States have reduced inputsand emissions of many hazardous substances to asignificant extent, many of these substances willpersist in the North Sea ecosystem, potentially hav-ing effects on human health and the environment. Alarge number of chemicals that are either known tobe hazardous, or for which the inherent propertiesor the ecological effects are still unknown, are stillreaching the North Sea. It is necessary to focusefforts on closing the large gap in our knowledgeconcerning the basic properties of most chemicals,their exposure pattern and their fate in the marineenvironment.

The inputs and emissions of several hazardous sub-stances to the North Sea are still too high, andaction to achieve further reductions should be con-sidered in all relevant forums. In order to sustain ahealthy North Sea environment, it is now importantto concentrate efforts on achieving the more generalone-generation target. The future EC chemicalspolicy will generate more basic information onchemicals, and together with the selection mecha-nisms within OSPAR and within the EC WaterFramework Directive, a more precise identificationand prioritisation of hazardous substances shouldbe possible. Further work is necessary to developrelevant methods to check and report on whetherthe progressive reductions necessary to achieve theone-generation target have been effectuated.

NutrientsThe North Sea States committed to the 50% reduc-tion target for nitrogen, have not met this target.

Executive Summary

14

The HARP Guidelines should be further implement-ed as a basis for improved harmonized reporting onnutrients. There is a need for harmonization onimportant subjects, including the timetable ofimplementation, between the EC Water FrameworkDirective and OSPAR’s Strategy to CombatEutrophication.

ShippingThe revision of MARPOL 73/78 Annexes I (oil) and II(noxious liquid substances in bulk) has been delayedand a true reduction in the sulphur content of fueloil has not been achieved. Only two member coun-tries have ratified MARPOL 73/78 Annex VI on airpollution from ships. Even though guidelines to pre-vent waste from ships have been adopted, littleprogress has been made in preventing and reducingwaste generation from ships. In addition, MARPOL73/78 Annex on sewage is still not yet in force. Fewnational measures have been taken to prevent theintroduction of non-indigenous organisms via ballastwater. In the cooperation between North Sea Statesto facilitate the enforcement of, and the prosecutionof offenders to MARPOL 73/78 more progress istherefore needed.

Offshore ActivitiesThe main challenge with regard to the prevention of pollution from offshore installations is thedevelopment of effective ways of achieving thetargets set by OSPAR Recommendation 2001/1 forthe Management of Produced Water from OffshoreInstallations, e.g. regarding the 15% reduction of oil discharged with produced water, and the settingof performance standards on aromatic hydrocarbonsin produced water.

RadioactivityTechnical solutions to the handling of radioactivewaste to reduce discharges into water bodies arestill lacking.

Progress Report

15

In the early 1980s there was growing concern amongthe North Sea States that the large inputs of variousharmful substances via rivers, direct discharges anddumping of waste at sea could cause irreversibledamage to the North Sea ecosystems. Some coun-tries were also dissatisfied with the lack of progressmade by the competent international organizationscharged with protecting the marine environment. Inpart this was due to the wider geographical coverageof the bodies concerned and the lack of focus atNorth Sea level. Eventually this resulted in the First International Conference on the Protection ofthe North Sea held in Bremen in 1984.

At that time the pertinent conventions (Oslo and Paris Conventions, MARPOL 73/78, LondonConvention 1972, Bonn Agreement) and theirexecutive bodies were rather specialized in theirscope. The International Conferences on theProtection of the North Sea have had the advantageof providing a political framework for a broad andcomprehensive assessment of the measures needed

to protect the North Sea. This has enabledMinisters to deal with a broad range of North Seaissues, and has allowed them to respond swiftly andto focus on key issues at each conference.

The North Sea Conferences have constitutedpolitical forums that have adopted far-reachingpolitically based commitments. Many of thesepolitical commitments have been adopted innational regulations as well as within the frame-work of legally binding conventions. Of particularimportance for the protection of the North Sea arethe frameworks of the OSPAR Commission(OSPAR), the European Union (EU) and theInternational Maritime Organization. Importantagreements of the North Sea Ministers are nowtaken forward through the OSPAR Strategies, mostof which were adopted at Ministerial level in 1998and are aimed at guiding OSPAR’s work.

Apart from the agreements on action to protect theNorth Sea, the North Sea Conferences have also

1

Background for the Fifth North Sea Conference

16

played an important role in influencing environ-mental management decisions in a much widercontext. The adoption of the precautionary principleat the London Conference in 1987 is one of the mostimportant agreements emanating from the NorthSea Conferences. Once agreed at a political level,the precautionary principle has been adopted withinthe appropriate legislative forums and has become agenerally accepted principle for the protection of theenvironment.

Until 1995, pollution was the main issue at theNorth Sea Conferences. Important agreements havebeen made, inter alia, regarding reduction of nutri-ent inputs, reduction and phasing out of hazardoussubstances, phasing out of TBT in anti-foulingagents on ships, a ban on dumping and incinerationat sea and a general prohibition on the dumping ofdisused offshore installations. Annex 1 to this reportrecords the history of the North Sea Conferencesincluding the principal milestones.

Over the last decade there has been an increasingawareness that other impacts of human activitieson the North Sea ecosystems are also very impor-tant, and that the combined effects could bedetrimental to biological diversity.

This led to increasing concern about the develop-ment and status of the North Sea fish stocks, aswell as to the impact of fisheries on the ecosystems.On this basis Norway organized the IntermediateMinisterial Meeting on the Integration of Fisheriesand Environmental Issues held in Bergen in 1997(IMM 97), in which Ministers responsible forenvironmental protection and Ministers responsiblefor fisheries, as well as the respective EUCommissioners, participated.

One important outcome of IMM 97 was the agree-ment on the development and application of an

ecosystem approach in the management of humanactivities and protection of the North Sea. Ministersinvited the competent authorities for fisheriesmanagement and for the other aspects respectively,to consider such development and its possible imple-mentation and to analyse periodically the progressachieved and the problems remaining, doing so forthe first time preferably before the 5NSC.

At the Ministerial Meeting of OSPAR held in Sintrain 1998, Ministers adopted a new Annex to theOSPAR Convention, Annex V, and a strategy toprotect and conserve the ecosystems and biologicaldiversity of the maritime area. The implementationof this strategy will contribute to the developmentof an ecosystem approach. Furthermore the inte-grated approach of the EC Water FrameworkDirective based on setting environmental objectivesin catchment areas, is in line with an ecosystemapproach.

In the Quality Status Report for the Greater NorthSea published recently by OSPAR (OSPAR 2000),the effects of hazardous substances and eutrophica-tion, and the direct as well as indirect impacts offisheries, were identified as the issues of mostconcern.

This Progress Report has evolved from develop-ments arising from the previous four MinisterialConferences on the North Sea and the twoIntermediate Ministerial Conferences. Althoughmany of the developments described in this reporthave been incorporated into the work programmesof relevant organizations, much work is stillrequired to implement these agreements. Thisdocument reports on progress made since theFourth International Conference on the Protectionof the North Sea held in Esbjerg in 1995 and IMM97, and provides a basis for the Fifth Declaration ofNorth Sea Ministers.

Progress Report

17

2.1 Introduction

The North Sea is a biologically rich and productiveregion. The densely populated, highly industrializedcountries bordering the North Sea conduct majorfishing activities, carry out oil and gas offshoreactivities, extract sand and gravel, use it for dump-ing dredged material and for pipelines and cables.The North Sea is one of the most frequently tra-versed sea areas of the world and two of the world’slargest ports are situated on the North Sea coast. In addition, the coastal zone is used intensively forrecreation.

Healthy ecosystems provide both goods and servicesto humanity. The intensive and sometimes conflict-

ing uses of the North Sea, cause a number ofproblems in relation to a healthy ecosystem and tosecuring its sustainable use. The effects of hazardoussubstances, eutrophication, and ecological effects offisheries comprise the most important issues.

Regular assessment and monitoring of the NorthSea have been carried out for years. The QualityStatus Report 2000 for the Greater North Sea(OSPAR 2000) comprises the latest comprehensiveassessment.

This chapter presents an overview of the physicaland biological characteristics as well as the socio-economic importance of the North Sea. The impact of human activities of greatest concern is described.The chapter concludes with a description of thedevelopment of an ecosystem approach to the man-agement of human activities affecting the North Sea.

2

The North Sea Environment

18

Progress Report

Figure 2.1 The North Sea and its catchment area. The North Sea comprises the body of water: - southwards of latitude 62° N, and eastwards of longitude 5° W at the north west side; - northwards of latitude 57° 44.8' N from the northern most point of Denmark to the coast of Sweden, and - eastwards of longitude 5° W and northwards of latitude 48°30' N, at the south side.

Oslo

lin

Berlin

The Hague

London

ParisW

Stockholm

Copenhagen

Brussels

Berne

Prague

NORWAY

SWEDEN

DENMARK

GERMANY

UNITED KINGDOM

FRANCE

NETHERLANDS

BELGIUM

SWITZERLAND

POLAND

AUSTRIA

CZECH REP.

25 50 100 200 400 1000 2000

Depth (in metres)

Production: Norwegian Mapping Authority, Environmental Unit - 2001.

0 100 200 300 kmSTATENS KARTVERK

19

2.2 Geography and Hydrography

The North Sea is a relatively shallow sea area locat-ed on the European continental shelf. The bottomdepth gradually increases from less than 30 m inthe south to about 200 m in the north. TheNorwegian Trench cuts into the north-western partof the North Sea to a maximum depth of more than700 m in the Skagerrak. Figure 2.1 shows the NorthSea, its catchment area and its bathymetry.

The ocean currents of the North Sea form a cycloniccirculation (Figure 2.2). While this is a general pat-tern, there is considerable variability in the watercirculation in response to meteorological variability.The mean residence time of water in the North Seais about 1 to 2 years, being in general shorter forwater in the northern North Sea and longer forwater in the southern North Sea.

Figure 2.2 Schematic diagram of the general circulation in the North Sea (after Turrell 1992).

Various water types in different areas characterizethe North Sea. The main inflows are: • Atlantic water (clear, high salinity, moderate

nutrient content) that enters from the norththrough the Shetland–Orkney region, and fromthe south through the Channel. The volume ofwater transport can vary considerably from yearto year, partly due to climatic effects;

• brackish water from the Baltic Sea (fairly turbid,low salinity, moderate to low nutrient content)that flows in via the Kattegat; and

• brackish water from rivers and land run-off fromthe eastern UK and the continental coasts (highlyturbid, low salinity, high nutrient content). Themost important rivers in the catchment area arethe Elbe, Weser, Rhine, Meuse, Scheldt, Seine,Thames and Humber.

These water masses are vertically layered accordingto their densities when they meet in the Skagerrakand exit from the North Sea as the northwardsflowing Norwegian Coastal Current. Fronts orfrontal zones mark the boundaries between watermasses and are common features in the North Sea.

Tidal currents are the most energetic features inthe North Sea, stirring the entire water column inmost of the southern North Sea and the Channel.

These physical characteristics may affect theecosystem in various ways. The distribution andcirculation of the water masses are of utmost impor-tance for the biological productivity, distributionand abundance of species, including commercialfish, and for transport and concentration of non-living matter, including suspended matter, organicmatter, nutrients and pollutants.

The shallower areas of the North Sea mainly consistof sand and gravel deposits. Here, intensive sedimentmovements and associated sediment transport occurfrequently, owing to currents, tides, wave action andsea swell. Tidal flats, estuaries and wetlands arehabitats for many marine organisms, and form feed-ing grounds and nursery areas for birds, many fishand seals. However, these habitats may suffer fromthe accumulation of pollutants due to net sedimen-tation of particulates from upstream sources.

Sediment transport causes the topography of theseabed slowly to change and pollutants adsorbedonto settled particulate matter can be resuspended,


Progress Report

20

transported, and deposited elsewhere. The deepNorwegian Trench in the Skagerrak is the finalrepository for fine particulate material andassociated pollutants that are discharged into andtransported from the shallow southern North Sea.

The most serious environmental effects are found in the near shore areas of the North Sea. The mostvulnerable areas are throughout the North Seacharacterized by heavy inputs from rivers and land-based run-off, and ecologically sensitive littoralzones of importance to flora and fauna. Areas withrestricted water exchange in combination with weaktides are sensitive to eutrophication. This is particu-larly the case where there is seasonal stratificationin shallow water that can lead to oxygen depletionin the limited volume of water in the bottom layer.

In addition to the overall trend for increasing globalwarming due to human induced causes, data onhydrographic and climatic variability show that the North Sea exhibits shifts between colder andwarmer periods, measured in years and decades,that have implications for the biological productionof the area including the recruitment of fish speciessuch as cod (Gadus morhua) and harvests fromassociated fisheries. Recently, particular attentionhas been focused on the North Atlantic Oscillationand its effect on the climate, productivity and thebiological effects of pollution in the North Sea area.

It is difficult to determine the possible regionaleffects of climate change. This is partly because oflimitations in knowledge about the functioning ofthe North Sea ecosystem, in particular how meteor-ological and climatic variability affects the variousbiological components. There is as yet no certainmethod for predicting the effects that climatechange might have on the North Sea ecosystem.

2.3 Ecosystem Structure andFunctioning

Article 2 of the Convention on Biological Diversitydefines an ecosystem as ‘a dynamic complex ofplant, animal and microorganism communities and

their non-living environment interacting as afunctional unit’.

Description and prediction of ecosystem functioning,even at a lower level of complexity such as compo-nent fish stocks, is hampered by large natural vari-ability. Incidents such as heavy storms, a shift inprevailing winds, a hot summer or a change ininflow of Atlantic water will affect the ecosystemconsiderably. Like any ecosystem, the North Seawill normally be capable of responding to suchnatural events, and show sufficient resilience tocontinue to function as a healthy ecosystem.However, when in addition to these natural phe-nomena, anthropogenic stress is put on the ecosys-tem, the system may become perturbed, and maydrift significantly from its original state. This maythen lead to a reduction in biological diversity.

The ecosystem consists of a complex network ofinteractions, not only between species, but alsobetween biota and the physical and chemicalenvironment. Humans are recognized as integralparts of ecosystems and human, social and economicsystems constantly interact with other physical andbiological parts of the system. The ecosysteminteractions within the North Sea are shown in Figure 2.3.

Physical factors, notably horizontal gradients andvertical stratification, play a significant role instructuring the pelagic ecosystems of the North Sea.This is particularly manifested in the changes inthe structure of planktonic food webs and associatedchanges in the sedimentation rates of organicmaterial to the sea floor, where it provides energyinput to the benthos.

The North Sea is made up of a mosaic of differenthabitats that are important for the ecological func-tioning of the North Sea. A general conservationstrategy is to protect the quality and quantity ofhabitats to protect the organisms living in andcontributing to the habitats, and to preserve theecosystem structure and functioning.

The North Sea is very productive, due in part tolarge inputs of nutrients leading to high primaryproduction, the basis for all food chains. Theintricate webbing of the food chains in the NorthSea makes the ecosystem durable, yet vulnerable to


21

Figure 2.3 Ecosystem interactions in the North Sea.

Seabirds- Pollution (e.g. oil, mercury and organochlorine, litter at sea)- Drowning in fisheries (e.g. longlines, and gill and static nets)- Increased food supply (offal, discards and reduced competition) - Competition with fisheries for fish and shellfish food-species- Introduced predators- Disturbance in generalMarine mammals- Death or injury of cetaceans (e.g. harbour porpoise by-catch in

bottom set gill nets)- Competition with fisheries for fish food-species- Pollution (may also compromise immune systems)- Acoustic disturbancePhytoplankton- Eutrophication (increase in phytoplankton biomass)- Increased sedimentation and degradation of organic material

lead, inter alia, to greater likelihood of oxygen depletion,reduced water transparency and a shallower zone for photo-synthesis. Phytoplankton and filamentous algae are favouredand brown algal macrophytes disfavoured

- Elevated and imbalanced nutrients provide increased likelihoodfor nuisance/harmful blooms

- Non-indigenous species introduced by shipping and maricultureBenthos- Oxygen depletion and hydrogen sulphide production may cause

‘dead bottoms’- Physical impacts (e.g. death, injury and bottom disturbance

from fishing gears, sand and gravel extraction, dredging) - Non-indigenous species of zoobenthos and macroalgae intro-

duced by shipping and mariculture- Pollution (e.g. oil, TBT) affecting coastal habitatsDemersal fish- Overfishing has caused many stocks of target demersal fish (e.g.

cod) to be outside safe biological limits - Particularly vulnerable species (e.g. elasmobranchs) have

become seriously depleted and some have become locally extinct- Decrease in abundance of larger fish has resulted in a shift

towards smaller fish communities - Fishing effort increasingly directed to lower trophic levels, e.g.

smaller planktivores and benthos feedersPlanktivorous fish- Eutrophication has enhanced the food chain for planktivorous

fish production- Depleted stocks of larger piscivorous fish (e.g. cod) have reduced

the predation on stocks of small pelagic fish and allowed expan-sion of pelagic and industrial fisheries

Seabirds

Planktivorous fish

Zooplankton Phytoplankton

Benthic organisms

Demersal fish:Small Fish &Benthos feeders

Marine mammals

22

major alterations such as overexploitation of singlespecies, which can be deleterious.

Bacteria, viruses, and yeasts are microorganismsthat play essential roles in the ecosystem bydegrading organic material from algal blooms andother sources and by contributing to the recycling ofnutrients. Viruses may play a special role in con-trolling the microbial biodiversity and may also beinvolved as a factor in the dynamics and fate ofalgal blooms.

Algal blooms are important natural events.Nutrient inputs from terrestrial and anthropogenicsources may increase nutrient availability and thusincrease the duration and intensity of blooms. Theymay also initiate unusual blooms, for instance if theratio between nitrogen and phosphorous is distortedfrom the common natural ratio in seawater. Therehave been a number of examples of unusual orexceptional blooms of phytoplankton in the NorthSea. They are characterized by the presence ofphytoplankton species that arouse public concern.This concern can be caused by water discoloration,foam production, fish or invertebrate mortality, ortoxicity to humans.

Grazing by zooplankton is one of the major factorscontrolling phytoplankton populations. Zooplanktonforms the link in the food web whereby the primaryproduction by phytoplankton is channelled to highertrophic levels through plankton-feeders such asherring (Clupea harengus), mackerel (Scomberscombrus), and sandeels (Ammodytes spp.). Zoo-plankton abundance varies between areas owing todifferences in production, predation, and transport.

The eggs and larvae of most fish species are plank-tonic for a few months, and this period is critical indetermining their year-class abundance. The growthand survival of fish eggs and larvae depends on ade-quate feeding conditions, low levels of predation,and transport of larvae to suitable nursery areas.This transport occurs with the currents and thespawning grounds are located in relation to the gen-eral circulation features. Some fish species spawnon the seabed and are vulnerable to bottom trawl-ing. There is in general a lack of detailed knowledgeabout the current spawning grounds of many of thefish populations of the North Sea.

In shallow shelf areas, such as the North Sea, ben-thic and pelagic processes are often strongly coupledand work in concert to make the region productive.Sediments in particular show many spatially tightand geochemically important relationships, many ofwhich are subject to modification by human impact.

Organic enrichment of muddy sediments, with highorganic content, leads to an increase in macrobenth-ic biomass only up to a certain point. Sedimentsbecome anoxic when overloaded with organic mat-ter, which then leads to the death of the benthos.

Species of benthic macroalgae (e.g. kelp) may formdense zones and are exploited in several countries.The most developed macroalgal communities in theregion are found on rocky shores and on hard bot-toms in the sublittoral zone down to about 15–30 m.

Long-term changes in the size and species composi-tion of benthic fauna have been observed particu-larly in the southern and south-eastern North Seawhere smaller, opportunistic species have takenover in abundance. This has mainly been due to acombination of trawling and eutrophication.

Fish are important components in marine ecosys-tems on account of their frequently high biomassand role in food chains as predators on zooplankton,benthos and other fish. In turn, they provide foodfor higher trophic levels including seabirds, marinemammals and man. Several structural and func-tional properties of the fish community are relatedto the species composition and/or size-structure.Intensive and size-selective fishing has changed thesize-structure of the North Sea fish communityresulting in decreased body size. Smaller and early-maturing species have increased in relative abun-dance. The trophic structure has changed, as seenby the absolute and relative catches of smallerpelagic industrial species compared to large demer-sal species such as cod. Management and exploita-tion of both target and non-target species in variousfisheries, must therefore be considered from anecosystem perspective.

Seabirds and shorebirds play an important role inthe North Sea marine ecosystem due to their abun-dance and position as predators at or near the top offood chains. The majority eat fish, some feed onbenthos and a few feed on zooplankton. Seabirds

Progress Report

23

are affected by human activities in different ways,the effects of fisheries being prominent. Discardsand offal from the fisheries have led to increasedpopulation sizes of many seabirds. Others areaffected by the competition for fish prey.

Several species of marine mammal are resident inthe North Sea, while other species occur on a tem-porary basis. Some marine mammals, particularlythe harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), may suf-fer where they are caught as by-catch in gillnets.

As a result of their position in the food web,seabirds, shorebirds and marine mammals areprone to accumulation of pollutants through theirprey and the associated biological effects ofpollution. Finally, some species of marine mammaland some seabirds and shorebirds can be affected by disturbance from shipping and recreationalactivities.

2.4 Socio-economic Importance of the North Sea

Many human activities take place in the North Sea: • the North Sea is one of the world’s most

important areas for harvesting fish and shellfish; • coastal industries of various types are located

along the coasts and estuaries of the North Sea,discharging pollutants to marine waters and insome instances requiring large amounts of cool-ing water;

• the North Sea contains some of the busiestshipping routes in the world, and most ofEurope’s largest ports are situated on North Seacoasts and rivers;

• the offshore oil and gas industry has become amajor economic activity in the North Sea sincethe late 1960s;

• mariculture for fish and shellfish is undertakenin many of the North Sea States;

• coastal engineering includes damming of rivers,but also beach nourishment, diking and landreclamation;

• tourism in North Sea coastal areas and adjacentland is an important social and economic activitywith intense development pressure;

• mineral extraction (sand, gravel and rocks,calcium carbonate (shell aggregates, maerl))takes place in many North Sea States;

• dumping of dredged material (for maintenancedredging, laying of cables and pipelines), wastefrom fish processing and inert material of natural origin;

• power generation by tidal or wave energy islimited to a few possible locations, but offshorewindmills will increase in number; and

• military uses of the sea in peacetime includefishery protection patrols and NATO exercises.

Approximately 184 million people live within thecatchment area of the North Sea. The populationdensity of Europe puts great pressure on the NorthSea. The number of people in coastal areas variessubstantially with season due to tourism.

The marine environment of the North Sea providessocio-economic values mainly based on biodiversity,renewable and non-renewable resources. Leisureand tourism in the North Sea are also of socio-eco-nomic value. The importance of these issues is high-lighted in this section. Few of these are, however,definitively quantified.

Other issues of socio-economic importance related tothe use of the North Sea are the value of the NorthSea in climate regulation, and the potential uses ofliving marine resources in the future developmentof e.g. medicines and pharmaceutical products.These issues are not covered in the following sections.

2.4.1 Intrinsic value of nature

The North Sea supports a rich coastal and marinewildlife and has a number of important habitats.Although the value of marine ecosystem services1

are immense, there is a lack of assessments of thevalue of non-exploited natural capital and services,resulting in reduced priority attached to the mainte-nance of biodiversity. It is important, however, torecognize that the North Sea and its wildlife havean intrinsic value to coastal communities and affectthe recreational value of coastal areas.


1 Ecosystem services: the full range of benefits provided to society by ecosystems and their constituent biodiversity, encompassing morethan just the capital value of its constituent parts.

24

2.4.2 Tourism and recreation

Local people and tourists use the coastal zones inthe North Sea for recreation and leisure. There aregrowing demands for housing, commercial sites,rented accommodation and improved services inthese areas. There is also an expanding market forclean beaches, water sports, sailing, angling,ecotourism and unspoilt coastal landscapes.Archaeological remains and shipwrecks are part ofthe marine heritage and also attract scholars andtourists.

The number of tourists shows a distinctly seasonalpattern. For example, in the Wadden Sea area75–90% of all overnight stays are booked for theperiod April to October. In several areas the touristseason is increasingly concentrated in the summermonths.

2.4.3 Renewable resources

Fisheries and harvesting of seaweedsFish and other living marine resources areimportant sources of food in terms of protein andessential fatty acids. Consequently there is clearevidence for direct links between diet and humanhealth, food from the sea is important both inquality and quantity. In 1995, the combinedlandings of different species from the North Seaamounted to 3.4 million tonnes with a value ofaround 1 400 million Euros. The humanconsumption fisheries have a higher landing value than the industrial fisheries. The directemployment in fisheries in 1995 was 22 000 man-years. The fisheries may serve as the only viableoption for employment for residents of small localcommunities.

Seaweeds are harvested for fertilization purposesand for the alginate industry where seaweed is usedin a wide range of products, such as paper surfaces,dyes for textile printing, nutrients, welding rodsand latex paint. In Norway there is a total annualharvest of about 200 000 tonnes of kelp and knottedwrack (Ascophyllum nodosum), about a third of thisis harvested from the North Sea. In 1996, 57 000tonnes of kelp and 15 000 tonnes of wrack were har-vested along the French coast of the Channel. Thereis also some harvesting along the coast of the UK.

MaricultureFish, in particular salmon (Salmo salar), and shell-fishes are grown in mariculture enterprises incoastal areas of the North Sea. Such activities occurin many North Sea States.

Wind and tidal energyTidal currents are locally used as a source of energyto produce electricity in particular in the southernNorth Sea. Parks for windpower generation havebeen developed all over the North Sea and areexpected to extend in the near future. Windmillsproduce 15% of the electricity supply in some coun-tries.

2.4.4 Non-renewable resources

Oil and gasThe North Sea holds Europe’s largest oil and natu-ral gas reserves and is one of the world’s key non-OPEC producing regions. Norway and the UK holdthe majority of the North Sea’s reserves and produc-tion while Denmark, the Netherlands and Germanyhave smaller oil and gas holdings in the North Sea.North Sea oil and gas production reached newheights in 2000, with oil production exceeding 6 mil-lion barrels per day for the first time. However, thearea is considered to be increasingly ‘mature’, withfew additional large discoveries likely to be made.There were fewer exploration and appraisal wellsdrilled in the North Sea in 2000 than in any yearsince the early 1970s. (Denmark was an exception,as its exploratory activity actually increased.)Volatile and/or oversupplied world oil markets havenegative implications for North Sea oil and gasexploration because of the region’s high productioncosts.

The Netherlands has for years been one of the topgas suppliers for Western Europe. Unlike North Seaoil production, natural gas production is increasing.Energy demand in Europe is growing, and much ofthe growth is expected to be met by natural gas. Itis estimated that within a few years Norway willbecome one of the major suppliers of gas to Europe.North Sea gas has a geographical advantage overother world gas producers, as gas is less expensiveto transport over short distances. Most of continen-tal Europe is already linked, directly or indirectly,to North Sea gas sources. The already substantialNorth Sea natural gas infrastructure continues togrow. The Netherlands and the UK have the most

Progress Report

25

extensive pipeline networks in place, whileNorwegian export routes are expanding (EnergyInformation Administration 2001).

Sand and gravel The marine aggregate extraction industry is wellestablished and growing in a number of North SeaStates, providing up to 15% of some nations’demands for sand and gravel. The area of theseabed dredged is extremely small relative to thetotal area of seabed. Most commercially workabledeposits of sand and gravel occur in the shallowerregions of the North Sea. Only 0.03% of the NorthSea is dredged for aggregates each year.

The demand for large quantities of sand fill for landreclamation in connection with harbour construc-tion and infrastructure projects will vary in linewith the development of the national economy. InDenmark, there has been a substantial increase inthe demand for sand for beach nourishment from 40 000 m3 in 1980 to 3 million m3 in 1997 mainly onthe west coast of Jutland (Marine Sand and GravelInformation Service 2001). With the predicted risein sea level the demand for sand for beach nourish-ment in certain areas is expected to double duringthis century.

2.5 Human Impacts

Human impacts on species and habitats are great-est in the coastal zone. Sensitive habitats withgreat ecological significance are often disturbed ormay even vanish due to a range of human activities.The intensive, and sometimes conflicting, use of theNorth Sea causes a number of problems in relationto providing a healthy ecosystem and securing itssustainable use. The North Sea has a long history ofmultiple use by people from many nations. There isawareness of the need to safeguard the marineecosystem and to achieve sustainability in respect ofhuman use. Knowledge of the main human pres-sures and understanding their impact on the struc-ture and functioning of the ecosystem and itsresources is essential for the development andimplementation of effective measures to achievesustainable use.

In the Quality Status Report 2000 on the GreaterNorth Sea, OSPAR identified a list of human pres-sures and ranked these into four priority classes(A–D) according to their relative impact on theecosystem, including sustainable use.

A. Highest impact: fisheries, trace organiccontaminants, nutrients;

B. Upper intermediate impact: oil and polyaro-matic hydrocarbons (PAHs), other hazardoussubstances, heavy metals, biological impacts;

C. Lower intermediate impact: litter and distur-bance I, dredging and dumping, engineeringoperations, mariculture, radionuclides; and

D. Lowest impact: litter and disturbance II.

Although the impacts of the pressures in classes C and D are perceived to be less than those inclasses A and B for the entire North Sea, they may,however, be of more serious concern in combinationwith other human pressures.

In addition ‘human activities contributing to climatechange’ is also recognized as a pressure, but it wasconsidered inappropriate to compare this itemdirectly with the other human pressures in view ofthe very broad scope of its causes and effects.

The main pressures of highest priority areaddressed in sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.2.

2.5.1 Priority Class A – highest impact

FisheriesThe effects of fisheries occur at all levels in theecosystem, from benthos to mammals. The mainimpacts of fisheries result from the mortality andremoval of target fish and shellfish species, fromseabed disturbance and habitat degradation bytowed demersal gear (bottom trawls and dredges),and from the by-catch and discarding of non-targetspecies. Fishing has in some cases caused the reduction of stocks or populations of target or non-target species beyond sustainable levels.

Trace organic contaminantsTrace organic contaminants (excluding oil andPAHs) occur in elevated concentrations throughoutthe North Sea area even though there is evidence of decreasing levels of input for many of the tradi-tional substances. The main human pressures concerned with trace organic contaminants are


26

inputs from land-based point and diffuse sources,and inputs of tributyltin (TBT) and other anti-fouling substances used on ships.

The priority substances are those which are persist-ent, liable to bioaccumulate and toxic (PBTs) orwhich have harmful properties giving rise to anequivalent level of concern (e.g. endocrine disruptersand substances that can damage immune systems).Substances which are both very persistent and verybioaccumulative (VPVB) are also of concern as inmost cases they will become toxic at some stage ofbioaccumulation. The priority substances will accu-mulate in the marine food chains and are, once dis-charged, practically impossible to remove from theenvironment. For these contaminants recoverytimes are long, for some of them of the order of acentury.

The Quality Status Report 2000 for the GreaterNorth Sea draws attention to the large number ofman-made compounds, for which the ecologicaleffects are largely unknown, which are still beingdischarged into, and detected in, the North Sea.

NutrientsThe main human pressure of nutrients, which maycause eutrophication effects, occurs from land-basedactivities and primarily affects the coastal zone.Nutrient-related problems are widespread, in par-ticular in estuaries and some fjords, the WaddenSea, the German Bight, the Kattegat and the east-ern Skagerrak. The impacts of eutrophicationinclude increased phytoplankton production anddecay of the resulting organic matter, which may inturn cause oxygen depletion and mortality of benth-ic organisms, as well as changes in the abundanceand diversity of different plant and animal commu-nities.

2.5.2 Priority Class B – upperintermediate impact

Oil and PAHsThe main human pressures concerning oil andPAHs include their input from the offshore oil andgas industry as well as from shipping and inputsfrom land. Reliable estimates of oil from rivers andland-based run-off are lacking. Significant reduc-tions have occurred for refineries and the offshore

oil and gas industry, although inputs from producedwater from the latter have increased progressivelyin recent years. PAHs are widespread in the NorthSea, particularly in sediments. From the existingdata there seems to be a distinct decrease in releas-es during the last decade. Many countries have,however, problems with providing consistent andtransparent release data for PAHs. Several PAHsare toxic, liable to bioaccumulate, mutagenic andcarcinogenic. The concentrations in North Seasediments seem relatively constant.

The effects of oil pollution on organisms includekills and fouling of biota (e.g. fish, birds andbenthos) from initial contact with the toxic fractionsof petroleum, or chronic biological effects (e.g.impaired reproductive success). Oil spillage cancause economic losses such as the loss of a fisheryor recreation amenities and tourism. Exposedshorelines, shallow reef environments, estuariesand wetlands are particularly susceptible to damage and degradation from oil spillages.

Heavy metalsHeavy metals reach the North Sea via airborne andwaterborne inputs. Inputs are also generated bysome sea-based activities such as sand and aggre-gate extraction and dumping of dredged materials.Discharges and emissions have been successfullyreduced for cadmium, mercury, lead and copperresulting in reductions in their concentration insediments, water and several species of biota.

Heavy metals do not degrade and anthropogeniccontributions to naturally occurring levels maycause serious biological effects. Ecological risksmainly concern the marine life in estuaries and inthe coastal zone. Some of these areas where heavymetal concentrations are highest, may also be ofmajor ecological importance as habitats, containingbreeding and feeding grounds for numerous species.Cadmium, mercury and lead accumulate in organ-isms and end up in top predators (fish, birds,marine mammals or even humans), while coppercan affect phytoplankton species composition andproductivity. Recovery times are in the order ofdecades. In most North Sea areas mean concentra-tions of cadmium, lead, mercury and copper in sedi-ments and biota are either decreasing or constant.

Progress Report

27

Other hazardous substances from sea-based sourcesInputs of hazardous substances occur from the off-shore oil and gas industry, particularly via drillingdischarges and produced water and from shipping,originating from the cleaning of tanks, burning fuel,discharges of wastes and loss of cargo.

Many of these substances are characterized by slowdegradation in the environment, and thus oftenexhibit bioaccumulation in the food chain with seri-ous biological effects.

Biological impactsThe main human pressures concerning biologicalimpacts are the introduction and transfer of non-indigenous species and genetically modified organ-isms (GMOs) via shipping and mariculture, andinputs of microbiological pollution from land-basedsources.

Biological impacts pose serious detrimental, ecologi-cal and economic effects, mainly due to the highpotential risks of introducing parasites andpathogens/diseases, changes in species composition,the introduction of toxic algal species, and geneticchanges to indigenous populations such as wildAtlantic salmon. In recent years, increased atten-tion has been focused on the risk of GMOs escapinginto the natural environment.

2.6 Development of an Ecosystem Approach

2.6.1 The concept

Humanity’s rights to rationally utilize livingresources – subject to responsible conservation andprotection of species, habitats, and the environment– has been established as a principle through sever-al international treaties and instruments (e.g. RioDeclaration of UNCED, 1992). The PrecautionaryPrinciple, as set out in the Rio Declaration, statesthat ‘where there are threats of serious or irre-versible damage, lack of full scientific certainty

shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmentaldegradation’.

At the IMM 97, Ministers recognized the desirabili-ty of an ‘ecosystem approach’, with the aim ofensuring that fisheries and environmental protec-tion, conservation and management measures areconsistent with maintaining the characteristics,structure and functioning, productivity and biologi-cal diversity of ecosystems, and a higher level ofprotection, consistent with the needs of food produc-tion, of species and their habitats.

The ecosystem approach has become the primaryframework for action under the Convention onBiological Diversity.

The International Council for the Exploration of theSea (ICES) has defined the ecosystem approach tomanagement as the ‘integrated management ofhuman activities based on knowledge of ecosystemdynamics to achieve sustainable use of ecosystemgoods and services, and maintenance of ecosystemintegrity’.

This definition points to the need for a comprehen-sive and holistic approach to understanding andanticipating ecological change, assessing the fullrange of consequences, and developing appropriateresponses. The ‘ecosystem approach to manage-ment’, ‘ecosystem management’, and ‘ecosystem-based management’ are all synonymous terms foran integrated or holistic approach to the manage-ment of human activities. It is important to empha-size that implementing an ecosystem approach is aprocess and should be considered as a tool to helpcomprehensively and systematically redress the rootcauses of human induced problems.

Healthy ecosystems perform a diverse array ofessential functions that provide both goods andservices to humanity, in which ‘goods’ refers toitems given monetary value in the market place,whereas ‘services’ from ecosystems are valued butrarely bought or sold (Table 2.1). Thus, the sustain-ability concept carries two aspects: sustainability ofuse (sustainable use) and sustainability of ecologicalresources and their associated ecosystem. The twoare tightly linked since sustainable use of ecological


28

resources can only be achieved if these resourcesare themselves sustainable. Thus, an ecosystemapproach to management involves, inter alia, a

paradigm shift from managing commodities towardssustaining the production potential for bothecosystem goods and services (‘natural capital’).

Progress Report

Goods Services

Food Absorbing and detoxifying pollutantsMedicinal materials Cleansing water and airRaw materials Generating and maintaining soils and reefsWild genes Maintaining hydrological cycles

Maintaining the composition of the atmospherePollinating crops and other important plantsProviding sites for tourism, recreation and researchRegulating climateStoring and cycling essential nutrients

2.6.2 A developing framework

As a follow-up to IMM 97, a workshop on theEcosystem Approach to the Management andProtection of the North Sea was held in 1998. Thisworkshop concluded on a conceptual framework foran ecosystem approach, with four elements support-ing policy decisions and management actions(Figure 2.4). These four elements were objectives,scientific knowledge, assessment, and scientificadvice. The workshop also recognized the impor-tance of involving stakeholders, along with scien-tists, managers and politicians, in the decisionprocess to promote openness, transparency, andresponsibility.

Figure 2.4 A conceptual framework for an ecosystem approach to the management and protec-

tion of the North Sea. The flowchart shows elementsin a stepwise and scientifically-based management

process. Stakeholders, along with scientists,managers and politicians, should be involved at

different stages of the decision process to promoteopenness, transparency and responsibility

(TemaNord 1998).

Objectives• General• Specific/operational/practical

Scientific knowledge• Basic/research• Updated/monitoring

Assessment• Fish stocks• Environment

Scientific advice

Policy decisions

Management actions

Control and enforcement

Table 2.1 Examples of goods and services provided by healthy ecosystems to humans (after Lubchenco 1994).

29

ICES has in recent years considered and reportedon a framework for an ecosystem approach to man-agement. In 2000, ICES established a new AdvisoryCommittee on Ecosystems with the aim to provideintegrated ecosystem advice to support an ecosys-tem approach to management.

In order to maintain the quality of marine ecosys-tems, there is a need to formulate clear objectivesfor the management of human activities in theecosystem, both at the general level, as overall orintegrated objectives, and at the specific level, asmore detailed and operational objectives. Scientificknowledge is required as a basis for assessingwhether objectives are met and whether additionalmeasures are required. Monitoring provides updat-ed information on the state of components of theecosystem, while research provides insight into themechanisms and relationships among the compo-nents. Assessment at regular intervals of the statusof the marine environment, its ecosystem, and thedegree of anthropogenic influence on the ecosystem,forms the basis for scientific advice to managers.

2.6.3 Ecological quality objectives

The need for ecological objectives was recognized atthe Third International Conference on theProtection of the North Sea (3NSC) in the Hague in1990. Since then the North Sea Task Force andsubsequently OSPAR have worked on developing aconcept and methodology for setting ecologicalobjectives. Ecological Quality Objectives (EcoQOs)are one of a number of options for the implementa-tion of the ecosystem approach to the managementof human activities.• Ecological Quality (EcoQ) has been defined as an

‘overall expression of the structure and functionof the marine ecosystem taking into account thebiological community and natural physiographic,geographic and climatic factors as well as physi-cal and chemical conditions including thoseresulting from human activities’.

• Ecological Quality Metrics are measurementscales or dimensions by which the EcoQ may bemeasured quantitatively (or, when appropriate,qualitatively) and can at least be considered as asuitable way to measure the ecological propertythat the EcoQ is intended to capture. Variouspoints on these metrics can be defined either byscience or by society.

• EcoQO is ‘the desired level of the EcologicalQuality relative to the reference level’.

• The EcoQ reference level has been defined as thelevel of EcoQ where the anthropogenic influenceon the ecological system is minimal.

It can be very difficult or impossible to determinereference levels for pristine conditions. This can bethe case for both naturally occurring chemical sub-stances and biological conditions. Therefore a prag-matic approach is frequently required to establishand use reference levels.

The EcoQOs are seen as an important contributionto the development of operational objectives as partof an ecosystem approach to management.Individual ecological quality elements are selectedthat have a clear relationship between an ecosystemcomponent and a particular human use. The wholesuite of EcoQOs should in the end form a holisticand internally consistent set that will help toachieve the overall management objectives as statedby the Ministers at IMM 97. EcoQOs give guidanceto management actions to be taken and should bethe common language (‘the glue’) between theparties involved.

OSPAR decided to develop EcoQOs for the NorthSea as a test case for the general concept andmethodology. The Netherlands and Norway are co-lead countries for the work on EcoQOs withinOSPAR. A workshop on EcoQOs for the North Seawas held in the Netherlands in 1999 (TemaNord1999). At the workshop a set of ten issues wasidentified as a basis for the development of specificEcoQOs:• reference points for commercial fish species;• threatened and declining species;• sea mammals;• seabirds;• fish communities;• benthic communities;• plankton communities;• habitats;• nutrient budgets and production; and• oxygen consumption.


30

The EcoQOs relate to both structural and functionalaspects of the ecosystem, and divide the ecosysteminto broad compartments for which specific EcoQOscan be developed. It has been acknowledged that atwo-track approach is required when developingEcoQOs: one focusing on the ecosystem and identi-fying the crucial processes, and one focusing on thehuman activities and how they affect the ecosystem.Thus, the set of EcoQOs should be a holistic entity,taking into account the linkages in the ecosystemand the total impact by human activities. EachEcoQO should represent linkage between ecosystemfeatures and one or more human activities.Management objectives should then be formulatedfor these activities. Since EcoQ and managementactions are dynamic, the development of operationalEcoQOs must by necessity be an iterative andadaptive process.

Work within OSPAR on the development of EcoQOsfor the North Sea as a test case is ongoing withinits Eutrophication Committee and its BiodiversityCommittee. The Eutrophication Committee willconsider the issues related to nutrients andeutrophication effects (EcoQOs-eutro Greater NorthSea: nutrients, phytoplankton, oxygen, benthiccommunities). The development of EcoQOs-eutroruns in parallel to the application of assessmentcriteria for nutrients and eutrophication effects. The progress made within the framework of OSPARon the development of EcoQOs was reported by theBiodiversity Committee meeting 2001. The contentof the Report has not been formally agreed withinOSPAR. An overview of the proposed EcoQOs is inAnnex 4.

2.6.4 Monitoring

It is important that monitoring activities are linkedto objectives. Monitoring programmes for the collec-tion of ecological and socio-economic informationmust therefore be adjusted as new objectives arebeing developed as part of an ecosystem approach.

All North Sea States operate national monitoringand reporting systems for the marine environment.The most extensive sampling is of the fisheries andof the abundance of the fish stocks. The sampling iscoordinated through ICES and recently EC-fundedsampling programmes have been established. Datacollection for environmental parameters is coordi-

nated by OSPAR through its CoordinatedEnvironmental Monitoring Programme, by ICESand by the EU in accordance with various directivesor through initiatives such as SeaNet. Much of theecosystem information produced, however, does notcontribute to international programmes and is onlyavailable nationally. Considerable effort has beendirected towards the production of assessmentreports. ICES continues to provide an annual statusreport covering the major fish stocks occurring inthe North Sea. More infrequently OSPAR and theNordic Council of Ministers produce status reportson the North Sea ecosystem. All these reports iden-tify the inadequacy of current systems for the collec-tion of information on the North Sea ecosystem.Progress on making data on various parts of theNorth Sea ecosystem more available have beenachieved through OSPAR and ICES.

In response to the requirement for integrated moni-toring, plans for designing and implementing theGlobal Ocean Observing System (GOOS) regionally,were considered at an ICES/IOC/OSPAR/Euro-GOOS workshop on a North Sea EcosystemComponent for GOOS held in Norway in 2001. The workshop has resulted in inaugurating movestowards an agreed strategy for a coordinated andharmonized observation network in order to prog-ress the development of an ecosystem approach tothe management of human activities in the NorthSea. The aim is, inter alia, to increase the efficiencyand cost-effectiveness of current national and inter-national monitoring systems through the implemen-tation of a pilot North Sea Ecosystem GOOS projectfor integrating fisheries and oceanographic data. AnICES/Euro-GOOS Planning Group on the North SeaPilot Project has been established.

Although considerable progress has been maderecently on monitoring, modelling, and forecastingphysical parameters, until now no attempt has beenmade to establish a permanent integrated informa-tion system for the North Sea that includes eco-system parameters. Such an approach would havethe synergistic effect of integrating many currentnational activities.


31

3.1 Introduction

At the 4NSC, the Ministers agreed on two levels ofaction for the protection of the marine ecosystem ofthe North Sea:• action within territorial waters, a significant

component of this being the implementation ofthe EC Wild Birds and Habitats Directives,including Natura 2000 (an EU-wide coordinatedecological network of areas for species andhabitat conservation); and

• action within the rest of the North Sea.

Ministers further agreed:• to develop an integrated view on the specific

conservation measures necessary to protectthreatened or vulnerable species and habitats.This includes, inter alia, identifying and mapping

threatened or vulnerable or ecologically impor-tant species and habitats, defining ecologicalobjectives for the protection of such species andhabitats in order to sustain or restore them tofavourable conservation status, evaluating theuse of protected areas as a means to protectthreatened and vulnerable species, developingmonitoring programmes and research to assessprogress towards such objectives, and implemen-tation of adopted management regimes; and

• to request the competent management authori-ties to select possible locations for areas undis-turbed by fisheries, and reduce the mortality onbirds, mammals, and non-target benthicorganisms.

At the IMM 97, the Ministers agreed with regard tothe North Sea, inter alia:• to ensure sustainable, sound and healthy eco-

systems, thereby restoring and/or maintainingtheir characteristic structure and functioning,productivity and biological diversity;

3

The Protection of Species andHabitats in Coastal and

Offshore Waters

32

• to take appropriate measures to minimize, inaccordance with the UN Food and AgricultureOrganization (FAO) Code of Conduct forResponsible Fisheries, adverse impact of fishingactivities on species and their habitats;

• to apply a precautionary approach to all humanactivities involving non-indigenous stocks, non-indigenous species and genetically modifiedorganisms (GMOs);

• that fishing practices should be adjusted to mini-mize the deterioration of sensitive habitats andunacceptable incidental mortality generated bysuch practices, including considering a) restric-tions/prohibitions on fishing in areas and withgears and practices that have disproportionatelyharmful ecological impacts on species and habi-tats, b) implementation of appropriate steps torestore biological diversity and habitats includingthe establishment of closed or protected areas, c)establishment of procedures to undertakeenvironmental assessments of new fishing prac-tices; and

• to further integrate fisheries and environmentalprotection, conservation and management meas-ures drawing upon the application of an ecosys-tem approach.

The OSPAR Quality Status Report (QSR) 2000 forthe Greater North Sea (OSPAR 2000) rankedhuman pressures within the North Sea according totheir relative impact on the ecosystem and sustain-able use of the North Sea. The human pressureswere, as mentioned in chapter 2, ranked into fourpriority classes (A to D). The two most substantialpriority classes are: Class A ‘highest impact’, name-ly fisheries, nutrients, and trace organic contami-nants; and Class B ‘upper intermediate impact’,namely oil and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),other hazardous substances, heavy metals, and bio-logical impacts. This chapter focuses mainly on theeffects of fisheries on the environment.

3.2 Threatened and EcologicallyImportant Species and Habitats

3.2.1 General framework

Several conventions, agreements and instrumentscontribute to the conservation, restoration and pro-tection of the North Sea. These include theConvention on Wetlands of InternationalImportance, especially as Waterfowl Habitat (theRamsar Convention), the Convention on theConservation of European Wildlife (the BerneConvention), the Convention on the Conservation ofMigratory Species of Wild Animals (the BonnConvention), under which is the Agreement on theConservation of Small Cetaceans in the Baltic andNorth Seas (ASCOBANS), the Convention onBiological Diversity (CBD), the Convention onInternational Trade in Endangered Species of WildFauna and Flora (CITES), the Convention on theProtection of the Marine Environment of the NorthEast Atlantic (the OSPAR Convention) and theEuropean Union instruments.

In July 1998, Ministers adopted an Annex V to theOSPAR Convention, entitled ‘The Protection andConservation of the Ecosystems and BiologicalDiversity of the Maritime Area’. The Annex enteredinto force in 2001. The accompanying Strategy forAnnex V is the vehicle for developing programmesand measures to implement, inter alia, an ecosys-tem approach. Fundamental to this for the NorthSea area is the OSPAR QSR 2000 for the GreaterNorth Sea.

In accordance with the requirements of the CBD,work has recently progressed within the North SeaStates on the identification and mapping of thosespecies and habitats that are threatened or declin-ing within their national territories. In severalcases, Biodiversity Action Plans have been drawnup for the conservation and/or enhancement of pri-ority species or groups of species and their habitats.Evaluations of the implementation of these actionplans have started in several North Sea States.

Progress Report

33

3.2.2 Criteria for the identification ofspecies and habitats needing protection

(ED 9b)Criteria for the selection of species and habitatsneeding protection (the ‘Texel/Faial Criteria’) arebeing developed by OSPAR as the first step in theimplementation of its Strategy for Annex V. At theOSPAR Biodiversity Committee meeting in November2001 high priority was given to the preparation of afinal version of the Texel/Faial Criteria for approval atits meeting in 2002 and subsequent submission toOSPAR. Some preliminary material on the implemen-tation that would follow on from the adoption of thelist of species and habitats for programmes andmeasures will be prepared for consideration by theBiodiversity Committee.

In a parallel process, the Netherlands (lead countrywithin OSPAR for species and habitats) collatedinitial priority lists of species and habitats under-going rapid decline or under immediate threat, aswell as preliminary indications of possible pro-grammes and measures for discussion at the meet-ing of the Biodiversity Committee in November2001. These initial lists were based on informationsubmitted by OSPAR Contracting Parties and non-governmental observers. The OSPAR workshop heldin the Netherlands in September 2001 proposedfour lists of such species and habitats:• threatened and/or declining species and habitats;• species and habitats for which indications for

serious decline and/or threat exist, but for whichthe exact status needs clarification;

• priority threatened and/or declining species andhabitats across their entire range within theOSPAR maritime area; and

• priority threatened and/or declining species andhabitats in specific regions.

Red lists of biotopes, flora and fauna, comprisingthreatened species and habitats in the TrilateralWadden Sea Area and the German North Sea wereproduced in 1995 and 1996.

3.2.3 Ecosystem effects of fishing

(SoC 9.5, 14, 15.1 and 15.2)Although the value of marine ecosystem services(see section 2.4.1) are immense, there is a lack ofassessments of the value of non-exploited natural

capital and services, resulting in reduced priorityattached to the maintenance of biodiversity.Fishing effort has increased continuously duringmost of the twentieth century due to increasedcapacity and developments in vessels navigationaland fishing technologies. In addition, direct andindirect effects on the ecosystem have become moresevere due to the development of bottom ottertrawls and the introduction of the modern beamtrawl with larger and heavier gear and increasednumbers of tickler chains. The long-standing appli-cation of high and unsustainable fishing mortalitiesdirected at many target fish species has also result-ed in serious impacts on the rest of the ecosystemincluding vulnerable non-target species and theirassociated marine habitats (OSPAR 2000).

Assessing the long-term effects of fisheries onecosystems in the North Sea is hindered due to: a)fluctuations due to causes other than fishing,particularly natural variability; b) few time-seriesdata that allow for the identification or interpreta-tion of trends that span several decades; c) long-term data on activities of fishing vessels and thefishing gear used are scarce and do not providestatistics that enable fully quantitative assessmentsto be made of the fishery on the ecosystem; d) stud-ies on the impacts of by-catches and discards onnon-commercial species have tended to be given lowpriority in fisheries research and have mainlystarted after heavy exploitation of the ecosystem; e)the effects of fisheries on the ecosystem must oftenbe constructed from a range of available informa-tion not collected for the purpose of examining theecosystem impacts of fisheries on non-target speciesand habitats; f) the long duration of intensivefishing has made it difficult to discern the charac-teristics of intact or pristine habitats, and so posthoc detection of fishing induced changes in marineecosystems is hard to document scientifically.

By-catch and discards(ED Annex 1.2; SoC 9.1)By-catch including discards, constitutes one of themajor ecosystem effects of fishing; potentially evengreater than the direct harvest of target species(ICES 1998b). Most of the studies attempting toimprove methods for quantifying by-catches anddiscards have been designed to improve fish stockassessment and fisheries management. Thus, thesestudies tend to focus on commercially exploited

The Protection of Species and Habitats in Coastal and Offshore Waters

34

species of fish and there is a pressing need toimprove the state of knowledge on all species thatare caught, including non-target species. The quan-tity and quality of data on discards also need to beimproved, in order to make a proper evaluation ofthe ecosystem effects of fishing possible and toincrease the reliability of present single and multi-species assessments. The estimated quantity ofdiscards and offal in the North Sea region in 1990was about one million tonnes (see Table 3.1).Further information on discarding is found insection 4.1.

The International Council for the Exploration of theSea (ICES) has recently advised that all the effectson species, including by-catches, would be reducedwith measurable benefits if fishing effort overall,and specifically with bottom gears, were reduced by30% or more relative to previous years (ICES 2000).

Changes in fish communities(ED Annex 1.2; SoC 14)Fish are important components in the marineecosystem on account of their frequently high bio-mass and role in food chains as predators on zoo-plankton, benthos and other fish, as well as in turnproviding food for higher trophic levels includingseabirds, marine mammals and man. Their man-agement and exploitation, both as target and non-target (i.e. incidental mortality and by-catch)species in various fisheries are, therefore, an ecolog-ical concern and need to be seen in an ecosystemperspective.

Fish community data collected during the twentiethcentury have demonstrated a decrease in the abun-dance of larger fish resulting in a shift in both rela-tive and absolute abundance towards smaller-sizedfish as well as fish species. This applies to both tar-get and non-target fish species. These changes haveoccurred primarily as a result of selective andincreasing fishing pressure on larger fish, in termsof both the species and the size groups withinspecies that are caught. Changes in fishing mortali-ty have been shown to result in a long-term change

in the slope of the size spectrum of the fish commu-nity. The decrease in abundance with size is morepronounced in the North Sea than in less heavilyfished areas. Overfishing of the higher trophic levelstocks (e.g. larger piscivorous fish like cod) hasresulted in ‘fishing down the food web’ whereby fish-ing effort has been increasingly directed at lowertrophic levels (e.g. smaller planktivores and benthosfeeders), resulting in a disturbance of the structureand functioning of the food web. The average weightand average maximum length of fish are the twomost suitable metrics of fish community structure(ICES 2001a). In the North Sea, the average size ofan individual fish in the community as sampled inthe International Bottom Trawl Survey decreasedsubstantially between 1974 and 2000 (Figure 3.1),with this reduction being relatable to increasingfishing pressure. Thus, measures should aim atbuilding diverse fish communities with largernumbers of bigger and older individuals and hencelarger spawning stocks, especially larger species.

Figure 3.1 Average maximum length of anindividual fish in the fish community of the North Sea proper (i.e. excluding the Kattegat andSkagerrak) between 1974 and 2000. The lines showthe fit to the data points with 95% confidence intervals (after Piet 2001).

These changes in structure and biodiversity of fishcommunities induced by fishing are a special reasonof concern, specifically when they affect certain

Progress Report

Roundfish Flatfish Elasmobranchs Invertebrates Offal Total

273 000 307 300 15 000 287 500 62 800 945 600

Table 3.1 Estimated quantities (tonnes) of offal and discards from North Sea fisheries in 1990. (For assumptions and sources see Camphuysen et al. (1995); Garthe et al. (1999).)

35

sensitive groups of species such as elasmobranchs(sharks, skates and rays). These fish are generallyhighly vulnerable to exploitation due to their lifestrategies, and in some circumstances they play animportant role in the ecosystem as top predators,such as the large pelagic sharks. Extended informa-tion on the status of the stocks of elasmobranchs isgiven in section 4.1.2.

Because of the complexity of the ecosystem it israrely possible to relate changes in the abundanceof particular species to changes in the fishingregime. However, it is known that sustained fishingpressure has effects on the relative abundance ofnon-target species. Some studies on differences incatches per unit effort, in fisheries using compara-ble fishing gears, indicate e.g. substantial decreasesin the abundance of several species of fish in thesouthern and south-eastern North Sea between twoperiods (1906–1909 and 1990–1995). For spurdog(Squalus acanthias), thornback ray, lesser weever(Echiichthys vipera) and greater weever (Trachinusdraco) this decline was probably due to unsustain-able high fishing mortality.

The International Plan of Action for theConservation and Management of Sharks2 (IPOA-SHARKS) was adopted by FAO in 1999. Accordingly,a preliminary draft European Community Plan ofAction for the Conservation and Management ofSharks (EC 2001) was presented to FAO in 2001.Integrated action to support research and monitor-ing activities regarding elasmobranchs shouldextend beyond classical management strategies toinclude the role of elasmobranchs in the structureand functioning of the marine ecosystem and morespecifically fish assemblages (EC 2001).

3.2.4 Marine mammals

(ED 1.9, Annex 1.2 and Annex 1.3; SoC 9.2, 9.3, 14,19.1, 19.2, 19.3 and 20)Prior to the Second World War, hunting was themajor source of mortality for marine mammals, par-ticularly seals, of the North Sea. In modern timesmortality is caused by incidental take in fisheriesand possibly also by pollution, which may have anindirect effect by compromising immune systems.OSPAR asked Contracting Parties and ICES for

information on the health status of marine mam-mals in relation to habitat quality, but little infor-mation exists in this area and suggestions weremade for future approaches on this issue.

By-catches of marine mammals in commercial fish-ing operations usually result in serious injury ormortality to the marine mammals, and may resultin loss of fishing gear and catch, and lost fishingtime.

The most abundant cetacean in the North Sea is theharbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena). This speciesis distributed throughout the North Sea and adja-cent waters, but has become rare in the SouthernBight, the Channel, and the Baltic Sea (ICES1998b). The by-catch levels of small cetaceans with-in the North Sea are best documented for harbourporpoises. This is the species occurring most fre-quently as by-catch in the central and southernNorth Sea, particularly in bottom-set gillnets. Inthe combined Danish fisheries alone, the by-catchwas estimated by extrapolation to be about 3 000individuals in 2000. In the recent past, this figurehas been as high as 8 000 per year. It is estimatedthat UK fisheries in the same area took about 800individuals in 1995, and 440 individuals in 1999.Total by-catch levels probably exceed the sustain-able levels for harbour porpoises in this area of theNorth Sea and, if continued, they may lead to popu-lation decline. The full impact of by-catches of har-bour porpoise cannot be evaluated because otherfisheries (in particular Norwegian fisheries)operating in the same area are not yet monitoredfor by-catches.

The recent decline in by-catch levels of Danish andUK fisheries is a result of reduced fishing effort dueto decreased Total Allowable Catches (TACs) set fordemersal fish. Denmark requires fishermen to useacoustic deterrents ‘pingers’ in gillnet fisheries over wrecks, where the by-catch rate of harbourporpoises was estimated to be high. Preliminaryresults indicate that pingers are effective in reduc-ing by-catch in these fisheries. In the UK, trials ofacoustic pingers as warning devices, in the Cornishhake (Merluccius merluccius) gillnet fishery provedthat pingers are capable of reducing porpoise by-catch rates by about 90% (SMRU 2001).


2 The term ‘shark’ is taken to include all species of sharks, skates, rays and chimaeras, and the term ‘shark catch’ is taken to includedirected, by-catch, commercial, recreational and other forms of taken sharks.

36

International agreements on conservation ofmarine mammalsIn recent years, management and conservationmeasures have been proposed or implemented toreduce by-catches on both global (e.g. UN Resolution 44/225 § 4a that called upon memberstates to impose a moratorium on high seas driftnets by 30 June 1992) and regional levels (e.g.ASCOBANS).

The Conservation and Management Plan for theWadden Sea Seal Population (the Seal ManagementPlan) has established seal reserves in the entireWadden Sea.

Although research on small cetaceans is conductedthroughout the ASCOBANS area, including theNorth Sea, increased data collection on seasonaland spatial distribution as well as on long-termmonitoring of population trends is needed. A secondfull survey (SCANS II) is being planned.

ASCOBANS has collated information on distur-bance by high-speed ferries and seismic surveys and contributes to discussions on protected areasfor harbour porpoises in other relevant forums.Additionally, ASCOBANS is working on the mostimportant threat facing small cetaceans, theproblem of incidental take or by-catch. A study onpotential measures for by-catch reduction in theAgreement area commissioned by ASCOBANS iscurrently under review. Belgium has adopted legis-lation requiring an environmental impact assess-ment (EIA) for certain seismic surveys conductedfor commercial purposes. The UK has developedRegulatory Guidelines on Seismic Surveys, and hasadopted guidelines on whale watching and on reduc-tion of recreational disturbance. A small cetaceansanctuary was established in German waters off theIslands of Sylt and Amrum, extending the bound-aries of the National Park ‘Schleswig-HolsteinWadden Sea’ into offshore waters. The area wasfurther nominated as a Special Area ofConservation (SAC), with management measuresstill to be developed. The Danish Wadden Sea hasbeen designated as a SAC based in part on theoccurrence of harbour porpoises. An environmentalimpact assessment conducted in connection with theestablishment of a windmill farm in Danish watersin the south-eastern North Sea includes possibleeffects on harbour porpoise.

The Third Meeting of Parties to ASCOBANS (July2000) adopted a resolution that recommended thatcompetent authorities take precautionary measuresto ensure that the total anthropogenic removal ofsmall cetaceans in the Agreement area and its adja-cent waters be reduced as soon as possible to below1.7% annually of the best available abundance esti-mate. Moreover, as a precautionary objective, anannual by-catch of less than 1% of the best avail-able population estimate has been set.

Scientific advice on threats, and measures toreduce by-catchICES has advised on marine mammal issues formany years such as advice on small cetaceans. Inrecent years ICES has reviewed requirements forscientifically sound programmes for collection andhandling of data on by-catches, including a reviewof methods for monitoring cetacean by-catch. ICESMember Countries have been urged to monitor theirfisheries to identify gear types, areas and seasonswhere by-catches of marine mammals occur (ICES1998b). In order to assess the impact of by-catcheson marine mammal populations, it is recommendedthat robust estimates of abundance and informationon the distribution (stock identity) of affectedspecies need to be obtained in addition to estimatesof total by-catch.

The EC Council Regulation No. 1239/98 of 8 June1998 banned the utilization of drift nets from 1January 2002 in order to help protect smallcetaceans and other non-target species. The UK hasencouraged a more rapid phasing-out of the driftnet fishery, by restricting licences in the interveningperiod to those vessels that had used drift nets ineither 1996 or 1997.

ICES has recommended that, if by-catches are to bereduced below the agreed target of 1.7%, mitigationmeasures should be put in place, giving particularpriority to the southern North Sea and the CelticSea, where by-catches of harbour porpoise appear tobe the most serious problem. No single mitigationmeasure has been shown as universally superior toall alternatives; a mixture of measures will be pre-ferred. Effort reductions will be efficient since theywill reduce the opportunities for the by-catch ofsmall cetaceans while reducing the overall impacton the ecosystem. The balance of evidence about theuse of pingers indicates that they are effective inreducing cetacean by-catch of porpoises in gillnets.

Progress Report

37

Further scientific evidence is required to proposeclosed areas or seasons.

Trials of acoustic pingers, as warning devices, haveindicated that they are capable of reducing porpoiseby-catch rates by up to 90%. Discussions about thepossible deployment of pingers on a large scale areongoing, also in the fishing industry. Unilateraldeployment of pingers on the vessels of a singlestate alone might discriminate against its fisher-men so an EU-wide approach is required. So far theEuropean Commission has not made any Europe-wide proposals on this matter.

Seal-safe eel traps (fyke nets and pond nets) arealso being devised, and methods are being devel-oped for scaring seals away from fishing operations;mechanical means of protecting fishing gear andalternative fishing methods. Financial inducementsare also being used to enable fishermen to purchaseseal-safe fishing gear (e.g. to replace old salmontraps).

ICES has proposed three Ecological QualityObjectives (EcoQOs) for marine mammals: a) sealpopulation trends, b) number of occupied sealbreeding sites, and c) annual by-catch of harbourporpoises (ICES 2001a) (see also Annex 4).

3.2.5 Seabirds and shorebirds

(ED Annex 1.2; SoC 9.1 and 9.2)Seabirds and shorebirds play important roles in theNorth Sea marine ecosystem due to their abun-dance and position as predators at or near the top offood chains. The majority of offshore seabirds eatfish, both live and as discards and offal, many feedon benthos, and a few on zooplankton. Accordingly,these birds are prone to ingest and further accumu-late contaminants already accumulated in theirprey and to experiencing the associated biologicaleffects of pollution.

Human induced factors that have affected overallpopulation levels of seabirds include: factors leadingto increases, such as increase in food supply due toreduction in large fish competitors, dumping of offaland discards from fishing, and the reduction ofdirected hunting; and factors leading to decreasessuch as introduced predators, oil pollution, distur-bance in general, and other pollutants including lit-ter at sea.

Introduced predators that eat eggs, young andadults, are a major threat to seabirds and shore-birds in the North Sea region, especially rats andAmerican mink (Mustela vison). Such predatorshave affected the distribution of black guillemot(Cepphus grylle) and reduced the breeding successof several seabird species in Scotland during the1990s.

Oil pollution causes death and sub-lethal effects onorganisms, destruction of habitats, and disruptionof food chains. The impacts of spills are variableand even the smallest spill may cause numerouscasualties. The scale of impact depends on thelocation and seasonal timing of the spill, as well ason the type of oil. Most oil enters the sea from land-based sources or deliberate discharges from shipsand most seabird mortalities from oil pollutionoccur as a result of these events. Seabird speciesthat congregate on the sea surface are at greatestrisk, e.g. divers, seaduck, Manx shearwater(Puffinus puffinus), razorbill (Alca torda), guillemot(Uria aalge), black guillemot, and puffin (Fraterculaarctica).

Marine litter is a substantial problem in the NorthSea. In the OSPAR project on marine litter, a litterwebsite has been established together withUNEP/GPA in order to provide information aboutthe problem and to promote actions against marinelitter from land-based as well as sea-based sources.Marine litter, including small items of plastic (e.g.such as can be eaten by seabirds and shorebirds),may cause death through entanglement or inges-tion, or through reduced feeding opportunities.

A few studies have been carried out to evaluate theeffects of windmill constructions (e.g. ‘windmillfarms’) at sea on aquatic birds. These studies haveeither shown equivocal results or a positive effectdue to the reduction in other sources of disturbance.However, concerns about wider effects have led tothe initiation of several studies that have yet to bereported on.

ICES has proposed seven possible EcoQOs ofrelevance to seabirds (ICES 2001a) with associatedreference levels, current levels and suggested targetlevels. These EcoQOs are: 1) the proportion of oiledcommon guillemots among those found dead ordying on beaches, 2) mercury concentrations in eggsof selected seabird species, 3) mercury concentra-


38

tions in body feathers of selected seabird species, 4)organochlorine concentrations in seabird eggs, 5)number of plastic particles in gizzards of fulmars(Fulmarus sp.), 6) breeding productivity of black-legged kittiwakes (Rissa tridactyla), and 7) seabirdpopulation trends (see also Annex 4).

Seabird surveys are conducted in the North Sea bymany states in order to estimate bird abundanceand identify concentrations. These surveys usestandardized methodologies and most observationshave been compiled to form the world’s largesteffort-correlated database on the distribution ofseabirds and marine mammals at sea. This data-base is useful for producing vulnerability atlases forseabirds and oil pollution, guiding oil explorationand development activities in the North Sea regard-ing the most sensitive times of year for birds off-shore and to guide oil spill responses. Importantareas for piscivorous birds that might be vulnerableto local overfishing of prey species have been identi-fied. The database and other information on birds innearshore waters may also be used to identify areassuitable for designation as Special Protection Areasor by other special measures, under the EC WildBirds Directive. Surveys of seabird beachings alsooccur, and for this purpose several coastal authori-ties and communities around the North Sea agreedin 2000 not to clean and remove bird corpses fromcertain parts of their coastline during the wintermonths.

Seabirds and fisheriesThe growth of commercial fisheries in the NorthSea has had the following consequences on someseabirds.• Processes affecting trophic ecology

a) the removal of large piscivorous fish by fisheries has enhanced the stocks of some small pelagic fish (e.g. sandeels (Ammodytesspp.)) and has probably contributed to an increase in some seabird populations. On the other hand, collapses in stocks of small pelagic fish (e.g. herring (Clupea harengus)) – from fisheries and/or natural causes – can lead to marked declines in the breeding success of a number of seabirds. Fisheries may also compete directly for the same prey as seabirds, e.g. inshore fisheries for mussels and cockles and industrial fisheries for sandeel and sprat (Sprattus sprattus); and

b) discards and offal form a major by-product of fisheries, and these have supported sub-stantial population increases in several seabird species (e.g. fulmar, gannet (Morus bassanus), great skua (Catharacta skua), kittiwake) that can scavenge.

• Incidental mortalitySeabirds can become drowned by long-lines andmost types of fishing nets. However, amongstthese, gill- and other static nets appear to posethe greatest risk to seabird populations.

The impact of seabirds on the recruitment of fishstocks occurs predominantly through the consump-tion of young fish. In the majority of situations theimpact of this predation is likely to be less thanfrom predatory fish. Cormorants (Phalacrocorax spp.)fishing inside Danish pound nets compete directlywith fishermen.

Studies of the consumption of offal and discardedfish and benthic organisms constitute an importantfood source for seabirds in the North Sea. It hasbeen estimated that a maximum of 800 000 tonnesof discards are eaten annually by seabirds in theNorth Sea, not including the Channel. However,despite the consumption of offal and discards bymany species of gull, more offspring are produced inseasons when their natural prey is available andconsumed in abundance than in years when dis-cards form the greater part of their diet.

ICES has advised on how an ecosystem approachcan be applied involving seabird breeding coloniesand industrial fisheries. Accordingly, the Council ofEU Fisheries Ministers accepted in December 1999the Commission’s proposal to close an area of thenorth-western North Sea to sandeel fisheries for the 2000 season, and this has subsequently beenextended for a further two years following annualreviews. The resulting EC Council Regulation No.1239/98 of 8 June 2000 restricts fishing forsandeels, on the grounds that the quantities ofthis fish were currently insufficient to support bothfisheries directed at them and the requirements ofvarious populations of species for which sandeelsare a major component of their diet.

UK and Danish institutes undertook a study of theeffects of changes in sandeel stocks (size and agestructure) on predators in 1997 and 1998 in an areaoff eastern Scotland. The aim of the study was to

Progress Report

39

evaluate how a fishery on the same sandeels mightaffect the predators. The study indicated thatsandeel stock size and behaviour had a greatereffect on the predators than did the fishery.

Actions to reduce the incidental catch ofseabirds in fisheriesConcerns have arisen about the incidental catch ofseabirds in various commercial longline fisheries,and such incidental catches may also have anadverse impact on fishing productivity and prof-itability. Accordingly, the International Plan ofAction for Reducing Incidental Catch of Seabirds inLongline Fisheries (IPOA-SEABIRDS) was adoptedby FAO in 1999.

In Norway, research is being conducted on the mor-tality of birds in fishing equipment, with specialfocus on longline fisheries, and the development ofseabird-friendly fishing gear. Measures that can sig-nificantly reduce seabird by-catches include bird-scaring devices towed behind the fishing vessel dur-ing the shooting of the longline, and setting of thelines through a protective tube into deeper water.

There is no evidence of a large impact from by-catchon birds in UK waters, and any problems are local-ized. In one limited area (St Ives Bay, Cornwall), a by-catch of razorbills and other auks has occurred insome years in a fixed gear bass (Dicentrarchus labrax)fishery carried out in winter. Specific local rules havebeen introduced that halt the fishery temporarily ifthe scale of the by-catch exceeds a specified level.

3.2.6 Benthos

Combined effects of physical disturbance andeutrophication(ED I.3, I.9, Annex 1.2; SoC 14 and 15.1)For more than a century, human induced physicalimpacts (e.g. mortality and bottom disturbance fromtowed demersal fishing gears, the extraction ofsand, gravel and rocks, and dredging) and organicinput (e.g. from increased biomass enhancement via eutrophication and discarded by-catch and offal)have increased. These impacts have favoured oppor-tunistic species with flexible life history traits andeliminated vulnerable species with conservative lifehistories. The resulting changes in the benthicfauna and flora in the shallower heavily trawledand more eutrophic areas have been shifts towards

non-fragile fast growing and mobile scavengers,predators, and sediment or suspension feeders suchas polychaetes, amphipods, and starfish. Theseshifts have occurred at the expense of slow-growingand longer-lived organisms such as many of thelarger, sessile and frequently fragile filter-feedingbivalves, reef forming polychaetes, maerl and corals.The impacts of the previously mentioned anthro-pogenic activities have combined to result inelevated productivity and biomass, and a change inthe structure of the demersal and benthic communi-ties. None of the sources of anthropogenic distur-bance and natural disturbance (e.g. sediment move-ments caused by storms exposing or burying organ-isms) affecting the benthos, produce as far-reachingeffects as are caused by demersal trawl fisheries(using e.g. otter trawls and especially beam trawls),by physically crushing and damaging benthicspecies and habitats.

In North Sea States dredging is conducted asmaintenance dredging on shipping routes and inharbours. In the case of marine aggregate extrac-tion (e.g. sand and gravel), restrictions are enforcedand in some cases aggregate extraction is notallowed on environmental grounds.

The results from a major project on the effects offishing gear on the North Sea benthic ecosystem(the ‘IMPACT-II Study’), financed by the EuropeanCommunity, have been published (Lindeboom andde Groot 1998). ICES reviewed the scientific infor-mation from the IMPACT II report and additionalliterature with a view to evaluating the effects ofbottom trawling on macrobenthos and associatedfish, and thereby proposed measures to reduce theeffects of fisheries on benthic species and habitats(ICES 2001b). A list was prepared of the possibleeffects that bottom trawling might have on species,communities, and habitats. ICES concluded thatthere is clear scientific evidence of the followingeffects in the North Sea:• effects on habitats: removal of major physical

features, reduction of structural biota, reductionin habitat complexity, changes in sea floor struc-ture; and

• effects on species: reduction in geographic range,decrease in species with low turn-over rates,changes in relative abundance of species, fragilespecies more affected, surface-living species moreaffected than burrowing species, sub-lethal effects


40

on individuals, increase in species with high turn-over rates, increase in scavenger populations.

The study found that mortalities of benthic infaunaoccur most frequently from damage by ticklerchains, the teeth of scallop dredges, and the doors ofotter trawls. Ground ropes of otter trawls riggedwithout chains mainly affect epifauna. For thosegears where there is little penetration of the gearinto the seabed, the main effect is on epibenthos,either as the gear passes or by capture with conse-quent damage in the cod-end or on deck. The quan-tity of epibenthos that is brought on board can beminimized when the ground rope is rigged withrollers or bobbins or other devices to keep it clear ofthe bottom. Fixed gill- and tangle nets have mini-mal effects on benthic taxa, with the exception ofcrabs and certain echinoderms that become entan-gled.

The method of rigging the gear substantially affectsthe level of disturbance, and in the case of the beamtrawl there is a clear positive relationship betweenthe number of tickler chains used and the biomassof benthos caught. Traditionally, modifying gear toenable greater catches of the target finfish andshellfish has resulted in a subsequent increase inthe by-catch of non-target invertebrates and fish.Although nets have been refined to reduce the by-catch of non-target and undersized fish and fishspecies, little practical progress has yet been madein reducing the by-catch and subsequent discards ofinvertebrate benthic species. The catch of beamtrawl hauls is substantially greater than for ottertrawls for both marketable fish and for discards, themortality of non-target benthos caused by beamtrawl hauls is on average at least ten times greaterthan that caused by otter trawls.

On local scales in the North Sea, recent studieshave documented the marked decline and loss ofboth target (e.g. commercial shellfish) and non-tar-get populations, including degradation of their habi-tats, due to bottom fishing operations. The durationof the effects may vary from days to decades, andmay be permanent, depending on the species andhabitats involved. In the southern and south-east-ern North Sea in particular, high levels of long-termimpact on benthic fauna and flora as well as onnon-target species of groundfish have occurred dueto fishing (ICES 2000; ICES 2001c) (Figure 3.2).

The assessment of ecosystem effects of fishing ishampered by lack of data on the fine scale spatialand temporal distribution of fishing vessels andtarget and non-target species and their habitats. Inthe south-eastern North Sea, several studies havebeen conducted by the Netherlands (e.g. on the dis-tribution of fishing effort by the Dutch beam trawl-ing fleet) from 1993 to 2001 with funding from theEuropean Commission and the fishing industry.These studies have provided important informationon the spatial and temporal impact of beam trawl-ing on the benthic communities, including therelation between fishing effort and fishing mortality.The results indicate that in the south-eastern NorthSea, the Dutch fleet contributed more than 80% ofthe beam trawling effort. However, the beam trawl-ing fleet has a very heterogeneous fishing patternwith some seabed areas being trawled heavily (e.g.more than 20 times a year) and some hardly at all.About 63% of the south-eastern North Sea istrawled less than once a year, whereas only 4% istrawled five times a year or more. Populationfishing mortality rates for a variety of benthicorganisms occurring in the Dutch sector of theNorth Sea were estimated to be between 5% and50%.

Studies to develop more selective fishing techniques(e.g. escape panels and sorting grids in nets) forreducing by-catch, as well as alternative fishingtechniques that reduce the pressure on the bottomand the impact on the associated benthic communi-ties, have been undertaken both nationally (e.g. thePuls trawl study, the Netherlands) and internation-ally (e.g. EU project REDUCE, the Netherlandswith Belgium, Germany and Ireland). Severalpromising techniques have been identified forimproving otter trawls and beam trawls. For thebeam trawl a combination of net configuration(escape panels) and electrical stimulation (alterna-tive to heavy gear) has potential. An initiative bythe Dutch fishing industry in cooperation withvarious management departments and researchinstitutes is being undertaken to further developthe Puls trawl with electrical stimulation as analternative to using heavy ticklerchains.

The RESCUE project (1995–1997) obtained moreaccurate information on the extent of by-catch inthe benthic brown shrimp (Crangon crangon)fisheries allowed within the national 12 nm limits,

Progress Report

41

for the major fleets in the North Sea (i.e. Belgium,Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands andthe UK). High levels of discarded juvenile plaice(Pleuronectes platessa) and sole (Solea solea) werefound, which emphasized the need to promote moreselective gear in the shrimp fisheries.

Several North Sea States have applied restrictionson fishing operations in order to protect vulnerablebenthic species and habitats. In 1999, legislation

was passed in Norway under the SeawaterFisheries Act making it illegal to destroy Lopheliacoral reefs intentionally, and two areas protectedfrom trawling activities have been established.Regulations for the sustainable cyclical trawling ofkelp (Laminaria spp.) have been implemented inNorway in order to allow the redevelopment of kelpcommunities. Fisheries on living, sedentary organ-isms (bivalves) are prohibited in Belgian territorialwaters (Royal Decree of 12 April 2000) partly to


Figure 3.2 Long-term trends in relative abundance of demersal fish and benthic invertebrates in the south-eastern North Sea between 1947 and 1981. Relative abundance in 1960, 1970 and 1980, respectively, isexpressed as a percentage of the original relative abundance in 1950 as estimated by means of a catchabilitymodel. The species are ranked from greater weever to swimming crab (clockwise) based on their estimateddecline due to otter trawling and beam trawling, respectively. The data are based on the supply of specimensprovided by fishermen for museum and educational collections (Lindeboom and de Groot 1998).

42

conserve overwintering birds in the shallow area of the western part of the Belgian coast wherebivalves are an important food source for the birds.

Limitations on bottom trawling, including the use ofzoning, in coastal areas (e.g. straits, bays or fjords)exist in several North Sea States (e.g. Denmark,Sweden and Norway) in order to protect benthos orespecially juvenile demersal fish as well as for envi-ronmental and biodiversity protection reasons.

Scientific advice on measures to reduce theeffects of fisheries on benthic species andhabitats(ED Annex 1.1, Annex 1.2; SoC 9.2, 9.3, 14 and 15.1)Several changes can be made that will contribute tomeaningful reductions in the effects of bottomtrawls on the benthos of the North Sea and reducethe ecosystem effects of fishing. ICES has advisedthe European Commission that the most seriouseffects could be mitigated, without unduly reducingthe possibilities of catching commercially importantspecies, through the following priorities: 1) a majorreduction in fishing effort, 2) establishing closedareas (e.g. spatial and real time closures), 3) makinggear substitution, 4) modifying gear, 5) habitatrestoration, and 6) governance changes (ICES2000). A number of changes to the managementsystem of the North Sea (IMM 1997) that wouldgreatly facilitate major reductions in the effects offishing on marine ecosystems are under considera-tion. Despite lack of complete knowledge of theecosystem effects of fishing, ICES notes that theprecautionary approach requires that immediateaction be taken, to ensure that conservation is notcompromised while greater knowledge bases arebeing built. Thus, the following specific immediateactions have been recommended: a) prevent expan-sion of areas impacted by bottom trawls, b) preventincrease in numbers of bottom trawlers, c)strengthen interactions with groups working onconservation of the marine ecosystem, and d)improve the ability to detect and measure impacts.

ICES has reviewed possible indices for EcologicalQuality (EcoQ) for the benthic community, and con-cluded that the presence of indicator or sensitivespecies would be the most suitable metric of ecologi-cal quality in these communities (ICES 2001a).There are several indicator species, often consistingof habitat-forming species such as corals and epifau-

nal organisms, that are known to be sensitive tobottom fishing disturbance. The use of indicatorspecies obviates the need to identify all species inbenthic samples. In addition, attention has beendrawn to three metrics for benthic communitiesthat may be developed further: biomass, K-domi-nance curves, and the presence of non-indigenousspecies. The adoption of these may address some ofthe shortcomings of the application of ‘the presenceof indicator or sensitive taxa’. Further to the ICESreview, a workshop held in 2001 in which stakehold-ers participated, discussed the further elaborationof the following benthos-related EcoQO metrics: thedensity of fragile species and opportunistic indicatorspecies, and the population size and distributionrange of ocean quahog (Arctica islandica).

3.3 Conservation, Classification andMapping of Habitats, and the

Development of a System of MarineProtected Areas

The conservation of habitats is a precondition forconserving the species that are associated with and dependent on the habitats for their viability.Degradation, fragmentation and eventually com-plete loss of habitat caused by physical alteration aswell as water quality impairment from a range ofhuman activities, represent the most serious threatsto marine biodiversity, especially if contiguous butdifferent habitats forming landscape diversity arelost (GESAMP 1997).

The coastal zone includes some of the most produc-tive areas of the North Sea, providing habitats andessential breeding and nursery grounds for biota,including fish and shellfish for commercially andrecreationally important fisheries, aquatic birds and marine mammals, and benthos.

According to the Red Lists of Biotopes, Flora andFauna of the Trilateral Wadden Sea Area, the mostthreatened or degraded habitats/species are thesublittoral European oyster (Ostrea edulis) andSabellaria reefs and subtidal seagrass beds.Following expert judgement, the main threats to

Progress Report

43

these habitats are pollution, eutrophication andfishing activities. In addition, land claim andcoastal defence measures pose threats to tidal flats and salt marshes.

In the IMM 97 Statement of Conclusions, theMinisters reaffirmed their request, made at the4NSC, to the competent authorities to facilitateresearch on areas undisturbed by fisheries. Sincethen, however, no undisturbed areas have beenclosed to study the effects of fisheries disturbance inthe North Sea area.

3.3.1 Classification and mapping ofhabitats

(ED 6 and 7)The OSPAR Strategy on the Protection andConservation of the Ecosystems and BiologicalDiversity of the Maritime Area, adopted in 1998 toimplement Annex V of the OSPAR Convention,requires OSPAR to assess which habitats need to beprotected. Further protection requires knowledge ofwhere the habitats are to be found. OSPAR is col-laborating with relevant scientific institutionsincluding ICES and the European EnvironmentAgency (EEA) to classify and map habitats. TheEUNIS (European Nature Information System)classification being developed by the EEA is particu-larly important. The collaborative work has com-prised: • habitat classification: developing a classification

system, for all marine habitats within the OSPARarea (inshore and offshore shelf rock and sedi-ment, deep water and pelagic), which is fullycompatible with the EUNIS classification; and

• habitat mapping: preparing maps of the OSPARmaritime area including the North Sea, showingthe spatial distribution and extent of habitatsaccording to a consistent classification system, tomeet the needs of OSPAR in the assessment andprotection of marine habitats.

Progress towards these aims has been madethrough a series of three workshops held in 1999,2000 and 2001. These workshops have confirmedthat, subject to adequate testing and refinement,the overall approach and structure of the EUNISmarine classification is generally applicable for usein the OSPAR and ICES areas, including the NorthSea. The EUNIS classification scheme has beenimproved regarding: a) the intertidal and shelf-seas

rock and offshore sediment habitats, b) the deep-seaand pelagic habitats, and c) the need to betterreflect biogeographic variation. A preliminary classi-fication of marine landscapes (habitat complexes)has been developed to complement the habitatclassification approach, often being at a moreappropriate scale for ecosystem management andsite protection. Further, an integrated approach to deep-water habitat mapping has been developed toensure that techniques and standards for data stor-age, interpretation and presentation are compatible.

In 1999, the ICES Study Group on Marine HabitatMapping was established to provide impetus to thisfield of work, leading in 2000 to the start of a trialGeographic Information System mapping project forthe southern North Sea.

Despite substantial progress in developing and fur-ther validating the EUNIS classification, it is recog-nized that its full application to meet EEA, OSPARand ICES requirements for assessment and map-ping needs further work. Not least is the need toinclude information on biota (i.e. EUNIS level 4 andabove) in addition to the current information levelsfocused on the physical characteristics of habitats.Otherwise there is a risk that the classification willfail to operate effectively at a European and NorthAtlantic level. There is also a need to test and vali-date the classification. In ongoing OSPAR activities(e.g. the identification of habitats requiring protec-tion and the development of EcoQOs) attempts willbe made to use the classification, both to provideconsistency across the OSPAR area in this work andto further test the classification.

Recent activities within OSPAR include: a) prepara-tion of a correlation between the marine EUNISclassification and the marine habitats in Annex I of the EC Habitats Directive, b) further develop-ment of the marine landscapes (habitat complexes)approach and its correlation with the habitatclassification, and c) consideration as to how best to incorporate into the habitat classification systemthose habitats which appear to be degraded. It isthe aim to complete the habitat classification for the OSPAR area to a satisfactory level of detail by2002 or 2003.

The North Sea States are conducting many activitiesof direct relevance to marine habitat mapping,including surveying and monitoring of marine


44

fauna and flora (fish, seabirds, marine mammals,and macrobenthos) and their associated biological,chemical, and physical environment. A series ofstrategic environmental assessments have beencarried out or are planned in several countries.Further, the oil industry in the North Sea has con-ducted numerous environmental surveys. Surveyingand mapping activities are also being conducted inorder to determine sites suitable as protected areassuch as those within the Natura 2000 network.

3.3.2 Development of a system formarine protected areas

(ED 9f, Annex 1.1, Annex 1.2.7; SoC 9.2 and 9.3)In accordance with Annex V and the associatedStrategy for its implementation, it is necessary forOSPAR Contracting Parties to take the necessarymeasures to protect the maritime area against theadverse effects of human activities so as to safe-guard human health and to conserve marine ecosys-tems and, when practicable, restore marine areaswhich have been adversely affected. In order tofacilitate this, it has been proposed to establish asystem of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and toagree on measures to ensure the sustainable use ofthe marine ecosystem.

The establishment of OSPAR MPAs takes account ofthe obligations of Contracting Parties under otherinternational conventions and directives.

OSPAR MPAs, individually and collectively, aim:• to protect, conserve and restore species, habitats

and ecological processes which are adverselyaffected as result of human activities;

• to prevent degradation of and damage to species,habitats and ecological processes following theprecautionary approach; and

• to protect and conserve areas which bestrepresent the range of species, habitats andecological processes in the OSPAR area.

A system of OSPAR MPAs should take into accountthe linkages between different parts of the marineecosystem and the dependence of some species andhabitats on processes that occur outside the MPAs.These relationships are often more complex andoccur on a larger scale than those of terrestrialecosystems. OSPAR MPAs should form an ecologi-cally coherent system of well-managed MPAs. Theselection and establishment of MPAs is being car-

ried out in connection with and for the mutual bene-fits of the work related to the assessment of speciesand habitats in need of protection, to habitat classi-fication and biogeographic regions, and to developingthe ecosystem approach including the developmentof EcoQOs.

As a result of three OSPAR workshops (held in1998, 2000 and 2001) draft Guidelines for theIdentification and Selection of Marine ProtectedAreas in the OSPAR Maritime Area have beendeveloped, but remain to be adopted and applied.These have been supplemented by draft Guidelinesfor the Management of Marine Protected Areas inthe OSPAR Maritime Area. Further, an ExpertWorkshop on Managing Risks to Biodiversity andthe Environment of the High Seas, Including ToolsSuch As Marine Protected Areas was held in 2001,to discuss the legal and scientific aspects of MPAson the high seas.

An inventory of existing maritime areas which havebeen protected in the OSPAR maritime area, hasbeen established to assist the programme to developthe system of MPAs. An analysis of the inventoryindicates that there appears to be a reasonable cov-erage of the (near) coastal zone with MPAs in mostof the OSPAR Contracting Parties. Only very fewprotected areas occur beyond 3 nm from nationalbaselines, apart from areas where fisheries restric-tions apply. For this reason, the considerations onidentification and establishment of OSPAR MPAsplace particular emphasis on waters beyond 3 nmfrom national baselines.

BirdLife International and the World Wide Fund forNature (WWF) have made particularly substantialcontributions towards the development of MPAsthrough the production of reports and organizationof workshops (WWF 2000, 2001; BirdLife 2000).

The Belgian MMM-law of 20 January 1999, OfficialJournal 12 March 1999, which is applicable to theterritorial waters and the Exclusive Economic Zone(EEZ), provides for the establishment of MPAs, aswell as for the effective protection of a number ofspecies, the requirement of an EIA for certainactivities and a regime for compensation andrestoration.

In May 2001, the Norwegian government initiated aprocess on the establishment of a representative

Progress Report

45

network of MPAs to include representative areas ofdifferent marine habitats. These areas will beimportant as references for use in monitoring andresearch, and shall remain as undisturbed as possi-ble. MPAs shall be established to protect special,threatened and vulnerable marine nature values.The first set of MPAs will mainly be located in thecoastal zone and should be completed by 2004. Afterthe completion of the first network of MPAs, thetotal need for MPAs in Norwegian waters will beevaluated according to updated knowledge andnational and international objectives, conventionsand agreements. The process has been initiated bythe environmental management authorities in closecooperation with the fisheries management authori-ties, and contributes to the integration of fisheriesand environmental policies.

3.3.3 Habitats, including Natura 2000

(ED 4, 5; SoC 9.3)Natura 2000 is designed to establish a coherentEuropean ecological network of Sites of CommunityImportance (SCIs) in order to maintain the distri-bution and abundance of all naturally occurringspecies and habitats in the EU, both terrestrial andmarine. Natura 2000 is to comprise a network or asystem of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs)under the Habitats Directive and Special ProtectionAreas (SPAs) under the Wild Birds Directive. Theaim is to enable the habitats and the species to bemaintained, or where appropriate, restored to afavourable conservation status in their naturalrange.

In order to conserve Natura 2000 sites, memberstates are establishing conservation measuresinvolving appropriate management plans and statu-tory, administrative or contractual measures. Forthe North Sea area, the number of marine sites pro-posed as sites of community importance up to May2001 amounted to about 60, mainly in the coastalarea. The surface covered by these sites is about900 000 hectares. The overall procedure for theadoption of Community lists of sites has beenunduly slow and the Commission is taking allappropriate steps in order to accelerate thisprocedure, including legal action.

Although the designation of sites is behind schedule,the management of threatened sites is essential.Some member states have already put conservation

measures in place for relevant sites ahead of theirformal adoption by the European Community. TheEuropean Commission has drafted a document tofacilitate the understanding of the broad mechanicsof the Habitats Directive. However, site-specificquestions will need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

The European Commission has clarified in severalcommunications that the Habitats and Wild BirdsDirectives apply to the whole EEZ of the MemberStates, and not just in territorial waters. However,implementation of these directives outside the 12-mile limits seems still hampered by judicialproblems (e.g. inconsistency with the UNConvention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)) insome Member States. Most North Sea States arenow applying the directives to all waters and havealready proposed or will propose Natura 2000 sitesin the offshore zone in the near future.

Measures underway, initially in the UK, to identifythe important details that will determine the loca-tion and protection of Natura 2000 sites will neces-sarily inform consideration among other North SeaStates. The European Commission has indicated itsinterest in these questions for the selection ofNatura 2000 networks and has asked OSPAR tocontribute to the process.

In Norway, plans for wetland and seabird sanctuarieshave been completed for each county of the NorthSea coastal area under the Nature ConservationAct. Breeding localities are the main focus of theseprotected areas, but sea areas are included becausethey have a functional and close ecological connec-tion with the land areas. Ten of these areas aredesignated as Ramsar sites.

3.3.4 The Wadden Sea

(ED 2iii, 9f; SoC 9.2 and 9.3)The trilateral Wadden Sea Plan (WSP) was adoptedin 1997 based on the principles and objectives of thetrilateral Wadden Sea Cooperation. The guidingprinciple of this cooperation is ‘to achieve, as far aspossible, a natural and dynamic ecosystem in whichnatural processes proceed in an undisturbed way’,specified by means of a series of common ‘targets’.The WSP is structured by these common targetsand associated measures and projects to implementthem.


46

Common targets for ecological and cultural andlandscape values were adopted in 1994. The mainelement of the ecological targets is the presence ofall typical Wadden Sea habitats in their naturalstate. In addition, it was agreed to aim for back-ground concentrations of naturally occurring haz-ardous substances (heavy metals) and concentra-tions resulting from zero discharges for xenobioticsubstances and, with regard to nutrients,Eutrophication Non-problem Area conditions.Indicator species and community targets have beenadopted. The community targets comprise thepresence of stable blue mussel (Mytilus edulis)beds, seagrass stands and Sabellaria reefs.

The Target concept has been useful with regard tothe Wadden Sea policy and management and hasprovided substantial guidance to the elaboration ofthe Trilateral Monitoring and Assessment Program(TMAP). The Targets have, because of their generaland open-ended nature, proved suitable for commu-nication with a wide range of stakeholders.

The TMAP was adopted in 1997. The TMAP issubdivided into 28 features that were selected onthe basis of relevance for trilateral conservationpolicies, most notably the assessment of the statusof the common Targets. In the period 1995 to 2001,common guidelines for the monitoring of the TMAPparameters and a trilateral data managementsystem were developed, co-funded by the EuropeanCommission. Most of the TMAP has been imple-mented. Comparable monitoring methods are nowapplied in all three countries. Further efforts arenecessary to develop the existing system into a fullyoperational data exchange system and to guaranteea steady data flow into the TMAP assessment work.A major future challenge is to tune the TMAP withthe requirements of the EC Habitats and Wild BirdsDirectives and the EC Water Framework Directive.

3.4 Non-indigenous and GeneticallyModified Organisms

(SoC 4.3)

3.4.1 Non-indigenous species

The issue of non-indigenous marine organisms isone of the most critical environmental issues facingaquatic species and habitats, and biodiversity ingeneral. Introductions and transfers of non-indige-nous organisms are potentially hazardous in termsof ecology, biodiversity and economics. Thus, thereare international obligations (e.g. under the CBD) to‘prevent, the introduction of, control and eradicatethose alien species which threaten ecosystems,habitats and species’. Recent studies have shownthat aquaculture and shipping are the main vectorsresponsible for the introduction of marine non-indigenous organisms. In connection with aquacul-ture, this occurs either as intentional introductionsof non-indigenous species (e.g. macroalgae, bivalvemolluscs and fish) for industrial production purposesor as non-intentional introductions and furthertransfers of the organisms via, for example, escape-ment and spreading from their originally confinedenvironment. In shipping, introductions and trans-fers of non-indigenous species mainly occur by thetransport and discharge of ballast water and, to alesser extent, by transport as fouling organisms onships’ hulls.

The number of ‘established and probably estab-lished’ non-indigenous marine species (not includingsubspecies or hybrid forms) in the North Sea hasbeen estimated at 28 for plants (phytoplankton,macroalgae and angiosperms) and 61 for animals(i.e. invertebrates, chordates and vertebrates).However, this is likely to be an underestimate asrecording is not comprehensive.

The North Atlantic Salmon ConservationOrganization (NASCO) has expressed increasingconcern that interactions between farmed and wildsalmon (Salmo salar) lead to changes in the geneticcomposition of wild salmon, the introduction ofpathogens/diseases and parasites, and other effects

Progress Report

47

with adverse ecological consequences. Recent workcarried out by NASCO includes measurements tominimize impacts from salmon farming on wildpopulations and implementation of the precaution-ary approach. Activities related to the precautionaryapproach include guidelines to limit escapees fromsalmon farming and an action plan to rehabilitatewild salmon habitats adopted in June 2001.

ICES and NASCO have collaborated on the geneticthreats to wild salmon posed by aquaculture as wellas other relevant interactions. Thus, a symposiumwas arranged in 1997 that provided an overview ofthe problems (e.g. threats to the natural genomes,parasites and pathogens/diseases) faced by wildsalmon and possible measures to redress thesituation.

ICES provides advice for management and regu-latory purposes on marine non-indigenous organ-isms. In 1995, ICES published a Code of Practice onintroductions and transfers, to be reviewed in 2002.Since 1995, there has been close collaborationbetween ICES, the IntergovernmentalOceanographic Commission (IOC) and theInternational Maritime Organization (IMO) onballast water and shipping vector matters includingthe formation of a joint study group on this topic.The code will be updated in 2002.

IMO is working towards completion of a self-stand-ing International Convention for the Control andManagement of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sedimentsand associated guidelines (see section 7.5.2). Theconvention is expected to be adopted in 2003.

Within OSPAR, non-indigenous organisms areincluded within the Joint Assessment andMonitoring Programme, but scant activity hasoccurred on this issue since 1998, and the QualityStatus Report 2000 for the Greater North Seaprovides little information on this matter. Theapparent reason for this lack of priority in OSPARis that non-indigenous species issues are currentlybeing handled within ICES and IMO.

In 1997 to 1998, the Nordic Council of Ministersfunded the project ‘Risk Assessment for MarineAlien Species in the Nordic Area’, which includesthe North Sea. The Nordic Council of Ministers alsofunded a project on ‘Introduced Species in the

Nordic Countries’, which included an overview ofintroduced species in the Nordic countries. A net-work of administrators and scientists within thefield of introduced species has been established asthe Internet-based ‘Nordic Network on IntroducedSpecies’. This network has also: 1) made informa-tion available on introduced species in the Nordiccountries accessible and provided links to otherimportant sites on the web regarding aliens/intro-duced species, 2) established a marine biome data-base involving the marine introduced species, and3) produced a report containing detailed descrip-tions of some of the more invasive introductions inthe Nordic countries.

Many North Sea States have either established orare preparing policy and legislation reviews on theintroduction and transfer of non-indigenous aquaticorganisms. There is a growing policy when rearingand releasing fish for stock enhancement to uselocal wild fish rather than reared strains as parentfish in order not to dilute the natural gene pool.Additionally, national strategies on sustainabledevelopment and Biodiversity Action Plans arehighlighting the risks from non-indigenous speciesand GMOs and increasing public awareness. Thethreat to biodiversity and its use occurring from theintroduction of non-indigenous organisms via bal-last water from ships has received increasingawareness and concern. Several North Sea Stateshave published reviews and inventories of non-native species in national waters, and the issuesarising from the introduction of non-native organ-isms are undergoing review.

As a result of the European Economic AreaAgreement, Norway must harmonize its legalframework on disease control with the EU frame-work and so it can no longer maintain current regu-lations regarding the introduction of non-indigenousspecies. Reports produced in 2000 and 2001 willform the basis for Norway’s national policy concern-ing non-indigenous marine species and will also bean important part of Norway’s input in variousinternational forums.

As a substantial ‘pool’ of non-indigenous species isalready present in European waters, effectivemeasures to limit unintentional and unwantedintroductions into regional or local European watersin general, and the North Sea area in particular,


48

are needed. Secondary introductions by humanmeans between European countries account for thegreatest further dispersal of species within Europe,so measures aimed at better controlling the intra-regional movement of species are required to pre-vent further unintentional dispersal. Secondaryintroductions that are mediated by natural disper-sal cannot, however, be stopped by regulations. Thedeveloping IMO Convention, in its present draftform, will apply to all ships engaged in internation-al traffic that carry ballast water. Ships vary intheir ability to undertake ballast managementmeasures and those that rely on ballast exchange atsea may be unable to complete the process duringthe voyage or in the prevailing weather conditions.A ship on a coastal voyage may encourage thespread of non-indigenous organisms by exchangingballast water near to shore. Effective monitoringprogrammes are needed to aid in the early detectionand in determining the status of non-indigenousorganisms if effective combat and control measuresare to be taken. Further, introductions and trans-fers of non-indigenous marine organisms are likelyto increase, due to expanding free-trade agreementsand climate warming favouring the wider establish-ment of more cosmopolitan species.

3.4.2 Genetically modified organisms

Genetically modified organisms are a form of non-indigenous organism. In recent years, increasedattention has been focused on the risk of GMOsescaping into the natural environment and causingsimilar adverse effects on indigenous species andtheir environment as certain non-indigenous specieshave done.

EC Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate releaseinto the environment of GMOs has now beenreplaced by Directive 2001/18/EC, which must beimplemented by member states by October 2002.Both these directives prohibit the release of GMOsinto the environment without explicit prior consent.

In 1997, the Council of NASCO adopted Guidelinesfor Action on Transgenic Salmon, and as recently as 2001 NASCO reiterated its concern about thethreats posed to wild salmon from geneticallymanipulated salmon. In particular, emphasis hasbeen given to the potential escape of geneticallymodified Atlantic salmon that may grow up to six

times faster than their natural counterpart. Suchtransgenic salmon have recently been promoted forfuture farming, despite firm opposition to the devel-opment of genetically modified salmon being voicedby the salmon culture industry, custodians of wildsalmon stocks, consumers and environmentalists.

The ICES recommended procedure for the consider-ation of the release of GMOs requires that thetransgenic organisms must be reproductively sterilein order to minimize impacts on the genetic struc-ture of natural populations. However, ICES stressedin 1999 that unless procedures are controlled, therisk of sterilization of the whole population (wildand cultivated) exists.

The Belgian MMM-law of 1999 prohibits the releaseof GMOs into the marine environment.

Norway applies national legislation in addition tothe EC Directive implemented according to theEuropean Economic Area Agreement. Health andenvironmental risk assessment, and ethical andsocio-economic concerns should be considered beforereleasing GMOs into the natural environment. Theprecautionary principle indicates that consent forsuch release should not be given if unacceptableadverse effects may arise. The introduction oforganisms is one of the items highlighted in a WhitePaper on biodiversity presented to the NorwegianParliament in spring 2001. Because of the potentialrisk of using GMOs, Norway has strong regulationsin this field. Production and use of GMOs shall bebased on ethical and social considerations accordingto the principles of the precautionary approach andwithout negative effects on health and the environ-ment. No GMOs are known to have been introducedinto Norwegian waters.

Fish-farming, stock enhancement and searanchingThe EC Biodiversity Action Plan foresees a gener-alized use of EIAs for all fish-farming operations,stock enhancement and sea ranching. Furthermore,the release of GMOs requires, under Directive90/220/EEC, a very strict and comprehensiveassessment to prevent damage to the environmentor to health.

In Norway, releases of farmed salmon are in generalprohibited, and special permission is required to

Progress Report

49

release salmon for enhancement purposes. Suchpermission includes conditions regarding the brood-stock, and the use of local brood-stocks will berequired whenever this is possible. With the presentknowledge and level of costs, industrial sea ranchingbased on fish species is not economically feasible.

3.5 Assessment of Achievements

3.5.1 Threatened and ecologicallyimportant species and habitats

General frameworkThe Quality Status Report 2000 for the GreaterNorth Sea identifies and ranks priority classes ofhuman impacts and pressures on the North Seaecosystem.

Annex V to the OSPAR Convention, on the protectionand conservation of the ecosystems and biologicaldiversity of the maritime area, provides an impor-tant new framework for protection and conservationof species and habitats in the North Sea.

There have been some important developments withregard to the implementation of EC directives. TheEuropean Commission has clarified in severalcommunications that the Habitats and Wild Birdsdirectives apply to the whole EEZ of the MemberStates, not just to territorial waters. However,implementation of these directives outside the 12-mile boundaries in some Member States is stillhampered by judicial problems on a national andinternational level, e.g. incongruence with UNC-LOS. Most North Sea States are now applying thedirectives to all waters and will propose Natura2000 sites in the offshore zone in the near future.

In accordance with the requirements of the CBD,there has been recent work on developing andimplementing Biodiversity Action Plans by theEuropean Commission and nationally by North Sea States.

Criteria for the selection of species and habitats needing protectionThe work within OSPAR to identify species andhabitats in need of protection and conservationmeasures has been demanding and the progress hastherefore been slower than initially expected. Theapplication of a set of criteria (the Texel/FaialCriteria) is now in a final stage of testing beforethey can be formally agreed. An initial list of speciesand habitats undergoing rapid decline or underimmediate threat has been produced. This list willbe further developed using the agreed Texel/FaialCriteria. OSPAR intends to complete the selectioncriteria for such species and habitats (Texel/FaialCriteria) and adopt a priority list of threatened ordeclining species and habitats in 2003.

Ecosystem effects of fishingThe generally high fishing pressure on targeted fishstocks, driven by excessive fishing capacity relativeto the available resources, has also resulted in highby-catch mortality of non-target organisms anddamage to the North Sea benthic communities andhabitats. Some aspects of the North Sea fisheriesmanagement have not performed adequately in thisrespect.

There has to date been a lack of achievement indealing with the long-term effects of fisheries on theecosystem. No progress has been made in restoringthe fish community towards diverse fish communi-ties with larger numbers of bigger and older indi-viduals and hence larger spawning stocks. Therehas been little progress in reducing the high levelsof by-catch and discards of non-target species. Dataon the effects of fishing on vulnerable species (e.g.many elasmobranchs) and habitats is scarce com-pared with data on commercial species.

Integrated action to support research and monitoringactivities regarding elasmobranchs should extendbeyond classical management strategies to includethe role of elasmobranchs in the structure and func-tioning of marine ecosystems and more specificallyin fish assemblages.

There is a growing awareness in fishing communitiesabout the importance of a healthy environment for a continuation of fisheries. Negative effects of discards, for example, are a concern of both fisher-men and environmentalists.


50

Marine mammalsIn 2000, ASCOBANS adopted a resolution thatrecommended that competent authorities takeprecautionary measures to ensure that the totalanthropogenic removal of small cetaceans in theAgreement area and its adjacent waters be reducedas soon as possible to below the level of ‘unaccept-able interaction’. The full impact of by-catches ofharbour porpoise cannot be evaluated because otherfisheries operating in the North Sea are not yetmonitored for by-catches.

The recent decline in harbour porpoise by-catchlevels of Danish and UK fisheries is a result ofreduced fishing effort due to decreased TACs set fordemersal fish. In Danish fisheries this decline in by-catch is also the result of using acoustic deterrents(‘pingers’), which warn harbour porpoises of gillnets.The Danish Wadden Sea has been designated as aSAC based in part on the occurrence of harbour por-poises. A small cetacean sanctuary has also beenestablished in German waters off the Islands of Sylt and Amrum, extending the boundaries of theNational Park ‘Schleswig-Holstein Wadden Sea’into offshore waters. The EC Council RegulationNo.1239/98 of 8 June 1998 banning the utilizationof drift nets will also help protect small cetaceansand other non-target species.

The UK has developed Regulatory Guidelines onSeismic Surveys, and has adopted Guidelines onwhale watching and on reduction of recreationaldisturbance.

Seabirds and shorebirdsThe IPOA-SEABIRDS was adopted by FAO in 1999.In Norway, research is being conducted on the mor-tality of birds in fishing equipment, with specialfocus on longline fisheries, and the development ofmethodology to reduce such mortality.

The EC ban on the use of drift nets will probablyalso be to the benefit of seabirds. Long time seriesare available from seabird and beached bird sur-veys. However, in some countries these surveys arenot being implemented in national monitoring pro-grammes. The maintenance and continuity of thesesurveys are, therefore, not assured.ICES has advised on how an ecosystem approachcan be applied involving seabird breeding colonies

and industrial fisheries. Accordingly, the Council ofEU Fisheries Ministers accepted in December 1999the Commission’s proposal to close an area of thenorth-western North Sea to sandeel fisheries for the2000 season and this has subsequently been extend-ed for a further two years following annual reviews.

Discards and offal have provided a food source thathas contributed to an increase in many seabirdpopulations. The potential ecological effects ofapplying a discard ban have not been evaluated.

BenthosThere is clear scientific evidence of the effects ofbottom trawling on species and habitats in theNorth Sea. Several changes can be made that con-tribute to meaningful reductions in the effects ofbottom trawls on the benthos of the North Sea andreduce the ecosystem effects of fishing. ICES hasadvised on how the most serious effects can bemitigated, without unduly reducing the possibilitiesof catching commercially important species.

Although nets have been refined to reduce the by-catch of non-target and undersized fish species andseveral promising improvements in otter trawls andbeam trawls have been identified, little practicalprogress has yet been made in reducing the by-catch and subsequent discards of invertebratebenthic species. Few North Sea States have appliedrestrictions on fishing operations in order to protectvulnerable benthic species and habitats.

3.5.2 Conservation, classification and mapping of habitats, and the development of a system of marine protected areas

Establishment of undisturbed areas withregard to fisheriesIn the IMM 97 Statement of Conclusions, Ministersreaffirmed their request, made at the 4NSC, to thecompetent authorities to facilitate research on areasundisturbed by fisheries. Since then, no undis-turbed areas with regard to fisheries have beenestablished.

Classification and mapping of habitatsThere is an urgent need for habitat maps as a basisfor protection and conservation of habitats and for

Progress Report

51

spatial planning purposes. A project to develop aNorth Sea habitat map is being planned, buildingupon the EUNIS classification system for habitats.

Development of a system for marine protected areasOSPAR has developed Guidelines for theIdentification and Selection of Marine ProtectedAreas in the OSPAR Maritime Area, but theseremain to be adopted and applied. These have beensupplemented by the development of draftGuidelines for the Management of Marine ProtectedAreas in the OSPAR Maritime Area.

An inventory of existing MPAs in the OSPAR mar-itime area has been established to assist the pro-gramme to develop the system of MPAs. Only veryfew protected areas occur beyond 3 nm, apart fromareas where fisheries restrictions apply.

Habitats, including Natura 2000In order to conserve Natura 2000 sites, memberstates are establishing conservation measuresinvolving appropriate management plans andstatutory, administrative or contractual measures.For the North Sea area, the number of marine sitesproposed as sites of community importance up toMay 2001 amounts to about 60. The area covered bythese sites is about 900 000 hectares. The overallprocedure for the adoption of Community lists ofsites has been unduly slow and the Commission istaking all appropriate steps in order to acceleratethis procedure, including legal action.

In Norway, plans for wetland and seabirdsanctuaries have been completed for each county of the North Sea coastal area under the NatureConservation Act.

The Wadden SeaThe WSP is structured by common targets andassociated measures and projects to implementthem. The targets have, because of their generaland open-ended nature, proved suitable for commu-nication with a wide range of stakeholders. Thisprovides a good example of international collabora-tion for developing monitoring and assessment pro-grammes.

3.5.3 Non-indigenous species andgenetically modified organisms

Non-indigenous speciesIn 1995 ICES published a Code of Practice onintroductions and transfers. Since 1995, there hasbeen close collaboration between ICES, IOC andIMO on ballast water and shipping vector mattersincluding the formation of a joint study group onthis topic.

IMO is working towards completion of legallybinding provisions on ballast water management inthe form of a self-standing International Conventionfor the Control and Management of Ships’ BallastWater and Sediments and associated guidelines.However, IMO is unlikely to adopt the finalizedversion of this convention before 2003.

ICES and NASCO have collaborated on the geneticthreats to wild salmon posed by aquaculture andhave provided an overview of the problems (e.g.threats to the natural genomes, parasites andpathogens/diseases) faced by wild salmon andpossible measures to improve the situation.

The Nordic Council of Ministers funded from 1997to 1998 the project ‘Risk Assessment for MarineAlien Species in the Nordic Area’, and sponsored an overview of introduced species in the Nordiccountries.

Many North Sea States have either established orare preparing policy and legislation reviews on theintroduction and transfer of non-indigenous aquaticorganisms. However, better measures are needed ifinter- and intra-regional movements of non-indige-nous species are to be prevented. Effective monitor-ing programmes are needed to aid the early detec-tion and determination of the status of non-indige-nous organisms in order to take combat and controlmeasures.

Genetically modified organismsIn 1997, NASCO adopted Guidelines for Action onTransgenic Salmon, and as recently as 2001 NASCOreiterated its concern about the threats posed towild salmon from genetically manipulated salmon.


52

EC Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate releaseinto the environment of GMOs has now beenreplaced by directive 2001/18/EC, which must beimplemented by member states by October 2002.Both directives prohibit the release of GMOs intothe environment without explicit prior consent.

The EC Biodiversity Action Plan foresees ageneralized use of EIAs for all fish-farmingoperations, stock enhancement and sea ranching.

Progress Report

53

4.1 Introduction

4.1.1 Fisheries and ecosystem effects offisheries

The fish stocks are the immediate resource base offisheries. The productivity of the stocks is depend-ent on the surrounding marine ecosystem and theecosystem can, therefore, be considered the resourcebase in a wider sense.

Sustainability can be considered from several per-spectives:• the resource perspective, focusing on conserving

the reproductive capacity of the fish stocks; • the ecosystem perspective, focusing on the contin-

ued functioning of the ecosystem as a productiveand healthy environment;

• the fishing industry perspective, focusing onharvesting and further processing and distribu-tion of fisheries products; and

• the social and economic viability of fisheries. Thisis a very broad topic ranging from the functioningof the fishing communities, the economy of thefishing industry and of the fishing sector.Furthermore, the institutions and governancemust also be considered.

Fishing effects on non-target species and on theecosystem are addressed in section 3.2. With regard to the fisheries effects on commercial speciesthe following issues of concern were listed in theAssessment Report prepared for the IMM 97:• the high fishing pressure on many North Sea fish

stocks driven by excessive fishing capacityrelative to the available resources;

• the extent of change in age structure and sizecomposition of the fish stocks as a result offisheries; and

4

Fisheries

54

• the decrease in abundance of some fish species,mostly species with a low reproduction rate.

In 2001 this list still reflects the main concerns.

4.1.2 Status of North Sea fisheries

Catches and fish stocksThe North Sea and adjacent seas constitute one ofthe world’s major shelf areas and, as such, one ofthe major fish producing ecosystems in the world.With an annual production in the range of 3 milliontonnes, the area contributes 4% of the world’s fishproduction of 90 million tonnes. At the beginning ofthe last century the annual catch from the NorthSea was in the range of 1 million tonnes and com-prised 50% demersal and 50% pelagic species fishedfor human consumption. Fisheries may be dividedinto the following three categories: pelagic fisheriesand demersal fisheries for human consumptionpurposes and industrial fisheries for reductionpurposes, i.e. fishmeal and oil.

The total landings remained reasonably stable at1.0 to 1.3 million tonnes until the Second WorldWar. After the Second World War there was anincrease in fishing. The total landings rose to ahigher level in the 1950s, mainly due to increasedexploitation of herring (Clupea harengus) and mack-erel (Scomber scombrus). The pelagic catchespeaked in the late 1960s and then fell dramaticallyduring the 1970s when the herring fisheries wereclosed and the North Sea mackerel stock wasseverely depleted. Major changes in the catches ofdemersal fish took place in the 1960s and 1970swith the so-called ‘gadoid outburst’. The demersallandings have steadily declined over the past 25years. The fishing pressure has remained high fordemersal fish until now and many of the stockshave been fished beyond safe biological limits. Afishery for industrial purposes started in 1960. It increased up to 1980, and the landings haveremained relatively stable in the range 1 to 3 mil-lion tonnes since then. Landings from major stocksin the North Sea, Skagerrak, and the easternChannel are presented in Figure 4.1.

Today, demersal human consumption fisheriesusually target a mixture of roundfish species (cod(Gadus morhua), haddock (Melanogrammusaeglefinus) and whiting (Merlangius merlangus))

or a mixture of flatfish species (plaice (Pleuronectesplatessa) and sole (Solea solea)) with a by-catch ofroundfish. Landings in the period 1967 to 1999 aregiven in Figure 4.2. A fishery directed at saithe(Pollachius virens) exists along the shelf edge. Themean annual catch for demersal species in the1990s was 0.6 million tonnes. The catch of thesefisheries is landed for human consumption. Thepelagic fisheries mainly target herring, mackereland horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus).Although most of the landings of these species maybe intended for human consumption purposes, partof the landings are used for fishmeal and fish oil.The mean annual catch for pelagic species in the1990s was about 1.0 million tonnes. The mostimportant fish species fished for reduction to fish-meal and oil are sandeels (Ammodytes spp.), sprat(Sprattus sprattus) and Norway pout (Trisopterus

Progress Report

Figure 4.1 Landings of major fish stocks in theNorth Sea (NS), Skagerrak, and the easternChannel (eC) in 1974 to 1999. The major fish stocksare: Demersal stocks: sole (NS); plaice (NS); saithe(NS and ICES area IIIa); haddock (NS and ICESarea IIIa); whiting (NS and eC) and cod (NS,Skagerrak and eC). Pelagic stocks: mackerel (NS)and herring (NS). Industrial fisheries: blue whiting(ICES area IV and IIIa); sprat (NS); Norway pout(NS) and sandeel (NS). (ICES 2001b.)

55

esmarkii). The industrial catches also contain by-catches of other species including herring, haddockand whiting. The mean annual catch for industrialpurposes in the 1990s was about 1.3 million tonnes.

In the North Sea proper, all stocks of roundfish andflatfish species have been exposed to high fishingmortality for many years. Many North Sea commer-cial fish stocks are ‘outside safe biological limits’(see Annex 2). The cod stock is in an especially pre-carious state and the biological advice mentions thedanger of stock collapse.

The herring stock in the North Sea collapsed in themid-1970s due to a combination of small year class-es and heavy exploitation. Effective managementmeasures such as closure of the fisheries between1977 and 1981 were implemented to reduce thecatches. At the beginning of the 1990s the herringstock again declined to low levels of spawning stockand in 1996 effective management measures wereimplemented. The herring stock is now recoveringalthough still exploited with a fishing mortalityoutside safe biological limits. The North Sea

component of the mackerel stock also collapsed inthe 1970s and shows no sign of recovery. The fish-eries for mackerel in the North Sea rely on a muchlarger stock component, the western mackerel stock,which spawns outside the North Sea and is presentin the northern North Sea in the second half of theyear. The overall mackerel stock is inside safe bio-logical limits. The developments of the herring andmackerel stocks are presented in Figure 4.3.

Both the sandeel and Norway pout stocks are con-sidered to be inside safe biological limits, while noreference points are set for sprat and its presentstate is unknown.

The fisheries in the North Sea take much morebiomass from this area than they used to do ahundred years ago. The relative species and sizecomposition is altered to a great extent. Largespecies with long lifespans are fished almost toextinction, while stocks of small opportunisticspecies like sprat and sandeels are quite numerous.

Fisheries

Figure 4.2 Landings of demersal stocks for humanconsumption, 1967 to 1999 (ICES 2001b).

Figure 4.3 Landings of pelagic stocks for humanconsumption, 1967 to 1999 (ICES 2001b). For mackerel the catches before 1980 consisted of theNorth Sea component. After 1980 the mackerelcatches consisted of the western component.

Progress Report

Unintended catches in demersal fisheries forhuman consumptionDiscarding varies between fishing methods –depending on mesh sizes, season, fishing grounds,abundance of fish fry and so on. Extensive discard-ing occurs in many fisheries on roundfish and flat-fish in the North Sea, Skagerrak, and the Channel.Overall, the published information on discarding isstill scarce and often not up to date; data are notavailable for all fleets and not directly comparablebetween fleets. It is therefore not possible to providean overall assessment of total discard rates. Discarddata have been collected in large-scale projects –financed by the EC – in the latter half of the 1990s.These data are being compiled at present and ICESpublished summaries of the data in 2001. The gen-eral pattern is that high discard rates are found inmost flatfish fisheries, in Nephrops fisheries, and insome mixed gadoid fisheries targeting haddock. Theinformation mainly covers by-catches of species thatare exploited commercially. By-catches, however, also include a multitude of fish (and invertebrate)species that are of little or no commercial interest.Most of the present monitoring programmes recordthese species, but the data are generally notavailable.

Unintended catches in pelagic fisheriesDiscarding, including high-grading3, also takesplace in pelagic fisheries, but little and incompleteinformation on discarding practices in these fish-eries is available. Some data have been publishedfrom the Dutch herring (trawler) fishery for theyears 1990 to 1996. In these fisheries, discards weregenerally 3–6% for herring (weight discarded rela-tive to weight caught per species). Discarding is alsoknown to occur in the purse seiner fleets (‘slippage’),but again data are not available.

Unintended catches in industrial fisheriesBy-catch information from the industrial fisherieshas been sampled regularly from the landings. The catch composition in the industrial fisherieshas changed considerably over time, reflectingpartly the size of the non-target fish stocks and achange in the fishing pattern. Unintended catchesin industrial fisheries are not discarded.

Vulnerable fish speciesA significant number of elasmobranch fish (e.g.sharks, rays, and skates) are slow growing, long-lived, attain sexual maturity at a large size, andhave a low fecundity compared with other exploitedfish species. These life history strategies make themparticularly vulnerable to unsustainable fisherypractices. The general pattern found in most elas-mobranch fisheries has been one of high initialexploitation followed by a rapid collapse. In theNorth Sea, landings of skates and rays havedecreased by more than half during the last 50years. The thornback ray (Raja clavata) has nearlydisappeared from the south-eastern North Sea. Thecommon skate (Raja batis) has virtually disap-peared from the North Sea, and the only effectiveprotection for this critically endangered species is adrastic reduction or a complete halt to all kinds ofdemersal fishery, e.g. through establishing closedareas, where relict populations exist (ICES 1998).Unless this occurs, similar species will probably befished out as a consequence of their vulnerability todemersal fisheries. The vulnerabilities of thesestocks are presented in Table 4.1 and the status ofthe stock in Annex 2.

The thornback ray can serve as a biological refer-ence point because it is still abundant enough to becaught in statistically usable numbers. In 1997,

56

3 High-grading is sorting of fish to maximize the value of the catch retained for the market, with associated discarding of legal-sizedbut lower value species or sizes.

Table 4.1 Vulnerability, in decreasing ranking, offive resident North Sea ray species according to lifehistory characteristics (ICES 1997). Life historycharacteristics include: maximum length, lengthand age at first maturity, number of eggs producedper year, maximum mortality that the species is ableto withstand, and estimated level of mortality basedon recent survey catches.

Species Rank

Common skate (Raja batis) 1

Thornback ray (R. clavata) 2

Spotted ray (R. montagui) 3

Cuckoo ray (R. naevus) 4

Starry ray (R. radiata) 5

57

ICES advised limiting the impact of demersalfisheries in areas where the thornback ray stilloccurred in order to conserve the stock in the NorthSea. ICES also requested improved data on land-ings, discards and disturbance of eggs by demersalgears, as a prerequisite to making an accurate esti-mate of the fishing mortality, which is a major andcontrollable part of the total mortality, and as anaid in formulating the most effective fisheriesmeasures in the areas of concern.

4.1.3 Main goals and actions agreed atthe 4NSC and IMM 97

The Ministers at the 4NSC agreed that furtherintegration of fisheries and environmental policiesmust be elaborated in order to protect the NorthSea environment and ensure the sustainability ofthe fish stocks and the associated fisheries. TheMinisters therefore recommended that the precau-tionary principle should be applied in fisheriesmanagement policies, that exploitation rates for fishstocks within safe biological limits should be estab-lished, to minimize by-catches and other negativeimpacts on marine mammals, seabirds and benthicorganisms and to minimize discarding of fish andbenthic organisms, and agreed that competentauthorities should facilitate research on a numberof identified topics. The Ministers also invitedcompetent authorities to establish undisturbedareas for scientific purposes.

The Ministers at the IMM 97 agreed on guidingprinciples, management objectives, strategies andactions for the future fisheries and environmentalprotection, conservation and management meas-ures.

4.2 Further Integration of Fisheriesand Environmental Policies

(ED 13; SoC 2, 3, 4, 19 and 20)The European Community has adopted the GuidingPrinciples agreed at the IMM 97, e.g. sustainabledevelopment and use, precautionary approach, bestavailable scientific knowledge, ecosystem approach,integration of environmental objectives into fish-eries policy, involvement of stakeholders etc., eitheras relevant articles of the Treaty, within secondarylegislation or in policy documents such as regula-tions, decisions, and communications etc. Severalinternational agreements also incorporate guidingprinciples similar to those of the MinisterialStatement of Conclusions (SoC) from IMM 97.

Recent developments to accomplish these require-ments can be illustrated by reference to a number ofpolicy documents that have appeared during thelast two years: • Fisheries Management and Nature Conservation

in the Marine Environment (COM(1999)363).• Application of the Precautionary Principle and

Multi-annual Arrangements for Setting TACs(COM(2000)803).

• Elements of a Strategy for the Integration ofEnvironmental Protection Requirements into the Common Fisheries Policy (COM(2001)143).

• Conclusions from the Council of 25 April 2001 onIntegration of Environmental Concerns andSustainable Development into the CommonFisheries Policy (Doc No 7885/01 Pêche 78, Env 188).

• Conclusions from the Council of the 18 June 2001on a Biodiversity Action Plan for Fisheries.

• Biodiversity Action Plan for Fisheries (COM(2001) 162 vol. IV).

• Sixth Environmental Action Programme of theEuropean Community, 2001 to 2010 (not yetadopted).

• Sustainable Development Strategy (theGothenburg Summit, June 2001, see Annex 3).

Fisheries

58

From this documentation it can be inferred that theEuropean Community is working towards a compre-hensive environmental integration, of which themain elements have been identified as:• a progressive adoption of an ecosystem approach

to fisheries management;• the incorporation into the Common Fisheries

Policy (CFP) of the environmental principlesdefined in Article 174 of the Treaty as: i) theprecautionary principle, ii) the principle ofprevention, iii) the principle of correction atsource, and iv) the polluter-pays principle; and

• the carrying out of specific management action,mostly described in the Biodiversity Action Planfor Fisheries.

On the issue of the precautionary principle, theCommunity is discussing its operational conse-quences as a general matter on the basis ofCommunication COM(2001)1 on the precautionaryprinciple, and specifically on the issue of settingTotal Allowable Catches (TACs) in a multi-annualframework on the basis of CommunicationCOM(2000)803. The Council adopted its conclusionson the latter on 25 April 2001.

The Community’s ideas and suggestions about theecosystem-based approach to fisheries managementhave been developed succinctly in its contribution tothe FAO Conference on Responsible Fisheries in theMarine Ecosystem held in Reykjavik, October 2001.A fundamental aspect of the ecosystem-basedapproach to fisheries management described in thecontribution to the FAO conference is that it cannotreplace as from now the traditional, stock-basedapproach, but rather it constitutes a long-term goalwhich cannot be achieved without a long, evolution-ary process, based on a progressive improvement ofthe scientific basis. The contribution also describedwhich steps could be taken in the short, mediumand long-term, to progress towards an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management.

Finally, the Commission has initiated a process toreform the CFP in response to the challenges facedby the Community fishing sector. As part of thisprocess, the Commission issued in March 2001 aGreen Paper (COM(2001)135) analysing the currentsituation and suggesting possible options for thefuture in terms of a renewed CFP. These optionsinclude principles, objectives and strategies perfect-ly compatible with those outlined in the SoC.

Norway acknowledges that a more coherent policyis required with respect to sea quality and marineresources, clearly defining policy, actions to be takenand clarifying responsibilities. Work has thereforestarted between relevant ministries in Norway withthe aim of developing integrated ecosystem-basedmanagement of the coastal and sea areas. TheNorwegian responses in the last two years are thefollowing.• The Environmental Action Plan, for the period

2000 to 2004, issued by the Norwegian Ministryof Fisheries. In this plan, general environmentalgoals and specific targets are set for fisheries,aquaculture and coastal management. The planalso includes the actions regarded as necessary toreach these goals. Reporting on progress is doneon an annual basis to the Norwegian Parliament(‘Stortinget’).

• The White Paper on biodiversity, 2001, whichoutlines a management system for biodiversity inNorway. It will be of importance to the fisheriessector.

• The Norwegian Law on Fish Farming has beenamended to strengthen the environmentalapplication of the law. This new law entered intoforce 1 January 2001. This amendment enablesthe introduction of requirements related to envi-ronmental surveillance, internal control andapproval of plants and equipment.

• A new Marine Law (‘Havlov’) is being developed.When finished, this will improve the focus onenvironmental considerations in the fisheries.

• The fishing industry (capture and aquaculture) is currently developing an environmentalstrategy for the sector.

The EU and Norway request scientific advice fromICES concerning the harvesting of commerciallyimportant fish stocks and on the status of themarine environment. The fishing industry andsocietal perspectives are not covered by ICESadvice. In 2000, the ICES committees were restruc-tured to enable ecosystem considerations to formthe basis for fisheries advice.

The precautionary principle has been well devel-oped in its operational dimension, in particularwithin the context of ICES, and has constituted thebasis for important decisions on the management of joint stocks in the North Sea. However, fullapplication of the precautionary principle for allmanagement measures concerned, including those

Progress Report

59

related to the conservation of non-commercial items,still requires considerable development. In particu-lar, continuing dialogue must be maintainedbetween ICES and managers to discuss the settingof precautionary reference points on the basis ofagreed risk levels (see section 4.4.2).

4.3 Application of the PrecautionaryApproach to Minimize Adverse

Effects of Non-indigenous Stocks andSpecies and Genetically Modified

Organisms

(SoC 4)Non-indigenous and genetically modified organisms(GMOs) are addressed in section 3.4.

4.4 Rebuilding or Maintenance ofSpawning Stock Biomass

(SoC 6)Many demersal stocks that are exploited for humanconsumption are outside safe biological limits, e.g.cod and plaice. Important pelagic stocks are insidesafe biological levels, e.g. the combined mackerelstock. The herring stock is recovering and fishingmortality decreasing. The herring TAC is set basedon the agreed fishing mortality but estimates sug-gest that the mortality is actually higher. Theindustrial stocks are harvested within safe biologicallimits. For details see Annex 2. TACs have not beeneffective in reducing fishing mortality on demersalstocks and have been only partly effective on pelagicstocks, even in those cases where TACs have beenset according to the biological advice. Supplementaryeffort reduction measures have not been put inplace to prevent stocks from falling outside safebiological limits.

4.4.1 Priorities for the elaboration ofstock assessments and forecasts

(SoC 6.1 and Annex)The European Commission has requested ICES toprovide assessments for, inter alia, the stocksreferred to in the annex of the SoC, except forgurnards (Triglidae) and flatfishes(Pleuronectiformes). For these, considerableimprovement of the basic data is still requiredbefore assessments and catch forecasts can be car-ried out.

In order to overcome the insufficiency of the basicdata, the Commission launched in 1999 a call forproposals of studies in support of the CFP. Amongthe first priority domains for proposals was the col-lection of basic data necessary for the assessment ofstocks not having recently been subject to anassessment. In 2000, the Commission also launcheda call for proposals on data collection, but withoutspecifying priority stocks.

In 2000, Regulation (EC) No 1543/2000 was adoptedestablishing a binding framework for the collectionof basic data, together with a funding framework(Council Decision 200/439/EC). This system willreplace, starting in 2002, the old system based onvoluntary schemes presented by research institu-tions.

Norway and the Community are participatingactively within the ICES system and in EU-fundedprojects. In Norway, priority is given to research onherring, saithe, cod, haddock, mackerel, sandeel andNorway pout.

4.4.2 Target and limit reference points

(SoC 6.2 and Annex)The concept of ‘safe biological limits’ is explicitlyreferred to in the UN Agreement on Straddling FishStocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. ICESuses it in an expanded way with a specific meaning.A stock ‘outside safe biological limits’ suffersincreased risk of low recruitment, i.e. averagerecruitment will be lower than if the stock were atits full reproductive capacity. This causes a reduc-tion of the potential catch fisheries can take fromthe stock. A stock that suffers severely reducedproductivity is considered to be ‘collapsed’. A stock

Fisheries

60

‘outside safe biological limits’ is not, however,usually at risk of extinction. A fish stock can be‘outside safe biological limits’ even if the number ofspawners is several orders of magnitude larger thanlevels considered when evaluating whether stocksare at risk of extinction.

Limit reference points are established for most ofthe species, and the European Commission andNorway are cooperating with ICES to establishtarget reference points. Figure 4.4 illustrates thefour ICES reference points. Annex 2 lists agreedreference points and stock status for importantNorth Sea stocks.

Flim is the limit fishing mortality which should beavoided with high probability because it is associatedwith unknown population dynamics or stock col-lapse. Blim is the limit spawning stock biomass,below which recruitment is impaired or thedynamics of the stock are unknown.

ICES has defined Bpa (‘PA’ stands for precautionaryapproach) as the biomass below which action shouldbe taken and Fpa as the fishing mortality abovewhich management action should be taken. Thedistance between the limit and the precautionaryapproach reference points includes considerationsof natural variability in the stock dynamics, assess-

ment uncertainty and the risk of spawning stockbiomass (SSB) falling below Blim.

The fishing industry considers that the setting ofreference points, which involves discussions onacceptable risk levels and trigger actions, shouldtake place by a consultation process involvingindustry, management and science. They considerthat hitherto this process has not been satisfactory.

ICES has been requested to give advice based onthe precautionary approach: ‘in order for stocks andfisheries exploiting them to be within safe biologicallimits, there should be a high probability that: 1)the spawning stock biomass is above the thresholdwhere recruitment is impaired, and 2) the fishingmortality is below that which will drive the spawn-ing stock to the biomass threshold which must beavoided’. The present form of the advice provided byICES contains some but not all of the requestedinformation. The European Commission hasrequested ICES to develop the advice further byclear statements about the nature of the riskincurred by crossing the reference points, the timehorizon over which the risk is assessed and theconsequences for long-term yield of various fishingmortality rates. It is therefore important that theadvice is accompanied by statements in relation to:the nature of the risk of immediate collapse asopposed to risks in the medium or long term, andthe risk created by not taking appropriate remedialactions, including the risk created by not takingactions at all.

Limit reference points have been established forthose stocks for which this was required within twoyears (in the SoC Annex), except for Pandalus (forwhich a precautionary ‘pa’ reference point isestablished), but not for other stocks, includingsprat and horse mackerel, for which the require-

Progress Report

Figure 4.4 The four ICES reference points withinthe context of fishing mortality (F) and spawningstock biomass (SSB). The green area is the desiredsituation, the yellow area is intermediate and the redis the absolute danger zone to be avoided.

61

ment was six to seven years. Stock assessmentshave been developed for Norway pout and sandeelas required, but not for sprat and horse mackerelfor which the time frame was six to seven years.

Besides limit reference points, the UN Agreementon Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly MigratoryFish Stocks and the Code of Conduct forResponsible Fisheries (FAO 1995), which enteredinto force 11 December 2001, call for target refer-ence points for stocks (i.e. optimum stock size) andpre-agreed action measures if reference points areexceeded.

The system of setting precautionary (pa) referencepoints for commercial fish populations has beenconsidered a relevant contribution to the set ofEcological Quality Objectives (EcoQOs). The EcoQOstakeholder workshop in the Netherlands (October2001) and the meeting of the OSPAR BiodiversityCommittee in 2001 considered that their effectiveimplementation would represent an importantimprovement, but that there was a need to developtarget-based reference points in a next step.

4.4.3 Measures to ensure that fishingmortality rates are in accord with reference points

(SoC 6.3)For most stocks (herring, mackerel, cod, haddock,saithe and plaice) subject to joint managementbetween Norway and the European Community, the parties have agreed on long term managementstrategies that are fully consistent with the precau-tionary approach outlined by ICES. In its proposalsfor autonomous TACs, the Commission has alwayschosen those options leading to fishing mortalitiesbelow the limit reference points and consistent witha policy of rebuilding stocks above limit referencepoints as quickly as possible. The Council, in decid-ing on the Commission’s proposals, has also beenconsistent with this policy. The Community meas-ures on control, especially on ensuring compliancewith quotas, are embedded in Regulation (EC) No2847/1993 and subsequent implementation legisla-tion. Detailed implementation of these measurescorresponds to the competence of Member States,

and includes licensing, effort control, individualquotas by vessel, etc.

Participation in Norwegian commercial fisheries ingeneral, as well as the fishing effort in specific fish-eries, is restricted and regulated by legislative andadministrative instruments. The restrictions onfishing effort can be divided into restrictions onlicences, fishing gear and outtake.

4.4.4 Criteria for safe biological limits

(SoC 6.4)The Council

4has explicitly allocated to scientists

the task of defining, where possible, the upper limitof fishing mortality and the lower limit for spawn-ing stock biomass beyond which the replenishmentof stocks is threatened. Plans for stock managementand stock recovery should aim at having stockswithin safe biological limits. The Community andNorway accept the criteria established by ICES in1998 to indicate whether a stock is within or out-side safe biological limits.

4.4.5 Recovery plans

(SoC 6.3, 6.5 and 6.10)In 1997, the Ministers invited the competentauthorities to consider within the appropriateforums and without delay the establishment ofrecovery plans for stocks considered to be outsidesafe biological limits. Priority was given to theNorth Sea cod. Since 1999, the Community andNorway have initiated agreement to long-termmanagement plans for most commercially importantspecies in the North Sea (cod, haddock, saithe,plaice, mackerel and herring) consistent with a pre-cautionary approach. These are integral parts of theannual bilateral EU–Norway quota agreements.Their aim is, beyond preventing these stocks fromfalling below safe biological limits, to rebuild themin order to allow for economically and biologicallyhealthy fisheries. The management plans includeprovisions stating that remedial actions should betaken if the SSB falls under an agreed limit. Theselong-term management plans have been endorsedby ICES as falling within a precautionary approach.

Fisheries

4 Conclusions of the Council of 25 April 2001 on the application of the precautionary principle and multi-annual TACs.

62

The generic text of the agreement states that theEU and Norway have:

‘agreed to implement a long-term management planfor the (…) stock, which is consistent with the pre-cautionary approach and is intended to constrainharvesting within safe biological limits anddesigned to provide for sustainable fisheries andgreater potential yield. The plan shall consist of thefollowing elements:1. Every effort shall be made to maintain a mini-

mum level of SSB greater than (..Blim..) tonnes(Blim).

2. For 2000 and subsequent years the Partiesagreed to restrict their fishing on the basis of aTAC consistent with a fishing mortality rate of(..F..) for appropriate age groups as defined byICES.

3. Should the SSB fall below a reference point of(..Bpa..) tonnes (Bpa), the fishing mortalityreferred to under paragraph 2 shall be adaptedin the light of scientific estimates of theconditions then prevailing. Such adaptationshall ensure a safe and rapid recovery of SSB to a level in excess of (..Bpa..) tonnes.

4. In order to reduce discarding and to enhance thespawning biomass of cod, the Parties agreed thatthe exploitation pattern shall, while recallingthat other demersal species are harvested inthese fisheries, be improved in the light of newscientific advice from, inter alia, ICES.

The Parties shall, as appropriate, review and revisethese management measures and strategies on thebasis of any new advice provided by ICES.’

In 2000, and given the delicate situation of thestock of cod, Norway and the EU also agreed toemergency measures for the rebuilding of the stock,applicable in 2001, as follows:• a TAC for 2001 of 48 600 tonnes, designed to

reduce fishing mortality by 50% in accordancewith ICES advice;

• an area in the central North Sea closed to fishingwith demersal gear from 14 February to 30 April2001, in order to protect the spawners;

• a reinforced system of control in order to guaran-tee minimal by-catch of cod in that area; and

• the adoption of satellite vessel monitoringsystems to support this recovery plan.

As a complement to the emergency measures adopt-ed for cod, TACs for 2001 were reduced for stockswhose fishing would inevitably lead to by-catch ofcod, such as other roundfish (haddock and whiting),flatfish (plaice and sole) and crustaceans (shrimpand Nephrops).

Moreover, with an aim to efficiently rebuild thestock of cod, the Community and Norway haveagreed in 2001 to a mid-term rebuilding plan, withmeasures complementary to those of the emergencyplan. These measures include:• conditions on the structure of towed demersal

nets, specifying a mesh size of 120 mm, anddetails on net construction and rigging leading toincreased selectivity and survival of fish escapingfrom the net;

• special conditions for fishing in the Communityzone, relative to mesh size, netting and rigging ofgears and catch composition in any other fish-eries for roundfish where cod is a by-catch. Beamtrawls should be equipped with a window of 180mm diamond mesh;

• special conditions relative to any fishery usingnets of mesh size below 120 mm. These include amaximum by-catch of cod of 20%, netting specifi-cations, use of sorting grids and square meshpanels, in order to protect young cod;

• increased mesh size for static nets (148 mm inthe Norwegian zone and 140 mm in theCommunity zone);

• an area in the Norwegian zone closed to fisheriesfor industrial purposes; and

• research provisions including organization offuture meetings and at-sea selectivity trials.

4.4.6 TACs and other appropriate meas-ures

(SoC 6.6 and 6.8)Fisheries may be managed by catch control, effortcontrol, and technical measures. In the North Seaarea, fisheries are mainly managed by TACs. Since1998, new TACs have been adopted in Communitylegislation for sandeel, anglerfish (Lophius sp.),megrim (Lepidorhombus whiffiagonis), turbot(Psetta maxima) and brill (Scophthalamus rhombus), dab (Limanda limanda) and flounder(Platichthys flesus), lemon sole (Microstomus kitt)and witch (Glyptocephalus cynoglossus), spurdog(Squalus acanthias), skates and rays and Northernprawn (Pandalus borealis). A proposal in 2000 on

Progress Report

63

setting TACs for several deep-sea species was notaccepted by the Council, and new proposals werepresented in December 2001.

In order to establish a national quota or TAC, theNorwegian system is based on a scientificallyagreed assessment on the biomass. If ICES cannotdo an assessment, Norwegian authorities normallywill not set a national quota, unless the scientificadvisory body recommends precautionary actions.Vessel quotas are based on the same criteria. Forstocks without an operational TAC, Norway has forseveral years introduced a great number of otherappropriate measures, such as minimum sizes,mesh size, mesh design and prohibition of the use of certain types of gear. They also prohibit fishingduring certain periods to protect certain speciessuch as sandeel and lobster (Homarus gammarus).

For the last few years, ICES has been able to pro-vide a scientifically-based assessment for the bluewhiting (Micromesistius poutassou) stock, and acoastal state process has been initiated in order tobring about a regulation of the blue whiting fish-eries. Both the European Community and Norwayare taking part in this process.

4.4.7 Protective measures foraggregations of spawning fish

(SoC 6.7)Community and Norwegian policies on technicalmeasures in general, and on closed areas withregard to fishery activities in particular, are gener-ally orientated towards the protection of juvenilefish. However, closed areas for the protection of thespawning stock may be envisaged in order to rein-force other management measures when there is aneed for immediate rebuilding of the stock. At pres-ent, within the emergency measures for North Seacod, the closure of the central North Sea during themonths of February to April 2001 is one example ofsuch a policy. Temporal closures of herring spawn-ing grounds have been in place for several yearsand have been maintained in the relevant recentlegislation.

Dutch fishermen have voluntarily set up a tie-upscheme for spring 2002 to protect spawning plaice.

Except for these occasions, situations where meas-ures to protect dense aggregations of spawning fishwould be appropriate have not been identified sothe benefits of such measures without otherwisereducing exploitation have not yet been demon-strated.

4.4.8 Reduction of fishing capacity/effort consistent with the fisheryresources

(SoC 6.9)In the European Community reduction of fishingcapacity and/or fishing effort had been planned tobe achieved through Multi-annual GuidanceProgrammes (MAGPs). These programmes fixedobjectives for fishing capacity and fishing effort as afunction of the state of the stocks targeted by eachsegment of the fleet. It is not possible to evaluatethe reduction of the capacity for the fleets operatingin the North Sea, given that in many cases the fleetsegments defined include vessels fishing in otherareas as well. However, in view of the modest over-all objectives of MAGP IV, e.g. 3% in capacity and2% in activity, it is believed that the reduction infishing capacity achieved in December 2000 forfleets fishing for the main demersal species will notbe sufficient to ensure consistency with the avail-able fishery resources.

Member States have implemented strategies toadapt their capacity to the targets imposed byMAGPs by combining effective measures to reducecapacity (scrapping of vessels) with entry-exitregimes which ensure that no new capacity is builtunless the equivalent or greater capacity is removedfrom the fleet. For instance, Denmark has set upthe obligation to withdraw 130% of capacity as acondition for aids to new construction.

Some Member States have also tailored measures to adapt the fishing effort of their fleets to theresources made available to them (quotas). TheDutch system of effort and quota allocation to indi-vidual vessels of the cutter fleet is a good exampleof this fine tuning of effort and resources.

Within the context of the CFP reform, theCommission will present to the Council new propos-als on capacity and fishing effort. On capacity, themeasures will have a structural, permanent orsemi-permanent character, whereas measures on

Fisheries

64

fishing effort will target specific fisheries, with ahigh priority to fleets operating on stocks subject torecovery plans.

The Norwegian government supports programmesto reduce the fleet capacity and effort to levels thatwill ensure a long-term balance with the availableresources. This has been done by supporting decom-missioning programmes and by preventing theincrease in number of vessels taking part in thefisheries. There is also a programme that allowsvessel-owners to add one quota to another, and thento decommission the vessel to which the one quotawas attached. This scheme receives financial sup-port from the government.

For mackerel and shrimps, only vessels that canpresent a history in fishing activity are allowed toparticipate in these fisheries. This principle isgradually being extended to other fisheries, in order to limit participation.

4.4.9 Actions to ensure that fisheries do not hamper the rebuilding ormaintenance of stocks

(SoC 6.10 and 7)The EU TAC policy has been tailored to ensure thatit does not have negative effects on cod recovery.Similarly, TACs for all other stocks have beenconsistently adopted taking into account, wherepossible, technical interactions between differentfisheries.

Fishing areas may be closed at a national level.There are, however, no legal instruments atCommunity level for the temporary closure at shortnotice of areas with high concentrations of juvenilefish (real time closure) and there is no obligation onfishermen to change their fishing grounds whenthey haul in an excessive catch of juveniles. In theNorwegian fisheries the fishing vessels are obligedto change fishing grounds when the catches ofundersized fish, or by-catch of certain species, aretoo high.

In accordance with the agreement between the EUand Norway on recovery measures for cod in theNorth Sea, Norway has increased the minimummesh size of towed nets used to fish demersalspecies from 100 mm to 120 mm in the Norwegian

Economic Zone. The use of a sorting grid system hasbeen made compulsory for Norwegian vessels fish-ing for shrimps with towed demersal nets. Technicalmeasures have also been implemented for toweddemersal nets in the Nephrops fisheries.Furthermore, Norway has enacted legislationprohibiting the fishing of Norway pout, blue whiting and sandeel for industrial purposes withina restricted area in the Norwegian Economic Zone.

Deep-water fishes have received increased attentionfrom national and international managementauthorities, conventions and non-governmentalorganizations. Increasing fishing effort on suchspecies – many of which are generally considered tobe long-lived, slow growing, with low reproductivepotential for replacement – is a potentially seriousthreat to deep-water fish stocks and their associatedecosystem. Moreover, for most stocks the effect ofincreased levels of fishing is difficult to determinebecause of a lack of scientific data.

In response to these concerns, information has beenprovided by ICES since 1994 on what is knownabout deep-water fish species and their stocks andfisheries within the ICES area (including ICESFishing Areas IVa, Vb and VI, parts of which liewithin the North Sea area).

The urgent need to implement the precautionaryapproach to manage deep-water fish stocks isexacerbated by the low survival rate of discardedspecies and escapees. Thus, increasing fishing effortwill affect deep-water fish assemblages in generaland not just species of commercial importance. Tocope with this situation, the European Commissionhas presented two proposals for Council regulationssetting out, respectively, catch quotas and an effortlimitation scheme.

Landing of sea trout (Salmo trutta) and salmon(Salmo salar) caught by towed gear outside the 6 nm limit has been banned in Communitylegislation. Although by-catch may be inevitable,this measure is believed to discourage direct fishingat sea for salmon and sea trout and in this mannerto contribute to the recovery of the Rhine stocks.

Progress Report

65

4.5 Protection of Juvenile Fish,Crustaceans and Molluscs

(SoC 8)

4.5.1 Minimize or ban discards

(SoC 8.1)Information from discard monitoring programmes isnow beginning to emerge in the stock assessmentdocuments.

Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 entered intoforce 1 January 2000 and has been specificallytailored and subsequently adapted to reduce theneed to discard fish. For example, the requirementsabout the composition of the catch for a given gearhave been set in accordance with the expectedresults of legitimate fishing with the appropriatemesh. Beam trawls have been more selective sincethen. Moreover the basic text of the CFP foreseesthe use of incentives, including those of an economicnature, to encourage selective fishing practices.Reduction of discards has been considered as apriority issue in the Green Paper on the reform ofthe CFP.

To prevent high-grading Denmark has introduced adiscard ban on some target species which whencaught are above the minimum landing sizes.Additional examples are the German Bight realtime closure, in spring 1998, to protect juvenile codand the voluntary tie-up scheme initiated by theUK fishermen to protect juvenile haddock fromoverfishing in spring 2001.

Norway has prohibited the discarding of the mosteconomically important species to ensure that thefishing mortality rate will not exceed the agreedquota limits. The discard ban is combined withother measures such as temporary closure of sensi-tive areas, obligations to change fishing groundswhen the intermixture of undersized fish exceedscertain levels, and the requirement of improvedgear selectivity.

4.5.2 Avoidance of by-catch of juvenilefish, crustaceans and molluscs

(SoC 8.2, 8.3, 8.4 and 8.5)The objective of minimum mesh sizes is to allow theescape of small fish and to optimize the total catchin relation to the rate of fishing. Norway and theEU are cooperating on the establishment of mini-mum mesh sizes for new species and adjustments of the existing minimum mesh sizes.

Apart from the setting of appropriate mesh sizes,Regulation (EC) No 850/98 and associated secondarylegislation stipulates measures to increase theselectivity of the gear. Examples of these are themandatory use of square mesh panels in towedgear, detailed specifications on twine diameter,restrictions of number of meshes around the codend,and the mandatory use of sorting grids in shrimptrawls. The cod recovery plan now being devised(see section 4.4.5) includes specific provisions onimproved gear selectivity.

Regulation (EC) No 850/98 also sets out minimumlanding sizes for fish, crustaceans and molluscs inaccordance with the selectivity of the gears appro-priate for their capture.

A study on species selectivity of the shrimp trawlshowed that the total proportion of fish in the catchwas reduced by 85% when the Nordmøre grid wasused. No significant loss of shrimp could be seen.Use of the Nordmøre grid is now legislated for inthe Swedish coastal shrimp trawling industry.

Norway has developed several sorting grid systemsand other devices for towed gears and seines with aview to reducing undesired by-catch. Sorting gridsystems have become compulsory when fishing forshrimps both within the Norwegian and SwedishEconomic Zones. Research in this field is continued.

Closed areas with regard to certain fishing activi-ties are generally set out with a view to protectingconcentrations of juvenile individuals. Regulation(EC) No 850/98 specifies a number of closures or‘boxes’, where certain types of fishing have beenrestricted for a number of years. The most impor-tant boxes are found:• off the west coast of Denmark and to the east of

the UK, to protect juvenile herring;

Fisheries

66

• in the area known as the ‘Norway pout box’, toprotect juveniles of several roundfish species; and

• in the vicinity of the German Bight, the ‘plaicebox’, to protect juvenile plaice and sole. Theplaice box was not totally closed to small fishingvessels.

The setting of boxes does not always have theexpected results. For example, the plaice box wasestablished to reduce the discarding of plaice in thenursery grounds and therefore to protect thespecies. However, after ten years of scientificresearch it was concluded that this goal has notbeen reached. One of the factors that could nega-tively influence the predicted positive effect of thebox is natural change in the North Sea ecosystemwhich negatively influences plaice growth or sur-vival.

Norway introduced a surveillance system for theBarents Sea as early as 1985. This is a system com-prising the closing and opening of sensitive areaswith a high incidence of juvenile fish and by-catcheswhich is directly adapted to the actual biologicalconditions of the fishing grounds. The system isbased on extensive monitoring of sensitive areas,and follows objective criteria for determining whenareas should be closed. Norway and the EU arecurrently discussing the possibility of establishing asimilar surveillance system for the North Sea.

4.5.3 Minimize high-grading

(SoC 8.6)Improved technical selectivity of fishing gear in thepelagic fisheries, as is intended by the legislativeframework of the EU, is expected to result in lesshigh-grading of the catch. This legislation includesa prohibition on the use of automatic gradingequipment, except under certain specific conditions,in order to prevent large-scale high-grading incertain pelagic fisheries.

In Norway there is close cooperation between theCoastguard and the Directorate of Fisheries to min-imize high-grading. To reduce high-grading and dis-card of fish the best solution is to have inspectorson board the fishing vessels during the fishing oper-ation. In some fisheries, particularly in the macker-el fisheries, Norwegian vessels do have inspectorson board. In addition, the Coastguard randomly

checks fishing vessels at sea, examining both thecatches and the catch documentation schemes.

Until 2000, Norway had a special regulationapplicable to mackerel above 600 grammes (the G-6-regulation). Only a maximum share of thevessel’s landings, relative to the entire vessel quota,can be landed as G-6 mackerel. If the share isreached or exceeded by a vessel, the whole vesselquota is defined as exhausted despite a possibleremaining quantity. In 2001, the sales organizationstested a new price system for mackerel that willserve the same purpose. This was successful andthe system will be continued in 2002. This arrange-ment is replacing the G-6 system.

4.6 Protection of Species andHabitats

(SoC 9)The protection of non-target species and habitats isaddressed in detail in chapter 3.

4.6.1 Development of selective fishinggear and restriction on fishing in areasthat require protection

(SoC 9.2)The Commission has requested ICES to increase itsefforts to provide information and advice on otherfish stocks, on cetaceans and on marine organismsother than those targeted by the commercial fish-eries. Further information is given in chapter 3. InDecember 1999, the Commission proposed, and theCouncil adopted, a prohibition to fishing for sandeelin an area to the east of the UK (Council Regulation(EC) No 2742/1999), based on ICES advice indicat-ing that this was required to guarantee the avail-ability of sandeel as prey for other forms of marinelife (see section 3.2.5).

Sweden has developed a long-term action plandesigned to protect 23 wild salmon populations onthe Swedish west coast. It has the overall objectiveof achieving at least 75% of the possible smolt

Progress Report

67

production by 2010 and that all original wildsalmon populations should be kept and that theirreproduction areas should be rehabilitated.

In recent years it has been revealed that Norwegiandeep-water coral reefs have been damaged to aconsiderable extent. This damage is most likely dueto the accumulated result of fishing with bottomtrawls over several decades. Based on scientificadvice legislation was passed in 1999 under theSeawater Fisheries Act that made it illegal todestroy coral reefs intentionally. The legislation alsocontains a provision to establish areas protectedfrom fishing activities. To date, two areas of about1000 km2 (Sula Ridge) and 600 km2 (Iver Ridge)have been established as areas protected frombottom trawling. Both areas lie north of the North Sea.

4.6.2 Avoidance of ghost fishing

(SoC 9.4)No measures to avoid ghost fishing exist yet atCommunity level. Scientists in the EU and Norwayare involved in a three-year EU-funded study(FANTARED 2) which began in 1999 and aims toestablish the extent of loss of fishing nets, to discussactions to reduce such losses and to reduce theeffects of lost nets. Existing progress indicates thatthe problem of lost nets is greater for deeper waters(i.e. waters deeper than 300 to 400 m) where algalgrowth (fouling) on the nets is very limited.

In Norway, work has started in cooperation with thefishing industry, to identify measures that can betaken to prevent the loss of fishing gear. This workincludes an assessment of the present rules andregulations related to net fisheries. The work isplanned to end in 2002. For several years, Norwayhas also had a governmental funded programme toremove lost gear.

The ‘Fishing for Litter’ project of the North SeaDirectorate of the Dutch Ministry of Transport,Public Works and Water Management, in coopera-tion with the fisheries association, lands North Sealitter which is gathered in the nets during fishing.This litter consists, inter alia, of lost fishing gearand therefore the project contributes to the avoid-ance of ghost fishing.

4.6.3 Environmental assessments ofnew fishing practices

(ED 6.3; SoC 9.5)No new fishing activities as such have beendeveloped, except for certain practices such as themultiple cod rigging in shrimp trawls. The possibleimpact on the environment of these developments,like increased fuel consumption with correspondingincrease in exhaust emissions, has not yet beenstudied. There is a need to design appropriatemethodology to conduct such assessments. However,as mentioned in sections 3.2 and 4.5, improvedtechnology may reduce the by-catch of target as wellas non-target species. An objective official procedurefor assessing the environmental impact of fisheriesin general is not available.

4.7 Protection from Activities other than Fisheries

(SoC 10)Human activities on land or at sea are of impor-tance to fisheries particularly in relation to spawn-ing grounds and nursery areas for fisheriesresources. These activities, their effects and themeasures taken since IMM 97, are addressed inother chapters of the Progress Report and have notbeen specifically related to effects on spawninggrounds and nursery areas. The general measurestaken, e.g. to reduce inputs to the marine environ-ment, will, however, also be of benefit to theseareas.

In Denmark, a committee examines the effects onfisheries of activities other than fisheries and effectson the environment by fisheries.

Fisheries

68

4.8 Control and Enforcement

(SoC 11)Most measures in the North Sea, and morespecifically TACs and technical measures applicableto joint stocks, are taken after consultation betweenNorway and the European Community, so as toensure that they have equivalent conservationeffects when applied in one or another fishery zone.This includes the procedures for the registrationand accounting of catches. During 1998, the controlsystem applicable to the CFP was thoroughlyreviewed within the Community.

In 1998 the Council adopted a regulation, CouncilRegulation (EC) No 2846/98 of 17 December 1998,amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93establishing a control system applicable to the CFP.

These initiatives entered into force in 1999 andprovide for:• enhanced cooperation between all authorities

involved in fisheries control, inspection andsurveillance throughout all stages (from the catch to the consumer);

• enhanced transparency, notably with regard tothe follow-up of major infringements;

• more autonomy for the Commission’s fisheriesinspectors; and

• enhanced monitoring of third-country vessellandings in the Community.

Early in 1999 the Commission submitted to theCouncil a proposal for a regulation ‘establishing a list of types of behaviour which seriouslyinfringe the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy’ (COM(99) 70).

Norway has established bilateral agreements withmost North Sea countries in the field of cooperationon monitoring, control and surveillance. Cooperationtakes place in various forms, such as meetings,seminars and daily contact at an operational level.

Several exchanges of fisheries inspectors betweenEU Member States, Norway and third parties sur-rounding the North Sea, have taken place in which

fisheries inspectors from the Commission also tookpart. These exchanges familiarized inspectors withinspection procedures and practices applied byother parties and have improved communicationbetween authorities by the establishment of person-al contacts.

The EU and Norway are also committed bilaterallyto improve control in the mackerel fisheries. Aworking group has been established in order toreview landing procedures and notably the weighingof landed fish. The first report from the group waspresented in 1999. It is expected that this processwill continue in 2002.

Norwegian fisheries authorities have in recentyears been given more powers and a wider range ofsanctions to enforce fisheries regulations, as well asstrengthened control of vessels at sea. Sanctionsinclude the possibility of temporary or permanentloss of fishing licences for Norwegian vessels.

Experts from the EU, Norway and the FaroeIslands meet bilaterally and trilaterally, as well aswithin the framework of the North-East AtlanticFisheries Commission (NEAFC), to discuss matterspertaining to control and enforcement of conserva-tion measures. The exchange of information onlandings by flag vessels has improved considerably.The parties contributed to the establishment of anelectronic data exchange system within the NEAFC,which will be implemented in the near future andmay be used for bilateral data exchanges.

4.8.1 Develop and apply more effectiveand consistent control methods

(SoC 11.2)Control in the EU is undertaken within the frame-work of Council Regulation 2847/93. CouncilDecision 95/527/EC allows EC member states toreceive a community financial contribution forimproving control and enforcement. Moreover, theCommunity has initiated a process of harmoniza-tion of the system of sanctions (Regulation (EC) No1447/1999 establishing the types of behaviour whichseriously infringe the rules of the CFP), which willcontribute to enhance the fairness and effectivenessof enforcing schemes. A similar process is takingplace in Norway.

Progress Report

69

4.8.2 Develop further cooperation and transparency in control andenforcement

(SoC 11.3)Progress in developing cooperation and trans-parency in control and enforcement and in theexchange of practical knowledge is moving in aclear positive direction. Member states and Norwaycooperate on a routine basis. The Commissionregularly organizes coordination meetings withexperts from the member states and from Norway.Moreover, the Community and Norway asContracting Parties to the NEAFC, contribute tothe efforts of this organization to implement abetter control of fishing activities, including theimplementation of the FAO International Plan ofAction to prevent, deter and eliminate Illegal,Unreported and Unregulated Fishing.

To achieve increased and more effective control in the North Sea area in the future, cooperationbetween control bodies at sea and on-shore indifferent countries should be improved, especiallywhen it comes to the exchange of correct informa-tion on landings by flag.

4.8.3 Satellite monitoring

(SoC 11.4)In 1996 a satellite monitoring system was testedwithin the framework of the North AtlanticFisheries Organization (NAFO). Based on thisexperience the European Community introducedsatellite tracking as an operational tool formonitoring, control and surveillance in 1998. Since 1 January 2000 all Community fishing vessels exceeding 20 metres between perpendicularsor 24 metres overall length are subject to VesselMonitoring Systems (VMSs), as well as thirdcountry vessels of the same size operating inCommunity waters.

In Norway there has been a similar process andVMS has been applied progressively in bilateralfisheries agreements (e.g. NEAFC and NAFO).Norway and the EU have been in the forefront ofthis development.

The VMS agreement between the EU and Norwaywas concluded 28 January 2001 with a view to

implementing an operational VMS scheme. Thebasic provisions of the agreement are that vesselsfrom both Parties are tracked by their flag stateFisheries Monitoring Centre and that when a vesseloperates in the waters of the other Party the posi-tion reports are retransmitted to the FisheriesMonitoring Centre of the relevant coastal state.Furthermore, specific entry and exit messages aresent when a vessel enters and leaves the waters ofthe other Party. The scheme became fully opera-tional on 1 July 2000. Vessels transmit every hourin the Norwegian zone and every two hours in theEU zone.

4.8.4 Exchange of data

(SoC 11.5)Within the framework of Council Regulation2847/93, member states endeavour to develop data-bases on monitoring, control and surveillance offishing activities. In addition, the Commission isputting in place a Fisheries Inspection InformationSystem (FISIS). Norway has established severaldatabases for control purposes, based on activityreports and catch reports from both Norwegian andforeign vessels to Norwegian fisheries authorities.

Exchange of catch statistics for control purposestakes place regularly between Community andNorwegian control authorities, in accordance withthe bilateral fisheries agreement. Norway has alsosigned control agreements with Denmark, France,Ireland, Iceland, the Netherlands, Great Britain,Sweden and Germany and exchanges data withthese countries on a regular basis.

According to ICES, present landings statistics maynot reflect the true scale of the recent fishingactivity in waters outside the national ExclusiveEconomic Zones (EEZs), and thus North Sea Statesshould collect area-specific catch, landings, effortand biological data from exploratory and commercialfishing activities in international waters and reportthese data to ICES.

Fisheries

70

4.9 Science, Technology and Economic Impacts

(SoC 12–15)

4.9.1 Facilitate and conduct research

Much research on the North Sea ecosystem isundertaken jointly involving many laboratoriesaround the North Sea both in Norway and the EU,this research is often coordinated through ICES.

In June 2000 the Commission launched a call forproposals for studies and pilot projects in support of the CFP. Within the Fifth Research FrameworkProgramme, the Commission has promoted researchon the impact of fisheries on the marine ecosystems,with a special emphasis on the food webs, on thephysical impact of fishing gear on the seabed, onthe demographic structures of exploited fish stocksand by-catches, and on genetic diversity.

Germany initiated a study focusing on the specificareas identified in Articles 12 to 15 of the SoC. The study (German Federal Environmental Agency2000) supplies an overview of research conducted inthese areas, identifies promising developments andsuggests areas on which future efforts should befocused.

Work is also ongoing in Norway to improve theknowledge of fish stocks and their interaction withthe other components of the marine environment. In addition, the Norwegian government is fundingnumerous research projects on the development ofselective gear technology.

According to ICES the relation between the spawningstock, e.g. size and composition, and recruitment iscomplex, and gaining deeper insight into this rela-tionship is one of the greatest challenges for presentfisheries biology.

Ministers at the 4NSC and the IMM 97 noted theneed for the establishment of reference areas allow-ing comparison between undisturbed areas andareas affected by fishing, in particular areas fished

by bottom (beam and otter board) trawls. TheIMPACT II Study on the effects of bottom trawlingon macrobenthos and associated fish also recom-mended the establishment of such areas. However,no such areas undisturbed by fisheries have beenestablished.

4.9.2 Effects of fisheries on the ecosys-tem, especially beam trawling andindustrial fisheries

(SoC 15.1)The effects of fisheries on the ecosystem areaddressed in section 3.2.3.

4.9.3 Research needed for the develop-ment of an ecosystem approach

(SoC 15.2)The research and studies encouraged by EuropeanCommunity funding are intended to lead to a betterunderstanding of the functioning of marine ecosys-tems and, thus, towards the operative implementa-tion of an ecosystem-based approach.

Fishery and environment scientists have metseveral times in recent years in order to establishthe state of play and future developments of fish-eries and environmental sciences in order toprogress on the implementation of fisheries andenvironmental sciences and on the implementationof the ecosystem approach.

Work is ongoing in Norway to improve knowledge offish stocks and interactions with other componentsof the marine environment; furthermore, environ-mental data are increasingly taken into account inmodelling work.

4.9.4 Incentives to encourage more support for protection and sustainableuse of resources

(SoC 15.3 and 15.4)In 1999, the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No2792/1999 on the financial instrument for fisheriesguidance. This regulation gives indications on howstructural funds can be invested in practices addingvalue to environmental integration, such as: • capital investment in fixed or movable facilities

aimed at the protection and development ofaquatic resources, except restocking (Article 13);

Progress Report

71

• promotion of products obtained usingenvironmentally friendly methods (Article 14);

• short-term operations of collective interestserving to attain the objectives of the CFP(Article 15); and

• studies, pilot projects, demonstration projects,training measures, experimental fishing, etc.(Article 17).

Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 on the common organ-ization of the markets in fishery and aquacultureproducts, contributes to encouraging producers,processors, retailers and consumers to become part-ners in the development of responsible fisheries.The new mechanisms of this common organizationof the markets aim to programme fishing activitiesin order to prevent squandering and to discourageinterventions (e.g. operational programmes, plan-ning of captures and marketing strategies) and aredesigned to promote coordination among actors andgood information to consumers.

4.9.5 Socio-economic effects

(SoC 15.5)Within the Fifth Framework Programme, theCommission has funded Concerted Action 97/3900aimed at giving an insight into the definition andallocation of user rights in European fisheries.Tradable user rights, such as IndividualTransferable Quotas (ITQs), may under certaincircumstances be an alternative to traditionalmanagement tools. In these, the managementauthority allocates fishing rights to the fishermen,who can then trade these among themselves. TheConcerted Action is exploring whether marketforces may be more efficient in allocating fishingrights, the efficiency being measured as the extentto which production may be obtained at lower cost.Obstacles to the ‘market’ approach are of a verydiverse nature and may be insurmountable in somefisheries, but for others they may be overridden bythe expected advantages. The Scientific, Technicaland Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF)will continue to give an insight into these problems.Since 1999, STECF has produced an assessment ofthe economic status of fisheries.

A second Concerted Action 97/3541 was founded togive an overview of Economic Performance ofSelected European Fishing Fleets. The report shows

that nearly two-thirds of the fleet segmentsachieved satisfactory to good economic performancefor the period 1997 to 1999. But there is a lack ofsegments from the coastal fisheries because of thebetter database from the open seas fleet segments.This should be changed because of the importanceof the coastal fisheries in itself and additionally forthe tourist sector etc. Coastal fisheries also oftenuse ecologically sound fishing techniques. The workwill now continue in a new Concerted Action from2002 to 2004.

A project with the goal to develop general bio-economic models for Swedish coastal fisheries wascarried out during 1997 to 2000. The bio-economicmodel for the Swedish west coast fishery forNorway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) shows that amaximum economic yield equilibrium requires effortreductions of more than 50%, leading to a potentialresource rent of almost US$ 3 million, compared tothe open-access situation in 1995. Further increaseof the resource rent is possible if a more selectivetrawl is introduced and enforced.

The Dutch pilot project ‘ECOTOETS’ aims to devel-op an assessment tool with underlying socio-economic/ecological indicators for beam trawl fish-eries, so that the integrated effects of measures forbeam trawl fisheries can be calculated and visualized.

4.9.6 Ecological and economic effects ofa discard ban and monitoring of discardlevel

(SoC 15.6 and 15.7)The Commission has encouraged and supporteddiscard studies for several years and many moredata are becoming available to the assessment workcarried out by ICES. In June 2000 the Counciladopted Regulation (EC) No 1543/2000 establishinga framework for the collection and management ofthe data needed to conduct CFP and other associat-ed legislation. This framework foresees that mem-ber states should draw up scientific sampling pro-grammes to collect information relevant to fishstock assessment and fisheries economics. Theseinclude the collection of data on discards and willconstitute a continuation of the ongoing discardstudies. However, there has been no investigation ofthe ecological and economic effects of or thepracticability of applying a discard ban.

Fisheries

72

4.10 Information and Involvement

(SoC 16-18)

4.10.1 Improve the provision of informa-tion for fishing communities

(SoC 16 and 17)From the end of 1999 to early 2001, the EuropeanCommission participated in a number of eventsorganized by non-governmental organizations andsupported by Community funding. These eventscovered various aspects of the integration of envi-ronmental concerns into the CFP, including inte-gration strategies and the implementation of theConvention on Access to Information, PublicParticipation in Decision Making and Access toJustice in Environmental Matters (the ÅrhusConvention). These events constitute an extensiveforum for the dissemination of information, thediscussion of problems and the generation of newmanagement ideas.

Furthermore, the European Commission also hasclose contact with specialized media and journalistsand has released a number of press notes to explainthe European Community position on various issuesof interest, including North Sea matters. TheEuropean Commission has a web site containing asection on ‘hot topics’, such as the recent emergencymeasures for North Sea cod. The web site is also apublic forum for questions and answers. TheEuropean Commission also publishes a freemagazine called ‘Fishing in Europe’, produced ineleven European Community languages and whichlooks at the various elements related to thefisheries sector.

The Norwegian fishery administration has inmeetings with national, regional and local organiza-tions improved the provision of information aboutthe effects of fisheries on the ecosystems and on fishstock conservation. For the last few years, ‘theInternet’ has also been an important means ofcommunicating such information.

The fishing industry appreciates the effort made toimprove the provisions of information for and theinvolvement of fishermen, however, there is roomfor improvement, as the information to fishermenshould be given in a more accessible language.

4.10.2 Involvement of fishermen andother parties in the decision-makingprocess

(SoC 18)The EC Advisory Committee on Fisheries andAquaculture (ACFA) was renewed and strengthenedin July 1999. The new committee comprises repre-sentatives of the following interests: professionalorganizations representing the producer companies,the processing industry and traders in fishery andaquaculture products and non-governmentalorganizations representing the interests ofconsumers, the environment and development.

The ACFA may be consulted by the EuropeanCommission or take up, at the initiative of its chair-man or at the request of its members, questions con-cerning the rules of the CFP as well as economic andsocial questions in the fisheries sector. To prepare itsopinion, ACFA convenes working groups where sci-entists, chosen by the STECF, are also present. Theexisting working groups cover access to resourcesand management of fishing activity, aquaculture,markets and trade, and general questions.

In addition, the European Commission convenesregularly ‘regional fisheries workshops’, wherenational administrations, the fisheries sector,scientists, the Commission services and otherstakeholders are represented in order to discussissues of regional or sectoral interest. These meet-ings constitute an open forum of debate and haveproven very useful in devising management meas-ures on the basis of the opinion of interested par-ties. Since the latter half of 1999, six regionalmeetings were convened; two dealing specificallywith North Sea fisheries.

The Norwegian management system has developedduring close cooperation between the authoritiesand the industry, and the regulatory instrumentsand decision-taking procedures are designed toreflect the need for rapid adoption and implementa-tion, as well as to enhance the awareness andsupport of the fishermen.

Progress Report

73

Over the last few years Norway has conducted regu-lar meetings between the fishing industry and sci-entists in order to arrive at a common understand-ing, particularly in terms of stock assessments, ofthe precautionary approach and its implementationin management advice.

In Norway every region has a local advisory com-mittee, working on regional matters. Fisheriesauthorities and politicians are represented at meet-ings held by the Norwegian Fishermen’s Associationboth at a regional and a national level, and theindustry is represented in working groups and ininternational delegations to meetings with the EU.This two-way communication and high level of con-tact between the fishing industry and the authori-ties, is necessary to achieve the best possible man-agement regime.

Both the Norwegian Fishermen’s Association andthe Federation of Norwegian Fishing Industries aremembers of the Regulatory Board, where proposalsfor next year’s regulations are discussed.

Other initiatives strengthening the mutual under-standing of stakeholders include an inter-regionalmeeting held in Sweden in September 2000 entitled‘Dialogue between professionals and scientists inthe fisheries sector’ and the undertaking of a studyentitled ‘Misunderstandings between scientists andprofessionals in the fisheries sector. Their charac-teristics and ways of solving them’.

ICES has continued and strengthened the exchangeof views on stock status and advice between science,management and the fishing industry, e.g. throughthe ICES Dialogue meetings. ICES has also takeninitiatives to use other channels to improve the dia-logue, particularly with the fishing industry.

The fishing industry finds that ICES assessmentsare not transparent and often the industry is sur-prised that the assessments do not reflect changesin fishing practice and fishing strategy. This meansthat the fishermen sometimes are unable to relatethe assessment results to their fishing experience.The industry considers that improvements could beachieved by the introduction of a certificationscheme for the assessment process, improved com-munication and most importantly by including datacollected by the fishermen into the stock assess-ments.

4.11 Reporting Related to the 1995 Esbjerg Declaration – Joint

Actions Norway–EU

(ED Annex 1, section 3)

Convene joint scientific working groups todevelop common views in respect of manage-ment on common stocks (Annex 1, 3.1)Joint scientific working groups have mainly workedwithin the ICES framework. Two specific joint sci-entific groups have been convened in the bi-lateralframework to advise on the appropriate emergencymeasures to halt the decline of the cod stock, and toexamine, within the context of a long-term recoveryplan, how the exploitation pattern could beimproved.

Work jointly towards a responsible and sustainable utilization of North Sea fish stocks (Annex 1, 3.2)The EU and Norway meet regularly to work jointlytowards responsible utilization of North Sea stocks.Consultations are held to design managementstrategies, to allocate reciprocal fishing rights in therespective fishery zones, to establish licensingregimes and to discuss issues of mutual interestwithin the context of responsible fishing.

Set up a working group to evaluate theeffectiveness of management measurespresently in use for demersal stocks in theCommunity and Norwegian parts of the North Sea (Annex 1, 3.3)No specific group has been established to evaluatethe effectiveness of management measures in gener-al. However, this issue is the subject of discussionsduring regular consultations.

In addition, the measures implemented to improvethe exploitation pattern of demersal species accord-ing to the agreement between Norway and the EUof 21 June 2001, will be reviewed on the basis ofexperience gained during 2002, new scientific infor-mation and advice and other relevant data.

Fisheries

74

Assess the probable effectiveness of any newmeasures that may contribute to the recoveryof key stocks (Annex 1, 3.4)The North Sea cod TAC was significantly reducedbetween 2000 and 2001 with additional emergencymeasures agreed in February and June 2001 andthese measures together with the reduced TACaffected the fisheries in 2001. The long-term recov-ery plan for North Sea cod was agreed late in 2001and will affect the fisheries beginning in 2002.Recovery of fairly long-lived fish stocks such asNorth Sea cod – it takes about three years before aNorth Sea cod is mature – means that several yearsare required before the stock will recover even withthe very severe measures taken. The area closuresthat were part of the emergency measures appar-ently did not achieve effort reduction, but only effortreallocation. Experience with other stocks suggeststhat rebuilding can be rather quick (~5 years) whileother stocks have taken about 25 years before theyrecovered.

Set up a working group on catch reportingand catch statistics which will work onreducing discrepancies between reportedcatches and ICES catch statistics, by assessingmisreporting, inadequate accounting ofdiscards, by-catches and other factorscontributing to the total out-take of the stocks (Annex 1, 3.5)The EU and Norway have noted that there is arecurring problem in relation to discrepanciesbetween the official catches or landings reportedand catch statistics utilized by ICES. In thiscontext, the parties have agreed to set up a workinggroup. This working group has not yet been con-vened. However, the issue is regularly discussedduring the annual consultations and in othercontext of fishery statistics (Eurostat, OECD).

Jointly evaluate the management regimes forNorth Sea herring in order to improve themanagement regimes of the direct herringfisheries as well as fisheries in which herringconstitutes a significant by-catch (Annex 1, 3.6)Norway and the EU agreed to implement a newmanagement regime for North Sea herring in 1996.This regime includes, inter alia, a medium-termmanagement strategy in which annual quotas shallbe set for the directed fishery and for the by-catchesin other fisheries, as defined by ICES and by-catch

limits for herring in fisheries for purposes otherthan human consumption. According to ICESreports, the exploitation pattern of North Sea her-ring has considerably improved.

Norway and the EU shall before the end of 2001review the existing arrangement concerning man-agement of herring of North Sea origin.

Increase exchange of catch statistics whichmay contribute to promotion of effectivecontrol of relevant fisheries (Annex 1, 3.7)As part of the bilateral control agreements betweenNorway and other countries around the North Seabasin, the exchange of catch statistics has increasedover recent years. However, exchange of catch sta-tistics could be further increased. At present,exchange of fishery statistics takes place monthly.To ensure a timely monitoring of the utilization offish quotas, the control regimes established duringthe consultations foresee a mechanism of reportingof catches which includes radio communication fromvessels to the control authorities of coastal states.

Consult on fishery regulations in the NorthSea, with a view to achieving, as far aspossible, the harmonization of regulatorymeasures in the fishery zones of the twoparties (Annex 1, 3.8)EU–Norway consultations also aim at the harmo-nization of regulatory measures in the fishery zonesof the two parties. Technical and control measureshave reached a higher degree of harmonization butmajor discrepancies still exist.

Additional effort has been made within the contextof the recovery of the demersal stocks in the NorthSea. The European Union and Norway have agreedon new measures to improve the exploitation pat-tern in the North Sea. These measures include anincrease in the mesh sizes used in demersal fish-eries and the use of selective devices in fishinggears to prevent the capture of young fish. From 1January 2002, the minimum mesh size of towednets used to fish demersal species will increase from100 mm to 120 mm.

Progress Report

75

Promote the development and introduction offishing gear and fisheries practices which willimprove selectivity and reduce unwantedand/or harmful by-catches of fish, marinemammals as well as birds (Annex 1, 3.9)Co-operation between Norway and the EU onresearch and studies is good. Community funding ofresearch projects can be extended to Norway andjoint research projects are now common practice.Research priorities include the promotion of fishingtechniques less damaging to the environment.

The results of these studies have led to the imple-mentation of several measures, some of them com-mon to Norway and the EU, aiming at the reductionof unwanted by-catch of fish and marine mammals.


4.12.1 Guiding principles, managementobjectives and strategies

The Community and Norway have made importantadvances in adopting guidelines, especially duringthe last year, in the form of principles, objectivesand strategies (see section 4.2). For those guide-lines, which have not yet been specifically set in apolitical or legislative act, there is a good opportuni-ty to ensure that they are taken up in the reform ofthe CFP. A good understanding of the operationalimplications of the guidelines is missing, however.Thus their implementation can be only partial andis likely to be inefficient. There is clearly a need toundertake research on this matter and to examinethe outcome so that the appropriate measures canbe adopted and enforced.

4.12.2 Status of North Sea fish stocks

The majority of the commercially important stocksin the North Sea are outside ‘safe biological limits’.As most achievements in fisheries managementhave been completed very recently, or are still in theprocess of implementation, it is not possible at thisstage to assess and predict their effectiveness now

and in the near future. However, in view of the evo-lution of fish stocks in recent years, which, despitesome improvements, continues to show a rathernegative picture, and taking into account the man-agement measures which were in place for a rela-tively long period, spectacular results can not beexpected in the near future unless the most press-ing problem – excessive fishing pressure – is proper-ly addressed. The present state of fish stocks isdescribed in Annex 2.

4.12.3 Further integration of fisheriesand environment policies

Integration of fisheries and environmental policieshas always been present in both EU and Norwegianfisheries management. However, this requirementreceived particular attention in 2000 and 2001,where a number of policy guidelines and commit-ments were made (see section 4.2). What is requirednow is that these commitments become progressivelya reality.

The first step would be to remove the main obstacleto environmental integration, which continues to bethe excess fishing pressure. Technological improve-ments to remove or diminish the environmentalimpact of fishing will never be sufficient if this isnot addressed as a priority.

A second obstacle to implementing environmentalintegration is the lack or insufficiency of scientificknowledge. Research priorities should be addressedto improve the understanding of the structure andfunctioning of the North Sea ecosystem and todevelop operational procedures to implement anecosystem-based fisheries management, includingthe setting of precautionary reference points orsimilar management guidelines for non-commercialitems affected by fishing.

However, even the current scientific knowledge is asufficient basis on which to progress the develop-ment of environmental protection within fisheriesmanagement. Measures in this respect have beendescribed in the EC Biodiversity Action Plan and inthe Norwegian Environmental Action Plan for 2000to 2004.

Finally, it is important that both Norway and theEU continue to contribute to the international

Fisheries

76

efforts being undertaken within the internationalforums, within both the fields of research and man-agement, since environmental integration hasbecome a worldwide concern.

4.12.4 Rebuilding or maintenance ofspawning stock biomass and protectionof juvenile fish, crustaceans and molluscs

Both Norway and the EU have made considerableprogress on a number of topics related to therebuilding or maintenance of spawning stock bio-mass, and the protection of juvenile fish, crus-taceans and molluscs, particularly in recent times.Progress has been evident in the field of long-termmanagement plans and recovery plans, improvedselectivity, implementation of a precautionaryapproach, and improved control and enforcement,etc.

There is still an excessive fishing effort, mostlydriven by excess fishing capacity coupled with tech-nological improvements. None of the achievementsby Norway and the EU have so far contributed sub-stantially to solving this problem. There is one fieldabove all where urgent action is required in order totake full advantage of all other common achieve-ments by both management partners, this is a per-manent reduction in fishing capacity and effort.

The other important fields where further progress isneeded are:• in parallel to measures on fishing capacity, which

of necessity are of a medium- to long-termnature, there is a pressing need to adapt fishingeffort to real fishing possibilities as determinedby TACs and quotas;

• reduction in by-catch and discards; • spatial management, by a better use of areal

restrictions to fishing. This may include thesetting of nursery areas, spawning areas andnon-disturbed areas; and

• information and encouragement, includingeconomic incentives, to ensure that the necessarymanagement measures are better understood,accepted and adhered to by the fishing industry.

4.12.5 Protection of species and habitats

Section 3.5 addresses the assessment of achieve-ments for the protection of species and habitats.Some research, in relation to ghost fishing, has beencarried out on the removal of lost fishing gear butthere is need for further research. For several years,Norway has had a government-funded programmeto remove lost gear. The North Sea Directorate ofthe Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works andWater Management, in cooperation with the fish-eries association, lands North Sea litter which isgathered in the nets during fishing.

4.12.6 Control and enforcement andfurther collaboration

Progress is still to be achieved on this issue and, asis the case for the protection of spawners and juve-nile fish, inevitably the limiting factor for compli-ance is the excess fishing capacity of the fleet.Enforcement is difficult or, at least, cost-ineffectiveunder such conditions. The individual countries arerequired to increase their efforts to ensure bettercompliance, improved monitoring systems and aharmonization of sanctions.

Collaboration between the Community and Norwayis excellent and is also expected to continue todevelop. Progress has been particularly rapid withinthe context of the recent cod crisis. Fields forimprovement could include the formalization ofsome cooperative relationships into institutionalworking groups, and the harmonization of regulatoryframeworks, particularly concerning discards.

4.12.7 Science, technology and economicimpacts

The European Community has made a considerableeffort to promote progress in the fields of science,technology and economic impacts. The response bythe scientific community has, however, been limited.Although good projects were presented to the Callfor Proposals, these did not cover all the fieldsrequired. The new regulatory framework for the col-lection of basic data (Regulation No 1543/2000 andassociated legislation), as well as the coordinationwork undertaken by ICES, is likely to give a newimpetus to progress in these fields. The reform of

Progress Report

77

the Sixth Framework Programme of Research willalso make an important contribution to the sameobjective, particularly in terms of its Action 8 whichis designed specifically to help implement EuropeanCommunity policies. There is a need for further progress in the applica-tion of the precautionary approach in fisheries man-agement, especially for non-target species, in thedevelopment of the operational aspects of an ecosys-tem-based approach, and to achieve a reduction inby-catch and discarding. There has been no study ofthe economic effects of applying a discard ban inCommunity waters or the practicality of such a ban.

No areas undisturbed by fishing have been estab-lished although research on the impacts of bottomtrawling in the southern North Sea has clarified thecriteria for creating undisturbed areas.

As most research on effects of ‘activities other thanfisheries’ (e.g. windmills, power cables, offshoreactivities, climate change) tends to focus on effectson the environment, there is a strong demand fromthe fishing industry for research on the effects ofsuch activities on the fisheries.

4.12.8 Information and involvement

The European Community considers the workachieved under the existing legal framework to besatisfactory. Any improvements are likely to involvea better use of modern communication technologyand increase the participation of stakeholders in thedecision-taking process. These elements areaddressed in the Green Paper on the reform of the CFP.

The Norwegian fishing industry has a considerableinvolvement in the decision-making process forfisheries management.

Although the industry agrees that steps to enhancethe dialogue have been taken, there is still ampleroom for improving the dialogue between stake-holders, science and management.

Fisheries

78

5.1 Introduction

This chapter examines the current status of emis-sions, discharges and losses of hazardous substancesto the marine environment and sets out the progresswhich has been made in various areas for reducinginputs of hazardous substances since the 4NSC. Italso examines how the North Sea States have com-plied with the various targets and goals which wereset at previous Conferences; this includes theprogress made within international organizations inthis field (EU, OSPAR). Individual reports from theNorth Sea States are available on the North SeaConference website (until 2003) or by contacting theNorwegian Ministry of the Environment. The gapsand problems with implementation and reportingare identified.

5.1.1 General progress since the 4NSC

The Esbjerg Declaration introduced a number ofgoals and targets for hazardous substances (seeTable 5.1).

The main effort has been directed at substanceswhich are persistent, liable to bioaccumulate andtoxic (PBTs) or which have harmful propertiesgiving rise to an equivalent level of concern (e.g.endocrine disruptors and substances that candamage immune systems). In this context, chemi-cals which are both very persistent and very bioac-cumulative (VPVB) have also been addressed. Bothgroups are of particular concern, since they willaccumulate in marine food chains and because, oncedischarged, they are practically impossible toremove from the environment. Some of the so-calledPersistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) may also besubject to long-range transport. Their occurrence inremote areas such as the Arctic provides evidencefor this. Mixtures of such substances are also of

5

The Prevention of Pollution byHazardous Substances

79

concern, even at low concentrations due to theirharmful, sometimes synergistic, effects on biota.

OSPAR and the EC have developed prioritizationmechanisms for selecting those substances ofgreatest concern to the marine and aquatic environ-ments and both have priority lists containingaround 30 chemicals for which measures are beingdeveloped with the aim of meeting the one genera-tion target or the corresponding aims of the WaterFramework Directive, respectively. PBT-substances

are also addressed under various EC priority listson dangerous substances and pesticides.

The Quality Status Report 2000 for the GreaterNorth Sea (OSPAR 2000) shows evidence ofdecreasing levels of input of many of the traditionalhazardous substances, but draws attention to thefact that a large number of man-made compoundsfor which the ecological effects are largely unknownare still being discharged into, and detected in, theNorth Sea.

The Prevention of Pollution by Hazardous Substances

Table 5.1 Overview of valid goals and action points for hazardous substances agreed upon by Ministers atthe previous North Sea Conferences.

Reference Goals/action points of North Sea Conference Ministerial DeclarationsED = Esbjerg Declaration (1995), IMM = Statement of Conclusions from the Intermediate Ministerial Meeting(1993), HD = The Hague Declaration (1990)

ED 23 i), 50/70% reduction targetsAnnex 2, 4.1 (i) To continue to take action with the aim of achieving by the year 2000,

those reduction targets set by the 3NSC which have as yet not been met.

IMM 4.6 To achieve a significant reductions (of 50% or more) of PAH inputs from all sources.

HD 2 and 3 To achieve a significant reduction (of 50/70% or more) of inputs via rivers and estuaries and atmospheric emissions between 1985 and 1995 as specified for each of the substances in HD Annex 1A.

ED 17 One generation targetTo prevent pollution of the North Sea by continuously reducing discharges, emissions and losses of hazardous substances thereby moving towards the target of their cessationwithin one generation (25 years) with the ultimate aim of concentrations in the environ-ment near background values for naturally occurring substances and close to zeroconcentrations for man-made synthetic substances.

ED 23 i), PCB and DDTAnnex 2, 4.1(xii), Phasing out use and destruction of waste. Remediation of contaminated HD 9 land and sediments.

ED 23 i), Annex 2, Substitution of substances and products4.1 (viii)+(xiii) Substitution of listed substances and products and substances with

hormone-like effects.

HD 2ii) and 4i), PesticidesAnnex 1A and 1B Banning or strict limitations of listed pesticides + Giving priority (c), ED 27, Annex 2, to review under PPP-directive of pesticides detected inApp.1 marine environment.

ED 23 i) and 25, BAT/BEPAnnex 2, 4.1 (ii) Implementation in relevant discharge permits.

ED 23 i), Contaminated land and waste disposal sites Annex 2, 4.1 (xii) Prevent losses. Trace sources and map sites. Abatement/other action.

ED 23 i), Annex 2, Waste including recycling of plastics4.1 (x) + (xi) Minimize generation of hazardous waste. Recycling. Safe disposal.

ED 25 ii) Economic instruments and voluntary agreements

ED 24 iii) Integrated product policy

Qu

antitative

Rep

orting

Qu

antitative

Rep

orting

80

5.1.2 Main actions/goals agreed

At previous North Sea Conferences, Ministersagreed on a number of goals and action points withrespect to hazardous substances (Table 5.1), whichare still valid and the implementation of which arediscussed in sections 5.2 to 5.10.

At the 4NSC Ministers noted the lack of harmo-nized procedures for reporting and that comparisonsbetween the results achieved by North Sea Statestherefore are difficult. They thus agreed (ED 66 and67) to develop and implement a system for trans-parent, reliable and comparable reporting. To fulfilthese requirements, harmonized reporting proce-dures for hazardous substances were developed bythe HARP HAZ Contact group with Norway as leadcountry (see chapter 10).

5.2 The 50/70% Reduction Target

(HD 2 and 3; ED 23 i, Annex 2, 4.1 i)

North Sea States report that they have met the 50%reduction target for a large number of the 36 sub-stances listed in HD Annex 1A and for PAH (seeTable 5.3), but there are still some shortcomings. Forsome substances, there is a lack of 1985 referencedata, e.g. for dioxins and PAH. The 70% reductiontarget for mercury, lead, cadmium and dioxins hasbeen achieved by several, but not all North SeaStates. Some have been able to report to a detailedlevel for a large number of substances. Previousproblems with lack of harmonized reporting have,however, still not been resolved. For those countriesthat report in detail, the reporting system provides acomparable picture of the contribution from the vari-ous sources.

At the 3NSC, Ministers agreed:• to achieve a significant reduction (of 50% or

more) of:(i) inputs via rivers and estuaries between 1985

and 1995 for each of the 36 substances listed in HD Annex 1A;

(ii) atmospheric emissions by 1995, or by 1999 at the latest, for 17 substances out of the 36 substances listed in HD Annex 1A, provided that the application of Best Available Techniques (BAT), including the use of strict emission standards, enables such a reduction; and

• for substances that cause a major threat to themarine environment, and at least for dioxins,mercury (Hg), cadmium (Cd) and lead (Pb), toachieve reductions between 1985 and 1995 of totalinputs (via all pathways) of the order of 70% ormore, provided that the use of BAT or other lowwaste technology measures enables such reductions.

Furthermore, Ministers at IMM 93 agreed to makesignificant reductions of anthropogenic inputs of theorder of 50% or more between 1985 and 2000 fromall sources of polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) ofconcern to the marine environment, therebyincreasing the number of substances subject to the50% reduction target to 37.

Progress on the implementation of the 50/70%reduction target on inputs of hazardous substancesis presented below.

5.2.1 Data reported

The report to the 4NSC in 1995 on achievements inmeeting the 50/70% reduction target revealed majordifferences in approach and detail amongst theNorth Sea States. The reporting format developedfor the 5NSC was based on new procedures (HARP-HAZ Prototype) intended to increase har-monization, comparability and transparency in thereporting process, particularly on how data werederived. Some, but not all North Sea States, havebeen able to follow the new procedure and report tothe requested level of detail necessary to obtain fulltransparency.

Background for developing new proceduresA new set of procedures for quantification andreporting on hazardous substances (the HARP-HAZPrototype) has been developed since the 4NSC in1995. The objective of reporting on a common basiswas to increase transparency and thus compara-bility of the quantitative data on the 50/70%reduction target as this was considered in 1995 tolimit the evaluation of progress.

Progress Report

81

For the sake of transparency, and to justify com-ments made in the following assessment, the indi-vidual country reports on the 50/70% reduction tar-gets are incorporated in the document Compilationof Submitted Inputs.

The procedures give two main options for the quan-tification of inputs: the source-orientated approach(SOA) and the load-orientated approach (LOA). TheSOA is based on the quantification of dischargesand emissions from identified sources. The LOAmeasures the loads entering the marine environ-ment via rivers, estuaries and direct discharges. Inboth cases, procedures were introduced to improvethe transparency of how data were collected andresults calculated in order to enable a comparableassessment of achievements and the pinpointing ofthe remaining most significant sources of hazardoussubstances entering the North Sea.

Extent to which transparency was achievedNorth Sea States were asked to report quantitativedata for all significant emissions, discharges andlosses of the 37 hazardous substances for the years1985 and 1999/2000. The data were to be reportedby making use of a new nomenclature5 for sourcesor entry routes; a unique identification of individual

sources or entry routes intended to provide for trans-parency and comparability. The reporting systemwas computerized to enable the automatic aggrega-tion of data and the calculation of the correspondingpercentage reduction for each substance.

However, the reports provided by North Sea Statesshowed that only a few countries were able to sub-mit their data and information in accordance withthese requirements.

Most countries used the SOA for reporting on bothinputs to air and water. Only one country, the UK,reported inputs to water using the LOA for mostsubstances. Only a few countries were able to reportto the requested level of detail for a large number ofsubstances. Several countries reported to differentlevels of detail for different substances. The variouscountries also included different sources in theirreports. The differences need to be taken intoaccount and will to some extent limit the scope forcomparing results between countries. For example,it is not possible to compare the percentage reduc-tion targets achieved by countries which onlyreported on industrial sources with those whoreported on both industrial and diffuse sources.


5 Developed in the HARP-HAZ Prototype and based on Eurostat NOSE code nomenclature.

Category Approach Level of detail of the data reported(Ref. No)

Source OrientedApproach

(SOA)

Load OrientedApproach

(LOA)

Not specified

Sales statistics

Quantitative data assigned to main sources and their sub-sources (SOA, full compliance with HARP-HAZ Prototype)

Quantitative data assigned to main sources(SOA, compliance only with the main sources of the HARP-HAZ Prototype)

Total quantitative data only (amounts in kg/yr)

Quantitative data assigned to main entry routes(LOA, compliance with the main entry routes of the HARP-HAZ Prototype)

Only percentage reduction reported for the period1985–1999/2000

Sales statistics for pesticides

1

2

3

4

5

6

Table 5.2 Categorization of the approaches referred to, and level of detail contained, in reports from North Sea States on the 50/70% reduction target.

82

Furthermore, in view of the difficulties in dealingwith diffuse pollution, it is probably easier for coun-tries just reporting on industrial sources to achievethe required percentage reduction targets.

In order to show the extent to which countries madeuse of the guidance provided by the HARP-HAZPrototype and the corresponding level of detailreported, six categories were established (Table 5.2)and their reference numbers were used in Table 5.3to characterize the level of detail reported by NorthSea States in relation to a particular substance.

A general problem, which also occurred in thereporting on the 50/70% reduction target to the4NSC, is the lack of available data for the referenceyear 1985. This also applies to hazardous sub-stances from the offshore industry. The data avail-ability for 1999/2000 seems to be better, generallyspeaking, and of a higher degree of transparency.There are still, however, shortcomings in obtainingrelevant quantitative data, as several countrieshave not been able to provide data on all relevantsubstances, sources, and pathways. Data for otheryears may have been reported, in some cases result-ing in considerably shorter reporting periods thanthe required 14/15 years from 1985 to 1999/2000.

In general, data sets for 1999/2000 are more com-plete than those for 1985. In several cases newknowledge on source patterns has lead to updates ofthe national 1985 data. Accordingly, these data areno longer consistent with the data reported in theProgress Report to the 4NSC in 1995.

Some North Sea States (the Netherlands, Norway,Denmark) have been able to report in detail on awide range of sub-sources using the Nomenclaturefor Sources of Emissions (NOSE) code assigned tothe individual source.

Differences in the way North Sea States reportedtheir data, seem in some cases to be related to alack of national release data, rather than to truedifferences in source profile, e.g. for emissions and discharges of nickel (Ni) and zinc (Zn) fromtransport.

The discrepancies as regards the level of detail inthe reported data sets limit a further comparativeanalysis and make it impossible to establish

general, reliable trends in the discharges andemissions from specific primary sources (inter alia,from individual industrial sectors), althoughrealistic ‘snapshots’ can be obtained from individualreports.

To the extent that calculation methods are specifiedin the reports, they indicate that different methodsare being used among the countries. Furthermore,each figure reported often consists of a number ofdifferent quantifications. It is difficult to assess theinfluence of the different ways of carrying out theestimations as long as it is not possible to clearlyfollow how sources have been identified and inputscalculated. In this respect there are still majorshortcomings in many of the reports.

Despite these shortcomings, the footnotes to Table5.3 indicate that a certain degree of transparencyhas been achieved. However, there is a long way togo to obtain harmonized reporting, namely that fig-ures are both transparent and comparable.

Reasons why transparency was not achievedThe following causes of non-compliance with thereporting system based on the HARP-HAZPrototype have been identified:• the reporting was based on either monitoring

data of riverine loads (LOA) or on emissions anddischarge data monitored at the source (SOA).For the LOA, only one country had availablemonitoring of riverine inputs for a large numberof substances. For the SOA, the ‘main groups ofsources’ to report on defined in the HARP-HAZPrototype (e.g. transport, households, industrialactivities, waste/disposal) are comprehensive andinclude a large number of sub-sources, whichneeded to be reported on to ensure full trans-parency and comparability;

• reporting data for the reference year 1985 was aproblem for several North Sea States. Some coun-tries had made a considerable effort to updatepreviously established estimations for 1985, butgenerating data a posteriori was a problem insome cases. However, when other sources were tobe taken into account, problems with lack of ref-erence data could not be resolved in many cases.Furthermore, for some substances (e.g. dioxinsand PAHs), the monitoring methodologies wererudimentary compared with those of today; and

Progress Report

83


Table 5.3 Achievement by North Sea States of the 50/70% reduction target for the 36 substances listed inAnnex 1A of The Hague Declaration and for PAH. (W: discharges/releases to water, A: emissions to air.)

84

• release data for industry covered by theIntegrated Pollution Prevention and Control(IPPC) Directive will be reported to the EuropeanPollutant Emission Register (EPER) for the firsttime in 2003. The implementation of the NOSEnomenclature into national systems was general-ly not expected to be in place until around 2002.

Most countries have reported on their discharges,emissions and losses from sources without distin-guishing between the fractions that drain to theNorth Sea and those which drain to other seas.Thus, it should be noted that reported data do notnecessarily correspond to the total input to theNorth Sea from North Sea States.

5.2.2 General overview of progress onthe 50% and 70% reduction target

North Sea States report that they have met the 50%reduction target for a large number of the 37 sub-stances. Where information is available, it can beconcluded that the 70% reduction target for mercury,cadmium, lead and dioxins has been achieved bymost North Sea States. However, in some cases, espe-cially for copper, nickel, zinc, tributyltin (TBT)compounds, trichloroethylene, PAH, dioxins and thepesticides trifluralin, malathion and dichlorvos, thetargets have not been consistently met.

Table 5.3 presents the reported figures on theachieved reduction for 37 substances, with respectto both discharges to water and emissions to air(where relevant). Four of the substances (mercury,lead, cadmium and dioxins) have in addition to a50% reduction target an overall 70% reduction tar-get for total inputs via all pathways (the sum ofdischarges to water and emissions to air). For thesesubstances an additional row has been includedindicating the status in achieving the 70% reductiontarget.

Several countries did not specify the sources thatare included in the reported reduction achieved. Inthese cases, it is expected that the largest reduc-tions have been achieved with respect to emissionsand discharges from industry/point sources andNorth Sea States only including such sources mayhave a better possibility of achieving the targetreduction than those countries which includeddiffuse sources as well as industrial sources. For

example, Germany only achieved the 41% reductionfor nickel as a result of including groundwater (50%of the total load) as a diffuse source which has a bignaturally occurring load and a much smalleranthropogenic load. It is not possible to distinguishbetween these loads. Had the groundwater path not been included, a 52% reduction would have beenachieved.

Table 5.3 indicates that the reduction target hasbeen achieved for a large number of hazardoussubstances. There are still shortcomings, both withrespect to actual reductions, as well as for thequantification and reporting of the emissions anddischarges for the two reference years (especially for1985).

The categorization of the approach taken and thelevel of detail contained in the national reportsillustrates that the quantification of reductions hasbeen carried out on a different basis among thecountries, which limits the scope for comparisonsbetween countries with different categorizationnumbers.

The reduction percentages achieved per country formercury, lead, cadmium, copper (Cu), dioxins, PAH,trichloroethylene, hexachlorocyclohexane isomers(HCH), and TBT are presented in Figures 5.1(atmospheric emissions) and 5.2 (discharges towater).

5.2.3 Detailed information onsubstances and related sources

In this section more detailed results are presented on how North Sea States have moved towards thereduction targets for air and water and some trendsfor individual substances are examined. Thedetailed information indicates that the sourceprofiles have changed for many substances, mainlydue to large reductions in industrial sources. Thepicture for dioxins and PAH remains incomplete due to a lack of data for these substances.

In order to structure and facilitate the presentationof results, the 37 substances which are subject toreduction targets have been divided into heavy met-als, organic substances not mainly used as pesti-cides, and pesticides.

Progress Report


85

Figure 5.1 Percentage reductions in atmospheric emission of mercury, lead, cadmium, copper, dioxins, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), tricloroethylene (TCE) and hexachlorocyclohexane isomers (HCH)over the period 1985 to 1999/2000. The 50% reduction target is indicated by a black line.

lin

AirMercuryLeadCadiumCopper

DioxinsPAHTCEHCH

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

% %

86

Progress Report

Figure 5.2 Percentage reductions in aquatic inputs to the North Sea of mercury, lead, cadmium, copper, dioxins, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), tricloroethylene (TCE), hexachlorocyclohexane isomers (HCH) andtributyltin (TBT) over the period 1985 to 1999/2000. The 50% reduction target is indicated by a black line.

lin

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%


87

Heavy metalsThe heavy metals listed in the HD Annex 1Aencompass the following substances:

• Mercury (70%) • Cadmium (70%)• Copper • Zinc• Lead (70%) • Arsenic• Chromium • Nickel

All countries have met the reduction target of 50%for mercury, lead and cadmium releases to air andwater. For mercury, the reductions in eight coun-tries total at least 70% and one country has report-ed a 64% reduction. Correspondingly, it is clear thatall countries have achieved the 70% reduction tar-get for lead, while all but one country have done sofor cadmium.

For copper, zinc, arsenic (As), chromium and nickelthe 50% reduction targets have been achieved inseveral, but not all, cases. Lack of progress in reduc-tions is especially relevant for nickel and copper.For copper, emissions to air have been reduced morethan discharges to water, while for nickel and zincreductions are larger for discharges to water thanfor emissions to air.

Importance of sourcesFigure 5.3 visualizes the importance of the mainsources of heavy metal releases in 1985 and1999/2000 respectively. It should be noted that datapresented in this figure are not based on reportsfrom all North Sea States and that reportedamounts discharged/emitted as well as the trendsoutlined below relate only to the countries men-tioned in footnotes 6 and 7.

Figure 5.3 indicates that the source profiles and theimportance of individual sources for mercury, cad-mium, lead, copper and nickel have changedbetween 1985 and 1999/2000. In 1985, ‘industrialactivities’ were a major source, but due to the largereductions achieved especially as regards dis-charges/releases to water from various industrysectors, other sources now seem to be of greaterimportance.

For emissions to air, large reductions have beenachieved between 1985 and 1999/2000. Mercuryemissions were reduced from all sources, especiallyfrom ‘waste disposal’ and ‘industrial activities’,

which nevertheless remain the predominant mainsources in 1999/2000.

For cadmium, large reductions are recorded inemissions from ‘industrial activities’ and from‘waste disposal’, whereas the relative significance of‘transport and infrastructure’ and ‘small and medi-um enterprises (SMEs)’ as sources has increased.

The major reductions in emissions to air for leadare not surprisingly connected to the transportsector and the decline in use of leaded petrol.Considerable decreases are also recorded in thetotal emissions from ‘industrial activities’ and‘waste disposal’. Industry, i.e. industry covered bythe IPPC Directive and SMEs, remains an impor-tant source.

‘Agricultural activities’ are a dominating mainsource for lead discharges to water in 1999/2000 forthe countries shown in Figure 5.3. This is due to thesub-source ‘fishing equipment’ which is included inthis main source and constitutes the main amountof lead discharges.

For copper, large reductions have been achieved inmany countries for discharges to water from ‘indus-trial activities’, ‘contaminated land and sediments’and ‘waste disposal’ (including municipal waste-water). Regarding emissions to air, the largestreductions are again recorded for ‘industrial activi-ties’, while other sources show no distinct trends.Increases can be observed in discharges/releasesfrom ‘transport and infrastructure’ (includes boats)and ‘agricultural activities’ (includes fish farmingnets) due to its use as an antifoulant.

Discharges/releases from transport, includingcopper, are high compared with other sources insome countries which have not fulfilled thereduction target.

For nickel, the reports indicate large reductions indischarges to water from both ‘industrial activities’and ‘waste disposal’. For emissions to air, wheremore countries have not achieved the reductiontarget, a substantial reduction for ‘industrialactivities’ is indicated, while emissions to air from‘transport and infrastructure’ are of the same orderin 1985 and 1999/2000.

Progress Report

88

6 Based on data reported by Denmark (Hg, Cd, Pb), Germany (Hg, Cd, Cu), Norway (Hg, Cd, Pb, Cu), the Netherlands (Hg, Cd, Pb, Cu)and Sweden (Hg, Cd, Pb, Cu).

7 Based on data reported by Belgium (Hg), Denmark (Ni), Norway (Hg, Cd, Pb, Ni), the Netherlands (Hg, Cd, Pb, Ni), and Sweden (Hg,Cd, Pb, Ni).

Figure 5.3 Main sources (see HARP-HAZ Prototype) of discharges/releases to water 6 and emissions to air 7 ofmercury, cadmium, lead, copper and nickel in 1985 and 1999/2000.

89

For zinc, reported data indicate that the mainremaining sources are ‘industrial activities’,‘transport and infrastructure’ and ‘waste disposal’,including municipal wastewater.

Organic substances not mainly used as pesticidesAnnex 1A of The Hague Declaration lists thefollowing twelve organic substances, which aresubject to reduction and which are not mainly usedas pesticides. PAH also belongs to this group.

• Pentachlorophenol • Hexachlorobenzene• Hexachlorobutadiene • Carbontetrachloride• Chloroform • TBT-compounds• Trichloroethylene • Tetrachloroethylene• Trichlorobenzene • Dichloroethane, 1,2-• Trichloroethane • Dioxins (70%)• PAH

The reduction target for many of these organic sub-stances has been achieved by a number of NorthSea States. For hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorobu-tadiene, carbontetrachloride, chloroform and 1,2dichloroethane, all countries that are reporting on these substances confirm the achievement of the 50% reduction target for releases to waterand/or air.

For pentachlorophenol and tetrachloroethylene,reduction targets have been achieved by all but onecountry.

The reduction target has been achieved to a lesserextent for TBT-compounds, trichloroethylene,trichlorobenzene and PAH.

For TBT-compounds, four countries have reportedachieving the reduction target. For trichloroethyl-ene, lack of progress in either reducing emissions toair or discharges to water has been reported by fourcountries. For trichlorobenzene, three countries con-firm having achieved the target for both pathways.

For both dioxins and PAH, the lack of data makes itdifficult to assess the achievements made in severalcountries. The problems with reporting on dioxinsand PAH can partially be explained by the fact thatfor both these substances reliable monitoringmethodology only became available in the lastdecade.

A 50% reduction for dioxin releases has beenachieved in some countries, mostly with respect toemissions to air. However, data on dioxin releasesare in many cases uncertain, especially with respectto dioxin discharges to water. Reported data indi-cate that four countries have achieved the 70%reduction target, while the total reductions achievedin other countries are more uncertain. Germanywas not in a position to report on discharges ofdioxins to water since Germany regulates theadsorbable organically bound halogens (AOX) as asum parameter for which dioxin is a sub-set.

For PAH, three countries confirm that they haveachieved sufficient reductions in releases to both airand water. However, the reports also indicate thatmany countries have problems with providingconsistent and transparent data for PAH.

Problems with reporting for dioxins and PAH canpartially be explained by the fact that for both ofthese substances, reliable monitoring methodologyonly became available in the last decade.

The report submitted by Denmark does not containsufficient data for 1985 to quantify the reduction fordischarges to water of organic chlorinated com-pounds. However, an analysis of the data for 1999indicates that the remaining discharges and emis-sions are extremely low.

Importance of sourcesFigure 5.4 visualizes the importance of the mainsources of dioxins and PAH releases in 1985 and1999/2000 respectively. It should be noted that datapresented in this figure are not based on reportsfrom all North Sea States and that reportedamounts discharged/emitted as well as the trendsoutlined below relate only to the countries men-tioned in footnotes 8 and 9. Nevertheless, Figure 5.4 indicates that there have been substan-tial reductions in both discharges to water andemissions to air of dioxins and PAH. A similar trendhas also been reported by more North Sea States,for which data are not included in the figure.


90

The largest reduction in discharges of dioxins hasbeen achieved in industry, although ‘industrialactivities’ (covered by the IPPC Directive) stillremains the most important source. In addition,there have been significant reductions in thedischarges from ‘households’. For PAH, the figureindicates that large reductions have been achievedin discharges/releases from ‘transport and infra-structure’, ‘building materials’ and ‘industrialactivities’.

For emissions of dioxins to air, there have also been significant total reductions. The emissionsfrom ‘waste disposal’, in 1985 by far the largestsource, have been substantially reduced. Emissionsfrom ‘industrial activities’ have also been reduced inthe period from 1985 to 1999/2000, whereas report-ed emissions from ‘households’ remained more orless constant.

For PAH, the emissions seem to have been reducedbetween 1985 and 1999/2000 to a larger extent from‘transport and infrastructure’, ‘building materials’,‘industrial activities’ and ‘small and medium enter-prises (SMEs)’, and to a lesser degree from ‘agricul-tural activities’ and ‘households’. The largestremaining source is still industry covered by theIPPC Directive.

Analysis of the individual reports of North SeaStates further revealed that the main remainingsource for discharges and losses of TBT is ‘transportand infrastructure’, which includes the use of TBTas an antifoulant. For trichlorobenzenes, ‘wastedisposal’, which includes municipal wastewater, isan important source for discharges and losses towater, while most emissions to air originate from‘industrial activities’. For trichloroethylene, thereports indicate that the main source is ‘industrialactivities’, in particular those related to thedegreasing and manufacture of metals.

For the organic compounds in general, fewercountries have reported detailed data. A lack ofdata is especially apparent for trichlorobenzene,dioxins (for water discharges) and PAH.

Progress Report

8 Based on dioxin data reported by the Netherlands and Norway (discharges to water) and from the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden(emissions to air).

9 Based on PAH data reported by Belgium, the Netherlands and Norway (discharges to water) and by Belgium, the Netherlands,Norway and Sweden (emissions to air).

Figure 5.4 Main sources (see HARP-HAZPrototype) of discharges to water and emissions toair of dioxins 8 and PAH 9 in 1985 and 1999/2000.

91

PesticidesThe following 16 substances listed in HD Annex 1Aare mainly used as pesticides:

• Drins • Trifluralin• Endosulfan • Simazine• Atrazine • TPT-compounds• Azinphos-ethyl • Azinphos-methyl• Fenitrothion • Fenthion• Malathion • Parathion• Parathion-methyl • Dichlorvos• HCH (including lindane) • DDT

The data on pesticides contained in the nationalreports received from North Sea States are in mostcases based on sales statistics. Three countriesreported in some cases both sales statistics andamounts emitted/discharged and the UK reportedon use data.

Table 5.4 shows that the 50% reduction target hasbeen achieved for many of the 16 pesticides. Allcountries have met the reduction target of 50% fordrins, azinphos-ethyl and DDT.

For fenthion and HCH (lindane) all but one countryreports a 50% reduction in sales or discharges.


Table 5.4 Reported reduction between 1985 and 1999/2000 of the 16 pesticides in HD Annex 1A, given asdiscontinued (or never in use), greater than 50% (or insignificant use) and less than 50% (or insufficientdata). Sales statistics in 1999/2000 are given in tonnes/year (use data for UK).

92

For triphenyltin (TPT) compounds, three countrieshave not reported sufficient data to calculate thereduction. For other pesticides, the national reportssubstantiate that a 50% reduction has taken placein six or seven out of nine States (endosulfan,simazine, atrazine, azinphos-methyl, fenitrothion,malathion, parathion and dichlorvos).

It should be noted that sales statistics do notalways correspond to the actual amount of the pes-ticide used in the same year. They also will not givea complete picture of the actual discharges, as BestEnvironmental Practice (BEP) measures, e.g. inte-grated pest management, the use of sophisticatedspraying techniques and buffer zones, are not takeninto account. This may explain the fact that in somecases, reduced discharges have been reported,

despite an increase having been recorded in theamounts used.

It should also be noted that the amount and type ofpesticides used differs between countries dependingon the type of agriculture, the nature of the cropsand the climatic conditions.

The sales statistics for 1999/2000 in Table 5.4 indi-cate large variations between the amounts of thepesticides sold in various countries. In some cases,where the 50% reduction target was not achieved,the remaining use is low compared to other NorthSea States. However, the remaining use in somecountries still makes up considerable amounts,despite the 50% reduction target having beenachieved.

Progress Report

Table 5.5 Trends in discharges to water and emissions to air of selected heavy metals and organic substances.

93

One country (Switzerland) points out that theamounts of the actual pesticides still in use are con-sidered to be low, and a further reduction in theorder of 50% would be difficult to achieve becausepesticides were drastically reduced just prior to1985 by applying BEP measures.

5.2.4 Reductions achieved since 1995

In general, North Sea States have reduced emis-sions, discharges and losses of the 37 reduction tar-get substances considerably since 1995. However, forsome substances, e.g. copper, trichloroethylene andTBT the target is no longer achieved.

Table 5.5 illustrates the typical developments andtrends in the achievements of the 50/70% reductiontargets for a selected number of important heavymetals and organic substances, based on a compari-son of the data and information on reductionsincluded in the current national reports with thestatus in achievements contained in the ProgressReport presented to the 4NSC in 1995.

In addition, it should be noted that there are limita-tions to the scope and extent for comparison of databetween countries, mainly due to North Sea Statesreporting on different sources (see also section5.2.1).

Table 5.5 shows for several countries a positivetrend since 1995 for mercury, lead and cadmium.For copper, there has been both negative and posi-tive trends over the last few years.

The overall positive trend in the reduction of dis-charges and emissions is more prominent for theselected organic substances than for the heavy met-als. There are also shortcomings related to insuffi-cient data reported, especially for discharges ofdioxins to water, which make an overall assessmentdifficult. In several countries, there is a lack ofprogress for reducing emissions of trichloroethyleneto air and discharges of TBT to water. One countryreports not to have achieved the 50% reduction ofdischarges of HCH (lindane) to water.

5.3 The One Generation Target

(ED 17)

Main elements of the 4NSC one generation cessationtarget were taken onboard in OSPAR’s Strategy withregard to Hazardous Substances, the EC WaterFramework Directive and the EC’s new ChemicalsPolicy. There have been substantial reductions indischarges and emissions of many priority sub-stances since 1985, but there is still a long way to goin order to reach a complete cessation or phase out.

5.3.1 Cessation of discharges, emissionsand losses within one generation (25years/2020)

In paragraph 17 of the Esbjerg Declaration theobjective of cessation of discharges, emissions andlosses of hazardous substances within one genera-tion (25 years) was introduced for the first time asan internationally agreed political goal. In additionto aiming at very ambitious limitations of dis-charges, emissions and losses, it changes the focusfrom a static target (related to percentage reduc-tions of a fixed list of hazardous substances) to amore dynamic target. This new target enables theNorth Sea States to tackle with priority the controlof those substances that at any time are consideredto be of highest concern.

The 1998 OSPAR Ministerial Meeting took up theone generation cessation target as the key objectivein its Strategy with regard to HazardousSubstances. In doing so, Ministers agreed to makeevery endeavour to move towards the target ofcessation of discharges, emissions and losses ofhazardous substances by the year 2020. TheMinisters also adopted an OSPAR List of Chemicalsfor Priority Action for which the drawing up of pro-grammes and measures for the control of dis-charges, emissions and losses had to be carriedforward and a time frame for the implementation ofthe strategy and the commitments made thereun-der. The adoption of this target by OSPAR enlargedthe geographical applicability of the original 4NSCagreement to the North East Atlantic. To the extent


94

that measures are taken in the form of OSPAR‘Decisions’ such measures will be legally binding.

The Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) has alsotaken up the one generation target. HELCOM nowaims to phase out the discharges, emissions andlosses of selected hazardous substances by 2020.

In 2000, a concept similar to the one generation tar-get was integrated into the EC Water FrameworkDirective (2000/60/EC). The directive introduces theconcept of a combined approach, whereby thereduction (and for some substances cessation) ofdischarges, emissions and losses of hazardoussubstances is achieved through a mutually rein-forcing combination of (i) setting environmentalquality objectives and (ii) adopting control measureson emissions and products. The one generationcessation target concept addresses specifically agroup of chemicals designated as ‘priority hazardoussubstances’. The directive requires the cessation orphase-out of discharges, emissions and losses ofthese substances within 20 years of the adoption ofthe relevant measures. A list of priority substances,including the ‘priority hazardous substances’, hasrecently been adopted, together with a time schedulefor the development of cost effective and proportion-ate control measures for these substances and a sys-tem for updating of the list. The adoption of the onegeneration target for the ‘priority hazardous sub-stances’ identified under the Water FrameworkDirective implies that the resulting measures takenunder this directive will be legally binding.

When discussing the new EC Chemicals Policyoutlined in a recent white paper (COM(2001) 88),both the European Council and the EuropeanParliament recognized that the new policy shouldaim to achieve that, within one generation (2020),chemicals are only produced and used in ways that

do not lead to a significant negative impact onhuman health and the environment, which is alsoin line with the Water Framework Directive andwith commitments that member states and theCommunity have undertaken in internationalforums. The white paper also proposes a commonregime for the registration, evaluation and aut-horization of new and existing substances andforesees a shift in the burden of data generationand evaluation from regulators to producer anduser industries. Various EC working groups arecurrently elaborating possible elements for a newlegal instrument.

5.3.2 Selection processes (DYNAMEC (OSPAR), COMMPS and WFD(EU))

Based on the available data on their PBT (Persistent,Bioaccumulative, Toxic) characteristics, a Draft List ofSubstances of Possible Concern has been establishedby OSPAR, which at present contains almost 400 sub-stances. These substances were ranked according torelative risk considering toxicity profiles, and moni-toring and modelling of the concentrations in theaquatic environment (the dynamic selection andprioritization mechanism for hazardous substances;DYNAMEC). The outcome of the ranking procedureled to a selection of 12 priority substances in 2000 andanother 16 priority substances in 2001. The currentOSPAR List of Chemicals for Priority Action containsa total of 42 priority substances10.

Based on a similar procedure (COMMPS), 33 sub-stances have been selected for the list of prioritysubstances within the context of the WaterFramework Directive. Of these, 11 are identified aspriority hazardous substances11 and 14 are subjectto a review for identification as possible priorityhazardous substances12. The list (Decision

10 Benzene, pentabromoethyl, benzene, 1,3,5-tribromo-2-(2,3-dibromo-2-methylpropoxy), 2,4,6-tri-tert-butylphenol, 4-tert-butyltoluene,brominated flame retardants, cadmium, certain phthalates – dibutylphthalate and diethylhexylphthalate, 1,3-cyclopentadiene,1,2,3,4,5,5-hexachloro, dicofol, EPN, endosulphan, flucythrinate, heptachloronorbornene, hexachlorocyclohexane isomers (HCH),HMDS, isodrin, lead and organic lead compounds, mercury and organic mercury compounds, methoxychlor, musk xylene,naphthalene (heptachloro, hexachloro octachloro tetrachloro trichloro), neodecanoic acid, ethenyl ester, nonylphenol/ethoxylates(NP/NPEOs) and related substances, octylphenol, organic tin compounds, pentachloroanisole, pentachlorophenol (PCP), phosphine,triphenyl-, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (PCDDs),polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs), short chained chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs), TBBA, tetrasul, trichlorobenzene, 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene, 1,3,5-trichlorobenzene, urea, N,N'-bis (5-isocyanato-1,3,3-trimethylcyclohexyl)methyl-.

11 Brominated diphenylether (only pentabromodiphenylether), cadmium, chloroalkanes (C10-13), hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorobu-tadiene, HCH (lindane), mercury, nonylphenols, polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pentachlorobenzene, tributyltin compounds.

12 Anthracene, atrazine, chlorpyrifos, Di (ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), diuron, endosulfan, fluoranthene, lead, naphthalene,octylphenol, pentachlorophenol, simazine, trichlorobenzenes, trifluralin.

Progress Report

95

2455/2001/EC) has been adopted by the EuropeanParliament and the Council.

5.3.3 Identification of substances of equal concern

The OSPAR Strategy with regard to HazardousSubstances defines hazardous substances as‘substances or groups of substances that are toxic,persistent and liable to bioaccumulate’ or sub-stances which require a similar approach ‘…even ifthey do not meet all the criteria for toxicity, persist-ence and bioaccumulation, but which give rise to anequivalent level of concern’. The term ‘substances,which give rise to an equivalent level of concern’includes, inter alia, substances with (potential)endocrine disrupting or hormone-like effects.

A safety-net procedure established under theDYNAMEC process covers substances which do not meet the set PTB criteria, such as metals andinorganic substances. So far, six substancessuspected to have endocrine disrupting effects, have been identified and included in the ‘Draft Listof Substances of Possible Concern’.

The EC strategy on endocrine disruptors providesfor a multi-stage process of identifying endocrinedisruptors, research, assessment and managementmeasures.

5.3.4 Implementation processes andachievements

Timetable for implementationTable 5.6 gives an overview of the activities andtime frames for implementing the one generationtarget within OSPAR and the EU.

International activities with respect to thecessation of specific 50/70% reduction targetsubstancesTable 5.7 provides an overview of past, present andfuture international activities with respect to thosesubstances which are subject to the 50% and 70%reduction targets.


Progress Report

96

Activities to implement the one generation target

EC Strategy for a future Chemicals PolicyREACH1) system:• Submission of registration dossiers for existing

substances (about 30 000 substances havingproduction volumes >1t)

• Testing and evaluation of existing substances (about5000 substances having production volumes >100t)

• Authorization of substances of very high concern(CMR-substances, POPs, VPVBs, PBTs, endocrinedisruptors, other properties of concern)

EC Water Framework Directive• Review of 14 ‘priority hazardous substances

under review’

• Review of list of priority substances by progressivelyadding substances to the list

• Submit proposals of controls for:- progressive reduction of discharges,

emissions and losses (priority substances)- cessation or phasing-out of discharges, emissions

and losses (priority hazardous substances)

• Implement measures to phase out or ceasedischarges, emissions and losses

OSPAR Strategy with regard to HazardousSubstances• Update OSPAR List of Chemicals for Priority Action

• Carry forward the drawing up of programmes and measures for the control of discharges, emis-sions and losses of the substances on the OSPARList of Chemicals for Priority Action, 1998

• Develop the necessary programmes and measures on a substance or group of substances

• Implement the strategy progressively by makingevery endeavour to move towards the target of the cessation of discharges, emissions and losses ofhazardous substances

• Prepare reviews of progress achieved through this strategy

Time frame for implementation

Proposed time frameProduction volume > 1000t: Before the end of 2005Production volume > 100t: Before the end of 2008Production volume > 1t: Before the end of 2012

Production volume > 1000t: Level 2 testing by 2010Production volume > 100t: Level 1 testing by 2012

Within 12 month from adoption of directive on prioritysubstances. (November 2002)

At least every 4th year. First time before December 2004.

Commission within two years after the inclusion on list ofpriority substances. For the existing list: November 2003.In the absence of agreement at community level, memberstates shall establish Environmental Quality Standardsand emission controls on principal sources within five tosix years from the entry into force of the WaterFramework Directive.

Cessation or phase-out within 20 years after adoption ofcontrol measures.

Agreed for the first time in 1998. Updated in 2000 and2001. Expected new update 2002.

By 2003.

Within three years of agreeing on the need for OSPARaction.

By 2020.

By 2003, then every five years.

Table 5.6 Timetables for implementation of the one generation target within the EC Chemicals Policy, theEC Water Framework Directive and OSPAR.

1) REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals).


Table 5.7 Overview of past, present and future international activities with respect to those substances subject to the 50% and 70% reduction targets. (Bold indicates substances where three or more countries havenot achieved the reduction target.)

Substance

Mercury

Cadmium

CopperZincLead

ArsenicChromiumNickelDrins

HCH (including Lindane)

DDT

Pentachlorophenol

Hexachlorobenzene

HexachlorobutadieneCarbontetrachlorideChloroformTrifluralin

Endosulfan

Simazine

Atrazine

TBT-compounds

TPT-compounds

Azinphos-ethyl

Azinphos-methyl

Fenitrothion

Fenthion

Malathion

Parathion

Parathion-methyl

Dichlorvos

Trichloroethylene

TetrachloroethyleneTrichlorobenzene

Dichloroethane, 1,2-

TrichloroethaneDioxins

PAH

OSPAR‘List for priorityaction’

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Water Frame-work

Directive

PHS

PHS

PS ur*

PS

PHS

PS ur*

PHS

PHS

PSPS ur*

PS ur*

PS ur*

PS ur*

PHS

PS ur*

PHS

EC Directive76/464/EC

List 1

List 1

List 2List 2List 2

List 2List 2List 2List 1

List 2

List 1

List 1

List 1

List 1List 1List 1List 2

List 2

List 2

List 2

List 2

List 2

List 2

List 2

List 2

List 2

List 2

List 2

List 2

List 2

List 1

List 1

List 1List 1

List 2

List 2

EC PesticidesDirective

91/414/EEC

To be phased out by June 2002

To be phased out by June 2002

Assessment ongoing

Assessment ongoing

Assessment ongoing

Assessment ongoing

Assessment ongoing

Phaseout decidedfrom January 1996

Assessment ongoing

Assessment ongoing

Assessment ongoing

Assessment ongoing

To be phased out by 2002

Assessment ongoing

IPPCDirective

(EPERreportingrequire-ments)

X

X

XXX

XXX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XXX

X

ECLimitations

Directive76/769/EEC

X

X

X (salts)

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X (anthracene creosote)

EC RiskAssessment

underRegulation

793/93

X

X

X

X

X

X

X (anthracene creosote)

Other relevant inter-

nationalforums

HELCOMUN/ECE

HELCOMUN/ECE

HELCOMUN/ECE

HELCOMUN POPUN/ECE

HELCOMUN/ECE

HELCOMUN POPUN/ECE

HELCOM

HELCOMUN POPUN/ECE

HELCOM

HELCOMIMO, ban anti-foul. from 2003

HELCOM

HELCOMUN POPUN/ECE

HELCOMUN/ECE

OSPAR: Subject to the cessation target set out in the OSPAR Strategy with regard to Hazardous SubstancesEC Water Framework Directive: PHS: subject to cessation target; PS: priority substance without cessation target; *PS ur: under

review November 2002) to determine whether PHS or PSEC Pesticides Directive: Progress on the assessment under the directive EC Risk Assessment Regulation: Ongoing risk assessment under EC existing substances regulation

PS

98

From Table 5.7 it can be concluded that for most ofthe substances where the 50/70% target has not yetbeen met by several North Sea States, internationalactions are underway that may lead in future to theachievement of the target.

Based on the present knowledge of risk, it is,however, clear that in many cases a higher priorityshould be given to achieve further reductionsbeyond the 50/70% target for the most hazardoussubstances, rather than reaching the target for theless hazardous ones.

OSPAR agreed in 2000 and 2001 on the publicationof Background documents for nine priority sub-stances (organotin compounds, mercury, muskxylene, Short Chained Chlorinated Paraffins(SCCPs), brominated flame retardants (BFRs),nonylphenol/nonylphenolethoxylates (NP/NPEOs),PAHs, pentachlorophenol (PCP) and polychlorinatedbiphenyls (PCBs). At the same time, OSPAR agreedon action to reach the cessation target for thosesubstances in the year 2020.

In October 2001, a list of 11 priority hazardoussubstances for which a 20-year cessation targetconcept is specifically addressed, was adopted under the EC Water Framework Directive.

Out of the 37 substances for which the North SeaConference 50/70% reduction target applies, seven(mercury, cadmium, HCH, hexachlorobenzene,hexachlorobutadiene, organotin compounds andPAH) are among the Water Framework Directivepriority hazardous substances. A further sevenNorth Sea Conference substances (lead, PCP, triflu-ralin, endosulfan, simazine, atrazine, and tri-clorobenzene) are among altogether 14 substanceswhich will be subject to review for the possible iden-tification as priority hazardous substances in 2002.

Although there has been no specific reporting on theone generation target to the 5NSC, it is neverthe-less possible from the data reported on the achieve-ment of the 50/70% reduction target to draw someindicative conclusions with respect to some of thesubstances on the ‘OSPAR List of Chemicals forPriority Action’ and the EC Water FrameworkDirective ‘list of priority hazardous substances’.There have been substantial reductions in dis-

charges and emissions of the heavy metals mercury,cadmium and lead since 1985 (see Figure 5.3).Measures taken since then have been particularlysuccessful in reducing discharges and emissionsfrom industrial (point) sources, leaving diffusesources such as products and transport as equallyimportant remaining problems. Despite theseachievements, there is broad agreement within,inter alia, OSPAR and the EU (e.g. under the WaterFramework Directive) to keep these heavy metalsas substances for priority action.

The reductions in discharges and emissions ofpersistent organic substances, such as PAHs anddioxins (see Figure 5.4), have also been significant,but not as distinct as for mercury, cadmium andlead.

5.4 PCBs and DDT

(ED 23 i, Annex 2, 4.1 xii; HD 9)

Progress in the collection and destruction of PCBscontained in transformers and big capacitors issatisfactory. Small PCB-containing capacitors arestill in use. Most of the PCBs in these small capaci-tors and the PCBs used in open applications haveuntil now not been collected and treated properly ashazardous waste. During the last few years, however,some countries have set up collection and treatmentsystems for PCB-containing components in waste.The use of DDT has been banned in the EU formany years. PCBs and DDT pose major problems insediments in several countries.

5.4.1 PCBs – main sources and existinglegislation

All North Sea States have made inventories of PCB-contaminated large-scale electrical equipment(transformers and capacitors with more than 5 dm3

PCB) and the destruction of this equipment hasbeen performed or is underway. There has been less

Progress Report

99

action on releases from smaller electrical equipment(capacitors with less than 5 dm3 PCB) and the useof other products which contain PCB (e.g. sealants,concrete additives, and paints) due to the practicaldifficulties in controlling these sources, though mostNorth Sea States have surveyed such applications/products.

Because the largest volumes of PCBs are found inlarge applications which have mostly been phasedout, the potential environmental problems connectedto the collection and safe disposal of smaller appli-cations are of more concern. The small applicationsrepresent an important potential source of futurepollution if not taken proper care of at the end oftheir lifecycle.

The report from Norway shows that of the initialamount of PCBs originally placed on the market inNorway, roughly one third is considered properlydestroyed, one third is considered disposed of in anunsatisfactorily manner and one third is consideredstill in use.

The main areas of application for PCBs are shownin Table 5.8.

Table 5.8 Applications of PCBs

EC legislationThe use of PCBs in open applications such as print-ing inks and adhesives was banned in the EuropeanCommunity in 1976 under Directive 76/403/EEC.The use of PCBs as a raw material or chemicalintermediate has been banned in the EU since 1985(Limitation Directive 76/769/EEC). The Directive96/59/EEC has regulated the disposal of PCBs and

polychlorinated terphenyls (PCTs). In the proposalfor a Directive on waste electrical and electronicequipment (WEEE) (2000/0158(COD)) it is foreseen,inter alia, that WEEE-equipment containing PCBscan be returned free of charge, giving the receptionfacilities a responsibility to separate the PCB partsand to ensure their environmentally sounddisposal/destruction.

The Commission Communication on a CommunityStrategy on dioxins, furans and PCBs foresees theassessment of the current state of the environmentwith respect to these substances and the reductionof the human exposure and the environmentaleffects of these substances.

International agreementsSince 1998, PCBs are on the OSPAR List ofChemicals for Priority Action. Both the UNConvention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (theStockholm Convention) and the UN ECE Protocolon Persistent Organic Pollutants include a ban onPCB production and use and set out requirementsconcerning the destruction of stockpiles and thehandling of wastes.

In 2001, OSPAR recommended that, in the absenceof more specific OSPAR measures, OSPARContracting Parties should continue to report on the implementation of OSPAR Decision 92/3 on thephasing out of PCBs and hazardous PCB substi-tutes. Furthermore, OSPAR 2001 asked theEuropean Commission to contribute, in good time,(i) to the process of developing a CommunityStrategy to reduce the presence of dioxins and PCBsin the environment and (ii) to the inclusion of cut-off values for PCBs (such as 5 ppm for the purposeof recycling cable sheatings) in the proposed WEEEDirective in order to restrict the use of certainhazardous substances in electrical and electronicequipment.

5.4.2 PCBs – transformers and large capacitors (with more than 5 dm3 PCB)

With regard to closed applications, PCBs can bereleased accidentally through leaks in appliancesand fires in electrical plants.


Category Application

Closed systems TransformersCapacitors (large and small)Hydraulic oils for mining

Open applications PlasticisersPaintsConcrete additivesSealantsGlue in window framesCarbonless copy paper

100

Directive 96/59/EC has regulated the disposal ofPCBs and PCTs in equipment containing more than5 litres of these substances. Key features of thisdirective are:• within three years of its adoption in 1996, EU

member states must submit an inventory anddetailed plans for the disposal of the relevantPCB wastes and the decontamination/disposal ofthe relevant equipment; and

• 2010 has been set as a deadline for completedisposal or decontamination of equipment con-taining PCBs13. The only exception is for trans-formers containing between 500 and 50 ppm ofPCB, which are allowed to remain in service until the end of their lifetime.

According to this directive, PCB-containing waste isclassified as hazardous waste and accordinglytransformers and big capacitors are collected,grouped, and brought to authorized installations tobe decontaminated. PCB-contaminated liquids,capacitors, paper and wood resulting from theseoperations are destroyed by high temperature incin-eration. In Germany PCB-containing equipment isalso stored in deep underground disposal sites.

In some countries, some PCB-containing equipmenthas been decontaminated abroad.

A number of countries have banned the use of suchtransformers and big capacitors as from 1995 andadopted national disposal legislation for equipmentcontaining more than 1 kg of PCB.

5.4.3 PCBs – small capacitors and openapplications

Small capacitorsTo date, about a third of the small capacitors con-taining PCBs are still in use. These mainly involvecapacitors in strip light fittings, but a lot of capaci-tors were also installed in lights along motorwaysand municipal roads. Many PCB-containing capaci-tors have been used in consumer electronics likewashing machines, refrigerators, domestic fuel oilburners and central heating circulation pumps. Inthe light shredder fraction, the small capacitors arethe largest source of PCB contamination.

From 2005 the use of PCB-containing capacitors instrip light fittings will be banned in Norway.

Most of the small capacitors have not been collectedand treated properly as hazardous waste whentaken out of use. Several countries have, however,during the last few years, set up collection systemsto separate PCB-containing components in waste toallow their proper treatment and disposal.

Open applicationsAll open applications can be considered as uncon-trolled. As most of the relevant products have aservice life of 15 to 25 years, most of these openapplications would have been forwarded to wastedisposal or are due for disposal in the near future.On the other hand, certain applications, (e.g. con-struction materials) were designed for longer peri-ods of use (40 years or more). Consequently, theseconstruction materials probably represent the mostimportant future source of PCB releases from openapplications.

Discharges of PCB-containing paint from shipyardshas been an important source of contamination ofharbour sediments.

So far, most of the PCB-containing open applica-tions have not been collected and treated properlyas hazardous waste when taken out of use. Somecountries have, however, set up collection systemsduring the last years to take care of PCB-containingwaste (e.g. building waste) properly.

5.4.4 PCBs – measures to prevent lossesfrom contaminated land and sediments

There is a clear priority to deal with the problemsin combating the primary sources of PCBs. In addi-tion, contaminated marine sediments and dredgedmaterials are an important secondary source ofPCB releases and represent a major problem in sev-eral countries.

In Norway, mapping of about 80 marine sitesrevealed several PCB-polluted areas. Measures(capping and dredging) have been taken againstPCB-contaminated sediments outside a smelter and

Progress Report

13 PARCOM Decision 92/3 on the Phasing Out of PCBs and Hazardous PCB Substitutes requires OSPAR Contracting Parties to do soby 1999.

101

on a naval base; both located in the western regionof Norway and closer investigations or some correc-tive measures were carried out at about 40 sites.

In Sweden, one case of remediation has been carriedout in a lake with sediments containing PCBs froma paper mill that recycled paper waste. The totalamount of PCBs discharged was about 400 kg withresulting transport/input to the Baltic Sea of around6 kg/yr. A total of 150 000 m3 of dredged spoil wasremoved and disposed of in a separate landfill.

5.4.5 DDT

The use of dichlor-diphenylic-trichloroethane (DDT)is banned in the EU by Directive 79/117/EEC andall North Sea States have accordingly imposedregulations to ban this pesticide. Actions related toreleases of DDT from contaminated land and sedi-ments are normally placed within the frame of thegeneral policy on contaminated land and aquaticsediments (see section 5.8.1). Two countries reportthat land contaminated with DDT has beenremediated.

5.5 Substitution of Substances andProducts

(ED 23 i, Annex 2, 4.1 viii and xiii)

Implementation of EU legislation is an importantmeans for reducing the use of nickel-cadmium andmercury-oxide batteries. Five North Sea States haveimposed restrictions on the production and market-ing of mercury thermometers. In addition North SeaStates have different national policies to promotesubstitution of hazardous substances. Two countrieshave introduced legislation requiring enterprises tosubstitute chemicals by less hazardous ones and inthree countries lists of chemicals have been pub-lished to point out substances where substitutionshould be considered by users. Significant reduc-tions are reported from several countries on the sub-stitution of SCCPs, trichlorobenzenes, musk xylenes,NP/NPEs and BFRs, for which concerted substitu-tion action is required. Risk assessments and associ-

ated Risk Reduction Strategies have been or arebeing performed under the EU Existing SubstancesRegulation and several countries prefer to await theoutcome of the resulting Risk Reduction strategiesbefore further national measures are adopted.

5.5.1 Substitution of products

Small NiCd-batteriesThe relevant EU legislation is Council Directive91/157/EEC on batteries and accumulators contain-ing certain dangerous substances (the BatteryDirective), as adapted to technical progress byCommission Directive 93/86/EEC and 98/101/EC,which require the separate collection of batteriesand accumulators containing mercury, lead andcadmium. The European Commission plans arevision of the current Battery Directive. Directive2000/53/EC already bans nickel-cadmium (NiCd)batteries for electric cars as from 2003.

PARCOM Decision 90/2 on Programmes andMeasures for Mercury and Cadmium ContainingBatteries requires that Contracting Parties takeappropriate steps to ensure that the NiCd-batteriesare collected separately with a view to their recov-ery or disposal. In addition, NiCd-batteries shall beremovable from any appliance without the aid ofspecial tools.

North Sea States reported to have implemented theBattery Directive or are going to do so in the nearfuture. The requirements of the Battery Directiveand PARCOM Decision 90/2 will both assist withthe substitution of NiCd-batteries. In Switzerland, adeposit on NiCd batteries is considered from 2002onwards, if their collection target will not be reached.

Substitution of small NiCd-batteries has takenplace naturally in some appliances, as alternativebattery technology with superior performance hasbeen developed. In the Netherlands, accordingly, asubstantial reduction has been observed in the saleof NiCd-batteries. In Norway, however, there hasnot been any significant change in the annual saleof small NiCd-batteries over the last 15 years,despite the change to alternatives in major useareas such as mobile telephones and otherelectronic applications. Producers of some portablerechargeable machines (e.g. screw drivers, drills,and vacuum cleaners) still prefer NiCd-batteries.


102

The North Sea States have different policies to pro-mote the substitution of small NiCd-batteries. Asthe price of the alternatives (NiMH or Lithium-ionbatteries) is 30–40% higher than for the NiCd-batteries, Denmark and Sweden have introducedenvironmental taxes on NiCd-batteries to level theprice and ease their substitution.

Mercury oxide batteriesThe EC Battery Directive is also important inreducing the use of mercury in batteries. On 1January 2000, a ban on mercury in batteries (limit0.0005% by weight) became effective. Only buttoncell batteries may contain up to 2% mercury byweight. Mercury oxide batteries, which typicallycontain about 30% mercury, are banned according tothe directive.

North Sea States reported to have implemented theBattery Directive or are going to do so in the nearfuture. Switzerland has implemented equivalentrestrictions.

In 2000 OSPAR published a Background Documenton Mercury and Organic Mercury Compounds. Inorder to protect the marine environment and fur-ther reduce discharges, emissions and losses ofmercury, OSPAR 2000 invited the EuropeanCommission to consider the need for further con-trols (inter alia, as regards mercury oxide batteries)in its intended amendment of Council Directive76/769/EEC.

Mercury thermometersThe European Commission is considering regulatorymeasures on products containing mercury, includingthe use of mercury in thermometers.

In Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands, it is for-bidden to produce and market mercury thermome-ters. Also, in Denmark mercury-containing ther-mometers are, with few exceptions, banned. Francehas banned the placement of medical mercury ther-mometers for private households on the market andthe use of medical mercury thermometers in health-centres is restricted. In Switzerland, regulations torestrict the use of mercury thermometers are underpreparation.

In Germany, a ban on the production and marketingof mercury thermometers, especially for privatehouseholds, is under discussion.

In the remaining countries, mercury thermometersare still used, but the mercury-free alternativeshave gained market share during the last few years.

As a follow-up to the OSPAR Background documenton mercury, OSPAR 2000 also invited the EuropeanCommission to consider the need for furthercontrols in its intended amendment of CouncilDirective 76/769/EEC for, inter alia, laboratory andmedical instruments.

5.5.2 Substitution of hazardoussubstances

In the EU, Council Directive 76/769/EEC providesfor limitations on the marketing and use of specificparticularly hazardous substances and therebyfacilitates their substitution with less hazardousalternatives.

In order to adapt this directive to technicalprogress, several amendments have been madesince 1995 by introducing new substances andrevising existing restrictions. According to the EC,the directive now covers 42 substances or groups ofsubstances, comprising some 900 individualchemicals.

The issue of substitution is also addressed withinthe context of the Water Framework Directive andin the Directives on biocidal products. Substitutionis also on the agenda for further work on theDirectives for plant protection products. In theDirectives on biocidal products there are provisionsfor a comparative assessment of substances.Furthermore, non-inclusion of substances in thelists of substances that may be used (pesticides andbiocides) will trigger substitution, as do restrictionsunder EC Directive 76/769/EEC.

In addition, the issue of substitution is addressed by waste legislation (e.g. for mercury, cadmium, leadand chromium VI) and is proposed for mercury, cad-mium, lead, chromium VI, and BFRs in electricaland electronic equipment (COM(2000), 347 final).

Progress Report

103

Within the framework of OSPAR, the substitution ofhazardous substances by less hazardous substancesor preferably non-hazardous substances is one ofthe guiding principles for the OSPAR Strategy withregard to Hazardous Substances.

Norway and Sweden have introduced legislationrequiring enterprises to substitute chemicals by less hazardous ones if technically and economicallyfeasible.

In Norway, all enterprises are required to evaluatetheir use of any substances that may be hazardousto human health and the environment. A statutoryrequirement to apply the substitution principle hasbeen introduced in a new section of the NorwegianProduct Control Act, which, as a general preventivestrategy, has the intention to reduce the risks asso-ciated with the use of chemicals. The requirementimplies that enterprises must evaluate whetherthey can replace hazardous substances with lesshazardous substances or introduce alternativeprocesses which avoid the use of hazardoussubstances and perform substitution if this can be done without involving unreasonable cost orinconvenience.

In Sweden, the Swedish Environmental codecontains general rules which state that all personsmanaging any type of business shall avoid selling orusing chemical products or biotechnical organismsthat may present a hazard to the environment ifthey can be substituted by a less hazardous product.This is also valid for products which contain or havebeen treated with a chemical product or biotechnicalorganism.

Norwegian, Swedish and Danish authorities havedrawn up observation lists containing hazardoussubstances requiring special caution. These observa-tion lists are to be used as a tool for reducing theamounts of hazardous substances entering theenvironment and are primarily intended for manu-facturers, importers, distributors and professionalusers of chemicals and chemical products, but mayalso provide useful guidance for other groups.

In the Netherlands, a clean technology programmeaccommodates and stimulates research on alterna-tive techniques for industrial processes. A generalevaluation methodology for substances and prepara-

tions within the context of the national Pollution ofSurface Waters Act will be implemented in 2001.Companies can make use of this methodology inorder to evaluate alternatives and choose thealternative with less water pollution impact. Singlecompanies are encouraged to use alternatives byrequirements set out in discharge permits and bythe establishment of certified corporate environ-mental care systems.

5.5.3 Substitution of specificsubstances

Short-chained chlorinated paraffins (SCCP) OSPARIn PARCOM Decision 95/1 on the Phasing Out ofShort-Chained Chlorinated Paraffins, ContractingParties agreed (with a reservation from the UK) onthe phasing out of short chained, highly chlorinatedparaffins, defined as C10-13 with more than 48% ofchlorine by weight. The decision applies to the useof SCCPs as a plasticiser in paints and coatings, asa plasticiser in sealants, in metal working fluidsand as flame retardant in rubber, plastics andtextiles.

Since 1998, SCCPs are on the OSPAR List ofChemicals for Priority Action and are thereforesubject to the target on cessation of discharges,emissions and losses by the year 2020 under theOSPAR Strategy for Hazardous Substances.

The OSPAR Background Document on SCCPspublished in 2001 included a number of recommen-dations for control measures and invited the EC toconsider these.

European UnionSCCPs are, according to the Directive on theClassification, Packaging and Labelling ofDangerous Substances (67/548/EEC), classified as‘Dangerous for the Environment’ (R50/53) and‘Harmful, Carcinogen’ (cat. 3).

The Commission has proposed an amendment toDirective 76/769/EEC based on an agreed riskreduction strategy under Regulation 793/93 whichlargely addresses the applications of SCCPs coveredby PARCOM Decision 95/1. The proposed amend-ment concluded that (i) limitations on marketingand use within the framework of the 76/769/EEC


104

Directive, in particular for metal working andleather finishing, should be considered to limit therisks, (ii) a review should take place within threeyears to take account of, inter alia, the issues raisedin PARCOM Decision 95/1. A common position onthis amendment was agreed in June 2001 and itsadoption is expected by spring 2002. In November2001, the European Parliament discussed theCouncil common position and adopted the inclusionof two further recitals in the directive:• one recital calls for the amendment of the

directive in full accordance with PARCOMDecision 95/1 (when reviewing the Directive); and

• the other calls on the Commission to make pro-posals to reduce the uses of all chlorinated paraf-fins (not just SCCPs) in the light of the results ofstudies undertaken within OSPAR.

Under the Water Framework Directive, SCCPs areidentified as priority hazardous substances forwhich the Commission should bring forwardproposals by 2003 for the cessation of discharges,emissions and losses within 20 years of adoption of measures.

National trends and initiatives within North SeaStatesIn most countries SCCPs have already been phasedout to a large extent. Their use in the aeronauticalindustry will end before 2005.

The Netherlands and Norway have integratedPARCOM Decision 95/1 into national legislation.Belgium has notified a draft decree. Several otherNorth Sea States have achieved substantial reduc-tions in SCCP use and releases through voluntaryphase-out activities. In Switzerland, a draft amend-ment of an ordinance will be circulated for com-ments by the end of 2002. The intension is to phaseout the uses of SCCPs covered by PARCOMDecision 95/1.

The proposed EU regulation gives restrictions formetal working and leather finishing, however, theiruse as a plasticiser in paints and coatings, as aplasticiser in sealants and as a flame retardant inrubber, plastics and textiles, are not included as itis in PARCOM Decision 95/1.

Trichlorobenzenes (TCB)OSPARTrichlorobenzenes (TCBs) are used in wire andcable manufacturing, lead/tin plating and inlaboratories (minor uses as gel permeationchromatography).

Three trichlorobenzene substances (trichloroben-zene, 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene and 1,3,5-trichloroben-zene) were included in the update of the OSPARList of Chemicals for Priority Action at OSPAR2000. Belgium and Luxembourg, as co-lead coun-tries within OSPAR, are in the process of developinga draft OSPAR background document for thesesubstances.

European UnionTCBs are classified as ‘Dangerous for theEnvironment’ (R50/53) according to the Directive onthe Classification, Packaging and Labelling ofDangerous Substances (67/548/EEC).

The risk assessment carried out under Regulation793/93 concluded that ‘There is a need for a riskreduction in relation to downstream open useresulting in environmental exposure. This is indi-cated because of risks identified for sewage treat-ment plants and soil receiving sludge from sewagetreatment plants. This conclusion is supported bythe identified risks to the aquatic environment(including the sediment compartment) in relation tothe use of the substance as dye carrier and for otherdownstream uses.’

Under the Water Framework Directive, TCB is onthe list of priority substances and may, subject to areview in 2002, be identified as a priority hazardoussubstance.

National trends and initiatives within North SeaStatesTCB is reported not to be in use in Belgium,Norway and Sweden and has nearly been phasedout in Denmark. Other countries have not reportedany clear trends in use or emissions. TheNetherlands and the UK have established nationalquality objectives and Environmental QualityStandards for TCB.

Progress Report

105

The considerable amount of TCBs stored in trans-formers represents the largest potential source offuture TCB releases, if not safely disposed of.

Musk xylenesOSPARSince 1998, musk xylenes are on the OSPAR List of Chemicals for Priority Action and are thereforesubject to the target on cessation of discharges,emissions and losses by the year 2020 under theOSPAR Strategy for Hazardous Substances.

The main use areas for musk xylenes are consumerproducts (soaps, fabric softeners, cosmetics etc.) andthe main discharge route to the environment isthrough domestic wastewater. Nitro musks are notproduced in Europe.

In 2000 OSPAR published a Background Documenton musk xylene and other musks. In order toachieve the 2020 cessation target, OSPAR 2000proposed that, depending on the outcome of arefined environmental assessment, additionalmeasures have to be envisaged at a later stage.These additional measures include the promotion ofalternatives with a more favourable hazard profile(e.g. by introducing stricter degradation require-ments in the EU detergents directive which alsoapplies for other than surface-active ingredients).As regards activities to be taken in the short term,OSPAR recommended, inter alia, that ContractingParties should negotiate on a national level withtheir industry associations the phasing out of muskingredients in laundry detergents.

European Union Musk ambrette, musk tibetene and moskene are onthe EU list of banned components in cosmeticsestablished under Directive 76/768/EC.

Musk ketone and musk xylene have been includedin the third EU priority list of existing substances(Regulation 793/93) and the Netherlands wasappointed as rapporteur. Work on a risk assessmentfor these substances is ongoing and follow-upactions of the EU risk assessment cannot be expect-ed in the near future.

Musk xylenes are not on the list of priority sub-stances within the Water Framework Directive.

National trends and initiatives within North SeaStatesSeveral countries commented that there is a generallack of data on the use of musk xylenes. Availabledata in other countries indicate that the use ofmusk xylene is decreasing and that there is aswitch to polycyclic musks. In Germany andSwitzerland, voluntary agreements with industryon reductions in use of musk xylenes have beensuccessful.

So far, no Contracting Party to the OSPARConvention has taken legally binding measures torestrict the use of musk xylene or other musks inwashing and cleaning agents.

Some countries referred to initiatives as eco-labelling of products (Germany, Sweden) or informa-tion from authorities in the form of lists of undesir-able substances (Denmark, Norway, Sweden) andpress releases (Germany).

Several countries will take appropriate action fol-lowing the outcome of the EU work under theExisting Substances Programme.

Nonylphenols/nonylphenolethoxylates(NP/NPE)NP/NPEOs are used in polymerisation, plastic sta-bilisers, epoxy resins, paint, metal working fluids,textiles, industrial and institutional cleaning,impregnated and emulsion coated paper, pesticides,personal care products, contact adhesives.

OSPARPARCOM Recommendation 92/8 on nonylphenol-ethoxylates sets out that the use of NP/NPEs ascleaning agents should be phased out by the year1995 for domestic uses and by the year 2000 forindustrial uses.

Since 1998, NP/NPEOs are on the OSPAR List ofChemicals for Priority Action and are therefore sub-ject to the target on cessation of discharges, emis-sions and losses by the year 2020 under the OSPARStrategy for Hazardous Substances.

The OSPAR Background Document on nonylphenoland nonylphenol ethoxylates published in 2001included a number of recommendations for controlmeasures and invited the EC to consider these.


106

European UnionNPEOs are classified as ‘Dangerous for theEnvironment’ (R50/53) according to the Directive onthe Classification, Packaging and Labelling ofDangerous Substances (67/548/EEC).

The Draft Risk Reduction Strategy for NP/NPEOsdeveloped under the EU existing substances regula-tion recommends that:• the use of NPEOs should be banned under the

Marketing and Use Directive (76/769/EEC) inindustrial, institutional and domestic cleaning,textile processing, leather processing, agriculturalbiocidal products, metal working, the pulp andpaper industry and in personal cosmetics andother personal care products; and

• environmental quality standards should be set forresidual risks in remaining use categories.

For the use of sludge containing NP/NPEOs, it isexpected that concentration limit values forNP/NPEOs will be included in the revision of theDirective on Sewage Sludge used in Agriculture(86/278/EEC).

Under the Water Framework Directive, NPs areidentified as priority hazardous substances forwhich the Commission should bring forward propos-als by 2003 for the cessation of discharges, emis-sions and losses within 20 years of adoption ofmeasures. Octylphenol is on the list of substanceswhich are subject to a review in 2002 for the possi-ble identification as priority hazardous substances.

National trends and initiatives within North SeaStatesSeveral North Sea Countries report significantreduced discharges of NP/NPEOs recent years, inparticular as components in cleaning products.

Most North Sea States are awaiting the implemen-tation of the EU risk reduction strategy before fur-ther measures are considered/proposed nationally.Most countries have implemented PARCOMRecommendation 92/8 on cleaning agents for domes-tic and industrial uses through voluntary agree-ments with industry.

Norway has put into force a regulation to phase outalkylphenols and alkylphenolethoxylates (APEOs)in all uses, except for minor uses in the formulation

of paints. The regulation includes uses in the off-shore industry.

Work is ongoing in Sweden and Denmark to substi-tute NPEOs in paint. Denmark and Norway haveabandoned their use in agricultural pesticides. Theaim in Sweden is to achieve that by 2005 onlyNPEOs and APEOs free alternatives are used inwater-based emulsion polymers in pulp and paper,textiles, paints, adhesives and plastics. InSwitzerland, detergents shall not contain octyl- andnonylphenol ethoxylates. Further restrictions areplanned for applications such as industrial and insti-tutional cleaning, textile and leather processing andmetal finishing. A draft amendment of the ordinancewill be circulated for comments by the end of 2002.

Research for substitutes for NP/NPEOs is ongoingin several North Sea States.

Brominated flame retardants (BFR)The following BFRs are, or have been used untilrecently:• polybrominated diphenylethers (PBDEs):

- pentabromodiphenyl ether (PentaBDE),- octabromodiphenyl ether (OctaBDE), - decabromodiphenyl ether (DecaBDE);

• polybrominated biphenyls (PBBs): - decabromobiphenyl (DecaBB);

• hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD); and • tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBP-A).

OSPARSince 1998, BFRs are on the OSPAR List ofChemicals for Priority Action and are therefore sub-ject to the target on cessation of discharges, emis-sions and losses by the year 2020 under the OSPARStrategy for Hazardous Substances.

The OSPAR Background Document on CertainBrominated Flame Retardants – polybrominateddiphenylethers, polybrominated biphenyls,hexabromocyclododecane published in 2001included a number of recommendations for controlmeasures and invited the EC to consider these. Aseparate draft OSPAR Background Document onTBBP-A is in preparation.

European UnionBFRs (PentaBDE) is classified as ‘Dangerous for theEnvironment’ (R50/53) according to the Directive on

Progress Report

107

the Classification, Packaging and Labelling ofDangerous Substances (67/548/EEC).

The Draft Risk Reduction Strategy for PentaBDEdeveloped under the EU existing substancesregulation has concluded that in order to limitrisks, a ban of all marketing and use of PentaBDEis needed under Directive 76/769/EEC. TheEuropean Council reached a common position onsuch a ban in October 2001. Risk assessment andrisk reduction strategies on OctaBDE and DecaBDEare expected to be finalized in the near future.

The draft directive on restrictions on use ofhazardous substances in electric and electronicequipment includes obligations and requirementsfor substitution of PBDEs and PBBs.

Under the Water Framework Directive, brominateddiphenylethers (PentaBDE, OctaBDE andDecaBDE) are on the list of priority substances forwhich the Commission shall submit proposals ofcontrol for the progressive reduction of discharges,emission and losses. PentaBDE is identified as apriority hazardous substance for which theCommission should bring forward proposals by 2003for the cessation of discharges, emissions and losseswithin 20 years of adoption of measures.

National trends and initiatives within North SeaStatesMost North Sea States have reported some declinein the use of selected BFRs.

In line with the voluntary commitment made byindustry in the framework of the Organization forEconomic Co-operation and Development (OECD)chemicals area, the production of PBBs ceasedduring 2000.

Most North Sea States are awaiting EC directiveson waste and PentaBDE before further measuresare considered/proposed nationally. Switzerlandplans to implement regulations corresponding tothese EC directives. In Denmark, an action planwas launched in 2001, which advises on thesubstitution of BFRs and requests theproduction/use of BFR-free electric products.

Research for substitutes is ongoing in several NorthSea States, however, due to the effectiveness of

PBDEs as flame retardants and their low price, itwill be difficult to develop and successfully imple-ment relevant alternatives.

5.6 Pesticides

(HD 2 ii and 4 i, Annex 1A and 1B (c), ED 27,Annex 2, App.1)

Most North Sea States have discontinued the use of the substances listed in HD Annex 1 Part (c) aspesticides.

5.6.1 Pesticides which should have been strictly limited or banned

Council Directive 79/117/EEC provides for limita-tions, and in some cases outright bans, on the use ofsome plant protection substances. Council Directive91/414/EEC provides for an assessment procedure.A positive outcome of the assessment means thatthe substance may be used in plant protectionproducts.

Ministers at the 3NSC agreed that the use of the 18 substances listed in HD Annex 1 Part (c) as pes-ticides must be strictly limited or banned. The cur-rent reports received from North Sea States on thestatus of those substances showed that the com-pounds have been phased out as pesticides by mostof the North Sea States.

Only two countries reported to have some of thechemicals still in use as pesticides today. Francestill uses atrazine, chloropicrin, fluoroacetic acidand derivates, hexachlorobenzene,pentachlorophenol and quintozene, and Belgiumstill uses atrazine.

For those substances listed in HD Annex 1 Part (c)that were not included in the list of 18 substancesbecause they had not been in use as pesticides in1990, all but one North Sea State reported thatnone of these substances are in use as pesticides.Only in France, lead-, selenium- and cadmium-


108

compounds as well as crimidine are still in use aspesticides today.

5.6.2 Pesticides detected in the North Sea or posing a risk

Within the framework of Council Directive91/414/EEC, substances that are used as plantprotection products and new active plant protectionsubstances are being assessed with a view todetermining which of these substances are (or arenot) allowed for use.

At the 4NSC, Ministers agreed to give priority toreview the 16 pesticides given in ED Annex 2,Appendix 1, which had been detected in the NorthSea or might pose a risk to the marine environment.In addition, this Appendix also mentioned 18 pesti-cides which, in 1995, were either not allowed on themarket or were already under review (Table 5.9).

Assessments of pesticides have in total beenfinalized for approximately 30 substances. Fourteenof them were included in the positive list (Annex Iof Directive 91/414), which means that their use isallowed. The authorizations for the other sub-stances, including lindane, have been withdrawn orwill be withdrawn in the near future (see the EC’soverview of current authorizations, status October2001).

Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2266/2000 of 12October 2000 and Commission Regulation (EC) No.451/2000 of 28 February 2000 contain provisions tospeed up this assessment process. These provisionsare the following:• The necessary (missing) information to defend

the continuation of use has to be delivered beforethe 25 of May 2002.

• If the information is not delivered before thisdeadline and thus the continuation of use is notdefended, the authorization for plant protectionproducts containing these active substances willbe withdrawn. This withdrawal has to be imple-mented by member states at 25 July 2003 at thelatest.

• If the missing information is delivered in time, afinal assessment will take place which mightresult in a withdrawal of the authorization or aninclusion in Annex 1 of Directive 91/414. Thisfinal assessment might be completed after 2003.

It is expected that for more than 300 substances thecontinuation of use will not be defended and there-fore the use of products containing these substanceswill not be allowed after 25 July 2003.

Table 5.9 shows that as regards the 16 pesticidesthat were given priority for review at the 4NSC, afinal decision has only been reached for six sub-stances and their use will not be allowed after July2003. For the 18 pesticides that were, in 1995, notallowed on the market or that were already underreview, the assessment has been finalized for nine.Of these nine pesticides two were included in thepositive list and their use is thus allowed.

5.7 BAT/BEP

(ED 23 i and 25, Annex 2, 4.1 ii)

EU/EEA member states are required to ensure thatall large industrial installations comply with theIPPC Directive. Under this directive, BAT referencedocuments (BREFs) are developed and an integratedpermitting system for large point sources will beintroduced by 2007. Since 1995, a large number ofBAT documents have been developed within theframeworks of OSPAR and the EC, some coveringthe same industrial sectors. Several programmes todevelop cleaner production processes and treatmenttechnology have been established and are stillcontinuing in most of the North Sea States.

5.7.1 Development of BAT/BEP

Most of the North Sea States have developedprocedures for applying BAT and BEP which havebeen implemented nationally. The IPPC Directiveand OSPAR Recommendations on BEP and BAThave led to the development of a European frame-work for the control of industrial installations. Inaddition, it is expected that the Water FrameworkDirective will also be of importance in the furtherimplementation and follow-up of BAT.

Progress Report

109

The IPPC Directive introduced a new integratedpermitting system for large industrial point sources.This system requires EU/EEA member states toensure that all appropriate preventive measures (inparticular through application of BAT) are takenagainst pollution. In doing so, they should first of

all require preventive action such as the use of lesshazardous substances in raw and auxiliary materi-als and cleaner production processes. As a secondpriority, if prevention is not possible/feasible, end-of-pipe technology should be required in order toreduce emissions. To assist member states and their


Pesticide Pending Notified Out (Date) Use allowedthe finalization of Assessment Assessment Assessment

the assessment initiated finalize use no finalized on longer allowed Annex 1

chloridazon xcyanazine x (7/2003)1,3-dichloropropene xdichlorvos xdiuron xdimethoate xdisulfonton x (7/2003)1,2-dichloropropane x (7/2003)hexazinone x (7/2003)metabenzthiazuron xmetazachlor xmetolachlor x (7/2003)metoxuron x (7/2003)mevinphos x

xorganotin compounds (fentinacetate,

fentinhyroxide)propachlor xNot allowed on the market or already under review in 1995alachlor xatrazine xazinphos-ethyl x (1/1996)chlorotoluron xdinoseb x (1991)dinitro-o-cresol (DNOC) x (6/2000)2,4-D x2,4-DP (dichlorprop) x (7/2003)2,4,5-T x (7/2003)isoproturon xlindane x (6/2002)linuron xMCPA xMCPP (mecoprop) xparaquat xparathion-ethyl x (2002)simazine xthiobendazole x

Table 5.9 Status of the EC review of pesticides listed in Esbjerg Declaration Annex 2, Appendix 1.

110

competent authorities as well as the operators ofinstallations concerned, the directive provides for anexchange of information existing, and the develop-ment of new, BAT and associated monitoring tech-niques. The result of this work takes the form ofBAT Reference documents, which in most casesfocus on specific industrial sectors. These BREFsmust be taken into account by member states andtheir competent authorities when determining BATin general or specific cases on the national level.

The IPPC Directive requires EU/EEA memberstates to ensure that from 30 October 1999onwards, no new installations are to be operatedwithout a permit issued according to the rules of theDirective. Likewise, any substantial change to anexisting installation should be subject to a permit incompliance with IPPC requirements. As regardsexisting installations, the IPPC Directive stipulatesthat by 30 October 2007, member states have toensure that all existing installations comply withthe obligations of the Directive.

Mandatory reporting to the EC is being introducedfor 50 pollutants (or groups of pollutants) if emis-sions/discharges exceed set threshold values to airand water.

The EPER will provide evidence of the effectivenessof the IPPC Directive. This register covers releases

of 50 substances to air and water from IPPC-rele-vant installations and the first results are expectedto be published in 2003.

OSPAR has developed a number of backgrounddocuments, Recommendations and Decisions onBAT and BEP for different industrial sectors/activi-ties. An overview of these documents and measuresis given in the Compilation Document and is alsoavailable at the OSPAR homepage (www.ospar.org).

For some sectors, BAT documents have been pre-pared in the past under both OSPAR and the EU.However, in recent years a close OSPAR/EC cooper-ation has been set up to exchange information andto coordinate the relevant work carried out withinboth frameworks, in particular as regards the exam-ination of existing BAT descriptions and the devel-opment of new BAT for additional sectors.

Table 5.10 gives an overview of sectors covered inEC BREF documents and OSPAR BAT/BEP back-ground documents, which were finalized in theperiod from 1995 to October 2001.

The level and detail of reporting from North SeaStates to the 5NSC did not allow an assessment ofthe quantitative effects with respect to reductionsachieved in individual sectors due to the introduc-tion of OSPAR BAT.

Progress Report

EC BREF (1997–2001) OSPAR BAT/BEP (1995–2001)

Pulp and Paper Manufacture Pulp and Paper industries

Iron and Steel production Organic chemical industries (PVC1), VCM2))

Cement and Lime production Textile processing

Cooling systems Large combustion plants

Chlor-Alkali manufacture Offshore industry

Ferrous Metal processing Pesticides

Non-ferrous Metal processes Non-ferrous Metal industries (including aluminium) Primary Aluminium Industry

Glass manufacture

Tanning of hides and skins

Table 5.10 Sectors covered by finalized EC BREFs and/or OSPAR BAT/BEPs after 1995. (Italics indicate industry sectors for which both OSPAR BAT descriptions and EC BREF exist.)

1) Polyvinylchloride2) Vinylchloridemonomer

111

5.7.2 Development and use of cleantechnology and treatment technology

North Sea States report that cleaner productionprocesses and treatment technology have beenestablished and a number of associated programmesare underway. Further information on the situationand developments in North Sea States is given inthe Compilation Document.

5.8 Contaminated Land and Waste Disposal Sites

All North Sea countries have implemented nationallegislation for handling contaminated land includ-ing the prevention of releases of pollutants fromthese sites. Efforts at remediation are targeted at theworst cases. Most countries report extensive nationallegislation in compliance with EC waste directives,with special emphasis on hazardous waste. Theamounts of plastics recycled have increasedsubstantially in most countries over the last years.

5.8.1 Contaminated land

(ED 23 i, Annex 2, 4.1 xii)All North Sea States have implemented nationallegislation for handling contaminated land includ-ing the prevention of releases of pollutants fromthese sites.

In some countries mapping and assessment of pol-luted land is carried out by the authorities, and insome countries this is carried out by the operatorsand owners of possibly polluting installations.

The clean-up efforts are targeted at the worst casesafter a prioritization has been made. Some coun-tries have set limit values for when remediation hasto take place depending on the proposed use of thesites and the type of resources that could be threat-ened, including run-off to water bodies.

In the Netherlands, a 10 billion NLG long-termprogramme has been set up with the goal that in2023 all seriously contaminated sites have to becleaned up or managed in such a way that nodispersion of contaminants is possible. A full pictureof the soil quality in the whole country will beavailable in 2004.

In Denmark, approximately 55 million Euros werespent in 2000 for activities related to the mapping,investigation, or remediation of polluted land.

In Sweden, the goal is that all seriously contami-nated areas should be remediated by 2020. Mappingand investigations will be completed in 2005.Around 170 million Euros will be available forremediation of contaminated sites in the period2000 to 2004.

5.8.2 Waste generation and waste disposal sites

(ED 23 i, Annex 2, 4.1 x and xi)Most countries reported that extensive nationallegislation has been established in compliance withEC waste directives, with special emphasis onhazardous waste. Increased efforts are put onmeasures to reduce the quantity and harmfulness of the waste. Limitations have been placed on theuse of landfills in many countries.

In the Netherlands final disposal (incineration orlandfills) is only acceptable if more sophisticatedtreatment/processing/recycling is not possible.

In the UK, a control system has been set up for themovement of the approximately 5 million tonnes ofhazardous waste that are generated annually inEngland and Wales. Under this system, everyshipment is traced and billed, which provides aneconomic incentive to reduce hazardous wasteproduction.

In Sweden, measures have been introduced toreduce the landfilling of waste. Since 1 January2000, there is a tax on waste sent to landfills andfrom 1 January 2002, there is a ban on sendingsorted, combustible waste to landfills. The ban willbe extended from 2005 to cover all organic waste.


112

5.8.3 Recycling of plastics

(ED 23 i, Annex 2, 4.1 xi)The amounts of plastic waste generated andrecycled in North Sea States are given in Table 5.11.

EC Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packagingwaste focuses among other things on the recyclingof plastics. The goal of this Directive is that 15% ofpackaging plastics are being recycled by 2001,which apparently only three member states haveaccomplished so far. All North Sea States are cur-rently working on strategies to achieve this goal, oreven stricter national targets imposed by somecountries, and efforts are being made to includerecycling of plastics used in other applications aswell as in packaging. Voluntary agreements withthe sectors involved have been developed in somecountries. Due to all these efforts, the amountsrecycled have increased substantially in most coun-tries over the last few years and work is also beingcarried out to develop markets for a range of recy-cled materials.

5.9 Economic Instruments andVoluntary Agreements

(ED 25 ii)

Both environmental taxes and voluntary agreementsare used in some of the North Sea States to reducethe use of hazardous substances. However, policieson which substances should be addressed differbetween countries.

5.9.1 Environmental taxes

Environmental taxes are used in most of the NorthSea States as a tool to encourage a reduction in theuse of hazardous substances. Environmental taxescan be highly effective in both cost and environmen-tal terms, as shown by the differentiated tax rateson leaded versus unleaded petrol. The arguments

Progress Report

Plastic waste Plastic waste recycled Percentage recycledgenerated (tonnes/year) (tonnes/year)

Belgium - - -

Denmark - 38 000 11(19 000 t packaging plastics)

Germany 1 600 000 (packaging) 600 000 38(packaging)

France - - 9

Netherlands 1 200 000 - 25

Norway - - 19 (+57% for energy recovery)

Sweden - 20 000 15+

Switzerland 570 000 50 000 9(+87% for energy recovery)

UK 2 800 000(including 1 700 000 t - -

packaging plastics)

Table 5.11 Amounts of plastic waste generated and recycled in North Sea States.

113

for economic instruments as part of environmentalpolicies have in some countries evolved into aninterest for a broader environmental tax reform.However, it has been difficult to increase the scopefor Community-wide environmental taxes in the EUbecause such new taxes need unanimity among EUmember states.

In Denmark, a tax on pesticides has been intro-duced and the tax rates have been regularlyincreased. A tax on three chlorinated organicsolvents (tethrachloroethylene, trichloroethyleneand dichloromethane) was introduced in 1996.

In Norway, environmental taxes have been intro-duced on trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene.After one year, the sales statistics show large andsatisfactory reductions in the use of bothtrichloroethylene (85%) and tetrachloroethylene(95%). For trichloroethylene, a system has beenintroduced for repayment of half the tax when thechemical is delivered after use for recycling and/orfor safe waste handling. Norway also has a tax ondisposal of waste (except for hazardous waste andinert waste). In the case of incineration, the tax ispartly reduced proportionally with energyutilization.

At the moment the policies in the Netherlands aredeveloping towards incorporating more environmen-tal considerations into the fiscal system. Variousacts on taxes with an environmental rationale exist,but none are primarily meant to reduce dischargesand emissions of hazardous substances.

In Germany, the Waste Water Charges Actimplements the polluter pays principle by chargingfor direct discharges of wastewater to waters. Theamount charged depends on the quantity and thehazardous properties of the wastewater discharged.

In Switzerland, restrictions and prohibitions areincreasingly being replaced by economic instruments.

5.9.2 Voluntary agreements

Voluntary agreements with industry and organiza-tions are used in most of the North Sea States as aninstrument to reduce the use of hazardous sub-stances.

Denmark has several voluntary agreementsbetween the Ministry of Environment and Energyand relevant industrial branches or groups of com-panies, e.g. as regards the phasing out of organicsolvents, NPEOs and surfactants in detergents andsofteners.

In Germany, industry has undertaken voluntarycommitments with respect to APEOs in products fordomestic use and as ingredients in industrial appli-cations (1986) and a phase-out of musk xylenes indetergents and cleaning agents in 1993.

Since 1989, the Netherlands has gained muchexperience with the instrument of voluntary agree-ments, which proved to be successful and efficientfor achieving reductions of emissions and dischargesof hazardous substances by large industrial compa-nies. Emission reductions of 80–90% required afundamental adaptation of production processes.Under the adopted environment and industry targetgroup policy, companies may decide to a largeextent on how they will contribute to reducingemissions.

In the new Swedish Bill on Chemicals Policies, aphase-out within a period of 10 to 15 years has beenset as a target for the use of certain hazardouschemicals, including a phase out for lead and cad-mium by 2010. The main elements of the phase-outactivities for lead have so far been to try to reachvoluntary agreements with the interest organiza-tions on the phase-out of use, inter alia, in accumu-lators, lead shots, paint, crystal glass, PVC, cablesand lead sinkers.

In Switzerland, the principle of cooperation betweenauthorities and industrial organizations was intro-duced into regulation. The authorities are firstunder obligation to consider whether or not anenvironmental problem can be resolved byvoluntary means, before issuing new regulations.

In the UK, a number of voluntary agreements are inplace to reduce discharges, emissions and losses ofhazardous substances. The government willnegotiate binding voluntary agreements withindustry to implement risk management strategies.Where such voluntary agreements are insufficient orimpracticable, the government will consider alterna-tive measures at a national or European level.


114

5.10 Integrated Product Policy

(ED 24 iii)

Following an EU Green Paper, the Council hasinvited the Commission to develop a common visionon Integrated Product Policy (IPP) with prioritisedimplementation measures. Several Countries havedeveloped national IPPs. Important implementedIPP instruments are eco-label systems and supportfor the development of eco-designed products.

The EU Commission has recently presented aGreen Paper on Integrated Product Policy, whichwas discussed by the European Council in June2001. An IPP should aim for a continuous improve-ment of the environmental and health performanceof products throughout their entire life cycle. Thelong-term aim should be products that are highlyefficient in terms of materials and energy use, andthat they do not contain nor require the use ofsubstances that may give rise to adverse effectsduring their life cycle on human health and theenvironment. To these ends, specific objectives forimprovement should be established as part of theIPP. The Council invited the Commission to developthe general IPP approach set out in the GreenPaper into a common vision with specific andprioritized implementation measures, and welcomedthe Commission’s intention to work out aCommunication/White Paper on the IPP duringthe second half of 2001.

In Belgium, programmes on eco-design have beenestablished to screen and determine the eco-designpotential of different companies and industrialsectors.

The Danish EPA has issued a Product-orientedEnvironmental Strategy with the overall aim tostimulate the development and marketing ofcleaner products in order to reduce the totalenvironmental impact from production, use anddisposal of the products. Important instruments areeco-labelling, international standardization, subsidyschemes for development of cleaner products and

cleaner technologies, substitution of undesirablesubstances, as well as environmental managementin public and private companies. Denmark, Norwayand Sweden have participated in the developmentof a Nordic Product orientated environmentalstrategy, which was finalized in March 2001.

In France, the French Ministry of the Environmenthas for many years promoted the development ofenvironmentally-friendly, ‘green’ products. In orderto allow the consumers to distinguish theseproducts, France gave particular support to theEuropean Ecolabel and created a national ecolabel,named ‘NF Environnement’.

In Germany, the German Environmental Label(‘Umweltzeichen’, frequently called the ‘Blue EcoAngel’) marks products that are comparatively eco-friendly. Well over 4 000 products bear this mark.

In Norway, IPP is established as an environmentaltarget. The government has given financial supportto several IPP programmes in previous years,including programmes on paints and varnishes,building materials and furniture. The Nordic eco-label system ‘the Swan’ is also an important IPPmeasure in Norway.

In 2000, the Swedish government presented ‘Astrategy for an Environmentally Sound ProductPolicy’ with the aim to prevent and reduce theimpact of products on human health or the environ-ment throughout their life cycle. The sales ofproducts with the Nordic eco-label ‘the Swan’ haveincreased three times since 1995. A statutory pro-ducer responsibility has been introduced in Swedenfor packaging materials, waste paper, tyres, carsand electrical and electronic products. Voluntaryagreements were set up, e.g. for (i) collection and re-use of office paper and (ii) the elimination ofhazardous substances in the building sector andrecycling of building materials. At present, theproducer responsibility system is reviewed to decideif statutory systems need to be introduced for otherproduct categories. Health and environmentalinformation should as a target be available forproducts by 2010.

In the Netherlands, the government has financedprogrammes/projects to promote and adviseindustry on how to improve their products

Progress Report

115

environmentally, including the development of eco-designed products. In addition, more than 100 com-panies and industry organizations have been sub-sidised to introduce Product OrientedEnvironmental Management Systems (POEMS).POEMS have been proven to stimulate eco-designmore continuously than the above mentioned eco-design projects.

In the UK, the government is helping to develop amore integrated approach to consumer product poli-cies, which looks at the impacts of products on theenvironment over their whole life cycle and developsa set of measures to tackle the most significantimpacts. This involves working with the market andusing a range of measures, such as better informa-tion for consumers, the promotion of best practice inmaking environmental declarations on products,support for research and innovation, and the use ofregulatory and fiscal instruments, where necessary.The government is also promoting the supply ofgood environmental information to consumers.


5.11.1 Assessment of the achievementson the 50% and 70% reduction target

According to the submitted national reports, theinputs to the North Sea of the substances for whichreduction targets were agreed at previous NorthSea Conferences have, in general, decreased signifi-cantly from 1985 to 1999/2000.

Although current differences in reporting limits thepossibilities for a full comparative assessmentbetween countries of the reductions which have beenachieved, there is generally a consistency ofapproach by individual countries and it can be con-cluded that the 50% reduction target has been metfor a large number of the actual substances. Forsome substances the targets have not been reachedby all countries, particularly for copper, nickel, zinc,TBT-compounds, trichloroethylene, and the pesti-cides dichlorvos, malathion and trifluralin. Where

information is available, it can be concluded that the70% reduction target for mercury, lead, cadmiumand dioxins has been achieved by most countries.

It can be concluded (see section 5.3.4) that fornearly all substances where the target has not beenmet, actions are underway that may in the futurelead to the achievement of the target.

The main outstanding sources for zinc and nickelare transport and industry (as regards air emis-sions) and industry and municipal wastewater (asregards discharges to water). Both nickel and zincare subject to EPER-reporting under the IPPCDirective. Nickel is a priority substance under theEC Water Framework Directive and is subject torisk assessment under Regulation No. 793/93. Zincis also subject to such a risk assessment. Theseassessment processes will lead to decisions onmeasures.

The use of copper as an anti-fouling agent repre-sents the main source in the countries where the50% reduction target had not been met. The comingban on TBT in anti-fouling paints will furtherstimulate the use of copper in this respect. Copper-based antifoulants are less hazardous than TBT-based antifoulants, and it has to be acknowledgedthat they currently represent an intermediate stepto substitute TBT, with the final goal a non-hazardous alternative.

No recent international initiatives have been takenfor copper. After thorough evaluation, copper wasnot included in the Water Framework Directive Listof Priority substances.

Present uses of TBT have not changed much since1995. However, this situation is expected to improve considerably when the forthcoming global International Maritime Organization (IMO)convention enters into force, which will ban the use of TBT in antifouling paint. It is thereforeessential to strive for a rapid ratification andimplementation of the new IMO Convention.

The main sources for trichloroethylene are reportedto be degreasing and manufacture of metals.Trichloroethylene is subject to risk assessmentunder Regulation No. 793/93. This assessmentprocess will lead to a decision on measures.


116

For trifluralin, dichlorvos, and malathion, interna-tional action will mainly depend on the results ofthe assessment under the Pesticides Directive(91/414/EEC).

For a number of the substances mentioned above (nickel, zinc, trichloroethylene, trifluralin,dichlorvos, and malathion), the EC would be themost appropriate forum to take forward relevantactions on the main sources identified in this report.

Several of the 37 substances included in the 50/70%target, including substances for which the targethas broadly been achieved, still pose a substantialrisk to the marine environment. Through compre-hensive evaluations several of these substanceshave been identified by OSPAR and the EC to be ofgreat concern and thus to be covered by theirrespective targets. Future measures shouldprimarily be directed towards achieving furtherreductions for these substances and other haz-ardous substances that have been prioritized under the one generation target concept.

However, measures for further reducing inputs ofthose of the 37 substances that presently have notbeen prioritized under the one generation targetshould be continued and not neglected.

5.11.2 Assessment of otherachievements

Until now, focus has mainly been directed towardsequipment containing large quantities of PCBs andprogress in this is satisfactory. During the last fewyears, some countries have established collectionand treatment systems for small PCB-containingcomponents in waste. Although banned, PCBs andDDT still pose major problems in sediments in sev-eral countries.

The discharges and emissions of hazardous sub-stances under the IPPC Directive have been sub-stantially reduced in the time period 1985 to1999/2000. Since 1995, a number of BAT documentshave been developed within the frameworks ofOSPAR and the EC, and several programmes todevelop cleaner technology are in place.

Getting the market to work in favour of theenvironment is crucial. Significant reductions arereported from several countries on the substitutionof the five substances14 for which concerted actionon substitution is required. Following an EU GreenPaper, the Council has invited the Commission todevelop a common vision on IPP with prioritizedimplementation measures – several countries havedeveloped national IPPs. Economic instruments areused in some of the North Sea States to reduce theuse of hazardous substances, although policiesdiffer between countries.

Hazardous substances in contaminated land andsediments will need increased attention due topotential adverse effects for human health and theenvironment. All North Sea States have implement-ed national legislation for handling contaminatedland including the prevention of releases of pollu-tants from these sites. Efforts at remediation aretargeted at the worst cases.

5.11.3 Further work to achieve the onegeneration target

Main achievementsThe one generation target and associated commit-ments on hazardous substances which were agreedat the 4NSC, have generally been taken up withinthe frameworks of OSPAR and the EU, which havefurther developed and implemented the onegeneration target into various objectives, policiesand legislation, to which all North Sea States arecommitted. About one third of the 37 substancesincluded in the 50/70% reduction target have beenidentified as hazardous substances and selected forpriority action under the one generation target inthese forums. Thus, the work to achieve the per-centage reduction targets has contributed to movingtowards the one generation target as well.

The OSPAR Strategy with regard to HazardousSubstances provides a comprehensive policy frame-work to achieve a sound and healthy ecosystem. Inparticular, OSPAR has developed a mechanism toidentify hazardous substances of particular concernto the marine environment with the aim of achiev-ing the one generation target for these substances.

Progress Report

14 SCCPs, trichlorobenzene, musk xylene, NP/NPEOs and BFRs.

117

Since the 4NSC, the European Community hasadopted the Directive concerning IntegratedPollution Prevention and Control and the Directiveestablishing a Framework for Community Action inthe Field of Water Policy. The Council of Ministershas also agreed on conclusions of an EC Strategy fora Future Chemicals Policy, and has agreed a list ofpriority substances identified for action under theWater Framework Directive.

Remaining challengesThe lack of basic information on the properties ofmost chemicals, their exposure pattern and effectsin the environment is a fundamental challenge.When addressing the environmental challenges forthe North Sea, the huge knowledge gap aboutchemicals in general and in particular in relation toreleases to the marine environment must be takeninto account.

There is no doubt that the setting of 50% and 70%reduction targets at earlier North Sea Conferenceshas been an important stimulus for achievingreductions in emissions and discharges for a num-ber of hazardous substances. However, it is nownecessary to re-focus efforts away from achievingthe specific, but static, ‘first generation’ percentagereductions adopted at the 2NSC and 3NSC and toconcentrate efforts on achieving the more generalOne Generation Target agreed at the 4NSC, whichrepresents a more dynamic strategy/approach. Inaddition, reporting on progress on the one genera-tion target will overcome the difficulties with lack ofdata for set baseline years (e.g. for 1985) that wasexperienced when reporting on the achievement ofthe reduction percentage targets.

A remaining challenge for the One GenerationTarget is to provide information on releases toenable an evaluation of some of the ‘new’ substances(e.g. NPEOs and SCCPs) which are, for the timebeing, not part of any emission registrationsystems.

The recently agreed EC chemicals policy frameworkis designed, inter alia, to close gaps in the knowl-edge on chemicals. According to the strategy, basicinformation on the health and environmentalproperties of most chemicals will be required inorder to market the substances after 2012. This willgenerate more basic information on chemicals, and

together with OSPAR’s selection mechanism, itshould be possible to identify and prioritize haz-ardous substances more precisely.

These actions within the frameworks of OSPAR andthe EC constitute a robust programme whichshould, with suitable development, ensure that dis-charges, emissions and losses of hazardous sub-stances from both point and diffuse sources are pro-gressively reduced, and that only sufficiently safechemicals are put on the market for use.

Cooperation between OSPAR and the EU is espe-cially important for hazardous substances which are identified for priority action within OSPAR and,at the same time, as priority hazardous substancesunder the Water Framework Directive and thefuture EC Chemical Policy. Substances subject tothe one generation target concept, both withinOSPAR and the Water Framework Directive, are to date cadmium, HCH, mercury, NP/NPEOs,brominated flame retardants (PentaBDE), TBT,specified PAHs and SCCPs.

5.11.4 Future reporting on targets

Main achievementsThe HARP-HAZ reporting format allowed the NorthSea States to report on emissions to air and dis-charges to water from an extensive number of dif-fuse and point sources arranged according to thestandard European NOSE-codes (see section 10.3).An advantage of the new reporting procedures wasthat they provided for substance-specific sourceprofiles (patterns) for the various reporting yearsand allowed the identification of the main remain-ing sources. Differences in the ways of reporting inthis first attempt to implement these new proce-dures, however, limited the scope for comparingreported inputs between countries. When appliedproperly, source profiles would, to an even largerextent, pinpoint important sources and would alsobe of help in the evaluation of the need for furthermeasures.

Remaining challengesAn essential task for monitoring the actual progresstowards fulfilment of the one generation target is todevelop suitable reporting and assessment strate-gies for the selected priority substances. In thefurther development of its reporting procedures,


118

OSPAR has agreed to build on the experiencesgained from implementing the HARP-HAZPrototype methodology under the North SeaConference framework. The part of HARP-HAZ thatdeals with large industrial sources will in any casebe of considerable future use as it is the same as theEPER system for the IPPC industry, for whichreports have to be produced in 2003. Any future sys-tem will also need to take into account the emergingmonitoring requirements of the Water FrameworkDirective in order to make best use of limitedresources.

The implementation of the Convention on Access toInformation, Public Participation in DecisionMaking and Access to Justice in EnvironmentalMatters (the Århus Convention) on the right toenvironmental information will increase the need tohave knowledge of the pressure on the environmentfrom hazardous substances. This demand for dataon sources for emissions and releases of substancesshould in the future also make it possible to havebetter information on hazardous substances to beused in reporting on the one generation target.

Progress Report

119

6.1 Introduction

6.1.1 The problem of eutrophication

Land-based activities, such as industry, households,traffic and agriculture, represent significant sourcesof input of nutrients to coastal and open waters ofthe North Sea, via rivers, direct discharges, diffuselosses and atmospheric deposition. The process ofmarine eutrophication starts with increasing inputsof nutrients, followed by an increase in primary pro-duction (algal biomass), which leads to an increasedquantity of carbon (organic matter) circulating inthe marine ecosystem. A number of primary andsecondary effects may be attributed to this process.

The issue for environmental management is to whatdegree this process influences ecosystem functional-ity and human use of influenced waters andresources.

Mitigation efforts made after 1987, when Ministersfrom North Sea States for the first time agreed onthe reduction targets on nutrients, i.e. to reducenutrient inputs (by the order of 50%) into areaswhere these inputs are likely, directly or indirectly,to cause pollution, have been more effective inreducing the inputs of phosphorus than nitrogen.The reductions in phosphorus inputs are primarilydue to improved collection and treatment of urbanand industrial wastewater, as well as the introduc-tion of phosphate-free detergents. The inability toreach the 50% reduction target for nitrogen isprimarily because the reduction of diffuse lossesfrom the agriculture sector is progressing muchslower than expected.

6

Reduction of Nutrient Inputs to the North Sea

120

6.1.2 State of the environment

The present inputs of nutrients lead to concentra-tions in the environment of nutrients that signifi-cantly deviate from pre-1950 winter concentrations,especially in areas that are directly under theinfluence of anthropogenic inputs. Degradation ofalgal biomass produced on the basis of excessiveanthropogenic inputs of nutrients requires largequantities of oxygen and may lead, inter alia, todepletion of the oxygen content of the waters. Suchdepletion may lead to severe adverse effects on theecological quality of the waters. Improvements havebeen detected for phosphorus; significantly reducedphosphorus concentrations have been detected forexample in the German Bight and in Danishwaters. Furthermore, some improvements withrespect to nuisance algal blooms, oxygen deficiencyand benthos/fish kills are observed in many areas ofthe North Sea. However, trends of decreasing oxy-gen concentration have been documented for thedeep waters of the Kattegat and the basin waters inSwedish and Norwegian fjords. In 1993, OSPARContracting Parties identified their problem areaswith regard to eutrophication. A second more rigor-ous assessment of eutrophication status is currentlyunderway within OSPAR through the developmentand application of the Comprehensive Procedure(see section 6.2.2).

6.1.3 Agreed measures

In 1995, Ministers at the Fourth InternationalConference on the Protection of the North Sea(4NSC) agreed to remain committed to reaching the50% reduction targets on phosphorus and nitrogenset by the Ministers at the 2NSC in 1987. Theyagreed to strengthen the implementation of existingmeasures on all sectors as soon as possible and putspecial emphasis on agriculture policies.Furthermore, they invited OSPAR to adopt astrategy to combat and prevent eutrophication andurged national and appropriate international bodiesto integrate the outcome of this strategy in theirwork. They also agreed that the concept of balancedfertilization should take account of the principles ofthe future OSPAR Strategy to CombatEutrophication. The European Commission, Norwayand Switzerland were invited to consider how theiragricultural policies and policies for rural develop-ments could contribute to the objective of reducing

losses of nutrients to the aquatic environment and,furthermore, invited them to continue to limitatmospheric emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx).They also invited OSPAR, in cooperation with otherappropriate bodies, to consider the justification forfurther reduction targets for the different sources ofammonia emissions.

6.2 OSPAR Strategy to Combat Eutrophication

(ED 32, 33, 34 and 35)

6.2.1 Adoption of the OSPAR Strategy toCombat Eutrophication

In 1998, OSPAR adopted a Strategy to CombatEutrophication. OSPAR’s main objective with regard to eutrophication is to achieve by 2010, and maintain, a healthy marine environment whereeutrophication does not occur. The Strategy com-prises an integrated target-orientated and source-orientated approach. The target-orientatedapproach prepares the setting of ecological qualityobjectives, followed by quantification of necessaryreductions in input of nutrients to meet theobjectives. The source-orientated approach focuseson the implementation of all agreed measureswithout delay. The Strategy also provides for thedevelopment and implementation of additionalmeasures that are necessary to meet the (quality)objectives.

6.2.2 The Common Procedure to IdentifyEutrophication Status

In 1997, OSPAR adopted a Common Procedure forthe Identification of the Eutrophication Status ofthe Maritime Area (the ‘Common Procedure’). TheCommon Procedure comprises two phases, startingwith simplified screening intending to identify areasof obvious ‘no concern’ (i.e. non-problem areas),followed by a Comprehensive Procedure applied toall remaining areas. The intention of the CommonProcedure is to characterize the various parts of the

Progress Report

121

OSPAR Maritime Area as problem areas, potentialproblem areas or non-problem areas with regard toeutrophication. In implementing the CommonProcedure, OSPAR will develop and adopt commonassessment criteria and will assess the results ofOSPAR Contracting Parties’ application of theProcedure. Presently, a selection of assessment cri-teria, their respective assessment levels, including aprocedure for how to apply them, and a reportingformat for how to report in a harmonized way havebeen forwarded for endorsement by OSPAR. In2002, OSPAR’s Contracting Parties will use thesecriteria in their application of the ComprehensiveProcedure. The repeated application of theComprehensive Procedure will identify any changein the eutrophication status of a particular area.

The results of the Screening Procedure werepresented to OSPAR in 2000. The ScreeningProcedure identified the obvious non-problem areaswith regard to eutrophication. All other areas, i.e.major parts of the North Sea, will be subject to theComprehensive Procedure (OSPAR Agreement2001-5; see Figure 6.1) and the results are expectedto be available in 2002.

6.2.3 Ecological Quality Objectives forthe Greater North Sea

In 2001, OSPAR developed a draft integrated set of Ecological Quality Objectives for nutrients andeutrophication effects (EcoQOs-eutro) for theGreater North Sea. The EcoQOs-eutro were selectedfrom the common assessment criteria and theirrespective assessment levels to be used within the Comprehensive Procedure. The selection ofEcoQOs-eutro is restricted to those assessmentcriteria for which their respective assessment levels have become available.

The elaborated EcoQOs-eutro should, inter alia, beconsidered as an integrated set to serve as a tool forestablishing whether the measures for the nutrientreduction at source are sufficient in order to achieveby the year 2010 a healthy marine environmentwhere eutrophication does not occur.

The elaborated integrated set of EcoQOs-eutro is asfollows: • Nutrients (winter dissolved inorganic nitrogen

(DIN) and dissolved inorganic phosphorus (DIP)).Winter nutrient concentrations of DIN and DIPshould remain below elevated levels, defined asconcentrations of more than 50%15 above back-ground concentrations (salinity-related and/orregion-specific background concentrations).

• Phytoplankton (chlorophyll a and eutrophicationindicator species)- maximum and mean chlorophyll a concentra-

tions during the growing season should remainbelow elevated levels, defined as concentrationsof more than 50% above the spatial (offshore)/historical background concentration;


in

15 Other values less than 50% can be used, if justified.

Figure 6.1 Locations where the ComprehensiveProcedure will be applied. In applying the ScreeningProcedure (not completed in all areas) not all localareas of possible concern have been identified andthese areas will also be considered by OSPARContracting Parties under the ComprehensiveProcedure.

122

- region/area-specific phytoplankton eutrophica-tion indicator species should remain belowrespective noxious and/or toxic levels (andincreased duration).

• OxygenThe oxygen concentration, decreased as an indi-rect effect of nutrient enrichment, should remainabove region-specific oxygen deficiency levels,ranging from 4–6 mg O2/l.

• Benthos (affected by eutrophication)There should be no kills in benthic species as aresult of low oxygen concentrations and/or thepresence of toxic phytoplankton species in theOSPAR maritime area.

6.2.4 Is a 50% reduction in input of nutrients sufficient?

Predictive methods suggest that the environmentalconditions in the OSPAR maritime area mayimprove by up to 25–30% as a result of a 50%reduction of inputs of nutrients for many coastalwaters. This assumption is reinforced by resultsfrom intensive environmental monitoring inDenmark, which has shown, for example, positiveeffects of reduced inputs as a consequence of the dryyears 1996 and 1997. However, considerable work isneeded in order to obtain more precise predictionsregarding the situation in the OSPAR maritimearea that is expected following the implementationof agreed measures.

6.3 The EC Water FrameworkDirective

6.3.1 General

The Water Framework Directive (WFD), Directive2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and theCouncil of the European Union, was adopted in2000. The purpose of this directive is to establish aframework for the protection of inland surfacewaters, transitional waters, coastal waters and

groundwater which, inter alia, prevents furtherdeterioration and protects and enhances the statusof aquatic ecosystems and, with regard to theirwater needs, terrestrial ecosystems and wetlandsdirectly depending on the aquatic ecosystems. Theimplementation of the WFD in the Member States,accession countries and the European EconomicArea member states will require better knowledgeabout all sources of pollution and disturbancehaving an impact on the water quality and theecological status of European surface and groundwaters. The directive has a holistic approach to themanagement of waters, where the resources arelinked to the uses, the terrestrial environment, theaquatic environment and finally to development andhuman health. European Community MemberStates shall implement the necessary measures toprevent the deterioration of the status of all bodiesof surface water. They shall also protect, enhanceand restore all bodies of surface water, except forartificial and heavily modified water bodies, withthe aim of achieving good surface water status bythe end of 2015. The WFD defines five classes ofecological status: ‘bad’, ‘insufficient’, ‘moderate’,‘good’ and ‘high’.

Implementing the WFD is a challenge that residesfully in the competence of each individual state.However, a coherent and harmonized implementa-tion of the directive is an imperative. In thisrespect, a common strategy for the implementationis developed with the aim to allow, as far as possi-ble, a coherent and harmonized implementation ofthe directive. The strategy calls on a commonunderstanding of the technical and scientific impli-cations of the WFD, and work on these issues is inprogress.

6.3.2 Correspondence between the OSPAR Strategy to Combat Eutrophication and the WFD

The WFD has a geographical coverage that includesparts of the North Sea. The OSPAR Strategy toCombat Eutrophication encompasses the wholeOSPAR maritime area. It follows that there is anoverlap between the OSPAR maritime area and thecoastal areas in the WFD.

The WFD advocates an integrated approach wherethe catchment and the related coastal areas are

Progress Report

123

considered as one river basin district. OSPARintends to perform integrated assessments wherethe use of data on sources of nutrient dischargesand losses, as well as data on inputs of nutrients tothe maritime area are interlinked with the assess-ment of eutrophication status. The use of the HARPGuidelines for Harmonised Quantification andReporting Procedures for Nutrients enables acatchment approach for presentation and analysisof riverine input and source-related data. Thedevelopment of an OSPAR tool to establish theconnection between input data and the marine state data obtained by monitoring and modellingactivities in quantitative terms would be beneficialfor development of cost-effective abatement plansaccording to both the OSPAR Strategy to CombatEutrophication and the WFD.

The WFD focuses on the ecological status of theriver basin districts and, where necessary, thedevelopment of abatement plans to reach goodecological status. OSPAR uses the concept of ‘non-problem areas’ or ’ecological quality objectives’for describing its target situation.

Within the framework of OSPAR, common assess-ment criteria for the eutrophication of the OSPARmaritime area are under development. Thesecriteria could also be used in the application of theWFD, in particular when working with its ecologicalquality objectives.

In a first proposal for integrating the OSPARComprehensive Procedure of the CommonProcedure and the WFD with respect to eutrophica-tion, OSPAR has tried to relate the borders setbetween the OSPAR classes (problem areas/poten-tial problem areas – non-problem areas) and theWater Framework Classification on EcologicalQuality of estuarine and coastal areas (insufficient/moderate – good).

The developments as regards assessment criteria,their assessment levels and ecological qualityobjectives (EcoQOs) within OSPAR could be of helpfor the further elaboration of assessment criteria foreutrophication under the WFD.

The approaches in the WFD and in the Strategy toCombat Eutrophication are similar, but there is aneed for harmonization on important subjects,

including the timetable of implementation. TheWFD has a target date of 2015 for river basin dis-tricts to achieve ‘good ecological status’, whileOSPAR has a target date of 2010 for obtaining ‘nooccurrence of eutrophication in marine waters’.

6.4 Discharges, Losses and Inputs of Nutrients, using the

HARP Guidelines

(ED 30)

6.4.1 Background

At the 2NSC in 1987 North Sea States agreed:• to take effective national steps to reduce nutrient

inputs into areas where these inputs are likely,directly or indirectly, to cause pollution; and

• to aim to achieve a substantial reduction (of theorder of 50%) in the inputs of phosphorus andnitrogen into these areas between 1985 and 1995,or earlier if possible.

These commitments were reiterated at the 3NSC in1990, at IMM 93 and at the 4NSC (at which thedeadline was postponed from 1995 to ‘as soon aspossible’).

Ministers at the 3NSC and 4NSC asked for harmo-nized reporting systems and procedures for nutri-ents. Thus began the development of the HARPGuidelines (see chapter 10).

The background to the request for harmonizedreporting was, inter alia, that the MinisterialDeclaration of 1987 and PARCOM Recommendation88/2 do not, for example, explicitly specify whetherthe reduction targets are related to nutrient inputsto the sea or to discharges/losses at source, and donot provide guidance as to the calculation methodsto be applied. The results were that:

• there were different practices among North SeaStates concerning reporting on discharges andlosses of nutrients to freshwater systems andmarine waters;


124

• the reports were generally based on ‘nationalinterpretation’ on how elements such as samplingfrequency, calculation methods and the sources tobe taken into account should be considered;

• there was considerable uncertainty related to thecalculations of the nutrient inputs, in particularwith regard to the 1985 input figures, but alsowith regard to current nutrient inputs; and

• the calculation methods and the sources to betaken into account when reporting on inputs/dis-charges/losses of nutrients were, to varyingdegrees, left to the discretion of each countrywithin the relevant international organizationswhere reporting took place.

The national reports on nutrients received in thepreparations for the 5NSC were mostly based onthe HARP system. For the purpose of increasedcomparability between North Sea States’ figures (i.e.the most comprehensive data basis), the 50%reduction targets have been assessed in the light of discharges/losses of nutrients at source as very few North Sea States have provided sufficientinformation to allow an assessment of the inputsinto the sea.

Both the Committee of North Sea Senior Officials(CONSSO) and OSPAR agreed that the reporting ondischarges/losses and inputs of nitrogen and phos-phorus to the 5NSC should be based on the HARPGuidelines (as adopted on a trial basis by OSPAR2000), both with regard to the recommended quan-tification methodologies applied and the reportingformats. It should be noted that emissions to air arenot a part of the reporting requirement, but thedeposition of nitrogen on inland surface waters isincluded. This should allow:• harmonized, transparent and comparable report-

ing;• reporting on both the Load Orientated Approach

and the Source Orientated Approach; • more reliable quantification and reporting; and• quantification and reporting on a catchment

basis, and which is thus in line with the WaterFramework Directive (see section 6.3).

6.4.2 Data submission

The reports provided by North Sea States are thebasis for this section on data submissions. All figures

on discharges/losses of nutrients at source to sur-face waters are related to anthropogenic dis-charges/losses. Nutrient emissions to air have notbeen taken into account (see section 6.7).

Data from 2000 are to a large extent based on theHARP Guidelines and are reported accordingly. Asthe HARP Guidelines were adopted in 2000, it couldnot be guaranteed that all countries had a datastructure allowing them to report on the same basisfor previous years. Therefore only some countriescould re-establish data from 1985 on the basis of theHARP Guidelines, thus ensuring improved reliabili-ty of their reduction estimates.

The HARP Guidelines require reporting on a catch-ment-by-catchment basis. It is, however, a nationaltask to decide on the number and size of the catch-ments to be reported on, provided that the wholeterritory draining to the parts of the North Seaidentified as problem areas with regard to eutrophi-cation, is reported on.

Although North Sea States have reported on acatchment-by-catchment basis, the data in thisProgress Report are presented as the totals percountry. This because the 50% reduction targets arerelated to a country’s defined problem area (and arenot catchment specific; see Figure 6.1) and becauseof the complexity and comprehensiveness of pre-senting data from all catchments reported on.

The HARP Guidelines distinguish between twotypes of data:• data on nutrient discharges/losses at source; and• data on the riverine load at the monitoring point

closest to the river mouth.

When estimating nutrient inputs to the sea, HARPdescribes two approaches: • the quantification of the nitrogen and phosphorus

discharges/losses at source with the subtractionof the permanent retention in inland waters (theSource Orientated Approach); and

• the quantification of the nitrogen and phosphorusinputs at the river mouths, with the addition ofthe direct nitrogen and phosphorus discharges/diffuse losses into the sea (the Load OrientatedApproach).

Progress Report

125

6.4.3 Nutrient discharges and losses atsource

Reductions achieved per country at sourcetowards the 50% reduction targetsTable 6.1 shows the reported nutrient discharges/losses at source within North Sea States’ problemareas in 1985 and 2000, and the reductionsachieved (see also Figure 6.2).

Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands,Norway and Switzerland have all reached the 50%reduction target on phosphorus between 1985 and2000 from sources in areas draining into definedproblem areas. Sweden’s discharges/losses of phos-phorus were reduced by about 33% between 1985and 2000. The report from France was insufficientto allow an assessment of its progress towardsachieving the 50% reduction target.

No North Sea State has reached the 50% reductiontarget on nitrogen losses/discharges from sources inareas draining into defined problem areas, butDenmark, the Netherlands and Sweden achieved areduction of about 43–44%. The report from Francewas insufficient to allow an assessment of itsprogress towards achieving the 50% reduction target.

The UK has, to date, not identified any problemarea with regard to eutrophication and is therefore

not committed to the 50% reduction target onnitrogen and phosphorus.

The general picture is that diffuse sources, of whichagriculture constitutes the largest portion, are thelargest single source of nutrient discharges/losses atsource. The losses of nitrogen and phosphorus fromdiffuse sources represented 64% and 46% respec-tively of the total discharges/losses from all NorthSea States in 2000. Discharges from sewage treat-ment works and sewerage also represented a largesource in many areas. The discharges of nitrogenand phosphorus from sewage treatment works andsewerage represented 27 and 35% respectively ofthe total discharges/losses from all North Sea Statesin 2000.

The reported achieved reductions per sector showthat the overall reduction target for nitrogen inputshas not been reached mainly because the reductionsexpected from agricultural activities, and for somecountries also wastewater, have only partially beenachieved. The reduction target for phosphorus hasbeen met by most countries due to a high percentagereduction for the wastewater and industrial sectors,whereas the measures implemented within theagriculture sector have contributed to a limitedextent.

For some catchments, losses of nitrogen to a largeextent enter surface waters via groundwater. Due


North Sea No. Catch- Dis- Reduc- Dis- Reduc-State catchment charges/ tion (%) charges/ tion (%)

ments area (km2) losses of for losses of forNitrogen Nitrogen Phosphorus Phosphorus

1985 2000 1985 2000

Belgium 4 14670 100820 81902 19 17800 7429 58Denmark1) 12 27763 75151 42991 43 5875 1605 73France 8 64741 NI NI NI NIGermany 4 264112 763700 469800 38 73365 25018 66Netherlands2) 4 37181 168245 94148 44 31618 11638 63Norway4) 5 98990 38889 26631 32 2122 910 57Sweden3) 41 76495 31393 17458 44 996 668 33Switzerland 1 9500 31612 26403 16 3121 1218 61

Table 6.1 Discharges/losses (tonnes) at source in 1985 and 2000 and the reductions achieved.

NI: no information

1) The data for 1985 are extracted from the 1998 OSPAR report on the implementation of PARCOM Recommendation 88/2.2) 1999 data.3) Based on data from a number of years varying according to the different sources. However, they are listed as 1985 and 2000 data.4) The contributions from diffuse losses from agriculture are based on preliminary estimates

- : increase NI : no information1) Figures for 1985 and 1999.2) Different quantification methodologies (land use statistics) have been used for 1985 and 2000; thus the figures are not comparable.3) Preliminary estimates.

126

to a long residence time in the groundwater in somecatchments (e.g. up to 30 years is reported for theriver Elbe), it may take several years before theachieved reductions of nutrient discharges/losses atsource are reflected in a decrease in the inputs intothe sea.

All North Sea States have reported on discharges/losses of nutrients in 1999/2000 according to theHARP Guidelines. The structure of the 1985 dataon discharges/losses of nutrients in four of thesecountries (Germany, the Netherlands, Norway andSwitzerland) also allowed them to report accordingto the HARP Guidelines for 1985. For Belgium, inaddition to the HARP exercise, parallel work wascarried out in order to produce year 2000 figures,separately covering diffuse sources, all industrialsectors and all households, which allows coherentcalculations of the reductions achieved between1985 and 2000.

Diffuse losses at sourceDiffuse losses at source mainly represent lossesfrom agricultural activities, but the contributionfrom paved areas and direct deposition onto waterbodies may be significant in some catchments.

The estimated reductions in losses from diffusesources for the period 1985 to 2000 vary between4% in Germany and 31% in Sweden for the phos-phorus losses (Table 6.2). The phosphorus lossesfrom diffuse sources in Denmark increased by 65%in the same period. The figures on nitrogen lossesvaried between a reduction of 48% in Sweden to anincrease of 15% in Belgium.

In all North Sea States, the losses from diffusesources (mainly agriculture sector) represented themost important source of nitrogen losses in 2000,between 50% in Switzerland and 89% in Denmarkof the total losses/discharges in 2000. For phospho-rus, the losses from diffuse sources represented themost important source of phosphorus losses for allcountries (40% of the total discharges/losses inSweden, 61% in Denmark), except for Belgium andSwitzerland where the discharges from wastewatertreatment plants were larger.

Discharges from sewage treatment works, sewerageand households not connected to public sewerageIn many North Sea States the treatment capacity formunicipal wastewater increased significantly between1985 and 2000. This is a result of an increase in thenumber of treatment plants, and/or of an increasein the capacity at existing treatment plants.

The estimated reductions in losses from waste watertreatment plants for the period 1985 to 2000 varybetween 40% in Sweden and 89% in Denmark forthe phosphorus inputs, and between 4% in Belgiumand 80% in Denmark for nitrogen (Table 6.3).

Discharges from sewage treatment works and sewerage was an important source of nitrogendischarges/losses in 2000 in most North Sea States,between 25% of the total discharges/losses inGermany and 47% in Switzerland, but only 5% inDenmark. It was also an important source of phos-phorus discharges in most countries; it was themost important source in Belgium and Switzerlandwhere it represented 58% and 74% respectively ofthe total discharges/losses of phosphorus in 2000.

Progress Report

North Sea Nitrogen Nitrogen Reduction Phosphorus Phosphorus ReductionState 1985 2000 (%) 1985 2000 (%)

Belgium 39580 45560 -15 2470 2313 6Denmark 59600 38167 36 600 987 -65France NI NI NI NI NI NIGermany 364200 304300 16 13507 12943 4Netherlands1) 101825 57852 43 5623 5183 8Norway3) 20802 17033 18 723 543 25Sweden 17660 9100 48 390 270 31Switzerland 11612 13173 2) 418 285 2)

Table 6.2 Nutrient losses (tonnes) from diffuse anthropogenic sources and the reductions achieved.


127

Figure 6.2 Reductions of nitrogen and phosphorus achieved between 1985 and 1999/2000.

128

The proportion of the nitrogen and phosphorusdischarges in sewage from households not connectedto public sewerage, compared to the total dischargesin sewage from waste water treatment plants andhouseholds, represented a relatively high figure forGermany, Norway and Sweden in 2000 (see Table6.4).

AquacultureThe aquaculture industry has an insignificant dis-charge of nutrients into the defined problem areaswith regard to eutrophication. In Denmark, the dis-charges of nitrogen and phosphorus representedabout 1 and 5% respectively of the total discharges/losses in 2000 (Tables 6.5 and 6.7A). The dischargesfrom Norwegian aquaculture plants in the area that

Norway has identified as a problem area withregard to eutrophication were insignificant (1% orless) (Tables 6.5 and 6.7B).

However, most of the Norwegian aquaculture plantsare located in marine non-problem areas on theNorwegian west coast. The contribution of nutrientsfrom the Norwegian aquaculture sector from thesouthernmost part of Norway (Lindesnes), along theNorwegian west coast up to 62° N, represented 44%and 76% of the total discharges/losses in that areafor nitrogen and phosphorus respectively.

Industry The estimated reductions in losses from industrialplants in the period 1985 to 2000 vary between 25%

Progress Report

Table 6.3 Nutrient discharges (tonnes) from sewage treatment works and sewerage.

North Nitrogen Nitrogen Reduction Phosphorus Phosphorus Reduction Remarks Sea State 1985 2000/ (%) 1985 2000/ (%)

1999 1999

Belgium 31960 30614 4 9870 4319 56 Includes households

not connectedDenmark 10000 1981 80 1900 207 89France NI NI NI NI NI NIGermany 245500 119700 51 46858 8139 83Netherlands 38410 31000 19 10800 3000 72Norway 10510 6688 36 964 134 86Sweden 9200 5446 41 262 157 40Switzerland 18000 12300 32 2300 900 61

NI: no information.

NI: no information.

1) The 1985 nutrient losses from households not connected to public sewerage are included in the figures on discharges from sewagetreatment works and sewerage (see Table 6.3).

North Nitrogen Nitrogen Reduction Phosphorus Phosphorus Reduction Sea State 1985 2000/ (%) 1985 2000/ (%)

1999 1999

Belgium 1) 1350 1) 204Denmark NI 1254 NI 288France NI NI NI NI NI NIGermany 31800 20700 35 6854 2832 59Netherlands 8481 665 92 1773 72 96Norway 1779 1299 27 271 121 55Sweden 3288 1995 39 216 143 34Switzerland 1000 100 90 250 10 96

Table 6.4 Nutrient losses (tonnes) from households not connected to public sewerage.

129

in Sweden and 99% in Denmark for the phosphorusinputs, and between 20% in Switzerland and 85% inDenmark for nitrogen (Table 6.6).

The discharges from industrial plants represent lessthan 7% of the total nitrogen discharges in allNorth Sea States in 2000. The contribution from theindustrial sector in the Netherlands to the totalDutch phosphorus discharges/losses representedabout 29% in 2000, for Belgium, Norway andSweden about 11–13%, whereas for Denmark,Germany and Switzerland the contribution was lessthan 7% of the total discharges/losses in 2000.

Table 6.7A shows discharges/losses from the varioussources of phosphorus and nitrogen in North SeaStates in 2000, whereas Table 6.7B shows thereductions achieved by North Sea States per sectorin the period 1985 to 2000.


Table 6.5 Nutrient discharges (tonnes) from aquaculture plants.

Table 6.6 Discharges of nutrients (tonnes) from industries not connected to municipal sewerage systems.

NI: no information.

1) Considered to be negligible in 1985.2) No data for 1985 available.

NI: no information.

North Nitrogen Nitrogen Reduction Phosphorus Phosphorus ReductionSea State 1985 2000 (%) 1985 2000 (%)

Belgium 1) 84 1) 14Denmark 2351 1106 53 275 85 69France NI NI NI NIGermany Zero for marine waters: no information for freshwatersNetherlands 0 0 0 0Norway 2 49 Increase 0.3 10 IncreaseSweden 76 62 18 10 9 10Switzerland 2) 30 2) 3

North Nitrogen Nitrogen Reduction Phosphorus Phosphorus Reduction Remarks Sea State 1985 2000/ (%) 1985 2000/ (%)

1999 1999

Belgium 29280 5728 80 5460 797 85 The data cover all industries

Denmark 3200 484 85 3100 38 99France NI NI NI NI NI NIGermany 122200 25100 79 6146 1104 82Netherlands 19529 4631 76 13422 3384 75Norway 5796 1562 73 164 102 38Sweden 1169 855 27 118 88 25Switzerland 1000 800 20 153 20 87

Progress Report

130

Table 6.7A Losses and discharges of nutrients (tonnes) per country and source in 2000.

Table 6.7B Achieved percentage reductions of nutrients per source at source between 1985 and 2000 byNorth Sea States in areas draining into their defined problem areas with regard to eutrophication.

1) Includes discharges of nitrogen and phosphorus by combined sewer systems, by separate sewer systems, by systems that are notconnected to waste water treatment plants and households within the agglomeration which are not connected to a public sewer sys-tem, but that are expected to be connected in the near future.

2) Households not connected to public sewage systems include both scattered dwellings and households within urban areas that arenot likely to be connected in the near future (five to ten years).

3) Concerns industrial plants with direct discharges of nitrogen and phosphorus from production water into surface waters.4) Reported on 1985 and 1999 data.5) Preliminary estimates.

- : increaseNI : no information

1) Includes discharges of nitrogen and phosphorus by combined sewer systems, by separate sewer systems, by systems that are notconnected to waste water treatment plants and households within the agglomeration which are not connected to a public sewer sys-tem, but that are expected to be connected in the near future.

2) Households not connected to public sewage systems include both scattered dwellings and households within urban areas that arenot connected in the near future (5–10 years).

3) Industrial plants with direct discharges of nitrogen and phosphorus from production water into surface waters.4) Data covering all households.5) 1985 and 1999 data.6) Different quantification methodologies (land use statistics) have been used for 1985 and 2000; thus the figures are not comparable7) Prelimminary estimates.

N P N P N P N P N PBelgium 45560 2313 30614 4319 1350 204 5728 797 84 14Denmark 38167 987 1981 207 1254 288 484 38 1106 85France NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NIGermany 304300 12943 119700 8139 20700 2832 25100 1104 NI NINetherlands4) 57852 5183 31000 3000 665 72 4631 3384 0 0Norway 170335) 5435) 6688 134 1299 121 1562 102 49 10Sweden 9100 270 5446 157 1995 143 855 88 62 9Switzerland 13173 285 12300 900 100 10 800 20 30 3

North Sea Diffuse Sewage House- Industry3) Aqua-State losses treatment holds not culture

works, connected 2)

sewerage1)

N P N P N P N PBelgium -15 6 44) 264) 85 89Denmark 36 -65 80 89 85 99France NI NI NI NI NI NI NI NIGermany 16 4 51 83 35 59 79 82Netherlands5) 43 8 19 72 92 96 76 75Norway 187) 257) 36 86 27 55 73 38Sweden 48 31 14 36 48Switzerland 6) 6) 32 61 90 96 20 87

North Sea Diffuse Sewage House- Industry 3)

State losses treatment holds notworks, connected2)

sewerage1)

131

6.4.4 Riverine data

A riverine input is the load conveyed by a river at apoint of entry to the maritime area, which is usuallyat a point of freshwater unidirectional flow immedi-ately upstream of tidal influence, but may be in thetidal zone of a river. The riverine loads reportedrepresent the loads coming from the whole of theriver catchment areas. In the case of internationalrivers, loads from upstream countries are ascribedto the most downstream countries.

The riverine discharges to the landward ends ofestuaries and direct discharges to estuaries andcoastal waters are combined to give estimates of thegross input of each substance to the maritime area(Load Orientated Approach, see section 6.8.6). It isnot feasible at the present time to estimate howmuch of these inputs are retained within estuariesand near-shore areas and how much passes into theopen sea.

Input data for substances carried to the maritimearea by rivers and direct discharges are importantin that they provide one of the key links betweenthe sources of substances of concern and theirpresence and effects in the maritime area. Thecomparison of riverine and source data can give anindication of the effectiveness of the measuresimplemented and assist in the interpretation ofmonitoring data, such as those collected under theOSPAR Nutrient Monitoring and Riverine Inputsand Direct Discharges (RID) programmes.

The Quality Status Report 2000 for the GreaterNorth Sea (OSPAR 2000) presented data on riverineinputs and direct discharges to the Greater NorthSea between 1990 and 1996. Direct inputs decreasedfor nitrogen and phosphorus, while river inputsincreased for nitrogen and phosphorus until 1995,before decreasing in 1996. A major part of the nutri-ent inputs from point and diffuse sources within acatchment area enter the North Sea via rivers. Theyaccount for 65–80% of the total nitrogen inputs andfor 80–85% of the total phosphorus inputs.

A direct input is assumed to have a precision of theorder ±30%. Precision may be increased when theannual estimate is based on a larger number ofsamples and/or continuous flow records, or is theaggregate of a number of individual inputs.

6.4.5 Nutrient inputs into the sea

Two methods can be distinguished to estimate thenutrient inputs to the sea.

1. The use of the HARP Guidelines to quantify andreport on the individual components of nitrogenand phosphorus discharges/losses to inland sur-faces waters allows the aggregation of the dis-charges/losses of nitrogen and phosphorus ineach catchment. By taking account, whereappropriate, of nitrogen and phosphorus reten-tion processes in river systems and backgroundlosses of nitrogen and phosphorus, the inputs tothe sea can be derived from the data on dis-charges and losses at source.

2. Nutrient inputs to the sea can also be estimatedvia the measurement of riverine loads at down-stream monitoring points accompanied by esti-mates of the discharges/losses from unmonitoredareas below the monitoring point, as described inHARP Guideline 7 (Quantification and reportingof the monitored riverine load of nitrogen andphosphorous, including water flow normalizationprocedures).

Nitrogen and phosphorus retention in river systemsrepresents the link which allows a comparisonbetween discharges/losses at source and measuredriverine loads. HARP Guideline 9 (Quantificationand reporting of the retention of nitrogen and phos-phorous in river catchments) deals with the quan-tification of retention.

Nutrient inputs to the sea estimated by measured riverine loadsBelgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway andSweden have provided information on measuredriverine loads, as described in method 2 above.Belgium and the Netherlands do not base theirassessment of the achievement of the 50% reductiontarget on this information.

Table 6.8 provides an overall summary of reductionsachieved in inputs of nutrients to the sea for theUK as a whole and for the Thames catchmentrespectively, by using method 2 above.


132

Table 6.9 shows the riverine inputs of nutrients forall North Sea States except Switzerland which hasno coastline. There is an increase in riverine inputsof phosphorus and nitrogen in both Norway andSweden.

Estimates derived from source data and retentionOnly Denmark and Norway have provided sufficientinformation to allow an estimate of the nutrientinputs to the sea by using nutrient discharges/lossesat source and the retention in the water bodies.

Progress Report

Table 6.8 Reductions 1985–1999 in UK inputs of nutrients (kt/year) for the UK as a whole and for the Thames Catchment.

Table 6.9 Riverine inputs (tonnes) of nitrogen and phosphorus.

Catchment 1985 Input 1985 Input 1999 Input 1999 Input Reduction Reduction

Area Nitrogen Phosphorus Nitrogen Phosphorus Nitrogen Phosphorus

(%) (%)

All UK 319 1) 58.4 355 33.0 -11 43

Thames 40.5 10.9 29.0 6.0 28 45

1) This 1985 baseline figure reported to the 3NSC appears to be an underestimate, so the indicated increase will be a worst case. The‘All UK’ data for 1990 to 1999 indicate no underlying change in inputs of nitrogen.

NA : not applicableNI : no information

1) Only applicable to the basin referred to as ‘Scheldt’.2) Data for 1991 and 2000.3) Data for 1990 and 1999.4) Data from the transboundary river Elbe (without the tributaries below the monitoring point), Weser, Ems and Eider.5) Data from three transboundary rivers: Meuse, Rhine and Scheldt. The data include loads from countries upstream.6) Riverine and direct inputs, which represent some 90% of total UK inputs; 1985 and flow adjusted 1999 data. Phosphorus as

orthophosphate.

North Sea State Nitrogen Phosphorus

1985 2000 1985 2000

Belgium1) NI 58352 NI 4170Denmark2) 60220 47039 2376 1267France3) 142969 40343 16604 11867Germany4) 247410 199250 16560 8350Netherlands5) 455000 372860 43300 24250Norway 20972 23160 643 1035Sweden 39524 42702 880 935Switzerland NA NA NA NAUK 6) 319000 355000 58400 33000

133

6.5 Urban and Industrial Sewage

(ED 31)

6.5.1 Background

Council Directive 91/271/EEC on Urban WasteWater Treatment, which was adopted in 1991, aimsto protect the environment from the adverse effectsof the discharge of urban waste water andbiodegradable waste water from the food-processingindustry. The main obligation imposed by thedirective concerns the establishment of waste watercollection systems and provision of treatment.

There are four major deadlines in the Urban WasteWater Treatment Directive: • by 31 December 1998 all sewage treatment works

serving agglomerations with more than 10 000population equivalents (p.e.) discharging theireffluent into or upstream of an area regarded assensitive should have been equipped with a col-lection system and more stringent treatment.Some countries decided to apply the alternativeapproach whereby the minimum percentage ofreduction of the overall load entering all wastewater treatment plants in the sensitive area hasto be at least 75% for total phosphorus and atleast 75% for total nitrogen. In this alternativeapproach, the discharges of all agglomerationshave to be considered, not only the dischargesfrom agglomerations of more than 10 000 p.e.;

• by the end of 2000 EU Member States shouldhave established collection systems and second-ary treatment (usually biological treatment) fordischarges from agglomerations with more than15 000 p.e.;

• by 31 December 2005. Establishment of collectionsystems and secondary treatment for coastal,freshwater and estuarine discharges fromagglomerations with more that 10 000 and 2 000p.e. respectively; and

• by 31 December 2005. Establishment of appropri-ate secondary treatment in small agglomerationswith more than 2 000 p.e., or less if a collectionsystem does not yet exist.

6.5.2 Implementation status

In its second report on the implementation ofCouncil Directive 91/271/EEC, adopted by theCommission on 20 November 2001, the Commissionconsiders that most EU Member States have majorshortcomings with regard to the deadlines listed insection 6.5.1 and with the identification of sensitiveareas.

Major delays in implementation Ten years after the adoption of Council Directive91/271/EEC, the vast majority of Member Statesshow major delays and shortcomings in its imple-mentation. Almost all Member States are very slowin providing the Commission with informationabout the treatment of city sewage.

According to the Commission, for the 3 247 agglom-erations with more than 10 000 inhabitants whichaffect sensitive areas, only Denmark of the NorthSea States is close to compliance with the 1998deadline (see Table 6.11). The Netherlands andGermany applied the alternative approach given inthe directive with regard to nutrients removal, notlinked to individual treatment plants with morethan 10 000 p.e., but to the requirement of 75%nutrients removal to be achieved by all waste watertreatment plants. By 31 December 1998, the mini-mum rate of 75% had been achieved for phosphorusin the Netherlands, for nitrogen a reduction of 60%was reached by that date. In the sensitive areas ofGermany, loads from urban areas with more than 2 000 p.e. had been reduced by 90% as regardsphosphorus and 74% with regard to nitrogen.

With regard to the provision of secondary treatmentfor discharges from agglomerations of more than150 000 inhabitants, where the deadline was 31 December 2000 unless they affected designatedsensitive areas, the Commission considers that aconsiderable number of the 527 European cities ofmore than 150 000 inhabitants are equipped withadequate treatment, but that 37 are still discharg-ing all their waste water into the environmentwithout prior treatment (see Table 6.10), 57 dis-charge a large proportion of their waste waterwithout treatment or after inadequate treatment,while for 134 others no complete information hasbeen provided to the Commission. These figuresrefer to the European Community as a whole and


134

not just to the seven Member States or the partsthereof which drain into the North Sea.

Since France and Germany had not informed theCommission about the treatment situation in theirlarge cities in 1998, the Commission could notundertake an analysis of their situation. In 2001Germany advised that it would apply the article 5.4procedure of the WFD (see the alternative approachin bullet one in section 6.5.1). In France in 2001,Lille, Marseille and Bordeaux did not seem to be incompliance with the directive (due to insufficientsecondary treatment).

Identification of sensitive areas EU Member States have proceeded in a restrictivefashion when designating sensitive areas and havenot taken into account the fact that discharged

waste water migrates and contributes to anincrease in the level of pollution of downstreamwater. The choice of the treatment level for a townshould take into account the degree of sensitivity ofthe receiving water bodies situated downstreamfrom the towns concerned. The incomplete designa-tion of sensitive areas results in an under-assess-ment of the waste water treatment targets for manyagglomerations, which are sometimes very large,e.g. London16 and Paris.

Member states slow in providing informationDuring 1999 and 2000 – on the basis of theinformation transmitted by the Member States –the Commission checked the degree of compliancewith the first requirements of the directive.Information from the European EnvironmentAgency confirms that where efforts have been made

Progress Report

Table 6.10 Progress on the provision of treatment for cities with more than 150 000 p.e., which were withoutwaste water treatment at the end of 1998.

Belgium Brussels The City of Brussels had no waste water treatment on 31December 1998. The first treatment plant has been treatingone third of the waste water at secondary level since autumn2000, i.e. below the level required by Council Directive91/271/EEC. The second treatment plant in Brussels is at theplanning stage and should be operational before 2004–2005

UK Dundee Secondary treatment to be provided by 31/12/2001

Sunderland/Whitburn Complied with Council Directive 91/271/EEC as secondarytreatment provided by 31/12/2000

Middlesborough Complied with Council Directive 91/271/EEC as secondarytreatment provided by 31/12/2000

Hull Secondary treatment to be provided by 31/12/2001

Bebington Secondary treatment provided by 31/12/2000

Torbay 50% of discharge to receive secondary treatment by 30/4/2002.Work is underway to complete the rest as soon as practicable

Portsmouth Work underway, secondary treatment to be provided as soon aspracticable

Hastings Work underway, secondary treatment to be provided as soon aspracticable

Dover/Folkstone Secondary treatment to be provided by October 2002

Brighton Work underway, secondary treatment to be provided as soon aspracticable

16 The UK does not agree that the London agglomeration discharges directly or indirectly to any sensitive areas and that the currentsecondary treatment provisions are, therefore, in accordance with the requirements of the Urban Waste Water Directive.

135

to implement the directive the result is a significantimprovement in the water quality of manyEuropean rivers and lakes. Nevertheless, theCommission considers that the situation remainsworrying with regard to eutrophication in the North Sea.

Furthermore, the Commission found that its workhas been slowed, in some cases substantially, by thedelays with which almost all Member States haveprovided the information.

6.5.3 Implementation improvement – prospects for the future

To achieve better implementation, the Commissionwill continue to check and help ensure compliance.It will also continue to apply traditional measuressuch as infringement proceedings for any failure tocomply with the requirements of the directive.

The Commission is also encouraging Member Statesto implement the directive by granting financial aidunder the Structural and Cohesion Funds. It is alsoactive in the accession candidate countries via theFinancial Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-Accession (ISPA). Furthermore, it will grant

financial aid conditional on stringent compliancewith the requirements of the directive.

EU Member States welcomed the Commission’sproposal to establish an expert eutrophication groupfor both the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directiveand Nitrates Directives with the target to harmo-nize criteria in close cooperation and in accordancewith the work on the Water Framework Directive.

During the next few years the Commission will stepup these activities with regard to local and regionaldecision makers, authorities and other bodies, byraising awareness within the general public, acti-vating networks of cities and by means of technicalassistance to help small and medium-sized agglom-erations comply by 2005.

The EU has announced that it will launch atransparent and comprehensive discussion on urbanwater management. This discussion will address inparticular preventative action at source by raisingthe awareness of water consumers, utilization of theend products of treatment, and rainwater manage-ment. All the stakeholders – towns and cities, non-governmental organizations, water industries,consumers, and national, regional and local admin-istrations – will be involved in this discussion.


Agglomerations concerned In conformity Not in conformity

No. SA load Total load No. Load No. Load(p.e.) (p.e.) % 1) % (p.e.) % % (p.e.) %

Belgium 189 7 801 350 9 164 000 85.1 12 6.3 468 081 6.0 177 93.7 7 333 268 94.0

Denmark 125 6 876 605 8 393 000 81.9 123 98.4 6 848 167 99.6 2 1.6 28 439 0.4

Germany2) 1685 109 831 358 141 458 400 77.6 - - - - - - - -

France5) 267 17 868 530 70 510 000 25.3

(281) (15 183 525) (21.5) (151) (53.7) (7 424 404) (48.9) (130) (46.3) (7 756 121) (51.1)

Netherlands3) 263 15 473 498 17 218 000 89.9 - - - - - - - -

Sweden 144 7263 240 7 496 000 96.9 34 23.6 2 451 910 33.8 110 76.4 4 811 330 66.2

UK4) 212 13 386 805 76 528 000 17.6 19 9.0 1 536 902 11.5 150 70.7 10 180 629 76.0

Member State

Table 6.11 Cities with more than 10 000 p.e. affected by a sensitive area (SA) and organic load as at 31 December 1998.

1) Percentage in relation to the total organic load of the EU Member State. 2) Germany had not provided data and it advised in 2001 that it would apply the Article 5.4 provisions. 3) The Netherlands apply the regulations of Article 5.4. 4) The UK does not accept that 150 agglomerations are not compliant with the directive because nitrogen does not play a significant

part in eutrophication in freshwater areas. The issue of sensitive areas is a matter of dispute between the UK and the Commission.5) Although France did not submit information in 1998, more recent information (2000 data) has been included in parentheses for

comparative purposes.

136

6.6 Agriculture

(ED 31, 35, 36 and 37)The 4NSC focused on the strengthening of theimplementation of measures as soon as possible.The progress within OSPAR and the EU isdescribed in section 6.6.1, together with develop-ments in Norway and Switzerland on their agricul-ture policies.

6.6.1 Progress made

European CommissionThe Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) provides for astepwise process comprising:(i) detection of polluted or threatened water; (ii) designation of vulnerable zones; (iii) voluntary codes of good agricultural practice; (iv) action programmes within the nitrate vulnera-

ble zones (NVZs) where the codes are mandato-ry and other measures such as nutrient bal-ance, spreading and storage are taken; and

(v) national monitoring and reporting on nitrateconcentrations and eutrophication.

The European Commission will shortly publish itssecond report on the implementation of this directive.

In the designation of vulnerable zones, which coveraround 40% of the total EU area, there are differ-ences in opinion between some North Sea States onthe extent of these zones. Recently communicatedproposals with the UK and Belgium will signif-icantly reduce this discrepancy.

The overall trends, based on an assessment of themonitoring programmes, are a clear decrease innitrate concentrations in groundwater in Finland,increases in Sweden and France, a relatively stablesituation in Denmark and contrasting trends inGermany, the Netherlands and Belgium. Wheredecreases in surface water concentrations have beendetected, it is not clear whether this is due to the

action programmes or to other measures or climaticreasons.

In general, there are gaps in the action programmeswith respect to comprehensiveness and precision, inparticular with effluent storage, crop rotation andbalanced fertilization. Most countries fail to complywith measures on restricted periods for fertilizerapplication. Generally, manure handling is betteraddressed than the use of mineral fertilizers. Therestrictions on application on sloping land, soil win-ter cover and definition of measures for applicationnear watercourses are poorly addressed.

Since 1994 the Commission has initiated some 50legal actions, and this has stimulated implementa-tion to the extent that half of the cases are nowclosed. However, six have resulted in judgementsagainst Member States, including North Sea States.Considering the 21 types of infringement, almost allMember States are involved in one infringement oranother.

Initially, the legal actions concerned delays intransposition, and the absence of monitoring andreports, more recently the focus has been on lack ofdesignation of vulnerable zones (including threeNorth Sea States) and action programmes (includ-ing three North Sea States).

This legal pressure, together with technicalcooperation, has lead to a situation where allMember States now have comprehensive monitoringnetworks and codes of good practice and the qualityof their action programmes is increasing. Althoughnot all Member States have produced forecasts, andit is not possible to predict the effect of the morerecent action programmes, the overall signs aremore promising, with positive results on chemicalfertilizer use and contamination of water at routezone level (in for example Denmark, some GermanLänder and eastern France).

The European Commission recently prepared areport on the state of application of Regulation(EEC) 2078/92 on agricultural production methodscompatible with the requirements of the protectionof the environment and the maintenance of thecountryside. Council Regulation (EEC) 2078/92 hasrecently been repealed by Council Regulation (EC)1257/1999 on support for rural development,

Progress Report

137

containing the provisions for the current program-ming period, for which no evaluation data are yetavailable. This analysis is an abstract of the essen-tial elements pertaining to reduction in nutrientinputs. The section of the report on input reduction,which, inter alia, seeks to minimize use of inputsand to promote organic farming covers a series ofprogrammes, and addresses reduced use of fertilizerand plant protection products.

The results described represent the outcome of thevarious national programmes to implement theregulation, which provides for premium paymentsto encourage environmentally friendly farming tocover income foregone, costs incurred and anincentive to provide environmental services.

So far the regulation has been applied to 20% of allagricultural land in the EU. There is neverthelessmuch variation between the different MemberStates, from less than 5% to more than 50%. As theapplication of the programme is not yet widespreadin many EU Member States, the results indicatetheir potentiality rather than substantive achieve-ment. The lack of uptake is often cited to be due tolow level of payments.

In Sachsen, Germany, it was found that a 20%decrease in nitrogen input lead to yield decreases of17–20% in 1995 and 1996 for winter crops (wheat,barley, rye, rape and silage wheat). For grassland a33% decrease in nitrogen input lead to a 14% yielddecrease. On average the nitrate surplus in soil inSachsen was estimated to be 73 kg N/ha in 1999; forthe whole of Germany it was estimated to be 83.5kg N/ha in 1999.

In Denmark, a 69% reduction of nitrogen leachingwas recorded by the participating farmers whichgiven the low coverage of the programme meantvery little (positive) environmental impact overall.Interestingly while the purpose of the programmewas to reduce nitrate leaching, the major benefitwas in enhancing biodiversity.

In the UK, fertilizer use fell by 10–40 kg N/ha onaverage where target values of 150 kg N/ha ofinorganic nitrogen and 225 kg N/ha manure wereestablished.

As regards the significance of actual fertilizerreduction, the environmental benefit will varydepending on the type of soil as well as on uptakeby the crops. The quantified change in use gives asomewhat uncertain indication of the likely changein stress on the environment.

It is premature to comment on the potentiality ofprogrammes on extensification of livestock given thelower level of implementation.

The conclusion by the European Commission is thatRegulation (EEC) 2078/92 is likely to make agreater contribution to nutrient reduction fromagriculture if it were to be applied broadly in all EUMember States. However, as there is little or noCommon Agricultural Policy (CAP) support on non-land intensive sectors (including pigs and poultry),and it is clear that substantive measures to reduceeutrophication must rely on environmental legisla-tion (including the Nitrates and Urban Waste WaterDirectives, the Integrated Pollution Prevention andControl Directive and the Water FrameworkDirective).

NorwayThe North Sea Declarations were considered a basicchallenging target with regard to reducing waterpollution. White Paper No 19 (1999–2000) concern-ing Norwegian agriculture and food production gavea basis for more ecologically-orientated farming andfor introducing an extensive environmental plan-ning system at the farm level. Combined use oflegal and economic instruments supported withinformation and control has been an importantstrategy and is being developed further. In addition,research and development of various measures andmore environmentally sound practices will providebetter knowledge of the effectiveness of measures.

The reduction of nitrogen losses from agriculture tothe nearest recipient (stream/small river) withinNorway’s defined problem area has been estimatedat 24% during the period 1985–2000, whereas thereduction of phosphorus losses is 32%. The relativepercentage reductions are related to the anthro-pogenic part of the agricultural nutrient losses. The loss estimates relate to normalized losses (i.e.long-term mean losses).


138

The measures implemented include soil tillagemethods, catch crops, various aspects related tonutrient management (fertilizers and manure),drainage and surface water management, changesin crop composition and technical improvements ofpoint sources in agriculture (e.g. silage and manurestorage).

Further reductions in both nitrogen and phosphoruslosses are possible. For nitrogen, the potentialreductions are mainly associated with furtherincrease in conservation tillage, including the use ofcatch crops on arable land and more efficient use ofnutrients in livestock feeding and plant production.Appropriate governmental measures have alreadybeen established to enhance further decreases inthe nutrient losses.

SwitzerlandIn the revised Federal Law on Agriculture(Agricultural Policy 2002) general ecological aspectsand the specific reduction of nutrient inputs intowater bodies are fully considered. For example:• reduced prize support to farmers. Prize support

will decrease within five years (by 2003) to about33%;

• to receive direct payment, farmers must fulfilrequirements concerning fertilizing, soil protec-tion, crop rotation, crop protection and extensifi-cation (by 1999); and

• a special programme of measures for catchmentswith high nitrate contents in their groundwaterand surface waters (by 1999).

The result of the Programme Agricultural Policy2002 was examined in 2001. The Federal Councilwill decide the programme for the next four yearson the basis of the outcome of this examination.

OSPAROn the basis that a majority of EU Member Statesin 1996 did not support an initiative of theEuropean Commission to harmonize codes of goodagricultural practice, OSPAR agreed that the revi-sion of PARCOM Recommendation 92/7 (on theReduction of Nutrient Inputs from Agriculture) orthe development of any additional OSPAR measure,should not take place earlier than in the 2002/2003intersessional period. By which point OSPAR wouldhave been able to examine, inter alia, the outcomeof the 5NSC on these issues.

However, it is generally acknowledged withinOSPAR that the inability to reach the 50% reduc-tion target for nitrogen is primarily because themeasures to reduce the diffuse losses from the agri-culture sector are either inadequate or inadequatelyimplemented.

Balanced fertilizationAfter the encouragement from the Ministers at the4NSC to OSPAR to pursue its efforts on balancedfertilization, OSPAR called on new discussions foran operational definition of balanced fertilization. Itsoon became apparent, however, that no commonunderstanding was within reach and consequently,OSPAR concluded in 1996 that there was no scopefor reaching a common definition of balanced fertil-ization.

Despite the lack of a common definition of balancedfertilization, guidelines for calculating mineral bal-ances had been developed within OSPAR in 1992.They were finally adopted as a PARCOM Guidelinefor Calculating Mineral Balance in 1995. However,the intention expressed in the PARCOM guidelinefor countries to perform frequent calculations of anational/regional agricultural nutrient balance hasnot been taken up in regular international reportingroutines. The guideline on mineral balance has,however, been annexed to the draft HARP Guidelineon the quantification of nutrient losses from diffusesources, as an optional quantification procedure.

Since 1996, OSPAR has investigated, under the leadof Belgium, the possibility of developing a BestEnvironmental Practice (BEP) for agriculture basedon balanced fertilization and to investigate any con-nection between mineral surplus and environmen-tally acceptable levels of nutrient losses. However,the work within OSPAR on this item concludedthat, on the basis of present studies, for most agri-culture systems, there is no correlation betweenmineral surplus and losses to surface waters. It fol-lows that mineral surplus is more an indicator ofmanagement practice than nutrient losses to sur-face waters.

It is concluded that the target of achievement ofbalanced fertilization by the year 2000 or 2002,which many North Sea States agreed upon at IMM93 and which was recalled by Ministers at the4NSC, has not been met.

Progress Report

139

New developmentsRegardless of the lack of any common BEP in thisfield, a management practice optimizing the house-keeping of nutrients on a field scale in order to min-imize nutrient losses to receiving waters is nowtechnically feasible. This is due to recent advancesin sensor technology and controllers that allow vari-able rate applications of materials across a field.The concept of Precision Farming has a goal ofoptimizing the use of soil and water resources andchemical inputs (fertilizers and pesticides) on a site-specific basis. Technological advances in remotesensing, grain yield monitoring, geographic informa-tion systems (GIS) and global positioning systems(GPS), provide new opportunities for characterizingvariability in crop fields and adapt managementpractice to the local conditions. These opportunitiesseem to be less promising for small parcels of land.

6.7 Atmospheric Emissions ofNitrogen

(ED 38)

6.7.1 Introduction

Atmospheric deposition of oxidized or reducednitrogen compounds is considerable throughoutEurope and may represent a significant source ofthe total input of nutrients to surface water sys-tems. It should be taken into account in anyeutrophication assessment involving quantitativesource related data. There is a need to link model-ling of atmospheric emissions/deposition withcatchment related estimates including modelling of marine areas. This is clearly shown in the inte-grated assessment and management principles ofthe Water Framework Directive and is a prerequi-site to implementing an ecosystem approach for theNorth Sea and its catchments.

Within the context of marine conventions andwaterborne pollution, atmospheric deposition ofnitrogen has often been considered as a part of thebackground loss of nitrogen, and is therefore not

linked to its original sources. The modellingconcepts used within the framework of theConvention on Long-Range Transboundary AirPollution (LRTAP) enable the identification of thedifferent diffuse sources of nitrogen (e.g. agricul-ture, industry and traffic). The task of keepingtrack of these sources in estimating diffuse losses ofnitrogen from agriculture and other sources has notbeen given priority in relation to waterbornepollution. Subsequently it is still a scientificchallenge to take account of this when quantifyingnutrient losses from diffuse sources.

At the 4NSC, several countries and internationalorganizations were invited to take up or to continuework on keeping track of atmospheric emissions, aslaid down in paragraph 38 of the EsbjergDeclaration. The progress achieved is presented insection 6.7.2.

6.7.2 Progress within the European Commission, OSPAR, Norway andSwitzerland

(ED 38 i)

EC – NECs Directive (Directive 2001/81/EC on National Emission Ceilings for CertainAtmospheric Pollutants)The final text of this new Directive was adopted inSeptember 2001. The core of this regulation isrepresented by national ceilings for emissions ofmajor air pollutants, including nitrogen (NOx andammonia).

The NECs’ directive covers emissions within theterritory of the Member States and their ExclusiveEconomic Zones from all sources which arise as aresult of human activities except:• emissions from international maritime

traffic; and• aircraft emissions beyond the landing and

take-off cycle.

EC – large combustion plantsThe review of the 1988 EC Directive for large com-bustion plants was finalized recently. The final textof the new directive on large combustion plants wasadopted in September 2001 and will be published inthe near future. The new directive contains emis-sion limit values for amongst others NOx. The limit


140

values are more stringent for all specified categoriesof installation (built before 1988, between 1988 and2001, and after 2001) than in the former directive.

EC – Integrated pollution prevention and controlThe EU has a set of common rules on permitting forlarge industrial installations. These rules are setout in the Integrated Pollution Prevention andControl Directive (the IPPC Directive) of 1996. Inessence, the IPPC Directive is about minimizingpollution of the environment (including air) fromvarious point sources. For nitrogen emissions to airthe main sectors addressed by this directive areintensive livestock farming, large combustionplants, refineries and large volume inorganicchemicals (ammonia, acids and fertilizers).

OSPAROSPAR’s Strategy to Combat Eutrophication fore-sees developments toward improved quantitativelinks between the effects and the sources for nutri-ent inputs. In respect of the atmospheric sources ofnutrients, the HARP Guidelines only take accountof nitrogen deposition on inland water bodies, andthere is no division into sources of the total nitrogendeposition.

The OSPAR Strategy to Combat Eutrophicationstates that any further OSPAR measures should becomplemented, as appropriate, by steps by the com-petent international bodies for the reduction ofatmospheric emission of nitrogen. While presently,there is no particular focus on measures related toatmospheric deposition within OSPAR, it is suffi-cient for OSPAR to assess from time to time theprogress made within other international forums(EU, UN/ECE). Furthermore, due to the implemen-tation of measures within for example the EU, con-siderable reductions of NOx emissions from trafficare expected to be achieved in most OSPARContracting Parties within the next 15 years.OSPAR has therefore agreed that there is currentlyneither need nor scope for OSPAR to address nitro-gen emissions from traffic.

There is a need for an overview and evaluation ofatmospheric emissions of nitrogen and of nitrogendeposition on fresh- and marine waters in order toassess:• the effectiveness of agreed international meas-

ures that could contribute to achieving the year2010 objective of the OSPAR Strategy to CombatEutrophication; and

• whether there is a need for any additionalmeasures.

NorwayFrom 1992 to 1999, NOx emissions in Norwayincreased from 208 000 tonnes to 230 000 tonnes,due to increased activity in the transportation sec-tor and increased flaring offshore (Figure 6.3). Thiswas about 1000 tonnes over the figures for 1987,and the obligation according to the Sofia Protocol.

The projection towards 2010 shows a decrease inthe overall NOx emissions, among others because ofalready approved tighter emission standards forvehicles.

Norway has signed the Sofia Protocol and amongother countries Norway undertook to reduce theemissions by 30% from 1986 levels by 1998. Thetarget was not met.

Under the Gothenburg Protocol Norway hasundertaken to reduce its emissions to156 000 tonnes of NOx in 2010. This corresponds toa reduction of 28% compared with the 1990 level, or74 000 tonnes below the level in 1999.

Progress Report

Figure 6.3 Percentage distribution of NOxemissions in Norway in 1999.

141

To limit the emissions of NOx a number ofmeasures have been implemented. The mostimportant are:• implementation of tighter emission standards

for road traffic;• implementation of 88/609/ECE standards for big

stationary combustion plants;• an NOx reduction programme for vessels in

coastal navigation. The programme 1996–2000provided financial support and technical assis-tance to measures for reduction of NOx emissionsand resulted in a slight reduction of NOx/yr;

• implementation of International MaritimeOrganization (IMO) emission standards for newengines in ships (the Technical Code on Control of Emission of NOx from Marine Diesel Engines);

• funding of measures to lower the emissions fromdomestic ferries; and

• a cross sectional analysis of possible measures toreduce the emissions of NOx carried out in 1999.The analysis comprised both cost and effect ofmeasures and showed that a reduction of about30% compared with the 1990 level can beobtained in 2010 with reasonable costs.Reductions of up to 75% are technically possible.However, the realization of these measures isdependent upon introduction of new instruments.

Other policies and measures aiming at targets suchas reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, noise,and improvements of local air quality, can in manycases also lead to lower NOx emissions.

Switzerland In 2001, a mileage, weight and emission-dependenttax for heavy-duty vehicles was introduced.Switzerland also adopted the tight exhaust stan-dards of the EU for light-duty vehicles (EURO 3 asfrom 2000, EURO 4 as from 2005) and for heavy-duty vehicles (EURO 3 as from 2000, EURO 4 asfrom 2005, EURO 5 as from 2008). They will lowerthe atmospheric emissions of NOx substantially. Anincentive tax on non-renewable energy and anenergy fee to promote renewable energy use wererejected by public vote in 2000. Large infrastructureprojects to enhance capacity and attractiveness ofpublic transport and to transfer freight traffic fromthe road to the rail are being carried out.

6.7.3 Progress within the UN-ECEConvention on Long-rangeTransboundary Air Pollution

(ED 38 ii)

The 1988 NOx ProtocolThe 1988 Sofia Protocol to the 1979 Convention onLong-range Transboundary Air Pollution coversNOx emissions. The Sofia Protocol on the Control of Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides or theirTransboundary Fluxes had, as of 15 March 2001, 28 parties. Its main obligation requires parties tostabilize by 1994 their NOx emissions at 1987levels, but parties may choose an alternative baseyear. The Implementation Committee establishedunder the Convention to review compliance byparties with their protocol obligations reviewed the implementation of this obligation in 2000 andreported the following results to the Executive Body for the Convention:

‘The emission reduction obligation for the parties to the NOx Protocol is to control and/or reduce theirtotal annual emissions of nitrogen oxides or theirtransboundary fluxes so that these, at the latest by31 December 1994, do not exceed such emissions for1987. At its fourteenth session in December 1996,the Executive Body confirmed its understandingthat the obligation should be taken to mean thatemission levels for the years after 1994 should notexceed those specified in that paragraph.’

Under the protocol, parties are required to reportannually their levels of national emissions ofnitrogen oxides. The European Community has notreported NOx emissions for any year nor emissiondata for the base year. It has not been possible toassess their compliance.

The 1999 Protocol to Abate Acidification,Eutrophication and Ground-level OzoneThe Gothenburg Protocol to Abate Acidification,Eutrophication and Ground-Level Ozone wasadopted in 1999. Thirty-one parties to the conven-tion signed this protocol.

The protocol sets emission ceilings for 2010 for fourpollutants: sulphur, NOx, volatile organic com-pounds (VOCs) and ammonia. The ceilings were


142

negotiated on the basis of scientific assessments ofpollution effects and abatement options. Countrieswhose emissions have severe environmental orhealth impacts and whose emissions are relativelycheap to reduce will have to make the biggest cuts.Once the protocol is fully implemented, Europe’ssulphur emissions should be cut by at least 63%, itsNOx emissions by 41%, its VOC emissions by 40%and its ammonia emissions by 17% compared to1990.

The protocol also sets tight limit values for specificemission sources (e.g. combustion plant, electricityproduction, dry cleaning, cars and lorries) andrequires use of best available techniques (BAT) tobe used to keep emissions down. Farmers will haveto take specific measures to control ammonia emis-sions. Guidance provides a wide range of abatementtechniques and economic instruments for thereduction of emissions in the relevant sectors.

It has been estimated that once the protocol isimplemented, the area in Europe with excessivelevels of acidification will shrink from 93 millionhectares in 1990 to 15 million hectares. The areawith excessive levels of eutrophication will decreasefrom 165 million hectares in 1990 to 108 millionhectares.

The emissions of NOx in the EMEP (Co-operativeprogramme for monitoring and evaluation of thelong range transmission of air pollutants in Europe)area are characterized by relatively high releases inthe late 1980s and an easing-off in the 1990s. Thereduction was 15% between 1980 and 1998. Theprojection towards the year 2010 shows the emis-sions will be on the same level.

6.7.4 Progress within OSPAR

(ED 38 iii)In 1996 it was indicated within the OSPAR frame-work that ‘ammonia from agriculture contributed tothe atmospheric emissions, and the resultingdeposition, of nutrients. Taking into account thatthe draft OSPAR measure on the Reduction ofNutrient Inputs from Agriculture should addressammonia emissions, and that a considerableamount of work and action concerning ammoniaemissions was being carried out by other interna-tional organizations (e.g. LRTAP, EMEP), there was

currently no justification or need for further workon reduction measures to be initiated within theframework of OSPAR. However, the re-assessmentof the need and scope for additional reduction meas-ures on ammonia emissions should be a part of theeffectiveness assessment of such an OSPAR meas-ure on the Reduction of Nutrient Inputs fromAgriculture’.

Further discussion within OSPAR took place withinthe context of a discussion regarding further meas-ures with respect to agriculture and discussion onthe implementation of the OSPAR Strategy toCombat Eutrophication (in which the reduction ofammonia emissions is also mentioned). Until now, ithas not lead to concrete initiatives within OSPAR inrelation to ammonia emissions.

The Gothenburg Protocol to Abate Acidification,Eutrophication and Ground-Level Ozone as adoptedin 1999 (see section 6.7.3) and the EC Directive onnational emission ceilings for certain atmosphericpollutants adopted in 2001 (see section 6.7.2) bothaddress ammonia emissions.

6.8 Assessment of Achievements and Progress

6.8.1 OSPAR

The OSPAR Strategy to Combat EutrophicationThe OSPAR Strategy to Combat Eutrophication wasadopted in 1998. The main objective is to combateutrophication in the OSPAR maritime area, inorder to achieve by 2010 a healthy marine environ-ment where eutrophication does not occur. TheCommon Procedure for the identification of theEutrophication Status of the OSPAR maritime areawas adopted by OSPAR in 1997. The CommonProcedure comprises two phases, a screeningprocedure to identify the obvious non-problemareas, followed by a Comprehensive Procedureapplied to all remaining areas. The aim of theCommon Procedure is to characterize the variousparts of the OSPAR maritime area as a problem

Progress Report

143

area, potential problem area or a non-problem areawith regard to eutrophication. The common assess-ment criteria and their respective assessment levels for use in the classification of problem areas,potential problem areas and non-problem areaswithin the Comprehensive Procedure have beenagreed. Results of this application will becomeavailable for the whole OSPAR maritime area in2002 and will be put forward to the OSPARMinisterial Meeting in 2003.

Also, as part of the strategy OSPAR developed in2001 a draft integrated set of Ecological QualityObjectives for nutrients and eutrophication effectsfor the Greater North Sea. The EcoQOs-eutroconcern the following issues: winter nutrients (DINand DIP), phytoplankton (chlorophyll a and indica-tor species), oxygen and benthos (as affected byeutrophication). Further work on EcoQOs-eutro isrequired for the whole OSPAR Convention Area.

OSPAR has made substantial progress in assessingthe eutrophication status of the various parts of theOSPAR maritime area through the developmentand application of the Common Procedure.

Balanced fertilizationAfter the encouragement from Ministers at the4NSC to OSPAR to pursue its efforts on balancedfertilization, OSPAR called on new discussions foran operational definition of balanced fertilization. It soon became apparent, however, that no commonunderstanding was within reach and consequently,OSPAR concluded in 1996 that there was no scopefor reaching a common definition of balancedfertilization.

The target of achieving balanced fertilization by2000 or 2002, which many North Sea States agreedupon at IMM 93 and which was recalled byMinisters at the 4NSC, has not been met.

6.8.2 Urban Waste Water TreatmentDirective

Council Directive 91/271/EEC on Urban WasteWater Treatment, which was adopted in 1991, aimsto protect the environment from the adverse effectsof the discharge of urban waste water andbiodegradable waste water from the food-processingindustry. The main obligation imposed by the

Directive concerns the establishment of waste watercollection systems and provision of treatment. There are four major deadlines within the UrbanWaste Water Directive, two of which have alreadybeen reached (31 December 1998 – collection systemand more stringent treatment; and by the end of2000 collection systems and secondary treatment).

Ten years after the adoption of the Urban WasteWater Directive, the Commission reported that thevast majority of Member States show major delaysand shortcomings in its implementation. Almost allMember States are very slow in providing theCommission with information about the treatmentof city sewage. EU Member States have proceededin a restrictive fashion when designating sensitiveareas and have not taken into account the fact thatdischarged waste water migrates and contributes toan increase in the level of pollution of downstreamwater. To achieve better implementation theCommission will continue to check and help ensurecompliance. It will also continue to apply traditionalmeasures such as infringement proceedings for anyfailure to comply with the requirements of theDirective.

6.8.3 Nitrates Directive

The Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) provides for astepwise process comprising:(i) detection of polluted or threatened water; (ii) designation of vulnerable zones; (iii) voluntary codes of good agricultural practice; (iv) action programmes within the NVZs’ where the

codes are mandatory and other measures suchas nutrient balance, spreading and storage aretaken; and

(vi) national monitoring and reporting on nitrateconcentrations and eutrophication.

The European Commission will shortly publish its second report on the implementation of thisdirective.

In the designation of vulnerable zones, which coveraround 40% of the total EU area, there are differ-ences in opinion between some North Sea States onthe extent of these zones. Recently communicatedproposals with the UK and Belgium will significantlyreduce this discrepancy.


144

Since 1994 the Commission has initiated some 50legal actions, and this has stimulated implementa-tion to the extent that half of the cases are nowclosed. However, six have resulted in judgementsagainst Member States, including North Sea States.Considering the range of infringements, almost allMember States are involved in one infringement oranother.

6.8.4 Sensitive areas and vulnerablezones

The agreement (ED 31i) to apply in the North Seaand its catchments, measures for Sensitive Areasunder the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directiveand measures for Vulnerable Zones under theNitrates Directive have been implemented by mostof the North Sea States concerned.

6.8.5 Atmospheric emissions

The Gothenburg Protocol to Abate Acidification,Eutrophication and Ground-Level Ozone wasadopted in 1999. Thirty-one parties to theconvention signed this protocol, which sets emissionceilings for 2010 for sulphur, NOx, VOCs andammonia. Atmospheric deposition of oxidized or reduced nitrogen compounds is considerablethroughout Europe and may represent a significantsource of the total input of nutrients to surfacewater systems.

There is a need for further overview and evaluationof atmospheric emissions and deposition in order toassess the importance of the contribution toeutrophication of marine waters.

6.8.6 50% Reduction targets on dis-charges and losses of nutrients intosurface waters

Data from 2000 are to a large extent based on theHARP Guidelines and reported accordingly.However, not all countries had a data-structure thatallowed them to re-establish data from 1985 on thebasis of the HARP Guidelines. In some cases thismay reduce the comparability between 1985 and2000 data, and thereby the reliability of theestimates of the nutrient reductions achieved.

The assessment of the 50% reduction targets onnutrients was based on source data. That meansthat no assessment has been made on the reductionof nutrient inputs to the sea. For the latter thereare two approaches, the Source OrientatedApproach, based on discharges/losses and estimatesof the permanent nutrient retention in the water-courses, and the Load Orientated Approach, basedon riverine inputs, estimates of the discharges/loss-es from unmonitored areas below the monitoringpoint and quantification of direct discharges ofnutrients to the sea.

The general picture is that diffuse sources, of whichagriculture constitutes the largest portion, are thelargest single source of nutrient discharge/loss atsource. Discharges from sewage treatment worksand sewerage also represent a large source in manyareas.

Aquaculture has become a more significant sourcefor nitrogen and especially phosphorus in someNorth Sea States since 1985. Denmark, Norway andthe UK all have important aquaculture activities,but all Norwegian aquaculture plants are locatedoutside the Norwegian problem area with regard toeutrophication.

Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands,Norway and Switzerland have all reached the 50%reduction target on phosphorus between 1985 and2000 from sources in areas draining into definedproblem areas. Sweden has reached a reduction of33%. The report from France was insufficient toallow an assessment of its progress towards achiev-ing the 50% reduction target.

For the period 1985 to 2000, no North Sea Statereached the 50% reduction target on nitrogen loss-es/discharges from sources in areas draining intodefined problem areas (see section 6.4, Table 6.1).The report from France was insufficient to allow anassessment of its progress towards achieving the50% reduction target.

The UK, which has to date not identified anyproblem area with regard to eutrophication and istherefore not committed to the 50% reduction tar-gets, achieved a reduction in inputs of phosphorusof about 40% but saw little underlying change inthe inputs of nitrogen.

Progress Report

145

As a consequence of the reduction of inputs frompoint sources between 1985 and 2000 the relativeshare of the total anthropogenic nitrogen inputsfrom diffuse sources increased. The most importantdiffuse source for nitrogen is agriculture (mainlydrainage and leaching via groundwater). Thereported reductions achieved per sector indicatethat the overall reduction target for nitrogen inputshas not been reached mainly because the reductionsexpected from agriculture, and for some countriesalso wastewater, have only partially been achieved.

The inability to reach the 50% reduction target fornitrogen is primarily because the measures toreduce the diffuse losses from the agriculture sectorare progressing much slower than expected, andbecause the measures in many cases are eitherinadequate or inadequately implemented. However,the time lag between the implementation of themeasures and the decrease of inputs into the sea,which is due to slow groundwater transport ofnitrogen, should also be taken into account.


146

7.1 Introduction

Shipping activity in the North Sea is affected bychanging patterns of trade in the world economy.Increases in trade and prosperity can also lead tothe potential for increased operational and acciden-tal pollution. To guard against this it is necessary tobe aware of the risks posed by shipping and tostrive to manage them through cost-effectivemeasures. The traditional understanding and focusof action to deal with this challenge has been toprevent operational pollution by implementingdischarge requirements and by combating acciden-tal oil spills. However, ships pose a much widervariety of environmental challenges from cradle tograve. These challenges all need managing – fromconception on the drawing board of the naval

architect – right through to the disposal of thewaste streams from the breakers yard.

It is necessary to tackle these challenges in orderto defend shipping as an environmentally friendlymeans of transport. Action must be taken to enforceexisting legislation, to enact legislation whereagreements of principle already exist, and to review whether further cost-effective measures are available. It is also important to monitor andevaluate the legislation that is currently in force.

7.1.1 Areas of environmental concern

When considering the contribution of shipping toenvironmental problems in the North Sea, shippingshould not be considered in isolation. Developmentssuch as reduced discharges and/or emissions fromother sources must be taken into account. Forexample, the emissions of sulphur oxides (SOx) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) from land-based sourceshave been reduced over the course of several years

7

The Prevention of Pollution from Ships

147

through the Convention on Long-RangeTransboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP) and theprotocols thereto, whereas emissions from shipshave increased due to increased traffic. If therequirements of the environmental framework ofthe International Maritime Organization (IMO) donot bring about sufficient reductions in dischargesand emissions from ships, the pressure to developregional measures may increase.

One should be careful to rank the different environ-mental problems related to shipping activities. TheNorth Sea has one of the highest shipping activitiesin the world and is served by several large ports,such as Hamburg, Bremen, Amsterdam, Rotterdam,Antwerp, Le Havre and London, leading to dis-charges and uptake of ballast water. The North Seahas already experienced several introductions ofnon-indigenous species from ballast water, and theprobability of introducing other species is high.Although the associated harm is difficult to predict,few doubt that the spread of harmful aquatic organ-isms from ballast water is a major environmentalchallenge. Emissions of SOx and NOx are welldocumented as the second major challenge. Thecontribution from international shipping in theNorth Sea to acidification in Europe increasedduring the 1990s and currently ranges from around10% of the NOx and SOx deposition in large areasof Europe to over 15% in some coastal areas (Jonsonet al. 2000).

Another significant environmental problem causedby shipping in the North Sea is the threat fromillegal discharges of oil, as is the case in allmaritime routes of the world oceans. These aredifficult to estimate, but observations of beachedbirds, small oil slicks and tar balls in coastal areasindicate that their frequency and volume appear tohave decreased.

7.1.2 Main actions agreed upon

Several of the action paragraphs of the EsbjergDeclaration (ED) from the Fourth InternationalConference on the Protection of the North Sea(4NSC) contain the notion ‘to take concerted actionwithin IMO’. The ability to take concerted actionhas been a crucial factor in the follow-up work.Therefore Norway, as lead country, organized NorthSea coordination meetings prior to meetings of

IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee(MEPC) in order to establish common positions.

The main actions in the ED were to protect theNorth Sea from operational discharges of oil, chemi-cals and emissions of SOx, through stricter IMOrequirements. Reduction of illegal dischargesthrough improved enforcement and the establish-ment of mechanisms aiming at increasing the use ofwaste reception facilities were also highlighted inthe ED.

7.2 Air Pollution

(ED 42 v a and b, 44 iii, Annex 3, 1.1 and 1.5)

7.2.1 Action agreed upon at the 4NSC

Ministers agreed to take concerted action withinIMO to reduce air pollution from ships in the NorthSea. The need to reduce sulphur emissions fromships was specifically addressed. Ministers held theview that the annex concerning the prevention ofair pollution from ships (International Conventionfor the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, asmodified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto(MARPOL 73/78) Annex VI; which has not yetentered into force) should minimize the sulphurcontent in fuel oil by introducing a global sulphurcap, resulting in a true reduction in the sulphurcontent in fuel oil. They also agreed to take concert-ed action within IMO to designate the North Sea asa Special Area under Annex VI. In addition, NorthSea States agreed to an expeditious ratification ofAnnex VI.

It is noteworthy that North Sea action on airpollution was directed towards IMO and thedevelopment of the annex on Air Pollution, and that reduction of sulphur emissions was the mostimportant issue.


148

7.2.2 Reported progress

Reduction of air pollution from ships was placed onthe IMO agenda after the topic was addressed bythe London Declaration of 1987. IMO held aDiplomatic Conference on the prevention of air pol-lution from ships ten years later in September 1997.This conference was the direct result of cooperationbetween North Sea States. Annex VI, when it comesinto force, will regulate emissions of ozone-depletingsubstances, nitrogen oxides, sulphur oxides andvolatile organic compounds, in addition to shipboardincineration and fuel oil quality. Carbon dioxideemissions from ships were addressed in aConference Resolution that outlined future work on this topic.

In general, the outcome of the DiplomaticConference met the aim agreed by Ministers in theED of reducing air pollution from ships in the NorthSea. However, in terms of the sulphur content offuel oil, the results of the Diplomatic Conference didnot fully meet the expectations of the ED. Insummary, the IMO Diplomatic Conference agreed:• to require, in Regulation 14 of Annex VI of

MARPOL 73/78, that the sulphur content of any fuel oil used on board ships shall not exceed4.5% m/m;

• to a conference resolution on monitoring theworldwide average sulphur content of residualfuel oil supplied for use on board ships;

• to procedures for establishing SOx emissioncontrol areas, and to establish the Baltic Sea area as such an area; and

• to require that the sulphur content of any fuel oilused on board ships shall not exceed 1.5% m/mwithin an SOx Emission Control Area.

After the Diplomatic Conference the MEPC agreed(at its 44th Session in March 2000) to establish theNorth West European Waters as an SOx EmissionControl Area.

The monitoring mechanism was initiated by theNorth Sea States and is administered by theNetherlands. In 2000, the calculated average sul-phur content was 2.7% m/m, and none of the sam-ples were above 4.5% m/m. The expectations of theED were not met in respect of the global cap on sul-phur, but they were clearly met by the North WestEuropean Waters being established as an SOx

Emission Control Area when Annex VI enters intoforce. It should be noted that the Council Directive1999/32/EC calls for a much lower sulphur contentin marine gas oil.

Figure 7.1 shows the spatial distribution of sulphurdioxide (SO2) and NOx emissions from shipping inthe North-East Atlantic. Total deposition of oxidizedsulphur and nitrogen from all sources and contribu-tions from international shipping added for all seaareas.

The objective of the ED to improve fuel oil quality isalso embedded in Annex VI. Contamination of fuelwith chemical waste is not only an air pollutionproblem, but can also lead to engine breakdownsfollowed by grounding.

With regard to the regulation of other emissions toair, the adoption of the 1997 Protocol to amendMARPOL 73/78 by adding Annex VI to theConvention represents fulfilment of the ED. SomeNorth Sea States hold the view that the require-ments of Annex VI to MARPOL 73/78 are weak, andwill not lead to major emission reductions, but thatit is a major improvement to the previous non-regu-latory regime. However, it should be stressed thatalthough IMO can strengthen the requirements ofAnnex VI before it enters into force, the effects ofdoing so will not become apparent until after AnnexVI has been implemented. The Annex enters intoforce 12 months after being ratified by 15 IMOmember states whose combined fleets of merchantshipping constitute at least 50% of the world fleet.

To date, only two North Sea States, Norway andSweden, have ratified Annex VI. Other North SeaStates are in the process of ratifying. Hence onlytwo North Sea States have fulfilled the ED agree-ment on expeditious ratification of Annex VI.

The IMO Assembly 22 adopted a resolution on theentry into force of Annex VI of MARPOL 73/78 anda resolution on the availability and use of lowsulphur bunker fuel oils in SOx Emission ControlAreas designated in accordance with regulation14(3) of Annex VI of MARPOL 73/78.

Progress Report

149

7.3 Oil Pollution

(ED 44 i)


Several paragraphs of the ED concern discharges ofoil, as well as other pollutants, from ships.Reduction of oil discharges was addressed specifi-cally by agreeing to take concerted action withinIMO to designate the North Sea as a Special Areafor the purpose of MARPOL 73/78 Annex I.


North Sea States and Ireland successfully promotedan Annex I Special Area encompassing the NorthSea and all waters to the west of the UK andIreland, as well as an area to the south of the UKand to the west of France. This is now known as theNW European waters Annex I Special Area, and itentered into force 1 August 1999. Verification of itsachievement will need to be included in the terms ofreference for the Bonn Agreement annual aerialsurveillance reports. Thus the ED agreement (paragraph 44 i) has been achieved and exceeded.

When preparing the joint proposal to IMO it wasestimated that this amendment to MARPOL 73/78would reduce the discharge of oil into the NWEuropean waters by approximately 2 000 m3

annually, as long as the rules are fully enforcedthrough effective prosecution of offenders.


< 300300 - 900900 - 1500

1500 - 2100> 2100

Dep ox. S

< 2525 - 125

125 - 225225 - 325

> 325

Ships only

< 250250 - 500500 - 750750 - 1000

> 1000

Dep ox. N

< 2525 - 125

125 - 225225 - 325

> 325

Ships only

Figure 7.1 Total depositions of oxidized sulphur (mg(S)m-2) and oxidized nitrogen (mg(N)m-2) from allsources (top) and contributions from international shipping only (bottom) (Jonson et.al 2000)

150

Actions, such as the implementation of CouncilDirective 95/21/EC as amended, concerning interna-tional standards for ship safety, pollution preven-tion and shipboard living and working conditions(Port State Control), have been taken to minimizeeffects on adjoining sea areas. This enhanced PortState Control in the North Sea (and EuropeanRegion) by introducing expanded inspections onhigh-risk ship types. It should also be noted thatsince the 4NSC, a number of North Sea States haveachieved successes in the enforcement of marinepollution legislation. These include the UK, whichhas introduced higher fines for illegal discharge ofoil from shipping. The UK Maritime andCoastguard Agency publishes the names of those itsuccessfully prosecutes for pollution or otheroffences. France also significantly raised fines andjail penalties for illegal discharges from 2001.

7.4 Hazardous Substances

(ED 42 v c, 44 ii, Annex 3, 1.3.)


Two paragraphs of the ED address the reduction ofinput of hazardous substances from ships. Firstly,Ministers agreed to take concerted action withinIMO to ultimately phase out the use of tributyltin(TBT) compounds on all ships worldwide andsecondly, Ministers agreed to actively support therevision of Annex II of MARPOL 73/78 to obtainnew and more stringent discharge requirements.


Progress has been dependent on the ability of NorthSea States to take concerted action within IMO, andthe ability to succeed within IMO.

The phase out of organotin compounds as biocidesin anti-fouling paints has been an urgent matter forthe North Sea States. If adequate progress had notbeen made within IMO by the end of 1997, regionalmeasures were to be considered. The Committee of

North Sea Senior Officials (CONSSO) meeting in1998 agreed, however, that IMO had made adequateprogress. IMO adopted Assembly ResolutionA.895(21) on 25 November 1999 where the phaseout dates and the need to work towards the expedi-tious development of a global legally binding instru-ment to address the harmful effects of anti-foulingsystems used on ships were agreed.

The International Convention on the Control ofHarmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships was adopted5 October 2001. This convention will prohibit theuse of harmful organotin compounds in anti-foulingpaints used on ships and will establish a mecha-nism to prevent the potential future use of otherharmful substances in anti-fouling systems.

The convention states that by an effective date of 1 January 2003, all ships shall not apply or re-applyorganotin compounds which act as biocides in anti-fouling systems.

By 1 January 2008 (effective date), ships either: • shall not bear such compounds on their hulls or

external parts or surfaces; or• shall bear a coating that forms a barrier to

such compounds leaching from the underlying non-compliant anti-fouling systems.

The convention also recognizes that it is necessaryto take appropriate measures to ensure that wastesfrom the application or removal of an anti-foulingsystem are collected, handled, treated and disposedof in a safe and environmentally sound manner toprotect human health and the environment.

The convention will enter into force 12 months afterit has been ratified by 25 states representing 25% ofthe world’s merchant shipping tonnage. A resolutionwas adopted at the IMO Assembly 22 on the earlyand effective application of the convention.

The testing of alternative anti-fouling systems isshown in Figure 7.2.

Discharge from noxious liquid substances in bulk isregulated by MARPOL 73/78 Annex II. This isunder revision and the final target date is 2004.The revision has been delayed for several reasons,the main one being the amount of work required tore-categorize all substances in the International

Progress Report

151

Code for the Construction and Equipment of ShipsCarrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (the IBCCode) by the Joint Group of Experts on theScientific Aspects of Marine EnvironmentalProtection (GESAMP). The UK and the Netherlandshave provided funding to GESAMP to speed up thiswork. The outcome of the revision with regard todischarge limits is not yet decided. A crucial ques-tion is to decide upon new discharge requirementsand the application of these limits. Whether thestricter requirements only apply to new chemicaltankers, or if new requirements should also apply toexisting ships is still under discussion within IMO.

The North Sea States have achieved the objectivestated in paragraph 44 ii of the ED and havesupported the current revision of MARPOL 73/78Annex II actively. In terms of a possible proposal todesignate the North Sea as a Special Area for thepurpose of Annex II of MARPOL 73/78, the delay inrevising Annex II has delayed such a decision.

7.5 Non-indigenous Species andSediments in Ballast Water

(ED Annex 3, 1.6)


The issue of non-indigenous (alien) species andsediments in ballast water was not singled out asan item for North Sea action in the chapter on theprevention of pollution from ships in the ED, butwas addressed in Annex 3 to the Declaration in amore all-embracing manner. Ministers agreed towork nationally, regionally and/or through IMOto develop measures aimed at preventing theintroduction of alien or new aquatic organisms.


The North Sea States have clearly supported theIMO process to protect the marine environmentfrom invasive marine species. In 1997, IMO adoptedAssembly Resolution A.868(20) entitled ‘Guidelinesfor the control and management of ships’ ballastwater to minimize the transfer of harmful aquaticorganisms and pathogens’, with a view to providingguidelines before the mandatory regulations were inplace. The resolution requested governments to takeurgent action in applying the guidelines as a basisfor national requirements and measures.

IMO is also aiming at legally binding measures. ADiplomatic Conference aiming at the adoption of anInternational Convention for the Control andManagement of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sedimentsis planned for 2003.

However, no or few regional and national North Seameasures have been reported since the 4NSC. Legalsteps to facilitate future implementation of a ballastwater convention have been taken by Belgium, andseveral North Sea States have contributed toresearch and development on treatment technolo-gies, decision support systems, sampling methods,and research directed towards the nature andunderstanding of this environmental problem. The


Figure 7.2 After an 11-month worldwide cruise,biocide-free patches on the cruise liner Columbus(Hapag Lloyd Kreuzfahrten) proved more efficientagainst fouling than the copper-based paint on therest of the hull. Columbus is one of 19 vessels takingpart in a multi-stakeholder project initiated andcoordinated by the World Wide Fund for Nature(WWF 2001).

152

UK has actively communicated the guidelines to the industry, and Norway used the provisions of theguidelines for Chattonella sp. blooms in spring2001. However, the full implementation of theguidelines is not reported.

7.6 Reduction of Waste andDevelopment of a Zero

Discharge Regime

(ED 46, Annex 3, 1.2, 3, 4 and 6.3)


The ED addresses the need to develop measures toreduce the generation of wastes in order to elimi-nate and/or reduce discharges to the North Sea.Ministers also agreed to take action to improvesurveillance and control, to request waste streammanagement plans in harbours, to increase infor-mation on existing regulations, and to developregulations that make it mandatory for ships todeliver all garbage to a port reception facility.

The Ministers further agreed to continue to securethe availability and continue to improve the qualityof shore reception facilities, and to study alternativemethods of charging the costs of the use of thesefacilities aiming to encourage their use.

The Ministers agreed to initiate surveys to quantifythe amount of waste generated on the ship anddelivered to the reception facility in order toimprove the control of on-board waste management.

Ministers also outlined a conceptual approach todeveloping a zero discharge regime.


To reduce the generation of waste is a challengingtask, and has been addressed in the Guidelines forthe implementation of Annex V of MARPOL 73/78,published by IMO in 1997. The guidelines provideadvice on issues such as minimizing the amount of

potential garbage, and shipboard garbage handling,storage and processing. The extent to which thissection of the guidelines has been implemented isnot reported. It should be noted, however, that theguidelines do not meet the conceptual approach todeveloping a zero discharge regime outlined inAnnex 3 to the ED (paragraph 6.3). No reports havebeen received for studies or research in relation tothis concept.

All the issues concerning the prevention and/orreduction of garbage disposal addressed in Annex 3to the ED (paragraph 1.2.2), except actions toimprove surveillance of wastes from ships and infor-mation on existing regulations and environmentaleffects, have been achieved through the EuropeanParliament and Council Directive 2000/59/EC onPort Reception Facilities for Ship-generated Wasteand Cargo Residues, which was adopted 27December 2000 and will enter into force 28December 2002. The purpose of the directive is toreduce the discharge of ship-generated waste andcargo residues to sea, especially illegal discharges,from ships using ports in the Community. It aims todo this by improving the availability and use of portreception facilities for ship-generated waste andcargo residues. The directive will enhance protec-tion of the marine environment by removing anyincentive – practical or financial – for ships to dis-charge their waste at sea illegally. As a general rule,ships will have to off-load waste before leaving port,unless the ship has sufficient storage capacity forthe next voyage. For this purpose the directive alsorequires ports to develop waste management plans.

The Directive on Port Reception Facilities alsoanswers the objectives of the ED in terms of finan-cial arrangements for reception facilities (Annex 3,paragraph 3). The directive introduces the principlethat a ‘no special fee’, i.e. the vessel has to pay irre-spective of the quantity and quality of ship generat-ed waste actually disposed of, should cover a signifi-cant share, which the European Commission inter-prets as at least 30%, of the cost involved. Sweden,Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and Norwaywill implement a full ‘no special fee’ system.

Regarding quantification of the amount of wastegenerated on ships, Belgium, the Netherlands,Norway, Sweden and the UK report that informa-tion on waste produced and/or delivered is available

Progress Report

153

or under development. There is little, however,current use of such information. There is stillinsufficient knowledge of the amount of wastedischarged illegally to sea.

7.7 Enforcement and IllegalDischarges

(ED 42 ii and 43, Annex 3, 6)


The ED identified different cooperative arrange-ments, such as a coordinated reporting system oncriminal cases, cooperation between operators ofairborne surveillance and other enforcementauthorities, as well as national prosecutors andcourts, as the main means to improve enforcement.Ministers identified the Bonn Agreement as beingan important mechanism for improving enforce-ment.


As a follow-up to the Erika accident17 the EuropeanCommission has made a series of proposals for morerigorous inspection of ships calling at Communityports. It is also monitoring the performance ofclassification societies and accelerating the phasingin of double-hulled tankers. Further measuresinclude a shipping information and monitoringsystem, a compensation scheme and an agency toensure a high and uniform level of maritime safetyand to monitor the Port State Control system.

Other achievements have taken place within theBonn Agreement, including publication of theManual on Oil Pollution at Sea – Part 2 (BonnAgreement 2000). The manual describes theadministrative and judicial practices of North SeaStates with regard to infringements of marine dis-charge regulations. It reviews authorities responsi-ble, evidence required (with some case studies), and

the type of evidence usually collected duringsurveillance activities and its compilation into adossier. The manual advocates the organization ofcommunications on such cases through a centraloffice. The final chapter describes the various globalinstruments involved. The Bonn Agreement thusconsiders that it has progressed the facilitation ofeffective prosecution of offences to the extent possi-ble under the Agreement. This section of the manu-al complements the first Manual on Oil Pollution atSea (Bonn Agreement 1993), which brieflydescribes, and for a non-technical audience, obser-vation methods practised during marine aerial sur-veillance activities.

The usefulness of the 1993 Manual on Oil Pollutionat Sea is demonstrated by its wide distribution. It isused, for example, for the training of prosecutorsand police, and as a general information tool. Inseveral countries the normal methods of surveil-lance have been supplemented by satellite surveil-lance. Although satellite surveillance cannot replaceverification by aircraft, it can help to focus and tar-get the hours flown by surveillance aircraft.

During the development of the second Manual onOil Pollution at Sea, experience concerning thetypes of evidence regularly collected by surveillanceoperators and forwarded to enforcement authoritieswas exchanged. This has clarified the processesused by different countries to collect the necessaryevidence.

Table 7.1 and Figure 7.3 illustrates flight hours andslicks observed by the Bonn Agreement Aerial Surveillance Programme.

To classify floating oil and to detect substancesother than oil, some countries are trying remoteidentification and volume calculation devices. Sofar, however, there are no reliable, calibrated resultson their effectiveness, although this does seem to bea promising area on which work is needed. InGermany these systems are already operational.

Some countries have means that allow them toimprove their chances of identifying a ship at night(i.e. night identification sensors). Some countriesare developing additional methods for identifying


17 10 000 to 15 000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil were spilled when the Erika broke apart off the French Atlantic coast in December 1999.

154

floating objects (including spills) using ForwardLooking Infrared Sensors. When a ship cannot beidentified at the time the alleged infringement ofthe discharge regulation is observed, surveillanceauthorities generally use movements of ships in thearea (e.g. from vessel traffic management systems,and arrival in ports etc.) to reduce the list of possi-ble culprits.

A workshop was held in London in September 2001to examine how enforcement authorities and courts

in different jurisdictions could work together moreeffectively to enforce international rules and stan-dards for the prevention, control and reduction ofpollution from ships. The workshop noted that therewas still a need to increase the likelihood of beingcaught following pollution incidents. It recom-mended that a better understanding be developedbetween those involved in collecting evidence andthose involved in prosecuting offenders, both at thenational level and for the North Sea region as awhole.

Progress Report

Figure 7.3 Flight hours and slicks observed in the North Sea between 1986 and 2000. (Bonn Agreement 2001)

Table 7.1 Flight hours and slicks observed in the North Sea during 2000.(Bonn Agreement 2001)

BA=Bonn AgreementSLAR=Side-looking airborne radar

North Sea State

No offlights

No of BA flight hours

daylight darkness sum

No of identified polluters

rigs ships

No of spills observed

daylight darkness sum

No of spills per 106 km2 observed

daylight darkness total

SLAR coverage106 km2

Estimatedvolume m3

Belgium 203 132 6.3 138.3 1.854 53 1 54 29.1 13 2 18.034Denmark 84 231 0 231 3.126 33 0 33 10.6 5 4 0.21France 117 255.4 0 255.4 3.422 24 0 24 7.0 0 10 41.4Germany 377 887 104 991 13.281 91 29 120 9.0 17 9 215.26Netherlands 397 545.5 219 764.5 10.244 273 107 380 37.1 27 28 118.4

Norway * 250 392.2 1 393.2 2.388 46 0 46 29.8 17 6 19.15Sweden 111 6 2 8 75.0 0 2 0.288UK 227 583 64 647 8.669 73 2 75 8.7 32 8 2.319Total 1766 3032.1 394.3 3426.4 43.064 599 141 740 17.1 111 69 415.061

* In this summary table, the Norwegian data 'Norway BA' have been taken as these are more comparable with those of previous years.

155

Monitoring the effectiveness of regulations is a com-plex matter. Beached Bird Surveys were included inthe Esbjerg Declaration for that purpose. TheCoastwatch project, which identifies and analysesbeached birds along the entire North Atlantic coastof Europe, is a positive development which providesa general indication of a downward trend in thenumber of birds oiled in the North Sea over recentyears. That said, there is no conclusive data avail-able indicating any trend in oil discharges fromships and a better understanding of the situationmust await the outcome of work in progress withinGESAMP.

7.8 Accidents, Including Insurance,Compensation and Liability

(ED 45, Annex 3, section 5, 7 and 8)

7.8.1 Action agreed upon at the IMM 93 and at the 4NSC

The Ministers agreed at the IntermediateMinisterial Meeting in Copenhagen in 1993 topursue the completion of the negotiations on aninternational convention on hazardous and noxiouscargoes, and if this could not be achieved, toconsider legal actions.

At the 4NSC the Ministers agreed to cooperate with the appropriate forums on reporting of shipscarrying hazardous cargoes, identification of cargolost overboard, cargo stowage and securing, andsalvage capacity.

The prevention of accidents through navigation and routeing measures, the response to accidentsand emergencies and insurance, compensation andliability are also addressed in Annex 3 to the ED.


In 1996, IMO adopted the International Conventionon Liability and Compensation for Damage inConnection with the Carriage of Hazardous andNoxious Substances by Sea (the HNS Convention)

Since 1998 IMO has prescribed the Cargo SecuringManuals, which have provided masters, includingthose of fully cellular vessels, with all relevantinformation on the best use of cargo-securing facili-ties. This is an important achievement in prevent-ing the loss of hazardous cargoes.

The HAZMAT Directive (Council Directive93/75/EEC of 13 September 1993 concerning mini-mum requirements for vessels bound for or leavingCommunity ports and carrying dangerous orpolluting goods, as amended by CommissionDirective 98/74/EC) is implemented by the NorthSea States. This directive also implements the IMO reporting requirements.

The directive prescribes reporting duties for vesselscarrying dangerous and/or polluting goods. Thisenables states to respond properly in the case of anaccident. Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands,Norway and Spain have developed a regional link-ing of national systems for the electronic exchangeof data within the framework of Council Directive93/75/EEC (the EU-EDI-HAZMAT system). As aresult of the Erika accident on the French coast in1999 the EU has initiated the development of a newdirective establishing a Community monitoring,control and information system for maritime traffic.

Three North Sea States have undertaken feasibilitystudies for the identification and recovery of haz-ardous and/or noxious cargoes lost overboard.

All North Sea States regularly report instances ofsubstantial pollution resulting from incidents at seato the Bonn Agreement. Additionally, Member Statesto the European Community report such incidentsto the Management Committee on Marine Pollution.

At the 4NSC Ministers recognized the need to takeadequate measures to protect environmentally sen-sitive areas which are also at risk from shippingand agreed to cooperate in order to make use of the


156

range of routeing measures available through IMO(Annex 3, paragraph 5).

Since the 4NSC, Belgium, France, Germany, theNetherlands and the UK have taken steps toestablish or consider such measures. A coherentmandatory shipping route for tankers carryingdangerous or hazardous goods has been created inthe southern North Sea for the protection of themarine environment.

The UK keeps under review the need for routeingmeasures, both to protect environmentally sensitiveareas and in the interests of safety of navigation. Aprogramme of maritime traffic surveys is under-taken to inform decisions on additional routeingmeasures. Several vessel traffic surveillancesystems have been established in the North SeaStates in order to monitor entrance routes. The UKactively monitors compliance with routeing meas-ures in the Dover Straits by means of the ChannelNavigation Information Service. The UK also car-ries out ad hoc radar surveys of shipping move-ments at points around the UK coastline.Regulation V/8 of the International Convention forthe Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) requires ships toinstall an automatic identification system to helpwith the monitoring of shipping activity. Theschedule for phasing in this requirement begins 1 July 2002 and ends 1 July 2008.

Ministers also agreed that the North Sea Statesshould actively support the work of the EU inestablishing criteria for the identification of envi-ronmentally sensitive areas. This task has beensuperseded by international activities in IMO,whose 22nd Assembly adopted guidelines on thedesignation of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas(PSSAs).

North Sea States report adequate availability ofsalvage vessels, and that tankers from the NorthSea States comply with the new SOLAS require-ments (V/15-1 of SOLAS 74) on emergency towingarrangements.

The International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage (the BunkerConvention), which was adopted in March 2001,was a major achievement. Another achievementconcerns the UK proposal, co-sponsored by all NorthSea States and a number of other states, to increasethe limits of compensation available under the 1992Protocols to the International Convention on CivilLiability for Oil Pollution Damage 1969 and theInternational Convention on the Establishment ofan International Fund for Compensation for OilPollution Damage 1971. This proposal obtained theapproval of the IMO Legal Committee in October2000. As a result, with effect from November 2003,the amount of compensation available for any single

Progress Report

Figure 7.4 Accidents which result in oil discharges to sea may cause extensive damage to marine life.

157

oil spill will rise by about 50% to 203 million SpecialDrawing Rights (approximately £ 180 million).

Ministers agreed to work within IMO to promotethe early adoption of a convention on the removal ormarking of hazardous wrecks. Negotiations withinIMO on this issue have been constructive and it isanticipated that a draft wreck removal conventionwill be ready for consideration by a DiplomaticConference in the 2004 to 2005 biennium. InOctober 2001 the Legal Committee reiterated thisdecision and agreed to continue this work as one ofits priority items and asked the Netherlands to pre-pare intersessionally a substantive document for itssession in April 2002.


7.9.1 Cooperation as an achievement

Almost every action agreed by Ministers at the4NSC called for cooperation between North SeaStates; Ministers agreed ‘to take concerted actionwithin IMO’, ‘to develop regional measures’, and ‘toexchange information’. The ability to take concertedaction has been a crucial factor in the follow-upwork to the 4NSC and all follow-up issues havebeen discussed regularly. Good cooperation betweenthe North Sea States in the follow-up work is amajor achievement.

The North Sea States have been sponsors of thedocuments submitted on the designation of the NorthSea as a Special Area for the purpose of MARPOL73/78 Annex I and Annex VI. There were extensivediscussions in advance of the Air PollutionConference during which the North Sea States tookconcerted action on the follow-up issues from the ED.

7.9.2 Main achievements

The North Sea States have managed to achieveagreement within IMO on several goals from the ED.• Designation of the NW European waters as a

Special Area for the purpose of MARPOL 73/78Annex I. This entered into force 1 August 1999.

• Designation of the North West European Watersas an SOx Emission Control Area. Adopted byMEPC March 2000.

• Requirements for fuel oil quality have beenembedded in MARPOL 73/78 Annex VI andadopted at the Air Pollution Conference 26September 1997.

• TBT is to be phased out. The InternationalConvention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships was adopted 5 October2001 at a Diplomatic Conference.

• The precautionary principle is to apply to all IMOactivities by the adoption of Resolution MEPC67(37) in September 1995.

• Compensation to the victims of marine pollutionis to be extended by the adoption of the HNSConvention in 1996 and the Bunker Conventionin 2001.

• In April 2001 an amendment to MARPOL 73/78(Regulation 13G of Annex I) was concludedconcerning the accelerated phasing-out of single-hull oil tankers.

• Waste reduction can be achieved by applying the‘Guidelines for the implementation of Annex V ofMARPOL 73/78’ published in 1997.

• Since 1998 IMO has prescribed the CargoSecuring Manuals which provide masters, includ-ing those of fully cellular vessels, with all rele-vant information on the best use of cargo-secur-ing facilities. These help to prevent the loss ofhazardous cargoes.

• New SOLAS requirements on Safety ofNavigation were adopted December 2000 and are due to enter into force 1 July 2002. The newrequirements make the carriage of Voyage DataRecorders and Automatic Identification Systemsmandatory for certain ships.

• Guidelines for the control and management ofships’ ballast water to minimize the transfer ofharmful aquatic organisms and pathogens,Assembly Resolution A.868(20), were adopted in 1997.


158

• A Diplomatic Conference aiming at the adoptionof an international convention for the control andmanagement of ships’ ballast water and sedi-ments is planned for 2003.

Actions addressed within the Esbjerg Declarationhave also been achieved within the Bonn Agreementand the EU.• The Bonn Agreement Manual on Oil Pollution at

Sea – Part 2, published in 2000.• Reduction of waste discharged to the North Sea

will be obtained through the EuropeanParliament and Council Directive 2000/59/EC onport reception facilities for ship-generated wasteand cargo residues, adopted 27 December 2000.

• The HAZMAT Directive (which concerns thereporting of ships carrying hazardous cargoes)has been implemented by the North Sea States.This directive also implements IMO reportingrequirements.

• The establishment of a computer database,known as Equasis, which will meet the shippingindustry’s wish to have a single point of access tosafety and environmental information on theworld’s merchant fleet.

7.9.3 Lack of progress

Although progress is considerable, there are alsosome items for which the ED goals have not beenmet.• The North Sea States have not worked in concert

to promote within IMO a review of existing regu-lations and procedures, with a view to identifyingways in which future environmental regulation ofshipping might be conducted more effectively.Although MARPOL 73/78 Annex IV has beenreviewed and Annexes I and II are currentlyunder review, and although new environmentaltopics are taken up by MEPC, a holistic initia-tive, which the ED addresses in paragraph 42 i),has not been taken.

• Ministers agreed that a global sulphur cap result-ing in a true reduction of the sulphur content infuel oil is needed. This has not yet been achieved.

• Ministers agreed to take concerted action withinIMO to develop measures for prevention andreduction of waste generation, for recycling andfor closed loop processes in the conduct of ship-ping operations, with the final aim of the elimina-tion of discharges. Although IMO has developed

Guidelines for the implementation of MARPOL73/78 Annex V, this is far from fulfilling theMinisters’ goal on this topic.

• Four years after the adoption of Annex VI toMARPOL 73/78 only two North Sea States haveratified this annex. Ministers had undertaken topromote early adoption and expeditiousratification of Annex VI.

• Two North Sea States have not yet ratified AnnexIV to MARPOL 73/78. Ministers had encouragedNorth Sea States that had not yet done so toratify Annex IV and to bring about the earlyentry into force of its revised text.

• A zero discharge regime, as outlined by Ministers,has not yet been developed.

• Ministers had encouraged national and interna-tional coordination of the monitoring of beachedbirds, and analyses and dissemination of themonitoring results. Although the Coastwatchproject addresses this goal, the ED was aimingfor robust measures, and thus this goal is notfulfilled.

7.9.4 Overall assessment

The ED addressed a wide range of goals for the pre-vention of pollution from ships. Overall, the goalson shipping have had been systematically followed-up and with good results, although some goals areyet to be fulfilled.

The goals that were to be achieved through IMO, the Bonn Agreement or the Paris Memorandum ofUnderstanding on Ports State Control have to alarge extent been fulfilled. Goals that could beachieved within the EU have also been substantiallyfulfilled. Goals that are more dependent on a NorthSea cooperation outside established cooperativearrangements have been fulfilled to a lesser extent.

Concerted action within IMO by the North SeaStates has not always been successful. This isevident by reference to some of the regulations inAnnex VI to MARPOL 73/78. Also, the ED some-times called for faster progress than was actuallyachieved. Examples are the delay in revisingAnnexes I and II of MARPOL 73/78 and thedecision to phase out TBT having been taken later than expected.

On the basis of the achievements reported on theprevention of pollution from ships, as addressed in

Progress Report

159

the ED, and information on environmental prob-lems caused by shipping activities, there are stillachievements which can be made within the inter-national legal framework. Further work to reducepollution from ships to the North Sea environmentmay take place within the context of regulationsthat are currently in force, regulations which havebeen developed but which are not yet in force, andwithin the context of no regulatory regime havingbeen developed.

Regulations in forceShipping has been subject to environmentalregulation since the International Convention forthe Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954.But there are still significant challenges withinareas subject to international regulation, such as MARPOL 73/78 Annexes I, II, III and V. Theshipping industry must improve compliance withthese regulations, and the authorities have anongoing responsibility to improve enforcement as flag state, port state and coastal state.Strengthening the requirements of existingregulations is also under constant consideration.

Regulations not yet in force Annexes to MARPOL 73/78 have been adopted tocontrol the discharge of sewage and to regulate airpollution from ships. The International Conventionon the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems onShips was adopted in October 2001, and in spring2000 a protocol was adopted to extend theInternational Convention on Oil PollutionPreparedness, Response and Co-operation to coverhazardous and noxious substances. A liability andcompensation regime for hazardous and noxioussubstances has been developed through the HNSConvention adopted in May 1996. A strict liabilityand compensation regime for bunker oil pollutionwas also agreed upon when the Bunker Conventionwas adopted in March 2001. However, the require-ments of these international instruments have notyet been implemented because the instrumentshave not yet entered into force. The status of ratifi-cation varies among the North Sea States, andachieving the entry into force of these internationalinstruments is a major challenge.

No regulatory regimeThere are also environmental problems associatedwith shipping activities for which a legally bindinginternational framework has not been developed.The spread of harmful aquatic organisms in ships’ballast water is a major problem which is not yetregulated internationally, although an IMODiplomatic Conference planned for 2003 aims toadopt an international convention for the controland management of ships’ ballast water andsediments. The emission of greenhouse gasses isanother area where international shipping is so farunregulated. However, an MEPC working group isconsidering the development of an IMO strategy forgreenhouse gas reduction. Although ship scrappingcauses several environmental problems, an interna-tional legally binding regime is yet to be developed.Three United Nations agencies have ship recyclingon their agenda: IMO, the United NationsEnvironment Programme, and the InternationalLabour Organization. IMO will discuss its policy onship recycling in 2002. Technical guidelines on theenvironmental aspects of dismantling ships are also being prepared in accordance with the BaselConvention on the Control of TransboundaryMovements of Hazardous Wastes and theirDisposal, which entered into force in May 1992.

The ED also includes agreements relating toregional measures. The progress reported showsthere is still scope for achievements within regionalmeasures to supplement the international frame-work.


8

The Prevention of Pollutionfrom Offshore Installations

160

8.1 Introduction

8.1.1 Human pressures

The growing demand for oil and gas on the worldmarket has led to considerable production activity.

Development and production of oil resources hasprimarily occurred in the central North Sea, whilegas production dominates the southern North Sea.A net of pipelines connects the major fields to themarkets (Figure 8.1). In general, the larger oil fieldshave been developed with concrete and steel plat-forms as production facilities. Smaller finds areoften developed as satellites to larger fields, withsmaller platforms or with sub-sea installations.

Increasing oil and gas activities means increasingpressure on the environment from the multipleactivities necessary to find, produce and bring theresources to the markets. Impacts on the environ-ment may arise from transportation, placement ofstructures on the seafloor, discharges to the sea,emissions to the atmosphere and accidental spills of oil or chemicals.

8.1.2 Impacts on the environment

At an early stage in the development of a field thesource of most significant impact is discharges ofdrill cuttings to the seabed. At a later stage,production discharges to sea and air become themajor sources of potential impact. Decommissioningof installations may pose particular problems con-cerning the disposal of platforms, sub-sea struc-tures, pipelines and cables.

The earliest negative effects of oil and gas activitieswere detected on the seabed in the vicinity of

The Prevention of Pollution from Offshore Installations

161

10

40

4

Petroleum discoveryOil fieldOil pipelineOil pipeline planned or under constructionNatural gas discoveryGas fieldGas pipelineGas pipeline planned or under construction

0 100 200 km

Asgard

Snorre

Gullfaks

Troll

OsebergStatpipe

OdinBruce

Zeepipe IIAZeepipe IIB

BalderStatpipe

SleipnerBritannia

Frigg

ClydeTor

Ekofisk

Valdemar

DanNorpipe

Ravenspurn Europipe

GroningenHaven

Helm

Leman

Zeepipe

BrentNinian

Statfjord

Figure 8.1 Oil and gas installations in the North Sea (modified from OSPAR 2000).

Progress Report

platforms and were due to discharges of drill cut-tings contaminated with oil-based drilling fluids.Cuttings piles around older installations, created asa consequence of drilling with oil-based drilling flu-ids, may continue leaking oil and chemicals evenmany years after drilling has stopped.

Recently, produced water has come into focus as anincreasing source of contamination, due to reser-voirs in many oil fields producing higher amounts ofwater as they age. Produced water contains smallconcentrations of production chemicals, oil, heavymetals and a variety of natural components fromthe reservoir. Additionally, offshore activities are asource of emissions of gases which may contributeto acidic deposition over land and climate change.The large number of installations and pipelines alsohas impacts on the seabed, which is disturbed orpermanently altered by levelling, stone dumping,trenching and anchoring activities.

8.1.3 Main actions and goals agreed

At the Fourth International Conference on theProtection of the North Sea (4NSC) the Ministersinvited OSPAR to investigate further the extent andeffects of pollution caused by produced water, and toaim at minimizing these effects. They further invit-ed OSPAR to ban the discharges of oil-contaminatedcuttings and to adopt a Harmonized MandatoryControl System (HMCS) for the use and reductionof the discharge of chemicals offshore, includingaddressing the aim of substitution of hazardouschemicals by non-hazardous chemicals. A majorityof Ministers then also agreed that decommissionedoffshore installations should either be reused or dis-posed of on land.

8.2 Discharges of Oil and Chemicals

8.2.1 Total discharges of oil from offshore installations

The highest total offshore discharges of oil to theNorth Sea, around 27 000 tonnes, were observed in1986. In 1996, one year after the 4NSC, the total

discharge was in the region of 12 000 tonnes (Figure 8.2). Total oil discharges from offshoresources in 1999 were just above 9 000 tonnes.

The discharges of oil from the North Sea Statesvary widely, depending on the extent of offshoreactivities, phase in offshore development and typesof hydrocarbon resources exploited. While the gen-eral trend in oil discharges is declining, dischargesin the Danish and Norwegian sectors, are steadilyrising, mainly due to increasing discharges ofproduced water (Figure 8.3).

8.2.2 Oil-contaminated cuttings

From 1990 to 1993 the discharges of oil on cuttings were reduced from 13 700 tonnes to 4 600 tonnes and zero discharge of oil-contaminatedcuttings was reached in 1997 for North Sea States(see Figure 8.2).

162

Figure 8.2 Discharges of oil to the North Sea fromoffshore installations, total discharges of oil anddischarges according to source. The data used arederived from reports to OSPAR (OSPAR 2001a).Included in the figure are discharges via cuttingswith oil-based drilling fluids, produced water(including displacement water), spills and flaringfrom well testing. Discharges of synthetic drillingfluids are not included.

163

8.2.3 Produced water

Produced water consists mainly of formation water, condensation water and re-produced injectionwater; it may also include water used for desaltingoil. Water from the reservoir typically containsnaturally occurring components from the reservoiritself (salts, hydrocarbons, heavy metals etc.), while condensed water may take up lighterhydrocarbon components. Produced water may in addition contain small concentrations ofproduction chemicals and well completion and well cover chemicals.

The number of installations with discharges ofproduced water has been gradually increasing. Inaddition, the amount of water produced on a singlefield increases with time. The total quantity of oildischarged via produced water is therefore rapidlyincreasing (Figure 8.4).

Prior to the introduction of OSPARRecommendation 2001/1 the input of oil from pro-duced water was predicted to continue increasing,even if the oil content is at present substantiallybelow the performance standard (40 mg dispersed

oil/l) adopted by OSPAR in the early 1980s and, onaverage, is even below the revised standard (30 mgdispersed oil/l) that will come into force in 2006.

8.2.4 Oil spills

There are several hundred oil spills from offshoreinstallations each year. Most are of less than onetonne. In the period from 1994 to 1999 the numberof spills was between 600 and 800 each year, with atotal annual quantity of oil of between 200 and 300tonnes, except for 1997 when the total amountspilled exceeded 1 000 tonnes. Compared to producedwater discharges, accidental oil spills contribute lit-tle to the general oil pollution from offshore installa-tions (Figure 8.2). The acute effects on, for instanceseabirds, of a large oil spill may be considerable,however, and this still constitutes one of the mostsignificant concerns for the public even though theactual likelihood of such an occurrence is very low.


Figure 8.3 Total oil discharges from North SeaStates 1981–1999 (OSPAR 2001a). Figure 8.4 Oil discharged with produced water. In

1999 only a small part of the oil discharged withproduced water came from installations exceedingthe 40 mg/l limit (OSPAR 2001a).

164

8.2.5 Use and discharges of chemicals

Preliminary data on the use and discharges ofchemicals were presented at the OSPAR OffshoreIndustry Committee (OIC) meeting in 2001. There are at present no official and quality assured data on use and discharges of the most harmfulchemicals (as defined by OSPAR) from offshoreactivities by North Sea States.

Data from the Norwegian offshore activities in 1999illustrate the types of chemicals discharged offshore.

In 1999, 177 303 tonnes of chemicals were dischargedto sea on the Norwegian shelf. Close to 90% (byweight) of the chemicals were residues of drillingfluid on cuttings discharged during drilling opera-tions. The high proportion is due to weighting mate-rials in the drilling fluids (barite). Chemicals arealso discharged during production, water injectionand during commissioning of pipelines. Spillsconstitute a minor part of the discharges. Most ofthe chemicals discharged are listed by OSPAR asposing little or no risk to the environment (knownas the PLONOR list; the List of Substances/Preparations Used and Discharged Offshore WhichAre Considered to Pose Little or No Risk to theEnvironment (OSPAR 1999)).

Most heavy metals discharged from offshore activi-ties are natural components of produced water orimpurities in products used, mainly in weight mate-rials in drilling fluids. The latter are normally notconsidered to be bioavailable. A relatively small pro-portion comprises additives to drilling chemicals. InNorway, these are not allowed for use under normalconditions, but only in cases of emergency for tech-nical or safety reasons. For these chemicals, mainlylubricants (pipe dope), the priority hazardous heavymetals have been substituted with copper.

Drilling fluids (drilling muds) are used during alldrilling operations offshore. The fluids are oil-based,synthetic-based or water-based. The drilling fluidsconsist of base fluids, weight chemicals and a num-ber of additives such as pH and electrolyte modi-fiers, lubricants, cooling agents, corrosion inhibitors,biocides, and defoamers etc. Of the total amount ofdrilling chemicals discharged in Norway in1999,96% were chemicals on the PLONOR list. Of theremaining 4%, corrosion inhibitors, demulsifiers

and hydrogen sulphide scavengers are considered tobe amongst the most potentially harmful productionchemicals being discharged with produced water.

In the UK Continental Shelf, use and discharge ofchemicals has been controlled through the OffshoreChemical Notification Scheme since 1979. Thisscheme will be replaced in 2002 by the OffshoreChemical Regulations 2002, which will oblige opera-tors to apply for a use and discharge chemical per-mit. Under the new scheme more accurate models ofestimating chemical discharge volumes will be used.Emissions from several UK installations where pro-duced water reinjection takes place will decrease inthe future.

8.3 Levels and Trends inContamination

8.3.1 Drilling discharges

MetalsThe most common weighting constituent of drillingfluids, barite (discharged as the highly insolublebarium sulphate), is also the most easily traceableof the drilling discharge constituents. Backgroundconcentration was in the range 7–160 mg/kg in theDanish sector between 1989 and 1998 (VKI 1999)and 6–554 mg/kg on the Norwegian shelf (Carrol etal. 2001). Concentrations appear to increase slightlyfrom south to north. Several surveys have alsorecorded increased background concentrations ofbarium with depth (Akvaplan-niva 1999, 2000; DNV1997). It appears that the highest concentrations ofbarium are found with the fine sediments in deposi-tion areas.

For other metals monitored, generally cadmium,lead, copper, and zinc, no spatial or temporal trendsin background concentration have been reportedaround Norwegian offshore sites. Recent informa-tion from other shelf areas has not been available.The extent of local contamination by other metalsappears to be sporadic and in general modest andwill be influenced by other industrial sources andriver run-off.

Progress Report

165

Around installations, the present sediment concen-trations of barium are found to be up to 10 000mg/kg in the Norwegian sector and 4 000 mg/kg inthe Danish sector at distances of 250 m and out-wards. Areas contaminated with barium exceeded100 km2 around several individual Norwegian fieldsin the period 1990 to 1994, and 200 km2 aroundsome fields, but have been below 50 km2 since then.The average contaminated area around individualfields was at a maximum of 32.5 km2 in 1993,declining to a stable level of 4–6 km2 after 1996.This apparent decrease in contamination is, howev-er, difficult to verify since there has been a concur-rent shift in sampling focus from field-related sam-pling to a regional strategy. For many fields the bar-ium-contaminated area extends beyond the areacovered by the sampling stations. In the Danish sec-tor, where all the fields studied had ended theirdrilling activity, the highest concentrations of bari-um were found immediately after cessation of cut-tings discharge. Within a year after that the mixingand transport of contaminated sediment reducedthe barium concentrations close to the dischargepoints by about 25–50% (VKI 1999).

Oil The background range in concentration of totalhydrocarbons (THCs) was 1.0–13.6 mg/kg across the Norwegian sector as a whole. A similar back-ground range, 0.6–13 mg/kg, was found in theDanish sector. In the UK sector of the North Seaslightly elevated background concentrations ofhydrocarbons are indicated towards the northrelative to the central region (UKOOA 2001). The latitudinal background gradient in the UKsector is partly explained by more intense drillingactivity in the northern and central sectors than in the southern sector, and partly by less intensesecondary dispersal in the muddy deep water areas to the north.

In the UK sector several lighter aromatic hydro-carbons, as well as several metals, show an oppositetrend with an increase in concentration towards thesouth. This is thought to be due to heavy shiptraffic and land runoff in this region rather than to offshore oil and gas activities.

It is difficult to assess the significance of anychange over time in background concentrations ofhydrocarbons in North Sea sediments, partly due to

the scarcity of long-term data series and partlybecause there has been a simultaneous improve-ment in analytical skill and precision. A comparisonof mean THC concentrations at a range of referencestations in the Norwegian sector from 1990 to 1999showed no clear pattern of change over time. Asimilar lack of temporal change in background THCconcentrations was observed at reference stationsaround Danish installations (VKI 1999). In thenorthern region of the UK sector a gradual increasein sediment oil concentration (of about five-fold) wasseen at distances of more than 5 km from produc-tion platforms between the late 1970s and the mid1980s. Since the late 1980s concentrations havedecreased steadily. The timing correlates with thepeak and subsequent decline in discharge of oil-based drill cuttings in this region.

The concentrations of THCs in bottom sedimentsaround Norwegian offshore installations between1996 and 1998, from about 250 m and outwards,varied from about 5 000 mg/kg to background.Concentrations of up to 500 mg/kg have beenrecorded at 250 m from Danish installations.Between 1999 and 2000 significant contaminationwas found at a maximum distance of 1 km, and on a few occasions to 2 km (Carrol et al. 2001). Incomparison, the THC contamination extended tobetween 5 and 7 km downcurrent from the olderNorwegian installations in 1993, the first year aftercessation of the discharge of oil-based drill cuttings(Bakke et al. 1995). The most extensive contaminat-ed areas were recorded in 1992 and 1993, and forone individual field exceeded 200 km2 (SINTEF1994). The average size of the contaminated areaaround individual fields was far less, in the range of 10–14 km2 for the period 1990 to 1994, and haddecreased significantly to 0.7–4 km2 in 1996 to1999. In the UK sector the degree of contaminationfrom both hydrocarbons and barium is considerablyless around platforms in the southern region thanfurther north, due to more dispersive environmentalconditions in the south, and is also lower in thenorthern than the central region. Both for the UKand Norwegian sectors, the contamination sur-rounding individual platforms varies widely inquantity and extent. The total area contaminatedby hydrocarbons in the Norwegian sector peaked atabout 550 km2 in 1992, and has decreased gradual-ly since then.


166

The contaminated areas still constitute a smallfraction of the total bottom of the North Sea. In1996 to 1999 the areas found to be contaminated by hydrocarbons in the North Sea extended to0.01–0.3% of the total seabed (Carrol et al. 2001).

8.3.2 Components from produced water

Produced water discharges from oil and gas produc-tion are receiving increasing attention, as they nowconstitute the largest source of ‘oil’ inputs. Producedwater may contain components with potential long-term effects, such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons(PAHs) and alkylated phenols (OLF 1998), and thechemical complexity of such discharges gives rise toconcern regarding the combined effects of severalcontaminants. A report from a project by theInstitute of Marine Research in Norway investigat-ing the hormone disrupting effects of alkylatedphenols on cod is under preparation. The bulk of thePAHs discharged comprise naphthalene which issubject to a review for identification as priorityhazardous substance under the EC WaterFramework Directive.

Increased levels of PAHs in seawater have beendetected up to 10 km from the nearest dischargesource, while dilution/dispersion models predictelevated levels at even greater distances (OLF1998). Furthermore, recently measured andestimated concentrations of organic contaminants in the Ekofisk region suggest dispersed oil concen-trations in the range 100–400 ng/l in the vicinity ofthe discharge sources and 30–60 ng/l some 50–60km away (SINTEF 2000). These estimates havetaken into account both the multi-source dischargesin the Ekofisk region itself and the added producedwater contribution from the nearby region of theUK sector. It should thus be representative for oneof the oldest and most intensive exploitation regionsin the North Sea. Comparison with chronic toxicityvalues suggest little or no risk to marine organismsliving in these waters, except immediately adjacentto the outfalls (Utvik et al. 2000; Neff 2000).

8.3.3 Monitoring results

Most field investigations of the impact of drillingdischarges have focussed on effects on the structureof the sediment macrofauna, expressed as thenumber and abundance of animals larger than 0.5or 1 mm living in the sediment. The generalresponse patterns are reasonably well known andappear to be fairly universal. At modest contamina-tion, subtle changes in macrofauna communitypatterns, i.e. species composition and abundance,may be detected. As the impact becomes strongerthere appears to be a decrease in species richnessand diversity. Certain sea urchins and brittlestarsconsidered to be characteristic for large areas of theNorth Sea, e.g. Amphiura filiformis, are regarded ashighly sensitive to drilling related contamination(Daan et al. 1994). They tend to disappear withgrowing proximity to the drilling installations.Concurrently, certain species seem to prosper in theabsence of competition from the more sensitivespecies. These ‘opportunist’ species increase thetotal macrofauna abundance close to the installa-tion, but further reduce diversity. Although thespecies playing the key roles may shift geographi-cally and over time, in general the same opportunis-tic species prosper close to the installations all overthe North Sea.

Analysis of UK monitoring data from 1975 to 1995has revealed a sustained temporal trend of decreas-ing background species diversity across the wholeNorth Sea, but there is no evidence linking this tothe activities of the oil industry. With few excep-tions there is little evidence from available datathat the zone of effects, as measured by the diversityindex, extends much beyond 1 500 metres frominstallations (UKOOA 2001). Typical for conditionsin the southern North Sea, with high rates of dis-persal and water movements, is little evidence ofchange in diversity around active platforms (Mulder et al. 1988; UKOOA 2001).

Omitting the obvious near field effects of drillingdischarges, the detection of subtle effects against aconsiderable spatial and temporal variability innatural fauna composition is difficult. From a recentanalysis of approximately 660 Norwegian stationsinvestigated during the period 1990 to 1998, ofwhich 122 were undisturbed, it was concluded thatonly 8% of the fauna variability was explained bychemical factors assumed to be linked to offshore

Progress Report

167

activities (Carrol et al. 2001). Of these, the mostimportant were hydrocarbons and cadmium(explaining 3% each). Just over 10% of the faunavariability was explained by significant naturalenvironmental factors, primarily water depth(4.5%), sediment grain size composition (4%) andyear-to-year changes (2%). Hence as much as 82% ofthe variability was attributed to unrecorded factors.Also, in the Danish and UK sectors natural environ-mental variables, e.g. location, time, water depthand sediment grain size, are more important faunastructuring factors than sediment contamination(VKI 1999; UKOOA 2001). In the Danish sectordrilling impacts are only important locally.

8.4 Efforts to Reduce Discharges of Oil and Possible Effects on Fish

(ED 50 i) At the 4NSC the Ministers expressed continued con-cern for the effects of oil discharges on the marineenvironment, in particular on fish, and asked thatthe reduction efforts should be continued.

8.4.1 Oil on cuttings

PARCOM Decision 92/2 on the Use of Oil-BasedMuds has had a decisive effect on the discharges of oil-based drilling fluids. Oil-based drilling fluidsare still used in the North Sea, but since 1 January1997 oil-contaminated cuttings are now eitherbrought to shore for treatment or injected intosuitable formations.

At its meeting in June 2000, OSPAR adoptedDecision 2000/3 on the Use of Organic-Phase Drilling Fluids (OPF) and the Discharge of OPF-Contaminated Cuttings. This legally bindingdecision entered into force formally in 2001. Thisdecision prohibits the discharge of oil-based mudsand cuttings contaminated with oil-based mudresidues. Cuttings may only be discharged when theconcentration of residual drilling fluid is less than1%. There are no practical techniques availableoffshore for achieving this value. Moreover, there is a strong presumption against the discharge of

cuttings contaminated with synthetic drilling fluids.The decision defines the ‘exceptional circumstances’where such a discharge is permitted and there is anobligation on Contracting Parties to inform OSPARof such discharges. Information submitted byOSPAR Contracting Parties shows that the quantityof oil discharged on cuttings has fallen substantiallysince the 4NSC.

8.4.2 Oil in produced water

Amounts of oil discharged from installations in theUK and Dutch sections of the North Sea are moreor less stable. In Denmark and Norway dischargesare increasing as established fields reach maturityand as new fields come on stream. Germany hasonly just commenced discharges. To combat thepotential problems, Norway has developed a zerodischarge philosophy on discharges of potentiallyharmful substances to sea from the oil and gasindustry.

OSPAR Recommendation 2001/1 recommends anational total reduction of discharges of oil in pro-duced water by a minimum of 15% by the year 2006(reference year 2000). By the end of 2006 no individ-ual offshore installation should exceed a perform-ance standard for dispersed oil of 30 mg/l for pro-duced water.

OSPAR is also pursuing the collection of informa-tion on concentrations of aromatic hydrocarbons in produced water, techniques for the analysis ofaromatic hydrocarbons, and Best AvailableTechniques (BAT) and Best Environmental Practice(BEP) for the reduction of such substances inproduced water with the aim of proposing one or more performance standards in 2003 and atimeframe for which the performance standard(s)should be met.

8.4.3 Monitoring of effects on fish

There has been no regular monitoring of ecologicaleffects of oil on fish during recent years. Norwayhas regularly monitored the water column for oiland chemicals, and has included in its monitoringprogramme some effects on zooplankton and fishsince 1987. Additional laboratory experiments havenot documented any effects on marine life, including fish.


168

8.5 Efforts to Reduce Discharges ofChemicals

(ED 50 ii)OSPAR has during a three-year trial period(1997–1999) assessed the use and discharge of haz-ardous substances from offshore installations.Examination of the data showed that reporting andassessment were not harmonized amongContracting Parties and therefore OSPAR cannotpublish qualified data at the moment. However, it isexpected that a revised and harmonized reportingformat for the use and discharge of hazardous sub-stances will be adopted by OSPAR in 2002. This willenable the Commission to assess both historical andfuture data on hazardous substances used and dis-charged offshore.

Potential endocrine disrupting chemicals such asthe nonylphenol ethoxylates have been completelyphased out by all North Sea States.

OSPAR has adopted Decision 2000/2 on aHarmonised Mandatory Control System for the Useand Reduction of the Discharges of OffshoreChemicals. The decision requires pre-screening,ranking and risk assessment of chemicals used anddischarged in connection with exploration and pro-duction activities in the Convention Area with theaim of identifying certain chemicals for substitutionby less hazardous alternatives.

8.6 Implementation of Management Systems

(ED 52) At the 4NSC the Ministers called upon oil and gascompanies involved in the North Sea to develop andimplement effective environmental managementsystems in order to protect the marine environment.They also called upon these oil and gas companiesto further develop and to put into use environmen-tally sound techniques in order to eliminate thecases where alternatives to oil-based muds are notavailable.

In 1999, OSPAR adopted a Strategy on EnvironmentalGoals and Management Mechanisms for OffshoreActivities. In accordance with the general objectiveof the OSPAR Convention, and as stated in thestrategy, the objective of the Commission withregard to the setting of environmental goals for theoffshore oil and gas industry and the establishmentof improved management mechanisms to achievethem is to prevent and eliminate pollution and takethe necessary measures to protect the maritimearea against the adverse effects of offshore activitiesso as to safeguard human health and to conservemarine ecosystems and, when practicable, restoremarine areas which have been adversely affected.

Health, Safety and Environmental (HSE) manage-ment systems have now to a large extent become anintegral part of the day-to-day operation of the off-shore industry. Most operating companies have anHSE management system, many of which are basedon a model introduced by the InternationalAssociation of Oil and Gas Producers (OGP) in1994. Although there may be some minor elementsof difference, it has been shown that this model isfully consistent with that contained in theInternational Organization for Standardisation’sISO 14000 series and the Eco-Management andAudit Scheme (EMAS) system. The ISO approachembodies a commitment to a continuous improve-ment in environmental performance.The Netherlands has reported that, based on a vol-

Progress Report

169

untary agreement between the Netherlands govern-ment and the Dutch Association for the Explorationand Production (E&P) Industry, NOGEPA(Nederlandse olie-en gas exploratie en productieassociatie), the E&P operators working offshore ofthe Netherlands are committed to have had anadequate environmental monitoring system in placesince 1996. At this moment most of the Dutch oper-ators do have an environmental monitoring systemin place but some of these systems are not yet com-pletely effective, mainly because the systems formonitoring their emissions to air, water and soil,and the amount of waste generated etc. are not fullyvalidated. However, a very positive recent develop-ment is that most of the Dutch operators do intendto obtain ISO 14001 certification within a couple ofyears. One operator had already received its ISO14001 certificate by the end of 2000.

In Norway, effective environmental managementsystems are implemented through the zero dis-charge philosophy and the operators’ plans forreaching zero discharge, through an overallevaluation EIA, discharge permits andenvironmental monitoring, and through audits ofthe operators’ internal control systems in relation to the environment and how they comply with ISO 14001/EMAS.

In the UK, an environmental monitoring system isan essential qualification for obtaining a licence toexplore for or produce oil or gas. In addition, theUK Environmental Impact Assessment Regulationsrequire the environmental impact of offshore oil andgas projects to be assessed by virtue of the CouncilDirective on the Assessment of the Effects ofCertain Public and Private Projects on theEnvironment (85/337/EEC) as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC.

8.7 Investigations of Effects of Produced Water and further

Development of BAT and BEP

(ED 53) Most countries report some activities to investigatethe effects of produced water, notably laboratoryexperiments with selected components. TheNetherlands and Norway have monitored producedwater discharges and the water column. TheNetherlands also carried out an active biologicalmonitoring study in 1997 to validate the ChemicalHazard Assessment and Risk Management(CHARM) model. In the UK, a project began inSeptember 2001 to validate CHARM predicted pro-duced water concentrations and to increase therange of fraction released default values for surfaceactive chemicals used by CHARM.

The adoption of OSPAR Recommendation 2001/1 forthe Management of Produced Water from OffshoreInstallations is an important incentive to the devel-opment of BAT to reduce discharges of producedwater.

During the past two to three years different projectshave been undertaken by Denmark to investigateavailable and emerging techniques for cleaning/handling produced water before discharge, for thepurpose of developing objective criteria that can beused in the comparison of different BAT. The resultswere presented at the OIC meeting in 2001. OSPARasked the Netherlands to prepare a further revisedversion of the draft background document concern-ing BAT and BEP for produced water managementand flaring from well testing on offshore oil and gasinstallations for consideration. As a consequence ofthe new OSPAR Recommendation on ProducedWater Management, descriptions of BAT and BEPwill be a task for the OSPAR OIC in future years.

In 1999, approximately 4% of the produced water on the Norwegian shelf was reinjected. At present,bottom separation and down hole separation of oiland water is being tested, and the bottom separa-tion test unit – Troll Pilot – is current in production.


170

Even if these promising techniques may be imple-mented on many fields, water discharges areexpected to increase in the near future due to theincreasing number of ageing fields and new fieldscoming on stream.

8.8 Decommissioning of Offshore Installations

(ED 54)As more and more installations will reach the endof their productive life in the near future, the ques-tion of their removal and the handling of the wastedeposits on the seabed becomes imminent.

At the 4NSC Ministers agreed:• that decommissioned offshore installations shall

either be reused or be disposed of on land; • to invite OSPAR to implement this agreement by

1997; and • to also take concerted action within the London

Convention 1972 with the aim that the revisedConvention would require the disposal on land ofdecommissioned offshore installations.

At the Ministerial Meeting in Sintra in 1998,OSPAR adopted Decision 98/3 on the Disposal ofDisused Offshore Installations. The Decision setsout a general prohibition on the dumping and theleaving wholly and partly in place, of disused off-shore installations within the Maritime Area. Byway of derogation, if the competent authority of therelevant Contracting Party is satisfied after consult-ing other Contracting Parties that an assessment inaccordance with the framework provided for by theDecision shows that there are significant reasonswhy an alternative disposal to reuse or recycling orfinal disposal on land is preferable, exceptions maybe considered for the footings of a large steel instal-lation, concrete installation and other installation inexceptional circumstances.

The 1996 Protocol to the Convention on thePrevention of Marine Pollution by dumping ofWastes and Other Matter (the London Convention,

1972), stipulates that, inter alia, platforms or otherman-made structures at sea may be considered fordumping. The 22nd Consultative Meeting ofContracting Parties to the London Convention 1972(September 2000) adopted ‘Specific Guidelines forAssessment of Platforms or Other Man-madeStructures at Sea’ which also require the assess-ment of disposal options other than dumping at sea.

Several offshore installations on the Norwegiancontinental shelf are redundant or will becomeredundant in the coming years. All installationsthat so far have been removed from the Norwegiancontinental shelf, three fixed installations and ninesub-sea installations, have been taken ashore. TheUK installation ‘Brent Spar’ has been reused as aquay outside Stavanger in Norway. A cessation planfor the 14 Ekofisk installations was completed in1999. In accordance with OSPAR Decision 98/3, allsteel installations will be taken ashore for recycling.It is proposed to leave the Ekofisk Tank in place,and a consultation with other Contracting Parties,in accordance with Annex 3 to the OSPAR Decision,took place during 2001.

In relation to cuttings piles, it has been estimated(Cordah 1998) that over the years a total of 240installations in the UK and Norwegian sectors ofthe North Sea are likely to have generated discreteaccumulations of drilling waste, known as cuttingspiles, on the seabed. The formation of cuttings pilesis less likely in the shallow Danish, Dutch, andGerman sectors of the North Sea due to erosion ofthe seabed by currents and waves (Gerrard et al.1998). The total cuttings pile volume in theNorwegian and UK sectors has been estimated atabout 1.3 million m3 (Cordah 1998). Individual pilesrange from 500 to 25 000 m3, the largest coveringareas of up to 22 000 m2 (Cordah 1998), and havingan estimated oil content of 1500–3100 tonnes(Gerrard et al. 1998).

A Joint Industry Project on Drill Cuttings, foundedby the United Kingdom Offshore OperatorsAssociation (UKOOA) member companies and theUK government, and supported by other international and international industry associations hasinvestigated a wide range of management solutionsfor old drill cuttings accumulated in the North Sea.

Progress Report

171


The assessment of achievements concentrates onthe main goals agreed upon by the North SeaStates, primarily those concerned with reducing the discharges of oil to the maritime area.

8.9.1 Drilling discharges

Work within the Paris Commission (PARCOM),from its establishment to the implementation ofPARCOM Decision 92/2 on the Use of Oil-BasedMuds (OBM), has played a decisive role in phasingout the input of oil to the North Sea from thissource. Since 1997, no member state has dischargedcuttings with oil-based mud. From a peak in dis-charges of more than 25 000 tonnes in 1985, dis-charges were reduced to zero, thereby reducing thedischarges of oil from offshore activities to less thana third in 1999 compared to 1985, despite a consid-erable growth in oil production.

The spatial extent of the biological impact fromdrilling seems to have decreased slightly in theNorwegian sector since the discharge of oil-baseddrill cuttings ceased around 1993. Subtle macrofau-na changes have also been detected over 5 km frominstallations in the UK sector for the period 1975 to1995. In the period 1997 to 1999 detectable changesin the macrofauna community did not extendbeyond 2 km from any Norwegian installation. Thearea around individual fields having an impactedfauna was mostly in the range 0–20 km2 until 1996.After 1996 the impacted area has not exceeded 5 km2 around any field.

8.9.2 Produced water

The discharges of oil via produced water areincreasing, due to an increase in the number ofproduction installations, and an increase in waterproduction as the individual fields get older.

The PARCOM Recommendation of a 40 mg/lEmission Standard for Platforms 1986, and theBAT/BEP requirements, has brought the average

dispersed oil content of produced water dischargedfrom installations in the North Sea to below 25mg/l, compared to 33 mg/l in 1991. Figure 8.4 showsthat the contribution of oil from the installationsexceeding 40 mg/l is now negligible. OSPARRecommendation 2001/1 recommends a nationaltotal reduction of discharges of oil in producedwater by a minimum of 15% by the year 2006 (reference year 2000). To bring about furtherimprovements it thus seems necessary to restrictdischarges of produced water, either by reinjectionwhenever feasible, or by developing and applyingtechniques such as water shut-off, bottom separa-tion and down-hole separation of oil and water. This will also reduce the input of productionchemicals and harmful natural components fromthe reservoir to the North Sea.

8.9.3 Offshore chemicals

OSPAR adopted OSPAR Decision 2000/2 on theHarmonised Mandatory Control System for the Useand Reduction of the Discharges of OffshoreChemicals. The Decision requires pre-screening,ranking and risk assessment of chemicals and thesubstitution of certain chemicals by less hazardousalternatives.

8.9.4 Decommissioning of installations/cuttings piles

OSPAR Decision 98/3 on the Disposal of DisusedOffshore Installations prohibited the dumping, andleaving wholly or partly in place, of disused installa-tions within the OSPAR Maritime Area. It recog-nized the difficulty of removing certain categories ofinstallation, such as concrete installations and thefootings of large steel installations, and provided forderogations to the general ban in accordance withan agreed assessment and consultation framework.

In relation to cuttings piles, knowledge of theirstructure and contaminant content is at presentfragmentary, but they are expected to contain amixture of all the chemicals and additives dis-charged with the cuttings over time. There is atpresent a strong initiative from the oil industry and authorities in the UK and Norway to generatethe necessary information for an environmentallysound management of these deposits.


9

Management of RadioactiveSubstances, Including Waste

172

9.1 Introduction

There are several sources of radioactive substances,including waste management practices, whichresult in releases to the North Sea. Present daylevels are influenced not only by present daymanagement but also by the history of past releasesand disposal practices. These include managed dis-charges from nuclear power related facilities, falloutfrom atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, falloutfrom the Chernobyl accident, and other processesinvolving the use of radioactivity, such as nuclearmedical diagnosis and therapy. In addition, a widevariety of naturally occurring radionuclides hasbeen released to the North Sea by human activities,such as oil exploration, phosphate production andterrestrial mining, which can result in enhanced

release of radionuclides into rivers and estuariesdischarging into the North Sea.

All living organisms are continually exposed toionising radiation, which has always existednaturally. The sources of the great majority of thatexposure are cosmic rays, terrestrial radionuclidesin the Earth’s crust, their presence in buildingmaterials and in the air, water and foods, and thosepresent in the human body itself. In addition,exposure may arise from man-made radionuclidesreleased into the terrestrial and marine environment.

With regard to levels of man-made radionuclides inthe North Sea, considerable interest surroundsthose discharged from reprocessing plants, particu-larly the larger facilities sited at Sellafield and LaHague. Discharges of radionuclides are transportedfrom the Irish Sea and the Channel into the NorthSea. Discharges of some radionuclides have beendetected at low concentrations in the NorwegianCoastal Current, the Barents Sea and beyond.

173

The Fourth International Conference on theProtection of the North Sea (4NSC) resulted in theEsbjerg Declaration (ED). Several objectivesrelating to radioactive substances were created, for example, to ensure a sustainable, sound andhealthy North Sea ecosystem. The guiding principlefor achieving this objective is the precautionaryprinciple. The Ministers at the 4NSC welcomed the adoption of the Safety Fundamentals forRadioactive Waste Management by theInternational Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), andaffirmed the commitment by the North Sea Statesto applying these principles. They further consid-ered that preference should be given to all optionsfor the prevention of the generation of radioactivewastes, and for their concentration and containmentover other options such as discharges into a waterbody. They recognized, however, that as part ofradioactive waste management, radioactive sub-stances may be released to the environment withinauthorized limits as a legitimate practice. TheMinisters emphasized their commitments withinOSPAR to examine options for measures to reduceor eliminate discharges and emissions. TheMinisters affirmed their commitment to theapplication of standards and practices agreed bythe European Atomic Energy Community(EURATOM), IAEA, the Nuclear Energy Agencyand OSPAR, and supported the IAEA efforts to seek an agreement for a global convention on themanagement of radioactive waste.

Generally, as noted in the OSPAR Quality StatusReport 2000 for the Greater North Sea, inputs ofradionuclides from land are in the ‘lower inter-mediate impact’ category in terms of the full rangeof human pressures on the North Sea and theirrespective priorities. All discharges comply withappropriate regulatory requirements, and in allcases the doses to the critical groups are signif-icantly lower than the limits allowed in EU legisla-tion, which are in accordance with recommenda-tions from The International Commission onRadiological Protection (ICRP). In recent yearsthere has also been an increasing focus on protec-tion of the environment from possible detrimentaleffects of ionising radiation, and questions areraised whether the principle of protection of man issufficient for protection of the environment (seesection 9.4).

9.2 Discharges to the MarineEnvironment from European

Nuclear Installations

The main sources of current arisings of anthro-pogenic radionuclides in the North Sea are dis-charges from reprocessing facilities (Cap de LaHague in France on the Channel coast andSellafield on the Irish Sea coast). Releases ofradionuclides also occur from nuclear fuel fabrica-tion plants, nuclear power stations, and nuclearresearch and development facilities. Solubleradionuclides from these sources are subsequentlytransported at low concentrations furthernorthwards with regional oceanic currents.

British Nuclear Fuel’s (BNFL) Sellafield plant hasbeen the main contributor to activity releasesamong the Western European reprocessing plants.Maximum discharges of caesium-137 (137Cs) andthe actinides plutonium-239 (239Pu), plutonium-240 (240Pu), and americium-241 (241Am) fromSellafield occurred during the mid to late 1970s(Gray et al. 1995). The introduction of the Site Ion-Exchange Effluent Plant (SIXEP) in 1985 sub-sequently led to a dramatic reduction in dischargesof strontium-90 (90Sr), caesium-134 (134Cs) and137Cs. Plutonium and americium discharges havealso been dramatically reduced since that period,particularly since the Enhanced Actinide RemovalPlant (EARP) came into operation in 1994.

Prior to 1981, liquid waste from Magnox reprocess-ing was discharged directly to sea, after severalyears of decay storage. A decision was taken to storethese wastes in tanks, pending the commissioningof a new abatement plant. Consequently, through-out the 1980s and early 1990s (1981–1993), tech-netium-99 (99Tc) was discharged from Sellafield at alow rate of 1.9–6.6 TBq/yr. In 1994, the EARP plantat Sellafield began operations to treat the backlog ofstored wastes. However, while EARP is efficient inremoving plutonium and americium it was notdesigned to remove the less radiologically signifi-cant 99Tc from the waste, a fact known to regulatorsat the time. This resulted in a steep increase of

Management of Radioactive Substances, Including Waste

174

99Tc, from a level of approximately 5 TBq/yr to alevel of 72–190 TBq/yr in the period 1994 to 1996when liquid waste from the legacy of past activitieswas processed. In effect, this represented a deferreddischarge component. The discharge limit for 99Tcdischarges from Sellafield was more than halved in1999 to 90 TBq/yr. Subject to decisions by Ministers,discharges of 99Tc will remain within the 90 TBq/yrlimit until around 2006 when the EnvironmentAgency’s proposed limit of 10 TBq/yr would comeinto effect, and from then onwards discharges willreduce to below the pre-1994 levels. The Magnoxreprocessing plant is due to close by around 2012,after the closure of all the Magnox power stations inthe UK.

The discharge of 99Tc from Sellafield in the last tenyears is shown in Figure 9.1. The illustration alsoshows the concentration of 99Tc in the seaweedFucus vesiculosus in the northern part of Norwayfor the period 1997 to 2000. A time delay of aboutfour years is apparent for transport of 99Tc fromSellafield and along the Norwegian coast.

Discharges to the marine environment of 99Tc and137Cs from Cap de La Hague have been consider-ably lower than from Sellafield for most of the peri-od from the 1950s to the present day. An exceptionis the period 1985 to 1992, when liquid waste wasstored in tanks at Sellafield. Tritium (3H) dis-charges from Cap de La Hague have in general beengreater than from Sellafield, but the radiotoxicity of3H is very low.

The nuclear facilities at Dounreay on the northerncoast of Scotland were established in 1955, andhave mainly been used in the development of fastbreeder reactors. Some reprocessing has taken placebut, compared with the discharges from the Cap deLa Hague and Sellafield reprocessing plants, thedischarges to the marine environment have beensmall. The UK government has ruled out thereprocessing of prototype fast reactor fuel atDounreay and the site is now being decommis-sioned.

Springfields in the UK is mainly concerned with the manufacture of fuel elements for nuclear reac-tors and the production of uranium hexafluoride(HEX). This facility is responsible for most of thedischarges from nuclear fuel fabrication. The dis-

charge of liquid radioactive waste from Springfieldsconsists mainly of thorium and uranium and theirdaughter products. From 2006, manufacture ofMagnox fuel and of the fuel intermediate HEX, willcease. Operational discharges of all nuclides fromthis facility will then rapidly decrease to very lowlevels. Decommissioning discharges must be consid-ered separately, and no forward projections arecurrently available.

Nuclear power stations also discharge radionuclidesto the environment. The discharges of radionuclidesfrom these facilities are small in relation to thelong-range transport of radionuclides.

The discharges of total beta (excluding 3H) and total alpha activity from nuclear installations andreprocessing plants in the OSPAR countries duringthe decade 1990 to 1999 are shown in Figures 9.2and 9.3, respectively. A decreasing trend can be seenfor alpha discharges in the ten-year period with1993 as an exception. In the last three years(1997–1999) the discharges of total alpha emittershave been fairly constant. A clear decreasing trendwas not observed for beta emitting radionuclidesduring the ten-year period, but from 1995 adecrease in releases could be observed. However,the total amount of discharges in 1998 and 1999was about the same level as in 1991 and 1992.

Progress Report

Figure 9.1 Levels of 99Tc in the seaweed Fucusvesiculosus at Hillesøy, Northern Norway (source of data: Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority(Rudjord et al. 2001), compared to releases fromSellafield (source of data: BNFL).


9.3 OSPAR Strategy with regard toRadioactive Substances – Progress

and Achievements

(ED 59)

9.3.1 Progress within OSPAR

OSPAR has adopted a strategy to reduce dischargesof radioactive substances to the marine area. Thestrategy outlines the goals and gives guidelines forevaluating whether work is in accordance with thestrategy.

The Sintra Statement from the OSPAR MinisterialMeeting of 1998 brought agreement between theContracting Parties on a number of importantissues. The OSPAR Ministers agreed:

(i) to prevent pollution of the maritime area fromionising radiation through progressive andsubstantial reductions of discharges, emissionsand losses of radioactive substances, with theultimate aim of concentrations in the environ-ment near background levels for naturallyoccurring radioactive substances and close tozero for artificial radioactive substances. Inachieving this objective, the following issuesshould, inter alia, be taken into account:• legitimate uses of the sea;• technical feasibility; and• radiological impacts on man and biota;

(ii) to ensure that discharges, emissions and lossesof radioactive substances are reduced by theyear 2020 to levels where the additional concen-trations in the marine environment above his-toric levels, resulting from such discharges,emissions and losses, are close to zero;

(iii) to pay particular attention to the safety ofworkers in nuclear installations.

175

Figure 9.2 Releases of total beta emitters (TBq),excluding tritium, in liquid discharges from nuclearinstallations in the OSPAR countries for 1990 to1999 (Source of data: OSPAR 2001b).

Figure 9.3 Releases of total alpha emitters (TBq)in liquid discharges from nuclear installations inthe OSPAR countries for 1990 to 1999 (Source ofdata: OSPAR 2001b).

176

To this end, the OSPAR Commission will:• undertake the development of environmental

quality criteria for the protection of the marineenvironment from adverse effects of radioactivesubstances and report on progress by the year2003;

• continue to reduce radioactive discharges fromnuclear installations to the marine environmentby applying best available technologies (BAT);and

• review activities which may give rise to concernof this kind, and assess them to identify andprioritize fields where action is required anddevelop the necessary measures.

To facilitate its work OSPAR has established aRadioactive Substances Committee (RSC) consistingof representatives from the Contracting Parties. Atthe annual meetings of RSC every ContractingParty reports on its discharges of radionuclides tothe marine environment and selected countriesdescribe their use of BAT for reducing dischargesfrom nuclear installations. An important task forthe group is to provide guidance on how to imple-ment the OSPAR strategy within the ContractingParties. On the basis of national reports of each ofthe Contracting Parties the OSPAR Commissionadopted the ‘2000 Progress Report on the implemen-tation of the OSPAR Strategy with regard toRadioactive Substances’. At the same OSPARCommission meeting, a programme for the moredetailed implementation of the strategy wasadopted, which will lead to the establishment of ajoint document for presentation at the OSPARMinisterial meeting in 2003. To achieve that, eachContracting Party has to adopt a national plan forimplementing the OSPAR Strategy and presentthis to the OSPAR Commission.

9.3.2 Achievements through nationalaction

Some of the achievements of North Sea States arelisted below.

In June 2000, the UK government published aradioactive discharges strategy for public consulta-tion. This strategy describes how the UK intends toimplement the agreements reached at the 1998Ministerial meeting of the OSPAR Commission setout in the extract from the Sintra Statement quoted

in section 9.3.1. BAT, the precautionary principle,the polluter pays principle and the As low AsReasonably Achievable (ALARA) principle allfeature in the strategy. The Consultation ended on22 September 2000, and a final UK Strategy will bepublished shortly. At the same time the governmentis issuing Statutory Guidance to the EnvironmentAgencies to provide the vehicle through which theUK strategy will be implemented. Final Guidance isalso expected shortly. The Environment Agencyrecognizes that there may be a need for BNFL toincrease discharges in the short term as a conse-quence of measures to reduce the hazard potentialassociated with historic waste legacies and decom-missioning of redundant plants. The Agency hasindicated that it is prepared to increase dischargelimits, subject to appropriate consultation, in thoseinstances where they are essential to allow fordecommissioning redundant plants to reduce thehazard potential associated with legacy waste.

France reports that BAT has been applied in all of its nuclear installations to reduce or eliminateradioactive discharges. An example is the introduc-tion of the new effluent management system at Capde La Hague. In May 1995, decree 95-540 set a newframework for the regulation of all types of BasicNuclear Installation releases and water intake. Theauthorization order sets limits on radioactivity andradioactivity flow. A second order of November 1999sets limits for specific radionuclides before and/orafter dilution in water. The regulatory limits areconsistent with the dose constraint principle.France has also introduced new release limit valuesfor nuclear installations, which has lead to theindustry adopting new processes in order to reduceor eliminate discharges to the marine environment.

New legislation and regulations in Sweden haveincluded the concept of BAT and have suggestedthat it is the most effective measure available tolimit the release of radioactive substances whichmay be harmful to health and the environmentwithout entailing unreasonable costs. The nuclearfacilities monitor all their discharges within thevicinity of the installation, and this has revealedthat all discharges in 1999 and 2000 were below the dose constraint (0.1 mSv/yr to individuals ofthe critical group). Environmental monitoring ofdischarges plays an important role in assessinglong-term trends. The Swedish Radiation Protection

Progress Report

177

Institute has not identified any evidence to indicatethat discharges from nuclear power plants causeany upward trends in the concentrations of radio-active nuclides in biota. According to present knowl-edge, the low concentrations observed in the marineecosystems have not been found to cause harm.There is increased awareness of the need to reduceradioactive discharges in Sweden, due to thedemands of national authorities and the require-ments of international conventions.

Germany has introduced BAT into the operation ofall nuclear power plants to ensure that radioactivedischarges, emissions and wastes are kept as low asreasonably possible. State-of-the-art scientific andtechnological advancements have been taken intoaccount in the safety standards for activity controland management.

Between 2000 and 2004 the situation in theNetherlands is such that the installations with thelargest liquid discharges of radioactive substances(the two phosphoric acid producing facilities and thenuclear power plant in Borssele) have ceased or willcease their activities. This will eliminate liquid dis-charges from these facilities. Also, liquid dischargesdue to the normal operation of the nuclear powerplant at Dodewaard have already been eliminated,owing to its shut-down in 1997. In addition, theNetherlands uses the ALARA principle in licensingto ensure that radioactive discharges, emissions andwastes are kept as low as reasonably possible.ALARA is considered to be in line with BAT.

9.4 Establishing a Framework forProtection of the Environment

(ED 57 iii and 60)International radiological protection has historicallybeen focused on the protection of man. ICRP hasstated the view that ‘if man is adequately protectedthen other living things are also likely to besufficiently protected’ (ICRP 1977). In the 1991publication, the ICRP added a sentence stating that‘individual members of non-human species might be

harmed but not to the extent of endangering wholespecies or creating imbalance between species’(ICRP 1991). Under most circumstances this princi-ple leads to sufficient protection of the environmentfrom observable harm, largely due to the fact thatdose limits to man are set at a low level whereeffects at even the most vulnerable part of a foodweb are unlikely. However, the ICRP has nowestablished a working group to consider a need forguidelines and criteria to focus on the environment.

In 2000, the International Union of Radioecology(IUR) presented a first approach for an internation-al framework for protection of the environment.This includes criteria and principles for protection,identification of endpoints, use of reference organ-isms, development of quantities and units, anddose-effect relationships. IUR is now further devel-oping this framework. The European Commissionhas shown increasing interest in the field of envi-ronmental protection. At present, two EuropeanCommission research projects based on the idea of the IUR framework are underway. Nationalresearch projects are also focusing on the subject of protecting the environment from detrimentaleffects caused by radiation.

One European Commission project, as part of theFifth Framework Programme, aims to establish aframework for the assessment of the environmentalimpact of ionising radiation. This programme iscalled the Framework for the Assessment ofEnvironmental Impact (FASSET), and will linkcurrent knowledge on sources, exposure, dosimetry,environmental effects and consequences for refer-ence organisms and ecosystems. The aim is to takea practical approach to the assessment of detrimen-tal environmental effects. It will be based on exist-ing models and techniques, although these may beapplied in new contexts and developed further insome areas. The project will develop operationalcriteria for regulations for the protection of humanhealth and the environment and will provide aninterface between the regulators and the end-users.This project will run until October 2003.

The UK’s Environment Agency has reviewed theimpact assessment of ionising radiation on wildlife(Environment Agency 2001). This work is due tofeed into FASSET. The report summarizes the latestresearch on the behaviour, transfer and impact of


178

ionising radiation on wildlife, outlines and reviewsinternational legislation that impacts upon nationalrequirements, considers the role of regulatory bod-ies, and recommends an approach to assess theimpacts to wildlife of ionising radiation.

Environmental protection issues constitute integralparts of environmental impact assessments (EIAs),which involve consultation procedures, reviews,inquiries, etc. Demands for EIAs are specified in EUlegislation (e.g. Council Directives 85/337 and97/11).

In a recent publication, the IAEA reviewed a num-ber of international approaches to environmentalradiation protection, as well as the approaches, cri-teria, and regulations currently being implementedin 12 IAEA member states (IAEA 1999). The majori-ty of these states apply the ICRP approach, ordevelop approaches that are consistent with theICRP approach. The ICRP is in the process ofreviewing its recommendations, which includes itsposition on environmental protection.

9.5 Management of RadioactiveWaste

(ED 57 and 62)

9.5.1 Presentation of the new IAEA Waste Convention

The Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of RadioactiveWaste Management, the first legal instrument todirectly address these issues on a global scale, wasopened for signature on 29 September 1997 andentered into force on 18 June 2001.

The Joint Convention applies to spent fuel andradioactive waste resulting from civilian nuclearreactors and applications, and to spent fuel andradioactive waste from military or defenceprogrammes if and when such materials are

transferred permanently to and managed withinexclusively civilian programmes, or when declaredas spent fuel or radioactive waste for the purpose of the Convention by the Contracting Party. Theconvention also applies to planned and controlledreleases into the environment of liquid or gaseousradioactive materials from regulated nuclearfacilities.

The procedure for preparing and reviewing nationalreports from each Contracting Party on the imple-mentation of the Joint Convention will be decided at a preparatory meeting in December 2001. Thedeadline for the receipt of these reports will beJune 2003, and the review meeting will take placein December 2003.

The obligations of the Contracting Parties withrespect to the safety of spent fuel and radioactivewaste management are based to a large extent onthe principles contained in an IAEA SafetyFundamentals document (IAEA 1995). Theyinclude, in particular, the obligation to establishand maintain a legislative and regulatory frame-work to govern the safety of spent fuel and radio-active waste management and the obligation toensure that individuals, society and the environ-ment are adequately protected against radiologicaland other hazards, inter alia, by appropriate siting,design and construction of facilities, and by makingprovisions for ensuring the safety of facilities bothduring their operation and after their closure. TheConvention imposes obligations on ContractingParties in relation to the transboundary movementof spent fuel and radioactive waste, based on theconcepts contained in the IAEA Code of Practice onthe International Transboundary Movement ofRadioactive Waste. Also, Contracting Parties havethe obligation to take appropriate steps to ensurethat disused sealed sources are managed safely.

9.5.2 National waste treatment strategies

Some of the achievements of North Sea States arelisted below.

The UK government’s policy on radioactive wastesis that they should be managed in ways that protectthe safety of the public, the workforce and the envi-

Progress Report

179

ronment now and in the future. On 12 September2001 the government published a consultationpaper on the management of radioactive waste withthe aim of starting the process that will ultimatelylead to the implementation of a radioactive wastemanagement policy that is capable of commandingwidespread support across the UK. The publicconsultation will remain open until March 2002,when the government will consider the responsesreceived. Any comments will then feed into theresearch and consultation programmes that areplanned in the future.

In France, waste management has two objectives inrelation to environmental protection: to avoid thedissemination of radioactive substances, and tolimit the constraints for future generations. Toenable these objectives to be met, the waste produc-ers must comply with Law 75-633, July 1975, whichstates that it is the responsibility of the waste pro-ducer to look after the waste. This Law has beensupplemented by the Order of December 31 1999,which ensures that the waste producers monitorand define all wastes, and maintain inventories (i.e.undertake waste surveys). Law 91-1381 ofDecember 1991 defines the main areas of researchfor the management of radioactive waste in France,namely: separation and transmutation, under-ground laboratories, and waste packaging and long-term storage.

The Swedish Radiation Protection Institute hasadopted three new regulations since the last NorthSea Conference concerning the management ofradioactive substances. These comply with the rele-vant statements from the 4NSC. The first regula-tion, SSI FS 1998:1, introduces the concept of BATto the final management of spent nuclear fuel andnuclear waste, with the aim of protecting humanhealth and the environment from the harmfuleffects of ionising radiation. The second regulation,SSI FS 2000:12, specifies limits and dischargereductions for radioactive substances from nuclearinstallations, it also enables the potential for reduc-ing discharges further. The third regulation, SSI FS2001:1, concerns means to ensure that radioactivewaste is managed in such a way as to provide anacceptable level of radiation protection, minimizethe generation of waste and limit the harmfuleffects of ionising radiation now and in the future.

In Germany, the nuclear power plants use proce-dures to minimize the production of waste, such asquality of design of fuel elements, monitoring ofprimary coolant, and treatment of waste water byfiltration, ion exchange and evaporation.Radioactive discharges are kept as low as reason-ably possible with the help of operating guidelines,specialized training of staff and differentiatedpreparatory work. Solid waste is stored on site untilan interim facility is designed. Plans to use theGorleben salt dome as a repository are currently onhold for at least three years, pending clarification ofthe safety case, and to allow alternative sites andother rock types to be investigated.

In Norway, authorizations for nuclear installationsare issued on the basis of the Act of 12 May 2000No. 36, relating to radiation protection and the useof radiation. The act, which came into force 1 July2000, replaces the previous Norwegian legislationdealing with radiation protection of man. The newact states that the purpose of the law is also to con-tribute to the protection of the environment frompossible harmful effects of radiation.

According to a policy statement on radioactivewaste management, adopted by the Netherlandsgovernment in 1984, the conditioned waste is keptin storage in an engineered storage facility for anextended period of time. Storage is conceived to lastfor a period of at least 100 years. Currently only thefacility for the storage of low and intermediate levelwaste is in operation. The storage facility for highlevel waste (HABOG) is under construction and isdue to be commissioned in 2003. The latter storagefacility is designed to accommodate reprocessed andvitrified spent fuel from the nuclear power stations,conditioned spent fuel from the research reactors aswell as other types of high level waste. Meanwhileresearch on geological disposal is ongoing.


180

9.6 Anthropogenically EnhancedConcentrations of Natural

Radionuclides

(ED 61)Industry uses many different raw materials thatcontain naturally occurring radioactive materials(NORM). These raw materials are mined, transport-ed, and processed for further use. The consequentemissions of radionuclides to air and water can leadto eventual exposure of humans. The oil and gasproduction in the North Sea can be regarded as anindustry source of leakages or discharges ofradionuclides to the marine environment.

9.6.1 Technologically enhanced NORM in oil and gas production

Two isotopes in the uranium and thorium series areimportant in relation to produced water dischargesand radioactive deposits in oil and gas production –namely radium-226 (226Ra) and radium-228 (228Ra).

The occurrence of natural radionuclides in NorthSea oil and gas production was first discovered in1981, and enhanced levels of radioactivity are nowfound in the production system of several North Seaoil fields. Doses to workers involved in handlingcontaminated equipment or waste are usually low,and the main problems related to radioactivedeposits are waste disposal and discharges ofproduced water.

Seawater is injected into the reservoir to maintainthe pressure as the oil is removed. Mixing of seawa-ter and formation water creates incompatible solu-tions, and sulphates are precipitated. The dominat-ing radioactive elements in geologic formations inthe sea floor are potassium and the elements in theuranium, thorium and radium series. Under certaincircumstances, radium will leak from the formationand be dissolved in the formation water.

Generally, the activity concentrations of 226Ra,228Ra and decay products in deposits and sludgesvary from the normal levels in soils and rocks (lessthan 0.1 Bq/g) to more than 1000 Bq/g. In Norwayin 1995, a temporary exemption level of 10 Bq/g of226Ra was introduced. All waste from the oil indus-try with activity above this level is defined as‘radioactive waste’. The amount of waste exceedsthat expected when the Norwegian repository wasplanned, and the authorities have since thendecided that other solutions should be found.

9.6.2 Discharges of production water

Most of the radioactivity from the reservoir isdissolved in produced water and discharged into thesea. A total volume of 160 x 106 m3 was released in1991. Assuming that the mean radium concentra-tions of production water in the Norwegian studyare representative values for the oil production ofthe North Sea, this would correspond to a totalannual release of 6.6 x 1011 Bq and 3.4 x 1011 Bq for 226Ra and 228Ra, respectively. Prior to the intro-duction of OSPAR Recommendation 2001/1, it hadbeen estimated that the release of production waterwould increase in the years to come, owing to thefact that some of the larger production fields wouldreach a later stage in the production phase.

Scale inhibitors are often used to prevent thedeposition of radium salts which may affect theproduction process, but in consequence theyincrease the concentration and the release ofradioactivity in the produced water. The inhibitorsare organic compounds, and they may increase thebiological uptake of radioactivity in marine eco-systems. There has been an increase in the use ofinhibitors during the last decade, and owing topresent and future demands to reduce the produc-tion costs, the increase in the use of inhibitors inthe years to come is assumed to be significant.

Progress Report

181


9.7.1 Discharges to the environment and management of radioactive waste

In general it can be concluded that the total releaseof radionuclides into the marine environment hasdecreased since 1995. New abatement technologieshave been developed and implemented in certaincountries. The present practices of releases to theenvironment are within the national and interna-tional accepted dose limits for critical groups andthe general public. The OSPAR Sintra Statementsets out clear principles for progressively reducingdischarges, the timetable for achieving these reduc-tions and their ultimate objective. OSPARContracting Parties have committed themselves tothe development and implementation of relevantstrategies to achieve these reductions.

9.7.2 Protection of the environment

At the 4NSC Ministers agreed that protection of the environment from possible detrimental effectscaused by radiation was an important issue. Now,seven years later, it is evident that there has been agrowing interest in this field, and it has been put upas a target issue by several international organiza-tions as well as within individual countries. In2000, IUR presented a first approach for aninternational framework for protection of theenvironment. This can form the basis for furtherwork in this area.


10

Development of HarmonizedReporting Procedures

182

10.1 Introduction

(ED 66 and 67)At the Fourth International Conference on theProtection of the North Sea (4NSC), Ministers notedthat the lack of harmonized procedures for collect-ing, handling and reporting of data made compar-isons between states difficult. The Ministers there-fore agreed to develop and implement a system forreporting regularly on measures taken to imple-ment their commitments, the result from thesemeasures and the effects observed in the environ-ment as a consequence. They emphasized that sucha system must be based on a common set ofprocedures and to the greatest extent possible,

make use of and be harmonized with the reportingprocedures of the European Commission, theEuropean Environment Agency (EEA) and theOSPAR Commission (OSPAR).

The Ministers invited Norway, in cooperation withthe European Commission and the EEA, to offer itsservices as lead country within OSPAR, to promoteand coordinate the necessary reporting systems andprocedures, as a basis for transparent, reliable andcomparable reports, including relevant sources,basic figures, calculation methods and emissionfactors.

Norway gave priority to developing quantificationand reporting procedures for nutrients and haz-ardous substances, because commitments to achievequantitative reduction targets had been agreed forthese substances at previous North SeaConferences.

183

10.2 Harmonized Quantification andReporting Systems for Nutrients

The background to the request for harmonizedreporting systems for nutrients was, inter alia, that there were different practices among North Sea States concerning quantification and reportingon discharges and losses of nutrients to surfacewater systems, which resulted in a lack of trans-parency and comparability between the nationalreports.

10.2.1 Identification of key issues

Key issues/elements to be included in the develop-ment of Harmonised Quantification and ReportingProcedures for Nutrients (HARP) were the catch-ment approach, quantification of agriculturalnutrient losses to surface waters, quantification of nutrient discharges from point sources to surfacewaters, nutrient background load, normalization of data, nutrient retention and riverine monitoring.

10.2.2 HARP Guidelines

The degree of harmonization required was one ofthe key issues addressed during the HARP project,as it had appeared unrealistic from the outset tothink that a ‘one-solution-system’ could be devel-oped and unanimously agreed by the parties con-cerned. Thus, a series of guidelines were developedwhich, in many cases, presented alternativequantification methods. These were developedbetween 1996 and 1999 under the lead of Norway,assisted by most OSPAR countries.

The project resulted in a set of nine guidelines,collectively covering quantification methodology and reporting requirements for all major nutrientsources, and retention and inputs to the sea,including monitored riverine inputs.

During the HARP project it became apparent thatHarmonised Quantification and ReportingProcedures for Nutrients were also of great interestto organizations other than OSPAR, e.g. the Rhine

Commission, the EEA, the Helsinki Commission(HELCOM), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).However, taking into account that HARP needed tobe operational within a relatively short time framein order for a transparent and harmonized report-ing system to be presented to Ministers at meetingswithin both the North Sea Conference and OSPARframeworks (2002 and 2003 respectively), Norwayconsidered that it was important to establish HARPwithin OSPAR, as a first step.

At its meeting in 2000 the OSPAR Commissionadopted eight of the HARP Guidelines on a trialbasis for three years. OSPAR also agreed on termsof reference for a working group on revisions of theguidelines. These revisions are to be based on expe-rience from the first full-scale use of the guidelines,reporting on the 50% reduction targets, and on newdevelopments regarding the quantification of diffusesources. The remaining HARP Guideline, on thequantification and reporting on diffuse sources ofnutrients, was not considered to be sufficientlydeveloped for adoption.

It was therefore considered necessary to conduct an inter-comparison study of quantificationmethodologies. This EC-funded shared-cost project‘Towards European Harmonised Procedures forQuantification of Nutrient Losses from DiffuseSources’ (EUROHARP) related to the WaterFramework Directive, is intended to run for fouryears with the participation of 22 European organi-zations from 17 European countries. It will assessthe performance of eight quantification tools/methods used by European countries to quantifydiffuse losses of nutrients. The outcome ofEUROHARP is intended to facilitate thefinalization of the guideline on diffuse sources.

The Guidelines were published by the NorwegianPollution Control Authority (SFT 2000) and arecontained in OSPAR Agreement 2000/12.

10.2.3 Experience with the use andneed for further development

The main objectives of the HARP Guidelines are toachieve transparency, harmonization and compara-bility between countries. All North Sea States,

Development of Harmonized Reporting Procedures

184

except France, have used the HARP Guidelines to avarying extent for reporting on discharges/lossesand inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus in 1985 and2000, as it was agreed to apply these guidelines for the reporting on nutrient inputs to the 5NSC.However, the late and varying reporting basis does not allow any assessment of nitrogen andphosphorus discharges/losses/inputs at thecatchment scale.

The setting up of the HARP system, the reportingrequirements and countries’ compliance indicaterelative weaknesses in the current national systemsbecause few countries, if any, have been able toapply the guidelines completely, nor to provide allthe information necessary for a harmonized, trans-parent, comparable reporting and a reliable assess-ment of progress towards achieving the 50% reduc-tion targets. Even if the countries have completedthe electronic HARP reporting format, it is oftendifficult to assess whether the methods recom-mended in the HARP Guidelines have been applied.

These objectives can only be achieved if countriesreport complete sets of data and use the recom-mended methods. The trial application of the HARPGuidelines may indicate that previous reporting onnutrient discharges and losses to the 3NSC and the4NSC should not have allowed comparison betweencountries, because the quantification proceduresapplied varied considerably.

10.3 Harmonized Reporting Systemsfor Hazardous Substances

10.3.1 The HARP-HAZ Project

A prototype for harmonized quantification andreporting procedures for hazardous substances (the HARP-HAZ Prototype) has been developed by Norway, as lead country, assisted by a workinggroup with representatives from DG Environmentof the European Commission, the EEA, Belgium,Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden, theUK, CEFIC (the Conseil Européen des Fédérations

de l’Industrie Chimique), Eurostat and the 5NSCSecretariat. The procedures under the HARP-HAZPrototype are, to some extent, substance-specificand have been designed to provide guidance inparticular for hazardous substances selected foraction within the North Sea-related frameworks.They draw on established procedures developedwithin OSPAR (the Riverine Inputs and DirectDischarges (RID) methodology), the EuropeanCommission and other international forums (e.g. theRhine Commission) on the quantification of thesources of discharges, emissions and losses ofhazardous substances and on the selection of haz-ardous substances for action. As regards the latter,relevant lists established at the international levelwere taken into account, e.g. the OSPAR List ofChemicals for Priority Action, the lists of 36+hazardous substances mentioned in the MinisterialDeclarations of the previous North Sea Conferencesand the EC Water Framework Directive list ofpriority substances.

10.3.2 What has been achieved?

The work has resulted in the HARP-HAZ Prototype,which contains a general description of approachesand principles for quantification methods (theoverall HARP-HAZ Guidance document) andseparate guidance documents for 11 selectedhazardous substances/groups of substances:• dioxins (polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (PCDDs)

and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs)); • polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); • polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); • short chained chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs); • mercury; • cadmium; • lead; • lindane (y-HCH);• tributyltin/triphenyltin (TBT/TPT); • nonylphenol/ethoxylates (NP/NPEOs); and• brominated flame retardants.

The first version of the HARP-HAZ Prototype hasbeen tested in the reporting on hazardous sub-stances to the 5NSC. The aim is that the HARP-HAZ Guidance documents and the experiencegained in their application, will be of use withinother international frameworks where reportingrequirements are being developed or revised.

Progress Report

185

Although there is a need for further development,the guidance documents represent the first steptowards harmonization and transparency as regardsquantification and reporting on some of the mostimportant hazardous substances/groups of sub-stances.

The guidance documents deal with the quantifica-tion and reporting on discharges, emissions andlosses of hazardous substances from various sourcesand their inputs/entry routes to the North Sea.They provide an indicative overview of the impor-tant sources of the selected hazardous substances,taking into account that the actual importance ofthe different sources may vary from country tocountry. The guidance documents also include adescription of the general principles for this quan-tification/estimation, and emission loss factors areprovided for some of the sources.

The general HARP-HAZ procedures (e.g. regardingnomenclature) may also be used when carrying outquantification of discharges, emissions and lossesfor other hazardous substances. Further relevantinformation and details are given in the report fromthe Norwegian Pollution Control Authority (SFT2001).

10.3.3 Experience with using the HARP-HAZ Prototype and the need for furtherdevelopment

The experience gained by the North Sea States inapplying the HARP-HAZ Prototype guidance docu-ments for reporting to the 5NSC has provided valu-able input and experience for their further elabora-tion.

Table 5.3 in chapter 5 indicate that a certain degreeof transparency has been achieved in the reportingto the 5NSC. However, this first round of reportingshows that there are still some problems to beresolved before harmonized reporting can beachieved, which produces reliable, transparent andcomparable data.

The ‘main groups of sources’ (e.g. agriculturalactivities, transport and infrastructure, households,industrial activities (IPPC), waste disposal) forwhich reporting is required each include a largenumber of sub-sources. These sub-sources

contribute to the figures reported for each of themain groups of sources and must be identified inorder to obtain full transparency and comparabilityof the data.

The following items were identified by North SeaStates as problematic when reporting in accordancewith the HARP-HAZ Prototype: • reporting on reductions requires detailed data

for a large number of substances (about 40);• reporting on reductions requires detailed data

for these substances from the reference year 1985(although it was anticipated that 1985 data couldnot be provided retrospectively in all cases); and

• the Nomenclature for Sources of Emissions(NOSE), which is also used for the EuropeanPollutant Emission Register (EPER) establishedunder the EC Integrated Pollution Preventionand Control (IPPC) Directive, was new and hadnot been incorporated into the national systemsof many countries since EPER reporting is notdue to start until 2003.

In addition, it was very time-consuming andsometimes not feasible to obtain the large numberof required release data and to adjust them, e.g.from other international reporting systems such asthe EEA CORINAIR (CO-ordination of INformationon AIR emissions) Programme, to the new HARP-HAZ system.

The estimation and reporting of data for thereference year 1985 was a problem for severalcountries due to a lack of reliable information for a number of substances. If a reference year isrequired in future, it should preferably be a morerecent year from which better data are available.

In order to be fully effective, the HARP-HAZapproach will need to mesh with the variousinternational reporting requirements on hazardoussubstances, in particular those of the EuropeanCommission. There is still considerable work to bedone before a coherent framework that will enabletransparent and comparable reporting will be inplace. However, the experience gained in thedevelopment and testing of the HARP-HAZPrototype has been a significant step in this process and forms an important building block for further work.

Development of Harmonized Reporting Procedures

186

As it is likely to take some time for countries toadjust their national routines and systems, it isclear that to comply fully with the requirements set out in the new reporting procedures, it will beimportant not to change new sets of reportingprocedures too frequently.

10.4 Harmonized Reporting on other Issues

There is at present no standardized reporting toOSPAR on the use and discharge of chemicals fromoffshore installations. However, work is being doneto establish a reporting system for the most harmfulchemicals. Norway, as lead country, presented a pro-posal in 1998 which was agreed on a trial basis fortwo years. On the basis of the experience gainedNorway will propose a revised reporting format forthe most harmful chemicals to OSPAR 2002.

There is also a need for better coordination andharmonization of reporting on emissions anddischarges from ships.


Harmonized reporting systems have been developedfor the reporting on discharges, emissions andlosses of nutrients and hazardous substances.Guidelines for harmonized reporting on nutrients(the HARP Guidelines) have been adopted on a trialbasis by OSPAR. The guidelines for harmonized

reporting on hazardous substances are at aprototype stage. There is still a need for revisionand further development of both sets of guidelinesand procedures.

The first round of reporting shows that there arestill problems to be resolved before harmonizedreporting, in the sense of data and data productsbeing both transparent and comparable, can beachieved. For national purposes, all countries havesophisticated systems and procedures in place tomonitor, calculate, model and report on nutrientsand hazardous substances, and it will take time anda sensible approach to adapt and harmonize thesenational approaches to international requirements.In this context, the experience gained by applyingthe guidelines and procedures for reporting to the5NSC is an important basis for the further develop-ment of harmonized procedures within OSPAR andthe European Commission.

Other organizations, e.g. the Rhine Commission, theEEA, HELCOM, the OECD and UNEP, have showngreat interest in the harmonized quantification andreporting procedures.

An essential task for monitoring the actual progresstowards fulfilment of the one-generation target forhazardous substances is to develop suitable report-ing and assessment strategies for the selectedpriority substances. OSPAR has agreed to build on the experience gained from implementing theHARP-HAZ Prototype methodology within theNorth Sea Conference framework in the develop-ment of its reporting procedures. The section of theHARP-HAZ Prototype that deals with large indus-trial sources will in any case be of future use as it is identical to the EPER system for the IPPCDirective, in accordance with which reports have to be produced in 2003. Any future system will alsoneed to take account of the monitoring and report-ing requirements being developed under the ECWater Framework Directive in order to make bestuse of limited resources.

Progress Report

History of the North Sea Conferences

187

Reference: Chapter 2 of the Progress Report to the4th International Conference on the Protection of theNorth Sea, Esbjerg, Denmark 8–9 June 1995.

Background

In June 1980 the Council of EnvironmentalAdvisors, an independent body of experts appointedby the German government, presented its report onthe environmental problems of the North Sea. Thereport concluded that, although there was consider-able difficulty in obtaining empirical ecological evi-dence, there was a case from the limited knowledgeabout pollution loads that certain harmful sub-stances could cause long-term and perhaps irre-versible damage as a result of their chronic toxicity.The growing inputs of heavy metals, chlorinated

hydrocarbons (and especially PCBs) and other per-sistent substances were identified for action. TheCouncil of Environmental Advisors concluded that: • a successful environmental protection policy for

the North Sea had to be based on the"precautionary principle" (Vorsorgeprinzip);

• protection of the North Sea was only possiblethrough international cooperation.

The early 1980s were characterized by certainchanges in the economic and sociological climatewhich, although they differed in their intensity from one country to another, nevertheless affectedall North Sea riparian states to some degree. Manycountries experienced severe recession affectingparticularly the older, and generally more polluting,heavy industries; consequently, there were politicalpressures not to impose too stringent environmentalconditions on industry.

On the other hand, there was growing environmen-tal awareness, particularly in the countries of

Annex 1:

188

northern Europe, which expressed itself in differentforms, from the growth of dedicated non-govern-mental organizations (NGOs) to the formation ofspecific "green" parties with their own politicalagenda. Even though such parties did not constitutethe parties of government, their opinions andactions were influential in requiring all politicalparties to reconsider and assess their own policiestowards environmental protection.

Furthermore, some countries were dissatisfied withthe lack of progress in the competent internationalorganizations charged with protecting the marineenvironment. In part this was due to the widergeographical coverage of the bodies concerned andthe lack of focus at North Sea level.

It was in this climate that in 1983 the governmentof the Federal Republic of Germany took the initia-tive of inviting the North Sea coastal states to anInternational Conference on the Protection of theNorth Sea at ministerial level. From the outset itwas acknowledged that it would not be the aim ofthe Conference to create a new set of internationalagreements. On the contrary, the aim was to pro-vide political impetus for the intensification of thework of the competent commissions and interna-tional bodies and to ensure more efficient andeffective implementation of the existing interna-tional rules in all the North Sea States.

Bremen, 1984

HistoryThe discovery of a number of oiled seabirds washedashore in the German Bight during the winter of1983 was a further occurrence which prompted theGerman government to propose an internationalconference for the protection of the North Seaenvironment. The purpose was to make a politicaldeclaration which, from a North Sea perspective,would stimulate and further ongoing work withinthe existing international conventions (e.g. the Oslo Convention for dumping at sea; the ParisConvention for pollution from land-based sources;the IMO Conventions for shipping issues).

At a preparatory meeting of all the North Seacoastal states in December 1983 an importantagreement was reached that the Conference shouldnot restrict itself to general principles but shouldexamine all pollution sources and adopt definitedecisions. The decision to address all pollutionsources ensured that a holistic approach to theNorth Sea’s environmental problems would befollowed and it enabled both ministers and theiradvisors to look at the wider problems rather thanthrough the constraints imposed by the respectivescope of the existing international legal frame-works.

In preparation, expert groups compiled resolutionproposals on the range of subjects to be discussed atthe Conference. Subsequently, a hearing took placein August 1984 at which international associationsand NGOs presented their suggestions. InSeptember 1984 the preparatory work was conclud-ed in Wilhelmshaven at a meeting of the permanentSecretaries of State responsible for North Seaaffairs. Finally, the Conference itself was held inBremen from 31 October to 1 November 1984 andwas attended by the Ministers responsible for theprotection of the North Sea of all the riparian states(Belgium, Denmark, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden andthe United Kingdom) and by the Member of theEuropean Commission responsible for environmen-tal protection. Observers from the states whichwere parties to the Oslo and Paris Conventions andmember states of the EEC also attended theConference, as did representatives of the interna-tional bodies concerned.

Although the Bremen Conference was initiallyenvisaged as a unique event, the Ministers wel-comed the invitation of the United Kingdom govern-ment to host a Second International Conference onthe Protection of the North Sea for the purpose ofreviewing the implementation and effectiveness ofthe decisions taken in Bremen and to adopt furtherconcrete measures for the maintenance of the quali-ty of the North Sea.

Principal outcomeIn the Bremen Declaration the Ministers under-lined their joint responsibility in safeguarding theNorth Sea as an important and irreplaceableecosystem, and in doing so they undertook to bring

Progress Report

189

forward a number of initiatives to improve the pro-tection of the North Sea. These initiatives focusedon five main areas:• reduction of inputs from rivers and coastal waters

to the North Sea by quickly establishing furtherinternationally binding measures;

• reduction of atmospheric pollution through thepreparation of a new Protocol to the ParisConvention;

• reduction of pollution from ships, off-shoreplatforms and waste dumping at sea, as well asstrengthening the possibilities to combat oilpollution by extension of existing conventions and cooperation (e.g. by coordinated aerialsurveillance);

• promotion of environmentally compatibletechnologies and products;

• improvement of joint monitoring and assessmentof the North Sea environment.

The Bremen Conference brought together for thefirst time the Ministers responsible for the protec-tion of the North Sea environment to discuss com-mon problems in a specific geographical context. Itbrought political focus on an important ecosystemwhich is the responsibility of all neighbouringstates. It did indeed result in increased activitywithin the international fora as a result of theheightened political interest. Perhaps most signi-ficantly, it paved the way for further politicalactivity on the North Sea at subsequent Ministerial Conferences.

London, 1987

HistoryThe United Kingdom set out with the intention thatthe London Conference should reach conclusionsabout the state of the North Sea having regard tothe best scientific evidence available, in other wordsthat it should be science based and the preparatorywork would produce a comprehensive quality statusreport (QSR) of the North Sea environment. Thefocus of the London Conference was essentiallydetermined by the political priorities of the North

Sea States. After 21 months, the preparatory workwas concluded at a meeting of the permanentSecretaries of State in Edinburgh in September1987. The Second International Conference on theProtection of the North Sea took place in London on24 and 25 November 1987 and was attended byrepresentatives of the same interests as the FirstConference. For the first time, NGOs were permittedto attend the opening session only and make briefstatements to the Conference.

Based on the gaps in the data in evidence in theQSR, the London Conference concluded that therewas a need to enhance the scientific knowledge andunderstanding of the North Sea. Although a greatdeal was known, the QSR showed that there werestill shortcomings in the data and that it was notpossible to make links between contaminant levelsand environmental changes. The Oslo and ParisCommissions and ICES were therefore charged withestablishing a joint working group, which was sub-sequently instituted as the North Sea Task Force(NSTF), to organize a coordinated scientific pro-gramme leading, in a reasonable timescale, to adependable and comprehensive statement of circula-tion patterns, inputs and dispersion of contami-nants, ecological conditions and effects of humanactivities in the North Sea.

Principal outcomeOne of the most important political decisions at theLondon Conference was the acceptance by all NorthSea States that the basis of their action in regard to the reduction of inputs of substances that arepersistent, toxic and liable to bioaccumulate shouldbe based on "the principle of precautionary action"and that such inputs should be limited "by the useof the best available technology and other appropri-ate measures". The key elements of the politicalprogramme which was agreed at the LondonConference were:• a substantial reduction (of the order of 50 %)

between 1985 and 1995 in total inputs to theNorth Sea via rivers and estuaries of substancesthat are persistent, toxic and liable to bio-accumulate;

• a substantial reduction (of the order of 50 %)between 1985 and 1995 in inputs of phosphorusand nitrogen to those areas of the North Seawhere such inputs are likely, directly or indi-rectly, to cause pollution;


190

• to prepare national action plans to achieve boththese goals;

• to reduce atmospheric emissions of pollutantsfrom key industrial and other sectors by takingappropriate action, including the use of strictemission standards based upon best availabletechnology, if practicable within 4 years;

• to phase out the dumping of industrial wastes inthe North Sea by 31 December 1989;

• to reduce the use of marine incineration by notless than 65 % by 1 January 1991 and to phaseout the practice totally by 31 December 1994;

• to initiate action within IMO for designating theNorth Sea a Special Area for the purpose ofAnnex V (garbage) of MARPOL 73/78.

Ministers repeated their commitment to renewedefforts, both nationally and within the framework of the international conventions, to take measureswhich would protect the North Sea. One of thesemeasures was the decision to establish the NorthSea Task Force to enhance the scientific knowledgeand understanding of the North Sea.

The Hague, 1990

HistoryIt was also decided in London that a ThirdConference should be held at Ministerial level inthe Netherlands in early 1990 in order to review theimplementation of commitments entered into at theFirst and Second North Sea Conferences and, inparticular, to evaluate the measures agreed in theLondon Declaration from a policy viewpoint. Theinternational preparations began with a high levelgovernment executives’ meeting at The Hague inOctober 1988 and was effected by the establishmentof a Preparatory Working Group with several sub-groups. The Third International Conference on theProtection of the North Sea was held in The Hagueon 7 and 8 March 1990 and was the subject of muchmedia attention and public interest. In recognitionof the importance of the contribution of riverine

inputs to the North Sea, the ministers were joinedfor the first time by a colleague from the SwissConfederation, whose government also endorsed thecommitments entered into at Bremen and London.Observers from the former Czechoslovakia and theformer German Democratic Republic also attendedthe Conference.

Principal outcomeThe principal task of The Hague Conference was toreview the implementation of the Bremen andLondon Conferences and to clarify the politicaldecisions in measurable terms. For example, withrespect to inputs of hazardous substances, a list of36 substances was identified in respect of the 50%reduction target and a 70% reduction target wasestablished for the most dangerous substances tothe environment, i.e. dioxins, cadmium, mercuryand lead. Further concrete steps were taken toalleviate eutrophication: notably measures withrespect to municipal waste water and industrialeffluents and measures in agriculture. The termina-tion date for marine incineration was broughtforward to 31 December 1991.

As regards new measures, agreement was reachedto phase out and destroy PCBs and hazardous PCB-substitutes and to aim for a substantialreduction in the quantities of pesticides reachingthe North Sea. The Ministers also turned theirattention for the first time to matters concerningthe protection of species and habitats (aMemorandum of Understanding on SmallCetaceans in the North Sea was adopted) and onthe impact of fishing activities. It was furtheragreed to seek a global strengthening of theregulations for ships’ operational discharges of oiland chemical residues, and to exercise greatercontrol over the activities of the offshore industry.

Progress Report

191

Intermediate Ministerial Meeting,Copenhagen, 1993

HistoryThe Hague Conference accepted the offer of theDanish government to host a Fourth InternationalConference on the Protection of the North Sea in1995. It was also agreed to hold an IntermediateMinisterial Meeting in 1993:• to discuss the 1993 Quality Status Report on the

North Sea; • to evaluate the actions taken within IMO on

Annex I and Annex II of MARPOL 73/78 and to decide what additional measures might berequired, including the possibility of declaring the North Sea a Special Area under theseAnnexes;

• to discuss problems of implementation of theNorth Sea Conference Declaration with regard to nutrients and pesticides, for which purposeMinisters of Agriculture would also participate.

The IMM 93 was held in Copenhagen on 7 and 8December 1993. It was essentially a review meetingto determine at ministerial level what issues neededto be addressed in preparation for the Fourth NorthSea Conference.

Principal outcomeIn preparing for the Fourth North Sea Conference,the Intermediate Ministerial Meeting (IMM-93) inCopenhagen reached conclusions on:• the need for measures to make significant

reductions (of the order of 50%) of anthropogenicinputs of polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)between 1985 and 2000 from all sources ofconcern to the marine environment;

• the possible need for a joint initiative to desig-nate the North Sea as a Special Area for thepurposes of Annexes I and II of MARPOL 73/78and to study intersessionally the possibility ofdeclaring the North Sea a Special Area for thepurposes of the new air pollution Annex;

• the need for proposals on economic arrangements,control and monitoring systems for port receptionfacilities;

• an agreement to work to adopt internationalrules as soon as possible concerning liability andcompensation for damage caused by accidentsinvolving ships carrying cargoes of hazardous andnoxious substances;

• the acknowledgement that, although most NorthSea States expect to reach the 50% reductiontarget for phosphorus, the 50% nitrogen targetwill not be achieved mainly because the reduc-tions in the agriculture sector are insufficient, aswell as the time lag between the application ofmeasures and their effects; the Ministers encour-aged the development of an operational definitionof balanced fertilization with a view to adoptionas a common international standard;

• the fact that insufficient progress had been madein reducing the use of pesticides to reach thegoals of The Hague Declaration.

The IMM 93 was particularly noteworthy in that itprovided the first opportunity for a cross-sectoralapproach at political level to certain environmentalproblems affecting the North Sea. Ministers of agri-culture were able to discuss issues of common con-cern, notably measures for nutrients and pesticides,with their colleagues responsible for the protectionof the North Sea environment. The Ministers drewattention to the need for suitable regimes for theprotection of coastal and marine areas (includingspecies and habitats) and to the importance offisheries management in the context of safeguard-ing the sustainability of the North Sea ecosystem asa whole.

Esbjerg, 1995

HistoryAt The Hague Conference in 1990 it was decided thata Fourth International Conference on the Protectionof the North Sea should be held at Ministerial levelin Denmark in 1995. The purpose of the Conferencein Denmark was to address the following issues:• progress made in reducing pollution of the North

Sea and in implementing measures agreed duringthe three previous Conferences as well as during


192

the Intermediate Ministerial Meeting in 1993;• national experience regarding control and

enforcement of measures taken with respect tothe reduction of inputs of hazardous substancesand the need for further improvements;

• the current environmental status of the NorthSea and the need for further measures, based onthe 1993 Quality Status Report;

• global perspectives of the experience gainedthrough the joint efforts of the participants.

The approach to the work undertaken at theConference reflected the significant changes thathad occurred since the Hague Declaration. Progresshad been made in converting the political initiativeslaunched by the previous Conferences into compul-sory provisions of international and EuropeanUnion law. These new and comprehensive require-ments substantially transformed the approach tothe protection of the North Sea in many fields byestablishing or substantially extending legally bind-ing frameworks. The signing of the OSPARConvention in Paris in September 1992 (whichsuperseded the 1972 Oslo Convention and the 1974Paris Convention) represented important progress,particularly in adopting the precautionary principleand the ‘polluter pays’ principle and by making itpossible to address all matters relating to the pro-tection of the marine environment through oneConvention. Instruments adopted by the EuropeanUnion and OSPAR in the field of protection for theother issues addressed within the EsbjergDeclaration also contributed to the creation orimprovement of these frameworks.

The Fourth International Conference on theProtection of the North Sea was held in Esbjerg,Denmark on 8 and 9 June 1995.

Principal outcomeOne of the most important issues agreed upon bythe Ministers was the prevention of the pollution ofthe North Sea by continuously reducing discharges,emissions and losses of hazardous substancesthereby moving towards the target of their cessationwithin one generation (25 years) with the ultimateaim of concentrations in the environment nearbackground values for naturally occurring sub-stances and close to zero concentrations for man-made synthetic substances. Furthermore theyagreed to take concerted action within the

International Maritime Organization (IMO) toultimately phase out the use of tributyltin (TBT)compounds on all ships worldwide. A majorityagreed that decommissioned offshore installationsshall either be reused or be disposed of on land. The Esbjerg Declaration also addressed actions withregard to the protection of species and habitats incoastal and offshore areas, fisheries, further reduc-tion of nutrient inputs to the North Sea, other formsof pollution from ships and offshore installationsand management of radioactive substances,including waste.

At the Esbjerg Conference it was also decided thatthere should be regular meetings of senior officialsrepresenting the North Sea States and theEuropean Commission. The Committee of NorthSea Senior Officials (CONSSO) was established toundertake the following:• to organize the necessary follow-up work

resulting from the Esbjerg Declaration;• to review progress in the implementation of

actions agreed upon at the four InternationalConferences;

• to take an overview of the North Sea environ-ment and the action being taken to protect it;

• to consider the need for and means of under-taking additional actions;

• to prepare for the Fifth International Conference on the Protection of the North Sea.

Intermediate Ministerial Meeting,Bergen, 1997

HistoryAt the Esbjerg Conference it was agreed to hold an Intermediate Ministerial Meeting in Norwaybefore the next North Sea Conference. The purposeof the IMM was to focus on the integration of fish-eries and environmental issues with the Ministersresponsible for environmental protection andMinisters responsible for fisheries participating.

During preparations for the IMM 97, it wasregarded as important to establish close cooperation

Progress Report

193

between the fisheries and the environmental sectorsand to include all relevant stakeholders in a con-structive dialogue. To provide a good basis fordiscussion, a thorough documentation of the statusof the living resources and the habitats in the North Sea was needed. The Assessment Report on Fisheries and Fisheries related Species andHabitats Issues was duly completed as the result of a joint effort by scientists, managers and NGOs.This transparent and participatory approachcontributed to mutual trust and improved under-standing of the issues. The report was accepted by all stakeholders as a basis for the followingnegotiations on actions needed for the protection of North Sea fish stocks, other species and theirhabitats.

The IMM 97 was held in Bergen, Norway on 13 and 14 March 1997.

Principal outcomeMinisters agreed that the future fisheries andenvironmental protection, conservation andmanagement measures, including the managementof the North Sea fisheries, should be guided by theprinciple of further integration of fisheries andenvironmental protection, conservation and man-agement measures, drawing upon the developmentand application of an ecosystem approach which, asfar as the best available scientific understandingand information permit, is based on in particular: • the identification of processes in, and influences

on, the ecosystems which are critical for main-taining their characteristic structure and func-tioning, productivity and biological diversity;

• taking into account the interaction among thedifferent components in the food-webs of theecosystems (multi-species approach) and otherimportant ecosystem interactions;

• providing for a chemical, physical and biologicalenvironment in these ecosystems consistent witha high level of protection of those criticalecosystem processes.

Ministers also agreed upon the following:• guiding principles:

- utilization of the ecosystems of the North Seain a manner consistent with sustainable devel-opment;

- conservation of biological diversity and thesustainable use of its components;

- application of the precautionary approachmanagement of living marine resources’;

- integration of environmental objectives intofisheries policy;

• management objectives:- to ensure sustainable, sound and healthy

ecosystems;- to restore and/or maintain biological diversity;- to achieve sustainable exploitation of the living

marine resources;- to ensure economically viable fisheries;

• strategies:- to take appropriate measures to minimize

adverse impacts of fishing activities;- to take appropriate measures to minimize

adverse impacts resulting from human activi-ties other than fishing;

• main areas for action:- rebuilding or maintenance of spawning

stock biomass;- protection of juvenile fish, crustaceans and

molluscs;- protection of species and habitats;- protection from activities other than fisheries;- control and enforcement;- science, technology and economic impacts; - information and involvement; - urther integration of fisheries and

environmental policies;- implementation of the guiding principles,

strategies and foregoing actions and a review of progress.


194

State of Stocks in the NorthSea and Adjacent Seas

Species

Cod(Gadus morhua)

Haddock(Melanogrammusaeglefinus)

Whiting(Merlangius merlangus)

Saithe(Pollachius virens)

Plaice(Pleuronectes platessa)

Sole (Solea solea)

Nephrops norvegicus

Nephrops norvegicus

Anglerfish(Lophius piscatorius)

IV, VIId, Skagerrak

IV and IIIa

IV and VIId

IV, IIIa and VI

IV

IV

IV

IIIa

IV and VI

Blim: 70Bpa: 150Flim:: 0.86Fpa: 0.65

Blim:: 100Bpa: 140Flim:: 1.0Fpa: 0.7

Blim:: 225Bpa: 315Flim:: 0.9Fpa: 0.65

Blim:: 106Bpa: 200Flim:: 0.60Fpa: 0.40

Blim:: 210Bpa: 300Flim:: 0.6Fpa: 0.3

Blim:: 25Bpa: 35Flim:: undefined Fpa: 0.4

Limit referencepoints not defined –currently no biologi-cal basisFpa: 0.30

No (0.83)

No (0.92)

Yes (0.46)

Yes (0.29)

No (0.43)

No (0.46)

No (indica-tion butassess-mentuncer-tain)

No (55)

Yes (215)

No (257)

Yes (232)

No (289)

Yes (40)

Outside safe biological limits

Harvested outsidesafe biological limits


Inside safe biological limits



Exploited at sustainable levels or(in one area) scope forfurther cautiousincrease in landingsand effort

Exploited at sustain-able levels

Stock definition Reference points(Biomass in ‘000 t

F < Fpa(F in 2000)

SSB > Bpa(SSB in2001)

OverallPresent state

Based on reports from the ICES Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management 2000 and 2001.

Annex 2:

State of Stocks in the North Sea and Adjacent Seas

195

Species

Herring (Clupea harengus)

Sprat(Sprattus sprattus)

Mackerel(Scomber scombrus)

Mackerel(Scomber scombrus)

Horse mackerel(Trachurus trachurus)

Horse mackerel(Trachurus trachurus)

Norway pout(Trisopterus esmarki)

Sandeel (Ammodytes sp.)

Pandalus borealis

Sprat (Sprattus sprattus)

Sandeel (Ammodytes sp.)

Plaice(Pleuronectes platessa)

Sole (Solea solea)

IV, VIId, IIIa (autumn spawners)

IV

North Sea component

Combined NortheastAtlantic stock

North Sea (IVb and c),eastern Skagerrakand eastern Channel

Western (northeastAtlantic including thenorthern North Sea)

IV and IIIa

IV and Shetland

IIIa+IVa East

IIIa

IIIa

VIId

VIId

Blim: 800 Bpa: 1300Flim: undefinedFpa: for juveniles0.12, for adults 0.25

None available

Not defined

Blim: not definedBpa: 2300Flim: 0.26Fpa: 0.17

Not sufficient information

Blim: not definedBpa: (reference pointwithdrawn in 2001)No F-based pointsadvised

Blim: 90Bpa: 150No F-based pointsadvised

Blim: 430Bpa: 600No F-based pointsadvised

Bpa : not defined

Not known

Not known

Blim: 5.6Bpa: 8Flim: 0.54Fpa: 0.45

Blim: not definedBpa: 8Flim: 0.55Fpa: 0.4

No (0.27foradults)

Yes (0.17)

? (0.23)

(0.48)

(0.55)

No (0.52)

Yes (0.34)

No (1145)

Estimatedby egg surveys tobe 68 000 tin 1999

Yes (4023)

? (862)

Yes (325)

Yes (825)

Yes (9.5)

Yes (12.6)

Recovery plan inplace. Stock is recovering

Stock biomass high in 2000

Severely depleted

Inside safe biologicallimits overall, but seeNorth Sea componentabove

Not known



Stock is around thelong-term average

Unknown

Not known


Yes (12.6)Inside safe biologicallimits

Stock definition Reference points(Biomass in ‘000 t

F < Fpa(F in 2000)

SSB > Bpa(SSB in2001)

OverallPresent state

Progress Report

196

Species

Rays and Skates (Raja spp.)

Common skate (R. batis)

Thornback ray (R. clavata)

Spotted ray (R. montagui)

Cuckoo ray (R. naevus)

Starry ray (R. radiata)

IV

IV

IV

IV

IV

IV

Most ray species are ableto support only relativelylow exploitation rates.Landings (by-catch) havebeen fairly constant since1970.

No commercial value

1

2

3

4

5

Maximum length decreasedfor all species comparingdata from 1930s to recentsurvey results

Virtually disappeared after the 1950s

Decreased abundance

Caught irregularly recently more frequently

Abundance remained fairly constant

Increased abundance

Sub-areaRelativeVulnera-

bility

Exploitation OverallPresent state

State of Rays and Skates in the North Sea

11 species of rays and skates have been reported from the North Sea of which five species are considered resident. The evaluation is based on long-term trends as observed in research vesselsurveys. Landings reported did not include starry ray.

Based on the Report from the ICES Advisory Committee on Fisheries Management 1997.

197

The conclusions most relevant to the managementof North Sea Fisheries were parts of the points 31and 32 regarding the management of naturalresources and the finalization of the EuropeanCommunity Sustainable Development Strategy andconclusions number 4–10 and 12, 13, 15, 16, 18 and19 in the fisheries council conclusions of 25 April2001 as follows:

31. - that the review of the Common FisheriesPolicy in 2002 should, based on a broadpolitical debate, address the overall fishingpressure by adapting the EU fishing effort tothe level of available resources, taking intoaccount the social impact and the need toavoid over-fishing.

- halting biodiversity decline with the aim toreach this objective by 2010 as set out in the6th Environmental Action Programme.

32. The Council is invited to finalize and furtherdevelop sector strategies for integrating envi-ronment into all relevant Community policyareas with a view to implementing them assoon as possible and present the results of thiswork before the Spring European Council in2002. Relevant objectives set out in the forth-coming 6th Environmental Action Programmeand the Sustainable Development Strategyshould be taken into account.

Conclusions from the Council meeting of 25 April2001 on the integration of environmental concernsand sustainable development into the CommonFisheries Policy (CFP).

4. The Council recognizes that heavy fishingpressure and use of inappropriate fishingtechniques, along with a series of other factorsunrelated to fisheries, threatens marine biodi-versity and the long-term sustainability of the

Presidency Conclusions –European Council, Gothenburg

15 and 16 June 2001

Annex 3:

198

European fisheries sector. Continued fishingpressure may have influenced the geneticvariability of some commercially harvestedstocks. Possible changes of genetic variability,sensitive species and the level of biodiversityneed to be monitored. The impact of fisheries onbiodiversity still requires thorough study,particularly in relation to genetic diversity,long-living species, non-target species and theecological functions of various ecosystems.

5. The Council agrees that targeted reductions infishing pressure are the most importantmanagement measures in order to achievesustainable development. Total allowablecatches (TACs) are a key instrument in limitingfishing pressure. This instrument needs to befurther developed in the light of the Councilconclusions on the application of the precau-tionary principle and multi-annual arrange-ments for setting TACs.

6. The Community has not yet succeeded inestablishing a sustainable balance betweenfishing effort (the product of capacity andactivity) and available fish resources, and thisalso may have a negative effect on the marineenvironment as a whole. The Council thereforeinvites the Commission to develop a fleet policywhich would secure appropriate targetedreductions in fishing effort.

7. The Council considers that significantlyenhanced technical conservation measuresshould also be a central part of the overallstrategy to integrate fisheries and environmentpolicy. In this context, the Council supports thedevelopment and implementation of more selec-tive fishing gears in order to reduce discards,incidental by-catch and impact on habitats.Time and site-specific protection measuresshould be considered in order to protect juve-niles or sensitive and threatened species. TheCouncil invites the Commission to continue todevelop actively this important dimension offisheries conservation policy in consultationwith all players.

8. The Council notes the importance of adequatedata collection and that scientific knowledge ofthe marine environment must improve so thatappropriate and scientifically based environ-mental actions can be taken. The contributionof scientific research from both the fisheriesand the environmental sector must be furtherdeveloped and a higher level of cooperation isneeded in order better to focus research onensuring sustainable, sound and healthyecosystems.

9. The Council stresses the crucial importance of effective and comprehensive use of fisherycontrol and enforcement instruments applied ina consistent manner across all Member States.In also notes the importance of satellitemonitoring and the progress in its use.

10. The Council is aware of the need for greaterinvolvement of the individual fishermen and other relevant stakeholders in fisheriesmanagement with a view to improving theconservation of living marine resources andsecuring a sustainable use of these resources.

12. The Council acknowledges the critical economicand social situation in coastal regions, whichare highly dependent on fisheries. In particular,further consideration should be given, withinthe CFP review, to small-scale coastal fisheries,which are a force for balance in regionaldevelopment.

13. The Council agrees that the impact of subsidieson the fisheries sector should be assessed aspart of the CFP review. Where they are provided,subsidies should, in accordance with the princi-ples of the Common Fisheries Policy, take fullaccount of the need to conserve fisheryresources and to protect the environment.

15. The Council recognizes the importance ofinternational cooperation to fully achieve theintegration objectives and that the Communityshould adopt a leading role in promotingsustainable management and environmentalintegration in regional fisheries organizations(RFOs), in other relevant international fora andin the framework of third country agreements,in accordance with the Fisheries Council’sconclusions of October 1997.

Progress Report

199

16. The Council welcomes the Commission’s initia-tive in presenting, after its communication onfisheries management and nature conservationin the marine environment of July 1999, acommunication on elements of a strategy forthe integration of environmental protectionrequirements into the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) as well as a biodiversity actionplan for fisheries and aquaculture.

18. The Council encourages the Commission’sinitiative to develop a set of indicators in orderto measure in an integrated way ecological,economic and social sustainability as well asspecific indicators to monitor long term effectson and changes in biodiversity for key targetand non-target species and their habitats.

19. The Council invites the Commission to monitorand evaluate the process of the integration ofenvironment and sustainable development intothe CFP. The Council calls on the EuropeanCouncil to invite the Commission to present,within the CFP review, concrete proposals forthe integration of environment and sustainabledevelopment into the CFP, including priorityactions such as reduction in fishing pressureand increased selectivity of fishing gear,measurable targets, timetables, improvedprotection of marine biodiversity and progresstowards an ecosystem-based management.

Presidency Conclusions – European Council, Gothenburg 15 and 16 June 2001

18 Doc. No. 10078/99PECHE 148 ENV 261 – COM(1999)363 final.

200

Proposals for EcologicalQuality Objectives in the

North Sea

Annex 4:

Proposals for EcoQOs for the ten issues identified for development

Table 1 List of proposed Ecological Quality Objectives (EcoQOs) for 10 issues identified for development in the North Sea. Report from OSPAR to CONSSO January 2002: 'Background Document on the Development(within the OSPAR framework) of Ecological Quality Objectives (EcoQOs) for the North Sea'. This report ofprogress and its contents have not been formally agreed within OSPAR, and as such the report does not containany formal OSPAR agreements, or provide any recommendations from OSPAR to CONSSO, on EcoQOs.

1. Reference pointsfor commercialfish species

2. Threatened anddeclining species

3. Sea mammals

4. Seabirds

5. Fish communities

6. Benthiccommunities

7. Plankton communities

8. Habitats

9. Nutrient budgetsand production

10. Oxygenconsumption

• Reference points1) for commercial fish species†

• Presence and extent of threatened and declining species in the North Sea#

• Seal population trends in the North Sea†• Utilisation of seal breeding sites in the North Sea†• By-catch of harbour porpoises†

• Proportion of oiled Common Guillemots among those found dead or dyingon beaches†

• Mercury concentrations in seabird eggs and feathers†• Organochlorine concentrations in seabird eggs†• Plastic particles in stomachs of seabirds#• Local sandeel availability to black-legged Kittiwakes†• Seabird populations trends as an index of seabird community health†

• Changes in the proportion of large fish and hence the average weight andaverage maximum length of the fish community†

• Changes/kills in zoobenthos in relation to eutrophication*• Imposex in dog whelk†• Density of sensitive (e.g. fragile) species#• Density of opportunistic species#

• Phytoplankton chlorophyll a*• Phytoplankton indicator species for eutrophication*

• Restore and/or maintain habitat quality#

• Winter nutrient (DIN and DIP) concentrations*

• Oxygen*

Issue EcoQOs proposed

Proposals for Ecological Quality Objectives in the North Sea

201

† See paragraph 37 for progress on developing these EcoQOs.# See paragraph 40 for progress on developing these EcoQOs.* See Paragraph 38 for progress on developing these EcoQOs. These EcoQOs proposed for nutrients and eutrophication effects are

elaborated based upon their cause-effect relationship with nutrient enrichment (see EUC 01/5/3-Rev.1). The development of thesefour was carried out on the basis of the common assessment criteria, and their respective assessment levels used for the classifica-tion of the eutrophication status of the OSPAR Maritime Areas under the Comprehensive procedure (see EUC 01/2/2, Annex 2). Theelaborated EcoQOs-eutro should, inter alia, be considered as an integrated set to help evaluate the 50% nutrient (N and P) reduc-tion target in relation to the general objective, which is to achieve by the year 2010 a healthy marine environment where eutrophi-cation does not occur.

1) In this context, "reference points" are defined as those used in advice given by ICES in relation to fisheries management, and not asdefined by "reference levels" set by OSPAR.

The further Development of EcologicalQuality Objectives

Report from OSPAR to CONSSO January 2002:'Background Document on the Development (withinthe OSPAR framework) of Ecological QualityObjectives (EcoQOs) for the North Sea'. The follow-ing paragraphs are mentioned in footnotes to Table1 in this Annex:

36. The proposed EcoQOs for the 10 issues are indifferent stages of development. They can bebroadly classified into those which are in anadvanced stage and those which are in a lessadvanced stage and where therefore more workremains.

37. The EcoQOs which BDC considered to be in an advanced stage are the following:• Reference points for commercial fish

species (issue 1)• Seal population trends in the North Sea

(issue 3)• Utilisation of seal breeding sites in the

North Sea (issue 3)• By-catch of harbour porpoises (issue 3)• Proportion of oiled guillemots among those

found dead or dying on beaches (issue 4)• Local sandeel availability to black-legged

Kittiwakes (issue 4)• Seabird population trends as an index of

seabird community health (issue 4)• Mercury concentrations in seabird eggs and

feathers (issue 4)• Organochlorine concentrations in seabird

eggs (issue 4)• Changes in the proportion of large fish and

hence the average weight and averagemaximum length of the fish community(issue 5)

• Imposex in dog whelk (issue 6)

38. The EcoQOs which EUC considered to be in an advanced stage are the following:• Winter nutrient (DIN and DIP) concentra-

tions (issue 9)• Phytoplankton chlorophyll a (issue 7)• Phytoplankton indicator species for

eutrophication (issue 7)• Oxygen (issue 10)• Changes/kills in zoobenthos in relation to

eutrophication (issue 6)

39. These proposed EcoQOs are developed to astage where they could be considered byCONSSO with the aim of the 5NSC concludingon whether to recommend their implementa-tion. Some work to finalize details remains forseveral of these EcoQOs. The lead countries(Netherlands and Norway) and CONSSO areencouraged to complete as much as possible ofthis work prior to the 5NSC, in consultation orco-operation with ICES.

40. The following EcoQOs are in a less advancedstage and more work remains to finalize them:• Presence and extent of threatened and

declining species in the North Sea (issue 2)• Plastic particles in stomachs of seabirds

(issue 4)• Density of sensitive (e.g. fragile)

species (issue 6)• Density of opportunistic species (issue 6)• Restore and/or maintain habitat quality

(issue 8)

202

Akvaplan-niva 1999. Miljøundersøkelse, Region III,1998. Akvaplan-niva, Tromsø, Rep. No.411.98.1362–2, 1–218. (in Norwegian, with Englishsummary).

Akvaplan-niva, 2000. Regional miljøundersøkelse,region IV, 1999. Akvaplan-niva, Tromsø, Rep. No.411.99.1612–1, 1–335. (in Norwegian, with Englishsummary).

Bakke T., Gray J.S., Lichtenthaler R.G. andPalmork K.H. 1995. Environmental surveys in thevicinity of petroleum installations on the Norwegianshelf. Report from 1993. SFT, Oslo. Rep. No.95:1–71.

BirdLife International 2000. The development ofboundary selection criteria for the extension ofbreeding seabird Special Protection Areas into themarine environment. A discussion paper by theRSPB. pp. 45, RSPB, Sandy.

Bonn Agreement 1993. Bonn Agreement – Manualfor Oil Pollution at Sea: Securing Evidence onDischarges from Ships.

Bonn Agreement 2000. Bonn Agreement Manual Oil Pollution at Sea – Part 2 Effective Prosecutionof Offenders – guidelines on International Co-operation.

Bonn Agreement 2001. Aerial SurveillanceProgramme. Anual report on Aerial Surveillance for 2000.

Camphuysen C.J., Calvo B., Durinck J., Ensor K.,Follestad A., Furness R.W., Garthe S., Leaper G.,Skov H., Tasker M.L. and C.J.N. Winter 1995.Consumption of discards by seabirds in the NorthSea. Final report EC DG XIV research contractBIOECO/93/10. NIOZ Report 1995–5, NetherlandsInstitute for Sea Research, Texel. 202 + 56 pp.

Carrol M., Pearson T., Dragsund E. and GabrielsenK.L. 2001. Environmental status of the Norwegianoffshore sector based on petroleum regional moni-toring programme, 1996–1998. Akvaplan-niva,Tromsø, Rep. No. 411.1777.03, 1–38.

Cordah 1998. Review of drill cuttings piles in theNorth Sea. Final Rep. Cordah Environmental con-sultations, Aberdeen, Rep.No.Cordah/ODCP.004/1998; 1–90.

Daan R., Mulder M. and Leeuwen A.van 1994.Differential sensitivity of macrozoobenthic speciesto discharges of oil-contaminated drill cuttings inthe North Sea. Neth. J. Sea Res. 33, 113–127.

DNV 1997. Miljøundersøkelse av Tampen-området(Region IV). Det Norske Veritas, Oslo, Tech. Rep.No. 97–3248, 1–330 (in Norwegian, with Englishsummary).

EC 2001. Draft proposal for a Community Plan ofAction for the conservation and management ofsharks. European Commission Rep. to FAOCommittee on Fisheries, Rome, 26 February – 2March 2001.

References

Annex 5:

203

Environment Agency 2001. Impact assessment ofionising radiation on wildlife. R&D Publ. 128.Garthe S., Camphuysen C.J. and R.W. Furness1996. Amounts of discards in commercial fisheriesand their significance as food for seabirds in theNorth Sea. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 136: 1–11.

FAO 1995. Code of Conduct for ResponsibleFisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 350.

Garthe S., Walter U., Tasker M.L., Becker P.H.,Chapdelaine G. and R.W. Furness 1999. Evaluationof the role of discards in supporting bird popula-tions and their effects on the species composition ofseabirds in the North Sea. ICES Coop. Res. Rep.232: 29–41.

German Federal Environmental Agency 2000. Studyof Research Needs for Sustainable Fisheries. 287 pp.

Gerrard S., Grant A., London C. and R. Marsh 1998.Understanding the relative impact of cuttings pilesfor different management options. Univ. East AngliaRes.Rep.No.31: 1–189.

GESAMP 1997. Marine biodiversity: patterns,threats and conservation needs. Rep. Stud.GESAMP 62. 24 pp.

Gray J., Jones S. R. and A.D. Smith 1995.Discharges to the environment from the SellafieldSite, 1951–1992. J. Radiol. Prot. 15(2): 99–131.

IAEA 1995. The principles of radioactive wastemanagement. International Atomic Energy Agency.Safety Series Rep. No. 111-F.

IAEA 1999. Protection of the environment from theeffects of ionising radiation; a report for discussion.International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA-TEC-DOC-1091, Vienna.

ICES 1997. Report of the ICES Advisory Committeeon Fisheries Management. ICES Coop. Res. Rep.No. 223.

ICES 1998a. Report of the ICES AdvisoryCommittee on the Marine Environment. ICES Coop.Res. Rep. No. 233.

ICES 1998b. Report of the Working Group on theEcosystem Effects of Fishing Activities. ICES C.M.1998/ACFM/ACME: 1.

ICES 2000. Report of the ICES Advisory Committeeon the Marine Environment. ICES Coop. Res. Rep.No. 241.

ICES 2001a. Extract from the 2001 Report of theICES Advisory Committee on Marine Ecosystems.ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 249.

ICES 2001b. Report of the ICES AdvisoryCommittee on Fishery Management, 2000. ICESCoop. Res. Rep. No. 242.

ICES 2001c. Status of North Sea Fisheries. Updatebackground for Fifth International Conference onthe Protection of the North Sea. A report preparedfor the North Sea Secretariat.

ICRP 1977. Recommendations of the InternationalCommission on Radiological Protection, ICRPPublication 26. Annals of the ICRP 1(3). Perg.Press, Oxford.

ICRP 1991. 1990 Recommendations of theInternational Commission on RadiologicalProtection, ICRP Publication 60. Annals of the ICRP21(1–3), Perg. Press, Oxford.

IMM 1997. Statement of conclusions from the inter-mediate ministerial meeting on the integration offisheries and environmental issues, 13–14 March1997. Bergen, Norway.

Jonson J.E., Tarrasón L. and J. Bartnicki 2000.Effects of international shipping on European pollu-tion levels. Norwegian Meteorological Inst. Res.Rep. 41.

Lindeboom, H.J. and S.J. de Groot (Eds.) 1998.Impact II, The effects of different types of fisherieson the North Sea and Irish Sea benthic ecosystems.NIOZ–Rapport 1998-1, RIVO-DLO Report C003/98.Neth. Inst. Sea Res. Texel. 404 pp.

References

204

Lubchenco, J. 1994. The Scientific Basis ofEcosystem Management: Framing the Context,Language and Goals. Pages 33-39 In: Committee onEnvironment and Public Works, United StatesSenate, Ecosystem Management: Status andPotential. Proceedings of a Workshop by theCongressional Research Service, March 24-25, 1994.103rd Congress, 2nd Session. Washington. U.S.Government Printing Office.

Mulder M., Lewis W.E. and M.A. Arkel van 1988.Biological effects of the discharges of contaminateddrill-cuttings and water-based drilling fluids in theNorth Sea. Nederlands Instituut voor Onderzoekder Zee, NIOZ Report 1988 – 3. 126 pp.

Neff, J., 2000 Preliminary ecological riskassessment for North Sea water column monitoringprogram 1999: monitoring in the Ekofisk region.Batelle, Mass., Report, Project No. N003804, 1-31.

Nordheim H. von, Norden Anderson O. and J.Thissen (Eds.) 1996. Red List of Biotopes, Flora andFauna of the Trilateral Wadden Sea Area, 1995.Helgoländer Meeresunters. 50, Suppl., also:Schriftenreihe für Landschaftspflege undNaturschutz Heft 47. Bundesamt für Naturschutz,Bonn–Bad Godesberg 1996. pp. 136.

OLF 1998. Produced water discharges to the NorthSea: fate and effects in the water column. SummaryReport. The Norwegian Oil Industry Association(OLF), Stavanger: 1–31.

OSPAR 1999. Substances/preparations used anddischarged offshore which are considered to pose lit-tle or no risk for the environment. Internal meetingdocument No. SEBA 1999/9/5. OSPAR Commission,London.

OSPAR 2000. Quality Status Report 2000, Region II– Greater North Sea. OSPAR Commission, London.136 + xiii pp.

OSPAR 2001a. Annual OSPAR report on discharges,waste handling and air emissions from offshoreinstallation 1998,1999. Internal meeting documents,Nos. OIL 01/10/5 and IOC 01/10/5 Rev 1. OSPARCommission, London.

OSPAR 2001b. Liquid discharges from nuclearinstallations in 1999. OSPAR Commission, London.

Piet G.J. 2001. Ecological quality metrics and refer-ence points of the North Sea fish community. ICESC.M. 2001/T: 11.

Rudjord A.L., Føyn L., Brungot A.L., Kolstad A.K.,Helldal H.E., Brown J., Iosjpe M. and ChristensenG. 2001. Radioactivity in the Marine Environment(RAME) 1999. NRPA Rep. 2001:9. NorwegianRadiation Protection Authority. Østerås, Norway.

SFT 2000. Development of HARP Guidelines.Harmonised Quantification and ReportingProcedures for Nutrients. Norwegian PollutionControl Authority (SFT) Rep. No. 1759.

SFT 2001. Harmonised Quantification andReporting Procedures (HARP–HAZ Prototype).Norwegian Pollution Control Authority (SFT) Rep.No. 1789.

SINTEF 1994. Valhall environmental survey 1993.SINTEF, Oslo, Rep. No. STF27 F94004, 1–94.

SINTEF 2000. North Sea water column monitoringprogram 1999. Monitoring in the Ekofisk region.Calculation of concentration fields. SINTEF,Trondheim, Rep. No. STF66 F00022, 1–35.

SMRU 2001. Reduction of porpoise bycatch in bot-tom set gillnet fisheries. Cornish Fish Producer’sOrganisation, and Irish South and WestFisherman’s Organisation. Sea Mammal ResearchUnit, Univ. Coll. Cork. Final Rep. to the EuropeanCommission. Study Contract 97/095.

TemaNord 1998. Workshop on the ecosystemapproach to the management and protection of theNorth Sea. Oslo, Norway 15–17 June 1998.TemaNord fisheries/environment 1998:579.

TemaNord 1999. Workshop on Ecological QualityObjectives (EcoQOs) for the North Sea.Scheveningen, the Netherlands 1–3 September1999. TemaNord Fisheries/Environment 1999:591.

Turrell W.R. 1992. New hypoteses concerning thecirculation of the northern North Sea and its rela-tion to North Sea fish stock recruitment. ICES. J.Mar.Sci.49:107–123.

Progress Report

205

UKOOA 2001. An analysis of UK offshore oil andgas environmental surveys. 1975–95. UnitedKingdom Offshore Operators Association, Aberdeen.132 pp.

Utvik T.I.R., Johnsen S., Durell G. and A.G. Melbye2000. Final report environmental monitoring 1999for North Sea water column monitoring program1999: monitoring in the Ekofisk region. OLF –Batelle – SINTEF Report, 1–30.

VKI 1999. Analysis of impact on sediment and bot-tom fauna in relation to offshore activities in theDanish sector of the North Sea 1989–1998. Rep.VKI, Hørsholm, Project 11665, 1–73.

WWF 2000. Developing a Framework for MarineProtected Areas in the North-East Atlantik. Reportfrom the Workshop held 13–14 November 1999 inBrest, France. WWF North-East AtlanticProgramme, Bremen, Germany. 27 pp.

WWF 2001. Implementation of the EU HabitatsDirective Offshore: Natura 2000 sites for reefs andsubmerged sandbanks. Vol. 1 – Introduction andRationale, 25 pp. Vol.2 – North-East Atlantic andNorth Sea, 92 pp. A report by WWF-UnitedKingdom.

References

206

ACFA Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (EC)ALARA As low As Reasonably AchievableAm AmericiumAOX Adsorbable organically bound halogensAPEOs AlkylphenolethoxylatesAs ArsenicASCOBANS Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans in the Baltic and North SeasBAT Best Available TechniquesBEP Best Environmental PracticeBFR Brominated flame retardants Blim Limit spawning stock biomassBNFL British Nuclear FuelBpa Biomass below which action should be taken (pa stands for precautionary approach)Bq Becquerel (1 disintegration per second)BREF BAT Reference documentBunker Convention International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution DamageCBD Convention on Biological DiversityCd CadmiumCHARM Chemical Hazard Assessment and Risk ManagementCEFIC The Conseil Européen des Fédérations de l'Industrie ChimiqueCFP Common Fisheries PolicyCITES The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and

FloraCommon Procedure Common Procedure for the Identification of the Eutrophication Status of the

Maritime Area (OSPAR)CONSSO Committee of North Sea Senior OfficialsCs CaesiumCu CopperDDT Dichlor-diphenylic-trichloroethaneDecaBB Decabromobiphenyl

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Annex 6:

207

DecaBDE Decabromodiphenyl etherDIN Dissolved inorganic nitrogenDIP Dissolved inorganic phosphorusDYNAMEC Dynamic selection and prioritization mechanism for hazardous substances (OSPAR)EARP Enhanced Actinide Removal PlantEcoQ Ecological QualityEcoQO Ecological Quality ObjectiveEcoQOs-eutro Ecological Quality Objectives for nutrients and eutrophication effects EEA European Environment AgencyEEZ Exclusive Economic ZoneEIA Environmental impact assessmentEMAS Eco-Management and Audit SchemeEMEP Co-operative programme for monitoring and evaluation of the long range

transmission of air pollutants in EuropeE&P Dutch Association for the Exploration and Production (E&P) IndustryEPER European Pollutant Emission RegisterEUNIS European Nature Information SystemEURATOM European Atomic Energy CommunityEUROHARP Towards European Harmonised Procedures for Quantification of Nutrient Losses

from Diffuse SourcesF Fishing MortalityFAO Food and Agriculture Organization (UN)FASSET Framework for the Assessment of Environmental ImpactFISIS Fisheries Inspection Information SystemFlim Limit fishing mortalityFpa Fishing mortality above which management action should be taken (pa stands for

precautionary approach)GESAMP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental ProtectionGMO Genetically modified organismGOOS Global Ocean Observing Systemha HectareHARP Harmonized Quantification and Reporting Procedures for NutrientsHARP-HAZ Prototype Harmonized Quantification and Reporting Procedures for Hazardous Substances HBCDD HexabromocyclododecaneHCH HexachlorocyclohexaneHELCOM Helsinki CommissionHEX Uranium hexafluorideHg MercuryHMCS Harmonized Mandatory Control SystemHNS Convention International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection

with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by SeaIAEA International Atomic Energy AgencyIBC Code International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships Carrying

Dangerous Chemicals in BulkICES International Council for the Exploration of the SeaICRP International Commission on Radiological ProtectionIMM 93 Intermediate Ministerial Meeting held in Copenhagen in 1993IMM 97 Intermediate Ministerial Meeting on the Integration of Fisheries and

Environmental Issues held in Bergen in 1997IMO International Maritime OrganizationIOC Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission


208

IPOA-SEABIRDS International Plan of Action for Reducing Incidental Catch of Seabirds in LonglineFisheries

IPOA-SHARKS International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of SharksIPP Integrated Product Policy IPPC Directive Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control DirectiveISO International Organization for Standardisation ISPA Financial Instrument for Structural Policies for Pre-AssessionITQ Individual Transferable QuotaIUR International Union of Radioecologykt KilotonneLOA Load-orientated approachLRTAP Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air PollutionMAGP Multi-annual Guidance ProgrammeMARPOL 73/78 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as

modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating theretoMEPC Marine Environment Protection Committee (IMO)MPA Marine Protected AreamSv MillisievertN NitrogenNAFO North Atlantic Fisheries OrganizationNASCO North Atlantic Salmon Conservation OrganizationNatura 2000 EU-wide coordinated ecological network of areas for species and habitat

conservationNEAFC North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commissionng NanogrammeNi Nickelnm Nautical mileNOGEPA Nederlandse olie-en gas exploratie en productie associatieNORM Naturally occurring radioactive materialsNOSE Nomenclature for Sources of EmissionsNOx Nitrogen oxidesNP NonylphenolNPEOs Nonylphenol ethoxylatesNVZ Nitrate vulnerable zonesO2 OxygenOBM Oil-Based MudOctaBDE Octabromodiphenyl ether OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentOIC Offshore Industry Committee (OSPAR)OPF Organic-Phase Drilling FluidOSPAR OSPAR CommissionP PhosphorusPAHs Polyaromatic hydrocarbonsPARCOM Paris CommissionPb LeadPBBs Polybrominated biphenylsPBDEs Polybrominated diphenylethersPBTs Compounds that are persistent, liable to bioaccumulate and toxicPCBs Polychlorinated biphenylsPCDDs Polychlorinated dibenzodioxinsPCDFs Polychlorinated dibenzofurans

Progress Report

209

PCP PentachlorophenolPCTs Polychlorinated terphenylsp.e. Population equivalentPentaBDE Pentabromodiphenyl ether PLONOR list List of Substances / Preparations Used and Discharged Offshore Which Are

Considered to Pose Little or No Risk to the Environment (OSPAR)POP Persistent Organic PollutantPSSA Particularly Sensitive Sea AreaPu PlutoniumRa RadiumRSC Radioactive Substances Committee (OSPAR)SAC Special Area of ConservationSCCPs Short chained chlorinated paraffinsSFT Norwegian Pollution Control AuthoritySIXEP Site Ion-Exchange Effluent PlantSMEs Small and medium enterprisesSMRU Sea Mammal Research UnitSOA Source-orientated approachSoC Ministerial Statement of ConclusionsSOLAS International Convention for the Safety of Life at SeaSOx Sulphur oxidesSPA Special Protection AreaSr StrontiumSSB Spawning Stock BiomassSTECF Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries STP Sewage treatment plantsTAC Total Allowable CatchTBBP-A Tetrabromobisphenol ATBq TerabecquerelTBT TributyltinTc TechnetiumTCBs TrichlorobenzenesTHCs Total hydrocarbonsTMAP Trilateral Monitoring and Assessment ProgramTPT TriphenyltinUKOOA United Kingdom Offshore Operators AssociationUNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and DevelopmentUNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea UNEP United Nations Environment ProgrammeVMS Vessel monitoring systemVOC Volatile organic compoundsVPVB Substances that are very persistent and very bioaccumulativeWEEE Directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment (EC)WFD Water Framework Directive (EC)WSP Wadden Sea PlanWWF World Wide Fund for NatureZn Zinc2NSC Second International Conference on the Protection of the North Sea, held in

London 19873H Tritium


210

3NSC Third International Conference on the Protection of the North Sea, held in theHague in 1990

4NSC Fourth International Conference on the Protection of the North Sea, held in Esbjergin 1995

5NSC Fifth International Conference on the Protection of North Sea, held in Bergen in 2002% m/m Mass percentage

Progress Report

progress report - ospar commission...2.2 geography and hydrography 19 2.3 ecosystem structure and...

Documents