Towards a Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter in the Baltic Sea Stefanie Werner (UBA, Germany) (UBA, Germany)
Info paper structure Background information • Amounts, materials, items, sources of ML and data gaps • Monitoring and common indicators • Lines of thinking on measures and actions •
Background Helsinki Convention: prohibition of dumping (Art. 11); prevention • of pollution from ships (Annex V), incl. pleasure crafts Copenhagen Ministerial Declaration (2013): to develop a Regional • Action Plan (RAP) on Marine Litter (ML) by 2015 at the latest HELCOM 35/2014: to develop the RAP based on information on • sources & amounts of ML, aiming to define concrete and sources & amounts of ML, aiming to define concrete and adequate measures to minimize ML in the BS, two dedicated workshops (with wide stakeholder participation) HELCOM MONAS 19/2013 initiated an intersessional • correspondence activity on ML (ML expert network) Info paper + thematic session discussion = basis for Issue paper • for the 1 st HELCOM RAP ML workshop ( 27-28 May, Helsinki )
Main sources of ML Coastal-based tourism and • recreation (from 33% to 58%) Household activities, incl. • sanitary waste (48%) Transport and waste • collection/dumping collection/dumping Fishing (ghost nets: 5.500- • 10.000 per year) Microparticles from land- • based sources (e.g. fibres and road traffic )
Amounts Parameter Amounts Reference Beach litter From 75,5 items/100 m in rural MARLIN 2013 beaches to HELCOM 2009 236,6 items/100 m in urban beaches Up to 700-1.200 items/100m near sources 44-208 items/km 2 Litter on the sea floor Litter on the sea floor 44-208 items/km Ocean Ocean Conservancy/ICC 2002-2006 Floating litter 1,26 ± 0,82 items/ha Galgani et al. 2000 Microparticles in the 340 – 14.620 of >10µm Noren and fibres/m 3 water column Magnusson (2010) KIMO (2007) 760 – 104.780 of >10µm non- Setälä et al. fibres/m 3 (unpublished)
Top items Cigarette butts • Unidentified pieces of plastics • Glass fragments • Cotton bud sticks • Bottles • Food and snack packaging (food containers, candy wrappers, Food and snack packaging (food containers, candy wrappers, • • plastic bottle caps and lids) Fishing nets • Plastic bags • Foamed plastic • Micro-particles and micro-fibers •
Materials High consistency in all surveys: plastics >50% • Estonia, Finland, Latvia & Sweden (MARLIN 2013): • Type of material % Plastics 56 Glass and 11 ceramics Paper and 9 cardboard Metal 7 Foamed plastic 6
Data gaps • Amounts and consistency/composition, and transport, origin and impacts of ML on the sea floor and in the water column (floating litter, micro-particles) • Input pathways of ML, especially regarding micro- particles and inputs from rivers • Importance of sanitary waste as ML source • Long-term trend information • Long-term trend information • Transfer of toxic chemicals associated to micro-particles • Toxicity and environmental impact of ML to the ecosystem • Socio-economic impact (cost) of ML
For consideration - sources Addressing the right sources is key to achieve reductions of ML in the marine environment Aim: Achievement of a common understanding on predominant materials, items, sources and pathways of ML and data gaps: - Are there additional information which should be included? - Are there additional information which should be included? - Evaluation on items causing most harm (ecological but also socioeconomic) needed? - Additional data gaps? Name 4/11/2014 Surname 10
Potential common indicators Monitoring Information Data Personnel & protocol provided consistency technical costs Beach litter (also meso litter) Floating litter Seafloor litter Seafloor litter Litter in biota (species?) Microlitter
Available protocols/methodologies Beach litter (also meso litter) : • – TG ML – OSPAR beach litter monitoring – UNEP Guidelines – NOAA Guidelines – MARLIN = UNEP/IOC guidelines adapted to the BS. – MARLIN = UNEP/IOC guidelines adapted to the BS. – National approaches following different protocols: Estonia, Finland, Sweden (UNEP), Germany (OSPAR) Floating litter : • – TG ML: floating litter in the surface water column – Visual ship based observations (Poland and Germany) – Aerial surveys (Germany)
Available protocols/methodologies Seafloor litter: • – TG ML trawling protocol for continental margins (<800 m depth) – Based on: – ICES (IBTS, BITS and MEDITS) trawling sampling protocol and – ICES (IBTS, BITS and MEDITS) trawling sampling protocol and protocol for categorization of items – TG ML protocol for shallow coastal areas (<20m depth): underwater visual surveys with SCUBA/snorkeling applied to benthic fauna
Available protocols/methodologies Litter in biota: • TG ML: (i) litter ingested by sea-birds (petrels as the fulmar); (ii) marine turtles; (iii) benthic and pelagic fish, (iv) plastic material in sea birds breeding colonies and associated mortality rates • Additional aspects to follow up on: ingestion by marine mammals (mainly secondary uptake marine mammals (mainly secondary uptake though prey), entanglement of stranded sea birds and marine mammals in litter (e.g. fishing nets) • OSPAR: indicator for plastic particles in fish under development, maybe linked to ICES monitoring on fish and shellfish diseases (SE & G – join forces)
Available protocols/methodologies Microlitter: • Recommendations by the TG ML, but no standardized methods • On-going research projects of microlitter • On-going research projects of microlitter in sediments, sea water and biota • Visual analysis only possible down to 1mm, smaller size classes need analyses Fluorescent polystyrene microspheres in the intestines of a water flea via FT-IR or Raman Spectroscopy @ Outi Setälä
For consideration –common indicators/monitoring Applying common indicators in a comparable approach (based on harmonized protocols) is key to predict for regional trends and to monitor the effectiveness of potential measures Aim: Define level of maturity of indicators (common vs candidate) and consider which of the protocols available are suitable for further use in BS - Which indicators should be nominated as common/candidates? - Which indicators should be nominated as common/candidates? - What are the differences in protocols applied, which should be used in a joined approach? - Where should that work be done: CORESET II, marine litter network? - Possible pilot projects – joint application of protocols and joints approach to answer research questions? Name 4/11/2014 Surname 16
Measures Existing sea-based: -MARPOL (Annex V and IV) Special Area for garbage and sewage -Baltic Strategy for reception facillities for ship-generated wastes -Recommendation 28E/10 on „no-special-fee“ extended to marine litter caught in fishing nets Existing land-based: -Over 40 HELCOM Recommendations: proper waste handling & limiting discharges at source (industry, sewage, agriculture) - Hot spots programme (1992-2012) – 109 out of 162 cleaned-up - Hot spots programme (1992-2012) – 109 out of 162 cleaned-up - Recommendation 29/2 on beach litter monitoring New/additional measures and actions should aim to: - Enforce & fully implement existing requirements - Close loopholes & emerging issues (microplastics) - Prevent further introduction of ML in the Baltic Sea - Remove existing litter and raise public awareness - Focus on transbondary large-scale character Name 4/11/2014 Surname 17
Recommend
More recommend
