Preliminary results of a SURVEY of Adriatic region’s Local Authorities

and NGOs on Marin Litter issue

Ognjen Škunca ognjen@irmo.hr

Conference on regional cooperation in Marine Litter management in Adriatic region, March 25th, 2015, Split, Croatia

IRMO

The objectives of the survey

• To get information about the ML problem as it is perceived and tackled on „the terrain”

• To inform and sensitized important stakeholders, i.e. local authorities (LAs) and NGOs in the region about ML issue (both in the Cover Letter and implicitly through questions in the questionnaires that make them think about problem and options to address it)

• To check the level of relative priority of ML issue and willingness to intensify joint actions

• To give the „terrain” opportunity to influence policy level based on their first hand experience, through their ideas, proposals, plans

The NGO Questionnaire: structure and content

• Simplest possible: – 22 Qs multiple choice, assessments, space for

brief descriptions, suggestions

• Structure / content / scope:– Gravity and trend of ML issue

– Sources / causes

– Existence and effectiveness of official response

– Their activities (barriers, needs, plans)

– Contacts of „willing”

– Their willingness to join Regional ML monitoring and clean-up / awareness raising campaigns

– Their suggestions / comments

The NGO Questionnaire: results• Satisfying response rate: altogether 31

• Fair representativeness: Italy 19 (13 Lega Navale); Slovenia 2; Croatia 2; Bosnia 1; Montenegro 3; Albania 0; Greece 4

• Some countries underrepresented, but ongoing activity – therefore „preliminary results” in title …

• Varying experience and capacity, including some very experienced, in all countries– Legambiente (IT) since 1995 Clean up the Med; since 2013 monitoring

– Sunce since 2006, Žmergo since 1995 (CRO) various ML clean up and monitoring activities;

– Medasset (GR) since 1990ies;

– Morigenos (SLO) regularly since 2009;

– more recent activities by Green Home (MNG);

– DC Neum (B&H).

The NGOs views on: gravity & trend

• Gravity – RANGE: insignificant=1; serious but dealing=2; growing out of control=3;

– Average31 = 2,5 (Varying: SLO, B&H = 2, CRO, GR, IT = 2,5; MNG=3)

• Trend– RANGE: diminishing = 1; no trends = 2; growing = 3

– Average31 = 2,6 (B&H = 2, IT = 2,5; GR = 2,7; MNG, SLO, CRO = 3)

The NGOs views on: the main ML sourcesRANGE: 1 = insignificant; 2 = moderate; 3 = dominant

Av31 Insig. Mod. Dom.Irresponsible visitors – local residents 2,0 9 12 10Irresponsible visitors – tourists 2,2 8 10 13Touristic facilities on beaches 1,8 13 10 8Nautical tourism, yachts in your adjacent sea 1,6 17 10 4Cruisers in your adjacent sea 1,4 19 11 1Fishing activities in your adjacent sea 2,4 5 10 (IT13)16Aquaculture activities in your adjacent sea 1,6 17 10 4Maritime transport in your adjacent sea 1,7 13 14 4Industrial facilities in nearby coastal area 1,7 16 10 5Overseas sources – floating ML brought by sea 2 8 15 8run-off from dumpsites in the hinterland 1,6 17 9 5Riverine input from dumpsites in the hinterland 1,9 12 9 10Wind transported waste from dumpsites 1,5 19 8 4Litter from waste water outlets 2,1 7 15 9

The NGOs views on: effectiveness of the most common ML addressing measures

• The waste collection infrastructure on beaches is available … – RANGE: almost nowhere=0; only few major beaches=1; all major

beaches=2; almost everywhere=3

– Average31 = 1,43 (Varying: MNG 0,7; GR 1; CRO, IT 1,5; B&H, SLO 2)

• There is garbage laying around the garbage bins …– RANGE: almost nowhere, never=0; Only on more distant beaches=1;

relatively often, everywhere=2; prevailing image=3

– Average31 = 1,83 (SLO 1,5; IT 1,8; GR, BIH, HR 2; MNG 2,5)

• There is signage promoting env. respons. behav. at beaches …– RANGE: almost nowhere=0; <10% = 1; 10-50%=2; >50%beaches=3

– Average31 = 0,77 (GR 0,3; IT 0,6; BIH, CRO 1; MNG 1,6; SLO 2)

The NGOs activity on ML clean-up campaigns

• 71% of the NGOs covered by survey have organized ML clean-up campaigns– Over 90% would organize campaign if assisted with some barriers (funding, etc.)

• however, relatively widespread realization is that:– „clean-up campaigns have very limited effect …

– … it is important to reduce waste creation at its source and improve waste management systems.

– Clean up actions are just awareness raising activities and treating the symptoms of a much larger “disease”.

– (if treated as „the major measure”) cost and benefit of those actions do not add up.

– … lack of funding, although it is not significant

– … instead of being supportive, local government often strongly opposes change to their business as usual methods and therefore presents barrier …

The NGOs ML monitoring activities

• Only 32% (of the NGOs covered by survey) have organized some kind (even the most basic attempts included) of ML monitoring

• Over 90% is interested to participate (although, only 45% already have some plans on their own)

• The above combination of experience, capacity and willingness to participate clearly suggests establishment of the monitoring schemes (under the MSFD and MEDPOL frameworks) that significantly rely on NGOs involvement and so called citizens science

The NGOs ML plans includes …

• Awareness raising and education (Waste Art festival; information actions in hotels in the region to raise awareness of visitors; … involving population of the wider area with the theme "all waste end up in the sea." )

• More work on reduction of litter creation at its source

• Cooperation with fishermen; Cooperation with coastal business owners.

• Lobbying local government (Municipality, Prefecture) for creating waste collection infrastructure and improvement of existing ones (including Installation of signage (wooden notices) at the entrances of the beaches)

• Lobbying the Municipality and the Ministry of Environment for the closure of illegal landfills operating in the region and restoration of the environment.

• marine litter monitoring activities in all 3 components (coast, marine surface, marine bottom).

The NGOs willingness to participate Let’s Clean up Europe (supported through DEFISHGEAR project …)

• www.ewwr.eu/en/take_part/lets-clean-up-europe), on 8-10 May 2015:

• 90% (of the NGOs covered by survey) – Some of those saying NO, excuses by other already initiated activities leaving

them no capacity to join in 2015, but interested for 2016 and on …

• Clearly, NGOs are partners to be counted on …

The LA Questionnaire: structure and content• Simplest possible:

– 30 Qs, similar to NGO’s Q, multiple choice, assessments, space for brief descriptions, suggestions

• Structure / content / scope:– Gravity, trend, sources of ML issue

– Their ML beach clean-up activities (driving forces, costs, volumes, trends)

– Cooperation with others (private, civil sector)

– prevalence of various types of ML

– Public campaigns – participation and support

– Their willingness to join Regional ML monitoring and clean-up / awareness raising campaigns

– Their other ML measures, suggestions / comments

The LA Questionnaire: results• Not really satisfying response rate: altogether 37 (cca 10%)

– Is it indicative of relatively low priority of ML issue on their agenda?

• Geographical representativeness: IT(north) 11; IT(mid) 3; IT(south) 3; SLO 1; CRO(north) 9; CRO(south) 6; BIH 1; MNG 3; AL 0; GR 0

– Some countries underrepresented, but ongoing activity …

• Varying … (probably too much to take averages, but just for illustration …)– in size: from around 1000 (e.g. Mljet CRO) to 280.000 (Trieste IT) inhabitants

– In natural environment and position: North, mid, south Adriatic; E/W side; exposed to dominant currents and winds, „down-wind / -stream to what”; close to the major rivers estuaries, type of the coastal ecosystem

– various countries: different statutory requirements, different general situation

– Economy mixture (tourism, fisheries, aquaculture, cruisers, industry, …)

The LAs’ views on: gravity & trend of ML issue

• Gravity – RANGE: insignificant=1; serious but dealing=2; growing out of control=3;

– Average31 = 1,84 (NGO is 2,5) (Varying: MNG 1,3; CRO_N 1,6; IT_N 1,8; IT_M, ITA_S, BIH 2; CRO_S 2,2; SLO 3)

• Trend– RANGE: diminishing = 1; no trends = 2; growing = 3

– Average31 = 2,54 (NGO is 2,6) (IT_N, CRO_N 2,4; IT_M, IT_S, MNG 2,7; CRO_S 2,8; SLO, BIH 3)

The LAs views on: the main ML sourcesRANGE: 1 = insignificant; 2 = moderate; 3 = dominantSOURCE (NGO est.) IT_N SLO CR_N IT_M CR_S BIH MNG IT_S AV37local residents (2) 1,5 2 1,9 2,3 1,5 2,5 2,7 1,7 1,8 Tourists (2,2) 1,5 3 2 2,3 1,7 3 2,3 2 1,9 Touristic facilities (1,8) 1,5 2 1,6 2 1,2 2,5 1,7 1,7 1,6Nautical tourism (1,6) 1,3 2 1,4 1,7 1,7 1,5 1,7 1,7 1,5Cruisers (1,4) 1,1 3 1 1,3 1,2 1 1 1,7 1,2Fishing (2,4) 1,5 2 1,4 2 1,3 1,5 1,3 1,7 1,5Aquaculture (1,6) 1,1 1 1 2 1,2 1,5 1 1 1,1Mar. transport (1,7) 1,3 3 1 1,3 1 1 1 1,3 1,2Industrial facilities (1,7) 1,2 3 1,4 1 1,2 1 1 1 1,2Overseas sources (2) 2,3 3 1,9 2 2,3 3 2 3 2,3run-off dumpsites (1,6) 1,1 3 1,2 1 1,3 2 2,7 1 1,4Riverine input (1,9) 1 2 1,1 2,3 1,5 1,5 2,7 1 1,4Wind transported (1,5) 1 2 1,2 1,3 1,2 1,5 2 1,3 1,3waste water litter (2,1) 1,3 3 1,8 1 1,7 2,5 2 1 1,6

The LAs views on: cleanness of their beaches

RANGE: unsatisfying=1; satisfying=2; good=3; very good=4; excellent=5 IT_N SLO CR_N IT_M CR_S BIH MNG IT_S AV37

Public (no concession) 3 - 3,7 3,3 2,2 2,5 2,3 3,3 3Under concession 3,8 3,4 3,7 2 3 2,7 3,7 3,2

The frequency of clean-up activities on beaches:

RANGE: NO cleaning =1; annually=2; monthly=3; weekly during touristic season=4; daily during touristic season=5

IT_N SLO CR_N IT_M CR_S BIH MNG IT_S AV37Public (no concession) 4,4 - 4,7 5 3,2 5 5 4,7 4,4Under concession 5 - 4,6 5 3,4 5 4,5 5 4,6

ML quantities cleaned up annually from beaches

• Averaging does not make sense as it varies significantly, due to not only real factors (exposition of the coast, vicinity of the major polluter) but also accounting variation (e.g. sea weed included or not, size)

• Instead, couple of examples for illustration: – CRO_N average is around 30m3, however Novigrad reported 730m3,

including seaweeds;

– CRO_S average around 50m3, however, municipalities on more exposed coasts reports over 100 m3 (e.g. Hvar, Korčula in Dalmatia)

– IT reports in general over 100m3, as it includes seaweed by default

• Annual cost of clean-up: – from 10-30.000€ in CRO (circa 2-5.000 inhab.) to 100-300.000€ in IT (circa

50.000 inhab.); which makes couple of % of the municipalities budget

– Over 40% claims that costs are growing due to growing ML quantities, increase in the frequency of storm surges, higher disposal costs, more beaches cleaned, longer tourist season, etc.

The main users of their coastal strip … RANGE: 0 = None; 1 = minor; 2 = moderate; 3 = major

IT_N SLO CR_N IT_M CR_S BIH MNG IT_S AV37TOURISM 2,7 3 2,9 2,7 2,7 3 3 3 2,8FISHERIES 1,4 0 1,3 2,7 1,7 2 1,7 2,7 1,7AQUACULTURE 0,7 0 0,8 2 0,8 2,5 1 1,3 1INDUSTRY 0,6 3 1,1 1 1,2 1 1 1 1

Their participation in ML cleaning … RANGE: none=0; less than 5%=1; 5-25%=2; more than 25%=3

IT_N SLO CR_N IT_M CR_S BIH MNG IT_S AV37LOCAL RESIDENTS 0,3 - 0,1 0,7 0,3 - 2 1,3 0,5TOURISM 1,9 - 1,6 0,7 1,3 2 2,7 0,7 1,5FISHERIES 0,1 - 0,4 0,3 0,3 0,5 1,3 0,3 0,4AQUACULTURE 0,1 - 0 0,3 0 0,5 1 0 0,2INDUSTRY 0 - 0,1 0 0,2 - 0 0 0,1

• Averages doesn’t show specificities: e.g. mussels farming in Chioggia = 3, etc.

LAs’ assessment of ML related infrastructure on beaches …

(NGOs’ assessment for comparison …)

IT_N SLO CR_N IT_M CR_S BIH MNG IT_S AV37

RANGE: almost nowhere=0; only few major beaches=1; all major beaches=2; almost everywhere=3Waste collection infrastructure (1,43)(1

2,7 2 2,1 3 1,2 2 2,7 3 2,3

RANGE: almost nowhere=0; only on major beaches (on less than 10% of beaches)=1; relatively widespread (10-50% of beaches)=2; on majority of the beaches (over 50% of beaches)=3Signage on env. resp. Behavior (0,77)

1,5 - 1,6 2,7 0,7 0,5 1,7 2 1,5

RANGE: almost nowhere, never=0; Only on more distant beaches=1; relatively often, everywhere=2; prevailing image=3There is garbage laying around the overloaded garbage bins (1,83)

0,4 1 1,1 1,7 1,5 2 0,7 0,7 0,9

LAs on ML clean-up public campaigns

IT_N SLO CR_N IT_M CR_S BIH MNG IT_S AV37There are regularly organized ML clean-up campaigns [%]

45 100 100 67 67 100 67 100 73

LA is supporting campaigns [%]1

45 - 100 67 50 100 67 100 68

LA is interested to participate in Let’s Clean up Europe 8-10 May 2015 [%]1

18 - 67 67 67 100 100 100 57