Stakeholder Conference on the Development of the
HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan
Helsinki, 7 March 2006
Mr. Bob Dekker
Chairman
OSPAR Commission for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic
The Baltic Sea Action Programme
A View from a Sister Regional Marine Convention
[Slide 1]
Mr Chairman, [Minister,] [Your Excellencies,] Ladies and Gentlemen,
HELCOM and OSPAR – compare and contrast
[Slide 2]
Thank you for this opportunity to present an OSPAR view. What I want to do is to look at what OSPAR is doing in the fields you have highlighted. At our similarities and differences and the reasons for them. And at how our plans may relate to the proposals for the European Marine Strategy – a subject that OSPAR, like HELCOM, is anxiously considering.
2. But before doing that, I will briefly remind you about OSPAR – who were are and the region we cover.
[Slide 3]
3. OSPAR brings together 15 states in the catchments of the North-East Atlantic – all the main states except the Czech Republic and the Russian Federation – together with the European Community.
[Slide 4]
4. OSPAR covers a large area – from the very deep ocean right up to the freshwater limit – along the whole of the coast of western Europe. Our regions –the Arctic, the Greater North Sea, the Celtic Seas, the Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coastal waters, and the Wider Atlantic – are very different. Even in the North Sea, we have big differences between the Norwegian deep and the shallows of the German Bight.
[Slide 5]
5. People sometimes ask why we need separate organisations for the Atlantic and the Baltic. There is an old story of the French National Assembly’s debate on votes for women. Speaking in favour of allowing women the vote, one deputy stressed that there was very little difference between men and women. All the other deputies – of course they were then all men – rose as one and cried “Vive la différence!” My answer to the need for both OSPAR and HELCOM is therefore always that there are very fundamental differences in the ecology. What is appropriate in OSPAR – even with the differences between our regions – will often not be sensible for HELCOM and vice versa. For this reason, the stress on the regional approach in the proposals for the European Marine Strategy is undoubtedly right.
[Slide 6]
OSPAR’s incremental build-up
6. OSPAR has built up its system as our understanding of what is needed has developed.
7. We started in 1969 with the Bonn Agreement on cooperation in responding to shipping disasters in the North Sea – arrangements that still continue as a separate, but closely coordinated system.
8. In 1972, we developed the Oslo Convention to control dumping of waste at sea. We gradually established that sea-dumping was not the right answer to waste disposal. By 1992 we had banned this, with only limited exceptions for waste arising at sea.
9. In 1974, we added in the Paris Convention controls on land-based and offshore discharges. Here again, we gradually established consensus against using the sea as route for the disposal of hazardous and radioactive substances. In 1998 we established a cessation target, now embodied in the EC Water Framework Directive.
10. In 1992, we brought together Oslo and Paris in OSPAR, and opened the way for widening cooperation to cover issues other than pollution.
11. Meanwhile, we had started the long and difficult task of collective monitoring and assessment of the marine environment. In 1993, we produced a Quality Status Report on the North Sea. And in 2000, we completed this with a Quality Status Report on all the North-East Atlantic.
12. Then, in 1998, we adopted a further Annex to the OSPAR Convention, to cover biodiversity and non-polluting activities.
[Slide 7]
13. Finally, in 2003, we reviewed all our activities and summed them up in six revised Strategies to cover everything that we are doing. We also joined with HELCOM in a statement committing us the ecosystem approach to the management of human activities and showing how all our activities fit into this.
[Slide 8]
14. This left us with the task of delivering this integrated approach. We must approach the ocean as the single set of interlinked ecosystems that it is. But we are all organised sectorally, and the underlying international law has a sectoral approach.
[Slide 9]
15. The OSPAR answer has started from clarifying our idea of what a healthy and sustainable marine environment would be.
[Slide 10]
16. We must look at all the different trophic levels, to make sure that each is healthy and sustainable.
[Slide 11]
17. We also need to look at each of the relevant human activities, to show that the impact that they have on the sea does not undermine its health and sustainability – and that the measures that we are adopting do not undermine the sustainability of the industries concerned.
[Slide 12]
18. What did we do? The starting point was the 2002 North Sea Conference, which took up ideas that had been under discussion in OSPAR since the early 1990s. The Bergen Declaration from that conference set out the idea of a set of “ecological quality objectives” – or EcoQOs. These would describe the many different dimensions of an envelope. If the marine environment of the North Sea is within that envelope, then it can be regarded as healthy and sustainable. The pilot project to develop further this idea for the North Sea was taken on by OSPAR.
[Slide 13]
19. How does this work? Nine “ecological quality issues” have been defined. These are the 10 dimensions in which the health and the sustainability of the North Sea can be described.
20. For each issue, one or more “ecological quality elements” are being identified.
[Slide 14]
21. These are the scales along which the dimension concerned can be measured. For each of these elements, an objective is established. This is a numerical value on the scale that can be measured and reported consistently by the different States.
[Slide 15]
22. This pilot project has involved a lot of work. OSPAR has now completed a detailed review and report on the North Sea Pilot Project, which was published last week.
[Slide 16]
23. Apart from anything else, this report shows that much more work is needed. Even for the North Sea, where we have been working for a number of years, we still have to develop detailed EcoQOs for several issues. There are also whole new issues that need to be explored. And we have to widen the scheme from the North Sea to our other regions.
24. But our report also concludes that the idea of EcoQOs is workable, useful and, indeed, essential to show how the various OSPAR programmes and measures are working together to deliver an ecosystem approach to the management of human activities affecting the marine environment.
25. The idea of EcoQOs is close to the environmental targets of the European Commission’s proposals. There are many issues still to discuss about coverage, and the relation between targets that we must reach and indicators that simply show how we are doing. But the OSPAR report confirms that the basic idea is workable.
Compare and contrast
26. To come back to my starting point, how does this OSPAR work compare and contrast to the Baltic Sea Action Plan?
[Slide 17]
27. You have chosen to highlight four main themes. Let us look at each of these in turn.
[Slide 18]
Eutrophication
28. First, eutrophication. We share a common objective of ecosystems that do not suffer problems from eutrophication. In OSPAR, we have agreed detailed rules on how we will judge whether this is the case, and specific, numeric objectives for what is needed to deliver this. Our monitoring over the past 15 years shows statistically valid data that we are achieving reductions in nutrient inputs.
[Slide 19]
Hazardous Substances
29. Again, we share common objectives. Since we established our long-term goals and the cessation target in 1998, we have surveyed the whole range of chemicals on the market to identify those that may be a threat to the marine environment. We have prioritised 40 that pose the most serious threat. We have nearly completed in-depth studies of each of these, identifying the actions needed to achieve our objective. We have set up monitoring strategies, so that by 2010 we can see how we are doing against our objective. And already we know that for those we have been working on longest that there are statistically valid data showing reductions in both inputs and concentrations.
[Slide 20]
Shipping
30. Here we have a contrast. OSPAR has looked at many specific aspects of shipping. Some are covered by our EcoQOs. Our colleagues in the Bonn Agreement have done much to reduce substantially the impacts of shipping disasters. But OSPAR does not – at least yet – have agreed long-term objectives on shipping. The North Sea Ministerial Meeting in Gothenburg in May this year will agree some important goals on the “Clean Ship” and other issues, and may ask OSPAR to ensure that these are followed up. We shall need to continue to work with HELCOM on this, building on the close cooperation between the Bonn Agreement and the HELCOM RESPONSE group.
[Slide 21]
Biodiversity
31. In 2003, OSPAR and HELCOM agreed a joint work programme on marine protected areas. The OSPAR component will reach a crucial stage this year with the agreement of our first list of MPAs. We are also working together on the regional strategy to implement the IMO Ballast Water Convention – the major defence against the introduction on non-native species.
32. OSPAR has also identified its initial list of threatened and declining species and habitats, and is developing measures to protect them. It is also reviewing all the significant non-polluting human activities that impact on the marine environment, to see what action is needed. This has already resulted in major guidance documents on offshore wind-farms, which are crucial sources of renewable energy. And the EcoQOs show how our anti-pollution policies are helping maintain biodiversity.
[Slide 22]
Other areas
33. In areas not highlighted in the Baltic Sea Action Plan, OSPAR has long been working on the impacts of the offshore oil and gas industry and radioactivity. In both fields, we have agreed detailed targets and are monitoring them carefully. And for radioactive discharges, we have now expanded our work to cover the sectors not concerned with nuclear power, such as nuclear medicine and the rare-earth industries.
34. OSPAR is also working hard on some emerging issues. Two are linked to the critical issues of global warming. There may be projects to reduce green-house emissions to the atmosphere by capturing them and sequestrating them in underground reservoirs. We are working on how to assess these ideas. And we are assessing also the implications of the way in which carbon dioxide is making the seas more acid.
35. The final area that is crucial for the proposals on the European Marine Strategy is monitoring and assessment. OSPAR’s sixth strategy is focused on this. As I said, we produced an overall assessment in 2000. We shall produce another in 2010. Strategies and action plans are all very well, but unless we check up to see what is actually happening in the oceans, they are just good intentions. Monitoring the oceans is hard and expensive. We have to balance what we would like to do with what we can afford.
[Slide 23]
Conclusion
36. There can be no doubt that OSPAR’s strategies and the Baltic Sea Action Plan are consistent with each other, and that we are building links between them where appropriate. They also fit in with the basic ideas underlying the European Commission’s proposals for the European Marine Strategy.
37. The central question is that of the resources that can be made available. The slide shows the view westward from Esha Ness in the Shetlands. There is nothing but sea for five thousand kilometres. This emphasises the scale of the tasks of understanding the marine environment and of managing human activities that impact on it so as to ensure that the sea stays healthy and sustainable. The debate on the European Marine Strategy is how best to achieve that with the limited resources available, and the limited knowledge that we have. The Baltic Sea Action Plan and the OSPAR Strategies are steps in the same direction.