Overview of existing marine assessments in Europe (North East Atlantic, Baltic Sea, Mediterranean and Black Seas) Frédéric Brochier UNESCO/IOC Consultant

Main Objectives  Provide an overview of the relevant marine assessments on European seas which could contribute to the UN Regular Process based on the GRAME Database and further additional assessments (covering ).  Provide a meaningful basis for discussion  Contribute to the updating of the GRAME Database ecosystem services food securityMarine biological diversity and habitats human activities  Provide a first attempt towards the identification on main gaps related to the issues covered by the 4 building blocks of the UNRP outline namely (i) ecosystem services from the marine environment (other than provisioning services); (ii) food security; (iii) Marine biological diversity and habitats and (iv) human activities impacting on the marine environment

Methodology – approach taken  Desk-based research carried out over May -June 2012  GRAME Database as a key primary information source  Web-based search to cover assessments over  Main focus on assessment “products” for European seas  Data holding have not been taken into consideration formalselected knowledge publicly available  Give priority to documents that broadly meet the three main conditions encompassed in the definition of assessment (Mitchell, et al. 2006) namely that the piece of work is ‘formal’, it assembles ‘selected knowledge’ and it is ‘publicly available’.  Policy analysis, Guidelines and Strategy documents have been excluded  Use of a specific template for individual assessment analysis (ANNEX 2)

INDIVIDUAL TEMPLATE  (a) Agency conducting the assessment;  (b) Intended users and the uses  (c) Scale and frequency  (d) Issues covered  (e) Types of data and Indicators  (f) Trends and methods employed;  (g) Integration (social, economic and ecological info)  (h) Evaluation benchmarks  (i) Forecasts, projections, and scenarios  (j) Data-assessment limitations  (k) Relevance  (l) Capacity needs  (m) Source INDIVIDUAL TEMPLATE  (a) Agency conducting the assessment;  (b) Intended users and the uses  (c) Scale and frequency  (d) Issues covered  (e) Types of data and Indicators  (f) Trends and methods employed;  (g) Integration (social, economic and ecological info)  (h) Evaluation benchmarks  (i) Forecasts, projections, and scenarios  (j) Data-assessment limitations  (k) Relevance  (l) Capacity needs  (m) Source MOST RECENT MARINE ASSESSMENTS AVAILABLE (i)Ecosystem services (ii)Food security (iii)Marine biological diversity and habitats and (iv)Human activities. (i)Ecosystem services (ii)Food security (iii)Marine biological diversity and habitats and (iv)Human activities. 4 BUILDING BLOCKS UNRP outline

Global and Regional Assessments of the Marine Environment Database  The Global and Regional Assessments of the Marine Environment Database – GRAMED  Main aim: to provide support to the regular process for the global reporting and assessment of the state of the marine environment  Started in 2003 – covers assessments until about  1023 activities registered including assessments, scientific research studies and data holdings  Covers the 21 AoA regions of the world ocean  Of the records included in the database, 269 have been reviewed as part of the Assessment of Assessment Process The GRAME Database

Number of assessments in GRAMED The number of assessments for the European seas represent 22.5 % of all GRAMED assessments. The Black sea is the less represented sea with only 18 assessments recorded

Classification of assessments Broad assessments represents 32% of the assessments for Europe - close to the global average (31%). The Black Sea has the higher number of broad assessments with 56% while 28 % of assessments are classified as Narrow Assessment

Scale of assessments

Over  A sample of 63 assessments collected and analysed by means of individual templates (Annex 2)*  14 are broad assessments  52 are at regional level (82 %), 7 at supra- regional level (Europe) and 3 at global level *not pretended to be exhaustive…. more coastal and marine assessments may be found at supra-regional, regional, and national level (See ANNEX 3 for some examples).

Date of publication and main issues covered

ICES 2003: Environmental status of the European seas – Global and Supra-Regional level ESF- Marine board 2011: Monitoring Chemical Pollution in Europe’s Seas The Census of Marine Life (2000–2010) was the largest global research programme on marine biodiversity EEA 2010: Marine and coastal environment - SOER 2010 thematic assessment UNEP, Marine Litter: A Global Challenge. ICES 2003: Environmental status of the European seas

Regional (sea) level OSPAR 2010: Quality status report Black Sea Commission 2009: Marine Litter in the Black Sea Region HELCOM 2010: Ecosystem Health of the Baltic Sea HELCOM Initial Holistic Assessment UNEP/MAP 2012: State of the Mediterranean coastal and marine environment UNEP/MAP PlanBleu 2009: SOED

Gap analysis (1/2) \ Ecosystem Services Food Security

Gap analysis (2/2) Marine Biological diversity Human Activities

Some concluding remarks  Under regional sea convention framework, regular monitoring and assessment cycle are well-established  There is a great deal of information. The trend towards more regular and comprehensive assessments is ongoing.  Integrated (broad assessments) are generally well publicized  Thematic assessments (pressure based) are prevailing  Assessment practice is undergoing a transition towards an ecosystem- based approach  Progressive shift from pollution control to issues related to protection of the marine environment and in particular biodiversity and ecosystems.  There is a growing attention over assessments on Supra-regional issues such as Climate change, marine litter and invasive species  Integration level of socio-economic issues appears to be still weak in spite of some recent progresses  Assessment of impacts of human activities on marine ecosystems is still too much based on qualitative information and data

Moving forward  The achievement of regional comparability is challenging: huge differences between regions, spatial and temporal coverage, etc.)  Lack of comparable data across all seas still a major constraint  Compatibility of Assessments to be better analysed  Regional sea conventions versus MSFD: key for the production of future assessments (Scale integration, Timing of assessments, etc.)  Improved understanding of cumulative effects  Further consideration on the definition of «assessment» would facilitate the identification (and exclusion) of relevant reports