, .Advisory Committee on the Marine Environment ICES CM 1996/Env:7

Ref. E

•REPORT OF THE

WORKING GROUP ON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

AND MONITORING STRATEGIES

Öregrund, Sweden

18-22 March 1996

This report is not to be quoted without prior consultation with tbe~neral Secretary. The docurnent is areport of an expert group under theauspices of the International Council for the Ex]>loration of the Sea and doesnot necessarily represent the views of the Council.

International Council for the Exploration ofthe Sea

Conseil International pour l'Exploration de la Mer

Palregade 2-4 DK-1261 Copenhagen K Denmark

bookeyeThünen

SectionTADLE OF CONTENTS

Page

•

•

1. OPENING OF TIIE MEETING 1

2. ADOPTION OF TIffi AGENDA 1

3. ARRANGEMENTS FOR TIffi PREPARATION OF TIffi REPORT 1

4. REPORTS OF ACTIVITIES IN OTIffiR FORA OF INTEREST 24.1 ACME 24.2 The 1996 Joint Meeting ofWGEAMS and WGSAEM (JEASA) 24.3 Report ofthe OSPARlICES Workshop on Biological EfTects Monitoring Techniques 24.4 Report ofOSPARMON 1995 34.5 Reports from OSPAR SIME 34.6 Report from OSPAR ASMO March 1996 3

5. CURRENT STATUS OF TIffi COOPERATlVE ICES MONITORING STUDIESPROGRAMME AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO WlIETIIER IT IS STILL REQUIRED 4

6. MONITORING GUIDELINES FOR POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS IN SEDIMENTS ANDBIOTA 5

7. DEVELOPMENT OF GUIDELINES FOR TIIE SAMPLING OF MARINE BIOTA FOR STUDIES OF NON-ORTIIO AND MONO-ORTIIO CBS 5

8. CURRENT (REVISED) GUIDELINES ON CHEMICAL MONITORING OF FISH AND SHELLFISH INRELATION TO ICES ADVICE ON MONITORING STRATEGIES 6

9. REVIEW DEVELOPMENTS FOLLOWING TIffi OSPARCOMJICES WORKSHOP ON BIOLOGICALEFFECTS MONITORING IN RELATION TO ICES ADVICE ON MONITORING STRATEGIES 7

10. PROGRESS WITII TIIE DEVELOPMENT OF TIffi HELCOM COMBlNE (BMP AND CMP» 9

11. IMPLICATIONS OF RESULTS OF ICESIIIELCOM BASELINE STUDY OF CONTAMINANTS IN BALTICSEA SEDIMENTS FOR FUTURE SEDIMENT MONITORING STRATEGIES l0

12. REVIEW OF MARINE COMPONENT OF TIffi ARCTIC MONITORING AND ASSESSMENTPROGRAMME 10

13. RESULTS FOR MONITORING OF CONTAMINANTS IN EGGS OF SIX SEABIRD SPECIESAND APPLICATION OF FOOD CHAIN BIOACCUMULATION MODELS 12

14. RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF TIIE PREPARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS ON AREGIONAL OR A SUBJECT BASIS 14

15. APPROACH TO DECISI0N MAKING REGARDING TIIE APPROPRIATE POWER OF TEMPORALTREND MONITORING PROGRAMMES 15

16. DEVELOPMENTS IN STATISTICAL ASPECTS OF MONITORING IN RELATION TOTIIE NEW OSPARCOM AND HELCOM PROGRAMMES 17

17. FEASIBILITY OF, AND POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO, AN ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS REPORTFOR TIIE ICES AREA ON AN ANNUAL BASIS 18

18. PROPOSALS FOR CHAIRMANSHIP 18

19. ANY OTIIER BUSINESS 1819.1 Monitoring EfTects of Rcsidues of Fish Medicines in Sediment at Fish Farms 1819.2 Evaluation of the EfTects of Pollutants on the Abundance and Quality of Cctacean Prcy 18

SectionTABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Page

20. CONSIDERAnON AND APPROVAL OF RECOMMENDAnONS 19

21. PROPOSALS FOR A FUR11IER MEETING 19

22. CONSIDERAnON AND APPROVAL OF 11IE MEETING REPORT 19

23. CLOSURE OF 11IE MEETING 19

ANNEX 1: Agenda 20

ANNEX 2: List ofParticipants 22

ANNEX 3: List ofMeeting Documents 23

ANNEX 4: Recommendations 26

ii

•

•

•

1 .' . OPENING OF TUE MEETING

The 1996 meeting of the Working Group onEmironmental Assessment and Monitoring Strategies(WGEAMS) was opened by the Chairman, Dr I.M.Davies at 09.00 hr on 18 March 1996 at the NationalBoard of Fisheries, Institute of Coastal Research,Öregrund, Sweden. Dr O. Sandström welcomedeveryone on behalf of the Institute.

Tbe terms of reference (C.Res. 1995/2:14:6) for themeeting are given below:

Tbe Working Group on Environmental Assessment andMonitoring Strategies (Chairman: Dr I. Da\ies, UK)will meet from 18-22 March 1996 in Öregrund,Sweden, to:

a) Exarnine the current status of the Cooperative ICESMonitoring Studies Programme and makerecommendations as to whether it is still requiredand, if so, in what form;

b) assist in the development of monitoring guidelinesfor polyC)"Clie aromatie hydrocarbons in sediments(with WGMS) and biota (with MCWG), includingthe number of replicatc sampIes per area tocharacterise the sampling area (OSPAR 1.1);

c) Assist ("ith MCWG) in thc development ofguidelines for the sampling of marine biota forstudies of non-ortho and mono-ortho CBs (OSPAR2.2);

monitoring programme and inteq>rebtion of theresults;

i) Compare existing results for the monitoring ofcontaminants in eggs of the six seabird spcciesidentified in the 1995 WGEAMS report, and reporton the application of food chain bioaccumulationmodels, liaising \\ith the Working Group on SeabirdEeology as required;

j) Report on the relative effectiveness of thepreparation of Emironmental Assessments on aregional or a subject basis, in the light of experiencein, for example, thc North Sca and the Baltie Seaareas;

k) Develop an approach to decision making regardingthe appropriate power of temporal trend monitoringprogrammes;

1) Discuss developments in statistical aspects ofmonitoring, in relation to the new OSPARCO~1 andHELCOM programmes;

m) Examinc the feasibility of, and potentialcontributions to, an Environmental Status Report forthc ICES area on an annual basis and report to theAd\isory Comrnittec on thc Marine Emironment bythc end of 1995.

The agenda is appended as Annex 1, and the list ofparticipants as Annex 2. A list of the papers consideredat the meeting is contained in Annex 3.

3 ARRANGEMENTS FOR TUEPREPARATION OF TUE REPORT

Thc draft agenda (WGEAMS96/2/1) was adopted \\iththc addition oftwo subjccts under item 19.•

d) Consider thc current (revised) guidelines onchernical monitoring of fish and shellfish in relationto ICES advice on monitoring strategies;

e) Review developments follo\\ing theOSPARCOM/ICES Workshop on Biological EffectsMonitoring held in Aberdcen in October 1995, inrelation to ICES ad\ice on monitoring strategies;

2 ADOPTION OF TUE AGENDA

1) Discuss progress \\ith thc devclopment of thcHELCOM CO~mINE (BMP and CMP) and prepareany draft ad\ice considered neeessary, particularly interms of better sampling strategy and furtherimprovemcnts in the quality of thc database(HELCOM4);

g) Assess the implications of the results of theICESIHELCOM Baseline Study of Contaminants inBaltie Sea Sediments for future sediment monitoringstrategies;

h) Review the marine component of the ArcticMonitoring and Assessment Programme \\ith a viewto providing advicc on further developments, takinginto aecount the impact of Arctie conditions on the

1996 WGEAMS Report

Thc Chairman, I. Da\ies, rerninded thc Working Groupthat thc ICES Secretariat had requested that the reportof the meeting be drafted and approved by the end of themeeting, as is usually thc case. Seetions of the reportwere therefore drafted throughout the course of theweck, and time was set aside on the final day forapproval ofthe drafts, including the recommendations.

Photocop)ing and word proccssing facilities, and otherencouragements towards self-sufficiency, were kindlyprO\ided by the host Institute.

4 REPORTS OF ACTIVITIES IN OTHERFORA OF INTEREST

4.1 ACME

1. Piuze noted that ACME has incorporated many piecesof ad\ice from the 1995 WGEAMS report into its O\\nreport for 1995. Included in particular are seetions onthe use of seabird eggs in contaminant monitoring, theupdate of monitoring guidelines, and major marineenvironmental issues of the next decade. A seetion onreeommended ICES aethities in emironmentalmonitoring was also used by ACl\.1E to prepare the paperCM 1995/Gen:7 (WGEAMS96/5/3).

WGEAMS then took time to diseuss its status andfuture, so as to bring the issue to the attention of itsparent eommittee (ACME). The turnout at the last threemeetings has not seen more than seven eountries inattendance: this may reßeet redueed travcl budgets inICES Member Countries, but it mayaIso be the result ofan increase in the number of committees and groupsdealing \\ith monitoring in OSPAR, HELCOM, AMAP,etc. Tbe ICES structure itself has several workinggroups dcaling \\ith various aspcets of monitoring:WGEAMS, WGSAEM, MCWG, WGMS and WGDEC,to name major ones.

WGEAMS felt that if ICES is going to be compctitiveand emcient in the fieId of emironmental monitoring, itmay have to make its strueture less burdensome, andhence lcss resource demanding. Tberefore, ACMEshould examine the possible amalgamation of a numberof existing working groups. ICES should also thinkabout implementing more rapid and emcient means ofpassing on its ad\iee, more in tune \\ith the often urgentneeds of its eustomers. Again, WGEAMS feIt that this isa topic whieh should be examined by ACME.

4.2 Thc 1996 Joint Meeting ofWGEAI\IS andWGSAEI\I (JEASA)

The Chairman reported that this meeting(WGEAMS96/4/1) had been held in Stockholm for twoand one half days immediately preceding the currentmeeting. Four members of WGEAMS had attended. Themain results of the meeting were as folIows:

I) The dran TIl\.1ES document on setting objeetives fortemporal trend programmes had been approved, andthe final dran would be sent to the ICES Secretariatbythe end of August.

2) The meeting had discussed the characterization ofarcas of sediments (spatial distribution monitoring)for PAlIs. Tbe meeting had available someinformation on variance factors, but had agreed towork inter-sessionally to compile a number of casestudies to try to progress the work more quickly.

2

3) The meeting had made an initial assessment of thepower of temporal trend studies of contaminants insediments, and concluded that in general thevariances were lower than those in biotaprogrammes, and that therefore smaller changesmight be deteetable.

4) Tbe meeting had discussed the setting of targets forthe power of temporal trend programmes. Tbcy badidentified two approaches to this problem. Tbe firstwas based upon a risk assessment procedure,considering the risks associated \\ith erroneousconclusions. Tbe second considered that theemironmental response to changes in inputs waslikely to be less rapid and less marked than anycbanges in the inputs in response to controlmeasures, and therefore that programmes ofsufficient power to detect changes in inputs wereunlikely to be powerful enough to deteet thecorresponding emironmental changes. Case studiesinvestigating the rclationship between input changesand emironmental changes would be collatedintersessionally.

5) The meeting proposed that some form of TbemeSession or Symposium should be held to clarify themeaning and role of risk evaluation assessment inemironmental monitoring and assessment.

6) Tbe meeting proposed that ICES arrange a specialmeeting to progress the work on statistical aspects ofsediment monitoring, to follow the successful patternestablished in relation to temporal trends in biota.

4.3 Report ofthc OSPARlICES Workshop onBiological Effects Monitoring Techniques

Tbe Chairman reported (WGEAMS96/4/3) that anOSPARlICES Workshop on Diological EffeetsMonitoring Tcchniques had been held in Aberdeen inOetober 1995. Tbe aim of the Workshop was to defineappropriate suites of biological effects teehniques (andassociated ehernical analyses) to address thecontaminant-based causes for concern expressed in theOslo and Paris Commissions' (OSPAR) new JointAssessment and Monitoring Programme (JAMP) inrelation to certain heavy metals, PAlIs, and TOT. TheWorkshop proposed aseries of programmes and alsomade some rccommendations on the necd for qualityassurance (QA) procedures, training opportunities,sampling guidelines and locations. Tbe Workshopfurther considered the monitoring ofbiological effects ofcontaminants in a broader sense, but did not reach afinal agreement on this subject. Tbe rcport of theWorkshop was subsequently presented to the 1996meeting of the OSPAR Working Group onConcentrations, Trends and Effects of Substances in theMarine Emironment (SIME 1996).

1996 WGEAMS Report

•

•

•

•

4.4 Rcport of OSPAR MON 1995.'.. ':,' ...K. Stange and H. Heinrich reported (\VGEAMS96/812) thatthe OSPAR Ad Hoc Working Group on Monitoring (MON1995) met at the offices of the ICES Secretariat inCopcnhagen from 13-17 November 1995. The purpose ofMON 1995 was to mise the old JMP guidelines and todcvelop new guidclines \\ith respect to thc principles andmethodologies ofthe future OSPAR monitoring programme(JAMP).

MON 1995 agreed on dran guidclines for most of thetopics. Ncvertheless, the nccd for furthcr work on the drafts,on formulating and quantif)ing detailed statisticalobjcctives, and on harmonizing the structures of thedifferent guidelines, was rccognized. This work should becarried out intersessionally and at a follow-up meeting atthe end of 1996 (MON 1996 in Sweden).

Concerning cutrophieation MON 1995 agreed on (1) dranmonitoring guidclines for nutrients, chlorophyll a,ph)10plankton, oxygen, and sofi-bottom macrozoobcnthos,(2) a working document for green macroalgae(macroph)10benthos), and (3) a working document forhard-bottom macrozoobenthos.

It was noted for the nutricnt guidclines that the minimumrequirements for the eutrophieation monitoring were notsufficient for thc support of ph)10plankton mcasuremcntsand modelling acti\ities. Guidance for organie P and Ncompounds was therefore includcd.

The dran· guidelines for ph)10plankton mcasuremcntscomprise not only conventional methods for theidentification of species but also allow the application ofsophisticated organochemical techniques (e.g., HPLC) forthis Purpose.

The intersessional prcparation of guidelines for monitoringbenthie organisrns bcfore MON 1996 should consider thepossibility to fit all respcctive working documents into onesingle guideline for benthic organisrns.

Six separate documents were presented by Gcrmany assuggestions for mised guidclines for sampling and analysisof metals and CBs in fish, mussels and scabird eggs,respcctivcly. A subgroup attempted to merge these into oneset of guidelines for biota, \\ith separate technical annexesfor met.a1s and organie contaminants. This task could not becompleted during the time available at MON 1995. Thedran document \\ill be furthcr mised intcrsessionally andat MON 1996.

MON 1996 was asked to fC\ise the JMP guidelincs formetals in sediments \\ith a ,iew to rcmove reservations heldby Germany and the Netherlands. MON 1995 agrccd toinsert a footnote against the paragraph regarding theappropriatc sediment fraction to analyse for spatialmonitoring. There is at present no size fraction considered

1996 WGEAMS Report

suitable by all OSPAR Contracting Parties for Coß\'Cntion-\\ide spatial surveys. . .:'".;. . ~ ,'.; ~ ..

4.5 Rcports from OSPAR SIME

M. Joanny reported on the OSPAR SIME 1996 meeting(Oslo, 22-26 January 1996) which was mainly dedicatedto the preparation for the implementation of the JointAssessment and Monitoring Programme (JAMP) by thedrafting of a 'work strategy' for each of the JAMPissues. Each 'work strategy' includes objective, leadcountry, progress to date, available information, gaps inknowledge, future work and future meetings. SIME1996 prepared the terms of reference for a workshop onbackground concentrations (to be held in Germany), anda workshop on ecotoxicological criteria (to be held inthe Netherlands), whieh were revised and adopted laterby its parent committee, the Environmental Assessmentand Monitoring Cornrnittee (ASMO). The question ofco-sponsorship by ICES ofthese workshops is still open.

SIME 1996 noted also that it could be problematic iolink the implementation of JAMP and the preparation ofthe Quality Status Reports (QSRs), and that aclarification of tasks was necessary between RegionalTask Teams (RTTs), thc function of lead countries forparticular subjects, and SIME. A number of othertcchnical issues werc discussed at SIME 1996, amongthem a proposal to establish a joint ICES/OSPARsteering group on biologieal quality assurance.

4.6 Rcport from OSPARASMO March 1996

M. Joanny reported that only the draft report of theMarch 1996 ASMO meeting was available by the timeof the WGEAMS meeting. It was notOO that the agendaof ASMO 1996 had been too heavy to allow time forspecific strategie discussions, and only problems relatedto third tier working groups were discussed. ASMOprepared and adopted terms of reference for a workshopon eutrophication modelling and a workshop on habitatsand species. ASMO also discussOO the data managementpolicy of the OSPAR Secretariat, \\ith a view to increaseits capability on certain types ofdata. The present role ofICES as data centrc for raw data on concentrations andeffccts of substances was considered to remain as it isoOn this oceasion, WGEAMS was reminded that OSPARprogrammes cover atmospheric and riverine inputs.These subjects are normally not included in the ICESfieId of eompetencclactivity, but nevertheless arenccessary parts in the design of an assessment andmonitoring programme.

3

The OSPAR Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) inparticular had dra\\n hea\ily on ICES expcrience andexpertise, and had taken over large aspects of the ICESCMP from ICES, to the extent that the ICES CMP hadbccn reduced to the study of temporal trends ofcontaminants in biob. Tbe data made available to ICESwas a large sub-set of those submitted to the JMP, \\ithIittle additional information. Tbe data had only rarelybeen thoroughly assessed outside the JMP context.

WGEAMS concluded that while the ICES CMP hadbcen a \ital and seminal programme in its initial years,it had failed to develop and adapt to changes ininternational monitoring eITorts. It was now not dearwho took active responsibility for the management andre\iew of the volun13ry programme and da13, or whore\iewed its objcctives. As a consequence, the objectivesdo not meet ICES' O\m recommendations on the designof objcctives for temporal trend monitoringprogrammes, or pro\ide an example of a wcIl-structuredand managed programme. Clearly, some changes areneeded.

WGEAMS noted that the ICES Coordinated MonitoringProgramme, later renamed the Cooperati"e ICESMonitoring Studies Programme (ICES CMP,WGEAMS96/5/l, 96/5/2), had bcen initially designedalmost 20 ycars ago. At that time, it represented apioneering eITort to create a broad-scale cooperativemonitoring prograinme, involving many laboratories inICES Member Countries. Tbe programme hadconsidered biota, sediment and water as chemicalmonitoring targets, and had established valuableprinciples in relation to the need for clear guidelines,quality assurance, and careful selcction of targetmatrices. These had provided the basis for thefoundation of monitoring activities under OSPAR(WGEAMS96/61l) and HELCOM.

WGEAMS considered whether ICES rcquired amonitoring programme of this type as a componentfactor supporting the credibility of its ad\ice onmonitoring issues. WGEAMS took the \iew that ICESdid not nced to have a role in routine monitoringprogrammes, indced that it should not have such a role.The quality and reliability of ICES monitoring ad\ice isbased upon the expcrience and expertise of the membcrsof its Working Groups, gained largely throughinvolvcment in national monitoring activities. On thecontrary, there might be a bcnefit in increased neutrality(actual or percei\'ed) of advice if ICES docs not feel .obliged in any way towards its o\m routine monitoringprogrammes. Therefore, it is the \iew of WGEMfS thatthe ICES CMP should not be continucd in its presentform.

•

•

c) da13 banking facilities, including the ability to bringtogether diverse emironmental information, forexample, on contaminant trends, fish stocks, andhydrographie changes.

b) acti\ity in intercomparison studies, particularly ifcurrent international opportunities throughQUASIMEME do not persist;

a) advisory functions, for cxample, in relation toprogramme design and re\iew, quality assurance,methods (e.g., modelling and remote sensing) ands13tistical aspccts;

WGEAMS went on to consider the role of ICES inmonitoring, as outlined in the ACME discussiondocument C.M. I995/Gen:7, (WGEAMS96/5/3).WGEAMS noted \\ithin that document that ACMEforesaw the role of ICES as including:

By analogy \\ith the initial role of ICES monitoringacti\ities to pro\ide new perspectives and opportunities,the WGEAMS noted that there was scope \\ithin thenew definition of the ICES for monitoring acthity, in abroad sense. Many of the 13sks outlined above make useof data and reports from existing programmes, orinvolve the design of new programmes. However, thereis scope for ICES involvement in the practical aspects ofthe coordination and execution of field programmesrelated to new developments in monitoring strategicsand techniques.

There is a recurring need for 'one-otr, or moreinvestigative monitoring activities. Recent examplesindude the Bremerhaven Workshop, and the OSPARDIFFCHEM survey of 'new' contarninants(WGEAMS96/6/4). ICES is weIl positioned tocontribute practicaUy in this field, at the forefront ofnew monitoring developments. Tbe strategie role ofICES in identif)ing new problems, con13minants, andmonitoring and assessment procedures has already beenrccognized. Tbese functions faU weU \\ithin theexpertise and traditionaI areas of acthitics of severalWorking Groups. For example, JMSBEC has recentlyad\ised on the coordination of chemieal and biologicaleITccts techniques in sediments (WGEAMS96/8/l),MCWG has re\iewed aseries of reports on specifieemironmental contaminants, membcrs of WGBEC areactive in the rapid development of eITects mcasurementtechniques, and WGEAMS has prO\ided strategie ad\icefor several ycars. ICES therefore has the structure andexpertise that can assess the significance of 'new'contaminants in established or new uses, consider newmonitoring tools and procedures, test thc application ofnew tcchniques, and assess their usefulness. Thesefunctions are not weil coyered by the Commissions, butare oßen dose to thc nCeds and interests of laboratoriesreprcsented at ICES Working Group meetings.

CURRENTSTATUSOFTHECOOPER-ATlVE ICES MONITORING STUDIESPROGRAMME AND WIIETHER IT ISSTILL REQUIRED

5

4 1996 WGEAMS Report

•

•

In order to fuHill these functions, ICES, through itsworking groups,; needs :to be" in\'olycd in collaboratiyepractical work. ICES can act as a forum for the planningand execution of 'one-ofr exercises, for example, todetermine the scale of the distribution of a noyelcontaminant (cf. the recent DIFFCHEM programme,WGEAMS96/6/4). This can be achieved, for example,through building on the substance-spccific reviews fromMCWG. ICES can design and coordinate field andlaboratory programmes to test and assess thc usefulnessof new measurement techniques and strategies formonitoring programmes "ith a view to their possiblcadoption in international programmes. ICES can act asa catalyst for the development of coordinatcd fieIdexercises (cf. thc Bremerhayen Workshop) to addressparticular emironmental problems or test newtechniques.

Thesc functions do not represent a new role for ICES.They arc arcaffirmation of thc traditional rolc of ICES,but adapted to changed circumstances. Success woulddepcnd upon the identification of new areas(contarninants, techniques, etc.) which are not fullycovercd in the JAMP and similar existing programmes.Thesc may bc identified in various ways, C.g., fromregional QSRs, or from Working Group reports. At themoment, the work \\i11 necessarily have to bc carricd outat national expcnse, and in the past this has sometimesproved to bc a significant hurdle. While it is possible forlaboratories to individua11y or collcctivcly approachfunding agencies (e.g., the European Union) for support,thcre would bc very considcrable bcncfits, to both ICESand the participating laboratories, if ICES could developcloser links "ith funding agencies and becomerecognized as a source of independent, sound, scientificad\ice.

6 MONITORING GUIDELINES FOR POLY-CYCLIC AROMATIC I1YDROCARBONSIN SEDIMENTS AND ßlOTA

It was noted that this item was part of arequest fromOSPAR (item 1.1), which also included arequest foradvicc on appropriate analytical dctection limits.WGEAMS assumed that MCWG (WGEAMS96/6/3,96/6/6, 96/615) would handle that aspect. WGEAMSalso noted that MCWG had discussed PAlIs and hadplanned some intersessional work to allow them toaddress the questions of appropriate methods, variancecomponents, and thc drafting of guidelincs at their 1997meeting.

This rcquest for advice had also bcen raised at theJEASA meeting in Stockholm. It had bcen agrecd towork intersessionally to collate coherent data sets on thevariances associated with measurement of the spatialdistributions ofPAHs, to form a basis for more completeanalysis at the proposed special meeting, or at the 1997JEASA or WGSAEM meetings. WGSAEM 1996 would

1996 WGEAMSReport

attempt to define as closely as possible the precise datarequirements for this task. "~",";, ~ '.' :'

WGEAMS noted that the possible monitoring of PAlIswas a new acthity for OSPAR coordinated monitoring.Thc main reason for interest in thesc compounds wastheir potential to give rise to deleterious biologicalefTects. The combination of established mechanisms forefTect, and 'new' contaminants gayc OSPAR anopportunity to apply thc newly established strategies ofintegrated chcmical and biological monitoring methods.The qucstion as presented to thc WGEAMS was phrasedfrom a purely chernical \iewpoint, and therefore waslacking in a biological component. WGEAMSrecommended that OSPAR consult thc rcport from thcOSPARlICES Workshop on Biological EfTectsMonitoring Tcchniques, and put into cfTcct methods forthc definition of guidelines that took into account thcneed for both chcmical and biological mcasurements.Addrcssing the question of PAlIs purely from achemical point of ,iew is unlikely to indicatc the mostappropriate sampling or other strategy for an integratedprogramme.

7 DEVELOPMENT OF GUIDELINES FORTUE SAMPLING OF MARINE ßlOTAFOR STUDIES OF NON-ORTlIO ANDMONO-ORTlIO CBS

As for the PAlI compounds discussed under the prc\iousagenda item, the monitoring of non-ortho and mono-ortho CBs is a new acthity for OSPAR (rcquest item2.2), and these compounds haye clear potential forbiological efTects. An integrated chernical and biologicalefTects approach would therefore sccm appropriate.WGEAMS noted that MCWG 1996 (WGEAMS96/6/6,96n11) had also discussed thc introduction of planarCBs into monitoring programmes.

WGEAMS consuIted thc JAMP list of issues of concern,and notcd that planar CBs were referred to in relation tohuman heaIth risk, efTects on marine ecosystems, andefTects on enzymes in marine mammals. WGEAMSdiscussed appropriate strategies, and concluded asfollows:

a) Human health. A programme of commercial fish andshe11fish sampling was rcquired to establish thebroad distribution of these compounds in scafood,and allow an initial risk assessment to be made. Asonly a few laboratories are able to carry out theseanalyses reliably, a lead laboratory approach "ill bcnecessary.

b) Ecosystem effects. It is necessary to establishconcentrations, initially in likely hot spots, in fish,shellfish and bird eggs. These measurements shouldbe accompanied by appropriate biological efTectsmeasurements in an integrated programme.

5

However, the anal)1ical difficulties again indicatethat a lead laboratory approach may weIl benecessary. As a first approximation, it has beensuggested that it may be possible to use theconcentrations of other CB congeners (or someexpression of total CBs) as indicators of theconcentrations of planar molecules. This approachhas considerable penalties arising from the necessaryassumptions concerning the ratios of planar to otherCBs, and docs not provide any increase ininformation. If the objective of the monitoring orresearch activity is to obtain new and additionalinformation concerning non-ortho and mono-orthoCBs, the WGEAMS agreed that spccifiedeterminations of these compounds are necessary.

c) Effects on enzymes in marine mamma/so WGEAMSconsidered that this was a research target, notsuitable for routine monitoring. It was not c1carwhether there was sufficient information available toallow the prediction of enzyme level effects fromconcentrations of planar CBs in blubbcr (or othertissue). WGEAMS eonsidered that the study ofenzyme-level effccts was not the optimum strategy.There were many indications that toxie organiecompounds had given rise to marked cffcets onreproduction, irnmunocompetence, and other grossphysiological effects in marine mammals. WGEAMSrecomrnended that attention be paid to these cffcetsrather than to enzyme acti\lties. WGEAMS couldsec no justification at this time for attemptingtemporal trend monitoring. WGEAMS agrced \\lthMCWG 1996 that new separate guidelines shouldnot be developed for planar CBs (although at thesame time recognizing that differences in anal)1icaltcchnique \\111 bc needed), but these compoundsshould be considered as a subset '\lthin the generalCB guidclines.

8 CURRENT (REVISED) GUIDELINES ONCIIEl\IICAL l\IONITORING OF FIS11 ANDSIIELLFISII IN RELATION TO ICESADVICE ON l\IONITORING STRATE-GIES

WGEAMS considercd the cfforts that had bcen made toamend the JMP guidelincs (\VGEAMS96/6/1, 96/6n) tomeet the rcquircments ofthc ncw JAMP. The MON 1995meeting held in Copcnhagcn had bcen devotOO to this task,and draft guidclincs on a range of topics had bccn prcparcdduring the meeting. In most cascs, the draft guidc1ines wercnot considerOO to bc complcte, and further work wasplannOO for MON 1996. The objcctivcs of the JAMP(\VGEAMS96/812) were structurcd differcntly to those forthe JMP. In particular, the JAMP had identified a scrics ofissucs of concern, and the prC\10us objcctive a) of the JMPrclating to public hcaIth risk had bcen subsurncd into moregeneral objectives relating to biological effccts of

6

contarninants, and their assessment on spatial and temporalbases.

Dran guidelincs in a consistent format had been dcvelopedat MON 1995 rclating to CBs and metals in fish, shellfish(musscl) and scabird eggs. These werc largely ofa technica1nature, and did not directly prmlde solutions to morestrategie issues rclating to the objcctivcs of the programme,statistica1 questions, or the integration of chernica1 andbiologica1 effccts mcasurcments.

In discussing the documents, the WGEAMS notOO thatthere werc SC\'eral ways in which documents rclating to thenew JAMP were structurcd. These includOO:

a) documents bascd on JAMP issucs of concern (e.g.,JAMP programme dcscriptions)~

b) documents bascd prirnarily on matriees (e.g., the MON1995 draft guidclincs);

c) documents bascd prirnarily on contarninant groups (e.g.,OSPARlICES Workshop rcport)~

d) documents bascd on monitoring purposcs (cf. the listOOPurposcs a) to d) of the JMP, and the strueture of theMON 1995 draft guidelincs).

WGEAMS concluded that this diversity ofprcsentations didnot assist in the compilation of a coherent scries ofdocuments leading from m'erall airns, through definedobjectivcs, into detailoo tcchnical guidclines. There shouldbc benefit in cnsuring that future versions of the documentsconeernOO approach the monitoring programme in aconsistent manner.

WGEAMS agrced \\lth SIME and ASMO that it wasirnpractica1 to expect that the biologica1 cffccts andchernica1 components of the JAMP could be sufficientlyintegrated to allow significant arnounts of ncw data to beincludOO in the QSR 2000 rcports. A more profitablestrategy would be to concentrate on rcscarch to deterrninethe sourccs of variance in the chernica1 and biologica1cffccts mcasurements, so that optimal sarnpling strategies(e.g., time ofycar, numbers of sarnplcs, pooling strategies)could be deterrninOO prior to the instigation of internationalmonitoring programmes. WGEAMS thought it likely thatthe chernica1 and biologica1 effccts mcasurcments wouldhave rather different factors controlling the overallvariances, and that optirnization would thercfore involveelements of comprornise. It is likely that, comparcd tochernica1 analyses, rnany of the biological mcasurements\\ill show much more significant scasonal variations. Whilecxisting chernica1 programmes are primarily directOO atobtaining an cstimate of the mean (or sirnilar) value of acontaminant in a particular matrix at a particular location,biologica1 effccts mcasuremcnts may bc directed at eitherthe population or at the indi\idual members of thepopulation. Ir the former is the case, then pooling ofsarnples for chernica1 or biologica1 analysis rnight be

1996 WGEAMSReport

•

•

•

•

appropriate, while under other circumst.ances indhidualanaIyses could bC nCCcssa1y: It may thercfore be appropriatefor temporal trend progranuncs establishcd under the JMPto continue (until thcy are considercd to bave sen'cd thcirpurpose), and that biological eiTects progranuncs withintegratcd chernical analyses should be cstablishcd asseparate acthitics.

E. AndrulC\\icz notcd that within HELCOM, temporaltrend monitoring (WGEAMS961l01l) bad becn primarilydirectcd at asscssing the improvements that bad occurrcdfollowing regulatory action on inputs. HELCOM normallylookcd to ICES for amice on strategic and tcchnicalniatters. HELCOM bad not yet considercd the integrationproblems like those raiscd by the new JAMP.

WGEAMS agrccd that in addition to proccdurcs prcdicatcdupon dcfmOO contarninant groups there was a nccd todc"clop monitoring approachcs that uscd a top-dO\mstrategy to idcntify impairment of important biologicalproccsscs. Such an approach would usc biomarkers toanalyse the problem rather than detect it in the mannerforcsccn by the OSPARlICES Workshop rcport(WGEAMS96J.t13).

WGEAMS was conccrncd that many of the anaI)ticalmethods rcquircd to fulfill the progranunes outlinoo by theOSPARlICES Workshop were not widcly availablethroughout thc aspAR arca lahoratorics. Bcforc thesemethods could be introduccd into routine monitoring, apcriod of tcsting, definition, QA dc"c1opment, and trainingwould be nccdcd, as indicatOO in the OSPARlICESWorkshop rcport. This should then be followOO by detailcdapplication of the suitcs of methods to determine the mostc1Iicient and eiTcctive sarnpling and analysis strategics.Clcarly, this will takc some time if it is to be carriOO outthoroughly. It rnight thercforc be amisable to considerintroducing some of the nC\v integratcd proccdurcs on alirnitOO invcstigative basis, possibly using the lead expertlaboratory approach, while other laboratories devclop thencccssary expertise.

WGEAMS notcd that SC\'eral countrics bad exprcsscdconccrn o"er the power and cost of existing temporal trendprogranuncs, and that intcrcst bad becn exprcsscd in thepossibility of amending thc JMP guidclines to optimizc theproccdurcs. The VIC progranune (WGEAMS961l6/1) hadbecn introduccd to pfO\idc information on variancccomponents and thc conscquenccs of alterations tosarnpling and anaI)tical strategics, on which changcs to theguidclincs could be bascd. WGEAMS supportOO the VICinitiative, and also supportcd comments in the rcport fromthe joint WGEAMS/WGSAEM (\VGEAMS961411)meeting regarding the nccd to cstablish sourccs of variancein biological eiTects mcasurcments.

The nC\v draft guidelincs from MON 1995(\VGEAMS9618/2) now includcd apparcntly contradictoryamiee on fish sarnpling proccdurcs. WGEAMS did notconsider this to be a major problem, as existing

1996 WGEAMS Report

progranuncs would continue to usc the pmious guidelincsto maintain continuity, while any nC\v progfammcs wouldbe subject to a thorough assessment ofvarianee componentsbcfore sarnpling strategics were finalized.

9 REVIEW DEVELOPMENTS FOLLOW-ING TUE OSPARIICES WORKSHOP ONBIOLOGICAL EFFECTS MONITORINGIN RELATION TO ICES ADVICE ON1\IONITORING STRATEGIES

The 1995 WGEAMS meeting re\iewed and commentedon a strategy document on biological effects monitoringprepared by WGBEC (ICES CM 1995/ENV:5).Generally, the Group expressed concern that the strategyconcentrated on indicators of exposure and bioassays,but paid much less attention to longer-term directindicators of ecosystem health. An exception to this wasreference to bcnthie fauna community structure,although this must bc considered to bc a poor indicatorof chernieal pollution. WGEAMS 1995 agreed(WGEAMS96/1/1) that a combination (integration) ofchernieal and biological obsen'ations should concentratechemical eiTort on the most relevant environmentalcompartments and tissues, and that biologicalobsen'ations should utilize a group of measurements atdifferent levels of biological organization. WGEAMS1995, however, supportcd the conclusions of theWGBEC strategy paper, but recommended that thcircomments should be taken into account in thepreparation of the final document. The generalapproaches should bc utilized at a proposed jointOSPARIICES workshop later in 1995, when moredetailed ad\ice should bc prepared.

The OSPARIICES Workshop on Biological EffectsMonitoring Techniques (WGEMiS96/4/3) was held inAbcrdecn in Octobcr 1995, and was providcd with a listof suggested biological effects measurements methods(BEWS/4/l). Based on the conceptual framework dra\mup by SlME 1995 and the JAMP contaminant-basedissues of concern (WGEAMS96/6/2), four subgroupsaddressed monitoring techniques suitable for PAlIs,mT, selected metals, and the identification of generalregions of concern where undesirable cffects were beingcaused by unknO\m contarninants, or a mix ofcontarninants. The work was strongly contaminants-oriented in keeping \\ith the expression of causes forconcern in the JMiP niatrix. The reports from thesubgroups, as amended for the final report of thcWorkshop, illustrate that the strategy bad bcen 'hottom-up', i.e., concentrated on identif)ing and applyingmeasufement methods that were to a certain extentdevelopcd and knO\m to indicate exposure to spccifiedgroups of contaminants. Tbc broader, more problem-oriented strategy, indicatcd by WGEAMS 1995 as anecessary additional approach, had not been followed,probably through an emphasis on effects measurements

7

that couId be linked to identified groups ofcontaminants.WGEAMS discussed the results of the OSPARlICESWorkshop and found that the previous criticisms of theWGBEC strategy still were to some cxtent valid.WGEAMS felt that there had been rather too muchemphasis on the monitoring of biomarkers of cxposurcto certain chemieals in areas where such cxposure iskno\\n to occur, when a chemical analysis wouIdprobably, in some cases, provide a more accurateestimate of exposure. Tbe strategy suggestcd byWGEAMS in areas where there are kno\\n contaminantproblems is to combine chemical analysis and biologiealefTects measurements in such a way as to increase thenet gain in information. Tbe strength of biologiealefTects studies should lie in the elucidation of thebiologieal conscquences of exposure, expressed at ashigh a level in the biological system as possible. It wasalso recognized that the application of biomarkers inmonitoring was not straightforward, as somemeasurements, e.g., EROD activity, may bc influencedalso by natural variations in ambient conditions, stress,etc.

It was noted that the report of the subgroup of theOSPARlICES Workshop on the identification ofareas ofconcern (from a contamination point of ,iew) bad notbeen agrced by the Workshop. This subgroup hadsuggestcd a mixture of bioassays, biomarkers and toplevel monitoring of benthic fauna communities. Asummary document on this subject was presented toSII\1E 1996 (WGEAMS96/9/2), separate from theagreed part of the Workshop report, where it wasacknowledged that while a number of assay procedurescould be recommendcd as ha,ing reached an appropriatestage ofdevelopment for use in monitoring programmes,the appropriate strategies, sampling locations, and'guidelines' were not yet clear.

WGEAMS agreed with the comments in theOSPARlICES Workshop report that many bioassayproccdures may not bc sufficiently sensitive to provideuseful new information in most monitoring situations.WGEAMS also concluded that benthic infaunal andepifaunal communities were strongly influenced byfaetors other than toxic contaminants, and that thereforethe results from such programmes would not be readilylinked to chemical contamination.

With a few exceptions, the OSPARlICES Workshop hadsuggested monitoring species and techniques that havenot yet been cvaluated against basic. criteria (e.g., fieldvariability, appropriate sampling times, sensithity incomparison to other possible techniques, stability andconsistency of response within and between indhiduals,locations and times) which are necessary for the reliabledesign of contaminants-related monitoring.

WGEAMS generally considered the OSPARlICESWorkshop to have been a step forward towards a more

8

developed integrated monitoring of chemicalcontaminants and biological efTects. However,WGEAMS agreed that the potential for an additionallevel of efTectiveness of biological efTeets monitoring,related to the risk that ,ital functions of the organismmay bc damaged, had not been exploited. It must be thecase that the main justification for biologieal efTeetsmonitoring is the detection and prevention of deleteriousbiological efTects in organisms of direct importancefirstly to man, and sccondly to other members of themarine ecosystem. Tbe apparent emphasis in theOSPARlICES Workshop on molecular-Ievel biomarkerssen'es to reduce the attention on measurement processesthat allow concIusions to be drawn about the overallhealthlstatuslcondition of the populations beingmonitored. WGEAMS feit that there was a comparativelack of emphasis on such factors as, in relation to fishpopulations, for example, age composition, growth rate,and age and size at first maturation. These parametersbave been demonstrated to respond to contaminantstress, for example, in the Baltic Sea area. Informationof this nature shouId be obtainable on sufficiently largesampIes to allow better interpretation of biomarkerresponses in terms of possible efTects on higher levels oforganization.

WGEAMS noted that difficulties had been encounteredat the OSPARlICES Workshop, and subsequent OSPARmeetings, in developing an appropriate frameworkwithin "hich to employ biological efTects measurementsat higher levels of biological organization. Tbe relevantOSPAR JAMP monitoring issues are expressed in termsof defined contaminants, or at least the identification ofareas "here contaminants are causing deleteriousefTects. WGEAMS considered that the 1\\in emphases ondefined contaminants, or geographical areas afTected bycontaminants, were directing attention cither tobiological responses at the molccular (Iow) level makinginterpretation at higher levels more difficult, or else tomatrices where contaminants were occurring atundesirable levels (cf. discussions of bcnthic faunalcommunities, or sediment/pore water bioassays). Whatwas missing,· and inhibiting the development of thepotential of integrated chemical and biologicalmonitoring, was a matching emphasis on the 'health' of,for example, fish populations. Biological measurementsofTered the potential to ,iew the marine emironmentfrom this high level of biological organization that wasdirectly relevant to the use of marine resources by man,and to the integration of efTects at lower levels oforganization. In such a strueture, chemical measure-ments and biomarker studies would bc used toinvestigate the causes of efTects obsen'ed in populations.Tbe populations would bc subjcct to contaminant stress,and a range ofother stress faetors as weIl, but of primaryimportance would be the occurrence of the efTects whiehcould then be investigated through integrated studies.

WGEAMS therefore suggested that JAl\1P monitoringissue 1.17 be reinterpreted in a wider way, in terms of

1996 WGEAMS Report

•

•

Rcproduction Liver Immuno- GroVlthFunction compctcnce

Ageat EROD Nogood Routinematuration methods yet methods

available

Size at I listopath- (White bloodmaturation ology cell counts)

• Gonadosomatic Liverindex nodules

ENDPOINTS FOR MONITORING, ANDAVAILABLE METIIODS .

10 PROGRESS WITII TUE DEVELOPMENTOF TIIE IIELCOJ\I COl\1BINE (BI\IPANDCl\1P)

E. AndrulC\\icz prcscntOO abrief account of the history ofthe dc"elopment of the HELCOM COMBINE programme(WGEAMS96/lOl2, 9611013), emphasizing that it sought tounify monitoring acthities in the open Baltic Sca (BMP)

IIELCOl\1 Databasc

IIELCO:\l B:\lP

Tbc BMP conccntrates on problems of cutrophication andcontaminants. Tbc currcnt outline of the programme \\'aSsirnilar to that cliscusscd in the 1995 WGEAMS rcport,which notOO and cncouragOO the novel and dc"elopmcntaIaspccts of the proposcd programme. Dr AndrulC\\iczexpcctOO considcrable support for stations cstablishOO forthe mapping of nutricnt and oxygen - hydrogen sulphidelevels, for bcntIlic macroOora and macrofauna mapping,and some support for high frcqucncy sampling stations forhydrochcmistry and ph)10plankton. Sampling from ferries\\'aS likcly on the mutes Hclsinki-TravemÜßde and Hclsinki-Tallinn, and some automatie hydrographic monitoringbuoys bavc bccn cstablishcd. WGEAMS wclcomOO thelikcly contributions from the countries conccmcd, whichsuggcstcd that the programme would bc ,iable. Tbcy alsosupportcd the general method of operation in COI\1BINEwhercby the mandatory component \\'aS kcpt small, but \\'aSsupplcmentOO by a project-based approach to otllerproblems (e.g., the Bascline Study of Contaminants inBaltic Sca Sediments).

with nC\v monitoring conccrns and opportunities in tllecoasta1 arca (CMP). Tbe progranuric·also noiv includes tllemonitoring and assessment of nutrient and contaminant'inputs to the Baltic Sca. Tbc HELCO:-'f Working Groupstructure has reccntly bccn stream1incd such that mostbUsiness waS now handlcd through only two groups, oneconcemOO \\ith monitoring and assessment (EC MON), andthe other \\ith nature conscn-ation issUes (EC NAWRE).Tbe prcscnt Asscssment is being carricd out on a sub-regional basis, and thcn \\ill be combinOO into a holisticrcport.

Tbe cffects componcnt of the BMP \\'aS csscntially lirnitOOto biological cfTects of eutrophication (e.g., on pelagicproduction). Tbe component concerning the cffects ofcontaminants \\'aS much less clearly dcfinOO. WGEAMSrecommcndOO that HELCOM should not procccdindcpcndcntly in this arca. but should either a\\-ait nC\vdcvclopments \\itIlin the OSPAR programme, or participatein the dC\'Clopment acti,ities.

Tberc bad bccn some dilliculties \\ith the HELCOM B~IPdatabasc, to the extent that the future running of thedatabase bad bccn put out to tender. No dccision bad yetbccn taken on the rcsults ofthe tender process.

WGEAMS notOO that the establishment of datalxiscs forHELCOM \\'aS not a straightfom-ard task. It is importantt1lat the data formats and database structures are correct,and that appropriate dccisions are made as to which datashould be includOO. WGEAMS emphasizcd that it \\'aSncccssary to ensure that the new databascs werc compatiblewith each otller. The architecture and acccss arrangementsmust allow for simultaneous acccss to all databases at arcasonable speed from a single computer terminal. Tbe

(Lcucocrit)Liver size(LSI)

Reprod. in viv.blcnny

Imposexlintersex

In some cases, good methods to study these aspects ofbiology arc available, but in others there is a need forbasic studics on, e.g., immunocompetcnce, to devcloprobust and simplc mcasUl'ement procedurcs suitablc foruse in monitoring programmes invohing fairly largenumbers of fish. Tbc table below was dra\\n up toindicatc suggestions as to how such a programme mightbe structured, combining efTects mcasurements \\ithfundamental aspeets of the performance of the specicsbeing monitored. There are clear opportunities forcombining aspects of this programme \\ith thccontaminant-based procedures outlined by theOSPAR/ICES Workshop.

concern for the occurrencc of biological efTects at highlevels of biological organhation that had clear potentialclirect consequences for the health of importantcomponents of thc marine ecosystem, for example, fishpopulations. Observations should be directed at thcpopulations of concern, and at expressions . offundamental aspects of the overall performance of theorganisms. Such aspects would include reproduction,immunocompetence, li"er function, and gro\\thl-sUl'vival. In a few cases, an appropriate high-levelbiological efTcct can be linked closely \\ith a narrowgroup of chemicals, for examplc, the imposex/intersexresponse to roT compounds. However, normally a moreinvestigative chemical approach \\ill be necessary.

(Vitellogcnin) Lysosomalstability

(Steroidhormones)

•

1996 WGEAMS Report 9

access must be such that the data are rcadily and casilyavailable to many users with different types of query anddifferent output formats. The overall system architceturemust be such as to allow for expansion to incIude differenttypes of data in the future, for cxample, data on inputs,hydrochemistry, biological cffccts, ete., and forsimultancous acccss to thcse ncw databases also to bepossible from a single computer scrccn remote from thedatabases.

IIELCO:\I CMP

The CoastaI Monitoring Programme (O,1P) is a newdcvelopment for HELCOM. It is hoped that it \\ilI beintegratOO into a single unit \\ith the BMP. The group (ECMON) to progress the design of the HELCOM CMP andBMP wiIl meet at the end ofMarch 1996.

WGEAMS notOO that there was considerable coneern overeutrophieation problems in coastal waters, even more thanin oITshore waters. There bad bccn considerable cffortsmade to dccrcasc the inputs of nutrients to coastal waters(although in some cascs reductions in nitrogen inputs badnot been reflcetOO in cither sca water nitrate levels orrcduccd plankton gro\\th). WGEAMS considercd that therewas insufIicient cxplicit attention paid to coastaleutrophieation in the HELCOM CMP outIine prcr.idOO tothem Estuarics and coastallagoons nccd to be incIudOO aspriority arcas for eutrophieation invcstigations.

There were several organisms listOO as possible targets forthe monitoring of tracc meta1s. WGEAMS rccommendOOthat cIcar statements of the objcctivcs of monitoring traccmeta1s in organisms should be preparcd, so that dccisionscan be made as to the most appropriate target organisms.WGEAMS suggestOO that it was likely that the list could berOOuccd to two spccics, possibly pcrch and blcnny, and thatone factor to be incIudOO in the dccision was the suitabilityofthe spccies for biological cffccts studies.

There were cIcarer links between the contaminant-relatOOcffccts mcasurcments in the oITshore and coastal arcas, andthe comments above in relation to the new OSPAR JAMPapply cqually weIl to dcvelopments in the HELCOM CMP.There might be potential to incrcasc links between cffcctsstudics in the HELCO~f and OSPAR arcas throughharmoniz.ation of target spccics (e.g., through the use of,i,iparous blcnny, and possibly flounder, in the HELCOMarea and in estuaries in the OSPAR area) and analyticaltcchniqucs. The lead laboratory approach to newcontaminants fits weIl \\ith the HELCOM projcet-bascdphilosophy for matters outside the mandatory COMBINEactivities.

WGEAMS rccommendOO that HELCOM considerfollo\\ing the integratcd chemical and biological eITcetsstrategy rccommendcd by ICES. Ir HELCOM wishcd tobasc such a programme on dcfinOO contaminants of intercst,amicc is available in the report of the OSPARlICESWorkshop in Octobcr 1995 (WGEAMS96/4/3). Ir the

10

primary eauses for concern wcre cxpressed as impairmentof proccsseslfunctions of the fish (e.g., rcproduction orimmunocompctence), different approachcs would benecessary and ICES should be askOO for amicc. The newprogramme oITered the opportunity for the design of aforward-looking innovative programme incorporating thebest current proccdurcs and strategics which the WGEAMShoped would be cxploitOO by HELCOM.

11 IMPLICATIONS OF RESULTS OFICES/IIELCOM BASELINE STUDY OFCONTAl\IINANTS IN BALTIC SEASEDIMENTS FOR FUTURE SEDIMENTMONITORING STRATEGIES

The report of the above-mentioned Baseline Study wasnot yet available, and therefore this agenda item wasdeferred until a future meeting.

12 REVIEW OF MARINE COl\tPONENT OFTIIE ARCTIC I\tONITORING ANDASSESSMENT PROGRAl\IME

K. Stange presented an overview ofthe development andstatus of the Arctie Monitoring and AssessmentProgramme (AMAP). New data generated within theAMAP programme are currently being reported to theThematie Data Centres (ICES is responsible for marinedata) and made available for the assessors. The firstphase of AMAP ,\ill bc completed in the spring of 1997,\ith the presentation of two products: aState of theArctie Environment Report, presented to the Ministersof the eight participating eountries, summarizing theresults of AMAP, and an AMAP Assessment Report, atechnical and scientifically presented assessment of allvalidatOO data available on the status of the Arctieemironment.

WGEAMS noted that the current AMAP monitoringprogramme was essentially a compilation of pro-grammes contributOO by the cight Arctie nations, ratherthan a prescribed integrated programme, and that itshould provide a baseline statement from which the nextphase could bc developcd. The form and content of thenext phase of AMAP havc not yet been decided. Aprogramme for thc continuation of AMAP '\111 bcdeveloped, based on thc findings of the first AMAPassessment and (presumably) the Audit Report.WGEAMS feIt that the most appropriate way they couldcontribute to this proccss and provide some ad\lce onthc deve10pment of the AMAP programme at this stagewas to review the comments made during the audit(AMAP 1993:5, WGEAMS96/12/2) of the marine partofthe current AMAP programme (AMAP 93:3, as madeavailable to WGEAMS by the AMAP Secrctariat in theform of an updated version 1995:X, WGEAMS96/12/1,WGEAMS96/12/4). The Group noted that the AuditReport had addresscd many important issues and had

1996 WGEAMSReport

•

•

•

•

pointed out strengths and weaknesses in the design ofthe manrie'sub:programme, but that the audit commentshad not been taken into account in the execution of thefirst part of AMAP since the programme had alreadybeen implemented at the time the Audit Report wasmade available.WGEAMS noted that the JMSBEC had alreadyconsidered some aspects of the AMAP programme, andthat comments were incIuded in their draft report for1996 (WGEAMS96/12/3).

As a general comment, the WGEAMS feIt that therevised M1AP appendix on marine monitoring wasbasically the same as the original version, that it hadincorporated almost none of the comments from theAudit, and that it still necded major revisions. It wasalso feIt that this document could not represent thedescription of a future AMAP monitoring programme,in that such a programme would have to bc basedlargcly on the results of the Assessment Report to bccompleted later this year.

WGEAMS oITer the following comments on the AuditReport, whieh are ordered in kecping \,ith the structureand section headings in that report:

a) Objccth'cs

It was noted that the first five objectives, speilcd outmore cIearly in the Audit, were all rclated tocontaminants. Thus, they did not nccessarily lead intoobjective 6 (assessment ofthe current state ofthe marineemironment), whieh is broader and incIudes cIimatevariability, as discussed in the introduction and in theocean cIimate monitoring section of the marinecomponent document.

b) Rationale

To the re-arranged list of questions in the Audit Report,one could add questions on climate, for example,concerning the kind of monitoring that would bestrC'o'eal climate changes, and also eoncerning the eITeetsofclimate change on biologieal eommunities.

To the first question (What is the priority ofcontarninants, Le., whieh do we worry about?) shouldalso be added the extra question: 'WhyT There is noclear expression of the causes for concern bchind theseIection of priority contaminants. If the causes forconcern can be stated, then monitoring can bc moreeffectively targeted. On a related theme, it is not clear inquestion 6 (What are good indicators for the status ofcontarninants?) whether the 'status of contaminants'refers to concentrations or eITects or both.

FinaIly, questions 10 and 11 are really not immediatclydirectly relevant to the monitoring programme, as theyare coneerned "ith assessment of the nccd for, and

1996 WGEAMS Report

practicality of, control measures, and "ith the predietionofthe likcIy emironmental responses.' ";' : ,:.. ' .,.'

c) Mcdia and organisms to bc monitorcd

The Audit comments on this section appear to bestrongly advocating bcnthic faunal communities as amajor monitoring target. WGEAMS were sceptical as towhether the results of such monitoring could be cIearlyrcIated to the contaminants which seem to be the mainconcerns of the programme, and therefore concludedthat benthic community analysis should not beundertaken to the detriment of other key media whiehmore directIy reflect chemical contamination.

Concerning the essential species to be included in themonitoring of the marine environment, it should bepointed out that the Glaucous gull is highly migratory,and that interpretation of contarninant levels for thatspecics may prove dimcult.

d) Monitoring biological cffccts

The spccificity of the problems (biological causes forconcern) in the Arctic should bc taken into account indeciding on biological eITects monitoring. If thebiological causes for concern can be defined, thenmonitoring programmes can be designed to addressthese concerns. Furthermore, decisions should be takenon the basis of the recent work conductcd in leES onthe integration of chemical and biological monitoringtechniques.

It should bc underlined also that the DNA-adducttechnique is not appropriate for use in relation toradionuclide contamination.

WGEM1S also notOO that UV-B eITects on planktoncannot be routinely measured at this time, as this is stillin the realm of research. It agreed however "ithmeasuring biological eITccts along knmm contaminationgradients.

Finally, given that the major threats from contaminantsin the Arctic appear to be at the higher trophic IC'o'els, itwas suggestcd that the measurement of eggcontarnination as ,Weil as of breeding success for seabirdscould prove usefuI. Pathological measurements onhigher animals were also recommended.

e) Geographical arca

The rivers to bc monitored are not all identified in theM1AP text, and some clarification is nccdcd, hearing inrnind the need (in relation to contarninants) to sclectthose rivers "'hich provide the largest inputs ofcontarninants rather than the largest inflows of freshwater. Tbe steps outlincd for selecting appropriatesampling sites rightly correspond to the objectives listedin the first section, but WGEAMS' dOes not agree that

11

sites for biological eifects monitoring (buIlet 5) shouldbe determined in this way. Tbe procedure outIinedmight be suitable in relation to benthic faunalcommunity studies, but may weIl not be appropriate foreifects measurements which are more clearly related tocontaminants.

AMAP laboratories should be encouraged to joinappropriate laboratory testing schemes andintercomparison cxerciscs.

k) Acceptability of data already collected

I) Links with other monitoring programmes

WGEAMS concurs \\ith the Audit comments that datamust be evaluated before incorporation into the database. Tbc leES system provides some controls on thedata quality through the requirement that data areaccompanied by supporting QA information.

The Audit emphasizes that the North Sea Task Force(NSTF) procedures should not be taken as a model forAMAP. What is important in relation to the NSTF is toensure that good use is made by AMAP of the lessonslearned during the North Sea process leading to theQSR

It must also be noted that the word 'loads' is \\Tonglyused for 'concentrations' in the fourth buIlet.

Tbe Audit spcaks of remote sensing for identifyingsources of contaminants, and for identifyinghydrographic boundaries (e.g., fronts). While rcmotesensing can contribute usefuIly to thc laUcr targets,WGEAMS is not clear how rcmote sensing eancontribute to the identifieation of contaminant sources.Again, an unduc stress seems to be placed here onsampling related to the benthic fauna.

f) Sampling frequency

Any plans for sampling frequency should be based onthe results of the AMAP assessment currently underway. Such planning should take account of the temporalvariability of the monitoring targets, and the requiredstatistical power ofthe monitoring programmes.

13 RESULTS FORMONITORINGCONTAl\UNANTS IN EGGS OF SIXSEAßlRD SPECIES AND APPLICATIONOF FOOD CIIAIN ßlOACCUl\1ULATIONl\10DELS

•g) Radionuclides

WGEAMS agrees \\ith the Audit that there is no need toconduct a separate sub-programme on radionuclides,thus duplicating the IAEA programme in the Arctic. Onthe other band, steps should be taken to include relevantlAEA data into thc AMAP reports.

h) l\1onitoring ocean climatc

Again WGEAMS agrees that there are several majorinternational programmes for monitoring ocean climate,and that these should not be duplicated. However,Iinkages should be established to ensure that thepertinent information is coIlected and made available toAMAP.

i) Numerieal modelling

Physical models are available for ocean circulation,particle transport, etc. Nevertheless, reliable models forthe transport of contaminants in the environment or inthc food chain are still dirncult to come by. AMAP isnot developing models, but would need such tools toassist in the interpretation ofthe current assessment.

j) Quality assurancc

Most of the ncccssary stcps are alrcady coycrcd in theICES criteria for marine data banking. Existingstructures (e.g., ICES recommendations, QUASI-MEME) should be uscd whcrcvcr possible for good QApractices, and so as to avoid duplication of eifort.

12

WGEAMS cxamined the possible use of seabird eggs inmonitoring contaminants in biota at its 1995 meeting(WGEAMS96/11l), based on an intersessional review(WGEAMS 199517/1, WGEAMS 96/13/1). In conclus-ion, the WGEAMS considered seabird cggs to bepotentially useful in marine monitoring of contaminants,taking into account, e.g., that the spccies should beselected earefuIly and that regional particularities had tobe considered. Observations of harm to populations,correlated \\ith high contaminant concentrations, wasone important reason why bird egg monitoring shouldbe encouraged. .

After this 1995 review, additional papers, mainly fromCanada, have been sent to the WGEAMS. In, e.g., theGulf of St. La\\TenCe (WGEAMS96/13/2, 96/13/5,96/13/6), high pesticide concentrations in the eggs ofgannets and other specics have been observed, \\ithsimultaneous evidence of reproductive problems. Thepopulations recovered as levels of DDE and othercontaminants declined. GeneraIly, the Canadianobservations add to the general pieture, as presented inthe review, of seabird populations being '1Jlnerable tochemical poIlution, and that egg monitoringprogrammcs have rccorded decreasing conccntrationsduring population reeovery periods. The newinformation docs not alter the conc1usions dra\\n in therc\icw on the usefulncss ofbird cggs for monitoring. Anevaluation made by the Canadian Wildlife Service ofEnvironment Canada on the most important factors thatshould be considered in seabird egg monitoring also

1996 WGEAMS Report

•

•

corresponds .with OpmlOnS expressed in the papersincluded in the review::''':.' .

WGEAMS then considered the scale of monitoring ofcontaminants in birds' eggs within the ICEScommunity, and the degree to "hieh chemiealmonitoring was linked to biologieal effectsmeasurements. There has been continuing activity (since1969) in Canada, linking contaminant concentrations ineggs to eggshell thiekness and breeding success forseveral species, and sampling every four years.Deterrninands include DDT, PCDs, cWorobenzenes,rnirex, chlordane, etc., and mercury. Samplcs arepreserved in a tissue bank. There had been rnarkedeffcets of organic contarninants on the breeding successof seabirds in Canada, notably on the gannet, andmonitoring activity would continue. Duc to differencesin feeding habits, the Canadian programmes useddifferent specks to reflect different inputs ofcontarninants to the sea. For example, specks feedinginshore (e.g., herring gull, double-erestcd cormorant)were considered to reilect land-based sources ofcontarninants, "hile offshore surface fecding specks(e.g., Leach's storm petrel) reilected atmospheric inputsof contarninants to the sea surface, and offshoresubsurface feeders (e.g., Atlantic puffin) reilectcdgeneral contarnination of deeper waters offshore. Asirnilar strategy was being adopted for Arctic seabirdpopulations. WGEAMS was a tittle wary in acceptingthat data from different specks could necessarily bedircctly compared, and feIt that the dircct association ofspecics with input sources rnight over-simplify thesituation. However, the linkage between egg chernistryand biological effects was a clear strength of theprogramme.

German monitoring of pcsticides and metals in birdeggs is· continuing within the trilateral cooperation inthe Wadden Sea among Gerrnany, the Netherlands andDenmark. Common tern and oystercatcher will bemonitored. In the near future, samptings will only bemade in Germany and in the Netherlands. The commontern and oystercatcher are both among the speciesrecommended in the WGEAMS report from the 1995meeting.

No new seabird egg monitoring activities have beenstarted "ithin the ICES area during the last year.

Sweden was continuing (\VGEAMS96/13/4) with themonitoring of contarninants in guillemot eggs, and shellthickness. The concentrations of the 'common' organiccontarninants have fallen substantially, but there werestill signifieant effects on eggshell thiekness, and theprogramme will continue.

There was limitcd activity in the UK, mainly centred onthe chemical analysis of gannet (Sula bassana) eggs atseven breeding sites around the UK coast, althoughrecently effort has been concentratcd on four sites

1996 WGEAMS Report

around Scotland. The programme has been under waysince 1971. Most of the sampling sites have sho\\1i'reductions in contaminant (ODE, HEOD, PCD, and Hg)concentrations, although this was particularly the case atsites "here concentrations had initially been highest. Inthe last decade, there have been relatively smallchanges, with the only signifieant changes being adectine in DDE at Dass Rock.

There were continuing observations of breeding successat seabird colonics in Nonvay, but this was notsupported by chemical data.

There was continuing activity on both chemieal analysisand breeding success of common terns andoystercatchers, centrcd on the German Bight. It waspossible that the Netherlands might join with theresponsible Gerrnan laboratory in this programme, butDenrnark was currently unable to do so.

A project was under way in Canada to modelcontarninant transfer in freshwater and terrestrialecosystems, including 18 specics of birds, which couldpossibly be adapted to the marine environment. Tbcmodel covers exposure through water, the atmosphere,and diet.

Tbc Chairman of the ICES Working Group on SeabirdEcology has been approached (WGEAMS96/13/3)concerning the application of food chainbioaccumulation models to contarninants in seabirdeggs. He was not aware that this type of model had beenapplied to eggs. Similarly, the most active group inGermany (lcd by Dr P.II. Decker of the Institut rurVogelforschung, Wilhelmshaven) had no experience ofsuch models.

WGEAMS concludcd that there was clearly a need formore research in this area. As indicated in the 1995ACME report, different specics adopt differentmechanisms for the transfer of lipids (and presumablyassociated contaminants) into eggs, and coupled withdifferent migratory and feeding behaviour, thissuggested that the development of biocnergetic modelsincorporating lipid metabolism, and bioaccumulationmodels of organic contaminants could add to theinterpretation of chernical and biologieal effectsmonitoring data. WGEAMS recommended that thedevelopment of such models be encouraged.

In relation to bioaccumulation models, WGEAMS notedthe recent developments in and application ofmultivariate statistics to the interpretation of CD andpesticide data from cetaceans. This work could nowdistinguish the efTccts of breeding activity oncontaminant concentrations, and recognize differencesin the ability of spccies to metabolize synthetic organiecontaminants, thercby altering the relativeconcentrations of these compounds from those in prey

13

specics. It was thought likely that a similar approachcould be beneficially applied to scabirds and their eggs.

Only few attempts have been made to model the transferof contaminants in marine food chains \\ith scabirds astargets. One project is under way in Canada to developmodels for terrestrial and freshwater systems. Thesecould also be applied to marine emironments. Themodelling covers three types of exposure: water,atmosphere and food. Validations are made \\ithavailable data on contaminants. The project \\ill befinishcd by March 1997, but should }ield resuIts aroundSeptember 1996.

WGEAMS noted !hat the sampling, etc., of seabird eggswas now includcd in the new draft guidelines for theJAMP. However, there were few data immediatelyavailable to allow the potential of scabird eggs to detecttemporal trends in contaminants to be assessed from astatistieal point of view. WGEAMS agreed to workintersessionally, in contaet ,\ith members of theWGSAEM, to collate and make available data onvariance factors in scabird egg analysis. WGEAMSrecommended that ACME be askcd to include theassessment of the power of scabird egg monitoringprogrammes in the work programme of an appropriateWorking Group for a 1997 meeting, with a view tocomparing the likely sensitivity of egg monitoringprogrammes ,\ith programmes based upon other biota orsediment analyses.

14 RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF TUEPREPARATION OF ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENTS ON A REGIONAL OR ASUBJECT BASIS

As an introduction to this agenda item, WGEAMSreceived brief accounts of past experience and eurrentacti,ity on the preparation of EmironmentalAssessments in both Europe (BELCOM, NSTF,OSPAR) and Canada.

E. Androle,\icz reported that the BELCOM BaIticMonitoring Programme (BMP) started in 1979 and hasbeen carried out ,\ithout major changes until now.Results of the BMP have been assessed periodically. TheFirst Periodic Assessment of the Marine Emironment ofthe Baltic Sca Area (1980-1985) and the SecondPeriodic Assessment of the Marine Emironment of theBaltic Sea Arca (1984-1988) have been complcted. TheThird Periodic Assessment (1989-1993) is underdevclopment, superviscd by thc HELCOM StccringGroup for thc Coordination of thc Third PeriodieAssessment (BELCOM EC BETA). The main change inthc stratcgy of prcparation of thc Third Asscssmcnt,compared to thc prc,ious two, is thc introduction of asub-regional element to the approach.

14

1. Piuze reported that formal, ,\ide-reachingemironmental assessmcnts were not normally preparedin Canada. The Fcderal Green Plan, which has ron forthe last live ycars, would }ield detailed information onmany emironmental matters, including contaminants.There was an intention to prepare national ovcniews,for example, on metallic and organic contaminants infreshwater and marine emironments, as weil as variousregional documcnts for the general public, for example,a document has reccntly becn prepared pro,iding anoveniew of the Gulf of SI. La'\Tence.

The eight countries involved in AMAP have variouslybeen allocated particu1ar responsibility for preparingcertain aspects of the Arctic Assessment Report (AAR).The AAR has been partitioned on a subject basis, andreports ,\ill be prepared by aseries of multinationalcommittees, cach dealing ,\ith a particu1ar subject overthe whole Arctic area.

M. Joanny recalled !hat the NSTF North Sea QSR(1993) had been prepared on a combination of a subjectand sub-regional approach. Aseries of subject-basedreports had been prepared by international bodies, orsingle countries, and made available to the QSR process.The material in these reports had then beendisaggregated for indusion in the Sub-Regional Reports(SRRs), and then re-aggregatcd again during thepreparation of the overall holistic North Sea QSR Theprocess whereby the SRRs should have formcd the basisof the holistic QSR had failed, fundamentally due to thelate completion of some of the SRRs. It was noted thatthe subject-bascd reports for the QSR had been preparedby groups of experts, who had been able to applyconsistent approaches and assessment criteria. Incontrast, the scientifie eontent of the SRRs had been tosome extent modulated by the need to aehieve bilateralor multilateral international agreement in the drailingpanels. There were considerable differences between thestyle, degree of detail and quality of the SRRs, as hadbeen noted in the reports of the WGEAMS 1993 andACME 1993. The assessment procedures differedbetween reports, as did the use of terminology indescribing and assessing the situations. As a result, theholistic QSR sometimes did not weil rencct the SRRs.

In prcparing the NSTF North Sea QSR, the subjeet-based reports had been disaggregatcd by the countriesrcsponsible for the Sub-Regional Reports so !hatcomments on these subjects could be included in theSRRs. Bad the preparation of the holistie QSRprogressed as planned, the drailing panel would thenhave had to re-assemble the subject-bascd rcports fromthc parts includcd in cach SRR to prescnt their overall,iew.

It was notoo that aspAR was proposing to adopt arather similar procedure leading to the QSR 2000 report,although it was hoped that the timetable establishcdwould avoid some of the scheduling difficu1ties

1996 WGEAMS Report

•

•

•

encountered inprcparing tbe Nortb Sca QSR There wassome .confusicin över tberelationsbip between nationalresponsibilities for the preparation of Regional QSRs,and lead countries for partieular subjects within (andacross) tbe QSRs. It was felt tbat tbe system ofpreparingSRRs covering all aspects of tbe QSR sen'ed nationalneeds weIl, but did not necessarily sen'e internationalneeds "ith the same eITectiveness.

WGEAMS considered that there were attractions in theHELCOM approach in which the final documents werea combination of subjcct-oriented papers, and regionalreports, wbieh were not duplicative. Tbc role of thecoordinating group (BETA) in preparing the finalpublication was primarily that of collation and ofpreparing sbort summaries. However, tbe dissolution oftbe assessment machinery after cach assessment wascomplete mcant that considerable time was spcnt beforeeach new assessment recreating the appropriatec~m~ittees and groups of experts. This processslgmficantly added to the time needed to prepareassessments. WGEAMS suggested that EC MON shouldconsider taking the handling of assessments as apermanent task, so the Periodie Assessments wouldrequire less of an administrative lead-in time, enablingmore rapid complction of the assessment after the nextmonitoring period.

WGEAMS was of the opinion that, from the evidencccurrently available, the preparation of subject-basedreports provided an eITective method for drafting largeparts of a QSR, and simultaneously obtaining agreementof all the appropriate experts. From experience in NSTFand HELCOM, the time required to prepare QSRs couldbe shortened if a mechanism could be found by whichinitial drafts of complcte regional reports could beprepared relatively quickly, and then be subject toediting and amendment by the appropriate experts atmeetings convened for that purpose.

15 APPROACH TO DECISION MAKINGREGARDING THE APPROPRIATEPOWER OF TEMPORAL TRENDMONITORING PROGRAMMES

I. Da,ies reported that the question of the appropriatepower of monitoring programmes had been raised anddiscussed at the joint meeting (WGEAMS96/4/1) ofWGEAMS and WGSAEM (JEASA) in Stockholm theprevious week. That meeting had suggested twoapproaches to dcciding on the appropriate level ofpower, as described in their draft report, which may be,iewed in the context of a cyclical relationship betweenobjectives, programmes, and power, and may beillustrated as below.

a) The JEASA meeting bad suggested that temporaltrend monitoring was orten undertaken in response toregulation (usually reduction) of the inputs of some

1996 WGEAMSReport

contaminants to tbe environment, as a result of apcrceived need to reduce the conccntratiori of thesesubstances (or their biological .eITects) in theemironment.

PowerAssess adequacy

There would be some gradient of reduction of inputpcrhaps approxirnated as X% per ycar for N years. A~an ~nitial simplification, the monitoring target in theenvIronme~t could be considered to respond, but therespons~ ~ght be slower, or to a lesser degree, than thechange In mput. This response could be e,q,ressed asY% per ycar for M ycars. In moSt cases, the gradient ofthe response would be less than the gradient of thechange of input. Monitoririg prograinmes of appropnatepower to detect the change in input would have muchless power to detect the changes in the environment.Knowlcdge (or estimates) of the relationship bet"'eenthe two gradients could allow programnies of adequatepower to be designed for the en\ironrnentalcompartment, or alterruitively allow assessmcrit of thepower to detect the predicted change. The Joint Meetinghad agreed to try to collate case studies which ilIustratedthis relationship bCtween changes ofinput and resPonse.

b) Secondly, the JEASA meeting considered that riskassessment procedures, with monetary values assignedwherever possible, could be used to assess the overallbenefits of a successful programme, or the potentialcosts of risks associated with unsuceessful programmes.The conscious consideration of the eonsequences offailure to detect changes thcit had oecuried, or of falsepositives, eOuld then give rise to a reasoned assessmentof the appropriate level of expenditure on themonitoring, and henee the intensity of the monitoringeITort.

WGEAMS was awarc that there were eITorts in handnotably in the USA and the Netherlands, dirccted a;deri,ing quality criteria, often for sediments that wereaimed at ensuring the adequate protection' of a highproportion, pcrhaps 90%, of the speCies present. Thederivation of the values was approached from aprobabilistie standpoint, and eould therefore be said toinclude an element of risk assessment. Ho\\,e,'er, theWGEAMS noted that such systems eould entailu~expectedly higb risk if the 10% of spccies that werenot proteeted were fundamental and essential

15

components of the ecosystem, e.g., were the primaryproducers.

WGEAMS discussed both of these approaches at somelength. In some cases, it was possible to readily conceiveof programmes that could bc analyscd in monetaryterms. Examplcs ineluded PSP monitoring, where therewere clear consequential costs of such events as e10sureof fisheries, or deaths/iIIness resulting from failure todetect serious outbrcaks ofPSP.

Other examples had much less e1ear financialconsequences, for example, environmentaI monitoringin response to Ministerial Dcclarations of the need toreduce inputs of certain contaminants to the North Sea.In such cases, the justification for expenditure was moree10sely Iinked with the political needs of the responsiblepersons, for example, in the consideration of theconsequence of 'getting the conelusion "'Tong', e.g., notdetecting a trend after expensive rcductions in inputs. Insuch cases, there might bc pressure to reverse thecontrols, on the grounds that thcy had no effect. A morelikely outcome was thought to bc that if theenvironmental monitoring did not detect a change,reference would bc made back to input monitoring,which would be much more Iikely to show thereductions, and to ascribe the apparent lack of change inthe environment to the complexities of the processesinvolved. In other words, the consequences of failure arerelatively smalI, as the input monitoring acts as areliable fall-back body of data, and the emironmentalprogramme might bc \iewed as Icss essential.

It bccame e1ear that in most cases attempts to estimatethe ratios between the costs of monitoring programmesand the value ofthe resource being protected, or the costof failing to detect changes, can rapidly leave thescientific field and depend upon more politicalconsiderations, possibly ineluding assessments of thesocial value of resources and the value of national policyin international fields. Tbe necd to be certain, or thedegree of tolerable unccrtainty, was often a rathersubjcctive, or even emotive, question, but would bcstrongly influenced by the seyerity of the consequencesoferror. To members of the WGEAMS, there were oftenmany imponderable (unscientific?) factors that nccdcd tobe ineluded in risk assessments. Some countries hademironmental economists who might be able to ad\iseon such maUers, and it was noted that commercialinsurance companies were expert in the assessment ofrisk, ineluding emironmental risk (for example,associatcd with possible climate change).

M. Joanny pointed out that, in many cases, the design ofmonitoring programmes was constrained by theresources that could bc devoted to them in the face ofcompeting claims and tasks. In such cases, sub-optimalprogrammes might bc adopted, "ith inadequate power,but which limited the annual expenditure. Analternative to increased annual expenditure might be to

16

accept detcction of trends oyer a longer period. Powerassessments in the April 1995 assessment of temporaltrends in contaminant conccntrations in Baltic Sea biotahad indicated that programmes of relatiyely low poweroyer IO-ycar periods could have markedly improyedpower oyer 2o-year periods. If extensions to the lengthof the programme would bc acceptable, it might bepossible to rcduce the annual effort and retain orimproye the overall power oyer the longer period incomparison to a programme oyer a shorter period.

To continue the consideration of the influence of cost onthe power of programmes, it was noted that there mightbc potential to improye the power of biota-basedprogrammes through alteration of the target specics ortissue, a1though such action had the disadvantage of thediscontinuation of existing data series, and might takesome time to match the 'accumulated' power of theexisting programme.

WGEAMS finally retumed to questions of riskassessment, and estimation ofthe benefits or penalties ofsuccessful or unsuccessful programmes. In some cases,the consequences of a programme detccting ananticipated change could bc estimated. Examples weregiyen of recovery monitoring, where there was a e1eartarget yalue to be achieyed (e.g., a food standard) beforea bcnefit could accme (e.g., reopening a fishery). Theprediction of the rate of change and appropriatemonitoring target were complicatcd if there was anaccumulated history of contamination, for example, inthe form of contaminated scabed sediments that couldcontinue to exert effects after reductions in thecontaminant input.

In general, monitoring to a target yalue appcared to theWGEAM:S to be more amenable to quantitative riskassessment procedures, particularly if the consequencesofbcing above or bclow the target, and the confidencc ofthe estimate of the tme position obtained frommonitoring, could bc e1carly identified. Boweyer, it wasnoted that many targets or quality standards for theemironment or scafood already had significant safctyfactors built into them. It might therefore be concludedthat monitoring in relation to such targets, for example,watchdog or general compliance monitoring, might besatisfactory ",ith rather low power. Tbis would bereflectcd in high yariance between data points, butpermit increased intensity of sampling if there weresome indication that conditions might be bccomingunsatisfactory.

WGEAMS supported the proposal from JEASA that aWorkshop, Theme Session or Symposium bc organizedin the field of risk evaluation and assessment in relationto monitoring targets and objectives, and emironmentalassessment.

1996 WGEAMS Report

•

16 DEVELOPMENTS IN STATISTICALASPECTS OF MONITORING INRELATION TO,TIIE NEW OSPARANDIIELCOM PROGRAMMES

I. Davies bricfly remindcd the meeting of some of thedevclopments that bad taken place rccently regardingstatistical aspccts of monitoring programmes. Theseincludcd the approval in principle of the d.raft TIMESdocument on temporal trend monitoring object.ives (subjectto cditing and rC\iew), the awareness of the necd forstatistical definition of programmes at MON 1995(WGEAMS%I8I2) but the lack of inclusion of statisticaltargets in the rC\iscd d.raft guidelines, the suggestion at thejoint meeting with WGSAa1 to collate case studies ofsediment programmes \\ith a ,iew to ICES sponsoring aspecial meeting (\VGEAMS96Wl), and the dC\"C1opment ofVIC (\VGEAMS96/16/1). At MON 1995, the alternativestrategies discusscd by WGEAMS 1995, namcly cither todesign standard guidelincs and acccpt different power atdifferent locations, or to stipulate the minimwn power andallow variation in sampling and analysis strategies toachiC\"C this target, bad becn pointcd out but no amice hadbecn given to SIMFJASMO as to the more approprlatealternati,"C.

WGEAMS supportcd the recommendations mentioncdabm"C from the Joint Meeting, and the necd to assess"ariance components in biological cffects mcasurcments.The laUer was a large task, and it was suspcctcd that inmany cases adcquate data were not yet available.

E. AndrulC\\icz pointcd out that the rcccnt asscssment ofdata for tcrnPoral trends of contaminants in biota in theBaltic bad incIudOO an assessment of the power of all timescries available to ICES (\VGEAMS96/1O/1). In the case ofmariy organic contaminants, the apparcnt power to detectchanges of 5% or 10% Per year in concentrnticins bad becnrather low, but sigiillicant trends bad bcen detectcd. Thissuggestcd that the aetual trends bad bcen rather large. Inmost assessments, data series which show no trend afeeither disregardcd or else merely notcd as sho\\1ng no trend.It might he possible to tnake more use of these data bystlting in assessment rcports the confidence limits of thedetectOO trerids in data serieS where trends arc detected, andstating the maximwri trend that might bave occurred at theother, stations \\ithout heing detectcd (\\ith a certairiconfiderice IC\"C1).

Furthermore, this suggestcd that the comparison of thestatistical performance of temporal trend monitoringprogrammes in terms of the po\\"Cf (\VGEAMS96/16/3) ofcach to detect a defmcd rate of change might gi,"C amislcading impression of the relative ,value of the dataseries. A more useful expression would take into accciuntthe cxpectOO or likely (or 'interestID.g') rate of change, andthe power ofthe programme to detccl such a crumge.

E. Andrule\\icz agreed that the development of newcomponents ofCOMBINE ga'"c aß opportUmty to intrOduce

1996 WGEAMS Report

statistical considerations into the desigri at an early stage.He hopcd that Sumcient statistical achice would bc availablewithin HELCOM. He found the sUggeStion of defining theminimwn power ofprogrammes hclpful, as it prcscnicd thepossibility of rcducing cffort in arcas where variability \\'aslow. He hopcd that HELCOM programmes would includethe collect.ion (or collation) ofdata on variance components,pilot studies where data were not available, and statisticalanalysis of the data prior to the final design of theprogrammes.

WGEAMS then discusscd whether it was possible to dC\isemethods whercby the choice bctwccn flXcd sampling, ete.,guidelines, and the freedom implicd by the definition ofminimwn power, could bc approachcd in a less starkmanner. One suggestion raiscd was that guidelines could bcmitten \\ith the aim ofachiC\ing, in the generality ofcases,some particular IC\"C1 of inter-annual residual "ariancc. Irthe annual rate of change and the pcriod of a programmearc f