Federal Ministry xy fe | : of Education a and Research The Ministry for the A survey of global and regional marine environmental assessments and related scientific activities A joint publication of UNEP and UNESCO-IOC executed by UNEP-WCMC and supported by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of the United Kingdom, Ministry for the Environment of Iceland, and Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2010 with funding from UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge http://www.archive.org/details/globalmarineasseO3corc LF 2 {bd dist The Ministry for the Environment of Iceland A survey of global and regional marine environmental assessments and related scientific activities A joint publication of UNEP and UNESC9-IOC executed by UNEP-WCMC and supported by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs of the United Kingdom, Ministry for the Environment of Iceland, and Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany IG United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) UNEP Executive Director: Klaus Toepfer The mission of the UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME IS to provide leadership and encourage partnership in caring for the environment by inspiring, informing, and enabling nations and people to improve their quality of life without compromising that of future generations. z The Intergovernmental Oceanographic (dos Commission of UNESCO (UNESCO-IOC) Executive Secretary: Patricio Bernal = The purpose of the INTERGOVERNMENTAL OCEANOGRAPHIC Commission oF UNESCO is to promote international cooperation and to coordinate programmes in research, services and capacity-building, in order to learn more about the nature and resources of the ocean and coastal areas, and to apply that knowledge for the improvement of management, sustainable development, the protection of the marine environment, and the decision-making pro- cesses of its Member States. The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission will collaborate with international organizations concerned with the work of the Commission, and especially with those organizations of the United Nations system that are willing and prepared to contribute to the purpose and functions of the Commission and/or to seek advice and cooperation in the field of ocean and coastal area scientific research, related services and capacity-building. Mow’, UNEP World Conservation Monitorin 4 9 Mi Centre UNEP WCMC Director: Mark Collins The UNEP Wor-o ConservaTION MoNiTORING CENTRE is the biodiversity assessment and policy implementation arm of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the world’s foremost intergovernmental environmental organization. UNEP-WCMC aims to help decision makers recognize the value of biodiversity to people everywhere, and to apply this knowledge to all that they do. The Centre's challenge is to transform complex data into policy-relevant information, to build tools and systems for analysis and integration, and to support the needs of nations and the international community as they engage in joint programmes of action UNEP-WCMWC provides objective, scientifically rigorous products and services that include ecosystem assessments, support for implementation of environmental agreements, regional and global biodiversity information, research on environmental threats and impacts, and development of future scenarios for the living world | SS © UNEP-WCMC/UNEP/UNESCO-IOC 2003 Citation: UNEP (2003) Global Marine Assessments: a survey of global and regional marine environmental assessments and related scientific activities, UNEP-WCMC/UNEP/UNESCO-IOC. 132pp Author: Emily Corcoran Project Manager: Ed Green UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre Acknowledgements This study was jointly funded by UNEP; UNESCO-IOC; the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Germany; the Ministry for the Environment, Iceland; and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK. The author would like to extend thanks to all individuals and organizations that completed and returned questionnaires and/or provided other narrative information. Without their cooperation and valuable contributions this study would not have been possible. Technical and editorial support was received from representatives of the sponsoring agencies, in particular Jan Stefan Fritz [Germany]; Halldor Thorgeirsson [Iceland]; Chris Tompkins (UK); Ellik Adler, Ivor Baste, Salif Diop, Matthew Fortnam, Beth Ingraham and Pinya Sarasas [UNEP]; and Umit Unluata (UNESCO- 1OC}. In addition, the author would like to recognize the invaluable assistance and constructive input received from colleagues at UNEP- WCMC, in particular Mark Collins, Edmund Green, Stefan Hain, lan May and Edmund McManus. The friendly collaboration with experts from UNESCO-IOC, especially in the context of developing methods to analyse the information compiled in this study, is gratefully acknowledged. Available online at http://www.unep-wemc.org/resources/ publications/ss1/GMA_Review.pdf A Banson production Printed in the UK by Swaingrove Imaging Picture credits: p9 Christophe Rougen/UNEP/Topham; p10 PD Sugma/UNEP/Topham; p12 left Shoukyu/UNEP/Topham; p12 right Hans Otto/UNEP/Topham; p13 J Canete/UNEP/Topham; p17 left top Paul Wright/UNEP/Topham; p17 left bottom Urmila Mehandru/UNEP/ Topham; p17 right Bruno Rosso/UNEP/Topham; p18 Kathryn Kolb/UNEP/Topham; p19 UNEP/Topham; p20 left Michael Peck/UNEP/Topham; p20 right Sal B Lacayo/UNEP/Topham; p22 Denjiro Sato/UNEP/Topham; EP Green The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of UNEP or contributory organizations. The designations employed and the presentations do not imply the expressions of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP or contributory organizations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or its authority, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries Foreword by Klaus Toepfer Executive Director United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP] he importance of coastal and oceanic ecosystems to the global environment cannot be overstated, nor can the environmental threats facing them. More than one-third of the world’s population lives within 100 kilometres of the coast. Development in the coastal zones is destroying wetlands, estuaries, mangroves and coral reefs, which are critical to ocean productivity. Both marine and land-based sources of pollution threaten the long- term sustainability of coastal and marine resources on which many communities depend. Overfishing is also taking its toll on marine ecosystems. For these reasons there is a need to keep the state of the coastal and marine environment under review in order to ensure that emerging environmental problems are given adequate consideration by policy and decision makers. The 21st session of the UNEP Governing Council in February 2001 adopted decision 21/13 to explore the feasibility of establishing a regular process for the assessment of the state of the marine environment. The World Summit on Sustainable Development and the United Nations General Assembly in 2002 embraced the outcome of the consultative meetings held in response to the decision in Reykjavik, September 2001, and Bremen, March 2002. This led to the adoption of resolution 57/141 by the General Assembly to establish by 2004 a regular process for the global reporting and assessment of the state of the marine environment. The need to protect the coastal and marine environment was also accorded a high degree of attention by the Heads of State and Government at the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Initiated as part of UNEP’s feasibility study, The survey of global and regional marine environmental assess- ments and related scientific activities developed into a combined effort between UNEP, UNEP-WCMC and IOC of UNESCO, with support from the Governments of Germany, Iceland and the United Kingdom, as a con- tribution to the global marine assessment process. It is my great pleasure to issue this publication jointly with Mr Koichiro Matsuura, the Director-General of UNESCO. The publication is a good example of inter-agency cooperation and the involvement of governments, both of which are crucial to the establishment and long-term success of such complex processes. This is clearly highlighted in the findings of the survey. The collaborative support of existing assessment programmes and frameworks is also recognized as essential for the process. Through our ongoing assessment activities and in cooperation with the Regional Seas Programmes and other regional seas agreements, UNEP Is well placed to contribute and participate actively in the Global Marine Assessment process based on our competence and experience in the field of environmental assessments. As complex, multi-scaled, multi-dimensional and multi- sectoral as the process is, UNEP stands ready to work in close collaboration with other UN agencies, governments, the scientific community and relevant stakeholders as called for by resolution 57/141 and recommended during the UN Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law held in New York, 2-6 June 2003. | believe that this publication will add value to the development of the overall Global Marine Assessment process by identifying issues of primary concern as well as priorities that need attention in response to policy needs. Issues include, for example, the ecological impacts of human activities and their socio-economic implications; the participation of developing countries and small island states; and the thematic and geographical gaps in the global picture. The further development of the process will require a good design to ensure credibility, relevance, legitimacy, transparency, participation and cost effectiveness. The assessment should also be structured to mobilize the scientific community, to promote intergovernmental collaboration, and to ensure that sustainable capacity building in developing countries is established as an integral part of the assessment process. UNEP sees the Global Marine Assessment process as a tool for strengthening the link between science and policy, and identifying scenarios which could assist decision makers in addressing priority coastal and marine issues as documented by this joint publication. Foreword by Koichiro Matsuura Director-General United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) fter the Second World War, outer space and the A= were the first global spatial domains in which the newly formed United Nations was called to use its new standard-setting authority. The broad scope of the coordination needed in ocean activities extends across the social, economic and environmental aspects of sus- tainable development and responds to the principle laid down in the preamble of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS): ‘that the problems of ocean and space are closely interrelated and need to be considered as a whole’. Coordination of ‘ocean affairs’ is a matter of concern at the highest levels in the UN system. In addition to UNCLOS, there are today over 500 international agreements on different aspects of ocean protection and the use of marine resources. However, the international community faces a major ongoing challenge arising from those agreements, namely, how to secure greater compliance and more rigorous enforcement. As a result, Member States have been calling for the establishment of a more effective and transparent mechanism of international coordination. In this regard, it is widely acknowledged that the coordination of ocean issues should best be pursued on the basis of a collegial forum in the United Nations in which all agencies and the UN Secretariat participate. In addition, there is a need to find a way to accommodate new partners from outside the UN system. Such a forum would be particularly important for establishing a regular process under the United Nations for global reporting and assessment of the state of the marine environment. Last year’s World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa, included much discussion of ocean issues and sounded a note of alarm that, despite the UN’s many efforts, the protection of the oceans is not improving. On the contrary, in many areas there are worrying signs that our collective efforts are insufficient. Consequently, para 36(b) of the WSSD Plan of Implementation called for the development of a regular Global Marine Assessment (GMA) to ascertain the status of many of the natural processes, ecosystems and special environments in the ocean. UNESCO and the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) are convinced of the need to develop the GMA. We are pleased to note that, in follow-up to the Johannesburg Summit, the Secretary-General of the UN was called, through Resolution 57/141, to report to this year’s 58th session of the UN General Assembly on the modalities to undertake such a complex task. 10C has actively participated in the preparatory work for the establishment of the GMA, taking a leading role in partnership with UNEP. Indeed, the initial decision (21/13) taken by the UNEP Governing Council in February 2001 called upon IOC to work jointly with UNEP to assess the feasibility of a GMA. UNESCO welcomed this invitation and the opportunity to work closely with a key partner. lOC has engaged actively with this preparatory process, including the Reykjavik and Bremen workshops, where we proposed a general blueprint for a salient, legitimate and credible assessment, one that combines global scope with strong regional implementation. In preparation for the meeting of the UNEP General Council last February in Nairobi, IOC contributed to the present review of the existing ocean assessments that could be integrated into the GMA. The objective of this joint publication of UNEP and IOC of UNESCO was to provide a snapshot of the current situation and to consider the ways in which the GMA process could integrate existing and planned assessments as well as address and fill in the thematic and geographical gaps identified in the study. The review concludes that existing assessments are not sufficiently regular or sustainable to achieve the expectations of the proposed GMA mechanism. The arguments presented support the need for a dedicated mechanism to regularly report on the state of the world’s oceans, as put forward by (i) UNEP GC Decision 21/13; [ii) paragraph 36(b) of the WSSD Plan of Implementation; and (iii) the UN General Assembly at its 57th Session. lam confident that the present review will serve as an important step towards establishing a regular process under the United Nations for global reporting and assessment of the state of the marine and coastal environment. | am also confident that the review will make all the concerned parties aware that the success of this process will strongly depend on the ability of the UN system to work together as a whole, utilizing a clear division of labour. A comprehensive approach to ‘ocean affairs’, to be sustained over many years, must place a premium upon effective partnership and collaboration. xecutive Summary s part of the implementation of UNEP Governing Council Decision 21/13 on a ‘Global assessment of the state of the marine environment’, this study was commissioned to analyse information on marine environmental assessments carried out at the regional and global levels. The objective of the review is to contribute to the establishment of a Global Marine Assessment (GMA], a regular report on the state of the marine environment, supported by the UN. It aims to provide a snapshot of the current situation and answer the following questions: Q_ In what ways could a GMA process integrate existing and planned assessments? Q How could identified thematic and geographical gaps be addressed and filled? Data were generated through the distribution of questionnaires. Analysis of the information obtained indicated that existing assessments are not sufficiently regular or sustainable to achieve the expectations of the proposed GMA mechanism. Based on the present review, it is recommended that: 1. To be sustainable, a GMA must have the support of national stakeholders and make use, where possible, of existing regional agreements, frameworks and organizations. 2. For those marine areas or marine environmental issues which currently are not, or are insufficiently, covered by assessments, a GMA will be required to support existing capacities and develop new capacities, in particular for the assessment of: i. the high seas and deep/open waters ii. the marine environments of developing nations and small island developing states iii. the interactions between marine and freshwater systems. 3. AGMA should endeavour to use primary data where they are available. This information should comply with internationally accepted standards and be subject to quality assurance measures to ensure credibility. The planning, implementation and review of a GMA should involve representatives from existing assess- ments to avoid duplication and to learn from their experiences. A GMA mechanism must ensure the involvement and ownership of the process by the end-user, in particular national and regional policy makers, so it will be flexible enough to meet their changing needs. A GMA should involve the private sector, as well as industrial and environmental non-governmental organizations, as stakeholders in the assessment process. These partners could provide a useful source of information and also help to raise awareness and increase responsibility for the marine environment. A GMA mechanism must recognize the differences in national and regional approaches, capacities, resources and constraints for collaboration and take them into account in its design. A GMA mechanism should use existing regional capacity where it exists, and facilitate the transfer of skills, the development of training and the building of capacity in geographical and thematic areas where it is lacking. In addition to its primary role of regularly reporting on the status of the marine environment, a GMA has the potential to: i. facilitate and encourage the sharing of information and experiences, and promote collaboration between regions and disciplines, thereby improving international networks for issues relating to the assessment of the marine environment; ii. act in an advisory capacity to existing assess- ments, spreading methods of best practice and developing standardized methods for data collection, quality assurance and assessment. AGMA should aim to streamline existing international activities concerning the assessment of the state of the marine environment and contribute to increased collaboration between UN agencies. Global Marine Assessments Contents Foreword by Klaus Toepfer, Executive Director of UNEP Foreword by Koichiro Matsuura, Director-General of UNESCO Executive Summary 2.2 2.3 2.4 Map 1 Introduction Preamble Methodology Organization of the report Summary of key findings Scope, timing and stauts of reviewed assessments and related activities 2.1.1 Scope 2.1.2 Timing 2.1.3 Status Ways in which the GMA could benefit from existing and foreseen assessments and related activities 2.2.1 Basic requirements of the GMA 2.2.2 |dentification of suitable assessments 1 2.2.3, How a GMA could collaborate with these assessments or activities Ways in which thematic and geographical gaps can be filled Comments on the review 2.4.1 Notes on the effectiveness of data collection 2.4.2 Notes on data analysis Maps Overlay of the principal regional demarcations used by global and regional assessments and related scientific activities Separated regional layers from Map 1 o ao ao oo ry > nN oO “Oo ~o 21 21 14 6. Annex 1: Annex 2: Annex 3: Annex 4: Annex 5: Annex 6: 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Annex 7: Annex 8: Conclusions Recommendations References and reading Annexes Glossary of working definitions Table of acronyms UNEP Governing Council Decision 21/13 Background to the review of marine assessments 4.1 Scope 4.2 Background 4.3 Objectives Project document Review methodology Phase |: Pre-study preparations 6.1.1 Contacts list 6.1.2 Preparation of the questionnaire Phase II: Contacting administrative and scientific bodies Phase Ill: Compilation, analysis and interpretation of information Phase IV: Preparation of conclusions and recommendations Questionnaire Contacts list 22 23 24 25 26 28 31 32 32 32 32 34 37 37 37 37 37 37 38 40 48 Global Marine Assessments Annex 9: Data analysis (including tables and 9.4 Overview and interpretation of key narrative figures) 74 responses 87 9.1 Summary and analysis of questionnaire 9.4.1 Information sources 87 returns 74 9.4.2 Organizations with specialist 9.1.1 Return rates 74 knowledge/skills 87 9.1.2 Background information on reviewed 9.4.3 Other existing mechanisms 87 assessments 74 9.4.4 Key findings from section 9.4 9.1.3 Key findings from section 9.1 (narrative responses) 88 (summary and analysis of questionnaire ‘ returns} 76 9.5 Lessons learned from reviewed assessments 88 9.1.4 Tables and figures for section 9.1 ; arn (summary and analysis of questionnaire 9.6 Application of criteria to assessments 89 returns] 16 9.6.1 Key findings from section 9.6 9.2 Geographical coverage 79 (criteria analysis] 90 9191) Provision forassessments 79 9.6.2 Tables for section 9.6 (criteria analysis} 90 9.2.2 Location of activities 80 9.2.3 Key findings from section 9.2 : Annex 10: Summary list of all reported assessments (geographical coverage] 80 bath ade Sealed saecete and scientific activities detailed in 9.2.4 Tables and figures for section 9.2 section A of questionnaire returns 92 (geographical coverage] 80 9.3 Thematic coverage 83 ae Annex 11: Summary of all additional responses 9.3.1 Coverage of thematic areas 83 (excluding questionnaire returns) 111 9.3.2 Thematic gaps 84 9.3.3 Changes over time 84 Annex 12: Criteria definitions and scoring system 117 9.3.4 Key findings from section 9.3 (thematic coverage] 84 2 2e Fi Annex 13: Integration of existing assessments into 9.3.5 Tables and figures for section 9.3 a GMA - overview of actual (or potential) {thematic coverage] 85 impediments 122 Note: The recommendations are based on the information received from regional and global organizations, in particular on the analysis of completed questionnaires. It was not in the scope of this study to consider further information on marine assessments and related scientific activities from the literature and the Internet. Due to the large number of assessments reviewed, it has not been possible to refer to and acknowledge individually all the excellent work that is currently being carried out at regional and global levels. Global Marine Assessments . Introduction 1.1 Preamble’ This study has been conducted in response to the UNEP Governing Council Decision 21/13 on a Global assessment of the state of the marine environment’ (Annex 3), which requests the Executive Director of UNEP, ‘in cooperation with UNESCO-IOC and other appropriate UN agencies, the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, and in consultation with the regional seas programmes, to explore the feasibility of establishing a regular process for the assessment of the state of the marine environment, with active involvement by governments and regional agreements, building on ongoing assessment pro- grammes’. Implementation of the UNEP GC Decision 21/13 has led to the concept of a Global Marine Assessment (GMA) mechanism by the international community, as demonstrated by the commitment made by governments at the World Summit on Sustainable Development, South Africa, September 2002. This study was executed by UNEP-WCMC in collaboration with UNESCO-IOC and supported by UNEP and the national Governments of Germany, Iceland and the UK in response to the outcomes of the Bremen meeting (UNEP, 2002). The objective of this study is to contribute to the establishment of a regular process, with the support of the United Nations, for global reporting on and assessment of the state of the marine environment (Annex 1, working definitions). It is to serve as factual background to complement the recommendations of two international meetings held in Reykjavik and Bremen with respect to the feasibility, development and implemen- tation of a GMA. It aims to provide a snapshot of current marine assessments and provide reliable answers to the following questions: 1. In what ways could a GMA process integrate existing and foreseen assessments? 2. How could identified thematic and geographical gaps be addressed and filled? The report presents information resulting from the analysis of 82 existing and future marine environ- mental assessments and related scientific activities carried out at regional and global levels under relevant organizations or conventions. The report considers the marine environment to include estuaries, coastal regions, continental shelves and open oceans. A more detailed background to the implementation of UNEP Governing Council Decision 21/13 is presented in Annex 4. 1.2 Methodology In order to fulfil the requirements set out in the project document (Annex 5], a methodology was developed and implemented in four phases: |: Pre-study preparations; II: Contacting administrative and scientific bodies; Ill: Compilation, analysis and interpretation of information; and IV: Preparation of conclusions and recommendations. Full details of the methodology can be found in Annex 6. To collect information for Phase II on existing and future marine environmental assessments, a question- naire (Annex 7) was developed and sent to more than 200 assessment secretariats and administrations (Annex 8]. At the beginning of the study an advisory group was established to guide the process and its progress. This group was composed of representatives from the sponsoring and executing bodies including UNEP-DEWA, the UNEP Regional Seas Secretariat, the IOC, the Governments of Germany, Iceland and the UK, and UNEP- WCMC. The group provided technical and editorial assistance throughout the study. 1.3 Organization of the report The report is divided into four sections. This first section introduces the scope of the survey and the background to its implementation. Section 2 presents a summary of the key findings from which the conclusions and recommendations are derived in sections 3 and 4 respectively. In order to keep these sections concise, details of the background, the methods used in the quantitative analysis of data, a glossary and table of acronyms are given in the annexes. 1. A glossary of working definitions and table of acronyms used in the report are presented in Annexes 1 and 2 respectively. Global Marine Assessments 2. Summary of key findings This section presents a summary of the key findings of the survey based on the analysis of information provided for the various assessments. It considers the scope, timing and status of the assessments; looks at ways in which the GMA could integrate existing and foreseen assessments; outlines ways in which identified thematic and geographi- cal gaps could be filled; and comments briefly on the review process used in this study. Due to the large number of assessments, it is not possible to refer to and acknow- ledge individually all of the excellent work that is being carried out in the international framework. Annex 9 pro- vides details of the analysis including tables and figures. 2.1 Scope, timing and status of reviewed assessments and related activities 2.1.1 Scope Most of the reviewed assessments are being undertaken at a regional level and are currently ongoing. In geographical terms, the majority of provisions for assessing the marine environment are made for areas in the Northern Hemisphere (Maps 1 and 2). There are large regional differences in the number of ongoing assess- ments, with the highest level of activity in the northeast Atlantic [including the North Sea), the Baltic Sea and the wider Caribbean regions. Even within regions, assess- ment coverage is not consistent, and in general those areas which are easy to access, such as coastal waters, are being most comprehensively assessed (Annex 9.2). The high seas and open oceans are poorly covered (Map 1), as are many marine areas around small island states. The coastal waters of developing nations are also poorly covered, due to lack of resources and capacity, both human and institutional. Capacity issues are discussed in greater detail in section 2.2.3. Analysis of thematic coverage (Annex 9.3] indicates that for the purposes of providing information for policy advice, the assessments of geophysical parameters (e.g. hydrography, oceanography and bathy- metry) of the marine environment are producing Global Marine Assessments » sufficient information at a global scale. Remote sensing is increasingly being used to measure these parameters. Pollution, the impact of human activities and ecological issues are the themes addressed under most assessments reviewed. The assessment of fisheries and fish stocks, as well as pollution by hazardous substances and nutrients, is particularly well addressed at the regional scale. Assessment of alien species contami- nation has greater coverage at global rather than regional level. The principal thematic gaps in existing assess- ments include understanding of ecosystem functioning (particularly of the mid-ocean and open ocean/deep sea- floor environments), the socio-economic implications of the state of the marine environment, biogeochemical cycles and monitoring of marine pollution caused by atmospheric deposition. The relationships and inter- actions between the biological, chemical and physical characteristics of the marine environment, and how human activities affect and are affected by these interactions, are now beginning to be addressed, but need to be developed further. Analysis of the longer-term assessments included in the review revealed a change of thematic focus over time. Thirty years ago, fisheries-related assessments dominated, such as the Regular stock assessment of Atlantic tuna and tuna-like species’ undertaken by the ICCAT (Annex 10, 2b). This shifted to a focus on the assessment of pollution (20 to 30 years ago) (e.g. Pollution 10 Load Compilation - Air [airborne load of nutrient and contaminants) by HELCOM [Annex 10, 35a}). New assess- ments established in the last ten years have a broader focus and include a more encompassing monitoring of the marine environment [e.g. The assessment of environ- mental impacts of coastal aquaculture’, GESAMP (Annex 10, 8c}; ‘Yellow Sea marine environmental monitoring’, KORDI (Annex 10, 42c)). Some of this shift in focus over time might be due to a change in environmental policies and political needs, which influence these assessments. In addition, the change could be reflecting a greater scientific understanding of the complexities of the marine environment, recognizing that it is not possible to understand a system by looking at individual elements. 2.1.2 Timing The majority of assessments reviewed in this study are currently in progress, with less than 40 of the 188 assessments listed being planned for the future (Annex 9, Figure 9.2). No detailed responses were given for assessments that have not yet started. Of the 82 regional and global assessments for which detailed information was provided, none is planned for a period of longer than ten years. However, 39 are described as ongoing or open ended with no specific termination date identified. Of those that are ongoing, 18 have been carried out for less than ten years, eight for up to 20 years, six for up to 30 years and six for over 30 years [one is unknown) (Annex QWIM-d3ANN :221N0S “UONDIPSIIN{ JeuO!yeU JapUN JOU SJoO}j eas PU UeADO ay) JO Seale }}e SJAADD SQTON/ dew siuj jo sasodind ay 404 ‘AyyIgeylene eyep 0} anp si Sly} ‘(al!0z UO!}esado00g IiWoUOdy IIj!9eq-eISY} dWIND-ONISO ‘NONI ‘OI *e aNBiy siyy UI papnjdu! jou yng suInjaJ ay) UO payedipul suo!Hay ‘AaAins siyy Wosj SuinjaJ au/euUO!}sanb U! payedipu! suoiBas UoWWOD sow ay) sasn pue ‘ansneyxa aq 0} }dwayje Jou saop dew siyj jUaWUOJIAUA aulJeLW a4} Ul S}UaLUSsasse a)qeUa 0} }SIXa jeY) SUOI}e}IWI]ap }eUOIGa1 pue SuO!UAaAUOD 'sjUaWaas6e a4) Jo Sajdiwexa ase UMmOYs SJaAe} AY! :a}0N) 11 9 S vi € c L 016 Aq pasn suojjesewap jeuo|bas Jedioulid ayy yo Aej1ang 1 dew % = 4 Poe ans 0 a , Global Marine Assessments 9.3, Table 9.4]. The longest-running assessment is that of tuna population dynamics by the IATTC, commissioned in 1950 (Annex 10, 30). The analysis identified a disparity between funding provision and the expected duration of assessments. The majority of funding is provided for a period of two to four years, but more than 60 per cent of regional assessments and over 40 per cent of global assessments are expected to continue for five years or more (Annex 9.1, Figure 9.3). This suggests that there are inconsistencies, or periods of uncertainty, during the ‘life’ of an assessment, which could threaten sustainability and could explain why many of the global assessments have more than one source of funding. One-quarter of the reviewed global assessments are non-recurrent, i.e. are undertaken as a single event (Annex 9, Figure 9.4). They provide snapshots of the status of a certain area or aspect of the marine environment at a given time, and are not able to show trends or changes over time which are essential elements of a future GMA. Assessments and activities carried out on a continuous or regular basis tend to be those assessing fishery-related aspects and physical parameters. Few global reports are produced annually; however nearly two-thirds of all assessments produce reports at least once every two years. One-fifth of global assessments only produce single reports. Anecdotal evidence from discussions with assessment users suggests that ten years 12 is a reasonable period for repeating a global-scale assessment. However, it would be of use to produce more frequent interim reports for specific thematic or geographical areas that are of particular interest to policy makers at that time, or are subject to rapid change where ten years is too long a time frame. 2.1.3 Status The basis and underlying requirements for carrying out the assessments reviewed vary between regional and global scales. In general, most assessments were established following some kind of requirement or request agreed at the international, intergovernmental level, within or external to the UN system. At the regional level, the majority of assessments are commissioned by intergovernmental agreements made under a regional convention or treaty, although some are a result of scientific cooperation/partnership or of intergovern- mental requests formulated outside a convention/treaty framework. At the global level, international non- governmental organizations commissioned almost one- third of the assessments and activities, implying a different type of assessment structure and mechanism. For both global and regional assessments, the key stakeholders and end-users are identified as national governments, intergovernmental bodies and the scientific community. Organizational funds and external sources are the primary means of finance for most assessments. Activity- generated income, that is monies that are raised through assessment-related activities and outputs (e.g. the sale of reports and maps], was only rarely observed in the assessments reviewed here and plays a minor role. Most assessments set up under international conventions are financed directly or indirectly by national contributions, i.e. either Contracting Parties pay themselves for the assessment activities carried out in their national waters and/or a certain amount of the CP contributions is allocated to a special budget managed by the convention for funding the assessment activities. Assessments established and financed under the framework of an international convention have the advantage that the burden of funding is spread over a number of Contracting Parties, providing a more stable and sustainable financial basis, in particular for long-term assessments. Details of the analysis for this section are to be found in Annex 9.1. 2.2 Ways in which the GMA could benefit from existing and foreseen assessments and related activities One of the most difficult tasks in the development of a GMA mechanism will be how it can successfully build upon and integrate the large number of existing assessments in the marine environment. In this review alone, 188 assessments are listed, and 82 in detail, at Global Marine Assessments the global and regional scales from the sample of 60 contacts that responded to the questionnaire (responding organizations are listed in Annex 8, Table A; summary results Annex 9.1]. The main questions are (i) what are the basic requirements that the GMA will look for in a suitable contributing assessment? (ii) how will it identify these assessments? and [iii] how will it collaborate with them? 2.2.1 Basic requirements of the GMA Two technical consultations convened in Reykjavik (UNEP, 2001a) and Bremen (UNEP, 2002) outlined what would be expected from a GMA mechanism. The key requirements are listed below in bold and information resulting from the review was used to indicate how existing assessments are already meeting these requirements. A GMA mechanism should: Be based on science: Over 70 per cent of the 82 assessments and activities that responded are based on primary or scientific data (Annex 9.1). Demonstrate implications of trends and change: Thirty-nine of the assessments reviewed are set up as long-term [or ongoing) programmes with the potential to identify trends and changes in the marine environment. Given the scope of these assessments, trends in fish stock and in marine pollutant concentrations can be expected. More recently there has been an increase in the number 13 Map 2 Separated regional layers from Map 1 FAO and non-FAO regional fishery bodies/UNEP and non-UNEP regional seas Indicate areas where there is institutional provision for the assessment of the marine environment. States are Contracting Parties to these conventions and agreements. Regions described by international programmes based on scientific criteria, not decided by nation states Regional Fishery Bodies established under the auspices of the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations dealing with marine fisheries and non-FAO regional fishery bodies dealing with marine fisheries. The Global 200 is a science-based global ranking of the Earth’s most biologically outstanding terrestrial, freshwater and marine habitats. It provides a critical blueprint for biodiversity conservation at a global scale. Developed by a WWF scientist in collaboration with regional experts around the world, the Global 200 is the first comparative analysis of biodiversity to cover every major habitat type, spanning five continents and all the world’s oceans The aim of the Global 200 analysis is to ensure that the full range of ecosystems is represented within regional conservation and development strategies, so that conservation efforts around the world contribute to a global biodiversity strategy. 43 marine ecoregions are highlighted in the Global 200. 14 UNEP Regional Seas The Regional Seas Programme was initiated in 1974 as a global programme implemented through regional components. Agenda 21, the UN General Assembly of the Governing Council of UNEP endorsed the regional approach. The Programme at present includes 13 regions involving more than 140 coastal states and territories. The Regional Seas Programme is an action- oriented programme and focuses not only on the FAO and non-FA0 fisheries regions mitigation or elimination of the consequences but also on the causes of environmental degra- dation. It has a comprehensive, integrated, result-oriented approach to combating environ- mental problems through the rational manage- ment of marine and coastal areas. The Regional Seas dataset was digitized from a paper map and Is therefore only for illustration. Regional Seas do not encompass the high seas. Non-UNEP regional seas 1. The Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (1974 Helsinki Convention). This is the first international agree- ment to cover pollution (land, sea and air). It regu- lates cooperation to combat marine pollution by oil and other hazardous substances. 2. OSPAR - adopted in 1992 and entered into force in 1998. Merges and modernizes the Oslo and Paris Conventions to include new principles of conservation. Large Marine Ecosystems 3. Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME) cooperates with the Arctic Council on pollution prevention and control, habitat protec- tion and biodiversity, identification and assess- ment of environmental problems, sustainable development and environmental protection. 4. The Antarctic Treaty is an international agreement governing Antarctica and was adopted in 1959 by the 12 nations present in Antarctica at that time. The Convention on the Conservation of Source: UNEP-WCMC Antarctic Marine Living Resouces (CCAMLR) was adopted and came into force in 1982 pioneering the development of the ‘ecosystem approach’ to the regulation of fisheries. 5. The Caspian Environment Programme (CEP]} was developed for and by the five Caspian Littoral States, Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkmenistan, in response to environmental problems and to promote sustainable development in the region. The Global International Waters Assessment is based on assessments of 66 international waters, these comprising marine, coastal and freshwater areas, and surface waters as well as groundwaters in nine major regions. Large Marine Ecosystems are regions of the ocean space encompassing coastal areas from river basins and estuaries to the seaward boundary of continental shelves and the seaward margins of coastal current systems. They are relatively large regions characterized by dis- tinct bathymetry, hydrography, productivity and trophically dependent populations. Data from the Large Marine Ecosystem Program, NOAA-Fisheries, Narragansett Laboratory, Narragansett, RI 02882, Email: Kenneth. Sherman(@NOAA.gov www.edc.uri.edu/Ime 15 Global Marine Assessments of assessments considering trends of the marine environment in its broader sense (Annex 9, Table 9.4). These will require sustainability over time. There are a high number of reviewed assessments that meet the criteria for sustainability and so potentially could contribute to the GMA (Annex 9.6). Look at the socio-economic aspects being influenced by changes: Socio-economic aspects are at present not sufficiently covered by existing marine assess- ments and will need to be addressed by the future GMA. Look at impacts of changes in the marine environment on ecosystem goods and services [impact of land-based activities on uses of the marine environment)/ adopt an ecosystem approach: This has been difficult to analyse because, although the ‘ecosystem approach’ has been adopted over the last decade by an increasing number of marine environmental assessments, there is a lack of consensus as to what an ecosystem approach entails. There are also variations in how different assessments are attempting the practical implemen- tation of the approach. The GMA could benefit from the experiences gained under those assessments which consider ecosystems as a whole l[e.g. the ecosystem status assessment carried out by CCAMLR in the Southern Ocean and, in return, could provide overarching guidance in the further discussion and implementation of this approach. Be based on regional/sub-regional ecosystem assessments at the global level: Although many of the assessments reviewed are carried out at the regional level, there were no definite examples where the results of regional ecosystem assessments were feeding into a truly global assessment. This is one aspect where a future GMA would have to establish new ways, networks and partnerships to ensure that regional and sub-regional assessment results were being collated to provide a bigger, global picture. Target policy makers and indicate policy impli- cations: National stakeholders (including policy makers), international bodies and the scientific community are the most common target and stakeholder groups of the reviewed assessments (Annex 9.1, Figures 9.6 and 9.7). The majority of assessment outcomes have either a direct or an indirect link to national (76 per cent of assessments reviewed) and international (86 per cent of assessments reviewed) policy review and development [Annex 9.1, Figure 9.10]. This provides a good basis to be utilized and supported by a GMA. Be progressive and not static (allow for feedback and review): Methods and protocol guidelines are adopted for almost 80 per cent of assessments, nearly all of which are subject to some kind of review mechanism. 16 Approximately 60 per cent of assessments allow for feedback from users on the continued relevance of products. Existing review and feedback mechanisms will have to be analysed in greater detail to determine the most effective way for a GMA to interact with these assessments (Annex 9.1). Consider the issues of data quality and periodicity: Data quality and comparability are bottle- necks in the assessment process at present. Even in well- established assessments, such as those carried out under the OSPAR Commission in the northeast Atlantic, continuous efforts are made to improve data quality and comparability (over time and space) to ensure that the assessment, interpretation, and any consequent advice to policy makers, is reliable. To assure data quality, most assessments have adopted some _ international methodological standards and procedures for their particular purposes. A potential role of the GMA would be to investigate to what extent these standards deliver comparable data and information, which could be compiled and assessed at the global level. As regards periodicity (Annex 9, Figure 9.4], regional assessments tend to be undertaken more regularly than global assessments, one-quarter of which are implemented as a one-off single assessment. A potential role of the GMA would be to work closely together with the governing bodies of existing assessments to ensure that their results are being made available in time to answer emerging information needs. 2.2.2 Identification of suitable assessments There are several ways of identifying the most appropriate assessments and mechanisms. This review has been able to prepare an overview of existing assessments and to analyse them showing how reviewed assessments measure up to the requirements of a GMA [as indicated at the Reykjavik consultation). There is no existing assess- ment that meets all of the criteria for integration into a GMA mechanism without an impediment or partial impediment (Annex 9.6, Table 9.9]. Many of the assessments without significant impediments to their integration into a GMA are responding to regional seas agreements (UNEP and non-UNEP] and are based on (or involve) some form of governmental agreement or regional convention. The definitions of the criteria used for this analysis are presented in Annex 12 and a summary of the results in Annex 13. The results documented in the present review, as well as the discussions held and documentation prepared over the last two years in the context of implementing UNEP GC Decision 21/13, are a good basis for a future GMA to identify suitable assessments. 2.2.3 How a GMA could collaborate with these assessments or activities The written and narrative responses received and analysed in the context of this study show that there will be number of issues to be addressed, and steps required, to establish an effective and mutually supportive collaboration between the existing assessments and a GMA process (Annex 9.4; Annex 11: summary of narrative responses; Annex 10: complete list of assessments for which section A of questionnaires have been returned). Involving the right stakeholders Representatives of organizations and secretariats responsible for global and regional assessments should be involved in the planning of a GMA to enable the best use of their expertise and experience at the earliest stage. The intended end-users, in this case national and regional policy makers, must take responsibility and ownership of the process from the beginning. The assessment set up must be guided by identifying the type of information that is required and the most appropriate way of presenting this information, and supporting the exchange of views and lessons learned under existing assessments (Annex 9.5 for lessons learned). National experts and policy makers have a crucial role to play in the governing bodies of regional and global assessments contributing to the GMA to ensure that these Global Marine Assessments assessments are appropriately supported and positioned to be able to feed into the global framework. Collaborating with existing assessments To take all relevant regional and global assessments into account in a GMA process will involve a great deal of collaboration. The GMA should act as a coordinator/ facilitator in creating bi- and multilateral partnerships and frameworks not only for monitoring, reporting and assessing marine environmental data and information but also for networking experts and organizations that need to collaborate. Collaborations will be required to enable existing regional assessments to provide input to the GMA. There are many organizations that have long-standing experience of reporting on the state of the marine environment at a regional level. Within the framework of the OSPAR Convention, for example, Contracting Parties produce in a joint and cooperative effort a detailed quality status report of the northeast Atlantic every ten years. Current work being undertaken by the EC in its development of a marine strategy to improve the reporting and assessment of the status of European marine waters is expected to provide useful lessons to be taken into account in the establishment of a GMA. At a global level, GESAMP has been producing ten- yearly reports on the status of the marine environment. 17 Global Marine Assessments The mandate of GESAMP has been undergoing a review, broadening the focus from pollution to a more holistic assessment approach. GESAMP has highly credible and very useful experience in gathering regional information, and in compiling such reports, which would be of great value to the GMA. The GOOS family of activities, currently in the pilot phase and due to be implemented by 2010, is establishing a very interesting structure. GOOS is a global framework, in which regional bodies are forming and adopting parallel frameworks to feed in a wide range of data and information related to the seas and the marine environment. Efforts are being made to increase collabor- ation between the GOOS regional bodies and other existing regional bodies (e.g. regional seas conventions and programmes]. In particular the collaboration in areas of higher assessment activity, such as in the Baltic (between BOOS and HELCOM}, and in other European marine waters [e.g. between Euro GOOS and ICES/ OSPAR) would provide the GMA with a potential entry point for cooperation. GIWA is a worldwide assessment working for a period of four years in 66 sub-regions (Map 2). It aims to provide sound scientific advice to decision makers and managers concerned with water resources and dealing with environmental problems and threats to trans- boundary water bodies. It is to be a systematic assessment of the environmental conditions and 18 problems in international waters, comprising marine, coastal and freshwater areas, and surface waters as well as ground waters. Of particular interest to a GMA is the dynamic approach GIWA is taking to assess existing situations and to develop scenarios of the future condition of the world’s water resources and analyse policy options. As well as identifying collaborations with broad- scale assessments and monitoring programmes, the GMA may benefit from partnerships with a number of specialist organizations. These could provide GMA stake- holders and end-users with access to specific types of data and information from a particular area and/or for a defined theme, such as fisheries, coral reefs, seagrasses or mangroves. The availability of such specific data and information within an existing regional or international framework will have to be assessed by the GMA on a case- by-case basis. Such an evaluation will enable the GMA to highlight gaps and insufficient resources/capacities, and to provide support for the work and the assessments carried out in these frameworks where necessary. Coping with data comparability As explained in section 2.2.1 above, data comparability and quality is a major bottleneck of existing assessments {Annex 9.1]. It will be an important function of a GMA to encourage and support the development of a stan- dardized approach to data collection, storage and comparability within the various regional and global assessment frameworks. This would make international data more useful to a wider audience and might prevent national authorities being required to provide the same (or very similar) data set(s) to more than one convention, as is currently the case. Overcoming issues of capacity Concerns regarding the great disparities in inter- and intra-regional capacities for undertaking assessments of the marine environment have been raised at many stages in this review (Annexes 9.1, 9.2 and 9.5). Capacities of assessments vary considerably in terms of human and financial resources, technical infrastructure, appropriate legislation, and in the ability of countries (individually or jointly) to prioritize these issues. The UNEP Regional Seas framework is an example that demonstrates the varying capacity between regions. Some of the regional sea con- ventions and programmes [e.g. those established for the wider Caribbean and the Mediterranean) have very effective action plans in operation and carry out regular assessments of the marine environment, thereby providing essential contributions and advice for policy makers. Other regional sea frameworks [e.g. the northeast Pacific] have very few activities, or are not yet fully established. It will be important for a GMA mechanism to recognize this variation in resources and capacity and to account for it in the GMA design. The experiences of other bodies such as GESAMP which work at a global level, but depend on regional activities for information, indicate a very wide variation in the availability, quality and reliability of regional reports. There may also be different historical experiences of regional collaboration. Capacity building has been identified as a common need in many responses analysed in this study (Lesson 2, Annex 9.5) and addressing this need will be pivotal for the success of the GMA. Possible ways in which this can be done are through the use of inter-regional partnerships, cross-regional meetings and workshops to share experiences and techniques; and the exchange of people and the use of inter-regional consultants to train counterparts in countries. A minimum level of information could be gathered at a global scale, complemented by information with a greater level of detail from regional areas on specific subjects, in particular where capacities are higher and regional bodies more active. History of regional collaborations The history and different success of collaboration between countries in a certain region will have to be taken into account by a GMA. This will be of particular importance when determining the best way to provide Global Marine Assessments support to initiate new, or further develop existing, collaborative arrangements and agreements between partner states with respect to the assessment and sustainable use of the marine environment and the marine resources that they share. 2.3 Ways in which thematic and geographical gaps can be filled The major geographical gaps identified (Annex 9.2) are coverage of the highs sea and open/deep oceans, and the marine waters of developing countries and small island states, where there is a need to increase involvement and capacity to improve awareness and the level of marine environmental information available. Principal thematic gaps identified in the analysis (Annex 9.3) include understanding of how ecosystems function (particularly those that are difficult to access such as the mid-oceans and open ocean/deep sea-floor communities]; socio-economic implications relating to the state of the marine environment; and biogeochemical associations and interactions. Fitting all the thematic gaps that have been identified into existing assessments or a GMA might not be possible or desirable; however, to ensure inclusion of the most pertinent themes in any assessment requires regular communication and full involvement of all stakeholders. If the key players and end-users were involved in the assessment process, then feedback on the 19 Global Marine Assessments 4 ] Pe > uptake and use of the information provided would feed into the establishment of objectives and foci for the next phase of the assessment. Given that the proposed GMA process allows for such feedback, it should be able to respond to changing needs for information over time. These thematic and geographical gaps are increasingly recognized by both the political and public sectors as important to the international community. Recent international efforts, in particular at WSSD and the UN General Assembly, have provided opportunities and orientation for countries and regional/global organizations alike to address issues concerned with the monitoring and sustainable management of the marine environment. The establishment of links with resource sustainability and poverty reduction have also opened new doors to financial support and partnerships which promote activities that will improve the information available to policy makers. High seas and open/deep oceans: The remoteness and inaccessibility of the high seas and open/deep oceans severely restrict our knowledge about these vast marine areas. Thematically, gaps in understanding can be attributed to the difficulty in overcoming these challenges to look at ecosystem interactions. Increasingly, advanced remote-sensing technologies are being applied, which allow more frequent and detailed coverage of these parts of the oceans. In addition to the collection of surface data from 20 satellites and other airborne means, there has also been an increasing use of remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) and other devices (such as free-drifting, data-collecting floats). Such devices help to reveal the physical three-dimensional nature of this environment, although still focusing on surface processes. The establishment of frameworks to underpin assessments such as the GOOS component for the open oceans, and an increasing interest from the scientific community, has led to a rise in activities in this region. The open oceans and deep waters also require improved provision. At present, the main international organizations covering these areas are UNCLOS and the FAO fisheries bodies. UNCLOS delegates the responsibility for monitoring to regional bodies and is regarded as too general a framework for the purposes of a regular assessment. The FAO fisheries bodies are highly focused on the assessment of fish stocks, in particular those of commercial interest. Increased information on the state of open-ocean and deep- water marine environments could support the necessary political pressure needed to increase international cooperation and responsibility for the high seas, and encourage implementation of the Law of the Sea. Increased participation of developing countries and small island states: There are a number of ways in which support can be given to enable small and developing nations to participate more fully in regional and consequently global marine assessments. A GMA mechanism could support emerging partnerships between two or more regional bodies, as for example that between the OSPAR Commission and the West and Central African Regional Seas Programme under the Abidjan Convention; these two bodies share a mutual border in the eastern Atlantic Ocean. This kind of partnership would enable the sharing of expertise and experience, inter alia in developing and implementing marine assessments and policies. The OSPAR Commission has established a number of marine environmental assessment programmes and activities, which are being carried out by 15 European countries jointly or individually, and which have contributed to the com- prehensive knowledge of the state of the northeast Atlantic. On the same lines, a GMA would be able to support collaboration between regional organizations to encourage development of assessment capacities in areas currently insufficiently covered. An example of support for small island states resulting from the WSSD is the proposed US/UK partnership to promote the integrated marine management of the Caribbean. There are also other types of collaboration that could be used to strengthen capacity over time in a sustainable way. Some international programmes, such as the FAO/DFID (UK Department for International Development) Sustainable Livelihoods Fisheries Pro- gramme in West Africa, have been employing consultants from other countries in the same region to work along with their counterparts. This aims to increase skills-sharing and expertise within the region, as well as increasing national capacity on the job. Where there are industry or private- sector interests in the marine environment in an area where the capacity to contribute reliable data or personnel is low, partnerships should be sought. Most industrial activities to develop, explore and extract natural resources from the marine environment require some form of environmental impact assessment (EIA) to be undertaken. These assess- ments are often required to be made publicly available and tend to compile detailed local information about the potential and the actual physical, chemical and biological impacts {and in some cases socio-economic concerns) of the proposed activities. The development of initiatives such as ECOISHARE, a partnership between UNEP-WCMC, Shell, BP and Rio Tinto, make EIA information available on the Internet, thereby giving stakeholders, policy makers and the general public quick and easy access to up-to-date, detailed information at a local level. 2.4 Comments on the review 2.4.1 Notes on the effectiveness of data collection Q The structured questionnaire developed in the context of this study [Annex 7) provided the most suitable tool Global Marine Assessments for collecting information for the general review of regional and global assessments. It enabled the collation of a broad range of data on ongoing or foreseen assessments from a large number of geographically disparate individuals, organizations and secretariats in a short time. Q The structure of the questionnaire was designed to minimize the opportunities for interpretation and free response, and thereby increase comparability of responses. Q The questionnaire was successful in bringing together key lessons that have been learned from the assessments reviewed (Annex 9.5). Q The return rate was satisfactory with 30 per cent returned from 56 organizations providing summary details for 188 assessments. Fifty organizations provided in-depth responses for 88 assessments carried out at national (7 per cent of returns), regional (61 per cent of returns) and global (32 per cent of returns) levels (Annex 9.1). Q Notwithstanding the above, there are limitations in trying to approach a broad range of individuals and institutions with a single, uniform format for collecting information. The use of a separate questionnaire specifically designed for the users of assessments would have been interesting and more appropriate for several respondents, such as national policy makers and regional policy makers [e.g. the European Commission), which did not feel that this particular questionnaire was appropriate for them. Q Unfortunately, questionnaires were not returned from a number of assessments which were indicated as being of potential importance to a GMA mechanism in UNEP consultation meetings (Annex 8, Table D). 2.4.2 Notes on data analysis Q The results are based on responses given in the returned questionnaires, which in most cases rely on the interpretation and perception of the individual respondent. The analysis strives to present an analysis of this collated information in an objective manner. Q GIS (geographic information systems) would be a useful tool to further analyse and present the geographical gaps in coverage. Q Regional assessments are considered those with a regional remit/mandate. Q Global assessments are considered those with a global or a non-region-specific mandate, even though they might not have actual global coverage [i.e. those not restricted to a specific region and which could theoretically, if not actually, be global). 21 Global Marine Assessments 3. Conclusions Sustainable management of the world’s oceans is of major concern to the international community to ensure the livelihood of millions of people. In the Plan of Implementation adopted at WSSD, world leaders agreed on a number of activities and actions with focus on the oceans and their resources. The successful management of the marine environment poses very different challenges from those posed by the terrestrial environment. The oceans are physically contiguous, without clearly identified political boundaries, and are without evident visual surface indicators which reflect their environmental state and which could be used to aid policy makers in their national and international efforts to conserve, protect and use marine resources in a sustainable manner. Regional assessments are necessary to manage a coordinated data collection and assessment in defined areas of the world’s oceans. This report highlights the fact 22 that, with sufficient support for the countries and organ- izations involved, regional assessments are working well to provide some of the required information. What is lacking at the moment is a global overview bringing the various regional assessments together, based on science and res- ponding to the needs of policy makers for reliable infor- mation about the state of the global marine environment that would allow them to take necessary and timely action. The arguments presented support the need for a dedicated mechanism to report regularly on the state of the world’s oceans, as put forward by UNEP GC Decision 21/13, paragraph 36(b) of the Plan of Implementation agreed at WSSD, and as decided by the UN General Assembly at its 57th Session (Res. A/57/L.48/Rev.1, paragraph 45). The outcome of this study supports this need and shows that existing assessments and related activities, in their present form, are not able to achieve the expectations of the proposed GMA mechanism. Global Marine Assessments 4. Recommendations The review and analysis of the types of assessments of the marine environment that are currently under way and planned have allowed the following recommendations to be made in the light of a proposed Global Marine Assess- ment mechanism. 1. To be sustainable, a GMA must have the support of national stakeholders and use, where possible, the support of existing regional agreements, frameworks and organizations. For those marine areas or marine environmental issues that currently are not, or are insufficiently, covered by assessments, a GMA will be required to support existing capacities and develop new capacities, in particular for the assessment of: i. the high seas and deep/open waters; li. the marine environments of developing nations and small island states [including small island developing states); lil. the interactions between marine and freshwater systems. A GMA should endeavour to use primary data where they are available. This information should be subject to internationally accepted standards and quality assurance measures to ensure credibility. The planning, implementation and review of a GMA should involve representatives from existing assess- ments to avoid duplication and to learn from their experiences. A GMA mechanism must ensure the involvement and ownership of the process by the end-users, in particular national and regional policy makers, so that it will be flexible enough to meet their changing needs. 6. Uh. 8. o: A GMA should involve the private sector, as well as industrial and environmental NGOs, as stakeholders in the assessment process. These sectors could provide a useful source of information and also help to raise awareness and increase responsibility for the marine environment. AGMA mechanism must recognize the differences in national and regional approaches, capacities, resources and constraints for collaboration, and incorporate these into its design. A GMA mechanism should use existing regional capacity where it exists, and facilitate the transfer of skills, the development of training and the building of capacity in geographical and thematic areas where it is lacking. In addition to its primary role of regularly reporting on the status of the marine environment, a GMA has the potential to: i. facilitate and encourage the sharing of infor- mation and experiences, and promote collabor- ation and partnerships between regions and disciplines, thereby improving international net- works for issues relating to the assessment of the marine environment; ii. act in an advisory capacity to existing assess- ments, spreading methods of best practice and developing standardized methods for data collection and quality assurance. 10. A GMA should aim to streamline existing inter- national activities concerning the assessment of the state of the marine environment and contribute to increased collaboration between UN agencies. 23 Global Marine Assessments 5. References and reading Anon. (2001). Global Assessment of the State of the Marine Environment. Discussion paper prepared by Iceland, 21st UNEP Governing Council, Nairobi, 2001. Anon. (2001). Independent and In-depth Evaluation of GESAMP. Report of the Evaluation Team, July 2001. 30pp. Bernal, P. (1991). Consequences of global change for oceans: a review. Climatic Change 18:339-359. Boyer, E.W., R. Howarth (2002). The Nitrogen Cycle at Regional to Global Scales. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London. 519pp Brundtland, G. (ed.) (1987). Our Common Future: The World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Christian, Robert (2002). Coastal Initiative of the Global Terrestrial Observing System, East California University (personal communication). Defining sustainability. http://www.arch.wsu.edu/sustain/defnsust.htm Donovan, G. (2002). Editorial, Journal of Cetacean Research Management 4(2) iii-viii. Eckley, N. (2001). Designing Effective Assessments: The role of participation, science and governance, and focus. Report of a workshop co-organized by the European Environment Agency and the Global Environmental Assessment Project, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1-3 March 2001. Environmental Issue Report No. 26. 23pp. GESAMP (IMO/FAQ/UNESCO-IOC/WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection) (2001). A sea of troubles. Rep. Stud. GESAMP No.70. 35pp. GESAMP (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection) (2001). Protecting the oceans from land-based activities — Land-based sources and activities affecting the quality and uses of the marine, coastal and associated freshwater environment. Rep. Stud. GESAMP No.71. 162pp. Grassle, F.J., K.I. Stocks (1999). A Global Ocean Biogeographic Information System (OBIS) for the Census of Marine Life. Oceanography 12(3):12-14. Hillary, A., Kokkonen, M., L. Max (eds.) (2002). Proceedings of the World Heritage Biodiversity Workshop Filling Critical Gaps and Promoting Multi-Site Approaches to New Nominations of Tropical Coastal, Marine and Small Island Ecosystems’, Hanoi, Vietnam, February 25-March 1, 2002. 48pp. 24 OSPAR Commission (2000a). Quality Status Report 2000, OSPAR Commission, London. 108pp. OSPAR Commission (2000b). Quality Status Report 2000, Region II Greater North Sea. OSPAR Commission, London. 108pp. Rosenbaum, K.L. (1993). Sustainable Environmental Law. Integrating Natural Resource and Pollution Abatement Law from Resources to Recovery. Chapter 9: Timber. Environmental Law Institute. West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minnesota. pp.575-674. Summerhayes, C. (2002). GOOS project update: implementation progress. Sea Technology 43(10):46-49. UN (2002). Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development: Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. pp.6-73. http://www.johannesburgsummit.org UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. http://www.unclos.com/ UN Convention on Biological Diversity. http://www.biodiv.org/ UNEP (2001a). Proceedings of the First Feasibility Study for Establishing a Regular Process for the Assessment of the State of the Marine Environment, Reykjavik, 12-14 September 2001 UNEP (2001b). Assessment of the state of the marine environment http://www.unep.org/DEWA/water/MarineAssessment/ UNEP (2001c). Ecosystem-based Management of Fisheries: Opportunities and challenges for coordination between marine Regional Fisheries Bodies and Regional Seas Conventions. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies No. 175. 52pp. ISBN:92-807-2105-4. UNEP (2002). Proceedings of the Technical Workshop for Establishing a Regular Process for the Gobal Assessment of the Marine Environment, Bremen, Germany, 18-20 March 2002. UNEP/ACOPS (2001). Feasibility of Establishing a Regular Process for the Assessment of the State of the Marine Environment (UNEP Governing Council Decision GC 21/13). 29pp. UNEP-WCMC (2002). Information document for the 57th Session of the General Assembly on ‘the feasibility of establishing a regular process for the global assessment of the marine environment’. 17pp. Vieria, 1993. A checklist for sustainable developments. In: Building Connections: Livable, Sustainable Communities. American Institute of Architects, Washington, DC. 6. Annexes Global Marine Assessments ANNEX 1. Term Assessment Biodiversity Credibility Ecosystem Ecosystem approach End-user Global assessments Legitimacy Marine environment 26 GLOSSARY OF WORKING DEFINITIONS (Where no source is identified, the definition has been developed for the purpose of this report.) Definition All assessments or appraisals of the marine environment and all related scientific activities which are directly or indirectly linked to an assessment (e.g. marine environmental science programmes, monitoring programmes, data collection activities) ‘Is the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic organisms and the ecological complexes of which they are a part: this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems’ Intended to reflect the scientific and technical believability of the assessment to a defined user Means a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro- organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit Is a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way. It is based on the application of appropriate scientific methodologies focused on levels of biological organization, which encompass the essential processes, functions and interactions among organisms and their environment. It recognizes that humans, with their cultural diversity, are an integral component of ecosystems End-user of the GMA is taken to be national policy makers Those with a global or a non-region-specific mandate, even though they might not have an actual global coverage [i.e. those not restricted to a specific region and which could theoretically, if not actually, be global) Measure of political acceptability; fairness of an assessment to the user and allows user interests to be taken into account To include estuaries, coastal regions, continental shelves and open oceans Source UN Convention on Biodiversity, Article 2 EEA definition (Eckley, 2001) UN Convention on Biodiversity, Article 2 UN Convention on Biodiversity, Decision V/6 UNEP Bremen workshop, 2002 EEA definition (Eckley, 2001) Term n/a Primary data Regional assessments Saliency Secondary data Sustainability Definition Not available/no response given Information and data collected from source Those with a regional remit/mandate Relevance; intended to reflect the ability of assessment to reflect concerns of the user Information and data collected from reports and documents Sustainable developments are those which fulfil present and future needs while [only] using and not harming renewable resources and unique human-environmental systems of a site: [air], water, land, energy, and human ecology and/or those of other [off-site] sustainable systems Global Marine Assessments Source EEA definition (Eckley, 2001) Defining Sustainability (Brundtland, 1987)/ (Rosenbaum, 1993 and Vieria, 1993] 27 Global Marine Assessments ANNEX 2. ACOPS AMAP Boos BP CARICOM CBD CCAMLR CLIVAR coop cP CSIRO-CRIMP Ccwss DFID EC EDIOS EEA EEZ FAO FIGIS Gcos GEF GESAMP GIS GISP GIWA GloBallast GMA GOoOos 28 TABLE OF ACRONYMS Advisory Committee on Protection of the Sea Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme Baltic Operational Oceanographic System British Petroleum Caribbean Community Convention on Biological Diversity Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources Climate Variability and Predictability (international research programme) Coastal Oceans Observing Panel Contracting Parties Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization - Centre for Research on Introduced Marine Pests Common Wadden Sea Secretariat Department for International Development (UK) Commission of the European Communities European Directory of the Initial Ocean-observing System European Environment Agency Exclusive Economic Zone Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Fisheries Global Information System Global Climate Observing System Global Environment Facility Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection Geographical Information System Global Invasive Species Programme Global International Waters Assessment (under UNEP] Global Ballast Water Management Programme Global Marine Assessment Global Ocean Observing System GPA/LBA GTOS HELCOM HOTO IAEA IATTC ICCAT ICES ICRAN ICRI ICSU IGBP IGO IHDP IMO INFOFISH loc IPCC IUCN JAMP KORDI LME MED POL NASCO NEAR-GOOS NGO NIWA NOAA NOAA-NGDC OBIS OCIMF Global Marine Assessments Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-Based Activities Global Terrestrial Observing System Baltic Marine Environment Protection (Helsinki) Commission Health of the Oceans International Atomic Energy Agency Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas International Council for the Exploration of the Sea International Coral Reef Action Network International Coral Reef Initiative Forum International Council of Scientific Unions International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme Intergovernmental organization International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change International Maritime Organization Intergovernmental Organization for Marketing Information and Technical Advisory Services for Fishery Products in the Asia and Pacific region Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission {of UNESCO) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change International Union for the Conservation of Nature Joint Assessment and Monitoring Programme Korea Ocean Research and Development Institute Large Marine Ecosystems Mediterranean Marine Pollution Assessment and Control Programme North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization North-East Asian Regional GOOS Non-governmental organization National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (USA) NOAA-National Geophysical Data Center Ocean Biogeographic Information System Oil Companies International Marine Forum 29 Global Marine Assessments OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OIM Offshore Installation Manager OOPC Ocean Observations Panel for Climate OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic PERGSA Regional Organisation for the Conservation of the Environment of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden QA Quality Assurance ROPME Regional Organisation for the Protection of the Marine Environment (Arabian Gulf] SCOPE Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment SCOR Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research SIDS Small Island Developing States SRL Sustainable Rural Livelihoods UK United Kingdom UN United Nations UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea UN-DESA United Nations Department for Economic and Social Affairs UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNEP-DEWA UNEP-Division of Early Warning and Assessment UNEP-DTIE UNEP-Division of Technology, Industry and Economics UNEP-GLOSS UNEP-Global Sea-level Observing System UNEP-WCMC UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Organization WCED World Commission for Environment and Development WCRP World Climate Research Programme WOCE World Oceans Circulation Experiment WMO World Meteorological Organization wssD World Summit on Sustainable Development WTO World Trade Organization WWF World Wide Fund for Nature 30 ANNEX 3. 21/13 Global Marine Assessments UNEP GOVERNING COUNCIL DECISION 10th meeting, 9 February 2001 Global assessment of the state of the marine environment The Governing Council, Noting Commission on Sustainable Development decision 7/1, Also noting paragraph 5 of the Malmo Ministerial Declaration, as well as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, in particular Part XII, and the work programme of marine and coastal biodiversity under the Jakarta Mandate on Marine and Coastal Biological Diversity of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Noting further the ongoing work aimed at improving the knowledge base on the state of the marine environment, including activities being carried out within the framework of the Global International Waters Assessment, the Global Ocean Observing System and the United Nations Atlas of the Oceans, 1. Notes the reports published by the Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection entitled ‘A sea of troubles’ and Protecting the oceans from land-based activities - Land-based sources and activities affecting the quality and uses of the marine, coastal and associated freshwater environment’; 2. Recognizes that the report ‘A sea of troubles’ identifies ‘ineffective communication between scientists and government policy makers and the public alike’ as one of the reasons for the lack of commitment and the inability of the international community to address and solve the environmental problems of the seas in a comprehensive way; 3. Requests the Executive Director to take an active part in implementing General Assembly resolution 54/33 of 24 November 1999 and General Assembly resolution 55/7 of 30 October 2000 by participating in the United Nations Open-ended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea, an annual review and evaluation of developments relating to ocean affairs and the Law of the Sea; 4. Requests the Executive Director, in cooperation with the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and other appropriate United Nations agencies, the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity and in consultation with the Regional Seas Programmes to explore the feasibility of establishing a regular process for the assessment of the state of the marine environment, with active involvement by governments and regional agreements, building on ongoing assessment programmes; 5. Requests the Executive Director to present the matter to the United Nations Open-ended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea at its next session in May 2001; 6. Also requests the Executive Director to submit a progress report on this issue to it at its 22nd session. 31 Global Marine Assessments ANNEX 4. BACKGROUND TO THE REVIEW OF MARINE ASSESSMENTS 4.1 SCOPE This study compiles analyses and presents information on existing and future marine environmental assessments and related scientific activities carried out at the regional and global levels under relevant organizations or conventions. National-level activities do not form a part of this analysis. The report considers the marine environment to include estuaries, coastal regions, continental shelves and open oceans. 4.2 BACKGROUND In February 2001, the Government of Iceland initiated a process to look at the feasibility of establishing a mechanism for regular reporting on the state of the marine environment through the submission of a proposal to the 21st Session of the UNEP Governing Council. Following discussion, the UNEP Governing Council adopted Decision 21/13 on a Global assessment of the state of the marine environment’ (Annex 3). This decision requests the Executive Director of UNEP in cooperation with UNESCO-IOC and other UN agencies, the CBD Secretariat, and the Regional Seas Programmes ‘to explore the feasibility of establishing a regular process for the assessment of the state of the marine environment, with active involvement by governments and regional agreements, building on ongoing assessment programmes. In the light of this requirement, two meetings were called. The first consultation in Reykjavik agreed on the need for a global process for regular reporting on the state of the global marine environment, the goals of such a process and the importance of identifying a mechanism by which to undertake such a task. A second technical meeting in Bremen considered possible models for establishing the process and recommended the dissemination of UNEP GC Decision 21/13 amongst UN agencies and other relevant bodies. The meeting agreed that: ‘An important first, or pre- requisite, step in the GMA process is to evaluate existing major assessments of the state of the marine environment and to identify the scope, status and timing 32 of forthcoming assessment activities carried out under relevant national regional and global organizations’ (Paragraph 62, Bremen, 2002). It went on to propose ‘that such a review be undertaken during 2002 so that a report and its conclusions are available ahead of the UNEP Governing Council meeting in 2003’ (Paragraph 64, Bremen, 2002). The overall support by the international community for the concept of a GMA mechanism was demonstrated by the commitment made by governments at the World Summit on Sustainable Development, South Africa, September 2002, which called for: ‘the establishment by 2004 of a regular process under the United Nations for global reporting and assessment of the state of the marine environment, including socio-economic aspects, both current and foreseeable, building on existing regional assessments’ (Paragraph 36(b], WSSD Plan of Implementation). The key events and their major outcomes following the adoption of UNEP GC Decision 21/13 are presented in Table 4.1. 4.3 OBJECTIVES This report presents the results of a joint study by UNEP and UNESCO-IOC executed by UNEP-WCMC and supported by the national Governments of Iceland, Germany and the UK in response to the outcomes of the Bremen Meeting (UNEP, 2002). The objective of this study is to contribute to the establishment of a regular process, with the support of the United Nations, for global reporting and assessment of the state of the marine environment (see working definition, Annex 1). It is to serve as a factual basis to complement the recommendations of two international meetings held in Reykjavik and Bremen with respect to the feasibility, development and implementation of a GMA. It aims to provide a snapshot of the current situation and provide reliable answers to the following questions: 1. In which ways could a GMA process integrate existing and future assessments? 2. How could identified thematic and geographical gaps be addressed and filled? Global Marine Assessments Table 4.1 Key events in the adoption and implementation of UNEP GC Decision 21/13 Adapted from UNEP-WCMC, 2002 Date February 2001 September 2001 March 2002 Aprit 2002 August 2002 September- December 2002 Meeting 21st session of the UNEP Governing Council and second Global Ministerial Environment Forum, Nairobi, Kenya, 5-9 February 2001 First meeting for a feasibility study on establishing a regular process for the assessment of the state of the marine environment, convened by UNEP, hosted by the Government of Iceland, in Reykjavik 12-14 September 2001 Technical workshop for establishing a regular process for the global assessment of the marine environment, convened by UNEP, supported by the German and Swedish Governments, at Bremen 18-20 March 2002 United Nations Open-ended Informal Consultative Process established by the General Assembly in its resolution 54/33 in order to facilitate the annual review by the Assembly of developments in ocean affairs. Third meeting: 8-15 April 2002 New York The World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa, 28 August-4 September 2002 A Survey of Global and Regional Marine Environmental Assessments and Related Scientific Activities Major outcome @ Iceland proposed the need for a global marine assessment @ UNEP GC Decision 21/13 adopted © Agreed that developing a GMA process was both desirable and urgently needed @ Recommended that the process should be aimed at policy makers providing advice and guidance to mitigate environmental impacts and changes based on science @ Recommended the organization of a technical workshop to establish a blueprint for the process @ Achieved a consensus about a regular process and how it might be set up @ Endorsed a general outline of the assessment process and its components @ Recommended a survey of current and future marine environmental assessments and related scientific activities © Supported Decision 21/13 @ Stressed importance of inter-regional cooperation and the use of existing mechanisms @ Stated a commitment to establish, under the United Nations, a regular process for a global assessment of the state of the marine environment (Paragraph 36(b)) @ This report: Implemented by UNEP- WCMC, commissioned by UNEP in collaboration with IOC, and the Governments of Germany, Iceland and the UK 33 Global Marine Assessments ANNEX 5. PROJECT DOCUMENT August 2002 A survey of global and regional marine environmental assessments and related scientific activities OBJECTIVES To contribute to the establishment of a regular process under the United Nations for global reporting and assessment of the state of the marine environment by reviewing and evaluating existing and future global and regional marine environmental assessments and related scientific activities. BACKGROUND The UNEP Governing Council (GC) adopted at its 21st session in February 2001 a decision concerning a Global Assessment of the State of the Marine Environment’ (UNEP GC Decision 21/13]. Article 4 of this Decision requests the Executive Director, in co-operation with UNESCO-IOC and other UN agencies, the CBD Secretariat, and the Regional Seas Programmes to explore the feasibility of establishing a regular process for the assessment of the state of the marine environment, with active involvement by governments and regional agreements, building on ongoing assessment programmes’. To implement UNEP GC Decision 21/13, a first informal consultative meeting was held in Reykjavik, 12- 14 September 2001. This meeting strongly agreed that a global assessment of the marine environment (GMA) was both desirable and urgently needed and welcomed the opportunity to examine the feasibility of developing this process with all relevant stakeholders. Furthermore, this meeting recommended, inter alia, that the GMA process should be aimed at policy makers. Based ona scientific assessment of the global marine environment, the GMA should provide this target audience with advice, guidance and assistance on actions required to mitigate environmental impacts and changes. In the light of the outcome of the Reykjavik meeting, UNEP decided to convene a second meeting in the form of a technical workshop to further elaborate the key objectives and define the practical framework for developing a GMA process. This workshop was kindly hosted by the German government in Bremen, 18-20 March 2002. Funds from the German and Swedish Governments enabled a large number of interested developing countries and international organizations to 34 be represented at the workshop, thereby expanding the audience involved in the consultations to implement UNEP GC Decision 21/13 at both meetings to 16 countries and 10 regional and 14 global conventions, agreements and organizations. The Global Marine Assessment workshop held in Bremen agreed on the following next steps to be taken in the implementation of UNEP GC Decision 21/13: ‘Identification and integration of assessments and assessment-related activities into the GMA process 62. An important first, or pre-requisite, step in the GMA process Is to evaluate existing major assessments of the state of the marine environment and to identify the scope, status and timing of forthcoming assessment activities carried out under relevant national, regional and global organizations. 63. This review should recommend: a. ways in which the GMA process could integrate existing and foreseen assessments and related activities; b. how any identified gaps in their geographic and/or thematic coverage could be addressed and filled. 64. It is proposed that such a review be undertaken during 2002 so that a report and its conclusions are available ahead of the UNEP Governing Council meeting in 2003.’ (UNEP, 2002, pp.18-19) ACTIVITIES The project will compile and present information about existing and future marine environmental assessments and related scientific activities carried out on the global and regional levels under UNEP and other relevant international organizations or conventions. The time frame will not allow a national-level evaluation to be carried out. The project will take into account the relevant documentation presented at the UNEP meetings convened in Reykjavik and Bremen as well as the information gathered in the context of these meetings. A focal point in UNEP will be established to ensure that each phase of the study is conducted in a manner that will lead to the delivery of a product suited to the GC needs. The project will be implemented in four phases: Phase |: Pre-study preparations 1. A draft list of relevant assessments and related scientific activities, including the contact details of the relevant administrative and scientific bodies, will be prepared. This draft list will take into account, inter alia: Q the documentation presented and information gathered in the context of the UNEP meetings held in Reykjavik and Bremen; Global Marine Assessments Q information from surveys of a similar nature and other relevant sources. . Preparation of a draft questionnaire for circulation to the relevant administrative (e.g. convention secretariats) and scientific bodies of the organizations identified in 1. This questionnaire should ask in simple terms for concise and comprehensive information on existing and future marine environmental assessments and related scientific activities along the following lines’: . Establishment of criteria to describe and present the existing and future marine environmental Existing assessments and related scientific activities @ What assessments are available and when were they published? @ Please specify what aspects and/or parts of the marine environment were assessed (e.g. specific ecosystems, processes, anthropogenic and/or natural impacts, species or groups of species, etc.? ®@ Are there any geographical, temporal and/or thematic gaps in these assessments? @ What problems were experienced in the assessment process, e.g. in terms of [i] data availability, comparability, spatial and temporal coverage and/or (ii) locating and incorporating local expertise and collaborators? @ What lessons can be learned from the existing assessments? ® Has the assessment identified the need for national and local capacity building in marine science and sustainable management of oceans and their resources? ® Is your organization able to build such capacity, and if not, what strengthening and/or additional resources would your organization require to carry out this capacity-building function? @ What was the basis/reason for the assessment? (e.g. convention obligations, COP agreement, etc.] @ What was the purpose of the assessment? @ What was the target group of the assessment, i.e. who will primarily use the results (e.g. policy makers, scientific community, etc.]? @ Has the outcome of the assessment influenced the policy-making process on the national, regional and/or global level? @ Were the assessments carried out (i) as part of a continuing process, (ii) in the form of a one-off exercise? © How were they prepared (e.g. by a small or large group of experts, with or without involvement of the national governments of Contracting Parties)? @ Was there stakeholder participation/ consultation in the assessment process? If so, is there a need to improve stakeholder involvement and on what aspects? ®@ Were they peer reviewed? ®@ Are they publicly available in hard copy and/or in digital format (e.g. from the Internet)? Additional information for planned future assessments and related scientific activities © Foreseen timing of future assessments? ®@ What will be the scope and the objectives of these future assessments? @ What environmental parameters, human activities, impacts, changes, etc., will be assessed? @ How and to which audiences will the assessments be disseminated? 1. Please note that each of the questions in the table will be further elaborated and defined in the final questionnaire 35 Global Marine Assessments assessments identified in 2. A draft list of criteria will be developed in consultation with the UNEP focal point and representatives of sponsors of the study. Phase II: Contact and correspondence with administrative and scientific bodies of global and regional assessment organizations The draft list of contact addresses prepared in Phase | will be circulated to relevant bodies including IOC and GESAMP as well as to the delegates of the Reykjavik and Bremen meetings with a view to producing a complete list of global and regional marine environmental assessments and related scientific activities. Once complete, all the relevant administrative and scientific bodies will be contacted via the questionnaire, prepared in Phase | and designed to obtain information about their actual and proposed assessment activities. It is difficult to predict how much time and effort will have to be spent in obtaining this information, but a response period of 4-6 weeks is assumed and built into the project schedule. During this period constant communication will be maintained with the secretariats and organizations, and in the event that a completed questionnaire is not returned the survey could be completed using telephone interviews. Phase III: Compilation, analysis and interpretation of information on existing and future marine assessments and related scientific activities The information gathered in Phase II will be compiled in the form of an overview matrix or database, as appropriate, displaying the details of the various assessments in terms of WHEN, WHERE, HOW and WHAT has been assessed. 36 The criteria developed in the pre-study phase will be applied to analyse and interpret this information, with special consideration of the potential role of the GMA process, inter alia, in terms of: Q the ways and degree in which existing and foreseen assessments and related scientific activities could be integrated; Q how any identified gaps in their geographic and/or thematic coverage could be addressed and filled. Some of the outputs from this phase will be annexed to the project report, e.g. in the form of a table and a global map to illustrate the thematic and geographical coverage [and any gaps] in the existing and future marine environmental assessments. Phase IV: Preparation of conclusions and recommendations The conclusions and recommendations from the review carried out in Phase Ill will be prepared carefully so that they can be used [i) to provide justification for the Global Marine Assessment process discussed in Reykjavik and Bremen, and [ii] to outline and emphasize important issues and lessons to be considered when establishing and developing the Global Marine Assessment process. The conclusions and recommendations will be formulated in a way suitable to provide input to the report to be prepared for the UNEP Governing Council meeting in February 2003. The final report from this survey will be published separately with the support and in the name of UNEP in cooperation with IOC and the sponsoring governments and agencies. ANNEX 6. In order to fulfil the requirements set out in the project document (Annex 5], the methods were developed and implemented in the four phases outlined. At the beginning of the study an advisory group was established to guide the process and its progress. This group was composed of representatives from the sponsoring and executing bodies including UNEP-DEWA, the UNEP Regional Seas Secretariat, the IOC, the Governments of Germany, Iceland and the UK, and UNEP-WCMC. The group provided technical and editorial assistance throughout the following four phases. 6.1 PHASE I: PRE-STUDY PREPARATIONS 6.1.1 Contacts list A draft list comprising 206 contacts of relevant assessments was created (Annex 8], including the secretariats of current global and regional assessments and activities, Regional Seas Programme Coordinators, international policy makers and national policy makers and other relevant organizations. Contact names and details were compiled using participant lists from the UNEP meetings held in Reykjavik and Bremen. In addition contacts provided by the advisory group and other marine experts, as well as Internet searches, were used to try to identify NGOs, IGOs, private interests and university consortia that may be working at this level and therefore would be relevant to this study. 6.1.2 Preparation of the questionnaire A questionnaire (Annex 7) was designed to gather information on the types of assessments that exist and are planned in the marine environment, their aims and the mechanisms for their implementation. The questions were developed using: Q the obligations set out in the project document; Q questions raised by discussions at the Bremen and Reykjavik meetings, including those referred to in the supporting documents of these meetings; Q issues raised in the GESAMP report A sea of troubles’ (GESAMP Report No. 70, 2002); and Q the 2000 Quality Status Report of the marine environment of the northeast Atlantic (OSPAR, 2000a). The questionnaire was divided into two sections. Section A asked for a summary of current and planned assessments. For each assessment or activity mentioned by the responding organization, section B asked for details of implementation and mechanisms. Global Marine Assessments REVIEW METHODOLOGY Section B used as many tick boxes and yes/no answers as possible to reduce the time required for completing the questionnaire and to reduce ambiguity in the interpretation of returns. 6.2 PHASE II: CONTACTING ADMINISTRATIVE AND SCIENTIFIC BODIES After consultation with the advisory group, an introductory email was sent out on 10 October 2002 to the 206 persons and organizations on the contact list to verify the information and their contact details. The questionnaires were distributed on 16 October 2002 to 206 persons and organizations with the request to complete and return the forms within one calendar month. During this time constant communication was maintained by telephone and email to answer questions and follow up contacts. Where possible, telephone interviews and face-to-face interviews were conducted to facilitate completion of responses. Responses received after 2 December 2002 were noted as background information, but were not included in the analysis. 6.3 PHASE III: COMPILATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF INFORMATION The identification of methodology and criteria to be used in the analysis was carried out in collaboration with UNESCO-IOC during a visit to their headquarters in Paris from 18 to 22 November 2002. Seven criteria (geography, regularity, cost effectiveness, legitimacy, credibility, sustainability and saliency) were extracted from the conclusions and recommendations of the consultative meetings held in Reykjavik and Bremen and are defined for the purpose of the current study in Table 6.1. For the analysis of the questionnaire returns, a matrix was designed to compile the raw data collected in phase II. This allowed the input of data from all 60 questions, with a dedicated section for each scientific assessment or activity. Each scientific assessment or activity was given a unique identification code to facilitate reference in the analysis. Where information ona scientific assessment or activity was received from multiple sources, only the response from the lead agency was taken into account in the analysis. The initial matrix consisted of two sheets, containing [i) the summary details of all scientific assessments carried out, or planned, at the global and regional levels and (ii) the full details provided by section B of the questionnaire. All analysis was carried out 37 Global Marine Assessments separately for the global and regional scales, and also for the two combined (total). Information on national programmes was not included in the analysis. Questionnaire returns form the basis of the main part of the analysis. However, it should be noted that 23 (11%) of the contacts provided narrative comments and relevant information in the form of reports and written or oral correspondence which did not fit the structure of the questionnaire. Therefore, the analysis was structured as follows: 1. Summary of questionnaire returns This responds to the when, where, how and what has been assessed. The responses were tallied and expressed as percentages to enable comparison between regional assessments, global assessments and total combined assessments, including the analysis of their geographical and thematic coverage. Results of this analysis led to questions for more complex data queries. 2. An overview of key narrative responses A brief review of relevant information is presented in Annex 9.4. This contributes to the overall conclusions and recommendations, and focuses on the assessments that have been referred to in discussions to date. A considerable amount of literature was provided in support of individual comments; however the time frame of this study did not allow an in-depth review of all this information. 3. Application of criteria to assessments The information compiled for the various assessments was considered against the seven defined criteria (Table 6.1) to determine their potential for integration into a future GMA mechanism. For this purpose the criteria are defined in terms of corresponding questionnaire questions. By looking at the responses given for the assessments, it was possible to appraise how closely each of the assessments fitted the criteria. A matrix was constructed to collate this information and allow the analysis. 38 To evaluate the fit of each assessment to the criteria it was necessary to develop a method for a comparative analysis and enable the identification of how closely each of the assessments corresponded to each of the criteria. With the exception of regularity, criteria definitions are described by more than one question to provide boundaries, characteristics and conditions. An arbitrary scoring system was developed to enable the comparison of criteria fit between assessments. A score was attributed for each question within each criterion as defined in Annex 12 Tables B-H. The highest scores corresponded to the best fit. As the numbers are arbitrary, they were used as a guide to indicate fit. Annex 12 Table A was then used to convert these numerical scores into the degree of impediment that may or not be posed for a given criterion to the integration of an assessment into a GMA mechanism. This integration potential was expressed as: An impediment for integration: The assessment/activity does not correspond to any of the defining conditions of the particular criterion: e.g. if the assessment was only a ‘one off’, it could not be considered regular. Partial impediment for integration: The assessment/ activity corresponds to some of the conditions of the criteria, but not others. Minimal impediment for integration: The assessment corresponds to all or almost all the defining conditions of the criteria, and few or no impediments exist in terms of appropriateness for inclusion or integration into a GMA process [i.e. to achieve this criteria few adjustments would have to be made). 6.4 PHASE IV: PREPARATION OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The analysis of the questionnaire returns and other information was used to [i) provide justification for the GMA process and [ii] outline and emphasize important issues and lessons to be considered when establishing and developing the GMA mechanism. Global Marine Assessments Table 6.1 Criteria definitions to determine suitability of assessments to be integrated into a GMA mechanism Geography @ Mandate covers waters from estuaries to international waters © Assessments use existing definitions of regions Regularity ® Assessments are either ongoing or undertaken on a regular basis (1-5 years) Cost effectiveness ® Comparatively low budget @ Low person-hours @ The resource provision may be considered satisfactory Legitimacy @ Undertaken at country request or in response to international/regional convention ® National stakeholders involved in all phases Credibility @ QA mechanisms in place © External peer review ®@ Method guidelines adopted with regular review ®@ Assessment is based on empirical data ® Assessment involves partners @ Assessment uses an indicator framework Sustainability @ The process is above single-country politics ®@ It is not dependent exclusively on external and variable funds ®@ |t is associated with a regional or international agreement Saliency © Assessment responds to a convention or a national request ®@ Is regular @ Provides policy advice ® Has provision for review ® Identifies policy makers as end-users @ Has stakeholder involvement © Outputs are orientated to user © Information freely available 39 Global Marine Assessments ANNEX 7. QUESTIONNAIRE Questionnaire to survey global and regional marine environmental assessments and related scientific assessments BACKGROUND In February 2001, the UNEP Governing Council adopted Decision 21/13. This Decision requests in Article 4: “..the Executive Director, in cooperation with UNESCO-IOC, other appropriate United Nations agencies, the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity and in consultation with the Regional Seas Programmes to explore the feasibility of establishing a regular process for the assessment of the State of the Marine Environment...’ A meeting to explore the feasibility of establishing a Global Marine Assessment [GMA] process was held 12-14 September 2001 in Reykjavik. This was followed by a technical workshop in Bremen, 18-20 March 2002, to elaborate the objectives and a framework for developing a GMA process. The Bremen workshop agreed in Paragraph 62, in order to implement the UNEP GC Decision 21/13: ‘62. An important first, or pre-requisite, step in the 40 GMA process is to evaluate existing major assessments of the state of the marine environment and to identify the scope, status and timing of forthcoming assessment activities carried out under relevant national, regional and global organizations.’ On 4 September 2002, the Johannesburg Summit adopted Paragraph 36(b) of the WSSD Plan of Implementation, which supports GC Decision 21/13 and expresses a commitment to: '36(b) Establish by 2004 a regular process under the United Nations for global reporting and assessment of the state of the marine environment, including socio-economic aspects, both current and foreseeable, building on existing regional assessments.” The outcomes of the questionnaire will support, in the wider sense, the Global Marine Assessment process that was initiated by the Reykjavik and Bremen meetings. The results will be made publicly available through the GMA process and will be taken forward in due course through intergovernmental processes. Global Marine Assessments Guidelines for completing the questionnaire The completion of this questionnaire should take approximately 10 minutes for section A and 20 minutes for each copy of section B. It has been designed to take the minimum time whilst ensuring that all the necessary information is collected to enable analysis. The following guidelines are to assist you in completing the questionnaire and to allow correct interpretation of the responses. 1. Please complete by Typing or using Blue or Black ink 2. Where there are tick boxes ({_]) either tick or, if completing the questionnaire electronically, click on the box. In some cases it may be appropriate to tick more than one box per question. 3. If you tick the option ‘other ’, please provide additional information to specify your views in the adjoining box or at the end of the questionnaire. Please remember to state which question your comment or information refers to. 4. Where you feel additional comments are necessary, please add these accordingly. Additional space is provided at the end of the questionnaire. 5. Section A: this is a general sheet, which all institutions should complete. 6. Section B should be completed only if your organization is undertaking assessments or other scientific activities at a regional or global level. 7. Please complete one copy of section B per assessment or scientific activity undertaken by your organization. If necessary please forward the questionnaire to the relevant person(s). Definitions of terms For the purpose of this questionnaire, the following definitions apply: Assessment All assessments of the marine environment. Activity All scientific activities which are directly or indirectly linked to an assessment, i.e. marine environmental science programmes, monitoring programmes, data collection activities, etc., carried out in the marine environment. Return of questionnaires Please return completed questionnaires to me as soon as possible and by Friday 15 November 2002 at the latest. Where necessary, I will be making telephone appointments to assist in the completion (please feel free to respond in English or French). If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me by email, fax or telephone. e Email: emily.corcoran@unep-wemc.org e Fax: +44 (0)1223 277136 (marked for the attention of Emily Corcoran) e Telephone: +44 (0)1223 277314 41 Global Marine Assessments SECTION A Part 1: Summary of all Assessments and Related Activities Name of organization Contact name Position Postal address Fax Telephone Email Yes No 1. Does your organization have any ongoing marine environmental Regional O O assessments? Global [J O 2. Does your organization have any ongoing international scientific Regional CO O activities concerning the state of the marine environment? Global (] O Please list the titles of ongoing assessments and scientific activities. Global Yes No 4. Does your organization have any planned future assessments? Regional al O Global OH OO 5. Does your organization have any planned future international, long-term Regional O O scientific activities? Global O Please list the titles of future assessments and scientific activities. Global THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING SECTION A. PLEASE CONTINUE TO SECTION B TO GIVE DETAILS OF REGIONAL/GLOBAL ASSESSMENTS AND ACTIVITIES IMPORTANT PLEASE COMPLETE ONE QUESTIONAIRE PER ASSESSMENT/ACTIVITY. 42 Global Marine Assessments SECTION B ONE COPY TO BE COMPLETED FOR EACH ASSESSMENT/ACTIVITY | Part 2: Background Information 7. 11. Title of the assessment/activity What are the objectives To monitor known threats to the marine environment and goals of the : : g eae oy To identify new threats with the aim of taking proactive measures assessment/activity ? to protect the marine environment Other Does the assessment/ Monitoring (collection of primary data) activity consist of: ; F Assessment (analysis of primary data) Assessment/advisory (review of secondary data) Other What is the role of your organization in the assessment/activity? Lead/coordinator Partner Contributor Start date (due) 12. End date (expected) Part 3: Set-up and Administration When was the assessment/activity first commissioned? Year ra 13. 17. 18. 19. DAnhwWwWnYv -bN . What is the underlying requirement for the assessment/activity? International legislation . Who commissioned the assessment/activity? Regional convention Intergovernmental request Scientific cooperation Other What is the duration of funding? No. of years How is the assessment/activity funded? Organization budget Special CP contributions External sources Activity-generated income Other What is the budget for the assessment (in US$ 000 )? <10 10-50 50-100 100-500 >500 DOOOOO OOOO | | coon O O O O O O O O C O . How often is the assessment/activity carried out? Once every (in years) | Please name any partners and collaborating institutions. Lead Partner Contributor OO OO00 . What is the main body for steering or coordinating the Secretariat assessment/activity Expert working group(s) Steering committee OOOOOO O fa 43 Global Marine Assessments Regional centre(s) [J National centre(s) [] 22. Does your assessment/activity use existing No OJ regional assessment set-ups? Yes, administrative and procedural set-ups [] Yes, geographical boundaries and coverage O 23. If yes, which of the following? UNEP Regional Seas [[] Non-UNEP Regional Oj Seas FAO Fisheries Regions [(] Non-FAO Fisheries L] Regions IUCN Regions [_] ICES Regions | LME [] uncLos [1 GIWA Regions [] Othe LO Part 4: Assessment/Activity Methods 24. Are different stakeholder groups involved No stakeholder (1 National govenment [] in the assessment/activity? involvement Intergovernmental C1 Local government O organizations Scientific community 1 Community O organizations Industry NGOs BI Environment NGOs || Other f& 25. If yes, in which phase(s) were the stakeholders Planning (] involved? Implementation [] Evaluation of results Oo 26. Are there mechanisms in place to allow feedback from the Yes O assessment/activity to the stakeholders? No O 27. Has your organization adopted guidelines for the Yes [J assessment/activity? No O 28. If so, are these guidelines reviewed in the light of the Yes, regularly results and experiences gained from the Yes, ad hoe assessment/activity? No O 29. How many persons and man-hours are allocated to People allocated Man-hours/year the assessment/activity within your organization? <] | 10 O >500 O 30. Are the currently allocated resources Yes OJ sufficient? No O 31. What are the main constraints experienced by Lack of or incomplete reporting of data/ O your organization in the undertaking of the information by stakeholders t/activity? a : ; roe er eae Me Incomparability of data/information reported by O stakeholders Data are not quality assured O Data are not assessed O Identification of local expertise O Other O Part 5: Support and Capacity-building 32. Does the assessment/activity include an evaluation of existing Yes O national/regional capacities in the context of its operations? Noa 44 Global Marine Assessments 33. Has the assessment/activity led to the identification of needs for capacity- Yess building at a national or local level in the context of marine science and No [Sl sustainable management of the oceans and their resources? 34. If yes, can your organization provide the required capacity-building/training? Yes Hy No 35. On what level and in Administrative and organizational set-up O which areas could the i : Suen ; Oo assessment/activity carried Data and information management facilities (including IT) out by your organization International level capacity-building (e.g. in the Secretariat) O benefit most from National-level capacity-building O international support Other O and/or cooperation? Part 6: Thematic and Geographical Coverage 36. What are the main themes addressed in the assessment/activity? Geophysical Ecological Human health Impact of human Pollution by: and safety activities Climate change and [J Habitats Water quality © Fisheries () Hazardous ocean systems substances Geosystems (incl Biodiversity Food safety Coastal OF Litter geomorphology) development and management Biogeochemical [ Marine (J Other O Oilandgas Alien species cycles ecosystems exploration Other Food webs [] Aquaculture [] Nutrients () Other Shipping OO Sewage Sand/gravel/ Radioactive O mineral substances extraction Maintenance [] Other O dredging Othr OF 37. For the relevant themes, what aspects does Dumping L] the assessment/activity address? Land-based inputs (direct or indirect) Oo Discharges (operational/illegal) io Other [ 38. Has an indicator framework been established Yes for the monitoring? No OJ 39. If so, which indicators are used in the Economic indicators [] assessment/activity? Social indicators [] Ecological indicators oO Governance indicators [1] Other L] 40. Is the assessment/activity carried out in: _ Estuaries O Coastal areas of Contracting Parties [ml EEZ of Contracting Parties [] International waters (High Seas) O Other [] Part 7: Assessment/Activity Outputs and their Uses 41. What are the key outputs of the Data O Policies L] assessment/activity? Data analysis O Other [] Advisory reports [] O 42. What tools are used to present the Written reports 2 nee = 7 - Spatial analysis aps information? P j Scenarios [L] Other [] 43. Are the data/information collected stored at: Secretariat An international data store A national data store An Internet site a), aja |e) Other 44. To whom are the data/ Free access (general Restricted access information accessible? public) (stakeholders only) Raw data oO Aggregated data fa] Final reports only O O All data O O 45. Is the outcome of the assessment/activity Yes [) adopted by all stakeholders? No O 46. Is the assessment/activity used to assess the _Your organization O effectiveness of actions and measures taken Other international organizations [] by: National stakeholders (] y: Other stakeholders [1 International National policies policies 47. Is the outcome of the assessment/activity Direct link linked to the review of existing/development pate = = a of new policies? oa 48. Has your organization adopted international measures (e.g. at Yess O Conference of Parties meetings) on the basis of the assessment? No UO Legally Moral Voluntary binding obligation 49. If your organization has adopted such Decisions L] O measures, what status do they hold? Recommendations CO O Agreements oO oO [El None oO | oO Part 8: Information Dissemination 50. Who are the intended end-users of the Internal ~[] National policy [] assessment/activity outputs? WEG Daou p. Scientific Oo General public iz community International O Educators ) bodies Industry (Gl Other oO 51. How often are reports produced? >ayr O Biannually Annually O Biennially (every 2 yrs) Othr O 52. Are outputs of the assessment/activity published Paper based UL (i.e. made publicly available); if so in which Electronic — CD ROM UO format? Electronic — Web based No O 53. Is there a purchase price for documents? Yes O No O 54. Where more than one user is intended are there different formats/outputs for Yess (J 46 Global Marine Assessments different end-users? No 55. Is there a mechanism for user groups to give feedback on the continued Ys O relevance of products? No O Part 9: Quality Assurance (QA) 56. What quality assurance methods are being applied in the assessment/activity (e.g. procedures, standards, QA in accordance with internationally agreed methods guidelines, etc.)? Checks for information accuracy and completeness QA in accordance with methods agreed within your organization None Other 57. Are reports subject to peer review? Yes, internal Yes, external No ae) a) 2) (a) eye) 58. What are the key lessons that have been learned from carrying out the assessment/activity? 59. Have you been able to identify any geographical gaps in the assessment/activity? 60. Have you been able to identify any thematic gaps in the assessment/activity? Part 10: Additional Comments If you have any other comments (e.g. on this questionnaire) that you feel are appropriate, please note them here. Please use this space for additional information relating to the questions for which you ticked ‘other’. Please state the question number to which the information refers. Part 11: Other Assessments/Activities If you are aware of other regional or global assessments that are ongoing/planned for your region or in your field, please indicate the title and organization responsible, with a contact name if available. THANK YOU 47 Global Marine Assessments ANNEX 8. CONTACTS LIST The four tables correspond to [A] questionnaires respondents; (B] those who responded not using the questionnaire format but by sending reports/ other documentation); (C] respondents who felt it was not appropriate to complete the questionnaire (this included some policy makers]; [D] those who did not respond at all Table A Questionnaire respondents Organization Assessment/ Contact Address Email, www, tel and fax Programme GLOBAL Convention on Marjo 393 rue Saint-Jacques marjo.vierros(dbiodiv.org Biodiversity (CBD) VIERROS Suite 300, Montréal http://www. biodiv.org Secretariat Programme Québec, H2Y 1N9 Tel: 1514 287 7036 Officer Canada Fax: 1514 288 6588 Food and Uwe BARG Viale delle Terme di uwe.barg(@fao.org Agriculture Senior Fishery Caracalla Tel: 39 65 7056442 Organization of the Resources 00100 Rome Fax: 39 65 7053020 United Nations Officer Italy GCOS Alan THOMAS WMO, 7bis Avenue de la Thomas_A(@gateway.wmo.ch Director, GCOS Paix Tel: 41 22 730 8275 Secretariat Geneva 1211 Fax: 41 22 730 8052 Switzerland GESAMP Global Coastal Mike HUBER 32 Beneteau Place mhuber(abigpond.net.au Strategies Vice-Chairperson, Lota, QLD 4179 Tel: 61 7 3893 4511 GESAMP Australia Fax: 61 7 3893 4522 GloBallast Steve IMO, 4 Albert sraaymak{dimo.org (Global Ballast RAAYMAKERS Embankment http://globallast.imo.org/ Water Technical London SE1 75R Tel: 44 20 7587 3251 Management Advisor UK Fax: 44 20 7587 3261 Programme] IGBP/SCOR Global Ocean Manuel Plymouth Marine m.barange(apml.ac.uk Ecosystem BARANGE Laboratory http://www.pml.ac.uk/ Dynamics Director, Prospect Place globec/main.htm (GLOBEC) Project GLOBEC Plymouth PL1 3DH Tel: 44 1752 633160 UK Fax: 44 1752 633101 IGBP/SCOR Joint Global Roger HANSON SMR roger.hanson(djgofs.uib.no Ocean Flux Study IPO Executive Director/JGOFS Science Officer 48 University of Bergen 5020 Bergen Norway http://www.uib.no/jgofs/ Home_Frame.html Tel: 47 555 84244 Fax: 47 555 89687 Global Marine Assessments Organization Assessment/ Contact Address Email, www, tel and fax Programme International Adolfo R. LIMA Calle Corazon de Maria, 8 adolfo.lima(@iccat.es Commission for the Executive Sixth Floor http://www. iccat.es/ Conservation of Secretary 28002 Madrid Tel: 34 91 416 5600 Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) Spain Fax: 34 91 415 2612 International Coral Kristian TELEKI c/o UNEP-WCMC icran(dicran.org Reef Action Acting Director 219 Huntingdon Road http://www.icran.org/ Network (ICRAN) Cambridge CB3 ODL Tel: 44 1223 277314 UK Fax: 44 1223 277136 International louri OLIOUNINE P.O. Box 3-Gzira ioihq@ioihg.org.mt Ocean Institute Executive GZR Tel: 356 21346528 Director Malta Fax: 356 21346502 International Camille LECAT Staple Hall camillelecat(ditopf.com Tanker Owners Technical Stonehouse Court Tel: 44 20 7621 1255 Pollution Advisor 87-90 Houndsditch Fax: 44 20 7621 1783 Federation London EC3A 7AX (ITOPF) UK Island Resources Bruce POTTER 1718 P St. NW bpotter(dirf.org Foundation/GIN President Dvite FA http://www.irf.org/ Washington, DC 20036 Tel: 1 202 265 9712 USA Fax: 1 202 252 0748 IUCN Marine Torben BERNER 53 Horton Place torben.berner(iucn.org Programme Head, Regional Colombo 7 http://www.iucn.org/themes/ Marine Sri Lanka marine/ Programme Tel: 941 682 458 Fax: 941 682 470 Marine Scott FOWLER 4 Quai Antoine ler s.fowler(diaea.org Environment Head, Marine BP 800 http://www.iaea.or.at/ Laboratory- Environmental MC98012 Tel: 377 97 97 72 51 International Studies Monaco Fax: 377 97 97 72 73 Atomic Energy Laboratory Agency (IAEA) Millennium Millennium Neville ASH 219 Huntingdon Road ash(amillenniumassessment.org Assessment Ecosystem MA Coordinator Cambridge http://www.millennium Secretariat Assessment CB3 ODL assessment.org UK Tel: 44 1223 277314 Fax: 44 1223 277136 Scientific Veronique 51 Bd de Montmorency secretariat(dicsu-scope.org Committee on PLOCQ- 75016 Paris http://www.icsu-scope.org Problems of the FICHELET France Tel: 33 1 45 25 04 98 Environment Executive Fax: 33 1 42 88 14 66 (SCOPE) Director 49 Global Marine Assessments Organization Assessment/ Contact Address Email, www, tel and fax Programme SCOPE/ICSU Working group 3: Chair of Working —_ University of Hawaii at dkarl(@soest.hawaii.edu Nitrogen fixation Group Manoa http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/ in the world’s Hawaii public/scope-n/wg3.html oceans UN UN Atlas of John EVERETT FAO, Viale delle Terme di john.everett(dfao.org Oceans Project Manager Caracalla http://www.oceansatlas.com/ Rome 00100 index.html Italy Tel: 39 06 5705 3020 Fax: 39 06 5705 6467 UNEP GIWA Juan-Carlos University of Kalamar jc.belausr(agiwa.net BELAUSTEGUIGOITIA SE-391 http://www.giwa.net Coordinator 82 Kalamar Tel: 46 480 447354 Southern Sweden Fax: 46 480 447355 Hemisphere UNEP Global Munyaradzi P.O. Box 30552 munyaradzi.chenje(@unep.org Environment CHENJE Nairobi http://www.grid.unep.ch/geo Outlook (GEO Programme Kenya Tel: 254 2 624546 Project) Officer, GEO Fax: 254 2 623943 UNEP Chemicals Global Mercury Jim WILLIS 11-13 chemin des jwillis(@unep.ch Assessment Director Anémones http://www.chem.unep.ch/ CH-1219 Chatelaine mercury Geneva Tel: 41 22 917 8183 Switzerland Fax: 41 22 797 3460 UNEP Chemicals Global Bo WAHLSTROM _ 11-13 chemin des bwahlstrom(dunep.ch Monitoring Senior Scientific |§ Anemones Tel: 41 22 917 8195 Network Advisor CH-1219 Chatelaine Fax: 41 22 797 3461 Geneva, Switzerland UNEP Chemicals Regionally Based Paul WHYLIE 11-13 chemin des pwhylie(unep.ch Assessments of Persistent Toxic Anémones CH-1219 Chatelaine Project Manager Tel: 41 22 917 8305 Fax: 41 22 797 3460 Substances Geneva, Switzerland UNEP, Division of Salif DIOP P.O. Box 30552 salif.diop(@unep.org Early Warning and Senior Nairobi http://www.unep.org Assessment Environmental Kenya Tel: 254 2 622015 (DEWA) Affairs Officer Fax: 254 2 622798 UNEP-WCMC/ IMAPS Phil FOX 219 Huntingdon Road phillip.foxf@unep-wemc.org IPEACA [International (Interactive Map UNEP-WCMC Cambridge http://www. beakey.unep- Petroleum Industry Service) contact CB3 ODL wemc.org/index.htm Environmental UK Tel: 44 1223 277314 Conservation Association) 50 Fax: 44 1223 277136 Assessment/ Programme Organization UN Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) World Seagrass Association (hosted at University of New Hampshire) GLOBAL/REGIONAL UNESCO-IOC Ocean Mapping (global and regional) REGIONAL Commission for Contact Pablo HUIDOBRO Industrial Development Officer Address Vienna International Centre P.O. Box 300 A-1400 Vienna Austria Frederick T. SHORT Research Professor Dmitri TRAVIN Senior Assistant Secretary Ocean Mapping Densil MILLER Jackson Estuarine Laboratory 85 Adams Point Road Durham, NH 03824 USA | Rue Miollis 75015 Paris France P.O. Box 213 Global Marine Assessments Email, www, tel and fax p.huidobrofaunido.org http://www.unido.org Tel: 43 1 26026 6819 Fax: 43 1 26026 3068 fred.short(@unh.edu Tel: 1 603 862 2175 Fax: 1 603 862 1101 d.travin(@unesco.org http://ioc.unesco.org/iocweb/ activities/ocean_sciences/ ocemap.htm#Contacts Tel: 33 1 45 68 40 44 Fax: 33 1 45 68 58 12 denzil(@ccamlr.org the Conservation Executive North Hobart http://www.ccamlr.org of Antarctic Marine Secretary Tasmania 7002 Tel: 61 3 6231 0366 Living Resources Australia Fax: 61 3 6234 9965 (CCAMLR) Commission for Brian P.O. Box 37 bmacdonald{dccsbt.org the Conservation MACDONALD Deakin West http://www.ccsbt.org/ of Southern Executive ACT 2600 Tel: 61 2 6282 8396 Bluefin Tuna Secretary Australia Fax: 61 2 6282 8407 (CCSBT) Convention on the Oksana Dolmabahce Sarayi 11 otarasovafablacksea- Protection of the Grygorivna Hareket Kosku environment.org Black Sea Against TARASOVA 80680 Besiktas Tel: 90 212 2279927 9 Pollution Pollution Istanbul Fax: 90 212 2279933 (Bucharest Monitoring and Turkey Convention) Black Assessment Sea RCU Officer EMECS Environmental Eiji ISHIHARA IHD Building secret(@emecs.or.jp Management of Director 5-1 Wakinohama-kaigandori Tel: 81 78 252 0234 Enclosed and Coastal Seas International EMECS Centre 1-chome, Chuo-ku, Kobi 651-0073, Japan Fax: 81 78 252 0404 51 Global Marine Assessments Organization Assessment/ Contact Address Email, www, tel and fax Programme Food and Coordinating Richard FAO, Viale delle Terme di _—_richard.grainger(dfao.org Agriculture Working Partyon GRAINGER Caracalla Tel: 39 06 5705 4828 Organization of the Fishery Statistics Rome 00100 Fax: 39 06 5705 2476 UN (FAO) Italy General Fisheries Alain BONZON FAO, Viale delle Terme di alain.bonzon(@fao.org Commission for Caracalla Tel: 39 06 5705 6435 the Mediterranean Rome 00100 Fax: 39 06 5705 6500 (GFCM) Italy GRID-Arendal ENRIN - Nicolai GRID-Arendal denisov(agrida.no Environment and DENISOV Longum Park http://www. grida.no/inf Natural Resource Senior Associate Service Box 706 Tel: 47 37 03 57 07 Information N-4808 Arendal Fax: 47 37 03 50 50 Network in Norway Central/Eastern Europe - NIS HELCOM - Baltic Juha-Markku Katajanokanlaituri 6 B juha-markku.leppanen Marine LEPPANEN FIN-00160 Helsinki (ahelcom.fi Environment Professional Finland http://www.helcom. fi Protection Secretary Tel: 358 9 6220 2227 Commission Fax: 358 9 6220 2239 Indian Ocean Raj PRAYAG Q4 Sir Guy Forget Avenue _ prayag(dcol.intnet.mu Commission/West Regional Quatre Bornes Tel: 230 4259564 ext 215 Indian Ocean Coordinator Mauritius Fax: 230 4252709 Islands Indian Ocean Tuna David ARDILL IOTC Secretariat iotcsecr(diotc.org Commission (IOTC) Executive P.O. Box 1011 Victoria http://www.seychelles.net/iotc Secretary Seychelles Tel: 248 225494 Fax: 248 224364 Inter-American Robin ALLEN 8604 La Jolla Shores rallen(diattc.org Tropical Tuna Director Drive http://www. iattc.org/ Commission La Jolla, CA 92037-1508 Tel: 1 858 546 7100 (IATTC) USA Fax: 1 858 546 7133 International Janet Palaegade 2 janet(dices.dk Council for the PAWLAK DK 1261 Copenhagen K Tel: 45 3315 4225 Exploration of the Environment Denmark Fax: 45 3393 4215 Sea (ICES) Advisor International Bruce LEAMAN P.O. Box 95009 bruce(diphc.washington.edu Pacific Halibut Executive Seattle, WA 98145-2009 _http://www.iphc.washington. Commission Director USA edu/halcom/default.htm (IPHC) Tel: 1 206 634 1838 203 Fax: 1 206 632 2983 52 Global Marine Assessments Organization Assessment/ Contact Address Email, www, tel and fax Programme 10C-UNESCO African Process Julian 1 Rue Miollis j.barbiere(dunesco.org BARBIERE 75732 Paris Cedex 15 Tel: 33 1 45 68 40 45 Programme France Fax: 33 1 45 68 58 12 Coordinator - Integrated Coastal Area Management Mediterranean MED POL Francesco MED POL Coordinator fscivili@unepmap.gr Action Plan Saverio CIVILI 48 Vassileos Tel: 30 10 7273106 Senior Konstantinou Avenue Fax: 30 10 7253197 Environmental Affairs Officer P. 0. Box 18019 116 35 Athens, Greece Don ROBERTSON General Manager National Institute of Water and Private Bag 14901 Wellington d.robertson(dniwa.co.nz Tel: 64 43860519 Atmospheric Biodiversity, New Zealand Fax: 64 3860572 Research Ltd Biosecurity and (NIWA) Information Systems North Pacific Vladimir Suite 502 vladffanpafc.org Anadromous Fish FEDORENKO 889 West Pender Street http://www.npafc.org/ Commission Executive Vancouver, BC, V6C 3B2 si Tel: 1 604 775 5550 (NPAFC) Director Canada Fax: 1 604 775 5577 Secretariat for the Tim ADAMS BP D5 timafaspc.int Pacific Community Director, Marine 98848 Noumea Cedex http://www.spc.org.nc/ (SPC) Resources New Caledonia Tel: 687 26 20 00 Division Fax: 687 26 38 18 Trilateral The Trilateral Harald Virchowstr. 1 marencic(awaddensea- Cooperation onthe Monitoring and MARENCIC D 26382 Wilhelmshaven __ secretariat.org Protection of the Assessment Contact, Germany http://cwss.www.de/TMAP/ Wadden Sea Program (TMAP]) Common Monitoring.html Wadden Sea Tel: 49 4421 9108 15 Secretariat Fax: 49 4421 9108 30 UN Antarctic Advisory - incl. Cecilie H. Norwegian Polar cecilie.quillfeldt(@npolar.no VON QUILLFELDT Chairperson on the state of the environment and need for Treaty Committee on Environmental Protection research incl. monitoring Institute Polar Environmental Centre N-9296 Tromso Norway http://www.cep.npolar.no/ce phome.htm Tel: 47 77 75 06 32 Fax: 47 77 75 05 01 Global Marine Assessments Organization UNEP Regional Assessment/ Programme East Asian Seas Contact Hugh KIRKMAN Address United Nations Building, Email, www, tel and fax kirkman.unescap(dun.org Seas Regional Director 10th floor, Rajdamnern http://www.unep.org/unep/ Coordinating Unit Avenue regoffs/roap/easrcu/index.htm Bangkok 10200 Tel: 66 2 288 1860 Thailand Fax: 66 2 281 2428 UNEP Regional Regional Hassan P.O. Box 26388 ropme(dquality.net Seas Organization for MOHAMMADI Safat 13124 Tel: 965 531 2140/3 the Protection of Acting State of Kuwait Fax: 965 533 5243 UNEP Regional Seas, North-West Pacific UNEP Regional Seas, Wider Caribbean Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission (WECAFC) WWF Japan 54 Marine Environment (ROPME] Sea Area NOWPAP- MERRAC Regional Coordinating Unit for the Caribbean Environment Programme (CAR/RCU) Coordinator Kang CHANG-GU Director Luc ST PIERRE Information Officer Bisessar CHAKALALL Senior Fisheries Officer Sadayosi TOBAI Yellow Sea Ecoregion Coordinator P.O. Box 23 Yuseong Daejon 305-600 Korea 14-20 Port Royal Street Kingston Jamaica P.O. Box 631C Bridgetown Barbados Nihonseimei Akabanebashi Bldg 6F Hiba3-1-14 Minato-ko Tokyo 105-0014 Japan cgkang(dkriso.re.kr Tel: 82 42 868 7260 Fax: 82 42 868 7738 (sp.uneprcuja(acwjamaica.com http:// www.cep.unep.org Tel: 1 876 922 9267 Fax: 1 876 922 9292 bisessar.chakalall(dfao.org Tel: 246 4267110 Fax: 246 4276075 tobaifawwf.or.jp Tel: 81 3 3769 1713 Fax: 81 3 3769 1717 Organization NATIONAL Centre de Recherches Océanographiques de Dakar Thiaroye Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency (BSH), Marine Monitoring Planning and Coordination (M51) Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute (KEMFRI) Ministry of Environment, Department for Environment (DEFRA), UK Norwegian Pollution Control Authority State Key Laboratory of Estuarine and Coastal Research, China Assessment/ Programme Contact Birane SAMB Chercheur Biologiste des Péches Hartmut HEINRICH Johnson KAZUNGU Director R. EMMERSON Marine Science Coordinator Per Erik IVERSEN Adviser, Section for Marine Environment Jing ZHANG Professor Global Marine Assessments Address Km 10 Route de Rufisque BP 2241 Dakar Senegal Bernhard-Nocht-Strasse 78 D-20359 Hamburg Germany P.O. Box 81651 Mombasa Kenya 3/B8 Ashdown House 123 Victoria Street London SW1 6ED UK P.O. Box 8100 DEP. N-0032 Oslo Norway East China Normal University 3663 Zhongshan Road North, 2 Shanghai 20006 PR China Email, www, tel and fax bsambe(dyahoo.fr Tel: 221 834 80 41 Fax: 221 834 27 92 Hartmut.Heinrich(@bsh.de Tel: 49 40 3190 3510 Fax: 49 40 3190 5000/5035 jkazungu(@recoscix.org http://www.kenyafish.org Tel: 254 11 47 25 27 Fax: 254 11 475157 richard.emmerson(ddefra. gsi.gov.uk Tel: 44 207 9445309 Fax: 44 207 9445305 per-erik.iversen(asft.no Tel: 47 226 7670 Fax: 47 225 33484 jzhang(asklec.ecnu.edu.cn Tel: 86 21 62233009 Fax: 86 21 62546441 55 Global Marine Assessments Table B Other respondents not using the questionnaire format Organization GLOBAL Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (UNESCO-IOC) International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU) International Council of Scientific Unions International Council of Scientific Unions Secretariat International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA) International Whaling Commission 56 Assessment/ Programme Fisheries Global Information System DIVERSITAS Global Invasive Species Programme Global Initiative IWC Contact Marc TACONET Project Manager Patricio A. BERNAL Executive Secretary/ Assistant Director-General Anne LARIGAUDERIE Executive Director, Secretariat H. MOONEY focal point Leah GOLDFARB Science Officer for the Environment and Sustainable Development Rob SELF Consultant Nicola GRANDY Secretary Address FAO-FIDI Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 00100 Rome, Italy 1 Rue Miollis 75732 Paris Cedex 15 France 51 Boulevard de Montmorency 75016 Paris France Department of Biological Sciences Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 USA 51 Boulevard de Montmorency 75016 Paris France 2nd Floor Monmouth House 87-93 Westbourne Grove London W2 4UL UK The Red House 135 Station Road Impington Cambridge CB4 9NP UK Email, www, tel and fax marc.taconet(dfao.org http://www. fao.org/fi/figis/ p.bernal(@unesco.org Tel: 33 1 45 68 39 83 Fax: 33 1 45 68 58 10 anne(dicsu.org http://www.icsu.org/ DIVERSITAS/ Tel: 33 1 45 25 95 24 Fax: 33 1 42 88 94 31 (neville(@leland.stanford.edu http://jasper.stanford.edu/ GISP/ Tel: 1 650 7231530 Fax: 1 650 7239253 leah(icsu.org http://www. icsu.org Tel: 33 1 45 25 03 29 Fax: 33 1 42 88 94 31 rself(Gosrl.co.uk Tel: 44 2380 724309 Fax: 44 2380 331972 iwc(diwcoffice.org http://www. iwcoffice.org/ iwc.htm Tel: 44 1223 233971 Fax: 44 1223 232876 Organization UNDOALOS (Division of Ocean Affairs and the Assessment/ Programme Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf Contact Valentina GERMANI Associate Officer Global Marine Assessments Address Office of Legal Affairs, Room DC20450, UN New York 10017 Email, www, tel and fax germani(dun.org http://www.un.org/depts/ los/index.htm Law of the Sea) (CLCS) USA Tel: 1212 963 6140 UNEP GPA for the Martin UNEP, P.O. Box 16227 m.adriaanse(dunep.nl Protection of the ADRIAANSE 2500 BE http://www.gpa.unep.org Marine GPA The Hague Tel: 31 70 311 4466 Environment Coordination Netherlands Fax: 31 70 345 6648 from Land-based _ Office Activities, Coordination Office UNEP-DTIE Tour Operators Giulia Tourism Programme giulia.carbone(aunep.fr Initiative for CARBONE 39-43, Quai André Citroén _http://www.uneptie.org/tourism Sustainable APO 75739 Paris Cedex 15 Tel: 33 144 37 14 41 Tourism France Fax: 33 144 37 14 74 UNEP/IPCC Renate CHRIST Ave. de la Paix 7 bi christ_r(agateway.wmo.ch Deputy CH-1211 Geneva Tel: 41 22 7308574 Secretary of the Switzerland Fax: 41 22 7308025 IPCC WMO/IOC/ICSU World Ocean W. John GOULD Southampton john.gould(dsoc.soton.ac.uk WCRP Circulation Director WOCE Oceanography Centre http://www.soc.soton.ac.uk/ Experiment International University of Southampton OTHERS/woceipo/ (WOCE) Project Office European Way Tel: 44 2380 596789 World Heritage Convention REGIONAL EURO GOOS World Heritage Centre EDIOS (European Directory of the Initial Ocean- observing System] Marjaana KOKKONEN Associate Expert Joanne FISCHER Coordinator Southampton, S014 3ZH UK UNESCO 7, place de Fontenoy 75352 Paris 07 SP France Universitat Hamburg, Zentrum fur Meeres- und Klimakunde, Institut fur Hydrobiologie und Fischer- eiwissenschaft, Germany Fax: 44 2380 596204 m.kokkonen{dunesco.org http://www.unesco.org/whc/ Tel: 33 1 45 68 11 87 Fax: 33 1 45 68 55 70 fischer.ish(@bfa-fisch.de Global Marine Assessments Organization Assessment/ Programme European Bank for Reconstruction and Development European Commission/DG Environment Contact Jeff JETER Senior Environmental Advisor Ben van de WETERING Address Environment Department 1 Exchange Square London EC2A 2JN UK Office: BU9 3-174 B-1049 Brussels Belgium Email, www, tel and fax jeterj(@ebrd.com Tel: 44 207 3386504 Fax: 44 207 3386848 ben.van-de-wetering(dcec.eu.int http://europa.eu.int/comm/ environment/ Tel: 32 2 295 0214 Fax: 32 2 296 8825 INFOFISH S. SUBASINGHE 1st Floor, Wisma PKNS infish(@po.jaring.my Director Jalan Raka Laut Tel: 603 26914466 P.O. Box 10899, 50728 Fax: 603 26916804 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia North Atlantic Peter 11 Rutland Square hq(anasco.int Salmon HUTCHINSON Edinburgh EH1 2AS http://www.nasco.int/ Conservation Assistant UK Tel: 44 131 228 2551 Organization Secretary Fax: 44 131 228 4384 (NASCO) OSPAR Alan SIMCOCK New Court alan(@ospar.org (Commission of Executive 48 Carey Street http://www.ospar.org the Convention for Secretary London WC2A 2jQ Tel: 44 20 7430 5200 the Protection of UK Fax: 44 20 7430 5225 the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic) Sub-regional Bangoura S. B.P. 20505 sp_csrp(dmetissacana.sn Commission on NABI Dakar csrp(dsentoo.sn Fisheries (SRCF) Secrétaire Senegal Tel: 221 345 580 Exécutif NATIONAL NOAA Thomas L. Rm 5220 DOC Tom.Laughlin(anoaa.gov LAUGHLIN 14th Constitution NW Tel: 1 202 4825118 Acting Deputy Washington, DC 20230 Fax: 1 202 4824307 Assistant USA Secretary = ee eee ee ee WWEF-UK Louise Panda House theaps(wwf.org.uk HEAPS Weyside Park, Galdaming Tel: 44 1483 426444 58 Marine Policy Officer Surrey GU7 1XR UK Fax: 44 1483 426409 Table C Inappropriate contacts Organization GLOBAL Consultative Group on International Assessment/ Programme Contact Mahfuzuddin AHMED Global Marine Assessments Address The World Bank, MSN G6-601, 1818 H Street NW Email, www, tel and fax m.ahmed{(dcgiar.org http://www.cgiar.org Agricultural Secretariat Washington, DC 20433 Tel: 1 202 473 8951 Research USA Fax: 1 202 473 8110 GESAMP, Texas Robert Arthur Room 906, O&M Building rducefdocean.tamu.edu A&M University, DUCE College Station Tel: 1979 8455756 Department of Chairman, Texas 77843-3146 Fax: 1 979 8628978 Oceanography GESAMP USA GRID-Geneva Includes Earth Ron WITT International Environment —ron.witt(@unep.org (UNEP) Watch House, Ch. des Anémones _http://earthwatch.unep.net/ 11, 1219 Chatelaine Switzerland ICLARM Coastal and Paul TENG P.O. Box 500 p.teng(dcgiar.org Marine Program Leader GPO 10670 http://www.iclarm.org/ Resources Penang Tel: 604 626 1606 Research Malaysia Fax: 604 626 5530 Program International Effect of EEZs on _— Sylvia Walter-Flex-Str. 3 karlsson.ihdp(duni-bonn.de Human Fisheries KARLSSON D-53113 Bonn http://www. ihdp.uni- Dimensions Programme Germany bonn.de/ Programme on Officer Tel: 49 228 73 90 50 Global Fax: 49 228 73 90 54 Environmental Change (IHDP) International Bathymetry and David COLE NOAA/NGDC Mail Code David.A.Cole(dnoaa.gov Hydrographic Ocean Mapping IHO DataCenter £/GC325 Broadway http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/ Organization for Digital Boulder CO, 80305 mgg/bathymetry/iho.htm Bathymetry USA Tel: 1 303 497 6429 International Monetary Fund (IMF) 700 19th Street, NW Washington, D. 20431 USA Fax: 1 303 497 6513 publicaffairs(dimf.org http://www.imf.org Tel: 1 202 623 7300 Fax: 1 202 623 6278 59 Global Marine Assessments Organization Assessment/ Contact Address Email, www, tel and fax Programme UNEP GPA for Protection Kenneth UNEP k.korporal(unep.nl of the Marine KORPORAL P.O. Box 16227 http://www.gpa.unep.org/ Environment from GPA Clearing- The Hague Tel: 31 70 311 4467 Land-based House Manager Netherlands Fax: 31 70 345 6648 Activities, Coordination Office UNESCO-IOC Ole 1 Rue Miollis, 75732 Tel: 33 1 45 68 40 68 VESTERGAARD Paris Cedex 15, France Fax: 33 1 45 68 58 12 UNESCO-IOC Health of the NeiLANDERSEN — Horn Point Environmental andersen(@hpl.umces.edu Oceans Pilot Project, NE Asia {(GOOS) Laboratory, 2020 Horn Point Road, P.O. Box 775, Cambridge, MD 21613 USA Tel: 141 221 8479 Fax: 1 41 221 8490 WMO/IOC Joint Technical Commission for Oceanography and Marine Meteorology (JCOMM) Advisory body {regulatory and guidance} REGIONAL Asia Pacific Fisheries Commission British Antarctic Survey Common Wadden Sea Secretariat Johannes GUDDAL Co-President Jon WATKINS Biological Sciences Division Jens A. ENEMARK Secretary North-East Pacific UNEP-Interim Secretariat RECOFI Regional Commission for Fisheries (not yet in force} Jorge ILLUECA Norwegian Meteorological Institute Region West, Allegt. 70 5007 Bergen Norway FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific 39 Phra Atit Road Bangkok 10200, Thailand High Cross Madingley Road Cambridge CB3 OBT UK Virchowstrasse 1 D-26382 Wilhelmshaven Germany No secretariat has been established joguddal(donline.no http://www.wmo.ch/indexfla sh.html Tel: 47 55 23 66 31 Fax: 47 55 23 67 03 veravat.hongskul(@fao.org Tel: 66 2 281 7844 Fax: 66 2 280 0445 jlwa(@bas.ac.uk http://www.antarctica.ac.uk Tel: 44 1223 221 605 info(awaddensea-secretariat.org http://cwss.www.de/ Tel: 49 4421 91080 Fax: 49 4421 910830 http://www. fao.org/fi/body/ rfb/RECOFI/recofi_home.htm FAO-RNE(@field.fao.org Organization Regional Fisheries Advisory Committee for the Southwest Atlantic (CARPAS) South West Indian Ocean Fishery Commission (not yet finalised) (SWIOFC) NATIONAL Environment and Food Agency, Iceland Environment Assessment/ Programme Contact Aubrey HARRIS Secretary David EGILSON Director Hamza Abbas Global Marine Assessments Address No address available. Abolished by FAO Conference Resolution 13/97. Body has not met since 1974, Email, www, tel and fax Subregional Office for Southern and East Africa (SAFR], 6th Floor Old Mutual Centre, Cnr. J. Moyo/Third Avenue P.O. Box 3730, Harare Zimbabwe Armulila P.O. Box 8080 15-128 Reykjavik Iceland P.O. Box 24395 aubrey.harris(dfao.org FAO-SAFR.Registry (afield.fao.org Tel: 263 4 791407 Fax: 263 4 703497 davide(dhollver.is Tel: 354 5851000 Fax: 354 585101 Hakaram(epa.org.kw Public Authority, KARAM Safat - 13104 Tel: 965 5611741 Kuwait - EPA Head of Marine Kuwait Fax: 965 5653328 Pollution Section International Jan-Stefan DLR-PT jan-stefan.fritz(@dlr.de Bureau of the FRITZ Konigswinterer Strasse Tel: 49 228 44 92 362 Federal Ministry of 522-524 Fax: 49 228 44 92 490 Education and D-53227 Bonn Research, Germany Germany Marine Fisheries Kwame P.O. Box BGT-62 kwamek(africaonline.com.gh Research Division, KORANTENG Tema Tel: 223 22 20 80 48 Ghana Ghana Ministry for the Siv Vonarstraeti 4 siv.fridleifsdottir@umh.stjris Environment, FRIDLEIFSDOTTIR 150 Reykjavik Tel: 354 5609600 Iceland Minister Iceland Fax: 354 5624566 Ministry of Stefan Skulagata 4 stefan.asmundsson(dsjr.stjr.is Fisheries, Iceland ASMUNDSSON 150 Reykjavik Tel: 354 5609670 Ministry of Fisheries, Iceland Legal Adviser in International Affairs Dorothea JOHANNESDOTTIR Economist Iceland Fax: 354 5621853 Skulagata 4 150 Reykjavik Iceland dora(dhafro.is http://government.is/interpro/ sjavarutv/sjavarutv.nsf/pages/ ensk_forsida Tel: 354 5609670 Fax: 354 5621853 61 Global Marine Assessments Organization Assessment/ Contact Address Email, www, tel and fax Programme Ministry of Marine Hartanta J1 Letjen M. T. Haryono tariganhfdcbn.net.id Affairs and TARIGAN Kav. 52-53 Tel: 62 21 384 6146 Fisheries, Agency Director, Marine Jakarta 12770 Fax: 62 21 798 0458 for Marine Technology Indonesia Research and Research Centre Fisheries, Indonesia Ministry of the Magnus Vonarstraeti 4 Magnus.johannessonfaumh. Environment, JOHANNESSON 150 Reykjavik stjris Iceland Secretary- Iceland Tel: 354 5609600 General Fax: 354 5624566 Ministry of the Anders S-10333 anders.berntell(@environment. Environment, BERNTELL Stockholm ministry.se Sweden Sweden Tel: 46 8 4052058 Fax: 46 8 219170 Ministry of Els de WIT P.O. Box 20906 e.m.dwit(a@hkw.rws. Transport, Public Senior Policy 2500 Ex minvenw.nl Works and Water Advisor The Hague Tel: 31 70 3510505 Management, the Netherlands Fax: 31 70 3519078 Netherlands Nigerian Institute Thomas Wilmot Point Road niomr(@linkserve.com.ng/ for Oceanography Olatunde Bar-Beach PMB 12729 niomr(dhyperia.com and Marine AJAY| Lagos Tel/Fax: 234 01 26 1 7530/ Research Director Nigeria 61 95 17/61 38 27 Office of Halldor Vonarstraeti 4 halldor.thorgeirsson(aumh. Sustainable THORGEIRSSON 150 Reykjavik stjris Development and Director Iceland Tel: 354 5609600/9622 International Fax: 354 5624566 Affairs, Ministry for the Environment, Iceland Projekttraeger Ulrich WOLF Seestrasse 16 u.wolf(afz-juelich.de Juelich - MGS 18120 Rostock Tel: 49 381 5197 295 Germany Fax: 49 381 51509 62 Table D No response Organization GLOBAL Census of Marine Life Assessment/ Programme Global Ocean Biogeographic Information System (OBIS) for the Census of Contact Frederick GRASSLE Director, Institute of Marine and Global Marine Assessments Address Email, www, tel and fax Rutgers grassle(dimcs.rutgers.edu The State University of Tel: 1 732 932 6555 New Jersey Fax: 1 732 932 8578 71 Dudley Road, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 Marine Life Coastal Sciences USA Climate Variability Howard Southampton hyc{dsoc.soton.ac.uk and Predictability CATTLE Oceanography Centre Tel: 44 23 80596208/44 23 Study of the World Director, Empress Dock 80596789 (Sec.] Climate Research International Southampton S014 3ZH Fax: 44 23 80596204 Programme CLIVAR Project UK (CLIVAR) Office Consortium for Census of Marine Cynthia J. 1755 Massachusetts Ave. checkerfaCOREocean.org Oceanographic Life Secretariat DECKER NW, Suite 800 Tel: 1 202 3320063 Research and Director Washington, DC 20036 Fax: 1 202 3329751 Education USA Convention on UNEP/CMS Arnulf Martin-Luther-King-Str. 8 cms{dunep.de Migratory Species Secretariat MULLER- D-53175 Bonn http://www.wemc.org.uk/cms/ (CMS) HELMBRECHT Germany Tel: 49 228 815 2401/02 Executive Fax: 49 228 815 2449 Secretary Economic and Sarbuland Department of Economic _http://www.un.org/esa Social Council KHAN and Social Affairs (Division for Director 1 UN Plaza ECOSOC Support Room DC1-1428 and Coordination) NY 10017, USA GCOS/OOPC Global Ocean Data GODAE(@BoM. gov.au (Global Climate Assimilation http://www.usgodae.fnmoc. Observing System) Experiment (GODAE) navy.mil/ GEF (Global Non-operational Anne Marie UNEP/GEF Coordination Anne-Marie.Verbeken(@unep.org Environmental advisory group VERBEKEN Unit http://stapgef.unep.org/ Facility) Scientific for GEF STAP P.O. Box 30552 Tel: 254 2 62 34 24/32 50/41 and Technical Programme Nairobi 64/41 59 Advisory Panel Officer Kenya Fax: 254 2 62 31 40 Global Marine Assessments Organization Assessment/ Contact Address Email, www, tel and fax Programme Goos Ocean Observations Neville R. BMRC, 50 Lonsdale Street, N.Smith{abom.gov.au Panel for Climate of | SMITH Box 1289 K, Melbourne, http://www.wmo.ch/web/ GCOS Chairman OOPC Vic. 3001, Australia gcos/gcoshome.html ICLARM/EC/FAO Fishbase Rainer 20, Dusternbrooker Weg __ rfroese(difm.uni-kiel.de FROESE Kiel 24105 http://www.fishbase.org Coordinator Germany Fax: 49 431 600 1699 ICRAN/ICRI Agneta 417 Montgomery Street infofacoral.org NILSSON Suite 205 http://www.coral.org/ San Francisco,CA 94105 Tel: 1 415 834 0900 USA Fax: 1 415 834 0999 IGBP IGBP Secretariat Will STEFFAN Royal Swedish Academy __ will(digbp.kva.se (International Executive of Sciences, Box 50005 http://www.igbp.kva.se Global Biosphere Director S-104 05 Stockholm Tel: 46 8 16 64 48 Programme) Sweden Fax: 46 8 16 6405 IGBP Land-Ocean Chris PO Box 59 ccross(dnioz.nl Interactions in CROSSLAND NL-1790 AB Den Burg - _http://www.nioz.nl/Loicz the Coastal Zone Deputy Texel Tel: 31 222 369404 (LOICZ) Executive Officer Netherlands Fax: 31 427 369621 IGBP/SCOR SOLAS (Surface Peter S. LISS School of Environmental solas(duea.ac.uk Ocean - Lower Chair, SOLAS Sciences, University of Fax: 44 1603 507714 Atmosphere East Anglia, Norwich Study) NR4 7TJ, UK International Frederic CIESM Headquarters fbriand{dciesm.org Commission for the BRIAND Villa Girasole http://www.ciesm.org Scientific Exploration CIESM 16 bd de Suisse Fax: 377 92 16 1195 of the Mediterranean Director General Monaco Sea (ICSEM) International Publishes marine 14-20 Port Royal Street webmaster(disa.org.jm Seabed Authority = environmental Kingston http://www.isa.org.jm (ISA) information Jamaica Tel: 1876 922 9105 Fax: 1 876 922 0195 International Shigeyuki c/o Faculty of Agriculture mangrove(dii-okinawa.ne.jp Society for BABA University of the Ryukus _http://www.mangrove.or.jp/ Mangrove Executive Okinawa 903-0129 Tel: 81 98 895 6601 Ecosystems Secretary Japan Fax: 81 98 895 6602 10C/SCOR 10C Harmful Patrick CREMA pgentien(@ifremer.fr Algal Bloom GENTIEN B.P.5 http://ioc.unesco.org/hab/ Programme Chair 17137 LHoumeau GEOHAB4.htm France Tel: 33 5 46 50 06 30 64 Fax: 33 5 46 50 06 60 Global Marine Assessments Organization Assessment/ Contact Address Email, www, tel and fax Programme loDP Integrated Ocean Ted MOORE Department of tedmoorefdumich.edu Drilling IDOP Planning Geosciences http://www. iodp.org Programme Sub-Committee University of Michigan Tel: 1 734 615 3055 (2003-) Chair Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1063 Fax: 1 734 763 4690 USA MARPOL Secretariat c/o IMO Tel: 44 20 77357611 (International 4 Albert Embankment Fax: 44 20 75873210 Convention for the London SE1 75R Prevention of UK Pollution from Ships) Secretariat MARUM Centre for World Data Gerold Klagenfurter Str gwefer(amarum.de Marine Centre for WEFER D - 28359 Bremen http://www.marum.de/ Environmental Environmental Director Germany impressum/impressum_ Sciences Sciences/ e.html International Drill Tel: 49 421 218 3389 core library for Fax: 49 421 218 3116 marine sediments oDpP Ocean Drilling Kate ROYSE British Geological Survey, ukodp{dbgs.ac.uk Programme ODP UK Kingsley Dunham Centre _http://www.oceandrilling.org/ (1985-2003) Programme Keyworth ODP Manager Nottingham NG12 5GG, Tel: 44 115 936 3456 UK Fax: 44 115 936 3549 Partnership for Network of Shubha Bedford Institute of shubha(dis.dal.ca Observation of the experts/ SATHYENDRANATH Oceanography http://www.oceanpartners.org/ Global Oceans institutions Executive 1 Challenger Drive, Tel: 902 426 8044 Director Dartmouth, Nova Scotia Fax: 902 426 9388 B2Y 4A2, Canada Pew Centre for Eileen 2101 Wilson Blvd, Suite PierceJ(@pewclimate.org Global Climate CLAUSSEN 550, Arlington, VA 22201 ‘Tel: 1 703 516 4146 Change President USA Fax: 1 703 841 1422 RAMSAR Correspondance Rue Mauverney 28 blasco(aramsar.org toJean PIERCE CH-1196 http://www.ramsar.org/ (Executive Switzerland Tel: 41 22 999 0170 Assistant) Fax: 41 22 999 0169 Reef Check Delmar BLASCO ~=Wachmannstr. 23 georg.heiss(dreefcheck.de Foundation Secretary 28209 Bremen Tel: 49 421 3467032 General Germany Mob: 49 175 208634 Fax: 49 421 3467033 Global Marine Assessments Organization SCOR and partners UCSD - University of California, San Diego UNESCO UNESCO UNESCO-IOC UNESCO platform for environment and development in coastal regions and in small islands US Global Change Research Program Secretariat 66 Assessment/ Programme Ocean Biogeochemistry and Ecosystems (under development] Array for Real- time Geostrophic Oceanography Project (ARGO) (GOOS/GCOS) Man and the Biosphere Programme International Oceanographic Data & Information Exchange Some ongoing monitoring activities Contact Georg HEISS Coordinator Brian KING UK Representative Antonio Mubango HOGUANE Director, UNESCO Chair in Marine Sciences and Oceanography Miguel CLUSENER- GODT Integrated Biodiversity Strategies for Islands and Coastal Areas Peter PISSIERSSENS Head, Ocean Services webmaster Brad ARTHUR International Programs Address Email, www, tel and fax j-hall(@niwa.cri.nz http://www.jhu.edu/~scor/ obe.htm Southampton Oceanography Centre UK Universidate Eduardo Mondlane/University Eduardo Mondlane Faculty of Sciences Dept. of Physics P.O. Box 257 Maputo Mozambique 1 Rue Miollis 75732 Paris Cedex 15 France UNESCO-IOC 1 rue Miollis 75732 Paris Cedex 15 France 400 Virginia Ave, SW Suite 750 Washington, DC 20024 USA b.king(dsoc.soton.ac.uk http://www.argo.ucsd.edu hoguane(ahotmail.com Tel: 258 1 47 53 25 Fax: 258 1 47 53 33 m.clusener- godt(dunesco.org http://www.unesco.org/mab/ ibsica/index.htm Tel: 33 145 68 41 46 Fax: 33 1 45 68 58 04 p.pissierssens(dunesco.org Tel: 33 1 45 68 58 12 csi.webmaster(dunesco.org http://www.unesco.org/csi/ index.htm Tel: 33 1 45 68 40 46 information(@usgcrp.gov www.usgcrp.gov Tel: 1 202 488 8630 Fax: 1 202 488 8681 Global Marine Assessments Organization Assessment/ Contact Address Email, www, tel and fax Programme Veridian Systems Marine and Veridian Information services.info(averidian.com coastal GIS Solutions Division http://www.veridian.com/ information 10560 Arrowhead Drive Tel: 1 703 385 0700 Fairfax, VA 22030, USA WCRP/IGBP/IHDP — Global Carbon Mike University of New kathyh(@eos.sr.unh.edu Project RAUPACH Hampshire, Morse Hall http://gaim.sr.unh.edu/cjp Durham, NH 03824 Tel:1 603 862 42551 USA Fax: 1 603 862 2124 WCRP/IGBP/IHDP Global Dagoberto Fishery Research okean(@entelchile.net Environmental ARCOS Institute of Chile http://gecafs.org/ Change and Food GECAFS Chile Systems Executive (GECAFS) Committee WMO/Global Global Composite Thomas c/o Federal Institute of thomas.maurer(abafg.de Runoff Data Centre Runoff Data Set MAURER Hydrology Kaiserin- Augusta-Anlagen 15-17 56068 Koblenz, Germany World Fisheries Blue Millennium Brian 204-1208 Wharf St bharvey(aworldfish.org Trust Project HARVEY Victoria, BC http://www.worldfish.org/ President V8W 3B9 Tel: 1 250 380 7585 Canada Fax: 1 250 380 2621 World Resources See web for Anne Marie 10 G Street, NE (Suite aderose(dwri.org Institute, Marine details of DE ROSE 800) http://wri.igc.org/wri/marine/ and coastal projects Research Washington, DC 20002 Tel: 1 202 729 7600 ecosystems Analyst USA Fax:1 202 729 7610 WWF International EndangeredSeas Simon Avenue du Mont-Blanc scripps(awwfint.org Programme CRIPPS 1196 Gland http://www.panda.org Director Switzerland Tel: 41 22 364 91 11 GLOBAL/REGIONAL Advisory Global and Viktor 11 Dartmouth Street info(d@acops.org Committee on Regional SEBEK London SW1H 9BN http://www.acops.org Protection of the Programmes Executive UK Tel: 44 207 799 3033 Sea (ACOPS) (implementation Director Fax: 44 207 799 2933 of GPA) REGIONAL AMAP Lars-Otto P.B. 8100 Dep. lars-otto.reiersen(d@amap.no REIERSEN 0032 Oslo Tel: 47 2 3241632 Executive Norway Fax: 47 2 3241631 Secretary Global Marine Assessments Organization Arctic Ocean Assessment/ Programme Arctic Regional Contact Sara BOWDEN Address c/o Geosciences Email, www, tel and fax bowden(dpatriot.net Science Board Programme Secretariat Directorate, National http://www.aosb.org/ (AOSB) Science Foundation, 4201 Tel: 1 703 2927856 Wilson Blvd, Rm 1070 Fax: 1 703 2929152 Arlington, VA 22230, USA Asia Pacific FAO Regional Office for veravat.hongskul(@fao.org Fisheries Asia and the Pacific Tel: 66 2 281 7844 Commission 39 Phra Atit Road Fax: 66 2 280 0445 Bangkok 10200, Thailand Atlantic Africa AL AHLOU BP 476 Nouvelle Cite alahlouf(amp3m.gov.ma Fisheries Administrative Tel: 212 7 688303/330/331 Commission Haut-Agdal, Rabat Fax: 212 7 688329 (AAFC) Morocco Caspian Caspian Timothy Programme Coordination caspian{dcaspian.in- Environment TURNER Unit, Room 108 baku.com Programme Programme Government Building http://www.caspian Coastal Research and Planning Institute, Klaipeda University Comision Permanente del Pacifico Sur (CPPS) (UNEP) Cuba Eastern African UNEP Regional Seas 68 Baltic Sea Alien Species Database BIODATA Coordinator Sergej OLENIN Project Coordinator Fabian Valdivieso EGUIGUREN Secretary General Manuel Llansana ALEPUZ Dixon WARUINGE Programme Officer 40 Uzeir Hadjibeyov St Baku 370016 Azerbaijan H Manto 84 LT 5808 Klaipeda Lithuania environment.org Tel: 994 12 938003/971785 Fax: 994 12 971786 s.olenin(acorpi.ku.lt www.ku.lt/nemo/mainnemo.htm Tel: 370 6 398847 Fax: 370 6 398845 Coruna 2061 y Whimper Quito Ecuador Ap. Postal 17029 La Habana 11700 Cuba Ministry of Environment and Forests, 20 BP 650 Abidjan 20 Cote d'Ivoire cpps{decuanex.net.ec Tel: 593 2 234 331/5/6 Fax: 593 2 234 374 alepuz(diitransp.transnet.cu; cimabfatransnet.cu Tel/Fax: 537 338250/ 621557/8 623051/58 Mob: 537 804182 biodiv@africaonline.co.ci/ dixon.waruingefdunep.org Tel: 20 21 1183/0623 Fax: 20 210495 Global Marine Assessments Organization Assessment/ Contact Address Email, www, tel and fax Programme EEA Marine and T. LACK Kongens Nytorv 6 DK lack(@wrcple.co.uk Coastal ETC/Water 1050 Copenhagen K Tel: 45 3336 7155 Environment, Leader Denmark Fax: 45 3336 7199 European Inter- regional Forum at EEA European Science Engaged in Niamh 1 quai Lezay-Marnésia nconnolly(esf.org Foundation (ESF) Marine Plan for CONNOLLY 67080 Strasbourg Cedex _http://www.esf.org/ Marine Board Europe Executive France Tel: 33 3 88 76 71 44 Scientific Fax: 33 3 88 25 19 54 Secretary, Secretariat European Space ENVISAT ocean Luc TYTGAT FAO Regional Office for luc.tytgat(@cec.eu.int Agency monitoring Head of Unit, Africa (RAF) http://www.esa.int/export/esaSA/ applications Space Research P.O. Box 1628, Accra ESAIHTVTYWC_earth_0.html Ghana Tel: 32 2 296 8430 Fishery Committee FAO-RAF(@field.fao.org for the Eastern Tel: 233 21 675 000 Central Atlantic Fax: 233 21 668 427 (CECAF) International W. RANKE 20, Hozastr. 00-528 ibsfc(dpolbox.pl Baltic Sea Fishery Secretary Warsaw http://www.ibsfc.org/ Commission Poland Tel: 48 22 628 86 47 (IBSFC) Fax: 48 22 625 33 72 Joint Technical Julio D. Juncal 1355 oficina 604 http://www.cofremar.org/ Commission for the CHALULEU Montevideo Tel: 598 2 916 1973-2047 Argentina/Uruguay Technical Republica Oriental del Fax: 598 2 916 15 78 Maritime Front Secretary Uruguay (CTMFM) Latin American OLDEPESCA Secretariat Las Palomas 422, URB, oldepesc(dbellnet.com.pe Organization for Limatambo, Lima 34, http://fis.com/oldepesca/ the Development Apartado 10168, Lima Tel: 51 14 427655-429868 of Fisheries Peru Fax: 51 14 429925 Nordic Arctic Docent Kari Thule Institute, Box 7300 ~—_—kari.strand(@oulu.fi Research STRAND FIN-90014 http://thule.oulu.fi/narp/ Programme Secretary of the University of Oulu index.htm Programme Finland Tel: 358 8 553 3556 Fax: 358 8 553 3564 Global Marine Assessments Organization Assessment/ Contact Address Email, www, tel and fax Programme North Atlantic Kate University of Tromsg nammco-sec(dnammco.no Marine Mammal SANDERSON 9037 Tromsa http://www.nammco.no Commission Secretary Norway Tel: 47 776 45908 (NAMMCO) Fax: 47 776 45905 North Atlantic Science Lynne NOLAN Scientific and science(ahq.nato.int Treaty Programme Programme Environmental Affairs http://www.nato.int/science Organization Secretary Division Tel: 32 2 707 41 11 1110 Brussels Fax: 32 2 707 42 32 Belgium North Pacific Alexander S. PICES Secretariat bychkov(dpices.int Marine Science BYCHKOV c/o Institute of Ocean http://www.pices.int Organization Executive Sciences, P.O. Box 6000 Tel: 1 250 363 6364 (PICES) Secretary Sidney, BC, V8L 4B2 Fax: 1 250 363 6827 Canada North-East Kjartan HOYDAL =22 Berners Street info(dneafc.org Atlantic Fisheries Secretary London W1T 3DY http://www.neafc.org/ Commission UK Tel: 44 20 76310016 (NEAFC) Fax: 44 20 76369225 Northwest Atlantic T. AMARATUNGA 2 Morris Drive, P.O. Box info(anafo.ca Fisheries Assistant 638, Dartmouth http://www.nafo.ca/ Organization Executive Nova Scotia, B2Y 3Y9 Tel: 1 902 468 5590 (NAFO) Secretary Canada Fax: 1 902 468 5538 Pacific Salmon Don KOWAL 600-1155 Robson Street © Kowal(€@psc.org Commission (PSC) Executive Vancouver, BC http://www.psc.org/Index.htm Secretary V6E 1B5 Tel: 1 604 684 8081 Canada Fax: 1 604 666 8707 Protection of the Soffia Hafnarstraeti 97 pame(@ni.is Arctic Marine GUDMUNDSDOTTIR 600 Akureyri Tel: 354 4611355 Environment Executive Iceland Fax: 354 4623390 (PAME) Secretary Red Sea & Gulf of © PERSGA and the Mohammed P.O. Box 53662 persga(dpersga.org Aden Strategic Action FAWZI Jeddah 21583 Tel: 966 2 657 3224/3228/ Programme Deputy Saudi Arabia 653 4563 Secretary Fax: 966 2 651 4472 General Regional Activity Special Masamitsu Toyama City oritanifanpec.orjp Centre (Interim Monitoring and ORITANI Japan Tel: 81 76 445 1571 Secretariat), Coastal Director Fax: 81 76 445 1581 Northwest Pacific = Environmental Action Plan Assessment (NOWPAP) Global Marine Assessments Organization Assessment/ Contact Address Email, www, tel and fax Programme Regional Fisheries Bapteme BP 161 Libreville ndounga.bapteme(dcaramail. Committee for the NDOUNGA Gabon com Gulf of Guinea (not Contact for the Fax: 241 73 7149 yet in force) Secretary (COREP) General Scientific Peter Scott Polar Research execsec(dscar.demon.co.uk Committee on CLARKSON Institute, Lensfield Road = Tel: 44 1223 362061 Antarctic Research Executive Cambridge CB2 1ER Fax: 44 1223 336549 Secretary UK SDI Secretariat, Svetlana Kongens Nytorv 6 DK svetlana.maenchen(eea.eu.int European MAENCHEN 1050 Copenhagen K http://www.eea.eu.int/ Environment Denmark Tel: 45 33367132 Agency Fax: 45 33367128 South Asia Prasantha Dias 10 Anderson Road pd_sacep{deureka.lk Co-operative Environment Programme (SACEP) ABEYEGUNAWARDENE Deputy Director of Programmes South East Atlantic Fisheries Organization (not yet in force) (SEAFO) South Pacific South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) Chris WRAIGHT UK Contact Interim Secretariat Mary POWER Secretariat Colombo 5 Sri Lanka Foreign and Commonwealth Office AMED, k220, King Charles St, London SW1A 2AH, UK P.O. Box 240 Apia Western Samoa P.O. Box 629 Honiara Solomon Islands Tel: 941 596 442 Fax: 941 589 369 chris.wraighjt(@fco.gov.uk http://www.mfmr.gov.na/seafo Tel: 44 207 270 3809 Fax: 44 207 270 3189 marypl(dsprep.org.ws http://www.sprep.org.ws Tel: 685 21929 Fax: 685 20 231 infoldffa.int http://www. ffa.int/ Tel: 677 21124 Fax: 677 23995 South-East Pacific Plan of Action of Ulises Munaylla Av. Carlos Julio cpps_pseldcppsnet.org the South-East ALARCON Arosemena http://www.cpps-int.org Pacific, Permanent Advisor Km. 3.5 Tel: 5934 222 12 00/02/03 Commission for Guayaquil Fax: 5934 222 1201 the South Pacific Ecuador (CPPS) UNDP/IMO PEMSEA Adrian ROSS Regional Programme infofapemsea.org Regional Office, P.O. Box 2502 Programme Quezon City 1165 Office Philippines 71 Global Marine Assessments Organization Assessment/ Contact Programme UNEP/GOOS Baltic Bo REIMANN Operational Head, Oceanographic Operational System (BOOS, Oceanography under EuroGOOS) Division Upper SW Atlantic UNEP-Interim Secretariat West & Central West & Central Dixon Africa African Action WARUINGE Plan Programme (WACAF/RCU] Officer Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) (not yet in force) Western Indian Ocean Tuna Organization (WIOTO) NATIONAL Bar Ilan University Zvy DUBINSKY Department of John KARAU Fisheries and Oceans, Canada Institute for Coastal and Marine Management Institute for Environmental Physics, University Bremen 72 Director, Oceans Division Carien VAN ZWOL Monika RHEIN Address Danish Meteorological Institute Lyngbyvej 100 2100 Copenhagen Denmark P.O. Box 30552 Nairobi 00100 Kenya Ministry of Environment and Forests, 20 BP 650 Abidjan 20 Cote d'lvoire Seychelles Fishing Authority PO Box 449, Fishing Port Victoria, Mahé Seychelles Faculty of Life Sciences Ramat Gan 52900 Israel 200 Kent Street, Station 12E242 Ottawa Ontario K1A 0E6 Canada P.O. Box 20907, 2500 EX The Hague Netherlands Dep. Oceanography, Kufsteiner Strasse Geb.NW 1, 28359 Bremen Germany Email, www, tel and fax ebulddmi.dk http://www.boos.org Tel: 45 39 15 72 10 Fax: 45 39 27 06 84 ignacio.deleiva(dunep.org Tel: 254 2 623767 Fax: 254 2 624618 biodiv@africaonline.co.ci/ dixon.waruingefdunep.org Tel: 20 21 1183/0623 Fax: 20 21 0495 sfasez(dseychelles.net Tel: 248 224508 Fax: 248 224597 dubinz(amail.biu.ac.il Tel: 972 3 531 8283 Karauj(ddfo-mpo.gc.ca http://www.ncr.dfo.ca/index.htm Tel: 1 613 990 6802 Fax: 1 613 990 0659 c.vzwoll@rikz.rws.minvenw.nl Tel: 31 70 3114361 Fax: 31 70 3114380 mrhein(@physik.uni-bremen.de http://www.ocean.uni-bremen.de Tel: 49 421 218 2408/4221 (Sec.) Fax: 49 421 218 7018 Organization Institute of Oceanography Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnologia, UNAM Instituto Oceanografico de Venezuela National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan National Institute Assessment/ Programme Contact Nguyen Tac AN Director Alfonso VAZQUEZ BOTELLO Responsable de Laboratorio de Contaminacion Marina William SENIOR Jefe Departamento - Oceanografia Kunio KOHATA Leader of Coastal Environment Research Team Mahesh Datta Global Marine Assessments Address Cau Da 01, Vinh Nguyen Nha Trang Viet Nam Apartado Postal 70305 Mexico DF 04510 Mexico Email, www, tel and fax Haiduonglagng.vnn.vn Tel: 84 58 590 035 Fax: 84 58 590 034 alfonsov@mar.icmyl.unam. mx Tel: 56 225765 Fax: 56 160748 Universidad de Oriente, Ave Universidad, Sector San Luis Cerro Pelado Cumana Edo Sucre Cumana, Venezuela 16-2 Onogawa Tsukaba Ibaraki 305-8506 Japan Lokhandwala Road, Four wsenior(dcantv.net wsenior(dsucre.udo.edu.ve Tel: 58 93 302242/671923 Fax: 58 93 302137 Kohata(dnies.go.jp Tel: 81 298 502438 Fax: 81 298 502576 niom(abom7.vsnl.net.in of Oceanography, ZINGDE Bungalows, Andheri (W) Tel: 91 022 6359605-08 Regional Centre Scientist in Mumbai - 400 053 Fax: 91 022 6364627 Charge India National Marine Kenneth Narragansett Laboratory kshermanfdmola.na.nmfs. Fisheries Service SHERMAN 28 Tarzwell Drive gov Narragansett, RI 02882 Tel: 1 401 782 3211 USA Fax: 1 401 782 3201 RAS, Murmansk Gennady Vladimirskaya 17 mmbifdonline.ru Marine Biological MATISHOV 183010 Murmansk Tel: 8152 56 52 35 Institute Academician RAS Russia (Norwegian line): 47 789 10 288 Zentrum fuer Marine Tropenoekologie (Center for Tropical Marine Ecology) Venugopalan ITTEKKOT Director Fahrenheitstrasse 6 23859 Bremen Germany ittekkot(@zmt.uni-bremen.de Tel: 49 421 23800 21 Fax: 49 421 23800 30 Global Marine Assessments ANNEX 9. 9.1 SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF QUESTIONNAIRE RETURNS 9.1.1 Return rates In total, 206 questionnaires were sent out. Table 9.1 and Figure 9.1 summarize the success of this activity in terms of completed questionnaires returned. In all 60 questionnaires (29%] were returned completed and an additional 22 contacts (11%) responded with narrative information in written (reports, documents, articles) or oral form. Thirty-two contacts (15%) replied that they felt it was inappropriate to respond to the questionnaire. A number of these are national bodies, assessment users, rather than producers, or had been involved in discontinued assessments. Ninety-two of those contacted (45%] did not reply. Returns appeared to be greatest where there had been a previous awareness of the GMA process, or where direct communication was possible. The list of questionnaire recipients is given in Annex 8 (Tables A-D]. The four tables in this Annex correspond to A: questionnaire respondents (late responses could not be incorporated into the analysis); (b] those who responded not using the questionnaire format (sending reports/other documentation), (c] respondents who felt it was not appropriate to complete the questionnaire (this included some policy makers], [d) those who did not respond at all. The 63 completed questionnaires were from 56 organizations and provided summary details for 188 activities (Annex 10). The majority of these assessments are undertaken at a regional level and are currently ongoing (Figure 9.2). Fifty organizations provided in-depth responses for 88 assessments with six at national (7% of returns), 54 at regional (61% of returns) and 28 at global (32% of returns} scales (Table 9.2]. In many cases one organization provided information on more than one activity. For the 82 global and regional activities provided in detail, 53 (65%) were commissioned since 1996 and 20 since 2001 (24%). 9.1.2 Background information on reviewed assessments The project document (Annex 5) set out that the study should consider what is being done where and how in terms of ongoing assessments of the marine environment. This section concentrates on how assessments are undertaken, what mechanisms are in place and how they are implemented. Sections 9.2 and 9.3 of this document address the ‘where’ and ‘what’ questions, and provide detail on the geographical and thematic coverage of ongoing assessments. 74 DATA ANALYSIS (INCLUDING TABLES AND FIGURES) Use of scientific information (primary data): Over 70% of the 82 global and regional assessments that responded are based on primary or scientific data. Of these, 69% of regional and 54% of global activities or assessments are involved in the collection of primary data. Eighteen assessments (22%) were reported to be based on secondary data. Duration and funding: The greatest sources of funding of regional and global assessments are organizational budgets and external sources (mostly donor funds). Forty- one per cent of regional and 64% of global assessments have more than one funding source. The data show a disparity between funding duration and the expected duration of assessments. The majority of funding for the reviewed assessments is provided for two to four years. However, more than 60% of regional assessments and more than 40% of global assessments reviewed are expected to continue for five years or more [Figure 9.3], i.e. there is no long-term funding in place. Forty-five per cent of the organizations and individuals returning questionnaires described assessments as ongoing or continuous, without an identified end date. Table 9.4 shows that the most established (i.e. more than 20 years) assessments are concerned with fisheries and pollution. Long-term environmental assessments have been commissioned in the last ten years. Periodicity of assessments: Regional assessments tend to be more regular and frequent, with more than 40% being undertaken at least annually (Figure 9.4). A quarter of current global assessments are set up as ‘one-off events’. The continual assessments tend to be those that are collecting remotely sensed geophysical data. Use of resources: Global assessments tend to have larger budgets than the regional assessments, but have a relatively smaller number of staff allocated to the assessment (Figure 9.5]. This could be accounted for by a greater use of collaborating institutions and partnerships in the framework of global processes (Table 9.3). Sixty-three per cent of all assessments indicate that currently allocated resources are deemed insufficient (61% for regional and 68% for global assessments). As a crude estimate, between US$10 million and US$20 million are presently being spent on marine assessments, involving approximately 300 to 500 people. Involvement of stakeholder groups: The involvement of stakeholder groups was found to be the norm for the assessments reviewed. Only two did not involve other groups in the process at all (Figure 9.6). National governments, intergovernmental organizations and the scientific community represent the most common stakeholders of global and regional assessments. Environmental NGOs are more commonly involved in assessments at the global level than at the regional level (Figure 9.6). The involvement of community organizations and local government is low at all levels. This pattern is consistent with that observed below for the identified end-users. There was variation between the regional and global assessments. Involvement was greater in regional activities, with 68% of assessments involving stakeholders in the planning, implementation and evaluation phases. This compares with 54% of global assessments involving stakeholders in all three phases (Figure 9.8). End-users: National policy makers, international bodies and the scientific community are the main end-users. Communities and local-level bodies are not a main focus. Industry is identified as an end-user of the assessments by over 40% of returns, and yet less than 40% include industry or industrial NGOs as stakeholders (Figure 9.7). Appropriateness of outputs to the end-user: The majority of returns indicate multiple end-users; however only 39% of regional assessments and 29% of global assessments provide differentiated outputs which take into account the needs of various end-users. Approximately 60% of assessments reviewed have some kind of feedback mechanism in place, which allows users to comment and ensures the continued relevance of products. Variation in national and regional capacities: A distinct variation in the capacity of national and regional bodies to contribute to global assessment processes can be observed from the questionnaire returns. Most respondents acknowledged the importance of involving national or regional centres in regional and global assessments, but at present only 14% of responding assessments and activities use national or regional centres in their coordination. To increase the involvement of national and regional bodies in assessments, the issue of variation in capacity has to be addressed. Capacity building: Eighty per cent of the assessments mentioned in the questionnaire returns are in need of capacity building to support the work being undertaken. However, only just over half of the assessments include an evaluation of existing national and regional capacities in their programme of Global Marine Assessments activities. In cases where capacity building needs were identified, most commonly for national capacity (56% of all assessments/activities], approximately 60% of the regional and global assessments felt that they were in a position to provide the required capacity building. Monitoring and review mechanisms: Guidelines setting out methods and protocols for the implementation of assessments are in place for almost 80% of those reviewed. Nearly all are subject to review at least on an ad hoc basis. Although indicator frameworks are increasingly being established to standardize the types of indicators used to measure environmental change, only 54% of regional assessments and 46% of global assessments have established/use indicator frameworks. Figure 9.9 illustrates the main indicator groups that are employed for the assessments that have established such frameworks. Of course one assessment might use several indicator types. Quality assurance (QA) and peer review: Respondents were asked to describe the type of QA methods that were applied to their assessment or activity, ranging from checking of information for accuracy and completeness, application of internal QA methods, to the application of internationally agreed methods. The majority of assessments (54% of regional and 64% of global) use more than one quality assurance system, with approximately one-quarter of all assessments being controlled by data checks and internally or externally agreed QA methods. Eight per cent of assessments stated that either they had no quality assurance in place, or did not respond to this question. Sixteen per cent of assessments are not subjected to peer review, and some 46% are subjected to some form of external review. Others identified an internal peer review process. Policy relevance: Approximately 70% of assessments produce advisory reports as their key outputs. Twenty-five per cent of global and 28% of regional assessments Identify policy/policy briefs as a key output. The majority of assessment outcomes have either a direct or indirect link to the review and development of national (76% of assessments reviewed) and/or international (86% of assessments reviewed) policies (Figure 9.10). Global assessments tend to have a strong direct link to the review and development of international policies and are only occasionally linked to national policy review. In comparison, fewer outcomes of regional assessments are seen to have a direct link to international or national policy review and development. 75 Global Marine Assessments 9.1.3 Key findings from section 9.1 (summary and analysis of questionnaire returns) © 50 organizations provided fully completed questionnaires for 54 regional and 28 global assessments. ®@ 70% of reviewed assessments use primary data. © Long-term funding is not in place for most open- ended regional or global assessments. ® There are a number of well-established (>20 years) fisheries and pollution assessments; longer term environmental assessments have been established in the last ten years. © 25% of the global assessments reviewed are ‘one- off’ events. © As acrude estimate, between US$10 million and US$20 million are presently being spent by the reviewed assessments, involving approximately 300 to 500 people. © National policy makers, international policy makers and the scientific community are the main end-users identified by regional and global assessments. © 80% of assessments identified capacity-building needs to support ongoing work. ® Global assessments have more direct links to, and influence on, international policy review and development than regional assessments. © Only half of the regional and global assessments use indicator frameworks to structure how change in the marine environment can be measured and assessed. © 92% of assessments have some form of quality assurance mechanism. 9.1.4 Tables and figures for section 9.1 (summary and analysis of questionnaire returns) Table 9.1 Summary of contacts and responses No. % Total number of contacts 206 100 Number of questionnaire respondents 60 29 Narrative responses 22 11 Inappropriate contacts/contacts not able to respond 32 15 No response 92 45 Table 9.2 Breakdown of responses on the basis of completed questionnaires returned In many cases respondents completed section B of the questionnaire for only some of the ongoing assessments No. of organizations _No. of activities responding identified Summary details of assessments 56 188 Detailed activity information (total) 50 88 Global activities 28 Regional activities 54 National activities 6 Table 9.3 Assessments involving partnerships and contributing institutions at regional and global scales Global 21 (75%) Regional Partnerships 36 (67%) Other contributing 14 (26%) institutions 17 (61%) Table 9.4 Duration and types of open-ended regional and global assessments (n=82) Duration of ongoing No. % of open-ended assessment assessments (n=39) 10 yrs or less 18 46 10-20 yrs 8 21 20-30 yrs 6 15 >30 yrs 6 15) Unknown 1 3 76 % of all reviewed Types of assessment assessments (n=82) 22 Dominated by environmental monitoring (some fisheries assessments; information provision and training) 10 Fisheries stock assessments; pollution monitoring; ecosystem dynamics 7 Pollution monitoring 7 Dominated by fisheries stock assessments (1 mapping] 1 Fisheries stock assessments Figure 9.1 Summary of contacts and responses Questionnaire respondents 29% No response 45% Non-format responses 11% Inappropriate contacts 15% Figure 9.3 Duration of funding compared to the expected duration of regional and global assessments (regional) = 54: {global} = 28 Funding duration (years) Global Regional ongoing >10 5-10 2-4 1 or less ad hoc n/a 0 10 20 30 40 50 % of assessments Assessment/activity duration (years) ongoing > 10 5-10 2-4 1 or less n/a ee a = 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 % of assessments Global Marine Assessments Figure 9.2 Responses on the basis of completed questionnaires returned (a) Percentage of regional and global assessments Other 9% Regional ‘ 62% n = 188, other represents national-scale or scientific working groups were employed (b) Number of ongoing and future assessments Other 5% Future 21% Ongoing 74% n= 188, other indicates no specification Figure 9.4 Periodicity of regional and global assessments N(regional) = 94: (global) = 28 Frequency of assessment GB Global Regional other (2 phase) continually annual or more 2-4 years 5-10 years > 10 years ad hoc once n/a ST Ler ais elite a a 0 10 20 30 40 50 % of assessments 77 Global Marine Assessments Figure 9.5 Financial and personnel resources allocated to regional and global assessments (regional) = 94: "global = 28 Budget (‘000 US$) > 500 100-500 50-100 10-50 <10 n/a 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 % of assessments Number of persons allocated HB Global Regional voluntary n/a 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 % of assessments Figure 9.7 End-users of regional and global assessments "(regional) = 94: M(global) = 28 End user Other HH Global Educators Regional General public Industry Local community Scientific community International bodies National policy makers Internal n/a TU Sa el ae % of assessments 78 1 0 20 40 60 80 100 Figure 9.6 Stakeholder involvement in regional and global assessments (regional) = 94: (global) = 28 Stakeholder E tal NGOs nvironmenta BE Global Community organizations Regional Local government National government Industry NGOs Scientific community Intergovernmental organizations Other No involvement n/a a eS a | 0 20 40 60 80 100 % of assessments Figure 9.8 Stakeholder involvement in the different phases of regional and global assessments In many cases stakeholders are involved in two or all of the phases {regional} = 93: "(global) = 27 Phase of stakeholder involvement Planning/implementation/ evaluation Planning/evaluation Planning/implementation Implementation/ evaluation Evaluation of results Implementation HB Global Regional Planning n/a 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 % of assessments Figure 9.9 Indicator types employed in monitoring regional and global assessments N[regional) = 29: "global) = 13 HB Global Regional Oil spill preparedness EEA basic variables Other Governance — Ecological Social — Economic n/a Li; TT T T T 1 20 40 60 80 100 % of assessments oO Figure 9.10 Linkages between regional and global assessment outcomes and the review and development of new national and international policies A(regional) = 54: "{global) = 28 National policies Direct link Direct and indirect links Indirect link No link n/a r —_- 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 % of assessments International policies Direct link Direct and indirect links Indirect link Nein MB Global af Regional 0 20 40 60 80 % of assessments 9.2 GEOGRAPHICAL COVERAGE It is the aim of this section to consider how and where the world’s oceans are being assessed at present and to identify gaps in geographical coverage. A distinction is made between where there are provisions for assessment and where assessments are actually being carried out. Global Marine Assessments 9.2.1 Provision for assessments In many cases, assessments are carried out in defined geographical regions. Respondents were asked to indicate if they used existing regional definitions for the purpose of their assessment or activity. Seventy per cent of regional assessments and 54% of global assessments use defined regions (Figure 9.11). Nine regional definitions/frameworks were most commonly used, i.e. UNEP Regional Seas [including the Caspian Sea Programme as of January 2003), non-UNEP regional seas (CCAMLR, OSPAR, HELCOM}, FAO Fisheries Regions, non- FAO fisheries regions, Large Marine Ecosystems and the WWF Global 200 series - Marine Ecosystems, IUCN regions, CSIRO-CRIMP and UNCLOS) (Figure 9.12). Data were available for seven of these international assessments and regional frameworks [UNEP Regional Seas, non-UNEP regional seas, as well as for the areas covered by global assessments, FAO Fisheries Regions, non-FA0O fisheries regions, Large Marine Ecosystems and the WWF Global 200 Series - Marine Ecosystems). The geographical areas covered by these regional and global assessments are illustrated in Map 1. The individual layers used to prepare this overlay map are presented separately as Map 2 a-f. No data layers were available for IUCN regions, CSIRO-CRIMP and UNCLOS. UNCLOS defines its coverage as for all areas of the ocean and sea floors that are not under national jurisdiction. Maps 1 and 2 illustrate very clearly the density of provisions that exist for assessments of various geographical parts of the global oceans and demonstrate the evident lack of provisions for the undertaking of marine assessments in the international waters of the high seas, or open oceans. Only fisheries zones (FAO and non-FAQ) cover the open sea, as do the mandates of some of the non-UNEP regional sea conventions, e.g. OSPAR and CCAMLR. UNCLOS, in theory, makes provisions for open oceans and the seabeds; however in most cases UNCLOS delegates authority for these areas to regional bodies, which have highly variable capacities for working and implementing these provisions in these areas. The maps do not provide information on the intensity of ongoing assessments in the geographical areas covered. To visualise this kind of information in the form of overlays was beyond the time frame and the scope of this project. However, the questionnaire returns, as well as the narrative information, provided some indications of the amount of assessments carried out in the various geographical areas. As an example, the west coast of Africa is covered by the global LME framework and the regional Abidjan convention, both concerned with the marine environment, as well as by an FAO fishery zone. Nevertheless, the information 79 Global Marine Assessments analysed in this study shows a relatively low number of ongoing and planned assessments in the marine waters off the coast of West Africa, so this area represents a current geographical gap. 9.2.2 Location of activities This review tried to identify all regional and global assessments. However, there are a very large number of ongoing and planned assessments, and this survey is not exhaustive. In an attempt to analyse and visualize where these assessments are being undertaken the regional and country levels covered by the 188 activities identified in returns were compiled using sea areas defined under UNEP and non-UNEP regional sea conventions and programmes. Each assessment was assigned either to the closest region covered by (or incorporating all of the countries involved under) a regional convention or programme. Those assessments carried out on a global scale were separated (Table 9.5). When illustrating the number of activities per location or region in the form of a pie chart (Figures 9.13 and 9.14] the areas of higher intensity activity are clearly seen. There is a bias towards the number of assessments in the North-East Atlantic, due to the number of those contacted, and those responding. It was also noted that 68% of secretariats and administrative offices are located in Europe and North America [Figure 9.15). Beyond the global assessments, the areas of most intense assessment activity are the North- East Atlantic (including activities of ICES and OSPAR], the Baltic Sea [HELCOM) and the wider Caribbean. Furthermore, the questionnaire asked for an indication of those regional and global marine areas that were deemed insufficiently covered by assessments. The results in Table 9.6 show that the Asia Pacific and South Asian seas are insufficiently covered by regional assessments. The polar oceans, as well as marine areas belonging to developing countries and small island states (including small island developing states) are still somewhat under-represented in global assessments. The majority of regional assessments include coastal areas and EEZs. For global assessments, coastal waters are the main focus of attention, with estuaries, EEZs and international waters being included in approximately 40% of the assessments (Figure 9.16). Some programmes [e.g. GOOS or IOC surveys) cover international waters or have open-ocean elements, but in most cases these are limited to geophysical (including bathymetry], hydrographical and chemical parameters. The vast areas of open ocean and deep sea floor are some of the least known environments on earth, harbouring many ecosystems that are poorly understood. In addition 80 to the open ocean and regions identified in Table 9.6, respondents identified nearly all marine environments in one context or another as insufficiently covered and in need of further activities, including sublittoral or offshore habitats and habitats adjacent to coasts and estuaries. 9.2.3 Key findings from section 9.2 (geographical coverage) © There are large differences in the number of ongoing assessments between and within the various regions of the global oceans. ®@ The assessment of the marine environment, both in terms of provisions made and actual activities carried out, is most developed for the coastal areas of regions in the Northern Hemisphere. © Over two-thirds of the secretariats and administrative offices reviewed are located in Europe and North America. ®@ The international waters of high seas and open oceans represent a geographical gap in current assessments. ® Marine areas governed by small island states are not well covered by current assessments. ® Developing nations are poorly covered to date, due to lack of capacity (human, financial, institutional and legal). © Despite being covered by one or more international conventions or agreements, actual assessment activity is low in certain marine areas/regions. © The Asia Pacific, South Asian and polar seas were identified as geographical gaps. 9.2.4 Tables and figures for section 9.2 (geographical coverage) Table 9.5 Geographical gaps in the coverage of regional and global assessments Global assessments Parts of the South Pacific (French Polynesia) Parts of the Mediterranean Indian Ocean Regional assessments Asia Pacific coast EU island territories Arctic Ocean Arabian seas Africa South Asian seas Southern Ocean Developing countries* * In particular those with insufficient local capacity and/or legal and institutional frameworks Global Marine Assessments Table 9.6 Geographical distribution of assessments (n = 188*) by regions/countries covered Region Countries covered No. of assessments GLOBAL 54 Mediterranean Albania, Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Cyprus, Egypt, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Lebanon, Libya, Malta, Monaco, Morocco, Slovenia, Spain, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey and the European Union 2 Red Sea & Gulf of Djibouti, Egypt, Jordan, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen 0 Aden ROPME Sea Area Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates 2 Wider Caribbean Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, St. Christopher and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, United States of America, Venezuela, and the Caribbean Territories of France, Netherlands and the United Kingdom 16 East Asian Seas Australia, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Thailand and Viet Nam 7 Southeast Pacific Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Panama and Peru 1 West & Central Angola, Benin, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, DR Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Africa Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mauritania, Namibia, Nigeria, Sao Tomé and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Togo 6 South Pacific Australia, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, France, Kiribati, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palua, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, United Kingdom, United States of America, Vanuatu and Western Samoa 6 Eastern Africa Comoros, France (Réunion), Kenya, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mozambique, Seychelles, Somalia, South Africa and Tanzania 5 Black Sea Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, Russian Federation, Turkey and Ukraine 3 Northwest Pacific China, Japan, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Korea and Russian Federation 12 South Asian Seas Bangladesh, India, Maldives, Pakistan and Sri Lanka 12 Northeast Pacific Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua and Panama 2 Upper SW Atlantic = Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay 0 Baltic Denmark, Estonia, the European Community, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia and Sweden 20 Northeast Atlantic Belgium, Denmark, the Commission of the European Communities, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom, Luxembourg and Switzerland [incl. North Sea and Wadden Sea} 32 Arctic Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russian Federation, Sweden and United States 3 Antarctic Argentina, Namibia, Australia, New Zealand, Belgium, Norway, Brazil, Poland, Chile, Russia, European Community, South Africa, France, Spain, Germany, Sweden, India, Ukraine, Italy, United Kingdom, Japan, United States of America, Republic of Korea, Uruguay 6 Caspian Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkmenistan 1 Others South America 2 Africa 5 Aral Sea 1 Central Pacific 2 Other 5 * There is some overlap where countries appear in more than one area. 81 Global Marine Assessments Figure 9.11 Usage of existing regional frameworks in regional and global assessments regional) = 94: "(global) = 28 EE 1/a Global No MM Yes Regional T eT ey Sa SSS a) a | 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 % of assessments Figure 9.13 Regional distribution of the assessments contacted for this survey n= 206 Caspian, Others Antarctic —— ee Arctic Global NE Atlantic Baltic —— Upper SW Atlantic —— A NE Pacific S Asian seas NW Pacific Black Sea LS E Africa yo S Pacific va WAC Africa SE Pacific E Asian seas Wider Caribbean eS Mediterranean Red Sea & Gulf of Aden ROPME Sea Area 82 Figure 9.12 Main frameworks used in regional and global assessments M{regional) = 39: "(global} = 14 Some assessments use more than one Other CSIRO-CRIMP UNCLOS WWF Global 2000 Non-FAO fisheries regions HB Global Regional Non-UNEP regional seas GIWA Regions LMEs* IUCN Regions FAO Fisheries Regions UNEP Regional Seas 0 10 20 30 40 50 % of assessments * Large Marine Ecosystems Figure 9.14 Number of existing assessments globally and in different regions n= 188 Caspian Others Antarctic / Arctig————s NE Atlantic _- Mediterranean ~~ROPME Sea Area Baltic Wider Caribbean Yo NE Pacific Je NW Pacific ——E Asian seas \™ SE Pacific Jf \ W&C Africa S Pacific S Asian seas Black” Africa Sea Figure 9.15 Location of the secretariats and administrative offices of the organizations and assessments contacted n= 206 Not yet established Central Asia Middle East Caribbean \ SSS South Asia South & Central #___ America South Pacific East Asia Africa ee North America Europe Figure 9.16 Assessment coverage of different marine areas (regional) = 54; (global) = 28 Some assessments are being carried out in more than one area International waters include high seas and open oceans International waters EEZs of Contracting Parties Coastal areas of Contracting Parties Estuaries Other n/a oO 20 40 60 % of assessments Global Marine Assessments 9.3 THEMATIC COVERAGE Anthropogenic activities impact the marine environment in several ways, most prominently via inputs of contaminants and pollutants (e.g. through direct or riverine inputs from land and atmospheric deposition) and through the extraction of living and mineral resources (e.g. fishing, oil and gas, minerals and aggregates). In the questionnaire, five thematic areas (geophysical, ecological, human health and safety, impacts of human activities and pollution) were put forward to examine whether and how existing assessments addressed these two processes. Each theme was broken down into a number of issues, and the questionnaire asked respondents to identify those covered by the mandate of the relevant assessment. 9.3.1 Coverage of thematic areas Twenty per cent of assessments covered the breadth of all five thematic areas presented in the questionnaire (Figure 9.17). Pollution, impact of human activities and ecological issues account for the majority of thematic areas which are being addressed by the assessments reviewed. The number of assessments dealing with geophysical information (e.g. bathymetry, oceanography, hydrography] appears to be low. However, due to the stability of geological and physical parameters, they can be sufficiently covered by fewer programmes, and with a longer periodicity/time interval. The |OC’s ocean mapping programme, for example, is a long-running initiative that has been providing for the last 30 years a constant output of 1:1 million scale geophysical, geological and bathymetric charts of the ocean floor. Within the five thematic areas mentioned above, there are particular issues that are covered more than others by existing assessments (Figure 9.19). Assessment of climate change, marine ecosystems, biodiversity and habitats are better covered than other thematic areas, as are regional assessments of fisheries, monitoring of pollution by hazardous substances and nutrients. Alien species have greater coverage at the global than at the regional level. The majority of pollution assessments address land-based inputs and riverine discharges (Figure 9.19). Only one of the returns referred to the assessment of pollution by atmospheric deposition, although this is being monitored and assessed in the framework of several international conventions (e.g. OSPAR). 83 Global Marine Assessments 9.3.2 Thematic gaps The main thematic gaps identified by respondents are presented in Table 9.7. The issue of tourism was not raised, although this is one of the most rapidly developing economic sectors with great potential for impact upon the marine environment. The tourism industry undertakes local and irregular impact assessments of target sites. There are global organizations (e.g. the World Tourism Organization) for regulating tourism operations and for raising the growing awareness of the actual and potential impacts this industry could cause in terms of pollution and disturbance of ecologically sensitive areas, habitats and species. In this context, the tourism industry should be considered stakeholders in a regular GMA mechanism. UNEP-DTIE works with regional sea conventions, for example in undertaking a blue flag accreditation scheme for beach quality and bathing water quality in the Caribbean. The results of such work are customer orientated, focusing more on supporting the management of operations than on the status of the marine environment. Environmental impact assessments, when undertaken, are usually local and carried out as a single exercise. Another thematic area that seems to be insufficiently covered by existing assessments are the socio-economic factors. Although the questionnaire did not explicitly ask for information on the extent to which poverty and socio-economic issues are currently addressed (which might explain in part their very low coverage shown in the breakdown of issues in Figure 9.19], socio-economic issues were raised by several respondents as an area that would need more attention both in regional and global assessments. This suggests that the data illustrated in Figure 9.19 are not an artefact. 9.3.3 Changes over time The analysis of the thematic areas addressed by assessments in relation to their duration revealed an interesting shift of thematic focus of long-term assessments over time. Assessments commissioned over 30 years ago are mostly dealing with fisheries and fish stock assessments, whereas those initiated between 20 and 30 years ago are focussing on monitoring and assessments of marine pollution. Only more recent assessments (starting in the last ten years) are concerned with broader environmental issues. Although some assessments still focus on their original priority areas, there is a trend towards a gradual uptake of new themes and issues (e.g. ecosystem assessment approach) in the review and revision of long-standing assessments. 84 9.3.4 Key findings from section 9.3 (thematic coverage) @ In general, there are good data available as regards the geophysical parameters of the marine environment (bathymetry, hydrography and oceanography) to provide information for policy advice, at least for most issues to be addressed at the global level. New methodology such as remote and satellite sensing will further increase our knowledge. © The assessments of fisheries and fish stocks as well as that of pollution by hazardous substances and nutrients are particularly well addressed at the regional scale. Alien species have greater coverage at a global level. © Very little information was received on marine pollution caused by atmospheric deposition. Further study is needed. ® The interactions between marine and freshwater systems, as well as the resulting environmental effects, are poorly covered by existing assessments. © The principal thematic gaps in current assessments include [i] the understanding of how ecosystems function, particularly those that are difficult to access, e.g. mid oceanic and open ocean/deep sea floor communities, [ii) socio- economic implications relating to the state of the marine environment and [iii] biogeochemical associations and interactions. © There is a need to address the relationships and interactions between the biological, chemical and physical characteristics of the marine environment, and how these relationships and interactions affect, and are affected by, human activities. ® The thematic focus of assessments changes with time and political need. Global Marine Assessments 9.3.5 Tables and figures for section 9.3 (thematic coverage) Table 9.7 Thematic gaps in regional and global assessments Regional assessments Global assessments Ecosystem function: ® Data are currently only available for parts of the ecosystem; more ® Ecosystem-wide assessments and information is required on the broader marine ecosystems risk assessment © Coast-offshore relationships with respect to nutrient and organic @ Integration of global change and matter cycling climate change into assessments ® With respect to fisheries, need more understanding of by-catch data and assessment of associated species © Effects of coastal erosion, loss of ecosystems Socio-economic implications: International responsibility for: © Of poverty, community needs and development imperatives ® Economic assessment © Of climate change ®@ Ocean-based energy © Public health Nutrient pollution/fisheries stock/biogeochemical cycles Mid ocean and ocean floor bio- geochemistry Ecology of benthic communities Socio-economic status of reef resources Recognition and protection of seagrass habitats Figure 9.17 Main thematic areas addressed by Figure 9.18 Main issues within themes addressed assessments by assessments (regional) = 54; (global) = 28 (regional) = 54; ng obal) = 28 Many of the issues not addressing pollution are covered by other’ ‘Dumping’ as defined by UNCLOS Article 1(5) Thematic area Discharges {operational/illegal Pollution Land-based inputs (direct or indirect Impacts of human activities Dumping Human health and safety Ecologica Ecological pace ec enema Geophysical Other [non- MH Global Specie) IE Global Regional All five themes Regional : g 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 D 0 WD oo mw eo % of assessments (i) % of assessments 85 Global Marine Assessments Figure 9.19 Breakdown of the five thematic groups showing the main subjects of the responding assessments (a) Geophysical issues Biogeochemical cycles Geosystems (inc. geomorphology] Climate change and ocean systems Gi Global Regional (b) Ecological issues Imposex Transboundary effects Food webs Marine ecosystems Biodiversity Other Habitats T a T =i 0 20 40 60 80 100 Other % of assessments —— — ——— "{regional) = 22: {global} = 11 0 20 40 60 80 100 % of assessments "{regional) = 38: M(globat} = 29 (c) Human health and safety (d) Impact of human activities iy é Maintenance uman disease dredging iso) Sand/gravel/ Socio-economic mineral extraction Shippin Food safety Pein Aquaculture Water quality OiV/gas exploration eis ees Sa Deed Other Coastal development and q management 0 20 40 60 80 100 Renence % of assessments "lregional) = 23: Mglobal) = 11 Outs Sa oT > hi 0 20 40 60 80 100 % of assessments (e) Pollution [regional] = 43; {global} = 19 Radioactive substances Sewage Nutrients Alien species Litter Hazardous substances Other =a SU aoa |e = Al 0 20 40 60 80 100 % of assessments [regional] = 36; "(global) = 17 86 9.4 OVERVIEW AND INTERPRETATION OF KEY NARRATIVE RESPONSES In addition to the return of completed questionnaires, large quantities of information were received during the study in the form of narrative responses from a number of individuals and organization representatives, who felt that: Q Although their mandate or activities were of interest for the study and could be of use to the GMA mechanism, they were unable to fit them into the format of the questionnaire. Q They would be users of, rather than contributors to, a GMA. Q They could not provide information. Where possible, such responses were followed up in further discussions and/or correspondence. It was impossible to incorporate all information received in narrative form in this report. However, some key facts in terms of organization, contact and theme of response are given in Annex 11. The narrative responses demonstrate that the status of the marine environment is a much broader concept than physical, chemical and biological parameters and a GMA mechanism will need to encompass management practices and uses. A number of organizations do not themselves undertake assessments or scientific activities, but do hold or collect information that is pertinent to understanding the marine environment. Some of the key elements that should be considered in the GMA context are outlined in the sections 9.4.1-9.4.3 below. 9.4.1 Information sources There are a number of databases that could provide sources of primary data at global and regional levels: Q OBIS (http://www. iobis.org/) - Aims to create an inventory of fish and non-fish nekton on a global basis that would greatly improve the understanding of biological diversity and interactions beyond the coastal zone. Q EDIOS (http://www.edios-project.de/) - An information database for Euro GOOS. Q ECOiSHARE [still under development) - To provide open access to biodiversity and environmental data collected by industry. 9.4.2 Organizations with specialist knowledge/skills Several organizations with specialist knowledge and skills could contribute to a GMA process by: Q Linking public and private sectors: UNEP-WCMC (http://www.unep-wemc.org/] e.g. the ECOISHARE project). Global Marine Assessments Q Specialist networking and facilitation to bring natural and social scientists together, and to bring science closer to policy: ICSU (http://www.icsu.org/), DIVERSITAS (http://www.diversitas-international. org/), SCOPE (http://www.icsu-scope.org/). Q Database development: Census of Marine Life (http://www.coreocean.org/Dev2Go.web?anchor=coml _home_page], UNEP-WCMC, WorldFish Center (http://www.worldfishcenter.org/). Q Special information about fisheries: FAO (http://www. fao.org/fi/body/rfb/index.htm) and non- FAO fishery bodies. Q Information on sites of special interest and/or on protected areas: UNEP-WCMC, World Heritage Centre (http://whc.unesco.org/). 9.4.3 Other existing mechanisms In addition to those mechanisms included in the analysis of the questionnaire returns, the narrative responses drew attention to the following assessment-related activities. GOOS and LME frameworks have been mentioned already in this report. However additional relevant information was provided by their secretariats and is included here. Q GOOS, GCOS and GTOS [http://ioc.unesco.org/goos/) are permanent mechanisms which can provide information needed for the assessment of change in the global marine environment. These programmes will cover the coastal zone from the marine and terrestrial sides, and the open oceans. It should be noted that the mandates of each of these programmes are different, and that those carried out in the open oceans are heavily biased towards physical-chemical parameters. Currently in the pilot project stage, it is expected that these programmes will be operational by 2010. They are supported by regional bodies (currently in formation) which feed information to a global level. Some regional operations such as Euro GOOS and BOOS are beginning to approach coordination with UNEP and non-UNEP regional seas organizations. Such collaborations are essential to maximize the support of national stakeholders, given the already high demand on governments to provide data to a number of assessments. Q LME [http://www.edc.uri.edu/lme/default.htm ] - A strategy for the assessment and management of international coastal waters, involving a number of national and international bodies. The areas are, unlike others, described in terms of ecosystem similarity and number 64 in total. The assessments are diverse 87 Global Marine Assessments covering productivity, fisheries and pollution, although given the different delimitation of regions integration of this information may be quite difficult. GPA/LBA ([http://www.gpa.unep.org/) - Little information was provided, although as a user of assessments the GPA expressed keen interest in the progress of the GMA. The process currently relies on national and regional assessments. European Commission (http://europa.eu.int/comm/ index_en.htm] - Has put forward a proposal for a marine strategy in an attempt to better understand the European marine environment and the extent of its influence on marine waters beyond Europe. The European marine strategy is in the early stages of development, but will face parallel issues to a global reporting system. The strategy plans to increase the coordination of assessments in Europe, and could provide useful lessons for a global assessment. ICSU Global Change Programmes (IGBP, WCRP, IDHP and DIVERSITAS) - These have oceanic elements, and have been providing scientific information to make policy decisions (e.g. the IPCC). There may be lessons to learn from the way in which science and policy interact and how this affects the credibility, saliency and legitimacy of assessments. GIWA (http://www.giwa.net/giwafact/giwa_in_brief. phtml) - A worldwide assessment which aims to provide sound scientific advice to decision makers and managers concerned with water resources and dealing with environmental problems and threats to transboundary water bodies. The objective is to produce a comprehensive and integrated global assessment of international waters. It is to bea systematic assessment of the environmental conditions and problems in international waters, comprising marine, coastal and freshwater areas, and surface waters as well as ground waters. The GIWA programme is planned for a period of four years (starting in 1999] working with 66 sub-regions (see Map 2). Of particular interest is the dynamic approach GIWA is taking not only to assess the existing situation but to develop scenarios of the future condition of the world’s water resources and analyse policy options. 9.4.4 Key findings from section 9.4 (narrative responses) Q A number of specialist organizations do not carry out assessments but nevertheless could provide a GMA with useful information. 88 Q There are many sources of primary information, databases and existing mechanisms which a GMA mechanism could learn from and build upon. 9.5 LESSONS LEARNED FROM REVIEWED ASSESSMENTS The questionnaire asked respondents to share the lessons that had been learned during the planning and implementation of their assessments and activities. Some of these responses are collated below as a useful prelude to the further discussion of the results of the study. Please note that, where possible, the original wording of the response is given to avoid misinterpretation. Lesson 1: The involvement of stakeholders Assessments need the involvement of member states and all other relevant stakeholders. Regional conventions can facilitate support to and participation in activities. To achieve such a high level of participation is very expensive and time consuming. Involvement of stakeholders is also dependent on capacity. Lesson 2: Capacity building Experience sharing is essential for developing regional capacity and can be achieved through the development of regional networks. It also permits improved communication and coordination and feedback interactions, which in turn aids the development of comprehensive regional policy. Lesson 3: Monitoring indicators Monitoring indicators should be selected according to the situation and goals. The selection of appropriate indicators could be a means for coping with ecosystem complexities, such as in reef systems (especially exploited systems, such as multi-species fisheries). Lesson 4: The implementation It is important to evaluate environmental issues ina socio-economic framework. To achieve this, the use of multidisciplinary groups is essential in any assessment of the marine environment, but rather difficult. Where possible groups should be kept small; the use of consultants can reduce time and costs, but also decreases the involvement of stakeholders and the associated capacity building. Greater support should be provided to developing countries to be able to accomplish this. Lesson 5: Data quality Data availability and comparability is a bottleneck in assessments. There are insufficient data collection centres and shortages of people to input and process the data that do exist. Improved systems for country-level and global data collection are required, with automation of tasks for recurrent assessments where possible. Improved data quality requires standardized procedures and assessment methods to ensure accuracy, reliability, comparability and quality. Lesson 6: Assessment outputs Effective dissemination of information is as important as production of results. If results are not orientated to the end-user, and presented in a user-friendly and accessible manner, they will not be taken up. The requirement for data provision is only sustainable if it leads to a decision-making process or the product is of direct use. It has been found that publication of documents is needed in both paper and electronic formats to reach the widest audience possible. Lesson 7: Uptake by end-users Even where issues may be similar across regions, policy response priorities may not be, thus creating intra- regional variability in user needs. It is suggested that the saliency of the outcomes of an assessment to the end- user or target groups can be increased by the use of both qualitative and quantitative data. In most cases there is already sufficient information available to warrant action to be taken. It is not always necessary to wait for the full evidence. 9.6 APPLICATION OF CRITERIA TO ASSESSMENTS' The information received on 82 assessments and activities (54 regional assessments, 28 global assessments] was analysed using the seven criteria as defined in Annex 6, Table 6.1 and bearing in mind the wording of UNEP GC Decision 21/13 which calls in Article 4 for “...a regular process for the assessment of the state of the marine environment, with active involvement by governments and regional agreements, building on ongoing assessment programmes’. This section outlines how well existing assessments could fit into a future GMA process and identifies any actual or potential impediments and barriers to this integration. An overview of how each of the 82 Global Marine Assessments assessments meets the seven criteria is presented in Annex 12, and summaries of the results are given in Tables 9.8 - 9.10 below. Not a single assessment fully met all seven criteria and could be incorporated into a GMA without overcoming one or more impediment(s) or partial impediment(s). Tables 9.8 and 9.9 illustrate that there is a need for considerable changes being made before even one assessment would meet all criteria. It is quite apparent that there is some way to go before a body of assessments is established capable of regularly contributing to all aspects of a future GMA. However, the 13 global and 24 regional assessments that are listed in Table 9.10 meet the criteria only with some partial impediments and therefore could be considered as some of the key partners and contributors for a further GMA. To illustrate this integration and cooperation, one regional and one global assessment are further elaborated as examples. GLOBAL: GloBallast, Ballast water risk assessment (led by IMO/ UNDP/GEF) This assessment (Annex 12, ID Code 44b) meets the geographical, saliency and credibility criteria, but there are partial impediments to it meeting the criteria for legitimacy, regularity, cost effectiveness and sustainability. The partial impediment to legitimacy is related to the fact that GloBallast is undertaken in form of a scientific cooperation, which is not based on a [legal] requirement set out under an international agreement or convention. This means that there is some uncertainty as to whether and how GloBallast would be able to respond to the needs of GMA end-users. This, in addition to the funding duration and mechanism of GloBallast, creates a partial impediment to meeting the sustainability criteria. With respect to the regularity criteria, the assessments under are undertaken in the first instance with the direct support of GloBallast after which the assessments continue at the discretion of national bodies, which may, or may not, carry them out ona regular basis. GloBallast has a high budget in comparison to other assessments reviewed, with a relatively low labour requirement. This is not considered sufficient for the task in hand, so that GloBallast does not completely meet the cost effectiveness criteria. 1. The following analysis and interpretation of the results in applying the criteria to the 82 regional and global assessments takes into account that each of these assessments has a specific, internationally agreed mandate and objectivels). For those assessments based on, or carried out under, independent regionaV/global conventions and multilateral agreements, these mandates and objectives are set out either in the text of the convention or in decisions adopted by the Conference of Parties. The use of the term ‘integration’ into the GMA process in this report does not imply that these mandates or objectives have to be changed or indeed that a certain assessment would become superfluous with the establishment of a GMA. On the contrary, ‘integration’ in this context means to what extent a certain existing assessment would be able to contribute, facilitate and support the GMA process 89 Global Marine Assessments REGIONAL: State of the Environment of the Black Sea (Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution) This assessment [Annex 12, ID code 18] meets the criteria for saliency, sustainability and legitimacy. The criteria for credibility, cost effectiveness, regularity and geography are met with partial impediments. The partial impediment concerning geography is due to the assessment not covering all regions of the Black Sea. The regularity criterion is almost met, as the assessment is repeated every 2-5 years but is not run continuously. The assessment is based on primary data, but the response received indicated that issues related to data quality still have to be solved [as yet there are no quality assurance mechanisms in place). Outputs are subjected to an internal (but not external) peer review, creating a partial impediment to meeting the credibility criteria. The cost-effectiveness criteria are partially met by the low budget and high personnel resources of the assessment; however these are currently considered insufficient. Inclusion of the 13 global and 24 regional assessments into a GMA would lead to adequate coverage of the following thematic areas: coral reefs, fisheries and aquaculture, pollution [including nutrients, radioactivity and alien species), coastal management, ocean floor mapping, and global sea-level change. Geographically, in addition to the global scale of some assessments, the Atlantic, European seas (North Sea and Baltic], the Southern Ocean and parts of the African coast would be covered. This coverage leaves noticeable gaps in a number of thematic areas such as socio-economic aspects, ecosystem monitoring and monitoring of sensitive and highly productive areas (such as algal beds, seagrasses and mangroves), and control and regulation of industry operations relevant for the marine environment. Geographically, many of the Southern Hemisphere oceans [with the exception of the Southern Ocean) would not be covered. 90 9.6.1 Key findings from section 9.6 (criteria analysis) © There is no existing assessment or related activity that meets all of the criteria for integration into a GMA mechanism without an impediment or partial impediment. ® All assessments that were found not to have significant impediments to integration into the GMA at a global level are sponsored by UN agencies. @ Many of the regional assessments without significant impediments to their integration into the GMA are regional sea agreements (UNEP and non-UNEP] and all are based on or involve some form of governmental agreement or regional convention. 9.6.2 Tables for section 9.6 (criteria analysis) Table 9.8 Impediments to the potential integration of global and regional assessments into a GMA mechanism The most common impediments are shown in bold Criteria Global assessments Regional assessments Saliency 3 Sustainability 5 Credibility 12 Legitimacy Cost effectiveness Regularity Geography Table 9.9 The number of criteria met by global and regional assessments An assessment that meets all seven criteria listed in Table 9.8 could, theoretically, be incorporated into a GMA without any impediment Number of Global Regional criteria met by the assessments assessments assessment n=28 n=54 7- No significant impediments 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Global Marine Assessments Table 9.10 Global and regional assessments that at least partially meet the assessment criteria The ID Code corresponds to the code assigned to each of the assessments in the final column of Annex 13 Organization Assessment/activity ID code GLOBAL FAO Recurrent review of the State of the World Fisheries Resources: Marine Fisheries 4la Recurrent review of the State of World Aquaculture: Issues of environmental interactions and use of resources” 41b The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA) 41c UN Atlas of the Oceans Alf GEF/UNDP/IMO Ballast water risk assessments 44a -GloBallast Port biological baseline surveys 44b Invasive aquatic species case studies (desk top) 44c IAEA Worldwide marine radioactivity studies in oceans and seas 43a ICRAN (GCRMN) Coral reef economic valuation 28f Coral reef fisheries analysis 28g loc Ocean mapping programme 37b UNEP-GSLOS Global Sea Level Observing System 47a UNIDO Assessments of UNIDO 48 REGIONAL Black Sea State of the Environment of the Black Sea 18 Commission CCAMLR Ecosystem status 32b Fisheries assessments 32a Krill survey 33d Predator monitoring 33c Cwss Quality Status Report on the Wadden Sea (pollution, eutrophication, habitats and species) 27e HELCOM COMBINE monitoring programme [environmental effect of inputs) 35c Monitoring of illegal oil discharges at sea 35e Monitoring programme for radioactive substances 35d Pollution Load Compilation - Air (airborne load of nutrient and contaminants) 35a Pollution Load Compilation - Water (waterborne load of nutrient and contaminants] 35b IATTC Biology and population dynamics of tunas and related species and the effects of natural factors and human activities 30 on the ecosystem ICCAT Annual compilation of catch statistics for all Atlantic tuna and tuna-like species 2a Regular stock assessment of Atlantic tuna and tuna-like species 2b 2004 workshop on tunas and their environment 2c IUCN Coastal and Marine Resources Management and Poverty Reduction in South Asia - ICZM in High Priority Areas 10a Kenya Marine Coastal ilmpacts of water abstraction and impoundment in Africa 47c Fisheries Research Institute SER, ee SS ES SSS SS MED POL Monitoring Programme of MED POL 20a ee ee Se NIWA Marine fisheries and environmental assessments 40 Norwegian Environmental Management Plan for the Barents Sea 7a Polar Institute Environmental monitoring of Svalbard and Jan Mayen (MOSJ] 7b ne aR rl OSPAR Joint assessment and monitoring programme (JAMP). Monitoring of contaminants in Norwegian fjords and coastal waters 51b SIREN eee rere DSN SS Se a eS ROPME Open Sea Cruise 3 Assistance to ROPME Region 43b Global Marine Assessments ANNEX 10. SUMMARY LIST OF ALL REPORTED ASSESSMENTS AND SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITIES DETAILED IN SECTION A OF QUESTIONNAIRE RETURNS KEY: Text in italics represents assessments and activities for which Section B of the Questionnaire was not completed Reporting Title Scope/ Dates Geographical range ID organization duration code GLOBAL Food and Agriculture Inventories: FAO develops 4le Organization of the and maintains global/ United Nations [FAO] regional inventories of species, stocks, production systems, introduced species, etc., that it uses for its assessments FAO Recurrent assessments of 41d fisheries resources in the framework of the FAO Regional Fishery Bodies FAO Recurrent review of the 4la State of the World Fisheries Resources: Marine Fisheries FAO Recurrent review of the 41b State of World Aquaculture The State of World Fisheries Every 2 41c FAO and Aquaculture (SOFIA) years FAO UN Atlas of the Oceans Indefinite 1999- UN agencies with Alf ocean and coast mandates, Russia, USA GEF/UNDP/IMO Global Assessment of the Global Future 2003 All 44e Ballast Water Economic Impacts of Management Invasive Aquatic Species Programme (GloBallast] (desk top] 92 Global Marine Assessments Reporting Title Scope/ Dates Geographical range organization duration GESAMP (Joint Group of Assessments of Indefinite 1999- Experts on the Scientific © environmental impacts of Aspects of Marine coastal aquaculture Environmental Protection) GESAMP Development of Indefinite | 2002-2003 environmental exposure models for application in seafood risk analysis GESAMP Estimates of oil input into Indefinite | 2002-2003 the marine environment from ships GESAMP Evaluation of hazards of Indefinite —_ Indefinite harmful substances carried by ships GESAMP Global marine Future ? environmental assessments (to be determined) Global Climate Coordination activities with Indefinite WMO, IOC, UNEP, Observing System GOOS, GTOS, WCRP ICSU member (Gcos) countries GloBallast Ballast Water Treatment Indefinite 2001 All countries involved R&D Directory in ballast water treatment R&D Gcos Science panels for Future 2003 WMO, IOC, UNEP, atmospheric, oceanic and ICSU member terrestrial climate observing countries systems GCOS Second report on the adequacy Indefinite 2002-2003 UNFCCC Parties of GCOS report to UNFCCC Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice Global Ocean Ecosystem _National/multinational Indefinite 1990-2009 Angola, Brazil, Canada, Dynamics (GLOBEC) GLOBEC activities Chile, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Namibia, Netherlands, New Caledonia, Mexico, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, UK, USA code 8d 8a 8b 8e 12c 12b 12a 9e 93 Global Marine Assessments Reporting Title Scope/ Dates Geographical range ID organization duration code GLOBEC Small Pelagic and Global Indefinite 1997-2009 9a Change Programme IAEA Marine Worldwide marine Indefinite 1995- Coastal states 43a Environment Laboratory radioactivity studies in oceans and seas Intergovernmental General Bathymetric Chart Indefinite 1903- Australia, Brazil, 37a Oceanographic of the Oceans [GEBCO) Canada, Chile, Denmark, Commission (I0C) France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Monaco, New Zealand, Norway, Russia, Spain, Turkey, UK, USA International Tanker Tanker spill assessment in Indefinite | 2002-2003 1 Owners Pollution regional seas Federation (ITOPF) Island Resources GIWA Indefinite 2002 Three sub-regions 56c Foundation within the wider Caribbean Kenya Marine and Global Sea Level Observing Indefinite Coastal and island 47a Fisheries Research System states Institute Millennium Ecosystem MA global assessment Indefinite 2001-2005 24a Assessment Scientific Committee on — Environmental Future 2004- 39b Problems of the consequences of fisheries Environment (SCOPE] (working title) SCOPE Transport of nutrients from Indefinite 1998-2004 39a land to sea: the silica cycle Secretariat of the Ad hoc technical expert Indefinite 2002 Experts from 16 26c Convention on Biological group on mariculture countries Diversity Secretariat of the Ad hoc technical expert Indefinite 2001-2002 Experts from 15 26b Convention on Biological group on marine and coastal countries Diversity protected areas Secretariat of the Development of rapid Indefinite 2001-2003 Looks at existing 26a Convention on Biological Diversity assessment methods for marine and coastal biodiversity methods and suitability to cover biodiversity Reporting organization UNEP Chemicals Title Effectiveness evaluation of the Stockholm Convention on POPs UNEP Chemicals UNEP Chemicals UNEP Chemicals GLOBAL/REGIONAL Global International Waters Assessment International Coral Reef Action Network (ICRAN) SeagrassNet SeagrassNet UNEP/DEWA REGIONAL/GLOBAL GEF/UNDP/IMO Global Ballast Water Management Programme (GloBallast) Global Mercury Assessment Global Monitoring Network Global monitoring of POPs GIWA Global Assessment Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN) SeagrassNet - a global seagrass monitoring programme SeagrassNet - a global seagrass monitoring programme Global Environment Outlook Ballast water risk assessments Scope/ duration 4 years after entry into force Indefinite Indefinite Future Indefinite Indefinite Future Indefinite Indefinite/ future Dates 2001-2003 Continuous Under development Repeating 2000-2003 2003- 2003-2007 2002- Global Marine Assessments Geographical range ID 23b 66 sub-regions 25 grouped into mega regions = Global 17 regions/80+ 28a countries Australia, Brazil, Fiji, 11a Indonesia, Malaysia, Micronesia, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Tanzania, USA USA, National Estuarine Research Reserves, National Parks, Vietnam, Belize, Mexico and others 11b International 54 Brazil, China, India, 44a Iran, South Africa and Ukraine initially, replicated through regions 2003 on until global cover 95 Global Marine Assessments Reporting organization GloBallast GloBallast International Coral Reef Action Network (ICRAN) Title Invasive aquatic species case studies (desk top) Port biological baseline surveys Coral Reef Economic Valuation ICRAN Coral Reef Fisheries Analysis Island Resources Foundation Millennium Environmental Assessment Joint Global Ocean Flux Study (JGOFS) JGOFS UNEP Chemicals 96 Regionally based assessment of persistent toxic substances Scope/ duration Indefinite/ future Indefinite/ future Indefinite Indefinite Indefinite Indefinite Indefinite Dates 2002- Geographical range ID code Brazil, China, India, 44c Iran, South Africa and Ukraine initially, replicated through regions 2003 on until global cover 2001- 2001-2005 2001-2005 2002 1988-2003 2002-2003 Brazil, China, India, 44b Iran, South Africa and Ukraine initially, replicated through regions 2003 on until global cover 28f 28g Wider Caribbean 56b Pacific, Atlantic, 16 Equatorial Pacific, Indian and southern oceans/Global - All major oceans and 25+ countries (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Chile, China-Beijing, China-Taipei, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, UK, USA) 12 regions, 160 23a countries Global Marine Assessments Reporting Title Scope/ Dates Geographical range ID organization duration code UNEP East Asian Seas GIWA Indefinite East Asian seas 50a Regional Coordinating (Australia, Cambodia, Unit China, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Viet Nam] UNEP East Asian Seas Global marine assessment Indefinite East Asian seas 50b Regional Coordinating Unit UNEP/DEWA water unit = Global Environment Outlook Indefinite 1995- Regional, sub- 55d Marine and coastal regional, national UNEP/DEWA water unit G/IWA Indefinite — Until 2004 All countries, 66 sub- 55a regions, mega regions and global UNEP/DEWA water unit GPA Indefinite 1998- All countries 55e ee aa UNEP/DEWA water unit /ICRAN Indefinite 1999- 55c Se eS eee UNEP/DEWA water unit UN Atlas of the World Indefinite —1999- UN agencies and 55b associated organizations UNEP-WCMC IMAPS Indefinite 1998- Mediterranean/Black 49 Sea/Caribbean/ Caspian/Scotland/ Tunisia, etc., to global coverage REGIONAL Commission for the Ecosystem status Indefinite 1991- 24 member states 32b Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) pee eS ee a ee ee SE SS CCAMLR Fisheries assessments Indefinite 1983- 24 member states 32a CCAMLR Krill 2000 survey Indefinite | 1999-2001/ 24 member states 33d 2002+ we) Se CCAMLR Predator monitoring Indefinite 1985- 24 member states 33c 97 Global Marine Assessments Reporting Title Scope/ Dates Geographical range ID organization duration code Commission for the CCSBT stock assessments Current/ Indefinite Australia and fishing 6 Conservation of future entity of Taiwan, Southern Bluefin Tuna Japan, Korea, New Zealand Common Wadden Sea Annual harbour seal Indefinite Denmark, Germany, 27a Secretariat (CWSS] assessment Netherlands CWSS Blue mussel beds Indefinite 2002 Denmark, Germany, 27c Netherlands Cwss Breeding bird developments Future 2004 Denmark, Germany, 27f in the Wadden Sea Netherlands Cwss Migratory bird developments Indefinite | 2002-2003 Denmark, Germany, 27b in the Wadden Sea Netherlands Cwss Quality Status Report onthe Future 2003-2004 Denmark, Germany, 27e Wadden Sea (pollution, Netherlands eutrophication, habitats and species) Cwss Salt marshes Indefinite 2002 Denmark, Germany, 27d Netherlands Department for EEA assessments/GOOS Indefinite 52f Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), UK Global Climate GCOS Regional Workshop Indefinite 2002 Central America & 12d Observing System Programme Caribbean, East & SE (Gcos) Asia Gcos GCOS Regional Workshop Future 2003 West & Central Africa, 12e Programme South America Global Ocean Ecosystem |CES-GLOBEC Cod and Indefinite 1995-2009 Canada, European 9b Dynamics (GLOBEC] Climate Change Programme Union Member States, USA GLOBEC PICES-GLOBEC Climate Indefinite 1990-2009 Canada, China, Japan, 9c Change and Carrying Korea, Russia, USA Capacity GLOBEC Southern Ocean GLOBEC Indefinite 2000-2009 Australia, Germany, 9d Korea, UK, USA Global Marine Assessments Reporting Title Scope/ Dates Geographical range ID organization duration code Helsinki Commission Ad hoc working group on Future 2003 All HELCOM Parties 35n (HELCOM) sediment monitoring except Russia HELCOM Airborne Pollution Load Publication 2003 EMEP Centres and 35f Compilation 1996-2000 Baltic Sea (HELCOM Contracting Parties - Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, Sweden and EU) HELCOM COMBINE monitoring Indefinite 1978- Baltic Sea (HELCOM 35c programme [environmental Contracting Parties as effect of inputs) above) HELCOM Fourth Baltic Sea Pollution Publication 2003 Baltic Sea [HELCOM 35i Load Compilation ([PLC-4, Contracting Parties as 2000) above] HELCOM Fourth Periodic Assessment Publication 2002 Baltic Sea [HELCOM 359 of the State of the Marine Contracting Parties as Environment of the Baltic above] Sea 1994-1998 HELCOM Monitoring of illegal oil Indefinite 1988- Baltic Sea (HELCOM 35e discharges at sea Contracting Parties as above) HELCOM Monitoring programme for Indefinite 1981- Baltic Sea (HELCOM 35d radioactive substances Contracting Parties as above) HELCOM Pollution Load Compilation Indefinite 1983- Baltic Sea (HELCOM 35a - Air (airborne load of Contracting Parties as nutrient and contaminants) above) HELCOM Pollution Load Compilation Indefinite 1980- Baltic Sea (HELCOM 35b - Water (waterborne load of Contracting Parties as nutrient and contaminants] above} HELCOM Integrated dioxin and PCB Future Baltic Sea 35s monitoring pilot project in the Baltic Region Global Marine Assessments Reporting organization HELCOM Title Scope/ duration Project - Harmonised Future international early warning reporting system on abnormal events in the Baltic Sea and its drainage area HELCOM HELCOM Project - Monitoring of Future radioactive substances in the Baltic Sea (MORS-PRO] Project - QA of Future Phytoplankton monitoring in the Baltic Sea HELCOM HELCOM HELCOM HELCOM HELCOM HELCOM IAEA Marine Environment Laboratory IAEA Marine Environment Laboratory 100 Project on the development Future of a Baltic water bird monitoring strategy - Pilot phase: evaluation of available data and conclusions on necessary follow-up activities Project on the development Future of spatial eutrophication indices for the Baltic Sea Dates 2002 2004 2004 2003- 2004- Project on validation of Future algorithms of chlorophyll retrieval from satellite data for Baltic Sea area Proposal for an Future environmental geochemical sediment monitoring programme (EMG) of the Baltic and the Kattegat Seas Report on radioactivity in the Publication Baltic Sea 1992-1998 Zooplanktologist Expert Future Network Assistance to Caspian Sea Indefinite Region Assistance to ROPME Region Indefinite 2003 2003- 2003 2000- 1985- Geographical range All HELCOM Parties except Russia All HELCOM Parties All HELCOM Parties except Russia Baltic Sea Baltic Sea Baltic Sea [HELCOM Contracting Parties as above] Baltic Sea Baltic Sea [HELCOM Contracting Parties as above] Baltic Sea Caspian Sea Riparian States Gulf States and Iran 35m 35k 35p 35q 35j 350 35h 35r 43c 43b Global Marine Assessments Reporting Title Scope/ Dates Geographical range ID organization duration code Indian Ocean Planning project Indefinite 2003 France (Réunion), 45b Commission Seychelles Indian Ocean Western Indian Ocean Indefinite 2003 Comoros, France 45c Commission Electronic Maritime Highway (Réunion], Kenya, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mozambique, Seychelles, South Africa, Tanzania Indian Ocean Western Indian Ocean Indefinite 1999- Comoros, Madagascar, 45a Commission Regional Oil Spill Mauritius Contingency Indian Ocean Tuna Predation of longline caught Indefinite 2001- Indian Ocean (France, 34d Commission tunas and billfish by sharks Japan, Seychelles) and cetaceans Indian Ocean Tuna Stock assessment of Indefinite 21 Contracting Parties 34a Commission tropical, neritic and - Indian Ocean temperate tunas and billfish under the commission mandate Indian Ocean Tuna Tagging of tropical tunas Indefinite 2002- Indian Ocean 34b Commission Indian Ocean Tuna Tuna/environment Indefinite 1998- France, Japan, Russia, 34c Commission relationships (hydrography/ Spain (Indian Ocean) feeds) Inter-American Tropical Biology and population Indefinite | 1950-2002+ | Member countries 30 Tuna Commission dynamics of tunas and (IATTC) related species and the effects of natural factors and human activities on the ecosystem Intergovernmental Ocean Mapping Programme Indefinite 1972- > 40 countries 37b Oceanographic Commission (IOC) loc African Process Indefinite 2000- 11 African countries 37¢ International Annual compilation of catch Indefinite 1970- Atlantic Ocean 2a Commission for the statistics for all Atlantic tuna Conservation of Atlantic and tuna-like species Tunas (ICCAT) 101 Global Marine Assessments Reporting Title Scope/ Dates Geographical range ID organization duration code ICCAT Regular stock assessment Indefinite 1970- Atlantic Ocean 2b of Atlantic tuna and tuna- like species ICCAT 2004 workshop on tunas and Future 2004 Atlantic Ocean 2c their environment International Coral Reef Coral reef monitoring and Indefinite | 2001-2005 Eastern Africa, 28b Action Network (ICRAN) assessment in Eastern Caribbean, East Asia, Africa, Caribbean, East Asia, South Pacific South Pacific regional sea areas ICRAN Reefs at Risk Caribbean Indefinite | 2001-2003 Caribbean 28c ICRAN Reefs at Risk Indian Ocean Future 2003-2004 Countries bordering 28d the Indian Ocean that have coral reefs in their waters ICRAN Reefs at Risk Pacific Future 2004-2005 Countries bordering 28e the Pacific Ocean (except countries of SE Asia] that have coral reefs in their waters International Council for Baltic Sea Regional Project Future 2003-2008 Baltic Sea countries 29c the Exploration of the (GEF) Sea (ICES) ICES Data centre for HELCOM, Indefinite 29f OSPAR and AMAP marine data ICES ICES Environmental Status Indefinite | Annual ICES member 29b Report countries ICES ICES fish stock assessment - Indefinite 29e moving to relate environmental and oceanographic conditions to fish stock developments - early work in the Barents Sea ICES North Sea Ecosystem Future 2003- North Sea countries 29d Assessment 102 Global Marine Assessments Reporting Title Scope/ Dates Geographical range ID organization duration code ICES The environmental status of Indefinite | 2002-2003 ICES member 29a the European Seas - An countries ICES review on behalf of the German Federal Ministry for the Environment International EMECS Design workshop for the Indefinite 2002-2005 Japan and Asian 19 Centre purpose of achieving a countries comprehensive evaluation of coastal zones in Asia: Follow- up activities for Asian Forum at 5th International Conference on Environmental Management of Enclosed Coastal Seas (EMECS 2001) International Ocean Coastal community studies Indefinite Costa Rica, India, 17c¢ Institute (101) and assessments, natural Pacific SIDS, Southern and social sciences Africa 101 Community-based coastal Indefinite 2001- 10 Caribbean 17b resource management in countries the Caribbean lol GIWA Central Pacific Region _ Indefinite Central Pacific 17e lol GIWA Sub-Saharan Mega Indefinite Sub-Saharan Africa 17d Region 101 Regional study of Indefinite | 2000-2003 17a vulnerability of South American coasts International Pacific CTD monitoring Indefinite 1997- NE Pacific (Canada, 14 Halibut Commission USA] Island Resources IOCARIBE (IOC Sub- Indefinite 1995- Wider Caribbean 56e Foundation Commission for the Caribbean], based in Cartagena Island Resources Reefs at Risk for the Indefinite | 2002-2003 Upgrade of 1998 global 56d Foundation Caribbean study Island Resources UNEP Global Environment Indefinite | 2000- 28 islands/island 56a Foundation Outlook Sub-regional groups in the Caribbean 103 Global Marine Assessments Reporting Title Scope/ Dates Geographical range ID organization duration code IUCN, The World Coastal and Marine Indefinite 2001-2003 India, Maldives, 10a Conservation Union Resources Management and Pakistan, Sri Lanka Poverty Reduction in South Asia - ICZM in High Priority Areas IUCN, The World CORDIO-IUCN collaboration Future 2003 East Africa, Indian 10f Conservation Union Ocean States, South Asia Kenya Marine and Coastal impacts of water Indefinite Kenya, Mozambique, 47c Fisheries Research abstraction and Tanzania Institute impoundment in Africa Kenya Marine and Ecological economics of Future 2003 Kenya, Mozambique, 47f Fisheries Research mangrove-associated Tanzania Institute fisheries - food security and sustainability Kenya Marine and GEF Sub-Saharan Initiative Future Coastal states of 47g Fisheries Research Africa Institute Kenya Marine and GOOS - Africa Future Coastal and island 47d Fisheries Research states Institute Kenya Marine and Mapping Holocene Terraces Future 2003-2005 Kenya, Mozambique, 47e Fisheries Research in Eastern Africa Tanzania Institute Kenya Marine and Seaweed Africa Indefinite Brazil, Ireland, Kenya, 47b Fisheries Research Mozambique, Namibia, Institute Portugal, South Africa, Sweden Korea Ocean Research APEC Marine Environmental Indefinite 1999-2004 APEC member 42b and Development Training and Education countries Institute (KORDI) Programme KORDI Yellow Sea Large Marine Indefinite | 2002-2006 China, Korea 42a Ecosystem Studies KORDI Yellow Sea Marine Indefinite 1999- China, Korea 42c Environmental Monitoring KORDI/NOWPAP AMETEC training Future 2003- APEC member 42f MERRAC programme countries Global Marine Assessments Reporting Title Scope/ Dates Geographical range ID organization duration code KORDI/NOWPAP NOWPAP MERRAC Indefinite 2000- China, Japan, Korea, 42e MERRAC Russia KORDI/NOWPAP The use of biological effects | Future 2003-2005 IOC/WESTPAC 42g MERRAC monitoring studies of member countries marine pollution MED POL - Programme _ Ad hoc research Mediterranean 20b of the Mediterranean programmes (Albania, Algeria, Action Plan of UNEP Bosnia Herzegovina, Croatia, Cyprus, Egypt, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Lebanon, Libya, Malta, Monaco, Morocco, Spain, Slovenia, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey] MED POL Monitoring programme of Indefinite Mediterranean (as 20a MED POL above) National Institute of Various marine fisheries and Indefinite 2-4yearsin New Zealand, 40 Water and Atmospheric = environmental assessments length Antarctica, others Research (NIWA) North Pacific Bering-Aleutian Salmon Indefinite 2002-2006 North Pacific (Canada, 15 Anadromous Fish International Survey (BASIS) Japan, Russia, USA) Commission Norwegian Polar Arctic Climate Impact Indefinite 1998- Circumpolar 7d Institute (NPI), Polar Assessment [ACIA] Environmental Centre NPI, Polar Arctic Monitoring and Indefinite 1991- Circumpolar 7c Environmental Centre Assessment Programme (AMAP] NPI, Polar Environmental management Future 2002-2004 Norway 7a Environmental Centre plan for the Barents Sea NPI, Polar Environmental monitoring of Indefinite 2000- Norway 7b Environmental Centre Svalbard and Jan Mayen (MOSJ) ee SS ee NPI, Polar Other smaller projects in Indefinite Indefinite 7e Environmental Centre Arctic and Antarctic 105 Global Marine Assessments Reporting Title Scope/ Dates Geographical range ID organization duration code Permanent Secretariat State of the Environment of Indefinite 2002-2007+ Bulgaria, Georgia, 18 of the Commission on the Black Sea Romania, Russia, the Protection of the Turkey, Ukraine Black Sea Against Pollution Regional Organization Open Sea Cruise Current/ 2001-2004 Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, 3 for the Protection of the future Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Marine Environment Saudi Arabia, UAE (ROPME) Secretariat of the Pacific SPC Oceanic Fisheries Indefinite 1978- Pacific Community 4ba Community Programme (western and members (American central Pacific tuna stock Samoa - US, Cook assessments) Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, French Polynesia - Fr, Guam - US, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Caledonia - Fr, Niue, Northern Marianas - US, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Pitcairn - UK, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tokelau - NZ, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Wallis and Futuna - Fr), and adjacent international waters Secretariat of the Pacific Pacific Community Reef Indefinite | 2002- Pacific Community 46b Community Fisheries Observatory members excl. US territories (Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, French Polynesia - Fr, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Caledonia - Fr, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Pitcairn - UK, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tokelau - NZ, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Wallis and Futuna - Fr) 106 Global Marine Assessments Reporting Title Scope/ Dates Geographical range ID organization duration code State Key Laboratory of © GLOBEC China Indefinite 1999-2004 China oF Estuarine and Coastal Research UNEP Caribbean Highly contaminated bays of Caribbean 13b Regional Coordinating La Havana [Cuba] and Unit [(CAR/RCU) Kingston [Jamaica] CAR/RCU Regional overview of land- Caribbean 13a based activities UNEP East Asian Seas ESCAP State of the Marine Indefinite Asia and the Pacific 50d Regional Coordinating Environment Unit UNEP East Asian Seas UNEP-GEF South China Sea_ Indefinite 2002-2006 Cambodia, China, 50c Regional Coordinating Project Indonesia, Malaysia, Unit Philippines, Thailand, Viet Nam UNEP-GRID-Arendal State of the Environment of | Completed 1997-2000 38 the Aral Sea Basin Countries UNEP/DEWA water unit —‘ Regional Seas Indefinite 1990- All countries 55f United Nations Assessment of Hotspots in Indefinite | 2000-2002 Belarus, Russian 48a Industrial Development the Dnieper River Basin Federation, Ukraine Organization (UNIDO) UNIDO Assessment of Nutrient Future 2004 Angola, Benin, 48f Loading in the Guinea Cameroon, Congo, Cote Current Large Marine d'Ivoire, Dem. Rep. Ecosystem Congo, Gabon, Ghana, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Nigeria, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, Togo UNIDO Assessment of the State of Future 2003 Benin, Cameroon, Cote 48e the Mangrove Ecosystem in the Guinea Current Large Marine Ecosystem d'Ivoire, Ghana, Nigeria, Togo 107 Global Marine Assessments Reporting Title Scope/ Dates Geographical range ID organization duration code UNIDO Fish stock assessment and Future 2004 Angola, Benin, 48g pollution survey in Western Cameroon, Congo, Africa covering the Canary, Cote d'Ivoire, Dem. Benguela and Guinea Rep. Congo, Gabon, Current LME regions Gambia, Ghana, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Nigeria, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Togo UNIDO Fisheries stock assessment Future 2004 Angola, Benin, 48d and pollution survey in the Cameroon, Congo, Céte Guinea Current Large d'Ivoire, Dem. Rep. Marine Ecosystem Congo, Gabon, Ghana, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Nigeria, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, Togo UNIDO Integrated Assessment and __ Future 2004-2006 Cuba, Mexico, USA 48h Management of the Gulf of Mexico Large Marine Ecosystem UNIDO Integrated Management of Indefinite | 2002-2003 Chile, Peru 48b the Humboldt Current Large Marine Ecosystem UNIDO Transfer of Environmentally Indefinite 2001-2003 Bulgaria, Croatia, 48c Sound Technologies to Hungary, Romania, Reduce Transboundary Slovakia Pollution in the Danube River Basin Western Central Atlantic }WECAFC Ad Hoc Flyingfish Indefinite Barbados, Dominica, 31c Fisheries Commission Working Group of the Grenada, St. Lucia, St. (WECAFC] Eastern Caribbean Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago WECAFC WECAFC Ad Hoc Working Indefinite Brazil, French Guiana, 31a 108 Group on (status of) Shrimp and Groundfish Resources in the Brazil-Guianas Shelf Guyana, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Venezuela Global Marine Assessments Reporting Title Scope/ Dates Geographical range ID organization duration code WECAFC WECAFC Ad Hoc Working Indefinite Bahamas, Belize, 31b Group on Caribbean Spiny Bermuda, Brazil, Lobster Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, St. Lucia, USA, Venezuela WWF Japan Yellow Sea Ecoregion Current 2002-2005 China, Korea 5 Biological Assessment and Biodiversity Vision Project NATIONAL/REGIONAL Department ICES fish stock Indefinite Contributes to ICES 52e for Environment, Food assessments and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), UK DEFRA OSPAR Joint assessment Indefinite Annual Contributes to OSPAR 52d and monitoring programme Norwegian Pollution Joint assessment and Indefinite = Annual Contributions to 51b Control Authority monitoring programme OSPAR (JAMP). Monitoring of contaminants in Norwegian fjords and coastal waters NATIONAL Dakar Thiaroye Study of the circulation of Indefinite 2002 EEZ Senegal 36 Oceanographic Research coastal waters in the near Centre (CRODT) shore of Senegal Department UK National Marine Indefinite 2003 UK 52b for Environment, Food Monitoring Programme and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), UK DEFRA UK Ocean Climate Status Indefinite 2002 UK 52c Report DEFRA UK State of the Seas Report Future UK 52a German Marine Assessments inthe frames __ Indefinite 53 Monitoring Programme of the OSPAR and HELCOM Conventions 109 Global Marine Assessments Reporting organization IUCN, The World Conservation Union IUCN, The World Conservation Union IUCN, The World Conservation Union IUCN, The World Conservation Union Title Cambodia Marine and Coastal Technical Scoping GEF-RUK Integrated Collaborative Management Project Hon Nun Marine Protected Area North-east assessments of coastal and marine habitats IUCN, The World Conservation Union Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Norwegian Pollution Control Authority Norwegian Pollution Control Authority NOT CATEGORIZED Marine Fisheries Research Division 110 Rapid Ecological Assessment in Guangxi Province Small Islands in Peril, Milne Bay Province, Papua New Guinea, and MA Sub-Global Assessment Long-term monitoring of environmental quality of the coastal waters of Norway Riverine inputs and direct discharges to Norwegian waters Scope/ Dates duration Indefinite 2002 Indefinite Indefinite | 2001-2005 Future 2003/4 Future 2003 Indefinite 2002- Indefinite = Annual None Geographical range Cambodia Sri Lanka Viet Nam Sri Lanka China Papua New Guinea and 15-20 others during 2002 Contributes to OSPAR Contributes to OSPAR 10c 10d 10b 109 10e 24b 5la 51c Global Marine Assessments ANNEX 11. SUMMARY OF ALL ADDITIONAL RESPONSES (EXCLUDING QUESTIONNAIRE RETURNS) Table A Organizations and assessments that responded without completing a questionnaire and provided information which could be of use to a GMA mechanism Organization/Contact Census of Marine Life/ OBIS Fredrick Grassle DIVERSITAS Anne Larigauderie Notes The Census aims to create an inventory of fish and non-fish nekton on a global basis. OBIS is a proposed database that would enable researchers and resource managers to query all organisms that have been observed in a given area. Such information would allow the production of biogeographic maps, GIS layers, including surface productivity, physical and chemical oceanic parameters. ® Could provide the framework to understand biological parameters and distribution characteristics. ®@ Remote-sensing technologies and in situ observation have allowed a detailed understanding of many of the oceans’ biogeochemical and physical processes (Grassle and Stocks, 1999]. Understanding the biological interactions, let alone how the ecosystem works, is still very limited, particularly beyond the narrow coastal zone. (http://www.icsu.org/DIVERSITAS) aims to promote biodiversity science linking social, ecological and biological sciences to produce socially relevant knowledge and to provide the scientific bases of conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. To achieve this DIVERSITAS will synthesize existing knowledge, identify gaps and issues of global importance, and promote networks and communication across countries and disciplines, communicating findings to policy makers. There are three core projects and the development of cross-cutting scientific networks (e.g. the Global Invasive Species Programme [GISP). The initiative is coordinated by a small secretariat, which facilitates the activities (virtual networks, think-tanks and meetings of the networks) in the international community in thematic areas. DIVERSITAS is involved in developing new science, for example at the moment bridging the ecological and social sciences - people are a part of the environment and must therefore be at the centre of environmental science. DIVERSITAS has links with the Census of Marine Life. ECOISHARE Phil Fox (UNEP-WCMC) Background information has been given describing an activity to provide open access to biodiversity and environmental data from the private sector on a web-based interface. ECQiSHARE is sponsored by BP, Shell and Rio Tinto. It will provide an environmental reporting process and make available results of studies required of exploration, extraction and installation companies. It is expected that this information will be integrated with other databases held by UNEP to provide map- based interfaces. It is expected that companies will continue to realize the benefits of increased transparency of environmental policy, and UNEP-WCMC plans to include sectors such as petrochemical, mining, cable laying, utilities and environmental consultancies. 111 Global Marine Assessments Organization/Contact GOOS/OOPC/COOP Thorkild Aarup (IOC) ICSU Leah Goldfarb 112 Notes GOOS came about as a result of an intergovernmental request at the end of the 1980s and is sponsored by a number of UN agencies, led by the lOC [Summerhayes, 2002). It is one of a family of three global systems for detecting and assessing global change (GCOS, GTOS and GOOS) and is an instrument to underpin conventions (Christian, 2002). GOOS aims to determine users’ needs and the data that are required to meet these needs. It provides the mechanisms required to get the data and promote best practice. Activities tend to be carried out by national authorities. It has five phases, and aims to be operational by 2010. Pilot projects are in implementation (e.g. GODAE (Global Ocean Data Assimilation Experiment, due to begin 2003 onwards), as is the regional implementation. Capacity building is seen as an important component of the mechanism. At the end of 2000, the GOOS design panels were simplified and merged into two components: (i) open ocean (OOPC) and (ii) coastal (COOP), the terms of reference for which are rather different in focus. The OOPC focuses on physical, chemical and biogeochemical cycles, in the open ocean and high seas. This includes the use of a large number of globally distributed ARGO floats to take measurements. COOP has a broader remit, which encompasses physical, biological and socio-economic factors, fisheries, etc. The design plans were detailed at COOP 4 and had a heavy reliance on remote sensing and the use of models. The three global components of data collection, building networks and modelling are supported by GOOS regions, which aim to build on existing monitoring frameworks. This is beginning to happen in areas of high activity such as the North Sea and the Baltic; however coordination is weak (e.g. Euro GOOS with ICES and OSPAR; BOOS with HELCOM). Also regional GOOS in NEA GOOS, GOOS Africa, are hoping to develop regional mechanisms for the Indian Ocean and the Black Sea. The members consist of governments, universities and researchers. In addition to Coastal GOOS, there is a new initiative, which is the coastal module of GTOS (Global Terrestrial Observing System) which is reported to be in parallel and somewhat convergent with the former. The idea is that the terrestrial coastal observations will lead towards an integration of the marine-based and the terrestrial-based observations and improve understanding of dynamics in the land/ water interface. Several fundamental issues remain to be harmonized before this interaction can be of value, such as scale of observation (different coastal issues have differing scales of effects) (Christian, 2002). To assist this, GCOS will be involved in the preparatory working groups. As with other aspects of the global observation systems, GTOS initiatives will build on existing infrastructure and provide a support service to other assessment programmes. In the context of a GMA mechanism, there is potential for GOOS to act in a streamlining capacity. ICSU, consisting of 98 national academy members and 27 international scientific unions, provides policy guidance and advice as to how to improve linkages between science and sustainable development. Orchestrating science at a global level, ICSU co-sponsors four major global change programmes: the International Global Biosphere Programme, WCRP, IHDP [International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change) and DIVERSITAS. These global change programmes feed into the IPCC process and demonstrate how science can feed into policy. ICSU is a partner and sponsoring agency for SCOR - Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research - and GOOS. Organization/Contact International Whaling Commission (IWC) Nicky Grandy Large Marine Ecosystem Strategy Millennium Assessment Neville Ash Nigerian Institute for Oceanography and Marine Research T. 0. Ajayi OSPAR Alan Simcock Global Marine Assessments Notes Most work is collaborative with partners, where costs and time are difficult to define, or provides seed funding for larger projects. Work is largely related to the conservation and status assessment of cetaceans to enable management decisions to be made; environmental factors are included in this framework (Donovan, 2002). Much of the work that has been identified could provide relevant input into a Global Marine Assessment. The LME is a strategy for the assessment and management of international coastal waters. It is a global effort of the IUCN, IOC, other UN agencies and NOAA. LMEs are regions of ocean space encompassing coastal areas from river basins and estuaries to the seaward boundaries of continental shelves and the outer margins of major current systems characterized by bathymetry, productivity, hydrography and trophically dependent populations (64 in total). To obtain information to support improved management practices, a five-module strategy has been developed for assessing and analysing ecosystem-wide changes in productivity, fish and fisheries, pollution and ecosystem health, socio-economics and governance. LMEs are alluded to in reviewed assessments. Further information was provided indicating that sub-global efforts are to be developed in the Caribbean, as well as Arafura and Timor Seas. This organization returned a late questionnaire providing details of involvement in two regional processes: the African Process Integrated Coastal Analysis and the GPA/LBA National Plan of Action. It was felt that the assessments undertaken by OSPAR for the Quality Status Reports could not be reflected in the questionnaire. The status of activities for the next ten-year report was provided (Joint Assessment and Monitoring Programme (JAMP]]). Contributing to the JAMP is a requirement of OSPAR Contracting Parties. The programme sets out the basis on which the Contracting Parties work together to produce the decade assessments. These guidelines are prepared in considerable detail. PERSGA Mohamed Fawzi A late questionnaire was returned giving details of a number of regional assessments and activities focused around stock assessments and resource surveys. The Gulf of Aden, Eritrea is identified as a geographical gap. SCOPE SCOPE aims to bring together social and natural scientists to identify emerging or potential environmental issues and address the nature and solution of environmental problems from a global viewpoint. It promotes and facilitates the exchange of information and communication of policy-relevant information. It engages in joint projects for major global change programmes. Also programmes for: @ alien species (GISP) @ nitrogen cycles (land ocean nutrient flux cycles) (Boyer and Howarth, 2002). Note that Africa is under-represented in current processes, partly due to accessibility and capacity. 113 Global Marine Assessments Organization/Contact The African Process Julian Barbiére (IOC) UNCLOS Oceans Division Valentina Germani UNEP-DTIE Guilia Carbone WOCE John Gould World Heritage Centre Marjaana Kokkonen 114 Notes The African Process began as a political framework for 11 sub-Saharan African countries. The process uses GIWA methodology to assess the level of degradation in the coastal and marine environments and produced national reports and recommendations to put forward to phase 2. Project development is in five priority themes: pollution, tourism, coastal erosion, sustainable use of living resources, marine key habitats. Five working groups consisting of regional and national experts were convened to develop project proposals. Twenty proposals were prepared, with the endorsement of the relevant ministries. Partnership discussions took place during WSSD where seven of the 11 of the Heads of State reaffirmed their ministries’ endorsements. The African Process includes the New Partnership for African Development. UNEP’s involvement in the African Process concerns the aim to strengthen the Nairobi and Abidjan Conventions. The functions of the Division of Ocean Affairs are to provide research, support and advice on the implementation of UNCLOS, monitoring activities, training. UNCLOS is a sponsoring agency of GESAMP. Omnibus Resolution, which was to to be adopted on 10 December 2002, contains two paragraphs relating to the issue of global reporting and assessment of the state of the marine environment. Specifically it: [i] welcomes the recommendation of WSSD to establish by 2004 under the UN a global reporting and assessment of the state of the marine environment; and [ii) calls for proposals for a modality for such a process to be submitted to the 58th session of the General Assembly for consideration and decision. Once the resolution is adopted then UNCLOS will consider how to implement the mandate. It was agreed that whilst tourism has a very strong dependence on and influence over the state of the marine environment, there has been very little effort put into assessments of these relationships. Much of the work that has been done is localized and client/market orientated rather than aimed at the policy maker. Trade organizations such as the World Trade Organization have networks with local authority contacts. This is potentially a thematic gap in current activities. WOCE is to be superseded by CLIVAR (contact Howard Cattle). At present the World Heritage Centre does not stipulate methods or standardized guidelines for the monitoring of World Heritage Sites/proposed sites. Any monitoring is at the discretion of the national body responsible for the site. There are currently ten marine World Heritage Sites, although designations are being encouraged. It could provide essential information to a GMA process as to the functioning of particular and/or critical habitats. It is a valuable mechanism for conservation of marine ecosystems which has not yet been exploited (Hillary et al., 2002). Global Marine Assessments Table B Assessment users Organization/Contact EDIOS Johanne Fischer European Commission Ben van der Vettering GPA-LBA Martin Adiaanse NOAA-NGDC David Cole UN Department of Social and Economic Affairs (DESA) Anne Rogers Notes EDIOS is an information collection system for EURO GOOS. Responded as an assessment user, as opposed to a producer. At present there is a lack of sufficient coordination in the assessment of the marine environment across Europe. There are several parallels that can be drawn between experiences to date of the EC strategy and GMA processes. Within Europe there is great intra-regional disparity in capacity; therefore at a global scale it would be expected that this would be magnified. No questionnaire return was felt appropriate. However a keen interest was expressed ina GMA mechanism as the GPA is a user of assessments rather than undertaking its own assessments. It relies on national and regional assessments, providing advice, and critically uses global assessments such as GIWA and the proposed GMA. NGDC is not involved in environmental assessment, relation or monitoring activities. It acts as a data repository for global and regional marine databases, producing products that may be of use for future environmental assessment activities. Only section A of the questionnaire was completed as DESA is a user not producer of marine assessments. The assessments are used in the context of monitoring and reporting on the implementation of chapter 17 of Agenda 21; past Commission on Sustainable Development decisions, the Barbados Plan of Action on SIDS. Anne Rogers suggested that a survey of assessment users to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of existing assessment activities would be of use. 115 Global Marine Assessments Table C Other responses received Organization/Contact Commission Sous Regionale des Péches Nabi Souleymane Bangoura FIGIS Marc Taconet Health of the Oceans (GOOs) Neil Anderson Notes Due to technical problems with the local server, the questionnaire did not arrive until after the return deadline. At present there is no assessment programme Set up by the CSRP, although a symposium to discuss the marine environment is planned for 2003. Input is incorporated in other FAO responses. FIGIS is an information system that streamlines the QA information and dissemination needs of the programmes described in the FAO responses. Neil Anderson has retired. The HOTO work has been incorporated into the coastal element of GOOS. The HOTO programme is no longer active. INFOFISH S. Subasinghe IPCC Renate Christ NASCO Peter Hutchinson Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment Soffia Gudmundsdottir Projekttraeger Juelich - MGS Ulrich Wolf 116 INFOFISH is an IGO providing technical/marketing advice to the fishing industry of the Asia Pacific region. The IPCC felt unable to provide adequate information on its programme of activities in this format. NASCO receives advice from ICES in the form of the Report of the Advisory Committee on Fishery Management. It was felt however that the questionnaire is not particularly relevant to NASCO’s activities. The report of the International Cooperative Salmon Research Board includes an inventory of salmon-related research undertaken by NASCO CPs. PAME is a working group of the Arctic Council that addresses policy and non-emergency pollution and control measures, to protect the Arctic marine environment from land- and sea-based activities. Marine scientific assessments are carried out by AMAP. PTJ is a funding body and therefore does not undertake assessment activities. Global Marine Assessments ANNEX 12 CRITERIA DEFINITIONS AND SCORING SYSTEM Table A Criteria definitions used to establish whether or not the mechanism of the assessment or activity should be considered as an impediment, a partial impediment or a minimal impediment to the inclusion/integration of that assessment or activity ina GMA mechanism The score limits define the upper and lower boundaries of levels of impediment based on the analysis of criteria and scoring described by Tables B-H Criteria Definition Rank Score limits Geography @ Mandate covers no more than 1 of the defined zones (estuaries, coasts, EEZ or Impediment 0 international waters) and does not use existing regional mechanisms @ Mandate covers up to 3 zones and may not use existing regional mechanisms Partial imp. 1to3 @ Mandate covers waters from estuaries to international waters, and uses Minimalimp. 4 existing definitions of regions Regularity © All one-off assessments/activities Impediment 0 ® Assessments/activities repeated on a 6 year+ basis or ad hoc Partial imp. 1to2 @ Either ongoing or undertaken on a regular basis (1-5 years) Minimalimp. 3to5 Cost © Comparatively high budget, and person-hours/resource provision is Impediment 0 effectiveness considered insufficient Partial imp. 1to5 © Comparatively low budget, low person-hours/where the resource provision Minimalimp. 6to7 may be considered satisfactory Legitimacy ® National stakeholders not involved in request; no convention to support activity Impediment 0 Partial imp. 1to5 © Undertaken at country request or in response to international /regional Minimalimp. 6 convention with national stakeholders involved in all phases Credibility ® No indicators/assessment based on secondary data only; no partners; no Impediment <7 methodological guidelines or system for review or feedback; no peer review or QA Partial imp. 7to9 @ QA and external peer review; method guidelines adopted with regular review Minimalimp. 10 to 14 and based on empirical data; involves partners; use of indicator framework Sustainability © The process is under the influence of the policy of a single government, is Impediment <4 dependent on non-fixed, external funds and is not associated with a regional or international agreement Partial imp. 5 to? @ The process is above single-country politics; it is not dependent exclusivelyon Minimalimp. 10 to 12 external and variable funds; it is associated with a regional or international agreement Saliency © Not in response to a convention, or national request; does not direct outputs to Impediment <9 policy advice; not regular; no provision for review; no stakeholder involvement Partial imp. 10 to 20 © Responds to a national concern [i.e. a convention); provides policy advice; is Minimalimp. 21 to 29 regular; provision for review; stakeholder involvement; outputs orientated to user 117 Global Marine Assessments Table B Questions providing information for analysis of geographical criteria N, R and G are abbreviations for National, Regional and Global, respectively Qno. Q Scope of study 1/2/4/5 Option National Regional Global Does the assessment use defined regions? Yes No Area of activity Table C Questions providing information for analysis of regularity criteria Qno. Q 15 What is the periodicity of activity? Estuaries to international waters 3 zones 2 zones Mandate covers 1 zone Option Continuous 5 Annual or more Every 2-5 years Every 6-10 years Ad hoc One-off Table D Questions providing information for analysis of cost-effectiveness criteria Q no. Q 19 Budget scale Option <10K 10-50K 50-100K 100-500K >500K Persons <1-2 2-10 >10 Person-hours <10-100 100-500 >500 Are the resources sufficient? 118 Table E Questions providing information for analysis of legitimacy criteria Q Global Marine Assessments Option Score 16 Basic requirement for assessment Regional convention/international legislation 3 Intergovernmental request 2 Scientific cooperation 1 Other/national request 0 25 Are stakeholders involved in all 3 levels? Yes 1 No 0 47 Is there a link between outcomes and Yes 1 review of international policy? No 0 Is there a link between outcomes Yes 1 and review of national policy? No 0 48 Are international measures adopted Yes 1 as a result of the assessment? Table F Questions providing information for analysis of sustainability criteria Qno. 16 Qa Basic requirement for assessment Option Score Regional convention/international legislation 3 Intergovernmental request Scientific cooperation Other/national request Duration of funding Continuous 5-10 years 3-4 years 1-2 years One-off/n/a Type of funding Organization budget Special CP contributions Activity-generated income External/other Does the assessment evaluate capacity? Does the assessment lead to the identification of capacity-building needs? Can the organization provide the training and support to develop capacity? 119 Global Marine Assessments Table G Questions providing information for analysis of credibility criteria Q no. Q Option Score 9 Does the assessment collect primary data/ Collects and uses primary data 2 assess secondary data? Uses primary data 1 Uses secondary data 0 20 Are there partners and collaborators? Yes 1 No 0 27 Have guidelines for assessment method No 0 been adopted? Yes 1 28 Is there a review/feedback process? Regular 2 Ad hoc 1 No 0 31 Are data quality issues identified Yes 0 as a constraint? No 1 38 Is an indicator framework used? Yes 1 No 0 56 Quality assurance methods International QA standards 3 Internal QA standards 2 Checks on information 1 None 0 57 Are the assessments peer reviewed? Internal and external review External Internal None 120 Global Marine Assessments Table H Questions providing information for analysis of saliency criteria Qno. 14 Q Commissioned by [including] Option National government/member states Convention/intergovernmental request UN Other institution/organization How is the assessment driven? National/regional centres Steering committee Secretariat/working groups Are stakeholders consulted? Yes No Are stakeholders involved in all phases [plans to evaluation)? Yes No Is feedback given to stakeholders? Yes No Do the key outputs include Policies Advisory reports Data analysis Data What are the tools used to present this? Reports and other visual tools Reports only Where are the data located? Internet site National/international data stores Secretariat/other Accessibility of data Free access to all data and reports Limited access to data and/or reports No access/restricted access Is the outcome adopted by the stakeholders? Yes No Outcomes linked to review of new/ existing international policies? Outcomes linked to review of new/ existing national policies? Yes - direct Yes - indirect No Yes - direct Yes - indirect No Do the intended end-users include national policy makers? Yes No How often are reports produced? Annually or more Every 2 years Less than every 2 years/other What is the publishing format? Paper and electronic (web/CD ROM) Paper only/electronic only None/n/a Is there a purchase price? No Yes Are differential products produced? Yes No Is there a mechanism to allow feedback on product relevance? Yes No 121 Global Marine Assessments 997 277 eny dL? ILY GLY ely al VV VV AWA z 1002 VV VV AWA q 0002 AVYVVAVWVA L 2002 VAV VY VV PV ayuyapy 6661 AVYVYVYVAYV 4 2002 Vv VV WV A OPV =~ auyapu; —-S6/7661 AVY VV VA FW =~ auyepu; LL6L a9 84 3D AT 1 AS_eeS = (SAA) UONeINp = aE SUO! Uap E149}1419 paydadx3 HeIS Sa, SoA SoA sainseaw anlj2e0Jd aye} 0} Syeasy} Mau Ajtyuapi/yuawuosiAua aulew 34} 0} S}LIJY} UMOUY JO}UOW sainseaw anij2eosd aye} 0} S}eaiy} Mau Ajtquapi/juawuosiAua aulew 34} 0} S}L9I4} UMOUY JO} sainseaw aalyae0jd aye} 0} s}easy} Mau Ajiquapi/juawuosiAua aulew 24} 0} S}easy} UMOUY JOO; ON ON Sa, Sa, epasn eyep Asewlig snje}s ueaz0 UO UOISIAOIG UO!}EWJOJU] payloads you - JayjQ sainseaw aaiy2eoid aye} 0} syeasy) Mau Ajiquap/juawuosiAua aulsew 9Y} 0} S}LIIY} UMOUY JO}!UO/\ saunseaw aAljeoid aye} 0} S}easy} Mau Ajiquapi/juawuosiAua aulsew BY} 0} S}LIIY} UMOUY JO}IUOW 3an2a[qo shanins auljaseg }ed!Hojo1g Woy (doy sap) saipnys aseo saloads d1}enbe aniseAu| s}uawssasse ySIJ 4a}eM yse]eg SUB3IQ 94} JO SEY NN sth 7 Asana (VI40S) euny;n2enby pue SAlAYSI4 P]JOM JO 9}2}S 4] _sadunosa jo asn pue SU0!}2EJ9}U! ]E}UBWUOIIAUA JO sanss! :ain}jnoenby pio jo 3}E}S BY} JO MaiAad JUaIINIaY salJaysi4 aulvew :saoinosay SalJAYSI4 P]OM AU} Jo a}€1S 34} JO MAIAGJ JUBIINIAY anil 0 (a3senego19) awwesboldg juawabeuew 497eM yse)1eg © 19°19 OWI/dONN/439 (OV) NN ay} Jo uoneziuebio © —-aunyyna146y pue pooy uoljeziuebio pea] SLNAWSSASSV 1V8019 Aydeiboab - ag 'Ayisejnbas - ay ‘ssauanijyaajja ysod - FQ ‘Adew}I5a) - a7 ‘AyIGQipasd - 49 ‘AyNI}QeuIeysns - NG ‘AduUAI|Es - eS :SsUOI}IUIYap e14a}1I9 eyep ON - juawipaduu| x SLNAWIGAdWI (TVILNALO0d YO) TVNLIV AO MAIAYSAO -VW9 V OLNI SLNAWSSASSV ONILSIXS SO NOILVYSALNI jUaWIpaduu! yenjsedg Vv juawipadu! on 7a) €L XANNV 122 Global Marine Assessments saunseaw aaijoeoid aye} 0) S}easy) Mau Ajquapi/juawuosiAua aulew seas }euolbay (4dOLI) UoNesapay UO1}N}}Od SJ9UMQ Ll VTVvVT AX AVY YV lL 2002 Sa, 34} 0} S}eai4y} UMOUY JOyUOW:W O ul juauussasse jjIds Jayuel dJayuey yeuoneusaju soinseaW aaijoeoid aye} 0} s}easy) Mau Ajiquapi/yuawuosiAua aulsew (NWY99) JOMIaN e VVvVvvVv VT XA z 0002 S84 BY}. 0} SJEAUY] UMOUY JO}1UOW) Bultoyuow aay Je409 JeqQ019 O payloads jou - Jayjo/sainseaw 3aly2e0jd aye} 0} s}eaiy) Mau Ajiyuapi/juawuosiAua auljew ' VAVYVY VV YW ] 1002 S28, 84} 0}. SPAY) UMOUY JO}!UOW sisheuy saliaysiy aay }e2J09 & NWUY99/(NVUDI) uonenjer YJOMIAN UONW Jaay J8Z VTAaVTvvv vv 4 1002 Sa, payloads you - JayjO DIWOUNIZ jJaay }es0D ]eJ09 jeuoleusa}U} (901) uolssimwo07 21ydes6ouesr9 qe VW - FTV AW YV ayuapu| ZL6L Say paijioads you - 41ay}Q Bulddew ueasg yeyuawUsaA0619}u] seas pue sueaz0 Asoyesoqe7 JUaWUOJIAUa auIJeWW ul saipnys A}IAI}De0Ipes yuawuoJIAUy ey Vv v_vi vv Vv OL G66L S84 AY}. 0} SJB} UMOUY JOyUOW) aulJeW apiMpoM CO) auleW V3avi (S}jauag jeyUaWUOIIAUa 0} pea) Jey} Suo}}e Ajuapl) syuawuosiaua diyenbe J9Y4jO PU JUBWUOIIAUS BUIJeW quaWssassy SJ39}EM z~@ AK XVAWA g 6661 Sa, 34} 0} S}PA1Y} UMOUY JO}UOWy juawussassy }eq0/9 YMID 0 yeuo}yeusazU] 1Eq0)9 ViS8S/9994NN (S099) 0} Jodas SQ|9 jo Asenbape waysks BulAsasqg v7 XxX VVVAVWV VY L 2002 Sa payloads jou - Jayi9 ay} Uo Jodad puoras O ayewND 124019 a9 ay 39 87 4D MS es (ssid) UONeINp ajep épasn eyep al SuONUap E1239 pay2edx3 eS Asewllig an2alqo ani uoneziuebio pea] 123 Global Marine Assessments JUaWUOJIAUa aulJeW Wwaysks a VY - VW AW A aquyepu 9861 S28, BY}. 0}. SJEAIY] UMOUY JoyUOW TM —-BulAdasqg }aAa7 eas jeqn)g O d3Nn Ayissanipoig ye}seod pue aulsew JO) spoyjawW juatussasse e907 3 - WT Vv - WT Vv Zz 100Z SoA uoleydepe poyjay O pides jo juawdojanag youeasal aJNyNj JO) SUoNepuauWworaL seae pa}da}01d pue Ajissanipoig ye}seoo pue aulsew uo dnob qa WX AWY VW A l 1002 ON 4M SxUN/S¥dW Jo ane, O jJadxa yeo1uyoa) I0y py O aduewJojad Ayissaaig e2160)01g arosiduu! 0) aduepinb/snje}s ainyjnoisew uo dnosb uo uolyUaAUOD 97 YT XK AVYVTVWT VW lL 2002 ON jUasind jo uoNenjeal Jadxa jed1UYyIa} 20y py BY) JO ye14e}9199S sainseaw aAlj2e01d aye} 0} syeasy} Mau awuweJsboud Ajtyuapi/juawuosiAua aulew Bulsoyluow ssesbeas eL| TAVTxVT XV ayUapu| 0002 Sa, y} 0} $}ead4) UMOUY JO}IUOW yeqo)6 e - yansseubeas yansseibeas (3d09S) JuawUOIAUA 2]9A9 edI]15 a4) seas 0} pue} ay) JO Swa}qolg e6e vTxvnvrevyx x 9 8441 Sa payloads you -jayjg O WO S}UalJ}NU JO JodsueJ| [ UO aayyIWIWOZ IjI]UaIIS payloads JOU - Ja4}0/saunseaw aAl}2e0Jd axe} 0} s}easy] Mau Ajiquapi/yuawuosiAua aujsew juawissassy enZ Vv - XxX VT AV YV 4 100Z SO, 34} 0} S}eauy} UMOUY JO}UOW O jualussassy jeqo)9 WWM waysksoog wniuua)IW paijloads JOU - Jayj}o/saunseaw anl}2e0Jd aye} 0) S}eai4y} Mau Ajiquapi/juawuosiAua aulsew (S409r) Apms 1 VAX VAWA g 8661 S84 AY}. 0} S}BaJY} UMOUY Jo}UOW O S409 CO XMjJ uead9Q 1eqG0}9 yUIOr a9 ay 39 87 +49 MS es (ssh) UONeINp ajep épasn eyep al SUOI Uap e149}119 paysadx3 we}s Auewlid aanoalqo an uoneziuebio pea 124 Global Marine Assessments sainseaw aaiyoeoid uo VT AW XK XK XK VF ayuyapul 8661 ON aye} 0) s}easyy Mau Ayuap] O Sdv¥WI 0 9WIM-daNn sabewep pue sjeasy} asiyuold $a2Ue}Sqns 2X0] - Jay}0/sainseaw aaioeoid U9}SISJaq JO JUBUSSESSy 4 vxvvvx Vv € 0002 SO, aye} 0} s}eaiyy mau Ayuap] O paseg Ajjeuoibay O a4 VAY VX V WF awuyepu 1002 S8A paijioads jou - sayi9 O OMIaN Buloyuow jeq019 O saunseatw anioeoid aye} 0} syeasy} Mau Ajquapi/juawuosiaua auiew LZ x Xvvnixviyv Zz L002 ON aU} 0} SJeasy) UMOUY JoUoW) | © Ualssassy AUNdJaW jeqo}9 O sye21way) d3Nnn 9S ee oo Xe OS 400)}NQ JUSWUOIIAUS Jeqo|9 O VM3d/d4NN a9 ay 39 87 49 MS es (sJA)UOKeINp ajep epasn eyep al SUOI}UNJap E1a}1I9 payoedx3 weys Asewlid aan2afqo an uo}eziuebio pea 125 Global Marine Assessments sainseaw aAljoeoJd aye} 0} syeasy) Mau (OV) Ajquapi/juawuosiAua aulsew Salpnys Wa}sksod3 auliey Nf 24) Jo uoneziuebig ezy vx vvrvyv x 4 2002 SOA 3Y} 0} S}easy) UMOUY JO}IUOW O abe] eas Moya, 84) O ainyjn116y pue poo4 (ued juawabeuew eas uappem $}abJe}) paijioads JOU - Jay}0/sainseaw (saisads aAlj2e0Jd aye} 0} S}eII4y} MAU pue sjeyiqey ‘uoiesiydosjna Ajiquapi/yuawuosiAua aulsew ‘uoljn)}}od) eas uappem (SSMQ) 32148391985 alZ VV VVATVWTA l £002 Sa, 34} 0} S}eaIY} UMOUY JOWUOW TM a4} UO JJoday snjeys A\NenpD MH —«wBS UBPpeM UOWWOD eun] ujanyg uW4sayynos JO UOI}EAJBSUOD 9 TAVYrVYxv.YV a}IUapu| 866L Sa, paijioads you - JayjyQ O s}uawssasse 490}S 19599 O BY) 40) UOISSIWWOD paiyloads JOU — Ja4}0/Ssainseaw aniyoeoid 92} 0} S}e9JY4} Mau Ajjuapi/juawuosiAua aulsew dE VA APAPVTAAYV a}UIaPU| G86 Say BY} 0} S}LaIY} UMOUY JO}UOW O BuloyuowW Jo}epag O payeyndiys Pee VTA APVWVTAYVYV JON 6661 SOA payjioads jou - Jao 0 Aanins 9002 Ny © eve VA APT PRAY a}UapU| 9861 Sa, paijioads jou - Jayjgo O syuatussasse saiaysij O paiyloads }OU - Ja4}0/sainseaw saoinosay aaiyoeosd aye} 0} S}easy) Mau Guar] aulseW 227e}Uy Ajiquapt/yuawuosiAua aulsew jo uoleAJasuo) qze VTA PRPWTAAY aylUapu| L66L Sa, 34} 0} $}2aJY} UMOUY JOUOW snyeys Wa}sksooj BY) JO) UOISSIWIWO) saunseaw aalj}2e0J1d axe} 0} S}easy} MAU (Sd09V) Ajtquapi/juawiuosiAua aulyew BAS BY} JO U0!}I9}01g ILE vx vv XxX VW SOFT © saseud uy 0002 Sa, 34} 0} S}eaIY} UMOUY JOPUOW SS990Jq UBD [) Uo aazyWWO) AJosIApy a9 ay 39 81 JQ nS es (ssh) UOneInp § ajep épasn eyep al suolUuyap e11a}149 pay2edx3 12)S Ase aanoalqo ani uoneziuebio pea] SLNAWSSASSV TVNOISAYN 126 Global Marine Assessments sainseaw aAlj2e0Jd aye} 0} S}eas4y} MAU Ajiquapi/yuawuosiAua aulew (syndul jo yoayja yejUaWUOJIAUa) aWWeJsboud (WOI13H) IGE VV VV AAA ayUlapu| 8441 say 34} 0} S}eas4y} UMOUY JOYUOW O BulsoyluowW FNIGWOd UOISSIWIWO) I4UIS}aH sainseaw aalaeoid aye} 0} s}easy} Mau Ajnuapi/juawuodiAua aulew euly9-948019 (938079) 46 VTAVTYXAYVYV ic 64641 Sa, 34} 0} S}EaI4) UMOUY JoyUOW — Bulsoyuow (G19) Yydaq pue soiweudg wa}sksoo3 | VTAAYVYYVYX YV a}Uapu| L661 say payloads jou-Jayjg | aunyesaduuay ‘AyANonpuog ueacg yeq0)9 paiyloads jou - Jayjo/sainseaw aAj2e0id aye} 0} s}eaiy} Mau sdiys Aq Ajiquapi/juawuoslAua aulsew Passed Saduejsqns ynjwsey qg XxXAVTYVY VV YV aUapu| €L6L Sa, 34} 0} $}ea414} UMOUY Jo}UOW O JO spsezey jo uolenjeAz pailoads JOU — 4ayjo/sainseaw 2Al}2e01d 3}e} 0} S}eal4y} Mau sdiys wo Ajiquapi/yuawuosiaua auliew JUBWUOJIAUa aUIUeW 94} eg vx vovxveiyv C L661 ON 34} 0} S}easy} UMOUY JO}UOW ju! yndu! Io Jo sayewys3 sisAjeue ySlu poojeas Ul Uol}edI}dde Joy sjapow jUaWUOJIAUa auldeWW ainsodxa }e}UaWUOIIAUa pg VA - XxX WvY ayuljapu| 1002 Sa 34} 0} $}2aJy} UMOUY JO}UOW jo Juawdojanaq payloads U01}93}0Jq JOU - Ja4}0/sainseaw yeyUaWUOIAU sue; aatjoeoid aye} 0} S}easy}) Mau a4nj)noenbe je}se09 Jo syoadsy d1j1UaIDS payeyndiys Aji\uap!/juawuosiAua aulew JO s}9eduwu! je}uaWuoLIAUAa dy) UO SyJadx9 jo 28 vA VYTxxXxVYV JON 6661 ON 34} 0} S}e944} UMOUY JO}UOW jo sjuauussassy [ dnoJg yulor - dwvSa9 saunseaw aaiy2eoid aye} 0} s}easy} Mau Ajiquapi/yuawuosiAua auliew uolbay awwetbolg 27 vx vrovvwevy Vv aUapu| 0002 say 34} 0} $}2a44} UMOUY JOYUOW eas ueldses 0} adue\sissy eas ueidse) 439 a9 ay 39 87 JQ mS es (sJA)UONeINp ajep ipasn eyep al Suol}luap e11a}119 pajyoedx3 eS Asewlig EYNPEL)( +0} api uoneziuebio pea 127 Global Marine Assessments sainseaw sease eas jeuoibad a119eq anlaeoid aye} 0} S}eaJ4y} Mau yynos ‘elsy se ‘ueaqques (NVUDI) Ajquapi/juawuouiaua auivew ‘edly Usa}se3 Ul JUaWssasse YJOMJAN UO! Jaay4 qgz VTAXVVVA € 100z Sa, 34} 0} s}easy} UMOUY JOUOW pue BulJojluow jaas jeuoD Je405 jeuoleusajU| saldads ay!) -PUN} pue eUN} dI]Ue]V Jo qz VAW AAA A aAuyapul OL6L SO, sjuawssasse anljeyiueny O juawssasse 490}s Jeynbay O (adlApe paseq-aoualos salgads ay!]-eun) pue JO} wsiueysaw e apiaosd BUN} dIjUePY Je JO} SdIysI}e}s (1V991) seuny snUeNY eZ VAW AAA A aAuyeapul OL6L Sa, pue ojul ajidwiod) JayyQ M —Yyd}e9 Jo uoNyeyIdwWod }enuuy JO UOI}EAJaSUOD Asaysy JUaWUOIIAUA J134} 24) 40) UOISSIWWOD 2z VV VA WV A A auyepu L661 Sah UO JUBIWUOIIAUA JO }9ajj7 [| pue seun} uo doysyjom 4997 O yeuonjeusazuy Wwa}sksoda payloads a4} UO SaijIAOe UeLUNY pue JOU - Ja4}0/sasnseaw $10}92j JEINJEU JO S}D9}Ja anijoeoid aye} 0} $}eas4} Mau ay} pue saidads payeyai (OLLVI) Uolssiww0) Ajjuapi/yuawuosiAua aulsew pue seun jo soiweuAp euny yeridouy Oe VAVV AW WV ~~ auyepu 0S6L Sa, 24} 0} s}easy) UMOUY JOUOW uoijeyndod pue Abojoig © ued|Jawy-12}U] a}ePUeW UOISSIWLUOD 34} Japun Yysij}Ig pue payeyndiys jUaWUOJIAUa aulJeW Seun) ajesadwa) pue dI}IJouU uoIssIWWwO) eve VV XxX VV A A auyapul JON Sa, 3Y} 0} S}BaJy} UMOUY JO}UOW [ — ‘JedIdo1) Jo JUaWSsasse yD0}5 OF eun] uearg uelpu| S}UBUIWE}UOD pue JUDII}NU JUBWUOJIAUS SUIJEW jO peo) 9UJ0gJa}eM) Ad}JEM - qce VV VV AAA a}IUIJapuU| O86L Say SY} 0} S}easYy} UMOUY JO}IUOW CF uoljeyidwiog peo? uolyn)}og O (s}yueulwe}uo0d pue jUualsjnu JUBWUOIIAUS BUIJeW jO peo) ausoqule) diy - ece VTA APAVTAVTA ayluljapu| E861 Say 94} 0} S}easYy} UMOUY JO}IUOW uoljeyiduog peo? uolyn)}og O JUBWUOIIAUS JUIJeW S9IUL}SGNS 9Al}IeOIpes pce VV VV APARAn ayiUlapu| L861 Sa, 94} 0} s}easy} UMOUY JO}IUOW) & Joy awwesboud bulsoyiuoj O JUSWUOJIAUa BUIJeWW eas ye sabyeyosip (PENU!}UOI) (WODT3H) ace VTA VT AAV YV ayluljapuy 8861 Say 84} 0} S}ea1y} UMOUY JO}IUOW }lo yebay)! Jo Bulsoyluopy O UOISSIWIWOZ I4UIS}3H a9 «8y 39 «687 «69 SSeS (SAA) UOHJeEINp §=_ BYE épasn eyep al SUONUIap e149}149 payzadx3 wes Aseulld aanalqo anil uoljeziuebio pea) 128 Global Marine Assessments asuodsaJ uoljnjjod aulsew ul JVYUYIN zw VY A WW XK VW A ayuyapy 0002 ON uonjesadood jeuolbas - sayQ O OVYYAW dvdMON O dVdMON/IGYOy Ww XK*XxX VTVWVT VV A € 1002 oN payloads jou - Jayjo O eddy paameas O soinseaw aalyoeoid aye} 0} S}eas4y) MAU ed1J}7 Ul JUaWpUNodwI 93N}}Su| Ajiyuapi/juawuosiAua aulew pue uol}des}sqe yoieasay salsaysi4 O14 VTA APAPVTAVYV L 2002 Sa, 34} 0} $}B914} UMOUY JO}UOW JajeM Jo s}2edw! je}se07 pue auew eAuay sealy sainseaw Also yBiy ul wZ9| - els aaiyaeosd aye} 0} S}ea14} Mau YyNOS UI UOIINpay AjJaAog Ajt}uapi/juawuosiaua aulsew pue juawabeuey saoinosay Uoluf UOI}EAJaSUO) edl VTAVYVYVY VV Z 1002 S2\ 4} 0} s}eas4) UMOUY Jo}UOW OF aulleW pue jeyseod O P1JOM 241 ‘NONI (L002 SOAWA] Seas 12}se09 paso}ouz jo juawabeuew ye}UaWUOJIAUZ UO adUaJajJUOD jeuoljeusaju] Yyg ye WnJo4 ueIsy Jo} saniaioe dn -MO}}0} ‘e1SW7 Ul SaUOZ }e}Se09 JO UOIeNjeAd anlsuayasdwod sainseaw anijoeoid e Hulnaiyse jo asodund asjuad é“6uUxx Wx xvy? e 2002 ON a}2} 0} syeady Mau Ajuap] ayy Jo) doysyom ubisag & «SOWA JeUoNeUsazUy JUBWUOSIAUZ at} 40} Aujsiulp esapa4 uewsag 94} JO J/EYaq UO MalAed S39] (S391) B85 ay) JUaWUOJIAUa aulJeWw uy - seas ueadosng ay} JO Uol}e.10)dx3 34} 105 e672 Tx AaVTxv=*v L Z002 ON 94} 0} S}easIY} UMOUY JOYUOW [ JO SNjejs }e}UaWUOJIAUa AY] }ounog jeuoNeusa}U| sainseaw aaiy2eoid aye} 0} S}ea4y} Mau (Panu!ju03) (NVUYDI) Ajiquapi/juawuosiAua auiew YAOMJON UONIY Jaay 282 vx vovivvyv Zz 100z Sa, 3Y} 0} S}easy} UMOUY JO}UOW ueaqqies ysiy je Sjaay O ye4s09 JeuoNeusa}U] a9 ay 39 87 #49 «nS es (ssd)UONeInp ayjep épasn eyep al SUONUap E1499149 payadxg = 1S Aseultig aanalqo anu uoneziuefio peay 129 Global Marine Assessments sainseaw aalyaeosd aye} 0} 5}e914} Mau Ajtyuapi/juawuosiAua aulsew (FSOW) uakey uer pue pieqjeas al VAVV ATV A aeyapu 6661 Sa, 4} 0} S}EIIY} UMOUY JOyUOW CT jo Bulsoyluow jeyUaWUOJIAUZ CF) = -a.4yuad JeyUBUOIIAU Bas sjualeg au} Joj ueyd de}0q ‘2}N}]Su] e/ VV VVTAVTA Z 2002 ON uejd juawabeuew -JayjQ M juauabeuew jeyuawWwUOIAUG O de}og uelbamson Ayioedes BuiAsseo pue uoljelseA jeyUaWUOIAUA UuoIssIWWwO) BulAjJapun swsiueydaw (SISWQ) Aaauns jeuoleusazu| ysij snowojpeuy Sl VA = \f oS eS 2S vy] 2002 ON 94) pueyssapun - Ja4yjO O uowjes uennayy-buag O DIE YON payloads JOU - Jay}0/saunseaw anlj2e0Jd aye} 0} S}eas4} MAU (VMIN) 422easay pajejndiys Ajquapi/yuawuosiAua aulew s]uawssasse ]e}UaWUOJIAUS daydsowyy pue 1a}eM 0” VTvVvvVAYVY JON 2661 SOQ 24} 0} S}easy} UMOUY JOUOW [ pue Saljaysi aulvewW snoe, CO) JO aynyiysu| }eUOIVeN payloads JOU - Jay}0/sainseaw jualussassy anij2eosd aye} 0) syeasy) Mau yeqo)9-qns yw ‘eauing Ajiquapi/juawuosiAua aulJew MAN ended ‘aduiAoid Aeg juawssassy q7z x x VWI AX VY € 2002 Sa, 4} 0} S}eaI4} UMOUY JO}UOW CM au} ‘Jaq UI Spueys| JEWS CM waysksor3 wniuua)IW sainseaw anij2eosd aye} 0} syeas4y) Mau dJNN Jo ue} UODy Ajuuapi/yuawuosiAua aulew 0d aaw ueauelJayIpay ay) jo e0z VAWVV VV FM aeyepu GL6L SOA 34} 0} $}ea1y} UMOLUY JO}UOW jo awweibold Bulojiuo, — awwesbolg - 10d GIN jUawWUOlIAUa aulJeW Bulsoyuop jeyUaWUOIIAUG ZY VTAVYoYVWTxvY ayIUapu| 6661 Sa, 24} 0} S}2as4y} UMOUY JO}UOW aULeW eas Mo}]a ay] O awwesbold (1dYOy) ams Bulpying uoljeonpy pue buluies) juawdojanag pue qz7 x A SS SC i lUepu 6661 ON Ayoeded yuoddns 0) -yayjQ MH eyUaWUOIIAU aulJeW J4JdyV T) YyoJeasay uearg ea10y a9 #8y 39 «87 «69S nS” e_—s (SUA) UONEINp = BYP ~pasn eyep al SUOI}UNap el1a}119 paysedx3 Wes Aseuwttidg aanralqo ani uoneziuebio pea) 130 Global Marine Assessments juawabeuew jeuoibas pue yeuolyeu - swa}shsooa pue salsaysi ‘syd0}s Auoyesbiw AyBiy d1Uea20 Jo syaadsoid pue snjejs ssasse - Jayjo/saunseaw anlyaeod aye} 0} s}eaiy) Mau AyquapijuawuouiAua auew (sjuawssasse 420}S EUN} IjI9eq }es}Ua2 pue ujajsam) awweiboig 294 VAX PARPATVA ayuapu| OL6L Sa, 34} 0} S}214} UMOUY JOWUOW) O saldaysi4 91Ue9899 94S jeasy} e buiworaq Buiysiy syuanaud Je4} UOI}Ie a}qeua 0} UO!FEWJOjUI aPIiAosd 0} - Jayjo/Sainseaw aAl}De0Jd axe} 0} S}eadY} mau Ajiuapi/juawuouiAua aulJew Ajoyeasasqg saliaysi4 Ayunuwog 2119eq q97 vv xviAYVTaA 7] Z00Z Sah 34} 0} S}Ba44} UMOUY JO}IUOW jaay AjlunwWwo 418g O BY} JO ye1Ie}3IIVS saunseaw aatyoeoid aye} 0} S}easy) Mau Ajiquapi/juawuosiAua aulsew € VvTVvVvVvVAYVY L> Looz Ainr Sa, 34} 0} S}easy) UMOUY JOUOW O asindg eas uadg sainseaw (AWdOu) aalyaeoid aye} 0} S}easYy) Mau yUaWUOJIAU aulJeW Ajuap!/juawuoliAua aulew uolbay GY} JO UOI}I9}O1q JY} 104 qey VTAVYVVVYV ayuyapu| G86L Sa, 24} 0} S}easy) UMOUY JOUOW MO AWdOY 0} aduejsissy | uoleziuebig yeuoibay UO!YN}}0d sounseaw ysuleby eas 42e)g aaiyoeoid aye} 0} S}ea14} Mau BY} JO UO!}I9}O1g BY) Ajtyuap!/juawuosiAua aulew Bas yoe]g au} UO UOISSIWIWUO4 ay) Jo 81 VV VAVTA A G 2002 SOA BY} 0} S}EIIY] UMOUY JOWUOW M JO JUBWUOJIAUZ ay} JO a}e}S TF yelWeYaIIVS yUaUeWIdY SJa}EM SOD pue spol} sainseaw ueiBamJon Ul sjueUlWe}U0D DINUE)W ISPI-YJON 34) aatyaeosd aye} 0} S}ea14} MAU jo Bulsoyiuow “(dqWVf) jo JUBWUOJIAUZ aUlieW Ajquapi/juawuodiAua aulsew awweisboid bulsoyiuow 3Y} JO UOI}I9}O1g BY) qLs VTAVYoVYVVYV ayUyapu| 1861 San 24} 0} S}easy} UMOUY JOyIUOW pue juawssasse jUlor [) 4OJ UOIJUSAUOD - YWdSO a ay 39 97 49 MS es (siA)UONeINp ajep ipasn eyep al SUONUNap C149}119 payoedxq 1e}S Asewlidg 3al}22190 owl uoleziueBbio peat 131 Global Marine Assessments }alolg UOIsi, AyISuaAIpolg pue juawssassy )es!boj01g G vxvrovxv@y € 2002 San paljioads you - Jayjg uol6ai099 eas Mo}a, OF ueder JMM J)ays eueing-}ize1g ay} Ul Sadsnosay Ysijpunosg pue (94V93M) Uolssimwo0) payejndiys duuiys (Jo snyeys) uo dnoug salsaysi4 Ueny ele vxvrovrvyvi”y JON 9661 Sa, paijloads you - sayjg Bulysom 20H PY 04V93M 0 yesjuag Usaysay saunseaw aaijoeojd aye} 0} s}easy) Mau (OGINN) Uoneziuebi9 payejndiys Ajiquapi/juawuosiAua aulsew asuodsad disauab quawdoyanag jel4ysnpuy 8 VV VV AAA JON 8661 Sa, ay} 0} S}eaIY) UMOUY JO}UOW CF - OGINN Jo sjuawssassy F SUONJEN payun payloads }OuU - Jayjo/Sainseaw anljoeoid aye} 0} s}eai4y} Mau salujunog Ajiquapi/juawuosiAua aulsew ulseg eas Jey ay) 8 vxvrovrvy xv € L661 Sa 34} 0} S}EIIY} UMOUY JOWUOW [) — JO JUBWUUOIIAUZ ay} JO aye}S epuasy-giu9-d4ANn puepey| Jo j)NQ pue eas 20S Vx VAAWA y 2002 SOA EUIYD YyNOS a4} Ul Spuas| sainseaw anijeoid uonepesbaq }eyuauUOIAUZ aye} 0} s}eaiyy Mau Ajuap| CH —Bulsuaray yDafo1g 449/d4NN © wun sainseaw aaij2eosd yJoday JuawWuosIAUZ Bulyeuipsoog yeuoibay Pos x V - & Rai as tf S 0002 ON aye} 0} syeasyy Mau Ayuap| CF) 24) JO 9}8)5 dVISI O seas uelsy se9 d3NN sainseaw payabpng anyaeoid aye} 0} s}eaiy) Mau you Ajtyuap!/juawiuosiAua aulsew SaljIAljoe paseq Ue}d ee| vvvvyv xvyv pauueyq So, 84} 0} S}2as4) UMOUY JO}IUOW O -pue) Jo MaiAsano jeuoibay () UO y Ueaqqised d3NN a9 ay 39 87 +49 «nS es (suA)UONeInp § ayep epasn eyep al SUOI Uap E149}119 paysadx3 He}s Aseullid 2nn2alqo ani uoneziuebio pea) 132 Federal Ministry <4 of Education ay ep | and Research al By The Ministry for the Environment of Iceland Front cover/title page/above:; Demi lvo/UNEP/Topham La Gar MA UNEP WCMC Global Marine Assessments A survey of global and regional marine environmental assessments and related scientific activities sa The world's oceans provide goods, services and functions fundamental to the - livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people worldwide. Planning for their sustainable use requires a more detailed understanding of the marine — environment than is available at present: an understanding that will only 4 4 become possible through improved levels of monitoring and assessment. ; This publication is the result of inter-agency and national government — collaboration. It represents part of UNEP’s contribution to evaluating the feasibility of establishing a Global Marine Assessment, a process that Neo regularly report on the state of the marine environment. The report presents a snapshot of assessments and related scientific activi- ties that were in progress at the end of 2002. It considers and recommends various ways in which a future Global Marine Assessment process cou integrate these activities, and identifies the thematic and geographical gaps that need to be addressed. www.unep.org United Nations Environment Programme P.0. Box 30552 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: +254 (0) 20 621234 Fax: +254 (0) 20 623927 Email: cpiinfo@unep.org Website: www.unep.org