The role and application of quality assurance in marine environmental protection

Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 25, 1-4, pp. 61 66, 1992. Printed in Great Britain.

tHt25 32t~X t)2 $5 00+l)011 (c? Itl~12 Pergamon Press [ t d

The Role and Application of Quality Assurance in Marine Environmental Protection GRAHAM TOPPING SOAFD Marine Laboratory, P.O. Box 101, Victoria Road, Aberdeen AB9 8DB, Scotland, UK

International organizations have expressed concern over the quality of data collected by scientists involved in marine environmental protection work. The author describes: the need for quality assurance in such work and the justification for its implementation in relation to the current comparability of marine data; the consequences of collecting poor data; a brief description of the main elements of quality assurance in marine measurements and the current status of these measurements; the steps that have been, and are being, taken by marine chemists to improve the reliability of data, and the future needs in quality assurance for marine environmental protection work.

To achieve an acceptable and defensible level of marine environmental protection we need a sound knowledge of the physical, chemical, and biological processes which influence the health of plant and animal life in the sea, and also need to be able to distinguish between natural and man-made perturbations of this ecosystem. The acquisition of relevant and reliable data is an essential component of any research or monitoring programme associated with the above aims. To obtain such data, representative samples of this ecosystem must be properly collected and stored prior to analysis, and all laboratory work must be carried out and validated under a quality assurance (QA) programme. In a scientific context, QA is defined as the procedures carried out by laboratory staff which ensure that data of the appropriate quality is obtained to meet the defined aims of the laboratory. Two principal components of QA are quality control, the procedures which maintain measurements within an acceptable level of accuracy and precision, and quality assessment, the procedures which provide documented evidence that the quality control is being achieved. In this paper, I address the need for QA in marine environmental protection, particularly in the growing context of international collaborative work, present a brief description of the main components of QA in such work and the current quality of measurements by marine scientists engaged in monitoring contaminants

in the North Sea and adjacent waters, and conclude with an examination of the future QA requirements. Although this paper focuses on QA aspects of marine environmental protection work within Europe, all of the matters being addressed apply to similar work carried out in other parts of the world. T h e N e e d for Quality A s s u r a n c e for M a r i n e Measurements European laboratories are currently participating in marine pollution monitoring programmes, organized by the Oslo and Paris Commission's (OSPARCOM) Joint Monitoring Group (JMG) and the Intergovernmental North Sea Task Force (NSTF), to provide data for a number of purposes. The monitoring programme of JMG has four main aims: 1. the assessment of possible hazards to human health; 2. the assessment of harm to living resources and marine life; 3. the assessment of the existing levels of marine pollution (spatial distribution); and 4. the assessment of the effectiveness of measures taken for the reduction of marine pollution within the framework of the Convention (temporal trend assessment). The. two aims of the NSTF Monitoring Master Plan are: 1. to develop an adequate depth of coverage of data which will provide all the necessary information required to assess the condition of the North Sea, and provide a basis for a future programme which will permit assessment of trends in physical, chemical and biological parameters; and 2. in the short-term, to use these data as a major source of information for the preparation of a new assessment of the North Sea to be included in the Quality Status report (QSR) in 1993. Both NSTF and JMG have expressed concern over the likely compatibility of data produced by participants in this programmes. They have agreed that a programme of QA should be developed to ensure that the data collected meet the intended purposes. Other international bodies, such as the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), who are conducting similar monitoring programmes in other regional seas, have also expressed concern about data quality (Kullenberg et al., 1986). 61

Marine Pollution Bulletin

Scientific Justification for QA for Marine Measurements There is ample evidence of the need for QA procedures to be implemented by laboratories involved in marine environmental protection work (Holden et al., 1983; Topping, 1986). The series of external quality assessments of analysis (sometimes referred to as intercomparison exercises), organized for some European and North American laboratories over the last 20 yr by the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES), have shown that there are large interlaboratory differences in the measurements of contaminants in marine samples; trace metals in biota (Topping & Holden, 1978; Holden & Topping, 1982; Topping, 1982; Berman & Boyko, 1986), trace metals in sea water (Olafsson, 1978, 1981; Bewers et al., 1981; Thibaud, 1981; Jones et al., 1983; Berman et al., 1985; Berman and Boyko, 1988) trace metals in sediments (Brugmann & Niemist, 1987; Loring, 1987) trace metals in suspended particulate matter (Hovind & Skei, in press), nutrients in sea water (Kirkwood et al., 1991), organochlorine compounds in biological tissue (Topping & Holden, 1978; Holden & Topping, 1982; Uthe & Musial, 1982, 1986; Reutergardh and Litzn, in press), and hydrocarbons in marine samples (Law & Portmann, 1982; Farrington et al., 1986; Uthe et al., 1986). The poor performance of some participants in the ICES intercomparison exercises is not atypical of the analytical chemistry community. Other external quality assessments, organized by the Food and Agricultural Association (Knowles & Burrell, 1981), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA, 1978, 1980), and IOC (Topping, 1984) have produced very similar findings for the comparability of analytical data.

Consequences of Poor Data The consequences, or penalties of producing unreliable data, or misleading information, can include: • the inability of organizations, such as ICES, NSTF, JMG, IOC and UNEP, to provide clear and unambiguous statements on the quality status of the marine environment; • the exclusion of results from some laboratories from evaluations of data sets collected in international monitoring programmes, e.g. the recent ICES baseline study of trace metals in North Sea coastal and shelf waters (ICES, 1991a); • the imposition of additional control measures on discharges to the sea by a regulatory authority, when such action is not justified because the monitoring data are incorrect; • the loss of confidence in national exports by importers concerned by the apparent, but inaccurate, high contaminant levels in marine foodstuffs, and as a consequence the loss in earnings by the relevant national exporters following the ban on such imports. Laboratories must demonstrate that they are capable of producing reliable data, if the public are to be convinced that national and international authorities 62

are implementing effective marine environmental protection. To do this, laboratories must show that: I. the samples are properly collected and analysed using appropriate analytical procedures; 2. the analytical procedures are routinely checked inhouse to demonstrate that measurements are staying within acceptable limits of accuracy and precision; and 3. that their analytical capability has been confirmed by an independent and competent organization. By implementing a sound QA system, along the lines discussed below, a laboratory should not only be able to meet the above requirements but will avoid wasting its resources, by always producing data which have value.

Elements of QA Practice The principal elements of QA in marine environmental protection can be summarized as follows: 1. The employment of skilled, highly motivated and well trained staff on all field and laboratory work; w'ith suitable training in measurement procedures for new and/or inexperienced staff, good supervision of all operations by senior scientists, and the monitoring of staff performance by scientists who are not connected with the particular measurement operation. 2. The provision of suitable field and laboratory accommodation and facilities, the use of appropriate sampling and analytical equipment by experienced technical staff, and the maintenance and servicing of this equipment by either competent laboratory staff or service engineers. 3. The use of labware and reagents of the necessary quality to meet the particular needs of the sampling and analytical operations. 4. The conduct of representative and well-planned sampling programmes by experienced staff, acting under clear and well documented instructions. 5. The use of appropriate collection, preservation, storage and transport procedures to maintain the integrity of samples prior to analysis. 6. The use of suitable pre-treatment procedures, prior to analysis of samples, to prevent contamination, and loss of the determinand, in the samples. 7. The use of appropriate analytical procedures, which have been validated by relevant certified reference materials, to ensure that measurements are of the required accuracy and precision to meet the needs of the work. 8. The conduct of regular checks on the accuracy and precision of routine measurements, by the analysis of appropriate reference materials, to assess whether the analytical procedures are remaining under control, and the documentation of the results on control charts, to assist this assessment procedure and to provide evidence that the work has been done. 9. The participation in external quality assessments to provide an independent assessment of the laboratory's capability of producing reliable measurements. 10. The preparation, and use, of written laboratory protocols so that specific analytical data can be traced to the relevant samples, and vice versa. //. The review of sample data after completion of

Volume 25/Numbers 1-4

analytical work, to check for transcriptional errors made by staff (analysts, and word and data processors) prior to final documentation of data in record books and/or in computers. 12. The preparation of a laboratory manual, in which all elements of QA procedures are comprehensively described, and which is used by all members of staff involved in the measurement procedures. 13. Finally, the acceptance by all staff that QA practice must be implemented rigorously, and not done on an ad hoc basis. Each laboratory involved in marine environmental protection will have to implement a QA system which meets its specific needs. Senior management should nominate an experienced member of staff to be responsible for all aspects of QA work, including the preparation of a QA manual. This person must have experience in marine measurements and to be given the authority to ensure that the QA procedures are correctly implemented.

Implementation of QA Schemes Increasingly, many European chemical laboratories are seeking recognition of their QA schemes by applying for formal accreditation under their national registration schemes, e.g. in the UK, this is done through the National Measurement Accreditation Service (NAMAS). The QA schemes throughout the European Community (EC) are based on the requirements set out in Guide No. 25 of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and in the recently published European Standard EN 45000. It should be noted that formal accreditation means that a laboratory has convinced the relevant authority that it has a QA scheme which meets the requirements for specific analyses. However, it does not follow that the laboratory has demonstrated that it can actually produce data of the required quality to meet its aims. This can only be achieved through successful participation in an external performance assessment. At present, neither accreditation not participation in external performance assessment is compulsory for most analytical work. However, the time may not be too far away when it will become so for laboratories conducting some types of measurements. If accreditation become compulsory, and it is understood that this is being considered by one government department in the UK, then the role of external performance assessment may become even more important. For example, if a laboratory does not achieve an acceptable performance within a reasonable time period, will it lose its certificate of accreditation? In an attempt to provide links between chemists across Europe on QA matters, a Europe-wide network (EUROCHEM) was established in November 1989, by a group of laboratory directors from 11 of 18 EC and EFTA countries. Under EUROCHEM, working groups are being established to facilitate collaboration in areas of accreditation, proficiency testing, reference materials and training. EUROCHEM is liaising with other organizations, e.g. International Union of Pure and

Applied Chemistry and the EC Bureau of Community Reference (BCR). The latter organization is an observer member of EUROCHEM, and was involved in discussions which led to its establishment. Following a recent review of QA requirements for laboratories participating in NSTF and JMG marine monitoring programmes, BCR agreed in principle to support a pilot programme of QA to improve measurements in these programmes. A proposal for the content, timetable and cost of this pilot programme, together with QA guidelines for NSTF and JMG laboratories, were recently produced (Topping et al., in press). The QA guidelines, which provide further details of the key elements of QA referred to above, were based on pubhshed material on QA (e.g. HMSO, 1980; Keith et al., 1983; Taylor, 1987), and the collective experience of ICES Marine Chemistry Working Group on QA matters over the past 15 years.

Status of Measurements of Contaminants in Marine Samples In a recent review, it was concluded that although there had been considerable improvement in trace metal measurements in marine samples over the past two decades, there was a large number of European laboratories which still had difficulties in providing reliable data in routine work (Topping, 1986). This conclusion was based on the results of relevant ICES intercomparison exercises conducted between 1971 and 1985 (see earlier references). The author also stated that measurements of organohalogen compounds and petroleum hydrocarbons in marine samples were extremely poor by comparison with trace metal measurements. A recent ICES intercomparison exercise for nutrients in sea water has shown that 70% of the participants (48 out of 68) were able to produce consfstent results for both nitrate and phosphate measurements. Since the above review, the marine chemists within Europe have endeavoured to improve data quality in a number of ways. Firstly, having identified the main errors associated with measurements of trace metals in marine samples, they have consolidated their advice on the QA aspects of sampling and analysis by producing information pamphlets which ICES has published, to assist in the training of inexperienced marine chemists. Secondly, they have offered guidance on QA protocols to NSFT and JMG to assist these organizations in the collection of comparable data, and the mechanism by which they can assess data. Thirdly, in recognizing that marine laboratories were experiencing significant problems in measurements of organic contaminants, it was decided to establish a systematic programme of improvement, through a step by step learning programme. The first stage of this programme was to address the ability of the analysts to optimize instrumentation and to prepare calibration solutions; this was done through the distribution of common standard solutions. The second and subsequent stages were to assess the ability of the analyst to 63

Marine Pollution Bulletin

analyse progressively more difficult samples, beginning with a cleaned-up extract of a sample and culminating in a real sample. After each stage, the results from participants would be assessed by an ICES co-ordinating group and progress to the next stage would only take place when a participant had achieved an acceptable performance. Individuals experiencing difficulties would be assisted in overcoming them before proceeding to the next stage of the programme. Although ICES provided funds for the purchase of the necessary materials, the main cost of the programme was to be borne by the coordinating laboratory and the laboratories donated individual scientists' time to the evaluating and reporting of results, and to providing assistance to the laboratories experiencing difficulties. To date, the learning programme has dealt with measurements of chlorobiphenyls (IUPAC Nos 28, 31, 52, 101, 105, 118, 138, 153, 180, and 189) in marine sediment and seal blubber; the former because they form part of the mandatory measurements in NSTF and JMG monitoring programmes, the latter because of the need to support biologists examining the biological effects of these compounds on marine mammals. The first two stages of the programme have been completed and so far the results have been very encouraging, in that improvements have been made by inexperienced laboratories (de Boer et al., in press). However, the programme has revealed basic deficiencies in analytical work. Some laboratories were unable to prepare reliable calibration solutions, and some did not employ internal standards in analytical procedures. Most laboratories were unable to identify and quantify some congeners (Nos 28, 31, 105, and 156), and used chromatographic columns with insufficient length to allow proper separation of congeners. Assuming that support for this programme continues, in terms of finance and commitment from participants, there is little doubt that the long-term goals will be achieved. However, the current poor comparability of data for CBs in marine sediments means that NSTF and JMG may experience difficulties in providing a clear statement on spatial differences in concentrations in the North Sea, on the basis of measurements provided by all member states. However, on the basis of the trace metal intercomparison work to date, and the likely improvements in analytical capability since 1986/87, NSTF will have more confidence in making statements about concentrations of trace metals in biota, water and sediment and nutrients in sea water in the 1993 North Sea Quality Status report.

Other International QA Activities The QA work of IOC/UNEP, on behalf of the laboratories involved in the Regional Seas Programmes, is similar to that of the ICES programme. However, the problems facing IOC and UNEP are different. Whereas ICES began its work with well-established and relatively experienced groups of chemists, the majority of IOC and UNEP laboratories were relatively inexperienced and ill-equipped, from an analytical viewpoint. In view 64

of this it was necessary for IOC and UNEP to begin by providing basic guidance on sampling and analytical methodology. This advice was initially provided on an ad hoc basis by experts from European and North American laboratories but ultimately it was necessary to consolidate this advisory work through the IOC Group of Experts on Methods, Standards and Intercalibration (GEMSI). This group, drawing on its association with ICES, was able to organize and conduct training workshops on sampling and analysis, assist with the development of reference methods, and develop basic guidance on QA procedures. Like ICES, the expert group recognized the importance and role of reference materials in the production of reliable data, and the size of the problem led IOC and UNEP to establish the Group of Experts on Standards and Reference Materials (GESRM). In the early 1970s the lack of suitable certified reference materials (CRMs) based on marine matrices prevented rapid progress on improvements in measurements, particularly for organic contaminants in all matrices a n d for trace metals in sea water. The lack of relevant CRMs for marine measurements has undoubtedly contributed to the production of poor data and regrettably many analysts have, in the past, resorted to non-marine CRMs for validating analytical methods. Fortunately, there are now available a number of CRMs for trace metals for biota, sediments and sea water, and the gaps for organic compounds are slowly being filled. Foremost among the producers of CRMs for marine work is the National Research Council (NRC), Canada, who embarked on this task under its Marine Analytical Chemistry Standards Programme (MACSP). Mike Waldichuk was an active member of MACSP. Over the past 15 yr, NRC has produced CRMs for trace metals for the following matrices: open, coastal and estuarine water; estuarine, coastal and harbour sediment; fish muscle and liver, and shellfish liver. In addition to providing four calibration standards for a range of CB congeners, NRC has provided three CRMs for PCBs in coastal and harbour sediments; and five CRMs for polycyclic aromatic compounds in harbour and estuarine sediments. Within Europe, the leading producer of certified reference materials is BCR. This organization has prepared the following marine CRMs: a mussel tissue for trace metals, and two fish oils for CBs. The aim over the next few years is for BCR to provide additional CRMs for some of the marine matrices/determinands.

The Way Ahead To date, QA work on marine environmental protection has focused on improving the measuremenls of chemical contaminants. Although this work will need to continue, and will concentrate on improving measurements of organic contaminants in different matrices, there must be more attention to the QA aspects of other marine measurements, particularly those used to assess the impact of contaminants on marine life. At present, there are four biological effects measurements which have been included in the NSTF

Volume 25/Numbers 1-4

monitoring programme (Oyster Embryo Bioassay, Fish Disease, Benthic Community Analysis and EROD (Ethoxyresorufin O-de-ethylase) activity in fish liver preparations). No doubt others, like Scope for Growth in mussels, will be considered for this programme in due course. Details of the current state of biological effects monitoring, including the strengths and limitations of these measurements, are given in ICES (1991b). ICES, in collaboration with IOC, organized a workshop on biological effects of contaminants in the North Sea in 1990; the report of this workshop will be published in 1992. On the basis of this work, ICES working groups have begun the preparation of QA protocols for the first four of the biological effects measurements. Also, to assess the comparability of biological effect data, ICES carried out intercomparison exercises for bioassay and EROD in 1991. However, more assessments will be necessary before the measurements by different laboratories can be declared to be comparable. It gives me great pleasure to dedicate this paper to the life and work of Mike Waldichuk. Mike was not only a very likeable person and a dedicated and competent scientist, but someone from whom I learned the art of doing environmental impact assessments of the effects of v,aste discharges on marine ecosystems.

Berman, S. S. & Boyko, V. J. (1986). Seventh ICES intercalibration exercise on trace metals in biological tissue--part 1 (7/TM/BT-1), 1983. ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 138. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen. Berman, S. S. & Boyko, V. J. (1988). Sixth ICES intercalibration exercise on trace metals in sea water (6/TM/SW), 1986. ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 152. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen. Berman, S. S., Mykytiuk, A. P., Yeats, P. A. & Bewers, J. M. (1986). ICES fifth round intercalibration for trace metals in sea water (5/TM/SW): round robin intercalibration for cadmium, copper, nickel, zinc, lead, iron and manganese. ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 136, 27-66. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen. Bewers, J. M., Dalziel, J., Yeats, P. A. & Barron, J. L. (1981). Fourth ICES intercalibration exercise for trace metals in sea water (4/TM/SW), 1978. ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 105. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen. Brugmann, L. & Niemist, L. (1987). Baltic sediment intercalibration exercise, step 1: intercomparison of analyses of reference samples ABSS and MBSS, 1985. Step 2: intereomparison of analyses of sliced wet cores, 1984. ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 147. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen. Cossa, D. & Courau, P. (1986). ICES fifth round intercalibration for trace metals in sea water (5/TM/SW): round robin intercalibration for total mercury in sea water. ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 136, 67-80. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen. de Boer. J.. Duinker, J. C. & Calder, J. Chlorobiphenyls in marine media--step 1 (7/OC/BT-1 and I/OC/MS-12), 1989. ICES Cooperative Research Report Series (in press). de Boer. J., Duinker, J. C., Reutergardh, L. & Calder, J. A. ICES/IOC/ 1MG intercomparison programme on the analysis of chlorobiphenyls in marine media--step 2 (7/OC/BT-2 and I/OC/MS-2), 199l. ICES Cooperative Research Report Series (in press). Farrington, J. W., Davis, A. C., Livramento, J. B., Clifford, C. H., Frew, N. H. & Knap, A. (1986). ICES/IOC intercomparison exercise on petroleum hydrocarbons in biological tissues (2/HC/BT), 1984. ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 141, 1-75. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen. HMSO (1980). General Principles of Sampling and Accuracy of Results, Methods" for the Examination of Waters and Associated Materials. HMSO, London. Holden, A. V. & Topping, G. (1981). Report on further intercalibration analyses in ICES pollution monitoring and baseline studies. ICES

Cooperative Research Report No. 108. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen. Holden, A. V., Topping, G. & Uthe, J. F. (1982). Use and relevance of analytical intemomparison exercises in monitoring the marine environment. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 40 (Suppl. 2), 100-110. Hovind, H. & Skei, J. First ICES intercomparison exercise for trace metals in suspended particulate matter (Phase 1) (1/TM/SPM-1), 1989. ICES Cooperative Research Report (in press). IAEA (1978). Intercalibration of analytical methods on marine environmental samples. Progr. Report No. 19 (November, 1978). International Atomic Energy Agency, Monaco. IAEA (1980). Intercalibration of analytical methods on marine environmental samples. Progr. Report No. 20 (April, 1980). International Atomic Energy Agency, Monaco. ICES (1991a). Review of measurements of trace metals in coastal and shelf sea water samples collected by ICES and JMP laboratories during 1985-1987. ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 178. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen. ICES (1991b). Report of the ICES Advisory Committee on Marine Pollution, 1991. ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 177. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen. Jones, P. W. G., Baker, C. W. & Olafsson, J. (1983). First, second and third ICES intercalibration exemise for trace metals in sea water (1/TM/SW), 1976. ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 125. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen. Keith, L. H., Crummett, W., Degan, J., Libby, R. A., Taylor, J. K. & Wentler, G. (1983). Principles of environmental analysis. Anal. Chem. 55, 2210-2218. Kirkwood, D., Aminot, A. & Perttila, M. (1991). Fourth ICES intercomparison exercise for nutrients in sea water (4/NU/SW), 1989. ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 17. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen. Knowles, M. E. & Burrel, J. A. (1981). Analytical quality assurance-cadmium and lead, pp. 28-59. In Joint FAO/WHO food and animal feed contamination monitoring programme. Analytical Quality Assurance of Monitoring Data. WHO-EFP/81.17. WHO, Geneva. Kullenberg, G., Anderson, N. R., Dawson, R., Duinker, J. C., Erhardt, M., Farrington, J. W., Knap, A. H. & Topping, G. (1986). The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commissions programme on marine pollution. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 17, 341-352. Law, R. J. Fourth ICES intercomparison exercise on polycyctic aromatic hydrocarbons in marine media--stage 1, 1988-1990. ICES Cooperative Research Report (in press). Law, R. J. & Portmann, J. E. (1982). First ICES intercomparison exercise on petroleum hydrocarbons in marine samples (1/HC/BT and 1/HC/MS), 1980). ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 117. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen. Loring, D. H. (1987). First ICES intercalibration exercise for trace metals in marine sediments (1/TM/MS), 1984. ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 143. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen. Olafsson, J. (1978). Report on the ICES international intercalibration on mercury in sea water. Mar. Chem. 6, 87-95. Olafsson, J. (1981). Report on the ICES international intercalibration on mercury in sea water for the joint monitoring group of the Oslo and Paris Commissions. ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 110, 1-25. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen. Reutergardh, k. & Litzn, K. Sixth ICES intercalibration exercise for organochlorine residues in biological tissue (6/OC/BT), 1983. ICES Cooperative Research Report (in press). Thibaud, Y. (1981). Exercise d'intercalibration. CIEM 1979, cadmium en eau de mer. ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 110, 26-54. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen. Topping, G. (1982). Report on the 6th ICES trace metal intercomparison exercise for cadmium and lead in biological tissue. ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 111. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen. Topping, G. (1984). Summary report on IOC/GEMSI intercomparison exercise for metals in biological tissue. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, Paris. Topping, G. (1986). Quality of data: with special reference to the measurement of trace metals in marine samples. Sci. Tot. Environ. 49, 9-25. Topping, G. & Holden, A. V. (1978). Report on intercalibration analysis in ICES North Sea and North Atlantic baseline studies. ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 80. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen. Topping, G., Wells, D. E. & Griepink, B. Quality assurance of information on marine environmental monitoring programmes (QUASIMEME): guidelines for quality assurance for marine measurements. Commission of European Community, Bureau of Community Reference, EUR Report (in press).

65

Marine Pollution Bulletin Uthe, J. F. & Musial, C. J. (1982). Fourth ICES Intercalibration Exercise for Organochlorine Residues in Biological Tissue (4/OC/ BT), 1979. ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 115. International Councilfor the Explorationof the Sea, Copenhagen. Uthe, J. F. & Musial, C. J. (1986). SummaryReport of the Fifth Intercomparative Exercise on the determination of Organochlorine Residues in Fish Oil (5/OC/BT), 1982. ICES CooperativeResearch

Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 25, 1 4. pp. 66 69, 1992. Printed in Great Britain.

Report No. 136, 81-86. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen. Uthe, J. H., Musial, C. J. & Sirota, G. R. (1986). Third ICES Intercomparison Exercise on Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Biological Tissue (3/HC/BT), 1984. ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 141, 76-85. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen.

(){125-326X/92 $5.(11) +ILO0 © 1992 Pergamon Press Ltd

The Role of Science in Marine Environmental Protection of Regional Seas and Their Coastal Areas The Experience of the Mediterranean Action Plan L. J E F T I C

Mediterranean Co-ordinating Unit, United Nations Environment Programme, P.O. Box 18019, Athens, Greece

The Regional Seas Programme of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) at present includes 11 regions and has over 120 coastal states participating in it. The c o m m o n experience of all Regional Seas actions plans confirmed that poor management and planning of development are at the roots of most environmental problems. Therefore the focus of the action plans has been gradually shifting from a sectoral approach of pollution control to integrated coastal zone planning and management. The application of environmentally-sound management practices in coastal and maritime activities is now accepted as the key to safeguarding the marine environment. Scientific research has a prominent role as an integral part of the environmental management in Regional Seas action plans. Scientific results have been used for the preparation of assessment documents, legal instruments and c o m m o n measures for the protection of the region against pollution. Scientific research is seen as a means to reduce present uncertainties for facing management decisions and to secure links between inputs, concentrations and effects of contaminants and other stresses.

International regional programmes related to the scientific investigation of the marine environment are not new. The first such programme, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), was established in 1902. Although ICES is a purely scientific organization with no regulatory powers, it has been accepted as a scientific advisory body to a number 66

of commissions with such powers (Oslo, Paris, and Helsinki Commissions). As a result, a basic characteristic of ICES is the combination of purely scientific studies with investigations which have distinctly applied objectives. Using ICES as a model, the International Commission for the Scientific Exploration of the Mediterranean Sea (ICSEM) was founded in 1919 with the aim of providing a regular forum for exchange of data between interested scientists. Given this history, this paper discusses the role of science in the recent and ongoing Mediterranean Action Plan.

Regional Seas Programme of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) In the light of the results of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm, 1972), the United Nations General Assembly decided in December 1972 to establish U N E P and subsequently the Governing Council of U N E P chose 'Oceans' as one of its priority areas. Recognizing lhat the contamination of the marine environment by pollutants is generally most severe in semi-enclosed seas and coastal areas, UNEP's efforts were concentrated on promoting regional marine pollution monitoring and control programmes in areas which for geographic, ecological or political reasons were perceived as forming a regional entity. On this basis the Regional Seas Programme was initiated by U N E P in 1974. The Regional Seas Programme at present includes