chronic oil pollution in europe - · pdf filechronic oil pollution in europe (scale, impact,...

Chronic oil pollution in Europe

A status reportKees (C.J.) Camphuysen,Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research

AcknowledgmentsFrancis Wiese (Canada) and David Fleet (Germany)

kindly commented on a draft version of this report.

Their comments have led to numerous improvements.

Any errors and shortcomings remaining are the

responsibility of the author.

IFAW is grateful to Bruce Russell (US) for his valuable

contribution to Chapter 10 of this report.

Table of contents

List of abbreviations and acronyms 5

1. Foreword 6

2. Summary 7

3. Recommendations 11

4. Introduction 14

5. Chronic oil pollution as an issue 17 a. Oil pollution

b. Seabirds and oil

6. Measuring the impact of chronic oil pollution 25 (short introduction on beached-bird surveys and other monitoring methods)

a. Introduction

b. Beached-bird surveys

c. Aerial surveillance

d. Detecting oil spills from space

e. Standardising the data

7. Chronic oil pollution in Europe (scale, impact, trends) 33 a. Introduction

b. Oil spill database

c. Current situation

8. Sensitive species, sensitive areas 42a. Introduction

b. Methods for assessing seabird vulnerability to oil pollution

c. Methods for assessing area vulnerability to oil pollution

9. The effects of chronic oil pollution on seabird populations 48a. Facts and fairy tales

b. Counts and drift experiments as tools

c. Offshore censuses: pre- and post-spill results

d. Colony studies

e. Assessing the breeding origin of casualties

f. Discussion

Chronic Oil Pollution in Europe

3

10. Law and Programs to reduce levels of oil pollution, and minimising the effects of spills 53 a. Introduction

b. International legal framework to reduce (chronic) oil pollution

c. The EU context

d. Limitations of existing regulatory instruments and regimes

11. Conclusions 60

12. References 63

Appendix I. Oil vulnerability index scores for species common to 74the northeast Pacific and the North Sea

Appendix II. Breeding and wintering distribution of European 75seabirds; their status as passage migrants in Arctic waters, in the temperate zone of NW Europe, within the Mediterranean, the Black Sea and Macaronesia; and their OVI scores

Appendix III. Assessment of anticipated sensitivity of European 78sea areas to chronic oil pollution

Appendix IV. Chronic oil pollution versus other threats to marine 82wildlife


4

Table of contents


5

List of abbreviations and acronyms

AIS Automatic Identification System

ALOS Japanese Advanced Land Observing Satellite

APMs Associate Protected Measures

ATBAs Areas to be Avoided (under SOLAS)

AVS Area Vulnerability Scores

BOI Bird Oil Index

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CDEMs Construction Design, Equipment and Manning standards for ships

dwt Dead weight tons

EC European Commission

EcoQO Ecological Quality Objectives

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone

EGEMP European Group of Experts on Satellite Monitoring of Sea-based Oil Pollution

EMSA European Maritime Safety Agency

EU European Union

grt Gross register tonnage

GT Gross Tonnage

HFOs Heavy Fuel Oils,

ICES International Council for Exploration of the Sea

ICES/WGSE ICES Working Group for Seabird Ecology

IMO International Maritime Organization

JRCEC Joint Research Centre

LOT Load on Top system

MARPOL International Convention for the Preventionof Pollution from Ships (1973), as modified by the Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL 73/78)

MEPC/IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee of the IMO

MIDIV Monitoring Illicit Discharges from Vessels

MySQL User-friendly database of oil spill data, created by the JRC

NAO North Atlantic Oscillation index

NSMC North Sea Ministerial Conference

OCEANIDES EC research project aiming to identify and assemble the knowledge required to establish a more harmonized and effective monitoring of European waters in terms of illegal marine oil pollution.

Oha Organochlorines

OILPOL International Convention for the Preventionof Pollution of the Sea by Oil (1954)

OSBMB Ocean Studies Board & Marine Board

OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Northeast Atlantic

OVIOil Vulnerability Indices

PRFs Port Reception Facilities

PSSA Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas

SAR Synthetic Aperture Radar

SEO Sociedad Española de Ornitología (Spanish partner of BirdLife International)

SERAC Seabird Ecological Reserves Advisory Committee

SOLAS Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea

SPEA Sociedade Portuguesa para o Estudo das Aves (Portuguese partner of BirdLife International)

TEQ Toxic Equivalents

UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

Foreword

Hundreds of thousands of seabirds in Europe are falling victim to a silent killerknown as chronic oiling. Chronic oiling is the continuous stream of oil into thesea from oil spills and deliberate, illegal discharges of oily waste from vessels.Oil can affect almost any form of life it comes in contact with and can bedetected in the environment even 30 years after discharge.

Whilst shipping accidents resulting in large spills receive the most attention,chronic oiling is a constant threat to seabirds, arguably leading to far greaternumbers of casualties over time. Every year chronic oiling amounts to 8 ExxonValdez size spills in the EU alone. A small amount of illegally dumped oil in acrucial seabird habitat can be far more deadly than a large oil spill elsewhere.Seabirds, especially those that spend most of their time afloat, are particularlyvulnerable to oil because even the smallest amount destroys the insulating andwaterproofing abilities of their feathers.

IFAW is proud to release this comprehensive report investigating the truescale of chronic oiling in EU waters and its impact on bird populations.European waters are blighted by oil. More effective legislation, betterimplementation and enforcement as well as further scientific research areneeded to save Europe’s marine environment and wildlife from chronic oiling.

As well as trying reducing the discharge of oil, IFAW, working in partnershipwith the International Bird Rescue Research Center (IBRRC), is the world'sleading international oiled wildlife rescue and rehabilitation organization.

Since 1989 when IFAW supported groups responding to the massive ExxonValdez oil spill in Alaska, IFAW’s oiled wildlife rescue team works alongsidelocal groups, rehabilitators and veterinarians aiming to provide the bestachievable care for oiled wildlife globally and to develop practical andachievable prevention strategies.

Chronic oiling is not a problem confined to EU waters. Penguins are oiled dueto illegal bilge dumping along the coasts of Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil.IFAW has assisted rehabilitation groups in South America with the rescue andrehabilitation of over a thousand birds and developed the IFAW PenguinNetwork.

It’s hard to imagine the suffering and damage caused by oil pollution andeven harder to accept that much of this is caused by negligence or badpractice. We hope that the EU can be an example in enforcing existing andnew legislation which can help save hundreds of thousands of sea birds andother marine animals.

Fred O’ReganExecutive Director, IFAW


6

1.

Summary

This report reviews recent trends in oil pollution, with emphasis on ‘chronic oilpollution’ in European waters. Chronic oil pollution is the result of thecontinuous stream of smaller and larger oil spills and deliberate / illegal“operational” discharges of oily waste from vessels. This pollution is chronicvs. episodic in that recurring oil discharges in a sensitive area prevent theimpacted resources from recovering. It is a diffuse type of contamination fromvarious sources that enters the environment in gaseous, liquid or solid forms.The most lethal form enters the marine environment through deliberate (illegal)discharges at sea. The most visible effect of marine oil pollution is theassociated mortality of marine wildlife, notably seabirds.

This report describes the scale and identifies the sources of the oil pollutionproblem. It discusses the methods of assessing the impact on marine wildlifeand outlines the species-specific and area-specific differences in sensitivity tooiling. Chronic oiling is a constant threat to seabirds. Legal measures to reducethe oil problem are reviewed and considered in the context of recent trendsindicating a decline in the proportion of stranded seabirds showing traces of oilcontamination.

Rather than simply signalling the issue of chronic oil pollution, the concludingcomments of the report propose possible solutions and review ideas to furtherreduce the problem.

Chronic oil pollution as an issue• Worldwide annual releases of oil have declined since the early 1970s from approx. 6

million tons to about one million tons, but a general lack of information prevents athorough evaluation of true current levels of oil pollution at sea.

• Illegal and incidental operational discharges from shipping and offshore installations(chronic oil pollution) are the most important sources of marine wildlife casualtiesbecause they occur all the time and because of the important overlap between largeseabird concentrations and busy shipping lanes.

• It is a misconception that large spills cause greater environmental damage than smallspills: what matters are when and where the release happens and the type of oil that isspilled.

• Seabirds are particularly vulnerable to oil because this substance damages the insulatingproperties of their plumage, which they require to survive in a maritime environment.

• Seabirds that spend most of their time afloat and that have little contact with the coast arethe most vulnerable to oil pollution.

• Small amounts of oil in the plumage cause a bird to give up feeding and most casualtiesare due to starvation.

• Large amounts of oil on the plumage cause instant immobility and possibly immediatedeath through suffocation and drowning.


7

2.

Measuring the scale and impact of chronic oil pollution• Beached-bird surveys have been routinely conducted in many European countries over

the past decades, enabling a proper historical evaluation of temporal trends in marine oilpollution.

• Oil rates in seabirds found dead on beaches are highest in areas bordering shipping lanes.

• Significant declines in oil rates have been found over the past 30 years.

• Aerial surveys are an instrument to measure oil pollution more directly and the resultsconfirm that most oil slicks are formed in the vicinity of the major shipping lanes. These surveys have generally confirmed the declining trend of oil slick occurrence, butlong-term comparable data are not readily available for analysis.

• Recent technology offers the possibility to detect oil slicks from space. This technology isparticularly promising for the future, but long-term trends cannot be deduced from thesedata at the moment.

• Despite good intentions and collaboration from different countries, an internationaloverview of oil pollution is impeded by difficulties in harmonising the available data.Recent initiatives by the EC Joint Research Centre to develop standard nomenclature andan on-line database are described.

• OSPAR introduced a series of Ecological Quality Objectives to monitor characteristicparameters in the marine environment. EcoQOs are intended to act as monitoringguidelines until a set target has been reached.

• The oiled-guillemot EcoQO, soon to be implemented, is intended as an instrument formonitoring chronic oil pollution in 15 European sub-regions. The objective of this particularEcoQO is defined as follows: “The average proportion of oiled common guillemots shouldbe 10% or less of the total found dead or dying in each of 15 areas of the North Sea over aperiod of at least 5 years. Sampling should occur in all winter months (November to April)of each year.” We would expect that this will motivate the development andimplementation of similar monitoring tools (and policy targets) in other parts of Europe.

Chronic oil pollution in Europe• The sources of chronic oil pollution are diverse and estimates of total quantities vary

widely.

• Two aspects deserve attention: oil pollution has declined over the past decades, but illegaldischarges by vessels are still a major source of the chronic oil pollution currentlyobserved.

• The EC JRC oil spill database, presented on the web at http://serac.jrc.it/midiv/, isconsulted to evaluate recent developments in chronic oil pollution. Composite maps of theSpecial Areas within Europe (the Black Sea, the Mediterranean, the Baltic and the NorthSea) show the locations of nearly 20,000 oil slicks detected over a period of six years (onlythree years in some areas).

• The recent data from high tech remote sensing equipment provide a very clear signal thatEuropean waters are by no means free of oil spills.

Sensitive species, sensitive areas• Oil Vulnerability Indices (OVI) are widely used to rank species in terms of vulnerability to

oil. Important parameters are behaviour, exposure, biogeographical population,reproductive potential, and reliance on the marine environment. OVIs should preferably becalculated at the subspecies level.

• OVIs have not been calculated for numerous European taxa of seabirds.

2. Summary


8

2. Summary• Recent work assessing the sensitivity of different sea areas to oil pollution has been

evaluated. Key information needed consists of the OVIs of the species living in the area, and adequate (offshore) census data to evaluate spatial and temporal patterns ofabundance at sea.

• Possible changes in the (wintering) distribution of seabirds should be taken intoconsideration with regard to the vulnerability of certain areas, and a deeperunderstanding of offshore habitat requirements is therefore needed.

• The Greenland Sea, Icelandic waters, Bay of Biscay, Portuguese and Spanish Atlanticcoasts, Macaronesia, the Mediterranean and the Black Sea are data-deficient in terms ofknowledge regarding their sensitivity to oil pollution.

• Knowledge pertaining to the sensitivity of the Barents Sea, Norwegian Sea, Channel andCeltic Sea is partly data-deficient.

• The North Sea, Irish Sea, waters west of Britain, Faeroese waters and the Baltic Sea arewell studied and their sensitivity to oil pollution has been evaluated.

The effects of chronic oil pollution on seabird populations• The effects of oil spills on seabirds have often been exaggerated in the past.

• Adequate surveys, coupled with drift experiments and accurate information on the agestructure of oil spill casualties and their possible (breeding) origin are required to enable aproper evaluation of the scale and impact of accidental or chronic oil pollution onseabirds.

• Oil pollution is a major threat to seabirds mainly in their European wintering areas.

• Direct effects on seabird populations, such as on survival rates and age structure, arerarely detected because specific long-term studies involving individually marked birdsneed to be in place in the area affected by the spill before it actually happens.

• A recent review of major oil spills revealed that adequate data usually have beencollected but those post-spill evaluations making use of that data tend to be rare.

• Recent studies showed that winter mortality of adult guillemots was doubled by major oilpollution incidents, demonstrating that oil pollution can have wide-scale impacts onmarine ecosystems, and that these impacts can be quantified using populations of markedindividual seabirds.

Law and programs to reduce levels of oil pollution, andminimising the effects of spills• The UN Convention for the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) has recognised pollution from

vessels as one of the main threats to the marine environment. In response, UNCLOS hasestablished the framework for the multi-lateral development of rules and standards actingmainly through the competent international organization, namely the InternationalMaritime Organization (IMO). The IMO has adopted several instruments to control theenvironmental impact of shipping, the most important being the International Conventionfor the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78).

• Within Europe, “Special Areas” have been identified under MARPOL (Annex I) as waterswhere oil discharges are essentially illegal. Special Area status within Europe wasapplied to the Mediterranean, Black, and Baltic seas in 1978. The marine regioncorresponding to North West European waters (mainly the North Sea) was designatedas a Special Area in 1999.

• The designation of Special Areas under MARPOL is a significant step, but withoutenforcement, such legislation is pointless.


9

• Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSAs) offer an enhanced tool for protecting sensitiveareas and species from the impact of international shipping in that they allow the adoptionof a large range of instruments, so-called Associated Protective Measures (APMs), whichare not only limited to the control of oil discharges.

• Oil discharge standards are not the only or most effective means of protecting sensitivesea areas. For example, the SOLAS V/10 mandatory ship routing measures may be used torestrict or prohibit the passage of certain types of ships through sensitive sea areas.

• The EU has introduced several packages of legislative measures and proposals, includingthe recent Erika III package, aiming to improve maritime safety, reduce chronic oilpollution and prevent accidental pollution by ships. These legal instruments largelyaddress the issues highlighted above.

• Several recent studies based on evidence from offshore surveillance by “coastal” statesand from inspections by Port States show that one of the basic problems lies with arelatively small percentage of vessels and owners that persist in consistently operatingtheir vessels in full contravention to the IMO's body of environmental regulations. Inrelative terms, the numbers are small – approximately 10-15% of the world fleet. However,in absolute terms, this subset of owners accounts for a large number of vessels.

• Oily waste discharge standards have been circumvented by companies and ships’ crew.There is evidence that the standards themselves foster these circumventions as thepollution prevention equipment is often poorly maintained of insufficient capacity and doesnot operate as designed.

• In March 2006, the Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) of the IMO hasinvited member governments to provide concrete proposals, including draft MEPCcirculars or proposed amendments to existing instruments, to address the operationalproblems most vessels are facing and what may the root causes of non-compliance.

Conclusions• Although a general decline has been observed in marine oil pollution, there is also a

shortage of long-term studies and of readily available and comparable information, whichlimits our understanding of the true impacts of oil pollution on marine wildlife and onseabird populations in particular.

• Available knowledge seems to play very little part in orienting the decision in the planningof clean-up operations in the aftermath of oil incidents or in planning aerial surveillancesof oil at sea.

• The recently established EC website and JRC database clearly show that many instancesof oil pollution are in fact avoidable, but even in Special Areas control measures havebeen inadequate to reduce and eliminate illegal spills. If illegal discharges are still asfrequent as shown, states need to adopt far stricter systems of Port States and Flag Statecontrol, as well as effective monitoring and sanctioning procedures.

• Increased enforcement, however, is only a partial and for many countries a costly solution.

• Apart from the shortcomings in existing legislation and enforcement for preventing oilspills and illegal discharge of oil in sensitive sea areas such as MARPOL Special Areasand PSSAs, there is also a technical limitation in that the ecological criteria used todesignate such areas fail to specifically address seabird sensitivity to oil as indicated bycurrent data on seabird distribution and seasonal movement patterns.

2. Summary


10

Recommendations

3.1 National

IFAW recommends that competent national authorities

and enforcement agencies take the following steps:

Improving Information • Identify knowledge and address gaps in sensitive / vulnerable areas;

• Fully examine the sensitivity of seabird species to oiling (Oil Vulnerability Indices - OVI) inEurope and develop a full set of data in order to analyse area sensitivity;

• Collect seabird distribution data or compiled existing data, to start systematically evaluatingthe sensitivity of European seas to oil pollution. Scientists should be encouraged andsupported to conduct offshore surveys in data-deficient areas and/or areas that have neverbeen properly analysed, such as Greenland Sea, Icelandic waters, Bay of Biscay, Portugueseand Spanish Atlantic coasts, Macaronesia, the Mediterranean and the Black Sea;

• Support long-term population studies of seabirds (seabird demography) as essential tools to evaluate the effects of oil spills and chronic oiling and develop work in data-deficient areas;

• Stimulate seabird ringing programmes in little-studied seabird breeding areas, and maintainprogrammes in areas where scientific research is currently in place;

• Immediately implement the oiled-guillemot Ecological Quality Objectives (EcoQO)introduced by OSPAR and to develop and implement similar monitoring tools (and policytargets) in other parts of Europe;

• Stimulate and support beached-bird surveys in all coastal areas bordering sensitive seabirdpopulations (wintering and/or breeding) and annually report the results to evaluate trends inoil rates; and

• Implement a programme for analysing the types of oil responsible for ecological damage,preferably in connection with beached-bird survey schemes. Following the outcome of suchprojects, measures targeting particular types/sources of oil pollution should be prioritised.

Stronger Emphasis on the Most Sensitive/Vulnerable Areas• Identify, monitor and protect sea areas that are particularly important for seabirds;

• Use the collected data to rank different sea areas according to their sensitivity to oilpollution, taking into account the abundance, sensitivity and diversity of wildlife;

• Make sure that sensitive bird areas, rather than areas designated using more arbitraryecological criteria (e.g., MARPOL Special Areas) are granted the strictest protection andgreatest attention with regard to the threat from chronic oil pollution;

• Systematically evaluate resident as well as migrant seabird populations in European seaswith regard to their sensitivity to oil pollution. This information, along with seabirddistribution data that already exists, needs to be incorporated into the selection criteriaused to designate sensitive areas at sea, e.g., Special Areas or PSSAs, so that these may bemonitored and protected on the basis of more pertinent ecological data; and

• When appropriate, make use of the SOLAS V/10 mandatory ship routing measures to restrictor prohibit the passage of certain types of ships through sensitive sea areas.


11

3.

Implementation and Enforcement • Ensure stricter implementation and enforcement of existing measures and legislation to

further limit the effects of chronic oil pollution, and to eliminate oiling in Special Areas.Specifically:

• Making sure that ships flying their flags comply with international anti-pollution standards and maritime waters under their jurisdiction are managed in accordance with the international conventions they are parties to;

• Enhancing inspections in ports;

• Imposing penalties of adequate severity on offenders guilty of on-compliance with international standards of oil pollution, such that it becomes more cost-effective for shippers to comply with existing regulations, than to disregard them;

• Developing economic incentives to encourage compliance by ships with international standards (e.g., accelerated port inspections for well performing ships, smaller port access fees, discount on the purchase of fuel upon delivery of waste waters to receptionfacilities) thereby preventing illegal disposal from being an attractive alternative;

• Encouraging onboard oily waste disposal (incineration and recycling);

• Facilitating the use of port reception facilities;

• Monitoring handling and disposal of oily wastes in ships using transponders; and

• Following an analysis of abundance, sensitivity and diversity of wildlife, consider applyingfor the designation of PSSAs in waters under (and beyond) national jurisdiction and theadoption of associated protective measures, including mandatory routeing measures (e.g.,ATBAs), to reduce the impact of shipping activities on marine biodiversity in the area.

Prevention• Promote the adoption of new international standards or the amendment of existing ones

to reduce chronic oil pollution (e.g., introduction of an Electronic Oil Discharge MonitoringSystem (EODMS) as a compulsory requirement under MARPOL 73/78 Annex I);

• Reinforce policy and legislation for the provision of places of refuge for ships in distresswhile minimizing the risk for seabirds and other marine wildlife;

Response • Conduct proper impact assessments for each oil spill; and

• Use available data and develop (seasonal) environmental sensitivity maps to improve theplanning of clean-up operations in the wake of oil incidents (e.g., in orienting the decisionto immediately contain illegal spills at sea or leave them to disperse naturally, or inplanning aerial surveillances for oil at sea) and ensure prompt and effective response;

Education• Introduce mandatory educational programmes for seafarers to enhance knowledge and

awareness of marine environmental issues and of the damage caused by oil spills on marinewildlife. That may be done; for example, by introducing compulsory environmental courses;lectures and practical activities in National Academies (e.g., the obligatory course for Dutchcadets of the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research-now Texel Academy).

3.2 European Union

IFAW recommends that the EU Institutions take thefollowing steps:

• The European Commission shall finance long-term studies to fill the current lack ofinformation regarding sensitive seabirds areas, seabirds distribution and OVIs as well asmapping projects;

3. Recommendations


12

3. Recommendations• Following the proposals from the European Commission, the European Parliament and the

Council shall adopt the Erika III package without any further delay;

• Ensure that the Erika III proposal concerning the regime on places of refuge for ships indistress (i.e., the proposed amendments to the VTMIS Directive) contains clear provisionsfor the protection sensitive areas for seabirds; in particular:

• Member States should conduct a preliminary assessment of the ecological sensitivity/vulnerability of the areas before drafting plans for the accommodation of ships in distress and the inventory of potential places of refuge;

• Ecologically sensitive areas for seabirds and other marine wildlife (based on temporal and spatial boundaries) should be mapped to identify: 1) areas not suitable for refuge designation: 2) high priority areas for emergency response through contingency planning; 3) priority areas for pollution prevention measures (e.g., routing, ATBAs) 4) priority areas for increased enforcement efforts including targeted surveillance;

• The Independent National Authority shall take wildlife considerations (e.g., proximity of sensitive/vulnerable areas, breeding/nursing areas or migratory routs) in to account when deciding whether or not to accept a ship in distress into a place of refuge;

• In the exercise of its institutional function as “the guardian of the Treaty” the Commission(assisted by EMSA) shall monitor very closely the Member States’ implementation ofexisting EU legislation concerning oil pollution and make full use of all EU financial andenforcement mechanisms, including infringement actions before the European Court ofJustice (ECJ), to ensure full compliance with existing measures;

• In case of Member States non-compliance with existing EU legislation, the ECJ shallimpose financial penalties of sufficient severity to discourage further violation;

• The Member States, in coordination of the European Commission, shall promote theadoption of the highest protection standards within the framework of the IMO. In order toincrease the effectiveness of the EU’s external action the existing EU coordinationmechanisms should be strengthened and further formalized.

3.3 International

IFAW recommends that the International Maritime

Organization (IMO), in particular the Marine

Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC), takes the

following steps:

• Conduct or promote a comprehensive review of the adequacy of onboard oil pollutionprevention equipment (oily water separators, storage and holding tanks, piping monitors),oily waste record keeping, and operating procedures and to amend IMO guidelines andrequirements as necessary;

• On the basis of a study of known (prosecuted and investigated) cases of illegal oildischarges, the MEPC should draft and distribute a “Circular” to member states andshipping companies concerning the extent of the problem, root causes and the impact ofnon-compliance on wildlife (population decimation), mariners (jail and fines) andshipping companies (big fines). The purpose of this Circular like other circulars is to askmember states to provide this information and for companies and Port States to take“appropriate actions”;

• Consider amending MARPOL Annex I to require an Electronic Oil Discharge MonitoringSystem (EODMS) to replace/supplement parts of the oil record book. The EODMS shouldbe designed to discourage tampering of the Oil Water Separators (OWS) systems andpiping and “midnight” dumping and to “encourage” companies and crew to develop,procure, install and operate best available technology to comply with the dischargerequirements of MARPOL Annex I;

• and Incorporate data on seabirds distribution and OVIs in the selection criteria used todesignate sensitive sea areas, such as MARPOL Special Areas and PSSAs.


13

Introduction

Marine oil pollution has attracted attention since the late 19th century, whensea-going vessels powered by engines gradually replaced the fleets of sailingvessels (Gray 1871, Mothersole 1910). Unwanted or excess oils were simplydumped into the seas and oceans. During the First World War, activities at seagreatly increased the levels of marine oil pollution and the effects becameclear to everyone living near the coast (Verwey 1915, Woltman 1920, Anon.1922). Naturalists were alerted by oiled seabirds washed ashore, seasiderecreation was affected as beaches became increasingly polluted with tar, andfishermen reported oiled catches that could not be taken to market. In theseearly years, so much oil was discharged into the oceans (sometimes as muchas 10% of the oil used by shipping) that even ship-owners considered it awaste (Wild 1925, Anon. 1926, Cole 1929, Drijver 1929). The concern of shippingcompanies did not encompass the effects on biodiversity or the marineenvironment, but focused simply on the economic cost as something thatshould be minimised. Nevertheless, their early efforts to reduce the dischargesof hydrocarbons into the sea were arguably the most significant thus far taken.Despite these efforts to reduce economic losses, the seas remained far fromclean. Low value oil residues and oil-water mixtures were still freely dumped,and strandings of large numbers of oiled seabirds became annual events. The presence of oil on beaches resulting from an endless stream of smallerand larger discharges, added to by the inevitable oil incidents that occurred,became a permanent nuisance.

The sources of oil pollution having received most publicity are the dramaticspills caused by oil-tanker accidents and platform blowouts. The TorreyCanyon was a tanker that many of us still remember, not because of its sheersize or memorable journeys, but because of its grounding near Land’s End in1967 and the considerable environmental damage inflicted (Bourne et al. 1967;Gill et al. 1967). The spectacular nature of major shipping incidents howeverdoes not make them the most important source of oil pollution at sea (Etkin 1999, Etkin et al. 1999, GESAMP 2001). Urban run-off and discharges,atmospheric fallout, natural seeps, offshore production and operationaldischarges during transportation at sea are considerably larger sources ofpollution. This report reviews recent trends in oil pollution in European waters,with emphasis on ‘chronic oil pollution’1 .


14

4.

1 Chronic release of petroleum hydrocarbons from natural and anthropogenic sources into the world’s oceans

4. IntroductionAn effect of oil pollution that readily springs to mind is that of seabird

mortality. Seabirds are by far the most visible victims of a spill, although it mustnot be forgotten that they are only one of the groups of organisms affected andonly a part of the environmental damage inflicted. Why seabirds are sovulnerable to oil pollution, and how it is possible that some spills have affectedsuch large numbers of seabirds while other events have caused so littledamage, are questions that are addressed in this overview. It is from lessonslearned in the past that future damage can best be avoided or at leastminimised. Through systematic monitoring programmes, many Europeancountries retrieve thousands of oiled seabirds every year. Crude estimates ofannual losses due to chronic oil pollution range into the hundreds of thousandsof individuals every year (Camphuysen 1989). The first reports of oil pollutionwere not published before the late 19th century, and it was not until the early20th century that international conventions were organised to address theproblem. Now, early in the 21st century, chronic oil pollution is still an issue.Two of the most recent ‘mystery spills’ (deliberate discharges of an unknownvessel; classic examples of chronic oil pollution) are briefly discussed andillustrated in this report (see Boxes 1 & 2 ).

The first chapter of this report addresses chronic oil pollution as an issue.The chapter describes the scale of the problem and as far as availableinformation permits, identifies the sources and patterns of pollution. The second chapter focuses on ways to measure the impact of chronic oilpollution, reviewing which monitoring instruments are available, how they areused and by whom, and whether a proper system of impact assessment wouldbe useful to further identify and subsequently reduce the problem of chronic oilpollution. Chronic oil pollution within Europe is the topic of the third chapter,which discusses which areas are particularly sensitive and where work ismost needed in order to reduce the scale and impact of chronic oil pollution.The fourth chapter addresses the impact of oil pollution on seabird populations,evaluating the evidence showing adverse effects and discussing the quality ofresearch that suggests chronic oiling has little negative impact. Chapter fiveaddresses the question of how the constant threat to seabirds from chronicoiling should be scaled in comparison with other threats. Finally, chapter sixexplores the measures that have been taken to minimise chronic oiling,examines if these steps been successful, and proposes recommendations forfurther action towards reducing the impact of spilled oil.

Although there has clearly been considerable progress in the past decadesin terms of reducing the scale and frequency of oil spills, it is also evident fromthe general conclusions of this report that the oil problem is far from resolved (Box 1). The end of this document thus presents a discussion of futurestrategies to further reduce or preferably completely eliminate the problem.This might seem an over-ambitious task given the long history of oil pollution.However, the recent decline in this form of contamination clearly shows that itsfurther reduction, if not elimination, is not impossible.


15

The sea around us is by no means as heavily oiled as it was in the first half of the 20thcentury or even as late as in the mid-1980s. Typically, however, the writing of this veryreport was interrupted by yet another ‘anonymous’ spill of oil in the southern North Sea.The slick killed numerous seabirds by simply covering them in a large quantity of heavyand particularly sticky tar-like oil. Aerial monitoring failed to detect the spill and thesource of pollution was not identified. Officially, this means that there was no oilincident. It is thought that the cause of the disaster was an unseen illegal discharge ofsome passing vessel in stormy weather, just to the north of the Wadden Sea islands. Adeliberate discharge of heavy fuel oil in a Special Area as listed under MARPOL Annex I(c.f. chapter “Reducing levels of oil pollution, and minimising the effects of spills”), richin vulnerable seabirds and bordering one of the world’s most sensitive estuarine areas,constitutes a criminal act and is a clear indication that still more work is required toeliminate the oil problem.

4. Introduction


Right25th December 2005 Recent examples of the effect of chronic oil pollution. Three Razorbills Alca torda andtwo Common Guillemots,collected at Harlingen (Wadden Sea, The Netherlands),victims of an illegal, deliberatespill of heavy bunker oil (C.J. Camphuysen).

RightOiled Razorbill collected atHarlingen (Wadden Sea, The Netherlands)(C.J. Camphuysen)

16

Box 1 Oil pollution as a never-ending story

Chronic oil pollution as an issue

a. Oil pollutionThere is a chronic release of petroleum hydrocarbons from natural and anthropogenicsources into the world’s oceans. Chronic oil pollution is the result of the continuous streamof smaller and larger oil spills and deliberate / illegal “operational” discharges of oily wastefrom vessels. This pollution is chronic vs. episodic in that recurring oil discharges in asensitive area prevent the impacted resources from recovering. The most lethal form entersthe marine environment through deliberate (illegal) discharges at sea. The most visibleeffect of marine oil pollution is the associated mortality of marine wildlife, notably seabirds.Hydrocarbons enter the marine environment through natural seepage, during the extractionor transportation of oil, through atmospheric deposition and from land-based sources. Crudeoil that seeps naturally into the marine environment establishes “background levels” ofcontamination that need to be factored in when determining the extent of pollution fromanthropogenic sources (Tables 1 and 2; OSBMB 2003). Natural seepage is often highlightedas evidence that oil in the marine environment is a ‘natural thing’ and therefore not a causefor concern. The evolutionary processes enabling organisms to adapt to leaks of petroleumhydrocarbons are however both ancient and fragile (Agard et al. 1993). In contrast, thehuman activity of drilling for oil and subsequently transporting petroleum across the world’soceans is recent. This has affected organisms and environments that were never in contactwith oil before, causing huge damage. It is mainly the transportation and use of oil by shipssailing the world’s oceans that causes the most damage to marine wildlife(http://www.aip.com.au/amosc/papers/van_enckevort_h.doc; Kim et al. 1986).

Estimates of total quantities of petroleum hydrocarbons released every year in marineenvironments vary widely, but are thought to have declined from approx. 6 million tons in theearly 1970s to the present level of some 1.3 million tons (National Research Council 1985,1991; GESAMP 1993, Peet 1994, Patin 1999, OSBMB 2003). These estimates are however stillvery uncertain and the true situation is poorly understood, particularly with regard to oildischarges from land-based sources (OSBMB 2003). Even the most recent, and arguablymost comprehensive, estimates of average worldwide annual release of petroleumhydrocarbons are essentially incomplete. Due to lack of data, there are no global estimatesof the discharges originating from smaller registered vessels (<100 GT) and recreationalmarine vessels (Table 1; OSBMB 2003).

Most of the oil released into the world’s oceans should be termed “chronic oil pollution”.This highly diffused form of contamination originates from various sources, and enters themarine environment in gaseous, liquid and semi-solid forms, of which most of the volatilefractions have evaporated. It is impossible to separate ‘chronic oil pollution’ from ‘accidentalpollution’, for there is a fair amount of overlap between the two. An operational discharge,such as an illegal tank washing, from a passing oil tanker for example, would be rankedunder ‘chronic pollution’ if the release had gone unnoticed and the source of the slicktherefore remained unknown. As soon as the offenders were identified, however, the eventwould be treated as an ‘oil incident’. Sometimes the environmental damage arising from aslick that is small or from an unidentified source is huge, even though the actual release ofhydrocarbons may not exceed background levels (i.e., natural occurrences); in such a casethe event may be treated as an oil incident (e.g., Swennen & Spaans 1970). Generallyspeaking, however, accidental spills are generated from incidents on offshore platforms,such as blowouts and leaks (e.g., 0.9 thousand tons in the late 1990s), as well as from


17

5.

Natural seepage n.d. 250 n.d. 250 600 200 - 2000

Extraction of petroleum 50 50 38 20 - 62

Platforms n.d. n.d. 0.9 0 - 1

Atmospheric deposition n.d. n.d. 1.3 0 - 3

Produced waters n.d. n.d. 36 19 - 58

Transportation of petroleum 2130 2680 2222 2222 2222 2222 - 2222

Pipeline spill n.d. 12 6 - 37

Tank vessel spills 200 410 110 110 100 93 - 130

Operational discharges 1080 • 1020 • 410 • 410 • 36 18 - 72

Coastal facility spills 750 • • 70 • • 40 • • 40 • • 4.9 2 - 15

Atmospheric deposition n.d. n.d. n.d. 0.4 0 - 1

Consumption of petroleum 100 1180 10 1490 477 131 - 6041

Land-based (river and runoff) n.d. 1180 n.d. 1180 140 7 - 5000

Recreational marine vessel n.d. n.d. n.d. -

Spills (non-tank vessels) 100 10 10 7.1 7 - 9

Operational discharges (>100 GT) 270 90 - 810

Operational discharges (<100 GT) n.d. -

Atmospheric deposition n.d. n.d. 300 52 23 - 200

Jettisoned aircraft fuel n.d. n.d. 7.5 5 - 22

Total per year 2230 4160 570 2350 1268 471 - 8358

Natural seepage n.d. 250 n.d. 250 600 200 - 2000

Oil exploration n.d. 50 0 50 37 19 - 59

Transportation 1380 1430 530 530 433 219 - 1080

Atmospheric deposition n.d. 300 n.d. 300 54 24 - 204

Land-based sources 750 1180 40 1220 145 9 - 5015

5. Chronic oil pollution as an issue


• discharges of bilge and fueloil plus operational lossesfrom tankers

• • other shipping (ports,shipyards, scrapping etc)

18

1973/1975

1981/1985

1990/1990

1992/1993

1999/2003 min max

Year of estimated publication

Table 1Average global annual releases of oil by source (in thousands of tons). Sources: National Research Council(1991), GESAMP (1993), Peet (1994), OSBMB (2003).

tankers (100,000 tons), registered non-tankers (7100 tons), crude oil pipelines (12,000 tons), andonshore facilities (4900 tons; OSBMB 2003, Table 1). Chronic oil pollution is the sum ofoperational discharges, atmospheric deposition, produced waters (i.e., water produced inassociation with crude oil), land-based sources (river run-off), illegal discharges byrecreational marine vessels, and jettisoned aircraft fuel. Total average chronic oil pollutioncurrently approximates 1.14 million tons per annum (range 362,000 – 8,166,000 tons). Thisaccounts for 90% of total estimated global releases of oil, without considering the estimatedquantities of operational discharges made by smaller registered vessels and recreationalboats (OSBMB 2003). Of these 1.14 million tons, 47% (162.000 - 6,166,000 tons) are fromanthropogenic sources. Operational discharges from ships account for 45% of the estimateaverage annual inputs of oil entering the marine environment (GESAMP 2006).

The published estimates of the annual releases of oil into the marine environment areessentially inaccurate (compare values in Tables 1 and 2), but suggest a relative overalldecline (Etkin et al. 1999; Patin 1999; OSBMB 2003; Figure 1 and GESAMP 2006). Although thistrend is partly an artefact of an increase in data collection, it is also true that the lower globallevels of marine oil pollution are partly due to greater compliance with regulations, as well asto improved technology and monitoring systems on board larger vessels.

Etkin (1999) gives a statistical overview of oil spills of at least 34 tons that have occurredworldwide over the last twenty years. These figures show not only total oil spillage but alsoannual amounts of oil released from different sources, and the frequency and amount of oilspilled by size range. Etkins’ data indicate that in any one year, the total amount of oil released

5. Chronic oilpollution as an issue

Land based Urban run-off and discharges 2500 2100 1080 952 1175

Coastal refineries 200 60 100

Other coastal effluents 150 50

Oil transportation and shipping Operational discharges tankers 1080 600 700 1260 564

Tanker accidents 300 300 400

Discharges from non-tanker shipping 750 200 320

Offshore production Offshore production discharges 80 60 50 56 47

Atmospheric Atmospheric fallout 600 600 300 280 306

Natural Natural see page 600 600 200 224 259

Total discharges 6110 4670 3200 2772 2351


Figure 1Average, worldwide annualreleases of oil by source (in thousands of tons). Sources: Patin (1999), OSBMB(2003); Table 1 (right-handcolumn) and Table 2.

19

1973 1979 1981 1985 1990

Table 2 Average worldwide annual releases of oil by source (in thousands of tons), after Patin (1999). The 1985 estimateswere calculated from published proportions (relative contributions of oil released into the environment), and arebased on the assumption that the decline in releases occurring between 1981 and 1990 was constant.

depended largely on the incidence of catastrophic spills. While smaller slicks (< 340 tons) werefar more frequent than large ones (> 3400 tons), their total volume was usually only a fractionof that of a single catastrophic slick. Tanker spills have often received more media coverage,but the amount of oil involved is often less than that spilled from pipelines, storage tanks, andother facilities. It should be realised, however, that in the case of a catastrophic spill, theamount of oil released is usually well known, whereas the numerous smaller discharges oflesser incidents cannot be quantified in terms of slick size and usually remain undetected.

Operational discharges from vessels in general and tankers in particular have declinedsubstantially over the last 25 years. According to the latest GESAMP Report No. 75 “Estimatesof Oil Entering the Marine Environment from Sea-based Activities”, the total amount of oilentering the sea annually as a result of operational discharges (from engine rooms and fueltanks of all ships) is approximately 189, 000 tonnes/yr (Para.80). Using the results frombeached bird surveys in the southern North Sea, Camphuysen (1998) found a consistentdecline in chronic oil pollution, which seemed in perfect agreement with reduced amounts andfrequencies of petroleum hydrocarbons polluting beaches in the area. However, despite thesignificant reduction of oil discharges from tanker incidents over the last 20 years, this form ofdischarge is still a regular occurrence in many areas around Europe (Clark 2001).

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

01973 1979 1981 1985 1990 1999

Natural seeps

Atomspheric

Offshore production

Oil transportation & shipping

Land-based

b. Does more oil spilled mean that more seabirds are at risk? It is a general misconception that important spills involving large quantities of oil cause greaterdamage than smaller spills. The International Council for Exploration of the Sea (ICES 2005)reviewed seven major oil incidents that had occurred in Western Europe since the TorreyCanyon ran aground in the late 1970s: the Amoco Cadiz off France in 1978, the Stylis in theSkagerrak (northern North Sea) in 1980, the Braer off Shetland in 1993, the Sea Empress in theIrish Sea/Celtic Sea in 1996, the Erika off France in 1999, the Prestige off north-western Spainin 2002, and finally the Tricolor in the English Channel in 2002. In four of these accidents, vastamounts of oil were released at once (>70,000 tons), and all spills took place in winter andearly spring (November to March). Smaller amounts of oil were spilled from the Erika (15,000tons) and the Tricolor (170 tons), and the Stylis deliberately discharged some 600 tons ofcarbon black feedstock oil on its crossing from Rotterdam to southern Norway. There was nopositive correlation between the numbers of seabird casualties counted on shore and theamount of oil spilled (Figure 2). Despite the relatively small amount of oil, the Stylis incidentranked highest in terms of estimated seabird mortality caused. A similar wildlife disasteroccurred after the Erika incident, which was relatively modest in terms of the quantity ofhydrocarbons released. In contrast, rather fewer birds died as a result of the 223,000 tons ofcrude oil spilled by the Amoco Cadiz, an incident which ranks as the fourth largest tanker spillin the world (White & Baker 1999), the sixth largest oil spill in the world (Etkin 1999), and by farthe most dramatic event of its kind in Europe.



Figure 2 Amount of oil spilled (tons) andnumbers of oiled seabirds founddead (n) as a result of sevenrecent oil spills in WesternEurope (from ICES 2005).

20

50000

40000

30000

20000

10000

50,0000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000

0

Stylis

Erika

Prestige

Tricolor

Sea Empress

Braer

Amoco Cadiz

One reason for this surprising result is that some spills occurred in areas known to be verysensitive to oil pollution because of their importance for wintering seabirds, whereas otherslicks occurred in less vulnerable regions (Carter et al. 1993). It is not the amount of oil spilledthat matters most, but rather when and where it happens. An area with large concentrations ofhighly vulnerable species of seabirds and marine mammals is considered to be more sensitiveto surface pollutants than other areas lacking such concentrations of fauna. Another factor ofvariation between the mentioned incidents was the type of oil spilled. The Braer ran aground and lost its entire cargo of 84,700 tons of Norwegian Gulfaks crude oilplus a small amount of heavy bunker oil (Heubeck et al. 1995; White & Baker 1999). This spillwas unusual in that it did not produce a surface slick: the combined effect of the lightweight oiland the exceptionally strong wind and wave energy dispersed the slick naturally.

What does make a difference in terms of wildlife casualties (oiled seabirds and marinemammals) is the consistency of the oil. Global statistics are not particularly informative in thisrespect, but generally speaking, at least with respect to external oiling, both river run-off andatmospheric depositions of petroleum hydrocarbons do not pose an immediate threat foranimals such as seabirds and cetaceans. However, seals and otters may be at risk when sitesused for hauling out (i.e., coming on land) or feeding become contaminated by constant flowsof even lightly polluted river water. Much of the Amoco Cadiz oil quickly formed a viscousemulsion, resulting in up to a four-fold increase in the volume of the pollutant. Seabirds weresimply smothered by this emulsion, and as a result died from suffocation. Viscous water-in-oilemulsions (“mousse”) of this kind are very dangerous to marine wildlife and even relativelysmall amounts of oil can do very serious harm.


c. Offshore platforms versus transportation of oil Other sources of chronic oil pollution are the deliberate discharges and non-reported(smaller) accidents associated with offshore platforms. Unfortunately, most Europeanbeached bird surveys neglect to systematically record which oil types are involved. A three-year European project recording oil deposits on beaches and oiled birds in Denmark,Germany and The Netherlands however did identify oil types (Dahlmann et al. 1994). This andother, more localised, follow-up projects (e.g., Fleet & Reineking 2001) clearly showed thatNorth Sea crude oils formed only a small proportion of oil types found. The identification ofcrude oils alone is insufficient to prove that offshore oil installations may be involved, for theoil in question is transported from the source towards oil terminals around the world. The lack of evidence that oil platforms and associated releases of oil into the marineenvironment are having an effect on seabirds is mainly due to the distance of theseinstallations to well surveyed shorelines: there always remains the possibility that mostwildlife casualties have been lost at sea. Evidence for the frequent releases of oil into theNorth Sea from oil platforms in this region is provided by the results of aerial surveys, basedon the EC Joint Research Centre data for the North Sea, as summarised in the chapterentitled “Chronic oil pollution in Europe”. The presence of the Tampen oil field to thenortheast of the Shetland Islands, for example, is clearly reflected by the numerous oil slicksdetected. However, there is no available information on the effects of these slicks.

d. Seabirds and oilIt is quite clear that seabirds and oil do not mix. There are a number of reasons whyseabirds are exceptionally sensitive to oil pollution, and there are issues that need furtherattention to make us understand why untreated seabirds die even from a small spot of oil ontheir feathers.

Seabirds depend on the seas and oceans to such a degree that land is an adverseenvironment for them (Schreiber & Burger 2002). Like other birds, however, seabirds need toincubate their eggs on land. For many seabird species, this periodic phase in their breedingcycle is the only time they even approach the coast. The entire juvenile and immature phaseand all of the non-breeding period is spent out at sea. Seabirds are fully adapted to life atsea thanks to their perfectly insulating, waterproof plumage and extensive subcutaneous fatlayers to keep them warm.

Mineral oils (or other fatty floating substances, see above) reduce the insulatingproperties of feathers by destroying the fine structure that keeps out water droplets (Holmes& Cronshaw 1977, Rozemeijer et al. 1992). Only properly aligned and maintained feathers willensure that water cannot penetrate to reach the skin, thus keeping the bird buoyant andinsulated from the cold. Oil sticks to the feathers, causing them to mat and separate, thusimpairing the waterproof properties and exposing the bird’s skin to seawater temperatures.This generally leads to hypothermia, especially in cold waters like the North Sea and theNorth Atlantic. As a behavioural response, birds will instinctively try to get the oil off theirfeathers by preening. Unfortunately, this often leads to a spreading of the oil over largerparts of the body, and more critically, to ingestion and inhalation of toxic compounds.Several studies have shown that ingestion has long-term effects such as a reducedreproductive success and lower winter survival rates (Leighton et al. 1983, Leighton 1993).As oiled birds struggle to maintain their body temperature and buoyancy, their feeding isreduced or totally impaired, thus further weakening their body condition and fat reserves. If close to shore, birds may choose to go on land to escape or reduce the effects ofhypothermia. Whether on land or at sea, most oiled birds ultimately die due to hypothermiaand/or starvation.

When considering the effects of a surface pollutant such as oil, it is noteworthy that someseabird species are more aerial than others. Penguins cannot fly at all, auks have short-wings and heavy bodies and swim more than they fly in order to conserve energy, andseveral species become flightless on a periodic basis as a result of moulting all their flightfeathers at once. Albatrosses, petrels, terns and gulls are examples of aerial families thatplunge in the water to catch their prey. Some species can roost on land (e.g., gulls and some


21

waterfowl), while others are fully pelagic. A few species (such as frigatebirds andcormorants) combine life at sea with a plumage that needs to dry after contact with water.In general terms, the truly pelagic and least aerial species are the most vulnerable to oilpollution. Many of these primarily swimming species feed by diving, and some, likeguillemots, forage at spectacular depths (150m or more; Piatt & Nettleship 1985, Lovvorn &Jones 1991, Weimerskirch & Sagar 1996). Diving deeper than 20 or 30m exerts considerablepressure on plumage, which therefore needs to be in perfect condition to avoid loss ofinsulation.

The extent to which oil affects seabirds can be divided into four categories (Table 3). The first of these (see examples in Box 1) corresponds to animals that are immediatelyimmobilized by contact with the oil. Birds in this situation are entirely covered with thesubstance and are unable to move their wings and feet and are often unable to breathewithout inhaling oil. In this state, birds will find it extremely hard to stay afloat with theirhead above water. Because of the rapidity of this smothering effect of oil, any survivingcasualties found washed ashore will still be in the same physical condition as when theyfirst encountered the oil slick. Human intervention in such cases is limited to quicklycleaning off the oil so as to spare the reserves of birds that are otherwise in good condition.



Table 3Types of seabird exposure tooil, short-term effects onperformance and condition, andprospects for self-cleaning andsurvival (in the absence ofhuman intervention). Theseprospects are described for themore vulnerable and sensitiveseabird species that havelimited or no possibilities ofsustaining themselves whenhaving to leave the water for astay on land.

22

Type Amount of oiling Effect Self-cleaning Survival prospects prospects

1 Completely (100%) covered Immobilisation, suffocation Impossible Nonein thick layer of oil

2 10-99% of plumage Partial immobilisation, Impossible None contaminated with oil lossof insulating properties

of feathers, hypothermia,starvation

3 Small specks of oil Loss of insulating properties Rarely successful Bleak(<10% of plumage) of feathers, hypothermia,

starvation

4 Nearly invisible sheen of oil No plumage disruption Positive Positive

Box 1

Type 1 oiled 100%

Type 2 oiled 90% Type 3 oiled 5% Type 4 oiled (invisible)

Type 1 polyisobutylene 100%


Type two casualties are heavily oiled and have disrupted plumage over most of theirbody, but can still breathe freely and usually are able to swim and stay afloat. Birds in thisstate will mostly preen, even though wing movements may be hampered by sticky oil.Preening will not have the desired effect however, and these birds will soon die fromhypothermia and starvation. Even though fouled by oil, pelagic seabirds will avoid theshore unless they are able to find a quiet location free of predators and human activities.Stranded casualties of this kind usually have depleted fat reserves and are greatlyweakened, often suffering also from pneumonia, hypothermia and other physical problems.Human intervention in this case would involve providing immediate attention to both the oil(cleaning) and the birds’ physical condition.

The third category groups seabirds that have been only slightly oiled. Small amounts of oilcoming into contact with birds disrupt their plumage, but otherwise the animal’s physicalcondition is not affected, at least initially. The effect of this slight contact with oil will dependon a number of factors, such as the type of bird, the possibilities to leave the water and staydry for a while, the time of year (ambient temperatures), the amount and the type of oil, andthe possibility to feed. Divers, grebes, seaduck and auks will not normally survive thiscondition without human intervention. Species that are more airborne, such as gulls andterns, may be better suited to overcome this type of soiling by attempting to clean theirfeathers while avoiding direct contact with water as much as possible. Oiled seabirds in thiscategory that are unable to deal with the problem and wash ashore as casualties aretypically severely emaciated, suffering from depleted fat stores, atrophy of the breastmuscles, gut inflammation, internal parasite infections, and pneumonia. By the time birds inthis condition are found on beaches, dealing with the oil that started the problem in the firstplace is far less urgent than attending to the birds’ immediate health requirements.

The fourth category of contamination is usually overlooked. Birds swimming through an oilsheen may not become visibly contaminated, but the hydrocarbons do adhere to thefeathers. Very fresh corpses of auks having suffered this kind of oiling typically have apurple or blue shine to their white under-parts, which is barely visible except under perfectlight conditions. Only the tips of the feathers may become slightly disrupted and, withexceptions, birds in this condition are normally able to clean themselves and survive.

The ‘classic’ oil incidents are usually remembered because of the Type 1 casualties,which provide sensational media coverage and which are therefore shown as examples ofthe damage. However, it is important to remember that all four categories of exposure occur,and that relatively less oiled casualties originate from birds entering into contact with an oilspill at its periphery, or in later phases of the incident. The second and third categories ofexposure are commonly attributed to chronic oil pollution, rather than large-scale accidents.Beached-bird surveys conducted in the Netherlands since 1970 have shown that of 40,710intact corpses of oiled Black-legged Kittiwakes Rissa tridactyla and large auks (CommonGuillemot, Razorbill and Atlantic Puffin Fratercula arctica), 54% showed signs of only slightcontamination (categories 3 and 4). These casualties were unlikely to get much attention orcause public outcry, even although oil was the principal cause of death.

Mineral oil is not the only substance that affects seabirds. Any floating, fatty substancecapable of disrupting a bird’s plumage is potentially lethal (Newman & Pollock 1973, Anon.1975, McKelvey et al. 1980, Camphuysen et al. 1999). An example is shown in Table 3, wherea Type 1 victim was entirely covered in Polyisobutylene (Camphuysen et al. 1999). The molecular features of environmental contaminants causing disruption of bird plumageare generally quite well known (Rozemeijer et al. 1992), and laboratory experiments havedemonstrated the threshold level of water cleanliness necessary for a bird’s plumage to stayhealthy during prolonged contact with water (Swennen 1977). A topic of interest beyond thescope of this report, and certainly beyond that of the legal framework for reducing marine oilpollution, is the need for a more thorough investigation into the source of non-mineral oilpollution at sea (Timm & Dahlmann 1991). This is particularly pertinent given the apparentlyincreased frequency of discharges of such substances (Hak 2003).


23



BelowOiled Mute Swans on a frozenshoreline near Ristna, north-west Estonia, 13th February2006 (C.J. Camphuysen)

24

Box 2 Oil pollution as a never-ending storyThe Baltic Sea is a Special Area under MARPOL Annex I (Box 4, in chapter “Reducinglevels of oil pollution, and minimising the effects of spills”) and the discharge of oil isforbidden since the MARPOL convention entered into force in October 1983. The BalticSea is an important marine area for wintering birds, notably seaducks (Durinck et al.1994). Ship traffic is intense and many hundreds of oil spills are recorded along themajor shipping lanes each year, indicating blatant disregard of MARPOL regulations (c.f.chapter “Reducing levels of oil pollution, and minimising the effects of spills”).Systematic surveys of oiled birds in southern Gotland (Sweden) showed that tens ofthousands of Long-tailed Ducks Clangula hyemalis were affected by oil each year in thecentral Baltic Sea (Larsson & Tydén 2005). Many seaducks have a life history in whichvariable or low productivity is compensated by relatively high adult survival. This fragilebalance is however jeopardised by the devastating effects of oil spills on the survivalrates of those adults, and as a result, seaduck and seabird populations in general arevery susceptible.

In late January 2006, the effects of oil in the Baltic Sea were manifested once again.In the coastal waters of Estonia a vessel that could not be identified released anunknown quantity of oil. The mystery spill killed at least several thousand waterfowl,including Long-tailed Ducks, Goldeneye Bucephala clangula and Mute Swan Cygnusolor. The real damage has yet to be investigated, for severe winter temperatures causedthe sea to freeze over, and the oil to disappear under snow and ice. Numerouscasualties will never be detected, due to the abundance in Estonia of scavengers suchas Wolf Canis lupus, Red Fox Vulpes vulpes, Hooded Crow Corvus cornix, Raven Corvuscorax, and White-tailed Eagle Haliaetus albicilla. The onset of spring raised even greaterconcern: during this period, nearly 4 million waterfowl are known to migrate throughEstonian coastal waters, using the area as a stopover. If the oil had re-appeared frombelow the ice, even more damage could be expected.

Measuring the scale and impact of chronic oil pollution

a. Introduction

Visible signs of marine oil pollution include sightings of slicks at sea,observations of discharging or leaking vessels or offshore installations, oil onbeaches, and oiled seabirds or other marine wildlife. One does not have totravel far before encountering telltale signs of chronic marine oil pollution.Weathered oil residues in the form of tar balls can be found on nearly any tideline, at any time. Observation of roosting gulls on winter beaches willeventually result in witnessing the desperate preening of individuals trying toget rid of the oil plastering their feathers. Remarkably “tame” and usuallyslightly oiled auks lingering in harbours, sitting low in the water and constantlyflapping and preening are other clear signs of animals in distress and furthersignals of the omnipresence of chronic oil pollution. Identifying the problem isone thing, but assessing and measuring its scale and impact is another.

The scale of chronic oil pollution can be measured directly and indirectly.Direct measurements include visual observations during aerial surveys at seaor during beach patrols, or remote sensing observations from fixed platforms,aircraft or satellites. Indirect measurements include statistics obtained in ports(e.g., discharge of oily waste in port reception facilities), and results ofbeached bird surveys where corpses of beached seabirds are systematicallychecked for the presence or absence of oil in the feathers. Each approach hasits advantages and limitations. The main challenge is ensuring that monitoringschemes are compatible with each other and are able to produce large-scale(international) overviews on a regular basis. The possibility to detect oil slicksfrom space (with satellites such as RadarSat) is a recent and very promisingtechnology, but with little scope for detecting historical trends. Moreover, thistechnology is very expensive, and involves private companies that arereluctant to produce any information at low cost and on a regular basis. Aerial surveys for oil pollution are common in most European countries with seacoasts, but methodologies and technologies vary and have changed over time.Surveys are planned independently of each other, they are weather-dependent,and very few attempts to analyse temporal trends have been published. (This can be considered a pessimistic view however, particularly because incomparison to most regions of the world the North Sea has the best and mostintense programme of beached bird surveys and aerial surveillance).


25

6.

b. Beached-bird surveysOiled birds found on beaches have been used as indicators of the oil problem since theearliest days of oil usage, in the first decade of the 20th century (Klerk de Reus 1901, Anon.1910, Verwey 1915, Camphuysen 1989). In those days the people who would raise the alarmwith regard to the oil problem were independent civilians, such as concerned naturalists,who had no relationship with either the cause of the problem (maritime transportation), orwith the implementation of any legislation. It took a while before systematic surveys wereorganised and could provide any accurate data (Bub & Henneberg 1954, Hautekiet 1955,Grenquist 1956, Mörzer Bruijns 1959, Mörzer Bruijns & Brouwer 1959, Camphuysen 1989), butsince the 1950s an increasing number of countries have participated in what can be seen asan international beached bird survey programme (Camphuysen & Heubeck 2001; Table 4).

Camphuysen & Van Franeker’s (1992) proposed seabird “oiling rate” index (defined as theproportion of birds found with oil on their plumage) has been widely accepted as a policyinstrument and is used by many beached bird survey programmes around the North Sea andelsewhere. Beached-bird surveys serve a double function as indicators of the incidence ofoil pollution, and as instruments for monitoring pollution events. The scope of these surveysis unique in that they also serve to visualise the impact of pollution, in terms of showing oiledcasualties and providing concrete data of the damage suffered.

In their Bergen Declaration of March 2002, the ministers responsible for the protection ofthe environment of the North Sea and the European Commission Member responsible forenvironmental protection (collectively referred to as the ‘North Sea Ministers’) decided toimplement a number of selected monitoring programmes as pilot projects. Among these isthe Ecological Quality Objective on marine oil pollution in the North Sea, using oil rates ofdead seabirds. The use of oil-pollution data collected on beaches to shape policy hasstimulated the continuation of beached bird surveys in recent years. The implementation ofan EcoQO for seabirds and oil in the North Sea is thought to further boost beached birdsurvey programmes. In the set of EcoQOs for the North Sea, the stipulated guidelinesconcerning the incidence threshold of oiled Common Guillemots are specified under Issue 4(Seabirds), EcoQO element (f). The EcoQO, as agreed by the 5th North Sea Conference,stipulated that “the proportion of [oiled Common Guillemots] should be 10 % or less of thetotal found dead or dying, in all areas of the North Sea.”

6. Measuring the scale and impact of

chronic oil pollution


Table 4Beached-bird surveys in Europe. Non-systematic reports (•) andthe occurrence of systematicbeached bird surveys (• •) areindicated for each decade (from Camphuysen & Heubeck2001; see references therein).

26

1910s 20s 30s 40s 50s 60s 70s 80s 90s

Belgium

Britain

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Ireland

Latvia

Lithuania

Netherlands

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Spain

Sweden

Russia

• • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • •• • • •

• • • • •• • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • •• • •

• • • •• •

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • •

• • • • • • • •• • • •

• • • • •• • •

• •

6. Measuring the scale and impact ofchronic oil pollution

The ICES Working Group for Seabird Ecology (ICES/WGSE) recommended in 2003 thattrends in oil rates might be most easily reported as five-year running mean percentages. In line with this, the ICES/WGSE advised that before any conclusions pertaining to theobjective being reached could be justified statistically, studies should undergo a minimumfive-year period during which the average proportion of recorded common guillemotsshowing oil contamination should be 10% or less. ICES WGSE therefore suggested that theEcoQO should be amended to read as follows:

The average proportion of oiled common guillemots should be 10% or less of the totalfound dead or dying in each of 15 areas of the North Sea over a period of at least 5 years.Sampling should occur in all winter months (November to April) of each year.

This recommendation was adopted by OSPAR.

Oil rates in Common Guillemots are high in comparison with many other species (seechapter “Sensitive species, sensitive areas”), reflecting their high vulnerability to oil. Stowe(1982) illustrated this on the basis of beached bird surveys in the 1970s and early 1980s (Figures. 3a & 3b). A later analysis confirmed the spatial patterns found, with oil rates inCommon Guillemots in the Netherlands amounting to 88% between 1978 and 1991,(Camphuysen & Van Franeker 1992). Over a similar period (1980s) the respective oil rates of


Figure 3bMean proportions of aukcorpses found oiled duringinternational beached-birdsurveys between 1971-81 (from Stowe 1982).

Figure 3a Mean proportions of gullcorpses found oiled duringinternational beached-birdsurveys between 1971-81 (from Stowe 1982).

27

1 Shetland Islands (UK)

2 Orkney and north coast of Scotland (UK)

3 Duncansby Head to Berwick upon Tweed (UK)

4 Berwick upon Tweed to Spurn Head (UK)

5 Spurn Head to North Foreland (UK)

6 line between North Forland and Belgian/French border to line between Cherbourg and Portland (UK, B, F)

7 line between Cherbourg and Portland to Land's End to Ouessant (UK, F)

8 mainland coast Belgian/French border to Texel (B, NL)

9 North Sea coast Frisian Islands Texel to Elbe (NL, FRG)

10 mainland and Wadden Sea coast Frisian Islands Texel to Elbe (NL, FRG)

11 mainland coast and Wadden Sea coast Elbe to Esbjerg (FRG, DK)

12 North Sea coast Wadden Sea Islands Elbe to Fanø (FRG, DK)

13 mainland coast Esbjerg – Hanstholm (DK)

14 east of line between Hanstholm to Kristiansund, north of line from Skagen to Gothenburg (N, DK, S)

15 Kristiansund to Stadt (N)

In order to adequately describe spatial differences in North Sea oil rates,

the area was divided into 15 sub-regions:

North Sea

Figure 3a

25%

Oil Rate

50%

75%

North Sea

Figure 3b

25%

Oil Rate

50%

75%




Figure 4Differences in oil rates ofCommon Guillemots in WesternEurope (data from Camphuysen1995, as published by Furness &Camphuysen 1997).

28

North Sea

Figure 4

25%

Oil Rate

50%

75%

Common Guillemots found in Germany, Denmark, Norway and the Shetland Islands were70% (Averbeck et al. 1992), 82% (Danielsen et al. 1990), 34% (K. Skipnes in litt.) and 11% (M. Heubeck in litt.). Furness & Camphuysen (1997) repeated the comparison with updatedmaterial in the mid-1990s (Figure 4), confirming the regional differences in oil rates andsuggesting that pressure from oil pollution was greater for bird populations in the Channeland the southeastern North Sea than in the western and northern areas. An even morerecent analysis has produced an image of the current situation (Figure 5), indicating that oilrates have declined substantially, but that the original pattern of high pressure in the areaswith the most intense shipping was still intact (Camphuysen 2005). The available dataindicates clear patterns in chronic oil pollution on a North Sea scale, while temporal trendsindicate overall declines in oil rates. Oil rates among stranded birds in a well-studiedcountry such as The Netherlands have substantially declined during the past 25 years (Figure 6). Although Common Guillemots still rank among the species with the highest oilrate values, even in this species the oil rate has almost halved since the late 1970s(Camphuysen 1995, 1998). There are similar signals in other countries around the North Sea,indicating that the pressure of chronic oil pollution is declining.

On the German North Sea coast, for example, the oil rate of the Common Guillemotdropped from 80% at the end of the 1980s to 52% at the beginning of the 1990s, rising againto 62% at the end of that decade (Fleet & Reineking 2000). These trends compare well withthe results of oil surveillance flights and other records of oil pollution in Germany. For example, a positive correlation was found between the trend in the number of oilincidents recorded in the Traffic Separation Scheme region by the Central InformationCentre in Cuxhaven and trends in oil rates recorded for Guillemots on the German North Seacoast (Fleet & Reineking 2000).


Analysis of beached bird survey data also indicated that in only three out of the 15 sub-regions for which data are currently available were the oil rates of Common Guillemotswithin the 10% threshold as specified by the OSPAR EcoQO for that species. In six areaswhere they were calculated over a five-year period, oil rates for guillemots were still morethan five times higher than they should have been. Recent data in some of the most pollutedareas moreover suggest that initial declines in oil rates have slowed down or levelled out(Camphuysen 2003).

The oiled-guillemot EcoQO is still a long way from being a tried and tested instrument, butimmediate implementation is strongly recommended. At the same time, since the oiled-guillemot EcoQO is of relevance only for the North Sea, the development of a similarlysensitive monitoring tool for other parts of Europe, notably in ecologically sensitive areas(c.f. chapter “Sensitive species, sensitive areas”) should be considered and if possibleimplemented shortly.


Figure 5 Mean oil rate (% oiled) ofCommon Guillemots in the NorthSea between 1997/98 - 2001/02(i.e., excluding the Tricolorincident).

Data SOTEAG, Martin Heubeck,RSPB Eric Meek and SabineSchmidt, Instituut voorNatuurbehoud, Eric Stienen,Nederlandse Zeevogelgroep,Kees Camphuysen, Landesamtfür den Nationalpark Schleswig-Holsteiniches Wattenmeer, Nds.Landesbetrieb fürWasserwirtschaft u.Küstenschutz (NLWK) and VereinJordsand, David Fleet, DanskOrnitologisk Forening, HenrikSkov, from Camphuysen (2004).

29

Figure 5

North Sea

25%

Oil Rate

50%

75%

Common Guillemots, 1976/77-2001 (n=26 seasons)3.0

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.5

-1.0

-1.5

-2.0

-2.5

-3.0

2.5

1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

Figure 6

Figure 6Significant decline in (logit-transformed) oil rates ofCommon Guillemots found deadalong the North Sea coast inThe Netherlands during thewinters of 1976/77 (1976) to2001/02 (2002) (NZG/NSOunpublished data).From Camphuysen (2004).

Logit 3.0 = 99.9% oiled logit 2.0 = 99% oiledlogit 1.0 = 91% oiledlogit 0 = 50% oiledlogit -1.0 = 9% oiled logit -2.0 = 1% oiled logit -3.0 = 0.1% oiled.

c. Aerial surveillance

Oil slicks temper wave movements and are highly visible from the air for the disruption theycause of wave patterns. Visual inspections of oil pollution have been conducted by aerialsurveys in most north European countries since the 1970s (Kramer 1991, Schallier et al. 1996,EC JRC database). In The Netherlands, the results of aerial surveys are published in annual,monthly or bi-monthly overviews, and the results suggest that most slicks occur in the areaswith the highest densities of shipping (Figures. 7 & 8). In the 1980s, remote sensing equipmentenhanced the possibilities of detecting slicks with aerial surveys (Wijmans 1981). To identify anoil slick, visual inspection is however still required in order to determine its colour (J. Hak,pers. comm). Both visual inspection and remote sensing equipment are hindered by strongwinds, and when these have a force of 6B or higher, reliable data cannot be collected.

Aerial surveys have confirmed the downward trends in oil pollution identified bybeached bird surveys in recent years, but also that discharges of oil are still frequent,even in the MARPOL Special Areas (e.g., 2001 EC JRC “Monitoring of Illicit VesselsDischarges, a Reconnaissance Study in the Mediterranean Sea”).2 Aerial inspections arevital to catch trespassers red-handed and an aircraft in the air may be seen as the bestpreventive tool available to discourage crews from illegally discharging oil. On the otherhand, beached bird surveys seem to demonstrate that rather severe cases of oil pollutioncontinue to go undetected, despite aerial surveillance. A combination of monitoringprograms is therefore recommended.




Figure 7Example of oil slicks detected byaerial surveillance in 1994 and thelocations of oil slicks relative tothe major shipping lanes andtraffic separation systems. The dotted line indicates theboundaries of the sector of theNorth Sea belonging to theNetherlands, where the aerialsurveys were conducted (data: Directie Noordzee,Rijkswaterstaat, The Netherlands).

30

Figure 8Composite map showing oil slicksdetected by aerial surveillancebetween 1995-2000, and thelocations of oil slicks relative tothe major shipping lanes andtraffic separation systems (data: Directie Noordzee,Rijkswaterstaat, The Netherlands).

2See Chapter “Laws and Programs to reduce levels of oil pollution, and minimising the effects of spills”

Figure 7

52o

53o

54o

55o 55o

O.L.

54o

53o

52o

3o

3o 4o 5o 6o 7o

4o 5o 6o 7oN.B.

0 20 40 60 kmSCHAAL 1:2.000.000

Figure 8

52o

53o

54o

55o 55o

O.L.

54o

53o

52o

3o

3o 4o 5o 6o 7o

4o 5o 6o 7oN.B.

0 20 40 60 kmSCHAAL 1:2.000.000


d. Detecting oil spills from space

Fixed wing surveillance is technically and economically impossible to implement over theentire pollution responsibility zone of certain countries. Satellite surveillance using SyntheticAperture Radar (SAR) is emerging as a complementary operational tool enablingreconnaissance across wide areas to help combat illegal discharges. A wealth of satelliteimages have been acquired since the mid-1980's by different space agencies and haveshown features that indicate the occurrence of oil spills at sea. It has been foreseen that theforthcoming European Space Agency's Envisat, the Japanese Advanced Land ObservingSatellite (ALOS) and the Canadian RADARSAT-II in conjunction with other internationallyavailable earth observation satellites will play significant roles in continuous monitoring ofoil spills (Harahsheh et al. 2004). Espedal (1999) aimed to improve the understanding ofspace-borne SAR imaging of surface slicks (areas where the short surface waves aredampened), and to develop a method of classification of such slicks, including thosepertaining to oil spill and natural chemical-biological film. Oil spills and similar slicks havebeen studied and classified using SAR image expression, backscatter, geographicaloccurrence and climatic conditions. The supervised slick discrimination algorithm wasdeveloped in order to standardise the procedures and to ensure that the same criteria wereapplied to all slicks in SAR images. When used in conjunction with a database containinginformation on the typical properties of verified slick cases and a database listing possiblesources of pollution, this algorithm will improve the ability to classify slicks.

The remote sensing of marine pollution from space was recognised as ‘a challenge’ in theearly 1990s (Muller-Karger 1992), and judging by the Minutes of the European Group ofExperts on Satellite Monitoring of Sea-based Oil Pollution (EGEMP 2005), this technique isstill a long way from becoming a comprehensive detection and monitoring system (Anon.2002b, Febre 2003).

In November 2005 the EC Joint Research Centre (Minutes of the EGEMP 2005) presentedan ongoing study based on a new automatic technique (object-based) for detecting oil spillsin satellite imagery. With this new automated methodology, full SAR high resolution can beprocessed from image scenes. The methodology relies on the object-oriented approach anduses image segmentation techniques in order to detect dark formations. The detection process makes use of two specially developed empirical formulas, which alsopermit the classification of oil spills according to their brightness. A broad classificationmethod is used to identify dark formations as oil spills or similar objects. In this way, avariety of slick-types can be successfully detected: fresh oil spills, fresh spills affected bynatural phenomena, oil spills without clear stripping, small linear oil spills, oil spills withbroken parts and amorphous oil spills.

Belgium is an end-user of the MARCOAST North Sea Oil Spill Service and begun using anoperational satellite service for oil detection at sea. The satellite images provide an extra“first alert” component within the aerial surveillance programme and the satellite servicewill be further validated. The policy framework supporting this satellite service is Belgium’s‘zero tolerance plan’ for the North Sea. This plan proposes to use new surveillancetechniques based on satellite data to supplement existing aircraft-based surveillance ofmarine oil pollution. Norway and the United Kingdom have experience interfacing satelliteimages with Automatic Identification System (AIS) data. Their aim is to identify ships and tobacktrack routes using satellite images. The AIS system in Norway is already welldeveloped, consisting of 35 AIS stations that cover an area of 30-70 nautical miles. Furthertests are in progress.


31

e. Standardising the dataAn international overview of oil pollution in Europe is hard to obtain (Joint Research Centre2005). The OCEANIDES project is a recent attempt to overcome these difficulties and tocollate data from satellites, vessels, and aircrafts through the cooperation of coastguardsand frontier guards for regional sea basins (Baltic, Mediterranean, North Sea and so forth).Despite good intentions and collaboration from contacted bodies, the database developedvery slowly. Firstly, data were collected for prosecution rather than for statistical purposes.Flight coverage may have been confidential for national security reasons. Dataheterogeneity was considerable, and data collection was tied up to national policies andmonitoring capacities. Data could be stored in XML (GML), Excel, MS-Word or anydatabase format, but even if the same software was used, data presentation and codingwere very different. Semantics were inconsistent, so that similar qualifications could havea different meaning.

Report formats were heterogeneous. In some cases data that had been collected were nolonger available, whether due to a lack of policy for keeping such information, or companieshaving folded, or because critical staff had left the relevant organisation. The obvious firststep was therefore to standardise nomenclature and database formats and to transform allcollected data into XML standard or shapefiles before loading any information into thecommon database. The database and GIS web server will be installed on the JRC site(http://dma.jrc.it/oceanides/).




32

Chronic oil pollution in Europe

a. IntroductionThe sources of chronic oil pollution are diverse, and estimates of totalquantities dumped or released in the marine environment vary widely(GESAMP 1993). Chronic oil pollution should refer to mineral oil only, but infact, numerous lipophilic substances are involved, including mineral oil. Few studies were capable of discriminating between types. While incidentswith non-mineral oils are known to occur (Camphuysen et al. 1999), and theadverse effects of which are well known (Bommelé 1991), we have insufficientknowledge about the scale and eventual trends in the levels of non-mineral oilpollutants in the marine environment within Europe (Timm & Dahlmann 1991).Studies in the 1980s and 1990s showed that ordinary ship fuel oils (notableheavy fuel oils, HFOs) deliberately discharged with bilge water are the mainsource of mineral oil pollution (Dahlmann 1985, Dahlmann 1987, Vauk et al.1987, Dahlmann et al. 1994). Over 700 plumage samples from oiled beachedbirds and from oiled beaches in Germany were analysed during 1998-2001, andrevealed that over 90% of the samples contained (heavy) fuel oil residues thatwere probably part of bilge water discharges from large vessels (Fleet &Reineking 2001).

Reported results from aerial surveys in the North Sea show a clear groupingof recorded slicks around the major shipping lanes in the south and in thesoutheast (Anon. 1995b, Schallier et al. 1996, Directie Noordzee 2001). The clustering of oil slicks around the areas of busiest marine shipping isclearly reflected by the oil rates of beached wildlife corpses (Figures 7 & 8 ).This is true for both past and recent years, suggesting that the main source ofpollution (discharges from ships) has remained constant over time. It shouldbe stressed, however, that there is little concrete information regardingpollution sources in recent years.


33

7.

b. Oil spill database

At the 4th Meeting of EGEMP and OCEANIDES (Ispra, 25th – 26th October 2005), the EC JointResearch Centre proposed compiling a European atlas and database of oil spills in thewaters around Europe. This initiative was reinforced in the OCEANIDES project and adetailed presentation was given during the final workshop in 2005. The JRC started to workon the European atlas in relation to classifying oil spills in the Mediterranean Sea. This goalwas better achieved by dividing the Mediterranean Sea into zones (e.g., Ligurian Sea),which facilitated the comparison of data needed to describe European oil spills withstatistics. Due to the particular interest of Regione Marche (Regional Italian Authority), thework was focused on the Adriatic Sea. The analysis of data led to the creation of an atlas ofprobable oil spills during the years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and summer 2004. In addition, theJRC started to build a user-friendly (MySQL) database of oil spill data. A parallel activity wasto carry out near real-time detection of oil spills. This activity is in progress and several testswere made in August and September 2005 in the Adriatic Sea. The results can thenautomatically be inserted in the SERAC oil spill database. The future aim will be to create aweb-based interface. This user-friendly tool should integrate the above-mentioned Europeanatlas and the oil spill database. The web-based interface will provide users with informationand maps related to the European sea of interest (http://dma.jrc.it/oceanides/).

During the first year of the project, over 6,000 oil spills were recorded, 2,100 of which weredetected in the Baltic Sea (by aircraft, 1998-2002), 1,868 in the North Sea (by aircraft, 1998-2001), and 1,638 in the Mediterranean (by satellite, 1999). By the end of the project, the datacontained information on 17,650 oil spills all over Europe. Summary maps can bedownloaded as PDF files at http://serac.jrc.it/midiv/maps/ and composites are reproducedbelow for the Mediterranean, the Baltic, the North Sea, and the Black Sea (Figures. 9 - 15 ).Note that there is no information available on oil spill densities for the Atlantic seaboard.

c. Current situationThe recent data from high tech remote sensing equipment clearly show that Europeanwaters are by no means free of oil spills. Nearly 20,000 oil spills were detected over a six-year period (3 years in some areas; Figures 9 to 15 ). Note that the areas shown above areall Special Areas, as defined by MARPOL Annex I (c.f. chapter “Reducing levels of oilpollution, and minimising the effects of spills”). Most of these areas have been in existencesince MARPOL became established in 73/78 and the North Sea since 1999. Special Areasare regions where deliberate discharges are supposedly forbidden, yet the maps of the ECJoint Research Centre clearly show that this is not the case. Despite this evidence, mostresearchers have concluded that the amount of oil spilled, the amount of oil washing ashoreand the proportions of oiled beached birds have declined over the past three decades. The JRC database provides no historical information further back than the late 1990s,because the technical means to construct these overviews were not yet developed inearlier years. Given the observed declines in other datasets, one can only wonder whatcomposite maps for chronic oil pollution would have looked like in the 1960s. The informationreporting oil spills has not been very clear (e.g., Anon. 1992ab, 1995b, 1996, 1997).

There is a perfect match between the distribution of spills detected in the North Sea (seeabove) and the spatial patterns of oil rates for beached Common Guillemots (Figures. 3-5, 7-8 ), which further illustrates the usefulness of beached bird surveys as an instrument formonitoring chronic oil pollution (c.f. Camphuysen & Heubeck 2001, Fleet & Reineking 2001).Beached-bird surveys provide a historical perspective, and have shown that in most of theNorth Sea oil pollution must have been worse a few decades ago (Camphuysen 1998). The new database constructed by the EC Joint Research Centre is bound to give moreconsistent results in the years to come. This data, combined with the OSPAR EcoQO for oiledguillemots (if implemented), will be very useful to examine future trends in oil pollution andto steer management and policy to areas where immediate action is required.

7. Chronic oil pollution in Europe


34



Figure 9 Out of 11,000 SAR imagescollected between 1999 and2002, the MIDIV projectdetected 7000 oil spills in theMediterranean Sea. This mapshould be linked with the mapof SAR Image Density, giventhat areas without spills couldbe related to areas with lessSAR images at our disposal fordetection.

35

Detected oil spills

Mediterranean Sea - Years 1999 - 2002

During the years 1999 to 2002, out of 11000 SAR images, the project MIDIV detected 7000 oilspills . This map should be linked with the map of SAR Image Density given that areaswithout spills could be related to areas with less SAR images at our disposal for detection.More information can be found on the website of the Joint Research Center - EuropeanCommission at: http://serac.jrc.it/midiv/

0o0’0”

55o0’0”N

50o0’0”N

45o0’0”N

40o0’0”N

35o0’0”N

30o0’0”N

10o0’0”E 20o0’0”E 30o0’0”E

55o0’0”N

50o0’0”N

45o0’0”N

40o0’0”N

35o0’0”N

30o0’0”N30o0’0”E20o0’0”E10o0’0”E0o0’0”

Legend

detected spillsterritorial waters

Geographic Coordinate SystemDatum WGS 1984

0

0 125 250 500 Km

75 150 300 NMN

Figure 9

Source: EC MIDIV Project of JRC/IPSC. http://serac.jrc.it/midiv/maps/med/1999_2000_2001_2002_oilspills.pdf



Figure 10This map shows spills detectedfrom 11,200 SAR images takenbetween 1999 and 2002 in theMediterranean Sea. The densityof spills has been normalisedaccording to location, spill areaand number of images availablefor their detection.

36

Figure 10

45o0’0”N

40o0’0”N

35o0’0”N

30o0’0”N

0o0’0” 10o0’0”E 20o0’0”E 30o0’0”E

30o0’0”N

35o0’0”N

40o0’0”N

45o0’0”N

30o0’0”E20o0’0”E10o0’0”E0o0’0”

Brest

Valencia

Barcelona

Palma

Algiers Annaba BizerteTunis

Sfax

Tripoli

Palermo

Naples Bari

Catanzaro

Ancona

Venice

Genoa

Ajaccio

TriesteRijeka

Valletta

Benghazi

Iraklion

PiraeusAthens

Smyrana

Canakkale

Istanbul

Constanta

Odesa

Mersin

BeirutHaifa

Tel Aviv

SuezPort SaidAlexandria

Drumyat

Mostaganem

Melilla

GibraltarCeuta

0 125 250 500 km

N


Legend

high

lowno datamain ports

Oil spill density

Source: EC MIDIV Project of JRC/IPSC. http://serac.jrc.it/midiv/maps/med/1999_2000_2001_2002_oilspill_density.pdf.

Detected oil spills

Mediterranean Sea - Years 1999 - 2002



37

N

65o0’0”N

60o0’0”N

55o0’0”N

10o0’0”E 20o0’0”E 30o0’0”E

55o0’0”N

60o0’0”N

65o0’0”N

30o0’0”E20o0’0”E

Finland

Estonia

Latvia

Lituania

Russia

Poland

Sweden

Denmark

Russia


0

0 75 150 300 KM

37.5 75 150 NM

Figure 11

Legend

Detected spillsno dataterritorial waters

Detected oil spills

HELCOM - Baltic Sea - Years 1998 - 2004

From 1998 to 2004, a total of 2,695 oil spills were detected in the Baltic Sea by the aerialsurveillance of certain members of the Helsinki Convention (Denmark, Estonia, Finland,Germany, Latvia, Poland and Sweden). It should be noted that the density of spills is closelyrelated to the extent of surveillance, which varies from one area to the other, and that nodata was available for Lithuania and Russia.

Source: EC MIDIV Project of JRC/IPSC. http://serac.jrc.it/midiv/maps/baltic/oilspill_helcom_1998_2004.pdf

Detected oil spills

HELCOM - Baltic Sea - Years 1998 - 2004

This map of oil spill density is derived from the spills detected in the Baltic Sea from 1998 to2004 by the aerial surveillance of certain members of the Helsinki Convention (Denmark,Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Poland and Sweden). It should be noted that that thedensity of spills is closely related to the amount of surveillance, which varies from one areato the other, and that no data was available for Lithuania and Russia.



38

N

65o0’0”N

60o0’0”N

55o0’0”N

10o0’0”E 20o0’0”E 30o0’0”E

55o0’0”N

60o0’0”N

65o0’0”N

30o0’0”E20o0’0”E

Finland

Estonia

Latvia

Lituania

Russia

Poland

Sweden

Denmark

Russia


0

0 75 150 300 KM

37.5 75 150 NM

Figure 12

Legend

Oil spill densityhigh

lowno data

Source: EC MIDIV Project of JRC/IPSC. http://serac.jrc.it/midiv/maps/baltic/density_oil_helcom_1998_2004.pdf



39

Detected oil spills

Bonn Agreement - North Sea - Years 1998 - 2004

From 1998 t0 2004, as represented in this map, a total of 4900 oil spills were detected in theNorth Sea by the surveillance of the members of the Bonn Agreemment (Belgium, Denmark,France, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom).

Note that the density of spills is closely related to the amount of surveillance which variesfrom one area to the other.

Source: http://serac.jrc.it/midiv/maps/northsea/aerial/oilspill_bonn_1998_2004.pdf

Norway

Denmark

Germany

Belgium

France

United KingdomIreland

Netherlands

0

0 100 200 400 Km

50 100 200 NM


Zones ofsurveillance

NO

DK

SE

GE

UK

UK+FR

NL

UK+FR+E

5oW

85oN

60oN

55oN

50oN

45oN

5oW 5oE 10oE

45oN

55oN

60oN

65oN

0o

5oE 10oE0o

N

Figure 13

Legend

Detected oil spillsTerritorial waters

More information can be found on the website of the Joint Research Centre - EuropeanCommission at http://serac.jrc.it/midiv/

Detected oil spills

Bonn Agreement - North Sea - Years 1998 - 2004

Map of oil spill density showing spills detected in the North Sea (1998 to 2004) by the aerialsurveillance of the members of the Bonn Agreement (Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany,Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, United Kingdom).

Note that the density of spills is closely related to extent of surveillance, which varies fromone area to the other.

Source: http://serac.jrc.it/midiv/maps/northsea/aerial/density_oil_bonn_1998_2004.pdf



40

Norway

Denmark

Germany

Belgium

France

United KingdomIreland

Netherlands

0

0 100 200 400 Km

50 100 200 NM


Zones ofsurveillance

NO

DK

SE

GE

UK

UK+FR

NL

UK+FR+E

5oW

85oN

60oN

55oN

50oN

45oN

5oW 5oE 10oE

45oN

55oN

60oN

65oN

0o

5oE 10oE0o

N

Figure 14

Legend

high

low

Oil spill density

More information can be found on the website of the Joint Research Centre - EuropeanCommission at http://serac.jrc.it/midiv/


Detected oil spills

Black Sea - Years 2000, 2001, 2002

Out of 1,840 SAR images, the MIDIV project detected 700 oil spills in the Black Sea duringthe years 2000 to 2002. The oil spill density has been spatially normalised to spill width andthe number of images available for the detection.


41

Moldova

Romania

Bulgaria

Turkey

Turkey

Georgia

Russia

Ukraine

0

0 50 100 200 Km

25 50 100 NM


N

45o0’0”N

40o0’0”N

30o0’0”E 35o0’0”E 40o0’0”E

40o0’0”N

45o0’0”N

40o0’0”E35o0’0”E30o0’0”EFigure 15

Legend

Spills detected

high density

low densityno data

Source: EC MIDIV Project of JRC/IPSC. http://serac.jrc.it/midiv/maps/blacksea/2000_2001_2002_oilspills.pdf

Sensitive species,sensitive areas

a. IntroductionTo understand why certain spills have been more devastating than others interms of their effect on marine wildlife, it is important to consider that differentspecies and areas vary in terms of their sensitivity to oil. The sensitivity ofseabirds depends largely on behavioural characteristics and species-specificdifferences in terms of the risk of exposure to oil. The sensitivity of sea areasdepends mainly on the numbers and behaviour (e.g., feeding, roosting,passage) of sensitive seabird species occurring there. By way of example, it isperfectly understandable why Common Guillemots figure as prominentcasualties in most northern European oil spills, but seldom ever inMediterranean incidents. A spill in Italian waters in summer is bound to have avery different effect on marine wildlife than a spill of similar size and oil type inwinter in the Skagerrak (northern North Sea).

b. Methods for assessing seabird vulnerability to oil pollution

The scale of vulnerability of seabirds depends not only on numbers present but also onbehavioural and other characteristics of the species involved. Several studies haveexamined ways of assessing these characteristics and species-specific sensitivity to oilpollution, as measured by Oil Vulnerability Indices.

The first publication to systematically address this issue for seabirds was that by King &Sanger (1979). They ranked 176 species that depend on marine habitats in the north-easternPacific on the basis of 20 factors affecting their survival (Table 5 ). Each of these factors wasgiven a score of 0, 1, 3, or 5 respectively representing no relevance, low relevance, mediumrelevance or high relevance of that factor in increasing sensitivity to oil pollution. The scoresfor each of the 20 factors were summed to provide an overall oil vulnerability index for eachspecies (maximum score 20 x 5 points = OVI 100). Scores ranged from 88 for some murreletsand auklets down to 19 for the Marsh Hawk, a raptor species. The authors noted that scoresfor several taxa would alter greatly if sub-species were used instead of species, indicatingthe importance of choice of taxonomic level.

Drawing upon the judgement of experts, Tasker & Pienkowski (1987) allocated threecategories of oil pollution vulnerability (very high, high and moderate) to 37 North Seaspecies of seabird sharing three key characteristics: 1) the species spend a substantialperiod of their lives on surface water; 2) the North Sea is important for a large proportion ofthe global population of the species; 3) the species are globally rare. Tasker et al. (1990)applied the same basis of categorisation to species living in waters west of Britain. In bothcases, the vulnerability rating was combined with information on the marine distribution ofthe bird species, in order to identify areas in which concentrations of seabirds would bemore vulnerable to oil pollution.


Table 5Factors used by King & Sanger(1979) to assess oil vulnerabilityof birds in the northeast Pacific.

42

8.

a) Range

(entire world population)

1 - Breeding range size 2 - Length of migration route3 - Winter range size 4 - Marine orientation

b) Population

5 - Population size 6 - Productivity

(clutch size and age at firstbreeding)

c) Habits

7 - Roosting 8 - Foraging 9 - Escape

(reaction to disturbance)

10 - Flocking on water 11 - Nesting density 12 - Specialisation

(generalist versus specialist)

d) Mortality

13 - Hunted by man 14 - Animal depredations 15 - Non-oil pollution 16 - History of oiling

e) Exposure

(whereabouts through the year)

17 - Spring 18 - Summer 19 - Autumn 20 - Winter

8. Sensitive species,sensitive areas

Anker-Nilssen (1987) assessed 17 factors that make a species vulnerable to oilpollution, at both individual and population levels (Table 6 ). These factors were placed ina chain of consequences (presence, time at sea when in area, exposure to oil, possibilityof injury from oil and effects of oiling) and given a “vulnerability score”. If any one of theselinks in the chain of events were nil, then total vulnerability would be zero. Thus Anker-Nilssen’s vulnerability index was calculated as a product of the vulnerability in these fivegroups. The 17 factors were also weighted for their relative importance. After furthercalculation, the index was used to assign either low, moderate or high vulnerability toeach bird in a given area.

Camphuysen (1989) applied a similar scoring system to that of King & Sanger (1979) toquantify the oil vulnerability of all regularly occurring species of seabirds in the North Sea.Camphuysen & Leopold (1998) and Camphuysen et al. (1999) narrowed down the number of‘survival factors’ to 14 (Table 7 ).

In order to evaluate the risk of oil pollution in the southernNorth Sea these factors were combined with an oil ratefigure (based on beached bird surveys) and numbers ofseabirds occurring in that area.

With the help of expert judgement, Speich et al. (1991)allocated scores to 14 factors (in three groups) in order tocalculate a Bird Oil Index (BOI) for Puget Sound (Table 8 ).The BOI scores reflected the importance of the geographicregion for the species examined. These scores were furtherrefined by multiplying them by species abundance,expressed as counts made in each study site within theregion. This level of analysis can go even further whenseasonal variation in these numbers is taken into account.Within Puget Sound, these seasonal and site-specific BOIscores were ranked to indicate which areas were ofrelatively greater importance.


43

Individual vulnerability

1 - Time in area 2 - Time at sea 3 - Area utilisation 4 - Behaviour at sea 5 - Shore affinity 6 - Possibility of reaction 7 - Flight capability 8 - Physical fitness 9 - Recovery capability

Population vulnerability

10 - Degree of exposure 11 - Population size 12 - Flocking tendency 13 - Frequency of juveniles 14 - Reproductive potential 15 - Population trend 16 - Proportion of population

at risk 17 - Potential immigration

Table 6Factors used by Anker-Nilssen(1987) to describe the sensitivityof seabirds to oil pollution.

Range

1 - Breeding2 - Migration 3 - Wintering4 - Marine orientation

Behaviour

5 - Roosting 6 - Foraging 7 - Reaction to disturbance 8 - Flocking 9 - Nesting density

10 - Specialisation

Exposure(whereabouts through the year)

11 - Spring 12 - Summer13 - Autumn 14 - Winter

Table 7 Factors used by Camphuysen(1989) to evaluate seabirdvulnerability to oil pollution inthe southern North Sea.

Table 8 Elements used by Speich et al. (1991) to calculate a Bird Oil Index forPuget Sound.

Vulnerability of species determined by behaviour

1 - Night roosting 2 - Escape behaviour 3 - Flocking on water 4 - Nesting concentration 5 - Feeding specialisation

Vulnerability of species by population characteristics

6 - Population size 7 - Reproductive potential 8 - Breeding distribution 9 - Winter distribution

10 - Seasonal exposure to marine habitats

Significance of area to North American population

11 - Spring 12 - Summer 13 - Autumn 14 - Winter

Carter et al. (1993) and Webb et al. (1995) both used the method described in Williams etal. (1994) to assess seabird sensitivity to surface pollutants. Rather than rely on expertjudgement, these authors based their scoring procedure on data derived from surveys andscientific studies, which they applied to four factors:

a) Behaviour (scored using proportion of oiled birds found dead or moribund during beached bird surveys, and the ratio of airborne birds to seaborne birds during surveys out at sea).

b) Regional population size (census data).

c) Reproductive potential (mean clutch size, maximum clutch size and age at first breeding).

d) Reliance on the marine environment (proportion of a population of birds feeding at sea as opposed to on land).

Each of these four factors received a score ranging from 1 (low vulnerability) to 5 (veryhigh vulnerability). To obtain an OVI score the factors were then summed as follows: OVI = 2a + 2b + c + d. Extra weighting was placed on factors a and b as these wereconsidered to be the most important. The authors recognised that these scores were area-specific and that the score for each species might change depending on the areaconsidered. Carter et al (1993) and Webb et al (1995) then used the OVIs in combination withdata from surveys at sea to map Area Vulnerability Scores (AVS):

AVS = _ (species ln (_ + 1) x OVI)

where _ is the density calculated for a species in the area and OVI is the oil vulnerabilityindex for that species.

Anon. (2002a) compared the various oil vulnerability indices and found significantrelationships between OVIs calculated for the same species in different parts of the world.Significant correlations were found between OVIs scored for species represented in bothKing & Sanger (1979) and Camphuysen (1989) (RS = 0.572, P = 0.001, n = 32), between theproportion of oiled beached birds found in the Netherlands and the OVI scores ofCamphuysen (1989) (RS = 0.685, P = 0.001, n = 21), between the OVIs of Camphuysen (1989)and of Williams et al. (1994) for the North Sea (RS = 0.454, p = 0.004, n = 37), and between theoil rate of beached birds found in the Netherlands and the OVI scores of Williams et al.(1994) (RS = 0.446, p = 0.015, n = 29; Appendix I).

According to Camphuysen (1989), in Western Europe the seabird families most sensitive tooil pollution are auks, divers, cormorants and shags, gannets and boobies, and sea ducks(Table 9 ).



44

Family Mean OVI Min Max

Auks 77.2 65 - 86

Divers 66.3 65 - 68

Cormorants and shags 66.0 59 - 73

Gannets and boobies 65.0 65 - 65

Sea ducks 64.2 45 - 75

Petrels and shearwaters 59.2 47 - 65

Diving ducks 58.0 58 - 58

Grebes 53.3 46 - 58

Storm-petrels 50.3 49 - 54

Terns 47.9 46 - 51

Gulls 45.1 36 - 66

Skuas 42.6 36 - 58

Phalaropes 38.0 37 - 39

Table 9Mean oil vulnerability index(OVI) scores for seabirdfamilies of the North Sea(Camphuysen 1989).


Moderately sensitive seabirds are petrels and shearwaters, diving ducks, grebes andstorm petrels. Species of lower sensitivity are the terns, gulls, skuas, and phalaropes. There are notable exceptions to these family-based generalisations, however, such as theBlack-legged Kittiwake, a gull species with a high sensitivity score (OVI 66). Phalaropes rankvery low, but this status would change if the analysis took into account vulnerability to oilpollution in their main wintering grounds off the coast of Africa. It is noteworthy thatphalaropes ranked significantly higher in the King & Sanger (1979) analysis, which focuseson an area where phalaropes are common.

The formulation and use of oil vulnerability indices has progressed since they were firstproposed. In essence, all indices score the sensitivity of a species to oil pollution. Someindices divide the determining factors between those that apply to the population as a whole(reproductive success, breeding densities, migratory movements, population size), and thosethat apply to the behaviour of individual birds (time on the water versus time spent in the air,escape responses to oil pollution, offshore versus onshore distribution, groupingtendencies). Indices allocating scores to each factor have often been based on expertjudgement, where scientific data might have been more appropriate if available. Despite recent progress, there is still a degree of subjectivity in allocating score values andin weighting the factors against each other. By clearly describing the factors and theconsiderations involved, and by listing the values of each factor for each species, the qualityof the index is open to judgement and to adjustments as and when appropriate.

Factors relating to populations as a whole relate primarily to the ability of a population torecover from additional oil-induced mortality. Population size has been used in allvulnerability indices. This could either be the global or regional population, but often thechoice has not been made explicit. The usual taxonomic level is species, though perhaps insome cases, sub-species or isolated population size might be more appropriate (King &Sanger 1979). It should be made clear that OVIs have not been evaluated for most Europeanseabird taxa and most areas (Appendix II and Table 10 below ). Species of theMacaronesian region (where drilling and transportation of oil is currently increasing) andthe Mediterranean (where shipping pressure is intense) require the most attention.

c. Methods for assessing area vulnerability to oil pollutionKing & Sanger (1979) suggested that if a species with a high OVI score occurs in an area ofproposed oil and gas development then there would be a likely requirement for researchfunds, project modifications, contingency plans for disasters, and other conservationactions, while much less concern would be expressed for areas holding only low scoring


Table 10Overview of current knowledgeregarding the distribution ofseabirds at sea in Europe, andof the attempts to evaluatespecies-specific OVIs and areavulnerability to oil pollution.

45

Area Data for seabirds at sea OVI/area sensitivity Data availability

Greenland/Iceland anecdotal data, local surveys not analysed data-deficient

Svalbard surveys in southern part not analysed partly covered

Barents Sea summer surveys, some in spring not analysed partly covered

Norwegian Sea mainly nearshore surveys not analysed partly covered

Faeroese waters extensive year-round surveys vulnerability atlas well covered, atlas

North Sea extensive year-round surveys vulnerability atlas well covered, atlas

Baltic extensive year-round surveys not analysed well covered, atlas

West of Britain, extensive year-round surveys vulnerability atlas well covered, atlasIrish Sea, Ireland

Channel, Celtic Sea extensive year-round surveys (UK) vulnerability atlas (UK) partly covered

Bay of Biscay fragmented survey data not analysed data-deficient

Atlantic off Portugal new studies just commenced not analysed data-deficientand Spain

Macaronesia new studies just commenced not analysed data-deficient

West Mediterranean new studies just commenced not analysed data-deficient

East Mediterranean not known not analysed data-deficient

Black Sea not known not analysed data-deficient

species. On a wider scale, if there is a choice for locating a risky development with a highprobability of oil spills in areas with differing numbers of highly vulnerable birds, thenplanning agencies might choose to locate the development in the lower risk area. In addition, migratory movements between areas in winter, spring, summer, and autumn leadto shifts in seabird communities within those areas and hence lead to seasonal variation inthe occurrence of species with high OVI scores. Therefore if within a particular area there isa choice with respect to the seasonal timing of a risky operation, planning agencies mightchoose to shift the operation to a time period when fewer highly sensitive species arepresent (e.g., Wiese & Ryan 2003).

Assessing vulnerability therefore requires not only OVIs, but also temporal and spatialinformation pertaining to the relative occurrence of species within areas. King & Sanger(1979) included temporal information in their study as a factor of seasonal exposure. More recently, seabird density information for north-western European waters has beencollected at sea during systematic surveys, enabling the relative occurrence of specieswithin areas to be calculated on a seasonal or even monthly basis (Carter et al. 1993; Webbet al. 1995). Presenting such information in this way effectively creates “atlases ofvulnerability”, which provide a much more precise tool for planning and emergency response.

On a European scale, the most vulnerable bird families are divers, auks, cormorants,gannets, and seaducks. With few exceptions, these species breed at high latitudes in thetemperate, sub-arctic and arctic zones, sometimes deeply inland (divers and seaduck).They winter in the Baltic, the North Sea and along the Atlantic seaboard between theNorwegian Sea and northwest Africa. During winter, much greater numbers and morespecies are at risk than in summer, and the distribution of the more vulnerable taxaextends further to the south. It therefore comes as no surprise that most of the damagecaused by chronic oil pollution happens in winter and that most mass-mortality has beenrecorded in the areas indicated. This is particularly noteworthy when considering that onlythe Baltic and the North West European waters (i.e., North Sea, English Channel, CelticSea, Irish Sea and Atlantic waters to the west of Ireland) have been designated as SpecialAreas under MARPOL Annex 1 (Box 4, in “Reducing levels of oil pollution, and minimisingthe effects of spills”).

This begs the question as to whether enough information has been gathered on suchareas to facilitate appropriate action in the event of an oil spill. In order to evaluate thesensitivity of sea areas, information is required on the presence of seabirds, their OVI, andtheir seasonal occurrence at sea. When reviewing Europe’s sea areas in these respects, itbecomes clear that (1) although there is substantial recent information on seabirddistribution and migration patterns, large gaps of knowledge remain; (2) only some areashave been evaluated with regard to their sensitivity to oil pollution on the basis of marinewildlife present and species-specific OVIs; and (3) some of the worst recent spills in termsof casualties (i.e., Erika, Prestige) occurred in sea areas for which both OVI and seasonaloccurrence data are lacking or at best incomplete.

The sensitivity of European sea areas to chronic oil pollution is reviewed usinginformation pertaining to the occurrence of the most sensitive bird families, the availabilityof high-quality data regarding species out at sea, and whether or not a recent evaluation ofsensitivity to oil pollution has been undertaken or would be possible (Appendix III ). The assessment of anticipated sensitivity to chronic oil pollution is based on general datapertaining to the distribution of birds in Europe (BWPi 2004), where possible on census dataof seabirds at sea (Table 10 ), and on the species (and species-specific OVI) that occur ineach area (see Appendix II ).

A European overview of area sensitivity to oil pollution would be a useful futureundertaking. A first step should be a complete analysis of OVI for all European taxa (Table 10 ), followed by a comprehensive summary of seabird survey data in all sea areas.This would lead to a balanced evaluation of the (anticipated or quantified, depending on theavailable data) sensitivity to oil pollution of inshore and offshore areas around Europe.



46



47

The effects of chronic oil pollution on seabirdpopulations

a. Facts and fairy talesEstimates of seabird mortality associated with oil pollution are often expressed in many tensof thousands of casualties, sometimes even more. An examination of the data indicates thatestimates tend to stray from true facts. Seabird mortality due to oiling is serious enough andthe issue should not be undermined by artificially inflated guesses made just to impress thegeneral public.

One of the more famous claims is that as a consequence of the recurring heavy mortalityby oil pollution, the numbers of Long-tailed Ducks Clangula hyemalis migrating throughFinland by 1960 were reduced to 1/10 of the number recorded in the late 1930's (Bergman1961). In essence, it was suggested that several million Long-tailed Ducks had died from oilpollution within a few decades. The decline, however, was not well documented and recentdata suggest that it may never have occurred (Durinck et al. 1993, 1994). The idea washowever picked up by the media and transformed into factual data, eventually becoming atextbook example of the devastating effect of oil pollution. There is no doubt that the annualtoll of chronic oil pollution in the Baltic was (and probably still is) horrendous and ethicallyunacceptable. It is quite likely that in combination with the extensive shooting, hunting anddrowning of seaduck in the Baltic the populations of these species were depressed andunnaturally low. However, the absence of similar declining trends of other (equally sensitive)species in the region makes it extremely unlikely that oil was responsible for the 90%reduction observed in numbers of Long-tailed Ducks.

The incident with the Danish tanker Gerd Maersk on Scharhörn ridge in the outer ElbeRiver in January 1955 resulted in the release, for salvage purposes, of 8000 tons of crude oilinto the sea. At least 500,000 sea and water birds of 19 different species were estimated tohave perished, mainly Common Scoters Melanitta nigra, as indicated by “test counts”(Goethe 1968). Even although the spill was clearly serious and the area sensitive, it is highlyunlikely that more than 200,000 to 300,000 seabirds were present in the area and at risk. The quality of the test counts (i.e., sample size) and the factors used to reach the publishedestimate are very unclear. It is therefore wise not to accept such estimates at face value.


48

9.

9. The effect ofchronic oil pollutionon seabird populations

b. Counts and drift experiments as toolsTo start discussing population level effects, some baseline data are required. First of all, thenumber of casualties needs be assessed as accurately as possible. Many oiled seabirdswash ashore eventually, dead or alive, and can be counted. Keeping track of the effects ofchronic oil pollution on marine wildlife requires a well-established long-term monitoringprogramme, such as beached bird surveys, to document the fluctuating numbers of oilvictims washing ashore through the year and under different conditions (Camphuysen &Heubeck 2001). Discrete spills require a short-term response, where during the entire periodof the spill the numbers of birds washing ashore are counted (IPIECA 2004).

Secondly, there must be an estimate of the proportion of casualties that did not washashore. Some corpses sink, or are blown offshore. Drift experiments (initiated to carefullyassess the proportion of corpses that may go missing at sea given local currents andweather) have been conducted around the world with varying success to investigate howmany corpses may never have reached the coast (Bibby & Lloyd 1977, Jones et al. 1978,Stowe 1982ab, Keijl & Camphuysen 1992, Hlady & Burger 1993, Colombé et al. 1996, Wiese &Jones 2001, Wiese 2003, Wiese & Ryan 2003, Arcos et al. 2004). One of the main outcomes ofthese experiments is that sinking rates (or ‘disappearance’ rates) are highly case-specific.Camphuysen & Heubeck (2001) reviewed a number of these experiments and concluded thatlocal situations and weather conditions, as well as the tags used, led to very different results.Instead of extrapolating from the results of other drift experiments, the most sensible optionin case of future oil incidents is to set up and perform a drift experiment during each event.

Thirdly, there must be an estimate of the total number of birds affected.

c. Offshore censuses: pre- and post-spill resultsMurphy et al. (1997) used data from pre- and post-spill surveys to assess the effects of theExxon Valdez oil spill on the abundance and distribution of birds in Prince William Sound,Alaska. These authors conducted post-spill surveys in 10 bays that had been surveyed priorto the accident and that had experienced different levels of initial oiling from the spill (notoiled to heavily oiled). Changes in overall bird abundance across all bays between the pre-spill and post-spill sampling periods, and changes in abundance in non-oiled/lightly-oiledbays versus moderately to heavily oiled bays were used as indicators of oiling impacts. Of 12taxa examined for changes in overall abundance, 7 showed no significant change, 2 becamemore abundant, and 3 decreased their abundance during all three post-spill years. Of the 11taxa examined for differences in use of oiled versus oil-free habitats, 7 showed nosignificant changes, 1 exhibited a positive response to oiling, and 3 reacted negatively toinitial oiling.

They concluded that the impacts of this oil spill on abundance and distribution of birdswere most evident in 1989, the year of the spill, and were most pronounced for PigeonGuillemots Cepphus columba. By 1991, signs of recovery were evident for all taxa that hadbeen impacted by initial oiling. Other studies in the same area were less conclusive and thedebate is continued in the literature. The important point is that established monitoringprogrammes should be designed to provide information on pre-spill conditions. Informationcollected both before and after a spill is valuable for the examination of trends and theinterpretation of data.

Heubeck (1997b) was able to demonstrate the long-term impact of the Esso Bernicia oilspill on numbers of Great Northern Divers Gavia immer wintering in Shetland. WinteringGreat Northern Divers showed great preference for reusing previous sites, and losses as aresult of the spill were only very slowly replaced by new divers (recruits, or other adults)wintering in the bays that had been important to their predecessors before the spill hadwiped them out. In this scenario, accurate counts mere made prior to, during and followingthe spill in order to evaluate its effect on local wintering population levels.


49

Stienen et al. (2004ab) used pre- and post-spill sea counts to evaluate the probable lossesin the wintering populations of seabirds off the Belgian coast as a result of the Tricolor oilspill in winter 2002/2003. Castège et al. (2004) did the same in the Bay of Biscay prior to andfollowing the Erika oil spill. Although the results of all these studies are interesting, theiroutcomes are far from clear. One of the assumptions of the European offshore studiesappears to have been that wintering seabird populations are fairly stable and fixed, as wasthe case for the divers in Shetland, with little variation between years. We have very littlefactual evidence that this is actually true in wintering auks and seaduck. In fact, recent workin northwest Europe has shown that the variability in seabird species composition andoverall abundance is very large, so that a reduction or increase in numbers at sea would noteasily be detected by offshore surveys.

d. Colony studiesSeabird breeding colonies are a logical place to look for the effects of oil pollution atpopulation level. The ICES Working Group for Seabird Ecology (ICES WGSE; ICES 2005)reviewed recent spills, and most of what follows is taken from their work. It is obvious thatthe effects of oil pollution will be more pronounced the smaller the affected population is inrelation to the number of birds killed, but determining the size of the affected population isby no means simple (Camphuysen et al. 2005). The likelihood of detecting the impacts of oilspills will vary according to whether the population is stable, increasing or decreasing.Furthermore, the frequency of population monitoring in the years before the oil spill willinfluence the quality of the necessary base-line data. Pre- and post-spill datasets on(offshore) wintering populations are of equal importance. The same is true of datadescribing breeding population trends, particularly for species that breed widely and thatare dispersed in very low densities, such as divers and seaducks (Camphuysen et al. 2005).

Other important factors to take into account are the age distribution of the birds killed,and which natural processes are at work to regulate the population (Camphuysen et al.2005). Most seabird species are long-lived (40-50 years of age can be reached or even more)and they tend to reproduce slowly (small clutches), and then only after a rather prolongedphase of immaturity. It is well known that the population growth-rate of long-lived organismsis much more sensitive to variations in adult survival rates than in fecundity or juvenilesurvival rates (Croxall 1991). This means that the life of an adult is “worth” more to thepopulation than the life of a juvenile, because a surviving adult is more likely to keep onreproducing. In most seabirds, recruitment to the breeding population occurs when the birdsare between three and eight years old (although this can be up to 12 years old for NorthernFulmar Fulmarus glacialis). Therefore if mainly juveniles are killed, any effect on breedingpopulations will not be detectable for several years. In contrast, large adult mortality willcause an immediate reduction in the adult population, although not necessarily in thebreeding population. The reason for this is that many seabird populations include substantialnumbers of individuals who do not breed in a given year, even though they arephysiologically capable of doing so. Such individuals are known as “floaters”, andeffectively form a buffer population (Harris & Wanless 1995, Harris et al. 1998). If largenumbers of “floaters” are available, even substantial adult mortality may not result in animmediate reduction in the size of the breeding population, because the places of the deadbreeders are immediately filled. In general, however, effects on breeding populations shouldbe larger and easier to detect when mainly adults are killed, than when juveniles are themain victims (Clobert & Lebreton 1991, Cairns 1992, Migot 1992, Paine et al. 1996,Camphuysen et al. 2005).

9. The effect of chronicoil pollution on

seabird populations


50

9. The effect ofchronic oil pollutionon seabird populations

In cases when “floaters” buffer breeding populations against substantial mortality, asafter an oil spill for example, there will be a greater turnover among breeders and this willbe detectable by monitoring individually marked breeding birds. If unusually few markedbirds turn up the next year (low return rate), or if survival is subsequently found to be lowthrough capture-recapture analysis, the effect of an oil spill becomes apparent even in theabsence of an observed population decline. This provides another example of howmonitoring demographic parameters rather than just population size improves the ability todetect environmental changes and attribute them to natural or anthropogenic causes(Camphuysen et al. 2005).

Unfortunately, for many populations there is a lack of understanding concerning thecapacity for resilience, of natural fluctuations, and of the effect of other human impacts(Mosbech 2000). The primary question should be to ask which colonies are actually affectedby the spill, and where population level effects should be investigated. Most of the impactsof oil-spills, whether incidental or from chronic oil pollution, are on wintering seabirds. Mostoil-spills, whether incidental or chronic, affect wintering seabirds that are far from theirbreeding sites.

e. Assessing the breeding origin of casualtiesTo be able to measure population effects, good quality data should be obtained from thecorpses collected during an oil spill. Apart from accurate information on numbers, speciescomposition, sex ratio, and age structure, geographic breeding grounds should beinvestigated (Wiens et al. 1984, Heubeck et al. 2003, Wiese et al. 2004). Determining thegeographic origin of the oiled birds is of major importance to assess the ecological impactof the spill in seabird populations, and information on possible “colonies of origin” isessential to plan post-spill monitoring.

Standardized techniques are required and should be implemented to collect useful data.Information gathered should include the population structure of the impacted species.Ageing, sexing and assessing the origin of seabirds is not straightforward and requiresspecialist assistance (Anker-Nilssen & R¢stad 1981; van Franeker 1983). Ringed birds cangive information about the origin of the affected seabirds, but relatively few individuals areringed and the results are biased towards areas where ringing effort is high.

f. DiscussionThe direct effects of oil pollution on seabirds at population-level, i.e., survival rates and

age-structure, are rarely detected because specific long-term studies involving individuallymarked birds need to be in place in the area affected by the spill before it happens. These types of studies are becoming more common but are still relatively few in number(Camphuysen et al. 2005). More commonly, numbers of birds breeding in affected coloniesare compared before and immediately after a spill, and sometimes this comparison is madein both affected and non-affected areas, the latter being considered the control againstwhich the effect of the spill can be compared. Mosbech (2000) concluded that scientificknowledge is generally inadequate for making quantitative predictions of the impact of alarge oil spill on bird populations. The immediate mortality can only be crudely estimated,and the resilience of the population can only be assessed in very broad terms and withconsiderable uncertainty. For many populations, there is a lack of understanding of thecapacity for resilience, of natural fluctuations, and of the effect of other human impacts.

Environmental impact assessment techniques have been proposed by Heubeck et al.(2003), IPIECA (2004) and many others. A recent review of major oil spills revealed thatadequate data usually are collected (Heubeck 1997a, Anon. 1998), but that post-spillevaluations using that information are rather rare (Camphuysen et al. 2005). In fact, severalscientists have played down the population level effects of oiling, simply because most


51

seabird populations have increased over the past 100 years. Severe population effects wereanticipated (Bergman 1961, Goethe 1968, Bourne 1971, Baillie & Mead 1982), but wereseldom proved (Dunnet 1982, Clark 1984, Dunnet 1987). Sometimes the effects were simplymuch smaller than expected, due to unforeseen factors such as unusual weather and thetype of oil involved (Osborn 1996, Heubeck 1997a). On other occasions, local populationeffects were found, but these were not necessarily long-lasting (Phillips 1967, Penicaud1979, Piatt & Roseneau 1999, Peterson 2000).

Many of the studies on localised spills and local impacts using long-term data were ratherconvincing, and were usually able to demonstrate immediate effects of oil pollution onbreeding or wintering populations, no matter how small these effects were. On a largerscale, studies looking at the effects of spills affecting wintering seabirds far away from theirbreeding grounds have often been inconclusive, partly because inadequate data were used.Recent exceptions are the studies of Votier et al. (2005) and Wiese et al. 2004. They understood that the impact of oil pollution on seabird population parameters is poorlyunderstood because oil spills usually occur in wintering areas remote from breedingcolonies and where birds are distributed over a wide area. They also agreed that it isdifficult to separate the effects of oil pollution from the effect of natural environmentalvariation on seabird populations. Votier et al. (2005), however, used a long-term data set thatshowed that winter survival of adult Common Guillemots was negatively affected by both theincidence of four major oil-spills in their wintering grounds, and high values of the NorthAtlantic Oscillation (NAO) index. After controlling for the effect of the NAO index, theyshowed that winter mortality of adult guillemots was doubled by these major oil pollutionincidents, demonstrating that oil pollution can have wide-scale impacts on marineecosystems and that these impacts can be quantified using populations of marked individualseabirds to estimate survival rates.

9. The effect of chronicoil pollution on

seabird populations


52

Laws and Programs toreduce levels of oilpollution and minimisingthe effects of spills

a. IntroductionMarine oil pollution is one of the most widely recognised anthropogeniccauses of seabird mortality. In this report, we have observed that largenumbers of seabirds die annually as a result of chronic oil pollution, despitemanagement action to reduce this form of marine contamination. Looking atstudies around the world, Gandini et al. (1994) estimated that oil pollution killed40 – 60,000 penguins off the coast of Argentina. In a similar vein, Wiese (2002)calculated that 300,000 seabirds are killed annually off Newfoundland, andCamphuysen (1989) estimated that at least 30,000 seabirds are washed ashorein the Netherlands every year, and that even this amount represents but afraction of total mortality caused by oil. In the same study, Camphuysen alsoreviewed the available data regarding current levels of oil-induced seabirdmortality around the North Sea, and estimated that several hundred thousandbirds were being killed every year. The Background Document of theEcological Quality Objective concerning the proportion of oiled guillemotswashed ashore (OSPAR Commission 2004) makes a number of suggestions tofurther reduce oil pollution.

b. International legal framework to reduce (chronic) oil pollution

Oil pollution from shipping has been one of the first and most extensively regulatedenvironmental topics at international, regional and national levels. Preventing ship-sourcepollution has been one of the most debated issues during the Third UN Conference on theLaw of the Sea (1973-1982), which resulted in the adoption of the UN Convention on the Lawof the Sea (UNCLOS). The UNCLOS provisions on ship-source pollution are the most detailedof the entire Convention and are generally considered to be representative of customaryinternational law, i.e., they bind all states regardless of their individual participation to theConvention (e.g., the USA included). Given the strong impact of ship-source pollutionregulations on the traditional freedom of navigation and the need of uniformity in shipping-related standards, UNCLOS poses some restrictions on the capacity of Coastal States to actunilaterally, especially beyond their territorial waters (i.e., 12 nautical miles). The Conventionsets out the framework for the multilateral development of measures to prevent, reduce, andcontrol ship-source pollution, acting primarily within the International Maritime Organization(IMO). The IMO was established in 1948 with the mandate "to encourage and facilitate thegeneral adoption of the highest practicable standards in matters concerning maritimesafety, efficiency of navigation and prevention and control of marine pollution from ships".


53

10.

As such, the IMO is considered to be “the competent” authority for the adoption ofmeasures that may influence shipping. Nevertheless, under certain conditions, CoastalStates may unilaterally impose restrictions on vessels plying their waters as a “condition ofport entry” and they may take all necessary steps to prevent violation of these conditions(i.e., UNCLOS, Articles 211 (3) and 25(2)). Such restrictions would not apply to a vessel enroute to a port not within the sovereignty of the Coastal State. Several Coastal States, theUSA in particular, have exercised such a right.

In 1973, in the aftermath of the Torrey Canyon accident, the IMO adopted the InternationalConvention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (amended in 1978 and referred to asMARPOL 73/78) with the ambitious objectives to completely eliminate intentional pollutionby oil and other hazardous substances and to minimize accidental discharges. Pollution byoil is regulated in Annex I, which contains three main sets of standards:

1) Discharge standards that limits the maximum amount of oily waste which may be legally discharged into the marine environment as a function of waste type and geographic location;

2) Onshore oily waste receptacles or ”Port Reception Facilities” (PRFs) for the collection of oil waste residues and oily waste mixtures; and

3) Construction design, and equipment standards and operating procedures to prevent accidental oil spills and or to prevent oil pollution from oily waste discharges from vessels. Such standards and procedures include double hulls, segregated ballast tanks, oil-water separating equipment, overboard discharge monitors and, oil record book keeping,

MARPOL Contracting Parties (IMO member states) implement these standards andissue an International Oil Pollution Prevention Certificate, attesting that ships flying theirflags comply with the MARPOL requirements. Flag States must periodically conductinspections to ensure continual compliance in particular when there are changes toeither equipment or operations. A Port State3 may conduct a Port State controlinspections (“control verification examinations”) to verify the compliance of foreign shipswith these requirements, and often national requirements that may apply. Port Stateinspections are often limited to an examination of current required certificates. However,if there are clear grounds for believing that the condition of the ship or its equipment doesnot correspond to what is attested in a certificate, and or there is evidence that there hasbeen an illegal discharge the port authorities may detain the ship until the violation hasbeen rectified; and many times issue a citation under domestic law (the implementinglegislation of the MARPOL Convention), including in some countries criminal sanctions(e.g., the US and now, under certain circumstances, also EU member states). In turn, PortStates, should furnish evidence of discharges to the Flag State for investigation andpresumably remedial action. Many Coastal States4 have individually (e.g., the UK) orregionally5 implemented offshore surveillance programs using satellites imagery and /orplanes with oil spill detection electronics and recording technology; and oil spilltrajectory models and oil spill “fingerprinting.”6

10. Laws and Programsto reduce levels of oil

pollution andminimising the effects

of spills


3 In this context, a Port State is an IMO member state where a vessel makes a port call.

4 In this context, a Coastal State is a state whose offshore waters are transited by a vessel registered inanother country.

5 E.g., in the Baltic sea area via the Helsinki Commission countries: Denmark, Estonia, the EuropeanCommunity, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia and Sweden

6 Forensic bio/chemicalmarkers in oil used to identify the probable source of the pollution.

54

10. Laws and Programsto reduce levels of oilpollution andminimising the effectsof spills

MARPOL 73/78 legally recognized that certain sea areas have particular oceanographicand ecological characteristics, as well as conditions of sea traffic, that make themparticularly vulnerable to ship-source pollution and that therefore warrant a need for ahigher level of protection. The Convention therefore introduced a special regime applicableto Special Areas (Box 3 ), wherein more stringent standards would apply to the discharge ofsubstances regulated in the different Annexes. In Special Areas under Annex I alldischarges of oil or oily mixtures are by and large prohibited to almost undetectable levels,except for minor and well-defined exceptions (safety of life emergencies). All shipsoperating in the Special Areas have to be fitted with special equipment (e.g., oil separationequipment or filters), and must retain oil residues that cannot be discharged into the sea ordischarge these residues at designated port reception facilities.

The latest development in the global network of Special Areas is the recent proposal forthe coastline surrounding the Cape of Good Hope - one of the world's busiest shippingroutes, with nearly 1,400 oil tankers and other vessels passing through each month. Theproposal for a Southern African Waters Special Area was initiated by IFAW in cooperationwith the South African Government in 2000, immediately after the MV Treasure oil spillincident, which caused the oiling of close to 20,000 African penguins Spheniscus demersus(35 % of the entire global population) as well as of hundreds of other vulnerable seabirds.The Southern African Waters Special Area proposal was adopted by IMO, and enters intoforce in February 2008.

c. Other instruments for protecting sensitive marine regionsSpecial Areas under MARPOL Annex I focus on the control of oil discharges from ships.Although discharge regulations are undeniably important, they are not the only standardsavailable at the international level to prevent oil pollution. Several other internationalmechanisms to address oil pollution, both chronic and episodic (accidental) have beenemployed. A particularly effective manner to prevent pollution is to prohibit, restrict orregulate the passage of certain types of ships through sensitive sea areas. Routingmeasures were originally directed at ensuring safety of navigation in difficult areas, but overthe years their scope has been extended to protection of the marine environment.7 Underregulation V/10 of the 1974 Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), Coastal Statesmay establish mandatory ship routing measures (e.g., sea lanes, no-anchor zones, etc.)within their territorial waters as a means of protecting environmentally sensitive areas.Outside territorial waters, these routing measures need to be approved by the IMO. Suchmeasures may also include Areas to be Avoided (ATBAs) for certain categories of ships,(e.g., oil tankers) or vessels carrying particular types of cargo (e.g., heavy grades of oil). An example of this is the mandatory ATBA approved by the IMO in New Zealand’s PoorKnights Islands marine reserve. However, the establishment and enforcement of mandatoryATBAs, especially in areas beyond territorial waters, is still highly controversial.

A tool now more frequently employed to identify areas of ecological significance and tofoster adoption of mechanisms to protect these areas are IMO’s Guidelines on designating a"particularly sensitive sea area" (PSSA).8 The designation of PSSAs is a process thatidentifies marine regions that “need special protection through action by IMO because oftheir significance for recognized ecological, socio-economic, or scientific attributes wheresuch attributes may be vulnerable to damage by international shipping activities”. The IMO’sguidelines identify the criteria that an area has to fulfill to be designated as a PSSA,including: ecological criteria (e.g., unique or rare ecosystem, diversity of the ecosystem orvulnerability to degradation by natural events or human activities); social, cultural andeconomic criteria (e.g., significance of the area for recreation or tourism); and scientific and


55

• Mediterranean Sea Area

• Baltic Sea Area

• Black Sea Area

• Red Sea Area

• Gulfs Area

• Gulf of Aden Area

• Antarctic Area

• North West European Waters Area

• Oman Sea Area of theArabian Seas (to be enforced from 1st January 2007).

Underlined are those SpecialAreas in or bordering Europe.

Box 3Special Areas designatedunder MARPOL 73/78 Annex I(Regulation 10)

7 The IMO Publication Ships' Routing includes General Provisions on Ships' Routing, first adopted by IMO in1973, and subsequently amended over the years, describes legal traffic routing measures including, but notlimited to Areas to be Avoided, Mandatory Ship Routes, Exclusion Zones and Precautionary Areas.

8 Revised Guidelines for the Identification and Designation of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSAs) (IMOResolution A 982(24)).

educational criteria (e.g., biological research or historical value). The PSSA is not a legalrecognized area -it is a tool to justify specific measures to reduce the impact of internationalshipping within that area. Therefore, of critical importance are the so-called AssociatedProtected Measures (APMs) that may be imposed within a designated PSSA to control themaritime activities. The IMO’s Guidelines assist IMO Member Governments in theformulation and submission of PSSA applications and the adoption of APMs. Like MARPOLSpecial Areas, PSSA (and APMs) may be located both within and beyond territorial waters,including the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and the high seas. APMs may go beyondmerely imposing limits on discharges from ships, as in the MARPOL Special Areas, and caninclude any measures specifically tailored to the needs of a particular area that are judgednecessary to prevent, reduce or eliminate vulnerability to shipping activities. APMs mayconsist of routing and reporting measures, strict application of MARPOL discharge andequipment requirements for ships, such as oil tankers; and installation of Vessel TrafficServices (VTS), operational or construction standards (e.g., double hulls), and any othermeasure within the competence of the IMO, providing these have a legal basis in an existingor a new IMO instrument, or in UNCLOS. Theoretically, APMs could also require ships toreduce noise pollution. Under certain circumstances, APMs may be more stringent than IMOstandards, even in areas beyond territorial waters, if it is shown that these internationalstandards are inadequate to protect the proposed PSSA.

d. The EU contextErika I and IIRecent developments in the European Union legislation related to the problem of oil pollutionwere brought about by spectacular tanker accidents, leading to oil spills and seriouspollution of European coastlines. However most of this legislation addressed the problem ofaccidental discharges. Generally speaking, EU legislation is designed to implement IMOrules, including non-legally binding measures, in EU waters.

In March 2000, a year after the accident of the Erika tanker, the European Commissionproposed several Directives (the so-called Erika I package) aimed at improving maritimesafety. The measures adopted provided for tighter control of ships in European ports(Directive 2001/106/EC) and more stringent requirements for classification societies(Directive 2001/105/EC).

The Erika II package was put forward in December 2000. The European Maritime SafetyAgency (EMSA) was created to provide Member States with advice concerning theapplication of European Community maritime safety legislation, and to monitor theimplementation and assess the effectiveness of this legislation (Regulation No1406/2002).The new vessel traffic monitoring and information system (VTMIS) Directive (Directive2002/59/EC) aims at improving surveillance and exchange of information at sea. Among otherthings, it requires all ships entering EU ports to be equipped with voyage data recorders andidentification systems, which automatically communicate with coastal authorities, accordingto the IMO requirements (SOLAS).

In November 2003, the Prestige accident off the coast of Galicia propelled maritime safetyback onto the agenda. Regulation (No1726/2003) was adopted speeding up the phasing outof single-hull tankers and banning the transport of heavy oil in single-hull tankers. A ship-source pollution Directive (2005/35/EC), adopted two years later, requires Member States toenforce penalties, including criminal sanctions, of sufficient severity to discourage violationsof IMO anti-pollution standards (MARPOL).



of spills


56


Erika IIIIn November 2005, in response to a call for action by the European Parliament, theCommission put forward a set of seven legislative proposals designed to further enhancemaritime safety. Some of them constitute amendments to previous Directives, while someare new proposals. Key proposals include:

A. a newly proposed Directive on Flag State Responsibilities that requires Member States to ensure that the ships flying their flags comply with the international standards contained in the IMO Conventions (mainly SOLAS and MARPOL). Member states are encouraged to participate in the IMO Audit Scheme, which provides independent assessment of how effectively the IMO technical treaties are implemented. The Directive encourages Member States to conclude agreements with other countries willing to use the same quality standards. Quality will be rewarded by imposing fewer controls in EU ports;

B. amendments to the Port State Control Directive that further tighten the inspection regime on board of ships in EU ports. As most ships usually dock in several different countries, the European Commission hopes that improved coordination between Member States will make it possible to control 100 percent of ships calling at European ports (currently each Member State is obliged to control only 25 percent of the ships using its ports). The new system of control is based on a reward scheme, whereby clean ships undergo fewer controls than ships showing substandard levels of compliance with pollution-related regulations. However at thiswriting, the Port State Control Directive remains one of the most poorly implementeddirectives of the EC;

C. amendments to the VTMIS Directive with the main objective to establish a clear legal framework for places of refuge (areas where ships in distress should be guided to). Among other things, the proposal requires Member States to appoint independent national authorities responsible for designating the most appropriate places of refuge and authorizing ships in distress to accede to these places.

Further to the proposals discussed above, the Commission has also proposed the following:

• An amendment to the Directive on classification societies that aims at improving theperformance of these bodies;

• A Directive on accident investigations that seeks to provide clear guidelines for technicalinvestigations carried out after the occurrence of accidents at sea. This Proposal requiresthe Member States to ensure the existence of organizations adequately prepared to carryout such investigations, and to see that they perform their duties according to uniformprocedures (e.g., the IMO Code for the Investigation of Marine Accidents);

• A Regulation directed at tightening the rules concerning the liability of carriers andcompensation for accident victims. The Proposal incorporates into EC law the IMO AthensConvention of 2002, which introduces compulsory insurance for carriers and increases thelevel of potential financial compensation for victims. The new rules are to apply tointernational traffic, as well as to domestic maritime traffic and inland waterways;

• A Directive on the extra-contractual liability of ship owners, which urges the MemberStates to implement an international convention9 that, maintaining the principle of limitedliability, sets high levels of compensation from ship-owners. The Commission accordinglysuggests that ship owners should possess an insurance policy.

The Erika III proposals are currently under discussion in the Parliament and the Counciland the legislative process is not expected to be due before the end of 2007.


57

9 1996 Convention on the Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims.

e. Limitations of existing regulatory instruments and regimes

There are recognized problems with some oily water separators and related equipment (slop tanks10 , piping and monitoring equipment) and operating requirements. Investigationsby enforcement agencies of several Member states identified several practices by ship’screw to circumvent or “fool” oily water separators and or monitoring devices. Ships’ crewshave bypassed filters and separators using a “magic pipe” or portable hoses. There is arecord of a ships engineer trying to trick the discharge monitoring device with a freshwatermixture. Oil record books are then falsified. The problem of deliberate/illegal oil dischargesand so-called "mystery" spills, and the falsification of oil record books on vessels is aworldwide issue. The costs to the marine environment, in particular to seabirds, aresignificant. Likewise, costs to the recreation and tourism industries are considerable.

The oil record book in its current form is not an effective deterrent. Currently MARPOLAnnex I oil record bookkeeping requirements are ineffective, easily and demonstrablyfalsified. The requirements allow for a 15th Century technology (pen and ink entries) in an eraof secure, tamper-proof electronics technology that can and has been applied to monitororganizational and individual behavior both in-situ and remotely. Despite over 25 years ofregulation under MARPOL Annex I, illegal oil discharges continue to severely plague marineresources of Coastal States. This outmoded standard unfairly shifts the responsibility fromthe ship-owner and Flag State to the Coastal State and or the Port State for monitoring andenforcement of discharge standards.

Reasons cited for ships crew to circumvent the onboard pollution prevention equipmentare many. A short list includes: Slop tanks are too small to wait for a port reception facility.Port reception facility costs are high. Oily water separations do not operate as designed; arepoorly maintained; are of insufficient capacity; are time consuming to operate and shipscrew are already overworked. Monitoring devices do not function as designed.

Offshore surveillance by Coastal States within or outside MARPOL Special Areas is costly.Coastal surveillance by most governments is limited and rarely state of the art. Mostsurveillance relies solely on aerial "eyeball" searches. This limits surveillance to daylight,and good visibility and weather conditions. In addition, at best available flying time is limiteddue to overriding budget constraints typical of a developing country. For most countries,budget restrictions preclude use of infrared/ultra-violet detectors, advanced optics, andradar and microwave oil spill detection equipment. Costs for basic aerial systems, notincluding aircraft operations and maintenance and personnel are for example $US 1.6 millionto purchase a commercially available maritime surveillance system. Satellite surveillancecan cost $US 4,000 per photo and is for most member states unaffordable. However, this stillleaves the Coastal State "footing" the bill to reduce illegal oil discharges. In the Baltic SeaSpecial Area, the Helcom countries do have a comprehensive surveillance program.Designation of Special Areas under MARPOL 73/78 has been demonstrated is an importantstep towards curbing ship-generated oil pollution. However, the cost has been great andillegal discharges persist. In the Mediterranean, the Special Area has not been adequatelyenforced and the number of illegal discharges is large (2001 JRC, “Monitoring of IllicitVessels Discharges, a Reconnaissance Study in the Mediterranean Sea”).

Several recent studies based on evidence from offshore surveillance by “coastal” statesand from inspections by “Port States" reveal that nearly half of vessels inspected violate atleast one aspect of the international environmental rules concerning the stowage anddisposal of oil. Not all of these violations are evidence of willful misconduct, nor are they allserious, but they do underscore that compliance with international environmental rules islacking. Experts have concluded that most ships and ship-owner/operators actively seek to



of spills


58

10 Before oily waste is discharged from a vessel it is stored in a slop tank.


comply with this body of environmental regulations. Experts also concluded that one of thebasic problems lies with a relatively small percentage of vessels and owners that persist inconsistently operating their vessels in full contravention to the IMO's body of environmentalregulations. In relative terms, the numbers are small – approximately 10-15% of the worldfleet. According to the latest 2006 GESAMP Report n. 75 “Estimates of Oil Entering theMarine Environment from Sea-based Activities” (Para. 76), 86% of States parties to MARPOLcomply with MARPOL requirements. However, in absolute terms, this subset of ownersaccounts for a large number of vessels. The world fleet is composed of nearly 88 000 vesselsof which approximately 50 000 trade internationally. Given a compliance rate of 85% to 90%,that still leaves potentially 5 000 to 7 500 substandard commercial vessels polluting the seasthrough their noncompliance with international environmental regulations (OECD, MaritimeTransport Committee Report 2003).

The current systems of penalties imposed on offenders guilty of on-compliance withinternational oil pollution standards are not stringent enough and it is still more costeffective for shippers to disregard regulations concerning oil pollution, than to comply withthem (OECD, Maritime Transport Committee Report 2003). The situation, however, isgradually changing with some countries (France, UK, Sweden, Canada, South Africa)starting vigorously persecuting. In the US, for instance, illegal discharges and thefalsification of oil record books are are considered serious violations with companies beingfined upwards of US$30 million and crew serving jail time by Coastal States. In the context ofthe in the recent passing of Bill C-15 in Canada (Amendments to the Migratory BirdsConvention Act and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act), IFAW successfully lobbiedthe amendment of a minimum fine clause to Bill C-15. This amendment means that vessels ofmore than 5000 dwt will face a minimum fine of $500,000 CAD for the most serious deliberatedumping offences and a minimum fine of $100,000 CAD for the least serious offences. This isa huge step in the right direction considering that the highest fine previously ever enforcedfor this illegal practice in Canada was 170,000 CAD.

At the 54th session of the IMO’s Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC), heldin March 2006, India drew the attention of the Committee to the serious operationalproblems most vessels were facing because, although being fitted with bilge oily waterseparators for machinery spaces in compliance with resolution MARPOL Annex I, manyvessels had inadequate waste handling systems for machinery spaces, insufficientsludge/waste oil holding tanks and lesser incinerator capacity. In the view of India, recentreported incidents of MARPOL violations had demonstrated the inadequacy of guidelines forpollution-prevention equipment provided on board ships for waste oil management formachinery spaces. In the ensuing discussions such inadequacies were believed to foster aclimate that encourages among other things willful illegal discharges and falsification of oilrecord books; further, the inadequacy of onboard equipment impacts crewing and is ahuman factors problem. Following these discussions, the Chairperson invited membergovernments and industry to provide concrete proposals, including draft MEPC circulars orproposed amendments to existing instruments, to a future session of the Committee in orderto address this important matter. At the same meeting, following the report of the TechnicalGroup on Special Areas and Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (MEPC 54/WP.9), theChairperson brought particular attention to the issue of illegal discharges within theproposed southern South African sea area as a Special Area. It is a common appeal thatindustry argues that any discharges are inadvertent as a consequence of equipment oroperational problems.

At the 2006 MEPC meetings (MEPC 54 and 55) these matter were discussed and severalinitiatives were proposed and initiated to address what may be the root causes of thesources of non-compliance including among other things, the poor design, operation andcapacity of oily water separators and the lack of adequate shore side reception facilities.


59

Conclusions

• Chronic oil pollution can be described as a continuous stream of smaller and larger spillsin the same area. These have highly variable effects in different areas and seasons, due tothe varying nature of these areas and due to temporal patterns in the levels of exposure ofthe marine wildlife at risk.

• Effects on organisms in contact with the sea surface (such as seabirds and marinemammals), and on inter-tidal ecosystems at the land-sea interface are probably largerthan effects on, for example, pelagic (open water) and deeper sub-tidal benthic (seabottom) systems.

• Furness (1993) ranked oil pollution as one of the most significant threats to seabirds in thepresent and in the (near) future. This should justify continued efforts to minimise the oilproblem, even if more serious hazards occur or are foreseen.

• International conventions and associated national legislation have succeeded in loweringannual worldwide releases of oil from approximately 6 million tons in the early 1970s toabout one million tons today.

• However, with regard to wildlife casualties, the amount of oil spilled is less important thanthe season in which spillage occurs, and the location of that spillage. Relatively smallspills (including discharges corresponding to chronic oil pollution) may lead to substantialdamage and mortality. In this context, the key factors determining the gravity of wildlifecasualties by oil are the densities of seabirds present in an affected area at any giventime, and the vulnerability of the species present to oil pollution.

• The evaluation contained in the present report clearly shows that information on aEuropean scale is far from complete. Such a large gap in information prevents a reliableevaluation of the true impact of oil release in marine environments.

• Sloan (1999) listed the following key remaining limitations in our understanding of thebiology of oil pollution effects:

• poor environmental baseline data for comparing the status of a situation prior to and after oiling;

• the definition and quantification of exposure levels to oil hydrocarbons remains speculative;

• few integrated population or ecosystem studies compared to single speciesstudies;

• inability to differentiate between natural changes in ecosystems and oil pollution effects; and

• poor understanding of long-term, chronic sub-lethal impacts of oil pollution.


60

11.

11. Conclusions• The sensitivity of European waters with respect to oil pollution is well studied in some

areas, but totally unknown in others. In particular, the waters of the Arctic, Mediterranean,Black Sea, and Macaronesia should be evaluated in order to increase the quality ofinformation needed to curb the effects of oil spills in these areas.

• Not all species in Europe have been subjected to Oil Vulnerability Indices (OVI) analysis,and it became clear that large areas in Europe are in fact data-deficient with respect toinformation regarding their sensitivity to oil pollution, in particular, the English Channel andcoast of Portugal, both scenes of some of the most dramatic oil incidents that have takenplace in recent years in terms of wildlife casualties.

• Limited understanding or failures to demonstrate the effects of oil pollution on seabirdpopulations have resulted in assumptions that the oil problem is not important. The factthat many thousands of seabirds perish annually as a result of chronic oil pollution is seenas irrelevant as long as population trends are positive. The oil problem has been playeddown simply because there are other more visible threats to seabirds (see Appendix IV),and as a result oil pollution is not given priority and does not always get the attention itdeserves.

• Annual loss of wildlife due to chronic oiling is still very large, even in so-called SpecialAreas (MARPOL Annex I).

• From the recently established EC website and JRC database, it is clear that even inSpecial Areas control measures have been inadequate to fully reduce and eliminate(illegal) oil spills. Aerial surveys and satellite observations of oil slicks showed that in theBlack Sea, the Mediterranean, the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, thousands of oil slicksoccur every single year.

• A significant proportion of chronic oil pollution is a result of deliberate discharges of oil orleakages of badly maintained installations.

• Beached-bird surveys conducted around Europe within the past six years report manythousands of oiled seabirds each winter, and these results represent only a fraction of thetotal number of casualties.

• Recent studies showed that oil pollution can have large-scale effects on marine wildlifeand that these impacts can be quantified using tagged individual seabirds to estimatesurvival of seabird populations.

• Beached-bird surveys produce species-specific oil rates and these have declinedconsistently in most areas and for most species. Aerial surveys detecting oil slicks at seahave produced data that are consistent with the results of beached bird surveys: high oilrates typically occur in areas with dense shipping (i.e., where chronic oil pollution is anissue). This is not to say that a high density of maritime shipping automatically causeslarge numbers of seabirds to become oiled: in accordance with the conclusion madeearlier, it is not so much the amount of oil that makes a difference but rather the fact thatfrequent releases of oil into the marine environment do cause damage in sensitive areasand at particular times of the year.

• The ecological parameters used for designating MARPOL 73/78 Annex I Special Areas arelimited and do not reflect spatial patterns in sensitivity to oil pollution according to currentdata on the distribution of seabirds at sea. Because of this, highly vulnerable arctic andsub-arctic regions and waters along the Atlantic seaboard between Gibraltar and theEnglish Channel have not been included as Special Areas.


61

• The Mediterranean and Black seas are “data-deficient” according to the preliminarysensitivity analysis presented in this report, but the history of oil incidents and associatedwildlife casualties in Europe does not suggest that highly sensitive areas for marineseabirds have been overlooked, or it may be that we have been lucky that oil spills havenot hit those areas.

• The material in this report clearly shows that Special Areas and sensitive areas are notnecessarily the same.

• Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSAs) represent a significant improvement on theMARPOL Special Areas concept in that they employ selection criteria based on marineconservation needs as identified by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). However,PSSAs tend to be restricted to coastal waters and thus similarly overlook broader patternsof marine wildlife sensitivity to oil as indicated by seabird distribution data.

• Existing legislation designed to reduce chronic oil pollution is not fully implemented,enforced and may be inadequate.

• Existing penalties are not stringent enough to discourage violations.

• Irresponsible behaviour is often triggered by economic factors. Measures should beimplemented to ensure that failing to play by the rules becomes just too expensive. To putit simply, if the cost of disposing excess oil into the sea is higher than the cost of keeping iton board until it can be discharged to a port reception facility, then illegal disposal stopsbeing an attractive alternative. This is an obvious course of action foreseen by MARPOLwithin the legal instruments needed to change legislation, yet thousands of oil spills occurevery year within Special Areas (see chapter on chronic oil pollution in Europe).

• Accidents at sea cannot be completely avoided, regardless of how good efforts are toimprove shipping standards and safety procedures. Accidents do happen and it isnecessary to improve existing response systems in order to increase the efficiency andspeediness of the decision-making in emergency situations.

• Spatial patterns and seasonal trends in vulnerable concentrations of seabirds in the NorthSea and west of Britain have been identified and published (Bourne 1982, Tasker &Pienkowski 1987, Tasker et al. 1990, Tasker 1991, Webb et al. 1995, see also chapter herein,entitled “Sensitive species, sensitive areas”). However, despite this knowledge the OSPARCommission (2004) concluded that there is little evidence that this information is beingused to improve the planning of clean-up operations in the wake of oil incidents (e.g.,Tricolor incident). The Commission similarly found that the available knowledge appears toplay very little part in orienting the decision to immediately contain illegal spills at sea orleave them to disperse naturally (and more slowly), or indeed in planning aerialsurveillances for oil at sea.

11. Conclusions


62

References

Abelló P. & D. Oro 1998. Distribution of seabirds in the northwestern Mediterranean in June 1995.Colonial Waterbirds 21(3): 422-426.

Agard J.B.R., J. Gobin & R. M. Warwick 1993. Analysis of marine macrobenthic community structure inrelation to pollution, natural oil seepage and seasonal disturbance in a tropical environment (Trinidad,West Indies). Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 92: 233-243.

Anker-Nilssen T. 1987. Metoder til konsekvensanalyser olje/sjøfugl. Viltrapport 44: 1–114.

Anker-Nilssen T. & O.W. R¢stad 1981. Undersøkelser av oljeskadede sjøfugler i forbindelse medoljekatastrofen i Skagerak desember 1980/januar 1981. Viltrapport 16: 1-41.

Anker-Nilssen T., K.E. Erikstad & S.H. Lorentsen 1996. Aims and effort in seabird monitoring: anassessment based on Norwegian data. Wildlife Biol. 2: 17-26.

Anonymous 1910. Eisentenhavarie bei Dago. Neue Baltische Waidmannsblätter 6(6): 489.

Anonymous 1922. Oil on Water. Bird Notes & News 10:17-21.

Anonymous 1926. The oil menace. Ibis 2(4): 844-845.

Anonymous 1975. Cape colony hit by pollution. Birds, RSPB Magazine 5(8): 11.

Anonymous 1992a. Number of tanker spills falls. Mar. Poll. Bull. 24(4): 175-176.

Anonymous 1992b. Oil spills decline in UK waters. Mar. Poll. Bull. 24(12): 578.

Anonymous 1995b. UK Oil spills up by 11% during 1993. Mar. Poll. Bull. 30(2): 99.

Anonymous 1996. Tanker spills fall to record low in 1995. Mar. Poll. Bull. 32(8/9): 584.

Anonymous 1997. More oil spills in UK waters. Mar. Poll. Bull. 34(1): 4.

Anonymous 1998. Effaith amgylcheddol arllwysiad olew y Sea Empress. Sea Empress EnvironmentalEvaluation Committee, The Stationary Office, London, 135pp.

Anonymous 2002a. Report of the Working Group on Seabird Ecology, ICES Headquarters 8-11 March2002. Oceanography Committee, ICES CM 2002/C:04, Ref. ACME, ACE, E and F, International Council forthe Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Anonymous 2002b. Oil spill measured with microwave radiometer. In: Askne J. (ed.) Remote Sensingusing Microwaves (b-version), Chapter H. Oil spill measured by Microwave Radiometry: H1-H14http://www.rss.chalmers.se/rsg/Education/RSUM/Chap_H_2002.PDF.

Anonymous 2005. Ascension seabirds on the rise. Brit. Birds 98: 505.

Arcos J.M. & D. Oro 1996. Changes in foraging range of Audouin's Gulls Larus audouinii in relation to atrawler moratorium in the Western Mediterranean. Colonial Waterbirds 19: 128-131.

Arcos J.M., D. Alvarez, P.M. Leyenda, I. Munilla & A. Velando 2004. Seabird mortality caused by thePrestige oil spill: preliminary insights from a drift blocks experiment. Abstracts poster presentations 8thIntern. Seabird Group Conference "North Atlantic Seabird Populations”, King's College ConferenceCentre, University of Aberdeen, 2-4 April, Aberdeen.

Artyukhin Y.B. & V.N. Burkanov 2000. Incidental mortality of seabirds in the drift net salmon fishery byJapanese vessels in the Russian Exclusive Economic Zone, 1993-1997. In: Kondratyev A.Y., N.M.Litvinenko & G.W. Kaiser (eds) Seabirds of the Russian far east. Special Publication, Canadian WildlifeService, Ottawa. Pp. 105-115.

Averbeck C., M. Korsch & G. Vauk 1992. Der Einfluß von Ölverschmutzungen auf Seevögel an dendeutschen Nordseeküsten von 1984 bis 1990. Seevögel 13(1): 12-16.

Bailey E.P. 1995. Introduction of foxes to Alaskan islands - history, effects on avifauna, and eradication.Abstracts 22nd Ann. Meet. Pacific Seabird Group. Pacific Seabirds 22(1): 25.

Baillie S.R. & C.J. Mead 1982. The effect of severe oil pollution during the winter of 1980-81 on Britishand Irish auks. Ringing & Migr. 4: 33-44.

Bakken V. 1990. The distribution and diel movements of Brünnich's Guillemot Uria lomvia in ice coveredwaters in the Barents Sea, February/March 1987. Pol. Res. 8: 55-59.


63

12.

Barclay-Smith P. 1931. The destruction of birds by oil pollution at sea and the progress made since 1915combating this. Proc. Int. Orn. Congr. 7: 503-508.

Becker P.H., R.W. Furness & M.L. Tasker 2003. Seabirds as monitors of marine pollution. In: Tasker M.L.& R.W Furness (eds) Seabirds as monitors of the marine environment. ICES Coop. Res. Rep. 258, ICESCIEM, Copenhagen. Pp. 3-25.

Bell B. & D. Bell 1998. Pitcairn paradise preserved. World Birdwatch 20(1): 8-11.

Bell B.D. 2004. Recovery of seabird populations after the removal of invasive species. Abstracts oralpresentations 8th Intern. Seabird Group Conference "North Atlantic Seabird Populations”, King's CollegeConference Centre, University of Aberdeen, 2-4 April 2004, Aberdeen.

Bergman G. 1961. Allin ja mustalinnun muuttokannat Keväällä 1960. Suomen Riista 14: 69-74.

Bergstrøm R. 1990. Ærfuglens årssykklus på den norske Skagerrakkysten. Fauna och Flora 85: 180-185.

Bernem K.H. van, M. Grotjahn, J. Knüpling, H.L. Krasemann, A. Müller, L. Neugebohrn, S. Patzig, G.Ramm, R. Rietmüller, G. Sach & S. Suchrow 1994. Thematischer Kartierung und Sensitivitätsraster imdeutschen Wattenmeer, Juni 1987-Juni 1993. UBA-Forschungsbericht 94-077, GKSS 94/E/10: 1-165.

Bibby C.J. & C.S. Lloyd 1977. Experiments to determine the fate of dead birds at sea. Biol. Conserv.12: 295-309.

Birkhead T.R. & R.W. Furness 1985. Regulation of seabird populations. In: Sibly R.M. & R.H. Smith (eds).Behavioural ecology: ecological consequences of adaptive behaviour. Pp.147-167, Blackwell. London.

Birkhead T.R. 1994. How collectors killed the Great Auk. New Scientist, 28 May, pp. 24-27.

Blake B.F. 1983. Threats to birds of the sea. New Scientist, 20 October, pp. 210-211.

Blake B.F.,M.L. Tasker, P.H. Jones, T.J. Dixon, R. Mitchell & D.R. Langslow 1984. Seabird Distribution inthe North Sea. Nature Conservancy Council, Huntingdon.

Bommelé M. 1991. Harmful effects on birds of floating lipophilic substances discharged from ships. In: Camphuysen C.J. & J.A. van Franeker (eds). Oil pollution, Beached-bird surveys and Policy: towards amore effective approach to an old problem. Proc. Int. NZG/NSO workshop, 19 April 1991, Rijswijk, Sula 5(special issue), pp. 44-45.

Borkin I.V., V.I. Chernook, Ya.I. Ponomarev, V.Yu. Bogomolov & M.V. Gavrilo 1992. Results from an aerialsurvey for marine birds, done in August-September 1991, as a link in the trophic web of the Barents Seaecosystem and interrelation between their distribution and distribution of pelagic fish. ICES C.M. 1992/L:39, 19 pp.

Botsford L.W., J.C. Castilla & C.H. Peterson 1997. The Management of Fisheries and Marine Ecosystems.Science 277(5325): 509-515.

Bourne W.R.P. 1971. The Threat of Oil Pollution to North Scottish Seabird Colonies. Mar. Poll. Bull. 2: 71.

Bourne W.R.P. 1982. Concentrations of Scottish seabirds vulnerable to oil pollution. Mar. Poll. Bull.13: 270-272

Bourne W.R.P. 1993. The story of the Great Auk, Pinguinus impennis. Archives of Natural History20: 257-278.

Bourne W.R.P., J.D. Parrack & G.R. Potts 1967. Birds killed in the Torrey Canyon Disaster. Nature 215(9): 1123-1125.

Bretagnolle V., G. Certain, S. Houte & M. Métais 2004. Distribution maps and minimum abundanceestimates for wintering auks in the Bay of Biscay, based on aerial surveys. Aquat. Living Resour.17: 353-360.

Brothers N.P. & A.B. Foster 1997. Seabird catch rates: an assessment of causes and solutions inAustralia's domestic tuna long-line fishery. Marine Ornithology 25(1-2): 37-42.

Bub H. & H.R. Henneberg 1954. Über die Vogelverluste im Winter 1953/54 in Gebieten der südlichendeutschen Nordseeküste. Beitr. Naturk. Nieders. 7: 9-12.

BWPi 2004. The birds of the western Palearctic interactive. DVD Birdguides, Shrewsbury.

Byrkjedal I., E. Alendal & O.F. Lindberg 1976. Counts of seabirds between Norway and Spitzbergen in thesummer of 1973. Norsk Polarinst. Årbok 1974: 265-269.

Cairns D.K. 1992. Population regulation of seabird colonies. Current Ornithology, 9(2): 37-61.

Camphuysen C.J. 1989. Beached-bird Surveys in the Netherlands 1915-1988; Seabird Mortality in thesouthern North Sea since the early days of Oil Pollution. Techn. Rapport Vogelbescherming 1,Werkgroep Noordzee, Amsterdam 322 pp.

12. References


64

12. ReferencesCamphuysen C.J. 1990a. Verstrikking van zeevogels in plastics: een probleem van toenemende omvang?Sula 4(1): 12-18.

Camphuysen C.J. 1990b. Jan van Genten Sula bassana en plastics: waarnemingen op zee en op dekolonie. Sula 4(2): 66-70.

Camphuysen C.J. 1993. Summer distribution of seabirds and marine mammals in the Greenland Sea,1985-90. Sula (7): 45-64.

Camphuysen C.J. 1994. Verstrikkingen van zeevogels in plastics en vistuig aan de Nederlandse kust,1990-93. Sula 8(3): 226-229.

Camphuysen C.J. 1995. Olieslachtoffers langs de Nederlandse kust als indicatoren van de vervuiling vande zee met olie. Sula (9): 1-90, I-XX.

Camphuysen C.J. 1998. Beached-bird surveys indicate decline in chronic oil pollution in the North Sea.Mar. Poll. Bull. 36(7): 519-526.

Camphuysen C.J. 2000. Seabirds drowned in fishing nets off Jan Mayen (Greenland Sea). AtlanticSeabirds 2(2): 87-91.

Camphuysen C.J. 2003. Olieslachtoffers op de Nederlandse kust, 2002/2003: een trendbreuk in gevondenoliebevuilingspercentages. CSR Consultancy report 2003.01, Oosterend, Texel, 23 pp.

Camphuysen C.J. 2004. North Sea pilot project on Ecological Quality Objectives, Issue 4. Seabirds,EcoQO element F. Proportion of oiled Common Guillemots among those found dead or dying - revisededition (June 2004). CSR Report 2004-012, Texel, 26 pp.

Camphuysen C.J. 2005. Oiled-guillemot-EcoQO - Implementation Document. North Sea Pilot Project onEcological Quality Objectives, Issue 4. Seabirds, EcoQO element (f). NIOZ Report, Royal NetherlandsInstitute for Sea Research, Texel, 11pp.

Camphuysen C.J. & J.A. van Franeker 1992. The value of beached bird surveys in monitoring marine oilpollution. Techn. Rapport Vogelbescherming 10, Vogelbescherming Nederland, Zeist, 191 pp.

Camphuysen C.J. & M. Heubeck 2001. Marine oil pollution and beached bird surveys: the developmentof a sensitive monitoring instrument. Environmental Pollution 112: 443-461.

Camphuysen C.J. & M.F. Leopold 1994. Atlas of seabirds in the southern North Sea. IBN Research report94/6, NIOZ-Report 1994-8, Institute for Forestry and Nature Research, Netherlands Institute for SeaResearch and Dutch Seabird Group, Texel.

Camphuysen C.J. & M.F. Leopold 1998. Kustvogels, zeevogels en bruinvissen in het Hollandse kustgebied.NIOZ Report 1998-4, CSR Rapport 1998-2, Nederlands Instituut voor Onderzoek der Zee, Texel.

Camphuysen C.J., H. Barreveld, G. Dahlmann & J.A. van Franeker 1999. Seabirds in the North Seademobilised and killed by polyisobutylene (C4H8)n. Mar. Poll. Bull. 38(12): 1171-1176.

Camphuysen C.J., C.M. Berrevoets, H.J.W.M. Cremers, A. Dekinga, R. Dekker, B.J. Ens, T.M. van derHave, R.K.H. Kats, T. Kuiken, M.F. Leopold, J. van der Meer & T. Piersma 2002. Mass mortality of commoneiders (Somateria mollissima) in the Dutch Wadden Sea, winter 1999/2000: starvation in a commerciallyexploited wetland of international importance. Biological Conservation 106(3): 303-317.

Camphuysen C.J., J. Chardine, M. Frederiksen & M. Nunes 2005. Review of the impacts of recent majoroil spills on seabirds. In: Anonymous (ed.) Report of the Working Group on Seabird Ecology, Texel, 29March - 1 April 2005. Oceanography Committee, ICES CM 2005/C:05, Ref. ACME+E, International Councilfor the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Camphuysen C.J., P.J. Wright, M.F. Leopold, O. Hüppop & J.B. Reid 1999. A review of the causes, andconsequences at the population level, of mass mortalities of seabirds. In: Furness R.W. & M.L. Tasker(eds). Diets of seabirds and consequences of changes in food supply. Pp. 51-66. ICES Coop. Res. ReportNo. 232, International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen.

Carter I.C., J.M. Williams, A. Webb & M.L. Tasker 1993. Seabird concentrations in the North Sea: anatlas of vulnerability to surface pollutants. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Aberdeen, 39 pp.

Castège I., G. Hémery, N. Roux, J. d'Elbée, Y. Lalanne, F. D'Amico& C. Mouchès 2004. Changes inabundance and at-sea distribution of seabirds in the Bay of Biscay prior to, and following the "Erika" oilspill. Aquat. Living Resour. 17: 361-367.

Catry T., J.A. Ramos, I. Catry, M. Allen-Revez & N. Grade 2004. Are salinas a suitable alternativebreeding habitat for Little Terns Sterna albifrons? Ibis 146(2): 247-257.

Cifuentes J.M. 2004. Seabirds at risk? Effects of environmental chemicals on reproductive success andmass growth of seabirds breeding at the Wadden Sea in the mid-1990s. Wadden Sea ecosystem No. 18,pp. 27-51, Common Wadden Sea Secretariat, Trilateral Monitoring and Assessment Group, Wilhelmshaven.


65

Clark R.B. 1984. Impact of oil pollution on seabirds. Environmental Pollution (Series A) 33: 1-22.

Clark R.B. 2001. Marine Pollution. Fifth Edition, Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford. 237 pp.

Clobert J. & J.D. Lebreton 1991. Estimation of demographic parameters in bird populations. In: PerrinsC.M., J.D. Lebreton & G.J.M. Hirons (eds). Bird population studies relevant to conservation andmanagement. Pp. 75-104. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.

Cole S.D. 1929. Oil Pollution. Royal Soc. Prot. Birds, Annual Report 1929, pp. 37-40.

Colombé S., J.B. Reid & A. Webb 1996. Seabird studies off south-west Wales and south-east Irelandfollowing the Sea Empress incident at Milford Haven, February 1996. JNCC Report No. 225, Joint NatureConservation Committee, Aberdeen, 40 pp.

Cresswell G. & D. Walker 2001. A report on the whales, dolphins and seabirds of the Bay of Biscay andEnglish Channel. ORCA No. 1, Organisation Cetacea (ORCA), St. Neots, Cambs. U.K. 106 pp.

Croxall J.P. 1991 (ed.). Seabird Status and Conservation: A Supplement. Techn Publ. No. 11, ICBP,Cambridge, 308pp.

Croxall J.P., P.G.H. Evans & R.W. Schreiber 1984. Status and Conservation of the World's Seabirds.Techn. Publ. No. 2, ICBP, Cambridge 778 pp.

Croxall J.P., P.A. Prince, P. Rothery & A.G. Wood 1998. Population changes in albatrosses at SouthGeorgia. In: Robertson G. & R. Gales (eds). Albatross biology and conservation. Pp. 69-83. Surrey Beatty& Sons, Chipping Norton.

Dahlmann G. 1985. Herkunft der Ölverschmutzungen an der deutschen Nordseeküste. Seevögel6(Sonderband): 73-80.

Dahlmann G. 1987. Analysen von Gefiederproben verölter Seevögel. In: Umweltbundesamt (ed).Ölopfererfassung an der deutschen Nordseeküste, Ergebnisse der Ölanalysen sowie Untersuchungenzur Belastung der Deutschen Bucht durch Schiffsmüll. Text 29/87: 47-64.

Dahlmann G., D. Timm, C. Averbeck, C.J. Camphuysen & H. Skov 1994. Oiled seabirds - comparativeinvestigations on oiled seabirds and oiled beaches in the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany (1990-1993). Mar. Poll. Bull. 28: 305-310.

Danielsen F., H. Skov, J. Durinck & D. Bloch 1990. Marine distribution of seabirds in the NortheastAtlantic between Iceland and Scotland, June-September 1987 and 1988. Dansk orn. Foren. Tidsskr.84: 45-63.

de la Mare W.K. & K.R. Kerry 1994. Population dynamics of the wandering albatross (Diomedea exulans)on Macquarie Island and the effects of mortality from longline fishing. Polar Biol. 14: 231-241.

DeGange A.R. & T.C. Newby 1980. Mortality of seabirds and fish in a lost salmon driftnet. Mar. Poll. Bull.11: 322-323.

Diederichs A., G. Nehls & I.K. Petersen 2002. Flugzeugzählungen zur großflächigen Erfassung vonSeevögeln und marinen Säugern als Grundlage für Umweltverträglichkeitsstudien im Offshorebereich.Seevögel 23(2): 38-46.

Directie Noordzee 2001. Verontreinigingen op het NCP, 1995-2000. Directie Noordzee, Ministerie vanVerkeer en Waterstaat, Rijswijk, 36 pp.

Drijver J. 1929. De verontreiniging van het zeewater door stookolie. Versl. & Meded. 1924-1928: 168-186,Vogelbescherming, Amsterdam.

Dunnet G.M. 1982. Oil pollution and seabird populations. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London (B) 297(1087): 413-427.

Dunnet G.M. 1987. Seabirds and North Sea oil. In: Hartley J.P. & R.B. Clark (eds). Environmental effectsof North Sea oil and gas developments. Proc. R. Soc. Disc. Meet. London Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond.B 316: 513-524.

Durinck J., H. Skov & P. Andell 1993. Seabird distribution and numbers in selected offshore parts of theBaltic Sea, winter 1992. Ornis Svecica 3: 11-26.

Durinck J., H. Skov, F.P. Jensen & S. Pihl 1994. Important marine areas for wintering birds in the BalticSea. EU DG XI research contract no. 224/90-09-01, Ornis Consult. Report 1994. Copenhagen, pp. 1-110.

Espedal H. 1999. Detection of oil spill and natural film in the marine environment by spaceborne SAR. Proc.International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, 28 June - 2 July 1999, Vol. 3, pp. 1478-1480.

Etkin D.S. 1999. Historical overview of oil spills from all sources (1960-1998). GESAMP Working Group 32Project. Proc. 1999 Intern. Oil Spill Conference, pp. 1097-1102.

Etkin D.S., P. Wells, M. Nauke, J. Campbell, C. Grey, J. Koefoed, T. Meyer & P. Johnston 1999. Estimatesof Oil Entering the Marine Environment in the Past Decade. GESAMP Working Group 32 Project. Proc.1999 Intern. Oil Spill Conference, pp. 1093-1095 http://www.environmental-research.com/publications/pdf/spill_costs/paper3.pdf.

12. References


66

12. ReferencesEuropean Commission 2005. Third Maritime Safety Package. European Commission 24 November 2005:http://www.infrasite.nl/news/news_article.php?ID_nieuwsberichten=3182&language=en

European Group of Experts on satellite monitoring of sea-based oil Pollution 2005. Draft Minutes 4thMeeting of EGEMP and OCEANIDES final workshop Ispra, 25-26 October 2005.

Fauchald P. & K.E. Erikstad 1995. The predictability of the spatial distribution of Guillemots (Uria spp.) in the Barents Sea. In: Isaksen K. & V. Bakken (eds). Seabird populations in the Northern Barents Sea,Norsk Polarinst. Medd. 135. Pp. 105-122.

Fauchald P., T. Tveraa, B.J. Bårdsen & K. Langeland 2005. Utbredelsen av sjøfugl i Norskehavet ogBarentshavet. NINA Rapport 64, Norsk Institutt for naturforskning, Trondheim.

Febre A. 2003. Utilisation de l'imagerie satellitale pour la détection de déversements illicitesd'hydrocarbures. Faune et Nature 40: 53-57.

Fleet D.M. & B. Reineking 2000. Beached-bird Surveys at the German North Sea Coast. Wadden SeaNewsletter 2000(2): 26-28.

Fleet D.M. & B. Reineking 2001. Bestimmung, Quantifizierung und Bewertung der Öleinträge in derNordsee zur Beurteilung der Schiffsentsorgung in deutschen Nordseehäfen. UBA-Berlin, FKZ 297 25 310,297 pp.

Franeker J.A. van 1983. Inwendig onderzoek aan zeevogels. Nieuwsbr. NSO 4(4/5): 144-167.

Frantzen B. 1985. Forekomsten av stellerand Polysticta stelleri i Finnmark i perioden 1970 til 1984. Vår Fuglefauna 8: 15-18.

Furness R.W. & Camphuysen C.J. 1997. Seabirds as monitors of the marine environment. ICES J. Mar.Sc. 54: 726-737.

Furness R.W. 1993. An assessment of human hazards to seabirds in the North Sea. WWF InternationalReport & Executive summary, February 1993, London, 86 pp.

Furness R.W. 1999. Does a million ton per year harvest of sand lance from the North Sea threatenseabird populations? AK-SG-99-01 Proceedings Ecosystem Approaches in Fisheries ManagementAlaska Sea Grant College Program, Anchorage. Pp. 407-424.

Gandini P., P.D. Boersma, E. Frere, M. Gandini, T. Holik & V. Lichtstein 1994. Magellanic Penguins(Spheniscus magellanicus) affected by chronic petroleum pollution along the coast of Chubut,Argentina. Auk 111: 20-27.

Garthe S. 2003a. Erfassung von Rastvögeln in der deutschen AWZ von Nord- und Ostsee. Forschungs-und Technologiezentrum Westküste (FTZ), Büsum, 68 pp.

Garthe S. 2003b. Verteilungsmuster und Bestände von Seevögeln in der AusschließlichenWirtschaftszone (AWZ) der deutschen Nord- und Ostsee und Fachvorschläge für EU-Vogelschutzgebiete. Ber. Vogelschutz 40: 15-56.

Garthe S., K. Alicki, O. Hüppop & B. Sprotte 1995. Die Verbreitung und Häufigkeit ausgewählter See- undKüstenvogelarten während der Brutzeit in der südöstlichen Nordsee. J. Orn. 136: 253-266.

Garthe S., V. Dierschke, T. Weichler & P. Schwemmer 2004. Rastvogelvorkommen und Offshore-Windkraftnutzung: Analyse des Konfliktpotenzials für die deutsche Nord- und Ostsee. Final report ofproject 5 of the project consortium "Marine Warmblüter in Nord- und Ostsee: Grundlagen zur Bewertungvon Windkraftanlagen im Offshorebereich (MINOS)".

Garthe S., N. Ullrich, T. Weichler, V. Dierschke, U. Kubetzki, J. Kotzerka, T. Krüger, N. Sonntag & A.J.Helbig 2003. See- und Wasservögel der deutschen Ostsee: Verbreitung, Gefährdung und Schutz.Bundesamt für Naturschutz. Bonn-Bad Godesberg. 170 S.

GESAMP 2001. A Sea of Troubles. IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group ofExperts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP) and Advisory Committeeon Protection of the Sea. Reports and Studies No. 70 (http://gesamp.imo.org/no70/index.htm), 35 pp.

GESAMP 1993. Impact of oil and related chemicals and wastes on the marine environment.IMO/FAO/UNESCO/WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects ofMarine Pollution (GESAMP) Reports and Studies No. 50, IMO, London. 180 pp.

GESAMP Reports and Studies No.75 Estimates of Oil Entering the Marine Environment from Sea-basedActivities, submitted to MEPC55, as MEPC/Information paper 5.

Gill C., F. Booker & T. Soper 1967. The wreck of the Torrey Canyon. David & Charles, Newton Abbott.

Goethe F. 1968. The effects of oil pollution on populations of marine and coastal birds. Helgol.Meeresunters. 17: 370-374.

Gray R. 1871. Birds of West Scotland. Murray, Glasgow.


67

Grenquist P. 1956. Öljytuhoista suomen aluevesillä. Suomen Riista 10: 105-116.

Hak J. 2003. Toename lozingen paraffine en chemicaliën. Nieuwsbrief Beheersvisie Noordzee 2010(6): 5.

Harahsheh H., S. Essa, M. Shiobarac, T. Nishidaid & T. Onumad 2004. Operational satellite monitoringand detection for oil spill offshore of United Arab Emirates. Proceedings XXth ISPRS Congress "Geo-Imagery Bridging Continents", Commission 7, pp. 658-663. 12-23 July 2004 Istanbul, Turkey,http://www.isprs.org/istanbul2004/comm7/papers/130.pdf.

Harris M.P. & S. Wanless 1995. Survival and non-breeding of adult Common Guillemots Uria aalge.Ibis 137: 192-197.

Harris M.P., S. Wanless & D.A. Elston 1998. Age-related effects of a non-breeding event and a winterwreck on the survival of Shags Phalacrocorax aristotelis. Ibis 140: 310-314.

Hautekiet M.R. 1955. Vijf jaar stookolieslachtoffers. Wielewaal 11: 289-294.

Heidmann W.A., M. Beyerbach, W. Böckelmann, A. Büthe, H. Knüwer, B. Peterat & H.A. Rüssel-Sinn1988. Chlorierte Kohlenwasserstoffe in tot an der Nordseeküste aufgefundenen Seevögel. Vogelwarte34(2): 126-133.

Heubeck M. 1997a. The direct effect of the Braer Oil Spill on seabird populations, and an assessment ofthe role of the Wildlife Response Centre. In: Davies J.M. & G. Topping (eds) The Impact of an Oil Spill inTurbulent Waters: The Braer. The Stationary Office Ltd, Edinburgh. Pp. 73-90.

Heubeck M. 1997b. The long-term impact of the Esso Bernicia Oil Spill on numbers of common loonsGavia immer wintering in Shetland, Scotland. Effects of Oil on Wildlife. Proceedings 5th Int. Conf.Monterey, California, 3-6 November 1997, pp. 110-122.

Heubeck M., P. Harvey & J. Uttley 1995. Dealing with the wildlife casualties of the Braer Oil spill,Shetland, January, 1993. Shetland Oil Terminal Envir. Adv. Group & Aberdeen University Research andIndustrial Services Ltd, Aberdeen, 83 pp.

Heubeck M., C.J. Camphuysen, R. Bao, D. Humple, A. Sandoval, B. Cadiou, S. Bräger & T. Thomas 2003.Assessing the impact of major oil spills on seabird populations. Mar. Poll. Bull. 46: 900-902.

Hlady D.A. & A.E. Burger 1993. Drift-block experiments to analyse the mortality of oiled seabirds offVancouver Island, British Columbia. Mar. Poll. Bull. 26(9): 495-501.

Holmes W.N. & J. Cronshaw 1977. Biological effects of petroleum on marine birds. In: Malins D.C. (ed.)Effects of petroleum on arctic and sub-arctic marine environments and organisms. Volume 2, BiologicalEffects. Academic Press, New York. Pp. 359-398.

Hunt Jr. G.L., V. Bakken & F. Mehlum 1996. Marine birds in the marginal ice zone of the Barents Sea inlate winter and spring. Arctic 49(1): 53-61.

ICES 2005. Report of the Working Group on Seabird Ecology (WGSE), 29 March - 1 April 2005, Texel, TheNetherlands. ICES CM 2005/G:07, International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen,Denmark.

IPIECA 2004. A guide to oiled wildlife response planning. IPIECA Report series, Vol. 13, InternationalPetroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association, London.

Isaksen K. & V. Bakken 1995. Seabird populations in the Northern Barents Sea. Norsk PolarinstituttMeddelelser nr. 135, Oslo.

Isaksen K. 1995. Distribution of seabirds at sea in the Northern Barents Sea. In: Isaksen K. & V. Bakken(eds). Seabird populations in the Northern Barents Sea. Source data for the impact assessment of theeffects of oil drilling activity. Norsk Polarinstitutt, Medd. 135. Pp. 67-80.

Jahncke J., E. Goya & A. Guillen 2001. Seabird by-catch in small-scale longline fisheries in NorthernPeru. Waterbirds 24(1): 137-141.

Jehl J.R. 1984. Conservation problems of seabirds in Baja California and the Pacific Northwest. In:Croxall J.P., P.G.H. Evans & R.W. Schreiber (eds). Status and Conservation of the World's Seabirds.Techn. Publ. No. 2, ICBP, Cambridge. Pp. 41-48.

Joensen A.H. 1978. Statistics of duck hunting in Denmark 1966-1976. Dan. Rev. Game Biol. 10(7): 1-20.

Joint Research Centre 2005. Oceanides: developing a harmonised oil spill reporting. Presentation 4thMeeting of EGEMP and OCEANIDES final workshop Ispra, 25-26 October 2005.

Joiris C.R. 1996. At-sea distribution of seabirds and marine mammals around Svalbard, summer 1991.Polar Biol. 16: 423-429.

Jones P.H., J.Y. Monnat, C.J. Cadbury & T.J.S. Stowe 1978. Birds oiled during the Amoco Cadiz incident:An interim report. Mar. Poll. Bull. 9(11): 307-310.

Keijl G.O. & C.J. Camphuysen 1992. Resultaten van een verdriftingsexperiment voor de Nederlandsekust, februari 1991. Sula 6(2): 41-49.

12. References


68

12. References Kies B. & T. Tomek 1990. Bird mortality in fishing nets in the Gulf of Gdansk, Polish Baltic Coast.Pelagicus 5: 23-27.

Kim Y.H., C.S. Lee, J.W. Chung, J.Y. Yoon & J.R. Shin 1986. Comparative identification of oil spills by gaschromatography fingerprinting. J. Oceanol. Soc. Korea. 21: 118-123.

King J.G. & G.A. Sanger 1979. Oil vulnerability index for marine oriented birds. In: Bartonek J.C. & D.N.Nettleship Conservation of marine birds of northern North America, Wildlife Research Report 11, UnitedStates Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington. Pp. 227–239.

Klerk de Reus H.W. 1901. Een strandwandeling. De Levende Natuur 6: 273-274.

Koeman J.H. 1971. Het voorkomen en de toxicologische betekenis van enkele chloorkoolwaterstoffenaan de Nederlandse kust in de periode 1965 tot 1970. PhD thesis, University of Utrecht.

Koeman J.H., M.C. Ten Noever de Brauw & R.H. de Vos 1969. Chlorinated Biphenyls in fish, mussels andbirds from the River Rhine and the Netherlands Coastal Area. Nature 221 (5186): 1126-1128.

Kramer T. 1991. Enforcement of (International) regulations on the prevention of pollution of the seas bymeans of surveillance. In: Camphuysen C.J. & J.A. van Franeker (eds). Oil pollution, Beached-birdSurveys and Policy: towards a more effective approach to an old problem. Proc. Int. NZG/NSOworkshop, 19 April 1991, Rijswijk, Sula (5): 33-34.

Lack P. (ed.) 1986. The Atlas of Wintering Birds in Britain and Ireland. British Trust for Ornithology/IrishWildbird Conservancy. T. & A.D. Poyser, Calton. 447 pp.

Larsson K. & L. Tydén 2005. Effekter av oljeutsläpp på övervintrande alfågel Clangula hyemalis vidHoburgs bank i centrala Östersjön mellan 1996/97 och 2003/04. Ornis Svecica 15: 161-171.

Leighton F.A. 1993. The toxicity of petroleum oils to birds. Environmental Reviews 1: 92-103.

Leighton F.A., D.B. Peakall & R.G. Butler 1983. Heinz-body hemolytic anemia from ingestion of crude oil:A primary toxic effect in marine birds. Science 220: 871-873.

Lovvorn J.R. & D.R. Jones 1991. Effects of body size, body fat, and changes in pressure with depth onbuoyancy and costs of diving in ducks (Aythya spp.). Can. J. Zool. 69: 2879-2887.

Ludwig J.P., C.L. Summer, H.J. Auman, V. Gauger, D. Bromley, J.P. Giesy, R. Rolland & T. Colborn 1998.The roles of organochlorine contaminants and fisheries by-catch in recent population changes of Black-footed and Laysan Albatrosses in the North Pacific Ocean. In: Robertson G. & Gales R. (eds) Albatrossbiology and conservation. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton. Pp. 225-238

Mackey M., O.O. Cadhla, T.C. Kelly, N.A. de Soto & N. Connolly 2004. Cetaceans and seabirds ofIreland's Atlantic margin, I: seabird distribution, density and abundance. Rep. res. Irish Infrastr. Progr.(PIP): Rockall Studies Group, projects 98/6 and 00/13, Porcupine Studies group project P00/15 andOffshore Support Group (OSG) project 99/38, Coastal Marine Res. Centre, Cork, 95 pp.

Maes F., A. Cliquet, J. Seys, P. Meire & H. Offringa 2000. Limited Atlas of the Belgian Part of the NorthSea. Institute of Nature Conservation, Brussel.

McKelvey R.W., I. Robertson & P.E. Whitehead 1980. Effect on non-petroleum oil spills on wintering birdsnear Vancouver. Mar. Poll. Bull. 11(6): 169-171.

Mead C. 1993. Auk mortality causes and trends. In: Andrews J. & S. Carter (eds) Britain's birds in 1990-91:the conservation and monitoring review. British Trust for Ornithology, Thetford and Joint NatureConservation Committee, Peterborough. Pp. 66-67.

Mearns B. & R. Mearns 1998. The bird collectors. Academic Press, San Diego.

Mehlum F. 1989. Summer distribution of seabirds in northern Greenland and Barents Sea. NorskPolarinst. Skrifter 191: 1-56.

Mehlum F., N. Nordlund & K. Isaksen 1998. The importance of the "polar front" as a foraging habitat forguillemots Uria spp. breeding at Bjornoya, Barents Sea. J. Mar. Syst. 14: 27-43.

Mehlum F. & K. Isaksen 1995. The effects of sea ice on the distribution of seabirds in the NorthernBarents Sea. In: Isaksen K. & V. Bakken (eds). Seabird populations in the Northern Barents Sea. Sourcedata for the impact assessment of the effects of oil drilling activity. Norsk Polarinstitutt, Medd. 135. Pp.123-134.

Meltofte H. 1972. Ornithological observations in the Norwegian Sea, the Greenland Sea, and NEGreenland, July-August 1972. Dansk Orn. Foren. Tidsskr. 66: 108-112.

Meltofte H. 2001. Unsustainable take of murres in Greenland. In CAFF (Conservation of Arctic Flora andFauna): Arctic Flora and Fauna. Status and conservation. Edita, Helsinki. Pp. 88-89.

Merkel F.R. 2004. Impact of hunting and gillnet fishery on wintering Eiders in Nuuk, SouthwestGreenland. Waterbirds 27(4): 469-479.


69

Migot P. 1992. Demographic changes in French Herring Gull Larus argentatus populations: a modelingapproach and hypothesis concerning regulation of numbers. In: Spaans A.L. (ed.). Population dynamicsof Lari in relation to food resources. Ardea 80: 161-169.

Mitschke A., S. Garthe & O. Hüppop 2001. Erfassung der Verbreitung, Häufigkeiten und Wanderungenvon See- und Wasservögeln in der deutschen Nordsee und Entwicklung eines Konzeptes zur Umsetzunginternationaler Naturschutzziele. BfN-Skripten 34: 1-100.

Montevecchi W.A. 1991. Incidence and types of plastic in gannets' nests in the northwest Atlantic. Can. J. Zool. 69: 295-297.

Mörzer Bruijns M.F. & G.A. Brouwer 1959. Report on the numbers of oiled birds found dead on the coastof the Netherlands, 1948-1958. Rep. Proc. Int. Conf. Oil Pollution of the Sea, Copenhagen, 3-4 July 1959,Co-ordin. Adv. Comm. Oil Poll. Sea, pp. 75-76.

Mörzer Bruijns M.F. 1959. Stookolievogels op de Nederlandse kust. Levende Nat. 62(8): 172-178.

Mosbech A. 2000. Predicting impacts of oil spills - can ecological science cope? A case studyconcerning birds in Environmental Impact Assessments. Ph-D. Thesis, Roskilde University, published byNational Environmental Research Institute, Denmark, 126 pp.

Mothersole J. 1910. The Isles of Scilly, their story, their folk and their flowers. Religious Tract Soc. Lond.XII. 244 pp.

Muller-Karger F.E. 1992. Remote sensing of marine pollution: a challenge for the 1990s. Mar. Poll. Bull.25(1-4): 54-60.

Murphy S.M., R.H. Day, J.A. Wiens & K.R. Parker 1997. Effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on birds:comparisons of pre- and post-spill surveys in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Condor 99: 299-313.

Mustoe S. 2001. The Erika oil spill. In: Cresswell G. & D. Walker (eds) A report on the whales, dolphinsand seabirds of the Bay of Biscay and English Channel. ORCA No. 1, Organisation Cetacea (ORCA), St.Neots, Cambs. U.K. Pp. 96-100.

National Research Council 1985. Oil in the sea. National Academy Press, Washington D.C.

National Research Council 1991. Tanker spills. Prevention by design. National Academy Press,Washington D.C.

Neves T. & F. Olmos 1998. Albatross mortality in fisheries off the coast of Brazil. In: Robertson G. & R.Gales (eds) Albatross biology and conservation. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton. Pp. 214-219.

Newman G.G. & D.E. Pollock 1973. Organic pollution of the marine environment by pelagic fish factoriesin the western Cape. S. Afr. J. Sci. 69(1): 27-29.

Nilsson L. 2005. Long-term trends and changes in numbers and distribution of some wintering waterfowlspecies along the Swedish Baltic coast. Acta Zool. Lituanica 15(2): 151-157.

Nisbet I.C.T. 1994. Effects of pollution on marine birds. In: Nettleship D.N., J. Burger & M. Gochfeld (eds).Seabirds on islands - threats, case studies and action plans. Birdlife Conservation Series No. 1, BirdlifeInternational, Cambridge. Pp. 8-25.

Noer H., I. Clausager & T. Asferg 1995. The bag of Eider Somateria mollisima in Denmark 1958-1990. Dan. Rev. Game Biol. 14(5): 1-23.

Nygård T., B.H. Larsen, A. Follestad & K.B. Strann 1988. Numbers and distribution of wintering waterfowlin Norway. Wildfowl 39: 164-176.

OSBMB 2003. Oil in the sea III: Inputs, Fates, and Effects. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Offringa H., J. Seys, W. van den Bossche & P. Meire 1995. Seabirds on the Channel doormat. Rapp. IN95.12, Instituut voor Natuurbehoud, Hasselt.

Osborn K. 1996. The Braer - The effects on breeding seabirds.http://www.wildlife.shetland.co.uk/braer/Part10.html.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 2003 Maritime Transport CommitteeReport, Cost Savings Stemming From Non-Compliance with International Environmental Regulations inThe Maritime Sector.

OSPAR Commission 2004. Draft OSPAR Background Document on the Ecological Quality Objective forthe proportion of oiled guillemots amongst those found dead or dying on beaches (Revised version).ECOQO 04/1/3-E, Presented by the Netherlands, Stakeholder Workshop on Ecological Quality Objectives,Oslo, 13-14 December 2004 (http://www.dirnat.no/archive/attachments/02/81/0103N028.pdf).

Paine R.T., J.L. Ruesink, A. Sun, E.L. Soulanille, M.J. Wonham, C.D.G. Harley, D.R. Brumbaugh & D.L.Secord 1996. Trouble on oiled waters: lessons from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst.27: 197-235.

12. References


70

12. References Patin S. 1999. Environmental impact of the offshore oil and gas industry. EcoMonitor Publishing, EastNorthport, New York. 425 pp.

Peet G. 1994. International co-operation to prevent oil spills at sea: not quite the success it should be. In:Bergesen H.O. & G. Parmann (eds.) Green Globe Yearbook of International Co-operation on Environmentand Development 1994. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Pp. 41-54.

Penicaud P. 1979. The seabird community of Sept-Îles Reserve, Brittany, France. Terre et la Vie 33(4):591-610.

Petersen Æ. 1994. Potential mortality factors of auks in Iceland. Circump. Seabird Bull. 1: 3-4.

Petersen Æ., G.A. Gudmundsson & I.K. Petersen 1994. Icelandic seabird research with emphasis onalcid studies. Circump. Seabird Bull. 1: 7-8.

Peterson C.H. 2000. The "Exxon Valdez" oil spill in Alaska: acute, indirect and chronic effects on theecosystem. Adv. Mar. Biol. 39:1-103.

Phillips N.A. 1967. After the Torrey Canyon: Results of the pollution and census of Cornish breedingseabirds in 1967. Cornwall Bird-watching and Preservation Society 1967 Annual Report, pp. 90-129.

Piatt J. & D. Roseneau 1999. Can murres recover from effects of the Exxon Valdez oil spill? Sisyphus news (1):1-5.

Piatt J.F. & P.J. Gould 1994. Post-breeding dispersal and drift-net mortality of endangered JapaneseMurrelets. Auk 111(4): 953-961.

Piatt J.F. & D.N. Nettleship 1985. Diving depths of four alcids. Auk 102: 293-297.

Pihl S., J. Durinck, & H. Skov 1995. Itämeren vesilintujen talviknannat 1993. Suomaen Riista 41: 27-34.

Pollock C., J.B. Reid, A. Webb & M.L. Tasker 1997. The distribution of seabirds and cetaceans in thewaters around Ireland. Joint Nature Conservation Committee Report No. 267, Peterborough.

Raudonikis L., S. Svasas, P. Mierauskas & V. Pareigis 1989a. Wintering waterfowl in Lithuania, 1988.Vilnius, 28 pp.

Raudonikis L., S. Svasas, P. Mierauskas & V. Pareigis 1989b. Wintering waterfowl in Lithuania, 1989.Vilnius, 36 pp.

Recorbet B. 1998. Phénologie, distribution et abondance de quelques oiseaux marins au large del’estuaire de la Loire. Spatule 6: 3-116.

Recorbet B. 2001. Essai d’évaluation de la vulnérabilité aux pollutions par hydrocarbures de l’avifaunemarine au large de l’estuaire de la Loire. Spatule 9: 39-47.

Reid J. & C.J. Camphuysen 1998. The European Seabirds at Sea database. In: Spina S. & A. Grattarola(eds). Proceedings of the 1st meeting of the European Orn. Union. Biol. Cons. Fauna 102: 291.

Rozemeijer M.J.C., K. Booij, C. Swennen & J.P. Boon 1992. Molecular features of environmentalcontaminants causing disruption of the plumage of sea-birds. NIOZ BEWON Report No. 43, Netherl. Inst.Sea Res., Texel, 27 pp.

Rufino R. & R. Neves 1990. Seaduck monitoring in Portugal. IWRB Newsletter December 1990, pp. 6-7.

Schallier R., L. Lahousse & T.G. Jacques 1996. Toezicht vanuit de lucht: Zeeverontreiniging door schepenin de Belgische Belangenzone van de Noordzee - Activiteiten rapport 1991-1995. BeheerseenheidMathematisch Model Noordzee en Schelde Estuarium (BMM), Brussel, 51 pp.

Schneider U. 2002. Basstölpel auf Helgoland eind Hochseevögel auf dem Vormarsch. Seevögel 23(2): 36.

Schreiber E.A. & J. Burger 2002. Biology of Marine Birds. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 722 pp.

Seys J., P. Meire & E. Kuijken 2001. Focal species and the designation and management of marineprotected areas: sea and coastal birds in Belgian marine waters. In: Seys J. Sea and coastal bird data astools in the policy and management of Belgian marine waters. PhD-thesis, University of Gent, pp. 40-67.

Shergalin J. 1990. Results of waterfowl aerial survey during flights for ice reconnaissance and seapollution control in Estonia in 1986-90. Summ. Lect. Joint Meeting IWRB's West. Pal. Seaduck Database.IWRB Newsletter December 1990, p.19.

Skov H., J. Durinck, M.F. Leopold & M.L. Tasker 1995. Important bird areas for seabirds in the North Sea,including the Channel and the Kattegat. Birdlife International, Cambridge, 156 pp.

Skov H., A.J. Upton, J.B. Reid, A. Webb, S.J. Taylor & J. Durinck 2002. Dispersion and vulnerability of marinebirds and cetaceans in Faroese waters. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, 106 pp.

Skov H., G. Vaitkus, K.N. Flensted, G. Girshanov, A. Kalamees, A. Kondratyev, M. Leivo, L. Luigujoe, C. Mayr, J.F. Rasmussen, L. Raudonikis, W. Scheller, P.O. Sidlo, A. Stipniece, B. Struwe-Juhl & B. Welander 2000. Inventory of coastal and marine important bird areas in the Baltic Sea. BirdLifeInternational, Cambridge.


71

Sloan N.A. 1999. Oil impacts on cold-water marine resources: a review relevant to Parks Canada'sevolving marine mandate. Occasional Paper No. 11, Parks Canada National Parks, Queen Charlotte, BC.

Sonntag N., O. Engelhard & S. Garthe 2004. Sommer- und Mauservorkommen von Trauerenten Melanittanigra und Samtenten M. fusca auf der Oderbank (südliche Ostsee). Vogelwelt 125: 77-82.

Speich S.M., D.A. Manuwal & T.R. Wahl 1991. The bird/habitat oil index - a habitat vulnerability indexbased on avian utilization. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 19: 216–221.

Steel C., T. Lislevand, E. Dunn & J. Cooper 2000. Sjøfugler på kroken. Vår Fuglefauna 23(2): 53-58.

Steel T. 1975. The life and death of St Kilda. Collins, Glasgow.

Stienen E.W.M. 2006. Living with gulls: trading off food and predation in the Sandwich Tern Sternasandvicensis. Alterra Scientific Contributions 15, PhD Thesis, University of Groningen.

Stienen E.W.M., J. Haelters, F. Kerckhof & J. van Waeyenberge 2004a. Three colours of black: seabirdstrandings in Belgium during the Tricolor incident. Atlantic Seabirds 6(3): 129-146.

Stienen E.W.M., M. Van de Walle & W. Courtens 2004b. Inschatting van de impact van het Tricolor-incident op de aantallen en soorten watervogels in Belgische wateren op lange termijn. In: StienenE.W.M., W. Courtens & M. Van de Walle (eds) Interacties tussen antropogene activiteiten en de avifaunain de Belgische zeegebieden. Rapport IN A.2004.136, Instituut voor Natuurbehoud, Brussel. Pp. 39-49.

Stone C.J., A. Webb, C. Barton, N. Ratcliffe, T.C. Reed, M.L. Tasker, C.J. Camphuysen & M.W. Pienkowski1995. An atlas of seabird distribution in north-west European waters. Joint Nature ConservationCommittee, Peterborough, 326 pp.

Stowe T.J. 1982a. Beached-bird surveys and surveillance of cliff-breeding seabirds. Unpubl. RSPBreport to the Nature Conservancy Council, Sandy, UK. 207 pp.

Stowe T.J. 1982b. Experiment to determine the fate of bird corpses in the Southern North Sea. In: Stowe T.J. 1982. Beached-bird Surveys and Surveillance of Cliff-breeding Seabirds. RSPB, Sandy, UK.Pp. 135-138.

Swennen C. 1972. Chlorinated hydrocarbons attacked the Eider population in The Netherlands. TNO-nieuws 12: 556-560.

Swennen C. 1977. Laboratory research on seabirds. NIOZ-Report, Netherlands Institute for SeaResearch, Texel, The Netherlands.

Swennen C. & A.L. Spaans 1970. De sterfte van zeevogels door olie in februari 1969 in hetWaddengebied. Het Vogeljaar 18: 233-245.

Tasker M.L. 1991. Conservation uses of information on the distribution of seabirds at sea. In: Camphuysen C.J. & J.A. van Franeker (eds). Oil pollution, Beached-bird Surveys and Policy: towardsa more effective approach to an old problem. Proc. Int. NZG/NSO workshop, Rijswijk, 19 April 1991, Sula (5): 28-29.

Tasker M.L. & M.W. Pienkowski 1987. Vulnerable concentrations of birds in the North Sea. NatureConserv. Council, Peterborough.

Tasker M.L., C.J. Camphuysen, J. Cooper, S. Garthe, W.A. Montevecchi & S.J.M. Blaber 2000. The impacts of fishing on marine birds. ICES J. Mar. Sc. 57: 531-547.

Tasker M.L., A. Webb, A.J. Hall, M.W. Pienkowski & D.R. Langslow 1987. Seabirds in the North Sea.Nature Conserv. Council, Peterborough, 336 pp.

Tasker M.L., A. Webb, N.M. Harrison & M.W. Pienkowski 1990. Vulnerable concentrations of marinebirds west of Britain. Nature Conserv. Council, Peterborough, 45 pp.

Taylor S.J. & J.B. Reid 2001. The distribution of seabirds and cetaceans around the Faroe Islands. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, 68 pp.

Timm D. & G. Dahlmann 1991. Investigations into the source of non-mineral oils in the feathers ofseabirds. In: Camphuysen C.J. & J.A. van Franeker (eds). Oil pollution, Beached-bird Surveys and Policy:towards a more effective approach to an old problem. Proc. Int. NZG/NSO workshop, 19 April 1991,Rijswijk, Sula (5): 15-17.

Valeiras X., E. Abad & F. Sánchez 2005. Distribucion de aves marinas en la plataforma continental deGalicia y Mar Cantábrico en relación a los descartes pesqueros. Poster presentation “VI CongresoGallego de Ornitología e V Jornadas Ornitológicas Cantábricas”, in Viveiro, Lugo (Spain), 29-31 October, 2005.

Vauk G., G. Dahlmann, E. Hartwig, J.C. Ranger, B. Reineking, E. Schrey & E. Vauk-Hentzelt 1987.Oelopfererfassung an der deutschen Nordseekueste und Ergebnisse der Oelanalysen sowieUntersuchungen zur Belastung der Deutschen Bucht durch Schiffsmuell. Report Vogelwarte Helgoland,Umweltbundesamt Berlin, 164 pp.

12. References


72

12. References Verwey J. 1915. De Trekvogels, de Oorlog en nog wat. De Lev. Nat. 20: 20.

Voisin J.F. 1970. Ornitologiske iakttakelser langs Norges vestkyst og mellom Norge og Svalbardsommeren 1969. Fauna 23: 133-134.

Votier S.C., B.J. Hatchwell, A. Beckerman, R.H. McCleery, F.M. Hunter, J. Pellatt, M. Trinder & T.R.Birkhead 2005. Oil pollution and climate have wide-scale impacts on seabird demographics. Ecology Letters 8: 1157-1164.

Walker D., K. Macleod, D. Gray & J. Diamond 2004. The 2001 cetacean and bird report for the Bay ofBiscay and the English Channel. In: Walker D. (ed.) The annual report of Organisation Cetacea (ORCA)No. 3, St. Neots, Cambs., UK. Pp. 6-22.

Webb A., A. Stronach, M.L. Tasker & C.J. Stone 1995. Vulnerable concentrations of seabirds south andwest of Britain. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, 47pp.

Weimerskirch H. & P.M. Sagar 1996. Diving depths of Sooty Shearwaters Puffinus griseus. Ibis138: 786-788.

Wendt J.S. & E. Silieff 1986. The kill of eiders and other sea ducks by hunters in eastern Canada. In: Reed A. (ed.). Eider Ducks in Canada. Can. Wildl. Rep. Series No. 47, Canadian Wildlife Service,Ottawa. Pp. 147-154.

White I.C. & J.M. Baker 1999. The Sea Empress oil spill in context. Paper presented at the InternationalConference on the Sea Empress Oil Spill, 11-13 February 1998, Cardiff, Wales. The International TankerOwners Pollution Federation website (http://www.itopf.com/seeec.pdf), accessed 25/10/2005.

White R. & A. Webb 1995. Coastal birds and marine mammals of mid-Dorset. Joint Nature ConservationCommittee, Peterborough.

Wiens J.A., R.G. Ford & D. Heinemann 1984. Information needs and priorities for assessing thesensitivity of marine birds to oil spills. Biol. Conserv. 28: 21-49.

Wiese F. 2002. Seabirds and Atlantic Canada's Ship-Source Oil Pollution. World Wildlife Fund Canada,Toronto, Canada.

Wiese F.K. 2003. Sinking rates of dead birds: improving estimates of seabird mortality due to oiling.Marine Ornithology 31: 65-70.

Wiese F.K. & I.L. Jones 2001. Experimental support for a new drift-block design to assess seabirdmortality from oil pollution. Auk 118: 1062-1068.

Wiese F.K.& P.C. Ryan 2003. The extent of chronic marine oil pollution in south-eastern Newfoundlandwaters assessed through beached bird surveys 1984-1999. Mar. Poll. Bull. 46: 1090-1101.

Wiese F.K., G.J. Robertson & A.J. Gaston 2004. Impacts of chronic marine oil pollution and the murrehunt in Newfoundland on Thick-billed Murre Uria lomvia populations in the eastern Canadian Arctic.Biol. Conserv. 116(2): 205-216(12).

Wijmans W. 1981. Oliedetectie op de Noordzee met behulp van SLAR en IR/UV. NZ-R-81.37, Dir.-Gen.Rijkswaterstaat, Directie Noordzee, Rijswijk.

Wild O.H. 1925. Observations on seabirds and oil. Scott. Nat., pp. 71-72.

Williams J.M., M.L. Tasker, I.C. Carter & A. Webb 1994. A method of assessing seabird vulnerability tosurface pollutants. Ibis 137: 147-152.

Woltman D. 1920. Olie en vogels. De Lev. Nat. 25: 61.

Zino F., M.J. Biscoito & P.A. Zino 1994a. Fea's Petrel Pterodroma feae. In: Tucker G.M. & M.F. Heath(eds). Birds in Europe - their conservation status. Birdlife Conservation Series No. 3, BirdlifeInternational, Cambridge. Pp. 60-61.

Zino F., M.J. Biscoito & P.A. Zino 1994b. Bulwer's Petrel Bulweria bulwerii. In: Tucker G.M. & M.F. Heath(eds). Birds in Europe - their conservation status. Birdlife Conservation Series No. 3, BirdlifeInternational, Cambridge. Pp. 64-65.

Zonfrillo B. 1997. Handa rat eradication project 1997. Seabird Group Newsletter 78: 5.


73

Appendix IOil vulnerability index scores of King & Sanger (1979), Camphuysen (1989) and Williams et al.(1994) for species common to the northeast Pacific and the North Sea respectively. The percentage of oiled birds out of all corpses reported dead or moribund on Netherlands’beaches is also shown (Camphuysen 1989).


74

Red-throated Diver 49 68 92.1 29Black-throated Diver 58 65 93.2 29Great Northern Diver 47 67 - 29Great Crested Grebe - 58 58.2 23Red-necked Grebe 44 54 67.4 26Slavonian Grebe 48 46 71.1 -Northern Fulmar 57 65 68.0 18Manx Shearwater - 54 - 23Sooty Shearwater 51 47 - 19European Storm-petrel - 54 - 18Leach’s Storm-petrel 63 49 - -Northern Gannet - 65 86.5 22Great Cormorant - 59 36.2 20European Shag - 73 - 24Brent Goose 70 42 21.8 -Mallard 36 29 31.9 -Pintail 36 27 25.9 -Shoveler 34 30 - -Greater Scaup 52 58 37.7 20Long-tailed Duck 66 55 88.9 17Common Eider 68 75 67.3 16Common Scoter 72 66 95.8 19Velvet Scoter - 65 76.5 21Common Goldeneye 48 50 35.3 16Red-breasted Merganser 56 58 43.0 21Goosander 56 45 42.5 -Red-necked Phalarope 62 37 - -Grey Phalarope 58 39 - -Pomarine Skua 41 40 51.4 -Arctic Skua 43 43 70.0 24Great Skua 58 70.6 25Long-tailed Skua 39 36 - -Little Gull - 58 56.9 24Sabine’s Gull 44 41 - -Black-headed Gull - 44 44.2 11Common Gull 36 46 59.6 13Lesser black-backed Gull - 50 40.3 19Herring Gull 38 47 32.9 15Glaucous Gull 45 36 - -Great black-backed Gull - 57 46.5 21Black-legged Kittiwake 49 66 84.0 17Sandwich Tern 51 36.4 20Common Tern 46 26.2 20Arctic Tern 32 46 - 16Little Tern - 49 19Common Guillemot 70 82 89.0 22Razorbill - 86 89.3 24Black Guillemot 70 72 - 29Little Auk 65 84.6 22Atlantic Puffin 80 85.0 21

Species King & Sanger Camphuysen Williams et al.(1979) (1989) (1994)OVI OVI Oil% OVI

Appendix IIOverall breeding (B) and wintering (W) distribution of European seabirds; their status aspassage migrants (P) in Arctic waters, in the temperate zone of NW Europe, within theMediterranean, the Black Sea and Macaronesia; and their OVI scores as indicated byCamphuysen (1989)1 and Williams et al. (1994)2.


75

English name Genus Species Sub-species Arctic Temperate Meditn. Black Sea Macar. OVI1 OVI2

Red-throated Diver Gavia stellata B B W W W 68 29Black-throated Diver Gavia arctica arctica B W W W 65 29Great Northern Diver Gavia immer B B W 67 29White-billed Diver Gavia adamsii B W WLittle Grebe Tachybaptus ruficollis ruficollis B W B W B WRed-necked Grebe Podiceps grisegena grisegena B W W B W 54 26Great Crested Grebe Podiceps cristatus cristatus B W B W B W 58 23Slavonian Grebe Podiceps auritus auritus B W W W 46Black-necked Grebe Podiceps nigricollis nigricollis B W W B WNorthern Fulmar Fulmarus glacialis glacialis B W 65 18Northern Fulmar Fulmarus glacialis auduboni B WFea's Petrel Pterodroma feae BZino's Petrel Pterodroma madeira BBulwer's Petrel Bulweria bulwerii BScopoli's Shearwater Calonectris diomedea B WCory's Shearwater Calonectris borealis B BCape Verde Shearwater Calonectris edwardsii BGreat Shearwater Puffinus gravis P PSooty Shearwater Puffinus griseus P P 47 19Manx Shearwater Puffinus puffinus B B W 54 23Yelkouan Shearwater Puffinus yelkouan B W WBalearic Shearwater Puffinus mauretanicus W B W WLittle Shearwater Puffinus assimilis baroli BCp. Verde Little Shearwater Puffinus boydi BWilson's Storm-petrel Oceanites oceanicus oceanicus WWhite-faced Storm-petrel Pelagodroma marina hypoleuca BWhite-faced Storm-petrel Pelagodroma marina eadesi BEuropean Storm-petrel Hydrobates pelagicus B B B W 54 18Band-rumped Storm-petrel Oceanodroma castro B B WSwinhoe's Storm-petrel Oceanodroma monorhis rare rareLeach's Storm-petrel Oceanodroma leucorhoa leucorhoa B W 49Red-billed Tropicbird Phaethon aethereus mesonauta BEastern White Pelican Pelecanus onocrotalus B W B W B WDalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus B W B WNorthern Gannet Morus bassanus P B W W W 65 22Brown Booby Sula leucogaster leucogaster B WNorth Atlantic Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo carbo B B W WEurasian Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo sinensis B W B W B W 59 20Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo maroccanus B W B WWest-African Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo lucidus B WEuropean Shag Stictocarbo aristotelis aristotelis B W 73 24Mediterranean Shag Stictocarbo aristotelis desmarestii B W B WMoroccan Shag Stictocarbo aristotelis riggenbachi B W

Appendix II


76


Long-tailed Cormorant Microcarbo africanus africanus rarePygmy Cormorant Microcarbo pygmeus B WDarter Anhinga melanogaster rufa BMagnificent Frigatebird Fregata magnificens BEuropean Pochard Aythya ferina B W B W B WFerruginous Duck Aythya nyroca B W B W B WTufted Duck Aythya fuligula B W W WGreater Scaup Aythya marila marila B W W W 58 20Common Eider Somateria mollissima mollissima B W rare rare 75 16Common Eider Somateria mollissima faeroeensis B WCommon Eider Somateria mollissima borealis B W WSteller's Eider Polysticta stelleri B W WKing Eider Somateria spectabilis B W WHarlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus B B WLong-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis B B W 55 17Common Scoter Melanitta nigra B W W W 66 19Velvet Scoter Melanitta fusca fusca B W W W 65 21Barrow's Goldeneye Bucephala islandica B WCommon Goldeneye Bucephala clangula clangula B W W W 50 16Smew Mergellus albellus B W W WRed-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator B W W B W 58 21Goosander Mergus merganser merganser B W W W 45 0Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus B B P 37 0Grey Phalarope Phalaropus fulicaria B P W 39 0Great Skua Stercorarius skua B BW W W 58 25Pomarine Skua Stercorarius pomarinus B P P P W 40 0Arctic Skua Stercorarius parasiticus B BP P P W 43 24Long-tailed Skua Stercorarius longicaudus longicaudus B P W 36 0Long-tailed Skua Stercorarius longicaudus pallescens B P WCommon Gull Larus canus canus B W W 46 13Eastern Common Gull Larus canus heinei W WAudouin's Gull Larus audouinii B W WGreat Black-backed Gull Larus marinus B W B W 57 21Kelp Gull Larus dominicanus rareGlaucous Gull Larus hyperboreus hyperboreus B W B W 36Glaucous Gull Larus hyperboreus leuceretes B W B WHerring Gull Larus argentatus B W 47 15Atlantic Yellow-legged Gull Larus michahellis atlantis B WMedit. Yellow-legged Gull Larus michahellis michahellis B W B W WPontic Gull or Caspian Gull Larus cachinnans W B WArmenian Gull Larus armenicus WLesser Black-backed Gull Larus graellsii B W W W W 50 19

Appendix II


Baltic Gull Larus fuscus fuscus B P PGreat Black-headed Gull Larus ichthyaetus P B WAfrican Grey-headed Gull Larus cirrocephalus poiocephalus B WBlack-headed Gull Larus ridibundus B W B W B W W 44 11Slender-billed Gull Larus genei B B WMediterranean Gull Larus melanocephalus B W B W B W WLittle Gull Larus minutus B P W W B W W 58 24Ivory Gull Pagophila eburnea B WSabine's Gull Larus sabini palaearctica B P P 41Sabine's Gull Larus sabini sabini P PBlack-legged Kittiwake Rissa tridactyla tridactyla B W B W W W 66 17Gull-billed Tern Gelochelidon nilotica nilotica B P B P B W B WCaspian Tern Sterna caspia B B W B W B WLesser Crested Tern Sterna bengalensis emigrata B W WSandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis sandvicensis B W B W B W W 51 20Mauritanian Royal Tern Sterna maxima albididorsalis B WRoseate Tern Sterna dougallii dougallii B B WCommon Tern Sterna hirundo hirundo B B W B W B W 46 20Arctic Tern Sterna paradisaea B B P P P W 46 16Little Tern Sterna albifrons albifrons B B P B W 49 19Bridled Tern Sterna anaethetus melanoptera B WSooty Tern Sterna fuscata fuscata B WWhiskered Tern Chlidonias hybridus hybridus B B PWhite-winged Black Tern Chlidonias leucopterus B B P PBlack Tern Chlidonias niger niger B B P PAfrican Skimmer Rynchops flavirostris B WLittle Auk Alle alle alle B W W 65 22Little Auk Alle alle polaris B WGuillemot Uria aalge aalge B W 82 22Guillemot Uria aalge albionis B WGuillemot Uria aalge hyperborea B B WBrünnich's Guillemot Uria lomvia lomvia B B WRazorbill Alca torda torda B B W 86 24Razorbill Alca torda islandica B W WBlack Guillemot Cepphus grylle mandtii B W 72 29Black Guillemot Cepphus grylle arcticus B WBlack Guillemot Cepphus grylle islandicus B WBlack Guillemot Cepphus grylle faeroeensis B WBlack Guillemot Cepphus grylle grylle B WAtlantic Puffin Fratercula arctica naumanni BAtlantic Puffin Fratercula arctica arctica B B WAtlantic Puffin Fratercula arctica grabae B W W 80 21


77

Appendix III

Assessment of anticipated sensitivity of European sea areas tochronic oil pollution

Greenland Sea and Icelandic waters - data-deficient

• Seabirds in the area: internationally important breeding populations of divers (inland), auks, gannets and seaduck, some breeding cormorants. Wintering auks (pelagic and coastal) andcormorants (coastal).

• Systematic studies of seabirds at sea: anecdotal information and local surveys (e.g., Meltofte 1972;Camphuysen 1993; Petersen et al. 1994); no overview data at hand on seabird distribution at sea that ispublished or within any substantial database.

• OVI evaluation and area sensitivity: analysis never undertaken.

• Anticipated sensitivity to chronic oil pollution: very high, certainly in summer; no concreteinformation on migratory routes and winter staging areas available.

Svalbard - partly covered, incomplete data.

• Seabirds in the area: internationally important breeding populations of divers (inland), auks, andseaduck. Wintering seabirds?

• Systematic studies of seabirds at sea: survey data biased to Barents Sea and southwesternapproaches, exclusively in summer (e.g., Mehlum 1989, Fauchald & Erikstad 1995, Isaksen 1995,Mehlum & Isaksen 1995); also anecdotal information (Voisin 1970, Byrkjedal et al. 1976, Camphuysen1993, Joiris 1996).

• OVI evaluation and area sensitivity: analysis not specifically undertaken, available data would makeanalysis possible, but probably with gaps of knowledge.

• Anticipated sensitivity to chronic oil pollution: very high, at least in summer.

Barents Sea - partly covered, incomplete data.

• Seabirds in the area: internationally important breeding populations of divers (inland), auks, andseaduck, breeding cormorants and gannets. Wintering auks (pelagic and coastal) and cormorants(coastal).

• Systematic studies of seabirds at sea: recent summer survey data, including some of the Russianparts of the area (Borkin et al. 1992, Bakken 1990, Isaksen & Bakken 1995, Mehlum et al. 1998,Fauchald et al. 2005). Some winter and spring information (Hunt et al. 1996).

• OVI evaluation and area sensitivity: analysis not specifically undertaken, but could be carried out fromrecent survey data (Fauchald et al. 2005). Quarterly overview data from Fauchald needs to be brokendown for a regional and fine-scale temporal assessment.

• Anticipated sensitivity to chronic oil pollution: very high, in summer and winter.

Norwegian Sea - partly covered, incomplete data.

• Seabirds in the area: internationally important breeding populations of divers (inland), auks,cormorants and seaduck, some breeding gannets. Wintering auks (pelagic and coastal), seaduck,divers and cormorants (all coastal).

• Systematic studies of seabirds at sea: recent summer survey data, but small and fragmented datasets for pelagic seabirds only (Fauchald et al. 2005). Comprehensive data for wintering, nearshorewaterfowl (Frantzen 1985, Nygård et al. 1988, Bergstrøm 1990, Anker-Nilssen et al. 1996).

• OVI evaluation and area sensitivity: analysis not specifically undertaken; could be carried out fromrecent survey data, but is likely to contain gaps due to fragmented datasets.

• Anticipated sensitivity to chronic oil pollution: very high throughout the year, at least regionally.


78

Appendix III

Faeroese waters - recently well covered, vulnerability atlas available.

• Seabirds in the area: internationally important breeding populations of auks, some breedingcormorants, seaduck, divers and gannets. Wintering auks (pelagic and coastal), seaduck andcormorants (all coastal).

• Systematic studies of seabirds at sea: extensive seabird surveys in recent years completed andreported; winter data set relatively small and fragmented (Danielsen et al. 1990, Taylor & Reid 2001,Skov et al. 2002).

• OVI evaluation and area sensitivity: vulnerability atlases produced, using species-specific OVIanalysis and monthly seabird abundance data (Skov et al. 2002).

• Anticipated sensitivity to chronic oil pollution: locally very high; clearly identified seasonal andspatial patterns in sensitivity (Skov et al. 2002).

North Sea - recently well covered, vulnerability atlas available.

• Seabirds in the area: internationally important breeding populations of auks, gannets, and cormorants.Small numbers of inland breeding seaduck and divers. Internationally important pathway for numerousspecies of migratory seabirds. Internationally important wintering areas of auks, divers, seaduck, andsome wintering Gannets.

• Systematic studies of seabirds at sea: extensive seabird surveys in recent years completed andreported; winter data set relatively small and fragmented. Published material and data sets includearea overviews (Blake et al. 1984, Tasker et al. 1987, Stone et al. 1995) as well as regional studies(Camphuysen & Leopold 1994, Garthe et al. 1995, Offringa et al. 1995, Mitschke et al. 2001, Diederichset al. 2002, Garthe 2003ab, Garthe et al. 2004). Monitoring is ongoing at national level and as a jointinternational research project (European Seabirds at Sea database; Reid & Camphuysen 1998).

• OVI evaluation and area sensitivity: vulnerability atlases produced, using species-specific OVIanalysis and monthly seabird abundance data (Tasker & Pienkowski 1987, Skov et al. 1995, Carter et al.1993). Marine Important Bird Area (IBA) atlases have been produced (Skov et al. 1995, Maes et al.2000, Seys et al. 2001).

• Anticipated sensitivity to chronic oil pollution: locally very high; clearly identified seasonal andspatial patterns in sensitivity (Tasker & Pienkowski 1987, Skov et al. 1995, Carter et al. 1993).

• Special work: Sensitivity maps covering all biota have been developed for German North Sea coastsafter a feasibility study was carried out during 1983-87. The maps have been updated for the GermanNorth Sea coast and Baltic coastal areas. As part of the German Contingency Planning for MarinePollution Control, these maps will be extended to cover German offshore areas in the (near) future(van Bernem et al. 1994).

Baltic - recently well covered, requires vulnerability assessment.

• Seabirds in the area: internationally important breeding populations of divers (inland), and seaduck,breeding cormorants and auks. Internationally important wintering concentrations of auks (Skagerrak/Kattegat) and seaduck (pelagic and inshore), internationally important stopover sites for divers.

• Systematic studies of seabirds at sea: extensive seabird surveys in recent years completed andreported (Durinck et al. 1993, Pihl et al. 1995, Garthe 2003ab, Garthe et al. 2003, Sonntag et al. 2004);winter waterfowl counts in coastal areas and during aerial surveys in most of the area (e.g.,Raudonikis 1989ab, Shergalin 1990, Nilsson 2005).

• OVI evaluation and area sensitivity: analysis not specifically undertaken, but could be carried out from(recent) survey data. Marine IBA atlases have been produced (Durinck et al. 1994, Skov et al. 2000).

• Anticipated sensitivity to chronic oil pollution: very high in winter, when offshore seaduck (a speciesthat breeds widely and is dispersed in very low densities) is widespread rather than concentrated, asin most other European areas; locally high in summer.


79

West of Britain, Ireland and Irish Sea - recently well covered, vulnerability atlas available.

• Seabirds in the area: internationally important breeding populations of auks, cormorants and gannets.Some breeding seaduck. Internationally important pathway for numerous species of migratoryseabirds. Wintering auks (pelagic and coastal), divers, seaduck, cormorants (all coastal) and somegannets (pelagic).

• Systematic studies of seabirds at sea: extensive studies of seabirds at sea (Webb et al. 1995a, Pollocket al. 1997), continued in recent years (Mackey et al. 2004); information on wintering coastal seabirdand waterfowl concentrations (Lack 1986).

• OVI evaluation and area sensitivity: vulnerability atlas produced, using species-specific OVI analysisand monthly seabird abundance data (Webb et al. 1995b).

• Anticipated sensitivity to chronic oil pollution: locally very high; clearly identified seasonal andspatial patterns in sensitivity (Webb et al. 1995b).

Channel and Celtic Sea - at least locally data-deficient. UK waters recently wellcovered, vulnerability atlas available.

• Seabirds in the area: internationally important breeding populations of cormorants and gannets. Some breeding auks. Internationally important pathway for numerous species of migratory seabirds.Internationally important wintering area for auks (pelagic and coastal), divers, cormorants (coastal)and some gannets and seaduck.

• Systematic studies of seabirds at sea: extensive studies of seabirds at sea (White & Webb 1995,Webb et al. 1995a), much less comprehensive data on seabird numbers at sea in French waters (someanecdotal data: Creswell & Walker 2001, Mustoe 2001, Walker et al. 2004).

• OVI evaluation and area sensitivity: vulnerability atlas produced, using species-specific OVI analysisand monthly seabird abundance data (Webb et al. 1995b).

• Anticipated sensitivity to chronic oil pollution: locally very high; clearly identified seasonal andspatial patterns in sensitivity published for UK waters (Webb et al. 1995b); very high, at least in winter,in French waters; localised around major breeding colonies in summer.

Bay of Biscay - data-deficient.

• Seabirds in the area: breeding cormorants. Internationally important wintering areas for auks (pelagicand coastal), gannets, and maybe cormorants. Internationally important pathway for numerousspecies of migratory seabirds. Wintering divers and locally certain seaduck (all coastal).

• Systematic studies of seabirds at sea: non-integrated ship-based and aerial surveys in recent years,partly in response to the Erika oil spill, methodology different for each project (Bretagnolle et al. 2004,Castège et al. 2004, Valeiras et al. 2005, ESAS unpublished data); some additional anecdotal data:Creswell & Walker (2001, Mustoe (2001), Walker et al. (2004).

• OVI evaluation and area sensitivity: In the Bay of Biscay, an OVI evaluation has been made only for asmall well studied area in the southeast of Brittany (47°34' - 46°40' N / 3°18' - 1°57' W; Recorbet 1998,2001). Otherwise, an analysis has never been undertaken; difficult at present with available materialand certainly with major gaps in knowledge.

• Anticipated sensitivity to chronic oil pollution: at least locally very high in winter, as demonstrated byrecent major oil spills; unknown in summer.

Appendix III


80

Appendix III

Portuguese and Spanish Atlantic coasts - data-deficient.

• Seabirds in the area: breeding auks, and cormorants. Internationally important pathway for numerousspecies of migratory seabirds. Wintering auks (pelagic and coastal), gannets, divers, seaduck andcormorants (coastal) in insufficiently known numbers.

• Systematic studies of seabirds at sea: seaduck monitoring, including aerial surveys, in coastal waters(Rufino & Neves 1990); recent studies of the offshore distribution of seabirds currently under way (SEOand SPEA, data loggers, aerial surveys and ship-based surveys; no results published yet).


• Anticipated sensitivity to chronic oil pollution: at least locally very high in winter, as demonstrated byrecent major oil spills; unknown in summer, but probably lower.

The Azores, Canaries, Cape Verde Islands (Macaronesia) - data-deficient.

• Seabirds in the area: no breeding species of the highest sensitivity, wintering seabirds such as auksand gannets relatively dispersed and therefore not immediately at risk.

• Systematic studies of seabirds at sea: Recent studies of the offshore distribution of seabirds currentlyunder way (SEO and SPEA, data loggers, aerial surveys and ship-based surveys; no results publishedyet); anecdotal information within published papers and grey literature.


• Anticipated sensitivity to chronic oil pollution: several rarer species of seabirds in lower vulnerabilitycategories in the area; offshore distribution patterns not clear.

Western Mediterranean - data-deficient.

• Seabirds in the area: breeding cormorants, important numbers of wintering auks, cormorants,gannets; precise numbers and distribution patterns unknown.

• Systematic studies of seabirds at sea: Recent studies of the offshore distribution of seabirds currentlyunder way (SEO, data loggers, aerial surveys and ship-based surveys; no results published yet); somedistributional data from observations at offshore stations and from ecological seabird studies (Arcos &Oro 1996, Abelló & Oro 1998).


• Anticipated sensitivity to chronic oil pollution: several rarer species of seabirds in lower vulnerabilitycategories in the area; offshore distribution patterns not clear.

Eastern Mediterranean - data-deficient.

• Seabirds in the area: breeding and wintering cormorants, wintering divers; precise numbers anddistribution patterns unknown.

• Systematic studies of seabirds at sea: not known.

• OVI evaluation and area sensitivity: analysis never undertaken and no material on area sensitivity at hand.

• Anticipated sensitivity to chronic oil pollution: several rarer species of seabirds in lower vulnerabilitycategories in the area; offshore distribution patterns unclear.

Black Sea - data-deficient.

• Seabirds in the area: breeding and wintering cormorants, wintering divers and seaduck; precisenumbers and distribution patterns unknown.

• Systematic studies of seabirds at sea: not known

• OVI evaluation and area sensitivity: analysis never undertaken and no material on area sensitivityavailable.

• Anticipated sensitivity to chronic oil pollution: wintering concentrations of divers and seaduck maylead to locally/temporally high vulnerability.


81

Appendix IV

Chronic oil pollution versus other threats to marine wildlife

a. IntroductionFew people will deny that (mineral) oil pollution has adverse effects on seabird populations, evenalthough effects may be difficult to demonstrate for the reasons discussed earlier. At the same time,seabird biologists tend to rank oil pollution as a lesser threat than several other anthropogenicpressures on seabirds, such as fisheries, chemical pollution and climate change, the impacts of whichare more sustained or more prevalent on adults.

b. Direct exploitationSeabirds have long been exploited, throughout the world. Eggs, chicks and adult birds have been takenin quantities beyond imagination (Steel 1975, Croxall et al. 1984, Mearns & Mearns 1998). The relaxationof direct exploitation in most of Europe has been seen as a key factor allowing the recent recovery ofseabird populations. The effect of increased human predation, for example during food shortages as inWorld War II, on a species like the Sandwich Tern Sterna sandvicensis in the Netherlands, is a clearexample of the huge impact of direct exploitation on seabirds (Stienen 2006). This form of depletion isnow a local or regional phenomenon rather than a worldwide problem.

c. Bird collectorsThe Great Auk Pinguinus impennis is an example of a species that has been brought to extinction bybird collectors, even although its initial decline may have been caused by excessive, unsustainableexploitation (Bourne 1993, Birkhead 1994). In recent years, bird collecting has ceased to be a veryserious problem, except perhaps for raptors, parrots or other tropical birds.

d. Introduced (alien) mammalian predatorsSeabirds breed on islands and cliffs to minimise risks of predation. Mammalian predators introduced onislands have been a major threat to seabirds all over the world. Introductions of this kind have includeda variety of species such as cats, rats, pigs, goats, hedgehogs and martens. These predators take notjust eggs and chicks, but also attack adult birds. As a result, alien predators have wiped out entirepopulations of seabirds (Croxall et al. 1984). Human intervention to remove predators on some islandshas led to spectacular recoveries (Bailey 1995, Zonfrillo 1997, Bell & Bell 1998, Bell 2004, Anon. 2005),and this conservation measure is today still a top priority in campaigns to protect or restore seabirdpopulations around the world.

e. By-catch in fisheriesThe mortality of albatrosses and petrels caused by longline fishery (de la Mare & Kerry 1994, Brothers &Foster 1997, Croxall et al. 1998, Ludwig et al. 1998, Neves & Olmos 1998, Steel et al. 2000, Jahncke et al.2001) and by-catch in driftnets and other fishing gear (Kies & Tomek 1990, Piatt & Gould 1994, Artyukhin& Burkanov 2000) is well known and a major reason for concern. Most albatross species are declining,largely as a result of the excessive mortality caused by fisheries. Attempts to stop or at least minimiseby-catch of seabirds as a result of both longlining and nets remains a top priority in campaigns toprotect seabirds around the world. In Europe, by-catch of Northern Fulmars by longlining is an issuemainly in the Nordic seas (Steel et al. 2000), whereas by-catch in fishing nets is problematic mostly inthe Baltic, the North Sea, the Wadden Sea, the Atlantic seaboard, and probably also in the Black Seaand the Mediterranean.


82

• Human consumption of adult seabirds (direct exploitation)

• Bird collectors

• Introduced alien mammalian predators inseabird colonies

• By-catch in fisheries

• Ghost net drowning

• Food depletion through overfishing,competition with fisheries

• Destruction and disturbance of habitat

• Shooting and hunting

• Chemical pollution

Other ways in which human activities pressure seabirds

Appendix IV

f. Ghost netsNets that become lost at sea do not stop working, and the effects of this so-called “ghost-net fishing”as a cause of seabird mortality can only be guessed at (DeGange & Newby 1980, Camphuysen 2000).The scale of the problem is unclear, but beached bird surveys in the southern North Sea for examplerevealed that about 5% of the Northern Gannets Morus bassanus washing ashore had died in nets,often in ghost nets (Camphuysen 1990a, 1994). Species like Northern Gannets, but also Black-leggedKittiwakes, increasingly use netting material picked up at sea to construct their nests, and the ensuingentanglements in breeding colonies cause death of both adults and chicks (Camphuysen 1990b,Montevecchi 1991, Schneider 2002).

g. Food depletion through over-fishing, competition with fisheriesOver-exploitation and subsequent collapse of marine fish populations has often been listed as a majorthreat to seabirds. The global marine fish yield is dangerously close to exceeding its upper limit. The number of over-fished populations, as well as the indirect effects of fisheries on marineecosystems, indicate that management of fisheries has failed to achieve the principal objective ofassuring sustainability (Botsford et al. 1997). Although direct effects of over-fishing on seabirds haveseldom been demonstrated, there are several studies that indicate the particular sensitivity of specialistseabird species to the threat of food depletion (Blake 1983, Birkhead & Furness 1985, Furness 1999,Camphuysen et al. 2002).

h. Destruction and disturbance of habitatHabitat loss has been highlighted as a major threat to several burrow-nesting species of seabirds (Zino et al. 1994ab, Croxall et al. 1998). Sandy beaches, formerly inhabited by species such as terns,have been spoiled by tourism in many parts of the world (Catry et al. 2004).

i. Shooting and huntingThe annual killing of seabirds (notably seaduck and auks) is still a major factor affecting populations ofseabirds, and in some areas hunting pressure is clearly unsustainable (Joensen 1978, Wendt & Silieff1986, Mead 1993, Petersen 1994, Noer et al. 1995, Meltofte 2001, Merkel 2004, Wiese et al. 2004). In Greenland, major declines in bird populations have been reported and these could be attributed toextensive shooting (Meltofte 2001).

j. Chemical pollutionIn the 1960s, several populations of seabirds and marine mammals crashed as a result of pesticidedischarges in the river Rhine (Koeman et al. 1969, Koeman 1971, Swennen 1972). The release ofchlorinated hydrocarbons and numerous other chemicals is still an issue (Heidmann et al. 1988, Furness1993, Nisbet 1994), and seabirds are used as indicators of marine pollution of this kind (Becker et al.2003). DDT and organochlorines (Oha) seriously affected the overall reproductive success of HerringGulls Larus argentatus, for example. Chick development was possibly damaged by the chemicalcontaminants HCB, p,p'-DDE, and alpha-HCH. DDT concentrations found in Herring Gull eggs, along withthose of TEQ (Toxic Equivalents) detected in the eggs of both Herring Gulls and Common Terns Sternahirundo, were at levels associated with embryo toxicity and impaired hatching success (Cifuentes 2004).

k. DiscussionIt is quite impossible to rank the various anthropogenic threats to seabirds in order of importance. The ranking would certainly vary across areas and between species. Some effects are immediate(killing birds instantly) and some are more gradual (chemical pollution, food shortages). Fishing activitiesare an even more complex issue, given that fishing benefits certain seabird species but isdisadvantageous to others (Furness 1993, Tasker et al. 2000).

Furness (1993) evaluated the impact of that various sources of pressure had on seabird numbersunder six headings: human exploitation, disturbance and disturbance-induced predation, fisheries,pollution, habitat change, and disease. The study assessed the past, present and future situation,ranging the different impacts on seabirds from nil or trivial to important or overwhelming. Accordingto Furness, the historical impacts of human exploitation for food and introduced alien animals had


83

both had an ‘overwhelming’ effect, while that of oil pollution and other lipophilic substances had been‘important’. The author also qualified feather collecting, bird collecting, culling or management,recreational pressures, discharge of offal and other waste, pesticides and habitat change as other‘important’ historic sources of impact. For the present, Furness listed oil pollution as a source of‘overwhelming’ impact (albeit with regional variation in importance), and considered introduced alienanimals, discharge of offal and other waste, and reduced fish abundance to be ‘important’ sources ofimpact. In the projection to the future, none of the original hazards were listed as ‘overwhelming’, butseveral, including oil pollution and the previously unmentioned effects of eutrophication, were listedas ‘important’.

Oil pollution is a major threat to seabirds because of the scale of the problem, because it affects regionsthat are very important as wintering and staging areas for large numbers of seabirds, and because oilaffects both adults and juveniles regardless of their physical condition prior to contamination. For specieslisted as ‘highly vulnerable’ in the chapter entitled “Sensitive species, sensitive areas”, oiling should beseen as one of the most important hazards today.

l. In conclusion

• A list of major threats to seabirds should include: direct exploitation, bird collectors, introduced alienmammalian predators in colonies; by-catch in fisheries, drowning induced by entanglement in ghostnets, food depletion through over-fishing, competition with fisheries, destruction and disturbance ofhabitat, shooting and hunting, and chemical pollution.

• The relative importance of these threats would vary across areas and between species. Some effectsare immediate, and some are more gradual. Fishing activities can benefit some species, but aredisadvantageous to others.

• Oil pollution is a major threat to seabirds because of the scale of the problem, and because adults aswell as juveniles are affected, regardless of their physical condition.

• For species listed as ‘highly vulnerable’ in the chapter entitled “Sensitive species, sensitive areas”,oiling should be seen as one of the currently most important hazards.

Appendix IV


84

IFAW EU OfficeBoulevard Charlemagne 1 (Bte 72)B-1041 BrusselsBelgium

International Headquarters411 Main StreetYarmouth Port, MA 02675U.S.A.

Offices in:Australia

8-10 Belmore StreetSurry HillsSydney NSW 2010

CanadaSuite 6121 Nicholas StreetOttawa, Ontario K1N 7B7

ChinaRoom 705, Golden TowerNo. 1 Xibahe South RoadChaoyang DistrictBeijing 100028

France4 rue Edouard MignotBP 1426F-51065 Reims Cedex

GermanyKattrepelsbrücke 1B-20095 Hamburg

IndiaIFAW/Wildlife Trust of IndiaA-220, New Friends ColonyNew Delhi 110065

Japan1-6-10-203 SaiwaichoHigashiKrume-shiTokyo, 203-0052

The International Fund for Animal

Welfare (IFAW) works throughout the

world to improve the welfare of wild

and domestic animals by protecting

wildlife habitats, reducing commercial

exploitation and helping animals in

distress.

The organisation seeks to motivate the

public to prevent cruelty to animals and

to promote animal welfare and

conservation policies that advance the

well being of both animals and people.

Please support IFAW campaigns:

www.ifaw.org

Printed on recycled paper.

KenyaACS Plaza, 2nd floorLenana RoadPost Office Box 2549900603 Nairobi

MexicoTecoyotitla No. 274Col. Florida CP 01030Mexico City, DF

The NetherlandsJavastraat 562585 AR The Hague

RussiaKhlebny pereulok, 19-B121069 Moscow

South Africa77 Church StreetCape Town 8000

United Kingdom87-90 Albert EmbankmentLondon SE1 7UD

United States of America1350 Connecticut Avenue NWSuite 1220Washington, DC 20036

chronic oil pollution in europe - · pdf filechronic oil pollution in europe (scale, impact,...

Documents