randd.defra.gov.ukrandd.defra.gov.uk/document.aspx?document=me1406_9924_frp.pdfpartial regulatory...

Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment for the EU Marine Thematic Strategy

Final Report

prepared for the Department for Environment,

Food and Rural Affairs Water Directorate

RPA May 2004

Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment for the EU Marine Thematic Strategy

Final Report – May 2004

prepared for

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Water Directorate

by

Risk & Policy Analysts Limited, Farthing Green House, 1 Beccles Road, Loddon, Norfolk, NR14 6LT, UK

Tel: +44 1508 528465 Fax: +44 1508 520758 Email: [email protected]

Web: www.rpaltd.co.uk

RPA REPORT – ASSURED QUALITY Project: Ref/Title J470/EU Marine Strategy Approach: In accordance with Project Specification Report Status: Draft Final Report

Prepared by:

Dr J Vernon, Business Development Director A Footitt, Consultant S Dias, Researcher C Nawakowski, Researcher Dr Stephen Hull, ABPmer

Approved for issue by:

Meg Postle, Project Director

Date: 13 May 2004

If printed by RPA, this report is published on chlorine free, 100% recycled paper.

While RPA considers that the information and opinions given in this report are sound, the report is based on assumptions and information that are subject to uncertainties. Due to such uncertainties and because events may not occur as expected, there is a possibility that the results presented in this report will be different from situations which occur in the future. This report has been prepared for the client in accordance with the associated contract and RPA will accept no liability for any loss or damage arising out of the provision of the report to third parties.

Risk & Policy Analysts

-i-

CONTENTS Page

1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. PURPOSE AND INTENDED EFFECT 2.1 The Objective 3 2.2 The Background 9 2.3 Risk Assessment 14 3. OPTIONS 3.1 Possible Options 15 3.2 Risks Associated with the Options 15 4. BENEFITS 4.1 Uncertainty in Benefits and Costs 19 4.2 Option 1 20 4.3 Option 2 20 4.4 Option 3 21 4.5 Business Sectors Affected 22 4.6 Issues of Equity and Fairness 22 4.7 Summary of Benefits 23 5. COSTS 5.1 Compliance Costs 27 5.2 Other Costs 31 5.3 Costs for a ‘Typical’ Business 32 5.4 Summary of Costs 32 6. SMALL FIRMS IMPACT TEST 37 7. COMPETITION ASSESSMENT 37 8. ENFORCEMENT AND SANCTIONS 38 9. MONITORING AND REVIEW 38 10. CONSULTATION 38 11. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION 11.1 Summary 39 11.2 Recommendation 39

Partial RIA of the EU Marine Thematic Strategy

- ii -

ANNEX A: LOSS OF BIODIVERSITY AND DESTRUCTION OF HABITATS ANNEX B: HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ANNEX C: EUTROPHICATION ANNEX D: RADIONUCLIDES ANNEX E: CHRONIC OIL POLLUTION ANNEX F: LITTER ANNEX G: HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT ANNEX H: REFERENCES


Page 1

1. INTRODUCTION

The EU Marine Thematic Strategy (the Marine Strategy) is one of seven thematic strategies specified as priority actions within the European Commission’s 6th Environment Action Programme. The EC Communication “Towards a strategy to protect and conserve the marine environment” (Com (02) 539) was published in October 2002 as an initial step in the development of a thematic strategy to protect the marine environment. The Communication details objectives and actions covering a wide range of activities that take place in, or impact on, the marine environment, with some of them possibly leading to new Community legislation concerning the marine environment. There are many existing international policies that already contribute to the protection of the marine environment. Examples include the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR), the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea (HELCOM) and the International Martine Organisation (IMO) Convention. It has become evident, however, that the current protection framework lacks continuity. There are indications of overlap, gaps in knowledge and to some extent confusion regarding the key areas of action for each commitment. The fundamental issue in the development of the proposed integrated approach is, therefore, multilateral co-operation between individual organisations in policy making and sector management. UK Government guidelines and regulations require all proposed policies at EU and national level to be subject to a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA), the purpose of which is to provide an assessment of proposed options in terms of costs, benefits and risks. Defra produced an outline of the UK position on the actions and objectives detailed in the Marine Strategy prior to a stakeholder conference in Denmark in 2002. This document has since been used as an Initial RIA in the absence of a definitive analysis. This Partial RIA builds upon the outline document prepared by Defra and other Government Departments (the initial RIA) and can be expanded into a full RIA in the future. It also has the following specific objectives: • to clarify areas of uncertainty concerning existing commitments; • to consider the environmental and social impacts of the proposed actions in addition

to economic impacts that they might have for industry and the UK Government; and • to undertake any other analysis that may be required for the completion of the RIA.

Due to the scope and complexity of the Marine Strategy, the main part of the RIA provides an overview of the regulatory impacts of the Strategy as a whole. Detailed assessments of the impacts of specific objectives and actions are provided in the Annexes. The Partial RIA has been prepared by Risk & Policy Analysts Ltd (RPA), in partnership with ABP Marine Environmental Research Ltd (ABPmer).


Page 2


Page 3

2. PURPOSE AND INTENDED EFFECT

2.1 The Objective The Communication sets the overall objective of the EU Marine Strategy:

"it should promote the sustainable use of the seas and conservation of the marine ecosystems, including sea beds, estuarine and coastal areas, paying special attention to sites holding a high biodiversity value.”

The Marine Strategy sets a series of 14 objectives based on several specific policies and legislation already agreed in EC policy as well as by regional marine conventions. It also sets out a series of 23 actions to achieve the objectives. The actions identified are only of a preliminary nature. They focus on prevention and are based on improved knowledge about quality status and actual threats, as well as on effectiveness of implementation of existing measures.

The Marine Strategy covers the following issues: • biodiversity decline and habitat destruction; • hazardous substances; • eutrophication; • radionuclides; • chronic oil pollution; • litter pollution; • maritime transport; • health and the environment; • climate change; and • enhancing co-ordination and co-operation.

The main provisions of the Marine Strategy are summarised in Table 2.1.


Page 4

Table 2.1: Main Objectives and Actions of the Marine Strategy Objective Related Actions Loss of Biodiversity and Destruction of Habitats Objective 1: To halt biodiversity decline by 2010

None identified

Objective 2: In the longer term, to ensure a sustainable use of biodiversity through the protection and conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora in the first instance in the European seas, inter alia, by restoring marine ecosystems and re-establishing certain trophic levels which have been affected by human activities and by preventing the human induced introduction of new non-indigenous species, genetically modified organisms and disease organisms.

Action 1: The European Commission will make proposals for developing an ecosystem-based approach, including ecosystem benchmarks and targets to ensure conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. It will build on the concepts of favourable status of conservation and good ecological status as required by the Habitats and Water Framework Directives and various initiatives regarding the definition of ecological quality objectives. Action 2: The European Commission will pursue its efforts to fully implement the EU Habitats and Birds Directives in the marine environment including Exclusive Economic Zones. The Commission will develop by 2005, together with the regional marine conventions, a programme aimed at enhancing the protection of species and habitats in European waters. Consequently, the Commission will develop proposals to adapt the annexes to the Habitats Directive containing marine habitats and species to be protected under the Natura 2000 Network to scientific and technical progress. Action 4: The European Commission will, in relation to the introduction on non-indigenous species: • support the initiative to prepare in the IMO framework an international convention for the control and management of ships'

ballast water and sediments; • develop, in close collaboration with the regional marine conventions, in 2005-2006 regional ballast water management plans as

far as such plans are foreseen under this agreement with a view to their early implementation once the agreement has entered into force;

• review in 2004-2005 if and to what extent a complementary initiative for controlling the introduction of new non-indigenous species by ships ballast water will be necessary; and

• propose measures to limit escapes of farmed fish from aquaculture. Objective 3: In relation to the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, which is currently underway, the environmentally relevant objectives have already been identified and included in the European Commission’s proposal on this reform, namely a change in fisheries management to reverse the decline in stocks and ensure sustainable fisheries and healthy ecosystem, both in the EU and globally.

Action 3: The European Commission will, following its proposals in 2002, pursue its effort to adjust the fishing effort and capacity in line with long-term management plans to secure sustainable harvest of fish resources and propose measures to reduce discards, incidental by-catches and impact on habitats.


Page 5

Table 2.1: Main Objectives and Actions of the Marine Strategy Objective Related Actions Hazardous Substances Objective 4: Progressively reduce discharges, emissions and losses of substances hazardous to the marine environment with the ultimate aim to reach concentrations of such substances in the marine environment near background values for naturally occurring substances and close to zero for man-made synthetic substances.

Action 5: The European Commission will actively pursue the implementation of the objectives set in the Water Framework Directive. Action 6: It will also aim to integrate these objectives into Community policies regarding chemicals and pesticides and other relevant policies so as to achieve a progressive reduction of discharges, emissions and losses of these substances from all land and sea-based sources and sectors with the ultimate aim of halting these. Action 7: In the context of its implementation of its strategy with regard to Dioxins, Furans and PCBs, the European Commission will consider the development of an integrated pilot programme for monitoring of dioxins in the environment and in food in relation to human health in the Baltic area. Action 8: The European Commission will, in 2002, make proposals for the implementation of the IMO Convention on Harmful Antifoulants and will, in 2005, consider the need for possible further action.

Eutrophication Objective 5: To eliminate human induced eutrophication problems by 2010 by a progressive reduction of anthropogenic inputs of nutrient to areas in the marine environment where these inputs are likely, directly or indirectly, to cause such problems. Where no regional objectives on eutrophication have been set, regional specific action and timeframes for achieving this objective will be developed in collaboration with the regional marine conventions.

Action 9: To facilitate a more systematic approach towards combating marine eutrophication, the European Commission will: • pursue a more vigorous enforcement and implementation of the Nitrates and Urban Wastewater Treatment Directives; • review latest information concerning the processes of eutrophication in the context of current legislation; and • in collaboration with the regional marine conventions establish a more comprehensive assessment in 2006 of the extent of

marine eutrophication including a harmonised identification of areas where anthropogenic inputs of nutrients may or do lead to eutrophication problems

• in the context of the strategy to reduce air pollution from seagoing ships, propose new, complementary instruments, including reduction of ship NOx emissions. It will initiate in 2002 activities to model depositions of NOx in the marine environment and if necessary, will make proposals for further reducing NOx emissions into the atmosphere.


Page 6

Table 2.1: Main Objectives and Actions of the Marine Strategy Objective Related Actions Radionuclides Objective 6: To prevent pollution from ionising radiation through progressive and substantial reductions of discharges, emissions and losses of radioactive substances, with the ultimate aim to reach concentrations in the marine environment near background values for naturally occurring radioactive substances and close to zero for artificial radioactive substances. This objective should be achieved by 2020.

Action 10: By 2004, the European Commission will review the relationship between the OSPAR Strategy with regard to Radioactive Substances and existing EC measures in particular with respect to the reduction of discharges arising from nuclear-fuel reprocessing plants. Based on the results of the updated MARINA project it will determine whether any Community action should be considered.

Chronic Oil Pollution Objective 7: To ensure compliance with existing discharges limits of oil from ships and offshore installations by 2010 at the latest and to eliminate all discharges from these sources by 2020.

Action 11: By 2004, the European Commission will explore ways to improve surveillance of illegal discharges of oil at sea and means to facilitate prosecution of offenders. In doing so, it will seek enhanced co-operation with the regional Bonn and Lisbon agreements, HELCOM and Barcelona. Action 12: In addition, by 2004 the European Commission will elaborate, in collaboration with all relevant organisations and other stakeholders, a strategy aimed at eliminating all discharges of oil from all sources. In this context, the Commission will review the different approaches regarding the use and financing of port reception facilities.

Litter Objective 8: To eliminate marine litter arising from illegal disposal at sea by 2010.

Action 13: Where the implementation of the previously mentioned directive is also relevant in reducing litter, the European Commission will, in addition by 2004 and in collaboration with all relevant organisations prepare a report on the extent and sources of marine litter and consider possible remedial measures.

Maritime Transport Objective 9: To reduce the environmental impact of shipping by developing the concept of the ‘Clean Ship’.

Action 14: The European Commission will: • in the future, assisted by the European Maritime Safety Agency, continue to review the effectiveness of EU legislation in the

maritime safety field with special emphasis being given on the recently adopted measures to prevent maritime pollution accidents;

• continue to actively promote initiatives aimed at minimising environmental harm caused by maritime transport and will support efforts to develop the concept of a ‘Clean Ship’.


Page 7

Table 2.1: Main Objectives and Actions of the Marine Strategy Objective Related Actions Health and Environment Objective 10: To achieve a quality of the environment where levels of contaminants do not give rise to significant impacts on or risks to human health and well being.

Action 15: The European Commission will, in co-operation with Member States, assess by 2004 the results of the monitoring of the levels of contaminants in wild and farmed fish and shellfish and will make in 2006 proposals for maximum contaminant levels in the framework of food safety legislation. Action 16: In 2002 the European Commission will come forward with a proposal for a revision of the Bathing Water Directive. This proposal will strengthen current levels of health protection. Action 17: The European Commission will also undertake to achieve a rapid entry into force of Annex IV of MARPOL 73/78 related to discharges of sewage from ships.

Climate Change Objective 11: To implement community commitment made in the Kyoto Protocol.

Action 18: The Commission will continue to pursue its implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, in particular, the policy on emissions trading and the promotion and development of renewable energy sources including the environmentally sensitive sea-based sources.

Enhancing Coordination and Co-operation Objective 12; To realise more effective co-ordination and co-operation between the different institutions and regional and global conventions, commissions and agreements governing marine protection.

Action 19: The European Commission will: • establish an interservice group to consider all issues related to marine protection and ensure effective co-ordination of the

sectoral regulations; • establish a work programme involving a sharing of work with Member States, regional organisations and other stakeholders to

realise the objectives of the Marine Strategy; and • publish a report by June 2004 on the results of these initiatives together with recommendations for further action. Action 20: Where the European Commission, within the reform of the CFP, has proposed to establish Regional Advisory Councils with a broad membership including representatives from fisheries and aquaculture sectors, environmental and consumer interests, national and/or regional administrations, and scientists, it will seek to apply this model in other sectors. Action 21: The European Commission will promote the use of and improve the co-ordination between the different funding instruments towards the protection of the marine environment. At regional level, where there is already co-ordination of the selection, funding and implementation of projects, there may be a utility in further reinforcing this.


Page 8

Table 2.1: Main Objectives and Actions of the Marine Strategy Objective Related Actions Objective 13: To pursue this strategy at global level, by building capacity, in particular in developing countries, to facilitate a better understanding of the state of the marine environment and to implement international conventions and codes of practice.

Action 23: The European Commission will, based on its Communication on the Precautionary Principle and the more recent Communication on (Sustainability) Impact Assessment and the knowledge-based approach stipulated in the Sixth Environment Action Programme: • initiate in 2002 the development of an ecosystem-based approach based on ecosystem indicators and benchmarks and promote

the development of integrated advice to facilitate ecosystem-based management; • promote research in order to enhance the understanding of the link between the pressures on the marine environment and

impacts of these; • with a view to further enhancing the understanding of the relationships between pressures on and the resulting impact in the

marine environment, take initiatives to improve the linkages between Community funded research activities and operational application of the fruits of this research;

• develop in 2002 proposals for a common approach on the type of data and information to be collected, how this should be handled and the basis on which it would be assessed to monitor the performance against the benchmarks;

• initiate the development by 2004 of a common monitoring and assessment strategy to set a framework for regional and sectoral monitoring and assessment programmes;

• evaluate the provision of training and identify good practice, with a view to enhance governance; and • play an active role in a process recently started by UNEP aimed at establishing a regular process for assessing the state of the

marine environment at a global scale. Source: European Commission (2002): Towards a Strategy to Protect and Conserve the Marine Environment (Com (02) 539)


Page 9

2.2 The Background

It is well established that the marine environment is subject to a variety of threats, including loss or degradation of biodiversity and changes in its structure, loss of habitats, contamination by dangerous substances and nutrients, and the possible future effects of climate change.

Measures to control such threats and pressures exist at national, regional, EU and international level. However, they have been developed sector-by-sector, resulting in a patchwork of policies, legislation, programmes and action plans (EC, 2002). The Marine Strategy reviews existing EU policies and legislation on the protection of the marine environment as well as major regional and international conventions, commissions, organisations and agreements that deal with the threats itemised above. The most relevant EU legislation and international conventions are listed in Table 2.2. The Marine Strategy concludes that a wide variety of EU measures already contribute to the protection of the marine environment. Nevertheless, because most of them are sectoral and vary in geographical scope, there is no integrated policy. In addition:

• a large number of different organisations contribute to the protection of the marine

environment; • the geographical areas covered by these organisations overlap to a large degree with

Community waters; and • there is also an overlap of membership, albeit to a different extent across the

different organisations.

The UK has already adopted a range of initiatives in relation to the marine environment. Table 2.3 (see page 13) presents a gap analysis of the requirements of the Marine Strategy in relation to these current UK initiatives.

Table 2.2: EU Legislation and International and Regional Conventions Relevant to the Marine Strategy

Loss of Biodiversity and Destruction of Habitats

EU Measures • EU Strategy for Sustainable Development; • Habitats Directive; • Birds Directive; • Common Fisheries Policy; • Common Agricultural Policy; • Water Framework Directive; • Recommendation on Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Europe; and • Proposed amendment to Recreational Craft Directive to include noise and

exhaust emission limits for engines used in recreational craft. International and Regional Conventions • Convention on Biological Diversity; • OSPAR Convention; • IMO Convention; and • Williamsburg Resolution (under NASCO).


Page 10


Hazardous Substances

EU Measures • Water Framework Directive and Daughter Directives; • Proposed EU Chemicals Policy (REACH); • Pesticides Policy; • Strategy in relation to Dioxins, Furans and PCBs; • Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive; • SCALE Strategy for environment and health; and • Endocrine Disruptors Program. International and Regional Conventions • OSPAR Strategy for Hazardous Substances; • IMO Convention on Harmful Antifoulants; and • Stockholm Convention on POPs.

Eutrophication

EU Measures • Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive; • Bathing Water Directive; • Nitrates Directive; • Water Framework Directive; • Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and reforms of May 2004; and • Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive. International and Regional Conventions • MARPOL Convention (Annex IV); • OSPAR Strategy on Eutrophication; and • HELCOM Convention.

Radionuclides

EU Measures • Euratom Treaty; • Basic Safety Standards Directive; • Proposal for Council Euratom Directive setting out the basic obligations and

general principles for the safety of nuclear installations; and • Proposal for Council Euratom Directive on the management of spent nuclear fuel

and radioactive waste. International and Regional Conventions • OSPAR Strategy on Radioactive Substances

Chronic Oil Pollution

EU Measures • Council Resolution of 26 June 1978; • Commission Decision of 25 June 1980 (80/686/EEC) (as amended); • Council Decision of 3 December 1981 (81/971/EEC); • Council Decision of 6 March 1986 (86/85/EEC); and • Decision 2850 of 20/12/2000. International and Regional Conventions • Barcelona Agreement for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against

Pollution; • Bonn Agreement; • Bucharest Convention; • Copenhagen Agreement on Marine Pollution; • HELCOM Convention; • Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Trans-boundary

Context; • International Conventions on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage; • International Conventions on the Establishment of an International Fund for

Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage; • Lisbon Agreement (not yet in force); • MARPOL Convention 73/78 on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships; and • OSPAR Convention.


Page 11


Litter

EU Measures • Directive on port reception facilities for ship generated waste and cargo residues; • Bathing Water Directive; and • Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive. International and Regional Conventions • MARPOL Convention; • London Convention; and • OSPAR Convention.

Maritime Transport

International and Regional Conventions • IMO Guidelines on Ship Recycling; • 5th North Sea Conference – Bergen Declaration; and • Regulation on accelerated phase-in of double hull requirements • Regulation setting up the European Maritime Safety Agency

Health and Environment

EU Measures • Bathing Water Directive; • Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive; • Water Framework Directive; • Shellfish Hygiene Directive; • Fish Hygiene Directive; • Shellfish Waters Directive: and • SCALE Strategy for environment and health International and Regional Conventions • HELCOM Convention; • Barcelona Convention; • Bucharest Agreement; and • MARPOL Convention.

Climate Change

EU Measures • European Emission Trading scheme. International and Regional Conventions • Kyoto Protocol.


Page 12

Table 2.3: Gap Analysis of the Requirements of the Marine Strategy Objective Action Gap to Deliver Actions Gap to Deliver Objective 1. Halt biodiversity decline None specified Not applicable Based on current rates of progress, unclear whether UK will

achieve the objective. 1. Ecosystem-based approach UK is already committed to such an approach 2. Extension of the Birds and Habitats Directives

Being delivered through the Offshore Marine Conservation Regulations

2. Ensure sustainable use of biodiversity

3. Implementation of IMO Convention on Ballast Water and limitation of fish farm escapes

Implementation of IMO Convention will require additional expenditure but is likely to proceed in the absence of the Marine Strategy. Scottish Executive has adopted measures relating to fish farm escapes.

Objective of restoring marine ecosystems and re-establishing certain trophic levels could require substantial additional action. While it is possible to take positive measures, full restoration to a pre-industrialised state would not be feasible

3. Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP)

4. Continue efforts to reform the CFP

Current plans to reform the CFP provide the mechanism for achieving both the objective and the action, although additional measures are likely to be necessary to ensure sustainable fisheries and a healthy ecosystem.

5. Implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD)

The UK is already committed to implementation of the WFD

6. Integration of the WFD into EU policy

Part of the ongoing development of EU policy

7. Development of a dioxins programme for the Baltic

Unlikely to require direct UK involvement

4. Reduce concentrations of hazardous substances in the marine environment

8. Implementation of the IMO Convention on Antifoulants

EU regulations on antifoulants already in place but some additional action could be required

Depends on the definition of ‘hazardous substances’ and what is meant by the objective of reaching ‘near background levels’ of natural and ‘close to zero’ for man-made substances. Any measures beyond those required under the WFD could impose significant additional costs.

5. Eliminate human-induced eutrophication by 2010

9. A more systematic approach to combating eutrophication

To be carried out primarily by the European Commission; UK input limited

Unlikely that the objective can be achieved by 2010, although existing commitments will make a significant contribution to reducing eutrophication.

6. Reduce concentrations of ionising radiation

10. Review relationship between OSPAR Strategy and EU measures

Review will be undertaken by the European Commission; UK input limited

Any further action required to reach ‘near background levels’ of natural and ‘close to zero’ for man-made radionuclides could impose significant costs.

11. Explore ways to improve surveillance

7. Eliminate illegal discharges of oil from ships and offshore installations 12. Develop a strategy for

elimination of discharges


Implementation of any plans for improved surveillance could imply additional costs. It is unlikely to be practicable to eliminate all discharges of oil at sea.


Page 13

Table 2.3: Gap Analysis of the Requirements of the Marine Strategy Objective Action Gap to Deliver Actions Gap to Deliver Objective 8. Eliminate marine litter by 2010

13. Prepare a report on extent and sources and consider remedial measures


Elimination of litter could require more rigorous enforcement of existing measures. Additional action may result if the European Commission’s review identifies a need for remedial measures.

9. Reduce the environmental impacts of shipping

14. Continue to develop the ‘clean ship’ concept


A number of actions are already being taken forward, along with various studies on the ‘clean ship’ concept.

15. Assess monitoring results and make proposals for maximum contaminant levels


16. Proposals for revision of the Bathing Water Directive

Already completed, with publication in 2002 of proposals for a revised Directive

10. Ensure that levels of contaminants do not give rise to impacts on or risks to health

17. Rapid entry into force of MARPOL Annex IV

Came into force in September 2003. Revised Annex IV adopted in April 2004 and likely to come into force in late 2004 or 2005. Only limited investment likely to be required.

Could require additional action if the proposals for maximum contaminant levels increased the range of contaminants covered or significantly tightened standards.

11. Implement the Kyoto Protocol commitments

18. Continue to implement the Kyoto Protocol

UK is already committed to compliance with the Kyoto Protocol UK is already committed to compliance with the Kyoto Protocol.

19. Establish an inter-service working group programme 20. Develop Regional Advisory Councils

12. More effective co-ordination and co-operation

21. Improve co-ordination between different funding instruments


Any additional action will depend upon the nature and extent of any measures identified as a result of these programmes.

13. Pursue the Marine Strategy at global level

22. Promote international co-ordination



14. Improve the knowledge base

23. Initiate an ecosystem approach, promote research and develop common approaches




Page 14

2.3 Risk Assessment

The risk that the Marine Strategy is intended to address is that current pressures are posing threats to the oceans and seas, in some cases to the extent that their structure and function is being jeopardised. If action is not taken to address the pressures and threats, the ecological capital of the oceans and seas will erode, putting the wealth and employment opportunities of future generations at risk. The Marine Strategy identifies the following key risks: • pressure on marine biodiversity from overfishing, leading to critical levels of

commercial fish stocks, significant damage to non-target fish, bird and mammal species, damage to sensitive habitats and alterations to the structure and function of the marine ecosystem. Biodiversity is also threatened by the introduction of non-indigenous species and the increasing intensity of human activities along the coast and offshore;

• potential impairment of biological processes through the presence of a diverse

range of natural and man-made hazardous substances; • eutrophication due to excessive inputs of nutrients, predominantly from agricultural

and urban sources but also from deposition of NOx emissions from ships, which can give rise to algal blooms, releasing toxic substances and depleting oxygen;

• illegal discharges (both deliberate and accidental) of oil at sea, resulting in the

oiling of seabirds, shellfish, other organisms and the coastline; • discharges of radionuclides, particularly from reprocessing plants, that are

significant relative to those in other areas of the world. There are few data on the impacts on the marine ecosystem but public concern continues;

• contamination with litter from shipping, tourism and recreational activities

resulting in death and drowning of birds, turtles and crustaceans. Litter can also carry a variety of epiphytic organisms to sea areas that they would not normally reach;

• microbiological pollution of certain EU beaches from failure to fully implement

controls over wastewater discharges; and • the potential consequences of climate change, with downstream effects on

ecosystems and fisheries. The Marine Strategy notes that, although there is information on the different pressures on the marine environment, it is not always clear to what extent they have actually resulted in environmental impacts. This is mainly due to lack of knowledge on cause-effect relationships and the fact that environmental changes can take place over long time-scales.


Page 15

3. OPTIONS

3.1 Possible Options

There are three main options available to the UK in relation to the Proposal. These are: • Option 1: continue with existing commitments in relation to the marine

environment, in the absence of the Marine Strategy. This forms the baseline for comparison of the other options1;

• Option 2: as Option 1, plus undertaking the additional measures necessary to

implement the specific actions identified in the Communication towards the development of a Marine Strategy; or

• Option 3: as Option 2, plus implementing any further measures that may be required

to achieve the objectives set out in the Marine Strategy.

The main features of the three Options, for each of the objectives in the Marine Strategy are set out in Table 3.1, overleaf. The boundaries of the three Options are not always clear and thus assumptions have had to be made regarding allocation of the impacts of particular measures between the Options. For example, revision of the Bathing Water Directive is a specific action identified in the Strategy, and has thus been included in Option 2. However, work on the revision is already under way and it could thus be included within Option 1. Similarly, some of the specific actions identified in the Marine Strategy involve development of strategies to address specific issues (for example Action 14, elaboration of a strategy aimed at eliminating discharges of oil from all sources). Obviously, the measures that would form part of such a strategy are unclear at this stage, although the objective (to eliminate discharges of oil from all sources) is specified. In such cases, the impacts of developing the strategy are included within Option 2 whilst the impacts of measures that might be required to implement the strategy, once developed, and to achieve the objective, are included within Option 3. A full explanation of the measures included within each Option is given in the appropriate Annex.

3.2 Risks Associated with the Options

Option 1

Rejection of the Marine Strategy is a theoretical option only, as preparation of the Marine Strategy forms part of the Commission’s agreed work programme under the Sixth Environment Action Programme. However, this Option forms the baseline situation for comparison with the other two options.

1 This option is not realistic and would not be considered. However, this option forms the baseline for a

comparison of the costs and benefits of the other options.


Page 16

Option 2 The risk associated with Option 2 is that the actions identified in the Marine Strategy as currently drafted may fail to achieve the objectives of the Marine Strategy, and thus fail to address the threats to the marine environment and human health associated with current activities. There is also a risk that certain actions identified in the Marine Strategy may impose disproportionate costs for the UK.

Option 3 The risk associated with Option 3 is that the additional measures required to meet the objectives of the Marine Strategy, as currently drafted, could impose disproportionate costs for the UK compared with their benefits. In addition, some of the objectives may not be practically feasible as currently drafted.


Page 17

Table 3.1: Requirements of Options

Objective Option 1: Continue with Ongoing Commitments

Option 2: Extend Current Commitments to Implement Actions Identified in Marine Strategy

Option 3: Extend Current Commitments to Meet Actions and Objectives of Marine Strategy

Biodiversity Loss and Destruction of Habitats

UK Biodiversity Action Plan Offshore Marine Conservation Regulations Scottish Executive requirements for fish farm containment and contingency plans

Extension of Birds and Habitats Directives beyond 12-mile limit Extend requirements for fish farm containment and contingency plans

Additional action in existing BAPs; development of new BAPs for offshore habitats; further reductions in fishing or restoration of estuary nursery areas; more frequent inspection and cleaning of ships’ hulls; redesign of ballast water intakes


Water Framework Directive Article 16 EU/UK Chemicals Policy OSPAR Convention

Input to European Commission plans for integration of WFD into chemicals and pesticides policies Input to European Commission pilot project in the Baltic Transposition of EU measures on harmful antifoulants into UK law

Further measures to ensure full implementation of IMO Convention Measures to address substances in OSPAR Convention not covered by WFD and/or to impose tighter controls on substances included within WFD

Eutrophication OSPAR Eutrophication Strategy Water Framework Directive

Input to EU review of eutrophication problems Implementation of standards for NOx and SO2 emissions from ships that may be identified under the Clean Air for Europe (CAFÉ) Strategy

Implementation of WFD measures limiting nutrient discharges by 2010 Implement CAFÉ standards by 2010

Radionuclides UK Strategy on Radioactive Discharges Input to European Commission review of relationship between EU measures and OSPAR

Meet OSPAR objectives for radioactive discharges by 2020 through further reductions in discharges from reprocessing and other sources


OSPAR MARPOL Annex 1

Input to European Commission review of ways to improve surveillance and to Commission strategy aimed at eliminating all discharges

Additional measures to prevent losses of oil from land-based facilities and ships Capital investment in measures to recover hydrocarbons from offshore oil and gas waste and transport it for disposal.

Litter Port Waste Reception Facilities Regulation Input to European Commission report on litter

More stringent controls on waste from land-based sources Additional monitoring and enforcement Encourage changes in behaviour Economic incentives Remediation (clean-up).


Page 18

Table 3.1: Requirements of Options

Objective Option 1: Continue with Ongoing Commitments


Option 3: Extend Current Commitments to Meet Actions and Objectives of Marine Strategy

Maritime Transport

EC Regulation on accelerated phase-in of double hull requirements EC Regulation setting up the European Maritime Safety Agency

Input to the European Commission review of the effectiveness of maritime safety legislation Input to development of the ‘clean ship’ concept

Further development of the ‘clean ship’ concept


Bathing Water Directive Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive Water Framework Directive Shellfish Waters Directive Fish & Shellfish Hygiene Measures MARPOL Annex IV

Input to European Commission assessment of monitoring results Input to revision of Bathing Water Directive Implementation of revised MARPOL Annex IV

Implementation of revised Bathing Water Directive

Climate Change Kyoto Protocol commitments No additional action required No additional action identified Enhancing Co-operation N/a Input to European Commission work programme

and measures to enhance co-ordination No additional action identified

Global Implementation N/a Input to European Commission plans for

promoting co-ordination No additional action identified

Improving Knowledge Base

UK Biodiversity Action Plan Input to European Commission activities No additional action identified


Page 19

4. BENEFITS

4.1 Uncertainty in Benefits and Costs

There is considerable uncertainty regarding both the benefits and the costs associated with the Marine Strategy. As Section 2.3 notes, the impacts of the various threats and pressures posed for the marine environment by human activities are not well characterised and our understanding of marine ecosystems is still poor, compared to that of terrestrial ecosystems (Defra 2002c). This makes evaluating the effects that policy measures will have on the marine environment particularly problematic. Even for Option 1, continuation of existing commitments, there is only limited information on the impacts that many measures have had on the structure and function of the marine environment. In addition, many of the measures included under Option 1 have been adopted only recently, others have not yet been fully implemented, so that their effects are not yet clear. For Option 2, the impacts will depend upon the measures required to implement the actions specified in the Marine Strategy. A number of the actions, though, comprise reviews to be carried out by the European Commission to identify whether further measures are required and/or to develop programmes of action. For example: • Action 8: ‘consider the need for further action’, by 2005, in relation to antifoulants; • Action 10: ‘determine whether any Community action should be considered’ on

radionuclides; and • Action 12: ‘elaborate a strategy’ by 2004 ‘aimed at eliminating all discharges of oil

from all sources’.

The benefits and costs associated with these actions in themselves are limited, but the measures developed as a result of the actions could be significant. However, these secondary impacts cannot be identified at this stage. For Option 3, a further element of uncertainty is introduced by a lack of clarity in definitions of the objectives of the Marine Strategy. For example: • Objectives 6 and 7 both refer to achieving levels ‘close to zero’ in the environment

for hazardous substances and man-made radionuclides respectively. No definition is given of what this might mean in practice; and

• Objective 2 refers to ‘restoring marine ecosystems’ and ‘certain trophic levels’, but

the scale and degree of restoration required is not specified. A number of objectives, for example Objective 1 on biodiversity and Objective 2 on eutrophication, also contain deadlines (in this case 2010 for both). If these deadlines are intended to be binding targets, their costs and benefits are likely to be significantly higher than if they are considered as broad, aspirational goals.


Page 20

4.2 Option 1

Current commitments, under Option 1, are likely to make a significant contribution to achieving the aims of the Marine Strategy, including: • conservation and enhancement of biological diversity; • reduction of problems associated with non-indigenous species; • prevention of irreversible decline in fisheries; • improvements in water quality; • reduced incidence of ill-health; and • economic benefits from reduced ill-health, environmental damage and better

conditions for fishing and tourism.

In most cases, however, it has not proved possible to value or even quantify these benefits. Only in two areas have quantified values for benefits been identified: • the benefits of measures that result in sustainable fisheries could be equivalent to the

current annual value of the UK fisheries industry, approximately £550 million per year; and

• the benefits of the UK Strategy on Radioactive Discharges have been calculated at

between zero and £22 million per year (Defra, 2002), comprising benefits from reductions in disease, reduced impacts in the marine environment, socio-economic benefits for fisheries and tourism, improved international relations and the avoidance of court cases.

4.3 Option 2

The additional benefits arising from Option 2 are limited for most objectives. This is because many of the actions specified in the Marine Strategy either involve a continuation of existing UK commitments or involve action by the European Commission to review an issue and develop approaches to address it. As noted in Section 4.1, the immediate benefits arising from such reviews are likely to be limited, although they may contribute to better co-ordination and thus improved effectiveness of future regulations. There may also be benefits if the reviews lead to more consistent implementation of ongoing measures by Member States. This could reduce disparities in costs between Member States (although these will not be eliminated, as the contribution of Member States to threats to the marine environment varies) and improve their environmental effectiveness. Although the approaches developed by the European Commission as a result of the reviews may have more significant benefits, these cannot be quantified until the approaches are known. Areas where Option 2 may bring more significant benefits include:


Page 21

• Biodiversity Loss and Habitat Destruction: some potential additional benefits from designation of additional offshore sites under the Habitats and Birds Directives and from extension of controls over escapes from fish farms;

• Hazardous Substances: potential additional benefits from transposition of EU

measures into UK law. However, this would also proceed in the absence of the Marine Strategy;

• Chronic Oil Pollution: potential additional benefits from improved surveillance; and • Health and Environment: additional benefits could arise from implementation of the

revised Bathing Water Directive (estimated at £66.90 million to £116.60 million per year) (Defra, 2002a) and from implementation of the revised MARPOL Annex IV, but these latter benefits would be realised in the absence of the Marine Strategy.

4.4 Option 3

The additional benefits associated with Option 3 are dependent upon the type of measures that would be required to achieve the objectives set out in the Marine Strategy. As noted in Section 4.1, there is a lack of clarity in the wording of certain objectives, particularly in terms of definitions and timescales, which introduces considerable uncertainty about the type of measures required and thus their benefits. Despite this uncertainty, some of the objectives, as currently set out in the Marine Strategy, do appear likely by their nature to impose very significant costs. For example: • achieving Objective 1, halting biodiversity decline by 2010, could bring forward the

benefits likely to be accrued from existing actions but is likely to impose disproportionate cost because of the substantial additional actions that would be required;

• similarly, Objective 5 (eliminating human-induced eutrophication by 2010) appears

impracticable, given the time lags between action to reduce discharges and impacts on the environment; and

• Objective 7, chronic oil pollution, calls for the cessation of all discharges from all

sources. Again, achieving this objective could bring additional benefits but would require measures to address unmanageable and accidental discharges, the costs of which are likely to be disproportionate.


Page 22

4.5 Business Sectors Affected

Business sectors affected by the proposed measures include both users of the marine environment (such as fisheries and tourism) and those carrying out activities that pose threats to the marine environment. Table 4.1, sets out some of the main sectors affected by the proposed measures. Table 4.1: Business Sectors Affected

Impact Sectors Affected

Sectors Using the Marine Environment Reduction in Biodiversity Loss and Habitat Destruction

Fisheries, tourism and recreation

Reduction in pollution and litter Fisheries, tourism, bathing and water sports

Sectors Posing Threats to the Marine Environment Biodiversity Loss and Destruction of Habitats

Fisheries, aquaculture, shipping, offshore oil and gas, wind farms, coastal activities

Hazardous Substances Chemicals, metals, mining and minerals, textiles, forestry and wood treatment, combustion processes, iron and steel, coal, offshore oil and gas, waste disposal

Eutrophication Water industry, agriculture, effluent dischargers (including a range of industry, transport, commerce and domestic sources), fisheries, shipping.

Radionuclides Nuclear industry, particularly reprocessing

Chronic Oil Pollution Shipping, offshore oil and gas

Litter Ports and shipping, offshore oil and gas, water industry, effluent dischargers, local authorities, tourism

Maritime Transport Shipping

Health and Environment Agriculture, water industry, ship building, food processing

Climate Change Combustion processes, transport, manufacturing, energy use

4.6 Issues of Equity and Fairness

Issues of equity and fairness could arise because the stakeholders that benefit from the Marine Strategy are different from those that face costs. Table 4.2 illustrates the distribution of impacts amongst stakeholders. Some of the stakeholder groups face costs associated with a range of different objectives of the Marine Strategy, for example shipping and the oil industry. Issues of fairness may arise because controlling the impacts of these sectors on the marine environment is easier than controlling onshore sources of pollution, which may be more diffuse. The fishing sector also faces costs associated with different Marine Strategy objectives, but should also gain significant economic benefits from improvements to the marine environment and improved sustainability of fisheries.


Page 23

The impacts of the Marine Strategy on different Member States will vary, depending on the extent to which they are affected by, and their contribution to, threats to the marine environment. In most cases, the costs to the UK are unlikely to be disproportionate to the costs faced by other Member States with extensive coastlines. However, both oil and gas and shipping are of considerable significance to the UK, compared to other countries. For example, 95% of the UK’s visible trade (by volume) is transported by ship and the UK has a more significant offshore oil and gas industry than other Member States. Costs affecting these sectors may thus affect the UK disproportionately. In addition, the UK is one of only two Member States carrying out nuclear reprocessing, and measures to reduce radionuclide discharges could thus be disproportionately costly for the UK.

Table 4.2: Distribution of Impacts

Stakeholders that will Benefit Stakeholders Facing Costs • fisheries, through improved sustainability

of fishing and reduced adverse impacts of human activity on fish species

• tourism and informal recreation, through reduced damage to marine environments and improved quality of marine recreational areas

• water sports, through improved water quality

• human health, through reductions in adverse impacts on health arising from hazardous substances, radionuclides and pathogens

• general public, through measures to halt biodiversity loss and reduce litter

• fisheries, from reductions in fishing activity to allow for recovery of fish stocks and to reduce damage to marine habitats and ecosystems

• fish farming, from increased measures to prevent escapes

• shipping, from measures to reduce discharges of nutrients, hazardous substances and oil and to control introductions of non-indigenous species

• the oil industry, especially offshore installations, from measures to control oil pollution, hazardous substances and radionuclides

• the nuclear industry, from measures to control radionuclide discharges

• the water industry, from measures to reduce discharges of nutrients and hazardous substances

• dischargers of pollutants to the aquatic environment, including agriculture, industry, transport and commerce, from measures to reduce discharges

4.7 Summary of Benefits Table 4.3, overleaf, presents a summary of the benefits of each option. As noted in

Section 4.1, little quantitative information is available. The qualitative information indicates that:

• Option 1 provides considerable benefits for the marine environment; • the additional benefits associated with Option 2 are limited, other than the benefits

of achieving ‘Good’ quality status under the revised Bathing Water Directive; and


Page 24

• Option 3 has the potential for significant additional benefits in relation to some objectives, but there is considerable uncertainty over whether these benefits can be realised in practice.


Page 25

Table 4.3: Summary of Benefits1 Option 1: Continue with Ongoing Commitments


Option 3: Extend Current Commitments to Meet Actions and Objectives of Marine Strategy Objective

Description Value (£ million/year) Description Value2

(£ million/year) Description Value3 (£ million/year)


Significant benefits for conservation and enhancement of biological diversity and sustainable use of biodiversity Prevention of irreversible decline of fisheries

Fisheries: up to 500

Possible additional benefits over Option 1 in relation to sustainable use of biodiversity, but high degree of uncertainty. No additional benefits for fisheries

N/a

Benefits of Option 1 brought forward to 2010. Additional benefits for biodiversity possible but highly uncertain. No additional benefits for fisheries.

N/a


Benefits will depend upon the nature of additional controls introduced, particularly under WFD

N/a

Additional benefits could arise if the actions contributed to more efficient implementation of existing and future measures

N/a

Potential additional benefits to the environment from control over non-TBT antifoulants; benefits from measures going beyond WFD could be significant but are highly uncertain

N/a

Eutrophication Likely to be considerable, but uncertain N/a

Could provide additional environmental and economic benefits from better targeting of future measures

N/a

Benefits of Option 1 would be brought forward to 2010; additional significant benefits possible, but highly uncertain

N/a

Radionuclides

Reduction in ill health Reduced environmental risks Socio-economic benefits Improved international relations

0-10 not valued

0-12 not valued No additional benefits N/a

Limited additional health benefits relating to perceived risks; could be offset by increased risks to workers. Positive but uncertain benefits to international relations

N/a


Environmental benefits from reduced numbers of discharges in the open seas; potential aesthetic and financial benefits from reduced damage to coasts

N/a Potential additional benefits from improved enforcement of existing regulations

N/a Potentially significant benefits, but highly uncertain N/a

Litter Benefits to the environment and health from reduction in litter from ships

N/a

Potential additional environmental and economic benefits from better targeting of future measures

N/a

Could be significant environmental and health benefits, depending on measures adopted

N/a


Page 26

Table 4.3: Summary of Benefits1 Option 1: Continue with Ongoing Commitments





Maritime Transport No specific benefits identified N/a

Could assist with future development of the ‘clean ship’ concept

N/a

Significant environmental benefits could arise in the longer term from adoption of the ‘clean ship’ concept

N/a


Significant benefits to health from existing measures N/a

Benefits of achieving revised BWD ‘Good’ quality status Potential additional environmental and economic benefits from better targeting of future measures

66.90- 116.60

N/a

Potential additional benefits, depending on measures adopted N/a

Climate Change Potentially significant benefits from halting climate change-related damage

N/a No additional benefits - No additional benefits -

Enhancing Co-operation - -

Potential benefits from increased effectiveness of future measures

N/a No additional benefits -

Improving the Knowledge Base - -

Potential benefits from increased effectiveness of future measures


Strategy as a Whole N/a N/a

Improved co-ordination and more consistent implementation of existing measures


Total quantified benefits

Up to £536 million per year £66.90 million to £116.60 million per year N/a

Scale of un-quantified benefits

High Some additional benefits possible Significant additional benefits possible in some cases, but highly uncertain

Notes: N/a – value not available 1. For more detail about benefit estimates please refer to respective annex; 2. Value in addition to the value of the benefits of Option 1; 3. Value in addition to the value of the benefits of Options 1 and 2;


Page 27

5. COSTS 5.1 Compliance Costs 5.1.1 Introduction

The Marine Strategy will generate compliance costs to address the threats to the marine environment. These costs will be born by sectors that currently give rise to these threats. The main sectors facing such compliance costs were identified in Section 4.5 of this Report as:

• fishing, through measures to restore fisheries to sustainable levels and prevent loss

of biodiversity through reducing fishing activity; • fish farms, though measures to reduce escapes; • shipping from measures to reduce discharges of nutrients, hazardous substances and

oil and to control introductions of non-indigenous species; • the oil industry, especially offshore installations, from measures to control oil

pollution, hazardous substances and radionuclides; • the nuclear industry, from measures to control radionuclide discharges; • the water industry, from measures to reduce discharges of nutrients and hazardous

substances; and • dischargers of pollutants to the aquatic environment, including agriculture,

industry, transport and commerce, from measures to reduce discharges. As noted in Section 4.1 of this Report, there is considerable uncertainty about the extent of action that will be required to implement the Marine Strategy, and thus about the costs that these actions will entail. There is also uncertainty, in some cases, about the timescale over which the costs will be incurred. In some cases, the timescale is specified by the objectives; in other cases, assumptions have had to be made about the likely timescale for action. The costs presented below are annual costs, based on the estimated total costs of the measures over the expected timescale. Details of the basis for calculation of these costs are provided in the relevant Annexes.

5.1.2 Option 1

Option 1 comprises a continuation of existing commitments that will reduce threats to the marine environment. This provides a baseline for comparison with the costs of the other Options. The existing commitments that comprise Option 1 are of two types; those specific to the marine environment and those with more general environmental objectives. Costs of Measures Specific to the Marine Environment The costs of current commitments specific to the marine environment are summarised in Table 5.1 overleaf. Because they are specific to the marine environment, the full costs of these measures can be allocated to Option 1. Some of the measures contribute to more


Page 28

than one objective of the Marine Strategy; for example, implementation of MARPOL Annex IV will assist with reducing eutrophication and human health risks. Table 5.1: Costs of Current Commitments Specific to the Marine Environment1

Marine Strategy Objective Measure Annual Cost (£ million/year)


UK Biodiversity Action Programme Offshore Marine Conservation Regulations Implementation of revised Common Fisheries Policy

2.59 2.54

47

Hazardous Substances OSPAR Convention on Hazardous Substances 11.5 Eutrophication MARPOL Annex IV 0.50

Radionuclides

UK Strategy for Radioactive Discharges - direct costs - indirect costs

15 to 21

30 to 38

Chronic Oil Pollution Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Regulations 1996

(not available)

Litter Port Waste Reception Facilities Regulations 0.50


Bathing Water Directive MARPOL Annex IV Food quality regulations

0.55 to 0.85

(costed above) 0.10 to 0.20

Maritime Transport EU Regulation 417/2002 on accelerated phase-in of double hulls

(not available)

Total quantified costs £111 million to £125 million

Notes: 1 - For more detail on cost estimates please refer to the relevant annex. The most significant costs associated with current commitments relate to implementation of revisions to the Common Fisheries Policy and the UK Strategy for Radioactive Discharges: • the European Commission estimated that the proposed revisions to the Common

Fisheries Policy would require an 8.5% reduction in fishing activities (English Nature, 2003). Assuming that this represents an 8.5% reduction in the industry’s turnover, the direct cost is estimated to be approximately £47 million per year. There are also likely to be additional indirect costs to communities dependent on fishing; and

• the RIA for the UK Strategy for Radioactive Discharges estimates that this strategy

will incur direct costs of £15 million to £21 million per year (Defra, 2002). There will be additional indirect costs, including impacts on communities around affected nuclear facilities, of £30 million to £38 million per year (Defra, 2002).

The costs of the other measures to which the UK is currently committed are relatively small by comparison, totalling just under £19 million per year (see Table 5.1). However, this estimate excludes costs associated with the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil


Page 29

Pollution) Regulations 1996 and the EU Regulation 417/2002 on accelerated phase-in of double hulls, for which no data were available. Costs of Other Measures A range of other measures to which the UK is already committed, not specific to the marine environment, will also contribute to achieving the objectives of the Marine Strategy. These are summarised in Table 5.2. A number of these measures will incur significant costs; however, these costs relate to achieving all the objectives of these measures, not just those affecting the marine environment. There is no basis, from available information, of allocating a proportion of the total costs to the Marine Strategy.

Table 5.2: Total Costs of Current Commitments Not Specific to the Marine Environment Marine Strategy Objective Measure Annual Cost

(£ million/year)

Hazardous Substances Water Framework Directive – Article 16 EU REACH UK Chemicals Strategy

87 45

9.6 Eutrophication Water Framework Directive (excluding Article 16) 29 to 209 Climate Change Implementation of Kyoto Protocol (not available)Total quantified costs allocatable to Marine Strategy (not known)

5.1.3 Option 2 Most of the actions defined in the Marine Strategy involve few additional measures beyond those already in place or planned. This is in line with the overall aim of the Marine Strategy, which is to ensure better co-ordination of efforts to address threats to the marine environment. In many cases, the actions identified in the Marine Strategy consist of reviews of the effectiveness of existing measures and/or studies of the status of threats to the environment, to be carried out by the European Commission. Such reviews are identified in the Marine Strategy for: • hazardous substances; • eutrophication; • radionuclides; • chronic oil pollution; • litter; • maritime transport; • health and the environment; • enhancing co-operation; and • improving the knowledge base. These will involve only limited input from the UK (and therefore minimal additional compliance costs), in contributing to the reviews and assessing the outputs. One aim of the reviews, however, is to determine the need for further EU measures to address specific threats to the marine environment. In the longer term, therefore, this might result


Page 30

in higher compliance costs for the UK. Some of the measures that might result from the reviews have been included within Option 3. For two objectives, though, Option 2 does involve additional compliance costs: • for Biodiversity Loss and Habitat Destruction, the action of ensuring full

implementation of the Habitats and Birds Directives to exclusive economic zones could incur compliance costs for the UK in designating additional offshore sites. These have been estimated at around £5.79 million per year (See Annex A); and

• for Health and Environment, actions include revision of the Bathing Water Directive.

A proposal for a revised Directive was published in 2002 and the costs for the UK of implementing this have been estimated at £191.90 million to £294.70 million per year (Defra, 2002a).

5.1.4 Option 3

In order to assess the potential costs of Option 3, assumptions have had to be made about the type of additional measures that would be required to fully meet the objectives of the Marine Strategy. These assumptions are explained in detail in the Annexes to this Report; however, considerable uncertainty remains about the nature and likely scale of costs. Table 5.3 sets out the additional costs potentially associated with fully meeting the objectives of the Marine Strategy. In a number of cases, the cost could not be quantified. In these cases, an assessment has instead been made of the likely scale of costs. Table 5.3: Additional Costs of Option 3



Doubling activity at current HAPs Doubling activity at current SAPs Designation of 30 additional sites 60% reduction in fishing activity Associated social costs Preventing introduction of species by ship Preventing escapes from fish farms

5.18 5.39 2.60

330.00 (high) (high)

(n/a) Hazardous Substances Additional action to further reduce discharges,

emissions and losses (very high)

Eutrophication Bring forward existing actions to 2010 Additional measures beyond WFD commitments

(high) (very high)

Radionuclides Additional measures to reduce discharges: direct costs Additional measures to reduce discharges: indirect costs

284.00 to 567.00

49.00 to 56.00

Chronic Oil Pollution Additional measures to prevent oil pollution from ships, offshore oil and gas

(very high)

Litter More stringent controls over disposal Additional enforcement Ships audits Campaigns to alter behaviour Economic incentives Clean-up of beaches

(low) (low)

(moderate) (low)

(moderate) 2.20


Page 31

Table 5.3: Additional Costs of Option 3


Maritime Transport Implementation of ‘clean ship’ concept (n/a) Health and Environment Meet ‘excellent’ quality standards for bathing

water Extension of food quality standards to new contaminants Tightening food quality standards

300 to 470

(high)

(high) Total quantified costs 981.57 to 1,441.37 Scale of unquantified costs High Notes: HAPs = Habitat Action Plans SAPs = Species Action Plans

Table 5.3 shows that the additional compliance costs of measures to ensure that the objectives of the Marine Strategy are met to the letter as currently stated would be at least £1 billion to £1.5 billion per year, and could be considerably higher. The time-scales over which the costs would be incurred vary; in some cases costs would be incurred for a limited period of time, as they relate primarily to capital investments required to address threats to the marine environment. In other cases, such as changes to fishing practices, the timescale over which costs are incurred would depend on the success of the measure in achieving restoration of fish stocks. In other cases, such as measures associated with marine conservation areas, costs would continue to be incurred for the foreseeable future.

5.2 Other Costs 5.2.1 Option 1

Actions to address threats to the marine environment to which the UK is already committed will incur costs for monitoring and enforcement. Unfortunately, only limited data is available on the scale of these costs. For measures specific to the marine environment, the available data indicate that monitoring and enforcement costs are relatively low compared to compliance costs. For example: • costs of enforcement of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan offshore: £450,000 per

year (based on Defra, 2003); • enforcement of the IMO Convention on Antifouling Systems: £40,000 per year

(Maritime & Coastguard Agency, Pers. Comm, 2003); and • monitoring and enforcement of the port waste reception facilities regulations:

£43,000 per year (Cabinet Office, 2003).

Monitoring costs associated with measures that are not specific to the marine environment, such as the Water Framework Directive, have been estimated as much higher, running to millions of pounds annually. However, the proportion of these costs that should be allocated to the marine environment cannot be estimated at present.


Page 32

5.2.2 Option 2

Additional monitoring and enforcement costs are associated with a number of the actions identified in the Marine Strategy, which would be implemented under Option 2. These include: • enforcement costs for additional offshore Habitats and Birds Directives sites:

£540,000 per year (Defra, 2003); • improved surveillance of illegal discharges: probably low, but cannot be quantified;

and • monitoring and enforcement of the revised Bathing Water Directive: £53 million per

year (Defra, 2002a).

The only significant additional costs under Option 2 relate to the enforcement costs for additional offshore sites designated under the Habitats and Birds Directives and monitoring and enforcement costs for the revised Bathing Water Directive.

5.2.3 Option 3

The scale of additional monitoring and enforcement costs incurred under Option 3 will depends upon the exact measures necessary to meet the objectives of the Marine Strategy. In most cases, it has not been possible to quantify these costs at this stage. The exception relates to the possible extension of the number of contaminants to be monitored, to meet the objective relating to health and the environment. The costs of this additional monitoring have been estimated at £120 million to £800 million per year, depending on the number of additional contaminants assumed to require monitoring. Where the objectives are stated in terms of absolute cessation of activities (e.g. ‘eliminating all discharges’ of oil from ships and offshore installations by 2010), the costs of monitoring and enforcement are likely to be high.

5.3 Costs for a ‘Typical’ Business

Due to the range of sectors potentially affected by the Marine Strategy, it is difficult to specify what a “typical business” might be. For some objectives, the range of sectors affected is more limited (for example the objectives and action on radionuclides affects only the nuclear industry, particularly reprocessing); in other cases, such as hazardous substances, a wide range of onshore and offshore sectors could be affected. Thus estimating the costs to a typical business is unlikely to provide useful information to businesses that will be affected by the Proposal.

5.4 Summary of Costs Table 5.4 provides a summary of the costs of each option.


Page 33

Table 5.4: Summary of Costs1 Option 1: Continue with Ongoing Commitments





Compliance Costs


UK Biodiversity Action Plan Offshore Marine Conservation Regulations Revision of CFP – 8.5% reduction in fishing

2.59

2.45

47

Designation of offshore Habitats and Birds Directives sites Extension of containment measures for fish farms

5.79

N/a

Doubling activity at current HAPs Doubling activity at current SAPs Designation of 30 additional sites 60% reduction in fishing activity Associated social costs Preventing introduction of species in ships Preventing escapes from fish farms

5.18

5.39

2.6

330

(high)

(high)

(n/a)


OSPAR Convention [WFD Article 16 [EU REACH [UK Chemicals Strategy

11.5 873] 453]

9.603]

Input to EU reviews (minimal) Additional action to further reduce discharges, emissions and losses

(very high)

Eutrophication MARPOL Annex IV [WFD – excluding Article 16]

0.50 [29 – 2093] Input to EU reviews (minimal)

Bring forward existing actions to 2010 Additional measures beyond WFD commitments

(high)

(very high)

Radionuclides

UK Radioactive Discharges Strategy: direct costs UK Radioactive Discharges Strategy: indirect costs

15 to 21

30 to 38

Input to EU review (minimal)

Additional measures to reduce discharges: direct costs Additional measures to reduce discharges: indirect costs

284 to 567

49 to 56


Page 34







Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Regulations

N/a Input to EU review (minimal) Additional measures to prevent oil pollution from ships, offshore oil and gas

(very high)

Litter Port Waste Reception Facilities Regulations 0.50 Input to EU review (minimal)

More stringent controls over disposal Additional enforcement Ships audits Campaigns to alter behaviour Economic incentives Clean-up of beaches

(low)

(low) (moderate)

(low) (moderate)

2.20

Maritime Transport

EU Regulation 417/2002 on accelerated phase-in of double hull or equivalent protection

N/a Input to EU review (minimal) Implementation of ‘clean ship’ concept N/a


Bathing Water Directive MARPOL Annex IV Food quality regulations

0.55 to 0.85

(costed above)

0.10 to 0.20

Revised Bathing Water Directive Revised MARPOL Annex IV Input to EU review

191.90 to 294.70 (low)

(minimal)

Meet ‘excellent’ quality standards for bathing water Extension of food quality standards to new contaminants Tightening food quality standards

300 to 470 (high)

(high)

Climate Change Implementation of Kyoto Protocol (high)4 No additional action - No additional action -

Enhancing Co-operation - - Input to EU activities (minimal) Depends on nature and extent of

any further commitments N/a

Improving Knowledge Base - - Input to EU activities (minimal) Depends on nature and extent of

any further commitments N/a


Page 35






Other Costs

Biodiversity Loss and Habitat Destructions

Enforcement of UK BAP Enforcement of Offshore Marine Conservation Regs Enforcement of revised CFP

0.45 0.40

n/a

Enforcement of 15 additional Habitats and Birds Directive sites

0.54

Doubling of enforcement at existing sites Enforcement of additional measures

0.90

N/a

Hazardous Substances Monitoring and enforcement (high)

Enforcement of EU measures on antifoulants Additional monitoring

0.04 n/a

Additional monitoring and enforcement (high)

Eutrophication Monitoring of MARPOL Annex IV Monitoring of WFD

(low) (high)

- - Monitoring of measures beyond WFD commitments (high)

Radionuclides Monitoring and enforcement of UK strategy N/a - -

Monitoring and enforcement of measures to further reduce discharges

(high)


Monitoring and enforcement of Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Regs

N/a Improved surveillance of illegal discharges (low)

Monitoring and enforcement of measures to further reduce discharges

(high)

Litter Monitoring and enforcement of Port Waste Reception Facilities Regs

0.04 - - Monitoring and enforcement of further measures to reduce litter (low)


Monitoring and enforcement of current standards N/a Monitoring and enforcement of

revised Bathing Water Directive 53.00 Monitoring of extended list of contaminants 120 to 800

Total quantified costs

111.53 to 125.53 [plus unknown proportion of 162.13 to 351.13] +251.27 to 354.03 +1,102.57 to 2,241.37

Scale of un-quantified costs Moderate to high Minimal High

Notes: N/a: value not available 1. For more detail on the cost estimates please refer to relevant annexes. 2. Value in addition to the value of the benefits of Option 1 3. Value in addition to the value of the benefits of Options 1 and 2 4: Total cost of measure for all objectives. Only a (unknown) portion of this cost can be allocated to the Marine Strategy


Page 36


Page 37

6. SMALL FIRMS IMPACT TEST A number of actions under the Marine Strategy could affect small businesses. These are summarised in Table 6.1. Many of the current commitments included under Option 1 have been the subject of separate Regulatory Impact Assessments, and small firms have been consulted in relation to these. Option 2 adds few additional actions and those involving potentially significant costs, for example the revised Bathing Water Directive, have also been the subject of RIAs involving consultation with small firms. The impacts of Option 3 on small firms will depend on the specific measures required, which cannot yet be determined. Table 6.1: Potential Impacts of the Marine Strategy on Small Firms Objective Impacts on Small Firms Biodiversity Loss and Destruction of Habitats

Could impose costs for small fishing, fish farming and shipping businesses. Could bring benefits to small fishing and tourism businesses

Hazardous Substances Small firms could be impacted by measures to address land-based sources (addressed in the RIA on the Water Framework Directive Article 16)

Eutrophication Small firms in the agriculture sector have expressed concern over the impacts of the Water Framework Directive

Radionuclides Small firms could be affected indirectly, by closure of nuclear businesses in remote areas

Chronic Oil Pollution Small shipping businesses could be adversely affected by increased controls over discharges; small firms supplying the offshore oil industry could benefit from supplying additional pollution control equipment

Litter Small shipping businesses could face additional control costs; small tourism businesses could benefit from better beach conditions

Health and Environment Small farming businesses have been consulted in relation to the revised Bathing Water Directive; small fish and shellfish businesses could face some additional costs but could benefit from improved quality of fish and shellfish

7. COMPETITION ASSESSMENT Many of the aspects of the detailed actions required to implement the Marine Strategy, particularly under Option 3, will only be determined some time into the future. However, general statements can be made on the types of competition effects that might be experienced, based on the ‘Competition Filter’ included in the draft revised Guidance on Regulatory Impact Assessment (Cabinet Office, 2002). Table 7.1: General Statements Based on ‘Competition Filter’ Q1: In the market(s) affected by the new regulation, does any firm have more than 10% market share? Q2: In the market(s) affected by the new regulation, does any firm have more than 20% market share? Q3: In the market(s) affected by the new regulation, do the largest three firms together have at least 50% market share? The only sectors where this might apply would be the nuclear industry (affected by the objective on radionuclides) and offshore oil and gas.


Page 38

Table 7.1: General Statements Based on ‘Competition Filter’ Q4: Would the costs of the regulation affect some firms substantially more than others? This is possible, depending on the precise measures required to implement the Marine Strategy and the extent of measures already adopted by firms to reduce threats to the marine environment. Particular issues may arise in relation to restrictions on fishing under the revised Common Fisheries Policy (which would be implemented in the absence of the Marine Strategy) and measures to implement the objective of halting biodiversity decline. Q5: Is the regulation likely to affect the market structure, changing the number or size of firms? This is only likely to be the case in relation to the nuclear sector and to fishing. Q6: Would the regulation lead to higher set-up costs for new or potential firms that existing firms do not have to meet? There is no evidence that this would be the case. Q7: Would the regulation lead to higher ongoing costs for new or potential firms that existing firms do not have to meet? There is no evidence that this would be the case. Q8: Is the sector characterised by rapid technological change? Some of the onshore sectors facing controls over discharges of hazardous substances may be characterised by rapid technological change. Q9: Would the regulation restrict the ability of firms to choose the price, quality, range or location of their products? This is possible, depending on the exact nature of the measures adopted. It could particularly be the case under Option 3, where stringent objectives are required to be met within a tight timescale.

8. ENFORCEMENT AND SANCTIONS

Most of the regulations that would be used to implement the measures required by the Marine Strategy already exist in the UK. The existing framework of primary legislation, outlined in Section 2.3, provides many of the powers needed to implement the Marine Strategy. Some additional powers could be required to implement Option 3, depending on the precise nature of the measures adopted.

9. MONITORING AND REVIEW

Many of the specific actions identified in the Marine Strategy, and included in Option 2, involve a review of the current status of the marine environment and the development of future measures to address continuing threats. There is also extensive ongoing monitoring of the marine environment that should enable the success of measures under the Marine Strategy to be evaluated.

10. CONSULTATION

Defra consulted stakeholders on an informal basis on the objectives and actions in the Commission Communication in late 2002. This was not a formal consultation because of inadequate time; the Communication was published in October 2002 and was due to be discussed at the December 2002 Environment Council and at a stakeholder conference in Denmark that month.


Page 39

11. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION 11.1 Summary

The main findings of the RIA are summarised in Table 11.1. The costs and benefits are given as the total annual cost or benefit of each option, based on the totals given in Table 4.3 and Table 5.4. As noted in Sections 4 and 5, the estimates are subject to a high degree of uncertainty.

Table 11.1: Summary of Quantified and Unquantified Annual Costs and Benefits

Option Total Annual

Cost (£ million)

Incremental Annual Cost (£ million)

Unquantified Costs

Total Annual Benefit

(£ million)

Incremental Annual Benefit

(£ million)

Unquantified Benefits

1. Current Commitments

113 – 126 (plus

unknown proportion of

162-3511)

- Potentially high Up to 536

- Potentially high

2. Actions in the Marine Strategy

364 - 480 251 - 354 Limited 603 - 653 67 - 117 Limited

3. Meeting Strategy Objectives

1,467 – 2,721 1,103 – 2,241 Potentially very high

Potentially high but very

uncertain

Potentially high but very

uncertain

Potentially very high

Notes: 1. Costs of measures not specific to the marine environment

Table 11.1 shows that the quantified benefits of both Option 1 and Option 2 outweigh the quantified costs. For Option 1, both the unquantified costs and the unquantified benefits could be high. For Option 2, unquantified costs and benefits are likely to be limited. Option 3 would incur significant additional quantified costs compared with the other two Options. The unquantified costs of Option 3 are also estimated to be potentially very high. Although the benefits of this Option could be substantial, they are highly uncertain. Option 3 therefore poses the risk of incurring significant additional costs without commensurate additional benefits.

11.2 Recommendation

Based on the analysis summarised in Table 11.1 Option 2, implementing actions set out in the Marine Strategy, appears to have benefits over Option 1 (continue with existing commitments) without incurring significant additional costs. Indeed, the main additional costs of Option 2 are associated with implementation of the revised Bathing Water Directive, which would be likely to proceed in the absence of the Marine Strategy. Option 3 (additional actions to meet the objectives of the Marine Strategy), imposes


Page 40

significant additional costs, potentially without commensurate benefits, and is therefore not recommended. This recommendation implies that the UK should support the Marine Strategy in principle and the actions set out in the Marine Strategy. However, during negotiations clarity should be sought on the status and wording of the Marine Strategy objectives. As currently worded, implementing these objectives ‘to the letter’ could impose significant additional costs without commensurate benefits. Re-wording the objectives as long-term goals, rather than firm, time-limited targets, would help to overcome this problem. In addition, the UK will need to become actively involved in the actions in the Marine Strategy that involve decisions by the Commission on the need for further action to address threats to the marine environment. In this way, the UK can ensure that any such additional measures are both proportionate and cost-effective, avoiding disproportionate and potentially ineffective measures of the type included within Option 3.


ANNEX A

LOSS OF BIODIVERSITY AND DESTRUCTION OF HABITATS

Annex A: Loss of Biodiversity and Destruction of Habitats


Page A-1

A1. INTRODUCTION The Marine Strategy identifies several pressures on marine biodiversity and habitats.

These include:

• over fishing, leading to critical low levels of important commercial fish stocks, damage to non-target fish species and the failure to maintain a sustainable fishing industry. Additionally, fishing activities have had a detrimental effect on sensitive habitats and have caused alterations to the structure and function of the marine ecosystem;

• the unintentional introduction of non-indigenous species, genetically modified or

disease-carrying organisms. These can have disastrous effects on indigenous plant and animal communities. Ballast water from ships, organisms attached to ships hulls and aquaculture are identified by the Marine Strategy as the main means of introduction of these organisms; and

• pressure on sensitive habitats from increased human activities along the coast and

offshore. Activities identified by the Marine Strategy include the development of ports and harbours, coastal protection, land reclamation, tourism and sand and gravel extraction. Alternative energy sources, such as wind and wave power installations, may also have an impact on sensitive habitats.

The Marine Strategy identifies a number of existing EU measures that contribute to the protection of the marine environment; these are listed in Box A1. There are also relevant international and regional conventions, also listed in Box A1. However, the Marine Strategy notes that the extent to which these policies are integrated is limited and therefore there is the potential for overlap and inconsistencies over policies.

Box A1: Existing Measures for the Conservation of Biodiversity EU Measures • EU Strategy for Sustainable Development; • Habitats Directive (92/43); • Birds Directive (79/409); • Common Fisheries Policy (3760/92) and Community Action Plan (COM (2002)186); • Common Agricultural Policy; • Water Framework Directive; (2000/60); • Draft recommendation on Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Europe; • Proposed amendment to Recreational Craft Directive (94/25) to include noise and exhaust emission

limits for engines used in recreational craft; and • Regulation laying down measures concerning incidental catches of cetaceans in fisheries International and Regional Conventions • Convention on Biological Diversity and, in particular, the Jakarta Mandate • OSPAR Convention; • Bergen Declaration; • Agreement on the conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas (ASCOBANS) under

the Bonn Convention (the Convention on Migratory Species); • FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries 1995; • IMO Convention; and • Williamsburg Resolution (under NASCO).


Page A-2

A2. PURPOSE AND INTENDED EFFECT A2.1 Objectives of EU Marine Strategy A2.1.1 Introduction

The three main objectives identified by the Marine Strategy in relation to the conservation of marine biodiversity and habitats are: • To halt biodiversity decline by 2010: the Marine Strategy notes that this is an

extremely ambitious and challenging objective which will drive environmental policy over the next eight years;

• To ensure a sustainable use of biodiversity through the protection and conservation

of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, in the first instance in the European seas, inter alia, by restoring marine ecosystems and re-establishing certain trophic levels which have been affected by human activities and by preventing the human induced introduction of new non-indigenous species, genetically modified organisms and disease organisms; and

• a change in fisheries management to reverse the decline in stocks and ensure

sustainable fisheries and healthy ecosystem, both in EU and globally. Below we outline the actions identified in the Marine Strategy to meet these objectives and provide background information on existing measures in place.

A2.1.2 Objective 1: Halting Biodiversity Decline

No explicit actions are identified in the Marine Strategy to meet this objective, which the Marine Strategy recognises to be extremely ambitious and challenging and a driver for future environmental policy within the EU. The 2001 Gothenburg Summit on the Marine Strategy considered that this (and other objectives) should be considered as aspirational, rather than of a legally-binding nature.

A2.1.3 Objective 2: Ensuring Sustainable Use of Biodiversity

The actions identified in the Communication in relation to Objective 2 are: • Action 1: the Commission will make proposals for developing an ecosystem-based

approach, including benchmarks and targets to ensure conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity;

• Action 2: the Commission will pursue its efforts to fully implement the EU Habitat

and Bird Directives in the marine environment including Exclusive Economic Zones. The Commission will develop by 2005 a programme aimed at enhancing the


Page A-3

protection of species and habitats in European waters. The Commission will also develop proposals to adapt the annexes to the Habitat Directive containing marine habitats and species to be protected under the Natura 2000 Network; and

• Action 3: in relation to non-indigenous species, the Commission will: 1) support

the initiative to prepare an international convention for the control and management of ships’ ballast water and sediments, within the existing IMO Framework; 2) develop a regional ballast water management plans in 2005-6, in line with what is envisaged under the IMO convention with a view to early implementation; 3) review in 2004-2005 if, and the extent to which, a complementary initiative to control the introduction of non-indigenous species by ships ballast water will be necessary; and 4) propose measures to limit escapes of farmed fish from aquaculture.

A2.1.4 Objective 3: Sustainable Fisheries

The aim of this objective is to reform the way in which fisheries are managed with a view to reverse the decline in fish stocks, ensuring sustainable fisheries and a healthy ecosystem both in the EU and globally. The action identified in relation to this objective (numbered as Action 3 in the Strategy) is:

“to pursue…efforts[s] to adjust the fishing effort and capacity in line with long-term management plans to secure sustainable harvest of fish resources and propose measures to reduce discards, incidental by-catches and impacts on habitats”.

The Marine Strategy refers to proposals in 2002 for a reformed Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), which provides a mechanism for achieving the objective. There is also a range of separate initiatives which seek to address fisheries by-catch.

A2.2 Background A2.2.1 EU Measures

Integrated Coastal Zone Management

The Commission adopted a cross-sectoral strategy on integrated coastal zone management to improve the effectiveness of existing measures for management of the diverse pressures on the coastal zone. A Recommendation regarding coastal zone management was adopted in 2002, encouraging Member States to develop national strategies for coastal zone management.


Page A-4

Habitats and Birds Directives

The European Habitats and Birds Directives have a significant influence on conservation and the protection of marine species. Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) identified under these Directives create a European Network of protected areas known as Natura 2000. The Habitats Directive contains a chapter on marine habitats and some species are also listed. The Commission is of the opinion that these Directives apply to the Economic Exclusive Zone. The Directives introduce the concepts of ‘favourable status of conservation’ and ‘good ecological status’, which are intended to provide the basis for development of the ecosystem-based approach to conservation envisaged by Action 1 of the Marine Strategy. These Directives have been transposed into UK law by the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations 1994 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which has resulted in considerable UK action towards the designation of SPAs and SACs. Fuller implementation of the Habitats Directive is also being delivered through the Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 2003. These regulations aim to contribute to the protection and conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna by establishing offshore protected sites in the marine environment between 12 and 200 nautical miles offshore. Common Fisheries Policy The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) provides the basic regulatory structure for the management of fisheries and aquaculture in the EU. In recent years, the Policy has been supplemented by the Community Action Plan (COM(2002)186). One of the Policy’s four main areas of responsibility is the conservation of fish stocks. A wide range of measures are already applied to marine fisheries under the CFP including controls on Total Allowable Catches (TACs) and Technical Conservation Measures (TCMs) such as minimum mesh and landing sizes, closed areas and gear specifications to reduce mortality of juvenile fish, to protect spawning stocks or nursery grounds and to reduce by-catch of marine mammals. In a few cases, stock specific management plans have also been implemented. Multi-annual Guidance Programmes (MAGPs) have also been developed to realign fishing effort with fish resources in the longer-term. The 2002 Action Plan has proposed some further measures to reduce impacts including:

• technical measures to reduce discards; • technical conservation measures to reduce cetacean by-catch; • designation of protected areas where bottom trawls and similar towed gear operating

on the bottom are prohibited; • implementation of Community Action Plans to manage sharks and protect sea birds

in the context of the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries; • implementation of the biodiversity Action Plan for Fisheries (COM(2001) 164 vol.

IV); and • monitoring of populations of marine species identified in Annex IV of the Habitats

Directive in accordance with Article 12 of that Directive.


Page A-5

In March 2004, a Regulation laying down measures concerning incidental catches of cetaceans in fisheries was also agreed. The Regulation comprises three main actions:

• limiting Baltic Sea drift nets to 2.5km and a total ban from 2007 (bringing the Baltic

into line with the Atlantic) to reduce porpoise by-catch; • compulsory fitting of pingers in gill net fisheries in the Baltic, North Sea, the

Channel and the Celtic Sea; and • a requirement for Member States to provide independent on-board observers to

monitor cetacean by-catch on approximately 5-10% of the fishing effort deployed in each of these fisheries.

Sustainable Aquaculture Strategy The EU Communication1 regarding a strategy for sustainable European aquaculture, identifies the contribution of aquaculture to the issue of non-indigenous species introductions. However, it notes that extensive sustainable aquaculture can help to improve environmental protection through association of economic activity with conservation. For example, restoration of fish stocks has been positively affected through re-stocking with hatchery-produced fish. The Aquaculture Strategy aims to reduce the negative environmental impacts of aquaculture and to enhance these positive aspects. Currently the strategic framework for the Scottish marine aquaculture industry is the only notable action in the UK contributing to fulfilling the objective of the Aquaculture Strategy. The strategy is aimed at informing the Scottish Executive’s decision-making process and providing a strategic direction. Specific initiatives will be identified on an area basis.

A2.2.2 International and Regional Conventions Convention on Biological Diversity The 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) provides an overall framework for the conservation of biological diversity, sustainability and the fair sharing of benefits from the use of genetic resources. The Jakarta Mandate (1995) established a focus for international action on marine and coastal biodiversity. It has five main elements: • integrated marine and coastal area management; • marine and coastal living resources; • marine and coastal protected areas; • mariculture; and • alien species and genotypes.

1 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: A Strategy for the

Sustainable Development of European Aquaculture (2002)


Page A-6

The CBD has been supplemented by specific commitments, such as that in the 2004 Kuala Lumpur Declaration to significantly reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2020. In the UK, the main mechanism for delivering on CBD commitments is the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP), although a wide range of statutory and non-statutory environmental protection initiatives contribute to its achievement. A key component of UK BAPs are Habitat Action Plans (HAPs) and Species Action Plans (SAPs), which have been identified for approximately 40 priority marine species and habitats in the UK. UK BAPs identify detailed actions to achieve species and habitat targets to be achieved. Within the UKBAP, the Government and nature conservation agencies plan to implement new approaches to coastal protection, continue efforts to prevent the introduction of non-native species and ensure that the intertidal SSSI network covers important marine wildlife habitats and species. IMO Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water The IMO Convention for the Control and Management of Ship’s Ballast Water and Sediments was adopted in February 2004 and is likely to come into force within the next two to three years. Its aim is to manage the range of risks posed by ballast water for the marine environment, including the introduction of non-indigenous species. The Convention introduces ballast water management standards that include a limit on the number of viable organisms that can be discharged within ballast water. Main measures required by the Convention are: • provision of ballast water treatment to meet ballast water performance standards

after 2014/2016 for existing ships or from 2009 for new ships; • before these dates, vessels will be required to meet either the ballast water exchange

standard or the ballast water performance standard [It will be permissible to use ballast water exchange after 2009 (new ships) or 2014/16 (existing ships) but vessels will need to meet the performance standard rather than the exchange standard];

• provision of sediment reception facilities where cleaning or repair of ballast water tanks takes place;

• a commitment to carry out research on the development of treatment technologies and the impacts on non-indigenous species; and

• enforcement through survey, certification and inspection. Other International Conventions Other international and regional conventions of relevance to loss of biodiversity and destruction of habitats are outlined in Table A2.1.


Page A-7

Table A2.1: Other International Conventions Relating to Biodiversity and Habitats International Convention Area of Action OSPAR Requires Parties to conserve the marine environment and restore

adversely affected areas, while setting up programmes to manage human activities that may have an impact on the marine environment.

HELCOM & OSPAR Aims to identify a set of marine protected areas by 2006 and to establish remaining gaps and complete a joint network by 2010.

Ramsar Convention Aims to protect wetland areas by promoting wise use of wetlands in order to achieve sustainable development. The UK has 168 Ramsar sites, which are currently under review.

Bonn Convention Provides an effective ‘umbrella’ to protect migratory bird species. The UK has been active in promoting regional actions under the Convention on small cetaceans in the Baltic and on albatrosses and petrels.

Bern Convention Relates to species protection; the UK is making an active contribution to work under the Convention on marine turtles.

UN Agreement on Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks

Aims to reinforce the role of regional fisheries organisations and emphasise the precautionary approach in managing fish stocks on the high seas.

A2.3 Risk Assessment A2.3.1 Risks that the Strategy is Intended to Address

The Marine Strategy is intended to address the risk of further losses of biodiversity and destruction of habitats in the marine environment from: • overfishing, reducing commercial fish stocks to critical levels, damage to non-target

fish species, damage to sensitive marine habitats (e.g. deep-sea reefs) and alterations in the structure and function of marine ecosystems;

• unintentional introduction of non-indigenous species; and • increased human activities offshore.

Risks Related to Over-Fishing The Marine Strategy notes that commercially viable fish stocks in the North East Atlantic are reported as being exploited beyond safe biological limits. In certain areas, fisheries for 40 out of 60 stocks of these species are believed to be unsustainable and an increasing number of stocks have fallen to critical low levels. Stocks that are within safe biological limits have also been demographically affected by fishing, the size and age composition of a community altered. Non-target fish such as deep-sea species are often threatened by fishing in regions where commercial fish stocks are depleted and by-catch. Due to these species relative slow growth and reproductive rates, they are vulnerable to overexploitation.


Page A-8

Fisheries also have impacts on other parts of the marine ecosystem. By-catch of undersized or unwanted commercial species can lead to mortality of non-target species, including benthic animals and marine mammals. Practices such as discarding unwanted catches alter competitive relationships within an ecosystem, favouring scavenging species. Over-fishing impacts marine mammal populations through depravation of an adequate food source in addition to destroying suitable habitats which are essential for successful reproduction. Risks Related to the Introduction of Non-Indigenous Species In the North East Atlantic, according to the Marine Strategy, over 100 non-indigenous species have been recorded. These have been found mainly in the North Sea and Celtic Sea (of direct relevance to the UK) as well as the Bay of Biscay. The main vectors of such unintentional introductions are ships ballast water and associated sediments and fouling on ships hulls, as well as from aquaculture. The introduction and transfer of marine organisms from aquaculture creates risks of transporting competitors, predators, parasites, pests and diseases. A few non-indigenous species have been deliberately introduced into the marine environment for aquaculture. Interbreeding from escaped salmonids can also affect the genetics of wild stocks. Risks Related to Increased Human Activities Offshore Changes in benthic communities have been identified over areas surrounding established oil and gas production platforms, with a consequent reduction in species diversity. The impacts are mainly associated with past disposal of contaminated drilling muds. According to the Marine Strategy, biological changes have been identified up to three kilometres from such installations. Offshore wind farms may also pose a threat, particularly to migratory birds.


Page A-9

A3. OPTIONS

A3.1 Possible Options

There are three main options available to the UK in relation to the three objectives of the EU Marine Strategy on the loss of biodiversity and the destruction of habitats. These are: • Option 1: proceed with existing commitments. This option forms part of the

baseline for comparison of the other options; • Option 2: extend current commitments to comply with actions set out in the

Communication; or • Option 3: extend current commitments to comply with actions set out in the

Communication, in addition to any gaps left by these actions towards achieving the objectives of the EU Marine Strategy.

The measures that would need to be put in place under each of these options are summarised in Table A3.1.


Page A-10

Table A3.1: Measures Required Under the Options Objective Option 1: Measures Already Underway Option 2: Measures to Deliver the Actions in the

Marine Strategy Option 3: Additional Measures to Address any Gaps to Deliver the Objectives

1. Halt biodiversity decline by 2010

Implementation of UK Biodiversity Action Plan and other commitments under the CBD

None specified in the Marine Strategy Could require additional action in existing BAPs, development of new BAPs for offshore habitats. If the date of 2010 for meeting this objective became a legal target rather than an aspirational objective, this could require significant additional action (if achievable).

2. Ensure sustainable use of biodiversity

Implementation of Offshore Marine Conservation Regulations; Implementation of IMO Convention on Ballast Water

Action 1:UK is already committed to an ecosystem-based approach; no direct UK action other than review of EU proposals for an ecosystem-based approach. Action 2: largely delivered through Offshore Marine Conservation Regulations; some additional sites may be required if the Habitats and Birds Directives are extended beyond 12 nautical miles. Action 4: Implementation of IMO Convention will require additional action, but this would be likely to proceed in the absence of the Marine Strategy. Action may be required to extend the requirement for site-specific containment and contingency plans to aquaculture facilities outside Scotland.

The objective references to ‘restoring marine ecosystems’, ‘re-establishing certain trophic levels’ and preventing, rather than limiting, the introduction of new, non-indigenous species could entail significant additional measures, although there are considerable doubts as to their feasibility. Restoring marine ecosystems and re-establishing trophic levels could require measures such as further reductions in fishing or additional management measures. Preventing the introduction of non-indigenous species could impose severe limitations on shipping and/or scraping the hulls of vessels before each voyage.

3. Sustainable fisheries

Continued implementation of Common Fisheries Policy and Community Action Plan and other international agreements

Action will be met through full implementation of the Common Fisheries Policy restrictions

No additional actions envisaged.


Page A-11

A3.2 Risks Associated with the Options A3.2.1 Option 1

Option 1: Existing Commitments The risk associated with this Option is that existing commitments will not prove adequate to prevent further loss of biodiversity and destruction of habitats in the marine environment. The measures already being implemented in the UK should make a contribution to slowing biodiversity decline, protecting and conserving natural habitats and (through the Common Fisheries Policy) and ending unsustainable fishing. However, the impact of these measures on biodiversity and habitat destruction is not clear. In the absence of an EU Marine Strategy, there is also a risk that lack of co-ordination between existing measures relating to marine biodiversity and habitat loss could lead to gaps and overlaps, potentially entailing additional costs for the UK.

A3.2.2 Option 2

The risk associated with this option is that the actions set out in the Marine Strategy could impose additional costs for the UK whilst failing to meet the objectives of the Marine Strategy. In practice, the additional measures required by the Marine Strategy, compared to the actions being undertaken under Option 1, are limited.

A3.2.3 Option 3

The risk associated with this option is that the measures required to achieve the objectives of the Marine Strategy in full will entail significant additional costs for the UK and, even if extensive further measures are adopted, may not be achievable. For example: • halting biodiversity decline by 2010 is likely to be unachievable, even with a

significant reduction in human activities affecting biodiversity in the marine environment;

• restoration of marine ecosystems may not be feasible; for example, despite a cessation of fishing on the Grand Banks off Canada for some years, recovery of the cod stocks has been very limited; and

• prevention of human-induced introduction of non-indigenous species would require preventing the translocation of organisms in ballast water and on ships’ hulls and the prevention of introductions via aquaculture.


Page A-12

A4. BENEFITS A4.1 Introduction

Little information is available to provide a basis for assessing the benefits associated with achieving the objectives set out in the Marine Strategy in relation to loss of biodiversity and destruction of habitats. The Strategy notes that data on the actual environmental impacts that have resulted from pressures on the marine environment. The benefits that would result from ameliorating those pressures are therefore hard to quantify.

A4.2 Option 1 A4.2.1 Objective 1: Halting Biodiversity Decline

Benefits in relation to this objective under Option 1 would arise from implementation of the current UK BAP, together with a wide range of other ongoing statutory and non-statutory environmental protection initiatives. The overall objective of the UKBAP is “to conserve and enhance biological diversity within the UK and to contribute to the conservation of global biodiversity”. No timescale is set for meeting this objective. The UKBAP identifies a range of potential benefits arising from achieving this objective, including: • protection of resources that have a current economic value, as well as those that may

have such a value in future; • the greater resilience of diverse ecosystems against stresses and perturbations, such

as climate change; • prevention of irreversible losses of species when we have insufficient knowledge of

ecosystems to be certain of the impacts of removing any component; • the contribution of species and ecosystems to natural functions such as water control

and soil erosion; and • moral and aesthetic benefits from the existence of biodiversity as well as the ability

to pass the benefits on to future generation.

The benefits of the UKBAP have not been quantified; it is clear, though, that meeting the objective of the UKBAP could have substantial benefits. Nevertheless, there are some questions over the ability of the UKBAP to meet its objective, especially in the marine environment, where our state of knowledge of conservation is considerably behind that for onshore habitats. If the objective is not achieved, the benefits will be consequently reduced.

A4.2.2 Objective 2: Ensuring Sustainable Use of Biodiversity

Option 1 would generate benefits in ensuring sustainable use of biodiversity through achieving the objectives of the UK Marine Strategy and the IMO Convention. The UK Marine Strategy’s vision is to achieve:


Page A-13

“clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically-diverse oceans and seas” The aim of the UK Strategy is to have made “a real difference” in achieving this vision within one generation, through conserving and, where possible, enhancing and restoring biodiversity. The benefits associated with meeting this aim are identified in the UK Marine Strategy as including: • protecting the diversity and productivity of the waters around the UK. Over half of

the UK’s total biodiversity may be found in the seas and new species and habitats are still being discovered;

• maintaining the ability of the oceans and seas to provide food from fishing and

aquaculture and opportunities to exploit resources such as wind power and under-seabed minerals and energy supplies;

• ensuring that the condition of the oceans and seas is sufficient to support the health

of the large numbers of people that live in proximity to it; and • protecting the value of marine-related activities in the UK, including fishing, tourism

and offshore oil and gas extraction that have been estimated to contribute 3-4% of GDP and directly employ around 423,000 people.

Achieving the aim of the UK Marine Strategy would thus have significant benefits, both environmental and economic.

The benefits of implementing the IMO Convention were described in the Partial RIA prepared by Defra as ‘high’. The RIA concludes that:

“The overall benefit will be the control and management of ships ballast water on an international scale and the marine environment will have global protection. It will also benefit the protection of UK waters and on a wider scale the North Sea. The ecological and environmental benefits will be high, as the Convention will greatly reduce the problem of transporting alien species.”


The benefits for sustainable fisheries under Option 1 would arise from implementation of the revisions to the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The objective of the revision is to achieve sustainable fisheries and prevent irreversible decline in important stocks. If the objective was achieved, this could have substantial environmental and economic benefits. For example, the annual value of UK fisheries has been estimated at around £550 million, but could fall significantly if stocks continue to decline. Reversing the decline in stocks could help to maintain the value of UK fisheries at or near current levels.


Page A-14

Some concern has been expressed, however, at the ability of the revised CFP to meet its objective and therefore to generate such benefits. For example, the House of Lords Select Committee on the EU concluded, in May 2003, that:

“The Committee has no confidence that the new basic CFP regulation …despite some positive features, will meet the objectives of sustainable fisheries and prevent irreversible decline in stocks unless it is substantially improved.”

Implementation of the EU Regulation on cetacean by-catch and the various commitments under ASCOBANS and FAO Code of Conduct will assist in reducing the by-catch impacts of fisheries.

A4.3 Option 2 A4.3.1 Objective 1: Halting Biodiversity Decline

There would be no additional benefits for this objective under Option 2, as no additional action is envisaged.

A4.3.2 Objective 2: Sustainable Use of Biodiversity

Additional benefits for this objective under Option 2 could arise from: • EU-wide application of an ecosystem approach to biodiversity, such as that already

applied in the UK; • extension of the Habitats and Birds Directives beyond the 12 nautical miles zone;

and • extending the requirements for aquaculture containment plans outside Scotland.

The UK already applies an ecosystem approach under the UK Marine Strategy. EU proposals for such an approach, required under Action 1 of the Marine Strategy, could ensure that a similar approach is adopted throughout the EU. This could improve consistency in measures to ensure sustainable use of biodiversity. Extension of the Habitats and Birds Directive to include Exclusive Economic Zones could bring benefits in terms of improved protection of marine habitats and species. However, these benefits will only be realised in the UK if they result in additional action beyond that envisaged by the Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 2003, which establish offshore protected sites in the marine environment between 12 and 200 nautical miles offshore. Currently, statutory measures to prevent escapes of farmed fish from aquaculture apply only to new fish farms in Scotland. Voluntary measures, in the form of industry codes of practice, also apply to 90% of existing fish farms in Scotland. Additional benefits, in the form of fewer escapes (and less consequent damage to the genetics of wild fish), would arise if the Marine Strategy resulted in the application of such measures to the remaining


Page A-15

10% of Scottish fish farms and to the single fish farm in Northern Ireland. The benefits are likely to be limited, though, as industry sources indicate that all fish farms operate similar measures to limit escapes.


There would be no additional benefits for this objective under Option 2, as no additional action is envisaged.

A4.4 Option 3

A4.4.1 Objective 1: Halting Biodiversity Decline

Unlike the UKBAP, the Marine Strategy sets a date for achieving a halt in biodiversity decline, of 2010. If this became a firm target, it would bring forward the benefits associated with the UKBAP so that they were realised over a much shorter timescale. However, this would not result in an overall increase in benefits. The overall benefits of Option 3 could potentially be increased compared to Option 1, however, if the requirement to ‘halt biodiversity decline’ was interpreted as more stringent than the UKBAP objective to ‘conserve and enhance’ biodiversity. In practice, it is unlikely that an absolute cessation in biodiversity decline, under all circumstances, in the marine environment could be achieved. However, it would be possible to put in place more conservation-oriented measures such as the designation of Marine Protected Areas and further controls on fishing activity to minimise impacts on habitats and non-target species. This could assist in further reducing biodiversity decline.

A4.4.2 Objective 2: Sustainable Use of Biodiversity

Additional benefits could be generated under Option 3 for this objective from: • meeting the objective requirements to ‘restoring marine ecosystems’ and ‘re-

establishing certain trophic levels’; and from • ‘preventing’ rather than limiting the introduction of non-indigenous species.

As noted above, the UKBAP has the objective of enhancing, as well as conserving biodiversity. However, neither it nor the UK Marine Strategy refer directly to restoration of ecosystems or of trophic levels. If restoration could be achieved, there could be additional benefits compared simply to conserving current levels of biodiversity. However, there are severe doubts as to whether such an objective could be achieved in practice, and thus the benefits are highly uncertain. Nevertheless, it would be possible to take measures along the lines of those suggested for halting biodiversity decline under this option. Preventing the introduction of non-indigenous species would provide additional benefits compared to the benefits under Options 1 and 2 of limiting releases. Again, however,


Page A-16

there are severe doubts as to whether such an objective could be achieved and, therefore, great uncertainty over the benefits.


There would be no additional benefits for this objective under Option 2, as no additional action is envisaged by the Marine Strategy.

A4.5 Business Sectors Affected

The main business sectors affected by the Options are fisheries, aquaculture and shipping, which are the main users of the marine environment and would be most directly affected by the measures taken under the Options. There could also be impacts on other offshore activities that give rise to loss of biodiversity and damage to habitats in the marine environment, including offshore energy facilities.

A4.6 Issues of Equity and Fairness

Potential issues of equity and fairness could arise in relation to the distribution of costs and benefits from measures to meet the Marine Strategy objectives in relation to loss of biodiversity and destruction of habitats. The most significant costs associated with the measures are likely to be faced by the fisheries and shipping sectors, with some costs also accruing to other offshore activities. However, whilst fisheries could benefit significantly from the impact of the measures on the sustainability of fishing (although there may be time lags between the costs being incurred and the benefits realised), there are likely to be few benefits for shipping. Instead, wider benefits will accrue to the public at large and to future generations.

A4.7 Summary of Benefits Table A4.1 summarises the benefits arising under each of the Options.


Page A-17

Table A4.1: Summary of Benefits Objective Benefits of Option 1 Benefits of Option 2 Benefits of Option 3 1. Halting biodiversity decline

Conservation and enhancement of biological diversity within the UK

No additional benefits Benefits brought forward to 2010 from unspecified future date; additional benefits possible but highly uncertain

2. Sustainable use of biodiversity

Clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically-diverse oceans and seas; ‘great reduction’ of the problem of transporting non-native species

Possible additional benefits but high degree of uncertainty

Potential additional benefits but high degree of uncertainty

3. Sustainable Fisheries Sustainable fisheries and the prevention of irreversible decline. Benefits could approach £550 million/yr if the current value of UK fisheries was maintained

No additional benefits No additional benefits


Page A-18

A5. COSTS A5.1 Compliance Costs A5.1.1 Option 1

Objective 1: Halting Biodiversity Decline The costs of Option 1 in relation to this objective comprise the costs required to implement the UKBAP in the marine environment. Data are available from the UK Biodiversity Group on the average annual costs for the 17 marine and coastal Habitat Action Plans. These are summarised in Table A5.1. It should be noted that costs are indicative only, and are based on the generic costs of work required to implement the actions of the HAPs/SAPs and estimations and assumptions provided by the authors of the HAPs/SAPs and habitat specialists.

Table A5.1: Summary of Total Average Annual Costs for 17 Marine and Coastal Habitat Action Plans (HAPs) Habitat Total Average Annual Cost (£/yr) First 5 years to

2003/2004 Next 10 years to 2013/2014

Marine 616,000 179,000 Coastal 1,333,000 2,410,000 Total Average Annual Cost (£/yr) 1,949,000 2,589,000 Source: UK Biodiversity Group Tranche 2 Action Plans: Cost Estimates-Maritime Habitats

Table A5.2 illustrates the additional costs of current marine SAPs based on seven species groups (a total of 16 species).

Table A5.2: Summary of Estimated Additional Costs of Species Action Plans (SAPs) Total Average Annual Cost (£/yr)

Species Group First 5 years to 2003/2004

Next 10 years to 2013/2014

Mammals 1,509,000 1,284,000 Reptiles 173,000 76,000 Fish 1,137,000 1,107,000 Molluscs 175,500 170,900 Sea Anemones 41,500 3,900 Coral 86,200 42,200 Algae 58,000 9,300 Total Average Annual Cost (£/yr) 3,180,000 2,693,000 Source: UK Biodiversity Group Tranche 2 Action Plans: Maritime Species and Habitats

The overall annual cost of implementing the UKBAP in the marine environment can therefore be estimated at just over £5 million per year.


Page A-19

Objective 2: Sustainable use of Biodiversity Option 1 costs to achieve this objective comprise the costs of implementing the Offshore Marine Conservation Regulations and the IMO Convention on Ballast Water. To implement the Offshore Marine Conservation Regulations, an initial estimate of seven additional sites (SPAs and SACs) have been identified, each necessitating HAPs. Based on the costs outlined in Tables A5.1 and A5.2, the average cost of a marine HAP can be estimated at £35,000/yr. The costs of implementation are thus likely to be in the region of £245,000/yr (for all seven additional sites). Limited information on the costs of compliance with the IMO Convention on Ballast Water is given in the RIA. This is because technology to treat ballast water is still being researched and developed and it will be many years before they are proven and fitted to vessels. The RIA provides indicative costs for different types of treatment; these are summarised in Table A5.3. Table A5.3: Indicative Costs of Ballast Treatment Systems System Type Installation Costs Operating Costs Mechanical and gas-based $100,000 to $3 million $0.01-0.07/m3 Heat and electro-based $330,000 to $40 million N/a Chemical based Not known $0.2-0.3/ m3

Costs may also be incurred in providing sediment reception facilities at ports. This cost is unlikely to be significant, as such facilities will only be required where cleaning or repair of ballast water tanks takes place and the volumes of sludge are likely to be relatively limited. It is likely that such wastes can be collected by tanker and disposed of either at appropriate sewage treatment works or to landfill. Objective 3: Sustainable Fisheries The revisions to the CFP currently envisage a reduction in fishing activities of around 8.5%. If this is equivalent to 8.5% of the current value of UK fisheries (estimated at around £550 million/year), this could imply annual compliance costs of nearly £47 million per year. In addition to these economic costs, there may be social costs associated with reduced earnings in fishing and activities that depend upon it, and increased unemployment in fishing locations. The costs could be particularly high for Scotland, where the majority of the UK’s fishing activities are located.

A5.1.2 Option 2 Objective 1: Halting Biodiversity Decline

No additional costs would be incurred in relation to this objective under Option 2, as no additional action is envisaged.


Page A-20

Objective 2: Sustainable Use of Biodiversity Additional costs, compared with Option 1, could arise if Option 2 resulted in designation of additional sites under the Habitats and Birds Directives and if containment plans for aquaculture were required outside Scotland. Option 3 of the RIA on the Offshore Marine Conservation Regulations 2003 evaluates the impacts of transposing the Habitats and Birds Directives to the UK Continental Shelf and the superjacent waters, up to a limit of 200 nautical miles from the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured. Potential costs incurred by the UK through the implementation of this option are illustrated in table A5.4; they amount to £5.79 million/year compliance costs plus £540,000 per year enforcement costs. They are based on the assumption that 15 additional sites would need to be designated, indicating an average annual cost of around £422,000 per site. These costs provide an indication of the potential costs of extension of the Habitats and Birds Directives; the actual costs would depend upon the number of additional sites required in practice.

Table A5.4: Potential Costs of Extension to the Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 2003

Cost Identification Annualised Cost (£ pa) a

Cost for Additional Measures b 100,000 Monitoring Costs c 690,000 Revocation of Licence Costs d 5,000,000 Enforcement Costs e 540,000 Total 6,330,000 Notes: a) All figures annualised over a 5 year period b) Figures based on identification of 15 extra sites c) Based on indicative costs for the work carried out by JNCC on an EU LIFE project on management, surveillance and monitoring 12 marine SACs d) Based on annualised cost of compensation given to Devon County Council and assuming that costs will apply for five councils e) Enforcement costs based on £ 6,100 per day for 20 ship days 4 times a year, plus £1,500 per day for 10 aircraft days 4 times a year

Limits on escapes of fish from aquaculture in Scotland are currently provided by both statutory and voluntary measures. The Scottish Executive has a policy that all planning applications for new fish farms specifically address containment issues. For existing fish farms, industry associations (which represent 90% of farms) have voluntary codes of practice to limit escapes. The Scottish Framework on Aquaculture is examining the issue of escapes further but has not yet produced concrete proposals on more specific containment measures. Costs associated with Option 2 in relation to escapes from fish farms could therefore include: • extension of measures contained in codes of practice to fish farms in Scotland not

affiliated to the industry associations and to the single fish farm currently operating in Northern Ireland. These costs are unlikely to be significant, as the Associations have indicated that non-affiliated fish farms already operate similar measures to limit escapes; and


Page A-21

• introduction of more stringent measures to limit escapes, arising from research being carried out under the Scottish Framework on Aquacullture. As this research is not yet complete, it is not possible to identify what, if any, additional costs would be associated with these measures.

Objective 3: Sustainable Fisheries

No additional costs would be incurred in relation to this objective under Option 2, as no additional action is envisaged.

A5.1.3 Option 3 Objective 1: Halting Biodiversity Decline Making the objective of halting biodiversity decline by 2010 a firm target could require a range of measures to be adopted, including: • additional measures in current marine and coastal BAPs; • development of new HAPs for offshore habitats; and • bringing forward expenditure envisaged under the current BAPs for marine and

coastal habitats so that the action plans were completed by 2010. This would not entail additional expenditure, but would result in an increased annual cost over a shorter period of time.

Measures to improve the sustainability of fishing (discussed further below) could also assist in meeting the objective in relation to biodiversity decline.

The costs of such measures cannot be estimated accurately at this stage; they would depend upon the exact nature and extent of action required. However, Table A5.5 provides indicative costs for certain types of measures, based on broad assumptions about the type of action that might be needed. These costs could be a considerable under-estimate of actual costs that would be incurred under this Option.

Table A5.5: Indicative Costs for Certain Measures that may be Required under Option 3 Measure Approximate Annual Cost Comments Double activity in current marine and coastal HAPs

£5,178,000 Based on doubling of expenditure envisaged for existing marine and coastal HAPs post-2004 (Table A5.1)

Double activity on current SAPs £5,386,000 Based on doubling of expenditure envisaged for existing marine SAPs post-2004 (Table A5.2)

Designation of new sites for offshore habitats

£12,660,000 Based on doubling of the number of extra sites required for extension of the Habitats and Birds Directives to 200 nautical miles (Table A5.4)


Page A-22

Objective 2: Sustainable use of Biodiversity

Significant additional costs could be generated under Option 3 for this objective from: • meeting the objective requirements for ‘restoring marine ecosystems’ and ‘re-

establishing certain trophic levels’. This could include similar measures to objective 1 above; and

• ‘preventing’ rather than limiting the introduction of non-indigenous species. Restoring marine ecosystems and re-establishing trophic levels would be likely to require measures such as further reductions in fishing, management plans and technical conservation measures and/or restoration of nursery areas in estuaries and inshore waters. It is not clear what level of reduction in fisheries activities would be required to restore marine ecosystems. English Nature, in its comments on the proposed changes to the CFP, has indicated that a 60% reduction in activity might be required simply to restore fish stocks to a sustainable level. Assuming that this would result in a 60% reduction in the value of UK fisheries, this could imply costs of £330 million per year at current values. The IEEP2 has made a number of recommendations on further reforms that might be needed. These include both management plans and technical conservation measures, and are outlined in Table A5.6. These recommendations have not been costed, but they are likely to be less costly than a total cessation of fishing, with a resulting loss of revenue of around $550 million per year and significant associated social costs. Preventing, rather than limiting, the introduction of non-indigenous species via shipping could require a range of actions, including: • banning the use of ballast water exchange as a means of achieving the performance

standard in the IMO Convention. This would require the wide-scale use of ballast treatment systems, the costs of which are set out in Table 5.3;

• more frequent inspection of ships hulls to detect and remove any fouling organisms;

this would imply increased inspection and maintenance costs, together with potential for losses of revenue due to a need to spend increased time in port. (There is some potential for conflict here between this Objective and the objectives of the Marine Strategy in relation to hazardous substances, which includes limitations on the use of harmful antifoulants); and

• redesign of ballast water intakes, as these currently can provide sheltered refuges for

non-indigenous species and are believed to constitute a significant source of new introductions. The cost of this is unknown; such changes could be incorporated into the design of new ships, probably with limited additional costs, but changing the intakes on existing ships is likely to be considerably more costly, if feasible.

2 A Shadow Action Plan for Biodiversity in Fisheries. Institute for European Environmental Policy, 2000.


Page A-23

Table A5.6: Potential Measures to Reduce the Impacts of Fishing on the Marine Environment Management Plans • The use or strengthening of property rights, possible including transferable quotas where these are

accompanied by clear environmental conditions and social conditions to avoid undesired concentration of capital;

• Restrictions on fishing capacity and effort, by setting capacity limits and restricted licensing; • Conditions on fishing, such as prohibitions on gear use, closed areas, as well as other technical

conservation measures; • Minimum standards, e.g. requirements to apply Best Available Technology or to comply with good

fisheries practices; • Economic instruments, including reform of subsidies, such as fuel tax exemptions, taxes or charges to

‘internalise’ the external environmental costs of fishing and to discourage less desirable practices; • Positive financial and other incentives to support sensitive fishing practices and to provide support for

diversification within and out of the sector; • Marketing provisions, including minimum sizes, labelling and certification measures to support the

adoption of new rules; and • Communication, education, consultation and/or co-management arrangements to improve fishing

methods and increase the effectiveness of ecosystem management, involving policy makers, NGO’s, the fishing industry, the scientific community and the wider public.

Technical Conservation Measures • Raising minimum landing sizes; • Substantially increasing minimum mesh sizes; • Setting by-catch limits and the use of multi-species or basket quotas, in addition to single species

quotas; • Requirements concerning the use of more selective gear, to protect target and/or non-target species; • Restrictions on the overall size of gear or volume of nets as the materials used in nets; • Restrictions on the use of certain gear types, particularly to protect sensitive species and habitats; • More widespread use of area based restrictions on fishing, including closures to protect aggregations

of juvenile fish, spawning stocks, nursery grounds, non-target species and habitats; and • The development of a policy for developing TCMs within marine SACs and SPAs. Source: IEEP (2000) A Shadow Action Plan for Biodiversity in Fisheries. Institute for European Environmental Policy.

Preventing rather than limiting the escape of fish from marine farms would require much more stringent measures even to approach the objective. The kinds of measures that might be required would include the use of semi-rigid cages and doubling up on nets. A number of options have been suggested for reducing escapes further, for example use of steel cages, placing cages on the sea bed, submerged cages that could be refloated for harvesting etc. However, none of these ideas has been tested to see whether they would work or were cost-effective. The ultimate measure would be to move the industry onto land. All of these measures would have very significant capital costs associated with them and could reduce the international competitiveness of European–based farms, as fish farming is now a global industry.

A5.2 Other Costs

In addition to the compliance costs outline above, there would be administrative costs associated with implementation of the measures required under each of the Options. These are listed in Table A5.7.


Page A-24

Table A5.7: Administrative Costs Objective Costs of Option 1 Costs of Option 2 Costs of Option 3 1. Halting biodiversity decline

Ongoing administrative costs associated with UKBAP

No additional costs Increased administrative costs associated with doubling numbers of HAPs and SAPs and offshore sites

2. Sustainable use of biodiversity

Administrative costs associated with enforcement of Offshore Marine Conservation Regulations (estimated at £450,000 , assuming enforcement accounts for 8% of total costs). Enforcement costs for IMO convention (estimated at £43,000 per year)

Administrative costs associated with designation of additional sites under Habitats and Birds Directives (estimated at £540,000 per year); possible enforcement costs associated with tighter measures for control of escapes from fish farms

Enforcement costs associated with further reduction in fishing activities; administrative costs associated with support for diversification; additional enforcement costs associated with improved control of non-indigenous species on ships and tighter measures for control of escapes from fish farms

3. Sustainable fisheries

Additional enforcement and ‘observer’ costs for revised CFP

No additional costs No additional costs

A5.3 Costs for a ‘Typical’ Business It is difficult to identify a ‘typical’ business in the context of the options identified. The most ‘typical’ businesses would be: • a shipping operation: such an operation would only face potentially significant costs

under Option 3, associated with additional measures to control the introduction of non-indigenous species in ballast water and on hulls. The costs of such measures could be significant, but cannot be estimated with any accuracy;

• a sea fishing business: such businesses will face costs under Options 1 and 2 arising

from the revision of the CFP that is currently underway. The costs for a ‘typical’ fishing business will depend upon the location of the business, the type of fish caught and the way that restrictions are applied in practice. Under Option 3, such a business would face additional costs from a further reduction in fisheries to achieve the restoration of habitats and trophic levels. These costs will be highly dependent on the location and nature of the fishery operation; and

• a fish farm: fish farms face significant additional costs only under Option 3, in

relation to the prevention rather than limitation of fish escapes. The costs cannot be assessed in detail, but the industry considers that they could be significant and could affect the competitive position of the UK industry.


Page A-25

A5.4 Summary of Costs Table A5.8, overleaf, summarises the costs associated with each of the Options.


Page A-26

Table A5.8: Summary of Costs

Costs of Option 1 Costs of Option 2 Costs of Option 3 Objective Measure Annual Cost Measure Annual Cost1 Measure Annual Cost2

Compliance Costs 1. Halting biodiversity decline Implementation of UK BAP

(post 2004) for: 17 marine and coastal HAPs; 7 marine SAPs

£2,589,000 £2,693,000

No additional actions £0 Doubling activity at current HAPs Doubling activity at current SAPs 30 additional Birds and Habitats Directive sites

£5,178,000

£5,386,000

£12,600,000

2. Sustainable use of biodiversity Implementation of Offshore Marine Conservation Regulations: addition of 7 sites

£245,000 Extension of Habitats and Birds Directives offshore: 15 additional sites Extension of site-specific containment measures for fish

£5,790,000

Not known but unlikely to be

significant

60% reduction in fishing activity: loss of value Related social costs Fisheries management measures Preventing introduction of species by ships Preventing escapes from fish farms

£330,000,000

Unknown but very significant

Unknown; could be significant



3. Sustainable Fisheries Reduction of fishing activity by 8.5% resulting in commensurate loss of value

£47,000,000 No additional action £0 No additional action £0

Other costs 1. Halting biodiversity decline Enforcement of existing

UKBAP (assuming that enforcement accounts for 9% of total costs)

£450,000 No additional action £0 Doubling enforcement activity in current UKBAP sites

£900,000

2. Sustainable use of biodiversity Enforcement of IMO Convention on Ballast Water

£43,000 Enforcement for 15 additional Habitats and Birds Directive sites

£540,000 Additional enforcement in relation to ships and fish farms

Unknown

3. Sustainable fisheries Enforcement of revised CFP Unknown No additional action £0 No additional action £0


Page A-27

Table A5.8: Summary of Costs

Costs of Option 1 Costs of Option 2 Costs of Option 3 Objective Measure Annual Cost Measure Annual Cost1 Measure Annual Cost2

Compliance Costs Total quantified costs £53,020,000 +£6,330,000 +£354,064,000 Scale of unquantified costs Low Low High Notes: 1. Costs in addition to those in Option 1 2. Costs in addition to those in Options 1 and 2


Page A-28

A6. SMALL FIRMS IMPACT TEST

The most obvious types of ‘small firm’ that could be affected by the options identified in relation to loss of biodiversity and destruction of habitats under the Marine Strategy would be: • small fisheries businesses: these businesses could face significant costs from a

reduction in fishing activities; • small shipping businesses: these businesses could face costs from additional

measures to address the introduction of non-indigenous species; and. • small fish farms: could face additional costs to control fish escapes.

The scale of costs will depend upon the exact scope and form of additional measures required. Before any such measures were introduced, it is anticipated that there would be extensive consultation with both small firms and other shipping businesses.

A7. COMPETITION ASSESSMENT

Since many of the aspects of the detailed measures required to implement the Marine Strategy will only be determined some time into the future, it is not possible at this stage to identify any specific competition effects that might arise as a result of their implementation. However, it is possible to make some general statements on the types of competition effects that might be experienced, based on the ‘Competition Filter’ included in the draft revised Guidance on Regulatory Impact Assessment (Cabinet Office, 2002). Table A7.1: General Statements Based on ‘Competition Filter’ Q1: In the market(s) affected by the new regulation, does any firm have more than 10% market share? Q2: In the market(s) affected by the new regulation, does any firm have more than 20% market share? Q3: In the market(s) affected by the new regulation, do the largest three firms together have at least 50% market share? This seems unlikely, given the nature of the sectors affected by the Options Q4: Would the costs of the regulation affect some firms substantially more than others? This is possible in some cases. For example, certain fisheries businesses may be more affected than others by reductions in fishing activities to restore ecosystems. Q5: Is the regulation likely to affect the market structure, changing the number or size of firms? Restrictions on the fishing industry could result in structural changes. Q6: Would the regulation lead to higher set-up costs for new or potential firms that existing firms do not have to meet? It is unlikely that any actions resulting from the various objectives would lead to higher set-up costs for new companies. Q7: Would the regulation lead to higher ongoing costs for new or potential firms that existing firms do not have to meet? It is unlikely that any actions resulting from the various objectives would lead to higher ongoing costs for new companies. Q8: Is the sector characterised by rapid technological change? The sectors affected are not generally characterised by rapid technological change


Page A-29

Table A7.1: General Statements Based on ‘Competition Filter’ Q9: Would the regulation restrict the ability of firms to choose the price, quality, range or location of their products? This is possible, given the potential impacts on fisheries and on fish farming under certain options.

Based on the above, it appears that there is the potential for competition effects. However, such impacts would arise only from the adoption of particular measures. These measures will only be developed once the initial monitoring and assessment of groundwater bodies has been completed. There would be an opportunity for further analysis of the competition impacts of specific measures at a later stage.

A8. ENFORCEMENT AND SANCTIONS

Most of the regulations that would be used to implement the measures required by the Proposal already exist in the UK.

Some additional regulations could be required to ensure full implementation of the EU Marine Strategy, most notably in relation to Option 3. These could include additional regulatory powers over fish farms, shipping and fisheries.


Page A-30


ANNEX B

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES

Annex B: Hazardous Substances


Page B-1

B1. INTRODUCTION The Marine Strategy identifies discharges of hazardous substances as an issue of continued concern. The Marine Strategy notes that, although there is already a large regulatory effort to control discharges, emissions and losses of substances hazardous to the marine environment, they continue to be detected, sometimes at dangerous levels. A number of regional and international conventions are in place relating to discharges of hazardous substances. The Marine Strategy notes that there is a large duplication of effort as well as confusion, given the divergent positions taken by the same countries in different fora. However, it also notes that recently there have been some efforts to coordinate the respective work programmes and work according to a common methodology.

B2. PURPOSE AND INTENDED EFFECT

B2.1 Objectives of Marine Strategy in Relation to Hazardous Substances The main aim of the Marine Strategy regarding hazardous substances is set out in objective 4:

“to progressively reduce discharges, emissions and losses of substances hazardous to the marine environment with the ultimate aim to reach concentrations of such substances in the marine environment near background values for naturally occurring substances and close to zero for manmade synthetic substances.”

The Marine Strategy defines four actions aimed at achieving this objective. The actions are presented in Table B2.1. The Marine Strategy notes that, due to the existing gaps in knowledge, it is not feasible to indicate a complete or precise set of actions to reach the objectives. These actions should then be seen as a proposition for further discussion.

Table B2.1: Actions Set Out in the EU Marine Strategy to Achieve Objective 4 on Hazardous Substances Action 5 The Commission will actively pursue the implementation of the objectives set in the

Water Framework Directive. Action 6 It will also aim to integrate these objectives into Community policies regarding

chemicals and pesticides and other relevant policies so as to achieve a progressive reduction of discharges, emissions and losses of these substances from all land and sea-based sources and sectors with the ultimate aim of halting these.

Action 7

In the context of its implementation of its strategy with regard to Dioxins, Furans and PCBs, the Commission will consider the development of an integrated pilot programme for monitoring of dioxins in the environment and in food in relation to human health in the Baltic area.

Action 8 The Commission will, in 2002, make proposals for the implementation of the IMO Convention on Harmful Antifoulants and will, in 2005, consider the need for possible further action.

Notes: Numbers represent the action number in the EU Marine Strategy text


Page B-2

The majority of the work needed to put these actions into practice is already under way or will be carried out by the Commission itself: • the UK is already committed to implementation of the Water Framework Directive

(WFD) and its objectives; • horizontal policy integration is an ongoing part of European Union development; • the Commission is already developing the Baltic Pilot Project on hazardous

substances; and • Community legislation is already in place to control the marketing and use of

harmful antifoulants. Nonetheless, further EU legislation may be required to fully implement the IMO Convention on Harmful Antifoulants, with further action being required from the UK Government and other stakeholders.

B2.2 Background B2.2.1 The Water Framework Directive

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) 2000/60/EC establishes the framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters and groundwater. In relation to hazardous substances, the WFD aims at preventing or eliminating pollution of the marine environment by ceasing or phasing out discharges, emissions and losses of priority hazardous substances. Its ultimate aim is to achieve concentrations in the marine environment near background values for naturally occurring substances and close to zero for man-made synthetic substances. Article 16 of the WFD makes provision for: • identifying of a list of priority hazardous substances; • the adoption of controls for the progressive reduction of discharges, emissions and

losses of hazardous substances; and • the cessation or phasing out of discharges, emissions and losses of priority hazardous

substances in the next 20 years. Thirty-three substances have been identified as ‘priority substances’ (Decision 2455/2001/EC). Of these, 11 are identified as priority substances and 14 are subject to review for identification as possible priority hazardous substances (See Box B2.1). This replaced the List I of 129 ‘dangerous substances’ of the Dangerous Substances Directive 76/464/ EEC.


Page B-3

Box B2.1: List of WFD Priority Substances and Priority Hazardous Substances Priority Substances Potential Priority Hazardous

Substances Brominated diphenylether (only pentabromodiphenylether) Cadmium Chloroalkanes (C10-13) Hexachlorobenzene Hexachlorobutadiene HCH (lindane) Mercury Nonylphenols Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) Pentachlorobenzene Tributyltin compounds

Anthracene Atrazine Chlorpyrifos Di (ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) Diuron Endosulfan Isoproturon Lead Naphthalene Octylphenol Pentachlorophenol Simazine Trichlorobenzenes Trifluralin

A Daughter Directive to make operational the provisions of Article 16 of the Water Framework Directive is currently being prepared by the Commission. This will contain specific measures for the control of priority substances.

B2.2.2 Other Relevant EU Policies

The integration of WFD Objectives into EU Pesticides and Chemical Policies is dealt with in the Prologue paragraph number 21 of Decision 2455/2001/EC, which establishes a list of priority substances in the field of water policy. The EU Chemicals Policy In October 2003 the European Commission published a Proposal for a Regulation concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH). The proposed Regulation (COM2003)644 final) aims to improve protection of the environment and human health from risks posed by chemical substances, whilst maintaining the competitiveness of the chemical industry. The Regulation does not impose specific controls over discharges, emissions and losses of chemicals but provides a framework to ensure that adequate information is available about the potential risks associated with chemicals and that effective management of those risks. The main elements of the proposed Regulation are: • registration: industry must obtain relevant information on substances and use that

data to manage them safely; • evaluation of the data by the European Chemicals Agency will provide confidence

that industry is meeting its obligations; • risks associated with the use of substances with properties of very high concern will

be reviewed and, if they are adequately controlled or if the socio-economic benefits outweigh the risks and there are no suitable alternative substitute substances or technologies, then the uses will be authorised; and


Page B-4

• the restrictions procedure provides a safety net to manage risks that have not been adequately addressed by another part of the REACH system.

The UK published its own UK Strategy on Sustainable Production and Use of Chemicals in 1999. The UK Chemicals Strategy sets out policies to prevent commercially produced and used chemicals from harming the environment and (through environmental exposure) human health. The UK Chemicals Strategy has three goals: • make full information publicly available about the environmental risks of chemicals; • continue reduction of the risks presented by chemicals to the environment and

human health while maintaining the competitiveness of industry; and • phase out early those chemicals identified as representing an unacceptable risk to the

environment and human health. Under the UK Chemicals Strategy, a UK Chemicals Stakeholder Forum (CSF) was set up to promote a better understanding between stakeholders of the concerns which people have about chemicals in the environment. With the assistance of the Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances, the CFS has defined criteria for identifying chemicals that have intrinsic properties that give cause to concern about their potential damage to the environment and human health. These criteria are persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity (PBT). Using these criteria a list was drawn of those high production volume chemicals in use in the UK1. The Forum is examining some of these chemicals in more detail to see whether the risk they pose are adequately controlled. The presence of a chemical on this list does not mean that it is banned, or implies that it is going to be banned or restricted in the future. The list is intended to raise questions and invite input from stakeholders on more information about the chemicals and risk reduction measures that are already in practice. Since publication (June 2003) a number of chemicals have been taken off the list following challenges from industry, which has provided further information, or as a result of chemicals being removed from the EU list of PBT chemicals which did not meet the CSF criteria for concern. The status of chemicals on the list is subject to ongoing review and some further challenges have now been put forward by industry (ACHS, 2004). The EU Pesticides Policy The EU policy objective regarding pesticides is set out in the Sixth Environment Action Programme as:

1 The list of chemicals of concern includes 14 chemicals which meet the Forum highest concern criteria for

PBT, eight of which are also included in the OSPAR priority list of chemicals, and approximately 70 chemicals that meet the Forum’s criteria for vPvB. Of these, eight are also included in the OSPAR priority list of chemicals.


Page B-5

“Reducing the impacts of pesticides on human health and the environment and more generally to achieve a more sustainable use of pesticides as well as a significant overall reduction in risks and of the use of pesticides consistent with the necessary crop protection. Pesticides in use which are persistent or bio-accumulative or toxic or have other properties of concern should be substituted by less dangerous ones where possible”. There is to be a review of the EU legal framework for regulating the sale and use of pesticides in order to ensure a high level of protection. This may include comparative assessments and the development of Community authorisation procedures for placing on the market. There is also to be a thematic strategy on the sustainable use of pesticides. The thematic strategy will not be a single measure but rather a combination of existing EU legislation (including Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the Water Framework Directive); harmonisation of controls over the distribution and use of pesticides currently operated at national level; and specific new measures at Community level (for example, bans on pesticide use around certain sensitive sites and on the aerial application of pesticides). The current UK Government policy with regard to pesticides (as set out in the Pre Budget Report 2003, November 2003) is to minimise the adverse environmental impact of pesticide use, consistent with adequate crop protection. Since 1997, there have been several policy developments based on the need to reduce the adverse impacts of pesticides. Principal among these has been the debate on the relative merits of a tax and a voluntary approach. The Voluntary Initiative is operational until March 2006 with the objective of encouraging farmers to use pesticides more effectively and with greater awareness of the associated environmental impacts. The EU Strategy in relation to Dioxins, Furans and PCBs The main aim of the EU Strategy is to limit the presence of dioxins, furans and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the environment, to protect human health and the environment. The three major objectives are: • to assess the current state of the environment and ecosystems; • to reduce human exposure to these substances in the short term and to maintain them

at safe levels in the medium to long term; and • to reduce their environmental effects. The strategy also establishes a quantitative objective, namely to reduce the human intake levels of these substances to below a certain threshold. The recent UK Consultation Document on Dioxins and Dioxin-like PCBs in the UK Environment produced by Defra in 2002 (in Jones and Sweetman 2003) notes that measures already taken in the UK to reduce emissions of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs


Page B-6

have focussed on those processes (e.g. incineration) identified as producing the most emissions and therefore having the greatest impact. Any further measures will also have to focus on a wide range of smaller diffuse sources, which will be more difficult to control and possibly costly to implement. For measures addressing domestic or open burning issues substantial public support will be required. Nonetheless, the document confirms the Government’s position, stating that “it is clear that further action is required, at least until we have demonstrated additional reductions in exposure.”

B2.2.3 OSPAR Strategy for Hazardous Substances As part of the 2003 Strategies for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic, the OSPAR Commission revised its Strategy for Hazardous Substances (OSPAR, 2003). The objective of the OSPAR Strategy is to prevent pollution of the maritime area by continuously reducing discharges, emissions and losses of hazardous substances, with the ultimate aim of achieving concentrations in the marine environment near background values for naturally occurring substances and close to zero for man-made synthetic substances. The OSPAR Strategy entailed the identification of hazardous substances that are of the greatest concern, preparation of assessments of the main sources and pathways to the marine environment and the development and promotion of appropriate measures to achieve the 2020 cessation target for these substances. Around 30 substances for priority action have been identified so far (see Box B2.2) and individual contracting parties are taking forward work on specific substances. The UK is taking forward mercury, octylphenol and 2, 4, 6 tri-tert-butylphenol. Another key priority is to develop appropriate monitoring and assessment techniques to measure progress. OSPAR also publishes the List of Substances of Possible Concern. This list comprises substances selected on the basis of their intrinsic hazardous properties. As the work of OSPAR progresses, it is envisaged that the List of Chemicals for Priority Action will be further updated with substances from the List of Possible Concern in order that the objectives of the Strategy can be progressively met. The OSPAR list of Chemicals for Priority Action includes the majority of the substances on the WFD List of Priority Substances. It does not, however, include many of the substances listed under the WFD List of Potential Priority Hazardous Substances.


Page B-7

Box B2.2: OSPAR List of Chemicals for Priority Action 4-tert-butyltoluene cadmium lead and organic lead compounds mercury and organic mercury compounds organic tin compounds neodecanoic acid, ethenyl ester tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBP-A) hexachlorocyclopentadiene (HCCP) 1,2,3-trichlorobenzene 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene 1,3,5-trichlorobenzene brominated flame retardants polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (PCDDs) polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs) short chained chlorinated paraffins (SCCP)

4-(dimethylbutylamino)diphenylamin (6PPD) triphenyl phosphine hexamethyldisiloxane (HMDS) dicofol endosulphan hexachlorocyclohexane isomers (HCH) methoxychlor pentachlorophenol (PCP) trifluralin clotrimazole 2,4,6-tri-tert-butylphenol nonylphenol/ethoxylates (NP/NPEs) and related substances octylphenol certain phthalates: dibutylphthalate, diethylhexylphthalate polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) musk xylene

B2.2.4 The IMO Convention of Harmful Antifoulants The IMO International Convention on the Control of Harmful Antifouling Systems on Ships (IMO, 2001) was adopted in 2001. The Convention requires that: • by 1 January 2003 all ships shall not apply or reapply organotin compounds which

act as biocides in antifouling systems; • by 1 January 2008, ships either:

i) shall not bear such compounds on their hulls or external parts or surfaces; or ii) shall bear a coating that forms a barrier to such compounds leaching from the underlying non-compliant antifoulant systems.

The Convention essentially extends an existing ban on the use of organotins on vessels below 24m length to all vessels. The Convention has not yet been ratified by the required number of States (25) or tonnage (25%) for it to enter into force. There is scope to extend the requirements of the Convention to additional antifouling substances (AFS) besides organotins by including them in the relevant annex. However, the UK Marine Conservation Agency (MCA) has indicated that they are unaware of any plans in this regard. The Convention has been implemented in the EU through two separate pieces of legislation: • Directive 2002/62/EC on the restrictions on the marketing and use of organostannic

compounds; and • Regulation 782/2003 on the Prohibition of Organotin Compounds on Ships.


Page B-8

Neither of these instruments has yet been incorporated into UK law. The original text of Regulation 782/2003 implied a requirement for all EU flagged ships with existing TBT antifouling systems to have these products sealed off or removed at the first dry-docking after 1 July 2003. This goes beyond the requirements of the IMO Convention on Harmful Antifoulant Systems which requires such action to be taken only by 1 January 2008. As a result, the Commission as now issued a new document ‘TBT Regulation Consequences’, aligning its requirements with the IMO Convention ones. However, unlike the IMO Convention, Regulation 782/2003 does not make provision for the inclusion of AFS other than organotins.

B2.3 Risk Assessment

The risks that the proposed Marine Strategy intends to address relate to the pollution of the marine environment by hazardous substances. According to the European Environment Agency (EEA) (2003), no consistent use is made within existing European legislation of the terms ‘hazardous substances’, ‘dangerous substances’, ‘harmful substance’ and ‘priority substance’. The EEA uses the definition of ‘hazardous substances’ contained in the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC Article 2), i.e. substances or groups of substances that are toxic, persistent and liable to bio-accumulate; and other substances or groups of substances that give rise to an equivalent level of concern. HELCOM and OSPAR use the same definition for hazardous substances.

Exposure to excessive concentrations of hazardous substances can have significant effects on the marine ecosystems as well as in human health. Table B2.2 illustrates the effects of certain hazardous substances in the marine environment.

Table B2.2: The Effects of Certain Hazardous Substances on the Marine Environment Heavy Metals Cadmium The metal affects vital biological processes such as ion exchange, energy production and

protein synthesis mainly through interaction with the metabolism of essential trace metals such as zinc and calcium. In the marine ecosystems, some seabird species have been identified as possibly the most sensitive component through secondary poisoning (eating contaminated mussels).

Mercury It is considered one of the most dangerous metals in the aquatic environment due to its toxicity and potential for bio-accumulation and bio-magnification. In marine ecosystems, organisms on the top of the food chain, mainly seabirds and marine mammals have been identified has being most sensitive (through secondary poisoning).

Lead It can affect aquatic species at different levels but algae are particularly sensitive to it. In vertebrates lead concentrates in the bones and blood. Exposure to high concentration will cause decrease synthesis of haemoglobin and eventually anaemia.

Persistent Organic Contaminants DDT, Lindane and PCB

Have low water solubility, high lipophilicity and are resistant to biodegradation. These properties lead to uptake and accumulation in the fatty tissues of living organisms, in some instants causing bio-magnification through food chains. The higher concentrations of organic contaminants are therefore found in top predators, such as sea birds, marine mammals and polar bears.

Source: EEA, 2003


Page B-9

Different contaminants have reached the marine environment from anthropogenic sources through direct discharge to marine waters, or indirectly through rivers and run off from soil and atmospheric deposition (EEA, 2003). Direct input of contaminants arises as a consequence of municipal and industrial outfalls in coastal waters and from offshore activities and dumping. The major impacts of direct inputs are therefore likely to occur in coastal waters and especially in semi-enclosed areas and/or where water exchanges are low (OSPAR, 2000). Riverine inputs are made up of run-off from land and discharges into rivers and their tributaries and they are heavily dependent on river flow. Estuaries processes can also significantly modify the level of inputs into the marine environment (OSPAR, 2000). Atmospheric inputs are the dominant source for the marine environment of several substances including mercury, lead and Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). Trend data on all hazardous substances in the marine environment are not readily available. The European Environment Agency has recently issued a report on the causes, concentrations, trends and impacts of hazardous substances in the European marine environment (EEA, 2003). It focused primarily on six substances: cadmium, mercury, lead, lindane (listed in WFD), DDT and PCB (from the UN Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants), for which data was available for the assessment at European level. Other substances were not addressed because of the lack of data. The European Pollution Emission Register (EPER), which is currently being developed in connection with the IPPC Directive, will provide some data on a range of hazardous substances and their emissions in the future. Furthermore, the information required for identification of pressures in the WFD will cover a wider range of sources that the EPER (EEA, 2003).

B2.3.1 The Situation in the UK According to data available from the Environment Agency relating to contaminants at sea, most substances met their 1995 target reductions2. The Agency presents data for cadmium, mercury, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc, gamma HCH, ortho-phosphate and total nitrogen, for the period between 1990 and 2001. These reductions have been achieved through a combination of changes in industrial practices, the switch to unleaded petrol and restrictions on use of particular substances, such as PCBs. The Agency also provides data on the discharges to sea in England and Wales, from 1991 to 2001. For cadmium, cooper, mercury, lead, zinc, ortho-phosphate, lindane and PCB the riverine inputs are the major contributors (see Figure B2.1, overleaf).

2 The UK has signed up to the North Sea Conference and has further extended the scope of its targets to

include all UK coastal waters and not just those flowing directly into the North Sea. The 1995 targets refer to the reduction of: (a) the inputs of 36 dangerous substances to the North Sea from rivers, estuaries and direct discharges to 50% of 1985 levels by 1995; (b) reduction of total inputs of dioxins, mercury, cadmium and lead to 70% of 1985 levels by 1995; (c) reduction of inputs of nutrients to 50% of 1985 levels by 1995; (d) substantially reduce inputs of pesticides; and (e) phase out and destroy all identifiable PCBs by 1999.


Page B-10

According to the last Agency estuary quality survey (2000), approximately 70% of the estuaries in England and Wales have a good status, and 24% have a fair status. These results constitute the last survey before the WFD survey is initiated in 2006. According to data from the EEA (2003), the UK is a major contributor in the input of such substances into the North East Atlantic. The EEA Report on hazardous substances in the European marine environment states that the UK has also been a major player in the reduction of discharges of hazardous substances into the marine environment in this region.


Page B-11

Figure B2.1: Discharges at sea from England and Wales, 1991 to 2001.


Page B-12

B3. OPTIONS B3.1 Possible Options

There are three main options available to the UK in relation to the Marine Strategy proposals regarding Hazardous Substances. These are: • Option 1: proceed with existing commitments, including commitments under WFD

(Action 5). This option forms the baseline for comparison of the other options; • Option 2: extend current commitments to take account of actions 6, 7 and 8 as set

out in the Marine Strategy. Actions 6 and 7, integrating WFD objectives into the EU chemicals and pesticides policies and development of a pilot project in the Baltic Area, will be undertaken by the Commission. The UK contribution would be limited to providing input to and commenting on the review and on the Commission’s conclusions. Action 8, making proposals for the implementation of the IMO Convention and consider the need for possible further action, has already been undertaken by the Commission; and

• Option 3: extend current commitments to comply with both the actions set out in the

Marine Strategy and any additional actions needed to meet the objectives of the Marine Strategy. This could include both further actions (beyond action 8) to implement the IMO Convention as well as any actions needed beyond the WFD to meet the objective of reaching ‘near background values’ for naturally occurring substances and ‘close to zero’ for man-made synthetic hazardous substances in the marine environment.

The actions required by the UK to meet each of the Options are set out in Table B3.1.

Table B3.1: Actions required by the UK to Meet Each of the Regulatory Options Options Actions Comments

Existing commitments (e.g. Chemical and Pesticides Policies)

Already committed to this action, therefore no further action is required.

1 Continue with existing commitments Action 5 - actively pursue the

implementation of the objectives set in the WFD.

Already committed to this action, therefore no further action is required.

Action 6 - integrate WFD objectives into Community policies regarding chemicals and pesticides and other relevant policies.

Considered to be part of the ongoing development of EU policy; should not involve any additional measures from the UK.

Action 7 - development of an integrated pilot programme for monitoring of dioxins in the environment and in food in relation to human health in the Baltic area.

Action already fulfilled by the European Commission.

2 Extend current commitments to comply with Actions

Acton 8 - make proposals for the implementation of the IMO Convention on Harmful Antifoulants.

Action already carried out by the European Commission; no action required from the UK other than transposition of EU measures into UK law.


Page B-13

Table B3.1: Actions required by the UK to Meet Each of the Regulatory Options Options Actions Comments

Action 8 - in 2005, consider the need for possible further action (in relation to the IMO Convention on Harmful Antifoulants).

Action to be carried out by the European Commission (further EU legislation could be required to fully implement the convention, with consequent transposition to UK law).

3 Extend current commitments to comply with the Objective Any actions necessary to reach

concentrations of hazardous substances in the marine environment near background values for naturally occurring substances and close to zero for manmade synthetic substances necessary to achieve.

Potential for further measures in the UK to extend existing commitments, in particular if objective is to extend beyond the requirements of the WFD.

B3.2 Risk Associated With the Options

Option 1: Existing Commitments The risk associated with this Option is that existing commitments will not prove adequate to protect the marine environment from the effects of hazardous substances. Although trends show reduction in the majority of discharges into the marine environment, due to stronger discharge control measures, potentially harmful concentrations still remain. The WFD should significantly contribute to reduction of discharges, but since measures under the WFD are not yet in place, its outcome remains uncertain. Option 2: Comply with Actions Set Out in the Strategy The risks associated with Option 2 are that the actions set out in the Marine Strategy may pose excessive costs for the UK and/or that the actions may not achieve the objective for hazardous substances set out in the Marine Strategy. Actions 6 and 7 pose limited initial risk. Integration of the WFD objectives into other relevant Community policies can be considered part of the ongoing development of EU environmental policy and should not involve any additional costs (Action 6). Furthermore, integration of WFD objectives into the pesticides and chemical policies is dealt with in Decision 2455/2001/EC which establishes a list of priority substances in the field of water policy. Action 7 has already been undertaken by the Commission, in the form of the Baltic Pilot Project, and therefore poses no further risks. Action 8 may pose some additional costs for the UK in the short term, in connection with the implementation of Directive 2002/62/EC and Regulation 782/2003, which have not yet been transposed into UK law. If the Commission decides, in 2005, that further action is needed, this could impose additional costs. This is addressed under Option 3.


Page B-14

Option 3: Additional Actions to Meet the Objectives of the Strategy The risks associated with Option 3 are that additional measures to meet the objective of the Marine Strategy in relation to hazardous substances may impose excessive costs for the UK. There are two particular areas of concern: • that further measures will be required to fully implement the requirements of the

IMO Convention, for example provisions for the prohibition of other AFS in the future; and

• the definition of “substances hazardous to the marine environment” and the

interpretation of “near background values” and “close to zero”. If the interpretation of these terms goes beyond the requirements of the WFD, very significant additional costs could be incurred.


Page B-15

B4. BENEFITS

The focus of the Strategy is on protection of the marine environment. The main benefits expected from the measures on hazardous substances would therefore be a reduction of discharges, emissions and losses of these substances to the marine environment and of the related damage to the marine environment. The lack of a consistent definition of the term hazardous substances, together with the recognised lack of accurate data on both levels and trends of pollutants in the environment and on the impacts of these on the marine environment, makes the accurate estimation of the benefits of each option difficult.

B.4.1 Option 1

The benefits of Option 1, proceeding with existing commitments, are those arising from: • the future implementation of the WFD, in particular Article 16; • the current implementation of the UK chemical, pesticides, and other relevant

policies relevant to hazardous substances; • the future integration of the EU Chemical Strategy into the UK Strategy; and • the implementation by the UK of the revised OSPAR Strategy for Hazardous

Substances. The most direct and relevant benefits for the marine environment from Option 1 are those arising from the implementation of Article 16 of the WFD (action 5 of the EU Marine Strategy). The types of benefits that could be generated under Article 16 include environmental, human health and socio-economic benefits: • environmental benefits: preventing or eliminating pollution of the marine

environment by priority hazardous substances should lead to improvements in water quality and protection and enhancement of the aquatic and marine ecosystems and wildlife. The improvement of water quality should have direct ecosystem benefits for fisheries and shell-fisheries, the quality and diversity of the marine habitat, food supply for higher order species as well as indirect ecosystem benefits such as diversity of shoreline vegetation and aquatic life;

• human health benefits: the health benefits from reduction of discharges of

hazardous substances have been calculated in the past. However, these estimates are usually related not to marine pollution, but to the effects of land-based activities on the human population; and

• socio-economic benefits: may include the improvement of fisheries and shell-

fisheries stocks and consequent increased output of the fisheries sector; improvements in the quality of the coastal waters attracting additional tourists and benefits to the wider population from improved recreational opportunities.


Page B-16

According to the RIA for a Priority List of Substances under Article 16 (Defra, nd), most of the substances in the Priority List are already controlled in the UK and the benefits of such control are already established. Any further benefits to be derived from additional controls will depend the precise level of control implemented through further transposing legislation. Until detailed proposals for action under Article 16 are published by the Commission, it is difficult to quantify these benefits. The Marine Strategy notes that, for a large number of chemicals, reliable data on the intrinsic properties as well as concentrations in the marine environment is either lacking or not easily accessible. There are no routine monitoring programmes for a large number of chemicals considered to be of possible concern to the marine environment. In addition, according to the revised OSPAR Strategy on Hazardous Substances (OSPAR, 2003), there is limited experience with the scientific assessment of the risk associated with hazardous substances in the marine environment. This is particularly in relation to the consequences of extremely large dilutions, low degradation rates and long term exposure of marine organisms. This fact alone makes the qualification and quantification of benefits difficult. According to the regulatory impact assessment carried out on the performance of the Chemical Stakeholder Forum (Defra, 2002e), there are no current estimates of the cost of the impact of chemicals on the environment or human health via the environment, and therefore no basis for costing the benefits of reducing such risks.

B4.2 Option 2 Additional benefits could arise from Option 2 if: • Action 5 helped to ensure that discharges to the marine environment were more

effectively addressed under the WFD; • Action 6 ensured effective integration of chemical and pesticide policies with

protection of the marine environment (with potential additional economic benefits from reducing inconsistencies and overlaps between different sectoral policies);

• the pilot programme for monitoring dioxins in the environment identified more effective measures to control these substances (Action 7); and

• the 2005 consideration of the need for further action on antifoulants identified outstanding problems and identified ways to address these (Action 8).

Additional benefits could arise from these actions if they resulted in more efficient implementation of existing and future measures.


Page B-17

B4.3 Option 3 Additional benefits arising from Option 3 would relate additional actions needed to meet the hazardous substances objective of the strategy.

The objective set out in the Marine Strategy is very similar to the objective under Article 16 of the Water Framework Directive. The potential differences arise from: • the definition of “substances hazardous to the marine environment”; if these are

limited to substances listed under the WFD, there would be no additional benefits compared to Option 1. If, however, they also include other hazardous substances (such as those included in the OSPAR and HELCOM list) then the additional benefits to the marine environment could be significant;

• the uncertainty surrounding the interpretations of “near background values” and

“close to zero”. If these expressions are interpreted in the same way as in the WFD, then no additional benefits would be gained under Option 3. However, if they are interpreted in a different way, the additional benefits would depend on whether the interpretations are more or less stringent. The former would naturally give rise to increased additional benefits.

Compared to Option 2, there could also be further benefits arising from additional measures to ensure the full implementation of the IMO Convention on harmful antifoulants systems. These could include the prevention of the negative effects of any harmful antifoulant system, other than those based on TBT, and resulting improvements to marine biodiversity.

B4.4 Business Sectors Affected The range of substances to which the objective and actions of the Marine Strategy refer is still uncertain. It is, therefore, difficult to identify precisely which business sectors will be affected by their implementation. However, the key industries likely to be affected by the implementation of the Water Framework Directive can be used as an indication of the business sectors affected by the EU Marine Strategy (RPA, 2003). The range of substances being controlled means that many different businesses sectors will be affected, including producers, formulators, users, end users and final disposers of the substances and their end products. In many cases the requirements may not have a major impact on the sectors affected. In other cases major changes to processes and products are likely to be required, in particular when the sector is affected by requirements in respect to more than one substance (Defra, nd ). It is anticipated that the business sectors affected will include:


Page B-18

• chemicals; • metals and mining; • textiles; • wood treatment and forestry; • PVC manufacture; • pesticide production and its use in farms; • pharmaceuticals; • industrial processes relying on the combustion of fossil fuels; • iron, steel and coal production; • offshore oil and gas; and • waste disposal and incineration sectors. It is likely that, of all these sectors, the chemical and pharmaceutical industries will be most affected by the implementation of the WFD (Defra, nd).

B4.5 Issues of Equity and Fairness

It is possible that eliminating the use of a substance might be the only effective means of achieving a cessation of discharges, emissions and losses of hazardous substances into the marine environment. This may be seen as unfair to those operators whose processes are well controlled and would not result in any significant release of the substance in question to the aquatic environment (Defra,nd). The same may apply if the requirements of the Marine Strategy were to be indirect control of emissions to air (for instance where such emissions were a demonstrable threat to water quality as a result of deposition). However, a cessation of discharges of priority hazardous substances, which were identified as a result of their properties of persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity, or other potentially harmful effects (e.g. endocrine disrupting properties), might be considered as equitable in that future generations would be protected from the risks posed by such substances, and their accumulation in the environment (Defra, nd).

B4.6 Summary of Benefits

The summary of the benefits arising from the different options is presented in Table B4.2 overleaf.


Page B-19

Table B4.2: Qualitative Summary of Benefits

Impact Option 1: Option 2: Additional Benefits

Option 3: Additional Benefits

Environmental

Improvements in water quality and protection and enhancement of the aquatic and marine ecosystems and wildlife.

Additional benefits could arise from more effective implementation of existing regulations.

Potentially significant, depending on interpretation of the objective.

Human Health

Difficult to determine, due to lack of data on health effects of hazardous substances in the marine environment.



Socio-economic

Improvement of fisheries and shellfisheries stocks and consequent improvement of the fisheries sector; benefits to the tourism sector from the improvement in the quality of the coastal waters and benefits to the wider population from improved recreational opportunities.




Page B-20

B5. COSTS B5.1 Compliance Costs

The proposed Marine Strategy will generate compliance costs for the measures required to reduce discharges, emissions and losses of hazardous substances. These costs will be borne by sectors that currently give rise to the discharges; these were listed in Section B4.4.

B5.1.1 Option 1

Option 1 would not incur additional costs beyond those already committed, as the UK’s regime would continue unchanged. The compliance costs to which the UK is already committed include those related to: • the future implementation of the WFD, in particular Article 16; • the current implementation of the UK chemical, pesticides, and other relevant

policies relevant to hazardous substances; • the future integration of the EU Chemical Strategy into the UK Strategy; and • the implementation by the UK of the revised OSPAR Strategy for Hazardous

Substances.

Other than the OSPAR Strategy, however, these measures are not limited to the marine environment but also address other environmental risks. Therefore, only a proportion of the costs of these measures should be allocated to Option 1. Unfortunately, data are not available to determine what this proportion should be. Article 16 of the WFD An RIA for WFD Article 16 Proposals, setting environmental quality standards (EQS) and maximum allowable concentrations (MAC) for 33 priority and priority hazardous substances, is currently being prepared by RPA. As the actions required to meet Article 16 of the WFD have not yet been defined by the Commission, there are considerable uncertainties associated with any estimate of costs. An initial assessment carried out by Defra (Defra, nd) indicates that the costs of compliance with Article 16 of the WFD could easily run to some £1 billion - £4 billion over 30 to 40 years. Work under development by RPA indicates that these estimates are likely to be revised downwards but cannot be determined with any certainty at this stage. Only a proportion of these costs relates to the marine environment.


Page B-21

EU Chemical Policy As a response to the publication of the European Commission proposals for a new regulation controlling the manufacture, use or import of chemicals into the EU a partial regulatory impact assessment was produced (Defra, 2004) to assess the impacts of the policy options in the UK in terms of costs, benefits and risks of these proposals. This Partial RIA indicates that the total estimated costs to UK industry of the REACH proposal over the 11-year phase-in period is £515,333,500 (central estimation). This value assumes that there is 85% rate of participation and that 21.5% of the costs to EU industry are incurred by the UK. The aim of REACH is to provide information on the properties of all chemicals; thus only a very small proportion of the total costs could be allocated to the marine environment. UK Chemical Policy An Initial RIA of the EU REACH Policy was prepared by RPA (2001), as a response to the publication of the White Paper on the EU Strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy. This Initial RIA also assessed the costs of the UK Chemicals Strategy3. According to RPA (2001), the best estimate of the present value additional costs (at 3.5% discount rate over 20 years) is £110 million. Again, only a very small proportion of these costs could be allocated to the marine environment. OSPAR Strategy on Hazardous Substances Estimates of the implementation costs of the OSPAR Strategy for the UK could not be identified during the literature research. However, the costs of implementing Article 16 of the WFD could be taken as an indication of the value of compliance with the OSPAR Strategy. The provisions in both the OSPAR strategy and WFD Article 16 are similar in nature and, therefore, can be assumed to result in comparable controlling measures with similar implementation costs for the UK. These assumptions would result in additional costs for Option 1 of £1 billion relating to the OSPAR Strategy. These costs would be incurred over a period of approximately 15 years, given the OSPAR target date of 2020. Unlike WFD Article 16, in theory all these costs could be attributed to the marine environment.

There is some overlap in substances (approximately 10) between OSPAR and Article 16 of the WFD. This may result in some duplication in the estimated costs of both measures. It should also be noted that not all of the substances on the OSPAR list are produced or used in the UK. In addition, some of the discharges of substances under the OSPAR list are already being addressed under the EU and UK Chemicals Strategies and other relevant policies, and the OSPAR Strategy may not, therefore, give rise to additional costs for these. Taking these factors into account, the additional cost of

3 Previously existing legislative process together with voluntary commitments made by the industry at the

time, excluding any commitments relating to the UK Chemical Strategy.


Page B-22

implementing the OSPAR Strategy for the UK could be reduced to approximately £133 million. Total Costs of Option 1 The total costs of Option 1 cannot be determined, because the proportion of costs of the WFD Article 16, REACH and the UK Chemicals Strategy that can be allocated to the marine environment is unknown. Nevertheless, the total costs of these measures give an upper bound to the costs of Option 1. Table B5.1 gives the equivalent total annual costs for each of these policy commitments.

Table B5.1: Annual Equivalent Cost for Components of Total Cost of Option 1 Original

discount rate (%)

Original Time period (years)

Net Present Value

(£ million)

Annual Equivalent

Cost (£ million)

Article 16 of the WFD1 3.5 15 1000 87 EU REACH1 3.5 11 405 45 UK Chemical Strategy1 3.5 20 110 9.6 OSPAR Strategy for Hazardous Substances 3.5 15 133 11.5

Total - - 89.8 153 1. Only a proportion of the costs of this measure can be attributed to the marine environment

B5.1.2 Option 2

Additional costs for Option 2 will include: • costs of integrating WFD objectives into Community policies regarding chemicals,

pesticides and other relevant policies (Action 6); • costs of development of the Baltic Pilot Project regarding dioxins in the environment

and food (Action 7); and • costs of implementation of the IMO Convention on Antifoulants Systems (AFS) at

European and National levels (Action 8).

The first two elements will not involve significant costs to the UK. They refer to actions that will be, or have already been, carried out by the European Commission. The third element, implementation of the IMO Convention on AFS, may incur some additional costs for the UK. The Convention has already been incorporated into European law through two separate pieces of legislation: • Directive 2002/62/EC, which effectively prevents the marketing and use of TBT-

based antifoulants; and • Regulation 782/2003 on the prohibition of organotin compounds on ships. However, neither of these instruments has yet been adopted into UK law.


Page B-23

Antifouling coatings are required to prevent the growth and transport of barnacles and other such filter feeders on the hulls of many vessels. Without such protection, ships can gather as much as 150 kilograms per square meter of material in less than six months at sea (ORTEPA, 2004). The knock on effect is that it can increase fuel consumption by 40% as the manoeuvrability of the vessel is reduced when the increased drag is accounted for. In addition, alternative antifouling paints (using other substances other than TBT) are less durable and consequently require more frequent reapplication on vessels. It is likely that the ship owners will bear a significant part of the burden of increased costs as their vessels will need to enter dry docks and repair yards more frequently and for longer, in addition to the higher cost associated with alternative coatings. The only industry that is likely to benefit will be dock and repair yard owners. At present, no regulatory impact assessment of the implications of the IMO Convention on AFS and corresponding EU legislation has been prepared. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), the agency responsible for the implementation of the measures in the UK, is currently thought to be investigating this issue, with potential for some estimates to become available the next few months4. A significant amount of work world-wide has been put into costing the implications of a total ban on TBT based antifouling systems. This has resulted in a wide range of estimates, for example: • ORTEPA (the Organotin Environmental Programme Association5), refers to a cost

analysis study (Damodaran et al, 1998)6 which concluded that the costs of an international ban on TBT-SPC application and use may be as high as $1billion per year. The study assessed the effects on paint companies, dry docks/repair yards and ship owners/operators if a world-wide TBT ban were to be introduced. The immediate costs of such a ban would be borne almost entirely by operators of deep-sea ships trading globally. More specifically, this study found that a ban would directly impact paint companies, dry docks/repair yards, and ship owners/operators; and

• WWF, by contrast, estimates that any costs of implementing the ban on TBT would

be minor. This appears to be borne out by an Australian RIA, which suggested that most ship owners were aware of the ban and had taken steps to minimise its impact by already switching to alternative AFS.

4 Telephone conversation with MCA, March 2004 5 ORTEPA is a German-based international non-profit organization of producers of organotin compounds,

which aims to promote and foster the dissemination of scientific and technical information on the environmental effects of organotin compounds and to provide greater appreciation of the available scientific and technical information on environmental aspects of organotin compounds (www.ortepa.org/pages/pc1.htm).

6 See www.ortepa.org


Page B-24

According to some commentators (eMediaWire, 2003), two factors already have created a defacto ban on TBT-based antifouling coatings. In 2002, most of the world’s leading manufacturers voluntarily eliminated TBT-based coatings from their product lines. A few companies are still selling off existing stocks, but nearly all have stopped producing the material. Second, during the last two years, many owners have already switched to tin-free coatings for their vessels to avoid future environmental problems. The additional costs of implementation of the IMO Convention for the UK will therefore depend upon the extent to which the UK shipping industry has already switched to alternative AFS. If the majority of the industry has already switched, the costs will be minimal. If this is not the case, then costs could be more significant.

B5.1.3 Option 3

Additional costs for Option 3 will include: • the costs of any further measures, beyond those set out in Action 8, required to

ensure full implementation of the IMO Convention on AFS; and • the costs of further measures required to fully achieve the objective set out in the

Marine Strategy, of reaching concentrations of hazardous substances in the marine environment near background values for naturally occurring substances and close to zero for man-made synthetic substances.

The additional costs of Option 3 will depend upon the number of additional substances to which restriction or ban measures will be applied and the interpretation of ‘close to zero’. It is likely to be difficult and potentially highly costly to achieve ‘close to zero’ or ‘near background’ levels for a range of substances that are historically or naturally present in the environment. In addition, there is a limited number of substitutes for certain substances in specific usage, such as lead linings in the nuclear industry. At present, no data are available that would allow even the scale of costs associated with this option to be determined with any confidence. However, it appears likely that it will be impossible to reach ‘close to zero’ levels of at least some hazardous substances in the marine environment without major economic disruption.

B5.2 Other Costs

B5.2.1 Introduction Other major costs potentially arising from the implementation of the Marine Strategy include enforcement costs and the costs of monitoring of hazardous substances in the marine environment. The costs of monitoring programs required for the hazardous substances will comprise of the collection, analysis and reporting costs and are likely to be significant. However, the


Page B-25

uncertainty surrounding which hazardous substances will be included under the Marine Strategy makes it difficult to give a robust estimate.

B5.2.2 Option 1

Under existing commitments, monitoring costs arise from the implementation of Article 16 of the Water Framework Directive and the OSPAR Strategy on Hazardous Substances. The EU Chemical Policy and UK Chemical Strategy do not include monitoring as such and therefore these costs are not considered here. Article 16 of the Water Framework Directive According to the RIA of Article 16 of the WFD (RPA, 2003) marine sampling costs, assuming that a large research vessel is needed to undertake sophisticated sampling such as grab and core sampling, could be up to £10,000 a day. This figure excludes the costs of essential scientific staff and other researchers. For smaller scale research, the costs of hiring a vessel with less sophisticated equipment are approximately £1,000 to £1,500 a day. The Environment Agency for England and Wales currently carries out compliance monitoring for several of the 33 substances in the WFD. The estimated total annualised cost of extending this sampling programme to the remaining substances covered by the WFD is £8,265,000 (using a 3.5% discount rate and estimated over 15 years) (RPA, 2003). All of these costs could be allocated to the marine environment. This estimate is based on the following assumptions: • 12 substances requiring water column sampling and analysis at £100 per substance;

samples taken four times per year at 2,000 sites; • two substances requiring sediment samples at £1,000 per substance; samples are

taken four times per year at 100 sites; and • per annum costs of additional water column sampling are £9.6 million

(undiscounted) and per annum costs of additional sediment sampling are £0.8 million (undiscounted).

In relation to analytical costs, accurate analysis of the whole suite of priority substances (for marine samples) is an issue of some concern, as analytical equipment capable of detecting concentrations as low as the required values of the WFD is not currently available at most laboratories. However, consultation carried out for the RIA for Article 16 of the WFD (RPA, 2003) has indicated that the analytical cost for metals is between £50 and £300 per sample depending on the complexity and metal (also depends on whether the samples are from saltwater or freshwater). The cost of analysis of organic substances could be as high as £1,000 per sample, dependant on the medium on which analysis is undertaken (i.e. water, sediment or biota).


Page B-26

OSPAR Strategy for Hazardous Substances Estimates of other implementation costs of the OSPAR Strategy can again be calculated using the other implementation costs of the WFD as a starting point. Following the same process presented in Section B5.1.1, approximately £1,100 million would be spent in monitoring substances under the OSPAR List of Chemicals of Priority Action.

B5.2.3 Option 2

One issue arising from this option is the cost of enforcement of the IMO Convention. From consultation with the MCA, it is clear that there is still some uncertainty regarding the enforcement measures required and hence enforcement costs. It was suggested, however, that a similar level of enforcement as applied to the Port Waste Reception Directive (which costs around £43,000 per year) might be required. The MCA also indicated that there might be additional costs associated with sampling, although these are unlikely to be substantial. It is unlikely that Option 2 will give rise to significant other costs for the UK. If they arise, they are likely to be minor additional costs related to: • the UK input to Baltic pilot project; and • the UK input to the 2005 review of the antifoulants regulations in the EU.

B5.2.4 Option 3

It is difficult at this point in time to estimate what other costs will arise from the implementation of Option 3. It is still not certain what the measures under this option will be. It is likely that monitoring costs will increase in proportion to the number of substances subject to control, therefore there could be significant additional costs arising from this option.

B5.3 Costs to a ‘Typical’ Business

The range of substances to which the objective and actions of the Marine Strategy refer is still uncertain. They will depend on whether it will include just substances listed under Article 16 of the WFD, or whether it will go beyond this list to include substances under the OSPAR list and/or substances included under the EU REACH policy. Also, the measures to achieve the cessation and/or phasing out of discharges are not yet identified, even under the UK existing commitments. This makes the identification of a typical business difficult and the estimation of costs to it almost impossible.

B5.4 Summary of Costs

Table B5.4 summarises the costs associated with each of the Options.


Page B-27

Table B5.4: Summary of Costs

Costs of Option 1 Costs of Option 2 Costs of Option 3 Measure Annual Cost Measure Annual Cost1 Measure Annual Cost2

Compliance Costs WFD Article 163

EU REACH3

UK Chemicals Strategy3

OSPAR

£87 million £45 million

£9.6 million

£11.5 million

Input to EC reviews Implementation of EU measures on AFS

Minimal

Unclear - will depend on extent of

switching from TBT to date

Additional action to further reduce emissions and discharges

Could be very high, depending on numbers of substances and definition of ‘close to zero’

Other Costs Monitoring and enforcement

High Enforcement of measures on AFS Additional monitoring

£43,000

Not significant

Monitoring and enforcement

Could be very high

Total quantified costs £152 million3 £43,000 N/a Scale of unquantified costs High Uncertain, probably Low - medium Potentially very high Notes: 1. Costs in addition to those in Option 1 2. Costs in addition to those in Options 1 and 2 3. Only a proportion of these costs are attributable to the marine environment


Page B-28

B6. SMALL FIRMS IMPACT TEST

Given that no definitive measures are defined to achieve reduction of discharges, emissions and losses of hazardous substances, little can be certain regarding the impacts on small businesses. Defra (nd) carried out an informal consultation to representative trade organizations and industry sectors likely to be affected (by the implementation of Article 16 of the WFD) on the likely impacts of potential controls. Defra (nd) anticipates that a large number of small to medium sized enterprises will be affected, in particular in the wood treatment, textile, metal finishing, adhesives and aerosol and paint stripping sectors. The scale of impacts will depend upon the exact scope and form of additional measures required. Before any such measures are introduced, it is anticipated that there would be extensive consultation with stakeholders.

B7. COMPETITION ASSESSMENT

Since many of the aspects of the detailed measures required to implement the Marine Strategy will only be determined some time into the future, it is not possible at this stage to identify any specific competition effects that might arise as a result of their implementation. However, it is possible to make some general statements on the types of competition effects that might be experienced, based on the ‘Competition Filter’ included in the draft revised Guidance on Regulatory Impact Assessment (Cabinet Office, 2002) (Table B7.1). Table B7.1: General Statements Based on ‘Competition Filter’ Q1: In the market(s) affected by the new regulation, does any firm have more than 10% market share? Q2: In the market(s) affected by the new regulation, does any firm have more than 20% market share? Q3: In the market(s) affected by the new regulation, do the largest three firms together have at least 50% market share? This seems unlikely, given the nature of the sectors affected by the Options. Q4: Would the costs of the regulation affect some firms substantially more than others? This is possible in some cases. For example, the chemical and pharmaceutical sectors are likely to be most affected given the nature of their business. Q5: Is the regulation likely to affect the market structure, changing the number or size of firms? Measures to implement the progressive reduction in discharges of certain hazardous substances could lead to structural changes. For example, it is likely that small businesses are less capable of dealing with the costs of additional measures. Q6: Would the regulation lead to higher set-up costs for new or potential firms that existing firms do not have to meet? Possibly. New or potential businesses will have to comply with the new targets set in the Marine Strategy and potential further action.


Page B-29

Table B7.1: General Statements Based on ‘Competition Filter’ Q7: Would the regulation lead to higher ongoing costs for new or potential firms that existing firms do not have to meet? Possibly. New or potential businesses will have to comply with the new targets set in the Marine Strategy and potential further action. Q8: Is the sector characterised by rapid technological change? The chemical and pharmaceutical sector are usually characterised by being in the forefront of technological advance. Q9: Would the regulation restrict the ability of firms to choose the price, quality, range or location of their products? Yes.

Based on the above, it appears that there is the potential for competition effects. However, such impacts would arise only from the adoption of particular measures. There would be an opportunity for further analysis of the competition impacts of specific measures at a later stage.

B8. ENFORCEMENT AND SANCTION

Many of the regulations that would be used to implement the measures required by the Proposal already exist in the UK. However, under Option 2, additional regulations would be required to adopt into UK law Directive 2002/62/EC and Regulation 782/2003 on organotins. Further regulations could be required in relation to Option 3, depending on the nature of measures required to meet the objective of near background/close to zero concentrations of hazardous substances in the marine environment.


Page B-30


ANNEX C

EUTROPHICATION

Annex C: Eutrophication


Page C-1

C1. INTRODUCTION

Eutrophication has been identified in the Marine Strategy as being one of the many pressures on marine biodiversity and the marine environment that needs to be addressed. Specifically, the Marine Strategy identifies the issues as follows: • eutrophication is caused by excessive inputs of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous); • this is predominantly from agricultural and urban sources; • atmospheric deposition of NOx from seagoing ships may also be a relevant input; • in combination with other conditions these inputs can give rise to (increased) algal

blooms. These algal blooms can result in the release of substances which are toxic both to man and to other marine life affecting inter alia fisheries, aquaculture and tourism;

• decomposing algae can also deplete the oxygen in benthic waters which, in turn, can also have a severely detrimental effect on marine ecosystems in sensitive areas; and

• eutrophication can also result in spectacular growth of macroscopic algae which is then washed onto the shore where it rots, causing nuisance and public health risks.

As noted above, marine and coastal eutrophication is caused by the presence of an excess of nutrients, principally nitrates and phosphates. Unlike freshwaters, of the two key nutrients, nitrates are usually the limiting factor in eutrophic events in marine and coastal systems. The sources of nutrients in marine systems are riverine, atmospheric and direct inputs. OSPAR (2002) identifies that the relative proportions of nitrogen input for riverine, atmospheric and direct inputs are typically in the range of 10:3:1. As noted in the Marine Strategy, the issues are not restricted to the consideration of marine-based activities but also embrace land-based activities that result in elevated nutrient concentrations in rivers and direct inputs. Consequently, from a regulatory and policy perspective, the regulation of nutrients and marine eutrophication is strongly influenced by existing and proposed regulation directly (or indirectly) relevant to the activities that cause elevated nutrients in all waters. The Marine Strategy identifies the main EU instruments to combat eutrophication as the Nitrates Directive, the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive, the Water Framework Directive and the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). In addition, both OSPAR (under its Strategy to Combat Eutrophication) and HELCOM stress the need to implement measures and undertake to identify what additional measures would be required. The Strategy notes that regulation by both the EU and the regional marine conventions leads to a degree of confusion as well as duplication of effort. In the context of this RIA, the same is true for the range of regulations and initiatives operating in the UK, either specifically addressing commitments to reduce nutrients (for example, Nitrate Regulations), addressing the issue of water pollution (diffuse or point source), including nutrients (for example implementation of the WFD), or addressing connected issues


Page C-2

(such as bathing waters, shellfish waters, CAP), actions arising from which will also indirectly influence activities and sources of nutrients to the marine environment1. The Marine Strategy notes, however, that while progress has been made in reducing inputs of nutrients, in most cases this has not yet resulted in clear reductions in nutrient concentrations in the areas of concern, due to the long time lag. The Marine Strategy also reports no reductions in concentrations of chlorophyll-a, which provides an indicator of eutrophication, in marine and coastal surveys. The Marine Strategy specifically identifies that inputs of nitrogen from diffuse agricultural sources and untreated urban wastewater in particular remains a problem. In addition, it identifies the need for research on the extent to which atmospheric deposition of nitrates (NOx), including from seagoing ships, is contributing to marine eutrophication.

C2. PURPOSE AND INTENDED EFFECT

C2.1 Objective 5: Eutrophication The objective of the Marine Strategy is: “To eliminate human induced eutrophication problems by 2010 by a progressive reduction of anthropogenic inputs of nutrient to areas in the marine environment where these inputs are likely, directly or indirectly, to cause such problems. Where no regional objectives on eutrophication have been set, regional specific action and timeframes for achieving this objective will be developed in collaboration with the regional marine conventions.” The Marine Strategy notes that information is lacking on natural variability in nutrients and ecosystem response, including the measurement and assessment of long-term trends required to identify areas where human induced eutrophication may cause problems.

C2.2 Actions Identified The Marine Strategy identifies one action to achieve its objective on eutrophication. Action 9: to facilitate a more systematic approach towards combating marine eutrophication, the Commission will: • pursue a more vigorous enforcement and implementation of the Nitrates and Urban

Wastewater Directives; • review latest information concerning the processes of eutrophication in the context of

current legislation;

1 For example, the RIAs for Shellfish Waters and for the WFD both consider measures to reduce run-off and

deposition of manures from agricultural land – for the former to address microbiological targets, for the latter to address ammonia, phosphorous, nitrates, sediment, veterinary medicines/pesticides and bank erosion. The measures are, however, common to both.


Page C-3

• in collaboration with the regional marine conventions establish a more comprehensive assessment in 2006 of the extent of marine eutrophication including a harmonised identification of areas where anthropogenic inputs of nutrients may or do lead to eutrophication problems; and

• in the context of the strategy to reduce air pollution from seagoing ships, propose new, complementary instruments, including reduction of ship NOx emissions. It will initiate in 2002 activities to model depositions of NOx in the marine environment and if necessary, will make proposals for further reducing NOx emissions into the atmosphere.

C2.3 Background C2.3.1 Existing and Forthcoming Legislation

There is a range of regulatory and other initiatives that address (or are relevant to addressing) elevated levels of nutrients and eutrophication in the marine environment. Table C2.1 provides a list of the key regulatory mechanisms of relevance to riverine, direct and atmospheric sources of nutrients. Table C2.1: Scope of Existing Regulation and Convention Influencing Eutrophication Regulation Influence Riverine Direct Atmosp

heric Existing EU Directives and UK Implementing Legislation Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (UWWT)

Water treatment # #

Bathing Water Directive (BWD)

Water treatment and direct/diffuse sources of sewage/manure # #

Nitrates Directive (ND) Nitrates in groundwater # Water Framework Directive (WFD) Chemical water quality # #

Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) as reformed (May 2004)

Scale, scope and nature of agricultural activities (and associated practices under upcoming reform)

#

Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive (IPPC)

Intensive pig and poultry units are now covered under IPPC and must apply BATNEEC

#

Large Combustion Plants Directive

Air pollution (NOx and SO2) from power plants #

International Regulation, Conventions and Implementing Legislation MARPOL Annex IV (and revisions to)

Collection, treatment and discharge of sewage from ships #

MARPOL Annex VI NOx emission standards for ships’ engines #

OSPAR/HELCOM Commitments to address marine eutrophication (taken forward by the Marine Strategy)

# # #


Page C-4

Relevant UK Policy/Regulation in Progress Diffuse Water Pollution from Agriculture (DWPA) –consultation (part of WFD implementation)

Diffuse agricultural sources of nutrients #

Economic instruments for Phosphorous Limits declaration to investigate first appeared in Pre-budget Statement Budget 2002 (part of WFD implementation)

Reductions in sources and mobilisation of phosphorous #

Relevant EU Policy in Progress Clean Air for Europe (CAFE) thematic strategy

Includes efforts to reduce NOx emissions from vessels #

Revision of Bathing Water Directive limits - UK implementation out to consultation

Sewage sources and treatment # #

One of the most significant regulations for marine eutrophication is the Water Framework Directive (WFD). The provisions of earlier Community water legislation have been integrated into the WFD, allowing the earlier Directives to be repealed in a phased approach. The Directive will complement the Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive, the Nitrates Directive and the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Directive (96/61/EC). Measures taken under these Directives will in many cases form an important part of the programme of measures in each river basin district under the WFD.

In principle, the WFD applies to all waters including coastal waters to one nautical mile (nm). In Scotland, however, the seaward extent has been increased to three nm. One of the principal reasons for doing this was that fish farming is a major industry in Scotland and has significant environmental impacts. As a number of fish farms are between 1nm and 3nm offshore, the extended definition of coastal waters will allow the Scottish authorities (SEPA) to monitor and regulate these. Inputs of nutrients from land-based activities (direct and riverine) should, in theory, be robustly controlled under the WFD to ensure no eutrophication in waters extending to 1nm (3nm in Scotland). Where good ecological status (GES) is not achieved in these areas, further measures would be required. However, the WFD provides for derogation on the basis of ‘disproportionate costs’ of meeting GES2. As such, it is conceivable that a derogation sought under the WFD for a given river basin may result in elevated nutrients that may affect the eutrophication status of coastal (and therein marine) waters.

2 The OSPAR Eutrophication Strategy (which to a large extent guides the content of the Marine Strategy and the

Commission’s commitments in respect of eutrophication) also accommodates the concept of proportionality/disproportionality as follows: “the application of further measures, in all areas from which anthropogenic nutrient inputs to the maritime area… should take into account their feasibility, cost-effectiveness, region-specific factors and seasonal factors”.


Page C-5

International regulations for the prevention of pollution by sewage from ships entered into force on 27 September 2003 following the ratification by Norway of Annex IV of MARPOL 73/78 Convention on marine pollution. The Annex sets out in detail how sewage should be treated or held aboard ship and the circumstances in which discharge into the sea may be allowed. Ratification of Annex IV opens the door for the revised Annex IV, which was developed following concerns during the 1990s that the existing Annex IV was not achieving sufficient ratifications to achieve entry into force. IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) reviewed the Annex and in March 2000, at its 44th session, approved a revised and updated the Annex IV. The revised Annex IV will require ships to be equipped with an approved sewage system and will apply to a greater range of old and new vessels engaged in international voyages. The Clean Air for Europe (CAFE) thematic strategy is due to be finalised by 2005. In contrast to some water legislation, which has a geographic delimitation, these directives apply to sources be they on- or offshore. As such, the Commission is preparing a strategy to address emissions from maritime transport including NOx emissions, which are of relevance to eutrophication (although currently less significant than riverine and direct inputs).

C2.4 Risk Assessment C2.4.1 Risks that the Marine Strategy is Intended to Address

Objective 5 of the Strategy seeks to eliminate the risks of marine eutrophication caused by anthropogenic inputs of nutrients in areas where they may cause a problem. The actions identified in the Marine Strategy acknowledge that (where properly implemented) existing instruments will provide a significant reduction in nutrient inputs and associated risks of eutrophication, but that there are uncertainties concerning whether and where additional measures may be required to eliminate continuing problems. The impacts of marine eutrophication (as defined by OSPAR, 2000) are associated with: • increased phytoplankton and macroalgae production and biomass; • changes in species composition (including the occurrence of harmful algae and short-

lived benthic algae in shallow waters as well as changes in the animal communities); and

• increased oxygen consumption in water and sediments, in some cases leading to detrimental effects on benthic fauna.

OSPAR (2000) notes that eutrophication is non-existent in the open shelf and deep areas of the OSPAR region. However, within the coastal zone, embayments and estuarine areas of some parts of the maritime area, particularly the south-eastern part of Region II (North Sea area), there is clear evidence of eutrophication. The disturbance caused by


Page C-6

increased nutrient loads in coastal areas may also have an effect on marine ecosystems outside the immediate area. Problems associated with eutrophication are most visibly associated with the development of potentially harmful or nuisance marine algal blooms. These are not always associated with anthropogenic inputs of nutrients as they can arise through naturally occurring levels of nutrients. Depending on the type of algae, marine algal blooms (and lower concentration of some species) can cause: • discolouration of water (for example, ‘red tides’ – commonly Noctiluca); • excessive accumulations of foam on the shore, producing unpleasant odours and

aesthetic nuisance (commonly Phaeocystis); • shellfish poisoning (paralytic, diarrhetic, neurotoxic, and amnesic shellfish

poisoning) and subsequent poisoning of animals and humans (Alexandrium and Dinophysis);

• shellfish and fish mortality (for example, Gyrodinium aureolum); and • clogging of fish gills, particularly in fish farms where caged fish cannot swim away

from the bloom (Chaetoceros). Shellfish for human consumption are monitored for toxins under the requirements of the EC Shellfish Hygiene Directive. If standards are not met, steps are taken to prevent shellfish becoming available for human consumption. The presence of marine algal blooms can be inferred from chlorophyll-a concentrations. Figure C2.1 provides Environment Agency (2000) data on chloropyll-a concentrations around the coast of England and Wales. A value in excess of 10µg/l is indicative of the presence of marine algal blooms but does not directly imply eutrophication. Figure C2.2 provides Environment Agency data (2000) on the locations of occurrences of algal blooms, without consideration as to whether their extent, frequency or duration represents an undesirable disturbance around the coast of England and Wales.


Page C-7

Figure C2.1: Chlorophyll-a Concentrations


Page C-8

Figure C2.2: Algal Bloom Occurrence


Page C-9

C3. OPTIONS

C3.1 Possible Options

In principle, there are three options available to the UK in relation to Objective 5 of the Marine Strategy and eutrophication: • Option 1: Proceed with existing commitments; • Option 2: Extend current commitments to comply with actions set out in the

Communication; or • Option 3: Extend current commitments to comply with actions set out in the

Communication, in addition to any gaps left by these actions towards achieving the objective, namely the elimination of human induced eutrophication problems by 2010.

C3.2 Option 1 Under Option 1, the UK would continue to carry out actions to implement current commitments in relation to eutrophication of the marine environment. These measures were described in Section C2.3.1.

C3.3 Option 2 The action identified in the Marine Strategy in relation to eutrophication will be undertaken primarily by the Commission and will require only limited additional action by the UK. Table C3.1 analyses the implications of the actions for the UK.

Table C3.1: Actions under Objective 5 Action Identified Implications for the UK Pursue a more vigorous enforcement and implementation of the Nitrates and Urban Wastewater Treatment Directives.

The action refers to the Commission’s enforcement of the implementation of existing legislation by Member States. The UK has already faced enforcement action under relevant EU legislation. For example, the European Court of Justice ruled in December 2000 that the UK must implement the Nitrates Directive for all waters, not just drinking water sources and more recently, intervention by the Commission concerning shellfish waters where, in Scotland, there is a consultation on the designation of a further 81 shellfish waters in addition to the existing 33.


Page C-10

Table C3.1: Actions under Objective 5 Action Identified Implications for the UK Review latest information concerning the processes of eutrophication in the context of current legislation. In collaboration with the regional marine conventions establish a more comprehensive assessment in 2006 of the extent of marine eutrophication including a harmonised identification of areas where anthropogenic inputs of nutrients may or do lead to eutrophication problems.

These actions relate to the identification of problems that may continue after the implementation of current legislation. This is action on the part of the Commission under its obligations to OSPAR/HELCOM objectives on marine eutrophication. Action by the UK will be limited to providing input to, and commenting on, the Commission’s review and assessment.

In the context of the strategy to reduce air pollution from seagoing ships, propose new, complementary instruments, including reduction of ship NOx emissions. It will initiate in 2002 activities to model depositions of NOx in the marine environment and if necessary, will make proposals for further reducing NOx emissions into the atmosphere.

The action has been started and is ongoing; however, efforts to curb air pollution from seagoing vessels is part of the Clean Air for Europe (CAFE) thematic strategy due to be finalised by 2005, which applies to all sources be they on- or offshore. The reason for inclusion of offshore emissions in CAFE is principally that the Commission has identified that by 2020, if no additional action is taken, maritime transport is likely to emit as much NOx and SO2 as all land-based sources combined (NERA, 2004). If additional measures are identified to address marine sources of NOx and SO2 this could require additional action by the UK in future.

C3.4 Option 3

C3.4.1 Need for Additional Action Under Option 3, additional action could be required if existing commitments, and the actions identified in the Marine Strategy, do not meet the objective of eliminating human-induced pollution by 2010. In practice, there are a number of reasons why meeting such an objective would be difficult, if not impossible, based on current commitments alone. Effectiveness of Existing Measures OSPAR (2002) reports that, for the whole of the North Sea area since the mid-1980s, there has been a reduction of the order of 50% in riverine inputs of phosphorus but, due to variability of flow, no consistent reduction in riverine inputs of nitrogen. Direct inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus have reduced by 30% and 20% respectively since 1990 (and the implementation of the UWWT Directive). For the UK, the effect of existing measures can be seen in Figures C3.1 and C3.2, showing the contribution of direct and riverine inputs of nutrients and total nutrient input for phosphates and nitrates respectively. Since the implementation of sewage treatment measures (under UWWT Directive combined with Shellfish Waters and Bathing Water Directives), there has been a drop in the contribution of direct sources of phosphorous and Nitrogen. The trends for riverine sources are more difficult to identify, due to variations in rainfall and flow rates between years.


Page C-11

Figure C3.1: UK Inputs of Phosphate

UK Inputs Phosphate - P: Riverine and Direct Inputs and Trend in Total Quantities 1990-2002

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Inpu

ts (0

00s

Tonn

es)

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

Riv

erin

e Fl

owra

te (0

00 M

L)

Direct Orthophosphates Riverine Orthophosphates Total Orthophosphates (000s Tonnes) Riverine flow rate (000 Ml)

Figure C3.2: UK Inputs of Nitrogen

UK inputs of Total Nitrogen - N: Riverine and Direct Inputs and Trend in Total Quantities 1990-2002

0.0

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

350.0

400.0

450.0

500.0

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

Inpu

ts (0

00s

Tonn

es)

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

Riv

erin

e Fl

owra

te (0

00 M

L)

Direct Nitrogen Riverine Nitrogen Total Nitrogen (000s Tonnes) Riverine flow rate (000 Ml)


Page C-12

Sources of Nutrients in Marine Waters

Nutrients entering the marine environment arise from both point sources (such as discharges from sewage treatment works and industry) and from diffuse sources (including run-off from agricultural land and urban areas, groundwater and atmospheric deposition). Approximate national estimates of the main sources of phosphorus entering surface waters in the UK are shown in Figure C3.3. This Figure highlights the relative importance of diffuse agricultural sources (43%), with this likely to continue increasing due to reductions in phosphates in detergents and P-stripping in some larger sewage treatment works. For nitrogen, 70% of the total input to inland surface waters is estimated to come from diffuse sources, particularly agriculture. The remaining 30% comes from sewage effluent and industrial discharges. Table C3.2 shows the main diffuse sources of phosphorus and nitrogen (in order of importance). For both nutrients, fertilisers (inorganic and organic) are the main sources.

Background (9%)Industry (7%)Fertiliser (16%)Livestock (34%)Detergents (10%)Human sources (24%)

Figure C3.3: Sources of Phosphorus Entering Surface Waters in the UK (Source: Morse et al, 1993)


Page C-13

Table C3.2: Contribution to National Nutrient Budget by Diffuse Sources (in order of importance)

Phosphorus Nitrogen Livestock manure and slurry Inorganic fertilisers

Inorganic Fertilisers Livestock manure and slurry

Natural export Atmospheric deposition (itself sourced primarily from industry and agriculture)

Sewer leakage/septic tanks Natural export

Sewage sludge Sewer leakage Atmospheric deposition (principally derived from adjacent areas) Septic tanks

Sewage sludge application to land

Source: WRc (1999)

The relative importance of different nutrient sources can vary greatly between catchments, dependent upon population densities, land use and natural factors such as geology, soil type and hydrology.

These Figures indicate that action to eliminate eutrophication in the marine environment would need to address a wide range of sources of nutrients.

Timescales

The Marine Strategy identifies the WFD as one of the main pieces of EU legislation to deliver reductions in eutrophication. However, measures under the WFD will not be able to meet the target of eliminating human-induced eutrophication problems by 2010. The full suite of measures to meet the requirements of the WFD will not be in place until 2010, with the aim of delivering good ecological status by 2015. Given the time lag for measures reducing nutrient inputs to produce significant reductions in marine eutrophication, it is likely that significant benefits in terms of marine eutrophication could be delayed even further.

Other measures would therefore be needed to meet the objective timescale. C3.4.2 Potential Additional Measures under Option 3

The limitations of existing commitments mean that achieving the Marine Strategy objective of elimination of human induced eutrophication by 2010 would require bringing forward the actions envisaged under existing commitments so that they are completed by 2010 and, potentially, additional measures to further reduce nutrient inputs.

Bringing forward the measures envisaged under the WFD to reduce nutrient inputs from land-based sources via the aquatic environment would be extremely difficult. The first draft programmes of measures under the WFD will not be available until 2009 and it is most unlikely that they could be implemented by 2010, given the WFD requirements for


Page C-14

consultation. The only way to accelerate the implementation of measures would therefore be through existing measures, such as the Nitrates Directive and Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive. This is likely to be unacceptable to stakeholders, or practical for regulators, given the focus of regulatory effort on the WFD. As the WFD requires all cost-effective measures to be taken to achieve its objective of ‘good status’, measures going beyond those identified under the WFD would, by definition, not be cost-effective.

Potentially, controls over atmospheric sources of nutrients entering the marine environment could be brought forward. Reductions in NOx emissions from ships are planned under the CAFE Thematic Strategy, which is due for publication in 2005 and so could be implemented by 2010. However, as atmospheric sources currently account for only a small percentage of nutrient inputs to the marine environment, this in itself would not be enough to achieve the objective.

It therefore seems unlikely that measures can be identified under Option 3 that can meet the objective of the Marine Strategy in relation to eutrophication in a cost-effective manner.

C4. BENEFITS C4.1 Option 1

The environmental benefits of reducing eutrophication related pressures on the marine environment include reducing the risk of any undesirable disturbance associated with: • increased phytoplankton and macroalgae production and biomass; • changes in species composition (including the occurrence of harmful algae and short-

lived benthic algae in shallow waters as well as changes in the animal communities); and

• increased oxygen consumption in water and sediments, in some cases leading to detrimental effects on benthic fauna.

There can also be associated human health benefits, from avoiding health risks associated with eutrophication, and economic benefits from avoiding damage to tourism and fisheries.

Direct inputs of nutrients to the marine environment from the UK have reduced significantly in recent years. Implementation of existing commitments, in particular the WFD, should result in significant further reductions in nutrient inputs. The coastal and estuarine benefits from existing regulation have been included in the RIAs for those regulations. However, these RIAs provide no indication of the magnitude of these benefits.


Page C-15

C4.2 Option 2

The main actions envisaged under Option 2 are a review by the Commission of information on eutrophication and a more comprehensive assessment of the extent of eutrophication. These could result in additional benefits to the marine environment under Option 2 by ensuring that any future measures were better targeted and therefore more effective. There could also be economic benefits, if the reviews enabled future measures to be more cost-effective. However, until existing regulation (particularly WFD) has been fully implemented, the Commission’s reviews may be of limited value in establishing the need for future measures.

If Commission activities to model deposition of NOx in the marine environment result in proposals for further measures, there may be resulting benefits to the marine environment. One study attempted to assess the benefits of reducing atmospheric NOx and SO2 emissions from ships (NETCEN, 2000). This study calculated the benefits of reducing emissions of NOx and SO2 in the North Sea at €3,100 per tonne and €4,300 per tonne respectively. These values, however, relate to health effects only and exclude ecological damage such as eutrophication.

C4.3 Option 3

If existing commitments will achieve the elimination of marine eutrophication, but by a later timescale, Option 3 would only succeed in bringing forward the benefits. If existing commitments would only reduce, and not eliminate, marine eutrophication, then the benefits of Option 3 would be greater than for the other Options. In practice, however, it seems unlikely that the objective could be met by this date and so the potential benefits are unlikely to be realised.

C4.4 Sectors Affected A wide range of business sectors are affected by measures required existing commitments relating to marine eutrophication. These include: • the water industry; • agriculture; • effluent dischargers (both point sources, such as industry, and non-point sources

such as transport and commerce); • fisheries; and • shipping.

These sectors are also likely to be affected by any additional measures under Option 3. Sectors benefiting from reduced marine eutrophication are primarily fishing and tourism, with benefits also to the general public.


Page C-16

C4.5 Summary of Benefits

The benefits of the Options are summarised in Table C4.1

Table C4.1: Summary of Benefits Option Benefits Option 1 Implementation of Existing Commitments (WFD, MARPOL Annex IV)

Benefits are likely to be considerable, but remain uncertain.

Option 2 EC reviews on eutrophication and NOx emissions Could provide additional environmental and

economic benefits from better targeting of future measures

Option 3 Bringing forward implementation of existing commitments

Would bring forward, rather than increase, benefits.

Additional measures beyond existing commitments Benefits could be large in theory but unlikely to be achievable.

C5. COSTS C5.1 Option 1

Implementation of existing commitments of relevance to marine eutrophication will involve significant costs. The RIA for the WFD, for example, estimates the annual costs of implementation as ranging from £29 million to £209 million per year to achieve both the chemical and physical status objectives of the WFD. Costs relating to coastal waters were not quantified, however, because of uncertainty over the extent of additional action required under the WFD. The costs of other measures have also been accounted for in the relevant RIAs, but it is not possible to separate out the costs relating to marine eutrophication.

C5.2 Option 2

The actions envisaged under Option 2 will be taken initially by the Commission. Costs to the UK will be limited to providing input to, and commenting on, the various reviews that the Commission plans to undertake. Should these reviews result in additional measures to reduce eutrophication, there could be additional costs for the UK. However, as such measures have not yet been identified, their costs cannot be determined.


Page C-17

C5.3 Option 3

Achieving elimination of human-induced marine eutrophication by 2010, if feasible, would be likely to require either accelerating the timetable for existing commitments and/or introducing additional measures. Bringing forward the timescale is unlikely to be feasible; if it was, it could imply significant additional costs. Any measures in addition to the WFD addressing land-based aquatic sources would also be likely to imply significant additional costs (as all cost-effective measures to achieve good chemical status in water would be undertaken anyway under the WFD).

C5.4 Costs to a ‘Typical’ Business

Because of the range of businesses that could be affected by measures related to marine eutrophication, particularly for land-based sources of nutrients, it is not possible to identify a ‘typical’ business in the context of the Marine Strategy objective for eutrophication.

C5.5 Summary of Costs Table C5.1 summarises the costs associated with the Options.

Table C5.1: Summary of Costs Option Benefits Option 1 Implementation of Existing Commitments (WFD, MARPOL Annex IV)

Costs are significant (£29 million to £209 million per year for WFD) but the proportion relating to marine eutrophication cannot be identified

Option 2 EC reviews on eutrophication and NOx emissions Could result in additional costs if the reviews result

in the adoption of further measures Option 3 Bringing forward implementation of existing commitments

Would be likely to increase costs through the need for more rapid action.

Additional measures beyond existing commitments Could result in significant additional costs; any land-based measures in addition to WFD would not be cost-effective by definition.

C6. SMALL FIRMS IMPACT TEST

Small firms are most likely to be impacted by measures under this aspect of the Marine Strategy to limit nutrient discharges from land-based sources. The RIA for the WFD notes that certain small firms, particularly in the agriculture sectors, have indicated concerns about the effects of further regulation (especially on nitrogen emissions and losses).


Page C-18

C7. COMPETITION ASSESSMENT

No additional competition effects are envisaged, beyond those already addressed in RIAs for existing commitments.

C8. ENFORCEMENT AND SANCTIONS

No additional enforcement requirements are envisaged for Options 1 and 2. Any additional measures introduced under Option 3 would most likely be within the framework of existing measures.


ANNEX D

RADIONUCLIDES

Annex D: Radionuclides


Page D-1

D1. INTRODUCTION The Marine Strategy identifies discharge of radionuclides, particularly those arising from nuclear fuel reprocessing plant, as an issue of continued public concern. The Strategy notes that some of Europe’s regional seas have received significant discharges of nuclear material, compared to many other areas of the world, and that there are few data concerning the impact on the marine environment. A number of regional and international conventions are in place relating to discharges of radioactive substances. The Strategy notes that overlap or duplication of efforts is not an issue in this area as Community work and the work of the regional marine conventions on radioactive substances appear to be complementary.

D2. PURPOSE AND INTENDED EFFECT D2.1 Objectives of the Marine Strategy in relation to Radionuclides

The single objective set out in the Marine Strategy in relation to radionuclides is:

“to prevent pollution from ionising radiation through progressive and substantial reductions of discharges, emissions and losses of radioactive substances, with the ultimate aim to reach concentrations in the marine environment near background values for naturally occurring radioactive substances and close to zero for artificial radioactive substances. This objective should be achieved by 2020.”

The Marine Strategy identifies only one action to achieve this objective (action 10). This is the review by the Commission, by 2004, of the relationship between the OSPAR strategy with regard to radioactive substances and existing EC measures, in particular with respect to the reduction of discharges arising from nuclear-fuel reprocessing plants. Based on the results of the updated MARINA project, the Commission will determine whether any Community action should be considered.

D2.2 The Background

D2.2.1 The OSPAR Strategy in Relation to Radioactive Substances

The aim of the OSPAR Strategy on radioactive substances is the prevention of pollution of the maritime area from ionising radiation, through progressive and substantial reductions of discharges emissions and losses of radioactive substances, with the ultimate aim of achieving concentrations in the maritime environment near background values for naturally occurring radioactive substances and close to zero for artificial substances.


Page D-2

In a first analysis this objective seems to be similar to the one set out in the EU Strategy document. However, they differ slightly. The 2020 target set in the OSPAR Strategy requires Contracting Parties to reduce radioactive discharges so that, by that date, the additional concentrations in the marine environment, above historic levels, are close to zero. The Marine Strategy target date of 2020 appears to be more stringent as it requires absolute concentrations, rather than additional concentrations, to be near zero. Nonetheless, the OSPAR target for 2020 is imprecise in that the terms “historic levels” and “close to zero” are open to interpretation. The OSPAR Commission is continuing to work on establishing agreed definitions, however, it is clear that the intent is for radioactive discharges to be progressively and substantially reduced over the next two decades (Defra, 2002). The OSPAR Strategy also requires the development of environmental quality criteria for the protection of the marine environment from adverse effects of radioactive substances and a report on these to be prepared by 2003 (Janssens et al., 2002). In 2002, the UK Government published its Strategy for Radioactive Discharges (Defra, 2002). This describes how the UK will implement the OSPAR Strategy on Radioactive Substances (the UK strategy is designed to meet the OSPAR objective). It also provides a basis for future reviews of discharge authorisations by the regulatory bodies and for strategic planning by the nuclear operators. The Government is working closely with other OSPAR contracting parties to develop an agreed view of the baseline situation in the OSPAR area, against which progress towards achievement of the OSPAR Strategy will be evaluated (Defra, 2002). The scope of the UK Strategy encompasses: • radioactive discharges from nuclear licensed sites; • defence activities; and • other nuclear and non-nuclear sources of radioactive discharges, including offshore

oil and gas production. Because the OSPAR Strategy is concerned with concentrations in the marine environment, the first UK Strategy focuses on liquid radioactive discharges, as it is assumed that in general liquid discharges will have the largest and most measurable effects in the marine environment. Future developments of the UK Strategy on radioactive discharges, which will be reviewed about every four years, will also address atmospheric discharges (Defra, 2002). The UK Strategy on radioactive discharges was accepted, in 2002, as the national plan for implementation of the OSPAR Strategy. The OSPAR Commission has recently adopted two further Decisions on radioactive discharges. OSPAR Decision 2000/1 (on Substantial Reductions and Elimination of Discharges, Emissions and Losses of Radioactive Substances with Special Emphasis on Nuclear Reprocessing) states that current authorisations for discharges or releases of radioactive


Page D-3

substances from nuclear reprocessing facilities will be reviewed as a matter of priority by their competent national authorities. This will be carried out with a view to, inter alia, implementing non-reprocessing options for spent nuclear fuel management at appropriate facilities and taking preventive measures to minimise the risk of pollution by accidents. This Decision entered into force on January 2001 and requires the Contracting Parties to report on implementation of this Decision, in accordance with OSPAR’s Standard Implementation and Assessment Procedure, in 2002/2003. OSPAR Decision 2001/1 (on the review of authorisations for discharges or releases of radioactive substances from nuclear reprocessing activities) reinforces Decision 2000/1. It stipulates that the current review of authorisations for discharges or releases of radioactive substances from nuclear reprocessing facilities from nuclear reprocessing facilities should be completed as a matter of urgency. The UK did not sign, and is therefore not bound by, these decisions. The UK Strategy on radioactive discharges does not address these two decisions, although it does address the review of authorisation of discharges.

D2.2.2 Existing EU Measures The regulatory basis for Community radiation protection legislation is the Euratom Treaty (1957), specifically in Title II Chapter 3 "Health and Safety", Articles 30 to 39 of the Treaty. The Treaty makes provisions for a series of basic safety standards for the protection of workers and the general public from the effects of ionising radiation. These provisions have been implemented by the Council Directive of 13 May 1996 laying down basic safety standards for the health protection of the general public and workers against the dangers of ionising radiation (96/29/EURATOM). The Radioactive Substances Act 1993 (RSA 93), as amended by the Environment Act 1995 and by legislation implementing the Basic Standards of Safety Directive, is the formal basis of control of radioactive discharges, and other aspects of the control of radioactive materials in the UK. While the Treaty also provides for recommendations on the radioactivity levels in water, air and soil, this provision as not yet been utilised on the marine environment (EC, 2002). The European Commission is also carrying out an update on the MARINA Project (MARINA II) on the Radiological Exposure of the European Community from Radioactivity in the North European Marine Waters. The MARINA II study aims to provide comprehensive and up-to-date information on radioactive discharges to and concentrations in North European marine waters. The study considers the impact on man and biota. Trends over time are considered in order that the present situation can be viewed in historical perspective. In addition, MARINA II considers in detail the impact of various industrial sectors in order that their relative significance may be understood. It is hoped that this study will provide useful input to the OSPAR Commission by providing information required for the implementation of the OSPAR Strategy with regard to Radioactive Substances (Janssens et al., 2002).


Page D-4

In November 2002 the EC adopted a series of five documents centred in maintaining a high level of nuclear safety in an enlarged EU. In this ‘nuclear package’ were included two Euratom Directives. The two documents were draft proposals for new legislation that were approved by the Commission for submission to a group of experts from the Member States for its opinions. They were: • a draft proposal for a Council Euratom Directive which set out the basic obligations

and general principles for the safety of nuclear installations; and • a draft proposal for a Council Euratom Directive on the management of spent

nuclear fuel and radioactive waste. The expert group gave its opinion on the proposals and the Commission formally adopted them in January 2003 (COM (2003) 32 Final). The proposed Directive on the management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste (Waste Directive) has the objective of bring about progress towards safe and long term management of spent fuel and radioactive waste. While the emphasis of the directive is on high-level waste it does cover all forms of radioactive wastes and all spent nuclear fuel regardless of the management route followed (reprocessing, storage or direct disposal). The proposed Waste Directive requires each Member State to establish a clearly defined programme for radioactive waste management covering all radioactive waste under its jurisdiction and including all stages of management including disposal. The programme must also cover management of all spent nuclear fuel that is not subject to reprocessing contracts or, in case of research reactor fuel, take back agreements.

D2.3 Risk Assessment The risk that the Marine Strategy is intended to address in relation to radionuclides is that discharges, emissions and losses of radioactive substances may be causing an adverse impact on marine ecosystems. The Strategy notes that low concentrations of some man-made radionuclides are found in seaweed, shellfish and wildlife far from their sources. The levels of 90Sr and 136Cs, for example, are high in the Baltic Sea compared with other water bodies in the world. However, the calculated radiation doses from man-made radioisotopes are below the limits of the EU Basic Safety Standards (EC, 2002). The Marine Strategy also notes that information on the extent of pollution by radioactive substances, as well as the effects of these substances on the marine environment, is lacking. Discharges of radionuclides to the marine environment continue to be an issue for public concern, in particular those arising from nuclear-fuel reprocessing plants such as Cap de la Hague and Sellafield. This concern arises not only from the higher levels of radioactivity discharged in the past but also from recent increases in the discharge of certain less radiologically significant radionuclides, such as technetium-99.


Page D-5

The Marine Strategy concludes that the greatest threats in terms of radioactive substances in the future are accidents in the civilian and military nuclear sectors. Releases from disposal sites are considered to pose negligible radiological risk to man, although it is difficult to draw firm conclusions about environmental impacts (EC, 2002).

D2.3.1 The Situation in the UK Environmental monitoring of radionuclide concentrations has been carried out in the UK for many years and a good time series of data is available for locations around several nuclear sites (Defra, 2002). A review of the published monitoring data was carried out by Defra (2002), for the period 1979 to 2000, using a set of eight radionuclides, in six sample types, at eight locations around the UK: • Radionuclides: tritium, carbon-14, cobalt-60, strontium-90, technetium-99,

caesium-137, plutonium-239/240, americium-241; • Sample types: fish, crustaceans, molluscs, Fucus species (seaweed), sediment,

seawater; and • Locations: Sellafield, Northern Ireland, Wylfa, Severn Estuary (Cardiff), Channel

Islands, Sizewell, Hartlepool, Dounreay.

A number of general trends were identified: • concentrations of Cs-137 have shown consistent reductions, for all locations and data

types; • with a few exceptions, trends for Co-60, Sr-90, plutonium (Pu-239/240) and

americium (Am-241) are also generally downward. The picture for H-3 and C-14 is rather less clear; and

• the rise in Tc-99 levels after 1994, as a result of increased discharges from Sellafield, shows up at Sellafield, Northern Ireland, Wylfa, Dounreay, Hartlepool and Sizewell. This is as expected, as a result of its dispersion by prevailing currents.

According to the Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) for the UK Strategy on Radioactive Discharges, risks to the general public from radioactive discharges are currently very low. Members of those groups that receive the highest radiation doses as a result of their diet or habits (critical groups) are exposed to less than 0.15 mSv a year as a result of authorized discharges to the marine environment. This is just 15% of the internationally recognised dose limit of 1 mSv. The reductions in radioactive discharges set out in the UK Strategy are unlikely to reduce this risk significantly (Defra, 2002). There are limited data concerning the impact of UK radioactive discharges on the marine ecosystem. The current system of radiological protection based on protection of human health has in the past been assumed to be sufficient to protect the environment. During the consultation carried out on the UK Strategy on Radioactive Discharges, concern was


Page D-6

expressed that exposure to levels significantly higher than natural background may occur and that the risks to wildlife are not explicitly considered in human dose assessment methodology. However, at present, there is no evidence that exposure to anthropogenic radiation is causing damage to wildlife in the UK. The OSPAR Quality Status Report 2000 for the Celtic Seas considers that estimated dose rates to organisms in the part of the Irish Sea closest to Sellafield are unlikely to produce adverse effects at the population level (Defra, 2002). Reducing radioactive discharges reduces risks to the public and the environment but it could increase risks to workers at nuclear installations and other facilities. Reducing discharges may require greater quantities of waste to be retained on site or for engineering work to be carried out in controlled areas to fit new equipment. Measures to reduce discharges could also, in theory, increase the risk of an accident (due to greater quantities of waste on site). The UK Strategy on Radioactive Discharges (Defra, 2002) recognises that, within the Government’s policy of progressive reduction of discharges, some flexibility will need to be maintained to safeguard other key Government objectives, in particular: • the safe and timely decommissioning of redundant facilities; • the clean-up of the historic legacy of radioactive wastes; • security of energy supply; • the expected growth in the use of radionuclides in medicine; and • the operational capabilities of the armed forces.


Page D-7

D3 OPTIONS

D3.1 Possible Options There are three main options available to the UK in relation to the Strategy proposals regarding radionuclides. These are: • Option 1: proceed with existing commitments under the UK Strategy on

Radioactive Discharges. This option forms the baseline of comparison of the other options;

• Option 2: extend current commitments to take account of the action set out in the

EU Strategy. This action, reviewing the relationship between the OSPAR Strategy and existing EU measures and determining whether any Community action should be committed, will be undertaken by the Commission. UK input would be limited to providing input to and commenting on the review and on the Commission’s conclusions; and

• Option 3: extending current commitments to comply with both the action set out in

the EU Strategy and any additional actions needed to meet the objectives of the EU Strategy. Such additional actions could be identified as a result of the Commission review to be undertaken under Option 2. They might include additional actions needed to meet the OSPAR objectives for radioactive discharges by 2020, such as measures to reduce discharges from reprocessing plants and potentially measures to reduce discharges from other sources, such as offshore oil and gas.

D3.2 Risk Associated With the Options Option 1: Existing Commitments The risk associated with this Option is that existing commitments will not prove adequate to protect the marine environment from the effects of radioactive discharges. Although there is no evidence that damage to the environment is currently occurring, and discharge levels have and are continuing to reduce, data on impacts on marine ecosystems are limited. Option 2: Comply with Actions Set Out in the Strategy The initial risk associated with this Option is limited, as the action consists of a review of existing policies and determination of the need for future action based on evidence from the MARINA project. The longer-term risk is that the Commission could determine that additional measures, potentially imposing excessive costs for the UK, could be required. This risk is addressed under Option 3.


Page D-8

Option 3: Additional Actions to Meet the Objectives of the Strategy The risk associated with Option 3 is that additional actions to meet the Strategy objective may impose excessive costs for the UK compared to the benefits generated. This could arise in particular from the requirement to achieve the objective by 2020, which is a more stringent requirement than that set out in the OSPAR strategy.


Page D-9

D4. BENEFITS D4.1 Introduction

The focus of the Strategy is on protection of the marine environment. The main benefits expected from the measures on radionuclides would therefore be a reduction of the risk of damage to the marine environment from radioactive discharges. However, as the strategy notes, there is limited information about the risks posed to the marine environment by current levels of discharge. This makes the benefits of the Options difficult to determine.

D4.2 Option 1

This Option represents implementation of the UK Strategy on Radioactive Discharges. A regulatory impact assessment (RIA) was carried out on this Strategy; this assessment is used here as an indication of the benefits of Option 1. The benefits accruing from the reduction of discharges proposed by the UK Strategy on Radioactive Discharges are summarised below. They can be classified into five general categories: • human health and safety; • environmental; • socio-economic; and • international relations and risk of legal challenge. Human Health and Safety Benefits The benefits accruing from reductions in radioactive discharges on human health include the benefits to the economy from workers having fewer sickness days, and the reduced cost to the National Health Service of treating patients Based on values collected from collective dose assessments, Defra (2000) estimated that the monetary value attributed to these benefits would range from zero to £10 million per year. There may also be benefits in terms of people’s perception that risks to health associated with radioactive discharges would be reduced. This could improve the quality of life of residents close to nuclear sites, through increased wellbeing and reassurance. It is difficult to determine the scale of these benefits given the lack of data difficulties in measuring such environmental externalities. However, Defra (2000) estimated that the monetary value attributed to these benefits would range from £2 to £6 million per year. No information is given regarding the source of such estimates and they are not, therefore, included in evaluation of the overall benefits of Option 1.


Page D-10

Environmental Benefits The most obvious benefit accruing from reduced discharges would be a reduction in adverse impacts on marine ecosystems. However, Defra (2002) states that there is no current evidence that exposure to anthropogenic radiation is causing damage to wildlife in the UK. This statement is supported by the OSPAR Quality Status Report 2000 for the Celtic Seas

Socio-Economic Benefits Some economic sectors could also benefit from the reduction of discharges. Obvious examples are the fisheries and tourism industries which rely on the environmental quality to do business. Defra’s estimates for these benefits range from £0 to £5 million a year for fisheries and £0 to £7 million a year for tourism. International relations, risk of legal challenge and other benefits There are also potential benefits in international relations with other neighbouring countries to be gained from actions to reduce radioactive discharges. The UK has been criticised by some other countries as a polluter of the marine environment, in particular in relation to discharges from the Sellafield plant. Benefits could also arise from a reduced risk of legal challenges. These benefits could be wide ranging, from a limited scale if few court cases were heard, to very large benefits if improved regulation could be used as a bargaining tool in international negotiations. Table D4.1 presents a summary of the benefits of Option 1.

D4.3 Option 2

Option 2 would provide the same benefits as Option 1. There may also be additional benefits from clarification of relationships between the OSPAR Strategy and existing EU measures in terms of legal clarity and avoidance of duplication of effort. However, the Marine Strategy concludes that overlap or duplication of effort is not an issue in the area of radionuclides, as Community work and that of the regional conventions on radioactive substances appear to be complementary. This would limit the additional benefits of Option 2 compared to Option 1. Additional benefits may also arise from Option 2 if the Commission determines, on the basis of the updated MARINA project results, that no further Community action is needed. This could provide reassurance that the risk to the marine environment from radioactive discharges is being adequately addressed and avoid the need for additional, potentially costly, control measures.


Page D-11

Table D4.1: Summary of Benefits Accruing from Option 1. Benefits

Impact Qualitative Description Monetary Valuation

(£ million/year)

Comments

Human Health Decrease in pollution related diseases.

0 – 10 Values collected from collective dose assessments

Environmental

Cleaner environment in general. Decrease in impacts to the marine ecosystems and species.

n/a Due to uncertainty in potential impacts they are difficult to quantify.

Socio-economic Industries such as fisheries and tourism benefit from a cleaner environment.

0 – 5 (fisheries) 0 – 7 (tourism)

International Relations Could be improved due to the UK being seen as addressing the problem.

n/a

Risk of legal challenge Reduced Millions

Total

0 - 22 Confidence on these figures suggests range from £0 – 25 million/year.

Notes: Adapted from Defra (2002)

D4.4 Option 3 Option 3 could potentially provide incremental benefits if it resulted in actions that further reduced risks associated with radioactive discharges. However, the following issues should be considered: • in relation to human health, it appears that the risks to the population from exposure

to current levels of discharges are very limited and complies with existing targets. Concern about radioactive exposure appears to arise from a perceived risk, rather then an actual risk. In addition, the benefits accruing from decreased discharges have to be balanced against the increased risk to workers arising from additional discharge reduction measures;

• in relation to the environment, Defra (2002) indicates that there is no current impact

of radioactive discharges on wildlife, which leads to the conclusion that any further reductions in discharges will result in no additional benefits;

• the socio-economic benefits, in particular those relating to the fisheries and tourism

industries, appear to be related to the improvement of environmental quality. If it is assumed that there are no significant benefits to the environment from further reducing discharges, then there will be no benefits to the fisheries and tourism industry; and


Page D-12

• further reductions in radioactive discharges can provide benefits for international relations and through reduced risk of legal challenge. However, the value of this benefit is very uncertain in the current situation, making it impossible to quantify.

The RIA for the UK Strategy considered an option that is potentially similar to Option 3, requiring further reductions in radioactive discharges to the marine environment. This option included setting targets that would result in very much lower critical group doses, of 0.01, 0.005 or 0.001 mSv, from discharges to the marine environment from 2020 onwards. The RIA concluded that the uncertainty surrounding monetary valuation of benefits does not allow for distinction to be made between the benefits of different options.

D4.5 Business Sectors Affected By introducing various measures to reduce discharges of radioactive substances into the marine environment, three main groups of industry are likely to be affected: • nuclear fuel production, reprocessing, and recycling industries – carried out by

British Nuclear Fuel (BNFL) at its Springfield and Capenhurst sites for uranium production and enrichment. In addition to, reprocessing and recycling at its Sellafield site; the largest discharger of radionuclides in the UK;

• nuclear energy production – carried out by BNFL at six Magnox power stations and

by British Electric Plc who operate seven advanced gas-cooled reactor stations and one pressurised water reactor station. All Magnox reactors are expected to shutdown by 2010, (see Table D4.2), therefore the impact the costs to the environment will be indirectly felt by the reprocessing industry based at BNFL Sellafield rather than by the nuclear power generation industry; and

• other industries reliant on nuclear products such as the research facilities operated by

the UK Atomic Energy Agency at Dounreay, Winfrith, Windsale, Harwell and Culham. Where reactors are shutdown for decommissioning and site redevelopment. In addition to the Atomic Defence Establishments at Aldermaston and Burghfield and nuclear submarines based at Faslane and Devonport. The offshore oil and gas industry also discharges small amounts of radionuclides from its drilling operations.


Page D-13

Table D4.2: Expected Nuclear Energy Site Closures.

Site Purpose Location Planned Shutdown

Sellafield Reprocessing of spent fuel West Cumbria 2012 Spingfields Manufacture of Magnox fuel Lancashire 2008 Calder Hall Power generation (Magnox) West Cumbria 2006-2008 Chapel Cross Power generation (Magnox) Dumfries 2008-2010 Bridwell Power generation (Magnox) Essex 2002 Sizewell A Power generation (Magnox) Suffolk 2006 Dungeness A Power generation (Magnox) Kent 2006 Hinkley Point Power generation (Magnox) Somerset 2000 Oldbury Power generation (Converting to

Magnox 2008) Gloucestershire 2013

Wylfa Power generation (Converting to Magnox 2008)

Anglesey 2016

Source: EA (1993) Tc-99 Proposal report The ramifications and likely costs and benefits to the above industries are discussed further in section D5.

D4.6 Issues of Equity and Fairness Any measures to control discharges of radioactive substances into the environment will have on the greatest effect on the nuclear operators, in particular on the larger operations such as at BNFL. However, they are the major dischargers and would thus be expected to face the greatest cost. Smaller users, such as hospitals and research facilities, are not generally expected to install expensive abatement equipment, but they will be required to manage their own wastes so as to minimise discharges to the environment (Defra, 2002). This is consistent with the polluter pays principle on environment costs. Nevertheless in cases such as BNFL, the high expenditure on abatement to meet the standards set could incur a large opportunity cost, by diverting both financial and other resources away from alternative environmental or safety projects. The closure of BNFL’s Magnox fuel reprocessing plant at Sellafield would also have a significant regional impact in the West Cumbria economy. The closure of the other six remaining Magnox power stations situated around the country could also have impacts on the local/regional economy of the area (Defra, 2002). The issue of equity and fairness regarding local communities associated with the nuclear industry is discussed in Section D5. It is also notable that, although reduction or cessation of discharges could have a positive impact on general population health and on the environment, these effects will be less significant to the population that surrounds the source/nuclear plant due to the continued effects of historical discharges. This reduced benefit to the local population will be cumulative with the potential impact on the local economy.


Page D-14

D4.7 Summary of Benefits

Table D4.3: Summary of Benefits

Impact

Qualitative Description of Benefit

Option 1: Monetary Valuation1

(£ million/year)

Option 2: Additional Benefits

Option 3: Additional

Benefits

Human Health

Decrease in pollution related diseases.

0 – 10 None Limited, relating to perceived risks. May be offset by increased risks to workers

Environmental

Cleaner environment in general. Decrease in impacts to the marine ecosystems and species.

n/a None Limited, as no existing risks identified

Socio-economic

Industries such as fisheries and tourism benefit from a cleaner environment.

0 – 5 (fisheries) 0 – 7 (tourism)

None None

International Relations

Will be improved due to Government being seen as addressing the problem.

n/a None Positive but uncertain

Risk of legal challenge

Reduced Millions None Positive but uncertain

Total 0 - 22 None Positive but uncertain

1 Adapted from Defra (2002)


Page D-15

D5. COSTS D5.1 Compliance Costs

D5.1.1 Introduction

The proposed EU Marine Strategy will generate compliance costs for the actions required to meet the requirements to reduce emissions, discharges and losses of radioactive substances to the marine environment. These costs will be born by sectors that currently give rise to the discharges; these were listed in section D4.5.

D5.1.2 Option 1 The costs of compliance with Option 1 – the UK Strategy on Radioactive Discharges – were calculated for the corresponding RIA. The RIA estimates the total direct costs of measures to comply with targets set out in the UK Strategy on Radioactive Discharges (between £260 and £360 million) and defence costs (approximately £10 million). These compliance costs took into account the need for closures of certain operations giving rise to radioactive discharges. Although not specified in the RIA, it is assumed that these costs are for the period between to entry into force of the strategy and 2020. Defra (2002) states that confidence on these costs estimates varies between -50% and +100%. The RIA also notes that BNFL has estimated that implementing the UK Strategy on Radioactive Discharges will cost it around £0.75 billion in direct costs, if the costs of closure of the Magnox powers stations and fuel reprocessing plant are included. The RIA also states that the extent to which these costs could be attributed solely to the Strategy on Radioactive Discharges is debatable. Possible sector related indirect effects of the strategy were also investigated by Defra (2002), in particular issues regarding health and safety, socio-economic impacts and other disbenefits, including the likely societal costs associated with the closure programme for Magnox power stations and the associated ending of Magnox reprocessing at Sellafield. Indirect health and safety costs include: • those relating to the additional protection measures necessary for site workers,

arising from, for example, increased concentrations of radioactive substances on site; • those relating to decommissioning activities (Defra (2002) predicts that there will be

1 death and 4 major injuries); • those relating to additional exposure of sewerage workers due to containment

measures; • those relating of reduced treatment availability in hospitals due to tighter limits on

discharges; and • those arising from the perception that old food safety limits are not good enough.


Page D-16

Indirect socio-economic costs could also arise, from a potential increase in unemployment due to operation closures. An estimate of between £533 and £608 is given for these costs. These relate to effects on dependent small businesses and industrial processes and the effects on the general socio-economic development of the region or locality due to the perception of stagnant development (e.g. housing development). The indirect socio-economic costs are likely to be offset by the increase in reprocessing activity involved with decommissioning, which will help maintain employment and viability of local economies. Decommissioning may, however, increase the risk of accidents as radioactive material is transported and stored. The likely impact would therefore involve an increase in the health and safety costs, estimated at £1 million per statistical life and £50,000 per serious injury. In addition, the scale of the costs will depend on the speed of implementation of the measures. Other indirect costs also considered by Defra (2002) are those arising from additional regulatory measures, confidence and industrial disbenefits (estimated to be between £0 and £67 million). Defra (2002) notes that a considerable number of these potential costs could not be readily quantified. The total indirect costs of implementing the UK Strategy are estimated to be between £538 and £680 million, although the confidence on these figures suggests a range of -50% to +100%.

D5.1.3 Option 2 The compliance costs of Option 2 will be similar to those of Option 1. The key action identified in the Strategy will be undertaken by the European Commission and there will be no immediate requirement for actions by dischargers, other than potentially a minor input into UK Government contribution to and review of the Commission’s activity.

D5.1.4 Option 3 The costs of compliance with Option 3 are likely to be higher than the costs of Option 1, as they are likely to require further action to reduce radioactive discharges. Option 2b of the RIA of the UK Strategy includes setting targets that would result in very much lower critical group doses, of 0.01, 0.005 or 0.001 mSv, from discharges made to the marine environment from 2020 onwards. This option provides an indication of the potential costs of Option 3. The RIA refers briefly to major additional abatement and waste treatment facilities that would be required to meet the reduced 2020 targets by Sellafield, but it does not describe any other measures that account for the costs. Because the discharge limits are tighter, the compliance costs for this option are greater than those for the UK Strategy. According to BNFL estimates range from £5 billion to £10billion. The decommissioning costs would also be higher, since more operations


Page D-17

would probably be closed down and dismantled. The defence costs of such operations would be in excess of £10 million. These compliance costs will depend largely on the extent and speed of the reduction in emissions required. Defra (2002) warns that these values are indicative only. The indirect costs for this option are considered to be the same as for Option1. The British Nuclear industry employs around 30,000 highly qualified people directly and some 30,000 indirectly, in largely remote areas of the UK, in addition to providing about 25% of the UK’s electricity and contributing around £3.3 billion to UK Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The most realistic impact of Option 3 is therefore the opportunity cost of the reallocation of financial and other resources away from other projects BNFL and the government may wish expenditure to go on. In many cases, expenditure on projects other than abatement maybe more cost effective in delivering a higher benefit to society. As identified in other government reports (EA, Tc-99 proposal), an improved marine environment resulting from reduced radionuclide discharges may improve the perception of the quality of seafood from the Irish Sea, generating an impact well beyond the UK as evidence from Scandinavia has shown. However, there is no evidence of this having a substantive economic impact, making it difficult to justify the high expenditure on Option 3. Indirectly the impact on local economies will increase and significant changes to the structure of various industries may occur as the higher compliance costs makes otherwise unprofitable ventures and mergers profitable, due to the ability of larger firms to absorb increasing costs more easily than smaller businesses. This is consequence of economies of scale and the firms ability to pass higher costs on to the consumer through higher energy prices, made possible by increased market power.

D5.2 Other Costs

Other costs may include additional administrative costs to ensure compliance with new measures and expenditure in raising the confidence levels of the population in the new levels of discharge. These costs are difficult to estimate, given the uncertainty about the types of measures and their impacts.

D5.3 Costs to a ‘Typical’ Business

The most ‘typical’ business affected by the Options will be a nuclear business. The UK is increasingly being recognised as a world leader in the management of nuclear liabilities, it is therefore important to identify the likely impact of compliance costs on the various sectors of the nuclear industry. In the production, research and reprocessing sectors of the UK nuclear industry, increased regulation is likely to increase employment, due to increased monitoring, filtering and storage of discharges. The increased reputation and expertise developed in


Page D-18

the UK, because of implementing higher nuclear waste standards should create new export potential for the UK as market leader in nuclear technology and reprocessing. BNFL at its Sellafield site is likely to bear most of the burden for the compliance costs required to reduce discharges. For example, by 2010 it is predicted that all Magnox production will cease, automatically reducing the discharge of nuclear materials. The estimated cost of reprocessing any Magnox waste, according to BNFL, is around £0.75 billion, with costs in the long run estimated at £1 billion to £10 billion if it is to achieve the standards set for 2020, and depending on the speed of change within the industry. In this scenario, the costs are likely to be internalised by BNFL. In addition, this situation is likely to have a positive effect on the Sellafield local economy in the short to medium term, as workers are needed to deal with such a large increase in nuclear waste material, maintaining employment in an otherwise isolated community. In contrast, the nuclear energy industry has undergone a decline in production due to the decommissioning of various Magnox nuclear plants and the increased environmental costs of producing nuclear energy. This is a result of the general public concern about nuclear safety and increased awareness of environmental issues, at a time when electricity prices have been falling following privatisation of the UK energy sector. Increased compliance costs are likely to accelerate this decline in the production of nuclear energy in the UK. However, recent exemptions from carbon taxes should help alleviate the impact of compliance costs. Due to the isolated and rural nature of many nuclear power reactors, the likely economic impact on local economies and small businesses serving each site will be significant. This is because a decline in the nuclear sector would amplify itself in the local economy as employment in businesses serving the nuclear industry especially in a less than average diverse economy would fall rapidly. These indirect costs of introducing new legislation are not easily quantifiable given the limited data available. Similarly, communities close to defence facilities and those reliant on the oil and gas industry will encounter the same indirect compliance costs when increased regulation is imposed. However, the impact in these communities is likely to be less severe due the increased diversity of local economies that rely on many more large employers. Also, the autonomous nature of defence spending in relation to compliance costs, and the minimal effect that the new regulations will have on the cost structure of North Sea Oil companies should ensure that these costs will exhibit a relatively insignificant impact, although still difficult to quantify given the limited data available.

D5.4 Summary of Costs

Estimated direct and indirect costs are shown in Table D5.1. Defra (2002) notes that a considerable number of these potential costs could not be readily quantified and, for those that could, assumptions have had to be made to resolve conflicting information and create a balanced and probable picture.


Page D-19

Table D5.1: Summary of Annual Costs Cost (£ million per year) Type of Cost

Options 1 & 2 Option 3 Comment

Direct costs to nuclear sector

15 to 21 284 to 567 Additional costs of Option 3 relate to costs to BNFL

Indirect costs 31 to 38 49 to 56 Includes health and safety and socio-economic costs

Total 46 to 59 333 to 623

D6. SMALL FIRMS IMPACT TEST The primary costs of the Strategy will be borne by major businesses in the power generating and reprocessing sector, and to some extent by the MoD (Defra, 2002). However, in the remote locations where this sector usually settles, small businesses in the vicinity of large plants may suffer knock on effects if the Marine Strategy results in closer of these facilities. It is not possible at this stage to quantify such effects, but they will be related to local employment, local supply of services and goods, etc. These effects are likely be stronger in these locations than in other part of the country where the economy is more diverse (Defra, 2002).

D7. COMPETITION ASSESSMENT

Since many of the aspects of the detailed actions required to implement the proposed measures will only be determined some time into the future, it is not possible at this stage to identify any specific competition effects that might arise as a result of their implementation. However, it is possible to make some general statements on the types of competition effects that might be experienced, based on the ‘Competition Filter’ included in the draft revised Guidance on Regulatory Impact Assessment (Cabinet Office, 2002). Table D7.1: General Statements Based on ‘Competition Filter’ Q1: In the market(s) affected by the new regulation, does any firm have more than 10% market share? Q2: In the market(s) affected by the new regulation, does any firm have more than 20% market share? Q3: In the market(s) affected by the new regulation, do the largest three firms together have at least 50% market share? The nuclear sector is characterised by a small number of large firms. Q4: Would the costs of the regulation affect some firms substantially more than others? This is possible in some cases. For example, some reprocessing plants may need to reduce their discharges further in relation to others, then the regulation would be more costly to them. Q5: Is the regulation likely to affect the market structure, changing the number or size of firms? Potentially. There is some decommissioning of nuclear plants being carried out at present. Further decommissioning and closure may be deemed necessary in the future. Q6: Would the regulation lead to higher set-up costs for new or potential firms that existing firms do not have to meet? Possibly. New or potential businesses, although unlikely, will have to comply with the new targets set in the Marine Strategy and potential further action.


Page D-20

Table D7.1: General Statements Based on ‘Competition Filter’ Q7: Would the regulation lead to higher ongoing costs for new or potential firms that existing firms do not have to meet? Possibly. New or potential businesses, although unlikely, will have to comply with the new targets set in the Marine Strategy and potential further action. Q8: Is the sector characterised by rapid technological change? The nuclear sector is usually characterised by being in the forefront of technological advance. Q9: Would the regulation restrict the ability of firms to choose the price, quality, range or location of their products? No.

The only major affect to be considered in relation to the oil, gas, and defence industries, is the loss in competitiveness due to increased compliance costs. Impacts on the UK oil and gas industry are likely to be minimal. The defence industry may suffer as contracts from abroad or the UK government are lost to competitors in France, the US or Italy. There may also be impacts on the nuclear energy market under Option 3, as it may become cheaper for electricity suppliers to source energy from the rest of the EU rather that the UK as the costs of producing nuclear energy in the UK increase.


ANNEX E

CHRONIC OIL POLLUTION

Annex E: Chronic Oil Pollution


Page E- 1

E1. INTRODUCTION The problem of oil deposited on coasts is a common problem throughout the world. Data from 1981 indicate that 3.2 million tonnes of oil reached the sea annually and that about 46% of this was derived from marine transportation, including tanker operations, other shipping activities and accidental spills from ships. There are also some releases of oil from offshore oil installations (KIMO, 2001).

Although the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directives are applicable to offshore oil and gas installations, there is no specific EU policy or legislation addressing the offshore oil and gas industry (CEC, 2002). Measures to control emissions and discharges from this sector are mainly developed by OSPAR. Furthermore, Annex I (oil) of MARPOL 73/78 applies on a worldwide scale to the prevention of ship-source pollution. These rules are complemented by EC rules for ships bound for EU ports (mainly the Port State Control and Reception Facilities Directives). There currently appears to be little overlap or duplication in policies relevant to this issue.

E2. PURPOSE AND INTENDED EFFECT E2.1 Objectives of EU Marine Strategy in Relation to Chronic Oil Pollution

The objective of the Marine Strategy with regard to chronic oil pollution is to ensure compliance with existing discharge limits for oil from ships and offshore installations by 2010 at the latest and to eliminate all discharges from these sources by 2020. A series of Actions have been identified to achieve this objective: • Action 11: by 2004, the Commission will explore ways to improve surveillance of

illegal discharges of oil at sea and means to facilitate prosecution of offenders. In doing so, it will seek to enhance co-operation with the regional Bonn and Lisbon agreements, HELCOM and Barcelona; and

• Action 12: by 2004 the Commission will elaborate, in collaboration with all

relevant organisations and stakeholders, a strategy aimed at eliminating all discharges of oil from all sources. In this context, the Commission will review the different approaches regarding the use and financing of port reception facilities.

E2.2 The Background E2.2.1 Overview Table E2.1 summarises existing commitments on oil pollution, from international to UK

level. As can be seen, existing regulation relating to oil pollution is extensive. In


Page E-2

addition, legislation concerning maritime transport also addresses aspects of oil pollution.

Table E2.1: Regulatory and Non-Regulatory Measures on Chronic Oil Pollution International and Regional • 1969 Bonn Agreement for Cooperation in Dealing with Pollution of the North Sea by Oil; • 1971Copenhagen Agreement on Marine Pollution; • 1991 Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Trans-boundary Context; • 1969 International Conventions on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage; • 1971 International Conventions on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for

Oil Pollution Damage; • Lisbon Agreement (not yet in force) for the protection of the coasts and waters of the north-east Atlantic; • MARPOL Convention 73/78 on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships; and • 1992 OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic. EU • Council Resolution of 26 June 1978; • Commission Decision of 25 June 1980 (80/686/EEC) (as amended); • Council Decision of 3 December 1981 (81/971/EEC); • Council Decision of 6 March 1986 (86/85/EEC); and • Decision 2850 of 20/12/2000. UK • Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Regulations, 1996; • Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution Preparedness Response and Co-Operation Convention)

Regulations 1998; • The Prevention of Oil Pollution Act, 1971 (POPA) (as amended); and • The Petroleum and Submarine Pipelines Act, 1995.

E2.2.2 International and Regional Conventions The 1969 Bonn Agreement The grounding of the Torrey Canyon in 1967, and subsequent release of 117,000 tonnes of oil with disastrous consequences for the environment, proved to be a pivotal point for international cooperation to combat marine pollution in the North-East Atlantic. It ultimately stimulated the signature, in 1969, of the Agreement for Cooperation in Dealing with Pollution of the North Sea by Oil, the Bonn Agreement. The renewed agreement, the 1983 Bonn Agreement, is a commitment by North Sea coastal states (together with the European Union to):

• offer mutual assistance and cooperation in combating pollution; and • execute surveillance as an aid to detecting and combating pollution and to prevent

violations of anti-pollution regulations1.

1 There is specific provision for collaborative airborne surveillance to detect spillages of oil and other

harmful substances.


Page E- 3

Signatories to the agreement are Belgium, Denmark, European Community, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. The 1971 Copenhagen Agreement The 1971 Copenhagen Agreement (revised in 1993) addresses marine pollution. Contracting parties2 agree to cooperate on surveillance, investigation, reporting, securing of evidence, combating and assistance in combating, as well as general exchange of information in order to protect the marine environment from pollution by oil and other hazardous substances. The Lisbon Agreement A Co-operation Agreement for the protection of the coasts and waters of the north-east Atlantic against pollution was reached in Lisbon on 17 October 1990. This consisted of an agreement for the protection of the coasts and waters against pollution due to hydrocarbons and other harmful substances. The Agreement notes that special measures are necessary in the event of accidents and other pollution incidents caused by ships and fixed and floating platforms. Under the Agreement, contracting parties agree to undertake, individually or jointly as the case may be, all appropriate measures in order to be prepared to deal with an incident of pollution at sea such as pollution caused by hydrocarbons or other harmful substances. The Lisbon Agreement is, however, not yet in force. MARPOL 73/78 The International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (often known as MARPOL 73/78) currently includes five Annexes each addressing the control of a different types of pollutant entering the sea. Annex I deals with oil pollution. All parties to MARPOL must adhere to Annex I and Annex II (Noxious Liquid Substances), but have the option of ratifying the other annexes. MARPOL applies to shipping of various types, e.g. the Convention also regulates design, construction and maintenance standards for oil tankers3, and in part to oil rigs and production installations.

The OSPAR Convention

OSPAR is the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic 1992 which entered into force in March 1998. OSPAR amalgamates the principles of the 1972 Oslo and 1974 Paris Conventions and requires the application of:

2 Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. 3 Although the Convention originally contained limited provisions for existing vessels, this has been

addressed in amendments to the Convention, strengthening the inspection procedures for older vessels, adding a requirement to retrofit double hulls or an equivalent to tankers of 25 years of age or older (Bell et al, 2000).


Page E-4

• the precautionary principle; • the polluter pays principle; and • best available techniques (BAT) and best environmental practice (BEP), including

clean technology. Annex II to the Convention is concerned with the prevention and elimination of pollution by dumping or incineration, which includes the release of oil from vessels. In 1998, following the Brent Spar affair, the parties to OSPAR agreed to a ban on the disposal of redundant steel oil and gas platforms at sea4 (although derogations may be considered for concrete platforms) (Bell et al, 2000). Another series of decisions and recommendations followed the agreement: • OSPAR Decision 2000/3 on the Use of Organic-Phase Drilling Fluids (OPF) and

the Discharge of OPF-Contaminated Cuttings came into force in January 2001. It applies to the use and discharge of all organic phase drilling fluids that is both oil based and synthetic based drilling fluids. No such fluids may be used without prior authorisation and discharge of cuttings to sea with a concentration >1% by weight of oil based fluids on dry cuttings is prohibited; and

• OSPAR Recommendation 2001/1 for the Management of Produced Water from

Offshore Installations came into force in June 2001. It provides for a reduction in the discharge of oil in produced water by 15% over a five year period and a lowering of the discharge concentration from each installation to 30mg/l over the same period and applies to the use and discharge of all organic phase drilling. The recommendation also includes a presumption against the discharge to sea of water produced from new stand alone developments.

The 1991 Espoo Convention The Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Trans-boundary Context was signed in 1991 (the Espoo Convention). This applies to various major activities with the potential to cause trans-boundary effects and includes offshore hydrocarbon production and large diameter oil and gas pipelines. Projects need to be screened for the potential trans-boundary effects and an Environmental Impact Assessment and international consultation conducted if necessary. The 1969 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage and 1971 International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage

These two Conventions make provisions for compensating those who suffer loss as a result of pollution caused by laden tankers carrying crude oil in bulk. The first imposes a

4 OSPAR Decision 98/3.


Page E- 5

liability on the ship owner to pay compensation regardless of whether the pollution caused was the result of a personal fault. The second establishes an international compensation fund5. The 1990 International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation The International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation (OPRC), 1990 entered into force in 1995 and provides a framework for international co-operation in combating major incidents or threats of marine pollution.

E2.2.3 EU Measures on Oil Pollution

Community action in the field of response to marine pollution started with a Council Resolution of 26 June 1978, which set up “an action programme of the European Communities on the control and reduction of pollution caused by hydrocarbons released to sea (which was later amended to include harmful substances). Other legislation followed, including: • 80/686/EEC: Commission Decision of 25 June 1980 setting up an Advisory

Committee on the control and reduction of pollution caused by hydrocarbons discharged at sea6;

• 81/971/EEC: Council Decision of 3 December 1981 establishing a Community

information system for the control and reduction of pollution caused by hydrocarbons discharged at sea;

• 86/85/EEC: Council Decision of 6 March 1986 establishing a Community

information system for the control and reduction of pollution caused by the spillage of hydrocarbons and other harmful substances at sea; and

• 88/346/EEC: Council Decision of 16 June 1988 amending decision 86/85/EEC,

establishing a community information system for the control and reduction of pollution caused by the spillage of hydrocarbons and other harmful substances at sea.

The role of the European Community in the field of response to marine pollution finds its legal basis in the Decision of the European Parliament and the Council, setting up a Community framework for cooperation in the field of accidental or deliberate marine

5 Substantial revisions to these Conventions were adopted in November 1992. Claims for compensation for

oil pollution damage (including clean-up costs) may be brought against the owner of the tanker which caused the damage or directly against the owner’s P&I insurer. The tanker owner is normally entitled to limit his liability to an amount which is linked to the tonnage of the tanker causing the pollution.

6 This was amended by 85/208/EEC, Commission Decision of 25 March 1985, and 87/144/EEC, Commission Decision of 13 February 1987.


Page E-6

pollution (Decision 2850 of 20/12/2000). In addition, the EU is a signatory to the Lisbon Agreement and Bonn Agreement.

E2.2.4 Existing UK Measures on Oil Pollution

The Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Regulations, 1996 (as amended) give effect to Annex I of MARPOL 73/78 (prevention of oil pollution) in UK waters. They address oily drainage from machinery spaces on vessels and installations. The North Sea is designated a “Special Area”, within which the limit for oil in discharged water from these sources is 15ppm. Vessels and installations are required to hold a valid UK Oil Pollution Prevention (UKOPP) or International Oil Pollution Prevention (IOPP) Certificate. In 1998, the UK also introduced the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution Preparedness Response and Co-Operation Convention) Regulations, with specific requirements for oil spill contingency plans for mobile and fixed offshore installations. This confirmed the requirement to report all oil spills and require harbour authorities to have a duty to prepare plans to clear oil spills from their harbour and for those plans to be compatible with the National Contingency Plan. Further UK regulation specific to the offshore and gas industry as regards oil pollution includes: • The Prevention of Oil Pollution Act, 1971 (POPA) (as amended) and associated

Regulations prohibit the discharge of oil or oily mixtures to sea from any offshore installation or pipeline. The Act provides for exemptions to be obtained to allow lawful discharge of treated produced water, sand and other operational discharges. The current standard for produced water discharges is maximum monthly average of 40mg/kg oil-in-water7;

• The Petroleum and Submarine Pipelines Act, 1995, requires consents to be obtained

for pipeline per-commissioning and commissioning discharges. Specific conditions are placed on each separate discharge;

• The Petroleum Act 1998: which consolidate many regulations which apply to the

offshore oil and gas industry and covers environmental and other issues; and • The Offshore Petroleum Production and Pipelines (Assessment of Environmental

Effects) Regulations 1998 (as amended): which introduced a requirement for Environmental Statements to be prepared for offshore projects of a certain size, or where there may be significant environmental effects.

7 The DTI has recently completed a consultation exercise on the Offshore Petroleum Activities (Oil Pollution

Prevention and Control) Regulations 2003 which will largely replace POPA and introduce a new permitting regime for oily discharges.


Page E- 7

The control of pollution from ships is the responsibility of the Department for Transport and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA).

E2.3 Risk Assessment

E2.3.1 Risks the Marine Strategy is Intended to Address Oil spills from oil tankers have damaged resources in the past, and continue to pose a threat. Spill damage is often measured in terms of bird mortality, which is more easily quantified than other impacts.

Usually it is only the large spills that hit the headlines and it is true that incidents involving oil tankers such as the Braer or Sea Empress release large amounts of oil in fairly restricted areas, causing considerable damage (KIMO, 2001). Although the short-term effects of oil spills are very damaging, the long-term effects to the environment and to the local economy may prove to be minimal unless pollutant levels are of such a magnitude as to interfere with the regenerative ability of a particular area (KIMO, nd).

An on-going problem is that of small oil spills. KIMO (2001) notes that there is a chronic problem with oil pollution around coastal waters, where relatively small amounts of oil come ashore, potentially over a large area. Frequently tar balls, specks of oil or oiled debris come ashore on beaches and, although in low levels, are still capable of killing wildlife and can tarnish the good environmental image of an area. Moreover, chronic oil pollution can cause the long-term loss of saltmarsh vegetation (Toft et al, 1994, in UK Marine SACs Project, 2004). However, very little literature describes the effects of chronic discharges which are common in ports and harbour areas (UK Marine SACs Project, 2004).

E2.3.2 The Situation in the UK

Since 1965, the Advisory Committee on Protection of the Sea (ACOPS) has compiled statistics and other information on different types of marine pollution in the waters around the British Isles. In addition, the Coastguard Agency’s Marine Pollution Control Unit (MPCU), between 1978 and 1999, commissioned an annual survey in which 10 reporting organisations submitted 20,551 reports describing 12,746 oil pollution incidents in the waters around the British Isles (ACOPS, 2002). Following analysis of 1,763 incident reports, 703 discharges were identified from vessels and offshore installations operating in the United Kingdom Pollution Control Zone and national waters. The 2002 total comprised 94.4 % mineral oils, 1.4% chemicals, 0.6% vegetable or animal oils and 3.6% other substances. The geographical distribution of oil discharges was similar to previous years. Clusters in reported sightings of oil in the open sea were again evident off the Norfolk and Suffolk coastline, Dover Strait and its approaches, western English Channel and North Channel in the Irish Sea. Floating oil patches reported in the vicinity of offshore oil and gas


Page E-8

installations, but attributed to unidentified vessels, were more prominent in the United Kingdom Continental Shelf Oil and Gas (UKCS) area during 2002. In total, 78% of all discharges were reported in the open sea and 17% in ports and harbours (ACOPS, 2002). The following Table, Table E2.2, shows the number of incidents reported for mineral oil for 2001 and 2002. A nearly 2.5% increase was evident in the total number of mineral oil related incidents reported compared to the previous year’s total (ACOPS, 2002). However, volumes of oil discharges seem to have been reduced (those recorded in 535 incident reports8 showed a modal class of less than 455 litres, with 6% of oil discharges greater than 456 litres in comparison with 10% for 2001). Table E2.2: Total Incidents Reported by Area and Year Area 2001 2002 North-east England 22 22 Eastern England 16 14 Essex and Kent 19 18 Southern England 29 16 South-west England 32 39 Bristol Channel and South Wales 23 27 Irish Sea 20 16 Western Scotland 39 19 Orkney and Shetland Islands 5 13 Eastern Scotland 21 17 UKCS oil and gas installations 400 422 UKCS vessels 22 41 Total 648 664

Offshore oil and gas installations were identified as the source of 62% of total number of confirmed discharges, but less than 20% of the total oil discharged by weight with most incidents resulting in the discharge of less than 100 litres. The numerical statistics for fishing vessels, general cargo vessels, oil and chemical tankers and offshore support vessels were 8%, 6%, 3% and 2% respectively. Comparisons between the 2001 and 2002 statistics showed further marked reductions in the numbers and proportions of discharges attributed to tankers and non-tanker vessels operating in the survey area. The 2002 statistics were also significantly lower than the 1999-2001 mean annual totals for both categories of vessels (ACOPS, 2002). Excluding discharges from offshore oil and gas installations, approximately 10% of oil slicks were greater than 1.6km in length when this information was reported. Broadly comparable statistics from the 1985, 1995 and 2000 surveys were 15%, 15% and 10% respectively. Respondents to the 2002 survey identified ten beach pollution incidents9

8 Details of the extent of pollution were not available for 71% of the total number of incidents reported.

9 Three significant beach pollution incidents occurred in 2002. Fuel oil globules were washed ashore along an extensive area of the coastline between Lincolnshire and east Yorkshire during December. Local authority reports also described clearance operations affecting the Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex coastline with hundreds of oiled birds being rescued. In the third incident, oil pellets mixed with flotsam were observed on beaches along the southern coastline of Cornwall and Devon. In each location the results from


Page E- 9

involving oil and five were classified as extensive, affecting more than 1.6km of coastline. The statistics for the previous year were fourteen and four respectively. Thus, there were fewer beach pollution incidents in 2002 than in 2001. Outside the UKCS area, there has been a downward trend in the annual number of oil discharges reported in the open sea. The 2002 total of 53 oil discharges from vessels in the open sea was significantly lower than the mean annual total of 80 oil discharges for the previous 4 years (ACOPS, 2002).

E3. OPTIONS

E3.1 Possible Options There are three main options available to the UK in relation to the Marine Strategy proposals regarding chronic oil pollution. These are: • Option 1: continue with existing commitments, in terms of discharge limits. This

option forms the baseline for comparison of the other options; • Option 2: extend current commitments to comply with the actions set out in the

Marine Strategy. Action 11 involves seeking ways to improve surveillance of illegal discharges of oil at sea and means to facilitate prosecution of offenders, as set out in the Marine Strategy, and thus enhancing co-operation with the Bonn and Lisbon Agreements, and the HELCOM and Barcelona Conventions. This action will be led by the Commission. Action 12 requires the elaboration of a strategy aimed at eliminating all discharges of oil from all sources. The Commission will elaborate a report and review the different approaches regarding the use and financing of port reception facilities; and

• Option 3: extend current commitments to comply with the objective of eliminating

all discharges from all sources by 2020. E3.2 Risk Associated With the Options

Option 1: Existing Commitments The risk associated with Option 1 is that existing commitments will not be able to meet the objective of eliminating all discharges by 2020, although complying with discharge limits is more readily achievable.

oil sample analyses suggested different types of heavily weathered fuel oils which had been at sea for some time.


Page E-10

The UK currently supports compliance with agreed discharge limits for both ships and offshore installations; although the more stringent limits set up for 2006 arising from Recommendation 2001/1 for offshore plants may be less easily achievable. Moreover, the OSPAR Recommendation acknowledges that some (few) offshore installations may not be able to reduce discharges to 30mg/l. Thus, risk of damage to the environment could remain if a reduction of 15% by 2006 is not achieved. The UK is therefore committed to ensure compliance with this Recommendation. Option 2: Comply with Actions 11 and 12 Option 2 consists of extending current commitments to take account of actions 11 and 12, that is, identifying ways to improve surveillance of illegal discharges of oil at sea and means to facilitate prosecution of offenders and the elaboration of a strategy aimed to eliminating all discharges. These actions will be led by the Commission. The risks associated with this Option with regard to Action 11 are linked to the possibility of improving surveillance systems, as well as their effectiveness in order to make prosecutions and applications of the polluter pays principle successful. Thus, ‘successful’ policing of the option will depend on the effectiveness in detection of slicks, its position and orientation relative to suspect release vessels. The time between release and detection/attribution is likely to be crucial here (Oceanides, 2004). As for Action 12, the risk will depend on the particular measures identified. The Action, however, does not appear to take account of the fact that certain discharges from ships are permitted under international agreements, such as those under MARPOL. Thus the action could create inconsistency in regulation as to which discharges are allowable and which are not. A ‘black list’ of substances, for which discharges are not permitted, could reduce the risk of the Option. Option 3: Comply with the Objective of Eliminating all Discharges by 2020 The risk associated with Option 3 is that elimination of all discharges will impose excessive costs on the UK. The Option does not take account of whether discharges, if minimized and controlled, present a continuing risk to the environment. Moreover, it ignores OSPAR Recommendations concerning limitations on the ability to reduce discharge concentrations. This could create major problems for the important UK offshore sector which, as seen above, is acting to reduce the level of discharges progressively and is striving to safeguard the environment by means of voluntary good practice guidelines10.

10 Information on voluntary measures undertaken by oil industry is available from UKOOA web-site at

www.ukooa.co.uk/envguide.html.


Page E- 11

E4. BENEFITS E4.1 Introduction

The focus of the Marine Strategy is on protection of the marine environment. The main benefits expected from the Options relating to chronic oil pollution would therefore be a reduction of the risk of damage to the marine environment from reduction/elimination of oil discharges. Information about the risks posed to the marine environment by oil discharges is sparse and, when available, this relates to large oil spills. This makes the benefits of the Options difficult to determine.

E4.2 Option 1

The benefits of Option 1 will be those accruing from existing commitments, in terms of discharge limits. This option forms the baseline for comparison with other options. Data for 2001 and 2002 appears to show a downward trend in the number of discharges reported, although such figures are notoriously unreliable. The 2002 total of 53 oil discharges from vessels in the open sea was significantly lower than the mean annual total of 80 oil discharges for the previous 4 years (ACOPS, 2002). Thus, benefits could be expected from continuing with current discharge consents in terms of benefits to the environment and, possibly, to the aesthetic quality of coastal sites. In terms of valuing the benefits from reduced discharges, however, these are difficult to estimate. Much of the existing literature on benefits in the context of oil pollution is in regard to major pollution incidents whereas chronic oil pollution has been less investigated. The Sea Empress Cost-Benefit Analysis, conducted by RPA in 1997, valued a reduction in the incident rate for oil spills by a factor of two at around £500,000 per year11. This, however, relates to a large volume of spill and current figures available from the 2002 Annual Survey on Reported Discharges from Vessels and Offshore Oil and Gas Installations report significantly smaller spill volumes. The largest spill consisted of 60 tonnes of marine diesel to sea. Assuming that existing regulations reduce the probability of spill of this magnitude by two, the benefits could be equivalent to around £400 per year using the same basis for calculation. However, this approach does not address the effects of chronic, small-scale pollution rather than single spills. It is known, however, that the clean-up of stranded oil and oil beached material (by skimming, pumping or suction devices) requires heavy equipment (KIMO, 2001), and thus, likely, significant costs. Thus, benefits could arise in terms of reduced coastal clean-up costs arising from current regulation, if the apparent trend towards reduced number of incidents continues.

11 With this including direct costs avoided, benefits to tourism, recreation, commercial fisheries, recreational

fisheries, local industry, conservation/non-use and human health.


Page E-12

E4.3 Option 2 The benefits from Option 2 will accrue from identification of measures to improve surveillance of illegal discharges and means to facilitate prosecution of offenders (Action 11) and from Commission actions to elaborate a strategy aimed at eliminating discharges. In relation to Action 11, it is important to note that currently the MCA has limited regulatory powers to prosecute pollution offences in the Thames, the Solent, the Bristol Channel and other major estuaries around the UK. Moreover, existing legislation provides statutory defences against prosecution, even where an incident arises through negligence (UK Parliament, 2003). In this context, benefits could accrue from Option 2 if this was to enhance the ability of regulatory bodies to pursue offenders12. The benefits are again difficult to estimate, but would comprise avoided costs of illegal discharges (e.g. ecological benefits, increased aesthetic value of coastal sites, and avoided costs of clean-up). Action 12, elaboration of a strategy aimed at eliminating all discharges of oil from all sources, will not in itself bring immediate benefits. In the longer term, however, implementation of such a strategy could have significant benefits for the environment. These are addressed under Option 3.

E4.4 Option 3

The benefits of Option 3 will arise from elimination of all discharges by 2020. Although the environmental benefits from a reduction to zero could be significant, it is unlikely that this could be achieved in practice. It also seems likely that any such benefits would be overshadowed by costs to industry and the economy (see Section E.5).

E4.5 Business Sectors Affected

The sectors affected by the measures are shipping and offshore oil and gas installations. The extent to which these sectors are affected increases from Option 1 to 3. Option 3 could also have knock-on effects in other economic sectors. For example, the UK economy relies on shipping for 95% of its visible trade so that any measures resulting in significant impacts for the shipping industry could have widespread effects on the economy as a whole.

12 The 2002 Annual Survey of reported discharges notes that spills from bunker, diesel, fuel and gas oils

occurred most frequently in the UKCS, south-west England, Bristol Channel and South Wales, and north-east England enumeration areas.


Page E- 13

E4.6 Issues of Equity and Fairness No specific issues of equity and fairness are identified in relation to Option 1, as this comprises the business as usual scenario. Similarly, the impacts under Option 2 of Action 11 on equity and fairness are not considered to be significant, as this focuses on ensuring compliance with existing limits. Issues of equity and fairness with regard to Action 12 will depend on the range of measures identified by the Commission. With regard to Option 3, issues of equity and fairness could arise because discharges of oil do not necessarily always create a pollution hazard. Consultation with industry on the implications of the Strategy, by Defra, suggested that achieving zero discharges could entail closure of some offshore installations, where pollution control equipment was considered not suitable. Consideration therefore needs to be given to the net benefits arising from the Option, including the effects of reducing supplies of oil and gas to the rest of the economy. Data on multiplier effects for oil and gas extraction indicate that the effect on the economy arising from a change in output are likely to be significant13, so that impacts are likely to spread across other economic sectors.

E4.7 Summary of Benefits

Table E4.1 summarises the benefits under the different Options. Benefits have not been quantified, as it is difficult to relate the reduction of discharges to actual reductions in environmental damage. Instead, a qualitative indication of their relative value is given.

13 The Scottish I-O Tables note oil and gas extraction industry to have the following Type I multipliers:

output multiplier of 1.689; income multiplier of 1.817; and employment multiplier of 1.908 (SE, 2003).


Page E-14

E5. COSTS E5.1 Compliance Costs

F5.1.1 Introduction

The proposed EU Marine Strategy will generate compliance costs for the actions required to meet the requirements to reduce illegal oil disposal and/or elimination. These costs will be borne by sectors that currently give rise to the discharges, that is, the offshore oil and gas industry and shipping.

E5.1.2 Option 1

Option 1 would not incur additional costs beyond those already committed or being committed, as the UK’s regime would continue unchanged. A Regulatory Impact Assessment has been prepared on the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Regulations 1996. We are waiting for confirmation on whether this is publicly available.

E5.1.3 Option 2

Action 11, ways to improve surveillance of illegal discharges of oil at sea and means to facilitate prosecution of offenders, should not entail significant additional expenditure in the UK.

Table E4.1: Summary of Options and Benefits Option Benefits Option 1: Follow existing commitments Benefits could be expected from continuing with current

discharge consents in terms of reduced damage to the environment and, possibly, to the aesthetic quality of coastal sites. Valuing the benefits is difficult, as much of the existing literature on the benefits of reducing oil pollution relates to major pollution incidents rather than chronic oil pollution.

Option 2: Extend current commitments to take account of action 11, ways to improve surveillance of illegal discharges of oil at sea and means to facilitate prosecution of offenders, and Action 12, elaborate a strategy to eliminate all discharges by 2020.

Benefits could accrue from Option 2, Action 11, if these were to increase the ability of relevant regulatory bodies to pursue offenders. Benefits again are difficult to estimate but could comprise avoided economic costs from illegal discharges. There will be no immediate benefits from Action 12, but the strategy could bring significant benefits in future, if implemented.

Option 3: Eliminating all discharges of oil from all sources by 2020

Although environmental benefits from a complete reduction to zero levels could be significant, in practice the chances of reducing all discharges to such a level are limited. It also seems likely that benefits would be overshadowed by costs to industry and the economy (see Section E5).


Page E- 15

Action 12, development of a strategy to eliminate all discharges by 2020, is unlikely to impose excessive costs to the UK in the short-term. Additional costs could arise, however, in the longer term if other measures for eliminating discharges are proposed by the Commission. These costs are discussed under Option 3.

E5.1.4 Option 3

The actions required under Option 3 to meet the objective of eliminating all discharges by 2020 are currently unknown and therefore cannot be costed accurately. However, a number of the potential measures have significant associated costs. There is currently no technical solution for achieving zero oil in discharges from oil installations other than re-injection into oil wells. This is not technically feasible at many locations. The only other means of compliance would be to cease production at these locations. Many hydrocarbon-based substances are discharged from unmanageable sources or through accidents. Meeting this objective is, therefore, unlikely to be practicable. Table E5.1 shows the proportion of inputs of oil into the marine environment arising from different sources. Although the data are quite old, and represents global rather than EU or UK sources, it gives an indication of the sources that would need to be targeted to achieve the objective of eliminating all discharges.

Table E5.1: Estimates of Global Inputs of Oil Pollution into the Marine Environment (,000 tons/year of oil hydrocarbons) Land-

based Sources

Oil Transportation and Shipping

Offshore Production

Atmospheric Fallout

Natural Seeps

Total

,000 tons/year 1,175 564 47 306 259 2,351

Percentage 50% 24% 2% 13% 11% 100% Source: GESAMP,1993

Land-based Sources According to the Table, land-based sources are the most significant contributor to oil pollution in the marine environment. Other measures to address onshore aquatic pollution, such as the EU Water Framework Directive, are likely to contribute to a reduction in such sources. Other measures to avoid discharges by 2020 could include, for instance, the provision of oil recovery facilities at refineries. This could impose significant costs. Shipping and Ports Measures to reduce discharges from oil transportation and shipping, the second highest source of marine oil pollution, could impose less significant additional costs than measures at refineries. For example, the cost of an oil tank leakage sensor and alarm is estimated at £450 (one-off costs).


Page E-16

The Marine Strategy notes that, in the context of eliminating discharges, it will review the different approaches regarding the use and financing of port reception facilities. One would expect impacts on port authorities, therefore, to be minimized. Moreover, the Regulatory Impact Assessment on Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues (the Port Waste Reception Facilities Directive), which covers waste oil, concluded that the Directive would place only a small additional compliance cost upon the UK ports industry (although it was not possible to quantify that cost). Offshore Oil and Gas With regard to offshore oil and gas installations, potential costs could be very high if measures to eliminate discharges of oil are introduced. There are currently no viable technical solutions for achieving zero oil in discharges. In order to achieve the objective of eliminating discharges of oil, the oil and gas extraction industry would therefore need to invest heavily in equipment to re-inject oil contaminated production water into oil wells, where this is feasible, and to potentially cease production where re-injection is infeasible. Oil contaminated drill cuttings and drilling fluids would need to be retained and taken ashore for disposal. Preliminary consultation with industry has shown that the costs of these measures would be very high..

Other compliance costs associated with the transport and disposal of waste products on or offshore are likely to increase these estimates significantly. This is especially the case if the cost of removing obsolete platforms and pipelines containing hydrocarbon based substances is considered. Currently only one or two platforms are disposed of each year, but this is predicted to increase to at least ten platforms a year in the next decade, as North Sea oil reserves are exhausted (Alexander’s Gas and Oil Connections, 2002). The one-off cost of removal of obsolete platforms has been estimated at £15-20 billion (Alexander’s Gas and Oil Connections, 2002), although other commentators rate the potential costs as much higher.

E5.2 Other Costs E5.2.1 Option 2

It seems likely that additional costs will arise for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency's monitoring and enforcement work from Option 2; for instance, costs could accrue from an increase in the scope of Port State Control inspections of vessels. The RIA on the Port Waste Reception Facilities Directive concluded that inspection of ships on a routine basis, and of ships targeted as a result of information received from a competent authority in another Member State, would be likely to increase costs for the MCA by the order of £43,000 per year.


Page E- 17

Enforcement of current Regulations is undertaken by MCA in accordance with the Bonn Agreement Aerial Surveillance Programme. This currently amounts to around 900 hours aerial surveillance at a cost of £500 per hour, together with random satellite images (around 100 per year at £1000 per image)14. Additional enforcement measures would probably require more intensive surveillance.

E5.2.2 Option 3

Further costs arising from Option 3 include the costs of enforcing and monitoring the ban on discharges of oil products from vessels and land-based industries. These costs cannot be quantified at this stage. Monitoring costs will also be incurred by the oil industry, but these are likely to be minimal, when compared with the actual compliance costs of the legislation.

E5.3 Costs to a ‘Typical’ Business

It is difficult to identify a ‘typical’ business in the context of the options identified. The most ‘typical’ business would be a shipping operation; such an operation would only face potentially significant costs under Option 3. The costs for such a business would depend upon the number of ships in operation, the extent of progress made towards minimising oil discharges to date and the types of measures selected. The measure most likely to result in additional costs is a total ban of oil disposal, unless oil disposal facilities are made available and regulated so as to avoid high disposal fees. As for the offshore oil and gas industry, the ‘typical business’ will be, normally, a large size company. The largest costs will arise from Option 3, as seen in Section E5.1

E5.4 Summary of Costs The costs associated with the three Options are summarised in Table E5.2:

• Option 1 will imply no significant additional costs; • Under Option 2, the costs of Action 11 will not be significant. The immediate costs

of Action 12 will not be significant but, in the longer term, the strategy developed under this action could pose additional costs. These are addressed under Option 3; and

• Option 3 will give rise to significant costs. Some estimates for the offshore oil and

gas industry are summarised in Table E5.1. Additional costs will also arise in relation to inspections conducted by MCA. The costs for shipping will be significantly smaller but these will vary across the range of measures.

14 MCA (personal communication, March 2004)


Page E-18

Table E5.2: Summary of the Costs to Oil and Gas Industry from Option 3 Type of Cost Magnitude of Costs Collection, treatment and transportation of oil contaminated drill cuttings and drilling muds

Preliminary consultation indicates that these could be large.

Elimination of oil-contaminated production water discharges

Large costs and very significant implications for security of supply

Disposal of obsolete platforms and pipelines Could be of the order of £15 to £20 billion, one-off costs. Monitoring and surveillance costs Unquantifiable, impact likely to fall on authorities as

shipping is the main cause of illegal oil discharge. Competitiveness Reduced as profitability of North Sea oil decreases from

additional costs not imposed on non-EU producers. Revenue loss could be significant.

Source: UKOOA (2003) E6. SMALL FIRMS IMPACT TEST

The main costs associated with Option 3 are likely to be faced by the shipping and oil and gas industries, although other sectors may be affected by measures to reduce discharges from land-based sources outside oil refineries. There may be some impacts for small firms in the shipping sector. There would also be impacts on the oil and gas sector as the industry is increasingly composed of small firms. By contrast, the need for greater monitoring of oil discharges, installation of new capital and support services could generate additional business for SME suppliers to the industry.

E7. COMPETITION ASSESSMENT

Table E7.1 provides general statements on the potential competitive effects of the Marine Strategy in relation to chronic oil pollution, based on the Cabinet Office ‘Competition Filter’.

Table E7.1: General Statements Based on ‘Competition Filter’ Q1: In the market(s) affected by the new regulation, does any firm have more than 10% market share? Q2: In the market(s) affected by the new regulation, does any firm have more than 20% market share? Q3: In the market(s) affected by the new regulation, do the largest three firms together have at least 50% market share? The oil industry has historically been characterised by a highly concentrated number of firms, with many producing countries operating as a cartel. More recently, the industry has seen the emergence of small firms. The shipping industry is much more diverse. Q4: Would the costs of the regulation affect some firms substantially more than others? Costs are likely to affect UK North Sea oil and gas operations the most. The multinational structure of the industry will lessen the impact as companies can source more oil from their other international operations. However, small firms are likely to be affected. For shipping, the impacts will be most severe for vessels currently discharging illegally.


Page E- 19

Table E7.1: General Statements Based on ‘Competition Filter’ Q5: Is the regulation likely to affect the market structure, changing the number or size of firms? Potentially it could change the supply of oil, as it could lead to a more rapid increase in imports of oil into the UK. It may also deter new small firms from entering the market. If costs to shipping were increased significantly, there could potentially be impacts on the structure of the industry. Q6: Would the regulation lead to higher set-up costs for new or potential firms that existing firms do not have to meet? Compliance costs would apply equally to new entrants and existing firms. Q7: Would the regulation lead to higher ongoing costs for new or potential firms that existing firms do not have to meet? There is no evidence that this would be the case. Q8: Is the sector characterised by rapid technological change? No Q9: Would the regulation restrict the ability of firms to choose the price, quality, range or location of their products? No

E8. ENFORCEMENT AND SANCTIONS

No additional requirements for enforcement and sanctions would be generated under Options 1 and 2. Option 3 would require significant increases in enforcement measures to ensure compliance with target of zero discharges. There would also be a need to increase to monitor activity significantly.


Page E-20


ANNEX F

LITTER

Annex F: Litter


Page F-1

F1. INTRODUCTION Contamination with litter is believed to be a general problem in all European Seas. The Marine Strategy acknowledges that litter can have impacts on marine life, with these including the drowning and the death of birds, turtles and cetaceans caused by ingested plastic objects. Moreover, litter has also been found to carry a variety of epiphytic organisms to sea areas that these organisms will not normally reach (CEC, 2002). The main sources are shipping (fishing and commercial) and tourist and recreational activities. As tourism, urban development and industrial pressure for development in the coastal zone increase, the problem of litter may also increase (CEC, 2002).

F2. PURPOSE AND INTENDED EFFECT F2.1 Objectives of EU Marine Strategy in Relation to Marine Litter

The objective of the Marine Strategy with regard to litter is to eliminate marine litter arising from illegal disposal at sea by 2010. The Commission’s proposed action is to elaborate a report, in collaboration will all relevant organisations, on the extent and sources of marine litter and consider possible remedial measures (Action 13 of the Marine Strategy). The Marine Strategy does not, however, define marine litter. Different definitions of marine litter exist, ranging from dumping at sea of solid wastes from land-based sources (Lentz, 1987, in SNH et al, 2004) to garbage discharged during normal shipping operations (IMO, 1998, in SNH et al, 2004). For the purposes of this Report the following definition has been adopted (based on the Minch Project1, SNH et al 2004): Marine litter or debris may collectively describe any man-made object discarded into the marine environment, or reaches it through waterways, or domestic or industrial outfalls. The above definition thus includes both solid waste from shipping and land-based sources. It has been adopted because of the type of data available at the UK level (from monitoring of beach litter) and because land-based activities are considered to be an important source of litter in the marine environment (UNEP et al, 2001).

1 The Minch Project is a collaborative venture established by Scottish Natural Heritage and Comhairle nan

Eilean, with support and funding from a large number of organisations including the Highland Council and the Local Enterprise Company Network.

Annex F: Litter

Page F-2

F2.2 The Background F2.2.1 Overview Table F2.1 summarises existing commitments on marine litter, from international to UK

level. These and associated measures are analysed in detail below.

Table F2.1: Regulatory and Non-Regulatory Measures on Marine Litter International and Regional • MARPOL Convention 73/78; • London Convention • Oslo Convention; • Paris Convention; and • OSPAR Convention. EU • Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities for ship generated waste and cargo residues; • Bathing Water Directive 76/160/EEC; and • Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive 91/271/EEC. UK • Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution by Garbage) Regulation 1988; • Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Port Waste Reception Facilities) Regulations 2003; and • Environmental Protection Act 1990.

F2.2.2 International and Regional Conventions

MARPOL 73/78 The International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (often known as MARPOL 73/78) currently includes five Annexes each addressing the control of a different type of pollutant entering the sea. Annex V addresses solid waste generated during normal vessel operations at sea, on fixed/floating platforms and in ports, as well as the solid waste generated by economic activities such as fishing and oil and gas production. Annex V restricts discharge of garbage etc. except for safety reasons, due to damage of the ship or accidental loss of nets. In addition, the North Sea became an effective Special Area for the purpose of MARPOL Annex V on 18 February 1991. Consequently, the disposal of all plastics and all other garbage was prohibited in this area. All parties to MARPOL must adhere to Annex I (Oil) and Annex II (Noxious Liquid Substances) but have the option of ratifying the other annexes. By 31 January 1998, 104 parties (93% of the world’s shipping tonnage) had ratified MARPOL. Of these, 87 Parties, 82% have ratified Annex V. Although MARPOL 73/78 provides an international framework for the regulation of pollution from shipping, it simply requires States to ensure that the provision of waste reception facilities are “adequate” and do not cause “undue delay” to the ships using them. London Convention

In 1972, The Inter-Governmental Conference adopted the Convention on the Dumping of Wastes at Sea, also known as the London Convention. This Convention came into force


Page F-3

on 30 August 1975, with the IMO as the responsible secretariat. The Convention is global in nature, and contributes to the international control and prevention of marine pollution. It prohibits the dumping of certain hazardous materials, requires a prior special permit for the dumping of a number of other identified materials and a prior general permit for other wastes or matter. ‘Dumping’ is defined as the deliberate disposal at sea of wastes or other matter from vessels, aircraft, platforms or other man-made structures, as well as the deliberate disposal of these vessels or platforms themselves2. Oslo, Paris and OSPAR Conventions

In Europe, a regional regime, the Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft, 1972 (Oslo Convention) entered into force in April 1974. The Convention regulates dumping operations of industrial wastes, sewage sludge, dredged materials and other wastes disposed of at sea within the Northeast Atlantic area, including the British Isles. It does so by prohibiting the dumping of certain categories of waste, which are dangerous to the marine environment because of their toxicity, persistence and bioaccumulation. Annex I to the Convention lists the substances whose dumping is prohibited, which includes persistent plastics that may float and seriously interfere with fishing and other legitimate users of the sea. The Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land Based Sources (Paris Convention), 1974, entered into force in May 1978 and regulates discharges to sea from rivers, directly from the coast, via pipelines, platforms and from the atmosphere.

In 1992, both the Oslo and Paris Conventions were replaced by the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment, North East Atlantic, or OSPAR Convention. This adopts the principles of the Oslo and Paris Convention and came into force in March 1998. Contracting Parties to the Convention are obliged to apply both the precautionary and polluter pays principles and ensure that the programmes and measures they take are in accordance with the best available technology (BAT).

F2.2.3 EU Measures on Marine Litter

A number of EU Directives aim to address the issue of litter (both marine litter and litter from land that could reach the sea). These are summarised below: • EU Directive 2000/59/EC on port reception facilities for ship generated waste

and cargo residues, published 28 December 2000, and entering into force on that same day. The aim of this Directive is to reduce discharges of ship-generated waste and cargo residues into the sea, especially illegal discharges, from ships using ports in the Community, by improving the availability and use of port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues. Article 16(1) of the Directive requires

2 Wastes derived from the exploration and exploitation of sea-bed mineral resources are, however, excluded

from the definition. The provision of the Convention shall also not apply when it is necessary to secure the safety of human life or of vessels in cases of force majeure.

Annex F: Litter

Page F-4

Member States to bring into force the national legislation necessary to comply with the Directive;

• EU Bathing Water Directive 76/160/EEC has the objective of protecting the

quality of identified bathing waters by specifying microbiological, physicochemical and other characteristics to which they should conform (CEC, 1976). A guideline or G value parameter in category 13 of the Directive’s Annex requires an absence of tarry materials and floating materials, such as wood, plastic articles, bottles, containers of glass, plastic, rubber or any other substance. Member States should endeavour to observe G values as guidelines; and

• EC Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) 1991. This Directive

will be fully implemented by 2005 and will ensure that all sewage discharges serving populations over 10,000 in coastal areas and 2,000 in estuarine areas will receive secondary (biological) treatment prior to discharge. Discharges to waters that are ‘sensitive’ will be required to have tertiary treatment by the end of 1998. Discharges to waters that are ‘less sensitive’ will only be required to have undergone primary treatment (settlement/removal of gross solids). Raw sewage containing solids and used sanitary products may still be discharged from coastal and estuarine outfalls serving populations less than 10,000 and 2,000 respectively.

F2.2.4 Existing UK Measures on Marine Litter Over the past 20 years the UK has phased out most forms of dumping of waste at sea and

the remainder are strictly controlled (Defra, 2002c). The Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution by Garbage) Regulation 1988 controls the dumping of garbage in UK waters, and, since 1998, UK ports, harbours and some terminals have been required to draw up waste management plans (Merchant Shipping (Port Waste Reception Facilities) Regulations 1997)3. Both regulations formalize the adoption of MARPOL 73/78.

The UK requirements for Port Waste Reception Facilities have been updated by the Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Port Waste Reception Facilities) Regulations 2003, which transpose the EU Directive 2000/59/EC. There are three significant changes, in the form of additional requirements to those in previous regulations: • ships must provide notification, prior to their entry into port, of the waste which they

will discharge (including information about types and quantities); • ships must deliver their waste to port reception facilities before leaving port; and • a mandatory fee is to be collected from ships in respect of the costs of port reception

facilities for ship-generated waste.

3 The plan is required to identify waste types and volumes landed by ships for disposal, thereby assessing the

requirement for provision of facilities and apply to all prescribed wastes which are: cargo residues, noxious liquid substances and ship generated waste, the latter defined as wastes and residues generated during the service of the ship which fall into the definition of garbage, oil and oily mixtures.


Page F-5

There are also some additional minor changes, and some consequential implications for monitoring and enforcement (carried out by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency). Significant progress has been made in reducing litter from sewage discharges. As part of the National Environment Programme (NEP) under AMP3, water companies are making improvements to around 4,600 storm sewage discharges between 2000 to 2005. These improvements are primarily aimed at securing compliance with the EU Bathing Water Directive (76/160/EEC) and the EU Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) but also reduce significantly the quantities of sewage-derived litter discharged. There are also controls over the deposit and placement of materials in the sea and other tidal waters both during construction activities and for the purpose of their disposal by means of licences issued under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. Such licences are administered by the Marine Consents and Environment Unit (MCEU) and are only granted after detailed scientific assessment of the potential environmental impact, with particular regard to the need to safeguard marine conservation sites.

In addition, under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, it is an offence to drop litter

in any public place (with these including beaches). The EPA places duties on local authorities to keep amenity environment clear of litter according to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Code of Practice (EA, 2004b).

F2.3 Risk Assessment

F2.3.1 Risks the Marine Strategy is Intended to Address Since the 1970s, studies have addressed the problem of debris in the marine environment mainly in terms of quantitative measurements of abundance and the effects on marine fauna. Most of the data concern floating debris or litter along the coast. Litter accumulates on beaches and in shallow water habitats. The thousands of tons of plastics discharged into the marine environment constitute a considerable source of marine contaminants that affect marine wildlife, notably polyethylene and polypropylene because of their poor degradability. Fishing nets and line also represent an enormous hazard to marine mammals and seabirds as a result of entanglement and ingestion. It is estimated that over one million birds and 100,000 marine mammals and sea turtles die each year from entanglement in, or ingestion of, plastics (Laist, 1997, in KIMO, 2001)4. Only a few surveys have estimated the distribution and abundance of debris on the seafloor. Information detailing the impacts of debris on benthic ecosystems is sparse, but smothering of benthic and beach faunas affects natural systems at the species and possibly ecosystem level (Laist, 1997, in KIMO, 2001).

4 At least 135 species of marine vertebrates and 8 species of marine invertebrate have been reported as

entangled in marine litter, whereas a total of 177 marine species have been reported to ingest litter items and 111 of the world’s 312 species of seabird are known accidentally to eat plastic (Laist, 1997).

Annex F: Litter

Page F-6

In relation to risk to human health, the areas of most concern in relation to litter are shorelines. Sewage-related debris, medical waste and other potential hazards are reported as being of potential danger to human health, either when stranded on beaches or circulating in coastal waters (Rees and Pond, 1994, in KIMO, 2001). In the UK, Phillipp (1993) reports that, during the period 1988-91, 4% of the needle stick injuries reported to the Public Health Laboratory Service in the South West Region of England were sustained on the beach (in KIMO, 2001). However, minor injuries (e.g. cuts from glass and broken cans) may be self-treated or dealt with by primary care and not recorded. As part of the study into the economic costs of marine debris conducted by KIMO, several health authorities throughout the UK were contacted and questioned about the numbers of injuries occurring in their area that were caused by marine debris. Many of the authorities contacted reported considerable difficulty in identifying that the illness or injury recorded was caused by marine debris or that it occurred at the coast. Lothian Health Board reported that very occasionally an accident (e.g. needle stick injury) may be discussed with one of the medical staff but that this was rare whereas the Western Isles were not aware of any incidents involving marine debris, however they were aware of canisters and other containers coming ashore that had the potential to cause human accidents.

In comparison with human health therefore, effects on marine organisms are more widespread and extend to the pelagic ocean and other remote areas (UNEP et al, 2001).

F2.3.2 The Situation in the UK In the UK, monitoring of beach litter is normally conducted on an annual basis. These surveys are believed to provide a good indication of potential litter entering the sea. The 2002 Beachwatch Survey, conducted by the Marine Conservation Society (MCS), found over 240,000 pieces of litter on 229 beaches, that is, an average of 1,609 items per kilometre (EA, 2004b). The main sources of beach litter were: • beach visitors (39.1%); • fishing (14.6%); • sewage-related debris (3.9%)5; and • shipping (2.2%).

Nearly 40% of all litter found could not be attributed to a source, because it had been in the marine environment for some time and could no longer be traced. Regarding the type of litter, about 56% of the litter found in 2002 was plastic (EA, 2004).

5 Sewage systems, with combined storm water drainage, often result in direct discharges into rivers or the

sea. It is estimated that over 15 billion items of sanitary protection are flushed down toilets in the UK every year and most end up in sewage treatment works (EA, 2004).


Page F-7

Levels in 2002 were higher than in 2001, with a 2.1% increase in the number of items recorded per kilometre6. Litter from shipping, however, was at lower levels than in 2001, when it was estimated at 3% of total items. One of the reasons could be the more stringent legislation for ships, under the Port Waste Reception Facilities Regulations, enforced from 1998. Indeed, the 2000 Survey of Waste Reception Facilities in the UK, conducted by WRc, concluded that the provision of waste reception facilities in the 35 ports surveyed was generally adequate and compliant with the requirements of MARPOL. However, some localized problems with litter were found at the following ports: • Torquay Marina; • Shoreham; • Southwold; • Perhym; • Ullapool; • Forth-Granton; and • Southampton.

F3. OPTIONS

F3.1 Possible Options There are three main options available to the UK in relation to the Marine Strategy proposals regarding litter. These are: • Option 1: continue with existing commitments, particularly under the UK Merchant

Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Port Waste Reception Facilities) Regulation 2003. This option forms the baseline for comparison with the other options;

• Option 2: extend current commitments to take account of the action set out in the

Marine Strategy, consisting of preparation of a report on the extent and sources of marine litter and consideration of possible remedial measures. This report will be prepared by the Commission, in collaboration with relevant authorities. UK input would be limited to providing input to and commenting on the review and on the Commission’s conclusions; and

• Option 3: extend current commitments to comply with both the action set out in the

Marine Strategy and any additional actions needed to meet the objective of the Marine Strategy of eliminating marine litter arising from illegal disposal at sea by 2010. Such additional actions might include:

6 The greatest number of items per kilometre occurs in England (2,044 items/km) followed by Wales (1,677

items/km), the Channel Islands (1,315 items/km), Scotland (1,240 items/km) and Northern Ireland (901 items/km).

Annex F: Litter

Page F-8

- more stringent controls on disposal on waste from land-based sources and additional enforcement measures;

- additional monitoring and enforcement of controls on waste management by shipping;

- encouraging changes in individual behaviour through education and awareness; - economic incentives such as deposit-refund schemes; and - remediation (cleanup).

F3.2 Risk Associated With the Options Option 1: Existing Commitments The risk associated with Option 1 is that existing commitments under the UK Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Port Waste Reception Facilities) Regulation 2003 alone will not be able to reduce illegal disposal of litter to zero, thus impacts on health and the environment from marine litter will remain. As indicated above, the total level of beach litter in 2002 was greater than in 2001 thus, although litter from shipping was reduced, other sources of litter such as tourism are less regulated and, with tourism on the rise, risks will remain. Option 2: Comply with Actions Set Out in the Strategy The action consists of the Commission preparing a report on the extent and sources of marine litter. As a result, the Commission could determine that additional measures are required. The risks associated with this Option are firstly, that the action will not meet the objective of the Marine Strategy and secondly, that the Commission will identify and introduce additional measures that are not cost-effective. Option 3: Additional Actions to Meet the Objectives of the Strategy The risk associated with Option 3 is that the additional actions will impose excessive costs on the UK. Different measures can be proposed under Option 3. These could include: • more stringent controls on disposal of waste from shipping and other land-based

sources and additional enforcement measures; • encouraging changes in individual behaviour through education and awareness; • economic incentives, such as deposit-refund schemes; and • remediation (cleanup). The risks associated with each of these actions is summarised in Table F3.1, overleaf.


Page F-9

Table F3.1: Risks Associated with Additional Measures to Meet the Objective of the Strategy Measures Associated Risks More stringent limits of disposal on waste and additional enforcement measures

Waste disposal and treatment of land-based activities is already highly regulated. It might be possible to further tackle sewage derived litter by separating storm overflows. Any disposal of waste from ships is essentially illegal (apart from sewage which implementation of MARPOL Annex IV should deal with). The only measures that can be taken for ships would relate to tackling illegal disposal – this could involve additional inspection and enforcement and could make use of detailed ships audits to check compliance on individual ships. This could be targeted at those ships perceived to pose greatest risk. Additional controls over waste from offshore oil and gas installations may be limited in effect, as measures to minimise litter are believed to be already in place.

To encourage changes in individual behaviour through enforcement, improved education and awareness

Need to address the main source of litter, i.e. tourists. Risk reduction will depend on effectiveness of campaign.

Economic incentives as deposit-refund schemes

Deposit-refund schemes have been proved effective to encourage proper disposal but may be costly to set up and administer and would only be applicable to certain types of waste.

Remediation This is not generally feasible for the marine environment as a whole, although it is both feasible and relatively inexpensive on beaches and shorelines (UN et al, 2001). Remediation needs to be supported by governments in the context of a twin-track (i.e., “bottom up” and “top down”) approach. The benefits of intervening to protect or restore habitat are often unambiguous and significant.

Annex F: Litter

Page F-10

F4. BENEFITS F4.1 Introduction

The focus of the Marine Strategy is on protection of the marine environment. The main benefits expected from the action on litter would therefore be a reduction of the risk of damage to the marine environment from litter and aesthetic benefits in terms of the appearance of coastlines. However, as the Marine Strategy notes, there is limited information about the risks posed to the marine environment by current levels of discharge. This makes the benefits of the Options difficult to determine.

F4.2 Option 1 The benefits of Option 1 will be those accruing from current legislation, i.e. the UK Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Port Waste Reception Facilities) Regulation 2003. A regulatory impact assessment (RIA) for these regulations was undertaken in 2003. The RIA concluded that it was not possible to predict the level of additional benefits that may be derived from enhancing the UK’s existing regime with the new regulations. However, it noted that, if the enhancement of the UK’s existing regime did result in a significant diminution in the amount of oil and/or waste which are (unlawfully) discharged in UK’s waters, then that would constitute a significant benefit. As noted above, the amount of waste from shipping was reduced by 0.8% in 2002 in comparison with 2001. However, studies on dose-response from marine litter are sparse, so that benefits in terms of marine environment and human health are difficult to quantify.

F4.3 Option 2

Option 2 could lead to benefits in terms of improved cost-effectiveness of future measures to address litter in the marine environment. In the longer term, measures introduced as a result of the Commission’s report could have further benefits for the environment. These benefits are assessed under Option 3.

F4.4 Option 3

The benefits of Option 3 will depend on the additional measures adopted to comply with the Strategy’s objective. Table F4.1 summarises the type of benefits associated with the different measures identified. It is difficult to estimate the benefits in quantitative terms, however, as data are sparse on the current levels of damage to the environment and health arising from litter, and thus the benefits of reducing such damage.


Page F-11

Table F4.1: Benefits of Potential Measures under Option 3 Measures Benefits – Qualitative description More stringent controls over disposal of waste from shipping and land-based sources and additional enforcement measures

Benefits from measures on shipping may be limited, owing to the small amount of litter attributable to this source. The benefits from land-based sources may be greater. For some sewage-related sources (e.g. suspended solids and litter), minimal treatment is often adequate (e.g. preliminary treatment and/or primary treatment). However, many of these benefits will arise from implementation of Bathing Water and Urban Wastewater Treatment Directives, so that benefits from additional measures under the Marine Strategy will be reduced.


Benefits could be high if campaigns prove successful in altering behaviour, especially for tourists.

Economic incentives such as deposit-refund schemes

Deposit-refund schemes have been proved effective to encourage proper disposal. However, they are only applicable to certain types of marine litter, so that the benefits may be limited.

Remediation The economic benefits could be considerably higher than the environmental and health impacts, due to the negative effects of litter on beach amenity and tourism. The British Tourist Authority has identified the economic importance of clean beaches, estimating that 18 million British people and 3 million overseas tourists take holidays in British seaside resorts (House of Commons Environment Committee, 1990). Annually the UK seaside and maritime leisure industry is worth £8 billion, £6 billion of this relates to seaside holidays with the rest mainly arising from boating (Maritime Technology Foresight Panel, 1996).

F4.5 Business Sectors Affected

Table F4.2 summarises the business sectors affected by the measures. There is uncertainty as to the sectors affected for some options, such as for Option 2, where the sectors affected will depend on the range of measures arising from the report to be prepared by the Commission.

Annex F: Litter

Page F-12

Table F4.2: Options and Business Affected Option Businesses Affected Option 1 UK Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Port Waste Reception Facilities) Regulation 2003

Ports and shipping

Option 2 EC report on the extent and sources of marine litter and potential additional measures

No direct impacts

Option 3 More stringent controls over disposal of waste and additional enforcement measures

Ports and shipping Offshore oil and gas Sewage Treatment Works Other processes discharging to sea/estuarine waters


Local authorities Tourism Industry (?) Voluntary organizations (?)


Depends on nature and scope of measures

Remediation Local authorities Voluntary organizations

F4.6 Issues of Equity and Fairness The RIA on the Merchant Shipping Regulations (Port Waste Reception Facilities) 2003 concluded that the Regulations would impact fairly across the whole ports and shipping industries. Moreover, charges in respect of ship-generated waste may be reduced if the ship's environmental management, design, equipment and operation are such that the master of the ship can demonstrate that it produces reduced quantities of ship-generated waste. However, these regulations target only litter arising from ships, whereas litter from other sources is not subject to this control. This could be seen as imposing an unfair burden on shipping, compared to other sources of marine litter. There are no issues of equity and fairness in relation to Option 2, as this involves only the preparation of a report by the Commission. However, any additional measures identified as a result of the Commission report could introduce such issues in future. With regard to Option 3, issues of equity and fairness vary according to the range of measures adopted. Information and education campaigns are expected to have limited distributional effects while proving effective in combating illegal disposal. In Britain, several education and information campaigns have been launched by voluntary initiatives. Examples include the Tidy Britain Group, Marine Conservation Society, Keep Scotland Beautiful, ‘Bag It and Bin It’ Group, Norwich Union Coastwatch UK, etc. The sectors benefiting include tourism, fishing and local authorities (in relation to reduced expenditure on clean-up services). On the other hand, additional measures on ships to reduce waste may be unjustified since ships only contribute a small percentage of the total marine litter.


Page F-13

F4.7 Summary of Benefits

Table F4.3 summarises the benefits under the different Options. Benefits have not been quantified, as it is difficult to estimate the economic value of reducing illegal disposal. Positive impacts on the economy could be expected from increased tourism, but it is uncertain the extent to which reduced litter could contribute to increased visitor numbers.

Table F4.3: Summary of Options and Benefits Option Benefits Option 1 UK Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Port Waste Reception Facilities) Regulations 2003

Benefits are expected to be limited, as the main remaining sources of litter will not be covered.

Option 2 EC’s report on the extent and sources of marine litter and potential additional measures

Limited direct benefits, may result in more cost-effective measures in future

Option 3 More stringent limits of disposal on waste and additional enforcement measures

Benefits are uncertain, as may not effectively address unlawful disposal.


Benefits are expected to be large, as sources of litter are highly attributable to consumers’ behaviour (visits to beaches, fly-tipping, urban flush-off).


Benefits limited because the range of litter covered would be limited.

Remediation Benefits could be large, especially in relation to tourism. F5. COSTS F5.1 Compliance Costs

F5.1.1 Introduction

The proposed EU Marine Strategy will generate compliance costs for the actions required to meet the requirements to reduce illegal disposal of litter. These costs will be borne by sectors that currently give rise to the discharges; these were listed in Table F4.2.

F5.1.2 Option 1

Option 1 would not incur additional costs beyond those already committed, as the UK’s regime would continue unchanged. Different ports and ship operators incur different levels of cost 7. The overall cost of the Port Waste Reception Facilities Regulations has been estimated at around £500,000 per year.

7 The RIA on the UK Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Port Waste Reception Facilities) Regulation

concluded that compliance costs to industry from the Regulations would be small and not readily quantifiable.

Annex F: Litter

Page F-14

F5.1.3 Option 2

The production of the Report by the Commission is likely to involve relatively little input from the UK, thus costs are expected to be limited in the short term. Additional costs could arise, however, in the longer terms if additional measures are proposed by the Commission. These costs are included in Option 3.

F5.1.4 Option 3

The types of costs that would be incurred under the different measures identified under Option 3 are set out in Table F5.1. Monetary values have been included where possible, so as to illustrate the magnitude of costs.

Table F5.1: Measures and Costs Associated with Option 3 Measure Type of Cost Magnitude of Cost More stringent limits on disposal on waste and additional enforcement measures

Costs of waste treatment (preliminary/primary); Costs of ship audits.

Costs for additional sewage treatment will largely be incurred under existing measures. Additional enforcement measures would incur compliance costs for those currently operating illegally. However, if a system of ship audits was instigated, this could also give rise to minor additional costs for ships currently complying with the regulations. Additional measures for general waste from offshore oil and gas installations may incur further costs, but these are not thought likely to be significant. The costs associated with transport, treatment and disposal of oil contaminated drill cuttings and drilling muds is covered in Annex E: Chronic Oil Pollution.


Costs of campaigns Not known; unlikely to be significant


Administrative costs Costs will depend on the nature of the incentives adopted. Most such schemes aim to be cost-neutral overall, but could increase costs for consumers.

Remediation Clean-up costs The total cost for a sample of 56 UK Local Authorities to clean up beaches has been estimated £2,197,138. The budget currently allocated for beach cleaning is only £1,675,155. The main cost is for labour (£201,500). Collection of rubbish from the affected sites and transport of workforce to the site cost £87,000 and £47,800. The cost of providing materials such as refuse sacks and gloves amounted to £18,800. The cost of administering beach cleansing operations was £13,300. The cost of disposal of rubbish is over £114,200.


Page F-15

F5.2 Other Costs

Additional administrative costs may be incurred under both Option 2 and Option 3. For Option 2, this would be a limited cost associated with providing input to, and commentary on, the proposed Commission report on litter in the marine environment. Under Option 3, additional administrative costs could be incurred in relation to additional enforcement measures. Depending on the extent and nature of enforcement activities undertaken, these costs could be significant. There may be potential to recover some of these costs through increased fines on those in contravention of regulations.

F5.3 Costs to a ‘Typical’ Business

It is difficult to identify a ‘typical’ business in the context of the options identified. The most ‘typical’ business would be a shipping operation; such an operation would only face potentially significant costs under Option 3. The costs for such a business would depend upon the number of ships in operation, and the types of measures selected. The measure most likely to result in additional costs is the introduction of ship audits as an additional enforcement measure. These costs could amount to several thousands of pounds, depending on the precise requirements of the audits and how they are carried out.

F5.4 Summary of Costs

The costs associated with the three Options are summarised in Table F5.2 overleaf.

Annex F: Litter

Page F-16

Table F5.2: Summary of Costs Option/Measure Type of Cost Scale of Cost Option 1 No additional costs

envisaged

Option 2 Administrative cost: input to and commentary on proposed Commission report

Small

Option 3 More stringent limits on disposal on waste and additional enforcement measures

Costs of waste treatment (preliminary/primary) Costs of ship audits Associated administrative costs

Costs for additional sewage treatment will largely be incurred under existing measures. Additional enforcement measures would incur compliance costs for those currently operating illegally together with limited additional administrative costs. A system of ship audits could also give rise to additional costs for ships currently complying with the regulations. These are likely to be limited, however. Additional measures for general waste from offshore oil and gas installations may incur further costs, but these are not thought likely to be significant. The costs associated with transport, treatment and disposal of oil contaminated drill cuttings and drilling muds is covered in Annex E: Chronic Oil Pollution.


Costs of campaigns Not known; unlikely to be significant


Administrative costs Costs will depend on the nature of the incentives adopted. Most such schemes aim to be cost-neutral overall, but could increase costs for consumers.

Remediation Clean-up costs The total cost for a sample of 56 UK Local Authorities to clean up beaches has been estimated £2,197,138. The budget currently allocated for beach cleaning is only £1,675,155. The main cost is for labour (£201,500). Collection of rubbish from the affected sites and transport of workforce to the site cost £87,000 and £47,800. The cost of providing materials such as refuse sacks and gloves amounted to £18,800. The cost of administering beach cleansing operations was £13,300. The cost of disposal of rubbish is over £114,200.

F6. SMALL FIRMS IMPACT TEST

The only obvious ‘small firm’ that could be affected by the options identified in relation to litter under the Marine Strategy would be small shipping businesses. These businesses could face costs from additional enforcement measures, for example in the form of ship audits. Before any such measure was introduced, it is anticipated that there would be extensive consultation with both small firms and other shipping businesses.


Page F-17

F7. COMPETITION ASSESSMENT

There are no obvious competition impacts arising from the options identified. F8. ENFORCEMENT AND SANCTIONS

No additional requirements for enforcement and sanctions would be generated by Option s 1 and 2.

It is envisaged that most measures identified under Option 3 would either be voluntary programmes (such as encouragement to changes in behaviour) or would involve additional enforcement measures under existing legislation. However, the introduction of economic incentives, such as deposit-refund schemes, would require additional regulatory measures and enforcement systems.

Annex F: Litter

Page F-18


ANNEX G

HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Annex G: Health and the Environment


Page G-1

G1. INTRODUCTION The Marine Strategy acknowledges that there are clear linkages between the health and proper functioning of the marine environment and human health. The Marine Strategy states, for example, that contamination by marine phytoplankton biotoxins or by pathogens, associated with inadequate treated sewage, may have a direct and very obvious impact on human wellbeing. A range of national and European legislation is already in place to deal with this issue. However, problems remain in certain sea areas (the Mediterranean and Baltic seas, for example) due to lack of adequate treatment facilities, often in non-EU countries, in these regions. The Marine Strategy notes that enhanced cooperation could benefit these regions. It also states that overlap or duplication of efforts is not an issue in this area of work.

G2. PURPOSE AND INTENDED EFFECT G2.1 Objectives of the Marine Strategy in relation to Health and the

Environment The main aim of the Marine Strategy in relation to Health and the Environment is set out in Objective 10:

“To achieve a quality of the environment where levels of contaminants do not give rise to significant impacts on or risks to human health and well being.”

The Marine Strategy identifies three actions aimed at achieving this objective. The actions are presented in Table G2.1.

Table G2.1: Actions Set Out in the EU Marine Strategy to Achieve Objective 10 on Health and the Environment Action 15 The Commission will, in co-operation with Member States, assess by 2004 the results

of the monitoring of the levels of contaminants in wild and farmed fish and shellfish and will make, in 2006, proposals for maximum contaminant levels in the framework of food safety legislation.

Action 16 In 2002 the Commission will come forward with a proposal for a revision of the Directive on bathing water. This proposal will strengthen current levels of health protection.

Action 17

The Commission will also undertake to achieve a rapid entry into force of Annex IV of MARPOL 73/78 related to discharges of sewage from ships.


Page G-2

The majority of the immediate work needed to put these actions into practice is already underway or will be carried out by the Commission itself: • monitoring of the levels of contaminants in wild and farmed fish and shell fish is

already undertaken by the UK. Only limited input from the UK into the Commission’s review of these data should be required;

• a proposal for the revision of the Bathing Water Directive was published by the

Commission in 2002; and • Annex IV of MARPOL 73/78 came into force in 2003 and the recently adopted

revised Annex IV is expected to come into force either later this year or in 2005.

Further action by the UK might be required, however, in relation to the following aspects of the actions: • in 2006, the Commission will make proposals for maximum contaminant levels in

wild and farmed fish and shellfish. Depending on the contaminants to be covered (the definition of contaminants used) and their requirements, these proposals may require new measures and legislation in the UK; and

• steps will need to be taken to implement Annex IV/revised Annex IV in UK law.

G2.2 The Background

G2.2.1 Existing EU and UK Measures on Health and the Environment The Marine Strategy emphasises the importance of contaminant levels in the marine environment that can cause harm to human beings. The Marine Strategy refers to the Bathing Water Directive and the Urban Wastewater Directive as major contributors to the improvement of the quality of the marine environment. In addition, the Marine Strategy focuses in particular on the level of contaminants in fish and shellfish, since this can pose a significant risk to human health. A large number of EU regulations, and corresponding UK implementing measures, are in place to control levels of contaminants in the sea and, consequently, their potential effects on human health. Box G2.1 summarises the measures of greatest relevance to the Marine Strategy.


Page G-3

Box G2.1: Examples of European and UK Legislation Addressing Health and the Marine Environment Water Related Legislation Bathing Water Directive Council Directive 91/271/EEC amended by Directive 98/15/EC on Urban Wastewater Water Framework Directive (WFD) Dangerous Substances Directive (DSD) Shellfish Waters Directive (SWD) (Council Directive 79/923/EEC) Freshwater Fish Directive (FFD)

Food Related Legislation Council Directive 91/492/EEC on Shellfish Hygiene Fish Hygiene Directive (FHD) (Council Directive 91/493/EEC) Maximum Levels of Contaminants in Certain foodstuffs Regulation (Council Regulation 446/2001 amended by Council Regulation 2375/2001) and

The Bathing Water Directive Council Directive 76/160/EEC concerning the quality of bathing water (BWD) aims at reducing and preventing the pollution of bathing water. The BWD lays down the minimum quality criteria to be met by bathing water, and sets: • physical, chemical and microbiological parameters; • mandatory limit values and indicative values for such parameters; and • minimum sampling frequency and method of analysis or inspection of such water.

Member States determine the values that they apply to bathing water in accordance with guidelines set in the BWD. However, derogations may be made to the provisions of the Directive, provided that Member State measures meet the objective of protecting public health. The BWD was transposed into UK legislation through the Bathing Waters (Classification) Regulations 1991. A Communication on ‘Developing a New Bathing Water Policy’ (COM (2000) 860) which set out the strengths and weaknesses of the management of bathing water quality, and proposed various approaches for a new directive to take account of technical progress in the field was published in 2000. Subsequently, a proposal for the revision of the BWD followed, and was published by the European Commission in 2002, COM(2002)581. The Urban Wastewater Directive Council Directive 91/271/EEC concerning urban wastewater treatment, the Urban Wastewater Directive (UWD), aims to harmonize measures on urban wastewater treatment throughout the Community, in order to protect the environment from any adverse effects due to discharge of such waters. The UWD concerns the collection, treatment and discharge of urban wastewater and the treatment and discharge of wastewater from certain industrial sectors. It provides for:


Page G-4

• prior regulation or specific authorisation for all discharges of urban wastewater and industrial wastewater from particular; urban wastewater collecting systems (sewerage) and treatment plants for all agglomerations above 2000 population equivalents; industrial wastewater must meet the conditions applying to discharges from plants representing 4,000 or more population equivalents;

• adoption of general rules or registration or authorisation for the sustainable disposal

of sludge arising from wastewater treatment and phase out of any dumping or discharge of sewage sludge into surface waters; monitoring of urban wastewater discharges and their effects; and

• publication of situation reports every two years and establish implementation

programmes. The UWD also requires Member States to draw up lists of sensitive and less sensitive areas which receive the treated waters, so that the treatment of urban water can be adapted to the sensitivity of the receiving waters. The sensitive areas must be designated according to one or more of the following criteria: (a) water bodies which are found to be eutrophic or which in the near future may

become eutrophic if protecting action is not taken; (b) surface freshwaters intended for the abstraction of drinking waters and which could

contain more than 50 mg/l of nitrates if action is not taken; and (c) areas where further treatment is necessary to fulfil other Council Directives. In waters where it is considered there will be no adverse environmental effects from a lower standard of treatment than secondary treatment of sewage discharges, treatment to a minimum of primary treatment is permitted providing certain conditions in the Directive are met (Defra, 2003a). The list of sensitive and less sensitive areas must be reviewed every four years. The UWD and its subsequent amendments have been transposed into UK legislation through the Urban Wastewater Treatment (England and Wales) Regulations 19941. The legislation transposing the Directive requirements was amended in 2003 across the UK to clarify how future Sensitive Areas are to be identified or existing ones withdrawn, and decisions publicised. Table G2.2 illustrates the number of sensitive and less sensitive areas designated in the UK.

1 In Scotland and Northern Ireland the UWD was transposed to regional law through the Urban Wastewater

(Scotland) Regulations 1994 and Urban Wastewater (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2003 and Urban Wastewater Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 and Urban Wastewater Amendment Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003 respectively.


Page G-5

Table G2.2: Sensitive and Less Sensitive Areas Identified (and Revoked) in the UK Type

(criterion) England Northern

Ireland Scotland Wales Total

Sensitive Areas Eutrophic (a) 112 5 5 4 127 Nitrate (b) 8 - - - 8 Bathing Water (c) 180 - 9 24 213 Shellfish Water (c) 47 - 1 12 60 Freshwater Fish (c)

- - 8 - 8

Total 347 5 23 41 416 Less Sensitive Areas Numbers and dates identified

49 (1994) 3 (1994) 24 (1994) 9 (1994) 85 (1994)

Dates revoked 49 (1998) 1 (1998) 2 (2002)

12 (1998) 9 (2000) 3 (2002)

9 (1998) 85

Source: Defra Internet Site (http://www.defra.gov.uk) UK Urban Wastewater Treatment Regulations require that all significant discharges are treated to at least secondary treatment, i.e. using a biological treatment process prior to discharge to the environment (Defra, 2003a). Shellfish Waters Directive Council Directive 79/923/EEC on the quality required of shellfish waters, applies to coastal and brackish waters designated by the Member States as needing protection or improvement in order to support shellfish life and growth. Although this Directive relates to water quality, it contributes to the quality of shellfish products directly edible by man. It sets out parameters, for which the Member States have to define values according to the specifications given in the Directive. The Directive also sets out requirements for monitoring of designated waters as well as communication by the Member States to the Commission about the results of the monitoring activities. Freshwater Fish Directive Council Directive 78/659/EEC sets water quality standards an monitoring requirements to protect and improve the quality of fresh waters in order to support fish life. Fourteen physical and chemical parameters are given for which ‘imperative’ and more stringent ‘guidelines’ are set for rivers and lakes in either of two categories; those suitable for salmonids (e.g. salmon, trout and grayling) and those suitable for cyprinids (e.g. carp, trench and minnows). By 2002, 57,460 km of river length in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland had been designated under the Freshwater Fish Directive, with just under 90% of these designations classified as salmonid. Although this Directive relates to the quality of freshwater, it contributes to the quality of fishery products directly edible by man.


Page G-6

Food Quality Related Regulations Table G2.3 summarises out EU measures relevant to the level of contaminants in fish and shellfish. Some of these measures may not apply directly to food quality, but may nevertheless impact on the level of contaminants in marine produce.

Table G2.3: Summary of EU Directives and Regulations relevant to Food Quality Contaminant Levels Directive/Regulation Provisions Council Directive 91/492/EEC laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of live bivalve molluscs

Lays down health conditions for the production and placing on the market of live bivalve molluscs (and echinoderms, tunicates and marine gastropods) that are intended for human consumption.

Council Directive 91/493/EEC laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the market of fishery products

Lays down health conditions for the production and placing on the market of fishery products that are intended for human consumption.

Council Regulation (EEC) No 315/93 laying down Community procedures for contaminants in food

Concerns contaminants in food. It defines 'contaminant' as any substance not intentionally added to food which is present in such food as a result of the production, manufacture, processing, preparation, treatment, packing, transport or holding of such food, or as a result of environmental contamination. It makes provisions for the establishment of a non-exhaustive Community list that includes limits for the same contaminant in different foods, analytical detection limits and a reference to the sampling and analysis methods to be used. In addition the Directive makes provisions for temporary restrictions for contaminants, included in the regulation that as a result of new information are suspected to still be a risk to human health.

Commission Regulation 466/2001/EC setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs

Sets the maximum levels of nitrates, mycotoxins, heavy metals and 3-MCPD in foodstuffs. Relevant to the EU Marine Strategy are the limits for heavy metals, in particular lead, cadmium and mercury in certain fish and shell fish. Council Regulation 2375/2001/EC amends Council Regulation 466/2001 in order to include restrictions on dioxins and to provide for the revision of the contaminant levels by December 2004, and again by December 2006.

The following UK measures implement the EU Directives and Regulations set out in Table G2.3: • the Food Safety (Fishery Products and Live Shellfish) (Hygiene) Regulations

1998: − set out health conditions for the production and placing on the market of live

bivalve molluscs and fishery products, as required by Council Directive 91/492/EEC and by Council Directive 91/493/EEC;

− implement Council Directive 95/71/EC which amends the Annex to Directive 91/493/EEC;


Page G-7

− set the minimum hygiene rules applicable to fishery products caught on board fishing vessels as required by Council Directive 92/48/EEC; and

− implement paragraph 1, Section II, Chapter II of Annex A to Council Directive 96/43/EC on the charging for veterinary inspections and controls on live animals and certain animal products, including fishery products.

• the Food Safety (Fishery Products and Live Shellfish) (Hygiene) Amendment

Regulations 1999 1 and 2, which amend the Food Regulations 1998, and implement: − Council Directive 97/61/EC amending the Annex to Directive 91/492/EEC

laying down the health conditions for the production and placing on the market of live bivalve molluscs; and

− Council Directive 96/43/EC, Chapter III, Section and Annex B point 1(b) relating to charging for hygiene inspections of fishery products.

• the Food Standards Act 1999 (Transitional and Consequential Provisions and

Savings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 which amend the Food Regulations 1998 by revising part III of Schedule 3 clarifying the responsibilities of the government authorities, namely the Food Standards Agency and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; and

• the Contaminants in Food (England) Regulations 20032, which revoke and re-

enact with changes the Contaminants in Food (England) Regulations 2002, make provision for the enforcement and execution of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 466/2001 and subsequent amendment Commission Regulation 2375/2001/EC introducing limits for dioxins.

G2.2.3 Existing International Measures on Health and Environment The Marine Strategy refers to a range of international agreements that deal with health and the marine environment (for example, HELCOM, Barcelona and the Bucharest Agreement). However, particular emphasis is placed on the Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78), in particular Annex IV dealing with sewage from ships.

The original MARPOL Annex IV came into force in September 2003. However, concerns amongst the international community about the requirements of this Annex has resulted in revised less stringent proposals being adopted in April 2004. The revised Annex IV is likely to be ratified by sufficient proportion of the international community such that it comes into force either later in 2004 or in 2005. The revised Annex IV requires ships to be equipped with an approved sewage system of one of three types:

2 Corresponding Regulations apply separately in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.


Page G-8

• a sewage treatment plant; • a sewage comminuting and disinfecting system for the temporary storage of sewage

when the ship is less than three nautical miles from the nearest land; or • a holding tank for the retention of all sewage, having regard to the operation of the

ship, the number of persons on board and other relevant factors. The revised Annex IV applies to the following ships engaged in international voyages: • new ships of 400 gross tonnage and above; • new ships of less than 400 gross tonnage certified to carry more than 15 people; • existing ships of 400 gross tonnage and above, five years after the date of entry into

force of the Annex; and • existing ships of less than 400 gross tonnage which are certified to carry more than

15 people, five years after the date of entry into force of the Annex. The UK has not yet brought forward legislation to implement the revised Annex IV. Consultation with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) has indicated that there is little if any information concerning what proportion of the current UK registered fleet may already comply with the requirements of the revised Annex IV. No regulatory impact assessment has yet been carried out by the MCA, although this is planned for 2004.

G2.3 Risk Assessment G2.3.1 Introduction

The risk that the proposed Marine Strategy intends to address is the risk posed to health by the pollution of the marine environment by contaminants. Contaminants reach the seas through natural processes and human activities. Substances such as lead, mercury, nitrogen, phosphorus, complex organic compounds and pesticides enter marine waters via rivers and the atmosphere, and from direct discharge (Defra, 1998). However, research suggests that naturally induced changes in population of marine species, and the direct impact of anthropogenic activities, such as fishing, may be more significant than the effects of contaminant inputs (Defra, 1998). The Marine Strategy does not define the term ‘contaminant’, nor indicate which substances constitute contaminants for the purposes of its objective or actions. The UK and EU legislation on this issue are also unclear about the term. The only definition of contaminants appears in Council Regulation (EEC) No 315/93, laying down Community procedures for contaminants in food. It defines a ‘contaminant’ as ‘any substance not intentionally added to food which is present in such food as a result of the production (including operations carried out in crop husbandry, animal husbandry and veterinary


Page G-9

medicine), manufacture, processing, preparation, treatment, packing, transport or holding of such food, or as a result of environmental contamination’. This definition can be applied to many substances. With more than 100,000 chemicals in use, which have the potential to be contaminants, there is a need to ensure that the Marine Strategy focuses on those substances which pose a significant risk to public health and the environment.

G2.3.2 Water Related Risks The most important factor affecting compliance with the BWD has typically been the presence of sewage discharges and the level of treatment applied to those discharges. The discharge of raw sewage into the sea can create a health hazard and, in coastal areas, can also lead to oxygen depletion (addressed in Annex C on eutrophication) and visual pollution, which can be a major problem for areas with tourist industries. The levels of contaminants and pollutants that are found in sewage discharges can be a concern. Heavy metals and organic contaminants such as PCBs and dioxins can enter the aquatic environment via these routes, as well as pathogenic bacteria and viruses. Most of the pathogens arise from the human population served by the outfall and heavy metals may also come from household products, such as shampoo and cleaning fluids. Combined with these domestic sources of sewage effluent and sludge are industrial wastes which will join the domestic wastes in the sewers (SAS, 2003). These pollutants can be ingested or absorbed by marine and estuarine flora and fauna. A number of them have the potential to bioaccumulate and, in some cases, biomagnify, i.e. to increase in concentration as they transfer further up the food web (SAS, 2003). Bacteria and viruses that are filtered from the water column by molluscs, for example, may also be stored in the organism's tissue, to be transferred to a predator, either bird or human. In the UK over 300 million gallons of sewage are discharged to sea each day (SAS, 2003). If not properly treated they create a hazard not just for the environment but also to human health. Box G2.2 gives examples of illnesses that are associated with viruses and bacteria present in domestic water.

Box G2.2: Illnesses Associated with Viruses and Bacteria Potentially Present in Domestic Waste Water Acute diarrhoea Paralysis/Meningitis, fever Mild or influenzal typhodial illness Respiratory disease Enteritis/Gastro-enteritis Rashes Typhoid fever Herpes Hepatitis

Salmonella infections Herangina Bacillary dysentery Conjunctivitis Immunolocal deficiency syndrome Pneumonia and septicaemia Hand, Foot and Mouth disease Colonic ulceration

Under the Bathing Water Regulations, the water quality at each designated site is sampled 20 times during the bathing water season from 15 May to 30 September in


Page G-10

England and Wales. There are currently over 550 designated bathing waters in England and Wales. The standards measured against are for total coliforms and faecal coliforms, faecal streptococci, enterovirus and salmonella (Environment Agency, nd). The quality of bathing waters has been improving overall in England and Wales. These improvements are due to substantial investment at many coastal sewage treatment works to improve the quality of their discharges. Table G2.4 shows the compliance rates over the last decade in England, and the UK as a whole, with the EC mandatory coliform bacteria standards (Defra, 2003a). Over 98% of monitored bathing waters now comply with the imperative standards of the EC Bathing Water Directive. Compliance with the water quality necessary for a Blue Flag was 73.5% in 2003, compared with 70% in 2002. The UK Government is aiming to achieve 85% compliance with the guideline standards by 2005 (Environment Agency, nd).

Table G2.4: Compliance Rates of Bathing Waters with EC Mandatory Coliform Bacteria Standards in England and in the UK for the period of 1991 to 2003 Year 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 England (%

of compliance)

74 79 79 83 89 89 88 90 90 95 98 98.5 98.8

UK (% of compliance) 76 79 80 82 89 89 88 89 91 94 95 98 98.4

Source: Defra Internet Site (www.defra.gov.uk)

G2.2.3 Foodstuffs Related Risks The Contaminants in Food (England) Regulations 2002 set maximum levels of the following contaminants in foods: • lead; • cadmium; • mercury; • 3-MCPD; • dioxins; and • nitrates. Of these, 3-MCPD is not relevant for fisheries and shellfisheries products or for the marine environment in general. The general hazards and risks relating to lead, cadmium, mercury and dioxins are addressed in Annex B (on hazardous substances). Sources of nitrates are addressed in Annex D (on eutrophication). The Marine Strategy notes that some countries bordering the Baltic Sea have issued guidelines for consumption of certain species of fish by sensitive groups (pregnant women, nursing mothers) due to contamination by dioxins. High levels of contaminants in other fish products, though, are still allowed. In certain areas of the European coast,


Page G-11

concentrations of heavy metals in carnivorous fish sometimes exceed maximum acceptable levels. As humans are at the top of the food chain, they are the ultimate sink for contaminants that bio-accumulate and bio-magnify.

G3. OPTIONS

G3.1 Possible Options There are three main options available to the UK in relation to the Strategy proposals regarding health and the environment. These are: • Option 1: proceed with existing commitments under the UK framework of food and

safety regulation. This option forms the baseline for comparison of the other options;

• Option 2: extend current commitments to take account of the actions set out in the

Marine Strategy, for the Commission to assess the results of monitoring of the levels of contaminants in wild and farmed fish and shellfish, to propose revision of the Bathing Water Directive and entry into force of Annex IV of MARPOL; and

• Option 3: extending current commitments to comply with both the actions set out in

the EU Strategy and any additional actions needed to meet the objectives of the Marine Strategy. Such additional actions could be identified as a result of the Commission activities carried out under Option 2, and relate to strengthening of current standards on maximum levels of contaminants and extension of the definition of contaminants.

G3.2 Risk Associated With the Options Option 1: Existing Commitments The risk associated with this Option is that existing commitments will not prove adequate to protect the marine environment from the effects of contaminants and will thus pose a risk to human health. Although trends show a reduction in the majority of discharges into the marine environment, and a general improvement in water quality, potentially harmful concentrations of certain substances still remain in specific areas. Option 2: Comply with Actions Set Out in the Strategy The risks associated with Option 2 are that the actions set out in the Marine Strategy may pose excessive costs for the UK and/or that the actions may not achieve the objective for health and environment set out in the Marine Strategy. Actions 15 and 16 pose limited initial risk. The assessment of the results of monitoring of the levels of contaminants in wild and farmed fish and shellfish will be undertaken by


Page G-12

the Commission and will require little input from the UK. A proposal for a revision of the Bathing Water Directive has already been published. The UK has been working towards the assessment of the costs and benefits of such a proposal being adopted into the national legislation. Action 15 could pose some risks in the medium-term. The Marine Strategy states that by 2006 the Commission will make proposals for maximum contaminant levels, in the framework of the food and safety legislation. No indication is given of the types of contaminants that the action is aimed at or of how the revision of the current levels of contaminants will be approached. If the list of substances controlled under the framework of food and safety legislation was to increase significantly, or the maximum levels of such substances in food were to decrease dramatically, this could give rise to significant costs to the UK. The revision of Annex IV of MARPOL came into force in 2003 and the revised Annex IV is expected to come into force in late 2004 or 2005. The revised Annex will need to be incorporated into UK law. There is no detailed information on the extent to which UK registered vessels comply with the revised Annex, although it is understood that the vast majority of vessels already comply with the requirements. Option 3: Additional Actions to Meet the Objectives of the Strategy The risks associated with Option 3 are that additional measures to meet the objective of the Marine Strategy in relation to Health and Environment may impose excessive costs for the UK. This is because the objective is not clear about what contaminants it refers to and what standards may apply.


Page G-13

G4. BENEFITS G4.1 Introduction

The focus of the Marine Strategy is on protection of the marine environment and human health. The main benefits expected from measures relating to harmful contaminants would therefore be a reduction of the risk of damage to health and the marine environment from discharges of contaminants.

G4.2 Option 1

This option represents the continued implementation of current commitments concerning health impacts of contaminants in the marine environment. These commitments include: • the Bathing Water Directive (BWD); • the Urban Wastewater Directive (UWD); • MARPOL 73/78, Annex IV; • Council Directive 91/492/EEC on Shellfish Hygiene; • Fish Hygiene Directive (FHD) (Council Directive 91/493/EEC); • Shellfish Waters Directive (SWD) (Council Directive 79/923/EEC); and • Maximum Levels of Contaminants in Certain Foodstuffs Regulation (Council

Regulation 446/2001 amended by Council Regulation 2375/2001).

A summary of the benefits accrued from implementation of these measures is presented in Table G4.1.


Page G-14

Table G4.1: Qualitative Summary of the Potential Benefits from Current UK Commitments Related to Health and the Environment Types of Benefits Current Commitments Bathing Water Directive Urban Wastewater Directive MARPOL Annex IV Regulations Relating to Safety of

Fishery and Shell Fishery Products Environmental Quality Standards set by the Directive

ensure that faecal contamination, which causes eutrophication and increases the BOD resulting in poor water quality, is minimised in 550 bathing sites around the UK. The Standards protect marine life from bioaccumulating harmful toxins.

Generates environmental and ecological benefits, such as protecting marine life from bioaccumulating harmful toxins, through the collection and treatment of urban waste water and the disposal of sewage sludge. Reduced levels of pathogenic micro-organisms in urban waste water increases drinking water and bathing water quality.

Improved controls over the discharge of sewage from ships will assist in protecting marine life through local improvements in water quality. The controls will also reduce the discharge of bacteria and viruses in the vicinity of sensitive receptors, such as bathing waters

Standards for contaminants in fish and shellfish products help to prevent damaging levels of contaminants in the environment.

Human health Reduces the risk of contracting illnesses such as gastroenteritis; infection of the ear, nose and throat through the consumption of sea water is also reduced.

Generates benefits to human health such as reduced incidence of illnesses related to the consumption of poor quality water. These may include gastroenteritis

Generates benefits to human health such as a decline in the incidence of illnesses related to contact with poor quality water.

Minimises the risks to the health of those who consume fishery products, through placing limits on contaminant levels.

Socio-economic Coastal regions which comply with Directive Quality Standards benefit from increased tourist activity resulting in economic benefits for local businesses.

Improved water quality benefits tourism, due to positive perceptions of visitors to the UK. Local fishing and sea-food industries benefit through improved quality of their goods.

Improved water quality benefits tourism, due to positive perceptions of visitors to the UK. Local fishing and sea-food industries benefit through improved quality of their goods.

Fish farming and shellfish industries benefit from good quality produce.

Source: aWater Quality – Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive: www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/quality/uwwtd/default.htm b Toxins in the Food Chain: www.cleanocean.org c Regulatory Impact Statement: Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Sewage from Ships – Annex IV of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973/78 (MARPOL 73/78)


Page G-15

G4.3 Option 2

Option 2 involves implementation of the actions set out in the Marine Strategy.

The Revised Bathing Water Directive Action 16 requires the Commission to make proposals for a revision of the Bathing Water Directive. Proposals for a revised Bathing Water Directive were published in 2002. Adoption of a Revised Bathing Water Directive entails tightening water quality standards to achieve ‘good’ status. Few additional actions would have to be undertaken by the UK if the revised Directive was implemented, as in 2002 the UK achieved 98% compliance with mandatory standards (200ml intestinal enterococci per 100ml at 95th percentile compliance) (Defra 2002a). The Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment on the proposals identifies potential benefits from the implementation of the revised Directive. Currently, around 550 bathing water sites have been designated in the UK. However, the existing Directive does not apply to all locations where bathing occurs or to waters used for non-bathing recreational activities. The revised Directive will apply to an increased number of sites where bathing is actively promoted; therefore, the UK will have to designate additional sites to comply. Furthermore, as agricultural practices in the UK have been identified as a contributor to non-compliance with the existing Directive (Defra 2002a) (although this is diffuse agricultural pollution rather than point source) it may be necessary for farms in close proximity to rivers flowing into bathing waters to change their management practices. Benefits accrued through UK implementation of the revised standards have been estimated in the Partial RIA for the revised Directive to total £1.1 billion to £1.9 billion over a 25 year period (Defra 2002b). These benefits are based on an estimation of people’s willingness to pay for a reduced risk of contracting gastroenteritis through tighter controls on contaminant levels in water. The risk of catching this illness after bathing in UK seas in the 2001 season was 4.3% per swim. Implementation of the revised standards could reduce this risk to 2% per swim (Defra 2002a). The proposal for advisory notices to be provided for those bathing waters failing to meet EC mandatory Standards over a three year period only, expected to cover 27% of bathing waters, is estimated in the Partial RIA to generate benefits of £103 million (for three years) based on willingness to pay values. Additional benefits, such as the avoidance of illnesses other than gastroenteritis, would also be accrued. Measures taken to reduce faecal pollution from agriculture could also reduce the nutrient and BOD (Biological Oxygen Demand) loadings of run-off, improving water quality status. There maybe a benefit to tourism, if compliance is achieved, through the improved perception of British beaches. As a large proportion of British bathers bathe in waters outside of the UK, the revised Directive provides measures to ensure a reduction in their exposure abroad.


Page G-16

The net present value of total benefits of adopting Option 2, in relation to the Revised Bathing Water Directive ‘good’ quality status, has been calculated as between £1,104 million and £1,923 million over a 25 year period for England and Wales (Defra 2002b). The equivalent annual benefits are between £66.9 million and £116.6 million.

Revised MARPOL 73/78 Annex IV Action 17 refers to the entry into force of Annex IV of MARPOL 73/78, related to discharges of sewage from ships. The Annex came into force in September 2003. A revised Annex IV was adopted in April 2004 and is expected to come into force in late 2004 or 2005. Implementation of the Revised Annex IV could involve some additional actions for the UK shipping industry by way of providing sewage treatment facilities on board ships. However, most if not all ships likely to be affected are understood to already provide the necessary level of treatment. The proposed revisions to Annex IV will apply to ships engaged in international voyages of 400 gross tonnage and above, or certified to carry more than 15 people. Ships will be required to be equipped with an approved sewage system and regulations will apply to a greater range of old and new vessels engaged in international voyages. The accrued benefits will exceed those under the existing MARPOL Annex IV commitments, as there will be further reductions in the levels of pollution caused by discharge of waste from ships into the aquatic environment, which may lead to bioaccumulation of toxins in the food chain. Risks to human health may also be reduced, through reduced levels of contaminants in fish and shellfish and improved bathing water quality. The revised regulations will provide consistent national standards for commercial vessels trading internationally, and will allow full implementation of enforcement measures available under MARPOL Annex IV.

Regulations on Food Quality

Action 15 in the Marine Strategy requires the assessment by 2004 of results of the monitoring of levels of contaminants in wild and farmed fish and shellfish, and the development of proposals (in 2006) for maximum contaminant levels within the framework of food safety legislation. These actions, to be carried out by the Commission, will generate no immediate benefits though, in the longer term, they may enable the adoption of more cost-effective approaches to address the risks associated with contaminants in fish and shellfish. The potential benefits of such proposals are discussed under Option 3.

G4.4 Option 3

Option 3 comprises extending current commitments to comply with both the actions set out in the Marine Strategy and any additional actions needed to meet the objective of the Marine Strategy, to:


Page G-17

“achieve a quality of the environment where levels of contaminants do not give rise to significant impacts on or risks to human health and well being”. This objective is rather general and therefore identification of the benefits of compliance with the objective as a whole is complex. Additional actions to comply with the objective may arise from the requirement under Action 15 to make, by 2006, proposals for maximum contaminant levels in the framework of food safety legislation. Further actions may include new regulations to achieve compliance with ‘excellent’ quality standards set by the Revised Bathing Water Directive (as opposed to the ‘good’ quality standards currently proposed by the Commission), and an extension of the revised MARPOL Annex IV to apply to all ships.

Regulations Associated with Water Quality One option for achieving the objective in relation to health and the environment could be meeting the ‘excellent’ quality standards set by the Revised Bathing Water Directive for a wide range of defined contaminants. To provide a basis for quantifying the benefits of such an action, an assumption has been made that their implementation would entail a reduction of risk of infection by 3-4% per swim over current mandatory standards. The financial benefits of this were calculated in the RIA on the proposal for a revised Bathing Water Directive using public willingness to pay for avoidance of illness. This produced a value of £1.3 billion to £3.2 billion over a 25 year period. The net present value of benefits for provision of an advisory note system for those beaches that would not meet the ‘excellent’ quality standards would be £333 million over a 3 year period2. The implementation of more stringent bathing water standards would impact sectors such as the water industry and agriculture. For example, farm management practices in the UK would require extensive revision. The net present value of total benefits of adopting Option 3 in relation to the Revised Bathing Water Directive ‘excellent’ quality standards has been calculated as between £1,638 million and £3,497 million over a 25 year period for England and Wales (Defra 2002b). Using these assumptions the equivalent annual benefit has been calculated to be between £99.3 million and £212.1 million.

The revised Annex IV of MARPOL 73/78, concerning regulations for the prevention of pollution by sewage from ships, could be extended to meet the health and environment objective of the Marine Strategy. The regulations apply to ships engaged on international voyages of 400 gross tonnage and above, or certified to carry more than 15 people. Under Option 3, these regulations could be extended to all ships. Accrued benefits would include a reduction in contamination of water bodies caused by the discharge of drainage and waste from toilets, medical facilities, animal waste and any other waste produced by living animals. All fixtures and fittings on board would also have to comply with the revised regulations. The regulations would ensure that no unnecessary harm would be caused to the marine environment by discharge of sewage from ships, and this would encompass aquatic life which if consumed, would otherwise pose a risk to human health (Revised MARPOL Annex IV 2003).


Page G-18

Regulations Associated with Food Quality Depending on the definition of a ‘contaminant’, which is presently unclear, further measures may be required to meet the objective of the Marine Strategy. In addition to the measures taken under Action 15 of the Marine Strategy, additional UK actions may include: • a review and reclassification of the health conditions and hygiene rules for the

production and placing on the market of live bivalve molluscs and fishery products, and fishery products caught on board fishing vessels, as set out by the Food Safety (Fishery Products and Live Shellfish) (Hygiene) Regulations 1998 (required by Council Directives 91/492/EEC, 91/493/EEC, 97/61/EC, 96/43/EC and 92/48/EEC);

• a revision of the Contaminants in Food (England) Regulations 2003, due to the

potential for extension to the contaminants referred to in Commission Regulations 315/93/EEC and 466/2001/EC; and

• a review of monitoring programmes currently undertaken in the UK, to include

additional contaminants identified and to take account of any revision in Quality Standards.

Extending regulations associated with seafood quality to fulfil the overall objective will minimise risks to the health of those who consume fishery products, as limits may be placed on more extensive list of contaminants. Extended measures would provide higher levels of consumer protection and increased consumer confidence in the UK food supply, in addition to introducing common procedures for enforcement and reducing the potential for ambiguity in the interpretation of compliance. Harmonised regulations would facilitate trade both in the EU and internationally. In the case of shellfish, there may be benefits associated with a reduction in the costs of purifying shellfish before marketing. Beneficiaries could include the shellfish and fish farming industry, those who rely on the industry’s products (for example fish marketers and restaurateurs) and members of the public who eat commercially farmed seafood. The measures would provide a single set of harmonized limits at target foods.

However, the benefits could potentially be more extensive, given that stringent measures would be required if a broad contaminant list was identified. As there have been no proposals for further measures and the potential target contaminants are not clear, these benefits cannot be quantified.

G4.5 Business Sectors Affected

The introduction of measures to reduce the risks posed by contaminants in the marine environment to human health and wellbeing would most likely affect seven main business sectors.


Page G-19

Business sectors that would be affected by measures associated with water quality include: • agriculture – action by farmers could be required to reduce the spread of faecal

indicators from animal waste will be required to meet water quality standards; • water industry - achieving the specified water quality standards will require action

to limit the discharge of effluents containing faecal indicators by sewerage undertakers and owners of private sewage treatment works and septic tanks;

• ship building- a revision of MARPOL Annex IV would lead to extra costs incurred

by the shipping industry for research into innovative sewage disposal methods and capital costs of resulting measures; and

• tourism - benefits will arise where beaches are compliant with the required

standards of the existing or revised Directive, and satisfy the criteria for associated schemes such as international Blue Flag or UK Seaside Awards.

Business sectors likely to be affected by regulation associated with food quality include: • seafood producers (specifically fish and shellfish farmers); • seafood processors; and • retailers - businesses supplying fish oil supplements estimate that there will be

significant costs to small and medium companies (FSA, 2002). G4.6 Issues of Equity and Fairness

Measures necessary to limit faecal pollution of bathing waters will vary from place to place. Faecal indicators are transported by water and the effect of a source on the quality of bathing water will depend mainly on its size and distance, taking into account dispersion, mixing and decay of the indicator organisms during the water transport process. Tertiary treatment, for example UV disinfection, is normally required for sewage discharges close to bathing waters while secondary treatment (the normal standard in the UK) may suffice elsewhere (Defra, 2002a). Therefore the regional distribution of costs to consumers related to the BWD may not be equal. It may also be necessary for livestock farmers close to rivers flowing into bathing waters to modify their farm management practices to a greater degree than a more remote livestock farmer or an arable farmer. Diffuse pollution from agriculture is already recognised as affecting compliance with the existing bathing water standards in some places. The more stringent bathing water standards proposed for the revised Directive will require modification of farm management practices over wider areas (Defra, 2002a) With regard to the implementation of MARPOL Annex IV, it is likely that the costs will fall equally between ports and the shipping industry (Cabinet Office, 2003).


Page G-20

G4.7 Summary of Benefits

A summary of the potential quantitative and qualitative accrued benefits of the options is presented in Table G4.2.

Table G4.2: Summary of Benefits Qualitative Description of Benefits Quantifiable Benefits1, a

Option 1

• reduced risk of gastroenteritis from bathing in UK waters; • improved tourism due to positive perception of beach quality; • good classification of water quality status; • diminution of pollution caused by the disposal of sewage from large

ships; • good quality fish and shell fish products to be consumed, and the

avoidance of sea-food related illness; and • economic benefits for the sea-food industry

Not quantified

Option 2

• some additional benefits, predominantly a reduction in the risk of contracting an illness from bathing water;

• improved water quality through further enforcement of related regulations; and

• further avoidance of illness related to the consumption of seafood

Additional benefits of £66.90 million per year to £116.60 million per year2

Option 3

• extreme reduction in risk of gastroenteritis and other illnesses from bathing in UK waters;

• excellent quality standards of UK bathing water; • extreme reduction in pollution due to waste from ships as MARPOL

73/78 would apply to all ships; • excellent quality fish and shell fish products to be consumed; and • further economic benefits for seafood industry

Additional benefits of £99.30 million per year to £212.10 million per year3

Source: 1Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council to Revise Directive 76/160/ EEC Concerning the Quality of Bathing Water: Partial Regulatory Assessment Defra (2002a) a Figures based on discount rate of 3.5% over a 25 year period 2 Benefits of Revised BWD ‘Good’ quality status 3 benefits of Revised BWD ‘Excellent’ quality status


Page G-21

G5. COSTS G5.1 Compliance Costs G5.1.1 Introduction

The Marine Strategy will generate compliance costs for the actions required to reduce contaminants to levels which do not give rise to significant impacts on or risks to human health and wellbeing. These costs will mainly be borne by those sectors listed in section G4.5.

G5.1.2 Option 1

Option 1 would not incur additional costs beyond those already committed, as it represents current UK commitments to issues relating to health and the marine environment. Therefore, the costs of Option 1 represent the baseline for comparison with other Options. Existing commitments include: • the Bathing Water Directive; • the Urban Wastewater Directive; • MARPOL 73/78 Revised Annex IV; • Council Directive 91/492/EEC on Shellfish Hygiene; • Fish Hygiene Directive (FHD) (Council Directive 91/493/EEC); • Shellfish Waters Directive (SWD) (Council Directive 79/923/EEC); and • Maximum Levels of Contaminants in Certain Foodstuffs Regulation (Council

Regulation 446/2001 amended by Council Regulation 2375/2001); The Bathing Water Directive The Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment prepared by Defra (2002a) considered the implementation costs (monitoring and enforcement) and the policy costs (compliance costs) of achieving full compliance with the current mandatory standards set by the Bathing Water Directive. The monitoring and enforcement costs are discussed in Section G5.2

Further investment in measures to reduce pollution of bathing water would be needed for the UK to meet mandatory standards. Although UK compliance with mandatory standards is high (98% in 2002), there are still a number of water bodies that remain non-compliant. Therefore, further action to improve sewerage systems and address the issue of diffuse pollution caused by agricultural run-off is required to achieve full compliance. The equivalent annual costs of implementing Option 1 in relation to the BWD are presented in Table G5.1 overleaf. These costs are based on present value costs over a 25 year period, using a 3.5% discount rate (Defra, 2002a).


Page G-22

Table G5.1: UK Equivalent Annual Costs of Implementing Option 1 in relation to the BWD Lower Boundary Costs (£ million/yr) Upper Boundary Costs (£ million/yr)

0.6 0.9 Source: Defra (2002a): Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council to Revise Directive 76/160/EEC Concerning the Quality of Bathing Water: Partial Regulatory Assessment

MARPOL Annex IV As the current Port Waste Reception Facilities do not cover the discharge of sewage from ships, ports are responsible for dealing with sewage discharged from ships if the ship requires such a facility. In the absence of definitive costs regarding the reception, handling and transport of ship generated sewage, the cost has been assumed to be equal to that of secondary sewage treatment costs (Defra, 1999). Based on a requirement for secondary treatment, and that effluent from shipping is likely to be similar in strength to that from sewage treatment works and/or the chemicals sector, the costs of treatment are likely to be in the range of £1 to £3 per kilogram of pollutant removed. In the absence of data on the volume of effluent from ships likely to require treatment, however, the overall costs of this requirement cannot be calculated. Regulations Associated with Food Quality The RIA for the Contaminants in Food (England) Regulations 2002 (Maximum levels for lead, cadmium, mercury, 3-MCPD, dioxins and nitrate in foodstuffs), indicated that the cost of implementing EC Regulation 466/2001 and Directive 2001/22/EC in full and revoking the Lead in Food Regulations 1979, as amended under the Contaminants in Food (England) Regulations 2002, would be around £55 billion. The assumptions upon which this figure is based are unknown. However, this cost refers to all food stuffs. The revised limit of 1.5 mg/kg (FSA, 2002) for lead in bivalve molluscs introduced under Commission Regulation 221/2002, (which amends Regulation 466/2001), is estimated to cost the shellfish industry, through the potential loss of a proportion of the shellfish catch, of between £100,000 and £200,000 (base assumptions for these costs are also unknown, therefore they are assumed to be Total Equivalent Annual Costs over 25 years at 3.5% discount rate). The RIA stated that the overall trade in mussels should not be significantly affected, as supplies could be sourced from unaffected areas. The RIA cited industry comments that, for bivalve molluscs in those areas with contaminant levels close to the limits, there would be a need for increased and continued sampling which could prove prohibitive for small businesses.

G5.1.3 Option 2


Page G-23

The Revised Bathing Water Directive Compliance costs for achieving the proposed minimum revised bathing water quality standards, ‘good’ quality standards, have been estimated to be between £3.1 billion and £4.8 billion over a 25 year period for England and Wales. The figures are based on a discount rate of 3.5% over a 25 year period.

Table G5.2 presents the net present value costs of implementing the revised BWD to water companies and agriculture in England and Wales. The figures are based on a discount rate of 3.5% over a 25 year period.

Table G5.2: NPV Costs to Water Companies and Agriculture Lower Boundary Upper Boundary Water Companies £80 million £130 million Agriculture £3.3 billion £4.7 billion Source: Defra (2002a): Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council to Revise Directive 76/160/EEC Concerning the Quality of Bathing Water: Partial Regulatory Assessment

Using the present value costs given in the Partial RIA, the UK equivalent annual costs of implementing Option 2 in relation to the revised BWD ‘Good’ quality standards, have been calculated and are presented in Table G5.3 below. The figures are based on a discount rate of 3.5% over a 25 year period.

Table G5.3: UK Equivalent Annual Costs of Implementing Option 2 in relation to the revised BWD

Lower Boundary Costs) Upper Boundary Costs £ 190 million £ 290 million

Source: Defra (2002a): Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council to Revise Directive 76/160/EEC Concerning the Quality of Bathing Water: Partial Regulatory Assessment

Revised MARPOL Annex IV

In relation to the revision of Annex IV of MARPOL it is unlikely that significant additional costs will be incurred. However, full implementation of the revisions could potentially involve some additional costs to UK registered ships however, most if not all ships likely to be affected, are understood to already provide the necessary level of treatment. Regulations Associated with Food Quality Current commitments fulfil Action 15 of the EU Marine Strategy. However, the assessment to be undertaken by the Commission may result in the tightening of limits for existing contaminants or extension of limits to additional contaminants. The costs of these measures are discussed under Option 3.


Page G-24

G5.1.4 Option 3 The Revised Bathing Water Directive

Table G5.4 presents the UK equivalent annual costs of implementing the ‘Excellent’ quality standards proposed by the revised BWD. Once again the figures are based on present value costs and a discount rate of 3.5% over a 25 year period.

Table G5.4: UK Equivalent Annual Costs of Implementing Option 3 in relation to the revised BWD

Lower Boundary Costs Upper Boundary Costs £ 300 million £ 470 million

Source: Defra (2002a): Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council to Revise Directive 76/160/EEC Concerning the Quality of Bathing Water: Partial Regulatory Assessment

Revised MARPOL Annex IV Under Option 3, it is possible that the requirements of the revised Annex IV could be extended to apply to all ships and not just those above a certain tonnage or carrying capacity engaged on international voyages. This could result in significant additional costs incurred by the shipping industry and private individuals, as all vessels would be required to have sewage treatment facilities on board. However, the extent of these costs are unknown. Regulations Associated with Food Quality Additional costs associated with the potential tightening of existing standards, and/or extension of a contaminants list, could be significant. The revised limit of 1.5 mg/kg (FSA, 2002) for lead in bivalve molluscs introduced under Commission Regulation 221/2002 is estimated to have cost the shellfish industry between £100,000 and £200,000 through the potential loss of a proportion of the shellfish catch. Assuming that similar costs might be incurred for revisions to limits for the other four substances to which limits apply for fish and shellfish might, therefore, imply costs in the region of £400,000 to £800,000. The costs associated with extension of standards to cover other contaminant could be considerably higher. However, without knowing which contaminants standards might be extended to, or how far above potential standards are the current levels of these contaminants in fish or shellfish, these costs cannot be quantified.


Page G-25

G5.2 Other Costs G5.2.1 Option 1

According to the Partial RIA on the Revision to the BWD, the current costs to the Environment Agency in England and Wales to monitor bathing waters and react to incidents is approximately £0.7 million per year. With regard to the costs of implementing the UK Merchant Shipping (Port Waste Reception Facilities) Regulations 2002, identified in Option 1, relating to MARPOL Annex IV, the Final RIA indicated that there was potential for increased costs for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency's monitoring and enforcement work. This is likely to be a cost of £43,000 per year (Cabinet Office, 2003).

G5.2.2 Option 2 An upper estimate of £2.4 million per year has been given for the costs to local authorities in England and Wales of the beach management and public information provisions of the revised BWD in the Partial RIA. These figures were calculated assuming that 14 additional EA officers would be required to police bathing waters and that 1 local authority staff member would need to be allocated per five bathing waters to undertake provision of information. The upper estimate of the net present value of monitoring costs over a 25 year period is £53 million.

G5.2.3 Option 3

Regulations Associated with Food Quality Additional costs associated with the potential extension of the list of contaminants, and the subsequent monitoring programmes required, could be significant. A lower boundary estimate has been calculated assuming the following assumptions: • 150 substances are identified on a revised contaminants list; • a cost of £100 per substances for column sampling and analysis; and • samples are taken 4 times per year at 2,000 sites To calculate an upper boundary estimate, it was assumed that 1,000 substances were identified on a revised contaminants list. Table G5.5 presents the equivalent annual cost of this monitoring programme.

Table G5.5: UK Equivalent Annual Cost of a Potential Monitoring Programme for Contaminants in Seafood

Lower Boundary Costs Upper Boundary Costs £ 120 million £ 800 million


Page G-26

G5.3 Costs to a ‘Typical’ Business

The range of contaminants to which the objective and actions of the Marine Strategy refer to is still uncertain. They will depend on whether it will include only contaminants listed under current regulations, or whether it will go beyond this list to include other contaminants. This makes the identification of a typical business difficult and the estimation of costs to it almost impossible.

G5.4 Summary of Costs Table G5.6 summarises the costs associated with each of the Options. Table G5.6: Summary of Costs

Equivalent Annual Costs (£ million/year) Options Actions Lower Boundary Upper Boundary Option 1 Bathing Water Directive 0.6 0.9 Discharging Ship Generated Sewage at Port Significant Significant Contaminants in Food Regulations (loss to shellfish industry) 0.1 0.2 Total Equivalent Annual Cost 0.7 1.1 Option 2 Revised Bathing Water Directive – Good Quality Standards 190 290 Total Equivalent Annual Cost 190 290 Option 3 Revised Bathing Water Directive – Excellent Quality

Standards 300 470

Monitoring Programme for Extended Contaminants List 120 800 Total Equivalent Annual Cost 420 1,270 G6. SMALL FIRMS IMPACT TEST

Small firms are likely to be affected by measures under this aspect of the Marine Strategy. Existing RIAs for measures associated with health and the environment, for example revision of the Bathing Water Directive, have involved consultation with organisations representing affected small businesses, for example the National Farmers’ Union, and the Country, Land and Business Association. These RIAs indicate that the effect on small businesses will not be severely detrimental.

G7. COMPETITION ASSESSMENT

No additional competition effects are envisaged, beyond those already addressed in RIAs for existing commitments.

G8. ENFORCEMENT AND SANCTIONS

No additional enforcement requirements are envisaged for Options 1 and 2.


Page G-27

Any additional measures introduced under Option 3 would most likely be within the framework of existing measures.


Page G-28


ANNEX H

REFERENCES

Annex H: References


Page 1

H1. REFERENCES

ACHS (2004): Consideration of the Status of Chemicals on the CSF list of Chemicals of Concern, presented at the 12th meeting 3rd February 2004.

ACOPS (2002): Annual Survey of Reported Discharges Attributes to Vessels and

Offshore Oil and Gas Installation Operating in the United Kingdom Pollution Control Zone, London, MCA.

Adopt-a-Beach Organisation (n/d): Litter Sources, downloaded from Adopt-a-Beach

Organisation Internet site: available at: http://www.adoptabeach.org.uk/LitterFacts/ Alexander’s Gas and Oil Connections (2002): North Sea Oil Industry Faces High

Platform Disposal Costs, Alexander’s Gas and Oil Connections, Company News: Europe, Vol 7, Issue 18, 19 September 2002.

Bell et al (2000): Environmental Law, 5th Edition, London, Blackstone Press. CEC (2002): Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European

Parliament, Towards a strategy to protect and conserve the marine environment, Brussels, 2.10.2002, COM(2002)539 Final.

CEC (2002a): Communication from the Commission to the Council and the

European Parliament: A Strategy for the Sustainable Development of European Aquaculture, Brussels, 19.9.2002, COM(2002) 511 Final

Cabinet Office (2002): Regulatory Impact Assessment, Regulation to Provide a Code of

Safe Practice for Registered Fishing Vessels 15m Length Overall (LOA) to Less Than 24m Registered Length (L), available at MCA Internet site: http://www.mcga.gov.uk/

Cabinet Office (2003): Regulatory Impact Assessment, The Merchant Shipping and

Fishing Vessels (Port Waste Reception Facilities) Regulations 2003, downloaded from Cabinet Office Internet site: http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/

Cabinet Office (nd): Final Regulatory Impact Assessment, Draft Merchant Shipping (Port

State Control) (Amendment) Regulations 2003, downloaded from Cabinet Office Internet site: http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/

Defra (1998): Cleaner Seas, article downloaded from Department for the Environment,

Food and Rural Affairs Internet site: http://www.defra.gov.uk Defra (1999): Economic Instruments for Water Pollution Discharges, article downloaded

from Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Internet site: http://www.defra.gov.uk


Page 2

Defra (2000): Radioactive Substances Division International Activities, downloaded from Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Internet site: http://www.defra.gov.uk

Defra (2002): UK Strategy for Radioactive Discharges 2001–2020, report downloaded

from Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Internet site: http://www.defra.gov.uk

Defra (2002a): Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council

to Revise Directive 76/160/EEC Concerning the Quality of Bathing Water: Partial Regulatory Assessment, document downloaded from Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Internet site: http://www.defra.gov.uk

Defra (2002b): Explanatory Memorandum on European Legislation Proposal for a

Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council Concerning the Quality of Bathing Water, document downloaded from Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Internet site: http://www.defra.gov.uk

Defra (2002c): Safeguarding our Seas – A Strategy for the Conservation and

Sustainable Development of our Marine Environment, available from Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Internet site: http://www.defra.gov.uk

Defra (2002d): Towards a Strategy to Protect and Conserve the Marine

Environment, UK Brief on the Communication from the Commission of the Council and Parliament (unpublished).

Defra (2002e): Protecting People and the Environment from Hazardous Chemicals, A

Consultation Document and Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment on the Review of the UK Chemicals Stakeholder Forum and Option for National Action on Chemicals of Concern. Issued by Defra, the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment, available from Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Internet site: http://www.defra.gov.uk

Defra (2003): The Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 2003 - Consultation Document, downloaded from Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Internet site: http://www.defra.gov.uk

Defra (2003a): Water Quality – Sewage Treatment in the UK: Sensitive Areas, July 2003,

article downloaded from Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Internet site: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/quality/uwwd/sensarea/default.htm

Defra (2004): UK Consultation Paper on the New EU Chemicals Strategy – REACH,

paper downloaded from Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Internet site: http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/reach/index/htm


Page 3

Defra (2004a): e-Digest of Environmental Statistics, downloaded from Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Internet site: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment /statistics/index.htm

Defra (nd): Regulatory Impact Assessment of a Priority List of Substances under the

Article 16 of the Water Framework Directive, document downloaded from Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Internet site: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/wfd

Dti (nd): Regulatory Context, Control of Operations, article downloaded from Dti Oil

and Gas environmental consultation site: http://www.offshore-sea.org.uk/sea/dev/html_file

EA (2004): Environmental Facts and Figures, Contaminants to the Sea – Convention and

Monitoring, downloaded from EA Internet site: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/yourenv/eff/water/

EA (2004a): Environmental Facts and Figures, Beach Litter, downloaded from EA

Internet site: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/yourenv/eff/water/ EA (2004b): Environmental Facts and Figures, Legislation against Litter, downloaded

from EA Internet site: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/yourenv/eff/water/ English Nature (2003): House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Committee Inquiry into the Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy: Response of the UK Statutory Nature Conservation Agencies, available from http://www.english-nature.org.uk

Environment Agency (nd): Bathing Water Quality – Background and Data, article

downloaded from EA Internet site: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk

Environment Agency (2000): Marine Algal Blooms, downloaded from EA Internet

site: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/yourenv/eff/water FSA (2002): Contaminants in Food (England) Regulations 2002 (Maximum levels for

lead, cadmium, mercury, 3-MCPD, dioxins and nitrate in foodstuffs) – Regulatory Impact Assessment, article downloaded from Food Standards Agency Internet site http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/foodindustry/regulations/ria/71635

GESAMP (1993): in Oil Pollution of the Marine Environment (Patin S), downloaded from

Offshore Environment Internet site: http://www.offshore-environment.com/oilpollution.html


Page 4

IEEP 2000: A Shadow Action Plan for Biodiversity in Fisheries. Institute for European Environmental Policy, article downloaded from Institute for European Environmental Policy Internet site: http://www.ieep.org.uk/PDFfiles/PUBLICATIONS/BAPfish.pdf

Janssens et al. (2002): Radiation Protection 127, Radioactive Effluents from Nuclear

Fuel Reprocessing Plants in the European Union, 1995-1999, Luxembourg, CEC. Janssens et al. (2002a): The MARINA II Study: An Introduction from the Perspective

of European Commission and OSPAR Policies with regard to Radioactivity in the Marine Environment, Luxembourg, CEC.

Jones, KC and Sweetman, AJ (2003): Research Priorities for Dioxins and

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) - A Report to the Chemicals and GM Policy Division of the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), Draft for consultation, Environmental Science Department, Lancaster University.

JRC (2004): Oceanides Overview, downloaded from JRC Internet site:

http://www.intelligence.jrc.cec.eu.int/marine/oceanides KIMO (2001): Impacts of Marine Debris and Oil, Economic and Social Costs to

Coastal Communities, Shetland, KIMO. KIMO (2003): Kimo Summary of US and EU Maritime Safety and Oil Pollution

Legislation, KIMO. KIMO (nd): Oil Pollution Contingency Plan Guidelines for Coastal Local Authorities,

KIMO.

MCA (1999): National Contingency Plan for Marine Pollution from Shipping and Offshore, Southampton, MCA.

MCS (2003): Volunteers Needed to Clean Up Our Coastline. Beachwatch 2003 – The

UK’s Biggest Beach Litter Blitz!, downloaded from MCA Internet Site: http://www.mcsuk.org

Morse GK et al (1993): The Economic and Environmental Impact of Phosphorus

Removal from Wastewater in the European Community, Selper Publications. Netcen (2000): Benefits of Emissions Reductions, AEA Technology. NERA (2004): Evaluation of the Feasibility of Alternative Market-Based

Mechanisms To Promote Low-Emission Shipping In European Union Sea Areas, Final Report for the European Commission, Directorate-General Environment, available at: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/air/index.htm.


Page 5

OSPAR (2002): Quality Status Report 2000 for the North-East Atlantic, available from http://www.orpar.org

OSPAR (2003): OSPAR Strategy on Hazardous Substances, available from

http://www.orpar.org PA Consulting Group et al (2001): EA Review of Technetium-99 Regulation Costs

Benefit Analysis, report prepared for the Environment Agency, September 2001. RPA (1997): Sea Empress Cost-Benefit Project, report prepared by Risk and Policy

Analysts Ltd. for the Environment Agency, December 1997. RPA (2001): Regulatory Impact Assessment of the New Chemicals Strategy, report

prepared by Risk and Policy Analysts Ltd. for the Department of the Environment Transport and Regions (DETR), May 2001.

RPA (2003): Regulatory Impact Assessment for Proposed Daughter Directives

Revision to Dangerous Substances Directive: Key Issues Report, report prepared by Risk and Policy Analysts Ltd. for the Department of the Environment Food and Rural Affairs, February 2003.

SERAD (2001): A Strategic Framework for the Scottish Sea Fishing Industry SERAD

Sea Fisheries Division, downloaded from SERAD Internet site, http://www.scotland.dov.uk

SAS (2003): The Health Risks Associated with Bathing, Surfing and other Water sports in

Contaminated Environments, article downloaded from Surfers Against Sewage Internet site http://www.sas.org.uk

SNH et al (2004): The Minch Project, downloaded from Western-isles Internet site:

http://www.w-isles.gov.uk/minch/

UKOOA (2002): Regulatory Framework, downloaded from UKOOA Internet site, http://www.ukooa.co.uk/issues/

UKOOA (2002a): UKOOA Cuttings Initiative: Final Report, UKOOA Oil and Gas for

Britain, downloaded from UKOOA Internet site http://www.ukooa.co.uk UNEP (2004): Effects of Marine Litter on Economy and People, downloaded from UNEP

Internet site: http://marine-litter.gpa.unep.org/facts/effects-people-economy.htm

UNEP et al (2001): Protecting the Oceans from Land-Based Activities, Land-based

sources and activities affecting the quality and uses of the marine, coastal and associated freshwater environment, GRID-Arendal for the United Nations Environment Programme.


Page 6

WRc (1999): Diffuse Pollution: Sources of N and P, Report for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Report No. DETR 4755, June 1999.

House of Lords Select Committee (2003): Progress of Reform of the Common

Fisheries Policy, with evidence, House of Lords Select Committee, Session 2002-03, 25th Report, London, The Stationery Office.

UK Biodiversity Group (nd): Tranche 2 Action Plans: Cost Estimates Maritime Habitats,

document downloaded from http://www.ukbap.org.uk UK Biodiversity Group (nd): Tranche 2 Action Plans: Maritime Species and Habitats,

document downloaded from http://www.ukbap.org.uk

randd.defra.gov.ukrandd.defra.gov.uk/document.aspx?document=me1406_9924_frp.pdfpartial regulatory...

Documents