1

MONITORING MARINE LITTER IN THE MEDITERRANEAN

by by

MEDITERRANEAN

yTATJANA HEMA,MEDPOL programme officer UNEP/MAP-Barcelona Convention Secretariat

FishGear Project , Athens 13 May 2014

2

State of PlayMarine litter assessment in the Mediterranean

1. Useful data exists but not inconsistent and geographically restricted mainly to North

22. Most of ML is from LBS; o Recreational/Tourism activities : plastics (bottles,

bags, caps/lids, cans and glass)H h ld l t d t i l d d ito Households related waste included sanitary

3. Beaches ML originates from shoreline and recreational activities : plastics (bottles, bags, caps/lids etc.), cansand glass (bottles)and glass (bottles)

4. ML from smoking related activities accounts for 40% (collected items) much higher than the global average.

5. Floating marine litter: plastics account for about 83.0%,5. Floating marine litter: plastics account for about 83.0%, 6. Textiles, paper, metal and wood account 17% 7. Important knowledge gaps from sea based sources

3

Regional Plan objectives and ECAP targetsObjectives ( ML RP)Objectives ( ML RP)

Prevent ML GenerationReduce to the minimum ML and its impactsRemove existing ML to the extent possibleRemove existing ML to the extent possibleManage ML in accordance with accepted

international and regional standards and approaches

Enhance knowledge about ML sourcesEnhance knowledge about ML sources, quantities and impacts

ML ECAP Targets (COP 18, 2013)

• Decreasing trend in the number of ML items deposited on the coast

• Decreasing trend in the number of ML items in the water surface and the seafloorsurface and the seafloor

• Decreasing trend in the cases of entanglement or/and a decreasing trend in the stomach content of the sentinel species

4

Pollution Control Measures

ML RP MANAGEMENT MEASURES

Pollution Control MeasuresPollution Prevention MeasuresSCP Measures Widely agreedExisting ML removalStrict TimetablesImplementation FlexibilityReporting ObligationsCooperation with regional Partners a mustCooperation with regional Partners a must

ML RP Assessment&Monitoring&Reserach

1 Assess status of ML every 6 years1. Assess status of ML every 6 years2. Integrated Monitoring Programme/Guidance

(ECAP) 20153. ML Regional Data bank by 20164 R i l ML M it i E t b 20144. Regional ML Monitoring Expert group by 20145. National ML Monitoring Programme by 20166. Agreed list of topics requiring research to:

Improve knowledge gapImprove knowledge gapSupport measure implementation

5

SPECIFIC ML MANAGEMENTMEASURESMEASURES

1. No-special-fee approach where appropriate2. Fishing for Litter system, 3 Gear marking to indicate ownership3. Gear marking to indicate ownership 4. Compulsory national programmes on the

removal of existing marine litter and its disposaldisposal

5. National Beach Cleanup Campaigns;6. Participate in International Coastal Cleanup

Campaigns;Campaigns;7. Adopt-a-Beach practices8. Enforcement measures9. Adequate port reception facilities9 dequate po t ecept o ac t es10. Adequate solid waste management

6

Proposed ML MonitoringMajor elements ( under negotiations by the CP)Major elements ( under negotiations by the CP)

1. Proposal largely based on UNEP guidance and “Guidance on Monitoring of Marine Litter in gEuropean Seas”

2. Sampling strategy/site selection:St tifi d d i d li t tStratified randomised sampling strategy compatible with a risk-based approach

3. Quality control and assurance measures: inter-3. Quality control and assurance measures: intercalibrations, reference material, training for operators , etc

4. Building on existing national practices

5. Voluntary schemes- importance of awareness i i ffi i t f d t ll t draising, efficient use of data collected

7

Beach Litter

To enable temporal and spatial comparisonswithin and across regions:

Standard litter survey methods where• Standard litter survey methods wherepossible applied at all levels (local to regional)

• Agreed list of categories of ML itemsAgreed list of categories of ML items

• Quality assurance and quality controlprimarily targeted at education of the fieldt t i t tteams to ensure consistent surveys.

• Focus on communication & training ofcountry/regional/local survey teams critical tocountry/regional/local survey teams critical tosurvey integrity

• Removal and disposal of litter

8

SAMPLING AND FREQUENCY OF MONITORING :

TWICE A YEAR (SPRING/AUTUMN) AND IDEALLY FOUR TIMES A YEAR;

ONE SECTION OF COASTLINE OF 100M AND 2 SECTIONS OF COASTLINE OF 100M AS OPTIMUM

FOCUS ON HEAVILY LITTERED AREASFOCUS ON HEAVILY LITTERED AREAS

50M TRANSECTS FOR HEAVILY POLLUTED AREAS, WITH A NORMALIZATION FACTOR UP TO 100 M, TO ,ENSURE COHERENCE

THRESHOLDS BETWEEN HEAVILY AND MODERATELY LITTERED BEACH CATEGORIES TOMODERATELY LITTERED BEACH CATEGORIES TO BE DEFINED AND AGREED COMMONLY

9

Floating Litter Monitoring

• The monitoring of floating marine litter in selected (short-10 m ) coastal transects

• Monitoring Marine Litter suspended in the middle water column not recommendedmiddle water column not recommended

• Monitored size categories should include a range covering relevant small items ( 2,5-50cm)

• High densities areas to consider• High densities areas to consider• Monitoring to take into account sea

condition• Trend monitoring to take into account

sources• Main method: visual monitoring ( ships of

opportunity) with a dedicated observer• Record necessary metadata: items/km2 per

feach Litter category; geo-reference and wind speed data

• Visual observation equipment, PC, GPS,etc

10

Other Floating Litter Monitoring Methods

• Open sea surveys; aerial surveys, net towsurveys for macro litter, riverine litter , newmethodologiesmethodologies

Monitoring Micro-plastics,- a challenge:

• scarce information& technical difficulties• minimum microplastics size - 330μm;

Quality assurance• Regional Protocol t monitoring floating litter

requiredq

• Quality assurance approaches to be developed at regional and implemented at national levels through MEDPOL.g

11

Seafloor Litter MonitoringShallow sea-floor (<20m)• Annual frequency, 2 -line random transects, god

spatial coverage; detectability model • Use of volunteers in shallow waters surveys Sea-floor (20-800m): Trawling (MEDITS protocol)

(difficulties in rocky areas and soft sediments) • Selection of monitoring sites: avoid risks; sensitive

areas, do not impact endangered species• Detecting trends, Data recording and Management• Common Litter categories list for Sea-floor • On regular basis - between may and july

C l t fl it i Vid• Complementary sea-floor monitoring – Video camera

• Fish stock surveys to be used for litter monitoring-t l t b d litcommon protocol to be agreed; quality assurance

programme to be implemented• Other opportunities( offshore, marine reserves,

bi di it )biodiversity programmes)

12

Quality Assessment /Quality Control ( sea floor)

1 Fish stock surveys for benthic litter monitoring-1. Fish stock surveys for benthic litter monitoringadequate approach-The adoption of a common protocol is necessary

2. Data on litter in shallow sea-floor are collected through protocols already validated for benthicthrough protocols already validated for benthic species.

3. For MEDITS, sampling data are collected in the DATRAS database and participate in data quality h ki f h d hi l d i t lchecking for hydrographical and environmental

conditions. This process may also support quality insurance for data on litter.

4. System to collect, validate and organize data h h l f bli h ithrough a common platform, enabling the review

and validation of data. ( MED POL data bank to be established)

13

Litter in biota• sea-turtles and sea birds ( the latter while usingsea turtles and sea birds ( the latter while using

opportunistic monitoring of seabirds including of marine mammals in line with biodiversity related common indicators monitoring) g)

• Continuous sampling is required• Ingested litter: Different picture in the

Mediterranean ( some implementing, others are ( p g,considering; some countries have NGOs working on this ;

• Evident need to work together with specific institutes able to analyse the stomach content,

• Need for training capacity • Biota entangled by litter: differences on sub-

regional scale on number of stranded animals