Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission 7-2014-137...The development of Regional Action Plans on Marine Litter: Approaches taken by MEDPOL and OSPAR Ms. Stefanie Werner, Germany,

Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission Group for the Implementation of the Ecosystem Approach Copenhagen, Denmark, 16 June 2014

GEAR 7‐2014, 3‐6

Page 1 of 1

Document title Outcome of the first HELCOM Workshop on Regional Action Plan for Marine Litter

Code 3‐6

Category INF

Agenda Item 3 – Coordination and information related to Programmes of Measures

Submission date 13.6.2014

Submitted by Secretariat

Reference MARINE LITTER 1‐2014

Background

The first HELCOM Workshop on Regional Action Plan for Marine Litter (MARINE LITTER 1‐2014), was held on 27‐28 May 2014 at the premises of HELCOM Secretariat, Helsinki, Finland. The focus of the Meeting was on the development of the format, structure and possible contents of the Baltic Sea Regional Action Plan for Marine Litter (RAP ML). The actual measures/actions of the RAP ML were considered based on the outcome of a dedicated HELCOM breakout group at the International Conference on Prevention and Management of Marine Litter (Berlin 2013) and specified as far as possible at this stage.

The Meeting stressed the need for the Contracting Parties to consider leading the work regarding specific action areas/measures and agreed to discuss the election of leading parties based on the outcome of the second HELCOM Marine Litter Workshop (MARINE LITTER 2‐2014) to take place 22‐23 October in Stralsund, Germany. The Meeting highlighted the importance of ensuring the participation of relevant stakeholders (e.g. from industry, science, NGOs, authorities) from a variety of sectors concerned with the issue of marine litter (e.g. the waste and sewage management, recycling, product design, fishing, shipping and harbour management sectors).

This document contains the outcome of the Workshop.

Action required

The Meeting is invited to take note of the information provided.

Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission

First Regional Workshop on Marine Litter Helsinki, Finland, 27‐28 May 2014

MARINE LITTER 1‐2014

Page 1 of 22

OUTCOME OF THE FIRST HELCOM WORKSHOP ON REGIONAL ACTION PLAN

FOR MARINE LITTER (MARINE LITTER 1‐2014)

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 2 The development of Regional Action Plans on Marine Litter: Approaches taken by MEDPOL and OSPAR 2 Potential options for the format of the HELCOM Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter 2 Structure of the HELCOM Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter 3 Information on measures for combating marine litter in the Baltic Sea 3 Prioritization of measures for combating marine litter in the Baltic Sea 3 Follow‐up work on the Action Plan and second Workshop on HELCOM Marine Litter Action Plan 4 Annex 1 List of Participants 6 Annex 2 Draft structure of the HELCOM Action Plan on Marine Litter (HELCOM AP ML) 7 Annex 3 Information on measures applied/to be applied in the Baltic Sea to reduce the input of marine litter 9 Annex 4 Indicative list of measures to reduce the input of marine litter in the Baltic Sea 14 Annex V Follow‐up work and timetable on the Action Plan and second Workshop on HELCOM Marine Litter Action Plan 22

Outcome of MARINE LITTER 1‐2014

Page 2 of 22

OUTCOME OF THE FIRST HELCOM WORKSHOP ON REGIONAL ACTION

PLAN FOR MARINE LITTER (MARINE LITTER 1‐2014)

Introduction

The first HELCOM Workshop on Regional Action Plan for Marine Litter (MARINE LITTER 1‐2014), was held on 27‐28 May 2014 at the premises of HELCOM Secretariat, Helsinki, Finland. The focus of the Meeting was on the development of the format, structure and possible contents of the Baltic Sea Regional Action Plan for Marine Litter (RAP ML). The actual measures/actions of the RAP ML were considered based on the outcome of a dedicated HELCOM breakout group at the International Conference on Prevention and Management of Marine Litter (Berlin 2013) and specified as far as possible at this stage.

The Meeting workshop was led by Ms. Stefanie Werner, Federal Environment Agency, Germany.

The Meeting was attended by participants from all Contracting Parties except for Denmark and Latvia, Observers from WWF, EUREAU and KIMO Baltic Sea, and an Invited Guest from Keep Sweden Tidy Foundation as well as Keep the Estonian Sea Tidy Association. The List of Participants is contained in Annex 1.

The development of Regional Action Plans on Marine Litter: Approaches

taken by MEDPOL and OSPAR

Ms. Stefanie Werner, Germany, gave a presentation on inter alia the amounts and sources of marine litter, top items and data gaps as well as policy commitments and guiding principles regarding marine litter. The Meeting noted that waste from household and recreational activities are the most common items of marine litter in the Baltic Sea and that measures should be aimed at reducing these sources. Plastic waste is furthermore the most common material in marine litter (>50%).

Ms Werner also presented the contents of the recent version of the OSPAR Marine Litter Action Plan, to be further discussed and adopted at the next meeting of the OSPAR Commission which takes place in Lisbon, 23‐27 June, 2014 (Presentation 1). Aim is the adoption of the OSPAR RAP ML as “another agreement” and to implement single actions as decisions, recommendations or guidelines in the further process. The RAP ML distinguishes between collective actions to be developed and taken at OSPAR level, and actions to be nationally considered for implementation by Contracting Parties.

Ms. Marta Ruiz, HELCOM Project Researcher, presented the Mediterranean RAP ML (document 3‐1,

Presentation 2). The “Regional Plan on Marine Litter Management in the Mediterranean in the Framework

of Article 15 of the Land Based Sources Protocol” was adopted by Contracting Parties to the Barcelona

Convention as Annex I to the Decision IG.21/7 in December 2013.

Potential options for the format of the HELCOM Regional Action Plan on

Marine Litter

Mr. Mikhail Durkin, HELCOM Professional Secretary, presented the paragraphs in the HELCOM 2013 Ministerial Declaration regarding marine litter and the commitment towards the development of a RAP ML. At present two HELCOM recommendations are linked to marine litter: Recommendation 28E/10 on the application of the no‐special‐fee system to ship generated wastes and marine litter caught in fishing nets in the Baltic Sea area (2007) and Recommendation 29/2 on marine litter within the Baltic Sea region (2008).

Mr. Durkin presented potential options for format and adoption of the Action Plan including: (i) revision of HELCOM Recommendation 29/2; (ii) adoption of Regional Action Plan at high‐level; and (iii) amendment of the Helsinki Convention/Annexes (Presentation 3).


Page 3 of 22

The Meeting discussed the way of development of the Baltic Sea marine litter action plan within the

HELCOM structure and noted that a HELCOM recommendation would likely be the most convenient

approach to ensure adoption by 2015. The meeting participants also noted that it would be useful to agree

on the format as soon as possible since the format will affect the structure and content of the RAP.

Structure of the HELCOM Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter Ms. Marta Ruiz, HELCOM Project Researcher, presented a possible structure of the HELCOM RAP ML

Presentation 4) based on the OSPAR and MEDPOL approaches, taking also into account specific features for

the Baltic Sea. Pending a decision on the format, the meeting discussed a tentative structure for the

HELCOM RAP ML and agreed on a proposed structure as included in Annex 2.

Information on measures for combating marine litter in the Baltic Sea

Ms. Stefanie Werner, Germany went through the list of headline measures as identified at the HELCOM breakout group at the Berlin conference (2013) to be most effective in tackling the sources of major concern and input pathways of marine litter in the Baltic Sea region, as well as the most important data and information gaps Conference (doc. 4‐1, (Presentation 5). The meeting was asked to provide information on measures currently applied or planned for application national wise. The information provided is compiled in Annex 3.

Prioritization of measures for combating marine litter in the Baltic Sea

The meeting was presented a detailed list of possible (sub‐) measures for each of the measures as identified at the Berlin Conference (2013) as relevant to be applied in the Baltic Sea to combat the main sources of marine litter in the area. Mr. Hermanni Backer, HELCOM Professional Secretary for MARITIME, RESPONSE and MSP, and Mr. Mikhail Durkin, HELCOM Professional Secretary for LAND, AGRI/ENV and FISH/ENV Forums, presented the sea‐based and land‐based measures, respectively (document 6‐4, Presentation 6).

The Meeting discussed both the headline measures (document 4‐1) and detailed (sub‐) measures to

combat marine litter in the Baltic Sea (document 6‐4), indicating the appropriate level for their

implementation and their prioritization. The outcome of the discussion is contained as a table of measures

in Annex 4. Regarding the level at which the measures were suitable for implementation, the Meeting

made a distinction between: (i) measures suitable for implementation at the regional level; (ii) measures

aimed for information exchange and coordination of measures which are of national concern and

responsibility of Contracting Parties; and (iii) measures which fulfill the need to develop joint proposals and

concerted actions but are in the competence of third parties.

A tour de table took place to receive first opinions with regard to a possible prioritisation of the measures to reduce the input of marine litter from sea‐based and land‐based sources. Nevertheless, it was also recognized that a much broader participation of experts is envisaged for the second workshop which will likely lead to the determination of further measures required, prioritization of further measures of the existing list and potentially also some changes with regard to the right level of implementation (regional or national).

With regard to sea‐based sources there was a general feeling that measures linked to the reduction of lost and abandoned nets and the removal of ghost nets and measures which ensure that the no‐special‐fee system is properly covering the needs of fishermen are of special importance. Overall measures on prevention should be given first priority, accompanied by awareness raising and removal campaigns. The following detailed comments were made:

EU: port reception facilities measures and measures related to ghost nets are to be prioritised because of their impact on biodiversity. Also prevention measures need to be prioritised (e.g. S1D) as well as awareness raising regarding fishermen (S1C).


Page 4 of 22

Finland, Lithuania and Poland: ghost nets are to be prioritised.

Germany and WWF Poland: to prioritise the evaluation of the no‐special‐fee system and measures on ghost nets. Regarding abandoned, lost, and derelict fishing gear (ALFG) the focus should be on prevention and enforcement of existing legislation.

Russia: to prioritise education, awareness raising and sharing of information to marinas.

Sweden: ghost‐net related measures and the application of no‐special‐fee system for fishermen are to be prioritised. In general land‐based sources produce a higher proportion of marine litter than sea‐based sources, thus land‐based sources are to be prioritised.

Additionally, the Meeting was of the opinion that there is a need to specifically consider measures to prevent micro particles from entering the environment and to use the waste hierarchy when organizing the list of land based actions.

Regarding the prioritisation of the measures to reduce the input of marine litter from land‐based sources, the Meeting identified several important measures related to microparticles, land‐filling practices especially in coastal areas, best practices on waste management, reduction of household litter, and elimination and change of products which tend to enter the aquatic system directly. The Meeting noted the following comments by:

Sweden: to prioritise the prevention of transfer of microparticles, especially microplastics, into the marine environment. Landfills and illegal dumpsites in the coastal zone or close to rivers is not a problem in Sweden but if it is a problem around the Baltic Sea, getting rid of them should be a prioritised measure.

Germany: best practices on management, household litter (including microparticles and micropellets), elimination/modification of other problematic items that are found in the Baltic.

EU: to prioritise the closing of landfills and illegal dumpsites, promotion of techniques to prevent storm water effluents, micro plastics (L6C), alternatives for top marine litter items regularly found, microplastic in cosmetics and plastic bags.

Keep Sweden Tidy: the elimination of single‐use packaging and waste reduction should be prioritised.

Poland: to prioritise waste management, especially on the coast, and microparticles.

Finland: to prioritise the use of alternative products/materials, e.g. looking for alternative material to be used in cigarette butts and also raising awareness on them as there seems to be a common belief that butts are decomposable. The establishment of a common deposit system for bottles/cans between different HELCOM countries should be looked into. Nor plastic bags nor landfill are a problematic issue in Finland, contrary to cigarette butts.

WWF Poland: to prioritise waste management.

Finally, Ms. Stefanie Werner, Germany, presented measures on education and outreach, which were discussed and further specified, but not prioritized at this stage.

Follow‐up work on the Action Plan and second Workshop on HELCOM

Marine Litter Action Plan

The Meeting agreed on the timetable for the next steps regarding the development of a HELCOM RAP ML as contained in Annex V.

The Meeting stressed the need for Contracting Parties to consider leading the work regarding specific action areas/measures and agreed to discuss the election of leading parties based on the outcome of the second HELCOM Marine Litter Workshop (MARINE LITTER 2‐2014) to take place during week 43 in Stralsund (Germany). The Meeting highlighted the importance of ensuring the participation of relevant


Page 5 of 22

stakeholders (e.g. from industry, science, NGOs, authorities) from a variety of sectors concerned with the issue of marine litter (e.g. the waste and sewage management, recycling, product design, fishing, shipping and harbour management sectors).


Page 6 of 22

Annex 1 List of Participants Name Representing Organisation Email address

Chair

Ms. Stefanie Werner Germany Federal Environment Agency [email protected]

Contracting Parties

Ms. Agnes Villmann (online participation) Estonia Ministry of the Environment of Estonia [email protected]

Mr. Nigel Smith EU European Commission [email protected]

Mr. Jyrki Laitinen Finland Finnish Environment Institute, SYKE [email protected]

Ms. Maria Laamanen Finland Ministry of the Environment [email protected]

Ms. Maiju Lehtiniemi Finland Finnish Environment Institute, SYKE [email protected]

Ms. Outi Setälä Finland Finnish Environment Institute, SYKE [email protected]

Ms. Nora‐Phoebe Erler Germany Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB)

nora‐[email protected]

Ms. Jovita Vitkute Lithuania Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Lithuania [email protected]

Ms. Magda Chreptowicz‐Liszewska Poland National Water Management Authority magda.chreptowicz‐[email protected]

Ms. Johanna Eriksson Sweden Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management [email protected]

Ms. Dmitry Frank‐Kamenetsky Russia Russia, SPb Committee for nature protection [email protected]

Observers

Ms. Camilla Witt Observer KIMO Baltic Sea [email protected]

Ms. Saijariina Toivikko Observer EUREAU [email protected]

Mr. Piotr Prędki Observer WWF [email protected]

Invited Guest

Ms. Jessica Ängström Invited Guest Keep Sweden Tidy [email protected]

Mr. Marek Press (online participation) Invited Guest Keep the Estonian Sea Tidy Association [email protected]

Ms. Kerstin Magnusson Sweden IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute [email protected]

HELCOM Secretariat

Mr. Hermanni Backer HELCOM Secretariat HELCOM Secretariat [email protected]

Mr. Mikhail Durkin HELCOM Secretariat HELCOM Secretariat [email protected]

Ms. Petra Kääriä HELCOM Secretariat HELCOM Secretariat [email protected]

Ms. Marta Ruiz HELCOM Secretariat HELCOM Secretariat [email protected]

Ms. Ulla Li Zweifel HELCOM Secretariat HELCOM Secretariat [email protected]


Page 7 of 22

Annex 2 Draft structure of the HELCOM Action Plan on Marine Litter

(HELCOM AP ML)

Section I – Preamble/Introduction

Preamble/Introduction

General introduction; on sources, problems,

Recall Helsinki Convention instruments, other HELCOM commitments related to marine litter (e.g.

HELCOM Ministerial Declarations, recommendations), and other international legislation in

relation to waste and marine litter

Section II ‐ General Provisions

‐ Definitions of relevant terms of the marine litter action plan. Possibly as note or glossary. Marine

litter [macro‐, meso‐ and microlitter], microplastics, microbeads, ghost nets, abandoned and lost

fishing gear, etc. list to be developed based on content.

‐ Area of application: From the Helsinki Convention

‐ Objectives:

Establish a range of recommended measures and actions to:

o Prevent and reduce marine litter

o Remove litter from the environment in a sound manner

o Enhance knowledge and awareness on marine litter + coordinate work to improve

knowledge base sources and impacts of marine litter

o Support CP in the development and implementation of a regional approach that can add

value to the action of individual CPs also in support of the MSFD (combining bullet points

“support contracting parties” and “be a framework” under 16 and 17 of OSPAR draft RAP).

o Develop management and reporting approaches that are Consistent with accepted

international approaches covering e.g. IMO and EU etc. (combining bullet points related to

“management approaches” and “promote reporting” under 16 and 17 of OSPAR draft RAP).

‐ Obligations and fundamental principles:

o Art. 6 of the Helsinki Convention: Principles and obligations concerning pollution from land‐

based sources

o Article 8 of the Helsinki Convention: Prevention of pollution from ships

o Article 9 of the Helsinki Convention: Pleasure craft

o Article 3 of the Helsinki Convention: BAT, Precautionary principle, Polluter‐pays principle

‐ Additional guiding approaches:

o Ecosystem based appraoch

o Public participation and stakeholder involvement

o Sustainable consumption and production

o Best available knowledge and socioeconomic effectiveness

Outcome of MONAS 20‐2014, 8‐1

Page 8 of 22

o Integration e.g. in the national framework of marine litter waste management and ongoing

revision of international directives

o Cooperation with other organisations [Other RSCs, BSAC… to be continued…]

[Preservation of rights: for CPs to have stricter provisions]

Section III – Measures and operational targets [suggest that measures are divided into regional and

national measures]

Subsection III A: land‐based sources of marine litter

Subsection III B: sea‐based sources of marine litter

Subsection III C: removal and disposal existing marine litter

Subsection III D: education and outreach measures (including work with 3rd organisations i.a.

industry

Section IV – Monitoring and Assessment

According to HELCOM Monitoring and Assessment Strategy, HELCOM assessments should be carried out in

6 year cycles. Input to the 2018 EU MSFD reporting on article would require indicators to be developed by

mid‐2015 and included in the planned next HELCOM holistic assessment by mid‐2017. Development of

common indicators for marine litter is ongoing. Tentative indicators discussed by CORESET II and MONAS

20‐2014.

‐ Indicators and associated targets for indicators should be developed by mid‐2015.

Proposed coordinated monitoring protocols based on the recommendations of the EU Technical

Subgroup on Marine Litter ready by end of 2014 for some indicators e.g. for monitoring of beach

litter.

Coordinated monitoring programmes on marine litter by 2015 for some indicators e.g. beach

litter.

Section V – Reporting of implementation

Reporting on the implementation of the HELOCM RAP ML (i.e. what measures outlined in the RAP have

been taken)

Frequency: [every year every second year] on what measures have been implemented. Every sixth years on

effectiveness of measures.

Procedure of reporting.

Section VII – Timetable for implementation


Page 9 of 22

Annex 3 Information on measures applied/to be applied in the Baltic Sea

to reduce the input of marine litter

Code Sea‐based litter (S) measures

S1 Measures to reduce losing/abandoning fishing nets

Finland: collection of information on ship wrecks from divers. A map may be available.

Germany: evaluation of the situation of ghost nets with the aim of later removal.

Keep the Estonian Sea Tidy: has prepared a project about derelict fishing nets, including ten assessments along the Estonian coast near the city, which has recently been sent to the Estonian Ministry for consideration. Additionally they are working on how to apply for funding for a project together with Sweden and Poland.

Keep Sweden Tidy: underlined the need to also consider recreational activities

KIMO Baltic Sea, WWF Poland and Estonia are working together on the development of a protocol for the collection of abandoned fishing nets for the whole Baltic Sea.

Lithuania: removal activities since 2011.

Poland: removal activities since 2011, carried out by WWF Poland in collaboration with fishermen. It was estimated that 24 h of action at sea carried out by fishermen aimed at retrieval of derelict fishing gear from the sea bottom costs approximately 1.500€, and that each cleaning action at shipwrecks required a minimum of professional divers working four days with an approximate cost of 10.000€.

Sweden: development of a campaign to inform fishermen about their obligation to report lost fishing nets. They have also carried out removal of nets through their collaboration with Keep Sweden Tidy and KIMO Baltic Sea. The need of data on nets on wrecks was pointed out, since their effects on animals attracted by them are not well known.

WWF Poland: underwater obstacles accessible in the internet could be introduced to the navigation map used by fishermen to avoid losing their nets, available in Polish, English and Lithuanian at sieciwidma.wwf.pl.

S2 Possible setting of legal definition of marine litter in the Helsinki Convention

Possible only if the Action plan is taken up as a revision or amendment of the Helsinki Convention

The Meeting considered that it would be useful to include a legal definition of marine litter in the Helsinki Convention.

S3 Measure(s) on pleasure boating (promotion of garbage collection for pleasure crafts sailing in Finish archipelago and lakes district – “Keep the Archipelago Tidy” campaign/Finland)

Keep Sweden Tidy: there is a need to extend such measures to all regions. The cost of such activities is not known for the whole country, but for certain regions.

Sweden: people abandon their fishing boats is an issue in the country, since no administration is responsible for their final disposal.


Page 10 of 22

S4 Fishing for Litter initiative by KIMO International, extended to the Baltic Sea, including a compensation scheme

KIMO Baltic Sea: informed about the fishing for litter (FFL) project which has been on‐going since 2011 in Sweden and their intention to extend it. Seventy boats participate and the fishermen are not economically compensated. The garbage collected goes to PRFs in the ports. Fishermen obtain media attention as well as stickers to proving their activities for their boats (the estimated cost of each sticker is 10 SEK). In Sweden FFL is mainly seen as an awareness campaign.

Sweden: commented on the need to apply HELCOM Recommendation 28E/10 in a coherent way.

Germany: fishing for litter activities are carried out by a NGO in Germany mainly as an awareness campaign. Ports have special PRFs for collecting this sort of garbage.

The Meeting was of the opinion that there are differences on the application of the no‐special‐fee (NSF) system in the Baltic Sea countries. Thus, the target would be on the application of the NSF system, not the compensation scheme which would apply to harbors.

S5 Public awareness documentary “Ghost in the Baltic Sea” and the campaign for removing ghost nets from Polish and Lithuanian waters by BalticSea 2020 Foundation

WWF Poland: informed about a specific campaign they developed explaining the fishermen their responsibilities on this issue.

The Meeting was of the opinion that the measure, as it is, should be moved to the section on public awareness measures.

S6 Further work on harmonization of the no‐special‐fee system (addressing as possible gaps in existing regulations, enforcement and practices concerned shipping, port reception facilities auditing to assess adequacy of garbage collection, strive for fair waste burden sharing between ports through termination of setting maximum/ceiling amounts for reception of litter in ports within the no‐special‐fee system)

The Meeting noted the existence of gaps on the application of the NSF system, since the same system is not applied in all the Baltic Sea ports. It should be fairer and distributed through the definition of a limit to the amounts of litter that ports have to receive within the no‐special‐fee system. Small boats and recreational boats are of special concern, since the activity is increasing in the Baltic Sea.

The Secretariat informed the Meeting about an ongoing process in HELCOM MARITIME on the collection of information on the level of sewage reception facilities in the ports and what will be the needs of the industry.

The Meeting agreed with the Swedish proposal to carry out a study on the effect of the application of the NSF system.

S7 Enforcing existing marine litter regulations

The Meeting specifically referred e to Annex V of MARPOL.

The Meeting considered also the development of campaigns on port state control through Paris MOU.


Page 11 of 22

Code Land based (L) measures

L1 Improved waste management, including waste reduction and recycling, especially in tourism hotspots/near the coast (on different levels: financial tools like regional funds, twinning, training of national judges, or EC infringement procedures, as there are laws in order to force MS to expand infrastructure)

Germany: an NGO is developing a project aiming to get some island environments plastic free. For that purpose they have e.g. disposed (closed) beach boxes were tourists throw their garbage to prevent it from escaping. Waste management plans to include marine litter in the next implementation period.

Russia: Saint Petersburg has developed a sanitary survey on 26 beaches; it is suggested to rent the beaches making it compulsory for the new owners to clean them, since it is not possible for the authorities to clean them on a regular basis. Regarding landfill, it is forbidden in Russia in any place which is not considered for that purpose.

The Meeting considered that coastal landfill is not a big problem in the Baltic Sea area.

The Meeting considered that waste reduction is to be considered separately to landfill.

L2 Reducing inputs of household litter, such as micro‐particles, latex and sanitary items through enhanced sewage treatment and separation of sewage and storm water treatments

Germany: informed on the existence of some sewage treatment plants where membrane filtration was able to remove small particles, but it is not available everywhere. Maybe it would be better to work on the sources.

Sweden: the filtration to 45µm is not efficient for the smaller parts, and everything which is not filtered ends up in the sludge. There is a need to differentiate between primary and secondary microplastics when referring to measures.

Finland: consumers need to be guided when making decisions on the type of products to buy.

Germany: has developed a study on what products contain primary microplastics and what amounts are used which is to be shared once it will be published.

EUREAU: there is a need to release information, to define microplastics, to identify the sources of microplastics and to impose restrictions of the use of microplastics to the industry.

Russia: suggested to consider also industrial waste water, and asked for clarification on the definition of microplastics.

The Meeting was informed that measures referred to secondary microplastics, and agreed to include also industrial waste water.

L3 Education and outreach/awareness raising on marine litter impacts and importance of avoiding littering (tourism/recreational hotspots; private sector involvement?) and innovative approaches to keep localities clean, like National Litter Picking‐days of “Keep Sweden Tidy” and Big Cleanup Day in Latvia and Lithuania

Keep Sweden Tidy: financed by Swedish Government, they have been doing these activities for 30 years, which also work as educational tools. They also develop diving cleanup activities. They plan to use the “let’s do it campaign” (born in Estonia to help municipalities to have their competency areas cleaned) as education campaign.

Germany: diving campaigns additional to regular cleanings.


Page 12 of 22

L4 Incentives/disincentives for littering: higher fines for beach (or general) littering

Sweden: fine for littering in force for three years, less than 300 people have been fined.

Russia: penalties for private persons exist but they are not implemented.

L5 Harmonization of deposit refund systems for bottles (plastics and glass) among countries

Sweden: available for plastic bottles and metal cans.

Finland: for plastic bottles and glass bottles.

Germany: for aluminium and metal cans and for(most) plastic and glass bottles.

EU: propose to consider what is currently available and then assess if there is a need for harmonization.

L6 Implement more stringent regulation of plastic packaging, including measures like taxes on packaging and single‐use plastic shopping bags

Germany, Lithuania, Poland and Sweden: there is only a fee for plastic bags for supermarkets. Small plastic bags at the end of the desk and big plastic bags in other shopping sectors (e.g. drug stores, textile shops) are for free.

EU: to have a HELCOM coordination approach to be sent to EU for its consideration during the discussion on the EU regulation on plastic bags.

L7 Possible setting of legal definition of marine litter in the Helsinki Convention

L8 Raise awareness about the correct disposal of sanitary and hygiene products (as example the “Bag it and Bin it” campaign/UK)

Germany: informed on the existence of campaigns on this issue.

Sweden: waste water treatment companies are doing these campaigns, together with municipalities.

Code Clean‐up (C) measures

C1 Compulsory beach cleaning by local communities and/or private companies (i.e. of the tourism sector); or incentives for beach cleaning (e.g. awards, like the “Blue flag award”) Already discussed.

C2 Measures for removing river litter Already discussed.

Code Producing less litter by means of smart production (P) measures

P1 Ban on single‐use plastic bags or plastic bag taxes and charges (in parallel, alternatives should be developed) The Meeting informed that no country in the Baltic Sea region has a ban for the use of single‐use plastic bags.


Page 13 of 22

P2 Elimination and/or “change” (start voluntary action/then regulation) of certain products from the market (e.g. general non‐biodegradable products, like plastic beads in hygiene products; introduction of bio‐degradable cigarette filters) which tend to enter aquatic systems directly

Germany: voluntary agreement with the cosmetic industry which hopefully will end with the phase out of the microbeads.

EU: suggest to contact with industry to focus on the design development for the 10 top problematic items.

Sweden: commented on the importance of focusing also on the single use cutlery (i.a. used in camping activities).

P3 Sustainable packaging guidelines

EU: to get in touch with the Eco Design directive and make them aware of the importance of the issue from the HELCOM perspective.

The Meeting agreed to share experiences about it at regional level.

P4 Replace the plastic cotton swabs with paper/carton

To be included into P2

Code Addressing knowledge and data gaps (K) measures

K1 Standard monitoring program(s) (for a consistent and applied measurement methodology for the description of the litter items, the sources of marine debris, volume in kilograms, data on the number or items, and detailed information on the conditions of the reference beaches (if beach litter is concerned), because data provided by the current monitoring programs is not comparable or quality‐controlled)

Sweden: the MARLIN project has developed a harmonized protocol for monitoring beach litter, and there is also the protocol from the EU task group on descriptor 10. Therefore, there is a need to come up to one harmonized methodology.

Keep Sweden Tidy: to have background information on pressure indicators on a national/regional level (scope is not clear). There is a need of information for example on the amounts of litter collected, to know how much it costs.

EU: there is a lack of information on the amount of ghost fishing nets hot‐spots.

Russia: Saint Petersburg has a programme that covers 345 km coast (river and sea) where 1100m3 marine litter was collected in one year. Another programme aims to remove litter from rivers through which they have recovered 1.17 mi tones. There is a third programme which deals with small oil spills (considered also marine litter) which collected 41 tonnes from the surface in 2013. The total price of the three programmes is 800 mil. rouble (20 mi.€). The budget income for water bodies in Saint Petersburg is four times less than the measures to protect water bodies.

K2 Clarification/research into the importance of sanitary waste

Germany: informed on their availability of some data on sanitary waste on beaches.

K3 Better data on plastic use/production

The Meeting was of the opinion that there is a need to gather data and make them more available.


Page 14 of 22

Annex 4 Indicative list of measures to reduce the input of marine litter in

the Baltic Sea

Measures to reduce the input of marine litter to the Baltic Sea are grouped in two categories according to

the source of the litter: (i) land based (in green colour in the table); and (ii) sea based sources (in blue

colour in the table). A third category is established to focus on educational and outreach measures (in red

colour in the table).

The indicative list of measures to reduce the input of land based sources of marine litter are grouped in five

categories, according to the waste hierarchy as follows:

L1 ‐ Prevention;

L2 ‐ Minimisation;

L3 – Reuse;

L4 – Recycling;

L5 – Disposal

The indicative list of measures to reduce the input of sea based sources of marine litter are grouped in five

categories, according to their initial prioritization:

S1‐ Measures to enforce existing marine litter regulations;

S2 ‐ Measures to reduce impacts from ALDFG (Abandoned, Lost or otherwise Discarded Fishing

Gear);

S3 – Measures on port reception facilities and the application of the no‐special‐fee system;

S4 – Measures on fishing for litter initiatives;

S5 ‐ Measures on pleasure boating.


Page 15 of 22

CODE PRELIMINARY DETAILISATION / ITEMISATION OF MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION PRIORITY

I. PREVENTION

L1A Highlight those waste management practices that impact significantly on marine litter. Engage with the industry and other authorities, at the appropriate level, in order for them to be able to develop best environmental practice, including identification of circumstances on why and how litter “escapes” into the marine environment

National DE, PL

L1B Include a reference to marine litter in National Waste Prevention Plans and Waste Management Plans. There could be an element in the plans highlighting the impacts of marine litter

National EU

L1C Develop of End of Waste criteria to divert waste into a resource (only for EU MS, following waste/resource efficiency legislation)

National

L1D Base urban solid waste management on reduction at source, applying the following waste hierarchy as a priority order in waste prevention and management legislation and policy: prevention, preparing for re‐use, recycling, other recovery, e.g. energy recovery and environmentally sound disposal

National DE, PL

L1E Evaluate all products and processes that include primary micro plastics and act, if appropriate, to reduce their impact on the marine environment

Regional SE, DE, EU, PL

L1F Clarification/research on the importance of sanitary waste in the upstream waste flows Regional, national RU

L1G Enhance national stakeholder alliances focusing on marine litter National

L1H Encourage international environmental certification schemes to include the management and prevention of marine litter in their lists of criteria

Regional

L1I HELCOM Contracting Parties to seek cooperation with the river and river basin authorities in order to include impacts of litter on the marine environment in river and river basin management plans

Regional, national DE

L1J Exchange experience on best practice to prevent litter entering into water systems and highlight these to River or River basin Commissions

Regional, national

L1K Evaluate areas of risk to the marine environment from microparticles, specifically primary (i.e. for manufacturing) micro plastics (), including activities that use microplastics, and act to reduce their impact on the marine environment

Regional, national SE, DE, EU, PL

II. MINIMISATION

L2A Share best practice on waste management, e.g. on landfill bans of high caloric wastes (especially for plastics) Regional DE

L2B Evaluate the potential harm caused to the marine environment by items such as cigarette filters/butts, balloons, shotgun wads, cotton buds and bio‐film support media used in sewage plants. Based on this evaluation, proposals can be made on the elimination, change or adaptation requirements for these other potentially problematic items

Regional, national FI, DE

L2C Investigate the prevalence and impact of expanded polystyrene (EPS) in the marine environment, and engage with industry to make proposals for alternative materials and/or how to reduce its impacts

Regional, national FI

L2D Carry out industry dialogue aimed at highlighting the top marine litter problem items Regional, national


Page 16 of 22


L2E Explore with industry the development of design improvements to assist in the reduction of negative impacts of products entering the marine environment in order to better inform industry on alternative solutions

Regional, national FI, DE

L2F Investigate and promote with appropriate industries the use of Best Available Technologies to develop sustainable and cost effective solutions to reducing and preventing sewage and storm water related waste entering the marine environment, including micro particles


L2G Promote Extended Producer Responsibility Strategies requiring producers, manufacturers, brand owners and first importers to be responsible for the entire life‐cycle of the product with measures prioritizing the hierarchy of waste management in order to encourage companies to design products with long durability for reuse, recycling and materials reduction in weight and toxicity. Focus to be made on items frequently found in the marine environment

National

L2H Establishment of voluntary agreements with retailers and supermarkets to set an objective of reduction of plastic bags consumption as well as selling dry food or cleaning products in bulk and refill special and reusable containers

National EU

L2I Reduce the consumption of single use plastic bags and their presence in the marine environment, supported by the development of quantifiable (sub) regional targets, where appropriate, and assist in the development of relevant EU initiatives

National EU

L2J Assess relevant instruments and incentives to reduce the use of single‐use bags and other items, which impact the marine environment, including the illustration of the associated costs and environmental impacts

Levies on single‐use carrier bags

Fiscal and economic instruments to promote the reduction of plastic bag consumption, in particular less than 0.025 mm thick

Ban on single‐use plastic bags or plastic bag taxes and charges (in parallel, alternatives should be developed)

Regional, national EU

L2K Provide an overview of what product categories contain micro beads and that are not currently covered by legislation, including a definition of plastic micro beads, areas of application and impacts on the marine environment


L2L Engage with all appropriate sectors (manufacturing, retail etc.) to explore the possibility of phasing out the use of microplastic (microparticles) in personal care and cosmetic products, including the option of a voluntary agreement

National SE, DE, EU, PL

L2M Establish procedures and manufacturing methodologies together with plastic industry, in order to minimize the decomposition characteristics of plastic, to reduce microparticles, especially micro‐plastics.

National SE, DE, EU, PL

L2N Promote the use of sustainable alternatives to plastic drinking straws, stirrers and lollipop sticks National FI

III. REUSE

L3A Implement adequate waste reducing/reusing/recycling measures in order to reduce the fraction of plastic packaging waste that goes to landfill or incineration without energy recovery

National

L3B Establishment of Deposits, Return and Restoration System for expandable polystyrene boxes in the fishing sector National


Page 17 of 22


IV. RECYCLING

L4A Encourage the development and implementation of Sustainable Procurement Policies that contribute to the promotion of recycled products and its consumption, in particular plastic, focusing on those products that impact upon the marine environment

National

L4B Implement adequate waste reducing/reusing/recycling measures in order to reduce the fraction of plastic packaging waste that goes to landfill or incineration without energy recovery

National

L4C Harmonization of deposit refund systems for bottles (plastics and glass) Establishment of Deposits, Return and Restoration System for beverage packaging prioritizing when possible their recycling

Regional, national

FI

L4D Promoting the use of cardboard or other compostable materials instead of six pack plastic ring carriers National

L4E Replace the plastic cotton swabs with paper/carton National

V. DISPOSAL

L5A Identify illegal and historic coastal landfill or dumpsites, including where these might be at risk from coastal erosion, and take action if appropriate

National SE, PL

L5B Close to the extent possible the existing illegal dump sites on land in the area of the application of the Regional Plan National EU, PL

L5C Take necessary measures to establish as appropriate adequate urban sewer, wastewater treatment plants, and waste management systems to prevent run‐off and riverine inputs of litter

National

L5D Compulsory beach cleaning by local communities and/or private companies (i.e. of the tourism sector); or incentives for beach cleaning (e.g. awards, like the “Blue flag award

National

L5E Establish an exchange platform for spreading experiences on good cleaning practices in beaches, riverbanks, pelagic and surface sea areas, ports, marinas and inland waterways. Develop best practice on environmental friendly technologies and methods for cleaning

Regional, National DE

L5F Develop sub regional or regional maps of accumulations/hotspots of floating coastal litter, based on mapping of circulation of floating masses of marine litter, and identification of hotspots of accumulation on coastal areas and the role of prevailing currents and winds

Regional

L5G Measures for removing river litter


Page 18 of 22


I. MEASURES TO ENFORCE EXISTING MARINE LITTER REGULATIONS

S1A Ensure the full implementation of HELCOM Convention Article 8 especially Regulation 6; Mandatory discharge of all wastes to port reception facilities, including implementation with regards to smaller ship types like fishing vessels.

Regional ALL

S1B Fully implement MARPOL Annex V including identifying best practices in relation to inspections for MARPOL Annex V ship generated waste, including better management of reporting data, taking into consideration the Paris MOU on port state control / [recommend the Paris MOU to do it]

Regional ALL

II. MEASURES TO REDUCE IMPACTS FROM ALDFG (Abandoned, Lost or otherwise Discarded Fishing Gear)

S2A Through a multinational project, together with the fishing industry and competent authorities, develop and promote best practice in relation to marine litter. All relevant aspects (including e.g. mapping hotspots, dolly rope, waste management on board, waste management at harbours and operational losses/net cuttings) should be included

Regional SE, PL, ES, DE

Assessment

S2B Develop a risk assessment for identifying where accumulations of ghost nets pose a threat to the environment and should be removed

National All

S2C Identify hot spot areas through mapping of snagging sites or historic dumping grounds working with other initiatives, research programmes and with fishing organisations

Regional SE, PL, ES

S2D Investigate the prevalence and impact of dolly ropes (bunches of polyethylene threads used to protect the cod end of demersal trawl nets from abrasions; synthetic fibre)

S2E Identify the options to address key waste items from the fishing industry and aquaculture, which could contribute to marine litter, including deposit schemes and extended producer responsibility. Project application on all the different options of waste recovery and reuse (down the waste hierarchy)

Regional, national

Prevention & minimisation

S2F Elaborate guidelines on best practices to reduce the input of ALDFG (abandoned, lost and otherwise discarded fishing gear) to the marine environment; utilize UNEP RSC report on ALDFG as a starting point and focus on regional specifics

Regional All

S2G Explore and implement “Gear marking to indicate ownership” concept and ‘reduced ghost catches through the use of environmental neutral upon degradation of nets, pots and traps concept’, in consultation with the competent international and regional organizations in the fishing sector

Regional, national

All

Removal & disposal

S2H Investigate markets for plastic waste from the fishing and shipping industry (e.g. by bringing together producers of waste and recycling companies) by looking at specific items and differences in materials, including giving value to waste streams by financial incentives

Regional, national

S2I Based on the risk assessment and identification of hot spot areas initiate removal of ghost nets and their further safe disposal

Regional, national

All


Page 19 of 22

III. MEASURES ON PORT RECEPTION FACILITIES AND THE APPLICATION OF THE NO‐SPECIAL‐FEE SYSTEM

S3A Further work on harmonization of the no‐special‐fee system (addressing as possible gaps in existing regulations, enforcement and practices concerned shipping, port reception facilities auditing to assess adequacy of garbage collection, strive for fair waste burden sharing between ports)

Regional DE

S3B Support further regional discussion within the HELCOM MARITIME as well as the HELCOM Cooperation platform on PRFs regarding the implementation of MARPOL Annex V and, for those HELCOM Contracting parties which are also EU member states, Directive 2000/59/EC in the Baltic Sea Area

Regional, national

S3C HELCOM Contracting parties which are also EU member states to support EU in the revision of the PRFs Directive (Directive 2000/59/EC)

Regional SE

S3D Ensure the full implementation of HELCOM Recommendation 28E/10: Application of the no‐special‐fee system to ship‐generated wastes and marine litter caught in fishing nets in the Baltic Sea area

Regional, national

All

S3E Improve implementation of the ISO standard (ISO 201070:2013) in relation to port reception facilities National

S3F Encourage submission of updated data on PRFs to IMO GISIS (Global Integrated Shipping Information System) and HELCOM

National

IV. MEASURES ON FISHING FOR LITTER INITIATIVES

S4A Explore, implement and recommend the “Fishing for Litter” environmentally sound practices, in consultation with the competent international and regional organizations (i.a. KIMO Baltic Sea, OSPAR Commission), to facilitate clean up of the floating litter and the seabed from marine litter caught incidentally and/or generated by fishing vessels in their regular activities including derelict fishing gears

Regional, national

S4B Identify and remove barriers to the processing or landfilling of marine litter collected in Fishing for Litter initiatives Regional

S4C Encourage all fishing vessels to be involved in Fishing for Litter schemes, where they are available National

V. MEASURES ON PLEASURE BOATING

S5A Promotion of garbage collection for pleasure crafts by marinas (i.a. Blue Marinas concept associated to the availability of pump‐out stations and sustainable waste management)

Regional

S5B Development of instruments to prevent the disposal of old pleasures boats National SE


Page 20 of 22


I. EDUCATION TO TARGET GROUPS ON MARINE LITTER IMPACTS AND IMPORTANCE OF AVOIDING LITTERING (TOURISM/RECREATIONAL HOTSPOTS; PRIVATE SECTOR AND MUNICIPALITIES INVOLVEMENT) AND INNOVATIVE APPROACHES TO KEEP LOCALITIES CLEAN, LIKE NATIONAL LITTER PICKING‐DAYS OF “KEEP SWEDEN TIDY” AND BIG CLEANUP DAY IN LATVIA AND LITHUANIA

E1A Develop marine litter assessment sheets on the development of material for education programmes, including those for professional seafarers and fishermen

E1B Promote and undertake education activities in synergy with existing initiatives in the field of sustainable development and in partnership with civil society (including activities related to prevention and promotion of sustainable consumption and production)

E1C Promote curricula for marine related education, including the recreational sector (e.g. diving and sailing schools), which develop awareness, understanding, and respect for the marine environment and secure commitment to responsible behavior at personal, local, national and global level

E1D HELCOM Contracting Parties to provide information on marine litter activities to be made available through the HELCOM portal. Promote the cooperation with other institutions on this activities (e.g. OSPAR Commission)

Regional, national

II. OUTREACH/AWARENESS RAISING ON MARINE LITTER IMPACTS AND IMPORTANCE OF AVOIDING LITTERING (TOURISM/RECREATIONAL HOTSPOTS; PRIVATE SECTOR AND MUNICIPALITIES INVOLVEMENT) AND INNOVATIVE APPROACHES TO KEEP LOCALITIES CLEAN, LIKE NATIONAL LITTER PICKING‐DAYS OF “KEEP SWEDEN TIDY” AND BIG CLEANUP DAY IN LATVIA AND LITHUANIA

E2A Develop a communication strategy on the RAP linked in a coherent way with national initiatives/measures. This will include linking the HELCOM website to relevant projects and initiatives

E2B Encourage participation in International, EU and National Marine Litter Cleanup Campaigns

E2C Promote the “Adopt a beach” system

E2D Raising public awareness on the occurrence, impact and prevention of marine litter, including micro plastics

E2E Developing collective agreements between HELCOM Contracting Parties, NGO’s and industry to tackle particular problems of marine litter

Regional, national

E2F Engaging with global marine initiatives such as:

The UNEP’s Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land‐based Activities (GPA‐Marine);

Regional Seas Action Plans;

The Global Partnership on Marine Litter (GPML);

The Global Partnership on Waste Management (GPWM); and The Honolulu Commitment and the Honolulu Strategy on marine debris

E2G Supporting campaigns to engage the public before introducing legal and economic measures to produce behavioral change


Page 21 of 22

III. AWARENESS RAISING ON THE CORRECT DISPOSAL OF SANITARY AND HYGIENE PRODUCTS (AS EXAMPLE THE “BAG IT AND BIN IT” CAMPAIGN/UK)

E3A HELCOM Contracting Parties to share experiences on awareness campaigns to promote the correct disposal of sanitary and hygiene products

Regional, national

IV. AWARENESS RAISING ON ALDFG (ABANDONED, LOST OR OTHERWISE DISCARDED FISHING GEAR)

E4A Promote or adopt environmental awareness courses for fishermen and the fishery sector (i.a. influence of their activity on the seabed) Something to apply at a national level

Regional, national

SE

E4B HELCOM Contracting Parties which are also EU Member States to undertake an awareness raising campaign to fishermen on their obligations under EU Control Regulation (1224/2009) with regard to reporting, marking and retrieval of lost nets

National SE

E4C Public awareness documentary “Ghost in the Baltic Sea” and the campaign for removing ghost nets from Polish and Lithuanian waters by BalticSea 2020 Foundation

E4D Diffusion of the film on ghosts nets in the Baltic Sea on the activities developed by Poland and Lithuania (funded by BalticSea 2020)

National


Page 22 of 22

Annex V Follow‐up work and timetable on the Action Plan and second

Workshop on HELCOM Marine Litter Action Plan

‐ Outcome of 1st HELCOM RAP ML workshop ready for circulation next week

o comments made at the 1st workshop will be taken into account including revision of the list

and text on measures

o participants of 1st workshop will be given one week to comment ([email protected])

‐ Based on the above a 0 draft of the HELCOM RAP ML will be prepared by end of June. Secretariat

and Germany as Lead country will prepare the 0 draft.

‐ The 0 draft will be circulated for comments during the period July‐August‐September to

participants of the 1st workshop, HELCOM MONAS, LAND, MARITIME, FISH‐ENV forum, HELCOM

GEAR and HODs (next HOD46 meeting 16‐17 September).

‐ Based on comments a 1st draft will be prepared by October 2014 to be discussed and further

elaborated at the 2nd workshop HELCOM RAP ML workshop.

‐ 2nd workshop tentatively 22‐23 October week 43 in Stralsund. Possibly a back‐to‐back meeting with

other RSCs representatives to discuss inter‐regional issues.

Target group: stakeholders, representatives of relevant authorities, experts.

Focus: further elaboration of proposed measures, identify as far as possible Lead CPs to follow up

identified measures, targets.

‐ Based on outcome of the 2nd workshop a 2nd draft will be prepared.

Documents

Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission 7-2014-137...The development of Regional Action Plans on Marine Litter: Approaches taken by MEDPOL and OSPAR Ms. Stefanie Werner, Germany,