Original English
English only
OSPAR CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT OF THE NORTH-EAST ATLANTIC
JOINT MEETING OF OSPAR AND HELCOM HEADS OF DELEGATION
BREMEN, GERMANY: 25-28 NOVEMBER 2002
WWF comments with regard to the agenda of the
Joint OSPAR/HELCOM Ministerial Meeting (JMMC 2003)
and related materials proposed for consideration
Presented by WWF
Background
- OSPAR 2002 discussed the arrangements for the 2003 Ministerial Meeting of the OSPAR Commission and of the Joint HELCOM-OSPAR Ministerial Meeting and agreed that it was important to ensure that observers to the Commission have an adequate opportunity to make inputs to the preparation of both these meetings.
- OSPAR therefore agreed to invite OSPAR NGO observers to submit in writing in good time before the November 2002 HOD meetings brief proposals on material for consideration by the OSPAR Ministerial Meeting and the Joint Ministerial Meeting (OSPAR 02/21/1, §11.13a).
- For the time being, WWF’s attached comments and proposals (Annex 1) focus on issues foreseen for the agenda of JMMC 2003.
- With regard to specific topics on the agenda of OSPAR MMC 2003, such as the results and further development of the OSPAR Strategies and/or the application of an ecosystem approach, WWF intends to work through the respective OSPAR Committees and come up with further comments and suggestions to HOD (1) 2003 or during the planned HOD/NGO consultations .
- However, with this submission, WWF also addresses additional opportunities for synergies between both meetings in cases where closely related topics appear on both the OSPAR and the HELCOM MM agenda in parallel although they would urgently require joint action and follow-up.
Action requested
- HOD is invited to take note of WWF’s comments and proposals and take action as appropriate.
Annex 1
ISSUES ON THE JOINT MMC AGENDA
A - Cooperation with the European Community in developing and implementing a comprehensive European Marine Strategy
In the context of the draft EU Marine Strategy, WWF emphasises on the need for:
a)Coherence between the new EU instrument and the provisions, agreements and standards already established under European regional seas agreements (such as OSPAR, Helsinki, Barcelona); and
b)Consistent application of the ecosystem approach to Europe’s seas.
Materials to be consideredReference is made to the WWF European Endangered Seas Programme position statement on the draft EU Marine Strategy (in prep., to be launched in December 2002) and the joint NGO statement at the Conference on the Development of a European Strategy for the Protection and Conservation of the Marine Environment (4-6 December 2002, Køge, Denmark – in prep.). With regard to the b), reference is further made to:
* WWF UK Marine Update 53 Delivering an Ecosystem Approach – The Need for a Marine Act
* WWF Briefing A Vision for the North Sea Making the Ecosystem Approach Operational
* WWF Submission From Assessment to Management - Time for an Ecosystem Approach to the OSPAR Regions
These resources are equally relevant to the OSPAR MMC agenda item “Application of the Ecosystem Approach as a tool for Implementation of the OSPAR Convention”.
B - Conservation of biodiversity with specific regard to negative impacts from fisheries
WWF anticipates that evaluating the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) Reform will be paramount to the joint Ministerial discussion on this subject. With more specific regard to the requirements of Article 15 of the Helsinki Convention and/or Annex V to the OSPAR Convention, WWF suggests the OSPAR-HELCOM consultations to take two major routes:
a)Addressing negative impacts from fisheries widely common to the Baltic and NE Atlantic seas and fostering solutions in close co-operation with other intergovernmental bodies concerned: one such priority issue could be by-catch mitigation and recovery plans for small cetaceans, with particular reference to the harbour porpoise, a joint flagship species. By-catch levels in the Celtic and North Seas have been shown to be unacceptable and the state of the population in the Baltic is considerably weak. There is a wealth of existing assessments, political commitments and outlined programmes and measures, including HELCOM recommendations, proposed cetacean sanctuaries and/or SACs as well as draft and/or adopted recovery plans for the North and/or Baltic Sea populations. WWF proposes HELCOM and OSPAR to get actively involved in the implementation of such measures already identified and/or drawn up by ASCOBANS and the 5th North Sea Conference.
b)Discussing and adopting, as a matter of urgency, a call for immediate action to prevent irreversible destruction of keystone habitats of the OSPAR/HELCOM areas: this applies to the ongoing destruction of cold water coral reefs (Lophelia community) by trawling activities recorded in the OSPAR Maritime Area, from Arctic to Celtic to Iberian waters. The impact also affects coral communities in the Skagerrak / Kattegat and hence part of the HELCOM area. Given the observed fishing pressure and speed of destruction, there is a high risk for site protection measures under NATURA 2000 and/or the OSPAR system of MPAs (see C) to come too late and fail. While Norway has taken measures to protect particular deep water coral reefs (e.g. Sula reef) under their fisheries legislation and considers further conservation measures (e.g. with regard to the newly discovered Røst reef), the identification and designation of reefs qualifying as SCIs/SACs according to the EU Habitats Directive and its application up to the offshore limit of jurisdiction is still in its infancy. As an example, WWF raises concern about the fate of the Darwin Mounds west of Scotland the coral structure of which might disappear before designation and management become effective - despite the Mounds being a prime candidate site for inclusion into the UK government’s offshore NATURA 2000 list. The dramatic situation of Europe’s cold water coral reefs has just been addressed by ICES, who advised the European Commission to close all cold water coral reefs to fishing. WWF believes that JMMC 2003 has a big potential for adopting a strong commitment to safeguard this unique habitat and kick-off or enhance reef protection measures.
Reference is made to IGO and/or WWF resources addressing impacts and solutions referred to above (small cetacean by-catch, coral reef destruction):
* Atlantic Coral Ecosystem Study (ACES)
* ASCOBANS Recovery Plan for Harbour Porpoises in the Baltic Sea
* ASCOBANS Meeting of Parties 2000: Resolution on Incidental Take of Small Cetaceans
* Bergen Declaration, §§ 29 & 30
* ICES Press Release Close Europe’s cold-water coral reefs to fishing and Official Report to the European Commission
* ICES Article Coral reefs in the North Atlantic?
* OSPAR Quality Status Report 2000 – including QSRs for OSPAR Regions
* WWF Report Elements of a Harbour Porpoise Bycatch Reduction Plan in the North and Baltic Sea
* WWF Press Release Protect Europe’s Coral Reefs from Industrial Fishing, says WWF
* WWF Feature WWF on the ground: Coral Reefs in the North Atlantic
* WWF Report Out of Sight and still under Threat – The Darwin Mounds
* WWF Press Release Scotlands Cold Water Corals at Risk
* WWF Maps of reefs in the 200 nm zones / EEZs of NE Atlantic states
* WWF European Fisheries Campaign
C - Establishing a network of marine protected areas
WWF would like to recall the fact that both OSPAR and HELCOM are in the business of developing a network of MPAs - OSPAR having started this process after MMC 1998 and the adoption of Annex V. The two Conventions should use the upcoming joint meeting as an opportunity to learn from each other and to co-ordinate the efforts to protect marine areas in the OSPAR and HELCOM region. Mutual benefit might be best achieved via the following approach:
a)Making use of the HELCOM experience with regard to MPA nomination and designation. While there is an existing list of Baltic Sea Protected Areas (BSPAs), OSPAR Contracting Parties need to be encouraged to, by 2006 at the latest, “propose their first set of MPAs in the OSPAR maritime area, which comprises Territorial Seas, offshore areas where a Contracting Party is exhibiting sovereignty and/or jurisdiction, and High Seas. Some of these are likely to be existing or proposed marine NATURA 2000 sites but should not be restricted to them.” (quoted from OSPAR BASH 2/2/5).
b)Making use of the OSPAR approach to more systematically develop, by 2010, “a well managed ecologically coherent network of MPAs” including selection and identification criteria (species, habitats, sites) and management guidelines. WWF would like to highlight the need to speed up the work to establish a network of well-managed Baltic Sea Protected Areas. The BSPA list is far from representative for the whole Baltic Sea and needs to be gradually developed as more knowledge and information becomes available. WWF believes that OSPAR / HELCOM standards for representative coverage of (offshore) habitat features and communities could become critical for future amendments of the EU Habitats Directive.
c)Exchanging information with regard to the practical application of NATURA 2000 in the offshore marine environment and the outcome of the EU bio-geographic seminars for the regions concerned (Boreal, Continental, Atlantic, Macaronesian etc.) in this respect.
d)Agreeing a joint MPA network approach to the Kattegat where OSPAR and HELCOM areas overlap.
Materials to be considered - beyond respective OSPAR / HELCOM strategies and/or agreementsReference is made to:
(i) IGO and/or WWF resources visualising and illustrating the potential of MPA networks in the Baltic and/or NE Atlantic:
* HELCOM Website: Baltic Safari – BSPAs
* WWF North-East Atlantic Programme Website: Showcase Examples for the OSPAR System of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)
(ii) IGO and/or WWF resources addressing new developments with regard to offshore MPAs:
* IUCN / WCPA Briefing and Discussion Paper Offshore Marine Protected Areas in Europe – Current Status (by K.M.Gjerde & A.M.Wilson – in prep.)
* WWF / IUCN / WCPA Report The Status of the Natural Resources on the High-Seas
* WWF Workshop Report Developing a Framework for Marine Protected Areas in the North-East Atlantic
* WWF Report Planning for Representative Marine Protected Areas - A Framework for Canada's Oceans
* WWF Report Implementation of the EU Habitats Directive Offshore: Natura 2000 Sites for Reefs and Submerged Sandbanks -WWF Report Volume II: North East Atlantic and North Sea
* WWF Briefing (with maps) Making Space for North Sea Wildlife - The Need for Marine Protected Areas in the Context of North Sea Wide Spatial Planning
* WWF-Sweden Website Feature Hoburgs Bank (Baltic offshore PA)
* WWF Report The Darwin Mounds and the Dogger Bank - case studies of the management of two potential "Special Areas of Conservation" in the offshore environment
* WWF Report Offshore Directory – Review of a Selection of Habitats, Communities and Species of the North-East Atlantic – to be published in December 2002 and presented to OSPAR BDC 2003
More resources: – regularly updated.
D - Harmonisation of the implementation of international rules for shipping
While welcoming the inclusion of shipping issues into the JMMC 2003 agenda WWF fears that the term “harmonisation of the implementation” might narrow the scope to very abstract legal issues. WWF still hopes, as suggested at the OSPAR Commission Meeting 2002, that there will be flexibility for the joint Ministerial discussion to embark on further measures to reduce the impact of shipping on the NE Atlantic and Baltic marine environment. In practice and follow-up, this would mean exploring the option of regional measures such as the designation of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSAs) and/or ballast water regulations where such remit is foreseen by IMO provisions. The intergovernmental co-operation of North Sea and/or Wadden Sea states recently established precedents with regard to both issues including an application for PSSA status of the Wadden Sea (endorsed by IMO MEPC 48) and the North Sea Ministerial commitment to consider regional measures on ballast water. HELCOM has a long-track record with regard to regional assessments and measures concerning maritime transport. At global level, a number of PSSA schemes as well as a wide range of port, national or regional measures to reduce the environmental risks from ballast water can provide useful showcases and lessons.
In this context, WWF inter alia highlights the possibility of designating the Baltic Sea as a PSSA and further exploring the need for PSSA designations in NE Atlantic waters (e.g. Barents Sea, British Isles, Brittany, Iberian coast). A PSSA is an area that needs special protection through action by the IMO because of its significance for recognised ecological or socio-economical or scientific reasons, and which may be vulnerable to damage by international maritime activities. HELCOM is at present considering whether additional maritime safety measures are needed and the possibility of promoting such measures through the designation of certain areas in the Baltic Sea as PSSAs. The HELCOM Secretariat has recently compiled existing maritime safety measures in the Baltic Sea Area. The HELCOM maritime and response groups are now considering the possibility of asking IMO to designate PSSAs in the Baltic Sea without any additional associated protective measures. A PSSA designation would mean a recognition of the unique values of the Baltic Sea. Marked on nautical charts, a PSSA designation should result in greater awareness of and compliance with the associated protective measures because mariners will understand the reasons why they need to take extra care. The wide-range of protective measures available can be reviewed to determine which ones best meet the needs of the area at risk.
WWF would like to stress that:
a)A PSSA designation (in the Baltic and/or sensitive areas of the NE Atlantic) is one possible tool to promote sustainable development of maritime transports, well in line with the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) concept. WWF emphasises the importance of environmentally sound and sustainable maritime transports as a vital basis for the development of e.g. the Baltic Sea region, keeping in mind that the number of shipments of oil and hazardous substances across the Baltic Sea has increased and will escalate during the next few years.
b)The process of preparing a proposal for a PSSA provides an invaluable opportunity to take a comprehensive approach to protecting an area from the adverse impacts of shipping. In this process, the network of marine protected areas and the proposed additional offshore areas should receive special attention. Discussing PSSA proposals is also expected to speed up the work to designate marine protected areas.
c)One way to proceed could be to elaborate feasibility studies for candidate PSSAs including consultations with various stakeholders (as done in the Wadden Sea case). There is a disparity of viewpoints on the benefits and burdens of a possible PSSA and a need for a broader approach. A feasibility study could be the basis for additional consultations and discussions on how to proceed.
Materials to be considered - beyond respective OSPAR / HELCOM strategies and/or agreementsReference is made to IGO and/or WWF resources addressing regional measures (PSSA, ballast water):
* Bergen Declaration, § 41
* CWSS Press Release The Wadden Sea Designated as Particularly Sensitive Sea Area
* IMO meeting reports from MEPC 47 & MEPC 48, concerning PSSAs and ballast water
* Wadden Sea states’ PSSA application document to IMO MEPC 48 & Feasibility Study of 2001
* WWF Report Oil Pollution Control in the Baltic Sea Area – A Survey of Approaches in International and European Community Law
* WWF Report Protection of the Wadden Sea from ship accidents through the establishment of a "PSSA Wadden Sea"
* WWF Factsheet Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSAs) - a precautionary tool to protect the world's sensitive marine ecosystems from shipping impacts
* WWF Briefing on ballast water issues North Sea Pollution – A Never Ending Story?
* WWF Submission to CONSSO Ballast water, a threat to marine biodiversity in the North Sea
ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED FOR INCLUSION INTO THE JMMC AGENDA
E - Results and further development of the Strategies with Regard to Hazardous Substances
At their (separate) Ministerial Meetings in 1998, HELCOM and OSPAR consistently adopted strategies and programmes to cease emissions, discharges and losses of hazardous substances into and/or eliminate man-made hazardous compounds from the marine environment. Not only are the objectives and targets for the NE Atlantic and Baltic Seas in line with each other but also the lists of chemicals for priority action very similar. Since 1998, the OSPAR Commission in an additional exercise selected and identified hazardous substances of possible concern - due to their persistent, toxic, bio-accumulative (PTB) properties, market patterns and/or input pathways and further applied a safety net procedure for harmful substances fulfilling only part of the PTB criteria (e.g. a number of endocrine disruptors and pesticides). Many of these compounds are released from diffuse sources including consumer products, an aspect already addressed by the OSPAR Hazardous Substances Strategy and recently reiterated as action point by the 5th North Sea Conference.