Interrelations between science and policy-making: the North Sea example

Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 34, No. 9, pp. 686-701, 1997 Pergamon © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd

P I I : S0025--326X(97)00118-5 An rights reserved.0025_326X/97Printed in Great$17.00+0.00Britain

Interrelations between Science and Policy-making: the North Sea Example JEAN-PAUL DUC R OTOY* and MICHAEL ELLIOTT~" *Centre for Environmental Research into Coastal Issues (CERCI), University College Scarborough, The University of York, Scarborough YOll 3AZ, UK tlnstitute of Estuarine and Coastal Studies, The University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, UK

The regulatory framework for the management of the Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the North Sea is constantly changing. The new Convention United Kingdom) are highly industrialized and have a for the Prnteetion of the Marine Environment in the highly mechanizedagriculture; 152 million people live in North Atlantic, signed in Paris in 1992, will come into the 832000 km a catchment area (North Sea Task Force, force under the auspices of the Oslo and Paris 1994). Thus the natural conditions and human activities Commission ( O S P A R C O M ) i n late 1997. The North in the catchments create a significant impact of Sea Task Force (NSTF) existed from 1988--1994 and its pollution and human induced disturbances. approach was then incorporated into ASMO, the new The protection of the marine environment of the Environmental Assessment and Monitoring Committee. North Sea is subject to many regional agreements This paper reviews the scientific approach to and the role restricted to the North Sea itself, several of these fora of science in solving human-induced ecological problems having different definitions of the North Sea in terms of and assessing the quality of the North Sea. With the its geographical coverage. An even larger number of increasing European Union (EU), there now is a greater international legal instruments also include the North overlap between the EU and O S P A R C O M and this Sea. Transboundary pollution is now accepted as a article discusses the possible duplication between these rationale for taking action collectively (GESAMP, and other organizations and the consequences of 1991), leading to the question of whether the science implementing new European environmental legislation, which is needed to support the decision making From a scientific view, it considers the consequences of processes is also made widely available on an the International Conferences on the Protection of the international basis. It is also questioned whether the North Sea (1982-1995), the role of the NSTF, its agreements contain new elements or are only a successes and failures and how its past experience will reformulation and, because of this, it is necessary to serve ASMO. The paper discusses the role and future of review their links with science and assess which elements scientific research on the marine environment, and in in the agreements have promoted science. Furthermore, particular on coastal areas, in the new international all of the organizations that manage those agreements legislation context. Focus is put on the need for obtaining claim to make a large use of high-level scientific data good scientific data as a precursor to management, for and information. processing the data in order to create information for It is necessary to consider and question the type of dissemination to the public and political bodies, and for scientific programmes resulting from the agreements using the information for policy-making and environ- and the economic costs and benefits of the scientific mental management. © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd approach (Table 1). It is also necessary to review from

scientists viewpoints, some of the regional agreements and international programmes dealing with the North Sea with an emphasis on recent changes in international

The Nor th Sea is a semi-enclosed epi-continental sea mechanisms which could have an effect on current and which is an integral part of the north-east Atlantic. It is future scientific research on the marine environment. shallow, with increasing depth northwards and an

anticlockwise gyre throughout its main body which History of Policy-making in the North Sea contributes to distributing materials discharged from one coastal state to another. The residence time of Environmental awareness of the North Sea dates marine waters is one to two years, making it relatively from the 1960s following the oil spill from the Torrey well flushed (ICONA, 1992). The eight countries Canyon which grounded in southern England in 1967 bordering the North Sea (Belgium, Denmark, France, and the saga of the Stella Maris which could not deliver

686

Volume 34/Number 9/September 1997

TABLE 1

Questions on the scientific approach.

Policy on science Science on policy

What policy is made? What science needs to be used in policy-making? Who makes policy and why? Where is science used in policy-making? Where are the overlapping policies and philosophies? How is science used? Are there any contradictions between policies? What political will is there for funding co-ordinated research? What should be the role of scientists in public and political debate? Is there any international co-ordination of research? When is it science used? What is the relationship between national and international funding Is there no co-ordination of science needed or just post-hoc usage?

for science? Are global agreements limiting scientific research? Is there a predatory use of science? Are there mechanisms in place to prevent international co-ordination What needs to be done to co-ordinate research?

of research?

a cargo of wastes to any European port in 1971. The ilate contaminants. The concept of assimilative capacity then EEC did not contain an environmental remit until or environmental capacity (Stebbing, 1992) was intro- the European Communities Act in 1972 and its first duced to prevent undesirable effects due to the discharge environment programme. Requirements on industries of contaminants in a given area. This, in an initial way, were based on economic and technological considera- was a management of the available marine resource tions rather than environmental considerations in terms although less benefit of the doubt was given to the of reduction of emission of contaminants and clean environment than to industry and the onus for proving production strategies were little considered (Weichart, degradation was placed to some extent on the 1973). From then on, three periods can be recognized in environmental lobby. The EQO/EQS approach required the development of policy-making tools in the North scientific assessments to set them and to determine Sea. compliance (see below, and Elliott, 1996b).

The first period (until 1980) included creating the The second period (1980-1990) developed the concept Oslo Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution of resource management and sustainability, following by Dumping from Ships and Aircrafts (OSCOM ratified the Bruntland report as the first global environmental in 1974) and the Paris Convention for the Prevention of discussion, and there was wide-acceptance that the Marine Pollution from Land-Based Sources (PARCOM polluter should pay for the reduction of pollution but ratified in 1978), which are both administered by their not necessarily the costs of the monitoring or other joint Commissions (OSPARCOM) based in London scientific studies (Bennett, 1989). The International (Oslo and Paris Commissions, 1984). The pollution- Conferences on the Protection of the North Sea oriented approach was based on a substance-specific (INSC) started in the early 1980s and the first regulation according to both emission standards Conference (INSC1, Bremen, 1983)aimed to propose (quantities to be released into the environment) and institutional arrangements at a political level in response environmental standards (concentration in seawater, to scientific studies which had been recently published sediments and biota). The Commissions, during this showing the necessity to alleviate pollution problems first period of their existence, had to respond to strong (Scientific and Technical Working Group, 1987). It was pressure from industries as shown in the discussions then thought that the Nor th Sea is too complex to be which took place in the Joint Monitoring Group managed by a single central and administrative system (JMG). This attitude led to a strong policy effort but but that there was also a need for improving coherence the process was slow and difficult to manage and the between existing international instruments. INSC2 voting system led to agreements being reached on the (London, 1987) rapidly demonstrated that a scientific basis of the less stringent requirements. The JMG with approach to policy-making required to be related to the its Joint Monitoring Plan (JMP) failed to provide high-level scientific studies showing the gravity of information usable for management because of metho- pollution problems in the North Sea. It put institutional dological disagreements which did not involve scientists and political pressure on OSPARCOM to be more directly. As with many similar wide-scale monitoring scientific in their approach to pollution (Ferm, 1992) schemes, many data were obtained but the use and which resulted in the establishment, in 1988, of the value of these was questionable (Elliott and de Jonge, North Sea Task Force (NSTF) which brought together 1996). Environmental protection during the period the INSCs, OSPARCOM and the International Council 1960-1970 relied on effect-related standards, particu- for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) (Hoogweg et al., larly in the United Kingdom with the Environmental 1991). ICES was founded in 1902, to co-ordinate marine Quality Objectives/Standards (EQO/EQS) approach, and fishery science within its 17 member countries on and the assessment of critical loads based on an both sides of the Atlantic. Thus, the NSTF's role was to environment's ability to disperse, degrade and assim- help all interested parties to be constructively involved

687

Marine Pollution Bulletin

in the process but, primarily, it was a scientific body scale, the results are piece-meal. An example of this is (Ducrotoy et al., 1991). It was also hoped that it would the now defunct COST 647 programme (Ducrotoy, produce a better co-ordination between administrators. 1997) which aimed to co-ordinate Europe-wide coastal

The third period, from 1990 to the present, ecology research and which had enthusiasm Europe- concentrated on organizational responsibilities and wide but was not funded (Lewis, 1996). Within Europe, interactions and on the transition from the NSTF to at present, any international monitoring is not funded ASMO (Environmental Assessment and Monitoring as such but is merely an aggregation of national plans. Committee). Until it was disbanded in 1994, the NSTF For instance, the European Environment Agency used data from its own purpose-built Monitoring (EEA) has recently produced the Dobfi~ Assessment Master Plan (MMP) and also some data from the of the quality of the whole of the European environ- JMP. Data were processed and interpreted by NSTF ment, including the North Sea, relying on existing and ICES scientists, in particular input data since 1 9 8 8 scientific information (Stanners and Bourdeau, 1996). (nutrients, heavy metals and halogenated substances)

(Ducrotoy, 1996b). INSC3 (1990, The Hague) had given Geographical-Institutional-Scientific Regime terms of reference for the activity of the NSTF up to 1995 (Ijlstra, 1990; North Sea Conference, 1 9 9 0 ; Geographical overlap and duplication of responsibility Ducrotoy et al., 1991). Firstly, the NSTF was to Four types of organizations, each identified geogra- establish biological monitoring programmes in order phically, are involved in the management of the North to assess trends in the effect of pollution on biological Sea: global; large region; region; and subregional systems. In response, the NSTF co-ordinated national (Table 3a). There appears to be an increasing programmes in 1990--1992 in the framework of the geographical overlap of organizations with similar MMP and proposed international surveys of benthic aims, especially with an increasing EU, which indicates invertebrate populations as an up-date to the 1986 the need for either, at best, rationalization or, failing North Sea Benthos Survey (Kfinitzer et al., 1992). that, for a new co-ordinating tier. As an example of this Secondly, it discussed ecological quality objectives, at the international level, the United Nations Con- proposed definitions and terminology and also dealt ference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, 1982), the with the definition of background concentration of United Nations Conference on the Environment and natural compounds in rivers, seawater, the atmosphere Development (UNCED, 1992), and the International and mussels (Laane, 1992). Thirdly, it recommended Maritime Organisation (IMO/MARPOL) give gui- assessing the ecosystem impact of fishing activities and, dance, provide a framework and facilitate the signature under the impetus of the NSTF, a Working Group was of agreements between contracting parties. At the large installed under the ICES responsibility. Fourthly, the regional level, OSPARCOM provides a framework and NSTF prepared measures for the protection of species agreement. Collation of data and the preparation of and habitats. The work was initiated after several high quality status reports are co-ordinated through OS- profile incidents such as the seal (phocine distemper) PARCOM as well as making recommendations for epidemic in 1988, noxious and nuisance algal blooms research/monitoring. At regional level, the INSC have such as Chrysochromulina sp. in Danish and Baltic also developed timetables for actions aiming at waters, and the high mortalities of seabirds found dead achieving the objectives of the conferences themselves on the shores and in the open North Sea. Finally, the (see below) but also as a means of satisfying other NSTF recommended improving the notification systems international agreements. In addition to the organiza- for serious pollution. This was done in co-operation tional types, there are three levels of institutional with the Working Group on Nutrients of OSPARCOM arrangements for the protection of the North Sea: (Oslo and Paris Commissions, 1992). From 1990 to setting a framework, producing legal instruments, or 1997, important changes also took place at European, providing non-legal instruments (Table 3b). At the international and global levels (Table 2). It is expected political level, INSCs have acted in conjunction with that the transitional period from 1993-1996 should be OSPARCOM (Hayward, 1990) and gave a general followed by a consolidation period from 1997 onwards, framework to policy-making. Recommendations and after the new OSPARCOM agreement is ratified and it declarations by the INSCs are not binding but enters fully into force in 1997. increasingly will be incorporated into the EU in order

Because of the wide-ranging nature of the new treaty, to be translated into legally international binding OSPARCOM may now be the main stimulus for the measures. Recommendations by OSPARCOM are discussion of environmental philosophy and legislation, morally binding on the signatory states although not This then links firstly to the INSCs which in turn legally so whereas decisions by OSPARCOM are, de require the legislation-orientation dictated by the EU. facto, legally binding as long as they are translated into The latter then, under the process of subsidiarity, national enabling legislation. devolves the implementation to the regional and local At the administrative level, the EU and regional level. However, it is contended here that unless scientific agreements play a major role (Birnie, 1992; Ball and policy and programmes are also generated on a large Bell, 1995) although the future role of the EEA in

688


TABLE 2

Examples of changes in arrangements for protecting the North Sea: 1990-1997.

London Convention (1972) 1996 Protocol (London Convention 1996) Ban on sea dumping of radioactive waste: Amendment of the Annex (1993 for 25 years)

MARPOL (1973)/78) Generalisation of limit on oil discharges from ships: Amendment of Annex 1 (1993)

OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Enviromnent of the North-East Atlantic (to be ratified in 1997) Precautionary principle, Sustainable development, Best environmental practice... ASMO, annex on the Protection of Species and Habitats in non-territorial waters

International Conferences on the Protection of the North Sea INSC3 (1990) INSC4 (1995) Intermediate Ministerial Meeting on the Integration of Fisheries and Environmental Issues (1997)

EU Directives Regulation of hazardous chemicals: Plant Protection Products Directive (1991) Existing Substances Regulation (1993) Pesticides Authorisation Directive (1993) Classification, Packaging and Labelling of Dangerous Substances Directive (amended 1993) Measures against eutrophication: Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (1991) Nitrates Directive (1991) Microbiological water quality Health for the Production and Placing on the Market of Live Bivalve Molluscs Directive (1991) New basis .for Common Fisheries Policy: Common Fisheries Policy Regulation (1992) Protection of wildlife within territorial waters: Habitats Directive (1992) Natura 2000 (co-ordinated ecological network) (1995) Birds Directive (1992) Water Resources Framework (proposed)

European Environment Agency Created 1993

Regional agreements Management plans, ecological targets, red lists: Convention on the International Commission for the Protection of the Elbe (1990) Regional councils: North Sea Commission (Environment Group) (1992) Action plan: Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and the North Seas (1993)

International agreements on impacts of human activities other than pollution Convention on Biological Diversity (1993) 'Green Lungs' of Europe (1993)

promoting and using science remains to be defined. Protection of the Rhine against Chemical Pollution Broadus et al. (1993) suggests that the role of INSCs is (1976). Their nature and geographical coverage in- also 'incorporated into the new OSPAR Convention, creases their reliance on the environmental control thus providing the possibility for expanding their afforded by European legislation, principally the EU geographical scope and making their decisions legally Directives (see below). The final level, of non-legal binding'. Since OSPARCOM will also meet at minister- instruments and agreements, may be regarded as co- ial level every two years, it is questionable whether two ordinated, voluntary and for lobbying. Of these, the parallel organizations are needed. ICES, through its North Sea Commission, from the Conference of advisory committees, has also given scientifically sound Peripheral Maritime Regions, and KIMO (Kommu- advice on a number of environmental issues. Its advice nenes Internasjonale Miljo Organisasjon) were created on fisheries issues and on the protection of the by coastal regions and municipalities (Elliott and environment has been consistent with concepts such as Ducrotoy, 1994a). emission standards and the precautionary principle The funding of science is carried out within national (Portmann, 1991b). Other regional and water-body programmes or at best European level through specific conventions include the International Commis- programmes such as MAST (Marine Science and sion for the Protection of the Elbe (1990), the Rhine Technology) and LIFE/BioMar, although science is Action Programme (1987) and the Convention on the used at the international level (Table 3c). This may be

689


TABLE 3

Overlap and duplication of work between organisations involved in the management of the North Sea, in terms of (a) geographical coverage: North Sea framework - - geographical regime, (b) policy-making role (the shading indicates full binding power, the horizontal lines indicate influence on national policies), (c) use and funding of scientific research (the shading indicates full characteristic, the horizontal lines indicate partial fulfilment). (IMO: International Maritime Organisation; UNCLOS: United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea; UNCED: United Nations Conference on Environment and Development; OSPAR: Oslo and Paris Conventions; ICES: International Council for the Exploration of the Sea; INSCs: International Conferences on the Protection of the North Sea; NSTF/ASMO: North Sea Task Force/Environmental Assessment and Monitoring Committee; EEA: European Environment Agency; EU: European Union; NSComm.: North Sea Commission; KIMO: Kommunenes Internasjonale Miljo Organsasjon; Wadden SS: Common Secretariat for the Co-operation on the Protection of the Wadden Sea; Rhine CC: Rhine Chemicals

Convention; Elbe Conv.: Elbe Convention).

Table 3a

Global ~ ~ ~ IMO

UNCLOS " UNCED o s _

ICES INSCs

NSTF/ASMO

EEA

EU i NSComm. .

KIMO I Wadden SS Rhine CC

Elbe Cony.

Table 3b

I Framework Legal Non-Legal Instruments Instruments

UNCLOS

UNCED OSPAR

ICES

INSCs NSTF/ASMO

EEA 2

KIMO Wadden SS Rhine CC

Elbe Cony.

Table 3c

Funding..._.._ Recommend IMO

UNCLOS "// UNCED OSPAR

ICES INSCs

NSTF/ASMO

EU ~ SEA

NSComm. .

KIMO

Wadden SS

Rhine CC

Elbe Cony.

690


regarded as a predatory demand on science. In order to main spring in the system reinforcing the demand for a build on scientific advances and understanding, ICES regional approach. It is hoped that the disbanding of promotes and co-ordinates scientific research but only NSTF will not prevent further progress in this direction finances directly the collection and the processing of but it is regrettable that ICES will now act only as an scientific data; research programmes are not financed as adviser to the Commissions and will not financially nor such, only workshops. The North Sea states only scientifically fully support the work as it did for NSTF. contribute funds to support the administrative costs of INSC4 (1995, Esbjerg) recognized the North Sea as a the secretariat of regional commissions or sub-regional Special Area. In its Progress Report (Fourth Interna- agreements. They also finance monitoring activities with tional Conference on the Protection of the North Sea, the costs born individually at the domestic level, 1995), the Conferencepointed out thatallcountrieshad therefore any programme activity is carried out at achieved a good number of the targets set at INSC2 in national level and there is no scientific research financed 1987 to reduce inputs (see below). The INSC4 was internationally through this channel. International successful in its agreement on a far-reaching new monitoring programmes where they exist, e.g. ASMO, objective for the phasing out of hazardous substances. are in fact a juxtaposition of national programmes With other concerns, it was questioned whether (Ducrotoy et al., 1991). OSPARCOM had competence in the field of the

protection of species and habitats now that the NSTF

Recent Changes in Type of Status/Agreement had been disbanded (Ducrotoy, 1996a). It was agreed that an annex be attached to the 1992 OSPARCOM

It is considered here that 1997/8 should provide the Convention and that a strategy for taking action in non- watershed in the management of the North Sea and the territorial waters be integrated within the framework of requirements for science when the new convention, the EU Habitats Directive. Ministers also agreed to replacing both the Oslo and Paris Conventions which further integrate fisheries and environmental policies was finalized and opened for signature in Paris in 1992, and organize the Intermediate Ministerial Conference in will fully enter into force. Although the new Convention early 1997 (Schmidt-van Dorp, 1996). Following the for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Brent Spar debacle (Elliott, 1996a), OSPARCOM North-East Atlantic will cover that entire area, it will decided to adopt a moratorium on disposal of also have significant legal implications for the North decommissioned offshore installations at sea and a Sea states and the management of the North Sea final decision is expected to be taken at the 1997 (Nihoul, 1992). As a first consequence, the NSTF was Ministerial Meeting of the Commissions (Van de disbanded and some of its specific aspects incorporated Wetering, 1996). under the new convention in an Annex dealing with the Since INSC3 in 1990, the arrangements for protecting assessment and monitoring of the marine environment the North Sea has moved from the international to the of the zone considered to be co-ordinated by ASMO. regional level. Annex I to MARPOL 1073/78 was The new Paris Convention will give added emphasis to amended in 1993 in order that the limit on the oil the principles of Best Available Technologies and Best content of vessel discharges in special areas be made Environmental Practices, Polluter Pays Principle, and universal. The London Convention (1972) introduced a Sustainable Development (Oslo and Paris Commissions, formal ban on dumping of radioactive wastes at sea in 1993). 1993 (London Convention, 1996) but the EU has

It is considered that throughout its existence, the become the major force for harmonizing environmental NSTF operated as a stimulus to OSPARCOM to be legislation and control. The increasing size of the EU more scientific in its work. It is further suggested here leads to an increasing geographic and policy overlap that the rationale behind the new Paris Convention with OSPARCOM and INSC signatories; Norway is came from the initiatives taken by the North Sea states the only notable omission to the EU but even that in the framework of the NSTF toward a more country is adopting EU environmental legislation integrated approach at managing the marine ecosystems (Elliott and Ducrotoy, 1994b). The EU has promul- (Hoogweg et al., 1991; Ducrotoy, 1996b). This also gated a set of directives and regulations which will have reflects the impact of the recommendations of the UN a direct or indirect effect on the improvement of the Conference on the Environment and Development quality of the marine environment. The EU legislation (Earth Summit) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, particularly operates at the supranational level and encompasses those contained in Chapter 17 of Agenda 21. Despite Directives which control specific quality considerations such a globalization of the issues, including Earth (e.g. for the growth and harvesting of shellfish, and for Summit II in June 1997, the recent developments bathing water quality), as frameworks which set the following INSC4 and the new OSPARCOM, should basis for further control (e.g. the Dangerous Substances not hinder a regional approach as was promoted by Directive), which control specific processes (e.g. Urban NSTF. The regime of the North Sea has repeatedly been Waste Water Treatment Directive, Environmental shown as a model for other marine regions (Ducrotoy, Impact Assessment Directive, Titanium Dioxide Direc- 1992) and it is considered here that the NSTF was the tive), and more recently for wide quality assessments

691


(Water Resources Framework, proposed), the protec- I and II according to their potential for bioaccumulation of species and habitats, and the protection of wild tion, toxicity and persistence. Similarly, and demon- birds). In each of these, there is an overlap between the strating the overlap, the original OSPARCOM also EU, OSPARCOM and INSCs and, to a lesser extent, employed Grey and Black Lists of chemical substances ICES and the International Maritime Organisation designated according to their characteristics of persis- (IMP). Each of these pieces of legislation demands a tence, toxicity and ability to bioaccumulate. The new large scientific support although co-ordinated research OSPAR Convention aims to adopt a uniform regime for and monitoring is still not guaranteed, all the substances presently covered by the Black and

Grey Lists.

Examples of Possible Duplication Emission and quality standards have been addressed separately by OSPARCOM and INSC2 (1987). The use

The increasing administrative and legislative basis in of the term Best Available Technology was addressed by the North Sea has created greater likelihood for INSC3 in 1990 in response to the global liability duplication of scientific responsibility between several instruments set up by IMP (Broadus et al., 1993). In tiers or organizations within international co-operation, addition, at a sub-regional level, the Rhine example The degree of overlap and thus potential for confusion shows direct duplication with the above. The Annexes can be illustrated here by using two precise stressors to the Rhine Action Programme also list priority (harmful introduced substances and organic enrichment substances, other substances and parameters while the leading to eutrophication) and two cases of widespread Annexes to the Rhine Chemicals Convention give change (marine environmental impact assessments and emission standards and regulations for the reduction the protection of species and habitats), of the discharge of dangerous substances. It is of note,

however, that on the other hand, the Elbe Commission In t roduced harmfu l s u b s t a n c e s - - c o n t r o l and assessment Convention has no technical annexes (Broadus et al., • The pollution approach and the identification of 1993). priorities. There is a large overlap between the • Underlying philosophy of the precautionary princi- organizations and mechanisms (Table 4). For example, pie. There has been a similar duplication of effort INSC4 in 1995 considered that inputs had been reduced between OSPARCOM (which adopted the Principle of from the INSC2-set baseline of 1985: the 50% inputs via Precautionary Action in 1989) and INSC3 (1990) water and air for 36 Red List substances and 70% for regarding the precautionary principle and the waste the Hg, Cd, Pb and dioxins. However, no states reduced minimization approach (Hayward, 1990). The presump- nitrates by 50% despite most achieving this for tion of effect unless categorically proven not to occur, in phosphorus. The new OSPAR Convention also uses turn leading to a zero discharge philosophy, has been timetables which differ according to regional ecological adopted widely by all of the above tiers of regulation. It or economic conditions. It is of note that these is considered here that this should not be termed reductions had not been met in many countries by environmental management but rather 'environmental 1995 although it is considered that the goals were not self-management' as it is based on in-plant technology sufficiently specific. In addition, the poor quality of the (thus a technological solution rather than an environ- available data for 1985 made it difficult to determine mental science solution). While such a practice is whether the targets had been reached, relatively easy for point-source discharges, this is less

The EU Dangerous Substances Directive, as a means so for diffuse ones. The movement to such a proposed of determining priorities, categorized substances as List ecological solution (i.e. to stop discharges unless there is

TABLE 4

Introduced harmful substances -- control and assessment in the North Sea: duplication of responsibility?

Global/International Regional Supranational

UNCLOS OSPAR EU Directives, etc. UNCED INSC4 IMO/MARPOL Framework and agreement; framework and agreement; collation of precise statutes (e.g. TIP2, Shellfish Growing and Harvest); contracting parties data, preparation of QSR; recommendations frameworks (e.g. Dangerous Substances); process control

for research/monitoring (e.g. UWWTD, EIA); wide-ranging (e.g. Ecological Quality--Proposed Directive)

Grey, Black and Red lists; Nutrients, List I and II; Nitrates Directive and UWWTD eutrophication

IMP: International Maritime Organisation; QSR: Quality Status Reports; UWWTD: Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, EIA: Environmental Impact Assessment; other acronyms given in Table 3.

692


conclusive proof of no harm)is understandably the keeping an open mind to solving environmental result of the imprecise nature of the science of effects' problems (Elliott, 1996a). determination coupled with the large inherent varia- It is argued here for an integrated, holistic approach bility of the system and the difficulty of detecting a to understanding the effects of materials discharged signal (the change due to human activities) against such into the environment in relation to environmental a variable background ('noise'). Whilst it is relatively health/quality but this is against a background of easy for any manager to act (or sanction expenditure) imperfect, or poorly funded, science. It requires a when shown a large scale and easily detected change in well-detailed knowledge of links between cause and the ecosystem, such as the death or migration of natural effect and thus the scientific confidence to allow the elements of the fauna, s/he may be unwilling to commit release of certain materials without undue environ- resources against a lower signal of effect, less than mental degradation, especially a knowledge of the fate ecosystem changesforinstance, or when s/he encounters of contaminants in the near and far field, the difficulties in detecting a 'signal' above background identification of persistence, toxicity and bioaccumula- 'noise' (Tasker and Pienkowski, 1987). tion potential. However, there should be a presumption

The Environmental Quality Objectives/Standards of effect unless conclusively proven otherwise and thus (EQO/EQS) approach and Ecological Quality Stan- the benefit of the doubt is given to the environment. The dards/Objectives (EcoQS/EcoQO) approach have been approach requires confidence in data and thus it relies used to a lesser or greater extent within the UK on an adequacy of measurement and AQC/QA (Boehmer-Christiansen, 1990; Elliott, 1996b). Quality (Analytical Quality Control and Quality Assurance) standards and emission standards are used in control (Elliott, 1993; Wells and Balls, 1994). The biological strategies and especially in compliance testing. Monitor- techniques should be geared to the detection of early ing against a numerical standard is relatively straight- warning although it is recognized that many relatively forward although the ease of deriving such standards new biological techniques have not been sufficiently field and their relevance are questionable. They are used in or laboratory validated in order to detect such changes. environmental planning for setting concentration values The detection of sub-lethal changes is in contrast to the to be enforced legally after allowing for initial and widespread reliance on changes to community biology acceptable dilution around the discharge points, as an indication of environmental health (Comphuysen However, the method by which they are determined is and Franeker, 1992; Elliott, 1993), yet such latter not reliable (Gray, 1995). In many cases they are change will continue to be the mainstay of health derived using imperfect or even invalid toxicity testing, assessment. There is the continued requirement for Gray (1995) further emphasizes that standards as fundamental research and surveillance, the latter being guidelines are useful but they do not provide a logical the detection and quantification of spatial and temporal scientific framework for the protection and the manage- trends to give a background against which change is ment of the marine environment, measured. • The ecosystemic approach. The ecosystemic approach • Solving of problems relating to inputs. There quite was recommended by the NSTF (NSTF, 1994) and was naturally should be a movement towards technological considered as the ultimate quality assessment. It puts solutions, whereby waste minimization schemes are emphasis on the links between inputs and concentra- linked to Environmental Management Systems, rather tions and their effects on biological systems. It dictates than environmental solutions (building treatment works the need for monitoring and surveillance and where geared to the perceived problem). However, there is a possible leads to the derivation of ecological standards large discrepancy between the data most often produced and objectives (at various biological levels); furthermore and that which may be required for the pollution it treats the environment as a resource to be managed, prevention approach. For example, the data usually and recognizes as a legitimate approach that it has an produced by environmental assessment bodies concerns assimilative capacity (Boehmer-Christiansen, 1990). It is macrobiota community structure and chemical and considered here that this is a wise use of the water quality determinands. However, data are also environment as long as there is adequate feedback required for other components and for the functioning monitoring whereby an activity may be curtailed if the of systems. The information produced should be based expert opinion of environmental scientists indicates on the links between the desired objectives (e.g. EQO) unacceptable change (Gray, 1995). Such an 'end of and the monitoring standards (e.g. EQS). For example, pipe solution' involves indirect production management if an objective is to ensure migratory fishes pass through and should include effects of both direct and diffuse an estuary then the standards being monitored need to inputs. However, there is also the need to consider all relate to the fishes' environmental tolerances. However, options equally in the control of activities. For example, if the latter are not known then the appropriate the requirement to carry out BPEO (Best Practical standards cannot be derived and the biological Environmental Option) analyses for the disposal of monitoring becomes less focused. Following this, if disused marine platforms but without including con- the standards are not met then discharges need to be sideration of sea-disposal may be regarded as not reduced, but if the standards are met but the objectives

693


not then the strategy requires revising. The basic There is the need to establish natural trends and premise here is that a good and well-understood variability against a global background of human relationship is required between any standards set and impacts and thus the surveillance of baseline environ- objectives met. mental conditions is required, not only monitoring of

This approach has inherent problems due to the activities that may have adverse effects (Gray, 1995). inadequacies of environmental standards and the fact There is the continuing need for an accurate identifica- that it is relatively easy to set and monitor for chemical tion of sources, both industrial and agricultural, and of standards but not biological ones (Elliott, 1996b). the pathways and interactions leading to effects on Ecological quality standards and statutory standards ecosystems. Science thus has a role in devising and objectives are not yet set and tentative benthic EQS technologies for the control of production, treatment (MAFF, 1993) have been produced for a specific case before discharge and the clean up of pollution. (organic enrichment) but are not yet used formally. In Following from the above, the financial costs many cases, the objectives/standards links are set producing environmental benefits, where the latter are according to laboratory toxicity testing which may not identified through scientific monitoring, are required be translatable to the field. There is often an over- although such an estimation has rarely been done. reliance on chemical monitoring and a background of Merely as an example and illustration, although not the poor links between chemical contamination and North Sea, information has been generated for the biological effects (Gray, 1995). The data required in Mersey Estuary in north-west England. Since 1980, the any permitting and compliance strategy include the estuary's catchment has been subject to high capital components of effluent and the uses and users of the schemes with the aim of improving quality (NRA, receiving environment (the EQO/EQS approach). The 1995). Calculations suggest that £71.4 million have been information produced includes actual/potential damage spent per species of fish returnirig to the estuary, or

and compliance with any Uniform Emission Standards £21.7 million per 1% increase in the water DO (UES). concentration, or £773 million to get the DO levels

The above approach is of value in quantifying point back to supporting estuarine fish, or £40 million for source inputs but not the more intractable diffuse ones each 0.1 mg kg-~ (wet weight) reduction in Hg in (aerial, land-runoff). There may also be a discrepancy mussels, or £100 million per 0.1 mg kg - l reduction in between what is in the effluent and what is measurable/ sediment Hg contamination. Surprisingly, there is no 'consentable', in particular, the production of materials explicit attention to these matters in international fora within the discharge pipe and the allowance for dealing with the protection of the North Sea. synergistic and antagonistic effects between the compo- There is the fundamental need in the North Sea for nents of the discharge. As an example, a coastal power applications of known techniques, to give the duration plant cooling-water discharge may be licensed for and spatial extent of impact of polluting inputs suspended solids and temperature but may also include (Keegan, 1992) and the overarching aim in environ- the derivatives produced by chlorination during anti- mental control is the protection of the health of the fouling treatment (Jenner e t al . , 1997). Similarly, a system. This requires an identification of ecosystem complex chemical plant may be licensed for simple components, the food-chains and food-webs, the organic determinands and metals but also will include detection of bioaccumulation and biomagnification many other identified compounds, and the setting of ecological and environmental quality

Despite the overall aim to maintain and protect the objectives and, where possible and desirable, standards health of the system, consent levels are based on a (Elliott, 1996a). chemical rationale whereby a literature assessment is carried out of the toxicity of single compounds, using E u t r o p h i c a t i o n

single (often non-indigenous) species which may even be For certain controls, there is duplication in which the unsuitable to the receiving area. LCso and LTs0 may be overlap produces confusion at best and obfuscation at calculated from tests but these are unlikely to have worst. For example, in attempting to prevent hyper- confidence limits. The solution to such problems is the nutrification and eutrophication in coastal waters, there move to multi-compound, multi-variable and multi- are several administrative and legislative controls. The species toxicity testing and the need for Direct Toxicity EU Directive on Urban Waste Water Treatment details Assessment (of whole effluents) to allow for synergistic the degree of treatment according to the nature of the and antagonistic effects. At present, the repercussions of receiving waters and the size of the contributing discharge are then determined by environmental, population. It gives a timetable for control although chemical and biological monitoring. In essence, the the exter/t of treatment may still differ between coastal only features to be included in the compliance states. The Directive on controlling Nitrate from monitoring are those which are measurable and which Agriculture concentrates on diffuse sources, a greater stand up in legal proceedings and, unfortunately, problem for control than point source inputs. In techniques are such that there is a delay by some addition, Regulation 2078/92 on Agro-Environmental states in using DTA in licence setting. Measures gives a source-oriented approach and Regula-

694


tion 1765/92 on Set-Aside Schemes gives policies for interpret the biological structure and functioning when rural development. In addition to the EU, INSC4 called the biology-environment links are poorly or not for the reduction of ammonia emissions (livestock understood. The marine system is by its nature complex production) and that the Best Available Technology and multi-factor variable and as such any predictions of should be used to ensure reduction. In parallel, the UN- change require to be couched in cautious terms and with ECE Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air qualifying comments. Despite this, there is the demand Pollution aims at the reduction of emissions, amongst by managers for an over-simplification of descriptions others, of nitrogen oxides. Finally, the Working Group of the marine system (the reductionist approach) and an on Nutrients of OSPARCOM (Oslo and Paris Commis- intolerance when environmentalists cannot give precise sions, 1992) has produced Recommendation 89/4 on a answers. It is contended here that all scientists and most Co-ordinated Programme for the Reduction of Nu- educated observers are aware of the large scale spatial trients to the Paris Convention Area, and Recommen- and temporal variability in any component (physical, dation 92/7 where the inputs are likely, directly or biological or chemical) but that variability appears to be indirectly, to cause pollution. Both recommendations ignored by decision makers. Secondly, the poor funding involve reduction targets and a time-table to reach them of environmental assessments is often insufficient to with emphasis on agriculture and more recently on provide a realistic assessment of complex spatial and transport (for nitrogen oxides), temporal components; it is questionable that the 1-3°,/o

In tandem with the above regulatory approaches, the (maximum) of the funding of capital projects used for scientific approach has attempted to determine the the environmental aspects is sufficient. A complete causes and consequences of excessive nutrients, e.g. as spatial and temporal assessment of effect requires shown in the Quality Status Report of the North Sea adequate funding although it is arguable that further (North Sea Task Force, 1994) and the Report on data may merely better indicate the complexity of the Eutrophication Symptoms and Problem Areas (Oslo system. Thirdly, there is the widely recognized desire to and Paris Commissions, 1995). While fully quantified use sub-lethal information coupled with the pressure on/ data giving the precise loadings of nutrients and by scientists to determine early warning signs. However, hydrodynamic regime of an estuarine/coastal area are the contradiction here is an unwillingness of politicians/ often not available, there is a good conceptual under- managers to act based only on these, i.e. there is the standing of the consequences of high nutrients, and the demand for the scientists to demonstrate greater symptoms of eutrophication (algal mats, toxic or changes. In short, the debate is whether companies noxious blooms, benthic changes, etc.) are relatively responsible for the discharge of materials or the easy to identify. The efforts by the NSTF to incorporate construction of plant would be willing to spend large such parameters in the MMP should be further amounts of money on treatment or alternative developed and the results of monitoring used more technologies and structures when the evidence for efficiently, actual or predicted change is tenuous. The benefit of

doubt has to be given to the environment but the role of Marine environmental impact assessment, monitoring and science continually is/should be questioned. Scientific surveillance, evidence for one option may be obtained but decisions

While the control of harmful persistent pollutants and may still be taken on the gut reactions of political/ over-enrichment (from sewage, at least) is relatively pressure groups, as was shown by the Brent Spar debate straightforward, few areas are subject only to these (Elliott, 1996a). stressors and thus they require a more comprehensive The derivation of legislation and the accompanying science and management. Environ-mental Impact monitoring can be criticised for requiring simplistic Assessments (EIA) are now required almost worldwide science. For example, the monitoring required for the and within the North Sea area against a background of EU Bathing Beach Directive relies heavily on faecal the EU EIA Directive. Monitoring is usually recom- coliforms when other actual and potential pathogens mended in order to check the predictions made by EIA. (e.g. certain viruses) may be of greater concern but are However, post-activity audits to determine whether the not measured routinely because of the difficulties in EIA was correct/accurate in predicting the environ- monitoring. The relevance of monitoring parameters mental consequences are rarely carried out. can be questioned as shown, for example, where the

In its classical form the EIA shows several features, control of pollution is reliant on monitoring as well as a some of which are weaknesses. Firstly, EIA are usually background surveillance, to observe changes in baseline and by necessity centred on biological (natural or environmental conditions, ambient water-sediment- human) health and thus they may be focused on biota quality and monitoring of emissions. Given the obtaining biological data although this requires to be extensive studies covering most of this century, the translated into information (Elliott and de Jonge, 1996). conceptual framework of human impact is well known However, this may be against a background of but quantitative information is required. There is imperfect knowledge of the physical and chemical adequate conceptual knowledge of uptake and of the characteristics and it is impossible to understand and behaviour of chemical contaminants both within the

695


TABLE 5 Protection of marine species and habitats (instruments and science required): duplication or complementary? (Acronyms as given in Table 3).

Regional Agreements EU/EEA International Agreements OSPAR (ICES) INSCs

Conservation of Small Common Fisheries Policy; Bern Convention; Bonn NSTF - - Regional Task Recommendation to EU Cetaceans; Trilateral Wild Birds Dir.; Habitats Agreement; Ramsar Team ( R T T s ) Recommendation to/from Wadden Sea Co-operation Dir.; Environmental Convention; UNCED OSPAR

Sensitive Areas; Natura 2000

management and action basis for fishing yields identification and information on impacts classification system of plans, ecological targets, (justification for policy), protection of species; other than pollution habitats; co-ordination Red List (species and designation of a reas , protection of isolated within and outside biotopes); scientific identification of habitats, habitats territorial waters; need for knowledge (justification for GIS, habitat evaluation, management proposals) ecological objectives

environment and within the organisms but to determine which should have been held in early 1997 but has been and predict the extent of the human impacts on an postponed. The need to integrate the two regimes ecosystem requires quantitative links between cause and clearly exists because the framework for taking action effects, already exists for territorial waters but not outside

them; however, but it is felt that rather than adding a Protection of marine habitats and species, including new tier of organization it would have seemed more fisheries, effective to extend the remit of the EU Habitat

There is an increasing degree of legislation and Directive. protection for species and habitats (Table 5), a source Habitat protection and restoration, perhaps more of procrastination because scientific findings are not than other marine issues, requires consultation to be often correctly translated to management. INSC4 made carried out at all levels of participation. This means that a clear recommendation to the EEA to propose a data should be robust and used in an integrated and classification system of habitats valid for all European consistent manner. Several managerial tools exist to coasts. Work has been initiated in order to combine protect wildlife within territorial waters, e.g. manage- existing systems such as the European CORINE ment and action plans, ecological targets, Red List system and, for instance, the French Z N I E F F (Zones (species and biotopes), but scientific knowledge is Naturelles d'Int~r~t Ecologique Faunistique et Floris- generally just used as a justification for management tique) classification in compatibility with the Habitats proposals. The scale of management, in requiring data Directive system aiming at identifying needs for for large areas, further adds difficulties to scientific protection (GESAMP, 1991). The U K Marine Nature assessment. Conservation designations appear to be Conservation Review (MNCR) is now proposing a readily created, often with overlap, but redundant or classification system which will be instrumental to the superseded designations are not removed thus further nomination and management of Special Protection causing confusion. For example, the chalk cliff area at Areas (SPAs) and Special Areas of Conservation Flamborough Head, on the Yorkshire Coast, England, (SACs) in the framework of Natura 2000 (Connor et has Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), SAC, SPA, al., 1995). Heritage Coast and Sensitive Marine Area designations.

A classification system should underpin management Whilst some of these concentrate on birds, others are and conservation of ecosystems within a scientific for the general protection of wildlife and conservation framework and should address the problem of co- interests and could be rationalized. ordinating protection within and outside territorial Robust data-sets are further required for taking waters (Doody, 1992). For example, GIS-based classi- specific conservation measures, necessary for the fications, habitat evaluation and ecological quality protection of biodiversity, ecologically important or objectives, are required from the upper-shore to the key species and their habitats. In 1991, the NSTF continental shelf (200 m). But, it is still unclear which considered providing the contracting parties with international body would have competence for that in appropriate reporting system and procedures for the North Sea. At the present time, OSPARCOM has biological disturbances to the North Sea (Ducrotoy et no competence in the field of the protection of species al., 1991). It faced problems finding relevant sources of and habitats whereas the EU has full competencies but data and defining evaluation methods. The NSTF only in coastal waters. Therefore, a new Annex to the showed it is necessary to take an integrated view of OSPAR Convention has been proposed in order to also the action needed for species and habitat protection. An cover the EEZ and it is the intention to adopt a new text international approach is still required to collect at the next ministerial meeting of the Commissions information and to develop criteria, to identify and

696


map species and habitats and to further consider the intertidal and island habitats in the Wadden Sea but, development of EcoQOs (Elliott, 1996b). Overall, it is unfortunately, this remains rather unique in Europe. necessary to question the basis and (apparent) rationale The NSTF could have evolved in providing a in conservation designation and in this way determine comparable framework at a larger scale but has now the science required. Many schemes concentrate on disappeared. rarity and structure rather than on functioning of ecosystems. The data required for designation are the features of the communities, habitats, biotopes and life- Matching Research and Public Policy forms. The data produced by conservation bodies includes the species presence, the abundance on a The NSTF early on recognized the lack of research spatial basis but usually at a point in time, thus giving underlying the development, implementation and rise to wide-scale and often superficial surveys. This assessment of policies and programmes. Some co- produces information on the presence of communities ordination of research may be by ICES at the level of and rare and endangered species. It is considered here the Northern Atlantic but the NSTF felt that specific that, more importantly, information should be required tools were needed for the North Sea. In the absence of on the importance of biotopes, the functioning of other willing bodies, the NSTF undertook several systems and the determination of conservation resource activities of co-ordination (Ducrotoy et al., 1991). Co- including species (Doody, 1992). Within this is the ordination was needed to select mathematical models fundamental problem of designating areas according to which could be applied to the distribution and rare and fragile species which may be at the edge of their circulation of contaminants through the North Sea, distribution, outside optimal conditions and under considered as a whole (the holistic approach), and at the naturally stressed conditions, sub-regional level (NSTF, 1992). An inventory of

The control of fisheries is regarded as a special case models followed by testing of selected models indicated within the overall protection (and use) of species and concentrations to be expected when reduction measures habitats. Scientific knowledge remains at the basis for for inputs of nutrients and metals are implemented deciding fishing yields, but with the bargaining taking (NSTF, 1992; Oslo and Paris Commissions, 1992). In place at political level, it more or less just provides order to promote the dissemination of scientific justification for policy. The policies relating to control information about current research, the NSTF estab- of North Sea fisheries are also a good example of lished the North Sea Research Data Base which listed overlap and thus confusion. The EU through the several hundreds of scientific projects while the North Common Fisheries Policy, and INSCs and ICES all Sea Bibliography included thousands of scientific are involved but, as is expected, the science required by references (Ducrotoy, 1996b). The NSTF considered all comes from the same source: the member states' that the co-ordination of field studies required an fisheries scientists. Despite this, different aspects improved collection of input data, an agreement on required for control are emphasized by the different assessment criteria and the detection of additional bodies. In order to act as a focus, in 1992, the NSTF substances. However, at the present time, cost-effective established within ICES the Study Group on the tools are still required in order to evaluate the effects of Ecosystem Effects of Fishing Activities and also chemicals on marine organisms and habitats. A good promoted the idea of protected areas in the North Sea example of how the NSTF tackled the co-ordination of for scientific research. As an extension, it is considered field studies is the study of the effects of tributyltin here that with a comprehensive and scientific case for (TBT) on gastropods at coastal sites around the North species and habitat protection, separate fisheries Sea (Harding et al., 1992). This is the very type of protection policies would not be required even if the programme which should be developed and co- action to be taken on fisheries and biodiversity ordinated by ASMO in the future. The NSTF also protection is still unclear, emphasized the need to maintain long-term data series

It is now acknowledged that the impact of fisheries is (long-term ecological research) such as the information a key topic but there are no plans for action regarding, on benthos collected by the former EC COST 647 for instance, tourism or coastal protection. It is urgent programme (Keegan, 1992), the Continuous Plankton that undisturbed areas for fish are set up and that a Recorder, and the Helgoland time-series on climate, sea programme based on biological monitoring be estab- level and pollution parameters (Ducrotoy, 1997). Also it lished (Gray, 1995). The defining of changes prior to was acknowledged that it would be valuable to develop management action being taken requires discussion and in si tu instrumentation for future monitoring of long- management tools are required to co-ordinate those at term changes (Elliott and Ducrotoy, 1991). It is international level. For instance the Wadden Sea has an emphasized here that these research areas should be international management plan for the Co-operation on quickly re-developed through ASMO or any other the Protection of the Wadden Sea between the Nether- international body or any past gains will be lost. lands, Germany and Denmark. It is administered by a It is necessary to question why it was sometimes Secretariat which has done much for the protection of difficult for the NSTF to translate research into better

697


and more lasting policies and programmes. It may be Incorporate economics in new surveys incorporating that marine ecology is a young science and that resource energy, materials, ecological processing cycles and constraints to research on Large Marine Ecosystems ecological value impose some concentration in funding costly and short- Economics should integrate ecological values, in- term projects to the detriment to long-term surveillance novative uses of resources and socio-cultural contexts monitoring. Moreover, while there are constraints in and updates of existing QSRs should be prepared in mobilizing integrated research programmes, political terms of eco-development requirements. The recent difficulties exist in creating international research willingness of ecologists to consider the economic programmes. In this, it is both of note but worrying value of habitats is important (Constanza et al., 1997). that the Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS) sets Research and education new regulations which limit the practice of scientific Ecological research needs to be promoted in research into coastal areas, in the EEZ and the con- particular on coastal systems and fluxes, biodiversity, tinental shelf, by reducing the choice of methods to be processes at LME (Large Marine Ecosystems) level for used, the areas to be investigated and general conditions which networks are better than centres of excellence. in which the research is to be conducted (Birnie, 1995). The need for specialists in conservation biology, There may have been the same approach to the work of taxonomy and geomorphology as well as for multi- the NSTF and politicians may have perceived that it disciplinary environmental managers should be recog- went too far in its scientific assessment. Nevertheless, nized and higher education curricula should be adapted the role played by the scientific community was vital to this new requirement. and the NSTF was successful in providing a link Dissemination of scientific information between scientists, administrators and policy-makers. The availability and the dissemination of scientific

Through the short life of the NSTF, the technological information to all interested parties (politicians, public, perspective, whereby discharges are permitted up to NGOs) is essential in helping all parties to be emission standards, and therefore pollution oriented, constructively involved in the decision-making pro- was replaced by the precautionary approach, where cesses. It is important that scientists not only provide research problems were diagnosed in terms of the the information required but also take part in the requirements for policy-making, not with a view to debate using that information. facilitate pure research (Ducrotoy, 1996b). As empha-

sized earlier (Elliott and Ducrotoy, 1991) there is a Summary and Conclusions strong need to make research more relevant to long- term policy and to make policy-making more sensitive The discussion here, from the viewpoint of scientists to research findings. Pure research and surveillance/ rather than lawyers and politicians, has produced monitoring have to be carried out in harmony although requirements for a more integrated and confident use even by 1996, the earlier Monitoring Master Plan was of science in the environmental management of the still waiting to be replaced by an effective international North Sea (Table 6). The OSPAR Conventions are programme. From the above, it becomes clear that there central to the co-operation on the protection of the is still a strong need for a replacement of the NSTF in marine environment in the North Sea (Nihoul, 1992). order to carry out the following tasks: They act as an interface between the periodic ministerial

Monitoring plan for assessing changes in time meetings of the INSCs and several regional and sub- An important aspect of the NSTF activity was related regional agreements but the success of the INSCs

to quality assurance of the data provided in the depends on the extent to which the EU and these framework of international monitoring programmes, bodies act on its recommendations (Pallemaerts, 1992 in The recently launched EU QUASIMEME programme Broadus et al., 1993). It is possible and perhaps is a guarantee that future data will be standardized and desirable that the new OSPARCOM should replace more easily comparable (Wells and Balls, 1994). the INSCs and that sub-regional agreements should be Nevertheless, a continuation to the Monitoring Master generalized or made redundant. In addition, as INSC4 Plan is required urgently to provide long-term data developed themes in earlier INSCs but with a greater series to give an understanding of environmental emphasis on the protection of habitats and species, changes over time. including fisheries, there is an increasing overlap with

Lead laboratory principle for assessing biological ICES. However, the increasing role and extent of the effects EU, and its European Environment Agency, may

The monitoring of biological effects was one of the eventually encompass all of these bodies. strong points found under the Monitoring Master Plan Fundamental research on the marine environment, (Portmann, 1991a) although geographical coverage of applicable to the North Sea, receives some funding but the techniques was incomplete. A complete set of there is a lack of funding for applications, monitoring parameters at several levels of biological organization and surveillance of ecosystems. The demand by science should now be agreed and monitored from cellular to policy makers for short-term and near-market research ecosystem at the North Sea scale (Lewis, 1996). precludes monitoring and surveillance. Proposals for

698


TABLE 6

Proposed improvements for the use of scientific information in the management of the North Sea.

(i) Background concentrations of natural compounds to put POLLUTING CONCENTRATIONS AND BODY BURDENS into context. (ii) The development and application of TECHNIQUES FOR BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS for demonstrating cause and effect. (iii) A greater emphasis on the FUNCTIONAL APPROACH as well as structural aspects in assessing ecosystems. (iv) A MONITORING PLAN to determine WIDESPREAD spatial and LONG-TERM temporal changes in order to quantify human impacts

and to determine the efficacy o f industrial and political actions taken. (v) Science to produce relevant TOOLS FOR POLICY MAKERS---modelling, ecological quality objectives, protection of species and habitats. (vi) Greater QUALITY CONTROL in chemical and biological information, assessments and analyses. (vii) To make research more relevant to LONG-TERM POLICY, and to make policy-making more sensitive to RESEARCH FINDINGS. (viii) Scientific information to be made UNDERSTANDABLE AND DISSEMINATED but society (including scientists as well as politicians,

public and non-governmental organisations) to make decisions. (ix) POLITICAL (AND FINANCIAL) COMMITMENT to the creation and updating of quality status reports. (x) Economics to incorporate ECOLOGICAL COSTS AND VALUES within consideration of the use of energy, materials and natural

resources. (xi) ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION at all levels to be based on direct research of the system. (xii) INTERNATIONAL LAW to facilitate scientific research not prevent it.

large scale remote surveillance will indicate some research into coastal areas in limiting the freedom of the physical characteristics but not the health or status of scientists and putting extra administrative constraints the biological systems (Joint and Pomroy, 1992); large on them. scale is easily surveyed from a satellite (temperature, Despite this, all relevant conventions, f rom the suspended matter, chlorophyll for instance) but this regional to the global level, require extensive research approach will yield no information on the status of into ecosystem functioning, the assimilative and biological systems, a main issue identified by the NSTF carrying capacity of the marine environment and the and there are problems with expensive automated protection and restoration of species and habitats. Pure remote techniques. There is a need for broadening the knowledge and further action is required to better apply use of the ecosystemic approach in order to understand the precautionary principle to pollution problems and impacts including the efficacy of measures taken. Many the precautionary approach especially to fisheries documents conclude that sub-lethal effects should be management. assessed and the precautionary principle used, but large Costs to improve the quality of the marine scale and thus superficial programmes would only detect environment are very high which is why the transfer catastrophic changes. Despite this conclusion, it is still of scientific knowledge should come in advance of any unlikely that industry and governments are willing to technological developments. The collective approach to act on early warning and sublethal biological effects, coastal pollution is able to reduce the overall costs of Finally, there has been some recent co-ordination and protecting the environment, including not only research standardization in assessment programmes but the but also the dissemination of the scientific information. timing, nature and content of these can be questioned. As shown by Broadus et al. (1993), in their comparison

This discussion has demonstrated that all of the of regional international programmes to control land- North Sea organizations rely on a good scientific base based marine pollution, 'all programmes fail to take full but only some of them promote science and very few advantage of one of the chief sources of benefit (and have the capability and/or the will to fund it. It could be efficiency) offered by collective action'. This is particu- seen that difficulties exist in accepting common goals at larly true in the scientific field. political level. Due to the multiplicity of formal and legal instruments which now exist, it has become An earlier and shorter version of this paper was presented at the difficult for the governments and the EU to prioritize Estuarine and Coastal Sciences Association symposium, Dublin 1995. and avoid duplication. The fragmentation of responsi- The authors gratefully acknowledge the valuable discussions of

colleagues in the UK and worldwide. bilities relating to the Nor th Sea requires a single body to co-ordinate activities and avoid duplication as was done by the now defunct NSTF. Hence the argument Ball, S. and Bell, S. (1995) Environmental Law, 3rd edn. Blackstone,

London. for such a body to match a single policy-making body. Bennett, G. (1989) The international control of land-based discharges It is considered desirable that ASMO should build on to the North Sea: a policy review. In Distress Signals: Signals.from the foundation created by the NSTF and the brief given the Environment in Policy and Decision Making, Proceedings of the

Third North Sea Seminar, lYerkgroep Nordzee, Amsterdam, pp. 55- to it by INSC3 to co-ordinate research. ASMO could 59. take up where the N S T F stopped but not just assessing Birnie, P. (1992) Comparative evaluation in managing conflicts: the quality of the marine environment, but to be more lessons from the North Sea experience. In Ocean Management and involved in research. It is regretted that the implementa- Global Change, ed. P. Fabbri, pp. 308-324. Elsevier.

Birnie, P. (1995) Law of the sea and ocean resources: implications for tion of new global instruments like the U N C L O S may marine scientific research. International Journal of Marine and bring in new difficulties in the practice of scientific Coastal Law 10(2), 229-251.

699


Boehmer-Christiansen, S. (1990) Environmental quality objectives Synopsis. Contract PECD7/8/214. Scottish Fisheries Working Paper versus uniform emission standards. International Journal of No. 17/92. SOAEFD Marine Laboratory, Aberdeen. Estuarine and Coastal Law 5, 139-149. Hayward, P. (1990) The Oslo and Paris Commissions. International

Broadus, J. M., Demish, S., Gjerge, K., Haas, P., Kaoru, Y., Peet, G., Journal of Estuarine and Coastal Law 5, 91-100. Repetto, S. and Roginko, A. (1993) Comparative Assessment of Hoogweg, P., Ducrotoy, J-P and van de Wetering, B. (1991) The Regional International Programs to Control Land-based Marine North Sea Task Force: the first two years. Marine Pollution Bulletin, Pollution: the Baltic, North Sea, and Mediterranean. Woods Hole 22(7), 328-330. Oceanographic Institution, Massachusetts. ICONA (International Co-ordinating Committee for North Sea

Comphuysen, C. J. and Franeker, J. A. (1992) The value of beached Affairs) (1992) North Sea Atlas .for Netherlands Policy and bird surveys in monitoring marine oil pollution. Technisch rapport Management. Stadsuitgeverij, Amsterdam. Vogelbescherming, Zeist, The Netherlands. Ijlstra, T. (1990) The Third International Conferences for the

Connor, D. W., Hiscock, K., Foster-Smith, R. L. and Covey, R. Protection of the North Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin 21(5), 223- (1995) A classification system for benthic marine biotopes. In 226. Biology and Ecology o f Shallow Coastal Waters, eds A. Eleftheriou, Jenner, H. A., Taylor, C. J. L., van Donk, M. and Khalanski, M. A. D. Ansell and C. J. Smith, pp. 155-166. Olsen and Olsen, (1997) Chlorination byproducts in chlorinated cooling waters of Fredensborg. some European coastal power stations. Marine Environmental

Constanza, R. et al. (1997) The value of the world's ecosystem services Research 43, 279-294. and natural capital. Nature, London 387, 253-260. Joint, I. and Pomroy, A. (1992) Phytoplankton Biomass and Production

Doody, J. P. (1992) Coastal zone conservation. In Marine Nature in the North Sea. Natural Environmental Research Council, Conservation in England--Challenge and Prospects 5, eds K . A . Plymouth. Duncan, S. Kaznowska and D. D.'a Laffoley, pp. 3-11. English Keegan, B. F. (1992) Space and Time Series Data Analysis Within the Nature, Peterborough. COST 647 Project on Coastal Benthic Ecology. Environmental

Ducrotoy, J-P. The North Sea Task Force: a new approach to Research Programme of the Commission of the European assessing the quality of the North Sea. Ocean Challenge 3(1), 32-35. Communities, Report EUR 13978 EN.

Ducrotoy, J-P (1996a) What Science is Needed to Better Manage the Kiinitzer, A., Basford, D., Craeymeersch, J. A., Dewarumez, J-M., Marine Environment? Lessons Learned from the North Sea Task Dorjes, J., Duineveld, G. C. A., Eleftheriou, A., Heip, C., Herman, Force. The Marine Forum Reports, CERCI, University College P., Kingston, P., Niermann, U., Rachor, E., Rumohr, H. and de Scarborough, 4, 4-14. Wilde, P. A. J. (1992) The benthic infauna of the North Sea: species

Ducrotoy, J-P (1996b) Scientific Management in Europe: The Case of distribution and assemblages. ICES Journal of Marine Science 49(2), the North Sea. In Saving the Seas: Values, Scientists and 127-144. International Governance, eds L. A. Brooks and S. D. van Deveer, Laane, R. W. P. M. (1992) Background Concentrations o[" Natural pp. 175-192. Maryland Sea Grant, University of Maryland, Compounds in Rivers, Seawater, Atmosphere and Mussels. Directo- Washington, DC. rate-General of Public Works and Water Management, The Hague.

Ducrotoy, J-P, (1997) The use of long-term surveys and monitoring of Lewis, J. (1996) Coastal benthos and global warming: strategies and intertidal and subtidal benthos in predicting changes in the marine problems. Marine Pollution Bulletin 32(10), 698-700. environment. Changes in Marine Beuthos, ed. B. Keegan. London Convention 1996 (1996) Protocol to the Convention on the Ecosystems Research Report, 16, 65-73. Protection of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other

Ducrotoy, J-P., Pawlak, J., Pichot, G., Portmann, J., Reid, C. P. and Matter (1972) and Resolutions Adopted by the Special Meeting. Reiersen, L.-O. (1991) Scientific Activities in the Framework of the Report LC/ SM1/6, IM O, London.. North Sea Task Force. North Sea Environment Report, Chameleon MAFF (1993) Analysis and Interpretation of Benthic Community Data Press, London. at Sewage-sludge Disposal Sites. Aq. Env. Monit. Rept. No. 37.

Elliott, M. (1993) The quality of macrobiological data. Marine MAFF Directorate of Fisheries Research, Lowestoft. Pollution Bulletin 25, 6-7. Nihoul, C. (1992) From the Oslo and Paris Conventions to the

Elliott, M. (1996a) The 'Brent Spar Debacle'--the role and Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the responsibility of marine scientists. Sherkin Comment (Environ- North-East Atlantic. North Sea Task Force News (May) 3, Olsen mental Quarterly of Sherkin Island Marine Station, Ireland) and Olsen, Fredensborg. September, Issue 21, pp. 21, 24. North Sea Conference (1990) Conference on the Protection of the North

Elliott, M. (1996b) The derivation and value of ecological quality Sea. Ministry of Transport and Public Works, The Hague. standards and objectives. Marine Pollution Bulletin 32(11), 762-763. North Sea Task Force (1992) Report of the NSTF Modelling

Elliott, M. and Ducrotoy, J.-P. (1991). The future direction of studies Workshops. Ministry of Public Works and Water Management, on spatial and temporal comparisons of coasts and estuaries. In The Hague. Estuaries and Coasts." Spatial and Temporal Intercomparisons, eds North Sea Task Force (1994) The 1993 Quality Status Report of the M. Elliott and J.-P. Ducrotoy, pp. 385-390. Olsen and Olsen, North Sea, eds J.-P. Ducrotoy, J. Pawlak and S. Wilson, 132 pp. Fredensborg. Olsen and Olsen, Fredensborg.

Elliott, M. and Ducrotoy J.-P. (Eds) (1994a) Environmental NRA (1995) The Mersey Estuary: a Report on Environmental Quality. perspectives for the northern seas. Marine Pollution Bulletin 29(6- Water Quality Series No. 23. National Rivers Authority, HMSO, 12), 253-660. London.

Elliott, M. and Ducrotoy, J.-P. (1994b) Environmental perspectives Oslo and Paris Commissions (1984) The First Decade, ed. C. Van der for the northern seas--summary. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 29(6- Burgt. Chameleon Press, London. 12), 647-660. Oslo and Paris Commissions (1992) Nutrients in the Convention Area.

Elliott, M. and de Jonge, V. N. (1996) The need for monitoring the Chameleon Press, London. monitors and their monitoring. Marine Pollution Bulletin 32, 248- Oslo and Paris Commissions (1993) Ministerial Meeting of the Oslo 249. and Paris Commissions, Paris 21-22 September (1992). Chameleon

Ferm, R. (1992) Foreword. In Scientific Activities in the Framework of Press, London. the North Sea Task Force, ed. J.-P. Ducrotoy. North Sea Oslo and Paris Commissions (1995) Nutrients in the Convention Area: Environment Reports, Chameleon Press, London. Overview of the Implementation of PARCOM Recommendation 88/2.

Fourth International Conference On The Protection Of The North Oslo and Paris Commissions, London. Sea (1995) Progress Report, eds J. Andersen and T. Niilonen, 248 Portmann, J. E. (1991a) The implementation of the Monitoring pp. Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Copenhagen. Master Plan. North Sea Task Force News (November), 4-5. Olsen

GESAMP (1991) Global strategies for marine environmental and Olsen, Fredensborg. protection. Rep. Stud. GESAMP, Nairobi, 45. Portmann, J. E. (1991b) ACMP's Approach to Environmental

Gray, J. S. (1995) Environment assessment, feedback monitoring - - Management and Protection. ICES, Copenhagen. the Scandinavian experience. In Marine Environmental Manage- Scientific and Technical Working Group (1987) Quality Status Report ment, Review of (1994) and Future Trends, ed. R. C. Earll, pp. 67- of the North Sea. Second International Conference on the Protection 72, paper 13. Kemply, Gloucestershire. of the North Sea. Department of the Environment, London.

Harding, M. J. C., Bailey, S. K. and Davies, I. M. (1992) The UKDoE Schmidt-van Dorp (1996) Follow-up to the Fourth North Sea TBT Imposex survey o f the North Sea, 8 Regional Annexes plus Conference: a challenge to government and public alike. The

700


Marine Forum Reports, CERCI, University College Scarborough, tions of Birds in the North Sea. Nature Conservancy Council, 2, 10-14. Peterborough.

Stanners, D. and Bourdeau, P. (Eds) (1996) Europe's Environment: Van de Wetering, B. (1996) The Oslo and Paris Conventions and The Dob~i~ Assessment. Office for the Official Publications of the Commissions and the North Sea Conference. The Marine Forum European Communities, Luxembourg. Reports 2. CERCI, University College Scarborough.

Stebbing, A. R. D. (1992) Environmental capacity and the Weichart, G. (1973) Pollution of the North Sea. Ambio 2(40), 99-106. precautionary principle. Marine Pollution Bulletin 24(6), 287- Wells, D. E. and Balls, H. R. (Eds) (1994) QUASIMEME: quality 295. measurements for marine monitoring. Marine Pollution Bulletin

Tasker, M. L. and Pienkowski, M. W. (1987) Vulnerable Concentra- 29(4-5), 143-249.

701

Interrelations between science and policy-making: the North Sea example

Documents

Transcript of Interrelations between science and policy-making: the North Sea example