Human Activities Thematic Assessment

Major human activities and associated pressures

Human activities are distributed widely across the North-East Atlantic, but the intensity of activities and of the pressures they impose on the marine environment vary greatly between OSPAR Regions and sub-divisions. Some sea areas are affected by multiple activities; in others, only a few may be significant. The table below gives a high-level summary of the intensity and trends of selected activities across the OSPAR Regions, based on analysis in the feeder reports.

Key issues for each OSPAR Region are summarised below; further information is in the feeder reports and in the ICES series of ecosystem overviews.

Arctic Waters

Fishing occurs across the Arctic Waters Region, although pressure from bottom trawling is lower than in most other OSPAR Regions. Major oil and gas extraction occurs in the Norwegian Sea. Finfish aquaculture is important, notably in Norway, with expansion planned for future years, including into offshore environments. Increased shipping and oil and gas activity, for example in the Barents Sea, may bring further pressures in the coming decade. Deep seabed mining in the Region is also a possibility. A growth in tourism activity may increase pressure on sensitive habitats.

Greater North Sea

The Greater North Sea is an area of intense activity, influenced by major population centres, intensive agricultural land use, coastal development, and tourism and recreation activity, particularly in southern areas. The presence of major ports in the area results in high pressure from shipping, and fishing takes place across the Region, with mobile bottom trawls deployed over 73% of the ICES ecoregion in 2018. Salmon aquaculture is a significant industry on the Norwegian coast. The greater part of aggregates extraction in the North-East Atlantic occurs in the Southern North Sea and English Channel.

Oil and gas production is widespread in the Northern North Sea, and gas production in the Southern North Sea. In the past decade, offshore wind developments have increased substantially in the Southern North Sea and at a lower rate in the Skagerrak and Kattegat, and major expansion of offshore wind energy will be a key issue for the Region in the coming decade.

Celtic Seas

Pressures associated with fishing, shipping, coastal development, tourism and recreation, and agriculture are widespread in the Celtic Seas. Mobile bottom trawls were deployed over almost 45% of the ICES ecoregion in 2018. Finfish and / or shellfish aquaculture is important in the United Kingdom, Ireland, and France. Energy production (fossil fuel and renewable energy) takes place in the Region, and significant future expansion of offshore wind energy is projected, notably in the Irish Sea.

Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coast

Fishing, shipping, tourism and recreation, land-based industry, and agriculture are the source of the most important pressures in this Region. Mobile bottom trawls were deployed over 19% of the ICES ecoregion in 2018. There is no clear trend in nitrate inputs in this Region, in contrast to the decreasing trends in other EU waters. Important shipping routes exist across the Bay of Biscay and off the western Iberian Coast. Shellfish aquaculture takes place in Spain and France.

Wider Atlantic

The only human settlements within the Wider Atlantic Region are in the Azores, so pressures from human activities are generally low. Nevertheless, some OSPAR threatened or declining species remain vulnerable to fisheries pressure, even though fisheries catches in this Region are relatively small. There is increasing interest in exploring options for harvesting mesopelagic fish and plankton. Low-frequency noise from shipping is likely to affect much of the Region. Litter and contaminants from shipping, or introduced from outside the Region, also occur. This Region also contains potential mining areas for deep seabed minerals.

Information on specific activities 

Extraction of mineral resources: aggregates

See: OSPAR Feeder Report 2021 – Extraction of non-living resources

What has happened since Quality Status Report (QSR) 2010

Sand and gravel extraction in the North-East Atlantic has increased substantially from the early 1970s to the current levels of tens of millions of m³ annually. Annual extraction varies, but was lower and relatively stable in the second half of the 2010s – 61 million m³ in the OSPAR and HELCOM Maritime Areas combined in 2019. This compared with 174 million m³ and 162 million m³ in 2009 and 2010, when large amounts of aggregates were used for major infrastructure projects in the Netherlands. Aside from those large projects, extraction of aggregates before QSR 2010 was comparable to more recent levels.

The majority of aggregates extraction is in the Southern North Sea and English Channel near the coasts of the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, the United Kingdom, and northern France, with smaller amounts elsewhere in the OSPAR Maritime Area. The economic value of activities supported by marine aggregates extraction can be high; for example, the major port infrastructure in the Netherlands and construction activity in London and south-east England.

Future developments

Substantial reserves of aggregates remain in some areas of the North-East Atlantic, but future trends are uncertain. Extraction will depend on factors such as the impact of economic conditions on demand, the availability of land-based resources and recycled aggregates, and the material intensity of construction. In future decades, an expansion of aggregates use may be required for coastal defence purposes due to sea-level rise.

Pressures from aggregates extraction

The pressures of aggregates extraction include:

• physical loss (due to permanent change of seabed substrate or morphology and to extraction of seabed substrate) - associated with the removal and translocation of rock, ores, gravel, sand, and shell;
• physical disturbance to the seabed (temporary or reversible) - associated with dredging operations, including mobilisation, suspension and settling of sediment plumes. Topographical changes can last just a few months in mobile sand areas, and years or decades where sediments are more stable;
• input of anthropogenic sound (impulsive, continuous).

Management of aggregates extraction to reduce pressures

Sand and gravel extraction can be managed in ways that minimise impacts and allow recovery of the benthic fauna. Restoration of species diversity and biomass in gravel habitats can take 10 years or more; in dynamic sandy habitats recovery is faster. OSPAR has adopted, through OSPAR Agreement 2003-15 on sand and gravel extraction, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) guidelines for management of extraction. An ICES review in 2016 considered these fit for purpose, but they are being reviewed.

Future priorities for OSPAR

OSPAR will engage with ICES in future assessments of impacts of sand and gravel extraction. OSPAR will need to assure itself that any major expansion of aggregates extraction does not have, or contribute to, an adverse effect on the marine environment. To support this, OSPAR Contracting Parties will need to improve access to data on the location of extraction sites and keep informed about future trends in extraction.  (Relates to North-East Atlantic Environment Strategy (NEAES) 2030 Operational Objective S9.O1)

Extraction of mineral resources: deep seabed mining (link to OSPAR technical report on deep sea mining)

What has happened since QSR 2010

Areas of the North-East Atlantic that contain known and predicted seabed minerals have been identified, but further work would be needed to estimate reserves. All potential deep seabed mining areas are in Arctic Waters and the Wider Atlantic. To date, there have been no deep seabed mining projects in the OSPAR Maritime Area, or globally. Some OSPAR countries are in the process of opening areas for exploration on the continental shelf; for example, in 2020 the Norwegian Government initiated an opening process for offshore mineral activity.

Future developments

Deep seabed mining of seafloor mineral resources, such as massive sulphides, cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts and polymetallic nodules, has potential for development, although the scale of any such development is uncertain. Increasing demand for secure supplies of minerals, including the growing transition to renewable energy (associated with increased energy storage requirements), is a key driver of increased demand for resources such as copper, cobalt, nickel, lithium, silver, rare earth elements and critical metals.

Pressures from deep seabed mining

Understanding of the extent and nature of impacts, and the effects on marine ecosystems, is uncertain, but the potential environmental impacts of deep seabed mining include:

• physical loss (due to permanent change of seabed substrate or morphology and to extraction of seabed substrate) - associated with the removal and translocation of rock, ores, gravel, sand, and shell;
• physical disturbance to the seabed (temporary or reversible) – changes to seabed integrity associated with dredging operations, including mobilisation, suspension and settling of operational and discharge plumes;
• loss of / change to natural biological communities;
• input of other substances (e.g., synthetic substances, non-synthetic substances, radionuclides) from diffuse sources, point sources, atmospheric deposition, acute events - associated with operational chemical plumes, release of sediment-bound or subsurface porewater toxic metals into the water column;
• input of anthropogenic sound (impulsive, continuous) - including vibration from mining activities;
• input of other forms of energy (including electromagnetic fields, light, and heat) - lighting associated with seabed mining vehicles.

 

Management of deep seabed mining to reduce pressures

Development of exploitation technology for deep seabed mining, including mitigation or restorative techniques, is at an early stage, and there remain substantial gaps in understanding of how pressures might be managed. Addressing these issues includes consideration of the precautionary principle and the need for elaborated Environmental Impact Assessments.

Future priorities for OSPAR

Further research and knowledge on the deep-sea environment and its sensitivity and resilience (e.g., impacts on fish and small benthic fauna; long term recovery of the seabed and impacts from plumes and ecotoxicology on the marine environment) are required in order to ensure that a move from exploration to use of deep seabed mineral resources avoids adverse impacts on the marine environment and its ecosystems.

Deep seabed mining for resources such as key metals may become an increasing area of interest for OSPAR, given its potential to grow in coming decades, particularly as understanding of the environmental impacts is as yet uncertain. OSPAR will need to consider how the knowledge gaps and uncertainties should be addressed. (Relates to NEAES 2030 Operational Objective S9.O1)

OSPAR should consider how it can maintain an overview of Contracting Parties’ plans for exploitation within the OSPAR Maritime Area, and should develop a common understanding on the extent to which OSPAR measures can apply to deep seabed mining activities in the Area Beyond National Jurisdiction. (Relates to NEAES 2030 Operational Objective S9.O1)

Agriculture

What has happened since QSR 2010

Agriculture is the largest land use in the majority of OSPAR countries. OSPAR countries collectively are a major global producer of dairy products and cereals, and an important producer of livestock. In past decades, the general pattern of development in the agricultural sector in Europe has tended towards a greater concentration within fewer, larger farms. For livestock, there has been an increase in poultry, veal and pig production and a decrease in beef, sheep, and goat production. The output of the agricultural industry across all OSPAR countries was relatively steady from 2013 to 2018.

Future developments

EU analysis suggests a continued increase in the EU in areas of cereals, protein crops and maize, and a small decrease in areas of oilseeds and permanent pasture. Dairy production is expected to increase and intensify; beef production to decline; pig meat production to increase initially and then decline; and poultry to increase steadily. Increases in cereals, dairy, and poultry production could lead to increased nitrogen and phosphorus losses to water unless further measures are put in place.

A revised EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is due to start in 2023. It is built around nine objectives, including climate change action, environmental care and preservation of landscapes and biodiversity. The EU has also published the Farm to Fork Strategy addressing the challenges of a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system. Sustainability is an objective for agriculture in OSPAR countries outside the EU: for example, the United Kingdom is now developing its own policies, including moves away from direct payments based on farmed areas and towards a system based on public money for public goods, including environmental improvement.

Pressures from agriculture

The pressures of agriculture include:

• input of nutrients from diffuse sources, point sources, atmospheric deposition - nitrogen and phosphorus losses from agriculture are a major cause of eutrophication . Across OSPAR countries, there was a decrease in the agricultural nitrogen surplus between 2000 and 2015, an indication of an improving trend. In general, the main decrease was between 2000 and 2010; after that, the balance was relatively constant or decreased only marginally. For phosphorus, the surplus in 2015 was less than half of the value in 2000 in most OSPAR countries. The Netherlands and Belgium had the highest phosphorus balances of all of the OSPAR countries in 2000, but these had declined to only 13% and 25% of their earlier value by 2015;

• input of other substances (e.g., synthetic substances, non-synthetic substances) from diffuse sources, point sources, atmospheric deposition, acute events - pesticides are routinely used in agriculture across OSPAR countries and quantities of pesticides are detected in aquatic systems as a result of run-off, particularly from arable land. While regulatory procedures are in place governing pesticides, and there have been successes in taking substances out of the market, some concerns remain. The specific impacts of pesticide run-off on marine ecosystems are not well documented, but studies have indicated potential effects;
• input of litter (solid waste matter, including micro-sized litter) - plastics used in agriculture can result in litter, including through fragmentation and degradation, or leaching as microplastics, including from sewage sludge applied to agricultural land.

Management of agriculture to reduce pressures

The implementation of the EU Nitrates Directive (Directive 91/676/EEC) and EU Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC) has addressed inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus from agriculture. Improvements, such as in more sustainable manure management, have occurred as a result. Nevertheless, nitrate and phosphate pollution and eutrophication remain an issue in some areas ( Eutrophication Thematic Assessment ). Planned reforms to the EU CAP as well as national action, including a new regime in the United Kingdom, could provide incentives to reduce losses further.

Pesticide approval and authorisation in the EU involves approval of the active substance and of the plant protection product. The process involves assessment of risks to human and environmental health and a framework for sustainable pesticide use including integrated crop management and the use of alternatives to pesticides. The EU indicator for the quantity and risk of pesticides in use showed a decrease of 17% from the baseline period of 2011-2013 to 2018, although with an increase of 56% in the number of emergency authorisations for new and emerging crop health issues over the same period. The 2021 EU Zero Pollution Action Plan includes an aim to reduce the overall use and risk of pesticides by 50% by 2030 ( Eutrophication Thematic Assessment ).

Future priorities for OSPAR

OSPAR will further develop the evidence base and toolkits to identify and quantify sources of agricultural nitrogen and phosphorus losses, such as fertiliser usage and manure production, agree nutrient reduction needs for Contracting Parties to combat eutrophication , and ensure that sufficient measures are taken to achieve these reductions. (Relates to NEAES 2030 Operational Objectives S1.O1 - S1.O5)

OSPAR should consider encouraging Contracting Parties to take measures to reduce litter from agriculture, including re-using or recycling a higher proportion of agricultural plastics, taking a lead from the small number of Contracting Parties that currently have schemes in place. (Relates to NEAES 2030 Operational Objectives S4.O1, S4.O7)

Aquaculture

What has happened since QSR 2010

Marine aquaculture production in the North-East Atlantic (including the Baltic) increased from around 1,5 Mt in 2008 to around 2,2 Mt in 2018, comprising approximately 1,68 Mt of finfish and 0,54 Mt of molluscs. Other marine aquaculture production (crustaceans and seaweeds) was small.

Over 1,35 Mt of 2018 production was in Norway, mainly salmon. Norway also contributed the bulk of the increase from 2008. The United Kingdom and the Faroe Islands were the next largest salmon producers. Salmon is the largest single component of global trade in fish and fish products, driven by demand in developed and developing markets. Norwegian salmon production was worth over €6,7 billion in 2018.

The largest shellfish producers were Spain (mainly mussels) and France (predominantly oysters). Production has fluctuated in the past decade, but there have been recent increases in Spanish mussel production. Factors such as weather and disease have impacted oyster production.

Future developments

Norway aims to increase aquaculture production severalfold by 2050, with some increase by 2030 ( Input Other Assessment ). Some other OSPAR countries with salmonid production have growth ambitions, and some increase in shellfish production may also occur. Growth will be subject to factors such as global economic conditions, trade issues, environmental conditions, and competition for space with other marine activities. Some other countries (e.g., Denmark), are not planning to expand marine cage-based aquaculture of finfish

There are prospects for aquaculture expansions in new areas (aquaculture is already increasing along the coasts and in the fjords of northern Norway and Russia) and environments, notably offshore (e.g., for salmon, mussels and oysters), and involving different species (e.g., seaweed). Land-based facilities with recirculating water (RAS), currently a niche part of aquaculture in the North-East Atlantic, are also likely to grow.

Pressures from aquaculture

Pressures from marine finfish, RAS, and /or shellfish aquaculture can include:

• input of nutrients from diffuse sources, point sources, atmospheric deposition - nutrient enrichment from fish feeds;
• input of genetically modified species and translocation of native species - escaped or introduced fish;
• input of microbial pathogens - the transfer of parasites and diseases;
• input or spread of non-indigenous species - such as the sea squirt Didemnum vexillum (also known as sea vomit) or the Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas, associated with shellfish aquaculture;
• input of other substances (e.g., synthetic substances, non-synthetic substances) from diffuse sources, point sources, atmospheric deposition, acute events - chemicals (including contaminants from fish feed and therapeutants);
• input of organic matter from diffuse sources and point sources;
• loss of, or change to, natural biological communities due to cultivation of animal or plant species - shellfish aquaculture may, in some circumstances, contribute positively to ecosystem services, but has potential pressures including removal of mussel seed;
• input of litter (solid waste matter, including micro-sized litter) - finfish and shellfish aquaculture can be a source of litter;
• input of anthropogenic sound (impulsive, continuous) - from devices to deter predators.

Further expansion of large-scale aquaculture may increase these pressures, while expansion of RAS systems might reduce some effects, although may lead to higher emissions of greenhouse gases if fossil energy sources are used.

Management of aquaculture to reduce pressures

The impact of pressures is strongly influenced by local environmental circumstances. For example, the trend towards more dispersive sites for finfish aquaculture should help mitigate the impacts from organic waste. Site-specific decisions on location and management of aquaculture, via assessment of projects under individual Contracting Parties’ regulatory systems, are the primary measure for addressing impacts. The European Commission has produced guidance on sustainable aquaculture in the context of EU environmental directives.

Escapes of farmed fish have been addressed through technical standards for cages and monitoring of escape incidents. Chemical and biological treatments (cleaner fish such as lumpfish or wrasse) are used to combat sea lice; in Norway, expansion of aquaculture may be refused, or existing aquaculture cut back, in areas where sea lice prevalence is too high.

PARCOM Recommendation 94/6 covers the reduction of inputs from potentially toxic chemicals used in aquaculture. In 2006, OSPAR agreed that, for the time being, implementation reporting on this Recommendation could cease; however, in 2020 OSPAR decided to initiate a new reporting round on the Recommendation.

Overall, measures to mitigate environmental impacts, including modelling approaches, have moved forward in the last decade, although knowledge gaps remain. For example, ICES has highlighted the need for more understanding of pressures from open ocean installations; measures to reduce the impact of escapes; the impact of substances such as therapeutants; and various aspects of shellfish aquaculture. There will also be a need for more understanding and management of pressures from any expansion of RAS, such as effluents containing dissolved nutrients.

Future priorities for OSPAR

OSPAR should consider increasing its understanding of the potential impacts of future growth in aquaculture, including risks of a spread of non-indigenous species or parasites, or of contamination of the marine environment with hazardous substances, therapeutants, or nutrients. It should consider engagement with ICES on knowledge gaps of particular significance. Such work would include the implications of new or expanded forms of aquaculture including offshore aquaculture, growth in cultivation of new or currently minor species (such as seaweeds), and recirculating aquaculture systems. (Relates to NEAES 2030 Operational Objectives S1.O3, S2.O1, S2.O2, S7.O2)

OSPAR should consider strengthening its monitoring and assessment of measures taken by OSPAR Contracting Parties to manage pressures from aquaculture. (Relates to NEAES 2030 Operational Objectives S1.O4, S7.O2)

OSPAR will develop and implement measures and targets to substantially reduce marine litter from aquaculture gear. (Relates to NEAES 2030 Operational Objective S4.O8)

Fisheries

See: OSPAR Feeder Report 2021 - Fisheries

What has happened since QSR 2010

Over the past decade total marine fisheries landings in the North-East Atlantic have been relatively stable. The total in 2018 was 9,32 million tonnes. Since the peak of 13 million tonnes in 1976, landings fell, increased in the 1990s, and then stabilised. Over half of stocks, but not all, are now being fished at or approaching levels consistent with Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY).

There are substantial fisheries in all OSPAR Regions. Trends since 2010 have varied. There have been some changes in fishing practice, for example, beam trawling in the Greater North Sea has been increasingly replaced by other methods. Nevertheless, mobile bottom trawls were still deployed in substantial areas – for example, in 73% of the ICES Greater North Sea ecoregion and 45% of the ICES Celtic Seas ecoregion.

Figure A.4: Spatial distribution of aggregated disturbance using the 2016 to 2020 assessment period. Pie chart plots show the percentage of the assessment unit area under each disturbance group: ‘Zero’ = disturbance category 0; ‘Low’ = disturbance categories 1-4; ‘Moderate’ = disturbance categories 5-7; ‘High’ = disturbance categories 8 and 9; ‘Unassessed Disturbance’ = area where fishing pressure was present, but disturbance could not be assessed due to i) no habitat data, or ii) no sensitivity assessments for underlying habitat. (Matear et al., 2023)

Profits from European capture fisheries have generally risen in recent years, while the capacity of fishing fleets has generally decreased. The large-scale fleet accounts for most of the weight and value of catches, but the small-scale fleet can be important to local economies.

Future developments

The 2020 report from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) on the state of world fisheries and aquaculture projected that capture fisheries in OSPAR countries would remain approximately unchanged to 2030, but that this could be affected by many uncertainties including macroeconomic conditions, trade rules, environmental conditions (including climate change) and fisheries management measures.

Pressures from fisheries

Pressures resulting from fisheries include:

• extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species (by commercial and recreational fishing and other activities) - the removal of target species which can cause changes to biodiversity, fish stocks and food webs;
• selective extraction of species, including non-target species - the removal of non-target species as incidental by-catch which can cause declines and changes in vulnerable and protected species (including fish, birds, and marine mammals);
• physical disturbance to the seabed (temporary or reversible) - associated with activities such as bottom trawling which can cause changes to vulnerable habitats, benthic symbiotic communities, or to sea floor integrity;
• input of litter (solid waste matter, including micro-sized litter) - from fishing activities, including abandoned, lost, and discarded fishing gear.

Across the North-East Atlantic, several fish species affected by fishing pressure in the past are on the OSPAR List of Threatened and / or Declining Species and Habitats (Agreement 2008-06 §4). Depending on the OSPAR Region, these can include sharks, skates and rays and diadromous fish including salmon, and deep-sea species. Some remain vulnerable to fisheries, for example as incidental by-catch. Management of deep-sea fisheries requires particular care.

Management of fisheries to reduce pressures

Fisheries management regulations have resulted in the harvesting of more (but not all) fish stocks moving to levels considered sustainable (from a fish stock management perspective). There is now increased use of landing obligations (discard bans) by Contracting Parties within and outside the EU. Measures to protect vulnerable habitats and species have been introduced, but concerns remain, such as incidental by-catch of cetaceans, birds, and threatened fish species, ‘ghost fishing’ due to abandoned, lost, and discarded fishing gear, and seabed disturbance from bottom trawling. Since 2010, OSPAR has adopted Recommendations to promote fishing for litter schemes and education for fishers, and measures to prevent and reduce littering from fishing activities are being put in place across the OSPAR Maritime Area.

Future priorities for OSPAR

While stocks in the North-East Atlantic are increasingly being fished according to the reference level MSY, OSPAR should improve its understanding of how fishing at MSY influences other components of the ecosystem and ecosystem health overall, and its understanding of future trends. OSPAR will continue to identify which fishing activities need particular focus from fisheries management authorities as posing a threat to species, habitats, biodiversity and ecosystems, including pressures affecting sea floor integrity, and litter from fishing activities. (Relates to NEAES 2030 Operational Objectives S4.O8, S9.O1, SX.O2)

OSPAR’s implementation of an operational objective on incidental by-catch will give increased attention to effects on marine mammals, birds, and protected fish species. (Relates to NEAES 2030 Operational Objective S7.O6)

OSPAR should consider working more closely with relevant management, certification and accreditation organisations to ensure awareness of OSPAR status and other assessments.

Oil and gas exploration and production

What has happened since QSR 2010

The production of hydrocarbons decreased by 28% from 2009 to 2019, though production increased from 2014 to 2016 by approximately 17%, before levelling off. The number of installations with emissions and discharges reported in the OSPAR Maritime Area was the same in 2019 as in 2009 (676), with a maximum of 766 in 2015, followed by a decline to 676 by 2019. The decline was largely due to increasing cessation of production and consequent decommissioning following the drop in the oil price in 2014.

Drilling activity, despite a downturn during 2013-2015, increased over the period from 382 wells drilled in 2011 to 443 drilled in 2019, with a peak of 490 in 2017. Most wells drilled are development wells rather than wells for exploration and appraisal wells. There has been a decline in drilling activity in Ireland, the Netherlands and Denmark, while activity in Norway and the United Kingdom has remained relatively stable over the period.

Pressure from offshore oil and gas activities is greatest in the Greater North Sea followed by Arctic Waters and the Celtic Seas. Exploration and production occur in Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom. In the other OSPAR Regions, the number of installations is low.

Future developments

In Arctic Waters, from the start of petroleum activities in the southern part of the Barents Sea in 1980 and up to the end of 2020, 162 exploration and appraisal wells had been drilled, 101 of which were begun in 2005 or later. Approximately half of these wells have indicated the presence of hydrocarbon deposits. A number of small and medium-sized discoveries have been made. New gas infrastructure has been established in the northern part of the Norwegian Sea: the Aasta Hansteen field, which started production in 2018. There are currently two fields in production in the Barents Sea, Snøhvit and Goliat, and a third, Johan Castberg, is under development and production will start in 2023. In Norwegian waters, the parts of the Barents Sea area opened for petroleum activity are on average ice-free all year with sea temperatures comparable to the Norwegian Sea.

Elsewhere, the declining trend in production is expected to continue, and as older installations reach their end-of-life, it is anticipated that a number of installations will be decommissioned in the coming decade.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions (decarbonisation) of oil and gas production is increasingly gaining focus and electrification of oil and gas installations from the onshore grid or from renewable sources is likely to gain traction.

Pressures from the oil and gas industry

The main pressures resulting from oil and gas activities are:

• physical loss (due to permanent change of seabed substrate or morphology) – associated with the placement of oil and gas infrastructure;
• physical disturbance to the seabed (temporary or reversible) – changes to seabed integrity associated with oil and gas construction, operational and decommissioning activities;
• input of other substances (e.g., synthetic substances, non-synthetic substances, radionuclides) from diffuse sources, point sources, atmospheric deposition, acute events – associated with [routine discharges] and accidental events;
• input of litter (solid waste matter, including micro-sized litter);
• input of anthropogenic sound (impulsive, continuous) – from seismic surveys and installations;
• input of other forms of energy (including electromagnetic fields, light, and heat) - lighting associated with offshore installations;
• input or spread of non-indigenous species - associated with the foundations of structures providing a suitable substrate for organisms to establish.

These pressures occur throughout the lifecycle of oil and gas activities, through exploration, production, and decommissioning. Exploration includes seismic surveys and the drilling of exploratory and appraisal wells. Production includes drilling of production and injection wells, and the construction, placement, and operation of infrastructure to produce oil and gas. Decommissioning involves activities such as the plugging of wells and removal of infrastructure. Incidents during the transportation of oil and gas by pipeline or tanker and accidental spills from installations can cause impacts outside the area of production.

Management of oil and gas exploration and production to reduce pressures

OSPAR has put in place a significant number of measures aimed at reducing emissions and discharges from the oil and gas industry within the OSPAR Maritime Area. As of 2020, there were 15 OSPAR Decisions and Recommendations¹ relating to offshore oil and gas industry and a further 21 other Agreements². The vast majority of these have been made since 2000 (most of which have since been updated) and aim to reduce the environmental impacts of the industry on the marine environment. Measures introduced by OSPAR have reduced the oil in produced water discharges and the discharge of hazardous chemicals and drilling fluids. OSPAR has, with a few exceptions, effectively prohibited the disposal of disused offshore installations at sea.  Since the ban on dumping of disused offshore installations came into force in 1999, 170 offshore installations have been brought ashore for disposal and ten derogations have been issued by Contracting Parties for structures to be left in place, with a further four under consideration.

Future priorities for OSPAR

Since QSR 2010, and because of the implementation of OSPAR measures by Contracting Parties and industry, the oil and gas industry has made measurable progress and improvements in reducing its environmental impact. However, there are areas where it may be possible to further reduce the potential impacts. Specifically:

While progress has been made in reducing the use and discharge of chemicals identified as candidates for substitution since the introduction of OSPAR Recommendation 2006/3, the challenge remains to phase out the discharges of substitution chemicals. OSPAR has set out operational objectives in S2.O3 of NEAES 2030.

Continuous improvement remains a challenge, with hydrocarbon production at different stages in different OSPAR Regions and new developments continuing in Region I and II. OSPAR has set out a number of operational objectives in relation to hazardous substances and marine litter in NEAES 2030 (S2.O3, S2.O4, S4.O5 and S4.O6).

Good practice guidelines for geophysical surveys and use of explosives need to be developed. (Relates to NEAES 2030 Operational Objective S8.O1)

On decommissioning, as older installations reach their end-of-life, it is anticipated that a number of installations will be decommissioned in the coming decade. While there have been developments in advancing the technical capabilities, such as an increase in lift capabilities to remove topsides and steel jacket installations, there have been no technology developments that would support a reduction in the categories eligible for derogation from OSPAR Decision 98/3. OSPAR has set out Operational Objectives in S9.O2 and S9.O3 of NEAES 2030.

There are only two full-scale projects with CO2 storage in the OSPAR Maritime Area (see Table 3). Due to this very limited number, an evaluation of the effectiveness of OSPAR Decision 2007/2 has not yet been undertaken. OSPAR has set out Operational Objectives in S12.O3 of NEAES 2030.

Production and use of plastics ³

What has happened since QSR 2010

Plastics production in Europe⁴ and demand from converters (manufacturers of plastic products) rose slightly between 2010 and 2019, to 58 Mt and 50,7 Mt respectively. Around 40% of demand was for packaging, 20% for construction, and 10% for automotive uses. Production facilities are widespread across OSPAR countries, with the greatest number in Germany. The proportions used of different types of plastic were similar to those in 2010. The vast majority of plastics are derived from oil and gas. Globally, plastics production increased from 265 Mt in 2010 to 368 Mt in 2019.

Annual per capita plastic consumption has reached 100 kg in western Europe, and amounts of plastic waste have also increased. Of the 29,2 Mt of post-consumer plastic waste collected in the EU28, Norway and Switzerland in 2018, 7,2 Mt went to landfill (12 Mt in 2006); 12,4 Mt to energy recovery (7 Mt in 2006); and 9,4 Mt to recycling (4,7 Mt in 2006). Recycling rates varied between OSPAR countries; the highest in 2018 (over 40%) were in Norway and Spain.

Packaging is the largest component of post-consumer plastic waste, rising from 14,9 Mt in 2006 to 17,8 Mt in 2018. Of that, 3,3 Mt in 2018 went to landfill (7,2 Mt in 2006); 7 Mt to energy recovery (3,8 Mt in 2006) and 7,5 Mt to recycling (3,9 Mt in 2006). Recycling rates for this waste ranged from 26% to approximately 50% in OSPAR countries.

Microplastics have been an area of increasing interest. Primary microplastics (manufactured to be of small size) include microbeads in cosmetic products, industrial ‘scrubbers’, rubber granules in artificial grass pitches, and pellets used in plastics manufacture. Secondary microplastics are created through wear and tear of items including tyres and roads, paint, and textiles, as well as breakdown of plastic litter items.

Future developments

Global annual plastics production is expected to reach up to 1,2 billion tonnes by 2050. In the short term, as well as changes in consumption patterns (see Drivers section above), COVID-19 led to a sharp drop in primary plastics production in Europe. The speed of recovery depends on demand in industries such as automotive manufacture and construction.

The European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy seeks a ‘new plastics economy’ involving greater durability, re-use and high-quality recycling. It aims for all plastic packaging in the EU by 2030 to be either re-usable or easily recyclable, and for more than half of plastic waste to be recycled. It seeks to encourage alternative feedstocks and innovative materials for plastics production.

Pressures from plastics production and consumption

• input of litter (solid waste matter, including micro-sized litter)

Around 0,15 – 0,5 Mt of plastic waste is thought to have entered EU seas in 2015. Estimated annual emissions of microplastics into OSPAR catchments averaged over 0,3 Mt, the largest sources being tyre wear and degradation of land-based litter.

Management of production and use of plastics to reduce pressures

OSPAR’s 2014 Regional Action Plan for Marine Litter (RAP ML) included commitments to highlight waste prevention and management practices that impact significantly on marine litter; encourage recyclability and re-use of plastic products; assess instruments to reduce single-use items; and reduce inputs of microplastics.

EU actions have included legislation to reduce use of lightweight plastic bags; a recycling target for plastic packaging waste of 55% by 2030; a ban on certain single-use products; collection targets and design requirements for plastic bottles; measures on extended producer responsibility and labelling; and measures to reduce microplastic use (e.g., in products) and emissions. Measures have also been taken on port reception facilities and in relation to fishing gear. OSPAR Contracting Parties have also taken initiatives including plastic bag charges; the use of fees to finance recovery of packaging waste; voluntary agreements with industry; and information instruments.

The EU’s Circular Economy action Plan anticipates future actions such as a review of packaging legislation; requirements for recycled content and waste reduction measures for packaging, construction materials, and vehicles; and a policy framework on use of bio-based plastics. In 2021, the European Commission launched a new initiative to address the unintentional release of microplastics into the environment. The 2021 EU Zero Pollution Action Plan also includes objectives on plastics.

Future priorities for OSPAR

OSPAR will continue to address sea- and land-based sources of litter in its new Regional Action Plan for Marine Litter (RAP ML 2) being developed for adoption in 2022. It should consider how to maximise synergies between its own measures (including on microplastics) and actions under the EU strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy, the EU Circular Economy Action Plan, and the EU Zero Pollution Action Plan. There may be scope to enhance cooperation with initiatives to reduce plastic inputs, such as the New Plastics Economy Global Commitment, Operation Clean Sweep, and the Arctic Council’s regional action plan on marine litter. In their 2021 Cascais Declaration, OSPAR Ministers committed themselves to reducing plastic marine litter under the United Nations Environment Assembly process. (Relates to NEAES 2030 Operational Objectives S4.O1, S4.O7)

OSPAR should consider how it can maintain its awareness of any significant changes in plastics production (e.g., alternative new feedstocks or innovative materials) and their implications for the marine environment. It will improve data on inputs of plastics into the marine environment, and their impacts, including whether specific sources/types of plastic waste are of particular concern. (Relates to NEAES 2030 Operational Objective S4.O2)

Renewable energy (link to feeder report )

What has happened since QSR 2010

In 2009, almost 1,9 GW of fixed offshore wind capacity, involving 713 turbines, was operational or under construction in the North-East Atlantic. By the end of 2019, the amount installed in European seas had grown to over 22 GW and over 5 000 turbines. Of this capacity, 77% was in the North Sea and 13% in the Irish Sea. Offshore wind  installation in other OSPAR Regions is very small in comparison.

The size of turbines, the size of wind farms, the distance to shore, and the water depth have all increased. Costs have also fallen, from over €200/MWh in 2014 to a range of 45-79 €/MWh at the end of 2019. In global terms, OSPAR countries are leaders in offshore renewable technologies and industries, based on first-mover status for offshore wind turbines and a strong home market.

Compared to offshore wind, there has been much slower development of other forms of renewable energy installation - floating offshore wind, tidal and wave energy – with very limited operational capacity by 2020, and these technologies are largely at an early and experimental stage.

Future developments

The North Sea has high potential for continued growth, and the North-East Atlantic Ocean has a high natural potential for both bottom-fixed and floating offshore wind energy. In 2020, the European Commission envisaged an expansion in offshore wind in the EU27 from 12 GW to at least 60 GW by 2030 and 300 GW by 2050, and the United Kingdom Government set out plans for a fourfold increase to 40 GW by 2030. Under a maximum scenario developed by the wind industry, 212 GW could be installed in the North Sea by 2050, with 85 GW in the Atlantic and Irish Sea off France, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. Initially, most new capacity will be bottom-fixed installations, but floating offshore wind is also expected to develop further. Major investment is associated with these future expansion ambitions: estimates are for up to €800 billion to meet European Commission objectives for the EU as a whole by 2050, and £20 billion associated with the United Kingdom’s plans for the next decade.

Some increase in tidal, wave and floating solar energy installations is also expected. The European Commission aims for at least 1 GW of ocean energy capacity in European waters by 2030, with a view to 40 GW by 2050. At present, there is no dominant technology for tidal and wave energy, and significant cost reductions would be needed for them to play a significant role in the energy mix.

Pressures from renewable energy

Ecosystem components affected by offshore energy developments include benthic habitats, marine birds, migrating birds, fish, marine mammals, and migrating bats. Pressures include:

• physical loss (due to permanent changes of seabed substrate or morphology and to extraction of seabed substrate);
• physical disturbance to the seabed (temporary or reversible);
• input of anthropogenic sound (impulsive, continuous) - from surveys, construction, operation, and decommissioning activities;
• death or injury by collision - with infrastructure;
• input of other forms of energy (including electromagnetic fields, light and heat);
• input of litter (solid waste matter, including microsized litter);
• input or spread of non-indigenous species - associated with the foundations of structures providing a suitable substrate for organisms to establish, or to act as stepping stones for their spread.

The large-scale increase in offshore wind capacity in the southern North Sea by 2050 may also have fundamental impacts on local wind patterns, wave generation, tidal amplitudes, and sediment dynamics.

Tidal and wave devices have the potential to affect local and wider hydrodynamics, or make changes to the seabed and sediment transport, although this may only occur with large-scale installations. There may be impacts on marine life, such as  on the local benthos.

Management of renewable energy to reduce pressures

Mitigation methods include appropriate siting of wind installations to avoid impacts on protected habitats and species, and the use of the least disturbing methods for activities such as cable installations. Methods for management of noise, in particular impulsive noise from pile driving, can include appropriate siting of developments, scheduling of activities to avoid sensitive periods, engineering (such as bubble curtains, isolation casings and hydro sound dampers), soft start, surveillance, and deterrents; licensing conditions can include noise thresholds. Design of infrastructure and temporary shutdown of turbines (e.g., during migration periods) can be used to reduce collision risk to birds. OSPAR has produced guidance on environmental considerations for offshore wind farm development (OSPAR agreement 2008-03).

Future priorities for OSPAR

The scale of offshore wind installation in the OSPAR Maritime Area is expected to increase greatly in the next decade and beyond, primarily in the Greater North Sea and Celtic Seas. While knowledge of ecological impacts has improved, evidence remains uncertain, and OSPAR will commission or engage with evidence programmes addressing gaps in understanding. OSPAR will develop common principles and guidance to promote and facilitate sustainable development and scaling-up of offshore renewable energy in a way that minimises cumulative environmental impacts. In order to strengthen its work, OSPAR has decided to set up a specialist group on offshore renewables. (Relates to NEAES 2030 Operational Objective S12.O4)

Management of underwater noise from the construction and operation of offshore renewable energy will form part of OSPAR’s Regional Action Plan on Underwater Noise. (Relates to NEAES 2030 Operational Objective S8.O1)

Growth in tidal, wave, and floating solar energy in the next decade is likely to be small, but OSPAR will keep in touch with the work to increase understanding of potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures, and consider the need for guidance.

Shipping

See:  OSPAR Feeder Report 2021 - Shipping and Ports

What has happened since QSR 2010

In 2018, the overall weight of goods handled in the ports of OSPAR countries and the passenger numbers in these ports were little changed from 2008. The amount of goods fell after 2008 due to the economic downturn, before recovering. Individual rates of change varied – for example, increases in freight in the Netherlands and Portugal, and decreases in the United Kingdom, Sweden, Denmark, and France.

The Greater North Sea, Celtic Seas, and the Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coast have a particularly high density of shipping, with the highest densities in the English Channel, Southern and Eastern North Sea, and the entrance to the Mediterranean. The OSPAR Maritime Area includes three of the twenty leading container ports globally, and ten of the twenty largest ports in Europe.

Maritime transport is critical to Europe’s economy, estimated to represent between 75% and 90% of the EU’s external trade and one third of intra-EU trade. For EU countries bordering the sea basins of the Atlantic and North Sea, maritime transport, port activities, and shipbuilding and repair had a gross value added of over €60 billion in 2017.

Future developments

Scenario analyses anticipate an increase in the amount of global shipping in future. However, growth could be limited by factors such as slower than anticipated economic growth, trade tensions, or shifts towards more regionalised trade flows. The extent of any change in volumes of shipping in the North-East Atlantic therefore remains uncertain. There may also be increases in shipping in Arctic waters associated with trans-Arctic trade routes, natural resource extraction, and cruise tourism.

The composition of the fleet is likely to change over time, including a higher proportion of larger ships. Initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution will favour a move towards more efficient ships and, potentially, alternative fuels if these become viable.

Pressures from shipping

Shipping exerts multiple environmental pressures:

• input or spread of non-indigenous species - from ballast water exchange and transport on ships’ hulls;
• input of other substances (e.g., synthetic substances, non-synthetic substances) from diffuse sources, point sources, atmospheric deposition, acute events) - shipping is a significant source of air pollution (24% of national NOx and SOx emissions from all sectors in the EU) and greenhouse gas emissions; other inputs include discharges from exhaust gas cleaning systems; discharges of contaminated water; pollution from oil or other noxious substances can arise from accidents, operational activities such as washing of cargo tanks, or antifouling paints;
• input of anthropogenic sound (impulsive, continuous) - continuous noise from shipping, primarily from propeller cavitation, is a major source of anthropogenic underwater noise;
• death or injury by collision - for example with marine mammals, but the effects on populations are difficult to assess as data is lacking;
• input of litter (solid waste matter, including micro-sized litter) - shipping remains a source of marine litter, including from losses of transported goods;
• input of microbial pathogens – from ballast water;
• physical loss (due to permanent change of seabed substrate or morphology) - restructuring of seabed morphology, including dredging and depositing of materials.

Management of shipping to reduce pressures

A range of measures have been taken to address the impacts of shipping, notably through conventions or guidance developed within the framework of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), reinforced or supplemented by action by OSPAR, the EU, and national authorities. Non-indigenous species are addressed through the Ballast Water Management Convention and IMO guidelines on biofouling; OSPAR and HELCOM have started work towards a harmonised management plan for biofouling on commercial vessels and recreational crafts. Airborne sulphur and nitrogen emissions have been reduced by measures under the MARPOL Convention, but actions to reduce airborne emissions have led to discharges to the marine environment from exhaust gas cleaning systems. Accidental or operational pollution has been reduced by measures under the MARPOL Convention, reinforced by cooperation through the Bonn Agreement. Shipping noise is covered by IMO guidelines on noise reduction, although these are not yet thought to have had an effect on overall levels of noise (in 2021 IMO agreed to review and update these guidelines). Shipping is covered by measures under OSPAR’s 2014 Regional Action Plan for Marine Litter (RAP ML) and the OSPAR Guidelines for the Management of Dredged Material at Sea (OSPAR Agreement 2014-06).

Figure A.6: Emissions of air pollutants from shipping in OSPAR countries (OSPAR, 2021c)

Future priorities for OSPAR

OSPAR will keep a close watch on the implementation and effect of measures already introduced for the management of some pressures, such as ballast water, air pollution, and litter. Effective development and implementation of the Polar Code is important for management of shipping pressures in Arctic Waters. OSPAR should consider how to better understand and monitor trends in shipping, including changes in the volume and distribution of shipping in the North-East Atlantic, changes in ship size, environmental improvements in the fleet, and use of alternative fuels.  (Relates to NEAES 2030 Operational Objectives S2.O1-S2.O3, S4.O1, S7.O2)

Increasing knowledge of the scale and impact of shipping noise, and of the effect of measures to incentivise less noisy ships, will be an important area for continued OSPAR work under the Regional Action Plan on Underwater Noise.  (Relates to NEAES 2030 Operational Objective S8.O2)

The impact of ship strikes on cetaceans remains an issue of concern. OSPAR should consider what further action should be taken to reduce the impact of ship strikes on the species in the OSPAR List of Threatened and / or Declining Species and Habitats. (Relates to NEAES 2030 Operational Objective S5.05)

OSPAR will consider the impacts of discharges from exhaust gas cleaning systems, microplastics in ship paints, and grey water discharges. It should also consider the significance of newly emerging or poorly understood issues such as risks from accidents involving wind farms or larger ships; biocides and other contaminants used for antifouling (hull maintenance activities); and the impact of ship wakes, and promote the adoption of regional or global measures as appropriate.

By 2023, OSPAR will assess, review, and potentially revise the OSPAR criteria, guidelines and procedures relating to the dumping of wastes or other matter and to the placement of matter. (Relates to NEAES 2030 Operational Objective S7.O4)

Tourism (link to feeder report )

What has happened since QSR 2010

Marine and coastal tourism and recreation occurs widely across all OSPAR Regions. Activities such as beach-based recreation, coastal walking, recreational fishing, and recreational boating are widespread, although the scale and nature of specific activities differ between countries and localities. In some areas tourism is a major part of coastal economies. The Greater North Sea, Celtic Seas, and the Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coast account for the majority of tourist arrivals, but tourism is increasing in Arctic Waters and in  the Wider Atlantic (the Azores).

Since 2010 tourism has grown across all OSPAR Regions. Many OSPAR countries observe a trend towards shorter, but more frequent vacations among visitors, as well as day-tourism. Cruise tourism and expedition tourism are increasing in Arctic Waters.

Future developments

Marine and coastal tourism is expected to grow in the coming decade. Potential trends which may influence pressures exerted by tourism include changes in demand patterns (more frequent but shorter trips); an aging society (which may reduce seasonality); growing interest in local cultural and environmental characteristics; geopolitical tensions favouring so-called ‘safer’ destinations in Europe; and climate change. It is hard to predict the long-term impact of COVID-19, but it may be that domestic holidays could grow in importance or that existing niche trends of ‘sustainable’ or ‘eco’ tourism are reinforced.

Pressures from tourism

While a healthy ecosystem has economic benefits for many forms of marine tourism and recreation, these activities also bring multiple pressures including:

• physical loss (due to permanent changes of seabed substrate or morphology and to extraction of seabed substrate)- associated with the construction of recreation and tourism facilities and beach nourishment affecting coastal habitats;
• physical disturbance to the seabed (temporary or reversible) - associated with the construction of recreation and tourism facilities and beach nourishment affecting coastal habitats;
• inputs of organic matter and other substances- tourism can add to pressures on waste water infrastructure;
• input of litter (solid waste matter, including micro-sized litter)- from tourism and recreational activities (including fishing and boating);
• physical disturbance to the seabed (temporary or reversible) - associated with recreational boating;
• input of anthropogenic sound (impulsive, continuous) - continuous noise from recreational boating affecting sensitive habitats and species;
• input of other substances - recreational boating and recreational fisheries can introduce hazardous substances through fuel and combustion products and antifouling paints;
• input or spread of non-indigenous species – associated with recreational boating, e.g,. the sea squirt Didemnum vexillum;
• disturbance of species (e.g., where they breed, rest and feed) due to human presence - cruise tourism can also be a pressure on sensitive destinations, including in Arctic Waters. Marine wildlife tourism, such as whale watching, can have negative effects if not well managed;
• extraction of, or mortality/injury to, wild species and selective extraction (incidental by-catch)- associated with recreational fisheries and other forms of disturbance may directly affect animal populations, including vulnerable species.

Management of tourism to reduce pressures

OSPAR does not directly address tourism and recreation in its work, although the pressures are addressed to some extent by the work on matters such as litter, eutrophication, hazardous substances, biological diversity and the protection of species and habitats. Pressures will also be addressed through national or EU legislation, for example on water quality or on single-use plastics, and taken into account in maritime spatial planning.

Evidence on the scale of pressures from recreational fisheries is often difficult to obtain, due to the large numbers and wide variety of small fishing vessels or shore-based fishing. While some management measures are in place nationally, governance and management of recreational fishing remains patchy.

While research has suggested that marine protected areas (MPAs) can have a positive effect on tourism and recreation, the relationship between MPAs and tourism requires better understanding.

Future priorities for OSPAR

Since tourism and recreation are expected to continue to grow in the long term, it will be important for OSPAR to monitor how they develop, and their relevance to objectives in the NEAES 2030. For example, in the case of marine litter, there is potential for OSPAR to address the sector more specifically in the updated OSPAR Regional Action Plan for Marine Litter (RAP ML 2). Recreational boating should be considered in other future OSPAR work, including that on non-indigenous species and underwater noise. Obtaining good data, both on the scale of tourism activities and their impact, remains a challenge.

Waste water

See: OSPAR Feeder Report 2021 – Waste water

What has happened since QSR 2010

The distribution and intensity of waste water from domestic, commercial and industrial  sources broadly reflect that of the human population. Over 23 600 settlements with treatment plants are covered by the EU’s Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (UWWTD) (Directive 91/271/EEC).

Industrial point sources of pollution, covered by the Industrial Emissions Directive (IED) (Directive 2010/75/EU), are identified as a relatively small source of pressure, but smaller industrial point sources not regulated by the IED may exert greater pressure on water quality. Eco-toxic loading of pollutant groups, such as heavy metals and organic substances, has decreased or remained relatively constant from most sources. However, the toxic loading due to direct releases to water from treatment plants has increased for heavy metals, which suggests that other sources not regulated under the IED (e.g., smaller agro-industrial facilities) are impacting on heavy metals in these releases.

Future developments

Further investment is still required for European countries, including OSPAR Contracting Parties, to reach and maintain full compliance with the UWWTD. Treatment systems will also face challenges such as population growth straining the capacity of existing infrastructure, more extreme and frequent weather events associated with climate change, and concerns about novel pollutants. For example, heavy rainfall can overload sewer networks, leading to flooding, overflow and release of untreated sewage.

Pressures from waste water

Waste water discharges can potentially be associated with

• input of organic matter - diffuse sources and point sources;
• input of nutrients - diffuse sources, point sources, atmospheric deposition;
• input of microbial pathogens;
• input of other substances (e.g,. synthetic substances, non-synthetic substances, radionuclides)- diffuse sources, point sources, atmospheric deposition, acute events;
• input of litter (solid waste matter, including micro-sized litter) - waste water and storm water overflows are vectors for litter and for microplastics.

Treatment processes designed to meet UWWTD requirements do not remove all these emissions from waste water. However, some European treatment plants have installed more advanced treatment to reduce emissions of emerging concern.

There is increasing awareness of chemicals in the water environment at low concentrations and in mixtures – the so-called ‘cocktail effect’. Many arise from domestic use via leaching from products, cleaning products or pharmaceuticals, and reach surface waters via urban waste water treatment plants and storm water overflows. Areas of concern include endocrine-disrupting chemicals and antimicrobials. The biological processes required for waste water treatment, including those required for the production of sewage sludge, emit greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide

Management of waste water to reduce pressures

Regulation through the UWWTD and IED has done much to control the emissions of nutrients and industrial pollution. The UWWTD requires collection and treatment of urban waste water to reduce biological and chemical oxygen demand, and nutrients. Most OSPAR Contracting Parties have predominantly secondary and tertiary treatment plants. Collection and treatment have improved over the last decade in the EU, with compliance rates for plants covered by the UWWTD of 95% for collection, 88% for secondary (biological) treatment, and 86% for more stringent treatment (removal of phosphorus and nitrogen). However, some EU member states are still some way from full compliance with the UWWTD. Smaller, less regulated settlements and industries remain of concern.

In addition, for hazardous substances, OSPAR has agreed measures including emission and discharge limit values for industries, substitution of hazardous substances, usage bans or restrictions.

Management issues still remain. Some substances, in particular micropollutants (such as microfibres and microparticles, where knowledge is emerging), are not routinely removed by waste water treatment.  Furthermore, the complexity of chemical effects presents a mismatch with the single-substance approach of current chemicals assessment under most environmental legislation. Bypassing of treatment plants due to storm surges is another challenge; sustainable urban drainage systems can provide a solution. The European Commission has launched an impact assessment to consider revising the UWWTD.

Future priorities for OSPAR

The new OSPAR Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter (RAP ML 2) will continue to target marine litter from waste water treatment plants and foster the development of harmonised monitoring and best practices for prevention and reduction of riverine litter. (Relates to NEAES 2030 Operational Objectives S4.O6, S4.O7)

OSPAR should consider further efforts to better monitor, research and control issues of current or growing concern, including the presence of microplastics in waste water; the impact of low concentrations and mixtures of chemicals; pharmaceuticals; and inputs from industrial sources not regulated under the IED.  (Relates to NEAES 2030 Operational Objectives S1.O3, S1.O4, S2.O3, S4.O1)

Other activities

The pressures from some other current or emerging human activities are also of interest to OSPAR, or may be in the future. These include underwater cabling (e.g., for energy transmission or communications); carbon capture and storage; geoengineering to counter anthropogenic climate change; land reclamation and coastal defence, including for the purposes of protection against sea-level rise due to climate change; and the disposal of mine tailings in coastal waters. More information on these activities is available in the series of mini-assessments referred to in Table A.4 below.

Though not an ongoing human activity, the legacy of unexploded conventional and chemical munitions in the OSPAR Maritime Area remains a significant risk to human safety and the natural environment. OSPAR Recommendation 2010/20 provides a mechanism to facilitate the reporting of encounters with such munitions. Research projects under way in the OSPAR Maritime Area, most notably the Interreg North Sea Wrecks and the DISARM projects, are expected to significantly improve the capacity of Contracting Parties to take a more systematic approach to risk assessment of wrecks and munition dump sites.

New, emerging and increasing activities and pressures

OSPAR’s NEAES 2030 includes an operational objective that “by 2024 OSPAR will review the risks from new, emerging and increasing pressures on the marine environment, taking account of OSPAR’s Quality Status Report 2023, and prioritise them for action and the adoption of measures where necessary”. (NEAES 2030 Operational Objective S7.O5)

Table A.4 below summarises activities which may require review under this objective,  including those where OSPAR guidance or other measures may need to be considered. As well as new activities, it covers some activities whose intensity, distribution or risks may change as a result of climate change. Several of these activities are covered in the series of feeder reports produced as part of QSR 2023 and / or in separate mini-assessments produced for the QSR.

 Table A.4: New, emerging and increasing activities and pressures on the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic

Footnotes

¹ Not including Decisions and Recommendations amending the original text or those that have been set aside

² Not including Agreements that have been set aside

³ This analysis deals with overall production and consumption of plastics; measures specifically addressing litter, including OSPAR’s Regional Action Plan for Marine Litter, are addressed in the thematic assessment on litter

⁴ Figures from PlasticsEurope; coverage is EU member states (including the UK), Norway and Switzerland