Towards a Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter in the Baltic Sea - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Towards a Regional Action Plan

• n 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
• f 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 1st 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 beaches to 236,6 items/100 m in urban beaches Up to 700-1.200 items/100m near sources MARLIN 2013 HELCOM 2009 Litter on the sea floor 44-208 items/km2 Ocean Litter on the sea floor 44-208 items/km Ocean Conservancy/ICC 2002-2006 Floating litter 1,26 ± 0,82 items/ha Galgani et al. 2000 Microparticles in the water column 340 – 14.620 of >10µm fibres/m3 760 – 104.780 of >10µm non- fibres/m3 Noren and Magnusson (2010) KIMO (2007) Setälä et al. (unpublished)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 ceramics 11 Paper and cardboard 9 Metal 7 Foamed plastic 6

Data gaps

• Amounts and consistency/composition, and transport,
• rigin 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?

Name Surname 4/11/2014 10

• Are there additional information which should be included?
• Evaluation on items causing most harm (ecological but also

socioeconomic) needed?

• Additional data gaps?

Potential common indicators

Monitoring protocol Information provided Data consistency Personnel & 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 via FT-IR or Raman Spectroscopy

Fluorescent polystyrene microspheres in the intestines of a water flea @ 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?

Name Surname 4/11/2014 16

• 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?

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

Name Surname 4/11/2014 17

• 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