EMMA(2) 04/8/1
Meeting of the Working Group on European Marine Monitoring and Assessment (EMMA)
Copenhagen, 23-24 June 2004
Report of the Meeting
Extract
Agenda item 5: Road map towards a common approach on European Monitoring and Assessment
27.At the second meeting of EMMA it was agreed to convene an ad hoc sub-group to prepare a document which would enable the third meeting of EMMA to develop a roadmap for future work. The subgroup met on 6-7 April in Athens and was attended by representatives of the European Commission (DG ENV and DG JRC), the EEA and secretariats of AMAP, HELCOM, OSPAR, UNEP/MAP and BSC.The main conclusion of the subgroup meeting was that instead of trying to discuss all aspects of marine environmental assessments at once, the EMMA group should look at the needs of assessments of different environmental issues and their organisational implications.
28.The EEA stated that the resulting document aimed to develop the thinking on how pan-European assessments should be undertaken but that it was not intended for detailed discussion.
29.The document identifies six issues for which pan European approaches and assessments are required. The Commission informed the meeting that common objectives for these six issues (eutrophication, hazardous substances, shipping, fisheries, biodiversity and habitat degradation, and climate change) are being defined for Europe’s seas by the SGO Marine Strategy group.
30.In the general discussion on the issues the following points were made:
a)Eutrophication: general consensus on the importance of this issue in most regional seas (not in the Arctic).
b)Hazardous substances are problem in all seas but should be linked with human health. Some participants suggested that litter and radionuclides should also be considered in this issue.
c)Problems arising from shipping and oil discharges: Litter from shipping could be included in this issue.
d)Fisheries: It was suggested that this could be renamed “resources management” and as such as sand and gravel extraction could be included. However it was pointed out that sand and gravel extraction was a cause of habitat degradation and hence was included in e).
e)Change of biodiversity and habitat degradation. It was pointed out that fisheries (a socioeconomic sector) is a pressure on biodiversity. The issue titles are mixing ‘drivers and pressures’ e.g. fisheries and shipping with ‘state and impact’ e.g. oil, biodiversity and habitats). A view was that the issues should just relate to the state and impacts on the marine environment. The inclusion of non-indigenous species as a separate issue was raised by some participants – were they could be covered in “shipping” as shipping is a source of non-indigenous species or within “decline in biodiversity” as they impact biodiversity.
f)Climate change: This is a high political issue at the moment and should be included.
g)Litter was also thought to a pan European issue that could be treated separately or included within hazardous substances.
h)Radionuclides were raised as a potential issue but were thought to be a regional problem rather than a pan European problem. It was suggested that they were included under hazardous substances.
i)Although the EMMA process now follows six individual issues, it was stressed that in the end assessments should comply with the ecosystem approach to the management of human activities, which may involve making cross linkages between issues.
31.EMMA then discussed each issue in more detail so that the discussions could feed into the roadmap for later development.
Eutrophication
32.The Commission informed EMMA that there would be a workshop on eutrophication on 14/15 September at Ispra convened under the auspices of the WFD working group 2A, ECOSTAT. The workshop would consider how eutrophication is dealt with in Directives (e.g. Water Framework, Nitrates and Urban Waste Water Treatment Directives) and other fora such as Marine Conventions. The aim was to come up with a common conceptual framework to assess eutrophication in all water categories (freshwater, transitional, coastal and marine waters). The OSPAR conceptual model for eutrophication has been discussed at a joint EC-JRC/HELCOM/BSC workshop in April 2004. Whereas all these activities provide the basic for assessments in terms of frameworks, the task of EMMA is still to design the actual organisation for making the assessments.
33.EMMA participants indicated that a common understanding of eutrophication is required, and that the pressure analysis being undertaken for the WFD should be applicable in marine areas identified as having potential or actual eutrophication problems. Any conceptual assessment framework for assessing eutrophication must be WFD compliant, for example, having five quality classes.
34.It was suggested that the impact of organic matter should not be forgotten.
Hazardous substances
35.The obligations given under the WFD have to be taken into account. OSPAR reported on its recent recommendation that the prioritarisation of substances will be in future leaded by the EC.
36.AMAP thought that the problem of incomparability of data was not resolved. There was also a lack of toxicity data for arctic species thus limiting the assessment of impacts. Climate change is also affecting food web structures and contaminant pathways. France thought that human health aspects should be brought into the assessment.
Fisheries
37.A main challenge for the assessment would be to find the balance between a (conventional) fisheries approach aimed at commercial stocks and a biodiversity approach. ICES stated that harmonisation of fisheries monitoring methods was required. Fish catch data are often inaccurate because of underreporting by fishermen/countries. The BSC indicated that a conceptual framework for the assessment of fisheries was needed. The BSC proposed that aquaculture should be included. The EEA thought the impact of aquaculture would be included in other issues (e.g. biodiversity and eutrophication).
Establishment of small working groups for each issue
38.To make the step from the current descriptive document to a document that describes for each of the issues the proposed organisation of assessments and dataflows (a roadmap), it was suggested that small working groups should be established to work and agree on a real roadmap for each of the issues. Terms of reference for the small working groups would be required, and the groups could work mainly by email, meeting only when needed and at given opportunities. The Commission made the proposal of draft Terms of References along the lines of the discussion on organisation and structure that had taking place for the several issues. (Annex 3).
39.There were differing views on this proposal, a major concern being the establishment of even more working groups in the context of Marine Strategy process and WFD initiatives and working/expert groups, and the current level of work they entail. The questions forming the basis of pan-European assessments should be defined in the terms of reference of the small working groups. The expected outcomes should also be defined in terms of the structure of any reports/guidance arising from groups. This could be achieved through the provision of a template for the outcomes by the EEA/Commission.
40.The EEA suggested that some of the issues/groups could be combined and hence the total number of groups reduced. Three groups could be: eutrophication; hazardous substances and shipping (pollution); and, biodiversity/ecosystem approach. The Commission or EEA would coordinate these groups.
41.After the discussion on the draft Terms of References it was agreed that revised ToR for the small working groups would be in the report of the meeting (see Annex 3). The Terms of Reference will be open for further comment by EMMA, and will be developed in specific TORs for each of the groups (see §39).
42.EEA agreed to provide a template to structure the outcome of each of the groups along the lines of the structure of section 4 of the Document 04/1/1.
Agenda item 6: Future meetings
43.Taken these agreements on structure and outline EMMA decided to limit the small working groups to three. At the meeting and subject to confirmation, the following countries and organisations agreed to participate. Conventions and Programmes would participate as secretariats, possibly and depending on capacities, in all three groups. Work would be coordinated by the Commission and the EEA.
Eutrophication:
France, Italy, Germany, Slovenia, Sweden, Portugal, Greece, Denmark; participation to confirm: Finland and UK; organisations: ICES, HELCOM, BSC, UNEP/MAP, JRC.
Hazardous substances(covering also the pressures from shipping and oil discharges as well as radionuclide and new substances.)
Belgium, Slovenia, Greece, Italy (to be confirmed), Norway, UK, France, Germany, Spain, Ireland; organisations: ICES, BSC, HELCOM, UNEP/MAP, JRC and AMAP (latter both to be conf.)
Biodiversity (covering also habitat degradation and pressures from fisheries and invasive species/ballast water)
Spain, Greece, UK, Italy, Netherlands, France, Germany (to be conf.); organisations: BSC, HELCOM, UNEP/MAP, ICES.
44.The final confirmation on participation will be given with the comments to the draft report. Some countries indicated that they would be interested in all three groups but had to clarify capacities.
Annex 3
General Terms of Reference for EMMA ad hoc groups
1. EMMA June 2004, established three ad hoc groups with the task to prepare for the next meeting of EMMA (08-09 February 2005) contributions for the ´Roadmap` of future monitoring and assessment activities in the context of the European Marine Strategy. Ad hoc groups were established for the following issues:
Eutrophication;
Hazardous substances including pressures from shipping and oil discharges, radionuclides and new substances;
Biodiversity, including habitat degradation and pressures from fisheries and invasive species/ballast water;
These contributions should reflect the guidance on the Ecosystem Approach and the developments in the Marine Strategy itself.
2.Basis for these contributions should be a stocktaking of relevant ongoing and planned activities of the regional conventions, the EEA and the JRC.
3.The contributions should identify steps and activities needed (at regional and at pan-European level) with a view to preparing a pan-European assessment for the issue by [year].
4.The contribution should cover at least the following elements:
the organisation of the process of preparing the assessment;
the assessment and classification methodology to be used;
the data and information required to apply the methodology.
5.Each of the ad hoc groups should work mainly by correspondence. If and when appropriate input / comments from all members of EMMA should be requested.