Marine Birds Thematic Assessment

Measures taken by OSPAR to protect marine birds

OSPAR has identified nine bird species as of particular concern within the North-East Atlantic and has agreed on recommendations for actions to be taken by Contracting Parties both nationally and collectively to protect and conserve these species. Progress has been made in the efforts to strengthen data collection and management to support policy action and knowledge exchange. Good progress has also been made in developing the ecological coherence of the OSPAR network of MPAs for protecting OSPAR listed bird species. The designation of the NACES MPA in 2021 represents an important step forward for protecting foraging marine birds.

Several measures have been taken by OSPAR to manage particular human activities or pressures relating to pollution, marine litter, physical damage which are relevant to the status of marine birds. The Collective Arrangement provides a useful framework for working with other competent organizations on responses of relevance to marine birds in selected areas outside of national jurisdiction, for example fisheries.  

The responses to date have not been able to change the downward trajectory in the status of marine birds. Addressing this decline has been identified as a priority in OSPAR’s North-East Atlantic Environment Strategy (NEAES) 2030, and an action plan to achieve the recovery of marine birds is in preparation. Progress in achieving the NEAES objective to minimize and where possible eliminate incidental by-catch will be an important future response for marine birds, with reliance on OSPAR’s commitment to continue working with relevant competent organizations and stakeholders. Marine birds stand to benefit from responses targeted at other ecosystem components, for example benthic habitat restoration for benthic feeding and grazing marine birds. 

Future responses will need to take into account the impacts of climate change on marine birds.

Marine bird R-section ANNEX : The section development has been supported by the collation of relevant measures: measures of relevance to marine birds included in this section.

Section Overview

This section describes the responses to minimize the effect of human activities, their resulting pressures or impacts on ecosystem services, and aims to improve the state of marine birds in the North-East Atlantic. These responses can include the development of policy, legislation or measures to manage or regulate specific human activities, or to mitigate impacts on ecosystem services.

The primary focus is on the responses adopted by the OSPAR Commission in order to implement the Contracting Parties’ commitments under the OSPAR Convention and the strategic objectives of the North-East Atlantic Environment Strategy. Article 22 of the OSPAR Convention requires that the Contracting Parties report to the OSPAR Commission at regular intervals on the steps they have taken to implement the OSPAR Decisions and Recommendations, the effectiveness of those measures and the problems encountered in their implementation. This section aims to describe the progress made in implementing these measures and whether they are working in terms of achieving the ambitions set out in the North-East Atlantic Environment Strategy 2030 (NEAES 2030). It attempts to set OSPAR’s responses in the wider policy context and to examine the responses by other competent organisations, where these address marine birds in the context of the North-East Atlantic, and provides a more detailed look at the range of measures undertaken to address the decline of marine birds under the EU MSFD.

The section considers the diversity of marine birds across five feeding guilds that occur within the OSPAR Maritime Area. A subset of these species is represented in the indicator assessments, and nine species have been nominated by OSPAR Contracting Parties as being of particular concern and so listed as threatened and / or declining. 

There are several “entry points” within NEAES 2030 for future action relating to marine birds, in particular Operational Objective 4 under Strategic Objective 5, which commits OSPAR to the urgent development of an action plan to halt the decline of marine birds.

Strategic Objective 5: Protect and conserve marine biodiversity, ecosystems and their services to achieve good status of species and habitats, and thereby maintain and strengthen ecosystem resilience.

S5.O1: By 2030 OSPAR will further develop its network of marine protected areas (MPAs) and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) to cover at least 30%  of the OSPAR Maritime Area to ensure it is representative, ecologically coherent and effectively managed to achieve its conservation objectives.
S5.O2: By 2022 OSPAR will identify barriers to the effective management of MPAs, and by 2024 take steps to address them appropriately to enable all OSPAR MPAs to achieve their conservation objectives. 
S5.O3: By 2024, OSPAR will establish a mechanism to provide that where Contracting Parties are authorising human activities under their jurisdiction or control that may conflict with the conservation objectives of OSPAR MPAs in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ), these activities are subjected to an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) or Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA).
S5.O4: By 2025 at the latest OSPAR will take appropriate actions to prevent or reduce pressures to enable the recovery of marine species and benthic and pelagic habitats in order to reach and maintain good environmental status as reflected in relevant OSPAR status assessments, with action by 2023 to halt the decline of marine birds.
S5.O5: By 2025 OSPAR will have implemented all agreed measures to enable the recovery of OSPAR Listed threatened and/or declining species and habitats and will take additional measures as needed. 

Strategic Objective 7: Ensure that uses of the marine environment are sustainable, through the integrated management of current and emerging human activities, including addressing their cumulative impacts.

S7.O6: OSPAR will work with relevant competent authorities and other stakeholders to minimise, and where possible eliminate, incidental by-catch of marine mammals, birds, turtles and fish so that it does not represent a threat to the protection and conservation of these species and will work towards strengthening the evidence base concerning incidental bycatch by 2025. 

There are a number of linkages to other thematic assessments, including:

The reader is referred to the following feeder reports for additional information on some of the key human activities affecting marine birds:

Measures adopted by OSPAR

This section focuses on measures that have been adopted by OSPAR and draws on efforts to protect and conserve marine birds of particular concern and to establish an ecologically coherent and well managed network of MPAs, as well as specific measures that OSPAR has adopted to address human activities and pressures and improve the conservation status of these species.

The implementation status of all OSPAR measures was reported in 2021: Implementation of OSPAR measures - A progress report.

Addressing bird species in decline and under threat within the OSPAR Maritime Area:

OSPAR Contracting Parties have identified nine marine bird species that are of particular concern in the North-East Atlantic and included in the OSPAR List of Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats (the OSPAR List). The OSPAR List, which was first adopted in 2003 and updated in 2008 and 2021, guides the OSPAR Commission in setting priorities for its further work to conserve and protect marine biodiversity in implementing Annex V to the OSPAR Convention. Recommendations for actions to protect and conserve these marine bird species were adopted by OSPAR between 2011 and 2014 and are considered to be in the process of implementation. 

The purpose of these Recommendations is to agree actions to be taken nationally and collectively to strengthen the protection of the listed marine bird species, recover their status and ensure that they are effectively conserved in the OSPAR Maritime Area. A common understanding of the Recommendations was adopted in 2013 (OSPAR Agreement 2013-13). The Recommendations are broad in nature, addressing a range of human activities and pressures. The actions to be taken nationally include steps to ensure appropriate national legislation for the protection of marine birds, consideration of how to strengthen the knowledge base, monitoring and assessment, steps to manage key human activities, a call for the designation of MPAs, and raising awareness. The collective actions include coordination of monitoring and assessment, enhancing knowledge exchange, collaborating and maintaining cooperation with relevant competent organisations in addressing key pressures such as fishing and shipping, as well as the development of research. In considering the measures taken to address the impacts of drivers, pressures and threats on birds it is useful to distinguish between breeding areas and non-breeding or wintering areas, as their significance may vary at different stages of their annual cycle.  Four of the listed bird species occur in the OSPAR Maritime Area throughout the year but are present in some Contracting Parties’ waters only at certain times of year.

There have been two rounds of implementation for the listed marine bird species, all of which were reported on in 2013 and 2019 except for the Iberian guillemot, for which reporting took place in 2016 and 2019. Further reporting on the implementation of the measures will take place every six years, with the next reports due in 2025. The following text sets out the progress made in the implementation of these measures and the challenges encountered. See: Implementation of OSPAR measures - A progress report.

Progress in implementation of the Recommendations

Of the nine listed species, implementation reports relating to national actions were submitted by at least four Contracting Parties for only three species (roseate tern, black-legged kittiwake and Balearic shearwater), making it difficult to identify commonalities and differences in approach. For the most part, evidence of implementation was provided by Contracting Parties where these species occur, but still with some gaps. The actions in the Recommendation were reported as being implemented mostly through legislative and administrative actions, with a lower number through actions resulting from negotiated agreement. 

It should be noted that some of the listed species are present in the waters of Contracting Parties, but only outside the OSPAR Maritime Area. An example is the fuscus sub-species of the lesser black-backed gull, which occurs in Sweden and Finland, but only along their Baltic coasts; accordingly, neither Sweden nor Finland reported on this species. The Barolo shearwater (formally referred to as the little or Macaronesian shearwater) only breeds in the Azores (PT) within the OSPAR Maritime Area, but has a breeding range that extends to the Canary Islands (ES) and the Madeira archipelago (PT), which are outside the OSPAR Maritime Area. Portugal did not report, but Spain did, on actions taken at colonies in the Canaries. Spain also reported on measures taken at its only colonies of Balearic shearwater, which are in Spanish Mediterranean waters.  

For most species, the relevant Contracting Parties have legislation in place that bans the deliberate killing or taking of chicks and eggs. However, regulated hunting of thick-billed murres (also known as Brünnich’s guillemot) and the black-legged kittiwake is permitted by some Contracting Parties, for example by Iceland and Denmark with respect to Greenland. It is unclear whether statutory regulation of hunting should represent full or partial implementation of this action. Clarification may depend on whether Contracting Parties can provide evidence that legislation is having an effect on the hunting of a species.  

Marine protected areas (MPAs) that protect populations and critical habitats have been designated as part of the OSPAR network of MPAs for all listed bird species. The implementation of national action to promote monitoring and assessment programmes and the contribution to a data collation strategy for these species was difficult to assess without specific attributes against which the existing programmes could be evaluated. It was concluded that there would be merit in developing standards for monitoring and assessment under the appropriate collective action (action (36; see below)) against which future reporting could be made and assessed.

Actions to address incidental by-catch were taken by several Contracting Parties across the listed bird species, ranging from improvements to by-catch observer schemes to mapping by-catch incidence so as to inform management at the national level, including by developing a national action plan to reduce marine bird by-catch as a contribution to the EU Plan of Action (PoA) for reducing incidental by-catch of seabirds in fishing gears (COM (2012) 665 final) and to the ICES working group on by-catch. 

The adoption of the Roadmap for the implementation of collective actions within the Recommendations for the protection and conservation of OSPAR listed Species and Habitats (2017-2025) (The Roadmap), has supported the implementation of collaborative efforts across the thematic boundaries within OSPAR and helped to inform or support actions implemented at the national level.

Given the distribution of species, collective action is likely to add value to only three or four of the listed species, which are all migratory: the black-legged kittiwake, the roseate tern and the Balearic shearwater, and possibly the thick-billed murre (but other marine bird species not listed could also benefit). The latter species is more debatable, because Greenland, Iceland and Norway already work together with other Arctic nations on issues relating to thick-billed murres via the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) working group under the auspices of the Arctic Council. 

There are two examples of where progress has been made collectively through OSPAR to develop the knowledge base for listed marine birds:

• Strengthening regional collaboration on data collection and management for seven of the listed species by establishing a joint working group that brings together expertise and information from the North Atlantic (including Baltic Sea), thus creating a stronger evidence base for informing responses (See: Action 36);
• The establishment of an expert group for the roseate tern to enhance knowledge exchange and improve the evidence base to support further action (See: Action 41).

For species that occur in a geographically discrete region, implementation of these collective actions has been more challenging. The Barolo shearwater breeds only in the Azores (PT) within the OSPAR Maritime Area and then disperses across large tracts of the Wider Atlantic, making it difficult to see what other Contracting Parties can do to protect it. The ivory gull is only found in Greenland and Norway, with the lesser black-backed gull and Steller’s eider confined to the Norwegian part of the Arctic region, suggesting that national or perhaps bilateral measures may be most appropriate, apart from any action to raise awareness.  

The Iberian guillemot is an example of measures possibly having been adopted too late. This local race of the common guillemot once bred in its thousands along the northern coasts of Portugal and Spain and may now be extinct. Among the likely causes of its decline are the two large oil spills in the Bay of Biscay – the Erika off the coast of France in 1999 and, soon after, the Prestige in 2002 – very close to its breeding areas in Galicia. Ironically, the focus of the collective actions that include Iberian guillemot is the reduction of oil pollution. 

Are these measures working?:

Although the implementation of the Recommendations has generated conservation action at the national and collective level for these species, the status of all the listed marine birds continues to be assessed as not good, with further declines in distribution, population size and condition (see: State section). Contracting Parties are making efforts to protect features that are threatened on a regional scale through various awareness-raising activities, by introducing national measures and legislation to regulate human activities causing pressures on the features, and by establishing monitoring programmes to assess the status of the features. It has, however, been difficult to objectively assess the level of implementation of many actions under the Recommendations, and not possible to evaluate whether or not these have been effective.

To understand the effectiveness of a measure, there needs to be an understanding of whether the response reduces human activity or pressure, and whether this results in a positive change in the status of the feature in question. One of the challenges to understanding these Recommendations is that each addresses many aspects – some specific, others more general – making it difficult to determine linkages and causality. 

Given that all the bird Recommendations contain very similar, if not identical, actions, it has been proposed that future reporting could benefit from distinguishing which measures are being directed at breeding populations on land or in colonies, and which are being targeted at non-breeding populations offshore; and also whether there should be reporting on actions taken outside the OSPAR Maritime Area in order to provide any information on the impact or effectiveness of the measure.

The NEAES includes an objective to implement all agreed measures relating to the OSPAR listed species and habitats and take new measures by 2025 (S5.O5) with a specific mention to agree action by 2023 to halt the decline of marine birds (S5.O4).

Inclusion of listed marine bird species in Environmental Impact Assessment

Consideration for the approval of marine licences for certain activities and projects requires an environmental impact assessment (EIA) in order to assess potential impacts and enforce conditions that reduce impacts on species, including marine birds. An EIA usually includes: screening (deciding if an EIA is required); scoping (what needs to be included in the assessment); making an application to the competent authority; consultation with interested parties; and a decision by the competent authority. In 2010 OSPAR adopted Recommendation 2010/05, with the aim of ensuring that the features of the OSPAR List are specifically taken into consideration when EIAs of human activities are prepared.

The most recent reporting on the implementation of Recommendation 2010/05 took place in 2020. Contracting Parties that are also EU Member States reported that they effect this Recommendation through national legislation adopted to implement the EU EIA and SEA Directives. Some Contracting Parties also pointed to other relevant legislation that complements their EIA and SEA obligations. Examples are the EC Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC), including the Natura 2000 network, and the Habitats Directive assessments being imposed as a requirement for any plan or project likely to have an effect on a protected site, and also the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Directive 2008/56/EC). As an example, in Sweden, there is a requirement to describe any impacts on the Swedish Red List, HELCOM, and OSPAR List through the EIA process. Subsequently, issuance of the permit can be made subject to conditions, for example by limiting the impact on certain species by regulating the dates on which certain activities can be performed, or avoiding certain areas.

Is the measure working?:

Overall, the approach of using EIA and SEA legislation is an important mechanism to promote the protection of OSPAR listed threatened and / or declining species and habitats. The fact that the OSPAR List (OSPAR Agreement 2008-06 and Recommendation 2010/05) is non-binding can mean that effective implementation is dependent on overlaps with national practice. 

Current reporting on the application of Recommendation 2010/05 focuses on the extent to which species and habitats in the OSPAR List are expressly included within the scope of EIAs / SEAs; it is not possible to determine whether those assessments have resulted in effective mitigation measures or otherwise resulted in the reduction of impacts, but this could be a useful area for further good-practice sharing. 

Under NEAES 2030, OSPAR will establish a mechanism by 2024 to provide that, where Contracting Parties are authorising human activities under their jurisdiction or control that may conflict with the conservation objectives of OSPAR MPAs in the ABNJ, these activities are subjected to an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) or Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) (S5.O3).

The OSPAR network of Marine Protected Areas

Within OSPAR, MPAs are understood to be areas in which protective, conservation, restorative or precautionary measures have been instituted for the purpose of protecting and conserving species, habitats, ecosystems or ecological processes of the marine environment (as defined in Recommendation 2003/3 implementing Annex V of the OSPAR Convention). In 2003, OSPAR adopted a Recommendation to establish an ecologically coherent and well managed network of MPAs; this was then amended in 2010. By 1 October 2021, the OSPAR network comprised 583 MPAs, of which eight have been collectively designated in ABNJs. The network of MPAs has a total surface area of 1 468 053 km², covering 10,8% of the OSPAR Maritime Area and achieving the spatial coverage component of Aichi Biodiversity target 11 of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and Sustainable Development Goal 14, target 14.5, namely, to conserve at least 10% of coastal and marine areas by 2020. See:  Report and assessment of the status of the OSPAR network of Marine Protected Areas in 2021

MPAs as a response for the conservation of marine birds

MPAs play an important role as part of a wider suite of management measures in protecting and conserving marine bird species which have geographically distinct life history characteristics, such as areas important for breeding, loafing and feeding. MPAs offer the potential to reduce or remove pressures from human activities in these critical locations that could impair the conservation status of marine birds, for example activities that may cause disturbance, reduce prey abundance or result in incidental by-catch. As marine birds have life histories that depend both on land and sea areas, there is a need to ensure management consistency between coastal and fully marine protected areas to ensure success in protecting the life history characteristics of concern.

For the nine bird species that are listed as threatened and/or declining by OSPAR, there is a national action to consider whether any sites within its jurisdiction justify selection as Marine Protected Areas for the protection of populations of and critical habitats for the species. The 2019 implementation reporting against these Recommendations mentioned three types of protected area as having been designated by Contracting Parties to protect marine birds: 1. Coastal (to protect breeding colonies); 2. Coastal with a marine component (to protect waters adjacent to a protected colony); 3. Marine – (to protect inshore or offshore feeding areas. 

From the reporting it was not possible to obtain a clear picture of the purpose of the MPA’s role in the life history and its consequences for seabird conservation, in part as a result of inconsistent reporting. Some Contracting Parties reported on only wholly marine sites while others reported all sites including coastal and marine. 

The MPAs designated in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJs) play an important role in protecting the marine birds of the North-East Atlantic by protecting their feeding and foraging grounds.  The evidence supporting those designations identifies marine birds as a feature of ecological significance in the nomination proformas:

• Charlie Gibbs South – Seabirds identified as a feature both sitting and flying – considered to be important for the great shearwater (Puffinus gravis);
• Charlie Gibbs North;
• Milne seamount (Cory’s shearwater identified as of potential concern);
• Antialtair seamount (Cory’s shearwater identified as of potential concern);
• Altair seamount (Cory’s shearwater identified as of potential concern);
• MAR north of the Azores (Cory’s shearwater identified as of potential concern);
• Josephine seamount (oceanic seabirds);
• North Atlantic Current and Evlanov Sea basin MPA.

Ecological coherence of the OSPAR MPA network for marine birds

One of the criteria for understanding whether the network is achieving the ambition of ecological coherence is how well represented the OSPAR listed habitats are within the network, and how many MPAs these habitats occur in. This can help identify where the network may need to be further strengthened. 

The one out, all out principle applies, so if there is either insufficient representativity or replication within the network for one region where the species is under threat and / or in decline, then the criteria for ecological coherence are not met.

Eight of the nine marine bird species listed by OSPAR as threatened and/or declining are considered to be adequately represented and replicated within MPAs in the OSPAR Regions where they are considered to be under threat / subject to decline. One species (Puffinus mauretanicus) lacks representation and replication in the Wider Atlantic Region, where it is considered to be under threat / subject to decline (Table R.1).  It was outside of the scope of the OSPAR MPA status assessment to consider the ecological coherence of marine bird species not on the OSPAR List.

Table R.1: Overview of the ecological coherence (representation and replication) of threatened and declining marine bird species within the OSPAR MPA network (Source: Table 2.3 of the 2021 MPA status assessment)
Key: Green = There is MPA protection in OSPAR Region(s) where the species is considered to be under threat/ subject to decline; Red = the species is not protected in a region where it is considered to be under threat and subject to decline; Grey = the species is not known to occur in that region; White = the species is present in the region and protected but not considered to be under threat or in decline. The number represents the number of MPAs designated for that feature in the given Region. The number is only bolded in Regions where the feature is of particular concern. *since publication, the NACES MPA in Region V has been approved – kittiwake, thick-billed murre and Barolo shearwater have been listed as features in the MPA

Management status of the OSPAR MPA network

At the 2010 OSPAR Ministerial Meeting in Bergen, Norway, OSPAR ministers committed to ensuring that the OSPAR MPA network is well managed, namely that coherent management measures have been set up and are being implemented to achieve the conservation objectives of the protected features of OSPAR MPAs. While there is no formal agreement on what constitutes ‘well managed’ in terms of an MPA, four questions have been posed in order to help understand the progress made in implementation: whether the MPA management has been documented, whether measures to achieve the conservation objectives of the MPA are being implemented, whether monitoring is in place to assess if the measures are working, and finally whether the MPA is moving towards its intended conservation objectives.

OSPAR has made progress in managing the MPA network. The 2021 status assessment showed that 88% of the OSPAR MPAs have either full or partial management information in place which is publicly documented. The report showed a further 17% rise – to a level of 83% – since assessments began in 2016 in the implementation of measures considered to be required in order to achieve conservation objectives. Another area of improvement is the increase in the monitoring to detect progress towards achieving conservation objectives. The assessment showed that 75% of OSPAR MPAs have either full or partial monitoring programmes in place, albeit these are largely based on the ability to monitor sea users’ compliance with the rules and regulations associated with OSPAR MPAs, as opposed to direct site condition monitoring, which is costly. Nearly half of OSPAR MPAs are thought to be moving towards achieving their conservation objectives. It is important to note that the percentage of OSPAR MPAs achieving or moving towards their conservation objectives has increased over time, from 36%, to 44% and to 49% between 2016, 2018 and 2021, respectively. Despite improvements in understanding the management status of the MPA network, it is still difficult to determine whether the protected features of the OSPAR MPAs are moving towards their conservation objectives, owing to lack of site-specific information or long-term monitoring programmes, as noted above.  

Future OSPAR work should focus on implementing the management measures considered necessary to achieve the conservation objectives of the protected features of MPAs. In parallel, there is a need for long term monitoring programmes to be established in order to evaluate the effectiveness of management measures and be able to conclude with greater confidence whether the conservation objectives of the protected features of OSPAR MPAs are being achieved. In addition, work should progress on improving methods of evaluating the degree to which the OSPAR MPA network is sufficiently well managed to support a more sophisticated assessment of whether the network is delivering a genuine conservation benefit to targeted habitats, species and ecological processes, as well as the wider marine environment.

For OSPAR MPAs in ABNJs, efforts should continue to further the Collective Arrangement (OSPAR Agreement 2014-09) and to cooperate through other mechanisms, such as Memoranda of Understanding, with the relevant competent authorities so that they can consider appropriate management actions to help deliver the conservation objectives for OSPAR MPAs in ABNJs.      

Is this measure working?:

OSPAR is progressing towards key metrics in terms of area-based protection; however, there are still gaps in geographic coverage (particularly in the Arctic Waters Region), ecological coherence and in understanding of whether or not management is effective. Of particular significance to marine birds is the need to better understand what role the MPA sites play at particular life history stages, and therefore the purpose of an MPA in relation to marine bird conservation. The reporting on protected areas could enable more consistent assessment if Contracting Parties were asked to report on the extent of the protection, such as the number of sites, the percentage of population covered by protected areas, and the nature of the protection provided to marine birds.

Within the The 2030 North-East Atlantic Environment Strategy (NEAES 2030) Contracting Parties have committed to further developing the OSPAR network of MPAs and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs) by 2030 to cover at least 30% of the OSPAR Maritime Area, and thus to ensure that it is representative, ecologically coherent and effectively managed to achieve its conservation objectives (Objective S5.O1). This an ambition is in line with the global target under negotiation within the Convention on Biological Diversity. 

The mandate of OSPAR is restricted when it comes to the management of certain human activities, and effective implementation relies on action by Contracting Parties for areas within national jurisdiction, and by other competent organisations for areas beyond national jurisdiction. However, the common ambition of a regionally coherent network is important and brings useful attention to the protection of threatened and /or declining habitats. Under NEAES 2030, OSPAR has committed to establish a mechanism by 2024 whereby Contracting Parties authorising human activities under their jurisdiction or control that may conflict with the conservation objectives of the OSPAR MPAs in ABNJs will be required to subject those activities to an EIA or SEA.

The requirement for regular reporting provides a valuable mechanism for tracking progress and accountability. There is, however, a need to continue improving the availability of data relating to the OSPAR MPA network so as to inform those responsible for the management of different human activities in the marine environment. This includes information on the features that are protected and the management plans that are in place, and a necessary development in order to deliver on NEAES  S11.O2: “By 2023, and every six years thereafter, OSPAR will assess at a regional scale the OSPAR network of marine protected areas in respect of the resilience of marine biodiversity to climate change, with the aim of ensuring that the network provides a good representation of species and habitats and that its spatial design and management regime remains relevant”.

Understanding the management effectiveness of the MPAs within the network, and of the network itself, remains an important gap to address. By 2022, OSPAR will identify barriers to the effective management of MPAs, and by 2024 take steps to address them appropriately to enable all OSPAR MPAs to achieve their conservation objectives (NEAES S5.O2).

Other OSPAR measures responding to relevant human activities and pressures

Fish and shellfish harvesting (professional, recreational) and Hunting and collecting for other purposes [Extraction of living resources]:
Article 4 of Annex V of the OSPAR Convention states that no programme or measure concerning a question relating to the management of fisheries shall be adopted under that Annex. Where the Commission considers that action is desirable in relation to such a question, it shall draw that question to the attention of the competent authority or international body. Where action within the competence of the Commission is desirable to complement or support action by those authorities or bodies, the Commission shall endeavour to cooperate with them. Where there are “questions relating to the management of fisheries” at the national level, they will be considered within the context of the Contracting Parties’ different legislation and management regimes (OSPAR Agreement 2013-13).  

The ‘Collective Arrangement between competent international organisations on cooperation and coordination regarding selected areas in areas beyond national jurisdiction in the North-East Atlantic’ (Collective Arrangement, OSPAR Agreement 2014-09) is a formal agreement between legally competent authorities with responsibility for managing human activities in the Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ) in the North-East Atlantic. It has successfully provided a framework for productive dialogue not only between OSPAR and the NEAFC, but also for other relevant competent organisations. In 2017, a joint commitment was submitted under target 4.c of SDG 14 in which both secretariats committed to further promoting the Collective Arrangement and to widening its collaborative scope with the secretariats of other intergovernmental organisations and bodies in other regions and sectors. Under the NEAES, OSPAR will work with relevant competent authorities and other stakeholders to minimise, and where possible eliminate, incidental by-catch of marine mammals, birds, turtles and fish so that it does not represent a threat to the protection and conservation of these species, and will work towards strengthening the evidence base concerning incidental by-catch by 2025 (S7.O6).

Please refer to Important measures taken by other competent bodies for more information about measures implemented by other competent organisations relevant to OSPAR’s work, and OSPAR Feeder Report 2021 - Fisheries .

Renewable energy generation (wind, wave and tidal power), including infrastructure, Nuclear energy generation, Transmission of electricity and communications (cables) [Production of energy]:
OSPAR Feeder Report 2021 – Offshore Renewable Energy Generation :
Commitments to increase renewable energy production are leading to the rapid and, in some areas, extensive development of marine renewable infrastructure. There are several measures of relevance to the conservation and protection of birds, including those relating to EIA (see section 2.2) and the EU Directive 2014/89/EU establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning, as well as guidance on taking nature conservation into account in renewable developments.

OSPAR produced guidance on the environmental considerations for offshore wind farm development in 2008 (OSPAR Agreement 2008-03), intended to help approval authorities identify issues that may be associated with the environmental impacts of development at all stages: construction, operation and decommissioning. In the case of birds, the guidance discusses mitigation measures such as the design of infrastructure to reduce collision risk, scheduling of activities to avoid disturbance during sensitive periods, temporary shutdown of turbines, such as during migration periods, and the use of acoustic or visible deterrents.

The guidance refers to other measures relevant for managing impacts from the development of renewable energy infrastructure, including the EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (2014/52/EU). A 2020 survey of OSPAR Contracting Parties showed that the offshore wind guidance was generally fully implemented or that implementation was in progress, although not all Contracting Parties provided information for the survey. OSPAR also maintains a database of individual marine renewable developments, including tidal, wave and offshore wind. 

For the OSPAR Contracting Parties that are also EU Member States, the European Commission’s offshore renewable energy strategy (2020/741) refers to the Birds and Habitats Directives to ensure that developments do not have negative impacts on listed species or habitats and that any potential impacts are reduced or minimised. The EU has developed guidance under Commission notice (2020) 7730 and in the form of the Wildlife Sensitivity Mapping Manual, which provides practical guidance for renewable energy planning within the European Union. As an example of a national level response, the United Kingdom has developed wildlife sensitivity maps and the Seabird Mapping and Sensitivity Tool (SeaMaST), which provides evidence of the use of sea areas by seabirds and inshore waterbirds in English territorial waters, mapping their relative sensitivity to offshore wind farm developments.

By 2023, OSPAR will develop common principles, and by 2024 develop guidance, to promote and facilitate sustainable development and scaling up of offshore renewable energy in a way that cumulative environmental impacts are minimised (S12.O4).

Extraction of minerals [Extraction of non-living resources]:
OSPAR Feeder Report 2021 – Extraction of non-living Resources :
Aggregate extraction has the potential to interfere with marine bird feeding areas. OSPAR Agreement 2003-15 on sand and gravel extraction requires Contracting Parties which are coastal states of the Maritime Area to take the ICES Guidelines for the Management of Marine Sediment Extraction into account within their procedures for licensing the extraction of marine sediments (including sand and gravel). The agreement encourages an ecosystem-based approach to the management of human activities, with general plans for the extraction of sediments being made subject to strategic environmental assessment and controls being placed on the extraction of sediments from any ecologically sensitive site. Mitigation measures could include seasonal closures for specific areas; rotation of dredging intensity to allow recolonization and recovery of benthic habitats; and exploratory restoration techniques. The ICES Guidelines are subject to a forthcoming review. 

Extraction of oil and gas including infrastructure [Extraction of non-living resources]:
Oil production activities can affect marine bird habitats and cause physical loss or degradation of habitat, increased turbidity, chemical contamination or visual disturbance from light, as well as the impacts of any oil spill through ingestion or plumage contamination. While this activity is in decline, there are still more than 1 350 operational installations, with an increasing number reaching their end of life in the next two decades. OSPAR is the key international organisation addressing environmental aspects of offshore oil and gas activities in the North-East Atlantic. OSPAR has adopted a wide range of programmes and measures to reduce pollution from all phases of offshore activities. These include the reduction of oil in produced water, substantial restrictions on the use and discharge of organic-phase drilling fluids and the banning of dumping or leaving in place disused offshore installations, subject to derogation in certain specified cases. Nearly all offshore operators have followed OSPAR’s promotion of environmental management systems for offshore installations to support the objectives of the Offshore Oil and Gas Industry Strategy 2010-2020 and have adopted comparable schemes. Measures under the 2010-2020 Strategy have shown a high level of implementation and an assessment of the discharges and spills shows that the OSPAR measures have led to decreases in discharges of both hydrocarbons and the most harmful offshore chemicals, see: Offshore Industry Thematic Assessment .

Physical restructuring of rivers, coastline, or seabed (water managment):
The dredging and the dumping of waste and other matter has been well regulated since the Oslo Convention came into force in 1974. OSPAR has adopted the Guidelines for the management of dredged material at sea (OSPAR Agreement 2014-06), designed to assist Contracting Parties in managing dredged material in ways that will prevent and eliminate pollution in accordance with Annex II to the 1992 OSPAR Convention and protect marine species and habitats in the OSPAR Maritime Area in accordance with Annex V. These provisions set out a Best Environmental Practice approach for minimising both the amount of material dredged and the impacts of dredging and disposal. The guidelines include specific information on appropriate placement of dredged material in relation to the OSPAR List of Threatened and/or Declining Species and Habitats (OSPAR Agreement 2008-06). National authorities use these guidelines to manage dredging and dumping and to minimize effects on the marine environment. They serve as a tool that Contracting Parties which are also EU Member States can use for the management of dredged material that is subject to current European Directives (such as, Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC, Marine Strategy Framework Directive 2008/56/EC, Natura 2000 areas under the Birds and Habitat Directives 2009/147/EC and 92/43/EEC). Directive 2008/98/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste, (the Waste Framework Directive) has also been identified by Contracting Parties as having implications for the management of dredged material, in addition to relevant national legislation.

Since 2000, assessment and licensing procedures for dredged materials in most OSPAR countries have included action levels for contaminant loads based on the OSPAR guidelines. Since 1998, OSPAR has also had guidelines in place on the dumping of fish wastes. The management of dredged material should respect natural processes of sediment balance. Selecting the appropriate location for a dumpsite is essential in order to minimize environmental impact. Several dumpsites have been relocated by applying the OSPAR guidelines: a planned site in the Weser estuary was relocated after a site survey detected a mussel bank. Dumpsites have also been relocated or closed to avoid impacts on MPAs, fisheries and shipping. The ban on dumping vessels or aircraft has been implemented successfully. 

A report on the use of OSPAR guidelines was presented to the EIHA in 2020. Returns from Contracting Parties have reported that the 2014 dredging guidelines are being fully implemented in the greater part of the OSPAR Maritime Area (§6.46 Shipping and Ports Feeder Report ). Under NEAES 2030, 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 by 2023 (S7.O4).

Marine litter
Marine litter causes harm to marine birds through entanglement or ingestion. OSPAR has been at the forefront of international efforts to tackle the marine litter problem since the adoption of its first Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter (RAP ML) (2014-2021). A Second Regional Action Plan on Marine Litter (RAP ML 2) was adopted in 2022 and will continue the work to prevent and significantly reduce marine litter in the North-East Atlantic. The RAP ML 2 includes actions that address various sources of marine litter. The action areas include preventing fishing-related litter like abandoned, lost and discarded fishing gear from ending up in the marine environment, continuing the Fishing for Litter initiative (Recommendation 2016/01), a scheme encouraging fishers to remove marine litter from the sea and seabed, preventing and reducing microplastics including pre-production pellets (Recommendation 2021/06), and building an evidence base for understanding ecological harm. Besides the RAP ML, other measures have been taken, especially within the EU and the IMO. 

The Marine Litter Thematic Assessment reports positive signs of a decrease in the quantities of litter found on OSPAR beaches and of floating litter in the North Sea over the last 10 years. Given the upward trend in plastic production and consumption in Europe over a similar period, this suggests that progress has been made on preventing plastics from entering the marine environment. The successful implementation of the new Regional Action Plan will be key to building on and maintaining the momentum for achieving OSPAR’s objective to prevent inputs of and significantly reduce marine litter.

Other relevant activities

Tourism (including leisure infrastructure) has been identified as an activity affecting marine birds, but no measures have been taken to address these. However, infrastructure development activities for tourism, as well as for transport infrastructure, land claim, coastal defence or construction of offshore infrastructure, will be subject to EIA (see section 2.2). Military operations may also affect marine birds, but these are not usually covered by environmental legislation.

Important measures taken by other competent bodies

This section highlights measures taken by other competent bodies that complement OSPAR’s response for improving the state of marine birds within the North-East Atlantic.
General conservation measures

A number of general measures at the regional level are important for addressing the state of marine birds of the North-East Atlantic in the coastal zone and beyond.

The EU Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) and Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) are the cornerstones of the EU’s biodiversity policy and establish the Natura 2000 network as a key response to protect bird habitats used for breeding and feeding. Marine birds are also considered within Descriptor 1 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive 2008/56/EC, which notes coherence and connects to action under the Birds and Habitats Directives (including the Natura2000 network). Under Article 13 of the MSFD, EU Member States are required to take measures to achieve or maintain good environmental status by 2020. Status assessments under Article 8 and environmental targets under Article 10 help to identify where measures are needed. A more detailed analysis of the reported programmes of measures put in place by EU Member States was undertaken by the EU funded NEA PANACEA project as a contribution to this assessment (See: Programmes of measures relating to marine birds under the MSFD). The Maritime Spatial Planning Directive has also been identified by some EU Member States as relevant in helping to designate areas for fishing while reducing impacts on birds.

A number of regional and species-specific action plans have been implemented under the European Union, the Arctic Council Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna and the Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA) as well as those under the Nordic Council and national level action plans. Examples include:

• International Species Action Plan for the Balearic shearwater, Puffinus mauretanicus. (Arcos, 2011);
• International (East Atlantic) Species Action Plan for the Conservation of the Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii (2021-2030);
• Arctic Council Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) ‘International Ivory Gull Conservation Strategy and Action Plan’;
• Arctic Council Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) ‘International Black-legged Kittiwake Conservation Strategy and Action Plan’;
• The Nordic Action Plan for Seabirds,
• AEWA: Resolution 7.6 Priorities for the conservation of seabirds in the African-Eurasian Flyways, International Single Species Action Plans e.g. for long-tailed duck, velvet scoter and common eider.

Programmes of measures relating to marine birds under the MSFD

The approach: The very long lists of measures are difficult to compare with efforts to protect marine birds. This is more easily done by using the assessments in the Programmes of Measures (PoM) of each Member State under Article 16 of the MSFD. Therefore, measures have been extracted from the Article 16 Technical Assessment of the MSFD 2015 reporting on Programme of Measures of 2017, in which the EU Commission reviewed the Programmes of Measures (PoM) of all individual Member States (including the UK). These PoM addressing birds are very diverse, and mostly formulated in very general terms, at least judging from their titles. From the Article 16 assessments it was possible to extract the Key Type Measures (KTM) for bird-related measures. Note that more than one KTM could be assigned to an individual measure. The KTMs partly overlap with those used in the Water Framework Directive (WFD01-WFD25) but are supplemented by MSFD-specific KTMs (MSFD26-MSFD39) (European Commission 2018).

Measures were considered if they related to waters in the OSPAR Region (i.e. excluding the Mediterranean and the Baltic for the Member States ES, FR, DE, DK, SE) or were listed as directed at birds (i.e. excluding horizontal measures; however, this was treated very differently among the Member States). In the next step, the KTM entries for the Member States were summarised according to OSPAR Region. Some Member States covered more than one maritime region. While measures identified from codes referring to the Baltic Sea (SE, DK, DE) and the Mediterranean Sea (FR, ES) could be excluded easily, it was not possible to see to which OSPAR Region the measures referring to the North-East Atlantic belonged. It was therefore assumed that any measure taken by a Member State would be valid for all marine areas touched by that Member State. For the OSPAR Regions this means:

• Region I (Arctic Waters): no reported measures as there are no EU Member States in this OSPAR Region.
• Region II (Greater North Sea): measures from UK, SE, DK, DE, NL, BE, FR, but no information from NO (not a Member State).
• Region III (Celtic Seas): measures from UK, IE, FR.
• Region IV (Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coast): measures from FR and ES, but not from Portugal (the four bird-related measures were not assigned to KTM).
• Region V (Wider Atlantic): not included here, because only Portugal is relevant and the four bird-related measures were not assigned to KTM.

Therefore, the KTMs of some Member States are included in the analysis for more than one OSPAR Region. Table R.2 highlights the five most frequent KTM entries for each Region. There is much consistency in this across the Regions, because four KTMs are among the top five in every Region. These are MSFD37 (Restore and conserve marine ecosystems), MSFD38 (Spatial protection), MSFD35 (Extraction of species) and MSFD27 (Physical damage).

Table R.2: The top five KTMs per OSPAR Region (no. of entries)

In order to explore the main pressures and activities against which the four KTMs among the top five KTMs in all Regions are directed, the entries for pressure (OSPAR terminology) and activity for the KTMs MSFD37, MSFD38, MSFD35 and MSFD27 were aggregated (Table R.3 and Table R.4). It is important to know that the respective compilations in Table R.3 and Table R.4 are strongly biased, because for many bird-related measures no pressures or activities were reported (or “various”, which includes unknown pressures and activities).

Table R.3: Pressure entries summed up for each of the four most frequently entered KTMs (bird-related measures across the OSPAR Regions II, III and IV)

Table R.4: Activity entries summed up for each of the four most frequently entered KTMs (bird-related measures across the OSPAR Regions II, III and IV)

The majority of measures for marine birds target impairment from fisheries and the related pressures Removal of non-target species (i.e. incidental by-catch) and Penetration of the substrate (which mostly refers to bottom-trawling). This holds for the KTMs addressing the restoration and conservation of ecosystems (MSFD37), spatial protection (MSFD38), extraction of species (MSFD35) and physical damage (MSFD27). Other pressures and activities are much less well represented.

Fish and shellfish harvesting (professional, recreational) and Hunting and collecting for other purposes [Extraction of living resources]:
OSPAR Feeder Report 2021 - Fisheries :
OSPAR does not itself have the competence to address questions relating to the management of fisheries. However, given that fisheries are an important human activity affecting the state of marine birds, OSPAR maintains a watching brief on responses taken to address fisheries management by the relevant competent organizations. 

There is a global framework for fisheries management which establishes common principles, including conservation measures, for vulnerable species. These include United Nations General Assembly Resolution 64/72 on Sustainable fisheries and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) International Guidelines for the management of deep-sea fisheries in the high seas. Within the North-East Atlantic, the key responses are the national fisheries management legislation for those Contracting Parties that are not EU Member States and the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) for those Contracting Parties that are also EU Member States. EU Regulation 2019/1241 on the conservation of fisheries resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures was adopted to support the implementation of the EU CFP. It addresses the reduction of ecosystem impacts through approaches including closed areas and measures regulating certain fishing gear. There are also Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) such as the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC), which regulates certain fisheries outside national jurisdiction, and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT).

Fishing activities differ between regions, being particularly intense in the Greater North Sea and Celtic Seas, and can interact with seabirds through incidental by-catch by creating litter (including ghost gear) and by impacting the food web through prey depletion or creating feeding hotspots. Even at maximum sustainable yield (MSY) levels, fishing will have impacts on the ecosystem and its food webs, with substantial effects on marine bird productivity observed when prey stock falls below one third of its historic maximum (Cury et al., 2011). Changes in fisheries regulation can affect ecosystems. For example, the potential impacts of a discard ban on populations of seabirds include changes in the food supply of scavenger species as well as reduced incidental by-catch if birds are less attracted to fishing gear (e.g. Bicknell et al., 2013; Clark et al., 2020).

Incidental by-catch is an important threat to marine birds and, as noted in the section Programmes of measures relating to marine birds under the MSFD, is an area where progress has been made in the policy response. Those Contracting Parties that are EU Member States have stated, in their MSFD article 13 reporting, that they are applying the rules of the Common Fisheries Policy as set out in the technical measures (EU Regulation 2019/1241) which address incidental by-catch. This involves for example, restricting the use of certain fishing gear so as to reduce the chance of birds being caught, or promoting sustainable fishing tools and techniques.  In addition, the 2012 European Union Action Plan for reducing incidental catches of seabirds in fishing gears (COM (2012) 665) describes recommended measures for addressing the incidental by-catch associated with various types of fishing. An international plan of action for reducing the incidental catch of seabirds in longline fisheries has been developed under the FAO, in line with that organisation’s Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. The NEAFC has also taken measures to regulate non-selective gear types, such as gillnets, entangling nets and trammel nets, in their regulatory area. 

Some improvements in addressing incidental by-catch have occurred, for example in the North Sea, where there has been some evidence of large by-catches of seabirds in coastal gillnets in the past. Fisheries with high incidental by-catch have either been closed or their by-catch risk reduced (ICES, 2019). Nevertheless, in view of the problems that remain, international bodies have highlighted the need for more to be done. For example, to improve data availability, the ICES has advised that better monitoring of incidental by-catch is needed, including for smaller vessels.  

Entanglement of marine birds in abandoned, lost and discarded fishing gear (ALDFG) is a persistent issue in the North-East Atlantic. The measures implemented to address it include the NEAFC Scheme of Enforcement, Arts 7, 7a and 7b on Net marking, removal or disposal of unmarked or illegal gear, and Garbage at sea and Retrieval of lost gear; and the FAO Voluntary Guidelines on the Marking of Fishing Gear. This also links to the efforts underway in OSPAR with regard to the Regional Action Plan for Marine Litter.

Fisheries and related management measures such as discard bans directly impact food webs and ecosystem dynamics, resulting in trophic cascades that can impact the availability of prey for marine birds. Fisheries management measures tend to focus on sustainable management of fish stocks and not on ecosystem functions such as predator-prey capacities. This situation calls for more ecosystem-based management protocols.

Transport – shipping:
OSPAR Feeder Report 2021 - Fisheries :
Transport directly interacts with marine bird habitats through physical disturbance from moving vessels, underwater noise, light, contaminants and non-indigenous species.

Petroleum waxes and vegetable oils can be discharged legally (under certain conditions regulated by Annex II of the MARPOL Convention) as a result of cargo-tank washing, as well as through accidental releases. These can have detrimental impacts on birds and marine species; around 3% of all beach litter retrieved in 2016 in the EU was paraffin waxes (Addamo et al., 2017). An amendment to MARPOL adopted in 2019 strengthens the discharge requirements for cargo residues and tank washings containing persistent floating products with high-viscosity and / or a high melting point that can solidify (such as certain vegetable oils and paraffin-like cargoes). This applies in specified areas including North West European waters, Western European Waters and the Norwegian Sea and Baltic Sea area, and entered into force on 1 January 2021.

In order to support the implementation of EU Directive 2005/35/EC (since amended by Directive 2009/123/EC) on ship-source pollution, the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) has developed CleanSeaNet - a European satellite-based oil spill and vessel detection service. EMSA also has a network of stand-by oil response vessels as well as mechanisms to provide rapid advice to support coastal states responding to incidents involving chemicals or hazardous and noxious substances that could affect marine birds. EMSA’s report on the first decade of CleanSeaNet concluded that there had been significant progress by coastal states in addressing illegal discharges of oil and other substances through measures such as monitoring, inspection, enforcement, and pollution response plans (EMSA, 2017). EMSA also suggests that the CleanSeaNet satellite-based oil monitoring service has had a clear deterrent effect. Although the number of CleanSeaNet detections in the Bonn Agreement area actually rose between 2017 and 2018, this is potentially due to better resolution of images as well as increased volume of services (Bonn Agreement, 2019a). According to the Bonn Agreement BE-AWARE Trend Analysis in 2019, the risk-reducing measures introduced over the previous decade and the recent levels of emergency intervention capacities had a positive effect either with respect to navigational safety or in mitigating the extent of oil spills, more or less stabilising the risk situation despite growing ship sizes and ship passage numbers (Bonn Agreement, 2019b).

The designation of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSAs) under the IMO is a response addressing the potential environmental threat from shipping in ecologically sensitive areas. According to the guidance on the designation of PSSAs (Resolution A.982(24)), these hazards are identified as relating to operational discharges and accidental or intentional pollution, including noise. The Wadden Sea (2002) and Western European Waters (the Western coasts of the United Kingdom Ireland, Belgium, France, Spain and Portugal, 2004) have been designated as PSSAs by the IMO in light of the risks posed by the carriage of goods. Area-specific routeing and reporting schemes are in place to reduce the risks to these PSSAs. The re-siting shipping lanes further out from the coast to reduce the risk of harm from factors such as oil spillage has also been done in Icelandic waters (ICES, 2019b).

Marine aquaculture, Freshwater aquaculture, Agriculture and Forestry [Cultivation of living resources]:
OSPAR Feeder Report 2021 – Aquaculture :
There is potential for impacts by shellfish aquaculture on sensitive species of birds or mammals, for example through alterations in ecosystem functioning, disturbance, exclusion, or entanglement (ICES, 2020). Site-specific decisions on the location and management of aquaculture, via assessment of projects under individual countries’ regulatory systems, are the primary measure for addressing the environmental impacts of aquaculture. Understanding of how to manage impacts has grown over the past decade, although some knowledge gaps remain. Some general measures can be applied to address certain impacts, including disturbance under the EU Birds Directive, EIA and licensing legislation and water quality under the EU Water Framework Directive.

Disturbance of marine birds

The disturbance of marine birds by artificial light is an issue of concern that was highlighted on the international agenda as the theme for World Migration Day in 2022. Light pollution, including at sea and along the coastline, can affect marine bird behaviour, causing disorientation and collision. In 2020 the Parties to the Convention on Migratory Species adopted guidelines on light pollution (UNEP/CMS/Resolution 13.5), including for marine birds. The guidelines call for projects that could result in light pollution to be made subject to EIA. There are also examples of national light pollution guidelines, such as the Australian National Light Pollution Guidelines for Wildlife Including Marine Turtles, Seabirds and Migratory Shorebirds, adopted in 2020.

Regional differences

There is a wide range of responses relevant to the protection and conservation of marine birds across the North-East Atlantic, particularly in the busy coastal regions of the Greater North Sea, Celtic Sea and Bay of Biscay and Iberian Peninsula. 

In the deep seas and areas outside national jurisdiction, the main response from OSPAR has been the designation of MPAs to protect areas important to seabirds. However, the competence to manage the main human activities of concern that may take place in those areas lies with other competent organisations, and efforts such as the Collective Arrangement will need to be strengthened in order to ensure coordination and coherence in achieving conservation and management objectives.

Gaps and opportunities

Are we doing enough?

Given the continuing not good status for most marine bird species assessed, it is argued that the measures as they are currently being implemented are not succeeding in managing the key pressures and human activities. Good progress has been made in developing the ecological coherence of the OSPAR network of MPAs for protecting OSPAR listed bird species. 

It is not particularly easy to see how the range of responses identified could or should fit together, where there may be gaps and how these could be filled. For those OSPAR Regions within the EU, actions to implement OSPAR measures at the national level are also often being reported to fulfil other obligations, and vice versa (e.g. as collective actions under the MSFD), adding another layer of complexity to trying to understand the added value of particular responses. The region- and species-specific action plans can help to provide an overview of the regulatory landscape and highlight the value in developing an OSPAR-scale action plan that can build on and strengthen existing responses.

Are there other types of responses that could be undertaken by OSPAR to improve the status of marine birds?

Addressing the decline in marine birds has been identified as a priority for OSPAR in the NEAES 2030. 

In the context of protecting and conserving biodiversity, “by 2025 at the latest OSPAR will take appropriate actions to prevent or reduce pressures to enable the recovery of marine species and benthic and pelagic habitats in order to reach and maintain good environmental status as reflected in relevant OSPAR status assessments, with action by 2023 to halt the decline of marine birds” (S5.O4). The plan will build on this current assessment in order to recommend action for reducing and eliminating, where possible, the main pressures and activities impacting marine birds, including pressures from Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza, which have increased in prevalence very recently. The recommended actions will consolidate those already in operation under the OSPAR Recommendations on the nine threatened and declining bird species, and through the existing species action plans under the EU, CAFF and AEWA and national strategies. This important area of work will be implemented via the joint OSPAR / HELCOM / ICES working group on marine birds and will help to build a coherent response.

As part of its efforts to ensure sustainable use of the marine environment, OSPAR has committed to continuing its work with relevant competent authorities and other stakeholders to minimise, and where possible eliminate, incidental by-catch of marine mammals, birds, turtles and fish so that it does not represent a threat to the protection and conservation of these species, and will also work towards strengthening the evidence base concerning incidental by-catch by 2025 (S7.O6). This will increase the focus on the effects of incidental by-catch, including for marine birds; OSPAR should take into consideration relevant by-catch studies (in the framework of OSPAR, European Commission, ICES, ACCOBAMS, ASCOBANS) and their future conclusions.

There are other areas where marine birds could benefit from OSPAR’s work, including that on the restoration of benthic habitats, particularly for benthic feeding and grazing birds, see: Benthic Habitats Thematic Assessment - Response - Gaps and Opportunities .

Climate change has pervasive and fundamental implications for marine bird communities, including changes in the suitability of breeding locations, breeding success and prey availability, with major implications for management. While the focus for responses to climate change lies outside of OSPAR’s remit, mitigation underlies all other responses, and without such action adaptation is likely to be ineffective, see: Climate Change .