OSPAR. 2010. The OSPAR System of Ecological Quality Objectives for the North Sea: a contribution to OSPAR's Quality Status Report 2010. OSPAR Publication 404/ 2009. OSPAR Commission, London. Paijmans D, Xxxxxxx X. 2016. African Black Oystercatcher fatality as a result of fishing line. Biodiv. Obs.
OSPAR recognises that protection and sustainable use of the oceans is best served by a fundamental understanding of its complex marine ecosystems, and that can only be achieved through marine research. OSPAR further recognises that the role of scientists is also of primary importance concerning the implementation of the OSPAR network of Marine Protected Areas, and this should be preceded with the best available science.
OSPAR. Title The 1992 OSPAR Convention, 1998: OSPAR Strategy with the regard to Hazardous Substances, 1999 ROPME Title Objective(s) Timeframe Status Partner(s) Pilot Study on POPs
OSPAR. 2017. The Intermediate Assessment 2017. Assessment of the marine environment in OSPAR’s waters. https://oap.ospar.org/en/ospar-assessments/intermediate-assessment-2017/. OSPAR 2023. Feeder Report 2021 - Offshore Renewable Energy Generation. https://oap.ospar.org/en/ospar- assessments/quality-status-reports/qsr-2023/other-assessments/renewable-energy/ OSPAR-HELCOM, 2019. Outcome of the OSPAR-HELCOM workshop to examine possibilities for developing indicators for incidental by-catch of birds and marine mammals. 2019 Copenhagen, Denmark. Available: https://portal.helcom.fi/meetings/Incidental%20bycatch%20WS%201-2019- 647/MeetingDocuments/Outcome%20OSPAR-HELCOM%20incidental%20by- catch%20indicator%20workshop_final.pdf. Palmer, L., Gillespie, D., MacAulay, J.D.J., Sparling, C.E., Russell, D.J.F. & Hastie, G.D. (2021). Harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) presence is reduced during tidal turbine operation. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 31(12): 3543– 3553. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3737. Peltier, H., H. J. Baagøe, K. C. J. Camphuysen, R. Czeck, W. Dabin, P. Daniel, R. Deaville, J. Haelters, T. Jauniaux, L. F. Jensen, P. D. Jepson, G. O. Keijl, U. Siebert, O. Van Canneyt, and V. Ridoux. 2013. The stranding anomaly as population indicator: the case of harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena in North-Western Europe. PLoS ONE 8: e62180-e62180. Peltier, H., R. Czeck, W. Dabin, P. Daniel, R. Deaville, J. Haelters, L. L. IJsseldijk, L. F. Jensen, P. D. Jepson, G. Keijl, M. T. Olsen, U. Siebert, O. Van Canneyt, and V. Ridoux. 2018. Small cetacean mortality as derived from stranding schemes: the harbour porpoise case in the northeast Atlantic. Document SC/67b/HIM05 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee. Pierce, G. J., A. Brownlow, P. G. H. Evans, L. IJsseldijk, K. Kamińska, L. Kessler, S. Murphy, E. Pinn, V. Ridoux, M. P. Simmonds, J. Spitz, K. Stockin, and N. Taylor. 2022. Report of the ASCOBANS Resource Depletion Working Group (August 2022). Report to the 27th Meeting of the Advisory Committee, Online 28-30 September 2022. ASCOBANS/AC27/Doc.2.2. Pierce, G. J., M. B. Santos, and S. Cerviño. 2007. Assessing sources of variation underlying estimates of cetacean diet composition: a simulation study on analysis of harbour porpoise diet in Scottish (UK) waters. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the UK 87:213-221. Pinn, E.H., 2008. Formal Review of Research and Development of Contract CRO 364 – Cetacean Strandings around the UK Coa...
OSPAR. General concepts largely agree with those mentioned above, namely, geographical and seasonal restrictions in order to avoid ensonification of sensitive species and habitats, are cited as the most effective measures. Soft-start / ramp-up procedures also are cited as measures to alert marine life to noise. Finally, acoustic deterrent devices are mentioned as a mean to drive away animals from impacted areas and therefore as a useful mitigating measure. Another important concept is that criteria need to be set for noise exposure that should not be exceeded. ICES: the Working Group on marine mammals highlights the importance of international cooperation, in particular in the use of common standards for protocols, measurements, and exposure limits. Further concepts trace those already mentioned: use of visual observers and bio-acousticians, ramp up protocol and acoustic deterrent devices.
OSPAR. Mitigating measures include: obtaining information about ecological and biological parameters (presence, density and distribution) in the chosen area and sensitivity to noise of target species; calculating the risk in light of such information; limiting overall use and the area of use (avoiding important habitats, especially for beaked whales), limiting the season of use (avoiding sensitive periods); using passive acoustic monitoring and marine mammal observer protocols; adapting the frequencies to where the animal’s hearing is relatively insensitive; regulating the use of sound if marine mammals are detected close to the source; implementing noise monitoring programs; if applicable, carrying out marine mammal observation of reactions to stress by using tagging, passive acoustic monitoring to detect vocalisation or active acoustic monitoring; and finally, use the soft start protocols.
OSPAR. The methods used to mitigate impacts of seismic surveys include: geographical and/or seasonal restrictions, source reduction or optimisation, buffer zones, surveillance of buffer zones by visual, acoustic or other means, soft-start techniques and reporting requirements.
OSPAR the guidance recommends mitigation measures to be applied according to the different phases of a wind farm project: licensing, construction and operation. The licensing phase is subject to the realisation of a comprehensive environmental impact assessment (EIA). The choice of site for the future wind farm is crucial and should be done on the basis of the EIA and in consideration of NATURA 2000 special areas of conservation under the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC), as well as the special protection areas under the Bird Directive (79/409/EEC). Thus, baseline information about ecological and biological parameters (distribution, density, priority habitats, acoustics, etc.) should be obtained in order to facilitate the siting of the installation. Programs aiming to gather such information should be planned as well as monitoring projects before, during and after construction. The precautionary approach should be used to deal with uncertainty. Concerning noisy activities during the construction phase, sensitive periods for marine wildlife should be avoided (e.g. seal pupping periods). Quieting or alternative technologies, such as enclosing the ramming pile with acoustically-isolated material or using hydraulic pile driving or drilling (as is used for tunnels), is preferred. Extending the duration of the impact during pile-driving, which can decrease the source level by 10-15 dB, might be a solution to apply as well. In any case, the use of best practices is required, such as soft start / ramp up for pile driving, visual and acoustic monitoring (use of MMO and XXX protocols) of marine mammals, as well as noise reducing technologies (i.e. bubble screen, able to decrease the source level by up to 20 dB ). Noise inputs should be shut down, reduced or delayed in the case of marine mammal sightings near the noise source. Additionally, the use of acoustic deterrent devices (pingers, seal scarers etc.) may be employed. Finally, acoustic monitoring of noise should be carried out in order to, inter alia, verify predictions of propagation models eventually employed during the EIA phase. Regarding the operational phase, besides the long term visual and acoustic monitoring programs that need to be accomplished, the OSPAR text states that “no mitigation measures” are “currently available” for mitigating operational noise effects. Moreover, the only way to prevent important barrier effects is a site selection that avoids key habitats and diversity/density hotspots as well as mi...
OSPAR. In agreement with ACCOBAMS statements, their guidance mostly relies on the development of vessel- quieting technologies, for example technologies that minimize propeller cavitation. About operational measures that could have positive outcomes, routing and speed restriction seems to be the most workable measures, although this could have other negative effects that need to be evaluated as well. IMO: texts discussed hereafter include the report from Renilson Marine Consulting (2009)(50), the paper from Leaper and Renilson (2012)(52) and the draft guidelines of the IMO DE sub-committee (2013). Computational models for estimating radiated noise are proposed in the draft guidelines in order to help ship owners, builders and designers to identify noise control measures. Further, reducing ship noise might be achieved by lowering the propeller cavitation. Hence, it is suggested that commercial ships carry out frequent dry-dock maintenance of propeller blades, as blade damage is identified as a possible source of cavitation. Propeller polishing and the use of modern antifouling also are suggested as practices that reduce radiated underwater noise. Moreover, it is proposed that a noise monitoring system be used onboard in order to alert operators when it would be cost effective to clean and/or repair a propeller as to improve its efficiency and reduce noise output. Finally, re- routing and speed selection are promoted as important measures to implement. Additionally, the use of quieting technologies is encouraged. Available technologies are presented in paragraph 3.1. and in ANNEX III
OSPAR. Convention for the protection of the marine environment of the North-Est Atlantic . 1992 p. 1–33. Available from: xxxx://xxx.xxxxx.xxx/html_documents/ospar/html/ospar_convention_e_updated_text_2007.pdf
