1. Group 2 OSPAR/ICES Chaired by Mr Gert Verreet
Break-out session
Group 2
OSPAR/ICES
Chaired by Mr Gert Verreet

2. Chemical pollution Table D2
Water
Poor coverage by regional Conventions. Although under WFD Member States need to assess concentrations against EQS, it is unlikely that this process will result in a systematic and stable marine data flow necessary for the development of an indicator at pan-European or regional level become easily available.
There may be certain substances like lindane or certain water-solulable for which monitoring in water is undertaken by Member States and data may become available.

3. Chemical pollution Table D2
Biota
Important matrix, well covered by regional Conventions giving opportunity for developing indicators
Parameter coverage: heavy metals preference, organochlorines and PAHs.
Potential for indicator but to locate commonalities an analysis parameter/matrix is needed. This is further addressed in considering the candidate indicator WHS6

4. Chemical Table D2 Sediment
Data coverage for concentrations of contaminants in sediments is less transparent, mainly OSPAR is monitoring and assessing. In the Arctic sediments are mainly used for assessing geographic distribution of contaminants especially PAHs
Sediment, in general, might not be the preferred matrix for an indicator due to normalisation needs and the difficulty to interpret data
SPM in water phase is an alternative way of measuring

5. Chemical Table D2 Radionuclides
OSPAR monitoring of concentrations in marine environment (sediments, biota, water, seaweed) based on national monitoring programmes – no common indicator could be identified for OSPAR regions
AMAP monitoring mainly for hot spots and for remobilising of contaminants: water, sediments, seaweed
T99 may have a more regional impact and might be used at a broader scale but other isotopes bind to sediments or are better measured in the SPM phase.
There is an issue of harmonising reporting systems for a pan-European use of data

6. Chemical pollution Table D2
Biological effects
Quick progress in techniques for monitoring BE but still not used routinely in monitoring programmes and limited amount of data available although there might be more than currently accessible.
Variety of BE (e.g. in OSPAR but also at national level). There is need for selection. Currently no coherent picture. Currently, this process is at national and regional level and not pan-European level.
Effects of chemical pollution should have more emphasis. Toxilogical effects on environment or human health should be encouraged. Start with substances with most societal concern or of political interest (e.g. ban of TBT in antifoulants and observation of TBT-related imposex in gastropods)
Good candidate for indicator but not a priority. Recommendation to revisit BE as indicator in future and watch progress closely.

7. Inputs Table D3 and Table H1
Dumped munitions (D3):
it is not clear what should be covered by this element – there might be other data available that could be taken into account. There is no recommendation for a indicator;
Organic compounds (H1):
Coverage through (EEA, OSPAR in air and for water through WFD)
Emissions, discharges and losses (e.g. data streams from EPER, EPRTR) should be given more emphasis as an indicator for inputs
There seem to be a number of gaps

8. Inputs non-synthetic compounds Table H2
Metals
Source related data streams are missing and should be included
France reported monitoring of inputs of benzenes under WFD not included in the Table
Coverage so that opportunity to develop an indicator especially if use is made of the assessments done by Conventions rather than using basic data
In the light of the interest expressed by MEDPOL and Black Seas for riverine inputs monitoring, expertise could be made available for building such an indicator for metals and nutrients from the other Conventions
There are other sources for information of metals and some organic substances – e.g. atmospheric deposition from EMEP
Oil pollution
Reasonable coverage in the table but it is not clear whether this information is suitable for a pan-European indicator
Scope for covering gaps
UWWT
Mostly covered through data streams considered in WS2

9. Inputs of radionuclides Table H3
Coverage seems to be patchy (OSPAR) – other Conventions?
In light of expertise available at WS, no specific recommendation on an indicator at pan-European level

10. General conclusions
Tables indicate poor data coverage for a few elements, especially biological effects although a wealth of data (including research) seems to be available. There is a need to make this data available for assessments for example through involving data providers in assessments.
Use of processed data, e.g. in assessment of the regional Conventions, should be encouraged vs use of raw data
Important that necessary QA procedures are in place and information supports data at pan-European level.
Indicators should meet expectations for monitoring and be realistic;

11. Candidate indicator WHS6
General issues
Design of indicators to be revisited
Choice of single contaminant should be made in light of “significance” of substance (societal concern, political interest etc.). E.g. mercury in biota could be a candidate
The indicator would need to build in a mechanism to express comparison, e.g. through baselines calculated for each (sub)region. If the measured distance to baseline is expressed as percentage, a comparison of regions could be achieved.
Parameter coverage: currently best coverage for heavy metals, organochlorines, PAHs in biota, and partly in sediments; lindane in water;
Coastal vs marine species: currently coastal (sessile) species have good coverage vs marine (fish) less data available;
Trophic levels: for marine species there is a need to include food: chain e.g. include predators (e.g. marine mammals) and humans; seabird eggs a suitable matrix
Pollution comprises biological effects: indicator should try to include such a parameter although this is not yet ready for purpose;
Level of aggregation: preference for desegregating contaminants and making a choice. There is a risk of loosing information and aggregation might mask developments. For a more sophisticated indicator, aggregation would need to stop at a lower level of aggregation (e.g. bar chart).

12. Candidate Indicator WHS6
Q1 and 10:
Views pro and contra including a “new” substance which has only recently been identified as emerging problem. If no new substances: health warning to politicians;
Parameter/matrix needs to be looked at on basis of more detailed information (mercury in biota one possible issue)
Classification: yes, keep reference values for higher aggregated data
Q7:
Lessons learnt from ETC water needs to be taken up. There is a need that the new centre works together with the old one;
Get data providers involved to enhance data quality and quantity
Q8:
Scope for improving presentation of maps – more elaborate graphic symbols necessary
Q9:
QA needs addressing
Weighing of indicators depending on reliability of data
Current indicators use different statistical tools and procedures. Preference for using more assessments products from regional Conventions. This requires mutual co-operation to achieve more commonalities.