Download 4. Objectives and deliverables of the project - Cordis

The current state of the Russian Marine
Ecosystem Monitoring for the White Sea and its
relevance to the EU Directive on Water Policy
and UN Agenda 21
Project acronym:
EcoMon
Project:
FP6-003605 EcoMon
Type of instrument: Specific Support Actions
FINAL REPORT
FIMR
NWPI
MMBI
January, 2006
St. Petersburg, Russia
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
2
Table of Contents
Item no.
Item description
Page
1
List of the Project Partners
5
2
3
4
Project Summary
Introduction
Objectives and deliverables of the project
4.1. Overall and specific objectives of the Project
4.2. Major deliverables
Structure and functionality of the Russian State Marine
Monitoring System
5.1. General profile
5.2 Principal features of ecological monitoring on the White
Sea
5.2.1. Hydrometeorological moitoring
5.2.2. Monitoring of chemical pollutants
5.2.3. Fishery and hydrobiological monitoring
5.3. Monitoring og higher chain-links/food-web levels of
marine ecosystems (birds and mammals)
5.4. Data meta-base on the White Sea monitoring
5.5. Interim conclusions and recommendations.
6
7
9
5
6
7
Structure and functionality of the EC Marine Monitoring
System
6.1 Oil pollution and marine environment
6.2 Harmful Algal Blooms and marine environment
6.3 Interim Summary of Applicable Policy Tools
Norwegian practice of monitoring and managing coastal
waters
7.1. Norwegian coastal waters
7.2. Description of the Current HAB Monitoring Service
7.3 Major User Requirements
7.4 Interim comments on the Norwegian HAB Monitoring
Service Efficiency
11
31
47
50
8
EU strategy of marine ecosystem monitoring and protection of
marine environment with special emphasis on the Baltic Sea
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
3
8.1 Background
8.2 International Conventions under IMO
8.3 Regulations for the prevention of pollution by oil,
MARPOL 73/78, Annex 1
8.4 Regulations for the control of pollution by noxious liquid
substances, MARPOL 73/78, Annex 2
8.5 Prevention of pollution by harmful substances in packaged
form, MARPOL 73/78, Annex 3
8.6 Prevention of pollution by sewage from ships, MARPOL
73/78, Annex 4
8.7 Prevention of pollution by garbage from ships, MARPOL
73/78, Annex 5
8.8 Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships, MARPOL 73/78,
Annex 6
8.9 Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by
Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, LDC 1972
8.10 International Convention on the Control of Harmful Antifouling Systems on Ships, AFS 2001
8.11 International Convention for the Control and
Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004
8.12 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil
Pollution Damage, CLC 1969
9
Helsinki Convention
55
9.1. Convention Fundamentals
9.2 Ministerial Declarations
9.3 HELCOM Working Groups and Recommendations
9.4 EU maritime regulations
10
60
HELCOM Monitoring and Assessment of the Baltic Sea
10.1 Introduction
10. 2. Pollution Load compilations (PLCs)
10.3. Monitoring of Airborne Pollution Load ( PLC-Air)
10. 4. Pollution load compilations regarding pollution of the
Baltic Sea from land-based sources (PLC- Water).
10.4.1 Quantification of discharges from point and diffuse
sources and natural load.
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
4
10.4.2 Quantification of river inputs
10. 5. Marine Monitoring in the HELCOM COMBINE
Programme
10.6. Monitoring of eutrophication in COMBINE programme
10. 7. Monitoring of contaminants in COMBINE programme
10. 8. Monitoring of radioactive substances (MORS)
10. 9. HELCOM Response Group and oil monitoring
10. 10. Development of HELCOM monitoring
10.11 HELCOM-related References
10.12. European Union documents: references
11
12
13
Analytic comparison of the Russian and EC Marine
Monitoring Systems and ways of integration
Conclusions
Major Deliverables
Annexes:
A. Protocol of the kick-off meeting
B. Interim Report No.1
C. Final Report Management
D. White Sea Book Table of Contents
75
76
76
78
88
see
separate file
103
E. The White Sea Book Jacket Design
106
F.
107
EcoMon website information
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
5
1. List of partners:
1. Scientific Foundation “Nansen International Environmental and
Remote Sensing Centre” (NIERSC), St. Petersburg, Russia
2. Murmansk Marine Biological Institute (MMBI), Russian Academy of
Sciences, Murmansk, Russia
3. Northern Water Problem Institute, Karelian Research Centre (NWPI),
Russian Academy of Sciences, Petrozavodsk, Republic of Karelia,
Russia
4. Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Centre (NERSC), Bergen,
Norway
5. Finnish Institute for Marine Research (FIMR), Helsinki, Finland
Co-ordinator:
Co-ordinator
organization name:
Prof. Dmitry V. Pozdnyakov (NIERSC)
Scientific Foundation “Nansen International Environmental and Remote
Sensing Centre”, St. Petersburg, Russia
Co-ordinator e-mail: [email protected]
Co-ordinator fax:
+7 812 324 51 02
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
6
2. Project Summery
Over the last decades the White Sea was a subject of multifaceted research and surveillance
conducted by a wealth of, first, the former USSR and then the Russian Federation agencies and
institutions. Not necessarily, the nomenclature of parameters and methodology of their
determination, time resolution and accuracy levels were standardized, which resulted in a
significant heterogeneity of thus collected data. This became further aggravated with the onset of
recent political and economic developments in this country: an unsupervised variety of
instrumental and methodological facilities came into play enormously complicating any faithful
portraying of the current state of the White Sea ecosystem.
The proposed project is focused on establishing a metadata base on the relevant past and present
knowledge, including new findings gained through several international cooperative research
projects initiated/supported by EC. To achieve this goal, a number of workshops were convoked
to establish a most exhaustive metadata base. This meta data base was employed for analytical
analysis of data quality, its compatibility and appropriateness for creating an integral portrait of
the White Sea ecology state and dynamics. A dedicated monograph has been drawn, published
and disseminated within the Russian Federation and EC community.
The project resulted in identification and detailed outlining of goals to be pursued in Russia to
fully accommodate the standards, aims and results formats, which are presently worked out and
being practiced by the European community.
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
7
3. Introduction
One of the important strategic tasks of the 6FP is the integration and strengthening of the
European Research Area (ERA) and, in particular, the support of international co-operation
research and technology development (RTD) that will help open the ERA to the rest of the
world. The main research priorities of the INCO specific measures for the Russia and other New
Independent States should cover the following issues: stabilization of research and development
potential, changes in the industrial production system, environment and health protection and
related safety aspects.
Within the framework of environment investigation and preservation, the main challenge
resides in the assemblage, concatenation and summarization of observational data. Indeed, the
outcome of the entire study is crucially dependant upon the quality of the above sequence of
activities. For extended regions, important is working out common protocols, standards and
criteria for the collection and quality/adequacy assessment of in situ/observational data.
An ample database on the ecology of the White Sea has been collected in Russia over the last
decades. It is highly important to make it fully available to the scientific community of EC.
There was a well-functioning system of environment change data collection in the former USSR.
In the beginning of the 1990s with the onset of perestroika and disintegration of the USSR, this
system rapidly dilapidated. Many meteorological stations have been closed. Previously
replenishing time series of observations at standard and secular transactions, as well as regular
marine expeditions were brought to naught. Weakened was the methodological control of the
observational data quality. Upset was the previously established order of data systematization
and database collective use. The access to the database was turned to be commercial. In general
the system of collection and archiving of environmental data has become decentralized. As a
result, numerous research institutions in Russia started to fulfill this work but using different
approaches for data systematization and assessment of observational databases quality.
As a consequence, the specialized databases further employed for carrying out various
research projects not infrequently were significantly departing from each other although they
originated from one and the same raw data sources.
However, for the last 4-5 years, the invigoration of the general situation in the Russian
Federation, resulted not only in gradual restoration of the previously existed system of marine
monitoring but also in practical measures to render it more compatible with the present
requirements of environmental science and marine management incentives.
At the same time, the overall number of cooperative international research projects initiated
by EC is steadily increasing. Projects addressing the development of regional GISs have become
frequent. However, realization of such research projects encounters both technical and legislative
problems, which hamper/complicate unification and further use of the databases developed both
in Russia and Europe. In the course of realization of a number of projects funded by EU (such as
INCO II White Sea, RADARC, AMETIST), the partners of the present proposal experienced
alike problems when using databases developed by team members from participating countries.
This naturally actualizes the principal objective of the proposed project: summarize the
accumulated knowledge on the White Sea, assess its quality, completeness and relevance to the
EC directives and practice of counter studies in order to eventually assure an organic integration
of the Russian environmental monitoring system into the European one.
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
8
To meet the above goals, several seminars and workshops have been convoked (for details
see below), numerous consultations with experts from the leading agencies responsible for
marine monitoring in Russia have been conducted, meetings with European partners on these
matters were held and a visit to the EEA headquarters has been undertaken to meet the Head of
the EEA, Prof. Jacqueline McGlade as well as EEA experts Drs. Andrus Meiner, Chris Steeman
and Barbara Clark.
An extensive number of publications relating both to the Russian, European and world-wide
principles, directives and practices in the area of marine monitoring has been studied (for details
see below).
Our consultations at the EEA explicitly indicated that 1) there was no yet pan-European
directives regarding the principles and practicalities of monitoring of open marine tracts (the
adoption of such a document is being on the European agenda), 2) although, the respective panEuropean documents on monitoring of marine coastal zones are worked out and adopted, they
provide for the specificity of monitoring parameters and logistic features depending on the
monitoring object. The EEA experts suggested that the comparison of monitoring principles and
practices pursued in the Russian Federation and Europe be effected via taking the HELCOM
system as an example. This recommendation was accepted and used as a guideline.
Environmental policy does not operate in isolation, nor as a single process. It includes elements
relating to the identification and assessment of issues, to the formulation of policy, to policy
implementation, and to its subsequent monitoring and review. Each step in this cycle may draw
upon data from operational survey and monitoring and upon information from research. The
policy cycle thus encloses, and interleaves with, a related cycle of monitoring, scientific
investigation and reporting. It needs to be recognized that the operation of the interleaved cycles,
from monitoring and early awareness of a problem via policy development and implementation
to full policy review, may take many years.
Regarding the maritime environment, the United Nation Convention of the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS, 1982) is the key overall regulatory framework at global level for all activities at sea.
Supporting this at global level are the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution
from Ships (MARPOL 73/78), the Framework for prevention of dumping of pollutant material
(London Dumping Convention 72) and the Framework for oil pollution response (OPRC, 90).
These latter are thus of paramount importance with respect to accidental or deliberate oil
discharges. MARPOL, moreover, began as a means to reduce the risks and impacts of oil spills
but has since become the vehicle for the control of many wider issues, such as the control of S0x
and N0x emissions from ships, designed to implement specific aspects of agreements on
mitigating climate change. They are also now including surveillance responsibilities. One of the
main points to note with respect to protection of the marine environment in Europe is the wide
range of international bodies, treaties, conventions and organizations concerned with different
aspects of protection and monitoring at regional and national levels. These include specific
conventions and agreements relating to particular maritime regions, such as the Oslo and Paris
Commission for the north-east Atlantic, the Helsinki Convention for the Baltic, the Barcelona
Convention for the Mediterranean, the Copenhagen and Bonn agreements for many of the EC
and national economic zones. Policy tools (legal framework and agreements) for sustainable
development and protection of the seas at global, regional and national levels. These legal
framework and agreements set the policy foundation for sustainable development and protection
of the seas.
Chapter 17 in the Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
(Rio de Janeiro, 3-14 June, 1992) has become a world-wide document defining the main
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
9
challenges and policies to be implemented in respect of protection and sustainable management
of the world oceans. The Water framework Directive, Definition of quality status, Annex V has
become a guide line for EC in this respect.
In 2003 a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council 2000/60/EC was issued
establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy.
They are supported by a number of ancillary/supporting documents such as Communication
from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament (Brussells, 02.10.2002), EEA
core set of indicators: a Guide (EEA Technical report, No. 1/2005), Source apportionment of
nitrogen and phosphorous inputs into the aquatic environment, EAA Publ.No.x/2005.
Below, we’ll discuss the main marine monitoring principle and implementation realized in the
Russian Federation (with the emphasis on the White Sea case) and under the HELCOM
guidance (with the emphasis on the Baltic Sea).
Within the framework of the present project, the partners have collected, analyzed and built up a
contemporary portrait of the White Sea in the form of the monograph. This monograph,
published by Springer and Praxis (470 p, 2005) summarizes not only the main features of the
past and present White Sea ecology, but also provides details of the past and present system of
data collection, its time and spatial resolution, analyzes the data reliability, reveals the
contemporary tendencies in the White Sea ecology changes, relates them with socio-economic
processes, and provides some insight into possible future changes under a certain set of scenarios
of socio-economic, industrial and agricultural development as well as possible changes in the
external forcing produced by ongoing global climate change. The Table of Contents and the
Cover Page are given below in the Annexes. A copy of this book is attached to the Final report
as one of the principal deliverables.
4. Objectives and deliverables of the project
4.1 Overall and specific objectives of the project
The EcoMon Project is intended to portrait the past and current Russian State system of marine
monitoring making an emphasis on the White Sea in order to eventually assess the compatibility
of the Russian system of marine ecology monitoring with the EU and EN baseline directives and
define the needs to achieve its integration into the EC marine data collection and surveillance
counterpart.
To achieve this goal, it was envisaged to analyze the recently occurred changes in and the current
status of the Russian system of marine environment monitoring, update the White Seas
environmental meta data bases, summarize the presently available monitoring data and draw up
a monograph portraying the recent dynamics of the White Sea ecosystem, assess the conformity
of the existing EU and Russian data bases as to nomenclature of their entries, parameter
accuracy, time resolution, etc., analyze the EU main way strategy for marine ecosystem
monitoring and synthesize the major achievements of European local/regional practices of
marine monitoring initiated/supported by EC , reveal the major differences in the monitoring
conceptual approaches and possibilities of their conceptual/logistic reconciliation.
Ultimately, the project sought to contribute to the promotion of both integration of the systems of
environmental monitoring in Russia and Europe as well as increasing the efficiency of allEuropean nature protection-focused scientific projects in the future.
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
10
4.2 Major deliverables
The implementation of the project should result in a number of deliverables. Apart from
conducting a series of meetings and consultations, the list of deliverables also included the
establishment of the EcoMon dedicated website, creation of a CDROM with the currently
available databases on the status of the White Sea ecosystem, a published monograph on the
White sea ecosystem status, monitoring and projected changes (with the relevant socio-economic
dimension implications).
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
11
5. Structure and functionality of the Russian State Marine
Monitoring System
5.1. General profile
The document determining the State policy of the Russian Federation in the area of marine
activities is the Marine Doctrine of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2020 that was
approved by the President of the Russian Federation Mister V. V. Poutin, No. Пр-1387.
The legislative base of the Marine Doctrine (MD) resides in the Constitution of the Russian
Federation, federal laws and other enforcements issued by the Russian Federation, the UN
Convention on the marine law enacted in 1982, intergovernmental agreements in the areas of
both marine activities and use of resources and tracts of the world oceans.
From the text of the MD follows that the development of systems of marine monitoring of the
marine off-coastal and coastal environments constitutes one of the underpinning principles of the
Russian national policy (Section I “National interests of the Russian Federation in the world
oceans, aims and principles of the national policy”).
In Subsection 3 “Insurance of safety of marine activities” encompassed by section IV
“Realization of the national policy” of the MD it is underlined that “the safeguarding and
conservation of the marine environment are attained through practicing a monitoring of the
marine environment as well as by effecting measures intended to prevent and liquidation of
consequences of the marine environment pollution, undertaking necessary measures excluding
oil spillage during the oil prospecting, extraction and oil transportation, building and
reconstruction of receiving reservoirs in ports for the collection and treatment of wastes,
stimulation of development and purchase of equipment for prevention and liquidation of
consequences of pollution of the marine environment, replenishment of the Russian Fleet with
specialized vessels for effecting nature protection activities; fulfillment by the Russian
Federation of its international obligations in this area, given the feasibilities provided by the
international cooperation; resolution of the contradictions arising between the increase in the
amount and rate of oil and gas extraction as well as other resources residing on marine bottom
and the necessary protection, reproduction and extraction of bio-resources of the world oceans”.
The basic principles of organization and insurance of functioning of the system of state
ecological monitoring of the marine environment are stipulated by the Russian Federation
legislation. Enforcements are laid upon the norms, and they are further specified and concretized
in numerous governmental decisions in a wealth of acts of corresponding agencies. The most
important legislative acts and governmental decisions relating to the marine ecological
monitoring are discussed concisely herein below.
One of the first Laws passed in the Russian Federation (December 19, 1991) in the area of
ecological legislation was the one No. 2060-1 “ On the Protection of the Environment” that
stipulated the foundations regulating nature protection relationships as applied to the
environment in general. A new wording of the Federal Law “On the Protection of the
Environment” passed through the Russia Douma on December 20, 2001 and was approved by
the Federation Council on December 26, 2001.
“The present Federal Law regulates the relationships in the area of interactions between the
nature and the society which arise in the course of conducting economical as well as any other
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
12
kind of activities within the Russian Federation resulting in affecting the environment as a
fundamental component of the natural ambiance that in turn constitutes the basis of the life on
the planet as well as within the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone of the Russian
Federation”.
In Clause 1, the basic notions of Chapter I “General Regulations” are given and read as follows:
“environmental/ecological monitoring is a comprehensive system of observations of the current
status of the environment, assessment and forecasting of changes in the state of the environment
subjected to forcing by natural and anthropogenic factors”. “The state environmental/ecological
monitoring is a monitoring conducted by the bodies of the state governance as well as by the
counterparts of the Russian Federation subjects.”
Clause 5 (Chapter II “Fundamentals of Management in the Area of Nature Protection”) stipulates
that the responsibilities of state governance bodies accommodate the ”establishment of rules and
procedures of the state environmental monitoring, development of a state system of observations
of environmental changes and ensuring of functioning of such a system”.
Point 1 in clause 63 (Chapter X “State Monitoring of the Environment/State Ecological
Monitoring”) determines the goal of the state environmental monitoring as the observation of the
state of environment, including the state of the ambient medium in the regions accommodating
sources of anthropogenic pollution and the impact of those sources on the environment as well as
ensuring the needs of the State, legal and physical entities in reliable information required for
prevention and/or mitigation of impairing consequences of environment change. Point 2 in the
same clause indicates that the order of organization and realization of the state ecological
monitoring is to be the prerogative of the Russian Federation Government.
The main regulations established by the above Law “On the Protection of the Environment” have
received a further development and perfection as applied to water bodies in the “Aquatic Codex
of the Russian Federation (November 16, 1995, No. 167-Ф3). This Codex stipulates the
legislative foundations of the utilization and protection of water bodies, including the law norms
addressing the organization of a state monitoring of aquatic objects.
The Codex provides for the first time a precise/unequivocal interpretation of terms relating to the
area of protection of aquatic objects, including the term “aquatic object” proper. According to
Clause I, under the term “aquatic object” understood are any accumulations of water on land
within the elements of its relief or underground which have boundaries, volume and attributes of
an aquatic regime”. Clause 8 provides four types of aquatic objects encompassed by the Codex
jurisdiction. Among those four types enclosed seas and territorial seas. The latter are the coastal
marine waters extending over 12 nautical miles off-shore in accordance with the norms of the
international law and legislation of the Russian Federation.
The Codex stipulates that the order and realization of the state monitoring is the prerogative of
the Russian Federation (Clause 65), whereas the functionality of the monitoring system is a
responsibility of a specially established state body of management, use and protection of the
national aquatic resources (Clause 74) (presently it is the Ministry of Natural Resources of the
Russian Federation).
Clause 78 provides an exhaustive definition of the state monitoring of aquatic objects: ” The
State monitoring of aquatic objects is a system of routine observations of hydrological or
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
13
hydrogeological and hydrogeochemical indicators of the state of aquatic objects; it ensures the
collection, transmission and processing of the collected data with the aim of a timely detection of
nature impairing processes, prognosis of their development, prevention of negative consequences
and assessment of the degree of efficiency of realization of water protection measures”.
Worked out was a document to be approved by various ministries entitled “The basic principles
of organization and functioning of a Unified System of the state ecological monitoring
(ЕГСЭМ/USSEM). This document defines the ecological monitoring as observations conducted
according a definite programme of natural environments, natural resources, vegetable and animal
kingdoms, sources of anthropogenic forcing and assessment of the state of the said objects of
observations with the projection of their changes”.
The main objective of the state ecological monitoring is defined in the above document as a
provision of information required for effecting an efficient management in the area of
environment protection, preservation of a favourable environment for the population. The State
ecological monitoring is tasked first and foremost with a timely and reliable determination of
zones of possible ecological troubles and providing this information to stakeholders in order to
further work out long-term and urgent measures to assure the ecological safety of Russia.
The establishment of USSEM was conceived on both the basis of the territory-agency principle
and three major organizational levels, namely: federal, subjects of the Russian Federation and
local. However, in view of the financial and economic problems as well as due to institutional
changes in Russia, USSEM has not got a necessary development.
In 1997 the Government of the Russian Federation has approved “Regulations regarding the
establishment of the state monitoring of aquatic objects” (March 14, 1997, No. З 307).
According to this document, the realization of the state monitoring is delegated to the Ministry of
Natural Resources of the Russian Federation together with the Federal Service on
Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring (Clause 6).
Together with the Ministry of natural resources, the Federal service for hydrometeorology and
environmental monitotoring, the Federal Service for the land Cadastre of Russia and the State
Committee of the Russian Federation for fishery are nominated for effecting the State Marine
Monitoring.
The Ministry of Natural resources of the Russian Federation is tasked with:
a. coordination of the activities of federal bodies of executive
power aimed at organization and realization of the ecological
monitoring
b. coordination of normative and methodological documents issued
by federal bodies of the executive power on the matters of
organization and execution of the ecological monitoring
c. building up state informational resources reflecting the state of
the environment
d. assuring the participation of the Russian Federation in
international systems of ecological monitoring (point 7).
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
14
Thus, marine monitoring must be run by the aforementioned agencies/bodies (first of all by
Roshydrometservice, State Committee for Fishery) under the auspices of the Ministry of
Natural Resources of the Russian Federation.
Roshydromet (the Federal Government Enactment of May 20, 1999, No. 555) organizers the
performance of observations, assessment and forecast of the atmosphere, surface waters, marine
environments.
The State Committee for Fishery (presently named Federal Agency for Fishery) (the Federal
Government Enactment of September 5, 2003, No. 557) carries out the organization and
implementation of the state assessment, state cadastre, and state environmental monitoring (point
3, section III).
The Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation (the Federal Government
Enactment of July 22, 2004, No. 370) is the Federal body of the executive power effecting the
functions of working out the state policy and normative-legislative regulation in the area of
studying, usage, reproduction, protection of natural resources, including the management of the
state fund of bowels of the Earth and forestry, utilization and protection of aquatic resources,
exploitation and insuring the safety of water storage reservoirs and waterways, protecting and
other hydrotechical constructions.
Based on the decisions taken by the Federal Government, Russian Constitution, Acts signed by
the President of the Russian Federation, The Ministry of Natural Resources has the prerogative
to work out the appropriate normative and methodological documents.
However, in practice, the Ministry of Natural Resources in terms of marine ecological
monitoring only implements the monitoring of the geological medium within the continental
shelf zone. This activity includes regular observations, collection, stocking, processing and
analyses of data on the geological processes, their expert assessment, control and projection for
the future.
Within the system of the State Committee for Fishery of the Russian Federation, along with the
traditional shipborne system of monitoring an additional branch-wise system of monitoring
(ABWSM) was established in 1999 (the Federal Government Enactment of February 26, 1999,
No. 226). ABWSM is a distributed informational-analytical system assuring both the availability
of informational support of taking managerial decisions within the Committee for Fishery and
also fulfillment of international obligations of the Russian Federation in the area of control of
fishing fleet.
In 2003, a Decision was taken by the Government of the Russian Federation (July 15, 2003; no.
425) on the further perfection of the branch-wise system of monitoring of aquatic biological
resources, observation and control of the activities performed by the fishing fleet.
Presently the first stage of ABWSM is functioning. Under ABWSM deployed are both the
regional centers of monitoring (RCM) in the cities of Murmansk and Petropavlosk-Kamchatskiy
and the National Centre for the System of Monitoring of Fishery and Communication
(NCSMFC). The latter is placed in Moscow. There is also a network of 27 informational stations
of RCM that function within the state administrative bodies managing marine fishing ports. The
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
15
same Decision envisages the establishment in Moscow of the Head Centre of the ABWSM.
RCM collects the information provided by ships as well as by satellites on the positioning of
fishing vessels.
5.2. Principal features of ecological monitoring on the White Sea .
The principal body organizing and implementing the monitoring programs on the White Sea
(Fig.5.1) is the Northern administration of the Hydrometservice (the city of Arkhangelsk), but
also is assisted by both the administration of the Murmansk branch of the Hydrometservice
(exclusively in Kandalakshskiy Bay) and the Northern branch of the Polar Institute of Fishery
Protection (the city of Arkhangelsk).
5.2.1. Hydrometeorological monitoring
Observations of water temperature and salinity are conducted at standard stations and secular
transects (Fig. 5.2) since 1939. At the same time, significant in number but not systematic
observations had been conducted prior to that year, especially in the 1920s and 1930s.
Routinely, shipborne observations had been conducted at all standard stations till 1991, once
a season, but more frequently (2-3 times per season) at the stations encompassed by the scheme
of secular transects. By 1986, at each station were collected observations ranging from 10 to 130.
The distance between two stations constituted 5-15 miles. There are some observation lacunas in
the Bassein and the Voronka. At 17 shore-based stations the observations are performed 4 times
per day. The duration of such observations at the majority of the shore-based stations is about 30
years; the stations are distanced from each other by 18-311 miles. These data are stored in the
archive of the Northern Administration of Hydrometservice. In addition, there are data sets
provided by e few multi-day oceanographic stations with the duration or less than 3 days and
time descretness 1-2 hours. In the estuary of the Norther Dvina river at two stations for 24 years
conducted were observations of space-and time variability of hydrometeorological variables
twice a month. During the navigation period, once a month vertical profiles were measured in the
delta area of the Northern Dvina River.
The contemporary network of water level observations encompases 24 coast-based and
island-based stations in the White Sea., 7 water level stations are located in the delta of the
Northern Dvina River (Fig. 5.3). Of these stations, 17 ones provide each-hour data, and 10
stations provide measurements 4 times per day. Seven stations are included into the system of
secular observations. All these data are being stored at the hydrometeofund of the Northern
Administration Hydrometservice, but starting from 1980 they are equally archived at the
BNIIGMI, however the accessibility to this information source is highly limited.
5.2.2. Monitoring of chemical pollutants
Observations are organized at the network of stations OGSNK (Fig. 5. 4).
Periodicity and nomenclature of observations
Monitoring of chemical pollution of marine tracts are twofold:
1. Monitoring of sources of anthropogenic impact on the natural
environment
2. Monitoring of concentrations of pollutants in the marine medium
The following variables are measured:
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
16
Suspended matter
Oil and hydrocarbonates
Nutrients (organic nitrogen, organic phosphorus, ammonia nitrogen, nitrates, nitrites)
Suffactants
Organo-chlorine pesticides
Phenols
Heavy metals (cu, Zn, Pb, Cd, Al.,Ni, and others)
Anthopogenic radionuclides (137Cs, 90Sr and others)
Obsevation periodicity
All stations of chemical monitoring are partitioned into three groups/categories.
At the stations of the first category observations are conducted once per 10 days. Such stations
are generally restricted to the stations at which water level variations are observed.
At the stations of the second category, observations are conducted 6 times per year. Such stations
are located within the zones most heavily impacted by chemical pollutants.
At the stations of the third category the observations are conducted four times per year (once in a
season).
This routine has generally been practiced for 20 years but was cut short in 1992. Observations
were conducted at the following depths: 5, 10, 50, 100 m and at the bottom. Should there be a
layer of picnocline, observations included this horizon as well. Sampling of bottom sediments
were equally included into the observation protocol.
At each of the above depths the following observations were routinely performed:




Hydrological variables – water temperature and salinity
Hydrochemical variables – dissolved oxygen, pH, P-P04, N-NH4, N-N03, N-N02, SiSi04;
Concentrations of pollutants – oil hydrocarbonates (at water surface), organochloride
pesticides (a-HCH, g-HCH, DDD, DDT, DDE); synthetic suffactants
Phenols
In bottom sediments determined were oil hydrocarbonates, organochloride pesticides (a-HCH,
g-HCH, DDD, DDT, DDE); and heavy metals.
The following hydrobiological variables were determined at some stations belonging to the
Hydrometservice:






Microbiological analyses – determination of the total number and biomass of the
principal groups of microorganisms (saprophytes, andoil-oxydizing);
Status of the phytoplankton – total number, biomass and floristic composition
Status of the zooplankton - total number, biomass and floristic composition
Status of the zooplankton - total number, biomass and floristic composition
Status of the zoobenthos - total number, biomass and floristic composition
Primary production and organic matter decomposition rate determination
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
17
All the above samplings and analytical determinations were conducted in accordance with the
relevant All-Russia Official Manuals.
Hydrological observations were conducted following the recommendations stipulated by the “
Handbook on hydrological observations on oceans and seas” (Handbook…, 1997).
5.2.3 Fishery and hydrobiological monitoring (as established by the Northern Polar Institute
for Fishery Protection)
An individual program of fishery-related monitoring on the White Sea is performed by the
Northern Polar Institute of Fishery Protection (the city of Arkhangelsk). In winter and later
during spring and summer conducted is sampling of biological material collected from nets.
Also, the spawning of marine fishes and fish fattening are monitored to keep track of the fish
physiological state. The network of stations and netting encompasses nearly the entire area of
the White Sea (Fig. 5.5) with the exception of some regions in the central part of the sea.
Periodicity of observations (spring-summer-fall):
1.water temperature and salinity at the standard depths, water transparency by the Secchi
depth;
2. hydrochemistry (at the surface and near the bottom): dissolved oxygen, BOD5, nitrite
and nitrate nitrogen, phosphate phosphorus, ammonia nitrogen, total phosphorus and silicon;
3. pollutants – oil substances in water and in the bottom sediments. In Dvinskiy and
Onezhskiy Bays no more routinely determined are phenols, lignin sans aluminum at the surface
and in bottom sediments. Heavy metals (zinc, cadmium, cobalt) because the concentrations of
those elements have become very low;
4. phytoplankton (floristic composition, pigment complexes) and zooplankton both are
determined at the standard depths.
24 –hour stations are performed once per season (including winter) near the Solovetskiy
Archipelago and Pertominsk. The protocol of observations is the same, but additionally
determined are primary production and decomposition rates.
The personnel of the above institution perform hydrological stations concurrently with both
dedicated larva observations in spring (in Kandalakhskiy, Onezhskiy, and to a lesser degree
Dvinskiy Bays) and hydroacoustic surveys of the herring resources in fall (the norther part of
the central region of the White Sea, in Kandalakhskiy, Onezhskiy, and Dvinskiy Bays.
A part from ichthyfauna, some elements of the White Sea hydrobiological regime are also
observed by the Northern Polar Institute for Fishery Protection.
For instance, in Onezhskiy and Dvinskiy Bays, nearly annually studies o phytoplankton and
ichthyofauna are conducted in spring. In Mezenskiy Bay, cruises aimed at the same studies are
conducted once in three years. The annual sampling coverage and periodicity can’t be considered
as satisfactory: the established practice does not allow to trace down the annual dynamics of the
state and temporal/spatial distribution of phytoplankton and zooplankton, first and foremost,
because of the winter time lacunas. Also, remains unestablished quantitative relationships
between the White Sea plankton communities and hydrodynamic processes. With the exception
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
18
of Kandalakshskiy Bay, benthic observations are absent, although they are highly consequential
for the benthic life in general. Insufficiently studied are shallow zones, especially in bays.
A fundamental drawback of previous hydrometeorological, hydrochemical and hydrobiological
observations of the White Sea was the absence of coordinated programs of observations.
Importantly, the major thrust was placed on the observing a spectrum of variables, but not their
interrelationships. An ettempt undertaken in the second part of the 1980s to coordinate the
observations on the White Sea has never been realized because of the break-up of the USSR, and
termination of financial subsidies.
5.3. Monitoring of higher chain-links/food-web levels of marine ecosystems (birds
and mammals)
Episodic field observations are conducted by the Kandalaksha reserve as well as by a few
research institutions (Murmansk Marine Biology Institute, Polar Institute for Fishery Protection,
Moscow State University, St. Petersburg State University and some others. The population of the
Greenland Seals is observed on a regular basis from board of the airborne laboratory of the Polar
Institute for Fishery Protection. Developed and approved a methodology for surveillance and
quantification of the population number of the Greenland Seal at whelping sites (generally
conducted in March).
But as a rule, observations of marine birds and animals are not standardized by the
contemporary normative documents and are not obligatory, and therefore can’t classify as
monitoring elements.
5.4 Data meta-base on the White Sea monitoring
The archived data on environmental monitoring, the White Sea including, are completely stored
at the World Data Center in Obninsk (near Moscow). The data storage is performed in
accordance with the “Instruction about the major requirements to combining, taking stoking, and
storing of documents of the Unified state fund of data on the state of the natural environment and
its pollution”.
There is a system data query banks attainable at www.meteo.ru
Data bases are designed in accordance with the informational structure of the State Fund and
contain, apart from raw data, various value-added data resulting from processing and
generalization of raw data. These data bases system is open to customers, and fulfils the orders
from scientific resereach institutions in the area of hydrometeorology. The same body develops
area/problem specific data bases for specialized data banks. It also carries out an automated
preparation of some specific reference information materials.
Each bank is specialized and is supported by the appropriate administration bodies of the
Roshydrometservice.
The system of the above data banks is developed based on a unique scientific and
methodological basis. Standard means of access to the stored data are developed in conjunction
with the relevant methodological materials determining and controlling the maintenance and
exploitation of such data banks. This assures internal software and access scheme compatibility
between the specialized data banks.
Below given are the reference data on the banks attainable through the INTERNET.
Data Bank “Oceanography”
This reference-data bank is intended to:
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
19
e.
Provide various scientific research institutions and sea-studying
organizations with the information about the availability of data on observations in various parts
of the world oceans.
f.
For providing customers with copies of observation data and
value-added products
The data are stored mostly in symbol format. The following sections are encompassed by this
bank:
1. ОКЕАНПЭВМ -Deepwater cruise observations (bathymetry, accompanying
meteorological observations, hydrological observations, hydrochemical observations and
observations on water pollution.These data are presently stored in ИСТОРЕС, БАЗРЕЙС
and others.
2. BVPDATA – observations on currents provided by printing current meters. (the data
refer to 1960-1979 on the speed and direction of currents obtained from buoy stations)
3. БАЗРЕЙС – see above
4. ИСТОРЕК- contains cruise data sets on deep water parameters.; it also contains
meteorological, hydrological, hydrochemical data as well as pollution data relevant to
various seas of the USSR. The data are systemized over the time period 1905-1987.
5. ГЛОБАЛ- unified deep water bathometric, bathothergraphic observations provided by
sounding complexes. (more than 2 2000 000 bathometric stations, bathothermographic
profiles for the period 1900-1990.
6. ОСП- time series of deep water bathometric observations at oceanic stations of weather
observations. It containdsdata on water surface temperature, salinity and chemical
composition in the northern part of the Atlantic for the time period 1954-1983.
7. ОГСОС- bathometric data of the united global system of oceanic stations. Contains data
on ocean depths, speed and direction of wind, air temperature, sea level, speed and
direction of currents, vertical profiles of water temperature and salinity. The data cover
the period 1982-present.
8. КВАДРАТЕС- an assemblage of data from deep water bathometric observations.
Contains data on water temperature, salinity, electroconductivity and chemical
composition for the period 1890-1995.
9. ТЕЧЕНИЯ – instrumental observations on the speed and direction of currents, meridian
and zonal components of water movements/currents as obtained from buoy stations for
the period 1910-1985.
10. БТ- bathithermographic observations. The array of data contains observations of water
temperature at depths down to 300m for the period 1950-1985.
11. WOTEM – mean monthly water surface temperature (1981 – 1977) within 5 squires
covering the northern part of the world oceans.
12. ВРЯДГ- temporal series of bathometric observations at stations constituting standard
transects. Contains data on water surface temperature anf hydrochemical composition of
water in the seas of the USSR (1924-1986).
13. БЕРЕГС- marine coastal zone information. Contains meteorological and hydrological
data from coastal zone hydrometeorological stations grouped up into seven geographical
regions (1977- 1987).
14. БЕРЕГ-СРОК time series hourly marine coastal zone observations. The data are also
group up into seven geographical regions (1977-1986)
15. БЕРЕГ-ЛЕД - time series of coastal zone observations on ice. Contains data on air ans
sea surface temperature, speed and direction of wind as well as some specific ice-related
phenomena (1977- 1986).
16. БЕРЕГ-УРОВ – time series of hourly data on sea level in the open areas and river
mouths in the closed and semi-closed seas of the USSR (1977-1986).
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
20
17. LEVEL- hourly sea level data from llitoral stations (1970-1975).
18. ЭАЗООКЕАН –oceanographic data on energy-active zones. Contains past data on deep
water observations in the Norwegian, Newfoundland, tropical energy-active zones, as
well as along the Golf stream and Kourosio current systems (water temperature, salinity,
content of dissolved oxygen at standard depths). The data are sorted out over 1 squires
for the time period 1900-1981.
19. РАЗРЕЗЫ-ОКЕАН –deep water oceanographic observations over the Northern atlantic.
(chronologically assorted data on water temperature, salinity at standard depths for the
time period 1981-1982)
20. РАЗРЕЗЫ-МЕТЕО – meteorological data on the Northern Atlantic(chronologically
assorted data on air and water temperature, salinity, air pressure, dew point at standard
depths for the time period 1981-1986)
21. УПДМЛ - deep water bathimetric cruise observations over the world oceans.
Climatic data from deep water observations contain information on extremes, classical and
robustic assessments of the climatic norm and well as interannual variability based on multiyear information about the water temperature, salinity and respective derivatives for the
North-European Basin (Seas Barents, Norwegian, Greeland as well as the Northern Atlantics
off 45 E). Time period: 1900- 1990.
Satellite data on water temperature in some parts of the world pecans. Contains digitized
maps of SST as obtained from the Russian satellite METEOR (1991 – onwards).
БАРЕНЦЕВО и БЕЛОЕ МОРЯ ([email protected]). The bank contains the following arrays of
data:
ICEGMS – time series of ice-related phenomena (the dates of onset of vernal and autumnal
events for the time period 1890-1987 for the coastal zone of the White Sea and south-eastern
part of the Barents Sea)
TTSGMS – time series of air temperature as well as water temperature and salinity. Contains
information through 1882-1986 for the coastal zone of the White Sea and south-eastern part
of the Barents Sea
WHITE,ZOBAR – observations at stations encompassed by standard and secular transects.
Contains observation bathimetric data starting from 1936 (for the White Sea) and 1939 (for
the Barents Sea).
AVIATEMP – data from low altitude aerial thermal monitoring of the White Sea for the
period 1974 – 1985.
System of Operational Data Collection CliWare:






Synoptic observations
Aerological observations
Marine meteorological observations
Deep-water observations
Climatic observations
Totality of observations (quantitative characteristics)
The system CliWare assures the collection of data using the channels of global network in
real time regime. The database contains hydrometeorological informations over the last year
and a half. Monitoring is performed on the basis of the data base status at the current
moment.
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
21
Synoptic observations are conducted at all meteorological stations throughout the world at
fixed hours four-eight times per day. Observations include the air temperature, precipitation,
cloudiness, weather conditions and some other meteorological parameters.
Shipborne observations are carried out by the navigator’s team. Observations (air
temperature, precipitation, cloudiness, weather conditions and other hydrometeorological
parameters are conducted at the fixed hours four to eight times per day.
Aerological observations are conducted at fixed hours up to four times per day. Measured is
the state of the atmosphere in the layer extending from the surface up to 10 mbar.
Marine meteorological observations – are provided by specialized buoys and research
vessels. The collected data are transmitted using the Buoy, Bathy, and Tesac codes.
Deep-water observations are conducted using specialized buoys and/or research vessels. The
collected data are transmitted using the Buoy, Bathy, and Tesac codes.
Climatic data are monthly mean values provided by meteorological stations.
5.5. Interim conclusions and recommendations.
1. The previously well-functioning system of marine ecological monitoring witin
the Roshydrometservice (the White Sea inclusive) was cut short in 1992
because of federal shortcomings in financing. Irregularly conducted marine
shipborne observations are mostly intended for scientific studies are run by
individual institutions (ot temporarily established groups of institutions) under
some dedicated programs dictated by financially supported projects. Such
observations are infrequently truncated in their scope and do not necessarily
cover the entire network of standard marine stations (as is illustrated in Tables
1 and 2).
2. In the systems of ecological marine monitoring thee is a good degree of lack
of coordination between the Roshydrometservice and State Fishery
Agency/Ministry. The institutions of the latter agency carry out in addition to
bio-resources observations, also run observations of pollution of marine
environments and biota. For instance, starting from the mid-1990s, the Polar
Institute for Fishery Protection was recommended by their agency to perform
surveillance and control of the degree of pollution of marine tracts and marine
organisms and to organize annual monitoring cruises focused on marine hare
and annulated seals in the regions of their permanent habitats. Also they were
enforced to control the pollution state of the main food sources of the above
mammals, namely, saiga, crabs, krill, mollusks.
Such a strategy and practice can be explained by the tendency of fisheryrelated institutions to attain a comprehensive portrait of the totality of factors
affecting fish-well being and high reproduction. However, it is worthwhile to
underline that such kind of monitoring is mostly oriented at pragmatic aims,
but not an ecosystem monitoring (biodiversity, nature protections, etc.).
3.
Presently, marine ecological monitoring in the Russian Federation as a
unique state system of comprehensive, repeatable and widely
attainable/available for all interested stakeholders/customers is absent
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
22
regardless of official regulating documents (see above). At the same time, the
number of organizations and agencies qualifying themselves as monitoring
services has significantly increased since recently. Nearly everywhere any
marine field studies are claimed to be monitoring activities, although in reality
they are not such.
4. Realization marine ecological monitoring at the contemporary level requires a
series scientific and methodological re-examination and introduction of new
logistic forms harmonizing them with the respective international practice.
Table 5. 1.
A cumulative table of hydrometeorological observations in the open White Sea in 2003.
Organization
1
Shirshov
Institute of
Oceanography
Region of
observations
2
Delta of the
Severnaya
Dvina River and
Dvinskiy Bay
White Sea
Time of
observations
3
11.06-14.06
Type of
observations
4
Hydrological
cruise
Observed variables
12.06-14.06
White Sea
16.06
White Sea
17.06
Transect (6448’
N, 3951’1 E 6605’ N, 3738’1
E)
Transect XIV
(village Salnitsa –
Cape KirbeyNavolok)
Hydrometeological
cruise
White Sea
18.06-19.06
Water temperature and salinity,
concentration of
Dissolved oxygen, a variety of
hydrometeoobservations
Water temperature and salinity,
concentration of
Dissolved oxygen, a variety of
hydrometeoobservations
Water temperature and salinity,
concentration of
Dissolved oxygen, a variety of
hydrometeoobservations
Water temperature and salinity,
concentration of
Dissolved oxygen, a standard variety of
hydrometeoobservations
White Sea
19.06
White Sea
19.06-20.06
Transect XVIII
(Cape
Zimnegorskiy-the
Ivanovy Loudy
Islands
Transect XXVI
(Cape OunskiyCape Kerets)
12-hour station
5
Water temperature and salinity
Water temperature and salinity,
concentration of
Dissolved oxygen, a standard variety of
hydrometeoobservations
Water temperature and salinity,
Information media and
depository
6
Magnetic media, World
Data Center , Obninsk
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
6451’ N, 3838’1
E-
Research Vessel
“Ivan Petrov”
Dvinskiy Bay
20.06
Cruise of the State
Sanitary
Inspection
Gorlo
17.10
Cruise of the State
Sanitary
Inspection
Dvinskiy Bay
19-20.10
24
concentration of
Dissolved oxygen, a variety of
hydrometeoobservations
Water temperature and salinity,
concentration of oxygen, pH, PO4, NO2,
NO3, Si, oil-hydrocarbonates,
phytoplankton, zooplankton, a standard
variety ogf hydrometeorological
observations.
Water temperature and salinity,
concentration of oxygen, pH, PO4, NO2,
NO3, Si, oil-hydrocarbonates,
phytoplankton, zooplankton, a standard
variety ogf hydrometeorological
observations.
Water temperature and salinity,
concentration of oxygen, pH, PO4, NO2,
NO3, Si, oil-hydrocarbonates,
phytoplankton, zooplankton, a standard
variety ogf hydrometeorological
observations.
Table 5. 2.
List of the White Sea marine stations operational in 2003
No in
Fig. 2
Nomenclature of observations
2
Tw, S%0, water level, surface roughness, ice, air pressure, air
temperature, air humidity, cloudiness, visibility, wind
ice
Tw, S%, surface roughness, ice, air pressure, air temperature,
air humidity, cloudiness, visibility, wind
Tw, S%, surface roughness, ice, air pressure, air temperature,
air humidity, cloudiness, visibility, wind
Tw, S%, ice, air pressure, air temperature, air humidity,
cloudiness, visibility, wind
Tw, S%, sea level, surface roughness, ice, air pressure, air
temperature, air humidity, cloudiness, visibility, wind
Tw, S%, water level, , ice, air humidity, pressure,
temperature, visibility
Tw, S%, ice, air pressure, humidity, cloudiness, visibility
Tw, S%, ice, sea level,air pressure, humidity, cloudiness,
visibility, wind
Tw, S%, ice, water level, air pressure, humidity, cloudiness,
visibility, wind
Tw, S%, ice, sea level, air pressure, humidity, cloudiness,
visibility, wind
Tw, S%, ice, air pressure, humidity, cloudiness, visibility,
wind
Tw, sea level, ice, air pressure, humidity, cloudiness,
visibility
Tw, S%, ice, sea level, air pressure, humidity, cloudiness,
visibility
Tw, S%, ice, sea roughness, air pressure, humidity,
cloudiness, visibility
Tw, S%, ice, air pressure, humidity, cloudiness, visibility
Tw, S%, ice, sea roughness, air pressure, humidity,
cloudiness, visibility
Tw, S%, ice, sea roughness, air pressure, humidity,
cloudiness, visibility
Tw, S%, ice, sea roughness, air pressure, humidity,
cloudiness, visibility
Tw, S%, ice, air pressure, humidity, cloudiness, visibility
Tw, S%, ice, sea roughness, air pressure, humidity,
cloudiness, visibility
Tw, S%, ice, sea roughnessair pressure, humidity,
cloudiness, visibility
3
4
5
6
7
8
8
9
10
11
12
15
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
26
26
Data format,
medium and
depository
World Data
Center,
Obninsk,
diskets, tables
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
Fig. 5. 1. The White Sea geographical location and regionalization
26
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
27
Fig. 5.2. Spatial distribution and density of stations (with the indication of the number of
hydrometeorological observations for each type of station) performed on the White Sea over the
period 1942 – 1987.
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
Fig. 5.3. Disposition of sea level stations cited in Table 5.2.
28
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
Fig. 5.4 . Scheme of location of stations performed under the OGSNK program as well as
standard hydrobiological stations.
29
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
Fig. 5.5 . Scheme of locations of stations that are being performed by the Polar Institute for
Fishery Protection during the last 5 years.
30
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
31
6. Structure and functionality of the EC Marine Monitoring
System
LIST OF SOME ACRONYMS USED HEREIN BELOW
BICEPS Building an Information Capacity for Environmental Protection and Security
EEA European Environmental Agency
EMSA European Maritime Safety Agency
ESA European Space Agency
EuroGOOS European contribution to Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS)
FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation
GMES Global Monitoring for Environment and Security
GODAE Global Ocean Data Assimilation experiment
GSC GMES Steering Committee
GSE GMES Service Element
HELCOM Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (Helsinki Commission)
ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea
IMO International Maritime Organisation
INSPIRE Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe
JAMP Joint Assessment and Monitoring programme (under OSPAR)
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IOC Intergovernmental Oceanographic Council
ITOPF International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Limited
MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
MONAS Monitoring and Assessment Group of HELCOM
OPRC International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and
Cooperation
OSPAR Oslo-Paris Commission for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the
North-East Atlantic
ROSES Real time Ocean Services for Environment and Security
SSD Strategy for Sustainable Development (SSD)
UNCLOS United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea
UNFCC United Nations Framework on Climate Change
WFD EU Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC)
6.1 Oil Pollution and Marine Environment
UNCLOS defines the rights and obligations of flag states, port states and coastal states with
respect to marine transport and potential threats to the environment while MARPOL establishes
specific practices that are to be put in place by flag states, classification societies, port states and
coastal states. These include:
- responsibilities for ensuring sea-worthiness of oil tankers
- the establishment of vessel routing and traffic management systems in congested or sensitive
areas
- in effect, a complete ban on illegal discharge of oil in designated areas
- responsibilities on port states to provide appropriate facilities for handling waste
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
32
States having ratified these treaties are consequently responsible for the following:
- monitoring the status of shipping certified under their national regime,
including the activities of the classification societies delegated to carry out specific analysis tasks
- setting up appropriate monitoring and control procedures to ensure compliance with discharge
restrictions in their national waters
- deploying and operating appropriate vessel routing and traffic management services in
designated areas.
At the international level it is important to note the existence of two foci for the pursued
protection strategy:
- setting up and operation of a regime in which the risk or potential for accidental or illegal
discharge of oil into the marine environment is reduced to the minimum practical level
- setting up and maintaining an operational infrastructure to ensure rapid and effective response
when a pollution event occurs.
The international context for the latter element is the International Maritime Organization (IMO)
sponsored International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation
(OPRC) which entered into force in 1995. This requires each individual state to operate an
effective pollution response infrastructure as well as providing a framework through which states
can cooperate in responding to pollution in an international context.
By themselves, UNCLOS and MARPOL could be implemented by signatory states through the
definition of suitable national legislation and designating an appropriate national entity
responsible for enforcement of discharge limitations. In general this is the case in most signatory
states where roles and responsibilities for national organisations (e.g. the Coast Guard in the UK)
and port authorities are well defined with respect to enforcing pollution control and providing the
legal infrastructure to prosecute offenders and deter further discharge. However, using national
legislation to prosecute offenders leaving national waters and hence deter further offences is
extremely difficult in practice. As a result, a number of regional agreements have been set up to
facilitate cooperation with respect to surveillance, prosecution and analysis as well as to
reinforce pollution response capabilities.
Regional agreements and policy tools of relevance to ROSES can be split into two categories:
- regional cooperation agreements
- EU policy driven tools
The former includes the OSPAR Convention which addresses pollution in the North Atlantic and
North Sea areas, the Helsinki Convention (HELCOM Convention) which deals with pollution
and sustainable development in the Baltic Sea and the Barcelona Convention which is a UN
sponsored initiative to support sustainable development and pollution reduction in the
Mediterranean Sea. In addition, there are regional agreements related to cooperation with respect
to data gathering (e.g. the Bonn Agreement) and to ensure effective regional pollution response
capabilities (e.g. the Lisbon Agreement).
As a result of recent high profile incidents such as the Prestige and Erika tanker accidents, oil
pollution of the marine environment is very high on the political agenda of the EU. As part of a
strategy presently under development (see e.g. “Towards a strategy to protect and conserve the
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
33
marine environment”) together with appropriate elements of the 6th European Action Plan, the
EC states that the following objectives are to be achieved:
- ensure full compliance with existing discharge limits of oil from ships and offshore
installations by 2010 at the latest;
- eliminate all discharges from these sources by 2020.
The EC recognise the utility of existing international agreements in reaching these objectives and
hence the focus of oil pollution related activity is to ensure that Member States comply with
these agreements to the maximum extent.
To this end, an analogous dual strand approach is being implemented to cover:
- pollution prevention through improved traffic monitoring and control, port state requirements
and tighter regulation of classification societies
- pollution response preparedness through coordination measures and the establishment of
cooperation mechanisms and requirements.
A series of EC directives, regulations and council decisions have been issued in support of the
first element that include setting up the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) and the
establishment of Vessel Traffic Systems. The main focus of this line is transport related
legislation. An important role enabled by these actions is to facilitate more effective information
exchanges between Member States so that vessels making illegal discharges in national waters of
one member state can be apprehended and prosecuted in the national waters or port area of
another. Another area where the EU has implemented additional legislation is that related to
classification societies. Experience from both Erika and Prestige tanker accidents demonstrated
that documentation from certain classification societies may not have been reliable and that port
or coastal states had only limited redress against an unrepresentative or misleading certification.
In the context of these changes in maritime policy, a logical step was the establishment of
EMSA, which should help improve and strengthen the general maritime safety system within the
EU. Beside the 25 Member States, Norway and Iceland participate fully in the work of EMSA as
well. The agency started to work effectively in May 2003. However, it is still in the initial
operating phase, so the exact details about its tasks have not been completely defined so far.
Furthermore, the full and precise impact that the accession of the new member countries has had
and will have on the definition of these tasks cannot as yet be estimated with certainty.
Generally, EMSA should play a major role in reducing the risk of maritime accidents, marine
pollution from ships and the loss of human lives at sea. EMSA has no legislative or policymaking function. It is expected to provide scientific and technical advice to the European
Commission in the updating of the existing instruments and the development of new legislation.
The agency is also going to monitor implementation of maritime policy and evaluate its
effectiveness. The key areas of EMSA’s activity include:
- auditing of EU-recognized classification societies;
- consolidation of the Port State Control regime;
- building up of a common methodology for investigating maritime accidents;
- development and utilization of monitoring and information networks that would provide all
data relevant for effective maritime safety and counterpollution measures (vessels’ movements
and cargoes, waste deliveries by ships visiting European ports, early alerts on any incidents that
involve European interests).
For the pollution preparedness element, the main focus is to reinforce national environmental
legislation and this includes setting up the Civil Protection and Environmental Accidents Unit
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
34
within DG Environment who lead a coordination infrastructure as well as being an approved
activation unit for accessing EO data under the International Charter on Space and Major
Disasters.
At the lowest level with respect to implementation and enforcement, national legislation and its
execution is the responsibility of EU Member States. This must ensure the following elements:
- the existence of appropriate legal instruments designating particular actions (e.g. discharge of
oil in the marine environment) as a violation to be prevented, prosecuted and punished;
- the assignment of responsibility to appropriate organisations for the collection of information
and initiation of the legal process to prosecute offenders – this may include national, regional
and local level institutions;
- the assignment of responsibility to appropriate organisations to apprehend offenders and
subject them to the national legal process.
The enlargement of the EU has led to larger divergences in safety performance standards among
the member countries. Moreover, some of the new Member States have very large fleets under
their flags. Hence, the EU fleet has almost doubled in tonnage, which requires a significant
increase in the scale of activities focused on convergence and harmonization of safety level.
Ensuring a proper, harmonized and effective implementation of the vast packages of EU
legislation concerned with maritime safety and oil pollution prevention will be the primary
responsibility of EMSA. It will organize and structure dialogue and cooperation between the 27
countries (25 EU members plus Norway and Iceland) and the European Commission. The
agency will therefore closely cooperate with the states, and special attention will be given to the
new Member States.
In parallel with the institutional aspects of policy, treaties, agreements and legislation, the oil
transportation sector is also acting at industry level to minimise the risk of accidental pollution,
set working methods to eliminate deliberate discharges as an operational practice and define a
development strategy to bring in new technologies, assets and infrastructure to ensure increased
overall operational safety levels.
6.2 Harmful Algal Blooms and Marine Environment
Algae blooms are an important and necessary part of the annual biological cycle of coastal and
marine waters of the global oceans. As the basis of the marine food web they are essential for the
production of marine proteins, also those being exploited by man. Some blooms may have
harmful or even toxic effects on the natural wild life and impact human activities in the marine
waters.
At the EU level, there is currently no overall, integrated policy for marine protection, whereas a
patchwork of policies, legislations, programmes and action plans at national, regional, EU and
international level exist at a sector-by-sector level. The 6th Environment Action Programme (6th
EAP) stipulates the development of a thematic strategy for the protection and conservation of the
marine environment with the overall aim "to promote sustainable use of the seas and conserve
marine ecosystems", because the marine environment is subject to a variety of threats and
pressures (COM(2002) 539 final). The programme represents the environmental dimension of
the Community’s Strategy for Sustainable Development (SDS). This SDS builds upon the
political commitment of the European Union: “to become the most competitive and dynamic
knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and
better jobs and greater social cohesion”.
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
35
The outcome of the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg further
strengthened this programme. In its implementation plan the Summit agreed, inter alia,
- to encourage the application by 2010 of an integrated ecosystem approach to the oceans;
- to establish a regular UN process for assessing the state of the marine environment by 2004.
The fundamental of the ecosystem–based approach (as stated in the United Nations Food and
Agriculture Organization’s Fisheries Technical Paper 443, 2003) lies in the integration of
sometimes conflicting demands in protecting and exploiting the marine environment in such a
way that it can continue to support these demands in the long term perspective.
One of the particular features of the marine environment is the number of organisations, regional
conventions and international bodies, which are concerned with its protection. In addition the EU
itself has an extensive body of legislation, policies and programmes which directly or indirectly
impact upon the quality of our oceans and seas. The institutional and legal complexity of marine
protection is thus indeed one of the main challenges to be confronted in developing an EU policy
and strategy.
In addressing the protection of the marine environment, we must also define the geographical
scope of our actions. Clearly the opportunity for concrete measures and actions will be much
greater in those parts of the oceans and seas which are part of the territorial waters and Exclusive
Economic Zones (EEZs) of the Member States and Candidate Countries (North East Atlantic,
North Sea, Baltic Sea, Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea). However, the EU can have a
significant influence on the health of marine ecosystems of other seas such as the Barents and
Arctic Seas and at international level. This would be through its bilateral agreements, its political
co operation, its legal approximation, its fishing agreements with third countries, its development
programme and also its participation in international treaties and conventions.
The document "Towards a strategy to protect and conserve the marine environment"
(COM(2002) 539 final) is the first communication addressing a marine strategy. At present not
all the information needed for developing such an integrated policy is available. It is therefore
action and sector oriented in order to describe the complexity and it is intended to establish the
foundation upon which a thematic strategy can be built. In particular, the document:
- emphasizes the present situation with regard to the development and implementation of policies
to control the marine environmental threats, both within the EU and at regional and international
level;
- identifies gaps in knowledge and reviews the present situation with regard to monitoring
assessment and research;
- draws operational conclusions as to what needs to be done to improve the current situation;
- identifies the appropriate operational and institutional objectives for the EU;
- sets out an action plan and a work-programme for the Commission, the Member States,
Candidate Countries and all relevant stakeholders to work together in order to define and
develop a thematic strategy for the protection and sustainable use of the marine environment as
soon as possible, before May 2005.
In this respect, key treaties and conventions of relevance for ROSES during phase 2 include (not
exclusively) UNCLOS, MARPOL, HELCOM, OSPAR, Barcelona Convention and Bonn
Agreement. (These are further addressed in section 3.) States having ratified these treaties and
legislation are consequently responsible for the following:
- adoption of appropriate measures to protect, prevent and eliminate pollution
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
36
- setting up appropriate monitoring and control procedures to ensure compliance with
eutrophication (water quality) reporting in their national waters.
Complementing this is a number of directives, agreements, agencies and council decisions (see
section 1.4). The latter cover the assessment and monitoring responsibilities undertaken by the
European Environmental Agency (EEA) and the International Council for the Exploration of the
Sea (ICES). EEA support sustainable development and help achieve significant and measurable
improvement in Europe’s environment through the provision of timely, targeted, relevant and
reliable information to policy making agents and the public. ICES act as a forum for the
promotion, coordination and dissemination of research on the physical, chemical, and biological
systems in the North Atlantic and advice on human impact on its environment, in particular
related to marine living resources and fisheries.
As the basic instrument of the EU water protection legislation, Directive 2000/60/EC, i.e. the
Water Framework Directive (WFD), sets up as one of its main objectives the general protection
of aquatic ecosystems. All coastal waters∗ should reach a good ecological status by 2015. The
ecological status of coastal waters is assessed based on three groups of water quality elements:
biological (composition, abundance and biomass of phytoplankton, as well as composition and
abundance of other aquatic flora and benthic invertebrate fauna), hydromorphological (e.g.
coastal bed structure, tidal regime, dominant currents) and physico-chemical (e.g. transparency,
temperature, salinity, oxygenation and nutrient conditions). The WFD defines five classes of
ecological status for a water body: high, good, moderate, poor and bad. It also stipulates the
design of monitoring programmes that are required to provide data for classification of water
bodies according to their ecological status. Methods used in the monitoring programmes need to
conform to international standards, in order to ensure the supply of data of an equivalent
scientific quality and comparability. The provisions of the WFD are highly relevant for tackling
the problems of eutrophication and harmful algal blooms, which are considered to be in causeand-effect relationship and often have detrimental impact on marine environment. The problem
of anthropogenic eutrophication from urban and agricultural sources is specifically addressed by
the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC, amended by the Directive 98/15/EC)
and the Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC), respectively. The measures stipulated by these two
directives are to be applied in coordination with the objectives established by the WFD. If full
implementation of these measures fails to completely satisfy the objectives of the WFD,
additional measures need to be introduced. [The WFD defines costal water as “surface water on the
landward side of a line, every point of which is at a distance of one nautical mile on the seaward side from the
nearest point of the baseline from which the breadth of territorial waters is measured, extending where appropriate
up to the outer limit of transitional waters”.]
International and national legislation and directives are in force with respect to the quality of
food being distributed to the consumer markets in Europe, including the finfish and shellfish
originating from the coastal and ocean fisheries or aquaculture industry. These regulations are
specific with respect to the methods of testing and quality requirements, however the sampling
and quality control is primarily based on the food brought to the market and not on marine
environmental monitoring of the areas of its origin. These food quality regulations are enforced
through national food and nutrition control authorities, and there is a variety of national
thresholds and regulations applied.
All of the above elements (sections 1.1 and 1.2) place requirements on different organisations
with respect to information gathering, analysis, reporting and decision support. More details on
the implications of each of the policy elements and their interaction is contained in section 3 of
this document while the nature of these responsibilities of different organisations cited within the
policy structure is explored in more detail in section 4.
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
6.3 Interim Summary of Applicable Policy Tools
To support the creation of a structure to describe all relevant policy tools applicable in
the fields of marine environmental protection, e.g. oil pollution, water quality and
Harmful Algae Blooms (HAB), the main elements are listed in the tables below.
These are discussed in more detail in section 3, together with any links between the
various instruments.
Table 6.1. Main policy tools for oil pollution prevention and response.
Policy Basis Supporting Oil
Pollution Prevention
Policy Basis Supporting Oil
Pollution Response
International Treaties:
UNCLOS
MARPOL
London Dumping Convention
International Treaties:
UNCLOS
MARPOL
International Convention on Oil Pollution
Preparedness, Response and
Cooperation (OPRC)
Regional Conventions, Agreements, Action
Plan:
OSPAR Convention
Helsinki Convention
Barcelona Convention
Mediterranean Action Plan
Bonn Agreement
Bergen Declaration
Regional Agreements and Action Plan:
Bonn Agreement
Lisbon Agreement
Copenhagen Agreement
Mediterranean Action Plan
EC Policy Components:
Directives, recommendations, council
decisions and regulations
Regulation 1406/2002 Establishing a
European Maritime Safety Agency
(COM, 2003).
Directive 2002/59 Establishing a
Community Vessel Traffic Monitoring &
Information System
Directive on port reception facilities for
ship generated waste and cargo
residues (COM 2000/59)
Action plans, strategies and other
elements with longer term implications
Towards a strategy to protect and
conserve the marine environment, COM
(2002) 539 final
Proposal for a regulation and directive
on Port State Control (com 2000 142)
Proposal for a revision of Directive 94/57
on recognition of Classification Societies
(com 2000 142)
Proposal for a regulation on single and
double hulled tankers (com 2000 142)
EC Policy Components:
Directives, recommendations, council
decisions and regulations
Decision 2850/2000 setting up a
community framework for cooperation in
the field of accidental or deliberate
marine pollution
Regulation 2099/2002 establishing a
Committee on Safe Seas and the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships
(COSS)
Action plans, strategies and other
elements with longer term implications
Towards a strategy to protect and
conserve the marine environment, COM
(2002) 539 final
Proposal for a directive on Port State
Control and reception facilities (com
2000 142)
Table 6.2. Main policy tools for protection of coastal waters quality and response in cases of
pollution, including HAB events.
Policy Basis Supporting Coastal
Policy Basis Supporting
37
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
Water Quality Protection and HAB
Prevention
Response to Coastal Water
Pollution and HAB Events
International Treaties:
UNCLOS
International Treaties:
UNCLOS
Regional Conventions, Agreements, Action
Plan:
OSPAR Convention
Helsinki Convention
Barcelona Convention
Mediterranean Action Plan
Bucharest Convention
Regional Agreements and Action Plan:
OSPAR (under its strategy to combat
europhication)
Helsinki Convention
Barcelona Convention
Mediterranean Action Plan
EC Policy Components:
Directives, recommendations, council
decisions and regulations
Nitrates Directive
Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive
Water Framework Directive
Bathing Water Directive
Recommendation 2002/413 on
Integrated Coastal Zone Management
Action plans, strategies and other
elements with longer term implications
6th EEA Action Plan
Community system for Agriculture Policy
(CAP)
Towards a strategy to protect and
conserve the marine environment, COM
(2002) 539 final
EC Policy Components:
Directives, recommendations, council
decisions and regulations
Nitrates Directive
Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive
Water Framework Directive
Bathing Water Directive
Recommendation 2002/413 on
Integrated Coastal Zone Management
Action plans, strategies and other
elements with longer term implications
6th EEA Action Plan
Community system for Agriculture
Policy (CAP)
Towards a strategy to protect and
conserve the marine environment, COM
(2002) 539 final
38
To support policy monitoring and analysis in these areas, the principal data gathering network is
the EEA European Topic Centre on Water. This includes many of the national entities
responsible for gathering information to support national implementation of international and
regional agreements as well as EC directives, regulations, decisions and recommendations. The
relationship between the operational implementation and the effectiveness monitoring is
discussed with regard to roles and responsibilities of organisations in section 4 of this document.
Independently from the implementation and effectiveness monitoring of marine environmental
policy, the EC and Member States are now under strong obligations to make the general public
aware of the environmental status of coastal waters. This is a result of the EC signing the Arhus
Convention (adopted in 1998, entered into force in 2001) and translating this into several EC
directives to be implemented at national level. Implications for these directives appear at present
to be more related to responsibilities for dissemination without placing additional data gathering
burdens on national or international organisations. The Arhus Convention (UN Economic
Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in
Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters) deals with a number of public
rights regarding the environment. Public authorities are obliged to allow the public (individuals
and their associations) to exercise these rights.
The Convention establishes:
- the right of any person to obtain environmental information possessed by public authorities
- the right for public to take part in various categories of environmental decision-making
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
39
- the right for citizens and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to ask for legal investigation
of decisions that have been made without respecting the first two rights or the environmental law
in general.
The Convention also refers to the right of every person to live in the environment that ensures
health and well-being. Discrimination against persons invoking the aforementioned rights based
on citizenship, nationality or domicile is prohibited.
The definition of “public authorities” covers:
- governmental institutions from all sectors and at all levels (national, regional, local);
- bodies executing public administrative functions;
- privatised bodies with public responsibilities related to the environment and the ones which are
controlled by first two types of public authorities;
- institutions of regional economic integration organizations that become Parties to the
Convention; this means that the definition covers the EU bodies as well.
The Convention puts a more general requirement on the Parties to encourage the application of
its principles within international institutions, recognizing the need for public involvement at
international level of decision-making.
As a Party to the Convention, the EC has done considerable work to align the Community
legislation with the requirements of the Convention. Two directives dealing exclusively with the
transparency of environmental information and public participation in decision-making were
adopted in 2003 and have to be implemented in national laws of the Member States until
2005.Access to the information is regulated by Directive 2003/4/EC. This Directive has replaced
the previously existing legislation, imposing stricter obligations on Member States, particularly
concerning the active dissemination of environmental information and extending the right for
obtaining this information from EU citizens to any person. Directive 2003/35/EC provides for
public participation in environmental decision-making.
Additionally, there are several other directives that partially deal with public engagement in this
sense, such as WFD. Although both Directive 2003/4/EC and Directive 2003/35/EC partly
address access to justice in line with the Arhus Convention requirements, the Commission has
adopted a proposal for a Directive which would fully deal with this issue. This proposal should
empower NGOs and individuals to contribute to the enforcement of the Community law.
Furthermore, a proposal is made for a Regulation that would ensure compliance of the EU
institutions and bodies with the Convention.
Finally, the focus for regional agreements described here has been EC and ESA Member States.
As the EC expands to cover present Accession countries, marine areas such as the Black Sea will
become part of the responsibility of the EU which must then become a party to the Black Sea
Convention. In parallel, enhanced cooperation with southern Mediterranean states and the
Southern Caucasus and Central Asia will also require the monitoring of the implementation of
additional UNEP regional seas agreements such as the Red Sea Convention and environmental
agreements related to the Caspian Sea and the Arctic marine environment.
[More information on the Black Sea Convention and related documents, projects and activities can be found at:
http://www.blacksea-commission.org;
The general overview as well as the full text of the Red Sea Convention is presented at
http://www.unep.ch/seas/main/persga/redconv.html;
Web-site of the Caspian Environment Programme (CEP), http://www.caspianenvironment.org, gives details about
joint programme for protection and management of the Caspian environment and its resources;
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
40
The web address of pages presenting Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME), a partner programme of
the Arctic countries, is: http://www.pame.is/. This is one of the programmes established under the 1991 Arctic
Environmental Protection Strategy and coordinated by the Arctic Council (for complete information on the
programmes refer to: http://arctic-council.org/index.html).]
Obviously, oil spill and HAB are of major concerns for protection of the marine environment
and integrated coastal zone management, since these types of events may have economic, health
and social impacts. As such, the concerns are also recognized by and arerelevant for a multiple
of international marine panels, agencies and councils including IPCC, UNFCC, FAO, UNCLOS,
EEA, EMSA, IOC, ICES, GOOS, EuroGOOS.
One of the conclusions of the OCEANIDES project (http://oceanides.jrc.cec.eu.int/) regarding
oil spill is that as much as 50% of this pollution might come from fixed installations and
underwater wrecks. Hence, the amount of oil pollution coming from rivers and land sources must
be seen as a considerable threat. This fact illustrates that coastal areas cannot be treated as
isolated from the inland regions. It is one of the problems that point out to the need for
establishing a truly integrated management of the coastal regions. Prompted by the increasing
degradation of various resources in many of the European coastal regions, the EC and Member
States initiated a Demonstration Programme on Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM),
which was operated from 1996 to 1999 (see:http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/iczm/demopgm.htm).
The purpose of the Programme was to identify the best practice in dealing with the coastal
problems. The Programme resulted in adoption of two documents:
- Communication on ICZM: A Strategy for Europe (COM/00/547),
and
- Recommendation concerning implementation of ICZM in Europe (2002/413/EC).
The Communication defines the promotion of the EU-wide ICZM strategy through various EC
instruments and programmes, while the Recommendation addresses the development of national
strategies for ICZM. These documents stress the importance of integrated approach to the
management of costal areas, in order to achieve a truly sustainable development. The term
“integrated” has the widest possible context here.
None of the coastal issues can be tackled in isolation, without considering the whole range of
other issues it is interweaved with. These issues can extend to other districts or even cross
national borders, they can belong to diverse sectors (e.g. energy, transport, agriculture, fisheries,
tourism…), and hence be regulated by various policy instruments at different levels of
administration. ICZM approach requires that all these elements be harmonized, in order to set up
coherent measures and avoid possibly conflicting actions. Compatibility of sectoral laws and
policies, which have either direct or indirect impact on coastal zones, needs to be improved.
Decisions affecting coastal regions ought to be taken at the most appropriate level. Interests of
the local communities should always be a starting point in decision-making, but local activities
should also be coordinated with regional, national and EU policy-makers to prevent unintended
conflicts among different levels of government. Furthermore, it is crucial for the success of
coastal planning and management that not only government officials and policy-makers but also
other interested parties, such as local businesses, residents and NGOs, fully participate in the
process. In the case of countries sharing a coastline on the same sea, cross-border cooperation is
required.
The EU ICZM strategy underlines the importance of accurate and sufficiently detailed
information in appropriate and compatible formats. Such information is crucial for making good
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
41
decisions and could be used at all levels – from local to European. It would be provided by an
integrated approach to the monitoring of sustainable development in coastal areas. The provision
of this information requires strengthening of the knowledge about coastal and marine processes.
Moreover, communication between practitioners and scientific and technical community has to
be improved.
ICZM is planned to be a dynamic and evolving process, sufficiently flexible to adjust to possibly
altered conditions in the future, which may be harmful but cannot be predicted with certainty.
This can be achieved by applying the “precautionary principle” for actions whose sustainability
is not fully clear, i.e. trying to anticipate potential future damage.
One of the future projects that is planned to address the requirements of ICZM is The
Transnational Integrated Offshore Surveillance Project (TRIOS). The goal of TRIOS is to
provide detailed georeferenced data on illicit discharges of oil in the waters covered by the Bonn
Agreement, as well as Spanish and Portuguese waters. This would be achieved via a
comprehensive long-term surveillance programme, which will cooperate with an active regional
prosecution network. The cornerstone of the project will be the establishment of European
Regional Offshore Surveillance Service (EROSS), based on satellite imagery provision. The
objectives of TRIOS are defined to be: reduction of maritime pollution, incident identification
and monitoring, fast and accurate alert service, supply of information to national prosecutors,
fusion of EROSS with additional data and modelling, and identification of additional services
that could be offered by EROSS (e.g. algae blooms monitoring).
The principles of ICZM are an essential part of the WFD (Directive 2000/60/EC), the basic
document of the EU water protection policy. The operative provisions of several older EU waterrelated directives are being integrated into the WFD, allowing them to be repealed, which will
rationalize the Community’s legislation. Recognizing that water knows no administrative or
political boundaries and that the coastal areas face the threat of pollution from both marine and
inland sources, the WFD introduces a novel strategy for tackling the problems of coastal
pollution, based on the concept of individual river basins as natural geological and hydrological
units. This concept brings together all the partners at national, regional and local levels who can
have an influence and are interested in the supply of good quality water flowing from natural
springs into the sea within a river basin they share. The EU Member States are expected to set up
well-coordinated measures for the protection of water resources as a substantial part of a
common River Basin Management Plan for a particular river basin. Once established, these plans
have to be updated every six years.
The authorities, policy-makers and stakeholders at all levels, including citizens, as well as actors
in various sectors, are required to cooperate closely in managing water use and pollution, in
order to assure that different policy areas and actions that have a potential impact on aquatic
environment are harmonized. As for the coastal zones, the WFD will secure that all interested
parties act consistently in tackling pollution, whether it comes from the sea or the land. The
requirement for close cooperation of all the parties assumes the development of coherent data
collection and information supply by means of geographic information systems. This should
ensure that data from different sources are easily comparable.
The WFD has a number of objectives related to the protection of water quality. The key one is
achieving good ecological and chemical quality of all surface waters. Good ecological status is
defined by characteristics of biological communities, as well as hydromorphological and
physico-chemical characteristics. Good chemical status is determined by compliance with all
quality standards for chemical substances that are put in place at the EU level. These standards
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
42
can be renewed and the new ones established if necessary. The deadline for all inland and coastal
waters to meet “good status” is set at 2015.
The following part of this section gives a brief tabular overview of the main policy elements of
the individual treaties and agreements presently in place according to:
- signatory states;
- responsibilities;
- relationship with other treaties and organizations;
- implementation.
But before we go to the particular treaties and agreements, indicate the treaties that Russia
has adhered to: UNCLOLOS, London Dumping Convention, MARPOL, Helsinki
Convention, Black Sea Convention. But Russia has not signed the following conventions:
OPRC, Bonn Agreement, OSPAR Convention, Copenhagen Agreement, Barcelona
Agreement, EU Water Framework Directives.
The main policy elements of the individual documents regulating marine oil pollution response:
Table 6.3 United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
Main elements of UN law of the sea. Governance of all aspects of the ocean space. Sets the
relevance
framework for basically all activities related to the global ocean, including
pollution.
Signatory States
Global agreement including participation from all EC and ESA Member States
(with the exception of Denmark, Estonia and Latvia).
Responsibilities of Governments of the signatory states, represented by the relevant ministry,
Signatory States
directorate and agency are responsible for implementation of the regulations
activated by the law.
Relationship with Compliant with the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution
other treaties and
from Ships (MARPOL) and the International Maritime Organisation (IMO).
organisations
Implementation
They shall detain and prosecute, under their own national legislation, any activity
in the global ocean found to be in violation of this law.
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL)
Main elements of  - Prevention and minimisation of pollution from ships due to operational
relevance
and accidental causes.
- Designation of special areas where all dumping is prohibited (includes Baltic,
Mediterranean and Black Seas).
Signatory States
Global agreement including participation from all EC and ESA Member States.
Responsibilities of  - MARPOL does not specify monitoring requirements. Information
Signatory States
collection and compliance is through the generation and inspection of

appropriate process certification records (e.g. transfer of ballast from one
set of tanks to another or discharge records from port facility).
- Enforcement is based on detection and prosecution of violations. This is
limited to violation under the jurisdiction of any party to MARPOL and
is punishable under the law of either the state having the jurisdiction at
the time of detection/infringement or under the law of the flag state.
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report

43
- Signatory states have two options for enforcement; a) regular control of
certification and prosecution on detection of irregularities, b) implement
and operate systematic surveillance system to detect infringements as
they occur; in practice this is likely to be more effective with respect to
prosecution and deterrence.
- Signatory parties which are coastal or port states therefore must draft appropriate
national legislation and identify appropriate organisations to take responsibility for
detection of violations. EC and ESA Member States assign such surveillance
responsibility consistently across requirements for all international, regional and
European agreements, treaties and legislation.
Relationship with 
other treaties and
organisations
Implementation
MARPOL is maintained by the International Maritime Organisation
(IMO). Hence responsibility for monitoring and reporting on its
implementation rests with national government transportation or shipping
departments.
Governments of the signatory states, represented by the relevant ministry,
directorate and agency should investigate the facts bearing on the issue of whether
there has been a violation of the regulation. They shall furthermore detain and
prosecute, under their own national legislation, any ship operator found to be in
violation of this regulation.
Table 6.4 Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other
Matter (London Dumping Convention)
Main elements of The Convention aims to prevent marine pollution caused by dumping of waste and
relevance
other matter that could endanger human health, damage living resources and
marine life, harm amenities or interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea.
Signatory States
Global agreement including participation of the majority of EU coastal countries
(except Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) and Norway.
Responsibilities of - To establish authorities for issuing permits, keeping records and monitoring the
Signatory States
condition of the seas.
- To implement the Convention on all the vessels and aircraft under their
jurisdiction or on those loading in their territories/territorial seas matter that is to be
dumped.
- To enter regional agreements for prevention of marine pollution in areas of
particular interest.
- To cooperate in training of personnel, supply of equipment for monitoring and
research, and measures that prevent or mitigate pollution caused by dumping.
- To develop procedures for the assessment of responsibility and the settlement of
disputes regarding dumping.
- To promote measures to prevent pollution by hydrocarbons, including oil and
their wastes, other noxious or hazardous matter transported for purposes other than
dumping, wastes generated in operation of vessels and other man-made structures,
radioactive pollutants and matter related to the exploration of the sea bed.
Relationship with There is a relation between the London Convention and UNCLOS, whose article
other treaties and 210 legally bounds all its parties to take legislative and other measures to control
organisations
pollution by dumping. These measures must not be less effective than the global
rules and standards, which are given by the London Convention.
Other international agreements and programmes complementary to the London
convention are the Basel Convention (1989), MARPOL and the UNEP Global
Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Landbased Activities (GPA).
Implementation
The Convention covers a wide range of measures for its implementation. Each
party has obligation to implement and enforce these measures, thereby ensuring
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
44
that no illegal dumping is carried out and that the waste is dumped at the sites
selected for that purpose only.
Table 6.5 Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (Helsinki Commission –
HELCOM)
Main elements of The Helsinki Commission, or HELCOM (first implemented in 1974 and ratified in
relevance
1992), works to protect the marine environment of the Baltic Sea from all sources of
pollution (land, marine, atmosphere) through intergovernmental co-operation.
Signatory States
 Denmark, Estonia, the European Community, Finland, Germany, Latvia,
Responsibilities of 
Signatory States
Lithuania, Poland, Russia and Sweden.
The governments of the Contracting Parties must act on
recommendations for the protection of the marine environment in their
respective national programmes and legislation.
UNCLOS, MARPOL, International Council for the Exploration of the
Sea (ICES).
Relationship with 
other treaties and
organisations
Implementation
HELCOM request ICES to organise systematic data collection, analysis and
reporting activities and advice on an annual basis. The Programme Implementation
Task Force (PITF) includes, in addition to the HELCOM contracting parties, the
governments of Belarus, Czech Republic, Norway, Slovak Republic and Ukraine,
the Council of Europe Development Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction
and Development, the European Investment Bank, the Nordic Environment Finance
Corporation, the Nordic Investment Bank, the World Bank and the International
Baltic Sea Fishery Commission.
HELCOM is also responsible implementing the Baltic Sea Joint Comprehensive
Environmental Action Programme (JCP) established in 1992 to facilitate and
monitor the elimination of the 132 most polluting sources within the Baltic Sea
catchment area - known as "hot-spots" (see also Annex 1).
Table 6.6 Oslo-Paris Commission for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the NorthEast Atlantic (OSPAR)
Main Elements of The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East
relevance
Atlantic ("OSPAR Convention") was opened for signature at the Ministerial
Meeting of the Oslo and Paris Commissions in Paris on 22 September 1992. It
entered into force on 25 March 1998. The OSPAR Convention seeks to prevent and
eliminate pollution of the marine environment from all kinds of sources, and
protecting the marine area against the adverse effects of human activities.
Signatory States
Belgium, Denmark, EC, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, the
Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, Luxemburg and Switzerland.
Responsibilities of The contracting parties must comply with the prevention of dumping within
Signatory States
OSPAR area. In so doing, their respective national programmes and legislation are
activated.
Relationship with  UNCLOS, MARPOL, ICES.
other treaties and
organisations
Implementation
 The Commission established by the OSPAR Convention is authorized to
adopt binding decisions and to establish rights of access to information
about the maritime area of the Convention. OSPAR secretariat
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
45
designated ICES as responsible for provision of regular reports on status
of marine environment for OSPAR area. ICES then organise systematic
data collection, analysis and reporting activities and advice on an annual
basis.
Table 6.7 Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution (Barcelona
Convention)
Main Elements of The Barcelona Convention is the legal and institutional framework of the
relevance
Mediterranean to monitor the state of the Mediterranean Sea and to identify the
major environmental issues and their causes. In particular it aims to prevent and
abate pollution caused by land based sources, discharges and dumping from ships
and aircraft, or resulting from exploration and exploitation of the sea bed.
Signatory States
France, Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Slovenia, Croatia, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya,
Cyprus, Egypt, Malta and Morocco.
Responsibilities of  The contracting parties must comply with the regulations for prevention
Signatory States
of pollution. In so doing, their respective national programmes and
legislation are activated.
Relationship with  UNCLOS, MARPOL, ICES
other treaties and
organisations
Implementation
A regional Centre, now called REMPEC, was created in 1976 and based in Malta. A
new totally revised ‘Protocol Concerning Cooperation in Preventing Pollution from
Ships and, in Cases of Emergency, Combating Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea’
was adopted on 25 January 2002.
Table 6.8 Agreement for Cooperation in Dealing with Pollution of the North Sea by Oil and
Other Harmful Substances (Bonn Agreement)
Main Elements of The Bonn Agreement is an international agreement by North Sea coastal states,
relevance
together with the EC to offer mutual assistance and co-operation in combating
pollution (oil and other harmful substances) and execute surveillance as an aid to
detecting and combating pollution and to prevent violations of anti-pollution
regulations.
Signatory States
Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, UK and France + EC
(Ireland has observer status, Spain and Portugal invited). Presidency resides with
Maritime Coastguard Agency (MCA), UK.
Responsibilities of  The contracting parties must comply with the agreement and offer
Signatory States
assistance and cooperation on surveillance and combating pollution in
the North Sea.
Relationship with  UNCLOS, MARPOL, ICES.
other treaties and
organisations
Implementation
There is specific provision for collaborative airborne surveillance to detect spillages
of oil and other harmful substances that can threaten the marine environment.
Accidental spillages or those made in contravention of international conventions
will be registered and if possible sampled both from sea surface and on board the
suspected offender.
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
46
Table 6.9 Copenhagen Agreement
Main Elements of Prevent marine pollution from oil and other harmful substances.
relevance
Signatory States
Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Iceland.
Responsibilities of  Undertake the necessary measures to limit and prevent marine pollution
Signatory States
from oil and other harmful substances. Include surveillance tasks.
Relationship with 
other treaties and
organisations
Implementation
UNCLOS, MARPOL, ICES.
6.10 European Water Framework Directive (WFD)
Main Elements of A thorough restructuring process concerning European Water Policy has been
relevance
undertaken in the European Commission, and the adoption of a new operational
Water Framework Directive has established the objectives for water protection in
this century. It is recognized that in the protection of coastal zones from inlandgenerated pollution, washed into the sea via watercourses, approach based on
individual river basins has to be taken as the starting point. This approach aims to
ensure that all stakeholders, who influence the quality of water flowing from springs
into the sea, act in a coordinated way. It also calls for the development of coherent
data collection and information supply by means of geographic information
systems.
Signatory States
All EC Member States, Norway, Switzerland.
Responsibilities of  WFD requires members, among others, to:
Signatory States
1.
expand the scope of water protection;
2.
achieve good status for all waters by a set deadlines;
3.
conduct water management based on river basins approach;
4.
streamline legislation.
Relationship with  For the marine part of the river basins there is connection to UNCLOS
other treaties
and MARPOL. It also replaces seven existing directives on surface water
and related directives on measurement methods, sampling frequencies,
exchange of information, ground water, and dangerous substances
discharges.
Implementation
River basin management plan.
6.4 Interim comments and assessments
Monitoring. When seen in a European context, the existing monitoring programmes of the
regional marine conventions are not very coherent in terms of scope, content (issues covered)
and detail (geographic and temporal density). However, some of the divergence can be attributed
to differences in environmental conditions and differences in socio-economic and political
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
47
situations in the countries bordering these seas. Activities carried out in the context of the
implementation of the Water Framework Directive can give an impetus for a more coherent
approach.
Assessment. A certain level of duplication of effort can be observed in reading the most recent
assessment products of the EEA and of the regional marine conventions. Duplication of efforts
might be reduced by synchronising the frequency, timing and streamlining the content of
assessment products as well as by harmonising the way assessments are made. Where several
assessments are based on the same raw data, procedures to make contributions to assessment
products of other organisations are lacking and there are barriers to access to publicly funded
monitoring data.
Reporting and Handling of Data and Information. There is a need to improve the situation
with regard to reporting, handling and management of data and information. This could be
usefully realised on a European level and be based upon a common policy on generation of,
access to and use of the different types of data and information. In this respect EEA will have a
more important role also for the marine environment.
Scientific Research. Research has generated valuable insights into the state of the marine
environment and its ecosystems but much more will be needed. Since the results of publicly
funded research are often not available nor fully exploited in operational work, there is scope for
improving the communication between the research community and those engaged in operational
activity both in establishing the research priorities and in applying results to operational
monitoring and assessment in the regions.
7. Norwegian practice of monitoring and managing coastal waters
7.1 Norwegian Coastal Waters
Algae blooms are an important and necessary part of the annual biological cycle of coastal and
marine waters of the global oceans. As the basis of the marine food web they are essential for the
production of marine proteins also those being exploited by man. Some blooms may have
harmful or even toxic effects on the natural wild life and impact human activities in the marine
waters.
During the last decades the growth of the aquaculture industry in Norway has been significant.
The major expansion has primarily been with in finfish aqauaculture and in particular the species
salmon and trout. Norway is the largest exporter of aquacultured salmon in the world and around
500.000 tons were exported last year. The expansion in the location of the aquaculture sites in
the Norwegian fjords, coastal and near shore waters have been considerable. Common for this
activity is that they have an impact on the marine environment as well as being influenced by the
marine environmental conditions. This also implies that the impact of harmful algae blooms has
obtained much more public and industrial interest and concern than earlier. The fact that
increased international marine transport of e.g. ballast water and global change processes might
have altered the frequency of HAB events as well as introduced new HAB species to our coastal
water.
The ocean circulation processes are essential for the initiation and transport of algae blooms. The
Norwegian Coastal Current (NCC) is the major along shore advection mechanism for water
circulation and then also algae blooms. The interaction between the fjords and the NCC cause
two-way transport of bloom events between these two water regimes. The changes in the actual
circulation pattern are governed by both seasonality and the actual weather situation. With a
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
48
general circulation “originating” from the German Bight, flowing northwards along west Jutland,
interacting with the Baltic/Kattegatt water in the Skagerrak region, following the coast of
Sørlandet, before it enters the NCC west of Jæren and Vestlandet, where the major parts of the
aquaculture sites are located. The complexity and interactions between many physical
oceanographic mechanisms requires that monitoring of (H)AB events in the waters of
Norwegian interest must cover a much larger geographical area – typically major part of the
eastern or even the entire North Sea - than just our territorial coastal waters. The information
required is both the physical oceanographic and meteorological conditions as well as the marine
biological conditions in order to perform an integrated monitoring capable to provide the needed
information to initiate precautions and mitigation actions in case of HAB events.
Toxic algae blooms (such as DSP, PSP and ASP) accumulating in filter feeding mechanisms
(mussels, clams etc.) are also monitored in Norwegian waters. However, the typically low
biomass, low concentration and highly variable regional appearance of these blooms, requires
direct testing of seafood samples in order to assure their healthy quality. Monitoring of these
types of blooms are not included in the current assessment.
7.2. Description of the Current HAB Monitoring Service
A regular coastal network of 29 stations located on shore or very near shore are sampled at least
weekly during the main algae growth season and more frequently during identified HAB events.
This sampling includes analysis of waters samples with respect to the algae composition and
concentration (cell counts). This information forms the basis for a weekly updated web-page
with integrated information on the current algae situation along the entire coast of Norway
(http://algeinfo.imr.no). The station density is significantly higher in the southern part of the
coastline.
Since 1998 the North Sea and the coastal waters off the west coast areas on Denmark, Sweden
and southern Norway have been regularly (daily during the main bloom periods) monitored by
the Nansen Center, using various satellite earth observation technologies, including the Orbview2 SeaWiFS, NOAA AVHRR and ERS SAR. This information has been integrate, analyses and
published for research purposes at the web-site http://www.nersc.no/HAB.
Massive coastal and off-shore blooms of the specie Chattonella have been detected in the
primarily SeaWiFS images in 1998 and 2000 in the waters off west Jutland and in the coastal
waters of southern Norway in 2001. In some of the events the first identification of possible
massive blooms were observed in the EO data sources. During all years the development peak
and decay of the blooms were monitored by use of satellite and in situ data. Various methods for
retrieval of the pigment concentration have been developed and evaluated, however for regular
monitoring processing and integration of the information with in situ data the actual retrieval
algorithm used were not the critical factor or the monitoring and bloom identification.
Accordingly a qualitatively consistency was observed between the in situ observations and the
satellite data of the bloom extent and development cycles.
Using the satellite based information to trigger the bloom initiation in the coupled physical and
ecosystem model NORWECOM for the North Sea Region has been applied in order to predict
the development of the bloom formations. The integrated approach of use of in situ and satellite
data in combination with numerical prediction models re the essential and key components to
include in an operational (H)AB monitoring system.
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
49
Table 7.1 Products available in the Nansen Center concept for HAB monitoring.
Product
Algae distribution
Analysed algae samples
Mode
Web
e-mail / direct communication
Sea surface temperature
Chlorophyll pigment
concentration
RGB – surface reflectance
Surface roughness
Weather forecasts
Ocean circulation
Interactive
Interactive
Ecosystem algae model
Internal
Public web information (partly
password protected)
User feed back
Interactive
Experimental
External
Web / Internal
Source
http://algeinfo.imr.no
IMR, NIVA, Directorate of
fisheries
AVHRR
SeaWiFS (MERIS, MODIS)
SeaWiFS (MERIS, MODIS)
Synthetic Aperture Radar
met.no and ECMWF
NERSC: HYCOM
met.no: POM
NERSC: HYCOM
IMR: NORWECOM
Automatic with interactive
interpretation
7.3 Major User Requirements
The key information in monitoring of the algae bloom cycle is the identification of the time and
geographical location of the onset of a bloom event. As early as possible warning and
identification of possible (H)AB events are essential! This can only be achieved by surveying
larger geographical areas and focus the sampling on possible events. Identification of the specie
composition an their concentration in a bloom or pre-bloom situation is important in order to
assess the possibility of the onset of a specie dominated bloom. General information on the
physical and nutrients conditions is useful for assessing the potential for (H)AB initiation.
For salmon aquaculture a typical 5-10 days notice of a possible bloom is needed in order to
initiate a “controlled” harvesting of near mature fish. Other mitigation actions like physical
sheltering or moving the cages can be done on shorter notice, but might have more significant
impact on the fish and the actual mitigation expenses.
For identified HAB bloom it is essential for follow the development of the bloom for (i)
optimizing the in situ sampling strategy, (ii) provide predictions of areas future influence of the
bloom and (iii) identify the decays of the bloom event.
The applied concept of integration of in situ, satellite earth observation and model prediction
information has proven to be efficient in this respect. There is need for improvement in the
methods of “automatic” integration in situ in to the satellite/model concept. In particular
promising development is foreseen the integrated use of regular in situ observations from shipsof-opportunity (e.g. ferry lines) and observation model concept presented. The integration of
satellite data and models seems efficiently implemented using data assimilation techniques.
7.4 Interim comments on the Norwegian HAB Monitoring Service Efficiency
The integration of EO information into the HAB monitoring in Norway has been done in close
cooperation with end-users with the result that the information provided has been modified and
now being useful and appreciated. Essential is the process of learning when or under what
conditions the concept is more advantageous. It is easy to focus on the deficiencies and forget the
advantages when useful information can be supplied.
The applications of earth observation data in HAB monitoring is in general limited by the fact
that non-microwave EO data are pending on cloud- and haze-free conditions for observations.
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
50
Accordingly the availability of high quality EO data is limited in time and space. Advantageous
is that many HAB events are initiated under sunny conditions with less than average cloud cover.
The absolute precision of the algae biomass (chlorophyll concentration of cell counts) is much
better with in situ sampling. The fact that the EO data provide only an assessment of the total
algae biomass and no information on the species composition is hampering the enthusiasm for its
use.
Sub-surface blooms or blooms with a sub surface peak requires a vertical sampling in the water.
This can only be achieved with in situ sampling integrated with 3-D modelling capability.
Not directly visible to the end-users, but still very important is the fact that there are large
discrepancies between data from different EO data sensors. A need is accordingly to harmonize
and improve the intercomparability of the data delivered from different space agencies and
sensors.
In addition to the limiting factors of EO technology also several factors to availability and
interpretation of data are hampering their use. In reality some expert group must provide
aggregated information for use in HAB monitoring, since data access, availability, processing,
integration, interpretation and costs are limiting factors for their practical use. In general EO
data are regarded as complementary to the “needed and on going” in situ monitoring and
accordingly the willingness to pay for such data are limited.
Table 7.2 Some key points of contact in Norwegian HAB monitoring
Name
Einar Dahl
Institution
Institute of Marine Research,
Flødevigen, 4817 His
Lasse H. Pettersson
Nansen Environmental and
Remote Sensing Center,
Edv. Griegsevei 3, N5059
Bergen, Norway
Directorate of Fisheries
P.O. Box 233 Sentrum
5704 Bergen, Norway
Institute of Marine Research,
Postboks 1870
Nordnes, 5817 Bergen.
Ragnar Sandbæk
Einar Svendsen
Phone, e-mail & web-site
+ 47 37 05 90 00
[email protected]
http://algeinfo.imr.no
+47 55297288
[email protected]
http://www.nersc.no
+47 55238000
[email protected]
http://www.fiskeridir.no/
+47 55238458
[email protected]
http://www.imr.no
8. EU strategy of marine ecosystem monitoring and protection of
marine environment with special emphasis on the Baltic Sea
8.1
Background
The first international convention of marine protection from pollution was the International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil (OILPOL), adopted in 1954. This
convention was then updated and adopted in 1973 and 1978 as The International Convention for
the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), which entered into force on 2 October 1983.
Under United Nations in Geneva 1948 adopted the Convention of the Inter-Governmental
Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO) was adopted. Later the name was changed in 1982
to International Maritime Organization (IMO). International conventions of maritime legislation
as MARPOL are nowadays adopted under IMO. Other such conventions are International
Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments (BW
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
51
convention 2004) and International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems
on Ships (AFS convention 2001).
HELCOM convention was signed in 1974 to prevent the pollution into the Baltic Sea and
updated as a new convention 1992 with participation of all the sates around the Baltic Sea and
the European Economic Community.
EU has recently agreed upon Water Framework Directive providing a framework for protection
of coastal waters. Also Nitrates Directive and Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive give
guidelines for nutrient input into the Baltic Sea. EU has also developed a European Marine
Strategy 2002, which has resulted as a proposal for EU Marine Strategy Directive in 2005.
Fig. 8.1. The international legislation for protection of the Baltic Sea
8.2 International Conventions under IMO
The marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) of the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) under United Nations gathers 1-2 times a year. Under IMO there are 12
conventions concerning maritime safety, 8 about marine pollution, 8 about liability and
compensation and 4 conventions concerning other subjects. The most actual conventions may be
considered the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL
73/78), Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other
Matter (LDC 1972), International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems
on Ships (AFS 2001), International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships'
Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004, and International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil
Pollution Damage (CLC 1969).
MARPOL 73/78
The MEPC committee develops the implementation of the International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78) and other conventions under IMO.
MARPOL consist of articles and six annexes and amendments (Table 8.1.)
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
52
Table 8.1 Content of annexes and amendments within MARPOL Convention 73/78
Annex 1
Regulations for the prevention of pollution by oil
Annex 2
Regulations for the control of pollution by noxious liquid substances
Annex 3
Prevention of pollution by harmful substances in packaged form
Annex 4
Prevention of pollution by sewage from ships
Annex 5
Prevention of pollution by garbage from ships
Annex 6
Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships
The MARPOL 73/78 Convention entered into force on 2 October 1983, and the annexes require
ratification by 15 States, with a combined merchant fleet of not less than 50 percent of world
shipping by gross tonnage. As seen from the Table 2, all annexes have entered into force, the
latest annex 6 entered into force on the 19th May 2005.
Table 8.2. Status of ratification of Annexes of MARPOL 73/78 Convention by 1 August 2004.
Annex 1 and 2
Annex 3
Annex 4
Annex 5
Annex 6
States
129
114
99
118
16
Percentage of
gross tonnage
97 %
93 %
55 %
95 %
55 %
8.3 Regulations for the prevention of pollution by oil, MARPOL 73/78, Annex 1
The 1973 Convention prescribes the oil discharge criteria namely:
Operational discharges of oil from tankers are allowed only when all of the following conditions
are met:
1. The total quantity of oil which a tanker may discharge in any ballast voyage whilst under way
must not exceed 1/15,000 of the total cargo carrying capacity of the vessel;
2. The rate at which oil may be discharged must not exceed 60 litres per mile travelled by the
ship;
and
3. No discharge of any oil whatsoever must be made from the cargo spaces of a tanker within 50
miles of the nearest land.
In addition, in the 1973 Convention, the maximum quantity of oil permitted to be discharged on
a ballast voyage of new oil tankers is 1/30,000 cargo capacity.
The 1973 Convention defined also the concept of "special areas” in which oil discharges within
them have been completely prohibited. The 1973 Convention identified the Baltic Sea among the
other seas as special areas. All oil-carrying ships are required to be capable of operating the
method of retaining oily wastes on board through the "load on top" system or for discharge to
shore reception facilities.
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
53
8.4 Regulations for the control of pollution by noxious liquid substances, MARPOL
73/78, Annex 2
Annex 2 describes the discharge criteria and measures for the control of pollution by noxious
liquid substances carried in bulk.
Some 250 substances were evaluated and included in the list appended to the Convention. The
discharge of their residues is allowed only to reception facilities until certain concentrations and
conditions.
Within the Baltic Sea area there is a prohibition on discharges from tanks that have contained
Category A or B substances, specified in Annex 2, which categorizes noxious liquid substances
carried in bulk as A, B, C or D according to their magnitude of harm to the marine environment
if discharged.
8.5 Prevention of pollution by harmful substances in packaged form, MARPOL
73/78, Annex 3
Annex III contains general requirements for the issuing of detailed standards on packing,
marking, labelling, documentation, stowage, quantity limitations, exceptions and notifications
for preventing pollution by harmful substances. The International Maritime Dangerous Goods
(IMDG) Code has, since 1991, included marine pollutants.
8.6 Prevention of pollution by sewage from ships, MARPOL 73/78, Annex 4
Annex 4 is applied to the ships engaged in international voyages, which are of 400 tons gross
tonnage and above or are certified to carry more than 15 persons. Every ship to which Annex IV
applies shall be equipped with either a sewage treatment plant or a sewage comminuting and
disinfecting system or a sewage holding tank.
The discharge of sewage into the sea is prohibited, except when the ship:



has in operation an approved sewage treatment plant; or
is discharging comminuted and disinfected sewage using an approved system at a
distance of more than 3 nautical miles from the nearest land; or
is discharging sewage which is not comminuted or disinfected at a distance of more than
12 nautical miles from the nearest land.
8.7 Prevention of pollution by garbage from ships, MARPOL 73/78, Annex 5
The annex 5 deals with different types of garbage and specifies the distances from land and the
manner in which they may be disposed of. The requirements are much stricter in a number of
"special areas"; discharge of garbage in the Baltic Sea area is prohibited. However, food wastes
may be discharged, but in any case not less than 12 nautical miles from the nearest land. Perhaps
the most important feature of the Annex is the complete ban imposed on the dumping into the
sea of all forms of plastic.
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
54
8.8 Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships, MARPOL 73/78, Annex 6
In the Baltic Sea area ship-owners are encouraged to use marine fuel oils with as low sulphur
content as possible, but not exceeding 1.5% by weight. Deliberate emissions of ozone-depleting
substances will be prohibited.
8.9 Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and
Other Matter, LDC 1972
The Convention contributes to the international control and prevention of marine pollution. It
prohibits the dumping of certain hazardous materials, requires a prior special permit for the
dumping of a number of other identified materials. "Dumping" has been defined as the
deliberate disposal at sea of wastes or other matter from vessels, aircraft, platforms or other manmade structures, as well as the deliberate disposal of these vessels or platforms themselves.
Wastes derived from the exploration and exploitation of sea-bed mineral resources are, however,
excluded from the definition.
8.10 International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on
Ships, AFS 2001
The International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships prohibits
the use of harmful organ tins in anti-fouling paints used on ships.
The harmful environmental effects of organ tin compounds were recognized by IMO in 1989. In
1990 IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) adopted a resolution which
recommended that Governments adopt measures to eliminate the use of anti-fouling paint
containing TBT on non-aluminium hulled vessels of less than 25 meters in length and eliminate
the use of anti-fouling paints with a leaching rate of more than four micrograms of TBT per day.
In November 1999, IMO adopted an Assembly resolution that called on the MEPC to develop an
instrument, legally binding throughout the world, to address the harmful effects of anti-fouling
systems used on ships. The resolution called for a global prohibition on the application of organ
tin compounds which act as biocides in anti-fouling systems on ships by 1 January 2003, and a
complete prohibition by 1 January 2008.
8.11 International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast
Water and Sediments, 2004
Convention parties will undertake measures to prevent, minimize and ultimately eliminate the
transfer of harmful aquatic organisms and pathogens through the control and management of
ships' ballast water and sediments. Parties are given the right to take, more stringent measures
with respect to the prevention, reduction or elimination of the transfer of harmful aquatic
organisms and pathogens through the control and management of ships' ballast water and
sediments, consistent with international law.
The convention wills entry into force in 12 months after ratification by 30 States, representing 35
per cent of world merchant shipping tonnage. On the 31st December 2004 only 5 states had
ratified the convention. However, the HECOM MARTIME working group has included in the
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
55
working programme the task to develop an action plan to ensure rapid and harmonized
implementation of the Ballast Water Convention in the Baltic
8.12 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, CLC
1969
The Civil Liability Convention was adopted to ensure that adequate compensation is available to
persons who suffer oil pollution damage resulting from maritime casualties involving oilcarrying ships. The Convention places the liability for such damage on the owner of the ship
from which the polluting oil escaped or was discharged. The Convention requires ships covered
by it to maintain insurance or other financial security in sums equivalent to the owner's total
liability for one incident. The Convention applies to all seagoing vessels actually carrying oil in
bulk as cargo, but only ships carrying more than 2,000 tons of oil are required to maintain
insurance in respect of oil pollution damage.
9. HELSINKI CONVENTION
9.1. Convention Fundamentals
For the first time the convention was signed in 1974 by the then seven states around the Baltic
Sea to prevent the pollution into the sea. The new convention was signed in 1992 by all the
states Baltic around the Baltic Sea, and the European Economic Community. The convention is
administrated by the Helsinki Commission - Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission
- also known as HELCOM.
The convention entered into force on 17 January 2000 and the present contracting parties to the
convention are Denmark, Estonia, European Union, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania,
Poland, Russia and Sweden.
The Convention covers the whole catchment area of the Baltic Sea as well as the sea itself and
the sea-bed. The convention is aimed to mitigate land-based pollution and to protect the sea
area.
The Convention includes 38 articles defining the area, targets, and principles. The articles
include obligation for environmental impact assessment, prevention of pollution from ships.
Articles also deal with prevention of dumping, and exploration and exploitation of the seabed. In
the articles is also listed notification of pollution incidents, co-operation and information to the
public.
The detailed description of implementation is given in seven annexes:

Harmful substances including

banned substances as DDT, PCP and PCT

list of pesticides to minimize the use

Criteria for the use of best environmental practice and best available technology

Criteria and measures concerning the prevention of pollution from land-based sources

PREVENTION OF POLLUTION FROM INDUSTRY AND MUNICIPALITIES

PREVENTION OF POLLUTION FROM AGRICULTURE
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report

Prevention of pollution from ships

Exemptions from the general prohibition of dumping of waste and other matter in the
Baltic Sea Area

Prevention of pollution from offshore activities

Response to pollution incidents
56
9.2 Ministerial Declarations
Among the important instruments to direct the measures to mitigate pollution are ministerial
declarations of the Baltic Sea states in the years1988, 1990, 1992, 1993 1994, 1998, 2001 and
2003. Already in 1988 in such declaration was announced the demand to reduce nutrient
discharge and other harmful substances by 50 % to the sea by 1995. The follow-up studies
showed some progress in discharge reduction, but in the ministerial declaration 1994 was again
urged the contracting parties to accelerate the implementation of national measures to reduce 50
% the emission of toxic and bio-accumulating compounds to the Baltic Sea. In the Communiqué
of the Ministerial Session in 1998 was recognized that many problems which so far have not
been successfully addressed still exist thus mitigating the realization of the 50% target. In the
Communiqué was decided inter alia:

to reaffirm their commitment to achieve the strategic goals set up in the 1988 Ministerial
Declaration and to define a series of more specific targets to be realized before the year
2005 and reviewed in 2003

to intensify the implementation of the Baltic Sea Joint Comprehensive Environmental
Action Programme (JCP) and to this end, place increased emphasis on the reduction of
non-point pollution sources in agriculture and transport sectors as well as the actions to
remedy remaining industrial "hot spots"
The ministerial declaration in 2001 was titled as “Declaration on the Safety of Navigation and
Emergency Capacity in the Baltic Sea Area - HELCOM Copenhagen Declaration”. The
declaration includes new rules for shipping including definitions of new routing measures in the
Baltic Sea. This reflects the increased shipping activity in the Baltic Sea.
The ministerial declaration in 2003 includes recognition of new role of HELCOM and its future
priorities in connection to EU accession of new members with the consequence that eight of nine
HELCOM contracting states will be EU members. The declaration includes 6 main items:
1. The role of HELCOM and its future priorities:

New HELCOM approach will be built on the European Marine strategy and
HELCOM Joint Comprehensive Program (JPC)

The work will focus in pointing out the unique character of the Baltic Sea area, in
contribution to the development of the European Marine Strategy and using
HELCOM’s mandate to develop recommendations and supplementary measures
2. Environmental impact of shipping

to adopt measures in accordance of United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(1982) within the framework of the International maritime organization (IMO)
3. Eutrophication
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report

57
Although substantial efforts to reduce inputs of nutrients, eutrophication still remains
a problem. In declaration was agreed to pursue the implementation Nitrate Urban
Waste Water Directives, to improve the agricultural practices for the reduction of
non-point source pollution and continue efforts to reduce from other sources of
nutrients.
4. Nature conservation and biodiversity
 Implementation of system of protected areas of The Baltic Sea
 Intensification the cooperation between HELCOM and International Baltic Sea
Fishery Commission (IBSFC).
 Commitment to implement measures concerning protection of harbour porpoises
5. The future implementation and monitoring of the JCP

JPC implementation should be open to all members as well as for IFI:s, NGOs, noncontracting parties and continue the monitoring the Hot Spots (i.e. serious pollution
areas)
6. Compliance with requirements of the Convention

HELCOM will review and harmonize its monitoring and assessment programmes,
while taking into account:

the ecosystem approach to management of human activities

the requirements within HELCOM and within other international
organizations and the EU, including especially the EU Water Framework
Directive

requirements for the handling and management of data and information to
facilitate efficient data exchange, avoid duplication in reporting and
produce timely assessments
9.3 HELCOM Working Groups and Recommendations
HELCOM's five main groups implement policies and strategies in preventing pollution and
protecting the Baltic marine environment:
 The Monitoring and Assessment Group (HELCOM MONAS)

The Land-based Pollution Group (HELCOM LAND)

The Nature Protection and Biodiversity Group (HELCOM HABITAT)

The Maritime Group (HELCOM MARITIME)

The Response Group (HELCOM RESPONSE)
The working group activity gives important material for Helsinki Commission recommendations
to implement protection measures for the Baltic Sea. Since the 1980s HECOM has made about
200 recommendations. Recommendation can be later superseded with other updated
recommendations. For example the HELCOM Recommendation 16/9 on “Nitrogen removal at
municipal sewage treatment plants” was adopted 15 March 1995. The recommendation is that
the municipal sewage treatment plants, located in areas sensitive to nitrogen, should be equipped
with nitrogen removal with efficiency of 70-80%.
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
58
9.4 EU maritime regulations
European Community (EC) was formed in 1967 when the three communities i the European
Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), the European Economic Community (EEC), and the
European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom), merged under the Merger Treaty. With the
ratification of the Maastricht Treaty in 1993 the European Community became known as the
European Union (EU) which exists today.
European Commission adopted 2 directives in 1991 to reduce or prevent the pollution of water
caused by nutrient emission from agriculture and urban waste waters: Nitrates Directive and
Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive.
Also increasing for cleaner rivers and lakes,
groundwater and coastal beaches led to adopt more integrated directive concerning protection of
aquatic environment; European Council adopted Water Framework Directive (WFD) on 23
October 2000.
WFD provides a framework for protection of ground water, inland surface waters, estuaries and
coastal waters. The water management is based in management by river basin according to
WFD. Coastal waters are defined as of a line, every point of which is at a distance of one
nautical mile on the seaward side from the nearest point of the baseline from which the breadth
of territorial waters is measured. The WFD requires the member states to classify and monitor
the ecological status of all surface waters. The biological features should be monitored every 3 rd
year and chemical features every 3 months. Open Marine Waters are not covered by WFD.
Within the EU’s 6th Environment Action Programme a commitment was included in 2002 to
develop a “Thematic Strategy for the protection and conservation of the marine environment”.
This Stategy pointed out tasks:
(1) review the current information concerning the environmental status of the seas
and oceans and identify the main threats;
(2) review the present situation with regard to the development and implementation
of policies to control these threats, both within the EU and at regional and
international level ;
(3) identify gaps in knowledge and review the present situation with regard to
monitoring assessment and research;
(4) draw operational conclusions as to what needs to be done to improve the current
situation ;
(5) identify the appropriate operational and institutional objectives for the EU;
(6) set out an action plan and a work-programme for the Commission, the Member
States, Candidate Countries and all relevant stakeholders to work together between
now and 2004 in order to define and develop a thematic strategy for the protection and
sustainable use of the marine environment.
Consequently on 24th October 2005, Commission of the European Communities gave a proposal
for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Framework
for Community Action in the field of Marine Environmental Policy (Marine Strategy
Directive).
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
59
The Marine Strategy Directive was considered to be needed because there are institutional
barriers to improved protection of Europe’s marine environment ( Communications 2005):
– At EU and national level, a number of measures exist which contribute to some
extent the protection of the marine environment but most of these measures are
sectoral and were not designed specifically for protection of the marine environment.
– Many of Europe’s regional seas are the subject of international conventions and a
number of these have made excellent contributions to marine protection. However,
these conventions have few enforcement powers and this compromises their
effectiveness in achieving agreed goals.
– At the global level, there is little articulation between the large number of strategies,
conventions and agreements in place. Many international agreements on the marine
environment face significant challenges in implementation and enforcement. This is
problematic given the global nature of certain marine activities – e.g. shipping.
The key elements in the Marine Strategy Directive are planed to include:
– A dual EU/regional approach setting at EU level common co-operation and
approaches among Member States and third countries bordering EU oceans and seas,
but leaving the planning and execution of measures to the regional level to take into
account the diversity of conditions, problems and needs of marine regions requiring
tailor-made solutions;
– A knowledge-based approach, in order to achieve informed policy-making;
– An ecosystem-based approach, whereby human activities affecting the marine
environment will be managed in an integrated manner promoting conservation and
sustainable use in an equitable way of oceans and seas;
– A co-operative approach, providing for broad engagement with all relevant
stakeholders and enhancing co-operation with existing regional seas conventions.
10. HELCOM Monitoring and Assessment of the Baltic Sea
10. 1. Introduction
The HELCOM monitoring includes several monitoring programmes. PLC-Air and PLC-Water
programmes evaluate the emissions to the air, discharges and losses to inland surface waters and
the resulting air and waterborne inputs to the sea. COMBINE programme aims to quantify the
state, impacts and changes in the various compartments (water, physical forcing, biota including
coastal fish, and sediment) of the marine environment. In Monitoring of Radioactive Substances
Programme (MORS), sources and inputs of artificial radionuclides are quantified as well as the
resulting state and changes in water, biota and sediment. HELCOM is also coordinating
surveillance of deliberate illegal oil discharges as well as making an inventory of marine
accidents and is annually assessing the number, distribution and amount of the spills.
10. 2. Pollution Load compilations (PLCs)
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
60
PLC-Water is dealing with monitoring of discharges into water and monitoring of river load,
while PLC-Air deals with monitoring of emissions to air and deposition to water. In PLC-Water
parameters reported are defined and classified as obligatory or voluntary. In PLC-Air there is a
list of recommended parameters for monitoring of the airborne pollution load. Data collected
under the PLC programme are used for periodic pollution load compilations.
10.3. Monitoring of Airborne Pollution Load ( PLC-Air)
According to HELCOM Recommendation 24/1 adopted 25 June 2003, contracting parties should
collect data for the airborne pollution load compilations. Each party on a continuous basis collect
data on the pollution air and precipitation in order to contribute to descriptions and assessments
of the atmospheric pollution load to the Baltic Sea and its catchment area and form a basis for
decisions on emission reduction measures.
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
Table 10.1. Parameters for monitoring of the airborne pollution load into sub-basins (Annex 1 to HELCOM
Recommenadtion 24/1)
61
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
62
10. 4. Pollution load compilations regarding pollution of the Baltic Sea from landbased sources (PLC- Water).
In implementing the objectives of the Helsinki Convention reliable data is needed on inputs to the
Baltic Sea from land-based sources in order to develop its environmental policy. To meet these
needs pollution load compilations (PLCs) regarding pollution of the Baltic Sea from land-based
sources have been carried out in four stages as Pollution Load Compilations.
The results of the First Pollution Load Compilation (PLC-1) were published in1987, the Second
Pollution Load Compilation (PLC-2) in 1993, the Third Pollution Load Compilation (PLC-3) in
1994.
The Fourth Pollution Load Compilation (PLC-4) was carried out in 2000-2001 and the results are
under reparation for publication. The next PLC-Water monitoring is planned to take place in 2006
as the PLC-5 Project.
In the guidelines for PLC-4 the detailed description is given for data compilation. Schema for the
compilation is given in Fig 10.1, variables in table 10.2, and reported sub-basins in table 10. 3.
Fig 10.1. Scheme for the Fourth Pollution Load Compilation (PLC-4).
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
Table 10. 2. Variables reported in PLC-4.
Table 10. 3. Sub-basins used in PLC-4 data compilation.
63
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
64
10.4.1 Quantification of discharges from point and diffuse sources and natural
load.
PLC-4 is dealing with point and non-point pollution sources on the catchment area of the Baltic Sea
located within the borders of the Contracting Parties. Discharges from point sources include municipal
effluents and industrial effluents as well as inputs from fish farming plants in the catchment area of the
Baltic Sea. Flow data, flow measurement methods and estimation of their accuracy should be reported by
each country participating in PLC-4.
The flow and quality of the effluent and, hence, the load from factories and sewage systems often vary
greatly over the time. Therefore, sampling frequency should be high in order to get a good understanding
of the load and its variation. Due to resources available this is not always possible. Sampling frequency
should be optimized taking into account the variation of flow and concentration. In self-controlled big
polluters (like towns with more than 50,000 inhabitants, pulp, paper and metal processing mills and larger
plants producing chemicals) sampling and analyses should be made 2 - 7 times per week. At smaller
polluters a sampling frequency 1-4 per month, or even only a few times per year at very small polluters,
can be considered acceptable. Samples from treated and untreated wastewater should always be taken as
composite samples which are prepared either automatically or manually. In both cases 24-hours-flowweighted composite samples should be the target. At factories and other polluters with very small
wastewater load the sampling period of the composite samples can be less than 24 hours (e.g. 8-12 hours).
In official authority controlled point sources > 10000 PE the sampling frequency should be at least 12
times per year. The sampling methods must be reported.
The parameters for reporting for municipal sewage effluents, industrial effluents and fish
farming are given in tables 4, 5 and 6.
Table 10. 4.
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
Table 10.5.
Table 10.6.
65
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
66
10.4.2 Quantification of river inputs
The objective is to obtain an estimate as exact as possible of the input from rivers into the Baltic Sea. The
calculation will be made on the basis of water quality monitoring data and hydrological observations.
Rivers with flow rates > 5 m³/s must be monitored regularly. The loads were reported separately for every
monitored and partly monitored river (Table 10.7).
For all rivers a minimum of 12 data sets were recommend to be collected over a year in order to estimate
the annual input load appropriately reflecting the river flow pattern.
Table 10. 7.
10. 5. Marine Monitoring in the HELCOM COMBINE Programme
Monitoring is since long a well established function of the Helsinki Convention. Monitoring of
physical, chemical and biological variables of the open sea started in 1979, monitoring of
radioactive substances in the Baltic Sea started in 1984. . Until 1992, monitoring of coastal
waters was considered as a national obligation and only assessment of such data had to be
reported to the Commission. The HELCOM monitoring system covers the whole Baltic Sea Area
and its catchment area within the Contracting States.
The results of HELCOM Monitoring in the catchment area together with information gathered
by national and international data collection make it possible to produce assessments comparable
at the Baltic scale.
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
67
The Environment Committee decided that for management reasons the different program should
be integrated into a common structure and thus the Cooperative Monitoring in the Baltic Marine
Environment - COMBINE - was instituted in 1992.
The COMBINE Manual is directed to all performing monitoring in the COMBINE Programme.
The Manual defines the contributions made by all Contracting Parties and regulates all methods
used.
Water temperature is a key parameter for triggering different processes in the ecosystem. For
example, it can influence the growth rate of many species from phytoplankton to fish. The
vertical temperature distribution measures the second layer of stratification in the Baltic i.e. the
thermocline, having profound influence on the initiation and prolongation of spring and summer
blooms. Salinity is the key parameter for species niches in the Baltic. Its distribution in space and
time is the governing parameter for the survival of many species.
Temperature, salinity, current measurements as well as models are used to describe the water
exchange through the Danish Straits and between the sub-basins of the Baltic Sea. Water renewal
and identification of the main halocline depth function as control parameters in the monitoring of
other parameters. Both temperature and salinity are key parameters for following climate
variability and thereby the long-term natural variability in the Baltic. Water exchange between
sub-basins should be included as supporting information into environmental assessment.
10.6. Monitoring of eutrophication in COMBINE programme
The programme on eutrophication and its effects considers short and long term variations in
hydrographical conditions and in chemical and biological variable. For hydrographical
variations the effects of anthropogenic discharges/activities, the variables providing an indication
of natural fluctuations in the hydrographical regime of the Baltic Sea are recommended to
monitor on a continuous basis. Following variables are measured:
Core variables:
- temperature, salinity, oxygen and hydrogen sulphide
- light attenuation
Main variables:
- current speed and direction
For the problems related to eutrophication (chemical and biological variables) the extent and the
effects of anthropogenic inputs of nutrients and organic matter on marine biota, the following
variables are measured:
a) Concentrations of nutrients
Core variables:
- phosphate, total phosphorus, ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, total nitrogen and silicate, to quantify
the changes in the nutrient pool.
Main variables:
- Particulate and dissolved matter (carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus)
- Humic matter is an important source of nutrients in the Baltic Sea.
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
68
b) The response of the different biological compartments:
Core variables:
-chlorophyll-a, as an equivalent of the standing stock of phytoplankton;
- phytoplankton species composition abundance and biomass, to indicate a response in the
biodiversity and a possible change in the food chain.
- zoobenthos species composition, abundance and biomass (increase in biomass indicates
eutrophication) and species composition (reduced species diversity). Excessive levels of
eutrophication can result in low concentrations of oxygen in the bottom waters, resulting in
damage to or death of zoobenthos.
Main variables :
- to measure the change in the rate of production, i.e. the first response of phytoplankton to the
nutrient loading;
- zooplankton species composition, abundance and biomass, as changes can result, e.g. from
changes in phytoplankton biomass and species composition. Especially in coastal waters
zooplankton indicates different water masses, salinity fronts and other hydrological events.
- sinking rate of particulate matter;
- vertical profiles of chlorophyll a fluorescence, to give detailed information on vertical
distribution of phytoplankton;
- phytobenthos, response to light climate and nutrient concentration results in depth
distribution and species composition.
c) Integration and evaluation of results:
- Numerical and statistical models: It is essential that different kinds of models become part of
the monitoring system, on equal terms with actual field measurements.
- Real-time evaluations: if the monitoring should function as some kind of early-warning-system
it is only with models in connection with measurements that we can assess the real time
conditions.
- Budget calculations: models are necessary when interpolating/extrapolating measured data and
are thus indispensable when making budget calculations.
An assessment of the results from the programme should be able to detect regional trends in
hydrographical parameters, in nutrient concentrations, in phyto-, mesozooplankton,
phytobenthos and macrozoobenthos abundance and species composition and in oxygen/hydrogen
sulphide concentrations. For the assessment of the eutrophication status it has been also
important to resolve anthropogenic and climatological effects.
In order to meet the requirements of the strategy identified, the programme for the open sea,
within each separate sub-basin, the observation has been done for:
(i) the winter pool of nutrients,
(ii) annual cycles of hydrographical parameters,
(iii) regional distribution and long-term changes in phyto- and zooplankton populations,
(iv) the spatial distribution of oxygen/hydrogen sulphide concentrations in the bottom water (in
critical areas, especially during late summer/autumn),
(v) spatial and long-term variability of macrozoobenthos,
(vi) occurrence of alien species which might have marked effects on the ecosystem,
(vii) events (e.g. toxic algal blooms) of importance for human health, recreational values or other
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
69
economically important sectors, and
(viii) water exchange and nutrient fluxes between the Baltic Sea basins and between the Baltic
Sea and the North Sea.
Data on the variables listed above are collected using a CTD system attached to a rosette sampler
or a cast of reversing water samplers equipped with reversing thermometers. It was
recommended that CTD system is equipped with the fluorometer for recording of chlorophyll-a
measurements. The depths at which sampling has occured are as follows (in metres): 1, 5, 10, 15,
20, (25)-, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 100, 125, 150, 175, 200, 225, 250, 300, and 400 metres, and as
close to the bottom as possible.
Phytoplankton serves as an indicator of the effects of eutrophication. Nutrient
nrichment/eutrophication may give rise to shifts in phytoplankton species composition and
biomass. Furthermore, an increase in the frequency, magnitude and duration of harmful
phytoplankton blooms may occur.
The mesozooplankton (0.2-20 mm) form an important part of the pelagic food web, since they
form the link between primary producers and higher trophic levels. Changes in phytoplankton
biomass and species/size composition change mesozooplankton community structure and
productivity. Such changes potentially influence fish stock recruitment and sedimentation (i.e.
oxygen concentration in the bottom water).
The species composition of benthic communities generally depends on the substrate, depth, wave
exposure, oxygen availability and salinity. Macrobenthic communities are an appropriate target
for monitoring since they form an important component of benthic communities by species
which are long-lived and which therefore integrate environmental change over long periods of
time. Also community structure responds in a predictable manner to a number of anthropogenic
influences.
The monitoring of benthic communities was carried out to monitor the spatial variability in
species composition, abundance and biomass within the maritime area resulting from
anthropogenic nutrient inputs. Benthic communities are also monitored for detect temporal
trends in species composition, abundance and biomass within the maritime area.
These guidelines are giving advice on monitoring the changes of phytobenthic communities on
hard, soft and mixed substrate bottoms in the Baltic Sea. The phytobenthic communities include
the plant and animal communities of the photic zone. Soft bottom animals are covered in
HELCOM’s macrozoobenthos monitoring.
At community and species level coastal fish sections of the COMBINE monitoring program
provide data for tools to evaluate changes in biodiversity, especially in community structure.
Commercial fishes are monitored by ICES.
10. 7. Monitoring of contaminants in COMBINE programme
Objectives and goals for monitoring of contaminants are to compare the level of contaminants in
selected species of biota from different geographical regions of the Baltic Sea in order to detect
possible contamination and order to assess threats to these species and/or to higher trophic
levels, including marine mammals, seabirds and man.
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
70
The contaminant monitoring programme can never achieve the full extent of the geographical
resolution so the all parts of the Baltic environment are covered. The core variables within the
contaminant programme are thus variables that are studied over the entire area and provide the
best available comparable information on time trends as well as spatial distribution.
Selected species: Open Sea
Herring (Clupea harengus)
Cod (Gadus morhua)
Guillemot (Uria algae)
Selected species: Coastal zone
Blue mussel (Mytilus edulis)
Bladder wrack (Fucus vesiculosus)
Macoma balthica
Saduria entomon
Flounder (Platichtys flesus)
Perch (Perca fluviatilis)
Viviparous blenny (Zoarces viviparus)
Common tern (Sterna hirundo)
Grey Seal (Halichoerus grypus)
Ringed seal (Pusa hispida)
Common seal (Phoca vitulina)
White tailed sea eagle (Haliaetus albicilla)
Selected tissues
For the analysis of lipid-soluble compounds the concentration shall be reported both on lipid
weight basis as well as fresh tissue basis. For metals concentrations shall be reported both on
fresh weight basis and dry weight basis.
-
Pooled samples of the growth of the year of algae are analysed for contaminants.
- In invertebrates pooled homogenised samples of soft tissues are analysed.
- In fish chemical analysis on individuals are carried out on muscle and liver tissues.
- Bird eggs are analysed on an individual basis as homogenised egg content.
Selected contaminants in open sea
Core variables, herring:
- mercury, copper, cadmium, lead, zinc
- DDT and metabolites,
- CBs (Nos. 28, 52, 101, 118, 138, 153, and 180),
- hexachlorobenzene (HCB), and
- alpha- and gamma-hexachlorocyclohaxane (HCH)
Main variables, cod, guillemot eggs:
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
- mercury, copper, cadmium, lead, zinc
- DDT and metabolites,
- CBs (Nos. 28, 52, 101, 118, 138, 153, and 180),
- hexachlorobenzene (HCB), and
- alpha- and gamma-hexachlorocyclohaxane (HCH)
Main variables, sea water:
Concentration in suspended particulate matter
- copper, cadmium, lead, zinc
71
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
10. 8. Monitoring of radioactive substances (MORS)
HELCOM MONAS 7/2004 Meeting approved the Guidelines for Monitoring of Radioactive
Substances to be followed when implementing HELCOM Recommendation 26/2. Radioactive
nuclides are listed in the table 10.8.
Table 10. 8. Radionuclides monitored in HELCOM MORS programme
72
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
73
10. 9. HELCOM Response Group and oil monitoring
The increasing density of shipping and the rapidly rising amounts of oil being transported by sea
mean that the risk of an accident involving serious oil pollution will increase correspondingly,
unless counteractive measures are implemented. Forecasts indicate that by 2015 more than 130
million tons of oil will be transported on the Baltic Sea every year. It has been estimated that this
could raise the risk of a large oil-spill involving over 10,000 tons of oil by 35% for the whole of
the Baltic Sea, and 100% for the Gulf of Finland. HELCOM RESPONSE work to ensure swift
national and international response to maritime pollution incidents.
10. 10. Development of HELCOM monitoring
In the open Baltic Sea, HELCOM monitoring programmes are the backbone while in coastal
areas they will bring added value to the require of other activities as Water Framework Directive.
The HELCOM monitoring system covers the inputs of pollutants (nutrients and hazardous
substances) via air and water and their impacts on the marine environment. The joint Bremen
HELCOM/OSPAR Ministerial Declaration 2003 put the ecosystem approach at the centre of
HELCOM work to produce targeted environmental assessments for regional specific
management purposes by also making use of data and information produced by Contracting
Parties for EU Directives (Water Framework Directive, Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive,
Nitrates Directive, Habitat and Species Directive, Dangerous Substances Directive, IPPC
Directive, European Marine Strategy), EEA, IAEA, ICES, OECD, UNEP.
10.11. References:
The references can be found on HELCOM Home page http://www.helcom.fi
Guidelines for the Forth Baltic Sea Pollution Load Compilation (PLC-4)
Guidelines for Monitoring of Radioactive Substances
HELCOM Monitoring and Assessment Strategy
HELCOM Recommendation 24/1( Adopted 25 June ), Monitoring of Airborne Pollution
Load
Manual for Marine Monitoring in the COMBINE Programme of HELCOM
Conventions available at IMO web page: http:\\www.imo.org
STATUS OF MULTILATERAL CONVENTIONS AND INSTRUMENTS IN RESPECT OF
WHICH THE INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION OR ITS SECRETARYGENERAL PERFORMS DEPOSITARY OR OTHER FUNCTIONS. IMO, London, 2003,
J/8687 , 398 pp.
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the
Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78):
Annex I: Prevention of pollution by oil, Entry into force: 2 October 1983
Annex II: Control of pollution by noxious liquid substances, Entry into force: 6 April 1987
Annex III: Prevention of pollution by harmful substances in packaged form, Entry into
force: 1 July 1992
Annex IV: Prevention of pollution by sewage from ships, Entry into force: 27 September
2003
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
74
Annex V: Prevention of pollution by garbage from ships, Entry into force: 31 December
1988
Annex VI: Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships, Entry into force: 19 May 2005
Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter
(LDC), 1972
International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships (AFS), 2001
International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and
Sediments, 2004
International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (CLC), 1969
HELCOM DOCMENTS available at HELCOM web page:
http:\\www.HELCOM.fi
Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, 1992 (entered
into force on 17 January 2000).
HELCOM Bremen Declaration (25 June 2003)
Declaration on the Safety of Navigation and Emergency Capacity in the Baltic Sea Area HELCOM Copenhagen Declaration (10 September 2001)
Communique of the Ministerial Session on 26 March 1998
15th Meeting of the Helsinki Commission (11 March 1994)
Declaration on Resource Mobilisation for the Baltic Sea Joint Comprehensive Environment
Action Programme - Gdansk Declaration (24-25 March 1993)
Baltic Sea Environmental Declaration (9 April 1992)
Baltic Sea Declaration - Ronneby Declaration (3 September 1990)
Declaration on the Protection of the Environment of the Baltic Sea (15 February 1988)
10.12. European Union documents:
The EC Nitrates Directive 91/676/EEC. Pp. 1- 2.
Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive 91/271/EEC. pp. 1-73.
DIRECTIVE 2000/60/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of
23 October 2000, establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy.
Official Journal L 327:1-69.
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT Towards a strategy to protect and conserve the marine
environment. Brussels, 02.10.2002 COM(2002) 539 final. 64 pp.
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, Thematic Strategy on the Protection and Conservation of the
Marine Environment. Brussels, 24.10.2005, COM(2005)504 final. 9 pp.
Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL
Establishing a Framework for Community Action in the field of Marine Environmental
Policy (Marine Strategy Directive). Brussels, 24.10.2005, COM(2005) 505 final, 2005/0211
(COD). 31 pp.
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
75
11. Analytic comparison of the Russian and EC Marine Monitoring
Systems and ways of integration
Based on the above materials regarding the basic principles and logistic schemes of the marine
monitoring systems adopted in Russia and EC, the following major issues arise:
In Russia:
1. the paradigm of permissible concentrations remains the basic one.
2. the major monitoring documents are prepared by specialized agencies/ministries and
not necessarily comply with the EC water monitoring basic documents.
3. Russia has not signed many European documents stipulating the concepts and
implementation practice of marine coastal monitoring, although, Russia has adhered to
some water-related “treaties” such as HELCOM. As a signee of the international
agreements/conventions, Russia (via the office of the Russian Governement) provides the
required information and fulfils its obligations. It implies that Russia, in principle, has all
means of data collection in accordance with the EC standards. It also implies that the
data provided by Russia, for instance, to HELCOM fully complies with the quality and
time/space resolution requirements imposed by the HELCOM. It also means (and it was
shown in the sections above) the Russian laboratories routinely performing analytical
analyses of water samples regularly come through inter-validation procedures and have
respective the certificates of the pan-European level. Besides, the World Data Center in
Obnisk collects the sea monitoring data according to the international standards, which
further implies the complacency of Russian practice of data collection and storage with
the one adopted at the world-wide level.
4. Russia still follows the concept/paradigm of permissible concentrations of monitored
variables (the nomenclature of which is broad enough to encompass the variety of
monitored variables prescribed by the corresponding EC directives/EEA Technical
reports and other types of documents. At the same time, at a scientific level a discussion
is underway of passing to some cumulative indices reflecting the ecological state of
waters under monitoring. This is well in line with the practice already being accepted
within some of the EC regional/local and some EU national conventions. However, since
there are no such ecological indices adopted at a pan-European level, Russia pursuits its
own research/or rather scientific discussion in this direction.
5.Air- and Spaceborne data on the ecology of Russian marine environments are not a
standard and continuously collected element of the monitoring in this country, also some
data sets were more or less continuously collected by the Roshydrometservice.
6. Previously conducted monitoring in open- sea areas is presently practically cut short.
However, the methodology of open-sea monitoring and past time series are still available.
In Europe:
1.Our consultations at the EEA have revealed that presently, the EU marine monitoring
Directive(s) is(are) adopted exclusively for the coastal zone. The deep-water counterpart
is only in preparation and expected to be accepted in some future years.
2. The cumulative indices of ecological monitoring of marine/coastal areas are not
universal, still being discussed by the European scientific community and are put in
practice according the specific conditions of a marine basin.
3. The remote sensing information (concentration of phytoplankton chl, suspended
matter, dissolved organic matter, water surface temperature, water transparency and some
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
76
others) are on yet included officially into the EC marine coastal zone monitoring
schemes.
4. The list of new harmful substances to be monitored in the EU surface and marine
coastal waters is still not fully compiled and is subject to a continuous updating, which
naturally causes some uncertainty as to nomenclature of chemicals to be monitored and
the associated requirements of temporal/special resolution and
accuracy
of
concentration determination.
5. Regardless of the data provision format enforcements existing in Europe, in many
instances the data protocols remain inharmonious up to nowadays. This, perhaps, is
tolerable at a level of a specific water basin, but, of course, presents a serious obstacle for
the comparison of ecological situations across Europe. It certainly hampers the analogous
task for Russia (which pattern to follow?).
12. Conclusions:
The task of integration of the Russian system of marine monitoring does not seem
hopeless or a matter of very distant perspective. Generally speaking, all components of
marine (costal and ultimately off coastal) monitoring in the Russian System is available
and manageably transferable into the European one. However, this will require a
considerable effort of the involved Russian agencies to harmonize the concepts,
methodological aspects and logistic schemes with the those which are being
implemented in Europe and will be modified in the future.
The results of the present project has portraited both the past and present status of the
Russian marine monitoring and the actual situation in this area in Europe. This
investigation can serve as an informational document/write-up for the Russian authorities
and appropriate agencies should a programme of Russia integration into the European
system of marine monitoring decided to be developed and further implemented.
13 Major deliverables:
A kick-off meeting has been held in Murmansk in March 1-2, 2005 (see the Protocol in the
Annexes – D1)). At the meeting, three ad hog groups as well as a Coordination Council were
established. The work and outcome of the kick-off meeting were thoroughly protocolled in the
extended Minutes.
This was then followed by the establishment of a website (D2) intended to provide both the EC
community with the reports reflecting the project progress. The website is outfitted with two
accesses: one is designed for the external use and the other one for the internal use for the
ECOMON project participants. The internal use option is intended to accumulate all intermediate
materials for consideration by the project participants as well as to provide EC with a means to
follow the pace of the EcoMon project implementation.
The ECOMON webpage is:
http://www.niersc.spb.ru/ecomon
Access to the folder for internal use:
login:
ecomon
password:
pR7x3K;
The webpage is linked to CORDIS as was envisaged by the list of deliverables in the
Contract’s Description of Work.
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
77
Interim report no.1 (D3) is given in the Annex. A CD-ROM is produced (see the attached
item)
The White Sea Monograph (D5) is drawn and Published by the Spinger-Praxis Publ. House
(see Annexes for the Tablr of contents and book Jacket as well as a copy of the monograph
complementing this final; report)
Data were collected, concatenated and analyzed to portrait the contemporary Russian State
System of monitoring of marine environments accommodating the occurred recent changes in
this area in Russia.
Interim reports (D6-D9) are included as an integral text into the final report.
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
78
Annex A.
Protocol of the Kick-off Meeting in Murmansk.
Minutes
of the kick-off meeting
“The current state of the Russian Marine Ecosystem Monitoring
for the White Sea and its relevance to the EU Directive on Water
Policy and UN Agenda 21”
Project:
FP6-003605 EcoMon
March 1-2, 2005,
Murmansk Marine Biology Institute,
Russian Academy of Sciences, Murmansk (Russia)
Participants:
Prof. Dmitry Pozdnyakov, Research Director and Dr. Vladimir Volkov, Scientific Secretary:
Nansen International Environmental and Remote Sensing Centre (NIERSC), St. Petersburg,
Russia;
Prof, Vladimir Denisov, Acting Director; Prof. Pavel Makarevich, Deputy Director; Dr. Sergey
Dzheniuk, Scientific Secretary; Dr. Denis Moiseyev, Senior Scientist: Murmansk Marine Biology
Institute (MMBI), Murmansk, Russia
Prof. Nikolay Filatov, Director and Arkady Terzhevik, Leading Scientist: Northern Water
Problems Institute (NWPI, Petrozavodsk, Russia);
Dr. Mikhail Novikov, Senior Scientist and Andrey Zhilin, Junior Scientist : Knipovich Polar
Research Institute of Marine Fishery and Oceanography (PINRO), Murmansk, Russia
Mr. Anatoly Semenov, Murmansk Administration for Hydrometeorology and Environmental
Monitoring (Murmansk Roshydromet), Murmansk, Russia
Written contributions;
Mr. Lasse Pettersson, International Relations Director : Nansen Environmental and Remote
Sensing Centre (NERSC), Bergen, Norway.
Dr. Seppo Kaitala, Senior Scientist: Finnish Institute of Marine Research (FIMR), Helsinki,
Finland
AGENDA
1 March, 2005
Chairman: Prof. Vladimir V. Denisov ( MMBI)
10:00 - 10:10
Opening of the Meeting
Profs. Vladimir V. Denisov and Pavel R. Makarevich ( MMBI)
10:10 – 10: 30
The objectives and main milestones of the Project
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
79
Prof. Dmitry V. Pozdnyakov (NIERSC)
10:30 – 11:00
An outline of the INCO-COPERNICUS Project “WhiteSea”: major
objectives, results and revealed prospective areas of research
Prof. NikolayN. Filatov (NWPI)
A general overview of the contemporary system of monitoring of marine environments in Russia:
the nomenclature of observable parameters, data protocolling and reporting practice
11:00 – 11:30
ROSHYDROMET
Mr. Anatoly V. Semenov (Murmansk Roshydromet)
11:30 - 12:00
Coffee break
12:00 – 12:30
RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
Dr. Sergey L. Dzheniuk (MMBI)
12:30 – 12:50
RUSSIAN FEDERATION FISHERY AGENCY
Dr.Mikhail Novikov: (PINRO)
12:50 – 13:10
ROSHYDROMET adopted system of collection, systematization
and distribution of marine monitoring data (a tentative title)
Mr. Anatoly Semenov (Murmansk Roshydromet)
A general review of EU and UN policy and directive on marine environments monitoring,
management and protection
13:10 – 13:20
HELCOM directive documents regulating the monitoring of natural
aquatic environments
Dr. Seppo Kaitala (FIMR) (by correspondence)
13:20 – 13:30
Agenda 21 (chapters 17&18) and other documents
Dr. Lasse H. Pettersson (NERSC) (by correspondence)
13:30 – 14:30
Lunch
Review of work packages objectives, strategy of implementation and deliverables
14:30-14:45
Work package 2: Establishment of a website for the project
characterization and reflection of progress of the
project realization: discussion and reparation of
responsibilities
Prof. Vladimir V. Denisov (MMBI)
14:45-15:00
Work package 3: Analyses of the past practice and recently
occurred changes in and the current status of the
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
80
Russian system of marine environmental monitoring:
discussion and repartition of responsibilities
Prof. Nikolay N. Filatov (NWPI)
15:00-15:150
Work package 4: Collection and systematization of the information
about the available databases on the White Sea
ecosystem
Prof. NikolayN. Filatov (NWPI)
15:15-15:30
Work package 5: Preparation of the manuscript of a monograph
portraying the recent dynamics of the White Sea
ecosystem
Profs. Dmitry Pozdnyakov (NIERSC) and Nikolay N. Filatov (NWPI)
15:30 – 15:45
Work package 6: The coordination council meeting in Petrozavodsk:
discussion and repartition of tasks.
Dr. Vladimir A. Volkov(NIERSC) and Prof. Nikolay N. Filatov (NWPI)
15:45-16:00
Work package 7: A seminar in St. Petersburg on the status of the
system of databases and their support: discussion and
repartition of tasks
Prof. Dmitry V. Pozdnyakov (NIERSC)
16:00 – 16:15
Work package 8: Assessment of conformity between the existing EU
and Russian databases on marine environments
(nomenclature, parameter accuracy, time resolution,
etc)
Prof. Dmitry V. Pozdnyakov (NIERSC), Mr. Lasse H. Petterson
(NERSC) and Seppo. Kaitala (FIMR) (the latter two-by correspondence)
16:15 – 16:30
Work package 9: Analyses of the EU stream way strategy for marine
ecosystem monitoring, and major achievements of the
European practice of marine monitoring
Mr. Lasse H.. Petterson (NERSC) and Seppo. Kaitala (FIMR) - (by
correspondence)
2 March, 2005
Chairman: Dmitry V. Pozdnyakov, NIERSC
Formation of the infrastructure and elaboration of the project implementation/action plan
10:00 – 10:10
Election of the Coordination Council
10:10 – 10: 20
Composition of ad hoc groups
10:20 - 11:00
Discussions in ad hoc groups
11:00 - 11:20
Coffee break
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
81
11:20- 12:20
General discussion, sorting out of remaining logistic issues, finances
data provision/delivery scheme.
12:20 – 13:20
Conclusion. Next Meeting date and preliminary Agenda negotiation
Prof. Dmitry V. Pozdnyakov (NIERSC)
Termination of the kick-off meeting
Opening the EcoMon kick-off meeting
The hosts Profs. Vladimir Denisov and Pavel Makarevich welcomed the participants and
expressed their profound satisfaction that the majority of the invited experts and the project
partners accepted the invitation to take part in this event. Although Drs. Lasse Pettersson and
Seppo Kaitala could not attend the meeting because of other commitments and provided their
written contributions and reports to the meeting. Prof. Alexander V. Frolov (Roshydromet,
Moscow) and Dr. Vasiliev (North Roshydromet, Arkhangelsk), neither could attend the meeting
and they had commissioned Mr. Semenov to present the information relevant to the EcoMon
Project objectives according to the scheduled agenda.
Objectives and milestones
Prof. Dmitry Pozdnyakov (NIERSC) outlined the objectives and main milestones of the Project.
He emphasized that a successful implementation of the Project is only possible if the Russian
partners manage to build up an exhaustive and thoroughly updated metadata base comprising
both the institutions involved into marine ecosystem monitoring and the nomenclature of
variables amenable to monitoring as well as the requirements to their spatial and temporal
resolution. The role of the European partners (NERSC and FIMR) is of importance: they will
provide the major documents regulating the marine monitoring adopted in Europe as well as
relate the Synergy team to some European experts in this area for attaining the overarching goal
of the project: promote the integration of the Russian marine monitoring system into the panEuropean one. One outcome of the project implementation can be identification of an
international team of partners for submitting a joint proposal possible under FP6 or may be more
realistically under FP7 addressing the problem of marine environment monitoring.
INCO-COPERNICUS Project “WhiteSea”
Prof. Nikolay Filatov (NWPI) presented the main results obtained as an outcome of the INCOCOPERNICUS WHITESEA Project implemented in 2002. His report highlighted the new
approaches, methods and techniques utilized and major accomplishments attained. He also
emphasized the persisting environmental issues, methodologies and areas requiring further
studies. He also underlined that these research results are now being used for in the book “White
Sea – Its marine environment and Ecosystem dynamics influenced by global change” to be
published by Springer-Praxis in May 2005. The results of the Ecomon project can compliment
the outcome of the INCO-COPERNICUS WHITESEA Project, and can be a separate chapter in
the Russian translation of the book to be published by Springer-Praxis.
Marine monitoring in Russia/past and present status
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
82
Mr. Anatoly Semenov (Murmansk Roshydromet) reported on the regular monitoring scheme and
parameters of observations for the White Sea regions under of responsibility of the Murmansk
Roshydromet, North Roshydromet, Arkhangelsk, and Northwestern Hydromet, St. Petersburg.
Annual Hydromet Service reports on the White Sea Basin monitoring are compiled and
published by the North Roshydromet, Arkhangelsk. Off-coastal observations in the White Sea
are not carried out since the early 1990s. The littoral observations are being still conducted
according to the Guidance drawn up in 1954. Presently there is no ministerial enforcement
regulating the frequency of both monitoring measurements and reporting for the Roshydromet.
Therefore, the same situation is characteristic of the Russian far-eastern seas, the Black, Caspian
and Baltic Seas. There is a resolution on the White Sea issued by the Oceanographic
commission, and it can be very useful for the EcoMon project.
In addition to Roshydromet, the monitoring of the White Sea (although quite irregular) is
conducted by the Russian Academy of Sciences (mostly, by NWPI, Institute of Oceanology,
Moscow, Zoological Institute, St. Petersburg) and the Ministry of Fishery (first and foremost by
PINRO). The measurements conducted by PINRO comply with the List of fishery standards.
Mostly (those standards are admissible concentrations). As well as the List of Hygenic
Requirements/Standards, published by the Russian Ministry of Health in 2002.
Thus, the presentation given by Mr. Semenov is explicitly indicative that there are three types of
the White Sea monitoring and the activities conducted by different agencies are not related to
each other, not synchronized and remain rather piecemeal.
Dr. Mikhail Novikov (PINRO) informed the meeting participants about the White Sea
monitoring activities carried out at the PINRO. The Laboratory of applied ecology and
toxicology (Mrs. Natalia Plotitsyna, Head: tel.: (8152) 47-13-14, tel/fax (8152) 47-33-31,
[email protected]) is one of the few laboratories in Russia, which is equipped with the modern
instruments and certified for performing water quality analysis in compliance with the European
standards (ICES – International Council for Exploration of the Seas). This Laboratory also
follows the guidelines adopted by AMAP (Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program) and
QUASIMENE (Assurance Program for Marine Environmental Monitoring), JAMP (Joint
Monitoring and Assessment Programme). The water quality and benthic sediments monitoring in
White Sea is performed by the PINRO. The results of water quality monitoring (covering such
variables as heavy metals, PPS, pesticides, phosphates, nitrates, etc.) in the White and Barents
Seas are annually published in the PINRO Transactions and reported to the Russian State
Committee on Fishery.
The PINRO Laboratory recently issued a digitized Atlas on CD-ROM identifying the White Sea
biosystems vulnerability areas. The vulnerability is assessed in points of a 10-point scale. A copy
of this CD-ROM based Atlas was given to the EcoMon team together with a list of relevant
publications.
The general situation in Russia is such that in other seas the water quality monitoring is not
harmonized and is being performed differently in terms of the variables nomenclature, protocols,
instrumentation, time and space resolution, leaving alone the accuracy of measurements: most
Russian laboratories do not participate in the European intercalibration procedure. One exception
is the Obnisk Centre located near Moscow. One of the acute problems nowadays is the absence
of dedicated research vessels available for running routine measurements in the Russian Seas
with the exception of the Barents and White Seas.
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
83
Unlike the case of inland waters, the monitoring procedures (the nomenclature of variables to be
monitored, space and time resolution, etc.) are not worked out for Europe as a whole: rather each
country adopts its own scheme and requirements. In Norway, e.g. the marine water quality
monitoring is routine exclusively for the coastal zone, and is not run for off-coastal, open marine
areas. A similar situation seems to be characteristic of other EC countries. At the same time there
are international routines for measurements and reporting – e.g. WFD (Water Framework
Directive), OSPAR (Protection of Marine Environments of the north-east Atlantic), HelCom
(Helsinky Committee., ICES (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea). However,
they can be better integrated in Europe too.
The written contributions provided by NERSC (Mr. Lasse Pettersson) and FIMR (Dr. Seppo
Kaitala) have been reported to the participants of the kick-off meeting. NERSC provided the
materials reflecting a carried out large-scale European programs and conventions on marine
water quality monitoring, including marine oil pollution and eutrophication. This material
outlines the concept, major objectives, strategic and logistic issues concerning the subject with
the emphasis on the increasing application of satellite Earth observations to be used in an
integrated monitoring concept towards Global Monitoring for Environment and Security
(GMES) implemented by EC and ESA (European Space Agency).
The contribution from FIMR addressed the variety of programmes undertaken in Europe in
general and within the HELCOM framework in particular, which were or are being dedicated to
the concept and practice of marine water quality monitoring.
Both contributions provided by the western partners proved to be very informative and helpful
for further search of documents/publications that can be used for the achieving the goals of the
EcoMon Project and identification of those western experts who can be instrumental in the phase
of assessing the compatibility of the Russian and European approaches and ways of integration
of Russia in the European system of marine environments monitoring.
Actions with Responsibility
Then, Vladimir Denisov, Nikolay Filatov, Dmitry Pozdnyakov, Vladimir Volkov have presented
for recalling and discussion of logistic issues the nine work packages of the EcoMon Project.
Through this discussion, defined more exactly were the obligations of each partner and the
optimal ways of attaining the set up goals.
Next day, a Coordination Council and working groups were formed. The Coordination Council
comprises Dmitry Pozdnyakov (Chairman), Vladimir Volkov (NIERSC), Vladimir Denisov
(MMBI), Nikolay Filatov (NWPI), Lasse Pettersson (NERSC) and Seppo Kaitala (FIMR).
Three working groups were formed to address the following issues:
(1) analyses of the Russian databases on the White Sea.
(2) analyses of European and UN documents regarding the concept(s), requirements and
practice of marine ecosystems monitoring.
(3) ways of harmonization of the Russian and European approaches and practices of marine
environments monitoring and ways of integration of Russia into the European system.
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
84
The first ad hoc group comprised Vladimir Denisov and Sergey Dzheniuk (MMBI), Arkady
Terzhevik, Nikolay Filatov (NWPI), Anatoly Semenov (Roshydromet), Natalya Plotitsyna
(PINRO), Evgeny Zakharchouk (Hydrological Institute, St. Petersburg), North-western
Hydromet (St. Petersburg).
The second ad hoc group consists of Lasse Pettersson (NERSC), Seppo Kaitala (FIMR), Dmitry
Pozdnyakov (NIERSC), Nikolay Filatov (NWPI).
The third ad hoc group includes Lasse Pettersson (NERSC), Seppo Kaitala (FIMR), Dmitry
Pozdnyakov (NIERSC), Nikolay Filatov (NWPI), Anatoly Semenov (Roshydromet), as well as
some western experts, which are to be identified by NERSC and FIMR, and invited for attending
the finalizing meeting/seminar in St. Petersburg.
The above groups will be lead by Prof. Denisov, Dr. Pettersson and Prof. Pozdnyakov,
respectively.
The first group should provide by the first progress meeting with the venue in St. Petersburg the
database on the organizations involved into state-supported monitoring of the Russian marine
environments, geographic areas of their responsibility, nomenclature of variable amenable to
monitoring and the directive documents they use for data collection and reporting.
The group is tasked with the collection and systematization of information about the available
databases on the Russian marine ecology monitoring. Based on the collected information, this
group is to accomplish analyses of the Russian marine ecosystem monitoring. Profs. Denisov and
Filatov (NWPI) are responsible for this activity, but NIERSC should contribute as well.
Meanwhile, NIERSC is tasked with designing and establishing a webpage dedicated to the
EcoMon project, and the progress of its implementation. The webpage should be generated in
early April, 2005 and its content is liable to updating till the eleventh month of the project
implementation (i.e. November, 2005). The updating is decided to be effected by all participants
of the EcoMon Project. For the first progress meeting in St. Petersburg, the first ad hoc group
provides the Coordination Council with the collected and systematized materials. The
Coordination Council considers the materials and concretizes the further activities in this area.
Based on the collected materials, the first ad hoc group (Prof. Filatov is responsible) prepares the
manuscript of the monograph on the White Sea ecosystem dynamics. The manuscript should be
submitted to the Springer-Praxis Publishing House in July, 2005.
The second group is to provide a database on the UN and EC documents addressing the
concept(s), nomenclature, requirements and practice of marine ecosystem monitoring. This work
should be completed by the seventh month of the project implementation (i.e. July, 2005). Dr.
Lasse Pettersson is responsible for this part of activities; in this work he will be assisted by Dr.
Seppo Kaitala, and Profs. Dmitry Pozdnyakov and Nikolay Filatov in respect to comparing the
Russian and European systems of marine monitoring and assessing their conformity (August,
2005).
The third group should provide a write up on the ways of harmonization of the Russian and
European approaches and practices of marine environment monitoring and ways of integration of
Russia into the European system. Drs. Lasse Pettersson and Seppo Kaitala are responsible for the
collection of relevant documents as well as identification of the European experts who can be
invited to attend the Seminar in St. Petersburg (September, 2005). Profs. Nikolay Filatov and
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
85
Dmitry Pozdnyakov and the respective institutional teams are to make the analyses of the
materials provided by the first and second groups (November, 2005).
The Coordination Council agreed upon convoking the first progress meeting at NIERCS in St.
Petersburg in late June (the exact date will be agreed later). This differs from the initially
planned venue and is dictated by economic considerations.
The participants expressed their gratitude to the MMBI for hosting and perfect organization the
kick-off meeting.
LIST of ACTIONS for the first half of the project duration
Activity
Responsible institution
Implementation deadline
Metadatabase on the
Roshydromet monitoring of the
White Sea
Establishment of a website for
the project
Murmansc Roshydromet/
Dr.Semenov
March, 2005
NIERSC
10 April, 2005
Data collection/ concatenation,
analyses of the Russian system of
marine environment monitoring
NWPI and MMBI
April, 2005
a) analyses of the Russian
databases
b) review of the Russian
normative and other
documents
Preparation of the interim report
No.1
The Coordination Council and
first Progress Meeting in St.
Petersburg
Assessment of the status of the
Russian marine monitoring
system and convocation of a
seminar in St. Petersburg
Preparation of the White Sea
manuscript
NWPI
MMBI
NIERSC
April, 2005
NIERSC
June, 2005
NIERSC
June, 2005
NWPI
July, 2005
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
86
Minutes of the first Coordination Council Meeting
March 2. 2005
Murmansk Marine Biology Institute,
Russian Academy of Sciences, Murmansk (Russia)
Participants:
Prof. Dmitry Pozdnyakov, Research Director and Dr. Vladimir Volkov, Scientific Secretary:
Nansen International Environmental and Remote Sensing Centre (NIERSC), St. Petersburg,
Russia;
Prof, Vladimir Denisov, Acting Director; Murmansk Marine Biology Institute (MMBI),
Murmansk, Russia
Prof. Nikolay Filatov, Director: Northern Water Problems Institute (NWPI, Petrozavodsk,
Russia);
Mr. Anatoly Semenov, Murmansk Administration for Hydrometeorology and Environmental
Monitoring (Murmansk Roshydromet), Murmansk, Russia
Teleconferencing participants;
Mr. Lasse Pettersson, International Relations Director : Nansen Environmental and Remote
Sensing Centre (NERSC), Bergen, Norway.
Dr. Seppo Kaitala, Senior Scientist: Finnish Institute of Marine Research (FIMR), Helsinki,
Finland
Agenda
2 March, 2005
Chairman: Dmitry V. Pozdnyakov, NIERSC
Formation of the infrastructure and elaboration of the project implementation/action plan
10:00 – 10:10
Election of the Coordination Council
Chairman Prof. Pozdnyakov informed the chief representatives of the objectives and strategic
tasks of the Coordination Council as it was conceived in the project outline. Among the
missions of the Coordination Council are tracing the road map for the project actual
implementation and a timely resolution of arising logistic problems, should they arise in the
course of the project implementation.
Unanimously, it was decided reasonable to compose the Coordination Council of the leaders of
the teams engaged into the EcoMon Project.
Prof. Vladimir Denisov suggested that the Coordination Council should be headed by the Project
general coordinator. This move was backed up by the other participants, so that Prof. Dmitry
Pozdnyakov was nominated the chair. The other members of the Coordination Council are
Vladimir Volkov (Secretary, NIERSC), Vladimir Denisov (MMBI), Nikolay Filatov (NWPI),
Lasse Pettersson (NERSC) and Seppo Kaitala (FIMR).
In between the first Coordination Council Meeting in Murmansk and the second one, which is to
be held in St. Petersburg conjointly with the first progress meeting in late June, 2005, the
members of the Coordination Council agreed to conduct their work through e-correspondence
and séances of teleconference, should there any need be.
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
List of forthcoming actions (till November, 2005)
Activity
Responsible institution
Implementation deadline
The Coordination Council, and
first Progress Meeting in St.
Petersburg
Assessment of the status of the
Russian marine monitoring
system and convocation of a
seminar in St. Petersburg
Finalization and submission of
the White Sea manuscript
Visit to the European
Environmental Agency
(EEA).
NIERSC
Late June, 2005
NIERSC
Late June, 2005
NWPI
July, 2005
NIERSC
September/October, 2005
87
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
88
Annex B.
The current state of the Russian Marine
Ecosystem Monitoring for the White Sea and its
relevance to the EU Directive on Water Policy
and UN Agenda 21
Project acronym:
EcoMon
Project:
FP6-003605 EcoMon
Type of instrument: Specific Support Actions
INTERIM REPORT No. 1
FIMR
NWPI
MMBI
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
89
May 30, 2005
St. Petersburg , Russia
Table of Contents
Item
number
Item description
Page
1
List of Participants
3
2.
3.
4.
Project Summary
Summary of activities during the first reporting period
Objectives of the Project
4
5
6
5.
Project Workplan and Timetable
7
6.
Workpackage list
9
7.
List of Deliverables
10
8.
Essentials of the work done (Deliverables 1,2,3,6)
11
9.
Annexes:
A. The Kick-Off and Coordination
Council Meetings Minutes
16
17
B. White Sea Book Table of Contents
27
C. The White Sea Book Jacket Design
30
D. The List of Forthcoming Actions
31
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
90
1. List of participants:
6. Scientific Foundation “Nansen International Environmental and
Remote Sensing Centre” (NIERSC), St. Petersburg, Russia
7. Murmansk Marine Biological Institute (MMBI), Russian Academy of
Sciences, Murmansk, Russia
8. Northern Water Problem Institute, Karelian Research Centre (NWPI),
Russian Academy of Sciences, Petrozavodsk, Republic of Karelia,
Russia
9. Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Centre (NERSC), Bergen,
Norway
10. Finnish Institute for Marine Research (FIMR), Helsinki, Finland
Co-ordinator:
Prof. Dmitry V. Pozdnyakov (NIERSC)
Co-ordinator
organisation name: Scientific Foundation “Nansen International Environmental and Remote
Sensing Centre”, St. Petersburg, Russia
Co-ordinator email: [email protected]
Co-ordinator fax:
+7 812 234 38 65
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
91
2. Project Summery
Over the last decades the White Sea was a subject of multifaceted research and surveillance
conducted by a wealth of, first, the former USSR and then the Russian Federation agencies and
institutions. Not necessarily, the nomenclature of parameters and methodology of their
determination, time resolution and accuracy levels were standardized, which resulted in a
significant heterogeneity of thus collected data. This became further aggravated with the onset of
recent political and economic developments in this country: an unsupervised variety of
instrumental and methodological facilities came into play enormously complicating any faithful
portraying of the current state of the White Sea ecosystem.
The proposed project is focused on establishing a metadata base on the relevant past and present
knowledge, including new findings gained through several international cooperative research
projects initiated/supported by EC. To achieve this goal, all-Russia workshops will be convoked
to establish a most exhaustive metadata base. This meta data base will be employed for an
analytical analysis of data quality, its compatibility and appropriateness for creating an integral
portrait of the White Sea ecology state and dynamics. A dedicated monograph will be drawn and
disseminated within the EC community.
In the next stage, the scope and quality of the data collected so far in Russia will be
compared to what is being done in EC. Dedicated workshops and individual visits of
experts will be arranged in order to properly assess the relevance of the Russian
monitoring system, nomenclature of surveyed parameters, methodology and accuracy
requirements, etc. to the EC directives both pan-European and region-specific.
Finally, the project will result in identification and detailed outlining of goals to be pursued in
Russia to fully accommodate the standards, aims and results formats, which are presently worked
out and being practiced by the European community.
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
92
3. Summary of activities
pursued during the first reporting period
A kick-off meeting has been held in Murmansk in March 1-2, 2005. At the meeting, three ad
hog groups as well as a Coordination Council were established. The work and outcome of the
kick-off meeting were thoroughly protocolled in the extended Minutes.
This was then followed by the establishment of a website intended to provide both the EC
community with the reports reflecting the project progress. The website is outfitted with two
accesses: one is designed for the external use and the other one for the internal use for the
ECOMON project participants. The internal use option is intended to accumulate all intermediate
materials for consideration by the project participants as well as to provide EC with a means to
follow the pace of the EcoMon project implementation.
The ECOMON webpage is:
http://www.niersc.spb.ru/ecomon
Access to the folder for internal use:
login:
ecomon
password:
pR7x3K;
The webpage is linked to CORDIS as was envisaged by the list of deliverables in the
Contract’s Description of Work.
Data were collected, concatenated and analyzed to portrait the contemporary Russian State
System of monitoring of marine environments accommodating the occurred recent changes in
this area in Russia.
The White Sea monograph table of contents was compiled, the design of the Book Jacket was
finalized and co-authors are preparing their contributions.
An updated list of actions for the next phase of the project implementation was identified and
agreed between the project participants. The next meeting is scheduled.
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
93
4. Objectives of the project
Overall Objective
To assess the compatibility of the Russian system of the White Sea ecology monitoring with
the EU and EN baseline directives and define the needs to achieve its integration into the EC
marine data collection and surveillance counterpart
Specific Objectives






To analyze the recently occurred changes in and the current status of the Russian
system of marine environment monitoring.
To update the White Seas environmental meta data bases.
To summarize the presently available monitoring data and draw up a monograph
portraying the recent dynamics of the White Sea ecosystem
To assess the conformity of the existing EU and Russian data bases as to
nomenclature of their entries, parameter accuracy, time resolution, etc.
To analyze the EU main way strategy for marine ecosystem monitoring and
synthesize the major achievements of European local/regional practices of marine
monitoring initiated/supported by EC
To analyze the problems of logistics, legislative and intellectual property right nature
inherent in the purported integration
The project seeks to promote both the integration of the systems of environmental monitoring in
Russia and Europe as well as to increase the efficiency of all-European nature protection-focused
scientific projects in the future.
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
94
5. The Project Workplan and Timetable
The work plan is oriented towards attaining the aforementioned overall and specific objectives. It
consists of four major constituents:
1. assemblage and analysis by each partner of the data as it is commissioned according to
the reparation of tasks;
2. organization and holding of general meetings(seminars) with the participation of invited
experts;
3. organization of thematic groups of experts;
4. preparation of individual and summarizing reports in accordance with the repartition of
tasks.
Attaining the set up objectives is thought to be pursued through the organization of expert groups
and convoking summarizing seminars and meetings. The general coordination of the project
activities will be carried out by the Coordination Council headed by the project principal
coordinator.
The basic work will be conducted by the partners, but the key seminars will be attended by
independent experts affiliated with other institutions both in Russia, EU and world-wide. It is
worthwhile to organize at least three expert groups for a comprehensive analysis of 1. Russian
databases on the White Sea, 2. EC directives, global pan-European and local programs of marine
ecosystem monitoring and management (e.g. on the Baltics, Mediterranean, north Atlantics, etc).
Dissemination of the information about the project’s essentials and the project realization
progress will be effected through the INTERNET by exploiting the webpage of one of the
partners.
A CDROM will be prepared to reflect the major reporting materials and provide the developed
specialized metadata bases on the White Sea.
The Project realization will begin with a kick-off meeting, at which a detailed plan of work will
considered and approved along with the definitive repartition of tasks between the partners.
Among other issues, dates of seminars and meetings, heads of expert groups and their members
(including invited experts) will be approved at this first meeting.
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
95
Timetable
Work package
1
Kick-off meeting in Murmansk
`
2
Establishment of a website for the
characterization and realization progress
3
Data collection and concatenation, analyses of the
recently occurred changes in and the current status of
the Russian system of marine environment
monitoring
4
5
Collection and systematization of the information
about the available databases on the White Sea
ecosystem
Summarization of the presently available monitoring
data and drawing
up of the manuscript of a
comprehensive monograph portraying the recent
dynamics of the White Sea ecosystem
6
The Coordination Council meeting in Petrozavodsk
7
Assessment of the status of the system of collection
and supporting of databases on marine ecology in
Russia and organization of a appropriate seminar in
St. Petersburg
Assessment of the conformity of the existing EU and
Russian databases as to the nomenclature of their
entries, parameter accuracy, time resolution, etc.
8
9
10
11
project
Analyses of the EU main way strategy for marine
ecosystem monitoring and major achievements of
European local/regional practices of marine
monitoring initiated/supported by EC and problems of
logistics, legislative and intellectual property right
nature inherent in the purported integration, and
organization of a appropriate seminar
Preparation of the final report
Management and coordination of activities under the
project as a whole
2
3
4
5
Months
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
96
6. Work package list
Work
package
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Work package title
Lead
contractor
No
Start
month
End
month
Deliverable
No
Kick-off meeting in Murmansk
Establishment of a website for the project
characterization and progress of realization
Data collection and concatenation,
analyses of the recently occurred changes
in and the current status of the Russian
system of marine environment monitoring
Collection and systematization of the
information about the available databases
on the White Sea ecosystem
Summarization of the presently available
monitoring data and preparation of the
manuscript
of
a
comprehensive
monograph portraying the recent dynamics
of the White Sea ecosystem
The Coordination Council meeting in
Petrozavodsk
Assessment of the status of the system of
collection and supporting of databases on
marine ecology in Russia and organization
of a appropriate seminar in St. Petersburg
Assessment of the conformity between the
existing EU and Russian databases as to
nomenclature of their entries, parameter
accuracy, time resolution, etc.
Analyses of the EU main way strategy for
marine ecosystem monitoring and major
achievements of European local/regional
practices
of
marine
monitoring
initiated/supported by EC and problems of
logistics, legislative and intellectual
property right nature inherent in the
purported integration, and organization of
a appropriate seminar
Preparation of the final report
2, 1, 3
3, 1, 2
1
1
1
11
D1
D2
3, 1, 2
1
4
D3
3, 1, 2
1
8
D4
2, 1, 3, 4, 5
1
7
D5
3, 1, 2, 4,5
4
4
D6
1, 2, 3
4
6
D7
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
8
8
D8
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
2
9
D9
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
11
12
Management and coordination activity of
project as a whole
1
1
12
D10
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
7.
List of Deliverables for the first reporting period
Del. no.
D1
D2
D3
D6
97
Deliverable
name
An
extensive
protocol of the
kick-off meeting
Newly
created
special website,
which will have
links
to
the
CORDIS
Interim report No.
1(Description of
the
Russian
system of marine
ecosystem
monitoring)
Protocol of the
Coordination
Council Meeting
WP
no.
Lead
participant
Delivery date
(proj.month)
1
2
1
2
3
1
3
3
4
6
3
4
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
98
8. Essentials of the work done (Deliverables 1,2,3,6)
D1. According to the workplan the first deliverable (D1) is organizing and holding a kick-off
meeting with the venue in Murmansk. Such a Meeting has actually has taken place and an
extensive protocol of it is available in the Annex A. The kick-off meeting established three ad
hoc groups to address the following issues:
(4) analyses of the Russian databases on the White Sea.
(5) analyses of European and UN documents regarding the concept(s), requirements and
practice of marine ecosystems monitoring.
(6) ways of harmonization of the Russian and European approaches and practices of marine
environments monitoring and ways of integration of Russia into the European system.
For the membership of the first ad hoc group eligible were experts from both the institutionpartners but also of the main Russian bodies (ministerial and institutional), which are actually
involved into tailoring and effecting marine environment monitoring. The other two ad hog
groups are constituted by the experts of the EcoMon united team.
The three ad hog groups will be led by Prof. V. Denisov, Dr. L. Pettersson and Prof. D.
Pozdnyakov.
The Coordination Council was equally elected. It comprises Prof. Dmitry Pozdnyakov
(Chairman, NIERSC)), Dr.Vladimir Volkov (Secretary, NIERSC), Prof. Vladimir Volkov
(MMBI), Prof. Nikolay Filatov (NWPI), Dr. Lasse Pettersson (NERSC), and Dr. Seppo
Kaitala (FIMR). A concise protocol of the starting meeting of the Coordination Council is
available in Annex A.
D2.
According to D2, a webpage has been established. This was then followed by the
establishment of a website intended to provide both the EC community with the reports
reflecting the project progress. The website is outfitted with two accesses: one is designed for the
external use and the other one for the internal use for the ECOMON project participants. The
internal use option is intended to accumulate all intermediate materials for consideration by the
project participants as well as to provide EC with a means to follow the pace of the EcoMon
project implementation.
The ECOMON webpage is:
http://www.niersc.spb.ru/ecomon
Access to the folder for internal use:
login:
ecomon
password:
pR7x3K;
The webpage is linked to CORDIS as was envisaged by the list of deliverables in the
Contract’s Description of Work.
The webpage for the external use presently contains full description of the EcoMon project,
the list of participants as well as the most essential excerpts from the present progress report
The part of the webpage for internal use (i.e. accessible for EC and the EcoMon partners)
accommodates the entire project description, the full minutes of the aforementioned meetings,
the annexes as well as the materials provided by each of the EcoMon team.
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
99
D3. The document determining the State policy of the Russian Federation in the area of marine
activities is the Marine Doctrine of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2020 that was
approved by the President of the Russian Federation Mister V. V. Poutin, No. Пр-1387.
The legislative base of the Marine Doctrine (MD) resides in the Constitution of the Russian
Federation, federal laws and other enforcements issued by the Russian Federation, the UN
Convention on the marine law enacted in 1982, intergovernmental agreements in the areas of
both marine activities and use of resources and tracts of the world oceans.
From the text of the MD follows that the development of systems of marine monitoring of the
marine off-coastal and coastal environments constitutes one of the underpinning principles of the
Russian national policy (Section I “ National interests of the Russian Federation in the world
oceans, aims and principles of the national policy”).
In the Subsection 3 “Insurance of safety of marine activities” encompassed by section IV
“Realization of the national policy” of the MD it is underlined that “the safeguarding and
conservation of the marine environment are attained through practicing a monitoring of the
marine environment as well as by effecting measures intended to prevent and liquidation of
consequences of the marine environment pollution, undertaking necessary measures excluding
oil spillage during the oil prospecting, extraction and oil transportation, building and
reconstruction of receiving reservoirs in ports for the collection and treatment of wastes,
stimulation of development and purchase of equipment for prevention and liquidation of
consequences of pollution of the marine environment, replenishment of the Russian Fleet with
specialized vessels for effecting nature protection activities; fulfillment by the Russian
Federation of its international obligations in this area, given the feasibilities provided by the
international cooperation; resolution of the contradictions arising between the increase in the
amount and rate of oil and gas extraction as well as other resources residing on marine bottom
and the necessary protection, reproduction and extraction of bio-resources of the world oceans”.
The basic principles of organization and insurance of functioning of the system of state
ecological monitoring of the marine environment are stipulated by the Russian Federation
legislation. Enforcements are laid upon the norms, and they are further specified and concretized
in numerous governmental decisions in a wealth of acts of corresponding agencies. The most
important legislative acts and governmental decisions relating to the marine ecological
monitoring are discussed concisely herein below.
One of the first Law passed in the Russian Federation (December 19, 1991) in the area of
ecological legislation was the one No. 2060-1 “ On the Protection of the Environment” that
stipulated the foundations regulating nature protection relationships as applied to the
environment in general. A new wording of the Federal Law “On the Protection of the
Environment” passed through the Russia Douma on December 20, 2001 and was approved by
the Federation Council on December 26, 2001.
“ The present Federal Law regulates the relationships in the area of interactions between the
nature and the society which arise in the course of conducting economical as well as any other
kind of activities within the Russian Federation resulting in affecting the environment as a
fundamental component of the natural ambiance that in turn constitutes the basis of the life on
the planet as well as within the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone of the Russian
Federation”
In Clause 1, the basic notions of chapter I “General Regulations” are given and read as follows:
“environmental/ecological monitoring is a comprehensive system of observations of the current
status of the environment, assessment and forecasting of changes in the state of the environment
subjected to forcing by natural and anthropogenic factors”. “The state environmental/ecological
monitoring is a monitoring conducted by the bodies of the state governance as well as by the
counterparts of the Russian Federation subjects.”
Clause 5 (Chapter II “ Fundamentals of Management in the Area of Nature Protection”)
stipulates that the responsibilities of state governance bodies accommodate the ”establishment of
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
100
rules and procedures of the state environmental monitoring, development of of a state system of
observations of environmental changes and ensuring of functioning of such a system”
Point 1 if clause 63 (chapter X “State Monitoring of the Environment/State Ecological
Monitoring”) determines the goal of the state environmental monitoring as the observation of the
state of environment, including the state of the ambient medium in the regions accommodating
sources of anthropogenic pollution and the impact of those sources on the environment as well as
ensuring the needs of the State, legal and physical entities in reliable information required for
prevention and/or mitigation of impairing consequences of environment change. Point 2 of the
same clause indicates that the order of organization and realization of the state ecological
monitoring is to be the prerogative of the Russian Federation Government.
The main regulations established by the above Law “On the Protection of the Environment” have
received a further development and perfection as applied to water bodies in the “Aquatic Codex
of the Russian Federation (November 16, 1995, No. 167-Ф3). This Codex stipulates the
legislative foundations of the utilization and protection of water bodies, including the law norms
addressing the organization of a state monitoring of aquatic objects.
The Codex provides for the first time a precise/unequivocal interpretation of terms relating to the
area of protection of aquatic objects, including the term “aquatic object” proper. According to
Clause I, under the term “aquatic object” understood are any accumulations of water on the land
surface within the elements of its relief or underground which have boundaries, volume and
attributes of an aquatic regime”. Clause 8 provides four types of aquatic objects encompassed by
the Codex jurisdiction. Among those four types enclosed seas and territorial seas. The latter are
the coastal marine waters extending over 12 nautical miles off-shore in accordance with the
norms of the international law and legislation of the Russian Federation.
The Codex stipulates that the order and realization of the state monitoring is the prerogative of
the Russian Federation (Clause 65), whereas the functionality of the monitoring system is a
responsibility of a specially established state body of management, use and protection of the
national aquatic resources (Clause 74) (presently it is the Ministry of Natural Resaurces of the
Russian Federation).
Clause 78 provides an exhaustive definition of the state monitoring of aquatic objects: ” The
State monitoring of aquatic objects is a system of routine observations of hydrological or
hydrogeological and hydrogeochemical indicators of the state of aquatic objects; it ensures the
collection, transmission and processing of the collected data with the aim of a timely detection of
nature impairing processes, prognosis of their development, prevention of negative consequences
and assessment of the degree of efficiency of realization of water protection measures”.
Worked out was a document to be approved by various ministries entitled “The basic principles
of organization and functioning of a Unified System of the state ecological monitoring
(ЕГСЭМ/USSEM). This document defines the ecological monitoring as observations conducted
according a definite programme of natural environments, natural resources, vegetable and animal
kingdoms, sources of anthropogenic forcing and assessment of the state of the said objects of
observations with the projection of their changes”.
The main objective of the state ecological monitoring is defined in the above document as a
provision of information required for effecting an efficient management in the area of
environment protection, preservation of a favourable environment for the population. The State
ecological monitoring is tasked first and foremost with a timely and reliable determination of
zones of possible ecological troubles and providing this information to stakeholders in order to
further work out long-term and urgent measures to assure the ecological safety of Russia.
The establishment of USSEM was conceived on both the basis of the territory-agency principle
and three major organizational levels, namely: federal, subjects of the Russian Federation and
local. However, in view of the financial and economic problems as well as due to institutional
changes in Russia, USSEM has not got a necessary development.
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
101
In 1997 the Government of the Russian Federation has approved “Regulations regarding the
establishment of the state monitoring of aquatic objects” (March 14, 1997, No. З 307).
According to this document, the realization of the state monitoring is delegated to the Ministry of
Natural Resources of the Russian Federation together with the Federal Service on
Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring (Clause 6).
Together with the Ministry of natural resources, the Federal service for hydrometeorology and
environmental monitotoring, the Federal Service for the land Cadastre of Russia and the State
Committee of the Russian Federation for fishery are nominated for effecting the State Marine
Monitoring.
The Ministry of Natural resources of the Russian Federation is tasked with:
- coordination of the activities of federal bodies of executive
power aimed at organization and realization of the ecological
monitoring
- coordination of normative and methodological documents issued
by federal bodies of the executive power on the matters of
organization and execution of the ecological monitoring
- building up state informational resources reflecting the state of
the environment
- insuring
the participation of the Russian Federation in
international systems of ecological monitoring (point 7).
Thus, marine monitoring must be run by the aforementioned agencies/bodies (first of all by
RosHydromet, State Committee for Fishery) under the auspices of the Ministry of Natural
Resources of the Russian Federation.
Roshydromet (the Federal Government Enactment of May 20, 1999, No. 555) organizers the
performance of observations, assessment and forecast of the atmosphere, surface waters, marine
environments.
The State Committee for Fishery (presently named Federal Agency for Fishery) (the Federal
Government Enactment of September 5, 2003, No. 557) carries out the organization and
implementation of the state assessment, state cadastre, and state environmental monitoring (point
3, section III).
The Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation (the Federal Government
Enactment of July 22, 2004, No. 370) is the Federal body of the executive power effecting the
functions of working out the state policy and normative-legislative regulation in the area of
studying, usage, reproduction, protection of natural resources, including the management of the
state fund of bowels of the Earth and forestry, utilization and protection of aquatic resources,
…exploitation and insuring the safety of water storage reservoirs and waterways, protecting and
other hydrotechical constructions…. Based on the decisions taken by the Federal Government,
Russian Constitution, Acts signed by the President of the Russian Federation, The Ministry of
Natural Resources
has the prerogative to work out the appropriate normative and
methodological documents.
However, in practice, the Ministry of Natural Resources in terms of marine ecological
monitoring only implements the monitoring of the geological medium within the continental
shelf zone. This activity includes regular observations, collection, stocking, processing and
analyses of data on the geological processes, their expert assessment, control and projection for
the future.
Within the system of the State Committee for Fishery of the Russian Federation, along with the
traditional shipborne system of monitoring an additional branch-wise system of monitoring
(ABWSM) was established in 1999 (the Federal Government Enactment of February 26, 1999,
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
102
No. 226). ABWSM is a distributed inmformational-analytical system insuring both the
availability of informational support of taking managerial decisions within the Committee for
Fishery and also fulfillment of international obligations of the Russian Federation in the area of
control of fishing fleet.
In 2003 a Decision was taken by the Government of the Russian Federation (July 15, 2003; no.
425) on the further perfection of the branch-wise system of monitoring of aquativ biological
resources, observation and control of the activities performed by the fishing fleet.
Presently the first stage of ABWSM is functioning. Under ABWSM deployed are both the
regional centers of monitoring (RCM) in the cities of Murmansk and Petropavlosk-Kamchatskiy
and the National Centre for the System of Monitoring of Fishery and Communication
(NCSMFC). The latter is placed in Moscow. There is also a network of 27 informational stations
of RCM that function within the state administrative bodies managing marine fishing ports. The
same Decision envisages the establishment in Moscow of the Head Centre of the ABWSM.
RCM collects the information provided by ships as well as by satellites on the positioning of
fishing vessels.
D5. The manuscript of the monograph on the White Sea : Dynamics of the White Sea
Ecosystems is being prepared by a team of co-authors. The Table of Contents of the monograph
is given in Annex B., and the book’s jacket is given in Annex C. In mid-summer, 2005 the
manuscript will be ready and submitted to the Publishers (Springer-Praxis).
The list of forthcoming actions is given in Annex D.
The work on collection and systematization of the information about the available databases on
the White Sea ecosystem is being underway (WP.4)
The Seminar in St. Petersburg dedicated to the assessment of the status of the system of
collection and supporting of databases on marine ecology in Russia (WP.7) is being prepared. It
is scheduled to be held in late June.
WP.9. Analyses of the EU main way strategy for marine ecosystem monitoring are being
pursued. In this stage – by NERSC and FIMR partners, but later on some other experts are
expected to join them.
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
103
Annex D
Monograph:
Dynamics of the White Sea Ecosystems
Table of Contents
Preface
List of figures
List of tables
Contributors
Acknowledgements.
Abbreviations
1. Geography of the White Sea and its watershed (A.V. Litvinenko, N.N. Filatov, and V.A. Volkov) ............
1.1 Main features of the White Sea ..............
1.2 Bottom topography .........................
1.3 Physical geography of the watershed ..............
1.4 Physical geography of the administrative units .......
1.4.1 Arkhangelsk Oblast. ...................
1.4.2 The Murmansk Oblast. .................
1.4.3 Republic of Karelia. ...................
1
1
1
2
4
5
7
9
11
2 White Sea watershed hydrology and anthropogenic impact (V.V. Ivanov and V.A. Brizgalo)……………
15
2.1 Hydrological features and anthropogenic influence on the catchment area ………………………
15
2.2 Water balance elements and water resources …………………………………………………….....
2.3 Variability in the hydrological and chemical regimes of river systems .............................................
22
28
2.4 Main features of pollutant transport via river runoff ........................................................................... 31
2.4.1 Mineral forms of nitrogen and phosphorus ......... …………………………………………….. 31
2.4.2 Pollutants .................................................................................................................. ...........................37
2.5 Anthropogenic impacts on estuaries ........................................................................................................ 47
3 Climate of the White Sea catchment and scenarios of climate and river
runoff changes (N.N. Filatov, L.E. Nawrova, and Ju A. Salo) ................................................................. 53
3.1 Climate...................................... …………………………………………………………………... 53
3.2 Climatic scenarios and estimation of river runoff changes ........................................................ 67
3.2.1 Climatic scenarios.......................... ……………………………………………………….. 67
3.2.2 Estimation of change in river runoff to the White Sea . . ……………………………… 70
4 Oceanographic regime (N.N. Filatov, D.V. Pozdnyakov, and V.A. Volkov)………………………….. 73
4.1 Transparency and optical characteristics. ................ ………………………………………….. 73
4.2 Circulation patterns and currents in the sea ............................................................................... 77
4.3 Water masses and water exchange with the Barents Sea ........................................................... 82
4.4 Fronts and frontal zones. ............................................................................................... ................ 90
4.4.1 River runoff fronts ......................... ………………………………………………………. 90
4.4.2 Tidal fronts....................................................................................................................... ...... 92
4.4.3 Upwelling fronts.................................................................................................. ................... 93
4.4.4 The front between the White and Barents Sea waters. . . ……………………………… 93
4.4.5 Features of marginal filters (barrier zones) in the bays of the White Sea ................. 94
4.5 Variability of water temperature and currents ............. ……………………………………… 96
4.5.1 Large-scale variability ....................... ……………………………………………………. 96
4.5.2 Mesoscale and synoptic variability ............... …………………………………………… 101
4.6 Model study of currents and mass transport processes in some bays and estuaries .............. 107
4.6.1 A brief description of the model for simulating estuarine currents ............................... 108
4.6.2 Onezhskiy Bay........................................................................................................................ 110
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
4.6.3 Estuary of the Kern River ............................................................................................. ....... 112
4.6.4 Turbulent diffusion of a conservative pollutant in the coastal zone of the
Onezhskiy Bay and the Kem River ……………………………………………………… 114
4.7 Sea level variations and tides. ....................................................................................................... 118
4.7.1 Large-scale sea level fluctuations ................ …………………………………………….. 120
4.7.2 Synoptic variability .................................................................................................. ............. 128
4.7.3 Mesoscale sea level variability ............................................................................................. 138
4.8 Ice regime and wintertime hydrology of the White Sea ............................................................. 144
5 Aquatic ecosystem profile (P.R. Makarevich and Ju V. Krasnov)…………………………………… 155
5.1 Phytoplankton ........................................................................................................... .................... 155
5.2 Zooplankton. .................................. ……………………………………………………………… 160
5.3 Sea birds of the White Sea: Concise characterization of the contemporary status. ............... 167
5.3.1 Abundance ............................................................................................................. ............... 168
5.3.2 Trophic chains ......................................................................................................... ............. 171
5.3.3 Factors limiting the development of bird populations in the White Sea ....................... 172
5.4 Marine mammals of the White Sea. ............................................................................................. 173
5.4.1 Abundance .............................. ……………………………………………………………...174
5.4.2 Trophic connections .............................................................................................................. 176
5.4.3 Limiting factors ........................... …………………………………………………………. 177
6 Satellite oceanography: New results (D.V. Pozdnyakov, L.H. Pettersson, O.M. Johannessen,
P. Bobylev, V.V. Melentyev, N.N. Filatov, V.I. Chernook, A.N. Filatov, A.V. Koroso,
A.N. Stuliy, and M. Miles)……………………………………………………………………………. 175
6.1 Optical remote sensing .................................................................................................................. 179
6.1.1 Background.............................. …………………………………………………………….. 179
6.1.2 A new water quality retrieval algorithm for case II waters ……………………………. 181
6.1.3 Advanced tool performance verification and seasonal variations of White Sea
CPA concentrations as revealed by SeaWiFS data …………………………………………….193
6.2 Patterns of thermo-hydrodynamic processes and fields from NOAA AVHRR data .............. 205
6.2.1 Introduction. ............................. …………………………………………………………... 205
6.2.2 Data and methods ...................................................................................................... ........... 206
6.2.3 Results of NOAA satellite data analysis ............................................................................ 211
6.2.3 Discussion and main findings ......................................................................................... ..... 213
6.3 Satellite SAR and passive microwave remote sensing ........ ……………………………………217
6.3.1 Satellite SAR monitoring of ice cover parameters ..... …………………………………..217
6.3.2 SAR studies of the White Sea ice cover as a habitat of ice-associated
marine mammals ... ……………………………………………………………………… 221
6.4 Studies of the White Sea ice cover using satellite passive microwave sensors....................... 234
6.4.1 Introduction. ........................................................................................................ .............. 234
6.4.2 Data analysis............................. ………………………………………………………….. 235
6.5 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 237
7 Economy of the White Sea watershed area (A. Yu Terzhevik, A.V. Litvinenko, P.V. Druzhinin, and
N.N. Filatov) ............................................................................................................................. .................241
7.1 Natural resources ........................ ……………………………………………………………….. 241
7.1.1 Mineral resources ................... ……………………………………………………………. 241
7.1.2 Forest resources .................................................................................................................... 244
7.1.3 Agriculture ............................................................................................................................. 246
7.1.4 Fuel and energy resources. ...................................................................................................247
7.2 Demography. ............................................................................................................. .......................248
7.2.1 Population structure ............................................................................................................. 249
7.2.2 Changes in population....................... .......................................................................... ..........250
7.2.3 Natural population change .................... …………………………………………………..250
7.2.4 Life expectancy. ........................... …………………………………………………………..253
7.3 Economic indicators. ............................. …………………………………………………………..254
7.3.1 Gross Regional Product........................................................................................................ 255
7.3.2 Inflation ............................................................................................................. ...................... 260
7.3.3 Industrial production......................................................................................................... ..... 260
7.3.4 Agriculture .............................. ……………………………………………………………… 264
104
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
105
7.3.5 Services and trade. ......................... ………………………………………………………….265
7.3.6 Monetary income .......................... …………………………………………………………...265
7.4 Sectors and branches of the economy ..................................................................................... .........270
7.4.1 Arkhangelsk Oblast. ...................................................................................................... .........274
7.4.2 Murmansk Oblast................................................................................................. ....................277
7.4.3 Republic of Karelia. ........................ ……………………………………………………… 283
7.5 Investments ........................................................................................................................................ 287
7.5.1 Foreign investment ................................................................................................................. 287
7.5.2 Domestic investments. ............................................................................................................ 287
7.6 Identification of socio-economic indices and integration of the relevant data
into a database……………………………………………………………………………………. 288
7.7 Identification and substantiation of the most probable scenarios for industrial development in the
White Sea Basin.............................................................................................................. .......................... 293
7.7.1 Background.............................................................................................................................. 293
7.7.2 The outlook for future industrial developments in the White Sea Basin region ........... 296
7.7.3 Specific features of regional forecasting based on the scenario approach............... …… 298
7.7.4 Scenarios of probable White Sea Basin industrial development. ..................................... 301
8 Geographic Information Systems for managing the ecosystem and living resources of the White Sea
(V. V. Rastoskuev, V.K. Donchenko, A.N. Filatov, and E.V. Shalina) ......................................................... 305
8.1 System structure ................................ ………………………………………………………………
8.2 Software for the formation of the data warehouse …………………………………………..........
8.3 Formation of digital maps. .............................................................................................. ..................
8.4 Data analysis using the ArcView GIS ..............................................................................................
8.5 Analysis of remote sensing data using the IDRISI GIS. ...... ……………………………………
8.6 Information system for decision-making support ........... ……………………………………….
8.7 Conclusions ............................................................................................................... ........................
305
308
309
311
313
321
326
9 Water quality assessment and the problem of marine ecosystem stability
(V.V. Denisov and A.V. Shavikin)………………………………………………………………………
325
9.1 Background ................................... …………………………………………………………………
9.2 Assessment of the White Sea ecosystem ................. ……………………………………………….
9.3 Conclusion.
10 Numerical simulations of the White Sea hydrodynamics and marine ecosystem (I.L. Bashmachnikov,
O.M. Johannessen, L.H. Pettersson, G. Evensen, I.A. Neelov, O.P. Savchuk, A.V. Leonov,
S. Kaitala, T. Stipa, T. Kuosa, and N.N. Filatov) ...................... ...................................................... ..
References
Index ...........................
329
331
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
106
Annex E
FP6 – 2002 – INCO – Russia + NIS/SSA -4 “EcoMon“: Final report
107
Annex F
The ECOMON webpage is:
http://www.niersc.spb.ru/ecomon
Access to the folder for internal use:
login:
ecomon
password:
pR7x3K;
The webpage is linked to CORDIS as was envisaged by the list of deliverables in the
Contract’s Description of Work.