Report of the Third Global Meeting of Regional Seas Conventions
and Action Plans
(Monaco, 6-10 November 2000)
Introduction
The Third Global Meeting of Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans was
held at the Hotel Marriot, Monaco, from 6 to 10 November 2000, at the invitation
of the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) and the Government of
Monaco.
I. OPENING OF THE MEETING
A. Opening statements and organizational matters
1. The meeting was opened at 9 a.m. on Monday, 6 November 2000 by Mr. Klaus
Töpfer, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme.
After welcoming all participants, he asked Mr. Bernard Fautrier, Minister for
International Cooperation for Environment and Development of Monaco, to convey
thanks and gratitude to His Serene Highness Prince Rainier of Monaco for the
hospitality that his Government had demonstrated in supporting the meeting.
He also thanked the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) for co-hosting the meeting.
2. He was gratified to note that the current meeting brought together the Directors
or Bureau Members of 17 of the world’s regional seas programmes to discuss
areas of common concern, and to renew joint efforts to safeguard oceans and
coastal areas. The Southwest Atlantic was the only major populated coastal area
where countries still had to come together in a collaborative effort to address
the major threats to their marine and coastal environment, and UNEP would renew
its efforts to facilitate a regional seas programme for that vital region. Also
participating were the Directors and representatives of the secretariats of
eight multilateral environmental agreements, making the current session the
largest meeting ever of multilateral environmental agreements. Such outstanding
attendance was surely a reflection of the importance that the Global Meetings
of Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans had assumed.
3. The meeting was one of the most critical for collectively addressing the
environmental problems facing the world’s oceans and coastal areas. Seven
out of 10 people today lived within 80 kilometers of the coast. Half of the
world’s cities with a population in excess of one million were sited near
tide-washed river mouths. As much as 80 per cent of all marine pollution originated
from municipal, industrial and agricultural wastes and run-off, with the rest
coming from ships and oil drilling. Many species of fish, marine mammals and
turtles were threatened. One-fourth of all coral reefs had been eliminated and
one-third were severely threatened. Rising sea levels caused by human greenhouse
gas emissions threatened to displace both human settlements and natural ecosystems.
The duty to address those problems was shared by many global and regional treaties,
action plans and organizations. It was necessary to improve collaboration amongst
those regimes and accelerate global action to return the sea to health.
4. To that end, the meeting had four principle objectives: to promote and increase
horizontal collaboration among regional seas conventions and action plans in
addressing more effectively the protection and sustainable use of the marine
environment; to strengthen the linkages between the regional seas conventions
and action plans and global environment conventions and related agreements;
to strengthen the linkages between the regional seas conventions and action
plans and the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment
from Land-based Sources of Pollution (GPA) through agreed concrete actions;
and to continue to move forward the vitalization of the regional seas conventions.
5. The recommendations of the Second Global Meeting had served as a blueprint
for programming UNEP support to the regional seas programmes for the period
1999 to 2001. The Third Meeting should build on those recommendations, and it
was to be hoped that the recommendations made on the current agenda items would
serve as elements for the proposed actions on oceans and coastal areas to be
presented to the Governing Council of UNEP at its twenty-first session, in February
2001.
6. UNEP was committed to give priority to the provision of programmatic support
to the work programmes of the regional seas conventions and action plans, especially
where their priorities interfaced with the priorities of UNEP’s programme
of work, such as: the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine
Environment from Land-based Sources of Pollution (GPA); the Global International
Water Assessment (GIWA), funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF); Integrated
Coastal Area Management; the International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI), particularly
through the International Coral Reef Action Network (ICRAN); increased collaboration
and synergies among conventions; and improved collaboration among partner agencies,
stakeholders and civil society in addressing ocean and coastal issues. Recognizing
the expertise available within the IAEA-MEL, he strongly endorsed the work of
the laboratory and recommended that the regional seas conventions and action
plans make full use of what it was able to offer.
7. For UNEP to vitalize the regional seas programmes, it was necessary to identify
the priority challenges that needed to be met head-on and effectively. He was
particularly concerned that a number of regional seas conventions and action
plans were in very difficult and unsustainable financial circumstances, but
discussion also needed to be based on the realization that there were obstacles
or constraints that fell outside of the control of UNEP. Those constraints included:
lack of political will on the part of member Governments in certain regional
seas programmes due to territorial disputes, lack of formal diplomatic relations
and/or other disputes; inadequate financial resources committed, or inadequate
capacity at the regional and/or national levels, for implementing the convention
and action plan effectively and efficiently; and inadequate legal instruments
for effectively addressing the assessment and management of marine and coastal
resources. It was the task of UNEP to formulate responses to those constraints
and to identify the areas for priority attention.
8. Mr. Bernard Fautrier, Minister for International Cooperation for Environment
and Development of Monaco, welcomed all participants on behalf of the Government
of Monaco. After describing his country’s involvement in the activities
of the environmental conventions and of the Barcelona Convention and the Mediterranean
Action Plan (MAP), in particular, he drew attention to Monaco’s role in
the conservation of cetacean species through its hosting of the interim secretariat
of the Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, the Mediterranean
Sea and the Contiguous Atlantic Area (ACCOBAMS). In addition, Monaco cooperated
with France and Italy in the creation of a subregional sanctuary for marine
mammals within their shared waters.
9. To enhance the synergies within the regional seas conventions and action
plans, it was necessary to have not only the will of the secretariats, but also
the zeal of the contracting parties. Strengthening the programmes also called
for better consistency in the listing of species and in national reporting systems;
meaningful use of the work of the global conventions; and greater emphasis on
the socioeconomic realities of the issues raised. He attached great importance
to UNEP’s strong expression of support for the regional seas programmes
as the main mechanism for UNEP’s implementation of Chapter 17 of Agenda
21. In conclusion, noting the differentiation between the various regional structures
and action plans, he expressed the view that the twinning of regional seas agreements,
as had recently been the case between the Convention on the Protection of the
Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (Helsinki Convention) and the Nairobi
Convention for the Protection, Management and Development of the Marine and
Coastal Environment in the Eastern African Region (Nairobi Convention), was
a good example of action to strengthen programmes experiencing problems and
he encouraged further such activity.
10. Mr. Stephen de Mora, Head of the Marine Environment Studies Laboratory
(MESL) of the Marine Environment Laboratory (MEL) of IAEA, welcomed participants
and extended an invitation to tour IAEA-MEL in Monaco. At the current meeting,
a number of crucial issues were on the agenda that were of direct interest and
relevance to MEL, given its unique position as the only marine laboratory in
the United Nations system. Those included: implementation of the GPA; the chemicals-related
conventions of the International Maritime Organization (IMO); and the future
legally binding instrument on persistent organic pollutants (POPs).
11. After briefly describing the history and origins of IAEA-MEL, he explained
that MESL itself had developed expertise in the investigation of heavy metals,
petroleum hydrocarbons, POPs and marine biocides and, inter alia, coordinated
the Inter-agency Programme on Marine Pollution (involving IAEA, UNEP, and the
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). MESL cooperated closely with
MAP, the Black Sea Environment Programme and the Kuwait Action Plan, and had
initiated cooperation with the Caspian Environment Programme. In addition, it
was undertaking training courses, sponsored by MED POL, for the analysis of
organic contaminants in marine sediments and biota. The IAEA-MEL thus had a
tradition of working with the regions, and he welcomed the scope for initiating
and renewing further cooperation that was provided by the current meeting.
12. The meeting was chaired by Mr. Jorge Illueca, Assistant Executive Director,
Division of Environmental Conventions, UNEP, and adopted the agenda contained
in annex 1 to the present report.
B. Attendance
13. The meeting was attended by representatives of the following organizations:
(a)Regional seas conventions and action plans: Baltic Marine Environment Protection
Commission (Helsinki Commission); Black Sea Environmental Programme (BSEP);
Caspian Environment Programme (CEP); Commission of the Convention for the Protection
of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Commission); Coordinating
Unit of the Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP); Interim Secretariat of the Northwest
Pacific Action Plan (NOWPAP); Northeast Pacific Regional Seas Programme; Permanent
Commission of the South East Pacific (CPPS) as the secretariat of the Lima Convention
and the Southeast Pacific Action Plan; Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment
(PAME) International Secretariat; Regional Coordinating Unit for the Caribbean
Environment Programme (CAR/RCU); Regional Organization for the Conservation
of the Environment of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden (PERSGA); Regional Organization
for the Protection of the Marine Environment (ROPME) of the Kuwait Convention
region; Regional Coordinating Unit for the East Asian Seas (EAS/RCU); Regional
Coordinating Unit for the West and Central African Action Plan (WACAF/RCU);
Regional Coordinating Unit of the Eastern African Region (EAF/RCU); the South
Asia Cooperative Environment Programme (SACEP); and the South Pacific Regional
Environment Programme (SPREP);
(b) Global and international agreements: Coordination Office of the Global
Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based
Activities (GPA); International Maritime Organization (IMO) marine pollution
conventions; Secretariat of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary
Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal; Secretariat of the Convention
on Biological Diversity (CBD); Secretariat of the Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); Secretariat of
the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS); Secretariat of the Global Plan of
Action for Marine Mammals (MMAP); Secretariat of the Rotterdam Convention on
the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides
in International Trade.
(c) Intergovernmental organizations: Department of Economic and Social Affairs
(DESA), United Nations; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO); Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); International Maritime
Organization (IMO); Marine Environment Laboratory of the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA);
(d)Non-Governmental Organizations: World Conservation Union (IUCN); Advisory
Committee on Protection of the Sea (ACOPS).
14. The list of participants is provided in annex 2 to the present report.
II. FOLLOW-UP TO THE SECOND GLOBAL MEETING OF REGIONAL
SEAS CONVENTIONS AND ACTION PLANS
(THE HAGUE, 5-8 JULY, 1999)
15. Introducing the item, the Chair drew attention to document UNEP (DEC)/RS
3.1.0, entitled “UNEP Water Policy and Strategy: Progress Report on Component
2: Managing Global Water Resources: Regional Seas, 1 January - 31 December 2000”,
and document UNEP (DEC)/RS 3.1.1, entitled “Status of implementation of
decisions of the Second Global Meeting of Regional Seas Conventions and Action
Plans: The Hague, 5-8 July 1999”. He explained that inputs from the current
meeting concerning the issues raised in those two documents would be used as
a guide in the preparation of recommendations to the UNEP Governing Council
at its twenty-first session, in February 2001. The Chair also gave a brief presentation
on the Regional Seas Website of UNEP (http://www.unep.org/dec/docs/indexold.htm),
as well as the new UNEP conventions website (http://www.unep.org/dec/docs/indexold.htm)
in which regional seas programmes featured prominently.
16. Several representatives made oral corrections to the substance of document
UNEP (DEC)/RS 3.1.0, which were subsequently submitted to the Chair.
Recommendation
17. The meeting recommended that, for purposes of follow-up, the recommendations
of the third global meeting should be added to document UNEP(DEC)/RS 3.1.1,
so as to produce a rollover report on the status of implementation of the decisions
of the Global Meetings of Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans.
Financial concerns
18. On the subject of resources, the Director of UNEP’s Division of Environmental
Conventions said that the available biennial budget for regional seas programmes
had declined drastically from a level of some $10 million to $12 million per
biennium during the first half of the 1990s, to a current level less than $3
million. Governments continued to task UNEP with extra mandates, but failed
to match their demands with appropriate contributions to its budget and devoted
resources to other areas, such as convention trust funds or GEF.
19. Many representatives, stressing the importance of past UNEP support for
their activities, regretted the decline in available funds and the cutbacks
in activities that had resulted. They considered that a clear message needed
to be sent to the Governing Council of UNEP to the effect that UNEP needed to
be given resources commensurate with the task of adequately implementing the
regional seas programmes and to give them the attention they deserved.
20. Some representatives, highlighting the importance of adequate preparation
of projects to be submitted to GEF, considered that UNEP’s Division of
Environmental Conventions needed to develop the expertise required for that
activity. It needed to set up a small team with the specialist task of identifying
suitable projects and subsequently preparing project proposals in a way that
would make them acceptable for GEF funding.
21. It was noted, however, that not all projects dealing with marine problems
were eligible for GEF funding, as GEF disbursed funds to cover incremental costs.
Some representatives said that projects had to reflect the wishes of governments,
not donors. The view was expressed that, since funding questions had assumed
such importance, it was also necessary to create a post within UNEP for an expert
to work on resource mobilization for the regional seas programmes. One representative
held that the regional seas programmes could act as the coordinator between
agencies in the implementation of GEF projects. Another said that active cooperation
was needed between the GPA and GEF, and that could best be coordinated by UNEP.
Recommendations
22. In light of the fact that representatives had expressed some concern over
their relationship with GEF and its operational methods, the meeting recommended:
(a) That a meeting should be organized between the regional seas programmes
and GEF. Prior to that meeting, it was necessary to hold a coordinating meeting
of the regional seas programmes to prepare a common position;
(b) That UNEP should bring to the attention of the next meeting of the Governing
Council the concern of the Third Global Meeting over the declining support being
allocated to the Regional Seas Programmes, despite the expressed recognition
of past Governing Councils that the revitalization of the regional seas conventions
and action plans is a UNEP priority;
(c) That UNEP should consider the establishment of a post in the Division of
Environmental Conventions dedicated to mobilization of resources in support
of regional seas programmes, taking into account the wide range of funding sources
available, including, but not limited to, the GEF, bilateral and multilateral
donors, private industry and non-governmental organizations.
III. THE OPEN-ENDED INFORMAL CONSULTATIVE PROCESS
ON OCEANS AND LAW OF THE SEA (UNICPOLOS)
23. In the absence of a representative from the United Nations Division of
Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (DOALOS), which serves as secretariat for
the new UN Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea, a
briefing on the background and first meeting of the consultative process was
presented by Ms. Anne Rogers of the Division of Sustainable Development, UN
Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA).
24. The idea of a UN consultative process on oceans, to provide an integrated
review including economic, social, environmental and legal dimensions of developments
affecting oceans and seas, had been proposed by the Seventh Session of the Commission
for Sustainable Development (CSD) in April 1999. The UN General Assembly subsequently
established in its resolution 54/33 of November 1999, the consultative process
on oceans to meet for one week annually in New York, with the participation
of all UN member States and relevant international and regional organizations
and agencies. Its first meeting was held from 30 May – 2 June 2000 and
addressed two main topics: responsible fisheries and illegal, unreported and
unregulated fisheries (IUU); and economic and social impacts of marine pollution,
especially in coastal areas. In addition, there was a one-half day dialogue
with members of the ACC Subcommittee on Oceans and Coastal Areas (SOCA) on increasing
coordination in oceans affairs. The report of the meeting, presented as recommendations
of its two co-chairmen, is available on the DOALOS website: http://www.un.org/depts/ola/doalos.
25. The results of the first meeting of the consultative process were considered
by the UN General Assembly at its 55th Session, which adopted resolution a/55/L.10
on “Oceans and the Law of the Sea” on 30 October 2000. This resolution,
inter alia, decided that the second meeting should be held in New York from
7-11 May 2001, with two main areas of focus: marine science and the development
and transfer of marine technology, including capacity building; and coordination
and cooperation in combating piracy and armed robbery at sea. The resolution
also calls for strengthening regional cooperation in several specific areas,
including fisheries management organizations and arrangements, integrated management
and sustainable development of coastal and marine areas, capacity building,
IUU fisheries, and piracy and armed robbery at sea.
26. In the ensuing discussion, questions were raised as to what concrete results
might result from the UN process that can help the regional seas programmes
and in what ways the regional seas conventions and action plans can provide
inputs to the future meetings. It was suggested that the ACC/SOCA can play a
role in promoting regional issues, and it was noted with satisfaction that the
joint UNEP/FAO paper on the ecosystem-based management of fisheries, presented
to the Third Global Meeting of Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans, was
a direct result of the UN informal consultative process.
27. In reply to a question from IUCN about potential regional inputs to the
ten year review of UNCED (Rio + 10), to take place in 2002, the representative
of UN/DESA provided some information on proposed intergovernmental and interagency
preparatory activities, including at the regional and subregional levels. It
has been suggested that regional preparatory meetings will be organized by the
UN Regional Commissions and UNEP, in consultation with DESA, and take place
in the period from March to November 2001. The results of these meetings would
be considered by CSD-10, acting as the preparatory committee for the 10-year
review (which is likely to be called the World Summit on Sustainable Development).
In addition, it is also proposed to convene regional Agenda 21 round tables
involving prominent experts from each region and representatives from civil
society. It has been agreed at an organizational meeting held by DESA in June
2000 that UNEP and the Regional Commissions will undertake steps to raise awareness
regarding the 2002 process within the respective regions.
Recommendations
28. In view of the potential benefits for enhancing awareness and support of
the work of the regional seas programmes in important forthcoming global forums
on oceans, the meeting recommended:
(a) That regional seas programmes participate in future meetings of the UN
Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and Law of the Sea (May 2001) and provide
inputs, as appropriate, to its background documentation, including reports to
be provided by the ACC/SOCA and the UN/DOALOS;
(b) That the regional seas programmes play an active role in the regional and
subregional preparatory activities being organized for the 2000 review of UNCED;
and
(c) That the UNEP Secretariat and Governing Council be urged to promote a more
active involvement of the regional seas conventions and action plans in these
important intergovernmental processes and in their follow-up.
IV. ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION ON CRITICAL PROBLEMS AND ISSUES
FACING REGIONAL SEAS CONVENTIONS AND ACTION PLANS
29. The Roundtable Discussion on Critical Problems and Issues Facing Regional
Seas Conventions and Action Plans was chaired by the Executive Director of UNEP.
In the course of an initial tour de table, the representatives of the regional
seas conventions and action plans briefly outlined the main problems, constraints
and challenges faced in their endeavours to implement their mandate, and possible
ways to overcome those factors. A summary of the points they raised is contained
in annex 3 to the present report. Financial constraints hindering the implementation
of the conventions and action plans was the most commonly raised issue. Among
the most frequently raised concerns were the following: inadequate exchange
of information; the need for increased participation of civil society and the
private sector; compliance and enforcement; marine pollution prevention and
response; and improved monitoring. The representatives of intergovernmental
organizations and of environmental convention secretariats were subsequently
invited to describe the problems and constraints they faced, and to expatiate
on how their activities related to those of the regional seas conventions and
action plans.
30. The representative of IAEA-MEL highlighted the problems he faced in the
funding of personnel; in communications with other agencies and with countries;
and in strategic planning, since the dependence on sponsors made it difficult
to set research priorities. There was a need to promote reference methods and
pragmatic techniques that worked for developing countries; a need for quality
assurance; and a need for self-evaluation of projects and of monitoring to check
that activities were in fact what was required.
31. The Executive Secretary of the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed
Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International
Trade drew attention to the awareness-raising programme, implemented with the
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the United
Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), to teach countries how
to manage their own chemicals and pesticides through country-based projects.
Activities by the global conventions were a complimentary counterpart to help
countries to implement the regional seas programmes and action plans.
32. The representative of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), recalling
that IMO is the regulatory body for maritime safety and marine pollution prevention
and response, stressed that regional cooperation was important in contributing
to the implementation of IMO conventions, as was the case with marine pollution
response, for example. Other areas where synergies could be developed included
waste management, problems of ballast water, and pollution prevention. Stressing
the importance of private sector involvement, he said that IMO was itself attempting
to improve cooperation with the oil and shipping industries. To pursue cooperation
at the regional level, IMO followed a policy consisting of cooperation with
regional secretariats, including the signing memorandums of understanding. While
there were constraints that prevented full coordination at the national and
regional levels, he stressed the need for further cooperation to improve the
situation. New regional initiatives existed, and IMO wished to be properly involved
in those issues.
33. The Secretary General of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) considered that training could best
be carried out at the national/regional level, using existing structures, such
as the regional seas conventions and programmes. Of concern to CITES was the
programme of the Small Island Developing States (SIDS), especially concerning
proposals for exploitation of turtle species. In addition, the situation of
the sturgeons of the Caspian Sea had become serious, and was compounded by the
problem of poaching and lack of enforcement of caviar quotas in the range States
of the species. At the Caspian regional level, CITES, the Convention on the
Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) and the Convention on
Biological Diversity were all involved in efforts to protect the species.
34. The representative of CMS said that, because CMS operated through regional
agreements, the potential for cooperation with the regional seas conventions
and action plans was enormous, particularly at the institutional level. Because
CMS did not always enjoy full country coverage within a region, the regional
seas conventions and action plans could also facilitate the Convention’s
contacts to others within a specific region. Moreover, CMS had the technical
expertise to develop agreements and could provide inputs to the regional seas
programmes at the technical level. The case of ACCOBAMS was a good example where
an agreement under CMS could already be implemented through the existing mechanisms
of MAP and the Bucharest Convention. It was thus a model for similar initiatives
for other regions. In addition, such activities would help avoid any duplication
of efforts or competition.
35. In the course of the discussion on the agenda item, the following points
were raised: the question of whether harmonization of monitoring and/or reporting
among regions should constitute a priority activity; the problem of communications
within and among the regional seas conventions and action plans; the important
role of new institutions; the question of how to create synergies between the
environmental conventions and the regional seas programmes and action plans,
and avoid duplication of work; the need for a regional approach to common problems,
such as POPs and heavy metals, and for the identification of hot-spots; the
question of a trade-off with stakeholders, such as oil and gas-drilling concerns,
whereby a stable investment climate could be guaranteed in return for environmental
protection; the need to refine environmental impact assessment procedures; the
need for concrete programmes to translate national action plans into business
plans to which the private sector could relate, perhaps for financing; how to
integrate socioeconomic and environmental repercussions into the activities
of financial institutions; the importance of protocols as channels of contact
with the environmental conventions; the refusal of international financial institutions
to allow any ring-fencing of funds for environmental purposes, thus precluding
environmental levies on private stakeholders; the question of what services
the regional seas programmes and action plans provide to stakeholders, and who
must pay for them and in what way; the question of what main indicators could
be identified for the successful leveraging of finances; and the unresolved
problem surrounding the GEF replenishment, which had a resulted in a drastic
curtailing of badly needed and anticipated resources for the secretariat of
the Black Sea Convention.
Recommendations
36. The meeting recommended that representatives of the shipping industry,
the chemical industry and the tourism industry be invited to participate in
the Fourth Global Meeting of Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans to address
the issue of closer collaboration in the regional seas programmes, including
the financing of activities.
Based on the elements of the discussions under this agenda item, and taking
into account the discussion under other agenda items, the meeting requested
the UNEP Division of Environmental Conventions to prepare a document, for consideration
by the Governing Council at its twenty-first session, on strengthening the work
of UNEP in the continued vitalization of the regional seas programmes.
1. Innovative financing options for regional seas conventions and action plans
37. The Chair introduced document UNEP(DEC)/RS 3.3.0, “Financing Regional
Seas Conventions: Paying for a Regional Public Good”, which outlined framework
ideas for the generation of financial resources, based on the premise that 80
to 90 per cent of the funds raised at the national level would go to support
the national components of the regional seas conventions and action plans. He
recalled that the Committee of Permanent Representatives of UNEP had asked UNEP
to prepare a strategy to help the regional seas conventions and action plans
to mobilize resources.
38. One representative considered that the paper could be one input, together
with others, to the upcoming examination of initiatives for funding the GPA.
Others considered the paper to be a valuable example of the kind of thing secretariats
should be attempting.
39. Another representative stressed the importance of distinguishing between
the financing of the implementation of the regional seas programmes and action
plans and the financing of the machinery to promote the latter. If national
economic institutions did not work effectively in, for example, tax collecting,
then economic incentives were useless. Unless finance could be put in place
for the core machinery with which to lobby for the aims of the programmes or
action plans, those programmes could not increase the capacity of a country
to provide support for itself. Another representative considered that the link
between funding for projects and funding for a secretariat needed to be clarified,
perhaps in a paper setting out the elements of success that could be drawn upon
by others. Yet another representative said that, if a programme had nothing
to begin with, it had no means of further leveraging resources.
40. Several representatives said that, in order to ensure that countries contributed
to the regional seas conventions and action plans, it was vital to ensure that
the programme coordinators did what the countries themselves wanted, and did
not pursue mandates or priorities set elsewhere. In that connection, said one
representative, it was important to have an idea of precisely what the countries
themselves wanted, and not be donor-driven. Another representative held the
view that, by carrying out projects in which donors were interested, donor confidence
increased and the donor base could be expanded. One representative pointed to
the importance of political commitment to the regional seas conventions and
action plans and to the significance of a mechanism to participate in the international-level
environmental forums for the leveraging of financial resources. It was stressed
that recognized ownership of the action plan itself was the key to obtaining
the commitment of the members.
41. A number of representatives stressed the crucial role of the coordinators
in lobbying to obtain funding for their respective programmes. The secretariats
needed strong leadership to mobilize resources, obtain the necessary political
commitment from governments and operationalize the action plans. No situation
was entirely without hope. Even apparently unusual and highly innovative schemes
for fund-raising could be tried, as had been evidenced by the success of the
“POPs Club”, which had been used to raise funds for the negotiating
process for the POPs convention. It was noted that very few regional seas conventions
and action plans had a financial strategy, and those that did were the successful
ones. Moreover, experience had shown that those regional programmes with a strong
legal framework managed to do the most to protect the environment.
42. One representative believed that, since cooperation with the regional seas
conventions and action plans would facilitate the implementation of global conventions,
those conventions needed to contribute some form of mutual support in return
for the increased responsibility assumed. Another observed that, if one activity
were carried out effectively with a global convention, it would enable governments
to understand and evaluate what the regional seas conventions and action plans
could actually do.
43. Some representatives, noting that each regional seas programme or action
plan was in a different situation, questioned the wisdom of trying to determine
a common approach to all financial questions.
Recommendations
44. The meeting recommended:
(a) That a small informal working group be set up with a mandate to work on
the preparation of a strategic approach to financing regional seas programmes,
including the consideration of document UNEP(DEC)/RS 3.3.0 on financing regional
seas conventions: paying for a regional public good. The group should comprise
the secretariats of the Cartagena, Barcelona, and Nairobi Conventions, the East
Asian Seas Action Plan and the GPA, and be coordinated by the UNEP Division
of Environmental Conventions;
(b) That UNEP use the above exercise to prepare an overarching strategy for
the mobilization of resources for regional seas programmes for the consideration
of its Committee of Permanent Representatives and the intergovernmental meetings
of concerned regional seas programmes. Such a strategy will distinguish between
funding mechanisms and sources for (i) the coordination and management of a
regional seas programme and (ii) the implementation of its Action Plans. The
strategy should consider various funding sources, including the GEF, overseas
development assistance (ODA), multilateral donors and innovative funding mechanisms
at the national and regional levels, including the participation of private
industry and local authorities. The overarching strategy would need to be further
refined to meet the specific needs of concerned regional seas programmes.
(c) That UNEP should raise with GEF its concerns about the effects of the cutback
of GEF resources to the International Waters projects.
2. Exploring new options for horizontal cooperation among
regional seas conventions and action plans
45. There was broad recognition of the advantages of the twinning arrangements
between the Baltic Marine Environment Commission and UNEP as the secretariat
of the Nairobi Convention and between PERSGA (Jeddah Convention) and the Regional
Organization for the Protection of the Marine Environment (Kuwait Convention),
as well as the Memorandum of Understanding for closer cooperation among PERSGA,
ROPME, the Council of Arab Ministers Responsible for the Environment (CAMRE)
and UNEP. Several representatives pointed to the need to promote the “tripleting”
of regional seas conventions and action plans on issues of common concern. Capacity
building was viewed as a priority.
Recommendation
46. The meeting requested:
(a) That UNEP prepare follow-up and explore the possibility of establishment
of a network for capacity-building, linking the capacity-building activities
undertaken throughout the regional seas programmes;
(b) That further work should be facilitated by UNEP in the negotiation and
implementation of twinning arrangements between conventions. To that end, the
meeting congratulates the OSPAR and Abidjan Conventions for progress in their
on-going discussions of this matter;
(c) That UNEP assist in facilitating horizontal cooperation among regional
seas programmes in areas of common concern such as Small Island Developing States
(SIDS) and emergency response to oil spills and other related accidents.
V. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GLOBAL PROGRAMME OF ACTION
FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT
FROM LAND-BASED ACTIVITIES (GPA)
1. Status report on implementation of the GPA
47. The Coordinator of the Coordination Office of the Global Programme of Action
for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities (GPA),
Ms Veerle Vandeweerd, gave a presentation on the GPA, describing the development
and aims of the GPA, its core, and its institutional framework. She pointed
out the three main thrusts of the activities of the Coordination Office (assessment/analysis
for action; mobilizing action at the local, national, regional and global levels;
review and advancement of the implementation of the GPA) and described in detail
the areas of focus through which those activities were carried out. In addition,
in the first part of her presentation, she gave a progress report on the achievements
of the GPA from August 1999 to October 2000, the physical and administrative
establishment of the Coordination Office at The Hague, and the efforts aimed
at broadening the donor base and raising funds.
48. She particularly highlighted the development of the GPA Strategic Action
Plan (SAP) on Municipal Wastewater up to 2000, aimed at supporting States in
addressing the human and coastal ecosystem health problems resulting from municipal
wastewater that had been inadequately treated or disposed of. She listed the
cooperation partners in the SAP; its assessment, management and coordination
components; and its functions and management outputs. She also explained the
aims and characteristics of the GPA Clearing-house Mechanism.
49. Answering a question on the GPA linkage with other global conventions in
the context of upland and lowland interaction and its effects on coastal zones,
the Coordinator pointed out that the GPA paid attention to the activities of
other conventions and constantly strove to avoid any duplication of activity.
In that connection, it was observed that a single action for coastal zone protection
could simultaneously meet the requirements of several different conventions.
One representative pointed to the close cooperation with the GPA on the subject
of POPs and heavy metals.
50. The Director of the UNEP Regional Office for Europe (ROE) recalled that
two documents had been made available at the Second Global Meeting, the Model
Law on the Sustainable Development of Coastal Zones, and a Code of Conduct for
Coastal Zones, both developed under the auspices of the Council of Europe. At
that meeting there had been a request that they be scrutinized by the secretariats
of the regional seas programmes for their usefulness and that ROE be given comments
and suggestions. As none had been forthcoming, he wished to reiterate the request
at the current meeting. The Coordinator of GPA agreed to make the documents
available through the clearing-house mechanism.
51. In reply to a query on how the GPA harmonized the geographical differences
between the regional seas regions and the GPA regions, the Coordinator explained
that GPA worked closely with the regional offices as well as with the secretariats
of the regional seas programmes to use their different abilities and constituencies.
The regional offices, for example, often had important links to Ministries of
the Environment. In that context, the Director of ROE pointed to the role of
the Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) in managing regional conventions related
to marine pollution and underlined the need to involve ECE in the work of GPA.
52. The representative of MAP praised the positive role of GPA in the Mediterranean
area, particularly with regard to the protocol on land-based sources of pollution,
where MAP had redirected its activities in line with GPA. Indeed, MAP activities
took into account the GPA approach, especially the 1997 Strategic Action Plan.
53. On the question of how GPA could support for the implementation of a regional
seas work programme, the Coordinator explained that GPA could help regional
seas conventions and action plans in joint fund-raising endeavours, both from
the private sector and when anticipated contributions to GPA funding were in
place. GPA could also help regions to identify their priorities. Concerning
mobilization of resources, GPA had raised funds for action plans, for the clearing-house
mechanism, from UNEP, from countries and was currently seeking longer-term support
from donor countries and institutions for larger-scale projects.
54. It was noted that, while so-called “soft” funds could be obtained
for preparation of plans, studies, etc., the mobilizing of “hard”
money for infrastructure projects was more problematic. One representative said
the regions needed to be also proactive in mobilizing funding, since it was
not realistic to expect 100 per cent of the funding for sewage treatment to
be provided by donor institutions. The importance of identifying successful
demonstration projects was underlined as examples to bring together the different
interested parties. The Coordinator pointed out that GPA aimed to be very pragmatic,
to bring donors and financial institutions to meetings, to demonstrate best
possible practices and to explore new approaches to financing.
55. One representative, while expressing strong support for GPA and the direction
in which it was moving, wondered whether POPs deserved the amount of attention
accorded to them and whether the GPA overemphasized the importance of the clearing-house
mechanism as a tool for problem-solving. In the mobilization of resources, he
believed that GPA had a role as an “honest broker”, bringing together
those who needed finance and those provided it. It could also help countries
to formulate their requests to international financial institutions appropriately.
56. Noting that the construction of water treatment plants required full cost
recovery from clients, one representative observed that plants needed to be
tailored to the capacities for capital investment and low-cost maintenance in
the areas in which they were to be located. There was little point in constructing
high-technology, tertiary treatment plants if countries lacked the resources
for proper maintenance and operation.
2. 2001 GPA Intergovernmental Review process and meeting
57. The Coordinator of the GPA Coordination Office, turning to the First Intergovernmental
Review of the Implementation of the GPA, to be hosted by the Government of Canada
in 2001, outlined its purpose, thematic focus, structure, preparatory process
and expected outcomes. The latter included a Ministerial/High-level Declaration;
a work programme for the period 2002 to 2006 (local, national, regional, global);
endorsement of the GPA Municipal Wastewater Guidelines; provision of examples
of sustainable financing and partnerships; and sharing of experiences and expertise.
She sought guidance on how the regional seas conventions and action plans could
have an input into the preparatory process and the outputs of the Intergovernmental
Review. Moreover, since it was planned to devote one day of the Intergovernmental
Review to a Regional Seas Day, she sought concrete suggestions from participants
on how that part of the Review should be structured, in line with the aims and
priorities of the regional seas conventions and action plans themselves.
3. Role of the regional seas conventions and action plans in the 2001 GPA Intergovernmental
Review process and meeting
58. In the course of the discussion on the subitem, the following points were
raised: in the activities of regional seas conventions and action plans, priority
should be accorded to waste management and sewage treatment; how could the commitment
of the private sector and non-governmental organizations be also taken into
account at the review meeting; there was a need to identify how to implement
concrete activities in support of protocols on land-based sources of pollution
and to involve the international financial community; the high-level declaration
was important in reinforcing what activities needed to be undertaken; as the
key actors, the municipalities needed to be involved in activities concerning
wastewater; the secretariats of the regional seas conventions and action plans
needed to form partnerships with the GPA to work together; some secretariats
of regional seas conventions and action plans wished to come up with a common
regional position on activities at the regional level in preparation for the
meeting; there was a need for regional seas conventions and action plans to
identify their problems, priorities and barriers to action, so that that could
be taken into account in the formulation of the 2002-2006 work plan; countries
should prepare their national plans in an innovative way, so as not to lose
the momentum while awaiting funding; tourism should be addressed as a major
and growing sector that was linked to issues of sewage and shoreline modification,
bearing in mind that the International Year of Ecotourism will take place in
2002; the Project Preparation Committee (PPC) should be approached by GPA as
a funding partner; the Baltic Environment Programme could contribute to the
meeting by sharing experience on the successful implementation of a municipal
sewage treatment project; there was a need to examine the problems posed by
agriculture and eutrophication; in wastewater treatment, it was necessary to
apply standards and guidelines appropriate to the area step-wise, and not necessarily
strive to immediately implement the strict standards of the EC; there was a
need to address the issue of sludge disposal and its cost, particularly for
small island States; a subsidiary body for scientific, technical and technological
advice should be set up to discuss pollution from land-based sources and make
recommendations to a second high-level meeting; there was a need to take societal
factors into account, for example some governments faced difficulties in the
levying of charges for water; capacity-building was needed to educate public
authorities on wastewater issues and advise them, for example, in the formulation
of contracts with waste companies; plans and projects needed to incorporate
milestones, so that achievements could be monitored; since prevention was cheaper
than remediation, it was necessary to prevent extra pressure being placed on
ecosystems by regulating developments and factoring into them the costs of water
supply and disposal.
Recommendations
59. The meeting recommended:
(a) The secretariats of the regional seas conventions and action plans, in
consultation with their member countries, will work together, as regional focal
points, with the GPA Coordination Office on the regional preparatory process
for the first intergovernmental review meeting on implementation of the GPA
(Montreal, November 2001), including activities dealing with the (i) identification
of regional problems, priorities and barriers to action (to be incorporated
in the regional workprogrammes 2002-2006 related to land-based activities, which
will be considered at the review meeting); (ii) preparation of the GPA ministerial/high-level
declaration; (iii) reporting on progress in implementing the GPA; and (iv) preparation
of the one day session on the regional seas programme at such meeting. The modalities
for this collaboration were or are being discussed and agreed upon by the GPA
Coordination Office and each secretariat;
(b) The role of the GPA secretariat as a "broker", bringing together
potential recipients and potential donors of assistance is considered important.
The GPA secretariat and those secretariats of the regional seas conventions
and action plans that wish to do so, should work together in joint fund-raising
activities for implementing the GPA. The GPA secretariat could also assist interested
countries/regions in preparing relevant project proposals for funding;
(c) The regional seas conventions and action plans should consider municipal
wastewater, as appropriate, a priority in preparing their workprogrammes;
(d) The regional seas conventions and action plans and the GPA Coordination
Office should, as appropriate, address tourism as a major economic activity
linked to, among others, sewage and physical alteration and destruction of habitats;[1]and
(e) The regional seas conventions and action plans and the GPA Coordination
Office should, as appropriate, address agriculture and its effects on the coastal
and marine environment, including eutrophication and pesticides reaching the
ocean.
VI. ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING OF OCEANS
1. Status of implementation of the Global International Waters Assessment (GIWA)
60. In his presentation, the new Coordinator of the GIWA project, Mr. Dag Daler,
described its background; the organization into 66 subregions; the goals of
the project; the elements of its assessment methodology; the 22 issues identified,
that were grouped into five areas of concern; the causal chain analysis; the
progress of GIWA; and the schedule of upcoming events.
61. He explained that, as follow-up to the phased work plan for the regional
seas involvement in the GIWA project, which had been prepared at the Second
Global Meeting, GIWA had undergone a reorganization and had adopted a new schedule.
He agreed that GIWA should work closely with the secretariats of the regional
seas conventions and action plans, as the custodians of the management plans
for the marine and coastal areas, rather than solely with the UNEP regional
offices, which often lacked the necessary expertise. GIWA intended to enter
into contracts with all parties, some through GEF, others using different funding
methods. The first contracts had been signed and others would follow once the
terms of reference had been clarified. He was confident that the planned timeframe
for signing contracts with focal points of the regional seas conventions and
action plans would be followed. On the question of GIWA coordination with other
United Nations conventions and organizations, he pointed out that GIWA’s
terms of reference meant it had no role to play in influencing the latter. GIWA
simply took their results and data and coordinated them with ongoing projects.
The representative of the Convention on Biological Diversity said that the secretariat
of the Convention had already submitted its comments on the GIWA assessment.
62. One representative, pointing to the GIWA trial carried out in Thailand,
considered that GIWA would provide a valuable assessment of the problems associated
with waters. He stressed that its aim was not to write project proposals for
GEF, but rather to establish prioritization at the global level. The representative
of SPREP said that a proposed contract from GIWA had already been received from
GIWA and it had been returned with some questions. Other representatives of
regional seas programmes questioned the practicality of the GIWA time schedule,
such as the signing of all contracts by the end of December of this year.
Recommendation
63. The meeting recommended that the GIWA office be encouraged to engage the
regional seas programmes as soon as possible in the implementation of the programme
of work concerning GIWA adopted at the Second Global Meeting of Regional Seas
Conventions and Action Plans. Concrete results in the implementation of this
programme of work need to be presented by GIWA to the Fourth Global Meeting.
2. Presentation by UNESCO on the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) and strengthening
interactions between regional seas conventions and action plans
64. In his presentation, Mr. Colin Summerhayes, Director of the GOOS Project
Office, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of UNESCO, explained
how interactions between GOOS and the GOOS products and services could be strengthened.
GOOS could provide a greatly enhanced capacity for understanding and forecasting
ocean properties, behaviour and resources on time-scales that permitted relevant
and effective management decision-making. It was a new tool to enhance the information
base for decision-making under the regional seas conventions and action plans.
He described the operational elements of GOOS; its holistic approach; the ongoing
data-gathering and distribution activities; and the future challenge to provide
environmental forecasts to underpin the management of coasts and coastal seas.
He highlighted the caveat that GOOS must be user-driven, providing products
and services to meet the needs of a wide range of users and customers. He presented
the elements of the GOOS Initial Observing System (IOS); the GOOS Health of
the Ocean Module (HOTO); and the regional GOOS. He pointed to the applicability
of GOOS data to the implementation of the GPA. In addition, he observed that
the experience of the MESL could be applied in the application of GOOS.
65. On the issue of coastal GOOS, as a tool for coastal zone management, he
explained the three subsystems, the six main observing elements (many of which
were already in place), and pointed to the problem of how to obtain the information
on a common set of key (core) variables and how to train personnel to use the
information. He listed the current 17 core variables, noting that UNEP needed
to tell GOOS what further variables needed to be added, and described the three
main activities and the key pilot projects. Concerning the GOOS products and
services, he explained that provisions for a number of the environmental indicators
were not yet in place and that it was important for UNEP to play its part in
the development of the coastal component of GOOS. While UNEP, as a co-owner
of GOOS, was currently doing little to influence what GOOS did, that could change.
UNEP needed to decide on the level of its cooperation with GOOS and that required
a clear idea of the requirements of the regional seas conventions and action
plans. Noting the possibility of including MESL as a component of GOOS, he pointed
to possible capacity-building activities with UNEP. In conclusion, he expressed
the view that the possibilities of UNEP/GOOS cooperation should be brought to
the attention of the UNEP governing bodies. A memorandum of understanding had
already been signed with the Convention on Biological Diversity, and UNEP should
explore the possibility of also using such an instrument in its cooperation
with GOOS.
66. In reply to questions, he confirmed that a GOOS meta-database could be
made available, that GOOS would be discussing the issue of non-point sources
of pollution in the coming fortnight, and that recruitment of an officer to
staff the IOC-CARIBE office was underway. Concerning the observing of the El
Niño system, he pointed to the fact that GOOS, as a component of IOC,
was already involved in observation work, but that efforts were being made to
increase that involvement. Concerning how to integrate the work of the MAP regional
activity centre for remote sensing, he stressed that it was important not to
view GOOS as centralized. Regional GOOS could adopt the data from the MAP centre.
It was necessary to make use of what already existed. Ultimately, GOOS would
be implemented regionally and nationally. It was also important for regional
centres to take responsibility for training.
67. One representative considered that the secretariats of the regional seas
conventions and action plans should consider what benefits they could bring
to GOOS in the form of data, which they would ultimately use themselves. They
were more relevant than the IOC focal points, who were not the end-users of
the data. Strong links with GOOS were needed to pursue the matter. In addition,
there was a need to investigate the possible ways in which GOOS, which provided
important data to fisheries bodies, could act as a link to enhance cooperation
between such bodies and the regional seas conventions and action plans.
Recommendation
68. The meeting recommended:
(a) That the new Chief of the Regional Seas Branch of the Division of Environmental
Conventions work closely with the GOOS Project Office to ensure that the concerns
of the regional seas programmes are taken into account in the management and
implementation of GOOS. To that end, special attention will be given to the
design, management and operationalization of the Coastal GOOS, which should
contribute significantly to meeting the scientific and technical needs of regional
seas conventions and action plans. As a first step the Chief of the Regional
Seas Branch and the Director of the GOOS Project Office will elaborate the elements
for a cooperative arrangement between the two to ensure that the needs of regional
seas programmes are fully taken into account in the development, management
and implementation of the Coastal GOOS in particular, as well as the overall
work of the Global Ocean Observing System. This recommendation is based on the
recognition that the effectiveness of the Coastal GOOS will depend on the participation
of the regional seas conventions and action plans;
(b) That IOC/UNESCO, through its GOOS programme, given the complimentary scientific
work that it is undertaking, should be integrated into the UNEP/FAO initiative
on the ecosystem-based management of fisheries, further discussed under agenda
item 7.6;
(c) That the importance of the Coastal GOOS in support of the Regional Seas
Programmes should be brought to the attention of the upcoming meeting of the
Governing Council of UNEP, including the need to implement supportive capacity-building
activities in regional seas programmes as required
3. Presentation by the IAEA Marine Environment Laboratory
on marine environmental pollution and analysis
69. Mr. Stephen de Mora, Head of the Marine Environment Studies Laboratory
of IAEA-MEL, described the mission of MESL and its experience in marine analytical
chemistry, marine pollution monitoring and assessment and in chemical oceanography
and marine biogeochemistry. He described its work within IAEA; the F-3 subprogramme
of activities; comparison exercises; analysis of trace metals; data reporting
and intercomparison exercises; production of reference materials; capacity-building
activities and education and training in analytical techniques; the monitoring
of marine contaminants; some specific activities with the MED POL programme,
the Black Sea Environment Programme and the ROPME seas area; the biogeochemical
cycle of mercury; new partners and priorities; and ongoing support to the United
Nations. In connection with support to the regional seas conventions and action
plans, he described the techniques developed in marine analytical chemistry;
the formulation of reference methods and guidelines; intercomparison exercises;
education; capacity building; monitoring programmes; and research activities.
70. In answer to a question on the kind of specific services MESL could provide
to regional seas conventions and action plans, he said that those were dependent
on the requirements, the priorities and the level of maturity of the particular
programme, although a service such as capacity-building through training was
always in demand due to staff turnover in the programmes themselves. Assistance
could be provided in trend monitoring, which was becoming increasingly important
and which required a monitoring network which could not only provide comparable
data, but which was also reliable over time. Good regional quality assurance
was required, and the best way to set up a network was for MESL to visit a region
and evaluate the infrastructure and personnel. In addition, MESL could be tasked,
as was the case for the Caspian region, with carrying out an initial survey
of contaminants in a region.
71. There were some areas, such as reference methods and updating of procedures,
which could not be costed to any particular region and which needed additional
funds across the board from UNEP. The laboratory needed a new staff post for
an engineer. Somehow, additional resources had to be obtained from UNEP.
Recommendations
72. The meeting recommended that the regional seas programmes should make use
of the services of the Marine Environment Studies Laboratory (MESL) of IAEA
in support of its marine pollution monitoring and assessment programmes. Individual
regional seas programmes were encouraged to take opportunity of this meeting
to further discuss with MESL possible collaboration.
73. UNEP was requested, within its available resources, to work with MESL in
supporting sampling and monitoring activities in developing countries that are
member States of regional seas programmes.
4. Presentation by UNEP-WCMC on biodiversity data and information
management for regional seas programmes
74. The Director of the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC), Mr. Mark
Collins, presented background information on WCMC and explained that, now that
the Centre was fully integrated into UNEP, it was to be hoped that it would
work more closely with the UNEP components, particularly the regional seas conventions
and action plans, since it offered an approach to build capacities for information
management for coastal zone and marine areas. He looked forward to learning
how WCMC could link up with the regional seas conventions and action plans and
explore ways of cooperating over and above the existing programmes in which
WCMC was involved.
75. Mr. Edmund Green, Head of the Marine and Coastal Programme, WCMC, presented
the four main areas of WCMC activity in the marine environment: addressing data
gaps; original research; science; and the regional seas conventions and action
plans. Concerning support for the latter, he described the biological diversity
data and analyses held by WCMC; the regional products; the traditional reports
and maps; and the new Internet Map Server (IMS) products. IMS, he explained,
was fundamentally a Web-based GIS system, which was quick and efficient. It
was easy to access round the clock; required little technical knowledge of GIS;
required no maintenance by users; provided data for the whole world in limitless
detail; and could be supplemented by non-environmental data. As a pilot project,
a prototype map server had been set up for four areas (Baltic Sea, Eastern African
Sea, Mediterranean Sea, and Caribbean Sea) which represented a technical skeleton
for access to WCMC data. In addition, data from the regions could be received
through the IMS regional systems. He sought suggestions on how the system could
be adapted to the work of the regional seas conventions and action plans, how
useful it could be for the exchange of information, and on the directions in
which it should be developed.
76. There was general agreement on the need for cooperation between the regional
seas conventions and action plans and WCMC and on the value of its products.
One representative observed that the WCMC materials would be a valuable aid
in selling the work of the regional seas conventions and action plans. Another
stressed the importance of WCMC work on seagrass beds and the need for cooperation
to set up a seagrass awareness campaign. Yet another described the use he had
already made of the WCMC database.
77. In answer to queries, Mr. Green explained that WCMC data came from many
hundreds of sources, whose reliability was classified according to a ranking
system, depending on whether they had been peer reviewed. The oil industry had
originally funded the collation of data for oil spill scenarios, and those data
would also prove useful to the regions in large-scale contingency planning.
Concerning costs of services, he explained that, now that the institutional
arrangements had been put in place, access to WCMC data was simplified, though
it was not free and its cost depended on what was required. He underlined the
fact that WCMC’s close association with the private sector would help
to provide a link to potential sources of funding for regional seas conventions
and action plans.
Recommendation
78. The meeting took note of the possibilities of cooperation with WCMC and
agreed that the secretariats of regional seas conventions and action plans would
carry out their own appropriate follow-up.
VII. STRENGTHENING LINKAGES BETWEEN THE REGIONAL SEAS
CONVENTIONS AND ACTION PLANS AND THE
CHEMICALS-RELATED CONVENTIONS
1. The IMO conventions
79. In his presentation, Mr. Jean-Claude Sainlos, Senior Deputy Director, Marine
Environment Division, IMO, drew attention to document UNEP(DEC)/RS 3.6.0, which
gave a comprehensive report on IMO policy regarding protection of the marine
environment. He described the regulatory functions of IMO, with particular emphasis
on major recent developments such as port reception facilities for ships, the
use of tributyl tin (TBT) in anti-fouling paints for ships and the transport
of alien species in ships’ ballast water, which were of relevance to the
regional seas programmes. He also reported on the technical cooperation programme
to assist in the implementation of IMO conventions and on the latest activities
within the regions with regard to the International Convention on Oil Pollution
Preparedness, Response, and Co-operation (OPRC), MARPOL and the London Dumping
Convention. In conclusion, he gave an update on global activities and on activities
related to the London Convention. He proposed that UNEP and IMO consider organizing
a forum of the regional seas conventions and action plans on the subject of
preparedness and response to accidental marine pollution. He believed there
was a lot to gain from the sharing of experiences of Regional Activity Centres
(RACs) like MAP’s Regional Marine Pollution Emergency Response Centre
for the Mediterranean (REMPEC) and the regional seas secretariats.
80. A number of representatives expressed appreciation for the activities undertaken
through cooperation with IMO so far, and wished to see an increase in such activities
and synergies between IMO and the regional seas conventions and action plans.
They also desired additional information and an exchange of experiences to how
best to apply IMO activities to their regions. The view was expressed that,
once governments saw the fruits of such cooperative work, such as the establishment
of a Regional Activity Centre (RAC), they would be encouraged to increase their
own cooperation and perhaps make funding available for other activities.
81. It was considered that the cooperation with IMO should not just be limited
to the field of pollution response, but should be expanded, perhaps to include
the issue of prevention of pollution from ships. In addition, UNEP needed to
have a high-level input into IMO activities at the global level to discuss all
aspects of the environment. One representative questioned the wisdom of compartmentalizing
all the different types of marine pollution, and considered that it would be
good if REMPEC were to be made the responsible body for all such pollution in
the Mediterranean, for example. There needed to be a more coherent approach
to all aspects of marine pollution. It was, however, noted that the Mediterranean
countries themselves were free to adopt a common position themselves and expand
the scope of their response protocol to encompass preventive measures. It was
proposed that the MAP secretariat could prepare a paper on the broad issues
of political and legal responsibility involved, perhaps providing case studies.
82. It was observed that, as there were plans to review and enlarge the scope
of the two protocols on marine pollution under the Nairobi and Abidjan Conventions,
it was desirable for IMO to work with the GPA to see if it would be possible
to have only one protocol on land-based sources of pollution, rather than a
piecemeal revision of the existing protocols.
83. Regarding implementation of MARPOL, it was considered that there is a need
to assess how the provisions of MARPOL were being fulfilled. On the subject
of possible UNEP involvement in the ecological aspects of the problem of invasive
exotic species, Mr. Sainlos stressed that, as the problem was related to ships,
projects to deal with the problem had originally been an IMO initiative and
fell under its mandate.
84. One representative questioned the value of a protocol on exotic species
when there were other priorities, since a number of countries were unable to
identify what species in their areas were in fact exotic. He also doubted the
value of IMO’s planned activities concerning wrecks.
85. In answer to one representative, who wondered at the delay in approval
of port reception facilities in his region, funded by the private sector, Mr.
Sainlos recalled that this is a responsibility of the concerned governments.
Recommendations
86. The meeting recommended:
(a) That a joint IMO/UNEP forum on emergency response to marine pollution should
be considered with a view to exchange experiences and to discuss issues of common
interest among the regional seas conventions and action plans, with the participation
of the RCUs of regional seas programmes and their respective regional activity
centers (RACs) such as REMPEC. IMO and the UNEP Regional Seas Branch of the
Division of Environmental Conventions should cooperate in preparing such a forum,
in consultation with the RCUs of the regional seas conventions and action plans;
(b) In contiguous areas, such as the Mediterranean and ROPME regions, it was
worth examining the possibility of close cooperation in the implementation of
emergency response programmes.
2. The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements
of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal
87. Mr. Pierre Portas, Senior Legal Officer of the Basel Convention, described
the aims and operational elements of the Convention; its cooperation mechanisms;
and the possible avenues of cooperation with the regional seas conventions and
action plans, particularly concerning the dismantling of ships and the environmentally
sound management of waste oils. He believed that the global conventions needed
to be implemented at the regional level, but the commitment at that level was
sometimes lacking. In addition, it was necessary to identify the needs at that
level and to assess where synergies could operate. For example, a joint approach
to donors could help to overcome the problems created by the multiplicity of
actors that sought financing. Capacity building was a critical area for establishing
links between the Basel Convention and the regional seas conventions and action
plans, perhaps through provision of training courses in the regions. Joint project
implementation to streamline or develop adequate national legislation and regulations
was another possible area of cooperation. Instead of having such activities
implemented on an ad hoc basis, it might be useful to consider establishing
a framework or platform to sustain such cooperation. In the final analysis,
the effective implementation of the Basel Convention relied heavily on the capacities
of the regional and subregional organizations.
88. A number of representatives expressed an interest in increasing their cooperative
activities with the Basel Convention, but were unsure how to initiate or operationalize
such cooperation. It was suggested that joint activities in areas of common
concern should be identified. One representative noted that some members of
his region had preferred to develop their own regional convention on hazardous
waste, with more manageable objectives. Other representatives wondered how cooperative
activities with the Basel Convention could be pursued by those African countries
that had ratified the Bamako convention. It was noted that, if regulations governing
transboundary movements of hazardous wastes were to be harmonized, the regional
seas conventions and action plans need to cooperate with the Basel Convention
in formulating regional protocols on the subject.
89. Mr. Portas acknowledged that the Basel Convention had in recent years lost
potential partners, but he stressed that it was critical to build or rebuild
the links and relationships. It was necessary to look at instruments to facilitate
cooperation, such as memorandums of understanding and letters of agreement.
Joint activities in areas of common concern should be identified. He agreed
to prepare a paper on the subject of how to initiate more intensive cooperation
with the regional seas conventions and action plans.
Recommendations
90. The meeting recommended that the Basel Convention Secretariat and the Regional
Seas Programmes should reinitiate efforts for collaborating together on the
issue of transboundary movement of hazardous wastes, including the work of the
Basel Convention’s regional centres for training. To that end, interested
regional seas programmes and the Basel Convention Secretariat will consider
the negotiation and implementation of Memoranda of Understanding.
91. The meeting expressed its appreciation and gratitude to the offer of the
representative of the Basel Convention Secretariat to assist regional sea programmes
in the development of protocols on transboundary movement of hazardous wastes.
3. The Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent
Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and
Pesticides in International Trade
4. Development of an international legally binding instrument
on persistent organic pollutants (POPs)
92. In his presentation, Mr. J. Willis, Director, UNEP Chemicals, and Executive
Secretary of the Rotterdam Convention, first gave a detailed overview of the
UNEP Chemicals Programme, describing its catalytic role in treaty negotiation;
its capacity-building activities for awareness-raising, training, and regional
and country-based projects; assessment work; information products; and its coordination
and cooperation activities. In conclusion, he pointed to a large number of opportunities
for collaboration in activities at the regional/subregional level. Noting that
the Programme cooperated widely with the World Bank in the use of GEF resources,
he stressed that the implementation of GEF projects did not have to go solely
through UNEP. Moreover, donors were happy to take advantage of the fact that
the World Bank charged two per cent in agency costs for capacity-building work.
93. Giving an overview of the Rotterdam Convention, he described its history
and negotiation; the Diplomatic Conference; the resolution on interim arrangements;
the outcome of the sixth and seventh sessions of the Intergovernmental Negotiating
Committee; and the first session of the Interim Chemical Review Committee. He
explained the procedure for which a chemical became a candidate for inclusion
in the convention, but stressed that the procedure was not open for the general
nomination of candidates.
94. Concerning the POPs negotiations, he set out the characteristics of POPs,
the international initiatives, and the background, mandate and status of the
negotiations. He listed the 12 POPs already identified for action, and noted
that the list was likely to increase, once the POPs instrument had been adopted.
He explained that the draft convention also included in an annex the specific
criteria for assessment of the toxicity of individual POPs. Although no decision
had yet been made on the choice of a financial mechanism for the instrument,
GEF had expressed a willingness to assume the role. The cost of implementing
POPs had been estimated by GEF at $150 million for an initial biennium, but
actual clean-up of all existing POPs was probably financially unsustainable.
95. In reply to a question on how the increasing number of chemicals conventions
could be coordinated, he underlined the difficulty of the task, which often
depended on the relationship between the conventions and their geographical
location. One answer lay in the establishment of memorandums of understanding
for coordinating mechanisms, with follow-up activities. The Inter-Organization
Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC) brought together some
of the key organizations dealing with chemical safety and offered cooperation
possibilities.
96. On the subject of disposal of obsolete pesticides, he drew attention to
guidance documentation, available in the working languages of the United Nations,
on identification and management of stocks and prevention of accumulation. UNEP-financed
activities were currently helping countries to prepare inventories of stocks,
but he believed that bilateral and not multilateral assistance was the answer.
Although some companies pursued a policy of responsible stewardship of chemicals,
and were prepared to take back and destroy obsolete stocks, it was not always
easy to identify the producer. Some form of incentive means was needed to encourage
wider use of a responsible care programme.
97. In response to a query on how cooperation could foster the use of Pollutant
Release and Transfer Registers (PRTRs) in a region, he pointed to the possibilities
of collaboration within the PRTR coordination group of the IOMC. Bilateral financing
of activities could also be facilitated, and it was sometimes the case that
countries had an interest if funding activities to control chemical problems
originating in a particular region that needed assistance. In cases where ideas
or models for chemicals-related activities in a region had been developed, it
was important for them to contact UNEP Chemicals. While there was no guarantee
of assistance, sometimes a matching donor could be found.
98. Attention was drawn to the importance of ensuring that all information
on activities in the regions was posted on their websites, so that other regional
seas conventions and action plans could make use of the experience gained.
99. On the subject of illegal trade in POPs, the Director, UNEP Chemicals,
said that the issue involved institutional measures, training and availability
of customs inspectors, and questions of infrastructure, national enforcement
and compliance. Cooperation was underway with the World Customs organization
(WCO) in the long and difficult process of formulating customs codes for identification
of relevant chemicals. One representative offered to make available on the region’s
website the details of its regional strategy on hazardous substances.
100. One representative observed that the developing countries, which needed
to address the issue of POPs and have stockpiles removed, lacked the capacities
and resources to monitor POPs and were unable to formulate for GEF the incremental
costs of stockpile removal. That was not just a problem for the developing countries.
Very few countries in the world had the necessary laboratory capacities for
POPs analysis. Moreover, analyses of POPs could be very costly, laboratories
sometimes disagreed on the analytical techniques to be applied, and they showed
variability in their findings. Because the traditional monitoring methods were
proving so costly, countries and regions had to be clear about their precise
requirements when specifying what kind of monitoring they wanted to be carried
out. In some cases, policy was enacted while the background science was still
in dispute. The POPs instrument, it was pointed out, was based on agreement
that sufficient science was required to take a decision on a chemical.
Recommendation
101. The meeting recommended:
(a) That regional seas programmes and chemicals-related conventions work closely
together in the implementation of capacity-building and information exchange
activities for assisting countries in meeting their obligations under the Rotterdam
Convention and the forthcoming convention on persistent organic pollutants (POPs);
(b) That the Regional Seas Programmes, the Rotterdam Convention and the forthcoming
convention on persistent organic pollutants (POPs) collaborate on other mutually
supportive activities, such as the development and application of harmonized
customs codes.
102. The meeting requested the UNEP Division of Environmental Conventions to
prepare an inventory of the work in chemicals undertaken by the regional seas
programmes as an information base for collaborating on mutually supportive activities
with the Rotterdam Convention and the forthcoming convention on POPs.
VIII. STRENGTHENING LINKAGES BETWEEN REGIONAL SEAS
CONVENTIONS AND ACTION PLANS AND BIODIVERSITY-
RELATED CONVENTIONS AND AGREEMENTS
103. Introducing the item, the Chair recalled that examination of the possibility
of closer cooperation between the regional seas conventions and action plans
and the Convention on Biological Diversity and CITES was a direct follow-up
to two recommendations of the Second Global Meeting. He believed that the concrete
expression of such collaboration between regional seas conventions and action
plans and the multilateral environmental agreements was very critical. It was
not sufficient to solely sign memorandums of understanding. While they offered
a useful basis for cooperation, it was necessary to somehow involve the governing
body of the convention in the issue of cooperating with the regional seas conventions
and action plans in the implementation of the convention. The decisions of the
Conference of Parties (COP) of the Convention on Biological Diversity at its
Fifth Meeting and the COP of CITES at its Eleventh Meeting calling for closer
collaboration with the regional seas programmes were both the results of recommendations
emanating from the Second Global Meeting of Regional Seas Conventions and Action
Plans.
1. Follow-up to the decision of COP V of CBD on joint programming
of CBD and the regional seas conventions and action plans
104. Mr. Hamdallah Zedan, Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological
Diversity, explained the background to decision V/3 of the Conference of the
Parties, calling for cooperation with the secretariats of the regional seas
conventions and action plans in the development of joint work programmes for
the implementation of the Jakarta Mandate. He described the history of the Convention;
elements of its work programme, focusing on marine and coastal biodiversity;
and areas of cooperation, particularly with GPA.
105. Mr. Peter Fippinger, Jakarta Mandate, Convention on Biological Diversity,
gave a detailed presentation on the Jakarta Mandate; the relevant decisions
of the Conference of the Parties; the Convention’s programme of work on
marine and coastal biodiversity; possible areas of cooperation with the regional
seas conventions and action plans, with emphasis on problems such as coral bleaching
and alien invasive species; mechanisms for increasing such cooperation; and
specific requests for information.
106. It was agreed that cooperation with the Convention on Biological Diversity
provided an important forum to bring together governments and organizations
to tackle many issues that were of direct concern to the regional seas conventions
and action plans. While such cooperation was currently somewhat limited in extent,
the secretariat of the Convention needed specific ideas and suggestions for
cooperative activities. Moreover, it offered a forum to inform Parties of the
aims and activities of the regional seas conventions and action plans. Participation
in the expert meetings and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific, Technical and
Technological Advice (SBSTTA) would give the regional seas conventions and action
plans an opportunity to play a role in the formulation of recommendations to
the Conference of the Parties. The regional seas conventions and action plans
can be an implementing tool for the Convention’s work programme on coastal
areas management. The governments of the regions also had an opportunity to
submit the names of experts for inclusion on the Convention’s roster of
experts. Moreover, many activities of the regional seas conventions and action
plans sought GEF funding, and GEF was the funding mechanism of the Convention
and received its instructions through the Conference of the Parties.
107. In connection with the poor attendance of the secretariats of regional
seas conventions and action plans at meetings of the bodies under the Convention,
attention was drawn to the problems some regions faced in financing attendance
at such a multiplicity of meetings. However, such problems could be mitigated
by having two or three designated representatives from regional seas conventions
and action plans attend expert meetings or the meetings of the SBSTTA. The regional
seas conventions and action plans should devise a mechanism, perhaps through
UNEP or their governing bodies, to identify their priorities, as well as the
representatives who should bring them to the SBSTTA and COP meetings. They needed
to prepare a document, for submission to SBSTTA and the Conference of the Parties,
setting out how they are and can contribute to the implementation of the Convention.
The Executive Secretary offered the help of the secretariat in the preparation
of documentation submitted to the meeting. Decision V/3 of the Conference of
the Parties requested the Executive Secretary to report to the next meeting
of the Conference of the Parties which will be held in April 2002, so that was
the time-frame in which the regional seas programmes needed to act. It was also
observed that an official communication by governments of a region could be
addressed to the Conference of the Parties to draw attention to activities and
concerns of a regional seas convention or action plan.
108. Further points raised in the discussion included: how to get concrete
results in terms of implementation of regional seas programmes from cooperation
with the Convention; the need for regional seas conventions and action plans
to review their own work programmes in light of how they related and contributed
to the implementation of the Convention and its Jakarta Mandate; the need for
full information on the aims and activities of the Convention, and for liaison
with its focal points; the provision of feedback from the regional seas conventions
and action plans to the Convention; the need to demonstrate where regional activities
also provided global benefits, so as to attract GEF and other funding; the possibility
of the Convention secretariat reviewing regional seas programme projects for
potential submission to GEF.
Recommendations
109. The meeting recommended that:
(a) The secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity should provide
the following to the secretariats of the regional seas conventions and action
plans:
(i) List of SBSTTA documents relevant to the marine and coastal programme of
work available through the clearing-house mechanism;
(ii) List of documents of the Conference of the Parties relevant to the marine
and coastal programme of work available through the clearing-house mechanism;
(iii) List of the national focal points of the Convention on Biological Diversity;
(iv) List of the GEF focal points;
(v) List of the GEF-supported biodiversity projects;
(vi) List of the national reports received;
(vii) The decisions of the Conference of the Parties comprising the marine
and coastal programme of work;
(viii) A sample of a Convention on Biological Diversity memorandum of understanding;
(b) The regional seas conventions and action plans should report to the secretariat
of the Convention on Biological Diversity on the implementation of the marine
and coastal programme of work within the respective regions, which will subsequently
be reported to SBSTTA and the Conference of the Parties;
(c) The regional seas conventions and action plans should seek to identify
experts on marine and coastal biological diversity from the respective regions
and encourage their nomination to the roster of experts of the Convention on
Biological Diversity through the appropriate national focal points;
(d) The regional seas conventions and action plans, through their secretariats,
should be represented at the relevant meetings of the Convention on Biological
Diversity;
(e) The secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity should, when
appropriate, seek to participate at the global meetings of the regional seas
conventions and action plans;
(f) The secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity should seek comment
and contributions from the secretariats of the regional seas conventions and
coordinators of the action plans in the preparation of relevant documentation
of the Convention on Biological Diversity;
(g) The regional seas conventions and action plans and the Convention on Biological
Diversity should seek to identify common elements between the respective regional
activities and the marine and coastal programme of work, with a view to harmonizing
work plans, bearing in mind that one issue common to all regional seas programmes
and the CBD is the application of the ecosystem approach to their programmes
of work;
(h) The regional seas conventions and action plans, together with the secretariat
of the Convention on Biological Diversity, should seek to encourage national
reporting consistent with the guidelines approved by the Conference of the Parties,
with a view to harmonizing reporting requirements of regional and global instruments.
(i) The regional seas conventions and action plans should seek the advice and
technical comment of the secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity
on project proposals regarding biodiversity-related issues.
(j) The regional seas programmes should promote the ratification of the CBD
and its protocol on biosafety in their regions.
2. The CITES Strategic Action Plan adopted by COP XI
110. The Secretary General of CITES, Mr. Willem Wijnstekers, made a presentation
on potential collaboration between CITES and the regional seas programmes. In
his opening words he made reference to the Strategic Action Plan and the paper
on Synergies presented to the eleventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties
of CITES, which contained proposals for cooperation between CITES and the regional
seas programmes. A number of issues addressed by CITES such as sturgeons, corals,
sea turtles and tourism souvenirs were of interest to several regional seas
conventions and action plans. CITES would be interested in sponsoring dialogue
on some of those critical problematic issues. He made reference to CITES activities
such as the meeting being organized for Pacific island states and the Mexico
workshop on the Hawksbill Turtle dialogue. He also proposed the establishment
of focal points in regional seas programmes that could be co-financed by global
conventions whose work is linked to three or four regional agreements. Such
focal points could help in addressing shared enforcement efforts.
111. The representative of the Cartagena Convention expressed interest in establishing
a cooperation arrangement with CITES. To that end, it would be desirable to
identify areas of compatibility with CITES. Some representatives agreed that
the regional seas programmes could be a vehicle for supporting the implementation
of CITES. Another representative stated that he would like to work with CITES
in the organization of the meeting of Pacific island states.
112. Several interventions were made concerning the issue of the Hawksbill
Turtle in the Wider Caribbean region, underscoring the controversial nature
of the subject, including the divergence in scientific information and the conflict
between conservation and sustainable use. The importance of preparatory dialogue
at the regional level to meetings of the Conference of Parties to CITES was
stressed. The issue of global sharing of costs for protecting species at the
national level was also discussed.
Recommendations
113. The meeting recommended that bilateral discussions would be held between
CITES and the Regional Seas Programmes on the development of cooperative arrangements
and that progress in this area would be reported at the Fourth Global Meeting
of Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans. One area of cooperation to receive
attention would be the organization of regional dialogue on problematic issues
of common concern.
114. The meeting also recommended that UNEP should facilitate the development
of cooperative arrangements between CITES and the regional seas programmes.
115. The meeting requested that UNEP, through the Division of Environmental
Conventions, to work with CITES in facilitating information to regional seas
programmes on activities to be undertaken by CITES within their respective regions.
3. Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species
of Wild Animals (CMS)
116. Mr. Marco Barbieri, Technical Officer, CMS, gave a presentation on the
Convention, describing its background, aims, membership, institutional structure
and operational tools. He drew particular attention to the role of CMS in the
conservation of species of marine mammals, and pointed to the main regional
Agreements to that end: the Agreement on the Conservation of Seals in the Wadden
Sea; the Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and
North Seas (ASCOBANS); and the Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of
the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous Atlantic Area (ACCOBAMS). He
also said that memorandums of understanding concerning turtles had been promoted
among range states for the Atlantic coast of Africa and the Indian Ocean.
117. Although CMS was a global convention, its implementation was basically
regional, and it was possible for countries to cooperate in Agreements without
being party to CMS. Moreover, CMS Agreements obtained GEF funding resources.
The Convention could collaborate with the regional seas conventions and action
plans by helping to formulate legally binding agreements or soft law tools and
frameworks (i.e., non-legally binding) for the conservation of species. A good
model for the synergies that could be created through CMS at the regional level
was provided by ACCOBAMS, where negotiations were also underway to use existing
structures within MAP and the Black Sea regional seas programme as subregional
coordinating centres for the agreement.
118. A number of representatives considered that CMS could provide help in
identifying and catalysing funding for conservation projects in regional seas
conventions and action plans, and sought further information on the best way
to approach the Convention for cooperation. It was noted that, with the current
proliferation of environmental conventions and agreements, countries often had
problems in identifying which body best met their needs and how to go about
initiating cooperation.
119. Several representatives stressed the role which CMS could play in the
event of sudden die-back of species listed in its annexes as a result of natural
or man-made catastrophes, such as the coordination of action to help the species
recover and the leveraging of resources to that end. CMS could also have an
important role in enforcing the removal or mitigation of barriers to migratory
routes.
Recommendation
120. The meeting recommended:
(a) That regional seas conventions and action plans be provided with full information
on the focal points of the conventions and agreements operating in their respective
regions, to enable them to identify the actors that best met their needs;
(b) That regional seas conventions and action plans cooperate with CMS in the
implementation of the UNEP Marine Mammals Action Plan and that CMS should strengthen
its cooperation with MMAP.
(c) That CMS should involve the relevant regional seas convention/action plan
at an early stage in developing and implementing CMS regional agreements affecting
marine species, e.g. on turtles, albatrosses, sharks, whales and marine mammals.
Opportunities for synergies should be identified and fully explored.
4. Marine Mammal Action Plan
121. An overview of the status of the Marine Mammal Action Plan (MMAP) was
presented by Mr. Robert Hepworth, Deputy Director, Division of Environmental
Conventions, UNEP. The Division of Environmental Conventions in collaboration
with UNEP’s Division of Early Warning and Assessment is serving as the
secretariat of MMAP. Sixteen years have passed since the Marine Mammal Action
Plan was established. In light of this fact, there is a need to review the MMAP
and the work being undertaken by the regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans
vis-a-vis this Plan.
122. In the ensuing discussion, issues pertaining to the possible need to retool
this plan to increase its relevance and usefulness were discussed. A number
of views on possible new structures, scope, activities, linkages and resources
were proposed. The majority of the views expressed advocated a broader, modernized
and better resourced MMAP. Mr. Hepworth assured the meeting that the options
presented and discussed on the MMAP would be considered by UNEP in consultation
with its partners.
123. A special report was presented to the meeting by Carole Eros on the IUCN
Action Plan on Dugongs, which is partly financed by UNEP. Like other members
of the Sirenia family, dugongs have a slow rate of reproduction and a specialized
diet based on seagrass. Threats to this species include by-catch, marine pollution,
boat-strikes, habitat destruction and severe storms (which damage sea grass).
Most Dugongs were classified as critically endangered or endangered under the
IUCN 2000 Redlist. Australian populations have recently been placed on CITES
appendix I. Dugongs are also protected under the Convention on Migratory Species.
The emerging action plan recommended a number of research and management measures,
including aerial surveys, the protection of key dugong habitats, the reduction
of by-catch and the control of pollution from land-based activities. Education,
especially involving local communities, was also a key element of the plan.
The plan is due to be published in 2001 and will be circulated to the RCUs of
the regional seas conventions and action plans.
Recommendation
124. It was agreed that UNEP would continue the retooling of the Marine Mammal
Action Plan in consultation with CMS. CIITES, the Convention on Biological Diversity,
the regional seas conventions and action plans and relevant partner organizations,
including IUCN, and present a revised MMAP to the Fourth Global Meeting.
5. Potential cooperation between regional seas programmes
and regional fisheries bodies (RFBs)
125. Mr. Benedict Satia, Chief, International Institutions and Liaison Service,
FAO, presented the joint UNEP/FAO paper entitled “Ecosystem-based Management
of Fisheries: Opportunities and Challenges for Coordination between Marine Regional
Fisheries Bodies and Regional Seas Conventions”, drawing attention to
the document on the subject before the meeting (UNEP (DEC)/RS3.7.1), and invited
comments from participants on how it could be refined to take more fully into
account the issues of concern to the regional seas conventions and action plans,
prior to its finalization. Mr. Stjepan Keckes, Advisory Committee on Protection
of the Sea (ACOPS), assisting in the presentation, called particular attention
to annex V of the document (on activities of regional seas conventions and action
plans of direct relevance to fishery resources) which needed to be updated in
light of the discussions and the current meeting. He also pointed to the four
main conclusions contained in the document.
126. The Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity, noting
that the Conference of the Parties had adopted the ecosystems approach for the
implementation of the Convention, considered that the approach proposed in the
document would be of great practical use. He offered to make available case
studies on the ecosystems approach for RFBs. It was observed that case studies
prepared by the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas could also be made
available and would help identify areas where representative models could be
applied.
127. A number of representatives reported on the activities of their organizations
and their relationship, or lack thereof, with RFBs, and offered to provide FAO
with further information to supplement the report. It was observed that, in
the case of regions where no RFMO existed, and an ecosystems approach was required
because of problems such as alien species or eutrophication, the ecosystems
approach could be applied at the level of individual countries.
128. It was observed that the RFBs lacked information on external factors which
influenced fisheries management and which could be provided by the regional
seas conventions and action plans, for example, on land-based sources of pollution,
habitat destruction, etc. Likewise, they could provide an input for the regional
seas conventions and action plans. It was noted that, since there was a need
to share experiences and also to follow up with other activities, it was desirable
for RFBs to be able to attend meetings of the regional seas conventions and
action plans.
Recommendations
129. Recognizing the potential benefits that could be derived from closer cooperation
among the regional seas conventions and action plans and RFBs in the fields
relevant to ecosystem-based management of fisheries, the meeting endorsed the
actions recommended for the enhancement of this cooperation to:
(a) Formalize the observer status of the regional seas conventions and action
plans at the meetings of the governing bodies of the RFBs and their technical
subsidiary organs, and vice versa;
(b) Exchange data and information available at the level of RFBs and regional
seas conventions and action plans that may be of mutual interest;
(c) Organize joint technical meetings on subjects of mutual interest; and
(d) Design and implement joint programmes between RFBs and regional seas conventions
and action plans, taking fully into account the respective mandates, objectives
and scope of the regional seas conventions and action plans and RFBs.
140. On the understanding that the paper was intended to be presented to the
forthcoming meeting of RFBs organized by FAO in February 2001, the meeting also
recommended that, before presenting the paper to that meeting, it should be
amended taking into account the following comments and suggestions:
(a) Information on the status and activities of regional seas conventions and
action plans should be updated and expanded, whenever necessary;
(b) The role of the EU in shaping the fisheries management policy of its member
States should be highlighted;
(c) The advantages and mutual benefits that would derive from the association
of the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) with the programmes carried out
under the regional seas conventions and action plans and the RFBs should be
recognized and elaborated;
(d) The enhanced cooperation among RFBs and regional seas conventions and action
plans on issues relevant to ecosystem-based management of fisheries would be
a considerable contribution towards the implementation of global conventions
and programmes, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the GPA,
as well as to the 2001 Reykjavik Conference on Responsible Fisheries in the
Ecosystem (Reykjavik, Iceland, 24-28 September 2001).
6. The International Coral Reef Action Network (ICRAN)
141. The Coordinator of the East Asian Seas RCU, Dr. Hugh Kirkman, briefed
the meeting on the recent meeting of the International Coral Reef Initiative
Coordination and Planning Committee (ICRI CPC) on 28 – 29 October, where
he participated on behalf of the DEC. He especially highlighted the resolutions
that were adopted by the ICRI CPC. These include, among others, resolutions
on the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN), coral reef fisheries (including
the role of FAO), and ICRAN. The complete list of ICRI resolutions is available
from the DEC or directly from the ICRI Secretariat.
142. The Coordinator of the ICRAN project, Ms Agneta Nilsson, presented the
UNEP project with UNESCO on the GCRMN. She explained that the GCRMN is a global
network of governments, coral reef scientists, NGOs and local communities for
monitoring and assessments of coral reefs.GCRMN promotes monitoring of both
biophysical and socio-economic parameters with a focus on data needed for management.
The network operates through a global coordinator based in the Australian Institute
of Marine Science, regional coordinators and nodes established in consultation
with the regional seas programmes, and national focal points. The network develops
the Status of Coral Reefs of the World Reports every two years, with the most
recent prepared in 2000. The GCRMN with UNEP support has also recently developed
a socio-economic manual for coral reef management.
143. Ms Agneta Nilsson went on to present the International Coral Reef Action
Network project, jointly initiated by UNEP and the World Fish Center (ICLARM).
She explained that the ICRAN project is a catalytic effort that represents a
unique collaboration among global initiatives and on-the-ground action through
the framework of the Regional Seas Programme. ICRAN partners include UNEP with
the Regional
Seas Programme, ICLARM, the World Resources Institute (WRI), the NGO Coral
Reef Alliance (CORAL), the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC)
and the ICRI Secretariat. The United Nations Foundation (UNF) is providing funds
to initiate the project. While the ICRAN Startup Phase is ongoing with pilot
activities in the Wider Caribbean, Eastern Africa and East Asian Seas, the application
for the four-year Action Phase (US$10 million) is being developed for submission
to UNF/UNFIP in mid January. Several Regional Seas, including The Caribbean,
Eastern Africa, SPREP and East Asian Seas, with the South Asian region to follow,
as funds become available, are involved in developing the proposal for the Action
Phase. It was noted that ICRAN represents an opportunity for the regional seas
conventions and action plans to take a lead role in the management and conservation
of coral reefs and associated ecosystems. Through promoting improved practices
in Integrated Coastal Area Management and management of marine protected areas,
ICRAN will not only benefit coral reefs, but also other important associated
coastal ecosystems, for example mangroves and seagrass beds.
144. The Deputy Director of DEC, Mr. Robert Hepworth, announced new internal
arrangements for coral reefs within UNEP: an upgraded Coral Reef Unit will be
established on the 1st December under the Division of Environmental Conventions
with strong lateral linkages to the Division of Early Warning and Assessment
(DEWA). The new unit will be headed by Dr. Arthur Dahl (D1), who will work full
time for the new Unit. A new P4 Programme Officer will urgently be recruited,
and Ms. Agneta Nilsson will move from the DEWA to DEC to work in the Coral Reef
Unit. UNEP-WCMC will continue to play a major role in coral reef related activities,
including as the host of the ICRAN Coordinating Unit.
145. The new arrangements were very well received by the meeting. The representative
of IUCN, Mr. John Waugh, expressed his appreciation of UNEP’s initiative
to establish a Coral Reef Unit within DEC and the representative of UNEP-WCMC
welcomed the arrangements on behalf of the ICRAN partners. The meeting, especially
the representatives of SACEP and ROPME, also welcomed the strengthened linkages
between ICRAN and the Division of Environmental Conventions.
Recommendations:
146. The Meeting recommended:
(a) That UNEP proceed to establish the Coral Reef Unit in DEC as planned, thereby
strengthening the linkages between the Regional Seas and ICRAN.
(b) That closer linkages are established between the ICRAN project and the
Convention on Biological Diversity, especially its Jakarta Mandate. The representative
of the Convention on Biological Diversity stated his interest in working closely
with UNEP on this issue.
(c) That the cooperation with Regional Seas should not be limited to the regions
currently involved in ICRAN, but should be expanded to involve additional regions.
To that end, it was proposed that the new Coral Reef Unit takes an active role
in working with relevant regions to develop funding proposals and seek additional
funding for coral reef related activities, especially ICRAN.
IX. OTHER MATTERS
147. In the course of discussions on the margins of the meeting, a number of
points were raised relating to two main issues: the situation of sturgeon species
in the Caspian region; and the strengthening of the regional seas conventions
and action plans in Sub-Saharan Africa. The meeting agreed that the results
of these discussions should be provided in annexes 4 and 5 to the present report.
It was also agreed that the report of the GPA, CBD and Regional Seas consultation
meeting on proposed cooperation, held on the margins of the Third Global Meeting
on 11 November, should also be annexed to the present report (see annex 6).
148. On the future structure of the Global Meetings of Regional Seas Conventions
and Action Plans, two representatives of regional seas secretariats, while feeling
that the present meeting had been relevant and constructive, also felt that
the agenda had been too overloaded. Not enough time had been allocated for bilaterals
between secretariats, which have become one of the more important aspects of
these meetings. Some of the presentations were too open-ended. It was recommended
that a distinction should be made in the agenda between items for (a) discussion
requiring recommendations and (b) information. The papers for discussions items
requiring recommendations should include suggested actions prepared by the secretariat
or the relevant organization.
149. Seven regional seas secretariats and three international organizations
felt that the meeting had been very useful and successful and that the agenda
had not been overloaded. While it was true that the agenda was heavy, it was
acknowledged that the Global Meetings provided a rare opportunity for regional
seas conventions and action plans, relevant global environmental conventions
and partner international organizations to come together to discuss issues of
common concern, producing agreements that otherwise would take considerably
longer to negotiate. For that reason, it should be expected that these meetings
will be intensive and demanding. Some felt that instead of shortening the agenda,
it was more desirable to shorten the presentation of the agenda items to no
more than 15 minutes, thus allowing more time for discussion and consideration
of recommendations. Several representatives of regional seas programmes emphasized
the importance of the Global Meetings for exchanging information and experiences.
One representative recommended that one-half day be dedicated in future meetings
to the discussion of the management of regional seas programmes, including the
sharing of experiences on resource mobilization and the development of mutually
supportive activities with global environmental conventions. Others felt that
more time should be dedicated to furthering the discussions on horizontal cooperation
between regional seas programmes.
150. The chairman thanked the participants for their suggestions, which will
be taken into account by the secretariat in the organization of the next Global
Meeting.
151. The meeting gratefully accepted the offer of the Director of the East
Asian Seas RCU to host the next meeting, which, it was agreed, would be held
in November 2001, in the offices of the East Asian Seas RCU in Bangkok.
X. ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE MEETING
152. The present report was adopted on the basis of the draft that had been
prepared by the secretariat, taking into account written corrections provided
in writing by the participants and on the understanding that the finalization
of the report would be entrusted to the secretariat.
XI. CLOSURE OF THE MEETING
153. In their closing remarks, representatives reaffirmed the value and importance
of the Global Meetings of Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans for information
exchange, sharing of experiences, and coordinating activities in areas of common
concern. Several expressed their satisfaction with the results of the present
meeting and the importance of the Global Meetings in support of their programmes
of work. Several expressed satisfaction with the work of UNEP in the further
vitalization of the regional seas programmes.
154. Before closing, the chair once again thanked the Government of Monaco
and the International Atomic Energy Association for their support to the meeting.
The chair also thanked all those present for their valuable contributions and
to the staff of the secretariat for their excellent work in the preparation
and organization of the meeting. Following that statement, he declared the meeting
closed at 6 p.m. on Friday, 10 November 2000.
Annex 1
Agenda of the Meeting
1. Opening of the meeting
(a) Introductory Statement by the Executive Director of the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP)
(b) Statement by the Representative of the Government of the Principality of
Monaco
(c) Statement by the Representative of the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA)
2. Follow-up to the Second Global Meeting of Regional Seas Conventions and
Action Plans (The Hague, 5-8 July 1999)
3. The Open-Ended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and Law of the Sea
(UNICPOLOS)
4. Round table discussion on critical problems and issues facing regional seas
conventions and action plans
(a) Innovative financing options for Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans
(b) Exploring new options for horizontal cooperation among regional seas conventions
and action plans
5. Implementation of the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the
Marine Environment from Land-based Activities (GPA)
(a) Status report on implementation of the GPA
(b) 2001 GPA Intergovermental Review Process and Meeting
(c) Role of the Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans in the 2001 GPA
Intergovernmental Process and Meeting.
6. Assessment and Monitoring of Oceans
(a) Status of implementation of the Global International Waters Assessment
(GIWA);
(b) Presentation by UNESCO on GOOS and strengthening interactions between Regional
Seas Conventions and Action Plans;
(c) Presentation by the IAEA Marine Environment Laboratory on Marine Pollution
Monitoring and Analysis;
(d) Presentation by UNEP-WCMC on Biodiversity Data and Information Management
for Regional Seas Programmes;
7. Strengthening linkages between Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans
and Chemicals-related Conventions.
(a) The IMO Conventions
(b) The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous
Wastes and their Disposal
(c) The Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain
Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade
(d) Development of an international legally binding instrument on Persistent
Organic Pollutants (POPs)
8. Strengthening linkages between Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans
and Biodiversity-related Conventions and Agreements.
(a) Follow-up to the decision of COP V of CBD on joint programming of CBD and
the regional seas conventions and action plans
(b) The CITES Strategic Action Plan adopted by COP XI
(c) Convention on Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS)
(d) Marine Mammals workshop: brainstorming session with representatives of
the Regional Seas Programmes and Action Plans, biodiversity-related conventions
and invited experts to: a-. review UNEP's Marine Mammals Action Plan and the
work being undertaken by global and regional conventions in relation to these
species and their ecosystems; b-. identify partners for future international
work on the conservation and sustainable use of marine/aquatic mammals and c-.
draw up a framework for a major new publication on the status of marine/aquatic
mammals.
(e) Potential cooperation between Regional Seas Programmes (RSPs) and Regional
Fisheries Bodies (RFBs).
(f) Session on Coral Reef ecosystems with Regional Seas Programmes and biodiversity-related
conventions (CBD, CITES, CMS) and invited experts:
(i) The International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI) as the internationally agreed
framework for coral reef protection;
(ii) Status report on the implementation of the ICRI Framework for Action,
the International Coral Reef Action Network (ICRAN) and the Global Coral Reef
Monitoring Network (GCRMN);
(iii) c. Potential future cooperation and strengthened linkages with Regional
Seas and biodiversity related conventions; funding arrangements; interregional
exchange.
9. Adoption of the report of the meeting
10. Closure of the meeting
Annex 2
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
Regional Seas Programmes
1. Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Seas Against Pollution
(Barcelona Convention)
Lucien Chabason
Coordinator
Coordinating Unit for the Mediterranean Action Plan -Barcelona Convention (MAP/RCU)
48 Vassileos Konstantinou Avenue
P. O. Box 18019
116 35 Athens, Greece
Tel: 30 1 7273100
Fax: 30 1 7253196/7
Email: chabason@unepmap.gr
Francesco Saverio Civili
Senior Environmental Affairs Officer
MED POL Coordinator
48 Vassileos Konstantinou Avenue
P. O. Box 18019
116 35 Athens, Greece
Tel: 30 1 7273106
Fax: 30 1 7253196/7
Email: fscivili@unepmap.gr
2. Convention for Cooperation in the Protection and Development of the Marine
and Coastal Environment of the West and Central African Region (Abidjan Convention)
Madame Nassere Kaba
Acting Coordinator
Regional Coordinating Unit for West and Central African Action Plan (WACAF/RCU)
Abidjan Convention, c/o The Dept. of Environment
Ministry of Environment, Water and Forest
20 BP 650 Abidjan 20\Cote d’Ivoire
Tel: 225 20 211183/20 21 06 23
Fax: 225 20 21 0495
Email: biodiv@africaonline.co.ci
3. Convention for the Protection, Management and Development of the Marine
and Coastal Environment of the Eastern African Region (Nairobi Convention)
Dixon Waruinge
Programme Officer
Joint Umbrella Mechanism for the Nairobi and Abidjan Conventions
Division of Environmental Conventions
United Nations Environment Programme
P. O. Box 30552
Nairobi Kenya
Tel: 254 20 622025
Fax: 254 20 624300
Email: dixon.waruinge@unep.org
Rolph Payet
Interim Coordinator
Nairobi Convention
Regional Coordinating Unit for Eastern African Action Plan (EAF/RCU)
P. O. Box 487, Victoria
Mahe, Seychelles
Tel: 248 22 4644/248 722915 (mobile)
Fax: 248 322945/248 224500
Email: uneprcu@seychelles.net
4. Kuwait Regional Convention for Cooperation on the Protection of the Marine
Environment from Pollution
Hassan Mohammadi
Acting Coordinator
Regional Organization for the Protection of the Marine Environment (ROPME)
P. O. Box 26388, 13124 Safat
State of Kuwait
Tel: 965 5312140-3 - 5335241
Fax: 965 5335243, 5324172
Email: ropmek@qulitynet.net or mailto:ropme@qualitynet.net
5. Regional Convention for the Conservation of the Red Sea and the Gulf of
Aden Environment (Jeddah Convention)
Mohamed Abdel-Rahman Fawzi
Deputy Secretary General
Regional Organization for the Conservation of the Environment of the
Red Sea and Gulf of Aden Region (PERSGA)
P. O. Box 53662, Jeddah 21583
Saudi Arabia
Tel/Fax: 966 2 651 4472
Tel: 966 2 652 1986
Email: persga@persga.org
6. South Asian Seas Environment Programme (SACEP)
Ananda Raj Joshi
Director-General
South Asia Co-operative Environment Programme (SACEP)
No. 10 Anderson Road, Off Dickman’s Road
Colombo 5, Sri Lanka
Tel: 941 589787/589376
Fax: 941 589 369
Email: aj_sacep@eureka.lk
Prasantha Dias Abeyegunawardene
Deputy Director Programmes
South Asia Co-operative Environment Programme (SACEP)
No. 10 Anderson Road, Off Dickman’s Road
Colombo 5, Sri Lanka
Tel: 941 596 442
Fax: 941 589 369
Email: pd_sacep@eureka.lk
7. East Asian Seas Action Plan
Hugh Kirkman
Coordinator
East Asia Seas Regional Coordinating Unit (EAS/RCU)
UN Building, 9th Floor, Block A
Rajdamnern-Nok Avenue
Bangkok 10200, Thailand
Tel: 66 2 288 1889/1860/8008/8007
Fax: 66 2 281 2428
Email: Kirkman.unescap@un.org
Web:URL:www.roap.unep.org/easrcu/index.htm
8. North-West Pacific Action Plan (NOWPAP)
Ellik Adler
Interim Coordinator
Chief, Regional Seas Branch
Division of Environmental Conventions
United Nations Environment Programme
P.O. Box 30552, Nairobi, Kenya
Tel: 254 20 624544
Fax: 254 20 624300
Email: Ellik.Adler@unep.org
Masamitsu Oritani
Director
Special Monitoring and Coastal Environmental Assessment
Regional Activity Centre
NOWPAP, Toyama City
Tel: 81 76 445 1571
Fax: 81 76 445 1581
Email: oritani@npec.or.jp
Koji Shimada
Member of the RAC Delegation (Observer)
Office of Marine Environment and Waste Management
Planning Division
Environment Agency of Japan
Japan
Tel: 81 3 5521 8311
Fax: 81 3 3593 1438
Email: KOJI_SHIMADA@eanet.go.jp
9. Convention for the Conservation and Protection of the Natural Resources
and Environment of the South Pacific Region (Noumea Convention)
Tamarii Tutangata
Director, South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP)
P. O. Box 240, Apia,
Western Samoa
Tel: 685 21 929
Fax: 685 20 231
Email: sprep@samoa.net
Email for his P.A. apiseta@sprep.org.ws
10. Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and Coastal Area
of the South-East Pacific (Lima Convention)
Ulises Munaylla Alarcon
Comision Permanente del Pacifico Sur (CPPS)
Coruna 2061 y Whymper
Quito, Equador
Tel: 593 2 234 331/5/6
Fax: 595 2 234 374
Email: cpps@ecuanex.net.ec OR
ulisesmunaylla@andinanet.net
11. Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment
of the Wider Caribbean (Cartagena Convention)
Nelson Andrade Colmenares
Coordinator, Caribbean Environment Programme
Regional Co-ordinating Unit (CAR/RCU)
(Cartagena Convention)
14.20 Port Royal Street
Kingston, Jamaica
Tel: 1 876 922 9267/8/9
Fax 1 876 922 9292
Email: uneprcuja@cwjamaica.com or nac.unprcuja@cwjamaica.com
12. Convention for the Protection of the Black Seas against Pollution (Bucharest
Convention)
Ms. Sema Acar
Coordinator
Black Sea Environmental Programme
Dolmabahce Sarayi
II.Harekat Kosku 80680 Besiktas
Istanbul, Turkey
Tel: 90 212 227 9927/8/9
Fax 90 212 227 9933
Email: semaacar@blacksea-environment.org
13. Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea
Area (Helsinki Convention)
Mieczyslaw S. Ostojski
Executive Secretary
Helsinki Commission
Katajanokanlaituri 6B
001600 Helsinki Finland
Tel: 358 9 6220 2233
Fax: 358 9 6220 2239
Email: mostojski@helcom.fi
Anne Christine Brusendorff
Helsinki Commission
Katajanokanlaituri 6B
001600 Helsinki Finland
Tel: 358 9 6220 2228
Fax: 358 9 6220 2239
Email: Anne.Christine@helcom.fi
14. Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East
Pacific (OSPAR Convention)
Ben van de Wetering
Executive Secretary
Commission of the Convention for the Protection of
The Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR)
New Court, 48 Carey Street
London WC2A 2JQ
United Kingdom
Tel: 44 20 7430 5200
Fax: 44 20 7430 5225
Email: secretariat@ospar.org
Website: www.ospar.org
15. Programme for the Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME)
Ms. Soffia Gudmundsdottir
Executive Secretary, PAME International Secretariat
Hafnarstraeti 97, 600 Akureyri, Iceland
Tel: +354 461 1355/3350
Fax: +354 462 3390
Email: pame@ni.is,soffiag@ni.is
Mr. Thomas Laughlin
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Office of International Affairs
U.S. Department of Commerce
Washington D.C. 20230
USA
Tel: 1 202 482 6196
Fax: 1 202 482 4307
Email: tlaughlin@hdq.noaa.gov
Jim Osborne
Chief, Marine Environment
Environment Canada
Ottawa, Canada KIA0H3
Tel: 819 953 2265
Fax: 819 953 0913
Email:Jim.Osborne@ec.gc.ca
Fredrika Moser
U.S. Department of State
Office of Ocean Affairs
Washington D.C. 20520
USA
Tel: 202 647 3880
Fax: 202 647 9099
Email: moserfc@state.gov
16. Caspian Environment Programme (CEP)
Tim Turner
Programme Coordinator
Room, 108, 3rd Entrance
Government House
40 Uzier Hadjibeyov Street
Baku-370016 Azerbaijan
Tel: 994 12 971785/938003
Fax: 994 12 971786
Email: tturner@caspian.in-baku.com
17. North-East Pacific Regional Seas Programme (NEP)
Mr. Oscar Ramirez
NEP Bureau Member
Instituto Nacional de la Pesca
National Fisheries Institute
Pitagoras 1320 3er Piso, Col. Santa Cruz Atoyac
Mexico City 03310
Tel: 52 5 6881548, 422 3056
Fax: 52 5 6880605
Email: oramirez@inp.semarnap.gob.mx/mandragora00@hotmail.com
Global Environmental Conventions and Related International Agreements
18. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBS)
Hamdallah Zedan
Executive Secretary
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
393 St. Jacques Street, Office 300
Montreal Quebec Canada H2Y 1N9
Tel: 1 514 288 2220 Direct line 1 514 287 7002
Fax: 1 514 288 6588 or 1 514 288 0917
Email: Hamdallah.zedan@biodiv.org
Peter Fippinger
Jakarta Mandate
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
393 St. Jacques Street, Office 300
Montreal, Quebec Canada H2Y 1N9
Tel: 1 514 288 2220 Direct line - 1 514 287 7036
Fax: 1 514 288 6588 or 1 514 288 0917
Email: peter.fippinger@biodiv.org
19. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and
Fauna (CITES)
Willem Wijnstekers
Secretary General
Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna & Flora (CITES)
15 chemin des Anémones
CH-1219 Geneva, Switzerland
Tel: 41 22 917 8139/40
Fax: 41 22 797 3417
Email: Willem.wijnstekers@unep.ch
20. Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS)
Marco Barbieri
Technical Officer
Secretariat to the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild
Animals (CMS)
United Nations Premises in Bonn, Martin-Luther-King-Str. 8
D-53175 Bonn, Germany
Tel: 49 228 815 2401/02
Fax: 49 228 815 2449
Email: mbarbieri@cms.unep.de
Marie Christine Van Klaveren
Interim Executive Secretary
Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean
Sea and Contiguous Atlantic Area (ACCOBAMS)
16, boulevard de Suisse
MC-98000 Monaco
Tel: 377 93 15 80 10
Fax: 377 93 5095 91
Email: mcvanklaveren@gouv.mc
21. Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain
Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade
Jim Willis
Director
Chemicals Unit
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
11-13 chemin des Anémones
CH-1219 Chatelaine
Geneva 10 Switzerland
Tel: 41 22 917 8183
Fax: 41 22 797 3460
Email: jwillis@unep.ch
22. Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous
Wastes and Their Disposal
Pierre Portas
Senior Programme Officer
Secretariat of the Basel Convention (SBC)
International Environment House
15 chemin des anemones, 1219 Chatelaine
Geneva, Switzerland
Tel: 41 22 917 8217
Fax: 41 22 797 3454
Email: pierre.portas@unep.ch
23. IMO Marine Pollution Conventions
Jean-Claude Sainlos
Senior Deputy Director
Marine Environment Division
International Maritime Organization (IMO)
4 Albert Embankment
London SE1 7SR
United Kingdom
Tel: 44 (0) 207 587 3142
Fax: 44 (0) 207 587 3210
Email: Jcsainalos@imo.org
24. Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment
from Land-Based Sources of Pollution (GPA)
Veerle Vandeweerd
Coordinator
Coordination Office of the Global Programme of Action
for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-Based Activities (GPA)
P. O. Box 16227, 2500 BE
The Hague The Netherlands
Tel: 31 70 311 4460
Fax: 31 70 345 6648
Email: v.vandeweerd@unep.nl
Omar Vidal
Deputy Coordinator
Coordination Office of the Global Programme of Action
for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-Based Activities (GPA)
P. O. Box 16227, 2500 BE
The Hague
The Netherlands
Tel: 31 70 311 4464
Fax: 31 70 345 6648
Email: o.vidal@unep.nl
25. Marine Mammal Action Plan (MMAP)
Carole Eros
Programme officer
Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada
460-555 West Hastings St.
Vancouver BC
V6B 5G3, Canada
Tel: 604 666 2009
Fax: 604 666 2326
Email: ErosC@pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca
IUCN THE WORLD CONSERVATION UNION
International Organizations
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Stephen J. de Mora
Head, Marine Environment Laboratory (MEL)
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
4 Quai Antoine 1 er, B.P. No. 800 MC-98012
Principality of Monaco
Tel: 377 97 97 72 36
Fax: 377 97 97 72 76
Email: S.de_Mora@iaea.org
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
Benedict Satia
Chief, International Institutions and Liaison Service
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
Via delle Terme di Carcalla
00100 Rome, Italy
Tel: 39 06 570 52847
Fax: 39 06 570 56500
Email: benedict.satia@fao.org
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC), United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
Colin Summerhayes
Director
Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) Project Office,
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) UNESCO
1, rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15
France
Tel: 33 1 45 68 40 42
Fax: 33 1 45 68 58 13
Email: c.summerhayes@unesco.org
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN/DESA)
Anne H. Rogers
Chief, Oceans and Land Unit
Water, Natural Resources and Small Islands Branch
Division for Sustainable Development
Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations
United Nations Plaza, Room DC2-2274
New York, NY 10017, USA
Tel: 1 212 963 2476
Fax: 1 212 963 1795
Email: rogersa@un.org
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
Klaus Töpfer
Executive Director
United Nations Environment Programme
P. O. Box 30552
Nairobi
Kenya
Tel: 254 20 624001
Fax: 254 20
Email: mailto:jorge.illueca@unep.org
Jorge E. Illueca
Assistant Executive Director
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
Division of Environmental Conventions
P. O. Box 30552
Nairobi
Kenya
Tel: 254 20 3494/4011
Fax: 254 20 624300
Email: jorge.illueca@unep.org
Timothy Foresman
Director
Division of Environmental Information, Assessment & Early Warning (DEIAEW)
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
P. O. Box 30552
Nairobi
Tel: 254 20 623231
Fax: 254 20 623943
Email. Tim.foresman@unep.org
Frits Schlingemann
Director
Regional Office for Europe (ROE)
15 chemin des Anémones, 1219 Chatelaine
Geneva, Switzerland
Tel: 41 22 917 8276
Fax: 41 22 917 8024
Email: frits.Schlingemann@unep.ch
Mr. Mahmood Abdulraheem
Director
Regional Office for West Asia (ROWA)
P.O. Box 10880
Manama, Bahrain
Telephone: (973) 826600
Telefax: (973) 825110 or (973) 825111 (Direct)
Email: uneprowa@batelco.com.bh
myunrowa@batelco.com.bh
Direct Tel: 825299 (MA)
825 288 (HH)
Mobile: 973 945 2677 (MA), 973 944 3225 (HH)
Robert Hepworth
Deputy Director
Division of Environmental Conventions
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
P. O. Box 30552
Nairobi
Kenya
Tel: 254 20 3494/4011
Fax: 254 20 624300
Email: Robert.Hepworth@unep.org
Laura Meszaros
Programme Officer
Division Environmental Conventions
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
P.O. Box 30552
Tel: 254 20 623432
Fax: 254 20 624300
Email:Laura.Meszaros@unep.org
Agneta Nilsson
Programme Officer
Division of Environmental Information, Assessment and Early Warning (DEIAEW)
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
P.O. Box 30552
Nairobi
Tel: 254 20 62 2309
Fax: 254 20 623944
Email: Agneta.Nilsson@unep.org
Mark Collins
Director
UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC)
219 Huntingdon Road
Cambridge CB3 ODL
United Kingdom
Tel: 44 1223 277314
Fax: 44 1223 277136
Email: mark.collins@unep-wcmc.org
Edmund Green
Head, Marine and Coastal programme
UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC)
219 Huntingdon Road
Cambridge, CB3 ODL
United Kingdom
Tel: 44 1223 277314
Fax: 44 1223 277136
Email: Ed.Green@unep-wcmc.org
Dag Daler
Global International Waters Assessment (GIWA)
United Nations Environment Programme
SE – 39182 Kalmar
Sweden
Tel: 46 480 447 350
Fax: 46 480 447 355
Email: info@giwa.net
Non-Governmental Organizations
IUCN – The World Conservation Union
John Waugh
Marine Programme Coordinator
IUCN - The World Conservation Union
c/o Washington Office
1630 Connecticut Avenue NW #300
Washington D.C. 20008 USA
Tel: 1 202 518 2057
Fax: 1 202 478 0051
Email:jwaugh@iucns.org
Advisory Committee on Protection of the Sea (ACOPS)
Stjepan Keckes
Advisory Committee on Protection of the Sea (A.C.O.P.S.)
Head Office
11, Dartmouth Street
London SWIH 9BN
Tel: 44 171 799 3033
Fax: 44 171 799 2933
Email: Skeckes@compuserve.com
Government of Monaco
Bernard Fautrier
Ministre charge de la cooperacion internationale
Pour l’environnement et le development
Villa Girasole
16 boulevard de Suisse
MC 98000, Monaco
Tel: 377 93 15 89 29
Fax: 377 93 50 95 91
Email: bfautrier@gouv.mc
Patrick Van Klaveren
Conseiller technique aupres du Ministre Plenipotentiare
Charge de la cooperation internationale
Pour l'environnement et le developpement
Villa Girasole
16, BD de Suisse
MC 98000 Monaco
Tel: 377 93 15 81 48
Fax: 377 93 50 95 91
Email: pvanlaveren@gouv.mc
Annex 3
CRITICAL PROBLEMS AND ISSUES FACING REGIONAL SEAS
CONVENTIONS AND ACTION PLANS
1. East Asian Seas Regional Coordinating Unit (RCU), the secretariat of the
Coordinating Body on the Seas of East Asia (COBSEA):
(a) a need for a higher level of cooperation between countries at the regional
level and for greater cooperation between government departments;
(b) a need for full financing from member countries;
(c) a need for those undertaking activities in the marine environment to inform
the RCU.
2. Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP):
(a) issues of prevention of pollution from ships and maritime safety were increasingly
causing concern in the region, and the need to further strengthen and expand
cooperation with IMO in the field was highlighted:
(b) the need to obtain reliable data on marine pollution trends and on compliance
with existing legislation was stressed;
(c) a deeper involvement of national authorities in marine pollution monitoring
activities was considered essential, as well as the full use of their results
for appropriate coastal zone management;
(d) the lack of proper coastal zone planning and management was considered
a serious threat to coastal ecosystems;
(e) concerning the implementation of the GPA, while funding was available from
a number of sources for basic activities, the funding of larger investments
for long-term pollution control was considered critical.
3. Northwest Pacific Action Plan (NOWPAP):
(a) a decision was needed on the location of the RCU.
4. Commission of the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment
of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Commission):
No critical issues were indicated.
5. Protection Arctic Marine Environment (PAME):
(a) a need to link issues to civil society and to involve the private sector;
(b) a need to involve Heads of State to a greater degree in the solving of
problems and to gain greater government commitment;
(c) a need to establish a technical committee of the regional seas programmes
and action plans for technology transfer, e.g. to deal with marine pollution
issues;
(d) a need for environmental enforcement to be devolved to local government
organizations.
6. Regional Organization for the Conservation of the Environment of the Red
Sea and Gulf of Aden (PERSGA):
(a) the need to designate the Red Sea as a special area, especially with regard
to waste from shipping;
(b) the need for increased regional monitoring of coral reefs and sensitive
ecosystems;
(c) the need for sustainable financial arrangements, possibly through the establishment
of government/private industry partnerships or the establishment of a special
fund.
7. Regional Organization for the Protection of the Marine Environment (ROPME)
of the Kuwait Convention:
(a) the need for the development of a river basin management programme for
Shatt Al Arab and its entire basin in cooperation with GIWA, UNEP, CBD and other
concerned international organizations, with particular reference to the destruction
of the marshlands of Mesopotamia.
(b) the control of marine pollution from offshore operations of oil and gas,
particularly pollution caused by produced water, in cooperation with concerned
international organizations;
(c) control of municipal sewage, industrial effluents (e.g., from petroleum
refineries and the petrochemical industry), dredging and land reclamation, in
cooperation with GPA, CBD, WHO and other concerned organizations;
(d) establishment of reception facilities to meet the requirements of Annexes
I and V of MARPOL 73/78 to declare the ROPME region as a “Special Area”
by IMO;
(e) conservation of coral reefs, in cooperation with UNEP, concerned international
initiatives and donor programmes;
(f) study of invasive alien species, in cooperation with UNEP, CBD, IMO, IOC
and other concerned organizations;
(g) monitoring of marine mortality phenomena, in cooperation with FAO, the
Marine Mammals Action Plan, UNEP and other concerned organizations.
8. South Asia Cooperative Environment Programme (SACEP):
(a) the need for an exchange of information network among regional seas programmes
via e-mail/internet;
(b) the need for training and capacity-building;
(c) the need for a database network;
(d) the need for financial support for already identified projects in such
fields as coastal zone management, national and regional oil spill contingency
planning, sea-level rise, capacity-building, training and land-based activities.
9. South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP):
(a) possibility of going beyond twinning arrangements for conventions and programmes
to “tripling” arrangements, enabling the possibility to link up
with other island regions, e.g., Latin America and the Caribbean;
(b) inadequate funding;
(c) in the provision of advisory services, more input from members required,
as well as input from international and national non-governmental organizations.
10. RCU of the East African Region (EAS/RCU):
(a) greater support needed to build up a stronger secretariat;
(b) a one-stop shop for information needed;
(c) better contact needed with all focal points of the EAS and of the West
and Central African Action Plan (WACAF).
11. RCU of the Abidjan Convention and West and Central African Action Plan
(WACAF/RCU):
(a) need for financial contributions from the countries of the region;
(b) lack of communications capacities at the regional level and between the
RCU and the Steering Committee for better dissemination of information;
(c) need for catalytic support for establishing a working communications network
between the RCU and member States, as well as among member States;
(d) need for stronger government commitment.
12. EAS/WACAF Joint Umbrella Mechanism:
(a) need for financial resources;
(b) the great difference in the economic capacities of the different members
means that the poorer stakeholders could lose confidence in their convention;
(c) need for strong UNEP support;
(d) the Joint Umbrella Mechanism should become self-sufficient;
(e) for EAS, projects need to be better aligned with the aims of the Convention;
(f) in light of new developments, new provisions are needed in the Conventions.
13. Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (Helsinki Commission):
(a) the need to discuss a new role for the private sector and non-governmental
organizations;
(b) the need for international financing institutions to reconsider the concept
of guarantees given by municipalities;
(c) the need to upgrade the monitoring programme;
(d) the problems posed by agriculture;
(e) the need for strong political support from governments and coordination
of actions within the national governments.
14. RCU for the Caribbean Environment Programme (CAR/RCU):
(a) the need to involve the private sector (e.g. tourism, industry, oil) and
explain to members of that sector precisely what the programme does;
(b) the need for better coordination with the global environmental conventions
for the implementation of actions at the regional level and as follow up to
memorandums of understanding;
(c) the need for a better mechanism for coordination with UNEP headquarters
and with GEF for management support in project implementation;
(d) the need to examine how best to sell and promote the programme’s
activities to governments;
(e) the need to go beyond the usual funding sources in the leveraging of financial
resources.
15. Caspian Environment Programme:
(a) the need for the programme to be given the status of a convention, cognisant
of the fact that UNEP was working hard to that end and that there was the outstanding
issue of the legal status of the Caspian Sea;
(b) the need for countries’ commitment;
(c) the need to educate governments as to the benefits and values of environmental
improvements;
(d) the need for donor commitment, instead of provision of short-term finance
tranches, which subsequently end abruptly, with a concomitant effect on country
commitment;
(e) the need for a realistic approach and an understanding that some problems
can only be solved in the long term, requiring a long-term commitment from countries.
16. Black Sea Environment Programme (Bucharest Convention)
(a) ecosystem degradation from eutrophication and the over exploitation of
marine and coastal resources;
(b) inadequate sewage collection and treatment;
(c) industrial hot spots;
(d) lack of port reception facilities and high risks of accidental pollution;
(e) future financial requirements.
17. Permanent Commission for the South Pacific (CPPS):
(a) the need for financial resources;
(b) unsuitable mariculture, leading to declining shrimp production;
(c) introduction of exotic species through ship ballast;
(d) climate change and the effects of El Niño on the coastal zone;
(e) lack of resources for sewage treatment.
Annex 4
CONSULTATION HELD IN MONACO ON THE STURGEON
(9 October 2000)
1. An evening consultation was organized with key players already present in
Monaco at the Third Global Meeting of Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans
to discuss the general situation of the sturgeon in the Caspian Sea. Representatives
were invited from the Caspian Environment Programme, the Bucharest Convention
RCU, UNEP/WCMC, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), CITES and the
Convention on Migratory Species (CMS). The latter two have asked UNEP to take
the lead on sturgeon as a "horizontal" issue affecting migratory endangered
species.
2. Major conservation, political and "symbolic" implications of the
issue:
(a) Sturgeon is shaping up as a test-case for international action to control
gross over-exploitation of fisheries, and as a specific test for CITES in the
marine area.
(b) CITES listed all the main caviar-producing species of sturgeon in Appendix
II in 1997. The objective was - and still is - to encourage sustainable trade
in a multi-million dollar wildlife resource. But in the absence of enforceable
quotas and effective co-operation between the Caspian states with the exception
of Iran, overfishing has reached catastrophic levels threatening the commercial
extinction of most species.
(c) International caviar trade is reported to be largely controlled by organized
crime, protected by local police and officials in their pay. It is the most
lucrative wildlife commerce in the world.
(d) The CITES Animals Committee in December will consider setting sustainable
quotas for caviar under the "Significant Trade" process. Zero quotas
- which would amount to a world ban on legal trade in caviar - are possible.
However, a large underground trade would continue with major implications for
enforcement in producing and consuming countries. There would be the possibility
of a challenge to the quotas at the WTO, and socio-economic implications for
fishing communities. CITES would need to ensure that a trade ban was scientifically
watertight; UNEP would be asked to defend it.
(e) As with corals, the world community is looking for tangible action from
UNEP. For example, can UNEP mobilize practical enforcement support such as patrol
boats, from other CITES Parties to help Caspian States? At present rates of
exploitation, sturgeon will be commercially extinct before we ever establish
a Regional Convention for the Caspian.
3. Key questions for the consultation:
(a) What value added can UNEP including the Conventions deliver now in the
face of the crisis facing sturgeon fisheries and species?
(b) Does CITES need support in preparing for a caviar trade ban?
(c) Can CMS and CBD do more?
(d) What should be the political message from UNEP HQ?
(e) What can the UN system do as a whole, including FAO?
4. Results of the Meeting: The sturgeon consultation in Monaco revealed both
the gravity of the crisis and uncertainties about how to tackle it. UNEP was
able to facilitate discussions between CITES and the Caspian Environment Programme.
The latter had serious reservations – supported to some extent by previous
experience in the Baltic – about a CITIES Caviar trade ban for all Caspian
populations except those in the Iranian sector, which are still managed reasonably
well. There were also valuable contributions from CBD, CMS, the Bucharest Convention
and WCMC. In the end, a combination of stick (short-term trade ban) and carrot
(investment in proper management of sturgeon stocks and assistance to root out
mafia control of the trade) may be the optimal combination. All agreed that
an early consultative meeting involving UNEP, CITES, CBD, CMS, CEP, FAO, UNDP,
legitimate traders, producers, the Caspian authorities and funding agencies
was advisable before the CITES trade prohibitions process gathered pace. This
is now being arranged by UNEP’s Division of Environmental Conventions
with the cooperation of other UN agencies and is likely to take place in February
2001.
Annex 5
Consultative Meeting on Cooperation between UNEP and the Advisory
Committee on the Protection of the Sea (ACOPS) in support
of Regional Seas Programmes in Sub-Saharan Africa
(8 November 2000)
1. An evening consultation on the implementation of the GEF Medium-Sized Project
on the Development and Protection of the Coastal and Marine Environment in Sub-Saharan
Africa was held on 8 November. Participants included Jorge E. Illueca, Assistant
Executive Director, Division of Environmental Conventions; Viktor Sebek, Executive
Director, ACOPS; and Stjepan Keckes, ACOPS consultant. A principal outcome of
the project will be the presentation of interventions addressing regional priority
problems to the Partnership Conference for the Development and Protection of
the Coastal and Marine Environment in Sub-Saharan Africa scheduled for June
2002. The project is being implemented in support of the decisions of the Maputo
and Cape Town Conferences on the African Process for the Development and Protection
of the Coastal and Marine Environment, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa. It
is designed to identify problems of the marine and coastal environment in the
geographic areas covered by the Abidjan and Nairobi Conventions and to prepare
proposals for their solution or mitigation that will be submitted to a donors
conference in late 2001 or early 2002.
2. The project is a direct contribution to the strengthening of the Abidjan
and Nairobi Conventions and their action plans, and is intended to be implemented
in the closest possible cooperation with the institutional structures of these
conventions. UNEP as the secretariat of these conventions is envisaged to play
a prominent role in the implementation of the project. In response to the Cape
Town Conference decision requesting UNEP to take measures to vitalize the two
Sub-Saharan regional seas conventions, UNEP has established within the Division
of Environmental Conventions a Joint Umbrella Mechanism for coordinating the
Secretariats of the Abidjan and Nairobi Conventions.
3. With the understanding that the Division of Environment Conventions is guiding
and coordinating the UNEP-supported regional seas programmes, it was suggested
that, taking into account the present status of the project, an early meeting
should be organized between the staff of DEC and ACOPS directly involved in
the implementation of this project. The purpose of this encounter would be to
discuss and agree on a detailed technical workplan for UNEP’s involvement
in the project in the general framework of the MOU signed between UNEP and ACOPS.
Arrangements for the preparation of such a meeting should be made during the
forthcoming meetings of the projects Steering Group and the Preparatory Committee
for the Donor Conference (The Hague, 25-27 November 2000) which the Assistant
Executive Director of DEC, or his representative, will attend.
Annex 6
Consultative Meeting on Cooperation among the GPA, CBD and Regional Seas
on Conservation of Coastal and Marine Resources
(11 November 2000)
1. On 11 November 2000, within the framework of the Third Global Meeting of
the Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans, a half-a-day session was held
for an exchange of ideas between the representatives of the regional seas conventions
and action plans and the secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity
and the UNEP/GPA Coordination Office. Representatives of other convention secretariats
and of intergovernmental organizations also participated. In doing so, the meeting
considered document UNEP/GPA/CBD/1/2, “Memorandum of Cooperation between
the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Coordination
Office of the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment
from Land-Based Activities”. The meeting also addressed the preparation
of a strategic action plan for addressing physical alterations and destruction
of habitats with the aim of implementing complimentary actions contained in
the GPA and the Jakarta Mandate.
2. The meeting endorsed the general approach outlined to addressing the physical
alteration and destruction of habitats, one of the GPA’s 9 source pollutant
categories, as set out in the flow chart submitted to the meeting, noting that
it was necessary to place more stress on the socioeconomic aspects. The representatives
of the Cartagena Convention and of the Barcelona Convention pointed out that
the proposed approach in fact reflected the approach taken in their respective
protocols on land-based sources of pollution.
3. The meeting stressed the need to ensure cooperation between the Global International
Waters Assessment (GIWA), the GPA and the Convention on Biological Diversity
and the regional seas conventions and action plans, with the aim to ensure complementary
ties and synergies.
4. Concerning the GPA clearing-house mechanism, it was noted that the secretariats
of the regional seas conventions and action plans held extensive information
on data and activities in the regions, particularly concerning specially protected
areas and activities concerning land-based sources of pollution.
Recommendations
5. It was agreed that the secretariats of the GPA and the Convention on Biological
Diversity would develop a more concrete and focused version of the strategy
to address physical alteration and destruction of habitats and submit it to
the regional seas conventions and action plans for their review and comments,
focusing on regional-level aspects.
6. As a complementary follow-up for the memorandum of understanding between
the Convention on Biological Diversity and the GPA, the meeting agreed that
interested regional seas conventions and action plans would develop an annex,
to be appended to the memorandum, giving a detailed focus on the specificities
of the region and the concrete areas of cooperation. The memorandum would enter
into force regardless of the state of preparedness of the annexes, which could
be prepared by regions within their own time frames. In cooperation with the
Division of Environmental Conventions, the GPA Coordination Office would prepare
a model format for the annexes, to give regions an idea of the information they
could provide.
7. The meeting also agreed that the regional seas conventions and action plans
would examine in detail the four activities listed in the work plan annexed
to the memorandum of cooperation between the CBD and the GPA secretariats and
submit their comments, together with details on how they could provide inputs
to them.
8. The revised strategy on physical alterations and destruction of habitats
and the regional annexes to the memorandum of cooperation would also be a concrete
input into the 2001 GPA Intergovernmental Review meeting.
9. Concerning the GPA clearing-house node on physical alterations and destruction
of habitats, the meeting agreed that
(a) the regional seas conventions and action plans would discuss and review
the preliminary outline of the GPA clearing-house node and send their comments
on how it could best address some regional issues.
(b) the regional seas conventions and action plans would make available relevant
information on physical alterations and habitat destruction for use by the GPA
clearing-house that should also be linked to the CBD clearing-house mechanism,
thus permitting a user-friendly and rapid exchange of valuable information among
the regions.
10. It was noted that, on all matters pertaining to the above agreements, the
point of contact would be the UNEP/GPA Coordination Office.
[1]For the 2002 International Year of Ecotourism, the World Tourism Organization
(WTO) and UNEP will be the lead agencies. The events of this year will provide
regional seas programmes with the opportunity to demonstrate the work that they
are doing in the field of tourism. The World Summit on Ecotourism will be held
in Québec, Canada from 19-22 May 2002.
|
