Implementation of OSPAR Recommendation 2003/2 Database on Encounters with Dumped Conventional and Chemical Munitions Biodiversity Series 2009 OSPAR Convention Convention OSPAR The Convention for the Protection of the La Convention pour la protection du milieu Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic marin de l'Atlantique du Nord-Est, dite (the “OSPAR Convention”) was opened for Convention OSPAR, a été ouverte à la signature at the Ministerial Meeting of the signature à la réunion ministérielle des former Oslo and Paris Commissions in Paris anciennes Commissions d'Oslo et de Paris, on 22 September 1992. The Convention à Paris le 22 septembre 1992. La Convention entered into force on 25 March 1998. It has est entrée en vigueur le 25 mars 1998. been ratified by Belgium, Denmark, Finland, La Convention a été ratifiée par l'Allemagne, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, la Belgique, le Danemark, la Finlande, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, la France, l’Irlande, l’Islande, le Luxembourg, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom la Norvège, les Pays-Bas, le Portugal, and approved by the European Community le Royaume-Uni de Grande Bretagne and Spain. et d’Irlande du Nord, la Suède et la Suisse et approuvée par la Communauté européenne et l’Espagne. OSPAR Commission, 2009 CONTENTS Introduction............................................................................................................................................2 Evaluation of the experiences gained.................................................................................................2 Annex 1: Short description of contracting parties systems for reporting on encounters with dumped conventional and chemical munitions in accordance with Article 5 of OSPAR Recommendation 2003/2 ......................................................................................................................4 1. Belgium ..................................................................................................................................4 2. Denmark.................................................................................................................................5 3. France ....................................................................................................................................6 4. Germany.................................................................................................................................7 5. Ireland ................................................................................................................................. 10 6. The Netherlands.................................................................................................................. 11 7. Norway ................................................................................................................................ 12 8. Spain ................................................................................................................................... 12 9. Sweden ............................................................................................................................... 13 10. United Kingdom................................................................................................................... 13 ANNEX 2: Database and map on encounters with munitions ....................................................... 14 ANNEX 3: List of national contact points for the purposes of Recommendation 2003/2 on an OSPAR framework for reporting encounters with marine dumped conventional and chemical munitions…………….….……….......................................................................................................... 55 1 Implementation of OSPAR Recommendation 2003/2 - Database on Encounters with Dumped Conventional and Chemical Munitions Introduction This document provides an overview of the implementation of OSPAR Recommendation 2003/2 on an OSPAR Framework for Reporting Encounters with Marine Dumped Conventional and Chemical Munitions in the OSPAR Convention area. It is based on national implementation reports received up to the end of 2008. It updates the report from the first reporting round in 2005 which was published in 2007, and evaluates the experience gained from the reporting arrangements set out in the Recommendation. Annex 1 is a short description of the system that Contracting Parties have established to meet the aims of OSPAR Recommendation 2003/2 on an OSPAR Framework for Reporting Encounters with Marine Dumped Conventional and Chemical Munitions or failing that, an explanation why they have not established such a system. The information presented has only minor changes since last reported in 2007. The database at Annex 2 compiles the data submitted to the OSPAR Secretariat by Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Ireland, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Denmark and Norway have reported that they have recorded no encounters with dumped chemical or conventional munitions during the period since OSPAR reporting started. The list of Contracting Parties’ contact points for reporting on encounters is at Annex 3. Evaluation of the experiences gained OSPAR Recommendation 2003/2 on an OSPAR Framework for Reporting Encounters with Marine Dumped Conventional and Chemical Munitions in the OSPAR Convention came into force on the 2nd July 2004. Since then over 1800 encounters with chemical and conventional munitions were reported by Contracting Parties. This has allowed the publication of the Assessment of the Impact of Dumped Conventional and Chemical Munitions under the OSPAR Joint Monitoring and Assessment Programme, and its update with a more detailed assessment in 2009 dealing with encounters reported between 1999 and 2008 (OSPAR Publication number 365/2008). These assessments have shown that fishing in the southern North Sea and dredging to the west of Den Helder are the activities most likely to result in the encounter of munitions. The level of reporting increased in 2005 following the tragic death of three fishermen in the southern part of the North Sea when a World War II bomb exploded on board their fishing vessel after been hauled aboard in their nets. This high level of reporting was not sustained and it is not possible to establish if this is as a result of fewer encounters or less reporting of encounters. In terms of the reporting, Contracting Parties are required to report encounters on a three year cycle, but when clusters of munitions encounters occur these should be reported as soon as possible. Paragraph 3.6 of the Recommendation states that it should be reviewed periodically in the light of experience gained by its implementation and that the first such review should take place not later than 2009. A number of issues arose during the reporting and assessment of munitions since the Recommendation came into force. These issues are identified below, briefly discussed and proposals made on actions that could be taken to resolve or improve reporting under Recommendation 2003/2. 2 OSPAR Commission, 2009 Issues arising: a) Timing of reporting: there was some confusion resulting from the lack of clarity on reporting deadlines. This could be clarified by requiring Contracting Parties to report all munitions encountered before the 1st September deadline every three years, however, encounters could be reported at any time and will be included in the OSPAR database on encounters. The 1st September deadline therefore refers to the reporting deadline for inclusion in the assessment of previous three year period. b) Multiple reporting: Contracting Parties should only report encounters with munitions that occur within their own maritime jurisdictions. In the last round of reporting two or more Contracting Parties reported the same encounters on a significant number of occasions. This indicates that there is an important exchange of information between authorities on munitions encountered. This exchange should continue and be encouraged by OSPAR as there are serious health and safety issues relating to encounters by fishermen. However, multiple reporting of the same encounter distorts that data and makes interpretation difficult. c) False reporting: on a number of occasions encounters with materials that were not actually dumped munitions were reported. These included marine flares, fireworks, and military targets of recent origin. Proper quality control procedures should be put in place by Contracting Parties and data checked for anomalies before reporting. d) Accurate coordinates: for the majority of reported munitions Contracting Parties did not report the coordinates as specified in the explanatory notes of Recommendation 2003/2. It is specified that degrees and decimal degrees be used. Aside from the additional work required in converting coordinates, such conversions result in the unnecessary introduction of inaccuracies. e) Nature of encounter: this refers to the nature of the activity being undertaken when munitions are encountered. It is proposed to include diving and mine-hunting and categories of activities in the reporting format. f) Format: there is a clear need to prepare a formatted excel spread sheet and provide this to Contracting Parties for submitting results. 3 Implementation of OSPAR Recommendation 2003/2 - Database on Encounters with Dumped Conventional and Chemical Munitions Annex 1: Short description of contracting parties systems for reporting on encounters with dumped conventional and chemical munitions in accordance