Report of - GESAMP

77REPORTS AND STUDIESIMO FAO UNESCO-IOC WMO UNIDO IAEA UN UNEPREPORT OF THE THIRTYFOURTH SESSIONParis, 8-11 May 2007INTERGOVERNMENTAL OCEANOGRAPHIC COMMISSION OF UNITED NATIONSEDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATIONParis, 2007

1. GESAMP is an advisory body consisting of specialized experts nominated by the Sponsoring Agencies (IMO, FAO, UNESCO-IOC, WMO, IAEA,UN, UNEP, UNIDO). Its principal task is to provide scientific advice concerning the prevention, reduction and control of the degradation of themarine environment to the Sponsoring Agencies.2. This report is available in English only from any of the Sponsoring Agencies.3. The report contains views expressed by members of GESAMP who act in their individual capacities; they may not necessarily correspond withthose of the Sponsoring Agencies.4. Permission may be granted by any one of the Sponsoring Agencies for the report to be wholly or partly reproduced in publications by any individualwho is not a staff member of a Sponsoring Agency of GESAMP, or by any organization that is not a sponsor of GESAMP, provided that thesource of the extract and the condition mentioned in 3 above are indicated.5. For more details on GESAMP, click in to their website: http://www.gesamp.orgISSN 1020-4873© UN, UNEP, FAO, UNESCO-IOC, WMO, IMO, IAEA, UNIDO 2007For bibliographic purposes this document should be cited as:GESAMP (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP/UNIDO Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine EnvironmentalProtection). 2007. Report of the Thirty-fourth Session, Paris, 8-11 May 2007. Reports and Studies, GESAMP No.(77), 83 pp.

CONTENTSExecutive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Résumé analytique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Resumen dispositivo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Установочное Резюме . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 REPORT OF THE CHAIRPERSON OF GESAMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 REPORT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY OF GESAMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 GESAMP POOL OF EXPERTS AND WEB-SITE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 GESAMP ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225.1 Evaluation of the hazards of harmful substances carried by ships (WG1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . … 225.2 Environmental risk assessment and communication in coastal aquaculture (WG31) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235.3 Environmental exposure models for application in seafood risk analysis (WG33) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245.4 Review of applications for ʻactive substancesʼ to be used in ballast watermanagement systems (WG34). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245.5 Deepwater fisheries-habitat and ecosystem (WG35). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255.6 Development of an ecosystem approach to offshore mariculture (WG36) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285.7 Assessment of threats posed by persistent organic pollutants (POPs) to themarine environment (WG37) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285.8 Atmospheric input of chemicals to the ocean (WG38) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285.9 Global trends in pollution of coastal ecosystems: retrospective ecosystem assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . 296. CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE ASSESSMENT OF ASSESSMENTSUNDER THE ʻUN REGULAR PROCESSʼ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307. WORKSHOP ON THE IDENTIFICATION OF THEMES OF MUTUAL INTERESTBETWEEN GESAMP AND REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318. IDENTIFICATION OF NEW AND EMERGING ISSUES REGARDINGTHE DEGRADATION OF THE MARINEENVIRONMENT OF RELEVANCETO GOVERNMENTS AND SPONSORING ORGANIZATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339. SCOPING ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3410. FUTURE WORK PROGRAMME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3411. ANY OTHER BUSINESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3512. DATE AND PLACE OF GESAMP 35. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3513. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3514. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF GESAMP 34 AND CLOSURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36ANNEXESAnnex I Agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Annex II List of documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Annex III List of Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Annex IV Activities and achievements of the GESAMP Sponsoring Organizations since 2003 . . . . . . . . . 43Annex V The Revised GESAMP Hazard Evaluation Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Annex VI Summary of presentations by workshop participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49GESAMP Report and Studies No 77REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSION · 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1 IntroductionThe Joint Group of Experts on the ScientificAspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP)held its thirty-fourth session at the Headquarters of theUnited Nations Educational, Scientific and CulturalOrganization (UNESCO) in Paris, from 8 to 11 May2007. GESAMP was established in 1969 by a numberof United Nations Organizations as a Joint Group toencourage the independent, interdisciplinary considerationof marine pollution and environmental protectionproblems with a view to avoiding duplication of effortswithin the United Nations system. The main topicsconsidered at this session are described below.2 The revitalization of GESAMPIn late 2005, GESAMP received a welcome supportfrom the Swedish International DevelopmentCooperation Agency (Sida), spanning over three years.In addition, the Swedish Maritime Administration hasseconded an officer to act as GESAMP Officer, basedat IMO, for an initial period of two years till the end of2008. It has therefore been possible to speed up therevitalization process, including the development of anew website, a Pool of Experts, and a new GESAMPlogo and design style. GESAMP was also informedabout the latest progress in terms of the administrativearrangement between the Sponsoring Organizationsunderpinning the new set-up of GESAMP, includingthe establishment of a GESAMP Office.3 Evaluation of the hazards of harmfulsubstances carried by ships (WG1)Since GESAMP convened in 2003, WG1 has heldfive sessions and continued its work of revising thehazard profiles contained in the IMO International BulkChemicals Code (IBC Code). Since the 33rd sessionof GESAMP, all bulk chemicals in maritime transporthave been re-evaluated by the Working Group andhave also been re-categorized by IMO as to pollutioncategory, ship type and carriage conditions. TheWorking Group has also developed a new evaluationcriterion based on water solubility, specific gravity,volatility and viscosity, which enables IMO to identifyfloating, sinking and, in particular, persistent slickformingsubstances and to treat them accordingly. Arange of substances now have to be carried in doublehulledtankers, probably the single most significantachievement for the environment of the revision ofMARPOL Annex II.GESAMP WG1 is the first international body todevelop and use an estimation system to evaluate theinhalation hazards of chemicals. This was developedprimarily to fulfil an IMO requirement for inhalationtoxicity data to protect crews on board ships.4 Environmental risk assessment andcommunication in coastal aquaculture(WG31)The draft study report by WG31 was presented toGESAMP and discussed. GESAMP recognized the significantefforts by the Working Group, but also the needfor thorough review and careful revision of the draft studyreport as submitted, to ensure the high quality, scientificexcellence and conceptual clarity and rigor expected ofa GESAMP publication.GESAMP suggested that the final report shouldemphasize the methodological and procedural aspectsof systematic, stepwise and logical conduct of environmentalrisk assessments, and the necessary associatedefforts of risk communication. The Group also recognizedthe budgetary and time limitations requiring thatthe study be completed and published before the end of2007. Therefore, GESAMP discussed and agreed to aroadmap for the final review and finalization of WG31ʼsstudy report in 2007.5 Environmental exposure models forapplication in seafood risk analysis(WG33)WG33 has been dormant since 2003, due to shortageof funds and staff time. For these reasons, the leadagency, FAO, has had to decide that it will no longer providethe lead support for WG33. In light of this, GESAMPdecided to discontinue the initiative of WG33.6 Review of applications for ʻactivesubstancesʼ to be used in ballastwater management systems (WG34)Working Group 34 was established in November2005 to review any proposals submitted to IMO forapproval of Ballast Water Management systems thatmake use of Active Substances. The Working Groupreports to IMO on whether such proposals presentunreasonable risk to the environment, human health,property or resources. WG34 does not evaluate theoperation or design of the systems, or their effectiveness,only their potential for environmental and humanhealth risks. To date, the Working Group has evaluatedseven systems in various stages of the IMO approvalprocess. The Working Group has also developed a rationaleor methodology not only for assessing the environmentaland human health risks from active substancesinjected into ballast water but also for treatment systemsgenerating such substances in-situ.7 Deepwater fisheries-habitat and ecosystem(WG35)FAO, supported by UNIDO, proposed to establish aGESAMP Working Group on deepwater fisheries habitatand related ecosystem concerns. The objective of WG35will be to provide an independent, scientific review toGESAMP Report and Studies No 77REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSION · 5

inform policy of selected aspects of deep-water fisheriesand their ecosystem interactions.GESAMP recognized the need for better scientificadvice, review and synthesis, and that this was a fertilearea for the Group. The scope, objectives and terms ofreference for the envisaged GESAMP Working Groupwill be refined and focused during the coming months.GESAMP agreed to consider the terms of reference forapproval intersessionally.8 Development of an ecosystem approachto offshore mariculture (WG36)FAO, supported by UNIDO, proposed the establishmentof WG 36, which will review the existing literature,and identify the next steps to be taken in research, considerthe ecosystem aspects of offshore aquaculture asit relates to the above issues. The Working Group willpropose solutions by way of recommending guidelinesand protocols for the conduct of offshore aquacultureoperations.The Working Group will commence its deliberationsin September of 2007, and continue through 2008, atwhich time a report will be submitted to GESAMP forreview and approval prior to publication. GESAMP welcomedthe establishment of the Working Group, notingthe proactive nature of the proposal and its potentialcontributions to ecosystem research.9 Assessment of threats posed bypersistent organic pollutants (POPs)to the marine environment (WG37)UNIDO proposed the establishment of WG37, whichwill review threats posed by persistent organic pollutants(POPs) to the marine environment. After discussionsof the proposal it was agreed that the focus of WG37should be on an expanded scientific review of mercuryand its compounds (related to sources, transport, fate,effects etc of mercury) and threats to the marine environment.GESAMP approved the establishment of WG37after revising the focus of the initial proposal. The redraftedWorking Group proposal and terms of referencewill be circulated for final approval during the intersessionalperiod.10 Atmospheric input of chemicals to theocean (WG38)In light of the increased recognition of the importanceof chemical air-sea interchange, WMO proposedthe establishment of WG38, which builds on the highlyacclaimed GESAMP Reports and Studies No. 38. Witha proposed timeframe of 2 to 4 years, the WorkingGroup will assess the need for model and measurementproducts of the atmospheric input of nitrogen species,dust (iron), and possibly other chemicals to the ocean.The Working Group will work with the WMO Sand andDust Warning System as well as the WMO PrecipitationChemistry Data Synthesis and Community Project.GESAMP commented positively on the value ofthe proposed work and gave its approval, in principle,for the establishment of the Working Group.11 Global trends in pollution of coastalecosystems: retrospective ecosystemassessmentIAEA presented a preliminary proposal and draftterms of reference for a Working Group, for commentsand suggestions. The objective of the Working Groupwould be to contribute to the reduction of coastalecosystem stress globally by providing stakeholders,scientists and society in general with an objectiveand global assessment of pollution trends during thelast century in sensitive coastal ecosystems. TheWorking Group would use retrospective ecosystemanalysis, based on environmental archives and timeseriesdata, where available.GESAMP responded positively to the proposaland its potential for extending the scope of marinepollution assessments and their normal temporal andgeographical limitations. In addition, it would be ofparticular importance to countries where monitoringdata is scarce. Several regional organizations alsoindicated their interest in the project.12 Contributions to the Assessment ofAssessments under the ʻUN RegularProcessʼSince its 33rd session, GESAMP has closely followedthe developments of the UN Regular Processfor the Global Reporting and Assessment of the Stateof the Marine Environment, including Socio-economicaspects. GESAMP has also actively supportedthe UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre(UNEP-WCMC) in their publication of the report“Survey of global and regional assessments and relatedactivities of the marine environment”, mainly by providinga review team for the draft for this report.The IOC Executive Secretary emphasized that heanticipated that GESAMP and its Members will havea key role to play in the Assessment of Assessments,providing technical support to the process. GESAMPagreed that they will be able to contribute to the processin several ways, for example peer reviewing of outputs,undertaking commissioned studies, and capacity building.The Members of GESAMP also emphasized theimportance of proactive involvement in the Assessmentof Assessment by the Sponsoring Organizations ofGESAMP and the need to respond quickly to anyrequests related from the lead agencies.In conclusion, GESAMP reaffirmed that it standsready to contribute to the Assessment of Assessmentand the UN Regular Process, and that the Group hasthe mandate, expertise and funds to do so.6 · REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSIONGESAMP Report and Studies No 77

13 Workshop on the identification ofthemes of mutual interest betweenGESAMP and Regional OrganizationsAs part of its revitalization process, GESAMPorganized a one-day Workshop, for which a numberof regional organizations had been invited. By conveningthe Workshop, GESAMP is seeking to increase itsregional relevance and engagement by increasing thedialogue with regional organizations and the awarenessof GESAMPʼs capabilities.After a brief presentation by each of the workshopparticipants, discussions followed, departing from threedifferent topics; ʻIdentifying networksʼ, ʻWhere and howcan GESAMPʼs advice be useful?ʼ and ʻOpportunities forcapacity buildingʼ. A summary of the discussions as wellas the presentations by the participants are presentedin this report, but also as a separate publication in theseries ʻReports to GESAMP’.14 Identification of new and emergingissues regarding the degradation ofthe marine environmentGESAMP discussed a list of topics with significantpotential impact on marine ecosystems. AlthoughGESAMP neither could nor should investigate all ofthese, it will be important to identify the areas wherethere is a role for GESAMP to carry out independentassessments. It was thus discussed how GESAMPshould best be able to monitor emerging issues, identifythose where GESAMP has the mandate and capacityto act, and how GESAMP would be able to react in atimely manner.GESAMP was informed that the InternationalSeabed Authority (ISA) has recently contracted for theexploration of commercial mineral extraction over largeareas of the sea floor that are under international jurisdiction.While recognizing the economic importance ofthis development, GESAMP was also concerned aboutthe potential impacts of this development on the nearbymarine ecosystems, and what measures are in place forthe environmental management of these activities. TheChairperson of GESAMP was subsequently asked toapproach ISA requesting further information about theseissues.GESAMP Report and Studies No 77REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSION · 7

du processus dʼapprobation de lʼOMI. Il a en outre misau point des principes ou méthodes non seulement pourévaluer les risques des substances actives introduitesdans les eaux de ballast pour lʼenvironnement et la santémais aussi pour les systèmes de traitement produisantde telles substances in situ.7. Pêche-habitat en eau profondeet écosystème (GT 35)La FAO, soutenue par lʼONUDI, a proposé de créerun groupe de travail du GESAMP chargé des questionsliées à lʼhabitat et à la pêche en eau profonde ainsi quʼàlʼécosystème associé. Lʼobjectif du Groupe de travail 35sera de réaliser une étude scientifique indépendantequi servira de base à des mesures concernant certainsaspects de la pêche en eau profonde et de ses interactionsavec les écosystèmes associés.Le GESAMP a reconnu la nécessité dʼaméliorer laqualité des avis, des études et des synthèses scientifiques,domaine dʼactivité fécond pour le Groupe. Le domaine decompétence, les objectifs et le mandat du Groupe detravail du GESAMP quʼil est proposé de créer serontprécisés et bien définis au cours des prochains mois. LeGESAMP a accepté dʼexaminer le mandat du Groupe detravail pour lʼapprouver pendant lʼintersession.8. Élaboration dʼune approcheécosystémique de la maricultureau large des côtes (GT 36)La FAO, soutenue par lʼONUDI, a proposé de constituerle Groupe de travail 36 qui sera chargé dʼanalyserla documentation existante, dʼidentifier les prochainesmesures à prendre dans le domaine de la recherche,et dʼexaminer les liens entre les questions ci-dessus etles aspects écosystémiques de lʼaquaculture en mer. LeGroupe de travail avancera des solutions en recommandantdes principes directeurs et des protocoles pour laréalisation dʼactivités dʼaquaculture en mer.Les délibérations du Groupe de travail débuteronten septembre 2007 et se poursuivront jusquʼen 2008.Un rapport sera alors soumis au GESAMP pour examenet approbation avant publication. Le GESAMP a saluéla création de ce groupe de travail et noté le caractèreanticipatif de cette proposition ainsi que sa contributionéventuelle à la recherche sur les écosystèmes.9. Évaluation des menaces queconstituent les polluants organiquespersistants pour le milieu marin(GT 37)LʼONUDI a proposé la mise en place du Groupe detravail 37 qui examinera les menaces que constituent lespolluants organiques persistants pour le milieu marin.Après examen de la proposition, il a été convenu quece groupe de travail devrait concentrer son action surune analyse scientifique détaillée du mercure et de sescomposés (en rapport avec les sources, le transport, ledevenir et les effets du mercure, entre autres) ainsi quedes menaces pour lʼenvironnement.Le GESAMP a approuvé la création du Groupe detravail 37 après avoir revu lʼorientation de la propositioninitiale. La nouvelle version de la proposition du Groupede travail ainsi que son mandat seront communiquéspour approbation finale pendant lʼintersession.10. Apports atmosphériques de produitschimiques dans lʼocéan (GT 38)Compte tenu de la prise de conscience accrue delʼimportance des échanges chimiques air-mer, lʼOMMa proposé de créer le Groupe de travail 38 sur labase du très apprécié N° 38 des rapports et étudesdu GESAMP (GESAMP Reports and Studies No. 38).Dans un délai de deux à quatre ans, le Groupe de travailévaluera les besoins en modèles et mesures desapports atmosphériques en produits azotés, poussières(fer) et éventuellement autres produits chimiques danslʼocéan. Ce groupe travaillera avec le Système dʼalerteaux tempêtes de sable et de poussière de lʼOMM ainsiquʼavec la Synthèse de données chimiques sur lesprécipitations et le projet communautaire de lʼOMM.Le GESAMP a émis un avis favorable sur lʼintérêtdu travail envisagé et a donné son accord de principepour la création de ce groupe de travail.11. Évolution mondiale de la pollution desécosystèmes côtiers : évaluationrétrospective des écosystèmesLʼAIEA a présenté pour observations et suggestionsune proposition préliminaire concernant la création dʼungroupe de travail accompagnée dʼun projet de mandat.Lʼobjectif de ce groupe de travail serait de contribuer à laréduction des agressions contre les écosystèmes côtiersau niveau mondial en mettant à la disposition des partiesintéressées, des scientifiques et de la société en généralune évaluation objective mondiale de lʼévolution de lapollution au cours du siècle dernier dans les écosystèmescôtiers fragiles. Le groupe de travail effectueraitune analyse rétrospective des écosystèmes fondée surdes archives environnementales et les données de sérieschronologiques lorsque celles-ci sont disponibles.Le GESAMP a répondu favorablement à cetteproposition qui permet dʼélargir le champ dʼapplicationdes évaluations de la pollution marine ainsi que leurscontraintes temporelles et géographiques. En outre,elle aurait une importance particulière pour les pays nedisposant que de peu de données sur la surveillance.Plusieurs organisations régionales ont également faitpart de leur intérêt pour ce projet.12. Contributions à lʼévaluation des évaluationsdans le cadre du « Mécanismedes Nations Unies »Depuis sa 33e session, le GESAMP a suivi de prèsles faits intervenus dans le cadre du Mécanisme desNations Unies de notification et dʼévaluation systématiquesà lʼéchelle mondiale de lʼétat du milieu marin, ycompris les aspects socioéconomiques (GRAME). Il aen outre activement soutenu le Centre mondial de sur-GESAMP Report and Studies No 77REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSION · 9

veillance de la conservation du PNUE (PNUE-WCMC)pour la publication du rapport « Survey of global andregional assessments and related activities of themarine environment » (Étude des évaluations mondialeset régionales du milieu marin et activités connexes), principalementen constituant une équipe chargée dʼétudierle projet de ce rapport.Le Secrétaire exécutif de la COI a souligné quʼilavait anticipé le rôle clé que le GESAMP et ses membrestiendraient dans lʼévaluation des évaluations enfournissant un appui technique à ce processus. LeGESAMP a convenu quʼil sera en mesure dʼy contribuerde différentes manières, notamment grâce à lʼexamendes résultats par les pairs, la réalisation dʼétudes surcommande et le renforcement des capacités. Les membresdu GESAMP ont également insisté sur lʼimportancedʼune participation proactive des organisations parrainantesà lʼévaluation des évaluations ainsi que surla nécessité de répondre rapidement à toute demandeformulée par les organisations chefs de file.mandat et de ses capacités ont été évoqués, de mêmeque la façon dont il pourrait réagir en temps voulu.Le GESAMP a été informé que lʼAutorité internationaledes fonds marins (AIFM) avait récemmentexternalisé lʼexploration et lʼextraction minières à desfins commerciales dans des zones étendues des fondsmarins sous juridiction internationale. Tout en reconnaissantlʼimportance économique de cette mesure, leGESAMP sʼest inquiété de ses éventuels effets sur lesécosystèmes marins voisins et des dispositions prisespour assurer la gestion environnementale de ces activités.Il a ensuite été demandé au Président du GESAMPde se mettre en relation avec lʼAIFM pour obtenir desinformations supplémentaires sur ces questions.En conclusion, le GESAMP a réaffirmé quʼil étaitdisposé à participer à lʼévaluation des évaluationsainsi quʼau Mécanisme des Nations Unies de notificationet dʼévaluation systématiques à lʼéchelle mondialede lʼétat du milieu marin, y compris les aspectssocioéconomiques, et que le Groupe avait le mandat,lʼexpertise et les ressources financières pour le faire.13. Atelier sur la définition des thèmesdʼintérêt commun pour le GESAMPet les organisations régionalesDans le cadre de son processus de revitalisation,le GESAMP a organisé un atelier dʼune journée auquelplusieurs organisations régionales ont été conviées. Enconvoquant cet atelier, le Groupe sʼefforce dʼaccroître sapertinence et son engagement à lʼéchelon régional enrenforçant le dialogue avec les organisations régionaleset en faisant mieux connaître ses compétences.Après un bref exposé par chacun des participantsà lʼatelier, les débats ont porté sur trois sujets, à savoir :« Lʼidentification de réseaux », « Où et comment les avisdu GESAMP peuvent-ils être utiles ? » et « Les possibilitésde renforcement des capacités ». Un résumé deces discussions ainsi que des exposés des participantssont présentés dans le présent rapport mais égalementdans une publication distincte parue dans la collection« Reports to GESAMP ».14. Identification de problèmes nouveauxrelatifs à la dégradation du milieumarinLe GESAMP a examiné une liste de sujets pouvantavoir un impact important sur les écosystèmes marins.Bien que le Groupe nʼait pas été en mesure ni danslʼobligation de tous les étudier, il sera important de définirles domaines dans lesquels le GESAMP a un rôle àjouer dans la réalisation dʼévaluations indépendantes.Les meilleurs moyens pour le Groupe de suivre les problèmesnouveaux et dʼidentifier ceux qui relèvent de son10 · REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSIONGESAMP Report and Studies No 77

RESUMEN DISPOSITIVO1. IntroducciónEl Grupo Mixto de Expertos sobre los AspectosCientíficos de la Protección del Medio Marino (GESAMP)celebró su 34ª reunión en la Sede de la Organización delas Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y laCultura (UNESCO) en París, del 8 al 11 de mayo de2007. El GESAMP fue creado en 1969 por varios organismosde las Naciones Unidas para impulsar el estudioindependiente e interdisciplinario de los problemas relativosa la contaminación de los mares y la protección delmedio marino, así como para evitar duplicaciones detareas en el sistema de las Naciones Unidas. A continuaciónse exponen los principales asuntos examinadosen esta reunión.2. La reactivación del GESAMPA fines de 2005, el GESAMP recibió un oportunorespaldo de la Agencia Sueca de CooperaciónInternacional para el Desarrollo (ASDI) que se extenderíaa lo largo de tres años. Además, la administraciónmarítima de Suecia adscribió en la OMI a una personapara que se desempeñara como oficial del Grupo Mixtode Expertos, por un periodo inicial de dos años queconcluirá a fines de 2008. Por consiguiente, ha sidoposible agilizar el proceso de reactivación, comprendidala creación de un nuevo sitio web y de un grupode expertos, así como del nuevo logotipo y diseñográfico del GESAMP. También se informó al GESAMPde los últimos avances relativos a las disposiciones delMemorando actualizado concertado entre las organizacionespatrocinadoras en el que se sustentan su nuevoReglamento y su organización, comprendido el establecimientode una Oficina del GESAMP.3. Evaluación de los peligros de las sustanciasnocivas transportadas por víamarítima (Grupo de Trabajo 1)Desde la reunión del GESAMP que tuvo lugar en2003, el Grupo de Trabajo 1 ha celebrado cinco reunionesy proseguido la revisión de los perfiles de riesgo quefiguran en el Código Internacional de Quimiqueros (CIQ)de la OMI. Desde la 33a reunión del GESAMP, el Grupode Trabajo ha reevaluado todos los productos químicosque se transportan a granel por vía marítima; asimismo,la OMI ha modificado su clasificación en función de lacategoría de contaminación, características de los barcosy condiciones de transporte. El Grupo de Trabajotambién ha formulado un nuevo criterio de evaluaciónbasado en la solubilidad en el agua, el peso específico,la volatilidad y la viscosidad con el que la OMI identificalas sustancias que flotan, se hunden y, en particular,forman películas oleosas persistentes, y puede tratarlasen consecuencia. Actualmente, una serie de sustanciasdeben transportarse en buques-cisterna de doble casco;se trata, probablemente, del mayor logro para el mediomarino de la revisión del Anexo II del MARPOL.El Grupo de Trabajo 1 del GESAMP fue el primerórgano internacional que elaboró y aplicó un sistema deevaluación de los peligros de la inhalación de productosquímicos. Ese sistema se creó fundamentalmente paraatender un pedido de datos de la OMI sobre la toxicidadpor inhalación con objeto de proteger las tripulacionesde los barcos.4. Evaluación de riesgos para el mediomarino y comunicación sobre acuiculturacostera (Grupo de Trabajo 31)El GESAMP examinó el informe preliminar sobre elestudio presentado por el Grupo de Trabajo 31. Si bienel GESAMP reconoció los importantes esfuerzos delGrupo de Trabajo, señaló también la necesidad de quese sometiese el informe preliminar sobre el estudio presentadoa un examen minucioso y una revisión detenidacon objeto de garantizar la elevada calidad, la excelenciacientífica, así como la claridad y el rigor conceptualesque cabe esperar de las publicaciones del GESAMP.El GESAMP propuso que en el informe final sehiciera hincapié en los aspectos metodológicos y de procedimientode la realización sistemática, gradual y lógicade las evaluaciones de riesgos para el medio marino, asícomo en las necesarias actividades conexas de comunicaciónsobre riesgos. Asimismo, el Grupo reconoció laslimitaciones de presupuesto y tiempo que obligaban aterminar y publicar el estudio antes de fines de 2007. Porconsiguiente, el GESAMP examinó y acordó un plan detrabajo para la revisión final y la conclusión del informesobre el estudio del Grupo de Trabajo 31 en 2007.5. Modelos de contaminación ambientalaplicables al análisis de riesgos paralos mariscos (Grupo de Trabajo 33)El Grupo de Trabajo 33 ha estado inactivo desde2003 debido a una insuficiencia de fondos y de tiempode sus miembros. Por esos motivos, la FAO, el organismocoordinador, tuvo que decidir que dejaría de prestarsu apoyo principal al Grupo de Trabajo 33. Habidacuenta de ello, el GESAMP decidió interrumpir la iniciativadel Grupo de Trabajo 33.6. Examen de las solicitudes relativas alas “sustancias activas” utilizables enlos sistemas de gestión del agua delastre (Grupo de Trabajo 34)El Grupo de Trabajo 34 se creó en noviembre de2005 para que examinara todas las propuestas relativasa los sistemas de gestión del agua de lastre que utilizansustancias activas, presentadas a la OMI con miras asu aprobación. El Grupo de Trabajo notifica a la OMI siesas propuestas presentan un riesgo excesivo para elmedio marino, la salud humana, los bienes o los recursos.El Grupo de Trabajo 34 no evalúa el funcionamientoo el diseño de los sistemas, ni su eficacia, sino únicamentesus riesgos potenciales para el medio marino yla salud humana. Hasta la fecha, el Grupo de TrabajoGESAMP Report and Studies No 77REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSION · 11

ha evaluado siete sistemas que se encontraban endistintas etapas del procedimiento de aprobación antela OMI. Asimismo, el Grupo de Trabajo ha preparado unanálisis razonado, o metodología, para evaluar no sólolos riesgos que entrañan para el medio marino y la saludhumana las sustancias activas que se inyectan en elagua de lastre, sino también los sistemas de tratamientoque producen dichas sustancias in situ.7. Pesca de altura - hábitat y ecosistema(Grupo de Trabajo 35)La FAO, con la asistencia de la ONUDI, propusoestablecer un Grupo de Trabajo del GESAMP sobre losproblemas relativos al hábitat de la pesca de altura y suecosistema conexo. El objetivo del Grupo de Trabajo35 consistirá en preparar un estudio independiente ycientífico sobre ciertos aspectos de la pesca de alturay sus interacciones con el ecosistema con miras a laformulación de una normativa al respecto.El GESAMP reconoció que era necesario contarcon asesoramiento, análisis y síntesis de índole científicade mejor calidad, y que se trataba de una temáticafecunda para el Grupo. En los próximos meses sedefinirán y determinarán con mayor precisión el campode acción, los objetivos y el mandato de este posibleGrupo de Trabajo del GESAMP. El GESAMP convino enexaminar su mandato a fin de que pudiera aprobarse enel periodo entre reuniones.8. Formulación de una metodología basadaen los ecosistemas para la mariculturaen alta mar (Grupo de Trabajo36)La FAO, con el apoyo de la ONUDI, propuso elestablecimiento del Grupo de Trabajo 36 que revisará elmaterial publicado existente, determinará las próximasmedidas que han de tomarse en materia de investigacióny estudiará los aspectos relativos a los ecosistemasde la maricultura en alta mar que atañen a esosasuntos. El Grupo de Trabajo propondrá solucionesrecomendando directrices y protocolos para las actividadesde maricultura en alta mar.El Grupo de Trabajo iniciará sus deliberaciones enseptiembre de 2007 y las proseguirá hasta fines de 2008,cuando someterá un informe al GESAMP con miras asu examen y aprobación antes de su publicación. ElGESAMP acogió favorablemente el establecimiento deeste Grupo de Trabajo y tomó nota del carácter previsorde la propuesta y de sus posibles contribuciones a lainvestigación sobre los ecosistemas.9. Evaluación de las amenazas que representanlos contaminantes orgánicospersistentes (COP) para el medio marino(Grupo de Trabajo 37)La ONUDI propuso el establecimiento del Grupode Trabajo 37 que examinará las amenazas que representanlos contaminantes orgánicos persistentes (COP)para el medio marino. Tras debatir la propuesta, se convinoen que el Grupo de Trabajo 37 debería centrar sulabor en un examen científico ampliado del mercurio ysus compuestos (procedencia, transporte, destino, efectos,etc.), así como en las amenazas que representanpara el medio marino.Tras revisar el enfoque de la propuesta inicial,el GESAMP aprobó el establecimiento del Grupo deTrabajo 37. La propuesta y el mandato revisados relativosal Grupo de Trabajo se difundirán durante el periodoentre reuniones con miras a su aprobación definitiva.10. Sustancias químicas procedentes dela atmósfera presentes en los océanos(Grupo de Trabajo 38)Habida cuenta del creciente reconocimiento de laimportancia de los intercambios entre la atmósfera y losmares, la OMM propuso el establecimiento del Grupo deTrabajo 38 basándose en el muy encomiado N° 38 de lacolección de Informes y estudios del GESAMP. Se propusoque el Grupo de Trabajo examinara en un periodo dedos a cuatro años la necesidad de disponer de modelose instrumentos de medición de sustancias nitrogenadas,polvo de hierro y posiblemente otras sustancias químicasprocedentes de la atmósfera presentes en los océanos.El Grupo de Trabajo colaborará con el Sistema de avisode tormentas de tormentas de arena y polvo y con elproyecto de la OMM relativo a la síntesis de datos sobrela composición química de las precipitaciones.El GESAMP valoró positivamente la labor propuestay dio su aprobación de principio al establecimientodel Grupo de Trabajo.11. Tendencias mundiales de la contaminaciónde los ecosistemas costeros:evaluación retrospectiva de los ecosistemasLa OIEA presentó una propuesta preliminar y unproyecto de mandato relativos a un Grupo de Trabajocon objeto de recabar observaciones y sugerencias.El objetivo de este Grupo de Trabajo sería contribuir ala reducción a escala mundial de las tensiones a queestán sometidos los ecosistemas costeros, aportando alas partes interesadas, los científicos y la sociedad engeneral una evaluación objetiva y mundial de las tendenciasde la contaminación de los ecosistemas costerosfrágiles durante el último siglo. El Grupo de Trabajopodría utilizar, de haberlos, análisis retrospectivos delos ecosistemas basados en archivos y series de datoscronológicos sobre el medio ambiente.El GESAMP acogió favorablemente esta propuestay las posibilidades que ofrece de ampliar el alcance delas evaluaciones de la contaminación marina más alláde sus limitaciones temporales y geográficas normales.Además, resultaría particularmente útil para los paísesque no cuentan con suficientes datos de seguimiento.Asimismo, varias organizaciones regionales manifestaronsu interés por el proyecto.12 · REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSIONGESAMP Report and Studies No 77

12. Contribuciones a la «Evaluación deEvaluaciones» del “Proceso ordinariode las Naciones Unidas”Desde su 33ª reunión, el GESAMP ha prestadogran atención a los avances del Proceso ordinario depresentación de informes y evaluación del estado delmedio marino a escala mundial, incluidos los aspectossocioeconómicos (GRAME) de las Naciones Unidas.Asimismo, el GESAMP apoyó activamente al CentroMundial del PNUMA de Vigilancia de la Conservación(PNUMA-WCMC) para la publicación del informe tituladoEstudio de las evaluaciones mundiales y regionalesy actividades conexas del medio marino, en particularproporcionando un equipo de revisión para la redacciónde dicho informe.El Secretario Ejecutivo de la COI hizo hincapiéen que, según preveía, el GESAMP y sus miembroscontribuirían de manera decisiva a la «Evaluación deEvaluaciones» mediante la prestación de apoyo técnico.El GESAMP convino en que podrá colaborar en esatarea de distintas maneras como, por ejemplo, mediantela evaluación de los resultados por expertos homólogos,la realización de estudios por encargo y la creaciónde capacidades. Los miembros del GESAMP tambiéndestacaron la importancia de que los organismos patrocinadoresdel GESAMP participaran de forma dinámicaen la «Evaluación de Evaluaciones» y la necesidad deque se atendieran con diligencia todas las solicitudes alrespecto de los organismos coordinadores.14. Determinación de problemas nuevos yrecientes con respecto al deterioro delmedio marinoEl GESAMP examinó una lista de asuntos quepodrían tener importantes repercusiones en los ecosistemasmarinos. Aunque el Grupo Mixto de Expertosno podía ni debía efectuar investigaciones sobre todosellos, será importante definir los ámbitos en los que elGESAMP podría efectuar evaluaciones independientes.Por consiguiente, se debatió la mejor forma de que elGESAMP examinara los nuevos problemas, determinaralos asuntos en los que su mandato y sus capacidadeslo habilitan para intervenir y la manera en que podríareaccionar oportunamente.Se informó al GESAMP de que la AutoridadInternacional de los Fondos Marinos (ISA) había celebradorecientemente un contrato de prospección parala extracción de minerales con fines comerciales engrandes extensiones del fondo marino situadas bajojurisdicción internacional. Si bien el GESAMP reconocióla importancia económica de esta iniciativa, manifestótambién su preocupación por sus posibles repercusionesen los ecosistemas marinos adyacentes y se preguntóqué medidas se habían adoptado para la gestiónambiental de esas actividades. Posteriormente, se pidióal Presidente del GESAMP que se pusiera en contactocon la ISA a fin de solicitar mayor información sobre esteparticular.En conclusión, el GESAMP reafirmó su disposicióna contribuir a la «Evaluación de Evaluaciones» y alProceso ordinario de presentación de informes y evaluacióndel estado del medio marino a escala mundial,incluidos los aspectos socioeconómicos (GRAME) delas Naciones Unidas e indicó que su mandato, competenciasespecializadas y fondos lo habilitaban para ello.13. Taller sobre la definición de asuntosde interés mutuo para el GESAMP ylas organizaciones regionalesComo parte de su proceso de reactivación, elGESAMP organizó un taller de una jornada al quese invitaron a varias organizaciones regionales. ElGESAMP celebró ese taller con objeto de impulsar eldiálogo con las organizaciones regionales y dar a conocersus capacidades a fin de reforzar su pertinencia ysu participación regionales.Tras una breve exposición presentada por cadauno de los participantes en el taller, se examinaron trestemas distintos: “Definición de redes”, “Dónde y cómopuede resultar útil el asesoramiento del GESAMP” y“Posibilidades de creación de capacidades”. En esteinforme se presentan un resumen de las deliberacionesy las exposiciones de los participantes, que también sepublicaron en la colección Reports to GESAMP.GESAMP Report and Studies No 77REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSION · 13

РАБОЧЕЕ РЕЗЮМЕ ДОКЛАДА1. Введение.Объединенная группа экспертов по научнымаспектам охраны морской среды (ГЕСАМП) провеласвою тридцать четвертую сессию в Штаб-квартиреОрганизации Объединенных Наций по вопросамобразования, науки и культуры (ЮНЕСКО) в Париже8-11 мая 2007 г. ГЕСАМП была создана в 1969 г. рядоморганизаций ООН в качестве объединенной группы вцелях поощрения независимого междисциплинарногорассмотрения вопросов загрязнения морской среды иприродоохранных проблем, с тем чтобы предотвратитьдублирование усилий внутри системы ОрганизацииОбъединенных Наций. Ниже приводятся основныетемы, рассматривавшиеся на этой сессии.2. Оживление деятельности ГЕСАМПВ конце 2005 г. ГЕСАМП принялаблагожелательную поддержку со стороны Шведскогоагентства по сотрудничеству в целях международногоразвития (СИДА), рассчитанную на трехлетнийпериод. Помимо этого, Морская администрацияШвеции прикомандировала одного из своихсотрудников в качестве должностного лица ГЕСАМП сместонахождением в ИМО первоначально на два года,т.е. до конца 2008 г. Соответственно стало возможнымускорить процесс оживления деятельности, включаясоздание нового веб-сайта и пула экспертов, а такженовой эмблемы и дизайнерского стиля ГЕСАМП.ГЕСАМП была также проинформирована о развитиипоследних событий в контексте обновленногомеморандума между спонсорскими организациями,подкрепляющего новые Правила процедуры, атакже о структуре ГЕСАМП, включая создание БюроГЕСАМП.3. Оценка опасности вредныхвеществ, перевозимых на судах(Рабочая группа 1, РГ1)Со времени проведения сессии ГЕСАМП в 2003 г.РГ1 провела пять сессий и продолжала свою работупо пересмотру профилей опасности, содержащихся вМеждународном кодексе по химовозам ИМО. После33-й сессии ГЕСАМП Рабочая группа заново оценилавсе сыпучие химикаты, перевозимые морскимтранспортом, а ИМО ввела их новую классификациюв соответствии с категорией загрязнения, типомсудна и условиями перевозки. РГ также разработалановый критерий оценки, основанный на показателяхрастворимости в воде, удельного веса, нестабильностии вязкости, что позволяет ИМО выявлять плавучие,погружающиеся и, в особенности, образующиеустойчивую пленку вещества и предприниматьсоответствующие меры. Целый ряд веществ теперьдолжен перевозиться в двухкорпусных танкерах,что, вероятно, является самым существеннымдостижением в сфере охраны окружающей среды врезультате пересмотра Приложения II к МАРПОЛ.РГ1 ГЕСАМП является первым международныморганом, который разработал и применил оценочнуюсистему для определения опасности ингаляционноговоздействия химических веществ. Группа быласоздана в первую очередь во исполнение требованияИМО относительно предоставления данных обингаляционной токсичности в целях защиты судовыхэкипажей.4. Оценка и освещение экологическогориска в прибрежной аквакультуре(РГ31)В ГЕСАМП был представлен и обсужден проектисследовательского доклада РГ31. ГЕСАМП признала,что группа проделала существенную работу, новместе с тем отметила необходимость подробногоизучения и тщательного пересмотра представленногопроекта доклада с тем, чтобы добиться высокогокачества, научного совершенства, концептуальнойясности и строгости, которые присущи публикациямГЕСАМП.ГЕСАМП предложила, чтобы в заключительномдокладе были особо отражены методологическиеи процедурные аспекты систематического,поступенчатого и логичного проведения оценокэкологического риска и соответствующиенеобходимые усилия по его освещению. Группа такжеотметила бюджетные и временные ограничения,диктующие необходимость завершения исследованияи публикации доклада до конца 2007 г. В этой связиГЕСАМП обсудила и утвердила «дорожную карту»для окончательного рассмотрения и доработкиисследовательского доклада РГ31 в 2007 г.5. Модели экологической уязвимости,применяемые при анализе риска,связанного с морепродуктами(РГ33)С 2003 г. РГ33 пребывала в бездействии ввидунехватки финансовых средств и необходимоговремени у персонала. По этой причине ФАО вкачестве головного учреждения была вынужденапринять решение об отказе от оказания РГ33руководящей поддержки. С учетом этого ГЕСАМПрешила прекратить деятельность РГ33.6. Обзор средств, применяемых вотношении «активных веществ»,использующихся в системахуправления балластными водами(РГ34)Рабочая группа 34 была создана в ноябре2005 г. для рассмотрения всех предложений,представленных в адрес ИМО в целях одобрениясистем управления балластными водами, в которых14 · REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSIONGESAMP Report and Studies No 77

используются активные вещества. Рабочая группапредставляет ИМО доклады относительно того,несут ли такие предложения неоправданный рискдля окружающей среды, здоровья человека,имущества или ресурсов. РГ34 оценивает нефункционирование, структуру или эффективностьтаких систем, а лишь их потенциальный рискдля окружающей среды и здоровья человека. Кнастоящему времени Рабочая группа провела оценку7 систем, находящихся на различных этапах процессаодобрения ИМО. Рабочая группа также подготовилаобоснование или методологию не только для оценкитой опасности для экологии и здоровья человека,которую представляют собой активные вещества,добавляемые в балластные воды, но и в отношениисистем обработки, генерирующих такие веществанепосредственно на месте.7. Глубоководные рыбопромысловыеместообитания и экосистема (РГ35)ФАО при поддержке ЮНИДО предложилаучредить Рабочую группу ГЕСАМП поглубоководным рыбопромысловым местообитаниями соответствующим экосистемным проблемам. ЦельРГ35 будет состоять в проведении независимогонаучного обзора для информационногообеспечения политики, касающейся отдельныхаспектов глубоководного рыбного промысла и еговзаимозависимостей с экосистемой.ГЕСАМП признала необходимостьсовершенствования научных рекомендаций, обзорови обобщений, над чем группа могла бы плодотворнопоработать. В ближайшие месяцы будут доработаныи точно определены сферы деятельности, цели иполномочия предлагаемой Рабочей группы ГЕСАМП.ГЕСАМП согласилась рассмотреть полномочиягруппы на предмет их одобрения в межсессионныйпериод.8. Разработка экосистемного подходак прибрежной марикультуре (РГ36)ФАО при поддержке ЮНИДО предложилаучредить РГ36, которая проведет обзор существующейлитературы и определит необходимые дальнейшиешаги в области исследований, рассмотритэкосистемные аспекты прибрежной аквакультурыв том, как она соотносится с вышеназваннымивопросами. Рабочая группа будет предлагать решенияпутем предоставления рекомендаций о принципахи протоколах для осуществления деятельности вприбрежной аквакультуре.Рабочая группа начнет свою работу в сентябре2007 г. и продолжит ее в течение всего 2008 г.Затем на рассмотрение и одобрение ГЕСАМПбудет представлен доклад для последующей егопубликации. ГЕСАМП приветствовала создание этойРабочей группы, отметив проактивный характерданного предложения и его потенциальный вклад висследование экосистем.9. Оценка опасности стойкихорганических загрязнителей (СО3)для морской среды (РГ37)ЮНИДО предложила учредить РГ37, котораярассматривала бы угрозы, которые создают дляморской среды стойкие органические загрязнители(СО3). После обсуждения этого предложения былорешено, что работа РГ37 должна сосредоточиватьсяна проведении широкого научного обзора проблемыприсутствия ртути и ее соединений (в том, чтокасается ее источников, переноса, эволюции,последствий и т.п.), а также на соответствующейопасности для морской среды.ГЕСАМП одобрила создание РГ37, пересмотревосновную направленность первоначальногопредложения. Предложение о создании Рабочейгруппы и ее полномочия будут разосланы впереработанном виде для окончательногоутверждения в межсессионный период.10. Перенос химических веществ изатмосферы в океан (РГ38)В свете растущего осознания важностихимического взаимообмена между воздушнойи морской средой ВМО предложила создать РГ38на основе материалов получившего широкоепризнание Выпуска № 38 Докладов и исследованийГЕСАМП (GESAMP Reports and Studies No. 38). Втечение предлагаемого периода в 2-4 года Рабочаягруппа проведет оценку потребностей в продуктахмоделирования и измерений переноса в океаназотных соединений, пыли (железо) и, возможно,других химических веществ из атмосферы. Рабочаягруппа будет сотрудничать с Системой ВМО попредупреждению о песчаных и пылевых бурях, атакже с Проектом ВМО по синтезу и обобщениюданных о химических параметрах осадков.ГЕСАМП позитивно оценила значимостьпредлагаемой работы и в принципе одобрила созданиеРабочей группы.11. Глобальные тенденции загрязненияприбрежных экосистем:ретроспективная оценка экосистемМАГАТЭ внесло предварительное предложение осоздании Рабочей группы и проект ее полномочий длятого, чтобы можно было представить соответствующиезамечания и предложения. Целью Рабочей группымогло бы быть содействие уменьшению стрессовойнагрузки на прибрежные экосистемы в мировоммасштабе путем предоставления заинтересованныморганизациям, ученым и всему обществу объективнойи глобальной оценки тенденций загрязнения втечение последних ста лет в уязвимых прибрежныхэкосистемах. Рабочая группа будет использоватьретроспективный анализ экосистем, основанный наэкологических архивах и временных рядах данных,если таковые имеются.GESAMP Report and Studies No 77REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSION · 15

ГЕСАМП положительно оценила это предложениеи его потенциал в том, что касается расширениядиапазона оценок загрязнения морской среды иих обычных временных и географических рамок.К тому же, это имело бы особую важность длястран, где данные мониторинга скудны. Своюзаинтересованность в проекте проявили такженекоторые региональные организации.12. Вклад в оценку оценок в рамках«Регулярного процесса ООН»Со времени своей 33-й сессии ГЕСАМП пристальноследила за развитием регулярного процесса ООН поглобальному освещению и оценке состояния морскойсреды, включая социально-экономические аспекты(ГООМС). ГЕСАМП также активно поддержалапубликацию Всемирным центром мониторинга охраныприроды ЮНЕП (ЮНЕП-ВЦМОП) доклада «Обзорглобальных и региональных оценок и соответствующихмероприятий, касающихся морской среды», в первуюочередь путем формирования обзорной группы длясоставления проекта этого доклада.Как подчеркнул Исполнительный секретарьМОК, он ожидает, что ГЕСАМП и его члены сыграютключевую роль в проведении оценки оценок,обеспечив техническую поддержку этого процесса.ГЕСАМП согласилась с тем, что ее члены смогутсодействовать процессу различными путями,например, посредством рецензирования результатов,проведения исследований по заказу и наращиванияпотенциала. Члены ГЕСАМП также отметиливажность проактивного участия в оценке оценок,проводимой спонсорскими организациями ГЕСАМП,и необходимость быстрого реагирования на любыесоответствующие запросы от ведущих учреждений.Краткий отчет о дискуссии и выступления участниковприведены в настоящем докладе, а также ввиде отдельной публикации в серии «Reports toGESAMP».14. Выявление новых и возникающихпроблем в отношении деградацииморской средыГЕСАМП обсудила перечень тем, имеющих большоепотенциальное значение для морских экосистем.Хотя ГЕСАМП не может и не должна изучать все изних, было бы важным определить области, в которыхГЕСАМП призвана сыграть роль в проведениинезависимых оценок. Например, обсуждался вопросо том, каким образом ГЕСАМП может лучше всегоосуществлять мониторинг возникающих проблем,выявлять те из них, в отношении которых онаобладает мандатом и способностью действовать,и определять возможности группы своевременнореагировать.ГЕСАМП была проинформирована о том, чтонедавно Международный орган по морскому днузаказал исследование на тему коммерческойдобычи минералов в обширных районах морскогодна, находящихся под международной юрисдикцией.Признавая экономическое значение этого шага,ГЕСАМП в то же время выразила озабоченность поповоду потенциального воздействия такого развитияна прилегающие морские экосистемы и тех мер,которые осуществляются в целях природоохранногоуправления этой деятельностью. ПредседателюГЕСАМП было предложено в дальнейшем обратитьсяв Международный орган по морскому дну с просьбойо предоставлении дополнительной информации поэтим вопросам.В заключение ГЕСАМП подтвердила своюготовность содействовать проведению оценки оценоки Регулярному процессу ООН (ГОМС) и наличияу группы соответствующего мандата, экспертныхзнаний и средств.13. Семинар по определению тем,представляющих взаимный интересдляГЕСАМП и региональных организаций. Врамках процесса оживления своей деятельностиГЕСАМП провела однодневный семинар, на которыйбыл приглашен ряд региональных организаций.Посредством этого семинара ГЕСАМП стремиласьповысить свое значение и роль в регионах путемрасширения диалога с региональными организациямии информирования общественности о своихвозможностях.После кратких выступлений всех участниковсеминара, состоялась дискуссия по трем различнымтемам: «Определение сетей», «Где и как могутбыть полезны консультативные услуги ГЕСАМП?»и «Возможности для наращивания потенциала».16 · REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSIONGESAMP Report and Studies No 77

1. INTRODUCTION1.1 The Joint Group of Experts on the ScientificAspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP)held its 34th session from 8 to 11 May 2007 at theIntergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) ofthe United Nations Educational, Scientific and CulturalOrganisation (UNESCO) Headquarters in Paris, France,under the Chair of Mr. Mike Huber. Mr. Robert Duceserved as the Vice-Chairperson. On Monday, 7 May,the Members of GESAMP met for informal discussions,while the Executive Board held a GESAMP ExecutiveCommittee held meetings on 7 and 11 May 2007.Opening of the session1.2 The Chairperson of GESAMP, Mr. M. Huber,called the 34th session of GESAMP to order at 09.00a.m. on 8 May 2007.1.3 Mr. Patricio Bernal, Executive Secretary IOC,welcomed the participants to the UNESCO Headquarterson behalf of the host organization and indicated that thissession was expected to generate important decisionsand recommendations which would be significant forGESAMPʼs future. He recalled that IOC has supportedpast GESAMP Working Groups and continued to recognizeGESAMPʼs outstanding role as an independent scientificadvisory body in the UN System. In this respect,Dr. P. Bernal acknowledged the contribution of the lateDr. Umit Unluata, former GESAMP Technical Secretaryfor UNESCO-IOC in the work of GESAMP. He noted thatGESAMPs revitalisation process is now well underway.1.4 He recalled that GESAMPʼs New StrategicVision 1 was recognised and welcomed by IOC MemberStates at the 37th IOC Executive Council and thatGESAMPʼs role and modus operandi have been updatedto meet more effectively the requirements of its sponsoringorganizations.1.5 Mr. P. Bernal stressed the importance of theUN Regular process for the Global Reporting andAssessment of the state of the Marine Environment(GRAME), for which UNESCO-IOC and UNEP are leadingagencies. The establishment of GRAME was recognisedas a key WSSD outcome as the need to provideaccurate, scientifically robust and objective informationto decision makers and the public on the state of themarine environment was realized.1.6 Whilst the GRAME process took time to initiate,the start-up phase, called the ʻAssessment ofAssessmentsʼ is now being implemented through theestablishment of a dedicated Group of Experts, whichfirst met last March in UNESCO, Paris. The Chairmanand Vice-Chairman of GESAMP are members of thisgroup in their personal capacity. Dr. Bernal recalled thatthe potential role of GESAMP in the GRAME processhas been emphasized during the meetings leading to theinitiation of Assessment of Assessments (AoA) and nowthat the process has defined a clear work programme forthe next two years, GESAMP should continue to standready to contribute to the AoA exercise and on a longerterm perspective to the regular process itself.1.7 Mr. P. Bernal expressed his wish for a successfulsession, one that would present a strong signal infavour of good and effective inter-agency collaboration.Adoption of the Agenda1.8 The agenda for the session as adopted isprovided in Annex I to this report. Annexes II and IIIprovide, respectively, the list of documents and the listof participants.1«The New GESAMP: Science for Sustainable Oceans»:http://gesamp.org/documentextern/newgesamp.pdfGESAMP Report and Studies No 77REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSION · 17

2. REPORT OF THE CHAIRPERSON OF GESAMP2.1 The Chairman, Mr. M. Huber, informed theMembers of significant developments related to GESAMPduring the intersessional period and described the activitiesof the Chair, Vice-Chair (Mr. R. Duce), other Membersof GESAMP, and the Technical Secretary for IMO (Mr.René Coenen) in representing GESAMP in internationalforums. To keep the membership of GESAMP aware ofthese activities, three intersessional short reports weresent to the Members to provide updates on GESAMP,and developments regarding the establishment of theRegular Process for Global Reporting and Assessmentof the Marine Environment (GRAME).2.2 There were several major developments regardingGESAMP during the intersessional period:• The GESAMP Strategic Vision document wasfinalised in August 2003 in accordance withthe decisions taken at GESAMP XXXIII, andsubsequently revised to harmonise terminologyregarding the administrative structure ofthe GESAMP mechanism with that of a draftMemorandum of Understanding being preparedby the agencies. The Strategic Vision documentwas published in its present form in early 2005.• The GESAMP Ballast Water Working Group onActive Substances (WG 34) was established inDecember 2005. GESAMP reviewed two of theBWWGʼs reports intersessionally by correspondenceand teleconference.• Also in December 2005, GESAMP receivedfinancial support from the government ofSweden, for a period of three years, for theimplementation of GESAMPʼs Strategic Visionincluding development of the GESAMP network,to strengthen GESAMPʼs participation in theGRAME, and to increase the participation ofdeveloping country experts in GESAMP activities.On behalf of GESAMP the Chair expressedhis sincere appreciation and thanks to the governmentof Sweden for their generous support.• A GESAMP Task Team met in London during18-20 September 2006 to peer-review the Surveyof global and regional assessments and relatedactivities of the marine environment and associateddatabase (see report of agenda item 6).• In November 2006 Mr. Fredrik Haag wasseconded from the Swedish MaritimeAdministration to the post of GESAMP Officerin the Administrative Secretariat at IMO. TheChair thanked Mr. F. Haag for his enthusiasticand effective efforts, and noted the tremendousbenefit to GESAMP of having a full-time officerto support its activities.2.3 Noting that the Strategic Vision calls for proactiveengagement with other organisations and activities,the Chair informed Members of meetings and other foraat which GESAMP was represented during the intersessionalperiod, including:• As decided at GESAMP XXXIII, the IMOTechnical Secretary, Mr René Coenen, attendedthe meeting “2010 – The Global BiodiversityChallenge” in London, May 2003.• As decided at GESAMP XXXIII, Mr Tim Bowmerrepresented GESAMP at an informal meeting todevelop UNEPʼs contribution to the GRAME inThe Hague, May 2003.• As decided at GESAMP XXXIII, the Chairrepresented GESAMP at the 4th meeting of theInformal Consultative Process on Oceans andLaw of the Sea (ICP) in New York, 2-6 June2003. He presented the Strategic Vision for theNew GESAMP during the ICP meeting.• As decided at GESAMP XXXIII, the Chairattended two workshops in Cairns, Australia,in June 2003: the Workshop on Governance ofHigh Seas Biodiversity Conservation and theWorkshop on Ecosystem-Based Management(EBM) – “Beyond Biodiversity, SustainableManagement and Conservation of the Oceansusing EBM”• The Chair represented GESAMP at the 6thand 7th meetings of the Steering Group ofthe Global International Waters Assessment,of which GESAMP was an ex-officio member,in Kalmar, Sweden, October 2003 and August2004, respectively• The Chair represented GESAMP, and presentedGESAMPʼs position on its possible rolein GRAME as developed at GESAMP XXXIII, ata Planning meeting to develop a UNEP modulefor the GRAME in Nairobi, November 2003. TheVice-Chair also attended this meeting, but in hiscapacity as President of SCOR and not in that ofVice-Chair. Mr. Larry Awosika also attended themeeting, in the capacity of an independent expert• The Chair presented the Strategic Vision for theNew GESAMP at the East Asian Seas Congressin Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, December 2003.During that meeting the Chair also representedGESAMP at the Meeting of Experts to IdentifyRequirements for Scientific Support for the Seasof East Asia and, along with the AdministrativeSecretary of GESAMP, co-Chaired the section ofthe meeting devoted to the development of theGRAME.18 · REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSIONGESAMP Report and Studies No 77

• Mr L. Awosika represented GESAMP at ameeting of the Group of Experts on establishingthe GRAME in New York, March 2004. TheChair and Vice-Chair also attended this meetingin the role of consultants to the UN Division ofOceans and Law of the Sea (UN-DOALOS)• The IMO Technical Secretary of GESAMP, Mr.R. Coenen delivered a presentation describingthe Strategic Vision for the New GESAMP to theIOC Assembly in Paris, June 2004.• The Chair represented GESAMP at the 5thmeeting of ICP, New York, June 2004 andattended the 1st International Workshop on theGRAME, which was held in conjunction with ICP,in the role of consultant to UN-DOALOS.• The Chair represented GESAMP at the 2ndInternational Workshop on the GRAME, NewYork, June 2005.• The Chair attended the first meeting of theGRAME Assessment of Assessment (AoA)Steering Group, New York, June 2006 in thecapacity of consultant to UNEP.• The Chair and Co-Chair participated in meetingsof the Executive Committee held at the IAEAMarine Environmental Laboratory, Monaco inFebruary 2004, by teleconference in September2005, and at IMO headquarters in London inFebruary 2006.• Mr. R. Coenen attended the Consultative Meetingon Large Marine Ecosystems, Paris, July 2006to present the Strategic Vision and inform LMEprogrammes that the workshop to identify themesof mutual interest between GESAMP and regionalorganisations would be convened at GESAMP 34(see agenda item 7).• The Chair reported on GESAMP and itsactivities at the annual SCOR meeting, heldin Concepcion Chile in October 2006. It wasagreed that GESAMP and SCOR would maintaincontact to pursue opportunities for jointactivities, particularly in the area of capacitybuilding.• The Chair and Vice-Chair are members of theAoA Group of Experts. The Chair attended thefirst meeting of the Group in Paris, February2007, which the Vice Chair was unable to attend.The GESAMP Officer, Mr F. Haag, representedGESAMP at that meeting as an observer.2.4 The Chair expressed his thanks to the SponsoringOrganisations and the Administrative Secretariat for supportingincreased interactions of GESAMP with otherorganisations and activities.GESAMP Report and Studies No 77REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSION · 19

3. REPORT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARYOF GESAMPActivities and achievements of theSponsoring Organizations of GESAMPsince 20033.1 Mr. Miguel Palomares, the AdministrativeSecretary of GESAMP introduced an overview of theactivities and achievements as reported by UNESCO-IOC, FAO, UNIDO, IAEA and IMO with the aim ofproviding a context of their involvement and interest inthe activities GESAMP undertakes (GESAMP 34-INF.6-Rev.1). Some of these achievements are reported inAnnex IV.Modus operandi of GESAMP3.2 GESAMP was informed that the Memorandum ofUnderstanding agreed in 1994 between the SponsoringOrganizations of GESAMP as the administrative basis forGESAMP would be updated (GESAMP 34 INF.3-Rev.1).Furthermore, to make this MoU operational, draft Rulesof Procedure and Guidelines for their Implementation hadbeen developed using the Strategic Vision for the NewGESAMP as the basis (GESAMP 34-INF.2).3.3 The Executive Committee had reviewed thedraft Rules of Procedure at its meeting on Monday, 7May 2007. In this context it was agreed for the timebeing to remove any reference to the GESAMP Officeand to a GESAMP Trust Fund until such time whenthese would be agreed upon. The Rules of Procedurewere subsequently agreed in principle with some editorialamendments. Eventually, a revised MoU, theRules of Procedure and any other arrangements suchas a Trust fund would have to be adopted by either theExecutive Heads or the Governing Bodies of each of theSponsoring Organizations depending on their internalapproval procedures.3.4 The Executive Secretary of UNESCO-IOCinformed GESAMP of the concerns that the ExecutiveCouncil of IOC in 2004 had expressed at the initial planto review the MoU for GESAMP in such a way that itmight become and be seen as an organization in its ownright, rather than as a joint venture of its SponsoringOrganizations. As these concerns had been echoedby other Sponsoring Organizations, the discussion hadsince that time focused on a more flexible version of theMoU.3.5 On a question whether decisions on the ModusOperandi for GESAMP might affect its scientific programming,the Group was assured that these decisionswould only concern the administrative support arrangementsfor GESAMP.Establishment of the “GESAMP Office”3.6 GESAMP was informed that the ExecutiveCommittee had reconfirmed the aspiration to establisha “GESAMP Office” to centralize the supportfor GESAMP activities and make it more visible forits members, sponsors, governments and the scientificcommunity. The Executive Committee is currentlyreviewing the legal, financial and administrativearrangements, including a roadmap towards a finaldecision regarding the establishment of the GESAMPOffice, so encouraging the Sponsoring Organizationsto reach decisions internally. This would also serveas an invitation to all Sponsoring Organisations to putforward, if they so wish, offer similar to the currentoffer by the IAEA Marine Environment Laboratories inMonaco to host the Office, in order to find the best possiblesolution for GESAMP. The Executive Committeewould finalise the basic criteria and roadmap aimed ata final decision before the end of 2007 and with a focuson the modalities of a “Start-up” Office that, if successful,would be expected to evolve into the full GESAMPOffice described in the Strategic Vision.3.7 GESAMP took note of these developments.20 · REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSIONGESAMP Report and Studies No 77

4. GESAMP POOL OF EXPERTS AND WEB-SITE4.1 In December 2006, IMO and IAEA agreed,though an MOU, to work jointly on redesigning theGESAMP web-site to provide a dynamic tool for facilitatingall phases of the future work of GESAMP. The twomajor tasks undertaken by IAEA involved the re-developmentof the basic GESAMP web-site, and the developmentand operation of the database for the GESAMPPool of Experts.4.2 The IAEA consultant, Mr. Scott Fowler, co-ordinatingthese tasks presented the design and functioningof the pilot web-site to the Members and Observersplacing particular emphasis on the methods of proposingand registering potential experts for the Pool of Experts.In order to expand the database, the consultant urgedall the Members and observers at this meeting to furnishhim or members the Executive Committee basic information(at least full name and e-mail address) on potentialexperts so that they can become registered for the Pool.He further noted that as the existing Working Groupsare reactivated or new ones established, the WorkingGroup page will have the capability for uploading anddownloading working group documents and drafts. It isanticipated that following GESAMP-34, there will be newinformation to post on various pages of the site, and thatGESAMP and the Working Groups will begin to make fulluse of it.4.3 The Group expressed its gratitude for the newweb-site design and its functions, and made severalsuggestions for improvement including the possibility ofhaving the site available in other official UN languagesand the incorporation of a forum for interactive communication.All the suggestions were noted by the ExecutiveCommittee who will discuss them during their next meeting,and then advise the IAEA on what direction to takein making any substantial revision of the web-site. In thisconnection, the IAEA Technical Secretary stressed theneed of having all suggestions for substantive alterationsto the web-site decided upon soon, since as a next stepit is intended to have a commercial firm finalize the basicweb-site design and structure in the very near future.GESAMP Report and Studies No 77REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSION · 21

5. GESAMP ACTIVITIES5.1 Evaluation of the hazards of harmfulsubstances carried by ships (WG1)Introduction and history5.1.1 The GESAMP Working Group on theEvaluation of Hazards of Substances carried by Ships(WG1) evaluates, at the request of IMO, the hazards tothe environment and human health of bulk liquid chemicalscarried by ships.5.1.2 Since GESAMP met at its 33rd session in2003, WG1 has held its 40th to 44th sessions and continuedits work of revising the hazard profiles containedin the IMO International Bulk Chemicals Code (IBCCode). It completed this work in 2006 ahead of entryinto force of Annex II of the International Convention forthe Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modifiedby the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78)on 1 January 2007.5.1.3 In that Convention, ʻBulk liquid chemicalsʼare defined loosely as those pumped onto or dischargedfrom fixed tanks onboard a ship. Chemical tankers, ofwhich there are approximately 1,000 to 1,200 active ininternational trade, are divided into three Ship Types, asfollows:Ship Type 1:Ship Type 2:Ship Type 3:Double-hulled with stringent carriagerequirements to prevent exposure ofgiven chemical to the crew and themarine environmentDouble-hulled with less strict carriagerequirementsSingle-hulled for less hazardous orharmless substances5.1.4 WG1 was established by GESAMP in 1974 toassist IMO in the hazard evaluation of chemicals under thethen, new MARPOL 73/78 Convention. This work focusedinitially on developing a methodology to determine the hazardto the marine environment of substances carried underboth MARPOL Annexes II (Noxious Liquid Substances inBulk) and Annex III (Harmful Substances Carried by Sea inPackaged Form). This became the “GESAMP hazard profile”,and was based on the following criteria: bioaccumulation(column A), aquatic toxicity (column B), acute toxicityto mammals (column C), skin and eye irritation (column D)and interference with amenities (column E, e.g., maritimeinfrastructure, fisheries, beaches). Over the interveningyears a composite list of over 2,250 evaluated chemicalstransported by sea was built up.5.1.5 In 1995, two decades after MARPOL 73/78had come into effect, the IMO Marine EnvironmentProtection Committee requested GESAMP to reviewits methodology in parallel with a planned update ofMARPOL Annex II. Work commenced on the revisedmethodology over four sessions and received approvalfrom GESAMP in 1998. This revised GESAMP HazardEvaluation Procedure, published as GESAMP Reports &Studies No. 64, is summarized in Annex V to this report.5.1.6 IMO subsequently requested WG1 to revisethe 625 MARPOL Annex II hazard profiles contained inthe IBC code (1998) according to the revised GESAMPhazard evaluation procedure, as it became known andthis work commenced in 1998. At a rate of 100 substancesper year, the first pass through the IBC code wascompleted on schedule in 2002. The next four years wereused for the difficult work of filling in missing data throughcommunication with the chemical industry and to evaluateadditional substances from other IMO lists, leading to atotal of approximately 850 re-evaluated substances.5.1.7 The revised MARPOL Annex II and therevised pollution categories, ship type and carriage conditionsassociated with each chemical, entered into forceon 1 January 2007, at which time the administration onboard all chemical tankers in international trade switchedto the new system.Progress since GESAMP 33 in 20035.1.8 As part of the IMO process, the following hasbeen achieved through the revision of MARPOL Annex II:.1 IMO has reduced the quantities of tank washingspermissible for discharge at sea to themaximum practicable extent;.2 IMO has closed a loophole in the old regulationsby which large quantities of tank washings,other slops, and even off-specification cargoscould effectively be discharged at sea;.3 All bulk chemicals in maritime transport havebeen re-evaluated by WG1 according to modernenvironmental, human health and physicalchemicalcriteria and have also been re-categorizedby IMO as to pollution category, ship typeand carriage conditions;.4 WG1 developed a new criterion based onwater solubility, specific gravity, volatility andviscosity, which enables IMO to identify floating,sinking and, in particular, persistent slick-formingsubstances and to treat them accordingly.A range of substances such as vegetable oils(currently representing a 30,000,000 tonnes peryear trade) plus all other viscous and solidifyingsubstances now have to be carried in doublehulledtankers, probably the single most significantachievement for the environment of therevision of MARPOL Annex II; and22 · REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSIONGESAMP Report and Studies No 77

.5 GESAMP WG1 is the first international bodyto develop and use an estimation system toevaluate the inhalation hazards of chemicals.This was developed primarily to fulfil an IMOrequirement for inhalation toxicity data to protectcrews on board ships. However, while requestingthat the appropriate tests continue to becarried out by industry, it was felt necessary toreduce the number of animal tests, in particularfor chemicals with which only marginal inhalationhazards would be expected.5.1.9 The work of WG1 is unique, as it is possiblythe only international body that evaluates the hazardsof commodity chemicals by independent scientific peerreview.It allows scientific evaluation to be carried outindependently of classification. A level playing field forindustry has been maintained and encouraged uponwhich the hazards of substances are scientifically andfairly evaluated. Any changes which WG1 may recommendto the GESAMP Hazard Evaluation Procedureare submitted for approval by GESAMP, whereas theWG1/EHS reports containing the hazard profiles themselvesare reported directly to the working group IMOhas designated to assign the carriage requirements forthe chemicals so evaluated.Does the system work?5.10 If a substance has no GESAMP hazardprofile, or if the profile is missing ratings in particularcolumns, then IMO cannot categorize the substance andany ship accepting to carry such a cargo runs the realrisk of being prevented from proceeding by the harbourauthorities of Contracting Parties to MARPOL.5.2 Environmental risk assessment andcommunication in coastal aquaculture(WG31)5.2.1 The FAO Technical Secretary introducedthe background to the presentation of the draft studyreport by WG31 on Environmental Risk Assessmentand Communication in Coastal Aquaculture andreferred to meetings documents: GESAMP34/5/2 andGESAMP34/5/3. During GESAMP-XXXII in New York,WG31 was given the task of producing a review reportand guidelines for environmental risk assessment ofcoastal aquaculture, aimed at promoting harmonizationand consistency in the treatment of risk and uncertainty,and improved risk communication. Based on a backgroundand discussion paper (Hambrey and Southall,2002 ) to identify and explore key issues, WG31 startedits task with an initial scoping planning meeting in 2003.Following health and workload problems faced by the firsttwo chairpersons of WG31, in 2005 Mr Edward Black tookover chairmanship for WG31. Finally in November 2006,with the support by FAO, Members of WG31 met in Rometo discuss and complete draft sections of its study. InMarch 2007 the revised draft study was circulated to peerreviewers from both the scientific and user community.5.2.2 The Technical Secretary emphasized thatFAO appreciated the efforts by WG31, and at thesame time he highlighted the significant requirementfor the study report of WG31 to be finalized as soon aspossible so that it be submitted in time to printers forpublication in 2007 in the series of GESAMP Reportsand Studies.5.2.3 Mr Black, Chair of WG31 presented anoverview of the approach of the draft study onassessment and communication of environmentalrisks associated with coastal aquaculture. He gave ageneral overview of risk analysis, illustrated by selectedaspects of the proposed risk assessment and communicationframework. He highlighted the importanceof linking the structure, process and content of therisk analysis with the publicʼs perception of what theyrequire to evaluate risks and buy into risk assessmenton a personal emotive level in contrast to the scientificrisk analysis level.5.2.4 The draft study contains five chaptersoutlining the environmental risk assessment andcommunication framework. These chapters providean introduction to the report, a discussion of the environmentalrisk associated with coastal aquaculturedevelopment, a description of the nature of risk anduncertainty and the relationship between uncertaintyand the application of the precautionary principle. Acomparative discussion of other decision support systemsfollows along with a discussion of the structureof the proposed risk assessment system. The fifthchapter contains an extended discussion of the needfor and functions of risk communication, the challengesthe communication strategy must meet and anoutline of engagement and communication tools. Sixcase studies were developed to illustrate the processof risk assessment of specific environmental hazardsassociated with 6 coastal aquaculture scenarios inEurope and Asia. Mr Black also summarized brieflythe comments and suggestions received from expertswho have peer reviewed the draft study.Discussion by the Group5.2.5 GESAMP recognized the significant effortsby WG31 of trying to develop an extensive review andguidance document on the complex issues of environmentalrisk assessment and risk communication in therealm of coastal aquaculture. The Group also recognizedthat the peer review of the draft study report hasconfirmed both the significance of the effort by WG31 aswell as the evident need for thorough review and carefulrevision of the draft study report as submitted, to ensurethe high quality, scientific excellence and conceptualclarity and rigor expected of a GESAMP publication.5.2.6 The Meeting discussed issues of scopeof the present report such as geographical extent ofecological risk assessments, coverage of habitats, rela-2Hambrey, J. and T. Southall, 2002. Environmental riskassessment and communication in coastal aquaculture: Abackground and discussion paper for GESAMP WorkingGroup 31 on Environmental Impacts of Coastal Aquaculture.(71 p.).ftp://ftp.fao.org/FI/DOCUMENT/gesamp/GESAMP31Hambrey_Southall2002.pdfGESAMP Report and Studies No 77REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSION · 23

tionships in the use of fishmeal for aquaculture feedsand effects on wild fish resources, quantification ofnutrient releases, cost-benefits assessments in aquaculture.It was emphasized that good science is neededin particular in developing countries, especially for thedevelopment and management of small-scale aquaculture.It was recommended that such scientific issues bereflected in the respective sections of the study report,for example in addressing data-rich and data-poorsituations in environmental risk assessments of coastalaquaculture. Overall, it was concluded that the studyshould emphasize and focus on the methodological andprocedural aspects of systematic, stepwise and logicalconduct of environmental risk assessments, and thenecessary associated efforts of risk communication. Inorder to highlight the scientific focus on environmentalrisk issues, it was suggested that the title be changed to“Assessment and communication of environmental risksin coastal aquaculture”.5.2.7 The Group recognized the budgetary andtime limitations requiring that the study be completed andpublished before the end of 2007. Therefore, GESAMPdiscussed and agreed to the below roadmap for the finalreview and finalization of WG31ʼs study report in 2007.Mr E. Black confirmed he and WG31 will undertake thenecessary efforts to finalize the study report in time.5.3 Environmental exposure models forapplication in seafood risk analysis(WG33)5.3.1 The FAO Technical Secretary of GESAMPintroduced the origins and status of Working Group 33.Following a proposal by FAO, GESAMP in 2001 establishedWG33 with the expectation that the group “willassess the feasibility of the development/adaptation anduse of practical and cost-effective aquatic ecotoxicologicaland microbiological hazard/risk assessment methodsfor application in seafood safety risk assessment andmanagement”. The WG began its efforts with a scopingmeeting held in Rome, December 2001, to examine thecritical issues within the general mandate for the WorkingGroup, and to better define the scope of the WGʼs activities.The report of this Scoping Meeting is available fromFAO. WG33 was originally supported primarily by FAOand WHO, but agencies such as IOC, UNEP and IAEAhad also shown interest. However, WG33 has beendormant since 2003, due to shortage of funds and stafftime. For these reasons, FAO has had to decide that itwill no longer provide the lead support for WG33. Otherpossibly interested agencies were invited to present proposalsto revitalize and lead this WG in view of sharedconcerns over seafood safety and consumer protection.The Technical Secretary also highlighted that seafoodrisk analysis along the entire food chain is undertakenby FAO/WHO within the framework of the CodexAlimentarius Commission. Finally, he thanked Messrs D.Weston and F. Gobas, Chairs of this WG, and all expertsof WG33 for their efforts.5.3.2 The Group briefly discussed general issuesof funding and duration of working groups, and, in conclusion,decided to discontinue the initiative of WG33.5.4 Review of applications for ʻactive substancesʼto be used in ballast watermanagement systems (WG34)5.4.1 The GESAMP – “Ballast Water WorkingGroup on Active Substances” or WG34, was establishedin November 2005 to review any proposals submitted toRoadmap for revision and completion of WG31 Study Report during 200714-18 May 2007 F. Haag/Administrative Secretariat produces list/compilation of comments by peer reviewers21 May 2007 U. Barg/FAO sends above compilation of peer reviewers comments to all members ofWG31by 01 July2007I. Davies & other WG31 experts revise Main Chapters 1-5 of Draft Study addressing allpeer reviewer comments on Chapters 1-5.I. Davies confirmed target date.As soon as main chapters 1-5 are revised, these should be circulated as soon as possibleto GESAMP Membersby 1 July2007All WG31 experts revise all Case Studies 1-6 addressing all peer reviewer commentsby 15 September 2007 E. Black/WG31 Chair has reviewed and consolidated all revisions following peer reviewerscomments, and submits revised WG31 Study Report to Haag & Barg, together withresponse by WG31 to peer review comments.17 September 2007 F. Haag/ Administrative Secretariat circulates (1) revised study report, (2) compilation ofpeer reviewers comments and (3) response by WG31 to peer reviewers comments, toall Members of GESAMP08 October 2007 Telephone Conference all GESAMP Members to discuss revised Study Report, with aview to approve it for publication22 – 26 October 2007 E. Black/WG31 Chair submits final version of revised Study Report to FAO01 November 2007 U. Barg/FAO submits FINAL Study Report to FAO printing24 · REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSIONGESAMP Report and Studies No 77

IMO for approval of Ballast Water Management systems(further referred to as treatment systems) that make useof Active Substances. WG34 reports to IMO on whethersuch proposals present unreasonable risk to the environment,human health, property or resources in accordancewith the criteria specified in the Procedure for approvalof ballast water management systems that make use ofActive Substances, adopted by IMO.5.4.2 WG34 does not evaluate the operation ordesign of the systems, or their effectiveness, only theirpotential for environmental and human health risks.5.4.3 WG34 has met on three occasions at IMOHeadquarters in London, WG34/1 and 2 being chairedby Mr. Finn Petersen and WG34/3 by Mr. Tim Bowmer.The workload and timetable for the approval of activesubstances for use in treatment systems is determinedby the number of interested manufacturers and by theplanned implementation of the Ballast Water ManagementConvention (2004) and WG34/4 is planned for 29 Octoberto 2 November 2007. Each meeting has produced areport to the Marine Environment Protection Committee(MEPC) of IMO, the end user, which is first approved byGESAMP. MEPC, taking the WG34 reports into account,then approves or rejects these applications.5.4. 4 To date, WG34 has evaluated seven systemsin various stages of the IMO approval process. Theygenerally depend on pre-filtration of the ballast water followedby the application of oxidizing mechanisms, (e.g.using ozone, peroxide, chlorine or free-radicals). Suchsubstances/species are mainly generated in-situ but mayalso be applied by the injection of chemical substances.5.4. 5 WG34 has also developed a rationale ormethodology not only for assessing the environmental andhuman health risks from active substances injected intoballast water but also for treatment systems generatingsuch substances in-situ.5.4. 6 Many of the treatment systems evaluated todate tend to produce a similar range of chemical by-products,although concentrations may vary widely. Theseinclude low molecular weight, halogenated substances,some of which are volatile. These by-products arise fromthe interaction of the oxidizing substances/species producedby the treatment system with organic matter in thetreated water.5.4. 7 Such by-products are well known from coastal,industrial cooling water systems. However, their useon board ships presents some challenges where humanhealth risk assessment is concerned and only a qualitativeassessment can be conducted at present, as thequantities, in particular, of volatile compounds producedin ballast water tanks and associated spaces are difficultto predict. Such considerations of risk are necessarilyalways coupled to shipboard requirements for ventilationand Personal Protective Equipment.5.4. 8 The potential risks to the marine environmentfrom ballast water treatment measures in busywaterways are currently not the subject of assessment butmay well need consideration in the future, when ballastwater treatment systems are installed on a regular basison board ships.5.4. 9 The WG34 has identified the following prioritiesfor the coming period:.1 to further develop its methodology as a matter ofurgency;.2 to strengthen its membership with further expertiseon toxicology/occupational exposure to activesubstances and the by-products of large scale oxidizingsystems;.3 to focus efforts on identifying the similarities ofthe system emissions, in order to move towards amore efficient and integral assessment of the humanhealth & environmental risks; and.4 to assess the feasibility of developing an emissionscenario document(s) for ballast water treatmentsystems.5.4. 10 WG34 benefits greatly from the close scrutinyof its reports and activities by GESAMP and looksforward to feedback from a growing number of GESAMPexperts.5.5 Deepwater fisheries-habitat andecosystem (WG35)Introduction5.5.1 The FAO Technical Secretary briefly introducedthe background to FAOʼs proposal in 2006for the establishment of a GESAMP working groupon deepwater fisheries habitat and related ecosystemconcerns, and referred to meeting documentGESAMP34/5/6. The FAO Fisheries and AquacultureDepartment has been aware of the increasing challengesfaced if deepwater fisheries are to be sustainedand of the frequently dismal record many such fisherieshave of resource depletion, over-fishing, excessiveby-catch and discards, and damage, if not destructionof the benthos by fishing gear. He also highlighted thefunding situation for this WG, which presently includescontributions of USD 20,000 (by FAO), USD 10,000(from SIDA funds in support of GESAMP), and USD10,000 (by UNIDO). Funds contributed by FAO andUNIDO are available for 2007. He invited additionalcontributions by other possibly interested parties.Presentation5.5.2 Mr. John Gordon, Chair of WG35, gave apresentation on the proposed WG on deepwater fisheries-habitatand ecosystem. The increasing concernsabout the sustainability of deep-water fisheries, and inparticular their over-exploitation and their impacts ondeep-water ecosystems, led FAO to facilitate DEEP-SEA2003 and its preceding workshops in New Zealand. Otherorganisations have been active in raising concerns overdeep-water fisheries, especially bottom-trawling on thehigh seas, culminating in a case for a moratorium onGESAMP Report and Studies No 77REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSION · 25

deep-water trawling being presented to the UNGA inDecember 2006. Certain knowledge gaps were identified.UNGA turned to FAO for technical advice andCOFI (Committee on Fisheries) in March 2007 agreedto establish technical guidelines through an ExpertConsultation and a Technical Consultation. FAO alsoagreed to create a global database on high seas vulnerablemarine ecosystems. They identified as a firststep the need to define terminology and to this end ameeting of deep-water fisheries experts is planned forJune 2007. It is envisaged that this meeting might makea contribution to the proposed GESAMP activity and, inparticular, facilitate the setting up of a smaller GESAMPworking group.5.5.3 There are a wide range of activities associatedwith deep-water fisheries that require attentionand deciding priorities will be difficult. There has beenconsiderable emphasis on issues related to the exploitationof high-seas fisheries, especially for species thataggregate around seamounts and similar topographicfeatures. Mr. Gordon, however drew attention to thewide range of other fisheries, from those that extendfrom the shelf into slope waters to those that are widelydispersed on continental slopes and those associatedwith oceanic islands. The prerequisite for a deep-waterfishery, as for any shelf fishery, is high surface productivityleading to a rich food supply. Although 400 m isoften considered as the upper limit, the growing awarenessof shelf slope interactions sometimes indicatesthat 200m would be more appropriate. Fishing methodssuch as bottom trawl, semi-pelagic trawl, longlines, gillnets and traps all raise separate issues for sustainabilityand environmental impacts. The issue of the removalof considerably more biomass of semi-pelagic speciesfrom the same ecosystem is seldom addressed.5.5.4 Some topics are of particular relevance toFAO. Seamount fisheries are currently highly topicalboth in terms of the vulnerability of the target speciesand the readily recognisable impacts on seamountbenthic fauna. There is a need for an integrated globalapproach and an independent scientific review of theconsiderable and growing literature. Case studies forthe management of deep-water fisheries are confinedto relatively few important commercial species. Newcase studies on other species are needed. By-catchissues in deep-water fisheries have often placed theemphasis on damage to benthic habitats but the issueof discards of non-target species and their high, if nottotal mortality, should also be addressed, especiallyin the fisheries based on dispersed species. The harvestinglevels are very often too high and based oninaccurate assessments of risk. The collection of bycatchdata could be facilitated by means of on boardobserver programmes. The working group shouldreview the benefits of Marine Protected Areas in thecontext of fisheries, conservation of biodiversity andfish habitat.Discussion5.5.5 GESAMP expressed its interest in the discussionpaper and noted that more detailed Terms ofReference (TOR) should be developed for discussionby GESAMP. The preparation time has been very shortand it was intended that these should be decided usingthe expertise attending the FAO Workshop (June 2007)on destructive fishing and vulnerable ecosystems. Afurther complication that arose was that 75% of thebudget had to be used to fund meetings before the endof 2007. This would mean that GESAMP would have toagree the terms of reference intersessionally.5.5.6 There is a considerable amount ofpublished data and ongoing work on conservationaspects of high seas deep-water fisheries. A termof reference might be to synthesise all these datasources, provide an independent scientific opinionon their credibility and to identify gaps. Some participantsexpressed an interest in a better understandingof the linkages between shelf and continental slopefisheries, for example in the West African upwellingareas. It was pointed out that a Workshop on theGovernance of High Seas Biodiversity Conservationin 2003 had covered Marine Protected Areas (MPA)in some detail and in focusing the terms of referenceto one or two topics consideration of MPAs might beremoved. Protection by declaring an IMO ParticularlySensitive Sea Area was an option that could be considered.Issues of governance of high seas fisheriesand there links with the UNGA process were raisedand it was suggested that the working group mightcarry out a global evaluation.5.5.7 In summary, the Chair of GESAMPexpressed the view that this was a fertile area forGESAMP and there was a need for better scientificadvice, review and synthesis. The sustainability offunding was a concern especially to ensure adequatereporting of outcomes. It was pointed out that GESAMPproducts are very varied and long detailed reportsare not always necessary. It was agreed that a smalldiscussion group would meet off-line to come up withproposals for a way ahead and would report back inplenary on Thursday, 10 May.5.5.8 The discussion group suggested that termsof reference and a roadmap of follow-up activities bedeveloped as an outcome of the meeting in Paris. MrJ.Gordon developed and presented the following tentativeTOR and tentative roadmap to GESAMP, with dueconsideration of the envisaged FAO expert meeting inJune 2007 which would assist in refining and focussingthe scope, objectives and TOR for the envisagedGESAMP WG35 on Deep-water Fisheries. GESAMPagreed to the proposed approach, and to consider theTOR for approval intersessionally.5.5.9 The objective of WG35 will be to provide anindependent, scientific review to inform policy of selectedaspects of deep-water fisheries and their ecosystem interactions.The TOR will include topics that would benefitfrom scientific review and also the identification of emergingissues and the identification of research needs. Anover emphasis on high-seas fisheries should be avoidedto allow a consideration of all deep-water fishing activities.Regional aspects, which were empasised at GESAMP-34,will involve slope and oceanic island fisheries.26 · REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSIONGESAMP Report and Studies No 77

5.5.10 Three key questions underlying the WG.How much? Summarise the present status of deep-waterfisheries in the regions. At what level are deep-waterfisheries sustainable taking account of the fact that thereare likely to be differences between single-species fisherieson aggregations and multi-species fisheries based ondispersed species.Where? Identify where these fisheries occur and what arethe risks in terms of stock depletion, bycatch and habitatdegradation. What are the factors that influence the locationof these fisheries and how are the influenced by climaticfluctuations such as ENSO and NAO. Are there anyrobust long-term time series of data to evaluate temporalchange?How? Provide an overview of the different fishing methodologies,their selectivity, their impact on the deep-waterecosystem and how these might be ameliorated by geardesign or modification. Given that all fisheries impact onthe ecosystem can we arrive at an evaluation of acceptablelevels for some ecosystems?.Thematic areas for consideration in the the developmentof Terms of ReferenceGESAMP-34 identified the following key thematicareas to consider in developing the TOR for WG35:(1) Seamounts5.5.11 Tasks that WG35 might consider with respectto seamount fisheries include:• To summarise and evaluate the available informationon seamount fisheries and their ecosysteminteractions (possibly in collaboration with the CoMLCenseam project);• To investigate the possibility of accessing historicaldata including landings data reported as ʻotherspeciesʼ because of the lack of species codes forrecording data;• Given that seamount fisheries differ considerablydepending on geographical area and depth, to compilean inventory with relevant information on, forexample, hydrographic features and trophodynamics;and• To assess available information on existing management,its successes and failures, and provideobjective scientific advice.(2) Fisheries on widely dispersed deep-water species5.5.12 Unlike seamount (and some semi-pelagicfisheries) which are generally clean (single species withminimal bycatch) the fisheries of the continental slopeare usually mixed and can generate significant amountsof bycatch. Most bycatch (fish and invertebrate) that isdiscarded is subject to high mortality. Fishing in the thirddimension raises questions of the interaction between targetand non-target species. For example fishing a targetspecies at one depth can impact on the juveniles of anothertarget species that is harvested from a different depth.Many deep-water fisheries develop as extensions of shelffisheries yet the interaction between shelf and slope isseldom investigated. There is potential for regional casestudies in a variety of different ecosystems and to assessthe risks to existing fisheries of exploiting new resources.(3) Case studies on the management of deep-waterfisheries, including assessments and management ofthe risks.5.5.13 Case studies might include:• Summaries of existing management of selectedand representative deep-water stocks on a regionalbasis, providing a scientific assessment.• Consideration of the need to undertake regional orglobal workshops on other species for which dataare limited.• Depending on the expertise available to the WG,an evaluation of present assessment methods andadvice on their suitability.(4) Collection of data on landings and bycatch5.5.14 Reported landings of fish species can, for avariety of reasons, be inaccurate and in the case of deepseaspecies this problem has been compounded by thelack of appropriate species codes. For example deep-waterdemersal sharks are often recorded as “sharks various”, aterm that includes numerous pelagic species. Accessingnational and regional databases could add an importanthistorical dimension. Bycatch data can be obtained directlyfrom fisheries where observers are carried or indirectlyfrom exploratory or research surveys. Where funds areavailable these data should be archived.(5) Food web/trophodynamic linkages5.5.15 The interactions between deep-sea demersalfisheries and the pelagic realm are often neglected.Questions that WG35 could consider addressing include:What are the implications for demersal fisheries of changes,anthropogenic or otherwise, in pelagic biomass? Whatare the implications of the selective removal of top predators?The way ahead5.5.16 The formulation of the terms of referencefor the new GESAMP Working Group on Deep-waterFisheries is at a preliminary stage and benefited fromdiscussions at GESAMP-34. The process is closely linkedwith other ongoing FAO deep-water fishery activities.Several deep-water fishery experts will meet at an FAOsponsored meeting in June 2007 that aims to definedestructive effects of deep-water fishing and the impact onvulnerable ecosystems. This meeting will be used to refinethe terms of reference of the proposed GESAMP workinggroup.5.5.17 Soon after this meeting (late June) the proposedterms of reference will be submitted to GESAMP forapproval. Given that $30,000 of the $40,000 budget mustbe used in 2007 a meeting(s) of experts will be convenedas soon as possible thereafter. The objective will be toproduce the first draft report in early 2008, and in time forconsideration at GESAMP-35.GESAMP Report and Studies No 77REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSION · 27

5.6 Development of an ecosystemapproach to offshore mariculture(WG36)5.6.1 The FAO Technical Secretary briefly introducedthe background to FAOʼs proposal in 2006 for theestablishment of a GESAMP working group on the developmentof an ecosystem approach to offshore mariculture,and referred to meeting document GESAMP34/5/4. TheFAO Aquaculture Management Service is concernedabout the ecosystem interactions of offshore mariculture,and is interested in the advancement of an ecosystemapproach to offshore mariculture. He also highlighted thefunding situation for this WG, which presently includescontributions of USD 20,000 (by FAO), USD 10,000 (fromSIDA funds in support of GESAMP), and USD 10,000 (byUNIDO). Funds contributed by FAO and UNIDO are availablefor 2007. He invited additional contributions by otherpossibly interested parties.5.6.2 Mr. John Marra, Chair of WG36, presentedthe case for the new Working Group. Mariculture willplay an increasing role in the seaʼs living resources, andbecause of various kinds of pressures in the coastal zone,the future will see a general move to offshore environments.The issues for mariculture in the offshore environmentfor the ecosystem are:• the relationship of mariculture operations to thepelagic ecosystem in terms of nutrient output andfood sources,• the occurrence of diseases in farmed fish; and• how to deal with the effects of escaped fish on wildpopulations.The WG36 will :1. will review the existing literature, and identify thenext steps to be taken in research;2. will consider the ecosystem aspects of offshoreaquaculture, as it relates to the above issues, and3. will propose solutions, by way of recommendingguidelines and protocols for the conduct of offshoreaquaculture operations. The composition of theWG will be geographically broad, while retainingthe appropriate expertise to deal with the scientificissues identified, and will number about 10. A coregroup of the WG met for a scoping meeting in April2007. The WG will commence its deliberations inSeptember of 2007, and continue through 2008, atwhich time a report will be submitted to GESAMP forreview and approval prior to publication.Discussion5.6.3 GESAMP welcomed the establishment ofWG36. It was noted that the scope of the WG anticipatespotential issues arising from offshore mariculture ratherthan reacting to existing problems, and also that the workwill advance the ecosystem approach. There was substantialdiscussion with regard to representation on theWG from Africa and from other developing regions, andconsequently on the size of the WG. Under the first of theTOR, it was suggested that there is important literatureavailable regarding issues that the WG should consider,and the appropriate links were identified. There was alsoa discussion of the relationship of the ecosystem propertiesto issues of globalisation, and Mr J. Marra said thatwhile there is a focus on ecosystem issues, the WG willhave one member that is an economist, and anotherexpert knowledgeable of industry interests and concerns.Some participants expressed a desire for a more precisedefinition of ʻoffshoreʼ and Mr. Marra discussed the variousissues surrounding this definition and said that it would bepart of the WGʼs considerations. It was noted that there areprotocols for ecosystem-based management of fisheries,and it was suggested that these could inform the WG withrespect to guidelines for the conduct of mariculture operationsoffshore.Conclusions1. The Chair of WG36 will revise the TOR in accordancewith the views of GESAMP, and in consultationwith the WG members.2. The final membership of the WG will be confirmedby the Chair. UNIDOʼs Technical Secretary will suggestone or two experts in mariculture for possibleparticipation in the WG. It was suggested that ajunior expert in mariculture be involved in the WG forcapacity building.5.7 Assessment of threats posed bypersistent organic pollutants (POPs)to the marine environment (WG37)5.7.1 The proposal for the Working Group onAssessment of threats posed by persistent organic pollutants(POPs) to the marine environment (WG37) waspresented by the UNIDO Technical Secretary Mr. ChikaUkwe. He highlighted the rationale and background of theproposal including draft TOR, partners, funding and timeline,and referred to meeting document GESAMP 34/5.5.7.2 GESAMP commented on the proposal andafter extensive discussion it was agreed that referenceto the potential designation of methyl mercury as a POPunder the Stockholm Convention be removed from theproposal and the focus of WG37 should be on an expandedscientific review of mercury and its compounds (relatedto sources, transport, fate, effects etc of mercury) andthreats to the marine environment.5.7.3 GESAMP approved the establishment ofWG37 with the revised focus and requested UNIDO toproceed with appointment of a Chair for the WG and, inconsultation with the Chair, to re-draft the WG proposaland TOR to reflect the comments of GESAMP. UNIDOagreed to circulate the redrafted proposal and TOR toGESAMP for comments and final approval during theintersessional period .5.8 Atmospheric input of chemicals to theocean (WG38)5.8.1 GESAMP considered the proposal submittedby WMO entitled GESAMP Working Group on theAtmospheric Input of Chemicals to the Ocean (meeting doc-28 · REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSIONGESAMP Report and Studies No 77

ument GESAMP 34/5/1). The WMO Technical Secretaryfor GESAMP was unable to attend this GESAMP-34 dueto the session overlapping with the WMO Assembly. TheWMO Technical Secretary asked Mr. Duce to present theproposal to GESAMP in his absence.5.8.2 Mr. Duce began by reminding the membersthat GESAMP Reports and Studies No. 38, publishedin 1989 and in the peer-reviewed journal GlobalBiogeochemical Cycles in 1991, covered a similar topic.These have been the benchmark publications in the areaof air/sea exchange of chemicals well into the 2000s.Some of the conclusions of GESAMP R&S No. 38 werepresented as illustrations of the importance of the atmosphereas a transport path for chemicals entering theocean. In addition, more recent information on the importanceof the input of nitrogen and iron (via mineral dust)to the ocean from the atmosphere was presented. Theselatter substances in particular have potentially importantimplications for climate, since they are both nutrients thatlimit primary productivity in different areas of the ocean.Changes in their input could thus result in changes in productivity,which in turn could affect the exchange of carbondioxide between the ocean and the atmosphere.5.8.3 It was pointed out that the data used inthe earlier publications are now almost 20 years old,significant new data and new models are now available,and the recognition of the importance of chemical air/seaexchange has grown considerably since 1989. This hasprompted the proposal for this new Working Group.5.8.4 The draft TOR for WG38 were presented,and they are as follows:1. Assess the need for model and measurementproducts of the atmospheric input of nitrogen species,dust (iron), and possibly other chemicals to theocean;2. Work with the WMO Sand and Dust WarningSystem as it develops to make certain that the needsof the marine community are represented in theirplanning process; and3. Work with the WMO Precipitation ChemistryData Synthesis and Community Project to evaluatethe needs of the marine community and assist inclearly articulating them in the development of theProjectʼs products.5.8.5 The proposed time frame for the workinggroup is 2 to 4 years. It was proposed for WG38 to holdits first meeting in conjunction with the WMO Sand andDust Forecasting Community Experts Meeting to beheld in Barcelona in November. At this meeting dustresearch forecasting scientists will meet with the userand observation community. Having the WG38 meetingin conjunction with this meeting would enable personnelinvolved in the WMO effort to discuss and developpossible forecast and analysis outputs that could bevaluable to the marine community.5.8.6 WMO has also indicated that it would be verypleased for other interested agencies to join in co-sponsoringthis WG. The Technical Secretary for IMO indicatedthat IMO was possibly interested in participating in thisWorking Group. The Technical Secretary of UNIDO alsoindicated his interest in this WG, in particular in the areaof nitrogen cycling and deposition, and other chemicals.The representative of UNEP indicated that she would carrythe information on this WG back to the UNEP TechnicalSecretary for evaluation of UNEPʼs interest.5.8.7 The representatives of both the NorthwestPacific Action Plan and the UNDP-IOCARIBE CaribbeanLME Project also indicated a strong interest and askedto be kept informed in ways in which they could becomeinvolved in the Working Group activities.5.8.8 GESAMP commented positively on the valueof the proposed work and its relevance to GESAMP activities.In particular, it was suggested that it would provideadded value if chemicals in addition to nitrogen and iron(dust) could be considered by the Working Group. Specificchemicals mentioned included mercury and methyl mercuryas well as possibly bio-monitoring chemicals, includingsome heavy metals and synthetic organic chemicals.5.8.9 GESAMP gave its approval for this WorkingGroup, in principle, contingent upon further discussionsbetween the Technical Secretaries of WMO, IMO, andUNIDO and the selection of appropriate experts as members.5.9 Global trends in pollution of coastalecosystems: retrospective ecosystemassessment5.9.1 The Technical Secretary of IAEA sharedwith GESAMP a preliminary draft proposal for a potentialWorking Group “Global trends in pollution of coastal ecosystems:retrospective ecosystem assessment”, includinga proposal for its Terms of Reference, for comments andsuggestions. The objective of this Working Group wouldbe to contribute to the reduction of coastal ecosystemstress globally by providing stakeholders, scientists andsociety in general an objective and global assessment ofpollution trends during the last century in sensitive coastalecosystems, through retrospective ecosystem analysis, byusing dated environmental archives and time-series datawhere available.5.9.2 GESAMP responded positively to the proposaland provided useful comments on the preliminarydocument, including that i) the concept is very valuableas it would extend the temporal and geographic scope ofmarine pollution assessments beyond time-series data,which is limited in duration and geographically; ii) it wouldprovide quantitative scientific evidence of coastal ecosystemevolution; and iii) it would be particularly important forcountries where little monitoring data is available.5.9.3 GESAMP recommended that the leadorganization consider the coordination with otherinternational projects and contact potential co-sponsoringagencies for the further development of thedraft proposal. Several regional organizations indicatedtheir interest in the project.GESAMP Report and Studies No 77REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSION · 29

6. CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE ASSESSMENT OFASSESSMENTS UNDER THE ʻUN REGULAR PROCESSʼ6.1 The IOC Technical secretary provided an overviewon the latest development related to the UN regularProcess. The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA)Resolution A/RES/57/141 and the Heads of Statesand Governments at the World Summit on SustainableDevelopment (Johannesburg, 2002) called for the establishmentof a Regular Process for the Global Reportingand Assessment of the State of the Marine Environment,Including Socio-Economic Aspects (GRAME) by 2004.6.2 UNGA, through its Resolution 60/30, decided tolaunch the start-up phase of the Regular Process throughan arrangement with the following entities:(i) An Ad Hoc Steering Group to oversee the executionof the “Assessments of Assessments”;(ii) IOC of UNESCO and the United NationsEnvironment Programme (UNEP) to lead the process;and(iii) A Group of Experts to carry out the “Assessmentof Assessments”.6.3 In conformity with the UN Resolution, the“Assessment of Assessments” (AoA), to be undertakenwithin a period of two years, has been initiated by IOCand UNEP and will be implemented in collaboration withother UN agencies and institutions, such as FAO, IMO,WMO and the International Seabed Authority (ISA). TheAd Hoc Steering Group to oversee the execution of theAssessment of Assessments held its first meeting from 7to 9 June 2006 in New York and adopted targeted decisionson substantive agenda items, such as the scope,key questions, process, budget, implementation plan andschedule for the “Assessment of Assessments”.6.4 Stated succinctly, the primary aims of the AoAwere reconfirmed as:(i) to assemble information on, and carry out a constructiveappraisal of, past or ongoing assessmentsrelevant to the marine environment;(ii) to identify gaps and uncertainties in scientificknowledge and current assessment practicesand assess how these assessments have beencommunicated to policymakers at the national,regional and global levels;(iii) to produce a framework and options for theRegular Process itself.6.5 In August 2006, a list of high-level experts (20)and peer reviewers identified by IOC and UNEP wasendorsed by the Ad Hoc Steering Group. Further preparatorywork was undertaken in the fall, in collaborationwith the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre(UNEPWCMC), with the support of GESAMP. This led tothe publication of a “Survey of global and regional assessmentsand related activities of the marine environment”in February 2007, and the development of an associatedonline database (www.unep-wcmc.org/gramed). Basedon GESAMPʼs long-standing involvement in global marineassessments and its active remit in this regard, GESAMPhosted, at the request of UNEP and UNESCO-IOC, a workshopin September 2006 to review the draft UNEP-WCMCSurvey report on the latest achievements concerning keyglobal and regional assessment activities since their identificationin a UNEP-WCMC survey published in 2003. Thisreport, published in 2007, provides supporting informationfor the work of the AoA Group of Experts as well as recommendationson methodological issues. GESAMP wasbriefed on the outcomes of the 1st Group of Experts meeting,held at UNESCO-IOC in March 2007, and in particularonthe proposed outline of the AoA.6.6 The GESAMP Administrative Secretary informedthe session that the GESAMP Executive Committeedecided to officially contact the lead agencies in view ofinviting GESAMP to become a recognised observer tothe Ad Hoc Steering Group and Group of Experts of theAoA.6.7 The Chair highlighted the participation ofGESAMP Members and Secretariat in the various UNmeetings that led to the establishment of the AoA.6.8 The IOC Executive Secretary emphasised thatthere were many potential opportunities for GESAMP tocontribute, and the lead agencies anticipate that GESAMPmembers will have a key role to play in the Assessmentof Assessment as it progresses. There will be a need fortechnical support, and GESAMP will be an appropriatebody to provide this at the appropriate time. He welcomedthe fact that the AoA process at this stage demonstratedhigh commitment and leadership from Member States.6.9 GESAMP agreed that the following potential contributionsas suggested by the lead agencies are activitiesthat GESAMP could feasibly undertake, provided clearterms of reference were provided:(I)(II)peer review role of AoA outputs by GESAMP;on a request basis, to undertake commissionedstudies on specific technical issues for whichit has expertise (for eg. supra-regional issuesidentified by the Group of Experts); and(III) the provision of capacity building support forassessment methodologies once the RegularProcess capacity building requirements aredefined.GESAMP Members also agreed to provide informationto UNEP-WCMC on regional assessments of whichthey are aware for incorporation and further developmentof the GRAME Database .6.10 Overall, the GESAMP Members reaffirmedthe need for both sponsoring agencies and the GESAMPMembers to be proactive in their involvement with theAoA process and to respond to the requests of the AoASteering Group and Group of Experts, as relevant to itsexpertise. GESAMP reaffirmed that it stands ready tocontribute to the AoA and to the GRAME.30 · REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSIONGESAMP Report and Studies No 77

7. WORKSHOP ON THE IDENTIFICATION OF THEMES OFMUTUAL INTEREST BETWEEN GESAMP AND REGIONALORGANIZATIONS7.1 Introduction by the Chairman7.1.1 As part of its revitalization process, GESAMPconvened a Workshop under item 7 of the agenda. Thetentative programme of the workshop can be found inAnnex VI. The workshop participants are listed under aseparate heading in the List of Participants (Annex III).7.1.2 As an introduction to the workshop, theChair introduced the structure of the New GESAMP tothe participants, stressing the mission statement and thefact that the pillars of the New GESAMP are credibility,engagement and professionalism.7.1.3 The Chair further explained that theGESAMP is seeking to increase its regional relevanceand engagement by increasing the dialogue with regionalorganizations and the awareness of GESAMPʼs capabilities.7.2 Presentations from the workshopparticipants7.2.1 Each workshop participant made a brief presentationabout his/her organization, based on the questionsoutlined in the workshop programme (GESAMP34/INF.5). The summaries of the presentations from theworkshop participants are found in Annex VI . The followingis a synopsis of the needs and concerns highlightedin some of the presentations:Data issues• Data gaps (inadequate, unreliable or non-existingdata), for example with respect to:o Fisheries, stock assessmentso Baseline data for marine environment/oceanography/biological data• Lack of social and economic data and the methodologyto collect this data efficiently• Economic valuation of ecosystem services andcoastal/marine resources• Scenarios and predictions for the future state ofthe marine and coastal environment• Impacts of climate change• Improving the understanding of the impacts ofdeep-sea fisheries• Improving the understanding of cumulativeeffects within the marine environment• Development of low-cost, rapid assessmentmethodologies• Lack of time series and monitoring programs• Lack of mechanisms to share data• The consequent under-utilization of some dataApplying science to management and governance• Packaging of data to promote effective management,bridging the gap between scientistsand decision makers• Improving the accessibility of data• Making science relevant to decision making• Need for capacity building• Consolidation of regional management structures7.3 Discussion topic 1: Identifyingnetworks7.3.1 The discussion of topic 1 was moderatedby Mr. Lawrence Awosika (GESAMP Member). The mainfocus of this discussion was to identify relevant regionalnetworks of expertise and how the New GESAMP “cantap” into them in order to increase the relevance ofGESAMPʼs work and thereby extend the GESAMP poolof Experts database.7.3.2 The need to first identify existing networksor programmes that already have pool of expertswas highlighted. Participants stressed the need to collaborateor form partnerships with existing regionaland international networks to identify experts already inseveral regional and international programmeʼs existingdatabases Examples including ICES, PICES, SCOR,UN University, Black Sea Commission, IOC, RegionalFisheries bodies, African networks of marine scientistsand Large Marine Ecosystem projects were given.In this regard, it was also pointed out that GESAMPshould reach out to these regional and international programmesto make them aware of the work and activitiesof GESAMP and its Working Groups. In this way, therelevant regional programmes can make their expertsdatabases available to GESAMP. It was also pointed outthat, when approaching regional focal points, GESAMPshould make clear what potential experts can and cannotexpect as well as the fact that the experts serve in anindependent capacity.7.3.3 It was pointed out that, due to scarceresources, GESAMP may not be able to tap intoevery available database to identify experts and henceGESAMP will work with these programmes and exploreopportunities to use regional and global databases toidentify relevant experts for inclusion into GESAMPʼspool.7.4 Discussion topic 2: Where and howcan GESAMPʼs advice de useful?7.4.1 Discussion topic 2 was moderated by Mr.Joan Albert Sanchez-Cabeza (IAEA Technical Secretaryfor GESAMP). The moderator briefly reviewed the largeGESAMP Report and Studies No 77REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSION · 31

ange of topics and problems mentioned by the workshopparticipants during the morning session regardinga marine environmental protection cycle (scientificknowledge – information to policymakers – implementation– monitoring). He invited workshop participants andGESAMP members to discuss how GESAMP can beused by organizations.7.4.2 Major needs identified and discussedincluded i) the economic evaluation of ecosystem services;ii) participation of GESAMP experts in regional meetings(such as advisory committees, scientific meetings,etc.); iii) compiling and assessing available information;iv) providing advice regarding key policy decisions (forexample, addressing controversial issues or developingstandards that could be used to formulate policies); andv) providing external and independent peer review toorganizations (regarding their processes, assessments,policies, etc.).7.4.3 Workshop participants suggested thatGESAMP should be proactive in its actions (with specialemphasis on GESAMP Statements and the identificationof new and emerging issues) and expressed their concernon the lack of resources necessary to achieve someof the objectives of the New GESAMP as delineated inthe Strategic Vision document.7.5 Discussion topic 3: Opportunities forcapacity building7.5.1 Topic 3 was moderated by Mr. BisessarChakalall (WECAFC). The moderator explained thatcapacity building is a new area that GESAMP intends toget involved in, and requested ideas from the workshopparticipants. Regional capacity building could also beway to link regional scientists into global processes, e.g.GRAME. The following is a list of suggestions that will beconsidered by GESAMP:• Internship/mentoring e.g. pairing young graduatesas a research assistant to establishedexpert;• Learning outside the traditional setting of a“classroom”;• Linking the Pool of Experts being developed byGESAMP to capacity building activities in partnership/collaborationwith regional organizations.• Sponsoring participation in regional scientificmeetings;• Prividing inputs into curriculum developmentfor training;• Preparation of training manuals on cross-cuttingissues; and• Supporting the participation of developing/developed country experts in existing GESAMPworking groups.7.5.2 The Chair of GESAMP, in response to variousquestions, explained that:• SIDA has provided funds to facilitate the participationof developing country experts in theexisting working groups of GESAMP;• GESAMP would not duplicate the trainingactivities of existing institutions, and thus thereis no issue of competition; and• a two-way communication between scientistsand decision-makers is required in capacitybuilding.32 · REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSIONGESAMP Report and Studies No 77

8. IDENTIFICATION OF NEW AND EMERGING ISSUESREGARDING THE DEGRADATION OF THE MARINEENVIRONMENT OF RELEVANCE TO GOVERNMENTSAND SPONSORING ORGANIZATIONS8.1 A discussion of emerging issues, and howGESAMP might respond to these, was initiated by apresentation of a number of topics that have a significantpotential impact on marine ecosystems. These were:• climate change (e.g. ocean acidification, temperatureincrease);• globalisation and economic growth (e.g.increased shipping, increased protein consumption);• presence in the environment of ʻlifestyleʼchemicals (i.e. persistent, toxic chemicals usedin many common applications and household/personal products);• energy generation (e.g. wind, tide, wave);• evaluation of regulatory and intrinsic/culturalecosystem services;• integration of social and natural sciences inecosystem assessments;• cumulative impacts (e.g. acidification plusincreased temperature);• exploitation of non-living resources in internationalwaters.8.2 It is not possible, or desirable, for GESAMPto attempt to investigate all of the above; the intentionshould be to recognise where there is a role forGESAMP to carry out independent assessments. It wasalso recognised that in many cases there are existinginitiatives and sources of information at a global orregional level, and this knowledge should be used toplan GESAMP activities. A useful approach will to evaluatethe spatial and temporal scale of emerging issueand provide a ranking of ecological importance (amongstother value criteria), as a preliminary to further investigation.A record of existing major initiatives and relevantorganisations could be established together with principlesources of information and outputs. For example,both IOC-SCOR and ICES have initiatives addressingocean acidification, and the Society of EnvironmentalToxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) investigates theeco-toxicology of new and emerging chemicals. It is ofparticular importance to engage with the existing UNframework. For example, GESAMP should take note ofthe annual report of the Secretary General on Oceansand Law of the Sea to the UN General Assembly, whichincludes inputs from all UN Agencies. This provides asynthesis of issues of concern and current and plannedactivities. In addition GESAMP should establish contactwith the GEF Science and Technology Advisory Panel(STAP) to receive their perspective on emerging issues.8.3 Several organisations represented at themeeting expressed an interest in contributing to thisaspect of GESAMPʼs work and GESAMP shouldmake use of the support being offered. There wasdiscussion on whether a working group should beestablished to deal specifically with emerging issues,and whether this should be extended to include aʻfire-fightingʼ or emergency response capability. It wasagreed that all members of GESAMP have a role inkeeping a watching brief on new and emerging issuesand bringing these to the attention of GESAMP. Acapability to respond rapidly to requests for advicewould be desirable and the flexibility envisaged underthe new GESAMP process should help to achieve this.The Administrative Secretary informed the meeting ofthe Executive Committee decisions in this respect.It was agreed to develop a section on the websitedevoted to new emerging issues. It was also agreedthat this matter should be addressed inter-sessionallyunder the leadership of the Chair and Vice-Chair.8.4 It was agreed to develop a section on the websitedevoted to new emerging issues. It was also agreedthat this matter should be addressed inter-sessionallyunder the leadership of the Chair and Vice-Chair.8.5 GESAMP was informed that the InternationalSeabed Authority (ISA) has recently contracted for theexploration of commercial mineral extraction over largeareas of the sea floor that are under international jurisdiction.While recognizing the economic importance ofthis development, GESAMP was also concerned aboutthe potential impacts of this development on the nearbymarine ecosystems, and what measures are in place forthe environmental management of these activities. TheChair of GESAMP was asked to send a letter to ISArequesting further information about these issues.GESAMP Report and Studies No 77REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSION · 33

9. SCOPING ACTIVITIES9.1 The GESAMP Chair introduced the agenda itemand the proposal received from Professors Peter Wellsand Bertrum MacDonald of Dalhousie University, NovaScotia, Canada for the setting up of a GESAMP WorkingGroup on the “Influence of Information on MarineEnvironmental Protection.”9.2 GESAMP Members commented on the Proposaland agreed that there was no need to constitute a workinggroup at this stage, especially as funding sourceshave not been identified.9.3 Members requested the Chair to acknowledgethe value of the proposal and the ealier work of thisgroup in his response to the proposal and to state thatthe Sponsoring Agencies did not have sufficient time toreview the proposal prior to the GESAMP Meeting andso could not determine if they would sponsor the effort. Itwas requested that the proposal and related documentsbe posted on the GESAMP website to make it availableto GESAMP members and invite discussion as to how toproceed.10. FUTURE WORK PROGRAMMEIntersessional work1 Evaluation of hazards of harmfulsubstances carried by ships(Working Group 1)Lead Agency:Co-sponsors:Chairperson:Members:IMOnoneC. T. BowmerT. Höfer, D. James, M. Morrissette,H. Saito, T. Syversen, N. Soutar(consultant)The 44th session of the Working Group was held from 30April to 4 May 2007 in London. The tentative dates forthe 45th session are 21 to 25 April 2008.2 Environmental Impacts of CoastalAquaculture (Working Group 31)Lead Agency:Co-sponsors:Chairperson:Members:FAOnoneE. BlackC. Bacher, K. Black, K. Brooks,I. Davies, J. Hambrey, Y. Kedong,J. Petrell, H. Rosenthal, S-K TengThe final draft report of this Working Group focussing onenvironmental risk assessment and communication incoastal aquaculture is currently being revised (see theroad-map for revision in Chapter 5 of this report) and isplanned to be published before the end of 2007.3 Review of applications for ʻactive substancesʼto be used in ballast watermanagement systems(Working Group 34)Chairperson:Members:C. T. BowmerT. Borges, J. Crayford (consultant),E. Dragsund, S. Hanayama,J. Linders, D. TongueThe 3rd session of the Working Group was held from19 to 24 February 2007 at IMO Headquarters. Thetentative dates for the 4th session are 29 October to 2November 2007.4 Deepwater fisheries-habitat andecosystem(Working Group 35)Lead Agency:Co-sponsors:Chairperson:Members:FAOUNIDOJ. Gordonto be confirmedThe Chairperson will confirm the experts for thisWorking Group. The Working Group will meet during2007 to produce first report. The Chairperson wouldattend a meeting on destructive deep-water fishing practicesand vulnerable deep-water ecosystems in June2007 to refine the terms of reference of the WorkingGroup for GESAMP approval by correspondence.5 Development of an EcosystemApproach to Offshore Mariculture(Working Group 36)Lead Agency:Co-sponsoring agencies:Chairperson:Members:FAOUNIDOJ. Marrato be confirmedChairman will confirm experts for this WorkingGroup. The Working Group will meet during 2007 toproduce first report.Lead Agency:Co-sponsors:IMOnone34 · REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSIONGESAMP Report and Studies No 77

6 Assessment of threats posed by mercuryand its compounds to the marineenvironment(Working Group 37)Lead Agency:UNIDOCo-sponsoring agencies: to be confirmedChairperson:to be confirmedMembers:to be confirmedUNIDO was requested to circulate a re-drafted proposaland terms of reference to GESAMP for commentsand final approval during the intersessional period.7 Atmospheric input of chemicals to theocean(Working Group 38)Lead Agency:Co-sponsoring agencies:Chairperson:Members:WMOUNIDO, IMOR. Duceto be confirmedGESAMP approved in principle the establishmentof this Working Group, contingent upon further discussionsbetween the WMO-, UNIDO- and IMO-TechnicalSecretaries and the selection of appropriate experts asmembers.Support arrangementsThe IMO Technical Secretary advised GESAMP that,pursuant to the current Agreement between the SwedishGovernment and IMO, support would be available bothin 2007 and 2008 to cover the travel and subsistencecosts of experts from developing countries involved inthe activities of all Working Groups listed above. Thissupport would complement the support provided by theSponsoring Organizations of GESAMP.Intersessional workIt was highlighted that given the high number of newactive Working Groups during this intersessional period,inputs are expected from all GESAMP Members. Writtencomments on Terms of Reference as well as draftreports will be needed, and time plans will be important.It was suggested that an annual schedule be createdby the GESAMP Officer. This schedule should allowfour weeks for comments on documents that require theapproval by GESAMP, and written comments should besubmitted well ahead of telephone conferencee.11. ANY OTHER BUSINESSInvitation to GESAMP to make submissions toOceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review(CRC Press)11.1 The meeting noted the invitation by JohnGordon to GESAMP Members to consider submittingcontributions to future volumes of Oceanography andMarine Biology: An Annual Review. The publication providesauthoritative reviews of recent research, exploringnew aspects of fundamental topics, in addition to coveringareas of special topical relevance. One of the papersin the next volume will focus on a review on climatechange and marine life. It was proposed that this couldprovide a channel for publication of some elements ofGESAMP reports. Interested members should contactJohn Gordon directly.12. DATE AND PLACE OF THE NEXT SESSION12.1 GESAMP accepted the offer of UNIDO tohost the thirty-fifth session of GESAMP at the UNIDOHeadquarters in Vienna, from 12-16 May 2008. TheChair thanked UNIDO for their offer as a further demonstrationof their commitment and partnership withGESAMP.13. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSONS13.1. The Group unanimously re-elected Mr. MikeHuber as Chairperson and Mr. Tim Bowmer as Vice-Chairperson for the forthcoming intersessional periodand the thirty-fifth session of GESAMP.13.2 The Chair welcomed the incoming Vice-Chair and the opportunities that lie ahead for GESAMP.13.3 The meeting expressed their sincere thanksto Mr. Robert Duce, the outgoing Vice Chair for his criticalsupport and service to GESAMP at all levels.GESAMP Report and Studies No 77REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSION · 35

14. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF GESAMP AND CLOSURE14.1 The report of the thirty-fourth session ofGESAMP was considered and approved by the Groupon the last day of the session.14.2 The Chairperson of GESAMP, Mr MikeHuber, closed the thirty-fourth session of GESAMP on11 May 2007 at 13.50hrs.36 · REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSIONGESAMP Report and Studies No 77

ANNEX I: AGENDAOpening1 Adoption of the agenda2 Report of the Chairperson of GESAMP3 Report of the Administrative Secretary of GESAMP4 GESAMP Pool of Experts and Web-site5 Planning of GESAMP activities:5.1 Evaluation of the hazards of harmful substancescarried by ships (WG1)5.2 Environmental risk assessment and communicationin coastal aquaculture (WG31)5.3 Environmental exposure models for application inseafood risk analysis (WG33)5.4 Review of applications for ʻactive substancesʼ tobe used in ballast water management systems(WG34)5.5 Working Group on deepwater fisheries habitat andrelated ecosystem (WG35)5.6 Development of an ecosystem approach to offshoremariculture (WG36)5.7 Assessment of threats posed by persistent organicpollutants (POPs) to the marine environment(WG37)5.8 Atmospheric input of chemicals to the ocean(WG38)5.9 Global trends in pollution of coastal ecosystems:retrospective ecosystem assessment6 Contributions to the Assessment of Assessmentsunder the ʻUN Regular Processʼ7 Workshop on the identification of themes ofmutual interest between GESAMP and RegionalOrganizations8 Identification of new and emerging issues regardingthe degradation of the marine environment ofrelevance to governments and sponsoring organizations9 Scoping activities10 Future work programme11 Any other business12 Date and place of GESAMP 3513 Election of Chairpersons14 Consideration and adoption of the report ofGESAMP 34ClosureGESAMP Report and Studies No 77REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSION · 37

ANNEX II: LIST OF DOCUMENTS FOR GESAMP 34GESAMP 34/1 Admin. Secretary Provisional AgendaGESAMP 34/1/1 Admin. Secretary Annotations to the Provisional AgendaGESAMP 34/4 S. Fowler GESAMP Pool of Experts and web-site.GESAMP 34/5 UNIDO Planning of GESAMP activities: Assessment ofThreats Posed by Persistent Organic Pollutants(POPs) to the Marine EnvironmentGESAMP 34/5/1 WMO Planning of GESAMP activities: Atmospheric inputof Pollutants into the Oceans.GESAMP 34/5/2 FAO Introduction to Draft Report of the GESAMPWorking Group on Environmental Impacts ofCoastal Aquaculture (Working Group 31)GESAMP 34/5/3 FAO Draft Report of the GESAMP Working Group onEnvironmental Impacts of Coastal Aquaculture(Working Group 31)GESAMP 34/5/4 FAO GESAMP Working Group: Ecosystem Approach toMariculture (EAMAR) with emphasis on Off ShoreFarmingGESAMP 34/5/5 IMO Planning of GESAMP activities: Report of theWorking Group on the Environmental Hazards ofSubstances Carried by Ships (EHS)GESAMP 34/5/6 FAO Proposed GESAMP Activities In Relation to theWorking Group on Deepwater FisheriesGESAMP 34/5/7 IMO Planning of GESAMP activities: Report of theGESAMP Ballast Water Working Group (GESAMP-BWWG)GESAMP 34/5/8 IAEA Planning of GESAMP activities: Draft proposal for aGESAMP Working Group on Global trends in pollutionof coastal ecosystems: Retrospective ecosystemassessment.GESAMP 34/9P. Wells andB. McDonaldGESAMP 34/INF.1 Secretariat Draft List of ParticipantsA report to GESAMP: Activities and recommendationsof a research team investigating the impact ofmarine environmental information.GESAMP 34/INF.2 Secretariat Draft Rules of Procedure of the New GESAMP andGuidelines for their implementationGESAMP 34/INF.3/Rev.1 Secretariat Annex 1: Updated Memorandum on GESAMP(1994)Annex 2: Updated Memorandum on GESAMP(2006)GESAMP 34/INF.4 Secretariat Proposed timetableGESAMP 34/INF.5 Secretariat Workshop programmeGESAMP 34/INF.6/Rev.1 Admin. Secretary Report of the Administrative Secretary of GESAMP.Activities and achievements of sponsoring organizationsof GESAMP since 2003GESAMP 34/INF.7 Secretariat Summary of presentations by workshop participantsGESAMP 34/INF.7/Add.1 Secretariat Addendum to GESAMP 34/INF.7Summary of Workshop participantʼs presentationsGESAMP 34/INF.8 Secretariat List of Documents38 · REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSIONGESAMP Report and Studies N 77

ANNEX III: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS FOR GESAMP 34A. MEMBERSLawrence F. AWOSIKANigerian Institute for Oceanography and MarineResearch (NIOMR)P.M.B. 12729LagosNigeriaTel./Fax: +234 1 2619517 - officeTel./Fax: +234 1 619247 - homee-mail: larryawosika@yahoo.comEdward BLACKFisheries and Oceans CanadaAquaculture Science Branch200 Kent StreetOttawa, OntarioCanadaK1A 0E6Tel: (613) 990-0272e-mail: blacke@dfo-mpo.gc.caTim BOWMERTNO ChemistryPost box 360Utrechtseweg3700 AJ ZeistThe NetherlandsTel.: +31 30 6944645Fax: +31 30 6944099e-mail: tim.bowmer@tno.nlRobert DUCETexas A & M UniversityDepartment of OceanographyTAMU - 3146College Station, Texas 77843 – 3146USATel.: +1 979 229 3821Fax: +1 979 690 6926e-mail: rduce@ocean.tamu.eduJohn GORDONScottish Association for Marine ScienceDunstaffnage Marine LaboratoryObanArgyll, ScotlandPA37 1QAUnited KingdomTel : +44 1631 559222Fax : +44 1631 559001e-mail: John.gordon@sams.ac.ukMichael HUBER Global Coastal StrategiesP.O. Box 606Wynnum,Brisbane, Queensland 4178AustraliaTel.: +61 7 3893 4511Fax: +61 7 3893 4522e-mail: mhuber@bigpond.net.auPeter KERSHAWCefas Lowestoft LaboratoryPakefield RoadLowestoftSuffolk NR33 0HTUnited KingdomTel: +44 1502 562244Fax +44 1502 513865e-mail: peter.kershaw@cefas.co.ukJohn MARRALamont-Doherty Earth Observatory ofColumbia University61 RT 9W, PalisadesNY 10964-8000USATel: +1 845 365-8891Fax: +1 845 365-8150e-mail: Marra@ldeo.columbia.eduCarlos ALONSO HERNÁNDEZCentro de Estudios Ambientales deCienfuegos (CEAC)Ctra. a Castillo JaguaApdo. No. 559350 Ciudad Nuclear CienfuegosCubaTel: +53 43 965146Fax: +53 43 29732e-mail: carlos@ceac.cuSandor MULSOWInstituto de GeocienciasUniversidad Austral de ChileCampus Isla TejaValdiviaChileTel: +56 63 22 1208Fax +56 63 29 35 63e-mail: sandormulsow@uach.clB. SECRETARIATInternational Maritime Organization (IMO)Miguel PALOMARESAdministrative Secretary of GESAMP4 Albert EmbankmentLondon SE1 7SRUnited KingdomTel.: +44 207 587 3218Fax: +44 207 587 3210e-mail: mpalomar@imo.orgRené COENENIMO Technical Secretary of GESAMPGESAMP Report and Studies N 77REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSION · 39

4 Albert EmbankmentLondon SE1 7SRUnited KingdomTel.: +44 207 587 3239Fax: +44 207 587 3210e-mail: rcoenen@imo.orgFredrik HAAGGESAMP Officer4 Albert EmbankmentLondon SE1 7SRUnited KingdomTel.: +44 207 587 4139Fax: +44 207 587 3210e-mail: fhaag@imo.orgFood and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations (FAO)Uwe BARGFAO Technical Secretary of GESAMP Fisheries andAquaculture DepartmentVia delle Terme di CaracallaRomeItalyTel.: +39 06 570 53454Fax: +39 06 570 53020e-mail: uwe.barg@fao.orgUnited Nations Educational, Scientific and CulturalOrganization - Intergovernmental OceanographicCommission (UNESCO-IOC)Julian BARBIEREUNESCO-IOC Technical Secretary of GESAMPIntergovernmental Oceanographic CommissionUNESCO1 rue MiollisF-75732 Paris Cedex 15FranceTel.: +33 1 45 684045Fax: +33 1 45 685812e-mail: J.Barbiere@unesco.orgWorld Meteorological Organization (WMO)Robert DUCESee contact details under section A.International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)Joan-Albert SANCHEZ-CABEZA IAEA TechnicalSecretary of GESAMPIAEA Marine Environment Laboratory4 Quai Antoine 1er, BP800MC 98000MonacoTel: +377 9797 7233Fax: +377 9797 7273e-mail: j.a.sanchez@iaea.orgScott FOWLER IAEA ConsultantIAEA Marine Environment Laboratory4 Quai Antoine 1er, BP800MC 98000MonacoTel: +377 97 9772 51Fax: +377 97 9772 73e-mail: s.fowler@iaea.orgUnited Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)Emily CORCORANSee contact details under section C.United Nations Industrial Development Organization(UNIDO)Chika UKWEUNIDO Technical Secretary of GESAMPIndustrial Development Officer (International Waters)UNIDOVienna International CentrePTC IPEM Branch, P.O. Box 300, Vienna, Austria A-1400Tel.: +43 1 26026 3465Fax: +43 1 26026 6819email: C.Ukwe@unido.orgUnited Nations (UN)C. OBSERVERSMaria Beatriz BOHRER-MORELSETAC Latin AmericaComissão National de Energia NuclearInstituto de Pesquisas Energéticas e NuclearesTravessa «R», n. 400Cidade Universitária005508-900São Paulo, SPBrazile-mail: mbohrer@ipen.brAlf BRODINSwedish Maritime AdministrationCooperation DivisionSE-601 78 NorrköpingSwedene-mail: alf.brodin@sjofartsverket.seEmily CORCORANUNEP-WCMCJon Hutton, Director219 Huntingdon RoadCambridge CB3 0DLUnited Kingdome-mail: Emily.Corcoran@unep-wcmc.orgSimon CRIPPSWWF InternationalAvenue du Mont Blanc1196 GlandSwitzerlande-mail: SCripps@wwfint.orgWerner EKAUInternational Ocean InstituteIOI-Germanyc/o Zentrum fur Marine Tropenökologie (ZMT)40 · REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSIONGESAMP Report and Studies No 77

Farenheitstr. 6D-28359 BremenGermanye-mail: wekau@zmt.uni-bremen.deAndrew HUDSONUNDP/GEF, International WatersFF-1084, 1 UN PlazaNew York, NYUSAe-mail: andrew.hudson@undp.orgPer LUNDQVISTSwedish Maritime AdministrationCooperation DivisionSE-601 78 NorrköpingSwedene-mail: per.lundqvist@sjofartsverket.seFabrice RENAUDUnited Nations UniversityInstitute for Environment and Human SecurityUNU-EHS, UN-CampusHermann-Ehlers-Str. 10D-53113, Bonn, Germanye-mail: renaud@ehs.unu.eduD. WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTSZiad ABU-GHARARAHRegional Organization for the Conservation of theEnvironment of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden(PERSGA)P.O. Box 53662Jeddah 21583Kingdom of Saudi Arabiae-mail: ziad@persga.orgBradford BROWNAghulas Current and Somali Current LME Programme11266 SW 166 TerraceMiami, FL 33157USAe-mail: JabariBrad@aol.comBisessar CHAKALALLWestern Central Atlantic Fishery Commission(WECAFC)FAO Subregional Office for the Caribbean (SLAC)PO Box 631-CBridgetown, BarbadosWest Indiese-mail: Bisessar.Chakalall@fao.orgLucia FANNINGUNDP-IOCARIBE Caribbean LME ProjectCERMES, University of West IndiesCave Hill CampusBarbadose-mail: clmeproject@gmail.comHashali HAMUKUAYASouth East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (SEAFO)133 Nangolo Mbumba DriveSavvas BuildingP.O. Box 4296Walvis BayNamibiae-mail: hamukuaya@seafo.orgKjartan HOYDALThe North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC)22 Berners StreetLondon W1T 3DYUnited Kingdome-mail: kjartan@neafc.orgHamid GHAFFARZADEHCaspian Environment ProgrammeN. 63 Golestan AlleyValiasr StreetPost Code 1966 733413TeheranIslamic Republic of Irane-mail: hamid.ghaffarzadeh@undp.orgChidi IBE Guinea Current LME Project,Interim Guinea Current Commission1, Akosombo StreetAirport Residential AreaAccraGhanae-mail: gclme@gclme.orgAlhaji JALLOWFishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic(CECAF)FAO Building#2 Gamel Abdul Nasser RoadP. O. Box GP 1628AccraGhanae-mail: Alhaji.Jallow@fao.orgHanne-Grete NILSENCommission of the Convention for the Protectionof the Marine Environment ofthe North-East Atlantic(OSPAR Commission)New Court, 48 Carey StreetLondon WC2A 2JQUnited Kingdome-mail: hanne@ospar.orgJean-Nicholas POUSSARTUNEP - Caribbean Environment Programme (UNEPCAR/RCU)c/o UNDP/CubaCalle 18 No. 110, entre 1a y 3a,MiramarCubae-mail: jean-nicolas.poussart@undp.orgEugene SABOURENKOVCommission for the Conservationof Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR)P.O. Box 213 North Hobart,Tasmania 7002Australiae-mail: eugene@ccamlr.orgGESAMP Report and Studies No 77REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSION · 41

Maria de Lourdes SARDINHABenguela Current LME ProgrammeBCLME Activity Centre for Ecosystem Health andPollutionP.O. Box 2601LuandaAngolae-mail: bclme.behp@nexus.aoAboubacar SIDIBESub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC)Amitié 3, Villa 4430BP : 25485DakarSenegale-mail: spcsrp@gmail.comAlexander TKALINNorthwest Pacific Action PlanNOWPAP RCU (Toyama Office)5-5 Ushijimahi-machi,Toyama 930-0856Japane-mail: alexander.tkalin@nowpap.orgMalcolm WINDSORNorth Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization(NASCO)11 Rutland SquareEdinburghEH1 2ASUnited Kingdome-mail: hq@nasco.intYugraj YADAVABay of Bengal Programme IGOPost Box No 105491, Saint Maryʼs RoadAbhiramapuramChennai – 600 018Tamil NaduIndiae-mail: yugraj.yadava@bobpigo.orgSachiko TSUJICoordinating Working Party on Fishery Statistics (CWP)FAOViale delle Terme di CaracallaRomeItalye-mail: Sachiko.Tsuji@fao.orgVioletaVELIKOVABlack Sea Commission on the Protection of the BlackSea Against PollutionDolmabahce Sarayi IIHareket Kosku80680 BesiktasIstanbulTurkeye-mail: violeta.velikova@blacksea-commission.org42 · REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSIONGESAMP Report and Studies N 77

ANNEX IV: ACTIVITIES AND ACHIEVEMENTS OF THESPONSORING ORGANIZATIONS OF GESAMPSINCE 2003UNESCO-IOCCoastal Nutrient Export from Watersheds:IOCʼs Global NEWS project is an international, interdisciplinaryscientific taskforce focused on understandingthe relationship between human activity and coastalnutrient enrichment. The project had developed nutrientexport models for the Millennium Assessment scenarios,including development of the necessary suite of inputdatabases: land use, hydrology, nitrogen and phosphorususe, population distribution, agriculture (crop type/animal production, etc.) for the years 2000, 2030 and2050 under the 4 different MA scenarios. In 2006, theGlobal NEWS workgroup had met at IOC to analyze theresults of preliminary model runs with preliminary inputdatabases, identify major gaps/needs and to begin theprocess of refining the input databases. These modelswould then be linked to full coastal ecosystem effects,providing a powerful tool for coastal managers to understandlocal dynamics and predict impacts on resources.Visit for more information http://www.marine.rutgers.edu/globalnews/Integrated Coastal and Ocean ManagementIndicators: While environmental indicators had beenconceived to monitor the state of the coastal and marineenvironment, very limited use had been made of socioeconomicindicators and the use of governance indicatorshad often been limited to the reporting of processesin the context of Integrated Coastal Management. Inresponse, the IOC initiated a Pilot Program in 2003 incollaboration with DFO (Canada), NOAA (United States),and the Gerard J. Mangone Center for Marine Policy(University of Delaware) to promote the developmentand use of Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management(ICOM) indicators. In 2006, the project completed itsHandbook for Measuring the Progress and Outcomesof Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management. Thehandbook provided a tool for developing, selecting, andapplying indicators to measure, evaluate, and report onthe progress and outcomes of integrated coastal andocean management initiatives. The handbook is intendedas a method and a series of guidelines that couldassist different types of users: coastal managers anddecision makers at the national and sub-national levelsin the design, implementation, and assessment of ICOMinitiatives, practitioners and experts engaged in evaluationresearch and evaluations, and donor agencies supportingcoastal and marine management projects andprograms. The Handbook is now being used in severalregional and national coastal Management programmes,and a training module is being developed. Visit for moreinformation http://ioc3.unesco.org/icam/IMOOn 19 May 2005, the 1997 Protocol to the MARPOLConvention, Annex VI, -Regulations for the Prevention ofAir Pollution from Ships, entered into force. This Annexapplies to ships and drilling rigs and prohibits deliberateemissions of ozone depleting substances and installationof new systems containing such substances, setsemission limits on nitrogen-oxides for new engines,regulates the sulphur content in marine fuel oil, as wellas shipboard incineration. Annex VI is currently beingreviewed with the aim to set more stringent emissionstandards.On 24 March 2006, the 1996 Protocol to the LondonConvention 1972 entered into force. This Protocol representsa more modern and comprehensive agreementon protecting the marine environment from dumpingactivities than the original London Convention agreed 35years ago. Parties to the 1996 Protocol also adoptedamendments to regulate the sequestration of CO2streams from CO2 capture processes in sub-seabedgeological formations, for permanent isolation, therebycreating a basis in international environmental law toregulate this practice. These amendments entered intoforce on 10 February 2007 and rule out any sequestrationof CO2 in the deep oceans themselves. For furtherinformation http://www.londonconvention.org.UNIDOUNIDO executed a wide range of programmesdesigned to improve the governance, management andperformance of industry in the developing countries andeconomies in transition and to reduce its environmentalimpacts globally. Its contribution may be consideredunder three principal headings: Marine EnvironmentalManagement Planning, Policy Formulation andMonitoring; Reducing Harmful Emissions from Industry;Pollution Control and Waste Management.The Interim Guinea Current Commission had beenestablished through the GEF/UNDP/UNEP/UNIDOGuinea Current Large Marine Ecosystem project in Westand Central Africa. UNIDO was also presently assistingthe 16 participating countries through a stakeholderparticipatory process to formulate, adopt and implementNational Programmes of Action on Land Based Activities(NPA/LBAs) including the development and adoption ofa Regional programme of Action on Land Based Activity(RPA/LBA) and Protocol for the protection of the marineenvironment from Land Based Activities under theAbidjan Convention.A reduction of transboundary pollution dischargesfrom industries in the Danube region was being implementedthrough the GEF funded project on Transfer ofGESAMP Report and Studies N 77REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSION · 43

Environmentally Sound technology (TEST) and buildingcapacity in existing cleaner production institutions toapply the UNIDOʼs TEST procedures for pollution reduction.20 pilot enterprises were assisted in obtainingEnvironmentally Sound Technologies (ESTs) to reducepollution discharges to the Danube River Basin and theBlack Sea while still remaining financially viable.Technical assistance programmes had been completedfor textile, tannery and leather industries in someregions (Africa, Asia and Latin America) in the applicationof clean technologies recording appreciable reductionsin BOD concentrations in the waste stream translatingto substantial savings to industry owners.FAOCONTEXTThe Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries(FAO, 1995) 4 , adopted in 1995 as the global intergovernmentalframework for sustainable fisheries, callsfor effective conservation, management and developmentof living aquatic resources with due respect to theecosystem and biodiversity. Its implementation is a toppriority of FAO.Based on major international agreements (UNCLOS,UNCED, CBD), the Code of Conduct for ResponsibleFisheries (CCRF) sets out principles and internationalstandards of behaviour for responsible practices witha view to ensuring the effective conservation, managementand development of living aquatic resources, withdue respect for the ecosystem and biodiversity. TheCode covers all major issues and practices in fisheries,including fisheries management, fishing operations,aquaculture development, integration of fisheriesinto coastal area management, post-harvest practices,trade, and fisheries research, general principles, andprovisions related to its implementation, monitoring,updating, and special requirements of provisions relatedto its implementation, monitoring, updating, and specialrequirements of developing countries. The FAOFisheries and Aquaculture Department is promotingthe implementation of the CCRF through numerousregular programme and field project activities. FAOdisseminates technical, scientific as well as policy andgovernance guidelines in support of implementationof fisheries conservation and management measuresfor responsible use and development of living aquaticresources in marine and freshwater environments.The Organization provides a leading forum forintergovernmental consultations, consensus-buildingand standards-setting on global fisheries issues. TheFAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI), and its Sub-Committees on Fish Trade and on Aquaculture, have amembership of more than 100 countries and numerousinternational intergovernmental and non-governmentalorganizations. FAO strengthens the activities of, andcollaborates with numerous Regional Fisheries Bodies4FAO, 1995. Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.Rome, FAO. 41 p.http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/v9878e/v9878e00.httmand Regional Fisheries Management Organizationsworldwide. Strong emphasis is given by FAO to furtherstrengthening international cooperation and the roleof such Regional Fishery Organizations, as well asof NGOs (including private sector, environmental andsocial interests), and other stakeholders concerned withfisheries and aquatic ecosystems.MAIN ACHIEVEMENTS AND INITIATIVESMajor recent FAO achievements and initiatives include :• Global promotion of Responsible Fisheries inAquatic Ecosystems and the implementation ofthe Ecosystem Approach to fisheries and aquaculturein marine, coastal and inland waters;• Leadership in development and promotion ofglobal fisheries and ecosystem knowledge managementand information systems, includingthe State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture,the UN Atlas of the Oceans, global and regionalassessments and databases of fisheriesresources, Fisheries Resources MonitoringSystems (FIRMS) and fish stock depletion alertsystems;• FIRMS Partnership established and systemdeveloped to assemble the worldʼs most authoritativeand comprehensive information on statusand trends of fisheries and fishery resourcesfrom ten regional fishery bodies (RFBs) andother intergovernmental agencies;• The Strategy for Improving Informationon Status and Trends in Capture Fisheries(Strategy-STF), adopted in 2003 by the FAOCommittee on Fisheries and the FAO Council,and endorsed by resolution of the UN GeneralAssembly, currently being implemented withsupport from Japan, Norway and the USA;• Intergovernmental Adoption and Implementationof four International Plans of Action (IPOA) aimingat reducing incidental catch of seabirds inlongtime fisheries (IPOA Seabirds); conservationand management of sharks (IPOA Sharks);and management of unregulated fishing (IPOA-IUU);• Adoption of the Rome Declaration on illegal,unreported and unregulated fishing by the FAOMinisterlal Meeting on Fisheries in 2005;• Development and adoption of TechnicalGuidelines for eco-labelling of products frommarine capture fisheries;• Adaptation and integration of resources assessmentmethodology, for example in relation to riskassessment for listing fishery species in CITES,and development of Bayesian methods in stockassessment;• Review of highly migratory, straddling and highseas stocks as an input to the 2006 UN ReviewConference on the Fish Stock Agreement;• Development of methodology for the assessmentof discards in fisheries and re-estimationof global discards;• Studies on the impact of fishing gear on environment;Training workshops and guidelines on44 · REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSIONGESAMP Report and Studies No 77

ftp://ftp.fao.org/fi/DOCUMENT/ministerial/2005/iuu/declaration.pdfRecent Achievements and Initiatives by the FAOFisheries and Aquaculture DepartmentFAOʼs Programme of Work in Fisheries andAquacultureftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/meeting/011/j9154e.pdfFAO/Programme Implementation Report 2004-05http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/011/j8013e/j8013e00.HTMhttp://www.fao.org/pir/United Nations Open-ended Informal ConsultativeProcess on Oceans and the Law of the Seahttp://www.un.org/Depts/los/consultative_process/consultative_process.htmAdvance and unedited text of the Report of the Secretary-General on Oceans and the Law of the seahttp://www.un.org/Depts/los/general_assembly/documents/text_advance_unedited_62nd_session.pdfIAEARadioactivity monitoring: In July 2005 IAEApublished the International Safety Standard on“Environmental and Source Monitoring for Purposesof Radiation Protection” (IAEA Safety Guide RS-G-1.8,2005). It provided international agreed guidance onstrategy for monitoring in relation to the control of atmosphericand aquatic discharges of radioactive substances(including discharges to the sea) from the operation ofnuclear installations and situations requiring interventionsuch as nuclear or radiological accidents.IAEA Coordinated Research Projects:• Nuclear and Isotopic Techniques for theCharacterisation of Submarine GroundwaterDischarge (SGD) in Coastal Zones, 2001-2005:To promote and develop the application of existingand novel nuclear and isotopic techniquesto the estimation of submarine groundwaterdischarge in coastal zones, the managementof coastal aquifers and environmental managementof the nearshore coastal marine environment.• Nuclear Applications to DetermineBioaccumulation Parameters and Processesused for Establishing Coastal Zone Monitoringand Management Criteria. 2003 - : To applyexperimental radiotracer techniques for determiningkey contaminant bioaccumulation andretention parameters for bioindicator organismsused in coastal pollution monitoring programmesdesigned to furnish information on water quality.• Nuclear and Isotopic Studies of the El NiñoPhenomenon in the Ocean. 2004 - : To investigatethe El Niño phenomenon in the marineenvironment using nuclear and isotopic techniques,to contribute to better understanding itspast behaviour and to predict possible scenariosfor the future. To explore the applications ofrecent nuclear and isotopic techniques suitablefor the quantitative estimation of past El Niñoevents.46 · REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSIONGESAMP Report and Studies N 77

ANNEX V: THE REVISED GESAMP HAZARD EVALUATIONPROCEDUREThe revised GESAMP Hazard Evaluation Procedure,published as GESAMP Reports & Studies No. 64 (2002)provides an updated set of criteria for evaluating the hazardsof chemical substances which may enter the marineenvironment through operational discharge, accidentalspillage, or loss overboard from ships.2 Hazards to both humans and the marine environment(see Table 1 and Figure 1 below) are considered andthe information is collated in the form of a “hazard profile”,an easily read fingerprint of the hazard characteristics ofeach substance. The hazard profiles of substances carriedby ships that have been reviewed by the GESAMP/EHSWorking Group are published at regular intervals and a«composite list» is available from IMO.Table 1Summary of the end-points used in the revised GESAMP hazard evaluation procedureTitle Column Hazard criterion CommentA Bioaccumulation and BiodegradationBA1 ‟ Octanol/water partition coefficient(log Pow) and/or Bioconcentrationfactor (BCF)‟ Measures of the tendency of a substance to bio-accumulatein aquatic organismsA2 ‟ Ready bio-degradability ‟ Used to identify substances with favourable bio-degradationcharacteristics (% degradation to CO 2and water in28d)Aquatic toxicityB1 ‟ Acute aquatic toxicity ‟ Toxicity to fish, crustaceans and micro-algae, generallymeasured in appropriate laboratory testsCDEB2 ‟ Chronic aquatic toxicity ‟ Reliable data on chronic aquatic toxicity from a wide rangeof organisms and sources, primarily based on fish andcrustaceansAcute mammalian toxicityDistinguishes toxicity as a result Measured in appropriate tests with laboratory animals, based humanof exposure through the followingexperience or on other reliable evidenceroutes:C1 ‟ OralC2 ‟ DermalC3 ‟ InhalationIrritation, corrosion & long term (mammalian) health effectsDistinguishes toxicity as a resultof the following:D1 ‟ Skin irritation & corrosionD2 ‟ Eye irritation & corrosionMeasured in appropriate tests with laboratory animals, based on humanexperience or on other reliable evidenceD3 ‟ Long term health effects ‟ Carcinogenic, Mutagenic, Reprotoxic, Sensitizer, Aspirationhazard,‟ Target Organ Systemic Toxicity: Lung injury, Neurotoxic,Immunotoxic.Interference with other uses of the seaE1 ‟ Tainting ‟ Off-flavours, in seafood following spillage of cargoE2 ‟ Behaviour of chemicals inthe marine environment andphysical effects on wildlifeand on benthic habitatsE3 ‟ Interference with coastalamenities‟ Behaviour in seawater, i.e., the tendency to form slicks orblanket the seabed; evaluated on the basis of solubility,vapour pressure, specific gravity & viscosity.‟ Necessity of closing beaches due to physical hazards andspecific health concernsGESAMP Report and Studies N 77REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSION · 47

Figure 1Graphical and tabular (under) illustration of a revised GESAMP hazard profile for a given substance X (see text above forfurther explanation of columns and ratings).A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 C3 D1 D2 D3 E1 E2 E34 NR 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 C 0 Fp 33 In the examples for two real substances given inTable 2 below, it can be seen that, while the environmentalcriteria (Columns A and B) are very similar, indicatingmoderate hazards to the marine environment, the humanhealth and physico-chemical criteria are quite different,cyclopentadiane being highly toxic by inhalation (columnC3) as well as being a persistent floater (slick forming,Column E2), whilst cyclohexane shows only low hazardsubstance across its entire profile.Table 2Some examples of GESAMP Hazard Profiles.ChemicalsubstanceGESAMP hazard Profile columnsA1a A1b A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 C3 D1 D2 D3 E1 E2 E3Cyclohexane 3 NI 3 NR 3 NI 0 0 1 0 1 NI E 21,3-CyclopentadieneDimer (Molten)3 3 3 NR 3 NI 2 0 3 2 2 NI Fp 348 · REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSIONGESAMP Report and Studies N 77

ANNEX VI: SUMMARY OF PRESENTATIONS BY WORKSHOPPARTICIPANTS1 All workshop participants have provided a briefpresentation of their respective organizations, basedon the following questions:.1 The context of the organization.2 The use of science today: How does yourorganization make use of science today? Whatkind of science, and how do you utilize the information?How do you obtain the information?What are the existing links to other organizations,universities, networks, governments etc?.3 The future challenges: What are the mainissues in terms of planning and decision makingduring 2007/2008?.4 The needs: Considering the future challengesoutlined above, what do you perceive asthe main informational gaps in marine/coastalscience as of today and in the nearest future?2 Attached hereto are the profiles on these questionsas received from the following organizations/projects:.1 Agulhas Somali Large Marine EcosystemsProject (ASLMES).2 Commission for the Conservation ofAntarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR).3 Caspian Environment Programme (CEP).4 Northwest Pacific Action Plan (NOWPAP-UNEP).5 North Atlantic Salmon ConservationOrganization.6 Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC).7 South East Atlantic Fisheries Organisation(SEAFO).8 Commission of the Convention for theProtection of the Marine Environment of theNorth-East Atlantic (OSPAR).9 UNEP Caribbean Environment Programme.10 The Fishery Committee for the EasternCentral Atlantic (CECAF).11 Caribbean LME Project (CLME).12 Western Central Atlantic FisheryCommission (WECAFC).13 Co-ordinating Working Party onFisheries Statistics.14 North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission(NEAFC).15 Black Sea Commission.16 Bay of Bengal Programme Inter-Governmental Organisation.17 Benguela Current Large Marine EcosystemProgramme (BCLME).18 Interim Guinea Current Commission.19 Regional Organization for conservation ofthe Environment of the Red Sea and Gulf ofAden (PERSGA)GESAMP Report and Studies N 77REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSION · 49

AGULHAS SOMALI LARGE MARINE ECOSYSTEMS PROJECT(ASLMES)Mr. Bradford Brown1 These two LMEs occupy the Indian Ocean sideof Africa and cover both mainland countries and adjacentislands. It is a unique GEF project in a numberof ways. First it includes two separate LMEs within asingle project management unit. While this may produceeconomies in Project Management costs it means aTransboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) and StrategicAction Programmes (SAPs) for each LME. In addition,instead of one GEF project covering all of the LME areas,there are two other ecosystem scale GEF projects in theregion. The first has been an active UNEP project forabout three years and covers major (but not all) countriesof these LMEs (Comoros, Kenya, Madagascar, Mauritius,Mozambique, Seychelles, South Africa, Tanzania). Thesecond is the South West Indian Ocean Fisheries Project(SWIOF) of the World Bank. Both the ASLMEs and theSWIOF Projects are just getting underway as full projects.The interviews for the Project Coordinator position forthe SLME are currently underway and the first steeringcommittee meeting would be expected to be held in earlyautumn and the Project Management Unitʼs offices inPort Elizabeth, South Africa. Finally the project is startingwithout a significant portion of the Somali LME in theactive project as there is not a government in Somali inthe position to participate. However efforts will be madeto establish all possible working links.2 The Project will prepare a TDA and SAP for theAgulhas and a preliminary TDA for the Somali LME.These will be prepared jointly with the other two GEFProjects. In this way all of the five LME modules will becovered. In addressing the SAP and assigning responsibilitiesthe other two projects will be responsible for majorwork in the pollution and ecosystem health and fish andfisheries modules. The productivity and socioeconomicmodule will be primarily the responsibility of the ASLMEsProject. Gaps in the other modules will also be coveredand the inshore artisanal fisheries have already beenidentified as one of those gaps. While all projects havesome responsibility for the governance module componentonly the ASLMEs project will provide the overarchingecosystem approach.3 While the development of the TDAs is necessarybefore fully responding to the question of the scienceneeded to provide the ongoing information for sustainablemanagement of these ecosystems the project proposaldid identify salient issues and states that the “main barriersto ecosystem management include inadequate data,lack of regionally based coordinated monitoring and informationsystems, lack of national and regional capacityand the absence of full stakeholder involvement.”4 The SLME will concentrate in the initial stages on“capturing essential information relating to the dynamicocean-atmosphere interface and other interactions thatdefine LMEs along with critical data on artisanal fisheries,larval transport and nursery areas along the coast”. Partof this information will be of use in determining if the adjacentMascarene Plateau area warrants a separate LME.A detailed review done in the project preparation phaseidentified gaps in oceanographic data in the AgulhasLME but the linking of these gaps to management prioritiesis still needed. “The parallel World Bank and UNEPProjects will feed pertinent information into the TDA/SAPprocess”.5 Today science for management is primarily usedseparately by each country for nation managementactions. In the future this will be done on a holistic ecosystembasis. Already in the planning phase linkageshave been made to the science institutions both academicand Government in the region. Links have alsobeen established to WIOMSA, the Western Indian OceanMarine Science Association. The challenge of the projectis to develop the ongoing mechanisms for providingecosystem wide scientific information for managementon a continuing basis and in a manner such that they areactually used.6 The Steering Committee will consist of seniorgovernment officials which will ensure that the problemsidentified are critical to society. Working groups addressingkey areas will bring the scientific community together.Capacity building is critical for although there are excellentscientists throughout the region there numbers are notlarge and the support systems can be enhanced.7 The important difference between LME Projectsand many other aid programs is that the primary goalis at the end of ten years to have institutionalized theLME management process and the provision of ongoingscientific advice to ensure it is science driven to the ultimategoal of reducing poverty through sustainability. TheWSSD goals are the guideposts for this effort. Everythingthat the Project does from day one must be done withthat sustainability goal in mind to succeed. There aresome very simple guidelines that should be kept in mindif the countries are going to continue these LME efforts.They must see that the spending of the money benefitsthe countries in a tangible way. The same national realitiesare present as they are in for example U.S. food aidwhich while relieving areas food shortages is bought inthe U.S. and shipped in U.S. carriers. Concrete resultsare needed but they must be combined with spendingthat maximizes benefits to the region. Capacity must bebuilt within a region to adequately handle these taskswork involving outside consultants and outside scientificadvice must be done in such a way as to enable thecapacity to be built not only to work within the regionbut to workaround the world bring insights from work inthe region. A collegial working relationship must developin contrast to the “expert” mode. The gap between theinsights based on science and their application to managementmust be closed.50 · REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSIONGESAMP Report and Studies N 77

COMMISSION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF ANTARCTICMARINE LIVING RESOURCES (CCAMLR)Mr. Eugene Sabourenkov1 The Convention on the Conservation of AntarcticMarine Living Resources (CAMLR Convention) wasnegotiated under the auspices of the Antarctic Treaty andentered into force on 7 April 1982. The Commission forthe Conservation of Antarctic marine Living Resources(CCAMLR) was established in accordance with theConvention. The Convention embodies an «ecosystemapproach» to living resources conservation with rationaluse of resources being considered a part of their conservation.This approach requires that the management ofcommercial fisheries should aim to conserve not only thetargeted species, but also take into account the effectof fishing on other dependent and related species. Thisapproach sets the CCAMLRʼs marine resources managementregime apart from other international fisheriesmanagement organisations.2 Main CCAMLR activities:(i) The current CCAMLR Conservation Measurescover regulation of all existing, new and exploratoryfisheries, and fishing for research purposes.(ii) The CCAMLR measure on general environmentalprotection during fishing and a resolution on icestrengtheningstandards in high-latitude fisheriesare attached.(iii) The Catch Documentation Scheme for toothfish(Dissostichus spp.) is in force since 2000.(iv) The CCAMLR System of Inspection has been inforce since the 1989/90 season.(v) The Scheme of International Scientific Observationhas been in force since the 1992/93 season.(vi) The CCAMLR Ecosystem Monitoring Program(CEMP) was initiated in the 1987/88 season.(vii) The first international synoptic survey of krill biomassin Atlantic Ocean sector of the ConventionArea (CCAMLR-2000 Survey) was conducted byCCAMLR in January 2000.(viii) The CCAMLR Marine Debris Monitoring Programhas been in place since 1989. Its objective is tomonitor incidence and accumulation trends inbeached marine debris.3 The following two current CCAMLR projects relyupon long-term and comprehensive collection of diversecategories of scientific data on the state of marine environmentand marine living resources:(i) Ecosystem-based feedback management ofAntarctic krill (Euphausia superba) fisherieswith small-scale fishing areas already identifiedbased on krill predator distribution and abundance;and(ii) Establishment of a representative network ofmarine protected areas with its first stage-Bioregionalisation of the Southern Ocean, to beaccomplished in 2007.4 The latter project also requires extensive cooperationand data exchange with such organisationsas Committee on Environmental Protection (CEP) ofthe Antarctic Treaty, Scientific Committee on AntarcticResearch (SCAR), Scientific Committee on OceanicResearch (SCOR), FAO, Agreement on the Conservationof Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP) and with severalRegional Fisheries Management Organisations responsible,in particular, for waters to the north of the CCAMLRConvention AreaAppendixCONSERVATION MEASURE 26-01 (2006) 56General environmental protection during fishingSpecies:Area:Season:Gear:allallallallThe Commission,Concerned that certain activities associated withfishing may affect the Antarctic marine environmentand that these activities have played a notable role inCCAMLRʼs efforts to minimise incidental mortality ofnon-target species such as seabirds and seals,Noting that previous CCAMLR recommendations,and the provisions of the marpol 73/78 Convention andits Annexes, prohibit the disposal of all plastics at sea, inthe CCAMLR Convention Area,Noting various provisions of the Protocol onEnvironmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty in particularits Annexes as well as related Recommendationsand Measures of the Antarctic Treaty ConsultativeMeetings,Recollecting that for many years advice from theScientific Committee has indicated that significant numbersof Antarctic fur seals have been entangled and killedin plastic packaging bands in the Convention Area,Noting the recommendations of CCAMLR and the5Except for waters adjacent to the Kerguelen and CrozetIslands6Except for waters adjacent to the Prince Edward IslandsGESAMP Report and Studies N 77REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSION · 51

provisions of the MARPOL Convention and its Annexeswhich prohibit the jettisoning of all plastics at sea andthat entanglement of fur seals is still continuing,Recognising that the bait boxes used on fishing vesselsin particular and other packages in general need notbe secured by plastic packaging bands because suitablealternatives exist,Adopts the following conservation measure to minimisepossible effects on the marine environment arisingfrom fishing-related activities in the context of mitigatingincidental mortality of non-target species and protectingthe marine environment in accordance with Article IX ofthe Convention.Disposal of Plastic Packaging Bands1. The use on fishing vessels of plastic packagingbands to secure bait boxes shall be prohibited.2. The use of other plastic packaging bandsfor other purposes on fishing vessels which donot use on-board incinerators (closed systems)shall be prohibited.3. Any packaging bands, once removed frompackages, shall be cut, so that they do not forma continuous loop and at the earliest opportunityburned in the on-board incinerator.4. Any plastic residue shall be stored on boardthe vessel until reaching port and in no casediscarded at sea.Prohibition of Discharge in High-Latitude Fisheries5. Vessels fishing south of 60°S shall be prohibitedfrom dumping or discharging:(i) oil or fuel products or oily residues intothe sea, except as permitted under Annex I ofMARPOL 73/78;(ii) garbage;(iii) food wastes not capable of passing througha screen with openings no greater than 25 mm;(iv) poultry or parts (including egg shells);(v) sewage within 12 n miles of land or iceshelves, or sewage while the ship is travellingat a speed of less than 4 knots;(vi) offal; or(vii) incineration ash.RESOLUTION 20/XXII 7Ice-strengthening standards in high-latitude fisheriesSpecies: allArea: south of 60°SSeason: allGear: allThe Commission,Recognising the unique circumstances in highlatitudefisheries, especially the extensive ice coveragewhich can pose a risk to fishing vessels operating inthose fisheries,Recognising also that the safety of fishing vessels,crew and CCAMLR scientific observers is a significantconcern of all Members,Further recognising the difficulties of search andrescue response in high-latitude fisheries,Concerned that collisions with ice could result inoil spills and other adverse consequences for Antarcticmarine living resources and the pristine Antarctic environment,Considering that vessels fishing in high-latitude fisheriesshould be suitable for ice conditions,urges Members to licence to fish in high-latitudefisheries only those of their flag vessels with a minimumice classification standard of ICE-1C 8 which will remaincurrent for the duration of the planned fishing activity.Translocation of Poultry6. Live poultry or other living birds shall notbe brought into areas south of 60°S, and anydressed poultry not consumed shall be removedfrom those areas.7Subareas and divisions south of 60°S and adjacent to theAntarctic continent8As defined in the Det Norske Veritas (DNV) Rules forClassification of Ships or an equivalent standard of certificationas defined by a recognised classification authority.52 · REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSIONGESAMP Report and Studies N 77

CASPIAN ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME (CEP)Mr. Hamid Gaffarzadeh1 The context of the organizationThe Caspian Environment Programme (CEP) representsa partnership between the five littoral states,Azerbaijan, Islamic Republic of Iran, Kazakhstan, RussianFederation and Turkmenistan, and the InternationalPartners, the EU, UNDP, UNEP, and the World Bank.The overall goal of the CEP is to promote the sustainabledevelopment and management of the Caspianenvironment in order to obtain the optimal long-termbenefits for the human population of the region. CEPhas been supported by both GEF and EU from 1998 fora total amount of approximately $ 25 millions. CEP hasbeen successful in a) initiating and promoting regionalenvironmental dialogue – exemplified by the TehranConvention; b) analytical work and policy development– Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA), CaspianStrategic Action Programme (SAP), National CaspianAction Plans (NCAP) and numerous research andpolicy documents and c) resource mobilizations activities.CEP is now collaborating with the nascent TehranConvention Secretariat.2 The use of science today: How does your organizationmake use of science today?Scientists from different areas of environmental –and social and economic - sciences and scientific organizationsare involved in conducting scientific researchesincluding cruises; preparation of regional environmentalreports and finally taking part in the Thematic RegionalAdvisory Groups. All these activities feed the developmentof regional technical reports, strategies andpolicies as well as setting up regional monitoring programmesand guidance documents.3 What kind of science, and how do you utilize theinformation?Marine biology; Fisheries; Hydrology, Hydrochemistry,Hydro-Chemistry Sediments and Soils Analysis; Hydrometeorologyincluding climatology, Remote Sensing;Social Sciences, Economics, Information Technology.Information produced from scientific work is used foranalytical work and policy formulation as well as forenvironmental monitoring.5 What are the existing links to other organizations,universities, networks, governments etc?We are ʻformallyʼ linked to the Environment &Natural Resources Ministries /National Agencies inthe Caspian governments. We also are collaboratingto a lesser degree with fisheries, hydro-meteorological,shipping, and agriculture national agencies. Linksare also established with numerous CEP stakeholdersincluding research institutes, universities, NGOs and soon. A major institutional link to the scientific body in theregion is established through the five Thematic RegionalAdvisory groups these being thematic scientific monitoringbodies that are membered by regional technical representatives.Through formal Inter Agency Agreementsand les formal link we cooperate with UN specializedagencies. Contact with the academia is made very oftenthrough the formal governmental channels. Contactswith the private sector and the NGOs have been soughtand established although not to the desired level.6 The future challenges: What are the main issuesin terms of planning and decision making during2007/2008?Getting the region to seriously undertake and ownlong term indicator based monitoring programmes; gettingnational and regional inter-sectoral collaborationgoing ; predicting climatic changes in the region; gettingthe attention of the planners to the interaction betweeneconomic development and environment and to economicvaluation of environment7 The needs: Considering the future challengesoutlined above, what do you perceive as the maininformational gaps in marine/coastal science as oftoday and in the nearest future?Sufficient historical and monitoring data/info onenvironmental trends and status including data and informationon pollution at sources, bio-resources changedynamism and the interactions between pollutionand bio-resources dynamism; lack of regional networkfor operational data and information exchange; underdevelopedecosystem and bio-resources modelling andforecast; economic values of environmental resources4 How do you obtain the information?Mainly in framework of the studies, cruises andmonitoring organized by CE; in the framework of informationexchange with other organizations and projects(for instance TACIS) and finally through collaborationwith the national institutions. We have also establisheda data bank of scientific and research bodies in theregion. This is available on our website.GESAMP Report and Studies N 77REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSION · 53

NORTHWEST PACIFIC ACTION PLAN (NOWPAP) OF UNEPMr. Alexander Tkalin1 The context of the organizationNOWPAP is an integral part of the UNEP RegionalSeas Programme, consisting of the Regional CoordinationUnit (RCU, serving as a Secretariat) and the four RegionalActivity Centres (RACs) implementing the on-the-groundactivities of the Action Plan. The IntergovernmentalMeeting (held once every year) is a high-level governingbody of NOWPAP. The four RACs are:• CEARAC (Special Monitoring and CoastalEnvironmental Assessment RAC in Toyama, Japan);• DINRAC (Data and Information Network RACin Beijing, China);• MERRAC (Marine Environmental EmergencyPreparedness and Response RAC in Daejecon,Korea); and• POMRAC (Pollution Monitoring RAC inVladivostok, Russia).2 How does the organization make use of sciencetoday?NOWPAP RACs and RCU facilitate the participationand involvement of well-known regional experts ina specific field in NOWPAP activities (e.g., Marine LitterActivity, specific projects related to oil spills, atmosphericdeposition of contaminants, harmful algal blooms,remote sensing applications).NOWPAP RACs and RCU organize expert meetings,workshops and symposia related to NOWPAP mandateto exchange ideas, learn about new developments, buildconsensus on possible approaches to marine environmentalissues in the region. These meetings also helpto exchange views and up-to-date scientific informationand technologies, introduce new information, trends anddirections in line with the global initiatives and concernsin the specific field.In some cases, these discussions are then reflectedin new scientific activities of NOWPAP.3 What kind of science, and how does the organizationutilize the information?Knowledge and experience of experts (please seeabove) is being used in NOWPAP data bases and onlinetools, e.g., on satellite remote sensing applications formarine environment monitoring (including harmful algalblooms), oil spill modelling, coastal sensitivity mappingand shore cleanup techniques, marine environmentalassessment. The scientific data and information are alsobeing used while preparing NOWPAP reports (e.g., onriver and direct inputs of contaminants to the marineand coastal environment; harmful algal blooms; oil spilldispersant applications).Up-to-date scientific information (provided byexperts) is reflected in the NOWPAP work plans, whenapproved by the member states4 How does the organization obtain the information?From papers published in scientific journals, and avariety of reports and publications in respective fields;through personal communication with experts; by attendingworkshops and symposia.5 What are the existing links to other organizations,universities, networks, governments, etc.?At the international level NOWPAP is closely linkedwith:• UNEP; UNEP Regional Seas Programmeand UNEP Global Programme of Actions forthe Protection of the Marine Environment fromLand-Based Activities (GPA);• International Maritime Organization (IMO);• COBSEA (Coordinating Body on the Seas ofeast Asia);• IOC/WESTPAC (IOC sub-commission for theWestern Pacific);• PEMSEA (Partnerships in EnvironmentalManagement for the Seas of East Asia);• PICES (North Pacific Marine ScienceOrganization);• YSLME (Yellow Sea Large Marine EcosystemProject).At a national level, the following ministries, agenciesand organizations are involved in NOWPAP activities:• China: State Environmental ProtectionAdministration; State Oceanic Administration;Chinese Research Academy of EnvironmentalSciences; China National EnvironmentalMonitoring Centre, etc.• Japan: Ministries of Foreign Affairs andEnvironment; National Institute of EnvironmentalStudies; University of Tokyo, Toyama University,Kagoshima University, etc.• Korea: Ministries of Maritime Affairs andFisheries; of Foreign Affairs and Trade; ofEnvironment; National Fisheries Research andDevelopment Institute; Korea Ocean Researchand Development Institute; Korea MaritimeInstitute; National Institute of EnvironmentalResearch; Seoul National University, PukyongNational University, etc.• Russia: Ministries of Natural Resources andTransport; Pacific Institute of Geography andPacific Oceanological Institute, Far EasternBranch, Russian Academy of Sciences; FarEastern Regional Hydrometeorological ResearchInstitute , etc.54 · REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSIONGESAMP Report and Studies N 77

6 The future challenges: what are the main issuesin terms of planning and decision making during2007/2008?• climate change;• marine and coastal biodiversity;• marine pollution (e.g., persistent toxic substances;marine litter);• integrated coastal zone and river basin management.7 The needs: considering the future challengesoutlined above, what do you perceive as the maininformational gaps in marine/coastal science as oftoday and in the nearest future?• lack of national and regional capacity to initiatenew projects related to the emerging issues tobe addressed;• limited data and information on new subjectsand differences between the member statescapacities, mainly due to different levels ofnational economy and different environmentalpriorities among the member states;• practical difficulties with new experts involvement,in particular at early stages of dealing withnew environmental subjects, mainly due to limitedfunds to organize workshops and symposia.GESAMP Report and Studies N 77REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSION · 55

NORTH ATLANTIC SALMON CONSERVATION ORGANIZATIONMr. Malcolm Windsor1 The life-cycle of the Atlantic salmon, involvingmajor migrations between natal rivers and oceanicfeeding grounds, poses significant challenges to stockassessment biologists, not least because there aremany discrete populations (more than 2,000 riverssupport salmon populations) with different resilience toexploitation.2 The North Atlantic Salmon ConservationOrganization (NASCO) was established in 1984 with theobjective of contributing to the conservation, restoration,enhancement and rational management of salmon takinginto account the best scientific evidence availableto it.3 Initially the focus of the NASCOʼs work was ondeveloping regulatory measures for the distant-waterfisheries and the advice was provided by ICES. Muchprogress has been made by ICES in developing predictivemodels as a basis for informing management decisions.As NASCO has broadened its work to includeissues such as habitat protection and restoration andminimising impacts of aquaculture, its need for advicehas also broadened.4 NASCO has obtained the science and other informationit needs from a variety of sources, including ICESitself, NASCO Working Groups and Committees thatdraw on the expertise available within NASCO delegationsand the more than 30 accredited NGOs to NASCO,international symposia convened by NASCO and otherIGOs, and other sources. These include a LiaisonGroup with the salmon farming industry to discussissues of mutual interest, including minimising impactsof escapees and sea lice on the wild stocks.5 While NASCO strives to be a science-basedmanagement organization, it has recognised that insituations where scientific advice is uncertain, unreliableor inadequate, a Precautionary Approach has beenadopted and is to be applied to protect the resourceand preserve the environments in which it lives. Underthis approach, the absence of scientific information andadvice may not be used as a reason for postponing orfailing to take conservation and management actions.6 Despite all the progress and sacrifices in improvinghabitat and reducing exploitation, the abundance ofsalmon remains low and for some monitored salmonstocks marine mortality is now double or treble the valuein the 1970s. A priority for NASCO is to improve understandingof the distribution and migration of salmon atsea and a comprehensive, innovative programme ofresearch has been developed, SALSEA, to addressthis topic and better understand the factors responsible.However, the funding and vessel time to achieve thisstudy is uncertain. NASCO is also taking steps to compileall available information on the social and economicvalues of the wild Atlantic salmon.56 · REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSIONGESAMP Report and Studies N 77

SUB-REGIONAL FISHERIES COMMISSION (SRFC)Mr. Aboubacar Sidibe1 Context and objective of the SRFCThe SRFC is an intergovernmental organization offishery cooperation created in March 29, 1985 by convention.Today it counts among its members seven WestAfrican coastal states: Cape-Verda, Gambia, Guinea,Guinea Bissau, Mauritania, Senegal and Sierra Leone.Combined, these countries have a coast line of 3,400km and have jurisdiction over an EEZ of 1,550,000 km2.The general objective of the SRFC is the harmonizationof fisheries policies and legislation for a durable exploitationof the fisheries resources and marine ecosystems.The SRFC comprises three entities:• The Conference of Ministers (CM) includes theMinister of Fisheries and Marine Environmentfrom each Member State. It is the decision makingbody of the SRFC;• The Coordinating Committee (CC): includesthe Director of Fisheries and any other expertdesignated by the member country; it is thetechnical and consultative institution of theSRFC;• The Permanent Secretariat (PS) is the executivebody of the SRFC, in charge of applying thedecisions from the Conference of Ministers. Itis composed of the Permanent Secretary, theProgram manager, the Scientific Adviser, theAssistant in Information, Communication andFormation (ICF), and the administrative andfinancial controller.2 The use of scienceThe SRFC emphasises the need for science toevaluate the development of the exploitation of fisheriesresources and the state of the sub regional marine ecosystems.Knowledge generated from applied scienceslike fisheries, oceanography, economic and social sciencesare actively promoted by the SRFC. The informationfrom scientific programs/projects and national databases are exploited to contribute to the decision makingprocess especially in respect to marine resourcesand ecosystems shared among Member States of theSRFC.The SRFC maintains links with all fishery andoceanographic research institutions and universitiesat sub-regional and regional level, as well with otherinternational scientific organizations (CECAF/FAO, IRD,IFREMER, IEO, DG Research of EU …).3 The future challenges• Realization of joint scientific surveys (between2 or 3 SRFC countries) to assess shared fisheriesresources and to undertake oceanographicstudies of the coastal marine ecosystems;• Identification of important common ecosystemsand promoting the ecosystem approach infisheries management in the sub-region.4 The needsImpact assessment of coastal pollution (domesticand industrial waste) on food chains in coastal fish communitiesand on marine ecosystems of the region.GESAMP Report and Studies N 77REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSION · 57

SOUTH EAST ATLANTIC FISHERIES ORGANISATION (SEAFO)Mr. Hashali Hamukuaya1 The context of the organisationSEAFO is a regional fisheries management organisationin southeast Atlantic Ocean established to ensurelong-term conservation and sustainable use of the fisheryresources in the area. It has competence in the highseas of south-east Atlantic Ocean with a ConventionArea covers approximately 16 million square kilometres- from equator to the southern ocean and westward toabout the middle of the Atlantic Ocean (Fig. 1). SEAFOprocess was initiated in 1997 by the coastal States ofAngola, Namibia, South Africa and the United Kingdom(in respect of its dependencies Tristan da Cunha andAscension Island). The idea was further shared withother States with real interest in the fishery resourcesof the area. Complex negotiations between the coastalStates and the distant water fishing nations started in1997 and completed in 2000. The Convention was signedin April 2001 by Angola, European Community, Iceland,Namibia, Norway, Republic of Korea, South African,United Kingdom and United States of America and cameinto force on 13 April 2003 after the deposit of instrumentof ratifications by European Community, Namibiaand Norway. Angola became a fourth Contracting Partyin 2006. The Convention covers two types of fisheries,namely (i) those which straddle the Convention Area andadjacent waters under the jurisdiction of coastal Statesand (ii) discrete high seas stocks that are largely associatedwith seamounts which do not occur at any stage oftheir biological cycle in waters under national jurisdiction(Table 1). The Organisation consists of the Commission(highest decision-making body), the Scientific Committeeand the Secretariat, based in Walvis Bay, Namibia. Formore information refer to http://www.seafo.org.2 How does SEAFO make use of science today?SEAFO relies on sound scientific input to fulfil itsmandate - long-term conservation and sustainable useof the fishery resources covered by the Convention. TheConvention dictates that conservation and managementmeasures to the adopted by the Commission shouldbase on the best scientific evidence (article 3(a) andwhere scientific information is uncertain, unreliable orinadequate, precautionary approach principle prevails(article 3(b) and article 7. The Convention also requiredthat the whole ecosystem be taken into account in theapplication of the Convention (article 3(c-f). To this effect,the Commission is served by the Scientific Committee(SC) that has advisory responsibilities. The SC is composedof scientists from Contracting Parties and itsmeetings are open to the observers from non-Parties.3 What kind of science?The SC is focusing mainly on the evaluation andanalyses of fisheries data (catch and efforts) as well ason enhancing knowledge on oceanography, productivityand biodiversity. In the future, and when more data areavailable, the SC will conduct stock assessments of themain commercially important species such as deep seared crab, toothfish, orange roughy and alfonsino.4 How is information utilised?Fisheries information produced by the SC is providedto the Commission, accompanied by specific recommendationsin respect of conservation and sustainableuse of the resources. The Commission then formulatemeasures in line with the advice received from the SC.Recently, the Commission adopted several measuresbased on the advice from the SC, among them (i) controland monitor the fisheries through the establishment ofa record of vessels (ii) placement of scientific observeron all fishing vessels (iii) mandatory vessels monitoringsystem (VMS) (iv) catch reporting requirements (v)reduce incidental mortality of seabirds, especially petrelsand albatrosses, by fishing gear adjustments and othertechnical measures during fishing operations (vi) bantranshipments at sea in order to combat IUU fishing(vii) prohibit shark finning practices whereby vesselscut the valuable shark fins off and retain them on-boardwhile discarding the carcasses of the shark (viii) reduceincidental mortality of sea turtles in fishing operations,notably by promptly releasing turtles entangled in fishinggear (ix) prohibit fishing activities in about a dozen sensitivemarine areas with prominent seamounts until moreinformation is available. These measures are binding toboth Parties and non Parties.5 How is information obtained?Historical catch and effort data were obtainedfrom the Parties and from published and unpublishedinformation. Since 2005, when the Secretariat becameoperational, catch and effort data are supplied [monthly]directly by flag States to the Secretariat. VMS data arealso transmitted in real time from the vessels to theSecretariat via Fisheries Monitoring Centres (FMC) offlag States.6 Existing links to other organisations, universities,networks, governmentsSEAFO is collaborating with scientists from SouthAmerica (Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay) under theMar-Eco project to study patterns (distribution andabundances of faunal assemblages) and the relationshipsof the organisms along the mid-Atlantic ridge.58 · REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSIONGESAMP Report and Studies N 77

The mid-Atlantic ridge extends about 5,000 kilometresthrough the western part of the Convention Area.SEAFO has partnership arrangement with FAO-FIRMS(FIRMS Fishery Resources Monitoring System) topromote the development and extension of fisheriesstatus and trends reporting. SEAFO is representedat the meeting of the Coordinating Working Party(CWP) on fisheries statistics. There is a close workingrelationships with the regional programs such as theBenguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem (BCLME),Benguela Environment Fisheries Interaction andTraining (BENEFIT).SEAFO has observer status in the ProgramSteering Committee of BCLME. The coastal States inthe region (Angola, Namibia and South Africa) are atadvanced stage to establishing the Benguela CurrentCommission (BCC) in which SEAFO has observerstatus. With other RFMOs, SEAFO has establishedlinkages with ICCAT, CCAMLR and there are constantcorrespondence pertaining to data exchange on bycatches,on IUU fishing activities, on conservation andmanagement measures adopted by each Commissionand on exchange of general experiences on administrativematters. With NEAFC, a MoU was enteredinto in 2007 VMS. SEAFO collaborates with NAFO,in particular on exchange of information on IUU fishing.SEAFO is represented at the annual meetings ofthe above Commissions and its annual meetings areopen to any organization with interest in the fisheryresources of the area.7 The future challenges: What are main issuesin terms of planning and decision making during2007/2008:The Commission may have to consider institutionalisethe ecosystem approach to fisheries management.Even in the current situation where dataare inadequate or lacking, it would be preferred todevelop/formulate management plans that includestock specific target reference points. Monitoring,control and surveillance (MCS) as envisaged in theConvention is not fully in place as it is implementedon phases, pending the availability of the requiredinformation.8 The needs: What is the perceived as the maininformation gaps in marine / coastal science as oftoday and in the nearest futureOne of the main challenges faced by theOrganisation is limited fisheries information. Thereare no adequate time series of historic fishing trendsessential for stock assessment. The current managementis based largely on the precautionary approachprinciples and innovative management. The SC hasset-up data sampling procedures and protocols whichare implemented to build time series, but it will taketime. Information (resources, environment) on many ofthe marine habitats such as seamounts, rises, ridgesis none existent. Some fish resources are perceivedto straddle between the waters under national jurisdictionof the coastal States and those of the adjacenthigh seas within the Convention Area. Measuresadopted by the Commission and those applied by thecoastal States regarding straddling fish stocks need tobe compatible. The extent of IUU fishing activities onthe species covered by SEAFO need to be evaluatedand quantified.Fig. 1SEAFO Convention Area [SE = South Equatorial Current, AC=Angolan Current, SM= Seamount, HS = Hotspot, R=Rex, F =Frankies, J = Johnies, BC = Benguela Current, AgC+AgulhasCurrent, BraC = Brazil Current, SAC = South Atlantic Current].Table 1The list of stocks for covered by the SEAFO Convention.SpeciesLatin NameAlfonsinoFamily BerycidaeHorse Mackerel Trachurus spp.MackerelScomber spp.OrangeRoughy Hoplosthethus sppSkates FamilyRajidaeSharksOrder SelachomorphaArmourheadPseudopentaceros spp.Cardinal FishEpigonus spp.Deep-sea Red Crab Chaceon maritaeOctopusFamily OctopodidaeSquidFamily LoliginidaePatagonian toothfish Dissostichus eleginoidesHakeMerluccius spp.WreckfishPolyprion americanusOreo doriesFamily OreosomatidaeGESAMP Report and Studies N 77REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSION · 59

COMMISSION OF THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTIONOF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT OF THE NORTH-EASTATLANTIC (OSPAR)Ms. Hanne-Grete Nilsen1 The context of the organizationOSPAR (that is, the Commission established bythe 1992 Convention for the Protection of the MarineEnvironment of the North-East Atlantic) is the mechanismby which fifteen western European governmentscooperate to protect the marine environment of thenorth-east Atlantic. The OSPAR Convention imposesgeneral obligations, binding in international law, on theContracting Parties, in accordance with the provisionsof the Convention, to “take all possible steps to preventand eliminate pollution and shall take the necessarymeasures to protect the maritime area against theadverse effects of human activities so as to safeguardhuman health and to conserve marine ecosystems and,when practicable, restore marine areas which have beenadversely affected”.OSPAR has adopted an ecosystem approach tomanagement as the basis for integration of five thematicstrategies, which it is using to implement the convention,i.e. on biodiversity, eutrophication, hazardous substances,offshore oil and gas industry and radioactive substances.These are underpinned by a sixth strategy onmonitoring and assessment of the status of the marineenvironment.2 The use of science todayOSPAR makes use of scientific knowledge as basisfor development of programmes and measures and formonitoring and assessments of pressures and impactson the marine environment and progress towards environmentaltargets.Information on hazardous properties and environmentalrisks is used to select substances for priorityaction. Comprehensive Background Documents havebeen prepared for the priority substances. The informationis used as basis for conclusions on actions needed.Under the biodiversity strategy scientific evidence isused as basis for identification of threatened and decliningspecies and habitats, for identifying areas to beincluded in a network of marine protected areas, andfor considering the impacts and management of humanactivities in the marine environment.The Convention requires OSPAR to undertakeand publish at regular intervals joint assessments ofthe quality status of the marine environment and of itsdevelopment, and to include in such assessments bothan evaluation of the effectiveness of the measures takenand planned for the protection of the marine environmentand the identification of priorities for action.The Contracting Parties are required to cooperatein carrying out monitoring programmes which are underpinnedby methodological guidelines, quality assurancemethods, and assessment tools and to carry out researchwhich is considered necessary to increase knowledgeand understanding of the marine environment.OSPAR is heavily dependent on science in order tofulfil these obligations. Contracting Parties provide scientificexpertise to support OSPARʼs work often drawnfrom national research institutes or academia. Collectivescientific expertise is often used to evaluate or assessinformation in support of programmes and measuresand data collected in monitoring programmes.OSPAR uses a lead country approach to collectinformation. The lead country may sub-contractnational research institutes or universities. For certainissues OSPAR asks the International Council for theExploration of the Seas (ICES) to provide scientificadvice. Advice may encompass assessments of datacollected by OSPAR, scientific peer reviews of work byOSPAR, or providing an evaluation of the state of scientificknowledge.3 Main issues in terms of planning and decisionmaking during 2007/2008The preparation of the Quality Status Report (QSR)2010 will be a major challenge for OSPAR in the comingfew years. This includes ensuring that it can fulfil therequirements of the initial assessment foreseen underthe emerging Marine Strategy Directive.A number of assessments of pressures and impactsare being prepared under the thematic strategies ofOSPAR as basis for the QSR. Challenges in the implementationof OSPARʼs thematic strategies in 2007 and2008 include:• an integrated assessment by 2008 of the eutrophicationstatus of the OSPAR maritime area;• establishment of an ecologically coherent andwell managed network of Marine ProtectedAreas;• conclusions on the need for OSPAR action onhazardous substances, including endocrine disruptors,in the light of developments in the OECDand the EU;• prevent and eliminate pollution by oil and othersubstances caused by discharges of producedwater into the sea;• an assessment by 2008 (for those regions whereinformation is available) of the impact on marinebiota of anthropogenic sources (past, present andpotential) of radioactive substances;• conclusions on sub-seabed storage of CO 24 Main informational gaps in marine/coastal scienceThe quality and completeness of data are notalways sufficient and make it difficult to observe trendsin time series and to compare data between Contracting60 · REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSIONGESAMP Report and Studies No 77

Parties or within the time series of one Contracting Party.This concerns data submissions under OSPAR monitoringprogrammes, in implementation reports and otherdata reports under any of the thematic Strategies alike:• OSPAR is at an early stage in its work tomonitor, assess and manage the status of theecosystems and biodiversity. There are furtherchallenges to establish and implement acoherent and workable set of ecological qualityobjectives both within the North Sea and in theregions beyond;• there is a need for assessments of hazardoussubstances which link emissions/discharges,inputs to, and concentrations and effects in, themarine environment;• it is difficult to ascertain whether the inputreductions of nutrients achieved so far haveresulted, or will result, in any decrease of concentrationsof nutrients in the sea and of theincidence of eutrophication;• there is a need to improve the state of knowledgeon extent and status of vulnerable species,habitats and ecological processes, and theresponses to any management measures in thehigh seas of the OSPAR maritime area.GESAMP Report and Studies No 77REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSION · 61

UNEP CARIBBEAN ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMMEMr. Jean-Nicolas Poussart1 The context of the organization:This is best captured in our Mission Statementwhich is to promote regional cooperation for the protectionand development of the Marine Environment of theWider Caribbean Region. Emphasis of our work is toprevent pollution of the Caribbean Sea from land andmarine based sources, and to minimize damage to criticalcoastal and marine resources from all direct and indirectactivities. This recognizes the importance of thesecoastal and marine resources for the development of theWider Caribbean Region. In so doing, our projects andactivities focus primarily on:• Promoting use of best practices and appropriatetechnologies;• Applying management tools in decision-making,including measures such as establishmentof protected areas, use of EIAs, economic valuation,etc.;• Facilitating scientific and technical cooperationand exchange of information;• Capacity building at the institutional, legal,policy and scientific levels.2 The use of science today:As a Regional Environmental Convention, muchwork is informed by scientific data and information.Scientific data formed the basis and justification for theinitial development of the Convention and Protocolsand continues to be used to monitor and evaluate theeffectiveness of the Convention and its Protocols at thenational and regional levels. Scientific and environmentaldata also form the basis for several scientific andmanagement guidelines produced by CEP. More importantly,if the Convention is to be successful in stimulatingpolicy, institutional and legal reform, it should be basedon sound scientific data and information. This meansthat much of our capacity building has focussed on beingable to generate accurate and sustained data and informationon the state of the regionʼs natural resources andassessing the major stressors and impacts to them. Theinformation is obtained directly from national governmentagencies, through external regional and/or globalprogrammes and projects, from our own activities, inparticular through our Regional Activity Centres (RACs)and other collaborating organizations (RAN) includingNGOs, universities, regional research institutions.Our links to regional and international organizationsare through a variety of mechanisms: Formal MOUsof cooperation – e.g. with BASEL, CITES, RAMSAR,OECS, IAEA, through participation of these agenciesat our Intergovernmental Meetings and other technicalmeetings as are allowed by the Rules of Procedure forthe Caribbean Action Plan and Cartagena Conventionand Protocols, through the network of RACs and RAN,as partners in various regional and global projects, asexecuting agencies for specific UNEP Projects.3 The future challenges:Mainstreaming environmental data and informationinto development planning and economic decisionmaking processes by senior policy and decision makers.The lack of scientific and technological capacity indeveloping countries means that there are some basicdata gaps on the state of the marine environment in thisregion. Appropriate capacity building programmes arerequired both at the national and regional levels includinguniversities to assist in more targeted research andmonitoring programmes, identification of hot spots andrelating state of environment data to major environmentaland human health impacts as well as the maincauses of environmental degradation. The transfer ofraw scientific data into environmental information fordecision-making. While some achievements have beenmade, more needs to be done on the packaging of datathrough modelling, GIS, etc. to make it more accessibleand useable for decision making. Importance of thecontinued incorporation of economics and social indicatorswhen generating, compiling and evaluating marinescientific data. In this regard consideration of scale isimportant. In other words, while we need to continueto promote economic valuation of the value of servicesprovided by ecosystems at a regional or global level– these need to be presented at the national and even atthe local and community level to result in greater impactson the ground.4 The needsBridging the gap between marine/coastal scienceand the political decision maker. Making the sciencemore relevant to the day to day development decisions.More integrated information that considers social andeconomic indicators as well. For SIDS, considerationsrelated to Climate Change. Linkages with human healthneed to be better defined. Monitoring Programmes– how to make them simpler, faster and less expensive.62 · REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSIONGESAMP Report and Studies N 77

THE FISHERY COMMITTEE FOR THE EASTERN CENTRALATLANTIC (CECAF)Alhaji Jallow1 ContextThe Fishery Committee for the Eastern CentralAtlantic (CECAF) was established by FAO in 1967 andnow has 34 members consisting of 22 coastal states borderingAfrica, 11 non-coastal states, and the EuropeanCommunity. The Eastern Central Atlantic fishing area(FAO Area 34) stretches from Cape Spartel on theStraits of Gibraltar to the River Congo and CECAF wasestablished to promote the optimum utilisation of theliving resources in this area of its competence throughthe promotion of the collection and analysis of statistical,biological and socio-economic data and their dissemination,and the formulation of management recommendationsfor implementation by its Members.2 Use of ScienceIn September 1998, the Committee abolished itsfour subsidiary bodies and agreed to have a simplerstructure consisting of the Committee and a ScientificSub-Committee (SSC). The Scientific Sub-Committeehas been providing scientific advice to the Committeesince its inception in October 2000. The Scientific Sub-Committee established working groups on small pelagics,demersal species and artisanal fisheries. Thesegroups meet regularly to assess stocks and deal withprevailing technical and social issues related to resourcemanagement. The use of science in these groups hasbeen on the techniques and methodologies of assessingstocks and in fisheries statistical data collection, processingand analysis.3 Future challengesIn general, the Committee identified inadequatedata as a major problem for the working groups that provideinformation to the Scientific Sub-Committee. In particular,there is a general lack of biological data. Thereis also a need for improving the catch and effort data formore reliable stock assessment in the region. Reliabledata for scientific work and eventual advice will continueto be a major challenge to the Committee.4 NeedsThe data problem being experienced by CECAF willrequire a continuous effort in improving data collectionthrough training and sensitization of the administrationsand related institutions on the significance of supplyingreliable and adequate fisheries data. As indicated forCECAF, the information gap in marine coastal scienceis in the quantitative state of the major stocks that themajor fisheries depend on. The trawl and acousticsurveys that provide more reliable information are usuallyrare or non-existent in many countries. The lack ofappropriate information affects monitoring efforts andcontributes to rapid depletion of stocks and consequentover-exploitation.GESAMP Report and Studies N 77REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSION · 63

CARIBBEAN LME PROJECT (CLME)Ms. Lucia Fanning1 The context of the organizationThe Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem (CLME)Project Unit is the technical coordinating unit forthe implementation of GEF-funded CLME Projecton behalf of the 26 member countries that makeup the Wider Caribbean Region. IOCARIBE, theRegional Sub-Commission of IOC for the Caribbeanand Adjacent Regions is the Executing Agency for theproject.The CLME Project uses a networked approachedto conduct the approved project implementation plan,drawing on a diversity of national, sub-regional,regional and international partners.2 The use of science todayThe CLME Project uses the policy cycle (dataand information; analysis and advice; decision-making;implementation; and monitoring and evaluation)to guide the identification of science needs (Figure 1).Sound scientific input into all CLME Project componentsprovides the foundation for recommendationsto enhance the sustainability of transboundary livingmarine resources at the LME level.Given the overall objective of the project to worktowards the sustainable management of the sharedLMRs and to work towards the achievement of theWSSD targets, the kind of science that is neededspans both the social sciences and natural sciences.Regarding the utilization of scientific information, theprimary objective is to ensure more informed decision-makingat multiple levels. As such, the natureof the science needed and the form of its uptakewill be dependent on the nature of the activity, theactors involved and the level at which the decision iseffected.Information is obtained by accessing the expertiseand products of the suite of network actorsessential for addressing LME-level issues that affectshared marine resources. Access is via a varietyof mechanisms including electronic transfer via theinternet, workshops, conferences, meetings, researchconducted by the PCU, etc.The CLME Project has made a concerted effortto build partnerships and to link with an extensivearray of organizations, intergovernmental as well asnon-governmental (e.g. FAO, UNEP, Organization ofAmerican States, The Nature Conservancy), universities(e.g. UWI, U.Miami, Dalhousie), networks (e.g.WW2BW, IWLEARN, GCFI), subregional FMOs, membercountries (e.g. via an Inter-Ministerial/IntersectoralCommittee and specific Natural Resources andEnvironment Ministries) and a variety of other players.3 The future challengesThe current degrading state of the shared LMRsin the Caribbean suggests that ecosystem managementand the recovery of depleted fish stocks willrequire cooperation at various geopolitical scales,but there are at present inadequate institutional, legaland policy frameworks or mechanisms for managingshared living marine resources across the region.There is also a lack of capacity at the national leveland scientific information is poor, particularly withrelation to the transboundary distribution, dispersalsand migrations of these organisms and the impact ofchanges in productivity and climate. In cases whereinformation is available, it is oftentimes not easily orreadily accessible for region-wide decision-making.These institutional deficiencies as well as a lack ofknowledge represent a major barrier to the sustainableecosystem management of these shared marineresources where long-term programs to collect andintegrate biogeophysical, social and economic datais critical.4 The needsGiven the complexity and diversity of the WiderCaribbean, needs vary widely from place to placeand problem to problem. A preliminary TransboundaryDiagnostic Analysis has revealed the need for a greatdiversity of information and analysis to address LMRissues. The following are a few of the most prominentones:• The development and ongoing analysis andreporting of the current biogeophysical status ofthe LME that uses a simplified suite of indicatorsor index-based reporting structure that allows fora holistic analysis of the issues at an ecosystemiclevel.• A focused programme of activities aimed atunderstanding the transboundary distributions,dispersals and migrations of selected transboundaryfisheries in the region, e.g. dolphinfish• Science needed to better understand the cumulativeecological effects of a number of pressureson the LME including climate change; coastalpopulation growth including tourism; and marinepollution, including the extent of the threat frommarine invasive species and the trans-shipmentof hazardous goods.• Economic valuation of the natural capital in theLME.• Methodological approaches to low cost rapidassessment of resource status that can supportdecision making.64 · REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSIONGESAMP Report and Studies N 77

• Metadata data information systems that willfacilitate access and meaningful use to scientificdata and information, thereby promoting itsmovement from research centres and other ownersof the data to users.Fig. 1A generic policy cycle used for the proposed LME governanceframework for the Caribbean LME.DATA ANDINFORMATIONANALYSIS ANDADVICEREVIEW ANDEVALUATIONDECISIONMAKINGIMPLEMENTATIONGESAMP Report and Studies N 77REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSION · 65

WESTERN CENTRAL ATLANTIC FISHERY COMMISSIONMr. Bissesar Chakalall1 IntroductionWECAFC, an FAO regional fishery body, was establishedby Resolution 4/61 of the Sixty-first Session of theFAO Council, November 1973, under Article VI (1) of theFAO Constitution. Revised Statutes of the Commissionwere endorsed by the Hundred and Thirty-first Sessionof the FAO Council, November 2006. WECAFC providesfishery fisheries management advice and recommendations,based on the best available scientific information,for its members to implement. Membership is open tocoastal States whose territories are situated wholly orpartly within the area of the Commission or States whosevessels engage in fishing in the area of competence of theCommission that notify in writing to the Director-General ofthe Organization of their desire to be considered as membersof the Commission.The general objective of the Commission is to: promotethe effective conservation, management and developmentof the living marine resources of the area of competence(Fig. 1) of the Commission, in accordance with the FAOCode of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries; and addresscommon problems of fisheries management and developmentfaced by Members of the Commission. It covers all livingmarine resources, without prejudice to the managementresponsibilities and authority of other competent fisheriesand other living marine resources management organizationsor arrangements in the area.2 Work ProgrammeFunding for the work programme of the Commissioncomes mainly from the FAO Regular Programme budgetand from partners. FAO bears the running costs for theSecretariat. Funding is a major constraint.The work of the Commission is guided by the followingthree principles:• promote the application of the provisions of theFAO Code of Conduct on Responsible Fisheries andits related instruments, including the precautionaryapproach and the ecosystem approach to fisheriesmanagement;• ensure adequate attention to small-scale, artisanaland subsistence fisheries; and• coordinate and cooperate closely with other relevantinternational organizations on matters of commoninterestGroup on Caribbean Spiny Lobster; Queen Conch andFlying Fish); or on specific subjects/issues (e.g. WorkingGroup on Anchored Fish Attracting Devices in the LesserAntilles). Fishery scientists, managers and decision makersof member countries participate in the working groups whichhave specific terms of reference and are time bound. Thegoal is to achieve sustainable utilisation through effectivefishery management. The data used by the working groupsto generate fishery management advice are collected by theparticipating countries.Where applicable and appropriate, the activities of theCommission are implemented in partnership with regionaland international organisations working in the region.WECAFC is also a member of the Regional Fishery BodySecretariats Network that meets biennially.3 The needsThe need to improve the quality of data and informationbeing collected for the generation of managementadvice and the implementation of the management recommendationsby the countries are two of the main challengesfacing the region.4 The future challengesTaking into consideration the experiences of the workinggroups the major challenges are the institutional deficienciesexisting in most member countries. These include:small staff with limited experience and high turn-over rates;no clear decision making processes for uptake of scientificinformation for management; poor communication amongscientists, managers and decision makers; weak institutionalcapacity (absence of a critical mass); and inadequatefunding.WECAFC is addressing these issues and those effortsshould be strengthened through working in partnership withGEF/UNDP/UNESCO/IOCARIBE Caribbean Large MarineEcosystem Project (CLME), through pilot projects on shrimpand groundfish in the Brazil-Guianas LME, Caribbean SpinyLobster and Flying fish.Figure 1The WECAFC Region. Note: The hypothetical EEZs, using theequidistant principle, are for illustrative purposes only and doesnot imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the partof the Food and Agriculture Organisation concerning the legal ordevelopmental status of any country, territory or of its authorities, orconcerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.Fishery management advice, based on the best availablescientific information, is provided through ad hoc workinggroups, established by the Commission. The groupswere decided on basis of ecosystem boundaries (e.g.Working Group on Shrimp and Groundfish Fisheries inthe Brazil-Guianas LME); on species/stocks (e.g. Working66 · REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSIONGESAMP Report and Studies N 77

COORDINATING WORKING PARTY ON FISHERIES STATISTICSMs. Tsuji Sachiko1 The context of the organizationMission: To provide a mechanism to coordinatefishery statistical programmes of regional fishery bodiesand other inter-governmental organizations with a remitfor fishery statistics.Status: Established in 1960 in accordance withArticle VI of the FAO Constitution and reconstituted in1995Main Objectives: i) to keep continuously review theneeds of fishery statistics for research, policy-makingand management; ii) to agree on standard concepts,definitions, classifications and methodologies for thecollection and collation of fishery statistics; and iii) tomake proposals for the coordination and streamlining ofstatistical activities among relevant intergovernmentalorganizations.Participating organizations: CCAMLR, CCSBT,EuroStat, FAO, GFCM, IATTC, ICCAT, ICES, IOTC,IWC, NAFO, NASCO, NEAFC, OECD, and SEAFDEC.WCPFC and CPPS expressing their interest for participation.2 The use of science todayRecently the CWP has paid more attention towardthe monitoring procedures, actual data need and theutilization of data with the recognition that data and correspondingscientific analyses are the key in providingindicators useful and appreciated for the decision makers.In order to identify appropriate techniques and datarequirements, it is essential for the CWP to keep a goodoverall understanding on the most advanced technologyand science.3 The future challengesThe followings are the list of main activities recommendedfor 2007/2008 which reflect the areas of ourconcerns and challenges:• Establishment of a consolidated catch databasebased on the publicly available data underRFBs, incorporating species distribution informationin relation to oceanographic and topographicdata, if possible;• Workshop on new data requirement and newdata collecting techniques including data needsfor fishery monitoring and management in thecontext of ecosystem approach; and• Review on estimation of catch and vesselcapacity of IUU activities (including underreportingand mis-reporting due to poor monitoringby States participating to the management).4 The needs - the main informational gaps• Under-utilization of data collected throughmanagement schemes, including observer data,VMS information, catch documentation, for scientificanalyses and assessments. Major constraintsinclude confidentiality issues and shortageof resources.• Lack of mechanism to allow inter-organizationalshare and exchange of data, information,experiences, technical knowledge and scientificanalyses.GESAMP Report and Studies N 77REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSION · 67

NORTH EAST ATLANTIC FISHERIES COMMISSION (NEAFC)Mr. Kjartan Hoydal1 The context of the organizationNEAFC is a convention based Regional FisheriesManagement Organisation in the North East Atlantic.After the latest amendments (2006) to the Conventionthe objective is “to ensure the long-term conservationand optimum utilization of the fishery resources in theConvention Area, providing sustainable economic, environmentaland social benefits.” (New Article 2). TheContracting Parties are Denmark (in respect of the FaroeIslands and Greenland), the EU, Iceland, Norway andthe Russian Federation.2 The use of science todayIn New Article 4 stipulates that when recommendingmanagement measures shall:a) ensure that such recommendations are basedon the best scientific evidence available;b) apply the precautionary approach;c) take due account of the impact of fisheries onother species and marine ecosystems, and indoing so adopt, where necessary, conservationand management measures that addressthe need to minimise harmful impacts on livingmarine resources and marine ecosystems; andd) take due account of the need to conservemarine biological diversity.ICES 10 is the provider of scientific advice toNEAFC. NEAFC submits annually a request for adviceto ICES prepared by the NEAFC Permanent Committeeon Management and Science. The request covers standardadvice, in general stock assessments for the stocksrelevant to NEAFC, and specific advice. Conservationand management measures have now been adopted forall major fisheries in the NEAFC Regulatory area.will effectively close Contracting Party ports to landingsof frozen fish which have not been certified by the FlagState of the vessel intending to land.NEAFC has joined forces with its sister organisationin the Northwest Atlantic, NAFO, to create a pan-NorthAtlantic list of IUU vessels. The two RFMOs have decidedthat vessels on their respective lists of IUU vesselsare transferred from the list of one organisation to the listof the other. The blacklisting of IUU vessels has provedvery efficient. There are twenty vessels, fishing vesselsand reefers, on the NEAFC blacklist.Of these 6 notorious pirates, fishing illegally forredfish in the Irminger Sea, have been confirmed tobe on their way for scrapping after been held back inNEAFC ports. 9 others, fishing vessels and reefers, areheld back in NEAFC ports and 5 are known to operateoutside the North Atlantic.4 The needsNEAFC has for some time asked for fisheries basedrather than stock based scientific advice from ICES.The ecosystem approach has been a major issue inNEAFC since 2001 and scientific advice to address thisis still patchy.NEAFC has closed 8 areas to demersal fishinggear in the Regulatory Area to protect vulnerable marineecosystems. Criteria and objectives for using closedareas as a tool to minimise the ecological impacts offisheries on marine habitats and biodiversity will be moreclosely examined in NEAFCʼs Permanent Committeeon Management and Science. The scientific basis forclosing the first 8 areas is patchy and they are thereforelimited in time in the hope that more precise advice willbe forthcoming.NEAFC is a member of FAO-CWP and a FIRMSpartner. It participates in the Regional Fishery BodySecretariats Network. The Secretariat attends FAO-COFI meetings and in the Informal Consultation Processin UN. A list of participation last year is given below3 The future challengesNEAFC has adopted new Port State Control measuresas a part of the existing comprehensive NEAFCControl and Enforcement Scheme. The new measureswill enter into force on 1 May 2007. This new Scheme10International Council for the Exploration of the Sea,Copenhagen68 · REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSIONGESAMP Report and Studies N 77

Catches NEAFC Convention areaStock/Species Management Measures CatchesNEAFCConvention area.1000 tonnes 2005Blue Whiting TAC and allocation 1,973Deep-sea species.35 % reduction in effort, closed areas,27precautionary fishing banMackerel TAC and allocation 356Norwegian Spring Spawning (Atlanto-Scandian) TAC and allocation 1,234herringPelagic redfish ( Sebastes mentella) in the Irminger TAC 69and SeaRedfish in ICES Sub-areas I and II precautionary fishing ban 8Rockall haddock; Closed Area 5Other meetings and conferences in 2005/2006Meeting Date Venue ConvenerCWP and FIRMS Steering Group meeting 13-15 February. ICCAT HQ Madrid FAOInformal consultations UNFA Review Conference 20-24 March UN HQ New York kjh UNMCAP-MICC meeting 10-11 April ICES HQ kjh ICESNordic Conference Focus on the Economy 3-4 May Tórshavn (lecture) kjh Nordic Council of MinistersMarine Nature Conservation in Europe in 2006 8-12 May Stralsund, lecture) kjh Federal Agency for NatureConservation, Bonn.UNFA Review Conference 22-26 May UN HQ New York kjh UNNorth Atlantic Conference MPAs 6-7 June Tromsø, Lecture kjh NorwayNorth Atlantic Fisheries Minister Meeting 8 June Hurtigruten lecture kjh Norway7th ICP Meeting Biodiversity 12-16 June UN HQ New York UNICES Symposium Fisheries Management 28-30 June Galway, Ireland kjh ICESStrategiesNordic Network in international organisations 01 Sep Oslo kjh Nordic Council of MinistersImplementing the Ecosystem Approach to 26-28 Sep Bergen kjh FAO, NorwayFisheriesExpert Consultation on VMS and satellites * 24-26 Oct. FAO, Rome JN FAOChatham House update on IUU * 21 November Chatham House Chatham HouseGlobal IUU Monitoring Workshop * 22-23 Nov. Royal Inst. International .AffairsLondonGESAMP Report and Studies N 77REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSION · 69

BLACK SEA COMMISSIONMs. Violeta Velikova1 The context of the organization:Commission on the Protection of the Black SeaAgainst Pollution (Black Sea Commission, Istanbul) isthe intergovernmental environmental organisation of theBlack Sea coastal states including Bulgaria, Georgia,Romania, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine for implementationof the Convention on the Protection of the Black SeaAgainst Pollution (1992).The Black Sea Commission was established in2001 according to the provisions of the Conventionand for coordination of the Strategic Action Plan forRehabilitation and Protection of the Black Sea signedby all six Black Sea coastal states in 1996. Priority policyactions that have full national commitments includebiodiversity conservation and marine living resourcemanagement, eutrophication and pollution reduction,and sustainable human development. A variety of toolsare applied such as improvement and implementationof national legislation, pilot projects, short- and long -term planning and management, including monitoringprograms.2 The use of science todayBlack Sea Convention: Article XV on Scientific andTechnical Cooperation and Monitoring:ʻThe Contracting Parties (Black Sea countries)shall cooperate in conducting scientific research aimedat protecting and preserving the marine environment ofthe Black Sea and shall undertake, where appropriate,joint programmes of scientific research, and exchangerelevant scientific data and informationʼ.Science is not yet sufficiently used for BSCʼspolicy and regulatory decisions, however, along withother relevant factors/drivers, it informs and supportsdecision-making in the Black Sea countries. The scientificcommunity and the BSC together identify, control/monitor,and improve decision-making following theʻDrivers, Pressures, State, Impacts and Responseʼ Model(DPSIR). Main objective of the Science-BSC collaboration:to recognize the root causes and outline prioritiesin protection of the Black Sea through comprehensiveinvestigations on the state of the Black Sea ecosystemand impacts, transboundary diagnostic analyses andgaps in decision making.3 What kind of science?All kinds of scientific investigations relevant to:• assessment of the nature and extent of eutrophicationand pollution and of their effectson the ecological system, incl. environmentalimpact assessments and risks assessments;• identification of scientific criteria for the formulationand elaboration of rules, standards andprocedures in environmental management;• monitoring programmes covering all sourcesof eutrophication/pollution, introduction of newspecies and overfishing for measuring, evaluatingand analyzing the response of the ecosystemto environmental management (progressevaluation);• assessment of potential effects of humanactivities and climate change;• legislation, policy making.4 How does the organization utilize the information?The BSC tries to use science for policy and regulatorydecision-making, as Science provides the foundationsfor credible management through elaboration ofrecommendations and guidelines based on scientificachievements.Where,• adequate knowledge about the risks to humanand ecosystem health triggered by various drivers/pressures,• innovative solutions to prevent pollution andreduce risk,• forecast of environmental problems beforethey reach a critical levelare the milestones of all purpose-driven scientificinvestigations in the Black Sea region toward environmentalprotection.BSC staff uses and performs research and policyanalysis, reviews science publications, writes scientificpapers or have interventions at various scientific events.Examples include attempts for habitat mapping fordeciding/designating protection areas, fishery assessment,oil pollution monitoring activitiesReporting: Regular annual assessment of the BlackSea Pollution/Eutrophication and Black Sea ecosystemstate in terms of policy measures efficiency. Five-yearsreports: TDA and SoE are part of the BSC reporting system,prepared basically by scientists.Bi-annual scientific conferences on topics relatedto the goals of the Black Sea Strategic Action Plan areplanned in the Work Program of the BSC.The scientific research and development are integralpart of the BSC work through MoUs with ICPDR,HELCOM, EEA, UNEP (in marine litter and marine mammalsprojects), JRC.70 · REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSIONGESAMP Report and Studies N 77

Financial and/or scientific and technical support tothe BSC comes from:• GEF Black Sea Environmental Program 1993-1996, BSERP 2002-2004; 2004-2007;• TACIS Funds 1995/1996, 1996/1997, 2002-2004, 2005-2007;• EEC DG EnvironmentThe BSC observes or participates to internationalprojects: Black Sea GOOS, PHARE, ARENA, IASON,Black Sea SCENE, SESAME, ACCOBAMS, etc.Cooperation with:• IMO, BSEC, EMSA, EMMA/EEA, IAEA,OSPRI, ESPOO Convention, Convention onConservation of Biodiversity, etc.• Individual governments• International NGOsThe basic financial assistance comes from theBlack Sea Countries governments, GEF/UNDP, EC andinternational scientific projects.5 How does the organization obtain the information?The BSC information system is annually provided/nourished with data collected on a National level by theMinistries of Environment in all the six Black Sea countries.The UNDP/GEF BSERP project and other internationalprojects are also source of data and information.6 The future challengesThe major challenge in the Black Sea region is:to increase economic prosperity without endangeringthe ecological recovery of the Black Sea. Priorities/main issues in terms of planning and decision makingremain: combating eutrophication, elimination of input ofhazardous substances (diffuse and point sources fromland-based activities, vessels, emergency situations,dumping, pollution from activities on the continentalshelf, pollution from or through the atmosphere, hazardouswastes in transboundary movement), improving thesafety of navigation and response capabilities, haltingthe decline of biodiversity, overcoming the commondilemma of overuse and mismanagement (protectionof the marine living resources and marine ecosystem),sustainable human development. One of the significantproblems that will require attention of the Black SeaCommission is major regime shifts in the Black Seainduced by global climate change.7 The needsMain gaps in our knowledge toward improved decision-making,questions to be answered:• Are regional efforts to combat eutrophicationeffective and what are the present nutrient loadsto the Black Sea?• What is the role of diffuse sources of pollutionand eutrophication in the region?• What are priority pollutants for the Black Seaand their impact on the Ecosystem and HumanHealth?• For which species we need urgent conservationplan?• What are priority habitats for establishing protectedareas?• What Monitoring Program should be establishedto follow climate change and humanimpact adequately?• What is the role of climate change in theregion? Where climate change and wherehuman impact, in what proportion?Questions related to Sustainable human development:• Coastal processes and coastal development;• Erosion;• Are Tourism and Aquaculture sustainable?• Criteria for Environmental Impact Assessmentin transboundary context;• Environmental pricing;• Economic indicators;• Demography and Social Indicators;Draft Scientific Plan was outlined during the 1stbi-annual scientific Conference in the Back Sea region,organized by the BSC. The plan includes full list of gapsin oceanography and climate change, hydrochemistryand biology. Example: gaps:• Insufıcıency of long-term deep sea data andmarıne meteorologocal observatıons.• Absence of long-term strategy of monıtorıngand study of the Black Sea clımate change asone of the key elements of envıronmental management.• Lack of sufficient knowledge on key physicaland biogeochemical processes controlling stateof the Black Sea ecosystem.Re-organisation of scientific activities, disseminationof information and better data collection are prioritiesin the Black Sea region.GESAMP Report and Studies N 77REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSION · 71

BAY OF BENGAL PROGRAMME INTERGOVERNMENTALORGANISATIONMr. Yugraj Singh Yadava1 The context of the OrganisationThe Bay of Bengal (BoB) covers an area of2 215 000 sq. km. More than a quarter of the worldʼs populationis found in the BoB countries. The Bay also supports alarge population of small-scale fishers: some 6-8 million directlyand an additional 35 – 40 million engaged in ancillary activitiesrelated to fisheries. The contribution of coastal fisheries to nutritionand economic well being in the BoB region is substantial.Fisheries and aquaculture are now important contributors tothe national economies in the countries around the BoB andfish and fish products are also the most heavily traded foodcommodities in the region.Increasing human population and reduced productivityof coastal fisheries through unsustainable fishing practices,habitat degradation, post-harvest losses, etc. threaten thelivelihood of millions of small-scale fishers in the Bay. In recentyears, capture fisheries has either stagnated or seen a smallincrease in terms of production (e.g. in tuna and tuna likespecies), while aquaculture has continued to grow at a rapidrate. Further decline of fisheries would severely impact thelivelihood security, food availability and national economy ofthe BoB countries.The problems of depleting fisheries resources anddegrading habitats in the region have been further compoundedby the 26 December 2004 tsunami waves that originateddue to the massive earthquake(s) off the coast of northernSumatra, Indonesia. The waves severely impacted the coastalcommunities and the marine ecology and environment.The BOBP-IGO evolved from the erstwhile Bay of BengalProgramme (BOBP) of the Food and Agriculture Organization(FAO) of the United Nations in April 2003. Presently,the Governments of Bangladesh, India and Sri Lanka andMaldives are the members of the BOBP-IGO.The BOBP-IGO is mandated to enhance cooperationamong member- countries, other countries and organisationsin the region and provide technical and management advisoryservices for sustainable coastal fisheries development andmanagement in the BoB region. The organisationʼs mission isto promote, facilitate and secure the long-term developmentand utilisation of coastal fisheries resources of the BoB basedon responsible fishing practices and environmentally soundmanagement programmes.2 Goals and ObjectivesBOBP-IGOʼs goal is to connect member-countries toknowledge, experience and resources to help their fisherfolkbuild a better life and the core objectives are to:• increase awareness and knowledge of the needs, benefitsand practices of coastal fisheries management;• enhance skills through training and education;• transfer appropriate technologies and techniques fordevelopment of small-scale fisheries;• establish a regional information networking; and• promote womenʼs participation in coastal fisheriesdevelopment at all levels.3 The use of science todayThe use of science is of paramount importance toBOBP-IGO in the successful implementation of its goals andobjectives. To meet this requirement, the Technical AdvisoryCommittee (TAC) of the BOBP-IGO comprises lead fisheriesinstitutions in the four member-countries. These institutionscomprise (i) Bangladesh Fisheries Research Institute(BFRI), Mymensingh, Bangladesh; (ii) Fishery Survey ofIndia (FSI), Mumbai, India; (iii) National Aquatic ResourcesResearch and Development Agency (NARA), Colombo, SriLanka and Marine Research Centre (MRC), Malé, Republicof Maldives. The TAC meets once every year and providesadvice to the Governing Council of the BOBP-IGO on topicalissues and ways and means to address them. These premierscientific institutions also assist the BOBP-IGO Secretariatin implementation of its programmes and activities. Besides,the BOBP-IGO also has a close working relationship with theother research & development institutions, inter-governmentaland UN organizations, universities and leading non-governmentalorganisations in the region. A web-based directory ofscientists is also under construction, which will available onthe BOBP-IGO website shortly (www.bobpigo.org).4 The future challengesThere is strong and growing optimism that the BoB canproduce significantly more fish than the present levels of landingsthrough improved and greater management of the marineresource. Such management will clearly benefit from betterand more scientific and responsible technological inputs, betterall-round awareness, larger involvement of the communityin the management of fisheries resources, and adoption ofapproaches based on the principles of co-management. Toachieve the management goals, the future challenges interalia comprise optimization of fishing effort and communitydriven monitoring, control and surveillance programmes, penetrationof the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries tothe grassroots, reducing the impacts of land-based pollutionon the marine resources and understanding and implementationof the ecosystem approach to fisheries and aquaculturemanagement.5 The needsTo address the future challenges, the most importantrequirements in the BoB region are appropriate technologyinputs, institutional capacity building, better all round awarenessof resource management, strengthening of data baseand its availability through extensive use of ICT and adoptionof community-based participatory approaches.72 · REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSIONGESAMP Report and Studies N 77

BENGUELA CURRENT LARGE MARINE ECOSYSTEMPROGRAMME (BCLME)Ms. Maria de Lourdes SardinhaFigure 1External and internal boundaries of the Benguela CurrentLarge marine Ecosystem, bathymetric features and surface(upper layer) currents1 The context of the organizationThe Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem(BCLME Programme is a multi-sectoral regional initiativeby Angola, Namibia and South Africa and is designedto improve the structures and capacities of the threecountries to deal with the environmental problems thatoccur across the national boundaries, in order that theBenguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem may bemanaged as a whole in a sustainable manner.These transboundary issues include the migrationor straddling of valuable fish stocks across nationalboundaries, the introduction of invasive alien species viathe ballast water of ships moving through the region, andpollutants or harmful algal blooms that can be advectedby winds and currents from the waters of one countryinto another.The Programme is funded by the GlobalEnvironmental Facility (GEF) under its InternationalWater portfolio and is implemented by the UnitedNations Development Programme (UNDP) with theUnited Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) asexecuting agency. The three member countries providefurther financial and in-kind contributions.A Programme Co-ordinating Unit was establishedin March 2002 Windhoek and three Activity Centres– one in each participating countries – were establishedas the main mechanisms for the implementation of theProgramme.The Activity Centre for Living Marine Resourcesis located in Swakopmund, within the National MarineInformation and Research Centre (NatMIRC). The ActivityCentre for Biodiversity, Ecosystem Health and MarinePollution is located in the National Fisheries ResearchInstitute (INIP) Luanda, Angola and the Activity Centrefor Environmental Variability is located in Marine CoastalManagement (MCM, Cape Town, South Africa.The Activity Centres function as the “headquarters”of the Advisory Groups, which are tasked with ensuring,among the others things, that the transboundary elementsare properly addressed by the BCLME Programme. TheCentres also manage specific projects associated withtheir mandate and provide capacity strengthening andnetworking for their respective activities.The Benguela Current region is situated along thecoast of southwestern Africa, stretching from east of theCape of Good Hope in the south, northwards to Cabindain Angola and encompassing the full extent of Namibiaʼsmarine environment (Fig. 1)2 The use of science todayThe main issues and threats in the BCLME area wereidentified through an extensive multi sectorial consultationprocess (Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis-TDA) andtwo regional workshops held in 1998 and 1999. A strategywas then developed to address the identified transboundaryissues. The Strategic Action Programme (SAP) is aconcise document that outlines regional policy for the integratedsustainable management of the BCLME, as agreedby the governments of Angola, Namibia and South Africa.The SAP details the challenges faced by the regionand the institutional arrangements for ensuring delivery;establishes the principles that are fundamental to integratedmanagement in the region; specifies the nature,scope and timetable for deliverable management policyactions; elaborates cooperation between the BCLMEregion and external institutions and outlines approachesto ensure the long-term self-funding of the integratedmanagement of the BCLME.Within the portfolio for Ecosystem Health, andManagement of Pollution based in Luanda, the followingpolicy actions were identified:GESAMP Report and Studies N 77REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSION · 73

• Improvement of water quality• Prevention and management of oil spills• Reduction of marine litter• Retardation/reversal of habitat destruction/alteration• Conservation of biodiversityTwenty one projects were developed by scientistsfrom the region and international to address the issueslisted and the main activities. The activities are amongothers:• Develop regional oil sill contingency plan• Assessment of sources and management ofland-based sources of marine pollution• Establish regional consultative framework• Coordinate and harmonise EIA policy• Assess cumulative effects on marine biota• Mapping vulnerable species and habitats and• Conserve marine biological diversity though aconservation plan for the region.• Identify priority marine protected areas(MPAʼs), especially in transboundary regionsbetween Angola and Namibia, and Namibia andSouth Africa.• Establishment of a database on threatenedspecies and habitats (standardised systems andGIS)Since different stakeholders play diverse functionwithin the Benguela region, effective consultative processeswith industry i.e. fishing, diamond mining andoffshore oil and gas is taking place and will continuingtogether with the development and promotion of communityco-management.Capacity building and training is a high priority inthe region several courses to address these needs havetaken place e.g. a training course on the managementof ballast water as a pathway for marine and coastalinvasive species (Luanda, from 4-7 December 2006)and the environmental impact assessment course inSwakopmund from the 23 -27 April 2007.3 Existing links with other organizations, universities,networks, governmentsBCLME is collaborating with the following keyregional bodies:• SADC Treaty (1992) regional development andintegration including fisheries• SADC Protocol on Fisheries (2001)• NEPAD (New Partnership for AfricanDevelopment)• SEAFO (South East Atlantic FisheriesOrganisation)• ICCAT (Conservation of Atlantic Tunas)• BENEFIT (fisheries, oceanography and training)• Monitoring, Control and Surveillance of FishingActivities ( EU – SADC MCS Programme)• Abidjan Convention (UNEP-Nairobi)4 Future challengesThe main challenge now is the setting up of theBenguela Current Commission (BCC), a formal institutionalstructure that will help Angola, Namibia andSouth Africa to implement an “ecosystem approach” tomanaging the resources of the BCLME. This meansthat, instead of managing living and non-living marineresources at the national level, the three countries willwork together to tackle transboundary environmentalissues such as pollution, the management of shared fishstocks and the coordination of regional efforts to mitigatethe impacts of marine mining and oil and gas productionon the environment.Ministers from Angola Namibia and South Africamet in Cape Town on August 29 to sign an InterimAgreement that formally established the Benguela CurrentCommission (BCC). This agreement will be for four yearwith support from the GEF and other international donorsfor institutional strengthening, capacity building and implementationof core scientific projects. After this trial period,a full fledged environmental convention with sustainablefinancing will be set up through a partnership with thethree governments and the marine industries.74 · REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSIONGESAMP Report and Studies N 77

INTERIM GUINEA CURRENT COMMISSIONMr. Chidi Ibe1 The context of the OrganizationThe Guinea Current Large Marine EcosystemProject entitled, “Combating Living Resources Depletionand Coastal Area Degradation in the Guinea CurrentLME through Ecosystem-based Regional Actions” is a16 country initiative focusing on marine environmentaland living resource management.As envisaged in the approved project document, theproject is in a transition phase to a permanent technicalCommission following the Abuja Declaration adopted bythe First Meeting of Environment and Fisheries Ministersresponsible for the Guinea Current LME project (Abuja,21-22 September, 2006) which created the InterimGuinea Current Commission within the context of theAbidjan Convention (1981).The transition to a Permanent Commission will beachieved by 2009 and will ensure the sustainability of thelong term objectives and targets of the GCLME project.Implementation of the project is through the activitiesof Regional/National Activity Centres and Regional/National Technical/Scientific Advisory Groups.2 The Use of Science TodayThe Organization makes use of Science in anapplied mode. The organization is very rarely involvedin basic research. Instead it seeks to apply provenconcepts and principles towards the solution of identifiedproblems. Information is obtained from Satelliteimageries and other remotely sensed data, publishedand unpublished scientific Reports/Papers and othersimilar documents. To reinforce the collation, systematizationand interpretation of data, a Regional Center forEnvironmental Information Management and DecisionSupport System was established at the University ofLagos, Nigeria with the active support of the University,the Nigerian Federal Government and the Private Sectorand constitute the locomotive driving other project activitiesincluding the activities of other regional as well asnational Centers.All the Regional Activity Centers of the Projecthave active working relationships and collaborationswith major Scientific, Technological and Policy Centres(public and private, UN and non-UN) in Europe, Asiaand the Americas and through them, obtain additionalinsights into frontier science and technology issues anddevelopments.3 The Future ChallengeThe main issues in terms of planning and decisionmaking during 2007/2008 are linked to the need for theconsolidation of regional mechanisms for consultationsand joint actions.The challenges of applying science and technologyto the resolution of identified environmental and resourcemanagement problems remain current issues.4 The NeedsThe main information gaps as of today and in thenearest future are and will remain the near absence ofoperational equipment and systems for the acquisition/processing of ocean data and information.GESAMP Report and Studies N 77REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSION · 75

REGIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR CONSERVATION OF THEENVIRONMENT OF THE RED SEA AND GULF OF ADEN(PERSGA)Mr. Ziad Abu Ghararah1 SummaryThe Red Sea and Gulf of Aden Region has witnessedrapid transformations in several aspects includingcoastal development, maritime transport, and exploitationof living resources. All of these activities areanticipated to increase dramatically in the mean future,magnifying threats of pollution and negative changes inthe marine environments. Owing to its semi-enclosednature, the Red Sea is relatively more fragile to environmentalimpacts. Such challenges suggest that it is thefitting time to enhance and renovate conservation managementin the region. Up-to-date approaches adoptingnew technologies in monitoring, control, surveillance,developing mitigation and countermeasures, biotopingand sensitive mapping, pollutants dispersion modelingand the rehabilitation of impacted sites are required. Anessential element for this is access to scientific informationand efficient utilization of advanced scientificknowledge. Appropriate scientific information is neededat all levels of the conservation procedures, including theoutputs of basic research as prerequisite to understandchanges, the outcomes of problem-oriented researchas tools for assessing impacts and drawing way-outs;developing of innovative conservation management withlong-term strategies.Throughout its work PERSGA has established goodrelations with academia in the region and other parts ofthe world; regional programs and international organizations.All have been sources of various kinds of scientificinformation, especially at the initial phase of PERSGAfoundation. Afterward, the large amount of new scientificinformation on the region was assembled through theStrategic Action Program (SAP) and other PERSGAprograms, which advanced PERSGA library as a mainreference for the RSGA region.Utilizing the SAP outputs of information in creationof innovative and appropriate conservation and managementapproach in the region, filling gaps of knowledgeidentified by SAP, enhancing support to basic andapplied research, and promoting/ modernizing tools andmethodology are major challenges. Informational gapsin marine and coastal sciences may be summarized asin the following:• Temporal and spatial trends of variation offloral and faunal species, populations, andstructure of the communities are not well understood.• Updated information on bathymetry andhydrography are not available.• The extent of illegal dumping of toxic wastesoff the coast in the RSGA is largely unknown.• The impacts of pollution and resource exploitationon the marine and coastal environment inthe region have been not sufficiently studied inthe region and they are poorly known.• The indigenous knowledge concerning conservationmanagement approach needs to beresearched.• Access to modern technology and technicalexpertise are not adequate• Advances in waste water treatment in coastalcities; design of outfall systems in the region.• More work is needed to develop scenario forapplication in the region taking into account projectionof the future trends.2 IntroductionThe well recognized global conservation valueof the Red Sea has been an issue of concern for theworld community in the past decades. Recently, this hasparticularly been more realized due to a number of pronouncedand rapid transformations in the region. Firstly,the development of the coastal zone of the Red Sea andGulf of Aden (RSGA) in the past forty years is unlikely tohave occurred at the same pace elsewhere in the world.Secondly, the ever increasing world trade transportedthrough the Red Sea is anticipated to grow at moreacceleration in the near future. Thirdly, with the continuallygrowing demands for oil in the world markets, thesignificance of the RSGA as a strategic oil transit route,with important oil “Chokepoints” has increased, receivingextra attention and focus. Finally, pressure on marineliving resources have been greater than before, withreportedly over-fishing of several taxa such as sharksand cuttlefish. On the other hand, the semi-enclosednature of the Red Sea renders it a less resistant andresilient ecosystem with high susceptibility to pollutionand other kinds of stresses.Such enormous changes magnify the threats andrisks suggesting that it is the appropriate time to enhanceand renovate conservation management in the region.This should consider up-to-date approaches adoptingnew technologies in monitoring, control, surveillance,developing mitigation and countermeasures, biotopes/sensitive mapping, pollutants dispersion modeling, andthe rehabilitation of impacted sites. An essential elementfor this is access and efficient utilization of the advancesin scientific information. Appropriate scientific informationis needed at all levels of the conservation procedures,including the outputs of basic research as prerequisite to76 · REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSIONGESAMP Report and Studies N 77

understand changes, the outcomes of problem-orientedresearch as tools for assessing impacts and drawingway-outs, and developing innovative conservation-managementpractices with long-term strategies.3 The context of the organizationThe Regional Organization for the Conservationof the Environment of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden(PERSGA) is: An intergovernmental organization dedicatedto the conservation of the costal and marineenvironment in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden region.Member States are: Djibouti, Egypt, Jordan, SaudiArabia, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, PERSGA Head Quarteris based in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The PERSGA Councilcomprises Ministers of Environments in the memberstates.Although the (PERSGA) was declared in September1995, its history goes back to early 70s when it was initiatedby ALECSO as the Programme for the Environmentof the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden (PERSGA). TheJeddah Convention, its attached Protocol and an ActionPlan were signed by the Plenipotentiaries in 1982 whichprovided a framework for regional environmental cooperationtowards attaining the goals of PERSGA Mission(Box 1).Box1. PERSGA Mission• Conservation of Coastal and marine environmentand control of various pollution sources.• Sustainable use of living coastal and marineresources.• Enhance Regional Capabilities in marine emergencyplanning and response.• Facilitate the implementation of conventions andprotocols relevant to marine environmentClose collaboration with relevant InternationalOrganizations such as UNEP, UNESCO, IMO, IUCN ledto the drafting and signing several memoranda of understandingbetween PERSGA and these partners. Severalactivities were carried out between the time of signingthe Jeddah Convention in 1982 and the declaration ofthe Regional Organization in 1995. A number of jointprojects were implemented on national levels as a startto the implementation of the Action Plan e.g. PERSGAwas given the responsibility of coordinating two GEFfunded projects in Egypt and Yemen.One of the most ambitious programmes executedby PERSGA was the Strategic Action Programme (SAP),for the Red sea and Gulf of Aden (1999-2003). The SAPwas funded through the Global Environmental Facility(GEF), implementing agencies (UNDP, UNEP, and theWorld Bank), the Islamic Development Bank and thePERSGA member states. The SAP activities were organizedaround eight components (Box 2).The outcomes of SAP were highly significant forRSGA environment, capacity of member states for conservationmanagement, and the future socioeconomicdevelopment of the Region. Furthermore, the largeamount of information assembled through SAP technicalreports and published literature has provided the mainsource for synthesis of the first comprehensive State ofthe Marine Environment Report, published in 2006.Box 2. Objectives-based SAPComponents• Institutional Strengthening to Facilitate RegionalCooperation.• Reduction of Navigation Risks and MaritimePollution.• Sustainable Use and Management of LivingMarine Resources.• Habitat and Biodiversity Conservation.• Development of Regional Network of MarineProtected Areas.• Support of Integrated Coastal Zone Management.• Enhancement of Pubic Awareness andParticipation.• Monitoring and Evaluation of the ProgramImpacts.4 The use of science today4.1 Kinds and significance of scientific informationneeded by PERSGAIn view of its mission (Box 1) and regional dimension,PERSGA envisages program activities with vital dependenceon multidisciplinary subjects (Fig. 1). Generally,three kinds of scientific information are needed andutilized by PERSGA:1) Information on basic sciences including oceanography,marine flora and fauna, species biology,population dynamics and community structure, ecosystemfunction, biogeography, geophysics, bathymetry,maritime studies and other subjects of marinesciences, in addition to demography and socioeconomicaspects of coastal zone. These kinds of knowledgeare needed as a prerequisite to understandeffects of changes in the marine and costal environment(baseline data).2) Information on response of ecosystem,impact assessment and effects of changes; economicvaluation of degradational changes, as wellas relevant applied sciences such as conservationmanagement, coastal and marine engineering,remote sensing and satellite imagery developmentstudies, etc. Such kinds of information are needed todevelop countermeasures and management actionplans. In this respect sciences related to pollutioncontrol, rehabilitation of degraded marine habitats(such as corals, mangroves), monitoring techniquesand schemes on education for sustainability are ofprime importance. Some emerging issues representmeticulous challenges with respect to the needs ofscientific knowledge to deal with, which include:GESAMP Report and Studies N 77REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSION · 77

Fig. 1. Synopsis of PERSGA information needs and utilization. Information from basic research is a prerequisiteto understand changes through applied research, which in turn formulate tools for countermeasures, action plansand management. Information on organizational work principles, project planning and management are necessaryat all working levels.• Sea-level rise due to climate changes: evaluaterisk and proposing mitigation measures.• Fate of toxic chemicals/wastes and spills inmarine environment.• Invasive species: their risks, monitoring; mitigationmeasures and capacity building to handle.3) Information on organizational management suchas finance/ administration, project planning and management,logical framework, information system etc. Suchkinds of information are needed to maintain and keep upsound level of efficient organizational work at PERSGA.4.2 Sources of information and PERSGA informationallinks to other organization2.2.1 Regional and international academiaThroughout its program activities PERSGA hasbuild its own world of diverse group of scientists innational institutes in the Region, as well as, expertsfrom outside the Region. At the same time, PERSGAconservation strategy and plans has triggered tremendoussubjects of basic and problem-oriented researchin the RSGA that are to be tackled by academicians andresearch institutes. Because of this interdependency,a network of regional academia has been recognized,beside a group of other scientists from outside theRegion, particularly those focusing their work on theRSGA region. Both have long been essential informationsources for PERSGA, especially at the initial phase of itsfoundation. Yet, PERSGA has accumulated a wealth ofbaseline data and scientific information on the region, asituation that advanced some sort of mutual exchange ofinformation between PERSGA and the regional/internationalacademia. The input of the Regional Academia toPERSGA literature, though it was initially rich and essentiallyinformative, it has been at minimal level afterward(Fig. 2), which may be attributed to:• Current severe regional shortage of researchinto basic sciences; the rich input at PERSGAfoundation phase was due to existence of thealready accumulated literature from previousresearch universities and institutes libraries inthe region.• Lack of long-term perspectives for basic andapplied marine research in the RSGA countries.• Inadequate capacities in national institutes;78 · REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSIONGESAMP Report and Studies No 77

insufficient funds allocated for research by thenational budgets in the Region.2.2.2 Analogous Regional ProgramsPERSGA has established strong relations withseveral analogous regional organizations and programssuch as ROPME and MAP. Based on the fact that suchorganizations have comparable agenda, vision, missionand scope of work, PERSGA has learned much fromtheir rich experience. The regional organizations havebeen important sources of information for PERSGA,particularly in organizational matters: system of work,educational and public awareness programs, globalenvironmental issues, and methodology in tacklingregional problems. As PERSGA has gained experiencein organizational work at regional level and accumulatedample literature on the region, which has permitted disseminationof information between PERSGA and theregional organizations.2.2.3 International OrganizationsBesides being supportive as implementing agenciesfor several programs executed by PERSGA, the major UNorganizations and Programs have been the most importantdonor of knowledge and expertise for the RegionalOrganization. Their outputs in the form of technicalreports, scientific publications, proceedings and capacitybuilding activities have been directly or indirectly supplyingPERSGA with a rich flow of scientific information. In theaftermath of SAP, some sort of feed back from PERSGAhas occurred. Firstly, the implementing agencies learnedsome lessons from such a pioneer extensive regionalprogram. Secondly, many of the tremendous informationcollected through the SAP were inventories, and updatingstate of the art for several aspects of marine-coastal sciencesin the Region, advancing PERSGA as an importantreference in this respect.In summary, PERSGA gets scientific informationfrom various sources and through different modes, whichmay include:• PERSGA database and publications (suchtechnical series and reports prepared byexperts)• Links with databases, publications, and websitesof relevant organizations and institutes.• Scientific events and meetings such as Sea toSea Conference (every 3 years), annual meetingswith national research centers (5 centers)and others.3 Future challenges and needsExtensive surveys carried out during the SAP, andother huge regional projects have provided a largeamount of new scientific information and understandingabout the RSGA, management actions and capacitybuilding. Such outputs should be translated into aninnovative and appropriate conservation managementFig. 2 Outline of PERSGA sources of scientific information and informational exchange between PERSGA and itspartners. The arrow width estimates the amount of and rate of information flows.GESAMP Report and Studies No 77REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSION · 79

approach in the region. Enhancing continued effortsand support to attain this goal is a real challenge forPERSGA. On the other hand, the SAP and otherextensive programs have identified several gaps in ouressential basic knowledge that are to be considered inthe future. The current research capacities and the insignificantnational budgets allocated for basic research inthe RSGA countries are far below the required standardto develop innovative and appropriate conservation andmanagement approaches. Encouraging national anddonor funding to support marine research in the regionis one of the major challenges in the future.Considering the above, the general informationalgaps in marine / coastal sciences may be summarizedin the following:• Temporal and spatial trends of variation offloral and faunal species, populations, andstructure of the communities in the Region arenot well understood.• Updated information on bathymetry andhydrography are not available.• The extent of illegal dumping of toxic wastesoff the coast in the RSGA is largely unknown.• The impacts of pollution and resource exploitationon marine and coastal environment in theregion have not been sufficiently studied andthey are poorly known.• The indigenous knowledge concerning conservationmanagement approach needs to beresearched.• Access of scientists in the region to moderntechnology in marine-coastal sciences is limited;technical know-how and expertise is inadequate.• Advances in waste water treatment in coastalcities; design of outfall systems in the region.• More work is needed to develop scenario forapplication in the region taking into account projectionof the future trends.AcknowledgementsThe author wishes to express his gratitude to theGESAMP secretariat for inviting PERSGA to participatein this session. PERSGA would like to take this opportunityto express sincere thanks and appreciation toGESAMP for its inspiring leadership in assessing globalmarine pollution and continuous efforts to provide awealth of scientific expertise over more than 40 years.80 · REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSIONGESAMP Report and Studies No 77

GESAMP REPORTS AND STUDIESThe following reports and studies have beenpublished so far. They are available from any of theorganizations sponsoring GESAMP.1. Report of the seventh session, London, 24-30April 1975. (1975). Rep. Stud.GESAMP, (1):pag.var.Available also in French, Spanish and Russian2. Review of harmful substances. (1976). Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (2):80 p.3. Scientific criteria for the selection of sites fordumping of wastes into the sea. (1975). Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (3):21 p. Available also in French, Spanishand Russian4. Report of the eighth session, Rome, 21-27April 1976. (1976). Rep. Stud.GESAMP, (4):pag.var.Available also in French and Russian5. Principles for developing coastal water qualitycriteria. (1976). Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (5):23 p.6. Impact of oil on the marine environment. (1977).Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (6):250 p.7. Scientific aspects of pollution arising from theexploration and exploitation of the sea-bed. (1977).Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (7):37 p.8. Report of the ninth session, New York, 7-11March 1977. (1977). Rep. Stud.GESAMP, (8):33 p.Available also in French and Russian9. Report of the tenth session, Paris, 29 May - 2June 1978. (1978). Rep. Stud.GESAMP, (9):pag.var.Available also in French, Spanish and Russian10. Report of the eleventh session, Dubrovnik, 25-29 February 1980. (1980). Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (10):pag.var. Available also in French and Spanish11. Marine Pollution implications of coastal areadevelopment. (1980). Rep. Stud.GESAMP, (11):114 p.12. Monitoring biological variables related to marinepollution. (1980). Rep. Stud.GESAMP, (12):22 p.Available also in Russian13. Interchange of pollutants between the atmosphereand the oceans. (1980). Rep.Stud.GESAMP,(13):55 p.14. Report of the twelfth session, Geneva, 22-29October 1981. (1981). Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (14):pag.var. Available also in French, Spanish and Russian15. The review of the health of the oceans. (1982).Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (15):108 p.16. Scientific criteria for the selection of waste disposalsites at sea. (1982). Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (16):60 p.17. The evaluation of the hazards of harmful substancescarried by ships. (1982). Rep.Stud.GESAMP,(17):pag.var.18. Report of the thirteenth session, Geneva, 28February - 4 March 1983. (1983). Rep.Stud.GESAMP,(18):50 p. Available also in French, Spanish andRussian19. An oceanographic model for the dispersion ofwastes disposed of in the deep sea. (1983). Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (19):182 p.20. Marine pollution implications of ocean energydevelopment. (1984). Rep. Stud.GESAMP, (20):44 p.21. Report of the fourteenth session, Vienna, 26-30March 1984. (1984). Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (21):42 p.Available also in French, Spanish and Russian22. Review of potentially harmful substances.Cadmium, lead and tin. (1985). Rep.Stud.GESAMP,(22):114 p.23. Interchange of pollutants between the atmosphereand the oceans (part II). (1985). Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (23):55 p.24. Thermal discharges in the marine environment.(1984). Rep.Stud. GESAMP, (24):44 p.25. Report of the fifteenth session, New York, 25-29March 1985. (1985). Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (25):49 p.Available also in French, Spanish and Russian26. Atmospheric transport of contaminants into theMediterranean region. (1985). Rep.Stud.GESAMP,(26):53 p.27. Report of the sixteenth session, London, 17-21March 1986. (1986). Rep. Stud.GESAMP, (27):74 p.Available also in French, Spanish and Russian28. Review of potentially harmful substances.Arsenic, mercury and selenium. (1986). Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (28):172 p.29. Review of potentially harmful substances.Organosilicon compounds (silanes and siloxanes).(1986). Published as UNEP Reg.Seas Rep.Stud.,(78):24 p.30. Environmental capacity. An approach to marinepollution prevention. (1986). Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (30):49 p.GESAMP Report and Studies No 77REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSION · 81

31. Report of the seventeenth session, Rome, 30March - 3 April 1987. (1987). Rep.Stud.GESAMP,(31):36 p. Available also in French, Spanish andRussian32. Land-sea boundary flux of contaminants: contributionsfrom rivers. (1987). Rep.Stud.GESAMP,(32):172 p.33. Report on the eighteenth session, Paris, 11-15April 1988. (1988). Rep. Stud.GESAMP, (33):56 p.Available also in French, Spanish and Russian34. Review of potentially harmful substances.Nutrients. (1990). Rep.Stud. GESAMP, (34):40 p.35. The evaluation of the hazards of harmful substancescarried by ships: Revision of GESAMP Reportsand Studies No. 17. (1989). Rep.Stud. GESAMP, (35):pag.var.36. Pollutant modification of atmospheric and oceanicprocesses and climate: some aspects of the problem.(1989). Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (36):35 p.37. Report of the nineteenth session, Athens, 8-12 May 1989. (1989). Rep. Stud.GESAMP, (37):47 p.Available also in French, Spanish and Russian38. Atmospheric input of trace species to the worldocean. (1989). Rep.Stud. GESAMP, (38):111 p.39. The state of the marine environment. (1990).Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (39):111 p. Available also in Spanishas Inf.Estud.Progr.Mar.Reg.PNUMA, (115):87 p.40. Long-term consequences of low-level marinecontamination: An analytical approach. (1989). Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (40):14 p.41. Report of the twentieth session, Geneva, 7-11May 1990. (1990). Rep. Stud.GESAMP, (41):32 p.Available also in French, Spanish and Russian42. Review of potentially harmful substances.Choosing priority organochlorines for marine hazardassessment. (1990). Rep.Stud. GESAMP, (42):10 p.43. Coastal modelling. (1991). Rep.Stud.GESAMP,(43):187 p.44. Report of the twenty-first session, London, 18-22 February 1991. (1991). Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (44):53p. Available also in French, Spanish and Russian45. Global strategies for marine environmental protection.(1991). Rep.Stud. GESAMP, (45):34 p.46. Review of potentially harmful substances.Carcinogens: their significance as marine pollutants.(1991). Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (46):56 p.47. Reducing environmental impacts of coastalaquaculture. (1991). Rep. Stud.GESAMP, (47):35 p.48. Global changes and the air-sea exchange ofchemicals. (1991). Rep. Stud.GESAMP, (48):69 p.49. Report of the twenty-second session, Vienna, 9-13 February 1992. (1992). Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (49):56p. Available also in French, Spanish and Russian50. Impact of oil, individual hydrocarbons and relatedchemicals on the marine environment, including usedlubricant oils, oil spill control agents and chemicals usedoffshore. (1993). Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (50):178 p.51. Report of the twenty-third session, London, 19-23 April 1993. (1993). Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (51):41 p.Available also in French, Spanish and Russian52. Anthropogenic influences on sediment dischargeto the coastal zone and environmental consequences.(1994). Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (52):67 p.53. Report of the twenty-fourth session, New York,21-25 March 1994. (1994). Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (53):56p. Available also in French, Spanish and Russian54. Guidelines for marine environmental assessment.(1994). Rep.Stud. GESAMP, (54):28 p.55. Biological indicators and their use in the measurementof the condition of the marine environment.(1995). Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (55):56 p. Available also inRussian56. Report of the twenty-fifth session, Rome, 24-28 April 1995. (1995). Rep. Stud.GESAMP, (56):54 p.Available also in French, Spanish and Russian57. Monitoring of ecological effects of coastal aquaculturewastes. (1996). Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (57):45 p.58. The invasion of the ctenophore Mnemiopsisleidyi in the Black Sea. (1997). Rep.Stud.GESAMP,(58):84 p.59. The sea-surface microlayer and its role in globalchange. (1995). Rep.Stud. GESAMP, (59):76 p.60. Report of the twenty-sixth session, Paris, 25-29March 1996. (1996). Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (60):29 p.Available also in French, Spanish and Russian61. The contributions of science to integrated coastalmanagement. (1996). Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (61):66 p.62. Marine biodiversity: patterns, threats and developmentof a strategy for conservation. (1997). Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (62):24 p.63. Report of the twenty-seventh session, Nairobi,14-18 April 1997. (1997). Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (63):45p. Available also in French, Spanish and Russian64. The revised GESAMP hazard evaluation procedurefor chemical substances carried by ships. (2002).Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (64):121 p.82 · REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSIONGESAMP Report and Studies No 77

65. Towards safe and effective use of chemicalsin coastal aquaculture. (1997). Rep.Stud.GESAMP,(65):40 p.66. Report of the twenty-eighth session, Geneva,20-24 April 1998. (1998). Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (66):44 p.67. Report of the twenty-ninth session, London, 23-26 August 1999. (1999). Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (67):44 p.68. Planning and management for sustainablecoastal aquaculture development. (2001). Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (68):90 p.69. Report of the thirtieth session, Monaco, 22-26May 2000. (2000). Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (69):52 p.70. A sea of troubles. (2001). Rep.Stud.GESAMP,(70):35 p.71. Protecting the oceans from land-based activities- Land-based sources and activities affecting the qualityand uses of the marine, coastal and associated freshwaterenvironment.(2001). Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (71):162p.72. Report of the thirty-first session, New York, 13-17 August 2001. (2002). Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (72):41 p.73. Report of the thirty-second session, London,6-10 May 2002. (in preparation). Rep.Stud.GESAMP,(73)74. Report of the thirty-third session, Rome, 5-9May 2003 (2003) Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (74):36 p.75. Estimations of oil entering the marine environmentfrom sea-based activities (2007), Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (75): 96 p.76. Assessment and communication of risks incoastal aquaculture (in preparation). Rep.Stud.GESAMP,(76)77. Report of the thirty-fourth session, Paris, 8-11May 2007 (2008), Rep.Stud.GESAMP, (77) 70 p.GESAMP Report and Studies No 77REPORT OF THE THIRTY-FOURTH SESSION · 83