Monitoring and Assessment Methodological Guidance 4 th Meeting of the EcAp Coordination Group 9–10 October 2014 (Athens, Greece)

Monitoring and Assessment Methodological Guidance COP18 EcAp Decision (Decision IG. 23/1) “ Request the Secretariat to: Prepare in cooperation with MAP components and competent partner organizations, through a participatory process involving Contracting Parties and the scientific community, a Monitoring and Assessment Methodological Guidance for consideration during the first meeting of EcAp CG in 2014 and a draft Integrated Monitoring and Assessment Programme to be presented at the 19 th Meeting of the Contracting Parties for adoption.”

Monitoring and Assessment Methodological Guidance Based on Philosophy of EcAp: aim at assessing good environmental status); Risk based approach and the Precautionary Principle; Set of 17+1 Common indicators and common fact sheet templates with clear links with Ecological Objectives Builds on Ongoing MEDPOL Monitoring Programme; Existing monitoring practices of the Contracting Parties; Available data-streams and UNEP/MAP assessments; Relevant practice of other Regional Sea Conventions, Analyzes Specific monitoring needs of common indicators Specific monitoring needs for ecological objectives Make recommendations on the way forward in short and medium term

Monitoring and Assessment Methodological Guidance “Biodiversity is maintained when the quality and occurrence of habitats and distribution and abundance of species are in line with prevailing physiographic, geographic and climatic conditions.” Build on existing data, scientific researches, when available; Select new monitoring locations based on risks, effects, data availability, conservation interest. Further specify the list of habitats and species.

Monitoring and Assessment Methodological Guidance Biodiversity/Habitat distributional range: Parameter: surface area of lost habitat for each habitat type (based on EIA/fishing data and habitat mapping with non invasive surveys); Reference condition- state is recommended for setting baselines for benthic habitats Biodiversity/Habitat’s typical species and communities: Need to further define list of typical species and set targets for their presence; For baseline use of past state/data, when available; Key: GES acceptable deviation, which is habitat-specific and region-wide

Monitoring and Assessment Methodological Guidance Biodiversity/Species distributional range: To know range of selected species Information uneven, possible standardization (FAO 30X30 or EBCC 50X50). Should cover of all seasons (varying cost of methodologies). Biodiversity/Population abundance: To define demographics of the population based on size and variation time, using various methods (key: same site selection). Biodiversity/Population demographic characteristics: It describes the population change and as such, life history too and for this long-term data is needed- quantitative baseline setting is not easy.

Monitoring and Assessment Methodological Guidance Trends in abundance, temporal occurrence and spatial distribution of NIS, particularly invasive non indigenous species, notably in risk areas in relation to main vectors and pathways of spreading such species: Monitoring a trend indicator needs at least 3 years of data; Abundance monitoring is expensive, focus is recommended on recording all local NIS; Reference level proposed to be present state; Temporal occurrence is a good way to monitor efficiency of measures, based on 2 annual parameters (intro of species and increase/decrease of total) seeing annual change To be calculated in minimum 2 hot spots Target – 3 Years after each other introduction decreased, with target to have only settled species.

Monitoring and Assessment Methodological Guidance Eutrophication Monitoring GES: when biodiversity remains well balanced and retains necessary functions in the absence of undesirable disturbance due to eutrophication – potential use of TRIX index, sub-regional or trend. Monitoring information is needed on nutrient levels direct and indirect effects (follows MEDPOL Phase III And IV monitoring strategy). Monitoring of characteristics of seawater is most direct way; Remote sensing if eutrophication extends large area; Frequency: sub-regions at risk more frequent; Long standing collaboration with MEDGIG inter-calibration process Proposal would be the set of sub-regional thresholds for chlorophyll-a

Monitoring and Assessment Methodological Guidance Contaminants Monitoring GES: when contaminants cause no significant impact on coastal and marine ecosystems and human health; Basis: ongoing MEDPOL programme, using existing monitoring stations (+ new: in areas beyond coast, where risk warrants it and including offshore); CPs will need to provide proposed additional sampling stations; Assessment criteria for hazardous substances- methodology exists under UNEP(DEPI)MED WG. 394/Inf3 Report, but need to further define relationship between BC and BAC; Assessment criteria for biota-until appropriate approach for EAC is available for metals in biota, EC maximum acceptable dietary levels are recommended (Regulation EC 1881/2006).

Monitoring and Assessment Methodological Guidance Contaminants Monitoring Until EAC defined: 2-fold approach: Threshold value based on concentrations from relatively unpolluted areas on sub-regional level; Decreasing trend to be observed from base-line values representing the actual level of contaminants concentrations Thus, GES could be defined for toxic metals, chlorinated organic compounds and PAHs, for which monitoring data exists. Temporal trend monitoring review and analysis of MEDPOL Phase III Monitoring Activities and 2011 analysis of trend monitoring activities and data for MED POL Phase III and IV, concludes problems are mainly due to lack of maintaining declared sampling strategy, data transfer and manipulation problems.

Monitoring and Assessment Methodological Guidance Monitoring biological effects Usage of biomarkers relatively new- BEEP/DiSAV data system; Mussels and/or fish; Training organized by MEDPOL/DiSAV; Work ongoing No contaminant-specific techniques, most widely used is though TBT effects on gastropods; Need to develop and test more contaminant specific biological effects techniques for quantifying GES There is also possibility to use available info for TBT thresholds for GES from other regions to propose similar effects threshold for the Mediterranean (in OSPAR biomarker responses are assessed against BAC and EAC levels), with categories of (i) not causing deleterious biological effects (ii) these effects are possible (iii) these effects are likely in long-term.

Monitoring and Assessment Methodological Guidance Monitoring acute pollution events Aim is protection against oil and chemical spills with coherent coverage and equal protection for the entire Mediterranean; Monitoring ongoing in line with the Prevention and Emergency Protocol- in cases of emergency, Contracting Parties shall implement mutatis mutandis provisions of the Emergency Protocol and at the same time report to REMPEC and inform each other on: Accidents causing/likely to cause pollution of the sea by oil and other harmful substances; Presence, characteristics and extent of such spillages, which likely to present serious and imminent threat to the marine/coastal environment; Their assessments and any pollution combating actions and the evolution of the situation.

Monitoring and Assessment Methodological Guidance Monitoring contaminants in fish/seafood used for human consumption Only for fish/seafood for which regulatory limits have been set in national/international legislation; FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius. Monitoring microbiological pollution Quality of recreational waters needs monitoring; Values agreed in Decision IG 20/9 is a good basis for GES definition for the indicator on pathogens in bath-water. Threshold is valid on regional level.

Monitoring and Assessment Methodological Guidance Monitoring contaminants in fish/seafood used for human consumption Only for fish/seafood for which regulatory limits have been set in national/international legislation; FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius. Monitoring microbiological pollution Quality of recreational waters needs monitoring; Values agreed in Decision IG 20/9 is a good basis for GES definition for the indicator on pathogens in bath-water. Threshold is valid on regional level.

Monitoring and Assessment Methodological Guidance Monitoring marine litter: Art 12 of the Marine Litter Regional Plan and COP18 EcAp Decision bases, next to the UNEP Operational Guidelines for Comprehensive Beach Litter Assessment and the Guidance of Monitoring of Marine Litter in European Seas (and its referred Protocols). New area: Contracting Parties encouraged to start with pilots. Citizen scientists key for monitoring all marine litter related indicators and in order to ensure QA/QC, there will be need for capacity building, usage of master list of categories of litter items.

Monitoring and Assessment Methodological Guidance Monitoring beach litter: Single survey method, with different spatial parameters for light of moderately polluted coastline (non-scientists involvement); Fixed sites and times needed- master list of TSG-ML available; Min. length of survey sites 100m (50m exceptionally), with samples ideally from urban/rural/close to major rivers coastlines and min 2X a year (ideally 4 times); Counts of items are recommended as standard unit; Size of litter 0,5cm-2,5cm Regional photo guides would be recommended as well as training of field staff/volunteers; With removal to take place at same time as monitoring.

Monitoring and Assessment Methodological Guidance Monitoring floating litter: Only rough litter categories, with initial hot-spot/pathways (both low and high density for comparison); Monitoring is based on visual observation Seafloor litter: Opportunistic sampling/use of ROV and MEDITS system- harmonized Protocol; Ingested/entangled litter: OSPAR indicator available (EcoQO) with focus on seabirds; Need to take into account Mediterranean specificities and also include sea-turtle Micro litter: Smaller than 5mm (micro plastics); Lack of QA/QC available; Opportunistic monitoring- sampling programmes on sea surface; CPR/ Detailed Protocol for sampling surface waters exists.

Monitoring and Assessment Methodological Guidance Hydrography: Permanent alterations- track record of licensing applications needed; Data on bathymetry, seafloor topography, velocity, wave exposure, turbulence, turbidicity; In data-interpretation: effects of climate change taken into account; To do so, long time series of database is absolute necessity; Particular attention to MPAs, feeding/breeding, other sensitive areas; Methods include satellite data collection, scientific vessels, oceanographic observing systems; Key to concentrate on modeling changes of human activities (EIA/ESA validated with in situ data set (GES: local in short-term).

Monitoring and Assessment Methodological Guidance Coast: Indicator covers coastal and terrestrial part of coastal zone; Aim to quantify rate and spatial distribution of coastline artificialitsation and to provide better understanding on impacts. Manmade structure categories proposed; Need to have more information on implementation of Art 8 of ICZM Protocol and on use of Art 1 functional tools of the ICZM Protocol to specify assessment needs; Key project outcomes on standardization of monitoring techniques, such as PEGASO, MEDINA, MareMed. Inventory needed of the length and location of manmade coastline, surface area reclaimed and impervious surfaces. Space and airborne observations/GIS are available. Min. Years is proposed for man-made structure monitoring and 1X a year for sandy coastline monitoring.

Monitoring and Assessment Methodological Guidance Quality assurance and quality control Eutrophication, Contaminants, Biological effects: MEDPOL in collaboration with QUASIMEME, AIEA, DiSAV; IAEA/MESL key partner; IAEA/MESL produces certified reference materials, develops recommended analytical methods, organizes trainings, undertakes inter-calibration exercise. In “new” areas: QA and QC will be key to- there are in some cases available approaches, but in most cases need development (MEDPOL P rogramme QA to be extended to fit the scope of integrated monitoring programme and include preparation of reference methods, training, intercalibration exercise as appropriate)

Contact:, United Nations Environment Programme Coordinating Unit for the Mediterranean Action Plan Vassileos Konstantinou 48 Athens Greece