Managing the managers: improving the structure and operation of small fisheries departments,...

Oceans, Coasts, and IslandsMobilizing for Implementation of the

Commitments Made at the2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development

Global Conference on

Global Conference, UNESCO, Paris, November 12-14, 2003

WORLDBANKINSTITUTE

Fisheries andOceans, Canada

Internat ionalOcean Institute

NATIONALO C E A N SOFFICE

Austra l iaU N E S C O

PRE-CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS VOLUME

3

Table of Contents

Foreword.......................................................................................................................................................5

CHINA’S ACTION FOR MARINE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENTSun Zhihui, State Oceanic Administration, China..............................................................................................7

PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES IN THE IMPLEMENTATIONOF WSSD COMMITMENTS: THE INDIAN PERSPECTIVEHarsh K. Gupta, Secretary to the Government of India....................................................................................11

WSSD IMPLEMENTATION IN EAST ASIAChua Thia-Eng, PEMSEA..............................................................................................................................15

CHALLENGES AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS FOR ACHIEVING SYNERGIESAT THE REGIONAL LEVEL ON OCEAN AND COASTAL GOVERNANCEGunnar Kullenberg, International Ocean Institute............................................................................................25

TOWARDS A REGIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR INTEGRATEDCOASTAL AREA MANAGEMENT IN THE MEDITERRANEANHarry Coccosis, University of Thessaly...........................................................................................................31

VOLGA/CASPIAN BASIN. REGIONAL CO-OPERATION – BENEFITSAND PROBLEMSI. Oliounine, International Ocean Institute .......................................................................................................35

MANAGING THE MANAGERS: IMPROVING THE STRUCTURE ANDOPERATION OF FISHERIES DEPARTMENTS IN SIDSRobin Mahon and Patrick McConney, University of the West Indies.................................................................39

ENVIRONMENT OUTLOOK OF SMALL ISLAND DEVELOPING STATESSherry Heileman and Marion Cheatle, United Nations Environment Programme................................................43

BEYOND THE LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION? STATUS AND PROSPECTSOF THE LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION AT THE 20TH ANNIVERSARYTullio Treves, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, and University of Milano........................................45

A SUGGESTED CALL TO ACTION BY THE OCEANS FORUM ONCARRYING OUT THE WSSD PLAN OF IMPLEMENTATIONXavier Pastor, I. L. Pep. Fuller, Jorge Varela, Oceana......................................................................................49

SHIP & OCEAN FOUNDATION’S PERSPECTIVES ON WSSD IMPLEMENTATIONHiroshi Terashima, Ship & Ocean Foundation..................................................................................................53

CAPACITY BUILDING IN SUPPORT OF WSSD IMPLEMENTATIONFrancois Bailet, International Ocean Institute...................................................................................................57

4

SUSTAINABILITY AND VIABILITY: REINFORCING THECONCEPTS OF THE JOHANNESBURG DECLARATION ONSUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENTEduardo Marone, International Ocean Institute, andPaulo da Cunha Lana, Federal University of Parana.......................................................................................63

OBSTACLES TO ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENTLawrence Juda, University of Rhode Island...................................................................................................67

WHEN CAN MARINE PROTECTED AREAS IMPROVEFISHERIES MANAGEMENT?Serge Garcia et al., United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization............................................................73

THE REGIONAL MANAGEMENT OF FISHERIESHance D Smith, Cardiff University................................................................................................................77

DEVELOPING A CAPABLE, RELEVANT NETWORK TO ADDRESSMARINE AND COASTAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS ANDFOOD SECURITY IN AFRICA AND NEIGHBOURINGSMALL ISLAND DEVELOPING STATES (SIDS)Grant Trebble, AMCROPS...........................................................................................................................81

TARGETING DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO MEET WSSD GOALSRELATED TO MARINE ECOSYSTEMSAlfred Duda, Global Environment Facility.......................................................................................................85

A FISHERMAN’S PERSPECTIVE ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENTAND THE GLOBAL OCEANS AGENDAPietro Parravano, World Forum of Fish Harvesters & Fishworkers..................................................................89

PERSPECTIVES ON GLOBAL FUNDING MECHANISMS FOROCEANS, COASTS AND ISLANDSScott Smith, The Nature Conservancy............................................................................................................93

THE WORLD OCEAN OBSERVATORY A FORUM FOR OCEAN AFFAIRSPeter Neill, South Street Seaport Museum..................................................................................................... 97

BUILDING A CONSERVATION VISION FOR THEGRAND BANKS OF NEWFOUNDLAND, CANADACharlotte Breide and Robert Rangely, World Wildlife Fund International...........................................................99

PROGRESS TOWARDS A TEN-YEAR HIGH SEAS MARINEPROTECTED AREA STRATEGYKristina M. Gjerde, International Union for Conservation of Nature.................................................................103

GLOBAL CONFERENCE ON OCEANS, COASTS, AND ISLANDS

This Pre-Conference Volume contains the papers prepared for the Global Conference on Oceans, Coasts, andIslands: Mobilizing for Implementation of the Commitments Made at the 2002 World Summit on SustainableDevelopment, held on 12-14 November 2003 at UNESCO Headquarters in Paris.

The major purposes of the Conference are to review what has been done to date in implementing the WSSDcommitments, and to catalyze action on WSSD implementation through collaboration among governments, interna-tional organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector. The conference focuses, as well, onapproaches to mobilizing public and private sector support for the global oceans agenda, and on the identification ofemerging ocean issues. More specifically, the Conference aims to:

1) Focus on useful strategies for and experiences in implementing the commitments made at the World Summit onSustainable Development at global, regional, and national levels, through discussions among experts from govern-ments, international organizations, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector.

2) Discuss emerging issues on oceans, coasts, and islands for which international consensus is still to be reached.

3) Develop strategies for mobilizing private sector involvement and increased public awareness on oceans, coasts,and islands, to insure continued support for theglobal oceans agenda.

The Global Conference is organized by the Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts, and Islands, comprised of individualsfrom governments, intergovernmental and international organizations (IOs), and nongovernmental organizations(NGOs), with the common goals of advancing the interest of oceans— incorporating 72% of the Earth; coasts—the home of 50% of the world’s population, and islands—43 of the world’s nations are small island developingstates, which are especially dependent on the oceans. The Forum was created at the World Summit on SustainableDevelopment in Johannesburg in September 2002 by the WSSD Informal Coordinating Group on Oceans, Coastsand Islands.

Many thanks are due to the Secretariat staff of the Global Forum for their tireless work in the Conference preparations,especially to Jorge Gutierrez and Kevin Goldstein for their work on this volume. We would also like to thank all of theConference participants for their contributions in this important step toward implementation of the WSSDCommitments.

Co-Chairs of the Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts and IslandsDr. Veerle VandeweerdCoordinatorGlobal Programme of Actionfor the Protection of the Marine Environmentfrom Land-based ActivitiesUnited Nations Environment Programme

Dr. Patricio BernalExecutive SecretaryIntergovernmental OceanographicCommissionUnited Nations Educational,Scientific and Cultural Organization

Dr. Biliana Cicin-SainDirectorGerard J. Mangone Centerfor Marine PolicyUniversity of Delaware

5

Foreword

November 12-14, 2003 UNESCO, Paris

6


7 |


Ocean Agenda 21, providing the guidelines for marine sus-tainable development and utilization. In recent years, particularlysince WSSD in 2002, to implement the Johannesburg Declarationon Sustainable Development and the Plan of Implementation, Chinapromulgated the National Marine Functional Zonation Scheme in2002, and issued/approved the National Programming Compen-dium on Marine Economic Development in May of this year. Be-sides, China recently revised the Fishery Law and Law on MarineEnvironment Protection, and put into force the law on Manage-ment of Sea Area Use and other marine-related laws and regula-tions. In this regard, I would like elaborate on some of the specificand important actions China has taken to realize the marine sus-tainable development.

PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING

China Ocean Agenda 21

China formulated the China Ocean agenda 21, which set forththe strategy, objectives, countermeasures and major action areas.

The overall objective is to restore healthy marine ecosystem,develop rational marine development system, and promote themarine sustainable development.

The countermeasures include: guiding the establishment andexpansion of marine industry on the principle of sustainable de-velopment; placing equal stress on development and social andeconomic sustainable development; gradually solving the con-straint problems such as freshwater and energy shortage in coastalareas by means of well-planned marine development activities;sustainably utilizing the resources of islands and protecting itsecologic balance and its biodiversity; setting up marine protectedareas such as coral reef, mangrove and sea grass bed, spawninggrounds, protecting special species and ecosystem; promotingthe sustainable development by reliance of science and technol-ogy; establishing ICM system; intensifying ocean observations,forecasting, disaster warning and mitigation; strengthening inter-national cooperation; enhancing public awareness.

National Programming Compendium on Marine Economy

To provide macro guidance, coordination and programming,the State Council approved and publicized the National Program-ming Compendium on Marine Economy this year. The main ma-

rine industries referred to include marine fisheries, marine trans-portation, oil and gas, tourism, ship, sea salt and chemical engi-neering, seawater desalination and comprehensive utilization,marine biological medicines. The programming period lasts 10years from 2001 to 2010.

The principles of the Compendium is adhering to the principleof placing equal stress on economical development and protec-tion of resources and environment; intensifying the protectionand construction of marine ecological environment; accommo-dating the development scale and growth to the carrying capacityof environment, etc.

The overall objective of marine economy, put forward in theCompendium, is to increase the contribution of marine economyin the National Economy, optimize the marine economy structureand industry layout, rapidly develop backbone industries andnew-booming industries, apparently improved the quality of ma-rine ecological environment. The GDP derived from the marineeconomy will amount to 4% of national total by 2005, and over 5%by 2010.

The Compendium also puts forward the following objectivesof the protection of biological environment and resources: theamount of main pollutants into the sea in 2005 will be reduced by10% compared to 2000. Further improve the capability to monitorred tide, make efforts to mitigate the loss by red tide, graduallyrealize the conservation and sustainable utilization at key rivermouth, wetlands and tidal flats.

The National Marine Functional Zonation Scheme

To plan all relevant ocean-related use as a whole, protect andameliorate the ecological environment, promote the sustainableuse of sea area; secure the safety at sea, the State Council ap-proved the National Marine Functional Zonation Scheme in 2002,which provides a scientific basis for sea area use managementand environmental protection, to ensure a sound development ofnational economy.

In this scheme, in light of the requirement of location, naturalresources and utilization, all jurisdictional sea areas are dividedinto ten types of functional areas for port and transportation,utilization and conservation of fisheries, tourism, and marine re-serve, and so on.

CHINA’S ACTION FORMARINE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Sun ZhihuiDeputy Administrator, State Oceanic Administration

1 Fuxingmenwai Ave, Beijing,phone: 86-10-68019791Email: [email protected]


| 8

LEGISLATION

Based on the United Nations Convention on the Law of theSea, the Law on Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone of the People’sRepublic of China and the Law on Exclusive Economic Zone andContinental Shelf of the People’s Republic of China , in recentyears China has stipulated or amended following laws:

The Law on Management of Sea Area Use

In order to protect the ownership of the national sea area andthe legitimate rights and interest of the users of the sea area,prevent exhaustive development and utilization of the marine re-sources, protect the marine ecological environment, ensure sci-entific and rational use of the marine resources, and promote sus-tainable development of the marine economy, the NationalPeople’s Congress promulgated the Law on Management of SeaArea Use and put it into effect as of 1 January 2002.

This law has established the following three basic systems:the sea area entitlement system, the marine functional zoning sys-tem and the sea area paid-use system. The sea area entitlementsystem clearly defined that the sea area is owned by the State,and any organization or individual who intends to use the seaarea, must apply in advance according to relevant regulations.They are entitled to use the sea area only after approval from thegovernment. The marine functional zoning system is the founda-tion for marine development and management, under which thesea area is divided into different types of functional zones ac-cording to the standard of the functions of the sea area and theoptimum order of functions of the sea area use so as to controland guide the direction of the sea area use and provide scientificbasis for rational use of the sea area. The sea area paid-use sys-tem embodied that the sea area is the state-owned asset, and anyorganization or individual who intends to use the sea area to carryout production and business activities must pay for sea area use.According to the provisions, the fee of sea area use may be re-duced or exempted based on the purpose of use.

The Marine Environment Protection Law of the People’sRepublic of China

In order to protect and improve the marine environment moreeffectively, protect marine resources, prevent pollution damage,ensure human health, and promote sustainable development ofthe economy and society, the National People’s Congress amendedthe original Marine Environment ProtectionLaw of the People’s Republic of China, and put it into effect as ofApril 2000.

The amended Marine Environment Protection Law providesthat “the State shall establish and implement the control systemfor gross pollutants discharged into the sea in the key areas,define the index of gross control of the major pollutants dischargedinto the sea, and distribute the controlled discharge volume forthe major pollution sources”.

Some new contents have been added in this amended Law,mainly including: protection of marine ecology, prevention of thepollution damage to the marine environment by land-sources pol-lutants, prevention of the pollution damage to the marine envi-

ronment by coastal construction projects, prevention the pollu-tion damage to the marine environment by marine constructionprojects, prevention of the pollution damage to the marine envi-ronment by dumping at sea, and prevention of the pollution dam-age to the marine environment by ships and other related opera-tion activities.

The Fishery Law of the People’s Republic of China

In order to strengthen protection, propagation, developmentand utilization of the fishery resources, the National People’sCongress amended the Fishery Law of the People’s Republic ofChina recently.

The amended Fishery Law provides that “the State shall de-termine the total catch ability based on the principle that the catchis lower than the increase of the fishery resources and practicefishing quota system. The state shall practice fishing license sys-tem for the fish catching industry”. Besides, the law also pro-vided the propagation and protection of the fishery.

Regulations on Management of Protection and Utilization ofthe Uninhabited Islands

Recently China has just promulgated the Regulations onManagement of Protection and Utilization of the Uninhabited Is-lands for the purpose of strengthening the management of theuninhabited islands and protecting the island ecological environ-ment of the uninhabited islands. Although it is only a regulatorydocument at present, it will play a positive role to a large extent inthe protection of the islands and their resources since there is noformal legislation for the islands in China now.

The regulations have clearly defined that “the State shall imple-ment the system of functional zoning and protection and utiliza-tion planning for the uninhabited islands, encourage rational de-velopment and utilization of the uninhabited islands, strictly re-strict such activities that cause damage to the uninhabited is-lands and the marine environment and natural landscape aroundthem as explosion, excavation of the sand and gravels, construc-tion of dams to link the islands. The uninhabited islands that areof special value for protection and the sea area around them willbe built into marine nature reserves or special marine protectedareas, etc., according to law through application by the compe-tent oceanic administrative agencies above the county level.

In addition, according to the Law on Territorial Sea and Con-tiguous Zone of the People’s Republic of China and the Law onExclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf of the People’sRepublic of China, etc., other laws and regulations concerningocean administrative management have been stipulated and pro-mulgated by the State Council such as the Regulations on Dump-ing of Wastes at Sea, Regulations of the People’s Republic ofChina Concerning Environmental Protection in Offshore Oil Ex-ploration and Exploitation, Regulations on Management of theFishing Permit, etc.

9 |


MANAGEMENT

Management of the sea area use

The public awareness is increasing continuously, and thesupporting bylaw system has been gradually completed. The four-level marine functional zoning system involving the central gov-ernment, provincial government, municipal government and thecounty government has primarily taken shape. Above two thirdsof the cities and counties of the 11 coastal provinces and munici-palities have completed the drafting of their functional zonationscheme and most of them have been approved and implemented.The sea-area-use rights confirmation and certificates issuancehave been carried out steadily. The phenomena of irrational useof the sea area have been comprehensively straightened out. Themanagement of collection of the fee for sea area use has beenstrengthened which has ensured maintenance and increase of thevalue of the national resources assets of the sea area. Boundarydelimitation of the administrative divisions has been carried outin an all-round way. The construction of demonstration sites formanagement of sea area use at national level has gained promi-nent results and 30 national-level demonstration sites for man-agement of sea area use have been established.

Management of the marine environment

The supporting regulations and bylaw system have been per-fected. The Environmental Protection Program has been formulat-ing. The national marine environmental monitoring and assess-ment have been enhanced. The three-level marine monitoringoperational systems involving the central government, provincialgovernment and municipal government have preliminarily comeinto being. The red-tide monitoring has been intensified, and theoceanic administrative agencies of the coastal local governmentshave put in place a monitoring system and an emergency responsesystem in the red-tide monitoring and control area. Protection ofmarine ecology has also been consolidated, and 76 marine naturereserves, among which 21 are at the national level and 55 at thelocal level, have been set up. Some representative marine ecosys-tems of rare and endangered marine animals, mangroves and coralreefs have been brought under protection. In 2002, the nationalmarine ecological investigation was carried out, which lasted for 8months. And strict supervision and management of dumping atsea and prevention of the pollution caused by marine construc-tion projects has been strengthened.

Management of the marine fishery resources

In response to the significant impact of the new internationalmarine legal regime brought forth by the UNCLOS, China is work-ing out and implementing relevant policies and measures to guidethe fishermen to reduce the number of fishing boats and turn toother jobs. Some provincial governments allot financial subsidiesfor the fishermen and direct them to shift to non-catching indus-tries.

China is carrying out the general investigation of fishingboatsexploring actively the system of quota management of thefishery resources and the compulsory end-of-life system for fish-ing boats, reducing gradually the number of fishing boats, andcontrolling fishing intensity. China is also continuously carrying

out fishery administration and effectively practicing the systemof fishing closed season in summer, for 2^3 months a year, involv-ing over a million of the fishermen. Positive progress has beenachieved in the protection and management of the ecological en-vironment in fishing areas. Pilot projects on artificial fish reefshave been carried out in provinces of Guangdong, Zhejiang andFujian, etc. and they are actively exploring the measures to re-cover the ecological environment in the near-shore areas.

Marine public service

Through decades of development, comparatively completesystem for marine environmental monitoring and forecast servicehas been established to carry out real-time operational forecastfor storm surges, sea waves, sea ice and seawater temperature. Atthe same time, research on the phased forecast and pre-warningof various kinds of marine hazards such as the phenomena of ElNino and La Nina, coastal erosion, the seawater flowing intru-sion, as well as sea level rise has been conducted. This work hasplayed an important role in prevention and mitigation of the ma-rine disaster as well as in the service to the sea-related trades.Since last year, in particular, we have initiated the environmentalforecasting for the major bathing beach in the country. The fore-casts are made public timely through China Central Television(CCTV) and other major news media. We have started the reporton environmental quality for aquaculture in the monitoring andcontrol areas of the red-tides, which provides good guidance inthe local fishery and aquaculture production.

FUTURE EFFORTS TO TAKE

In response to the calls of the Summit Conference on Sustain-able Development and carry out well the plans of implementationof Agenda 21, China will put greater emphasis to push forward thework in the following fields:

a. Perfect the planning and programming system and work outthe National Environmental Protection Program and integratedmanagement programs for key sea areas like the Bohai Sea.

b. Perfect the marine legal system and realize more effectivemarine/coastal integrated management;

c. Perfect the marine environmental monitoring system andassessment system, set up ecological monitoring and control ar-eas, and continue to strengthen the construction and manage-ment of marine protected areas;

d. Improve the capability to prevent and mitigate marine di-sasters, and complete marine service system;

e. Consolidate development, utilization and protection of theuninhabited islands;

f. Promote international cooperation in the region, and furtherpush primarily such international programs as the Marine Sus-tainable Development Strategy for the Seas of East Asia, as wellas such projects on the Protection of the Marine Biodiversity inthe south China seas and Protection and on the Management ofthe Large Marine Ecosystem in the Yellow Sea(YSLME) in coop-eration with GEF and other related countries.


| 10

11 |


PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES IN THEIMPLEMENTATION OF WSSD COMMITMENTS:

THE INDIAN PERSPECTIVEDr. Harsh .K. Gupta

Secretary to Government of India, Department of Ocean Development,CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003

Tel: +91-11 24360874, Fax: +91-11-24362644e-mail: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION

The vital role of oceans in sustaining life on planet Earth hasbeen recognised in India from its ancient past. An integral part ofthe global sustainable development process, oceans, coasts andislands support a diverse array of activities yielding enormouseconomic and social benefits. The Earth Summit of 1992 and theWorld Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) of 2002brought the global community to address holistically and collec-tively, among other issues, the ecological, economic, and socialimportance of oceans, coasts, and islands for the global well-be-ing and to prepare a time-bound action plan that need to be imple-mented with synergy of several actors. It is heartening to note thatocean, coasts and islands received the due importance in theWSSD, as indicated in its major outcomes viz. (a) Plan of Imple-mentation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development, (b)the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development and(c) Partnership initiatives to strengthen the implementation ofAgenda 21.

The WSSD has given us a time-bound action plan over a widespectrum of areas covering fisheries, biodiversity and ecosystemfunctions, marine pollution, maritime transportation, marine sci-ence, small islands, developing States and several related cross-sectoral aspects. The Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts and Is-lands is indeed an important platform for ensuring this imple-mentation process. India would be pleased to join this global ef-fort, particularly by contributing to Indian Ocean region, and fo-cussing her national efforts in ocean development.

THE INDIAN OCEAN.-.A COMPLEX OCEANICREALM

The Indian Ocean, the third largest ocean in the world has aunique geographic setting with more than 1.5 billion populationaround, who are predominantly agrarian and monsoon-dependant.The frequent cyclones of the Bay of Bengal, the unique bio-geochemical processes of Arabian Sea as well as the bi-annualreversal of monsoon winds and currents make the Indian Ocean acomplex oceanic realm. The Indian Ocean has been a subject ofserious concern for the countries around this region as well as theinternational community. It is also recognised that, as comparedto the Atlantic and Pacific, the Indian Ocean still lacks systematicobservations that are essential for understanding the oceanic pro-

cesses and their impact on the sustainable development globallyand within the region in particular.

India has a coastline of about 7500 kilometres, and the seasaround India influence the life of about 370 million coastal popu-lations and the living of 7 million fishing community. We havethe two island systems viz, Andaman & Nicobar and Lakshadweepwith their special geographical connection with the seas aroundthem. Further, we have a fragile but precious coastal ecosystemthat needs to be preserved for the posterity.

THE VISION AND PERSPECTIVE PLAN 2015 FOROCEAN DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA

Our recognition of the intricate and long-term role that theocean plays in determining our environment and the equally criti-cal role that we play in modifying its characteristics coupled withour realisation of the incompleteness of the understanding thatwe have on this complex process, have been the driving force forsetting out, in the year 2002, a Vision and Perspective Plan 2015for Ocean Development in India. The mission is to improve ourunderstanding of the ocean, especially the Indian Ocean, for sus-tainable development of ocean resources, improving livelihood,and for timely warnings of coastal hazards. The Vision 2015 hingesaround improving our understanding of ocean processes throughconceiving and implementing long-term observationalprogrammes and incubating cutting edge marine technology sothat we are able to (i) improve understanding of the Indian Oceanand its various inter-related processes, (ii) assess the living andnon-living resources of our seas and their sustainable level ofutilization, (iii) contribute to the forecast of the course of themonsoon and extreme events, (iv) model sustainable uses of thecoastal zone for decision-making, (v) forge partnerships with In-dian Ocean neighbours through the awareness and concept of oneocean, (vi) secure recognition for the interests of India and theIndian Ocean in regional and international bodies. This vision iscongruent with the WSSD outcome on oceans, coasts and islands.

The national agenda for ocean development in India during thecoming decades, as set out in the perspective plan are:

• Promoting ocean science, supporting technologydevelopment and strengthening observations, so as tocontinuously improve our understanding of local andremote processes,


| 12

• Modelling sustainable uses of the coastal zone andreliably predicting extreme events,

• Understanding the influence of the ocean on monsoonsand contributing to the capability to forecast it,

• Strengthening programmes in the southern ocean andAntarctica that offer unlimited opportunities to studyplanet Earth in its pristine state,

• Mapping ocean resources and evolving guidelines forproper stewardship so that they are sustainably utilizedwith minimal environmental impact,

• Developing reliable and safe deep sea technology thatpermits man to understand, quantify and harness oceanresources,

• Partnering Indian Ocean neighbours in mutuallybeneficial programmes,

• Creating awareness in stakeholders about the complexfunctioning of the ocean and the inherent limits topredictability of ocean processes, and

• Creating an Ocean Commission as a national frame-work so that national efforts on ocean issues areeffectively coordinated.

GOOS REGIONAL ALLIANCE IN INDIAN OCEAN

The Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) of the Inter-governmental Oceanographic Commission, evolved in 1992 andco-sponsored by WMO, UNEP and ICSU, is an internationallyorganized system for effective management of the marine envi-ronment and sustainable utilisation of its natural resources. Alongwith the Global Climate Observing System and the Global terres-trial Observing System, GOOS would be playing a key role in theobservation of ocean, atmosphere and land. GOOS envisages (i)an internationally accepted global design to address the broadrealms of ocean & climate and coastal ocean, (ii) a set of regionalalliances of countries that will focus on issues of common con-cerns and interests of the region and (iii) national contributionsfor implementation of the observational systems.

India is playing an important role for ocean observations inthe Indian Ocean by (i) leading the process of establishing of theGOOS Regional Alliance - IOGOOS - for the Indian Ocean re-gion in November 2002 (ii) being called upon to host IOGOOSSecretariat for the next 6 years as well as to lead IOGOOS in thecoming years to formulate and guide projects on Ocean observa-tions and applications of common concern in the region and (iii)taking decisive roles in IOC and other important internationalforum pertaining to GOOS. Already 19 Institutions from Austra-lia, India, Iran, Kenya, Mauritius, Madagascar, Mozambique,Reunion, South Africa and Sri Lanka have become Members ofIOGOOS and a few more are expected to join soon.

IOGOOS, along with a group of experts has initiated several

time-bound actions in the area of ocean & climate, coastal ocean,data management and satellite applications, such as:

• IOGOOS Workshop on “Capacity Building andStrategy for Data and Information Management” to beheld in December 2003 at Colombo, as a prelude to theestablishment of ocean data and information networkfor the Indian Ocean,

• IOGOOS Workshop on “Marine Biodiversity” to beheld in December 2003 at Goa to evolve a strategy andaction plan for long-term sustained monitoring ofcoastal and ocean biodiversity in the region,

• Formulation of a “Strategy for Capacity Building inthe Indian Ocean region on remote sensing applicationsfor oceanographic and coastal studies”,

• Setting up of a “Joint CLIVAR/IOC-GOOS IndianOcean Panel on Climate” that would coordinate andplan a unified approach to all the basin-scale observa-tions in the Indian Ocean for both research andoperational oceanography,

• Pursuing a Project proposal on Marine Impacts onLow lands Agriculture and Coastal (MILAC) resourcesjointly with JCOMM to contribute to natural disasterreduction in coastal lowland impacted by tropicalcyclones,

• Formulation of a Pilot project on the Monitoring andManagement Systems for the Shallow Water PenaeidPrawns for the Indian Ocean region, and

• Participation in the GOOS Regional AlliancesNetworking Development (GRAND) Project thatwould facilitate knowledge networking among allregional GOOS alliances and also benefit from theadvances made by EuroGOOS and MedGOOS overthe last decade.

INDIAN CONTRIBUTION TO OCEAN OBSERVING INTHE INDIAN OCEAN

India’s plan for the near future is to establish a well-plannednetwork of in-situ ocean observing system in the north IndianOcean with 150 Argo profiling floats, 40 moored data buoys, 150drifting Buoys, 4 equatorial current meter moorings, expendablebathythermograph surveys along three major shipping routes andtide gauges, complemented by satellite observations through theOceansat series of India. The progress of implementation has beenquite good.

India had the opportunity to host the Argo ImplementationPlanning Meeting in July 2001 and this marked the beginning ofArgo float deployment in the Indian Ocean by several countries.India was then called upon to be the Regional Coordinator for theinternational Argo project in the Indian Ocean and also to be theRegional Data Centre. It is satisfying to note that within a span of

13 |


two years, the Argo array in the Indian Ocean has reached 50 % ofits target (of 450 floats by 2006).

India has already deployed 31 Argo floats and 20 more arescheduled to be deployed soon. The first results with Argo dataare very encouraging. We have also mounted a national effortwith the oceanographic and atmospheric community for assimi-lation of Argo data with the end goal of improving the predict-ability of the upper ocean and our climate. Capacity building inthis area is crucial if we need to harness the full benefit from thisvaluable stream of data.

India has already established network of 20 Moored DataBuoys in both deep and shallow waters to measure a host of met-ocean parameters. Surface Drifting Buoys (for measuring sea sur-face temperature and atmospheric pressure), Current Meter Ar-rays (for time series profiles of current speed and direction atfixed locations), Expendable Bathythermographs (for tempera-ture profiles) and Tide Gauges (for sea level) in the Arabian Sea,Bay of Bengal and tropical Indian Ocean that have been provid-ing very valuable data for operational oceanography, weather fore-casting and research. There is an active programme for ship ob-servations using the four Research Vessels of the Department ofOcean Development, in addition to ships of opportunity.

STORM SURGE FORECAST FOR NORTH INDIANOCEAN

The coastal regions bordering the Bay of Bengal are severelyaffected by the storm surges associated with tropical cyclones,particularly for the East Coast of India and Bangladesh. Sincethe coastal regions are densely populated, it is important to makerealistic forecast of inundations caused by the storm for prepara-tion of contingency plan to prevent loss of life and property. Aproject entitled “Storm Surges Disaster Reduction in the North-ern part of the Indian Ocean”, aimed at development of capabil-ity and infrastructure to provide storm surge and disaster warningto save lives, reduce damage and encourage sustainable develop-ment in coastal regions had received much consideration by IOC,WMO and the International Hydrological Programme ofUNESCO in the recent past. However, this Project is yet to takeoff. JCOMM and IOGOOS are pursuing this.

Also, India has developed software for prediction of stormsurges and estimation of coastal inundation due to surges, alongthe East coast of India. Using this software and the available datasets, the path and height of storm surges have been successfullyhindcasted. It is pertinent to note that a bilateral proposal hasbeen prepared for implementation between India and Bangladeshfor operational oceanographic and hydrological storm surge pre-diction facility along with improvement of meteorological, ma-rine and hydrological observing systems and data processing sys-tems. A key component of the proposal is capacity building andhuman resources development in the region.

OCEAN INFORMATION AND ADVISORY SERVICESIN INDIA

The concerted efforts of Indian scientific community Scien-tists have culminated in a unique service to provide reliable and

timely potential fishing zone advisories using satellite data to thefishing community of the entire coastline of the country in a mis-sion mode. Frequent and intense interactions between the scien-tists and fishing community at the fishing harbours, and use of awide range of media such as fax, telephone, electronic displayboards, radio and internet have ensured that these advisories pro-vided in the local languages becomes part of the value chain ofthe fishing community. It has been validated that the search timehas been reduced by 30 to 70 % due to the usage of these adviso-ries. This is an excellent example of reaching the benefits of sci-ence to society. Experimental Ocean State forecast that is beingprovided on a daily basis is a typical example of multi-institu-tional endeavour to translate scientific knowledge into a serviceuseful for safe operations in the sea. Setting up of an Ocean Infor-mation Bank supported by a national chain of Marine Data cen-tres and Observation systems as well as Web-based on-line ser-vices with web computing capability are significant milestonestowards the mission to provide the ocean information and advi-sory services on a timely manner.

INTEGRATED COASTAL AND MARINE AREAMANAGEMENT (ICMAM)

The Agenda 21 adopted in UNCED (1992) emphasises theneed to adopt the concept of Integrated Coastal and Marine AreaManagement (ICMAM) for sustainable utilisation of coastal andmarine resources and prevention of degradation of marine envi-ronment. ICMAM project is being implemented in India from1997-98, with two major components viz. capacity building anddevelopment of infrastructure for R&D and training. The capac-ity building activities cover development of GIS-based informa-tion system for 11 critical habitats, determination of waste as-similation capacity in estuaries and coastal waters, EIA studiesand, development of ICMAM plans for major cities. A world classfacility has been created for the development of human resourcesin this important area.

COASTAL MONITORING AND PREDICTION SYSTEM

A national programme on Coastal Ocean Monitoring and Pre-diction system (COMAPS) was launched in 1991 by in India toconstantly assess the health of our marine environment and toindicate areas that need immediate and long-term remedial ac-tion. Considering the levels and sources of pollutants, the data onnearly 25 environmental parameters are being collected at 82 lo-cations in the 0-25 km sector of the entire coastline of the countryusing two dedicated vessels. Mathematical models are also beingdeveloped to predict diffusion and dispersion characteristics ofpollutants in specific areas. The data and information are regu-larly disseminated to the State Pollution Control Boards for le-gal/remedial action.

NATIONAL INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

Modern oceanographic research in the country has a heritagefour decades. Over the years, India has set up the Department ofOcean Development and a chain of leading national institutionswith primary focus on Ocean Sciences and Research, Ocean Tech-nology, Antarctic and Polar Sciences, Ocean Observation, Infor-


| 14

mation and Services, Costal Area Management, Marine Liv-ing Resources. These institutions are supported by a large net-work of academia and industry. Close interaction at both researchand operational level between the scientific community fromOcean, Atmosphere and Space has ensured that there is a seam-less flow of data, information and knowledge that percolates downto the end users, thereby getting integrated with the developmentprocess in the country.

CONCLUSION

India has been pursuing its efforts in ocean development witha missionary zeal, addressing not only the imperatives for sus-tainable development of its coasts, islands and seas around it butalso contributing to the well-being of the entire Indian Ocean re-gion. India would thus be an active contributor as well as a ben-eficiary of the implementation of the action plan on Ocean, Coastand Islands that were set out at the WSSD.

15 |


WSSD IMPLEMENTATION IN EAST ASIA

Chua Thia-EngPartnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia

Tel: (632) 926-9712Email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

For the last 10 years, countries around the Seas of East Asia(SEA) collaborated through a regional partnership programme(PEMSEA) to address their environmental concerns which poseecosystem and public health risks that undermine their food se-curity, safety at sea, and sustainable use of their coastal and oceanresources. Most of their activities are also in response to theconcerns and recommendations of UNCED and WSSD relatedto the coasts and oceans.

Major efforts focused on developing and demonstrating work-ing models on integrated coastal management, developed andtested management techniques, increased local and national ca-pacity to plan and manage their coastal and ocean resources aswell as developing management framework and platform forstakeholders collaboration. Specific focus included:

• Integrating environmental concerns into economicdevelopment plans through the implementation of seause zoning schemes and integration of sector policiesand functions of line agencies;

• Developing programmatic, ecosystem-based manage-ment strategies and action plans for managing coastalresource systems, river basin-coastal seas and largemarine ecosystems and subsystems;

• Building intergovernmental, interagency, multi-sectorand inter-sector partnerships at the local, national,and regional levels;

• Strengthening local governance by increasing localcapacity, involving stakeholders in planning andimplementation, making information more readilyavailable to the public, bringing science closer topolicymakers and economic and environmentalmanagers, and forming interagency, multi-sectorcoordinating mechanism;

• Building a regional network of local governmentpracticing integrated coastal management;

• Catalyzing public sector-private sector partnershipsfor environmental investments;

• Increasing the effectiveness of international conven-tions through regional and local implementation; and

• Addressing poverty issues which might exacerbatenon-sustainable use of living resources.

The countries also collaborated in the development of a “Sus-tainable Development Strategy for the Seas of East Asia (SDS-SEA)”. With 228 action programs, the SDS-SEA covers a widearea of concern including maritime transportation, marine pollu-tion, biodiversity, ecosystem functions, fisheries, science, smallislands and cross-sectoral issues which are also major concernsof the WSSD. The implementation of the SDS-SEA representsregional implementation of the Plan of Implementation of theWSSD for the SEA. It also provides a working platform for con-cerned partners to work together in the implementation of theWSSD. Fourteen UN, international and regional organizations,multi-lending institutions, international and regional NGOs andnational agencies have been enlisted as collaborators. They formthe key partners in the implementation of the Strategy particu-larly when it will complete its final passage for government en-dorsement at the forthcoming Ministerial Forum on December2003 in Malaysia.

INTRODUCTION

The main feature of the countries bordering the seas of EastAsia (Fig. 1) is their close linkages in terms of political, cultural,social, economic, and ecological relationships [1-2]. These link-ages are transformed into regional and sub-regional political andeconomic structures such as the Association of the Southeast AsianNations (ASEAN) or the wider grouping consisting of the ASEANcountries and their 3 northern neighbors, PR China, Japan andRO Korea (ASEAN + 3). For the last several decades, these group-ings promoted regional cooperation in various areas of commonconcerns including security, economic, trade, tourism, culture, edu-cation, environment, etc. The political and economic groupingsalso lay a strong foundation for regional cooperation in address-ing many sustainable development issues of the SEA.

The SEA plays a pivotal role in the economic well being of1.9 billion people, a majority of which resides close to the coast.The SEA produces close to 40 per cent of the world’s fish pro-duction; sustains a third of the world’s coral reefs, and mangrovewetlands, and is considered as the world center of marinebiodiversity. The SEA is also the global center of maritime trade,providing services in nine of the world’s 20 mega-ports and anetwork of terminals and sea-ports for passengers, cargoes, andfish landings. Heavy shipping traffic of oil tankers and containervessels, to and from the region ply through the Straits of Malaccaand Singapore.


| 16

The SEA has indeed contributed significantly to the food se-curity and livelihoods of millions of fishermen and coastal inhab-itants.

With one-third of the world’s population, coupled with diver-sified economic activities along the coasts and the adjacent seas,the sustainable use of coastal and marine resources present majorchallenges to the economic and environmental managers of theregion. It certainly poses significant challenges to achieving thegoals of the recent World Summit for Sustainable Development(WSSD) and that of Agenda 21 of the United Nations Confer-ence on Environment and Development (UNCED) of 1992.

From 1993 to 1999, 11 countries of the region participated ina regional project designed to address marine pollution of theSEA [3]. The project was financed by the Global EnvironmentFacility (GEF), implemented by the United Nations DevelopmentProgramme (UNDP), and executed by the International MaritimeOrganization (IMO). In late 1999 the same countries further col-laborated in the implementation of a follow-on project, “Build-ing Partnerships on Environmental Management for the Seas ofEast Asia (PEMSEA)”. With Japan joining PEMSEA two yearslater, the regional project is now participated fully by all the coun-tries around the SEA [1].

A large part of PEMSEA’s activities are in fact implementingthe recommendations of Chapter 17 of Agenda 21. Current andother planned activities also complement the Plan of Implemen-tation of WSSD related to the coasts and oceans. PEMSEA’s scopeof operation and the issues addressed present a working modelfor regional implementation of WSSD’s Plan of Implementation.

PEMSEA’S APPROACH, STRATEGIES,AND ACTIVITIES

PEMSEA takes into consideration the following challengesto sustainable coastal development in designing its strategies andactivities:

• Current management efforts are not adequate orinefficient in slowing down or reversing the rate ofenvironmental degradation;

• Poverty continues to exacerbate unsustainabledevelopment;

• Adverse environmental impacts of globalization andregionalization of the economy remain unabated;

• Difficulties in managing complexity;

• Inadequacies in policy and institutional arrangements;

• Inadequate local capacity in integrated planning andmanagement;

• Resistance to change; and

• Inadequate public knowledge on the functions of theecosystems.

Solutions to the above challenges require longer time, inter-

disciplinary and management expertise, substantial financial re-sources, concerted stakeholders’ support, and strong national andregional political will [1].

INTEGRATING ENVIRONMENT CONCERNSINTO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANS

A major effort of PEMSEA is to promote the integration ofenvironmental concerns into economic development plans at na-tional and local levels. This proactive approach is intended toprevent or reduce environmental degradation due to economicdevelopment caused by development projects. In many countriesof the region, government infrastructure projects are often themajor contributors to environmental degradation despite the ap-plication of Environmental Impact Assessments.

Sea use zoning schemes

PEMSEA promotes the application of sea use zoning and in-tegrates it with the conventional land use plans at local or na-tional levels. The Xiamen Municipality of PR China developedand implemented a sea use zoning scheme in mid 1990s (Fig. 2)by classifying the utilization of the municipal sea area accordingto its ecological and economic functions and traditional practices[4]. The zoning scheme delineates specific zones for navigation,port, tourism, fishing, mariculture, and conservation. A permitsystem was developed and is being implemented to regulate us-ers according to the zoning criteria. The zoning scheme is wellintegrated into the land use plan of the municipality, thus effec-tively regulating land development on the coast. Although thisprocess takes time and resources, it has proven to be effective notonly in preventing pollution but has also effectively reduced theconflicts between shipping and the fishing sectors, and othermultiple use conflicts.

The success in Xiamen Municipality on sea use zoning hassignificantly influenced the enactment of a sea space utilizationlaw by the People Assembly of PR China, requiring coastal prov-inces and municipalities to undertake sea use planning for theentire coast of the country. To date, all Chinese coasts are beingzoned.

Based on the experience of Xiamen, several other PEMSEAparticipating provinces and municipalities practicing integratedcoastal management (ICM) have started developing similar seause zoning schemes at Batangas Bay [5-6], Bataan, Danang, Bali,and Port Klang.

Policy and functional integration

The lack of integration and coordination of sector policiesand functions of line agencies often result in policy, legislative,and operational conflicts with potential serious environmental andeconomic consequences. PEMSEA promotes policy and functionalintegration of line agencies by forging a common vision and mis-sion of stakeholders at the national and local levels. In all ofPEMSEA’s participating provinces and municipalities implement-ing ICM programs, coastal strategies are developed through theprocess of risk assessments, environmental profiling, and stake-holders’ consultations. The process enables the stakeholders todetermine and prioritize management issues and collectively de-

17 |


termine solutions. The stakeholders will eventually agree to acommon vision pertaining to the use of their coastal and marineresources. The involvement of various concerned line agencies isvery essential as the process forges better understanding amongstgovernment agencies and other stakeholders for addressing is-sues of common concerns, thereby enhancing synergies and co-ordination amongst various sector policies and the functions ofline agencies.

A similar approach is being applied at the national level throughthe formulation process of a national coastal policy, strategiesand other national maritime agenda.

DEVELOPING PROGRAMMATIC, ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES, AND ACTIONPLANS

PEMSEA adopts ecosystem-based management and program-matic approaches in addressing sustainable coastal and marinearea development of the SEA. PEMSEA’s efforts are directed atmanaging human activities on coastal resource systems, river ba-sin-coastal seas, and large marine ecosystems (LME) and sub-systems.

Managing coastal resource systems

The coastal resource systems are natural systems influencedby land-sea interactions and human activities. These include bays,coastal zones, estuaries, lagoons, and gulfs, where one or moreecosystems or habitats such as coral reefs, mangroves, sea grassbeds, mudflats, and sandy and rocky shores are present. The coastalresource systems sustain a variety of economic activities and live-lihoods of many coastal inhabitants. Human settlement centerssuch as urban cities are often located along the coast and theystrongly influence the functional integrity of these natural sys-tems.

For the last 10 years, PEMSEA developed and tested workingmodels on ICM as a viable mechanism for managing the use ofthe coastal resource systems in a sustainable manner [7]. The ICMprogram includes activities that analyze ecosystem and publichealth risks caused by economic development and develop long-term measures to prevent or reduce such risks through appropri-ate management interventions. The ICM approach provides anintegrated management framework, planning, and implementingprocesses, the application of which can address a variety of sus-tainable development issues in accordance with local capacity[8-9].

Eleven coastal provinces and municipalities from ninePEMSEA participating countries participated in the developmentand implementation of ICM programs. The ecosystem-based man-agement approach guided the preparation and implementation ofthe various ICM program activities at Bali and Sukabumi (Indo-nesia), Bataan and Batangas (Philippines), Chonburi (Thailand),Danang (Vietnam), Nampo (DPR Korea), Port Klang (Malay-sia), Shiwa (RO Korea), Sihanoukville (Cambodia), and XiamenMunicipality (PR China).

Although some ICM programs are more mature than others interms of the timeframe and investment of resources, several pro-

grams have already achieved significant results.

In Xiamen, the endangered white dolphins are now frequentlysighted in the municipal coastal waters; the egrets have now re-turned in large numbers while the prehistoric fish, the lancelets,(Brachiostoma belcheri) are being effectively conserved. The onceheavily polluted Yuandang Lagoon has been completely cleanedand rehabilitated with significant socioeconomic impacts. Waterquality of Xiamen coastal waters did not deteriorate while thecity still maintains an economic growth rate of 16-19 per cent[10]. There was only one red tide outbreak since the implementa-tion of ICM program.

In Bataan, a mangrove-replanting program is in place to re-claim some of the lost mangrove wetlands. Shoreline improve-ments and landscaping along the coasts of Danang and Chonburihave enormous socioeconomic impacts while in Sihanoukville,the only natural marine reserve has been incorporated into theICM management program so as to sustain and strengthen man-agement measures. The ICM efforts in Batangas have regulatedand prevented the establishment of pollutive industries and mo-bilized stakeholders in the protection of the remaining coral reefsin the bay.

Managing river-basin - coastal seas

The Manila Bay Coastal Strategy, which was developed inclose consultation with the coastal and inland provinces, centralline agencies, and other stakeholders, takes into consideration thesocioeconomic and ecosystem connectivity [11]. The Strategycovers the watershed areas and the rivers draining into the Ma-nila Bay where the city of Manila is located. The Manila BayCoastal Strategy is an example of river-basin-coastal sea ecosys-tem-based management approach with a management regime be-ing developed for addressing management issues arising from themultiple use of the 90,000 hectare- Laguna De Bay, and the Ma-nila Bay, which are physically connected by the Pasig River.

Various subprojects are being undertaken to strengthen insti-tutional coordination and capacity of concerned agencies to meetmanagement challenges for the Manila Bay and the associatedriver basins. Special efforts are also directed at determining theseverity of ecosystem degradation and impacts to public health,and at developing appropriate management interventions. A vari-ety of management measures are being developed. They includeamongst others the following:

• Develop action plans to address short and long termenvironmental concerns;

• Strengthen the national capability of oil spill contin-gency response and preparedness as well as on claimson cost recovery of oil spill clean-up;

• Improve port safety and environmental management;

• Strengthen integrated information managementsystem; and

• Launch integrated education and public awarenesscampaigns.


| 18

The Bohai Sea, which is the only inland sea of PR China isdrained by three major river systems, (Yellow, Hai and the LiaoRiver systems) with a watershed area of 1.4 million km2. A BohaiSea Coastal Strategy is being developed with the cooperation andcollaboration of three coastal provinces (Liaoning, Shantung,Hebei) and the two coastal cities of Tienjin and Dalian. Otheractivities of the Bohai project include institutional coordinatingarrangements, enactment of a regional law for the managementof the Bohai Sea, development of zoning scheme, risk assess-ment and management, pollution load assessments, oil spill con-tingency plan and response, wetlands management, public edu-cation and awareness, and environmental investments.

The regional management framework is useful to allow inter-agency cooperation while fulfilling their sectoral responsibilities.In the case of the Bohai Sea, a new but complementary GEF/WBproject is being developed for reducing nutrient pollution in theHai River Basin by improving sanitation facilities to reduce sew-age discharge directly into the Bohai Sea.

Managing LMEs and subsystems

The SEA covers five LMEs, viz: the Yellow Sea, East ChinaSea, South China Sea, Sulu-Celebes Seas and the Indonesian Seas.Currently there are two GEF funded projects focusing on SouthChina Sea and Yellow Sea [12]. The South China Sea projectfocuses on reversing the trends of environmental degradation andis being implemented by UNEP. The Yellow Sea Project on theother hand has yet to be operational. There is another regionaleffort addressing marine biodiversity of the Sulu-Celebes Seas,which is a collaborative project between Malaysia, Philippinesand Indonesia [13].

The strategy of PEMSEA is to encourage a programmaticapproach in the management of each of the five LMEs based onits ecological boundary. Many transboundary environmental andnatural resource issues of the concerned LMEs should be ad-dressed by the concerned stakeholders taking note of the politicaland socioeconomic situations of the concerned countries and ur-gency of the environmental issues. Some of the transboundaryissues are politically sensitive such as the sea piracy issue in theStraits of Malacca and the South China Sea; the boundary disputeover the Spratly Islands and other areas of the region; the sharedfish stocks; and the exportation of wastes and marine litters. Sci-entific information on the LMEs is scant and needs to be grosslystrengthened to provide the scientific basis for management in-terventions.

On the other hand, regional or sub-regional management ef-forts could be focused on less contentious issues and in smallerareas such as the Gulf of Thailand and the Tongkin Gulf. An ex-ample would be the collaborative project between Cambodia,Thailand and Vietnam in addressing oil and chemical spills in theGulf. It focuses on developing an oil spill response contingencyplan, strengthening capacity to combat oil spills on the ground,developing the necessary database to monitor changes in the eventof oil spills and making the necessary preparation for cost recov-ery claims.

Managing multiple LMEs: the Seas of East Asia

The countries around the SEA semi-enclose the five LMEsmaking the region unique in terms of its socio-cultural, political,economic and ecological connectivity, which goes beyond na-tional, political and ecological boundaries. The SEA in fact cre-ates political, economic and ecological niches arising from thesame geographical boundary. From the ecosystem standpoint, theregion is one of the richest in terms of biodiversity, supporting anumber of habitats, fisheries and other marine resources. In termsof economic characteristics, countries in the region are interde-pendent and yet competitive with a vast disparity between thehaves and the have-nots. In terms of ecological features, the eco-systems cuts across temperate and tropical zones with lush eco-systems on land (tropical rainforests) and sea (coral reefs).

Managing the SEA in a sustainable manner is a daunting taskrequiring strong management interventions, technical skills, in-terpersonal skills, foresight, and courage of the managers andpolitical leaders. It also requires time and resources for address-ing the enormous environmental and economic pressures arisingfrom the large and dense population along the coasts, the com-plex, diverse, and dynamic economic activities, as well as theneed to balance political and cultural differences. On the otherhand, the need to manage this important water body is real andurgent.

Since 1999, PEMSEA embarked on an initiative to explorewhat can be done for the SEA. Through extensive discussion anddebates with experts and stakeholders from both the public andthe private sectors, it was apparent that some long-term strategyis needed to guide the region towards sustainable use of its oceanheritage. This effort culminated in the development of the “Sus-tainable Development Strategy for the Seas of East Asia”, whichis discussed in the last section of this article.

BUILDING INTERGOVERNMENTAL, INTERAGENCY,MULTI-SECTOR, AND INTER-SECTORPARTNERSHIPS

This approach is integrated into various levels of PEMSEAactivities especially in the development and implementation ofcoastal policies, strategies and action plans.

Intergovernmental and interagency partnerships

Efforts are made to forge stronger partnerships between localand central governments towards harmonizing sector specificpolicies, legislation and management interventions. These effortsneed to be further strengthened in light of the decentralization ofauthority to the local governments. A large number of local gov-ernment units are not ready especially in harmonizing the aboveconflicts caused by the change of authority. These areas of con-cern require partnerships between the central and local govern-ment to straighten out legislative and administrative disparities.

The risk assessment and risk management activities beingimplemented in the ICM sites and large coastal seas (Bohai Sea,Manila Bay, and the Gulf of Thailand) provide a working forumfor concerned line agencies (e.g., marine, fisheries, environment,coast guard/navy, tourism, public health, etc.) to work together

19 |


(e.g., in combating oil spills) for achieving common objectives(e.g., in seeking compensation for lost revenue and habitat resto-ration) [14].

The coordinating mechanism, either in the form of a projectcoordinating committee, management council, or authority estab-lished for an ICM program or for Manila Bay, Bohai Sea, andGulf of Thailand, is a good vehicle for interagency partnerships.It provides a regular forum where concerned agencies are involvedin discussing site or issue specific management matters and oftenpromote collaborative activities jointly undertaken by the agen-cies concerned [15].

At the regional level, PEMSEA forges intergovernmental part-nerships through a variety of activities that are of transboundaryin nature. Project activities include the oil spill contingency andresponse project for the Gulf of Thailand which involves Cambo-dia, Thailand, and Vietnam and the implementation of the MarineElectronic Highway initiative for the Straits of Malacca andSingapore, which involves Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore[16]. The most obvious one is the development of the regionalSustainable Development Strategy for the Seas of East Asia, whichinvolves the 12 concerned countries to collectively develop a stra-tegic framework acceptable for implementation by all concerned.

Multi-sector and inter-sector partnerships

Multi-sector and inter-sector partnerships have been forgedin the development and implementation of ICM programs atBataan and Batangas Bay, Philippines, as well as the municipal-ity of Bali, and Sukabumi Regency in Indonesia [17]. In BataanProvince, the private sector formed a Coastal Care Foundation tosupport the efforts of the provincial government in the manage-ment of the coastal areas. Members of the Foundation are fromvarious sectors of the economy but work in close partnershipstowards implementing activities identified through the ICM frame-work. They were important partners in formulating the BataanCoastal Strategy, in implementing mangrove planting projects andeducational and public awareness activities, and undertaking an-nual coastal clean-ups [18].

Common solid waste disposal facilities in Bataan Provinceand San Fernando City are being developed through the public-private sector partnerships (PPP) arrangement. Over the long pro-cess of consultations, the public and the private sectors are ableto go through a negotiating process of identifying partners forjoint development and operation of the above facilities.

In Sukabumi, various sectors of the tourism industry, the foodindustry and non-government organizations forged partnershipsin assisting the Sukabumi Regency in the implementation of ICMactivities, especially in the improvement of the shorefront and itsmanagement.

STRENGTHENING LOCAL GOVERNANCE

At each of the 11 PEMSEA participating provinces and mu-nicipalities practicing ICM, efforts are made to strengthen localgovernance by:

• Increasing the capacity of local government units to

plan and manage their coastal resources on a sustain-able manner. This is done through involving localgovernment units in the design and implementation ofthe ICM program. They also undergo specializedproject development and management training andother technical training to increase their managementskills and confidence in program implementation.

• Involving multiple stakeholders in the planning andimplementation of projects thereby increasing programtransparency and promoting participation. Concernedsectors and government line agencies are involved inthe processes of coastal profiling, identification ofissues, setting of visions, missions and objectives ofthe management program, and designing of activities,etc. This process strengthens ownership and buy-insfrom all sectors.

• Making information more readily available. This isbeing undertaken through the development ofwebsites, the implementation of communication plansto identify targets and the development of strategiesand action plans to promote dissemination of informa-tion to the public and the policymakers.

• Bringing science closer to the policymakers and theeconomic and environmental managers. This isundertaken by involving experts from the universitiesor scientific institutions in the programs of the localgovernments so as to improve decision making withsound scientific basis. This approach is especiallysuccessful in the Xiamen ICM program where apermanent interdisciplinary expert team forms part ofthe management decision-making process [15].

• Forming an interagency, multi-sector coordinatingmechanism. This is to provide a regular forum formutual consultation and decision-making amongstconcerned line agencies and concerned stakeholdersso as to reduce interagency and multi-sectoral conflictswhile increasing partnerships at the operational level.

• Encouraging the involvement of women in thedecision-making process. Of the 11 ICM programs,five programs (Bataan, Batangas, Bali, Chonburi andDanang) are headed by women. Most programsinvolved women in the decision making process.

The above efforts are part of the ICM approach designed toincrease the capacity of the concerned local authority inenvironmental governance.

BUILDING A REGIONAL ICM NETWORKOF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

When a local government embraces the concept and practiceof ICM as a mechanism to achieve sustainable development, itwill integrate ICM practices into its regular program. Amongstthe 11 provinces and municipalities practicing ICM, some of them


| 20

(i.e., Xiamen and Batangas) have already gone through 10years of ICM practice; many with 3-4 years experience and a feware just in the beginning stage.

The 11 provinces and municipalities from nine countries ofthe region comprising 64 local government units formed them-selves into a regional ICM network. They take turns in organiz-ing annual meetings to share experiences and lessons learned inthe implementation of ICM programs and in the process, improvetheir operational skills and concepts in the implementation of ICM.Two annual meetings were organized in Seoul, RO Korea andXiamen, PR China sponsored by the Kyonggi Province andXiamen Municipality, respectively. The third meeting will be heldin Selangor, Malaysia, to be sponsored by the State Governmentof Selangor.

The regional ICM network will increase in membership withmore local governments adopting and implementing ICM pro-grams. Another 16 coastal provinces and municipalities were nomi-nated by the participating countries of the region to receivePEMSEA’s technical assistance for implementing ICM programs.These sites will be evaluated and once approved, will be desig-nated as PEMSEA’s ICM sites.

The network serves as a twinning vehicle to enable membersto mutually reinforce each other in building confidence and skillsfor managing the complexities of their coastal areas. The networkfosters collaboration of coastal authorities in environmental gov-ernance and brings about appropriate policy reforms.

CATALYZING PRIVATE SECTOR RESOURCES FORENVIRONMENTAL INVESTMENTS

Over the last 10 years, PEMSEA has been promoting envi-ronmental investments through PPP arrangement [17]. The PPPconcept endeavors to mobilize the expertise and financial re-sources of the private sector for environmental improvementprojects so as to reinforce and accelerate government efforts inaddressing environmental problems, the solution of which oftenrequire large amounts of financial resources and technical exper-tise [17, 19-20].

Through the ICM approach, environmental improvementprojects could be readily identified, and prioritized, and pre-fea-sibility study initiated. The pre-feasibility studies will determinethe number and nature of environmental investment opportuni-ties that require the involvement of the private sector. The policyenvironment for investments is reviewed and improved throughlegislation and administrative decisions, where necessary so as torender it conducive for private sector investments. Once the con-cerned governments have laid out their terms and offer of incen-tives, PEMSEA brings together the potential investors and theconcerned public sector at a Roundtable to discuss the possiblepartnerships. The interested investors are then requested to sub-mit their proposals. The best proposal will finally be selectedwherein the private sector will enter into partnership arrangementwith the concerned government sector [17].

The selected private sector will need to undertake a feasibil-ity study and when the project is found feasible, the two partieswill further negotiate and mutually agree to operate the project as

a joint venture between the public and private sector.

The PPP approach provides another option to the conven-tional Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) or Build, Operate andOwn (BOO) approaches. The advantage of the PPP process is thereduction of political, social and investment risks that might notbe available in other conventional approaches. PEMSEA’s roleas honest broker helps to build confidence and trust amongst theprivate and the public sectors.

So far, three PPP Roundtables were organized, two in thePhilippines for three solid wastes project at Bataan, Batangas andSan Fernando and one in Vietnam for an integrated industrialwastewater and hazardous waste management facility for Danang.While the Batangas PPP was unable to materialize due to inad-equate political commitments [21-22], the two projects in SanFernando [23] and Bataan [24] are able to sail through the finalselection process. Building on the Philippine experience, theDanang PPP is moving progressively well in the desired direc-tion.

INCREASING THE EFFECTIVENESS OFINTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS: REGIONAL ANDLOCAL IMPLEMENTATION

The last few decades boast the enactment of a large numberand variety of international conventions, protocols, treaties, andagreements, many of which are relevant to the maintenance ofpeace, security, safety, and environment of the coasts and theoceans. While some of them have been ratified by the countriesof the region, the records of ratification and effective implemen-tation of these international instruments is far from desirable [2].To a large extent, this is due to the disparity in capacities, re-sources, and political commitments.

PEMSEA places considerable attention in promoting the rati-fication of relevant international instruments through specializedtraining courses and workshops and, to certain cases, assistinggovernments in developing the national legislation [25-26]. A casein point is the drafting of national legislation for the ratificationof the MARPOL Convention for the Philippines [27]. Anotherexample is the support PEMSEA provided to participating coun-tries in understanding the claim procedures under the Fund andCLC conventions in the event of claims on cost recovery of oilspill clean-ups [28].

ICM also facilitates local implementation of relevant interna-tional instrument such as MARPOL, Basel Convention, Port StateControl, London Convention, Ramsar Convention, Conventionon Biodiversity, and Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries,when issues fall within the administrative boundary of the localgovernment [29].

ADDRESSING POVERTY ISSUES

Despite impressive records of poverty eradication in severalcountries in the region, poverty still remains a major concern in anumber of countries around the SEA. PEMSEA’s approach to thepoverty issue is dictated by the prevalence and severity of theissue in its project sites especially in Cambodia, DPR Korea, In-donesia, Philippines, and Vietnam. Countries such as Brunei

21 |


Darussalam, Japan, RO Korea, and Singapore are relatively welldeveloped economically and poverty is not an issue of concern inthese countries. Whilst PR China still has a substantial number ofpeople living below $2 a day, the majority is located in the hinter-land. Most inhabitants of coastal areas in Malaysia, PR Chinaand Thailand are better off than those living in the inland areas.

Poverty exacerbates unsustainable development as the poorcontinually turns to nature for their daily requirements: food, watersupply and other basic living essentials [1]. Only when the poorare able to meet their basic needs, would they then be willing toconsider other priority issues such as sanitation and hazard pre-vention, etc. (Fig. 3) [30]. Policymakers and economic managerstoo, would not put environmental concerns as their top priorityagenda. Recognizing this situation, coastal managers need to re-orient their activities by focusing on solutions that could contrib-ute to the basic needs of the people. Such activities could also beundertaken within the ICM framework.

In areas where poverty is prevalent, alternative livelihoodsare being developed within the ICM framework. In Bali for ex-ample, seaweed culture, and coral farming and transplantationare being developed. In Bataan and Chonburi, mussel farming isbeing practiced to augment the income of fishers.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES FORTHE SEAS OF EAST ASIA: A REGIONALFRAMEWORK AND PLATFORM FOR WSSDIMPLEMENTATION

Managing the SEA is a difficult task due to a host of complexextrinsic and intrinsic political, socioeconomic, and ecologicalmanagement issues. Since 2000, PEMSEA has been developinga draft regional sustainable development strategy for the SEA thatbuilds upon the common vision of stakeholders of the region.Known as the “Sustainable Development Strategy for the Seas ofEast Asia (SDS-SEA)”, the regional strategy attempts to providepolicy and management frameworks for addressing various sus-tainable development challenges. It also attempts to create a col-laborative platform for regional cooperation and collaborationamongst countries and with concerned UN, international agen-cies, non-government organizations, the private sectors, and allother stakeholders at the national and local levels [31].

The regional strategy is basically ecosystem-based upon whichenvironmental concerns are built into the strategic action plans.Six strategies have been chosen to ensure a holistic approach.These specific strategies include (a) sustain, (b) protect, (c) con-serve, (d) develop, (e) implement and (f) communicate. Thesestrategies responds to 20 specific objectives upon which 228 ac-tions programs are developed covering issues related to sea-levelrise, sustainable fisheries and aquaculture, land-based pollution,biodiversity, and sustainable use of resources, and the implemen-tation of international instruments.

The Strategy has addressed many of the concerns of the WSSDand in many ways implement the requirements stipulated in thePlan of Implementation related to the coasts and oceans. Most ofthe action programs of the SDS-SEA covers maritime transporta-tion, marine pollution, biodiversity, ecosystem functions, fisher-ies, science, small islands and cross-sectoral issues which are also

the major areas of concern of the WSSD. The implementation ofthe Strategy represents regional implementation of the Plan ofImplementation of the WSSD for the SEA.

The SDS-SEA has been endorsed after 3 years of stakeholderconsultation involving more than 1000 individuals and institu-tions in the region. It has been finally adopted at the Senior Gov-ernment Official Meeting (SGOM) in Pattaya, Thailand on 2-10August 2003 and is scheduled for approval at the ministerial fo-rum in Putrajaya, Malaysia on 12 December 2003. Once approved,this “soft protocol” shall provide the needed basis for intensiveregional collaboration.

Fourteen UN, international organizations, multilateral lend-ing institutions and non-governmental organizations collaboratedwith PEMSEA in the process of developing the Strategy. Theseorganizations together with the 12 PEMSEA participating coun-tries can and will be the driving force behind the implementationof the Strategy.

CONCLUSION

Most PEMSEA activities match well with the concerns andrecommendations of WSSD, therefore giving the countries of theSEA a head start in furthering their commitments and achievingtargets. The various working models, tested methodologies, andlessons derived from the one decade of PEMSEA’s collaborativeefforts help the countries in the region to determine focus, setpriorities, and decide on their specific roles in the implementa-tion of the WSSD requirements pertaining to the coasts and oceans.

A few PEMSEA activities are collaborative projects devel-oped within the PEMSEA framework with other resources. Thetwinning of local governments practicing ICM is one example ofinitiative undertaken by the local governments and together withthe 16 potential sites will form a remarkable network of localgovernments practicing ICM. The PPP initiative also sets a newmodel of operation between the public and private sectors. Withthe identification of new investment opportunities, the PPP ini-tiative will grow into a regional network that certainly plays a keyrole in reinforcing the efforts of GEF and multilateral lendinginstitutions. Similarly the twining of coastal seas and riverine sys-tems that are being forged with Chesapeake Bay, Seto Inland Seas,Bohai Sea and Manila Bay form another set of initiatives thatpromotes regional and global collaboration. These types of ac-tivities fall well within the Type II initiatives under the WSSDclassification.

The SDS-SEA in fact enhances the WSSD with 228 actionprograms upon which specific activities can be developed forimplementation. The SDS-SEA clearly provides a guiding frame-work for countries to formulate their own national policy and strat-egies pertaining to the use of their coastal and ocean resources.More importantly, the SDS-SEA provides a management frame-work within which activities of national and regional concernscould be addressed and mutually reinforcing. It also creates aworking platform for interagency, multi-sectoral and intergovern-mental cooperation and partnerships at the local, national, andregional levels. The framework and the platform enable all stake-holders of the coasts and oceans to find their niches and play theirroles towards a shared vision of the SEA. The shared vision con-


| 22

siders the resource systems of the SEA as a natural heritagefor the people of the region, a medium of access to regional andglobal markets, safeguarding sustainable and healthy food sup-plies, livelihood, and economic prosperity through safe and har-monious co-existence for present and future generations.

Whilst the SDS-SEA is still on its final passage for approvalby the ministers of the 12 countries of the region on December2003, activities relevant to the regional strategy are already tak-ing place. The governments of the Malaysia, Philippines and Thai-land have already initiated the preparation of the Coastal Policyof Malaysia, Philippine Archipelagic Agenda, and the Thai SeaPolicy, respectively. This is in addition to the enactment of themarine economic development policy of PR China, the structuralreorganization in Indonesia and RO Korea through the establish-ment of new ministries on fisheries and marine affairs. This is anencouraging development and indeed forms a good basis for theSDS-SEA to have a head start.

REFERENCES

[1] Chua T.E. Building intergovernmental, interagency and multi-sectoral partnerships towards achieving environmental security forthe Seas of East Asia. Paper submitted for presentation at the Inter-national Conference on Geo-Agenda for the Future: Securing theOceans – Legal and Policy Frameworks and Action Plan for theMaintenance of Peace and Environment Protection of Ocean, 17-18October 2003, Tokyo, Japan.

[2] Chua TE, Bernad SR, San MC. Coastal and ocean governance ofthe seas of East Asia: towards an era of new regional cooperationand partnerships. Tropical Coasts. 2003; 10(1): 46-55

[3] Chua TE, Ross SA, Yu H, Jacinto G, Bernad SR. Sharing lessonsand experience in marine pollution management. MPP-EAS Tech-nical Report No. 20. 1999; 49.

[4] Ruan W, Yu H. Design and implementation of marine functionalzoning scheme in Xiamen, China. In Chua, T.E. and N. Bermas (eds.)Challenges and opportunities in managing pollution in the East AsianSeas. MPP-EAS Conference Proceedings 12/PEMSEA ConferenceProceedings 1. 1999; 341-354.

[5] MPP-EAS (Regional Programme for the Prevention and Man-agement of Marine Pollution in the East Asian Seas). Water use zon-ing for the sustainable development of Batangas Bay, Philippines.Technical Report No. 25/PEMSEA Technical Report No. 3. 1999;50.

[6] MPP-EAS (Regional Programme for the Prevention and Man-agement of Marine Pollution in the East Asian Seas). Environmen-tal management atlas for Batangas Bay. Technical Report No. 14.1997; 132.

[7] Chua TE. Integrated coastal management as a framework formanagement of coral reefs and other coastal ecosystems. Paper pre-sented at the 2nd International Tropical Marine Ecosystem Manage-ment Symposium (ITMEMS 2), 24-27 March 2003, Manila, Philip-pines.

[8] Chua TE. Essential elements of integrated coastal zone manage-ment. Ocean and Coastal Management. 1993; 21:81-108.

[9] Chua TE. Lessons learned from practicing integrated coastalmanagement in Southeast Asia. Ambio. 1998; 27: 599-610.

[10] Hong H, Peng B. Harmonizing economic development andenvironmental management: The Xiamen experience. TropicalCoasts. 2002; 9(1): 44-47.

[11] MBEMP (Manila Bay Environmental Management Project).Manila Bay coastal strategy. Manila Bay Environmental Manage-ment Project, Manila, Philippines. 2001; 108.

[12] GEF Projects. Avail from http://gefweb.org/Projects/projects-projects/projects-projects.html.

[13] Trono R, Cantos JAB. Conserving migratory species throughecoregion conservation approach: the case of sea turtles in Sulu-Sulawesi marine ecoregion. Tropical Coasts. 2002; 9(2): 44-49.

[14] PEMSEA (Partnerships in Environmental Management for theSeas of East Asia). Manila Bay initial risk assessment. PEMSEATechnical Information Report No. 2001/01. 2001, 112.

[15] Chua T.E. Measuring and understanding coastal ecosystems:the challenges. Paper presented at the Managing Shared Waters In-ternational Conference, 23-28 June 2002, Hamilton, Canada.

[16] Chua TE, Ross SA. The marine electronic highway: conceptsand challenges. Paper presented at the International Conference onNavigational Safety and the Control of Pollution in the Straits ofMalacca and Singapore: Funding and Managing International Part-nerships, 14-15 October 1999, Singapore.

[17] Chua TE, Ross SA. Building partnerships with the industry inenvironmental management: PEMSEA’s experience. Paper presentedat the IMO Workshop on Partnership Building, 9-10 June 2003,International Maritime Organization, London.

[18] Erni M, Victorino RAG. Kontra kalat sa dagat: A catalyst forforging partnerships in integrated coastal management in Bataan.Tropical Coasts. 2001; 8(2): 10-15

[19] Ross SA. Implementation of public-private partnerships:Batangas Bay case study. In: Chua TE, Bermas N, editors. Chal-lenges and opportunities in managing marine pollution in the EastAsian Seas. MPP-EAS Conf. Proc. 12/PEMSEA Conf. Proc. 1. 1999;164-172.

[20] Faulkner H. Opportunities for investment: creating public-pri-vate partnerships, p 151-163. In: Chua TE, Bermas N, editors. Chal-lenges and opportunities in managing marine pollution in the EastAsian Seas. MPP-EAS Conf. Proc. 12/PEMSEA Conf. Proc. 1. 1999;151-163.

[21] Estigoy E, Perez AK. Integrated waste management in theBatangas Bay Region: lessons in building public-private partner-ships. 1. View from the public sector. Tropical Coasts. 2001; 8(2):16-22.

[22] Shaw M. Integrated waste management in the Batangas BayRegion: lessons in building public-private partnerships. 2. View fromthe private sector. Tropical Coasts. 2001; 8(2): 23-28.

[23] PEMSEA (Partnerships in Environmental Management for theSeas of East Asia). PEMSEA investment opportunity brief on inte-grated solid waste management project, City of San Fernando,Pampanga, Philippines.

[24] PEMSEA (Partnerships in Environmental Management for theSeas of East Asia). PEMSEA investment opportunity brief on inte-grated solid waste management system, Province of Bataan, Philip-pines.

23 |


[25] MPP-EAS (Regional Programme for the Prevention and Man-agement of Marine Pollution in the East Asian Seas). Assessment ofnational marine pollution legislation in East Asia. MPP-EAS/Info/99/201. 1997; 356.

[26] MPP-EAS (Regional Programme for the Prevention and Man-agement of Marine Pollution in the East Asian Seas). Manual onstrategies, tools and techniques for implementing international con-ventions on marine pollution in the East Asian Seas region. MPP-EAS Technical Report No. 26/PEMSEA Technical Report No. 4.1999; 184.

[27] MPP-EAS (Regional Programme for the Prevention and Man-agement of Marine Pollution in the East Asian Seas). Proceedingsof the National Workshop on the Ratification and Implementationof MARPOL 73/78 in the Philippines. 9-10 June 1997, TagaytayCity, Philippines. MPP-EAS Workshop Proceedings No. 8. 1997,61.

[28] PEMSEA (Partnerships in Environmental Management for theSeas of East Asia). Regional Consultative Workshop on Strengthen-ing Recovery of Ship Pollution Clean-up Costs and Damage Claims.PEMSEA Workshop Proceedings No. 5. 2002; 117.

[29] Chua TE. Integrated coastal management: an effective mecha-nism for local implementation of coastal and marine environmentrelated international conventions. In T.E. Chua and N. Bermas (eds.)Challenges and Opportunities in Managing Marine Pollution in theEast Asian Seas. MPP-EAS Conference Proceedings 12/PEMSEAConference Proceedings 1. 1999; 3-23.

[30] Chua TE. An analysis of the application of integrated coastalmanagement – linking local and global environmental concerns.Paper presented in Oceans and Coasts at Rio + 10, UNESCO, Paris,France, 3-7 December 2001.

[31] PEMSEA (Partnerships in Environmental Management for theSeas of East Asia). Sustainable Development Strategy for the Seasof East Asia. Avail from http://www.pemsea.org. 2003.


| 24

25 |


CHALLENGES AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONSFOR ACHIEVING SYNERGIES AT THE REGIONALLEVEL ON OCEAN AND COASTAL GOVERNANCE

Gunnar Kullenberg Professor, International Ocean Institute, P.O.Box 3, Gzira GZR 01, Malta,

Fax 356-21346502, phone 356-21346529e-mail [email protected]

MOTIVATION

Globalization has implied that our society has become morevulnerable than before: local-regional disturbances can have glo-bal impacts; decisions must be made in conditions of consider-able uncertainties; the knowledge base has been transformed intoa more stochastic and much less deterministic paradigm. We nowface convergences of impacts from global changes and economicand ecological crises. We are in the same ship and cooperationand solidarity are required to turn coincidences of idealism andrealism into opportunities. The regional scale of cooperation,which can link local-national and global interests is emerging asthe most promising to achieve these synergies. At the local levelthe community-based co-management and co-development modelis gaining ground as a vehicle towards achieving sustainable de-velopment and security. At the regional level individual nationstates are grouping together in order to be able to play a role inglobal affairs, for example EU, ASEAN, NAFTA. Other types ofalliances are also formed related to specific needs as examplifiedat the WTO negotiations in September 2003. Such alliances shouldalso be formed to implement UNCED 92 agreements and WSSD2002 commitments.

A SYSTEMS-ORIENTED APPROACH

Management is being approached from a systems-orientedbase. Natural and social sciences must work together in support-ing such a governance system. This must also include adequateobservations of the systems, both the natural and the social one.One scientific approach being used is the ecological economics,addressing “the sustainability of interactions between ecologicaland economic systems”, Costanza (1998).The focus of the analy-ses is on the biophysical basis of interdependent ecological andeconomic systems. This is in line with the ecosystem manage-ment approach as well as the comprehensive one adopted inUNCLOS. The scheme pays attention to social conditions, pro-cesses and cycles. Social sciences and economics, regarded as alife science, contribute towards elucidating how we design, de-velop and maintain the communities we live in, clarifying howthese at various scales utilize the natural capital and react tochange. The natural sciences contribute an understanding of theEarth life-support system, including the geophysical, geochemi-cal, and bio-geochemical processes and cycles. Dialogue betweenthe sciences is required also in order to ensure that the scales of

the economic and the ecosystem match in the management struc-ture.

Scientific understanding makes it possible to generate rea-sonable scenarios for the future development and implications ofvarious management options. These scenarios can be used to helpestablish visions and considered public judgements. The scien-tific analysis will help narrow down the uncertainties, identifyrisks and thus make adaptive management possible. Through pub-lic discussion the scenarios and analysis can be used for obtain-ing value formation and awareness enhancement.

When the vision and goals have been established, further sci-entific assessment and modeling can be used to specify the man-agement actions and help resolve conflicts, for instance through aprocess of integrated ecological-economic modeling and assess-ment as presented by Costanza (1998).

INSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS

Having the results of the assessment process there is a needfor an appropriate institutional mechanism for the implementa-tion. Some long-lived institutions have been able to manage natu-ral ecological resources in a sustainable fashion(e.g. Costanza1998). Many traditional communities have realized the necessityof co-existence with gradual and even rather rapid changes in theenvironment, and have in their institutions accumulated a knowl-edge base on how to respond to feedbacks from the ecosystem.They have developed a social mechanism that can interpret thefeedback signals. Thus these communities can cope with thechanges before these accumulate and challenge the existence ofthe whole community (Holling et al 1995). Adaptive managementcan be our present time response to the identified need for socialmechanisms able to deal with changing environmental conditions.Such management approach also lends itself very well to partner-ships, including the WSSD type, for instance as regards fisheriesand food production, tourism development, waste management,perhaps even security management. Such partnerships can be inform of community-based co-management and can be linked intoan alliance at sub-regional to regional level, through net-work-ing. By grouping together in an alliance the communities and part-nerships can try to obtain regional significance and influence.Modern communication technology can ensure flow of informa-tion rapidly and help consensus building in responding to com-mon threats. This would be a civil society type response towards


| 26

regional management implementation and sustainable devel-opment.

COMPREHENSIVENESS AND INTEGRATION

The Integrated Coastal Area Management and the IntegratedEnvironmental Management approaches can serve as alternativesto the sectoral management. The integrated approach will be com-prehensive in comparison, and can include the interactions be-tween various environmental compartments as well, such as themountains, the land, the atmosphere, the coast and the sea. It canhelp conciliate the socio-economic developments with the pres-ervation of environmental quality and thus ecological and sus-tainable development. IEM is a complex procedure. It can bevisualized in the framework of DPSIR (Driving Forces-Pressure-State-Impact-Response).The approach is linear, not dealing withinteractions and feedbacks between several processes. Partner-ships could be utilized in developing and applying IEM at re-gional level, involving all relevant sectors (users), and not onlythe sea and coastal ones.

INVOLVEMENT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY

The WSSD 2002 commitment on oceans, coasts and SIDScalls for the establishment of a process for global reporting andassessment of the state of the marine environment including socio-economics, but does not reiterate the role of science and technol-ogy or the related capacity building. However, these elements areinherent in the partnership approach.

The involvement of the scientific community in specificationand development of regional cooperation can be very important.In the Mediterranean case the scientific communities in the coun-tries joined in an effort to formulate a vision, and achieved a con-sensus among themselves which carried weight in the policy for-mulation due to its claim of having authoritative policy-relevantknowledge (Haas 1990). This isan example of how science canstimulate governance specifications at regional level. Continuedinvolvement of the scientific community at decision-making levelmay also stimulate the implementation. The community must thencontinue to carry a weight matching the national and institutionalbargaining interests. These very often are driven by domesticpolicy interests and not the common good for the region. Inter-sectorial regional alliances responding to a common threat mayaim for the common good. However, so far the regional coopera-tion as regards the marine affairs has not reached this level exceptin a few cases in the Caribbean and South East Asia addressingspecific threats such as smuggling of drugs and people.

The developments in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea dem-onstrate the point very well. There the national interests and do-mestic policy have been allowed to lead the way, so far at least.The scientific community is involved in preparing advice, but isnot participating as a partner equal to other participants in the fullprocess of regional management cooperation. The scientific com-munities did not play an important role in the specification of theregional cooperation and conventions. The scientific communi-ties of natural and social sciences need be sufficiently involved inthe policy decisions to help ensure that these are based on soundscientific advice, and take into account various socio-economic,

cultural and ethical factors which are detached from ecologicaland economic factors.

At smaller community level scales it appears that these fac-tors as well as the need for involvement of the scientific commu-nities can be more effectively taken into account. This may berelated to the proximity of scale. Again in this case, in order toobtain the synergism, an alliance of communities from the regionforming a network at regional level can be the way forward. Thisincludes partnerships. Such an approach should be attractive tonational and regional policy makers since the network can pro-vide solutions to the problems caused by impacts of various policydecisions, such as limiting quotas or closing fisheries, restrictingcoastal tourism developments , waste disposal, by having the lo-cal communities and the science and technology involved in thewhole process, and covering the range of scales from local toregional. At the same time the participating scientific communi-ties are made to understand that the best possible science for policyshaping is elusive; and that cultural specifics, trust, consensus ofthe public must be taken into account if the goal of sustainabledevelopment is to be achieved.

ROLE OF CIVIL SOCIETY AND PARTNERSHIPS

A true partnership must be developed with transparency, trust, consistency and delivery of deliverables. The vision of the fu-ture needs to be accepted by all interests, sectors and the public.In this context the role of civil society should be stressed. Like-minded groups can coordinate and stimulate policies across na-tional and other boundaries by networking. This is of course alsothe idea of the networking of local communities. The situation isexemplified by the role of the scientific community in the Medi-terranean case, referred to above. With present day communica-tion technology various groups can exchange information veryquickly using the internet. This is the technical tool which can beused to generate inputs to the policy-shaping process as well aspressure on the policy-makers. It requires that the participatinggroups can understand their languages, within and between them-selves. This is not always the case. The participants in such civilsociety networking can generate solutions even if there is no cen-tral body formally deciding on a concerted action. The solutionscan be provided to the local community- based units involved inthe regional alliance and partnerships.

Local community driven management based on traditionalknowledge has proven itself to be successful in many regions.When the management and decision-making is removed from thecommunity to a centralized national or other system the result isoften disastrous. The local community cannot adjust to new tech-nologies and changes of management structures when imposedby external forces. The system then collapses. The use of naturalresources are often expressions of traditional political, economic,and cultural structures. This should be taken into account in thedevelopment of regional cooperation .Civil society can providefor institutional arrangements relevant for changing behaviour andattitudes. An appropriate balance between market-driven mecha-nisms, those driven by direct local control, by the governmentsand by the civil society needs to be found. The balance will de-pend upon the development level and other conditions, the socialsystem (market driven, hierarchial, or egalitarian), and will not

27 |


be the same everywhere. The partnership approach can helpachieve the required balance. An active civil society appears tobe a prerequisite for successful governance , government and ef-ficient markets. This is demonstrated by several regional studies,and is consistent with the notion that civil plurality is essential fora well-functioning democracy. It is consistent with the compre-hensive approach of Arvid Pardo in specifying the Principles ofCommon Heritage of Mankind to include peace and security. Theseaspects must be taken into account in regional cooperation. Main-tenance of peace and security is a basic aim of any alliance oncethe threats have been identified. In the case of regional coopera-tion for sustainable development, the common threats can be hu-man health degradation; food security; freshwater availability;un-employment and poverty, leading to loss of security, migra-tion, and terrorism; piracy; illegal transport of goods, people,drugs. Threats may also be related to policies of groups of statesin the region, or changes of their domestic policy, such as fromdemocracy to totalitarian or vice versa. A dramatic change of policycan disrupt on-going cooperation. Watches and actions againstsuch threats could be part of the regional cooperation, even if thisis based on the principle of non-intervention. The cooperationcannot be only for the sake of the environment or a part thereof ifit is to be successful.

Civil society includes networking. The existence of these ele-ments in a society may furthermore imply that the society has anenhanced capacity for strategy switching, and making it able toevaluate implications of changing strategy and adjust accordingthe changing conditions. Sustainable development of ocean andcoastal resources requires this ability to switch strategy as re-gards the management. This is amply demonstrated with respectto management of fisheries, marine pollution, tourism, habitat andbiodiversity protection, trade and shipping.

ROLE OF EQUITY, SOLIDARITY AND FAIRNESS

A very important issue of ocean and coastal governance isthe challenge to create solidarity at all levels and scales: indi-vidual, community, nation, region and global. The equity prob-lem is very complicated and there is no consensus on a “best”equity principle (e.g. Rayner 1998). He argues that instead of try-ing to find a “best” equity principle in relation to ocean andcoastal governance we should focus on achieving practical ar-rangements about joint actions among parties holding differentor even in-commensurable principles of equity. This is akin to thejoint implementation approach toward shared resources, as sug-gested by IOI and the United Nations Informal Consultative Pro-cess on Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea (ICP), as well as thepartnership principle of WSSD 2002. The regional alliance ap-proach linking community-based management units togetherwould also fit such an approach to achieve equity.

Fairness is an important issue to take into account in a re-gional ocean and coastal governance system in harmony withUNCLOS. Fairness is related to human beings, nations, institu-tions, and our dealing with natural capital, the ecosystem servicesand resources. The ecosystem management approach must takethis into account in order to be successful. The environmentalconditions and our relation to nature are often used to justify valuesystems, ethical and political preferences, visions for proper liv-

ing. All these depend upon the actual state of development, as iswell demonstrated in regional and global negotiations. Thus themanagement must be adjustable and pragmatic in structure, aswell as having a reasonably firm long-term scope and vision.

The scientific approach can help reduce uncertainties, butcannot resolve disputes over fishing rights or other rights of usingresources or doing developments. For resolving disputes the val-ues, the needs of people, traditions, the efficiency and fairness ofdistributions must also be addressed. Human preferences andvalues need to be mapped in order to achieve sustainable gover-nance and developments of oceans and coasts. The UNCLOS pro-visions to a large extent are rules about fair allocation of oceanresources.

Procedural fairness is important in negotiations about claimsof the same resources. In context of the environment one approachtowards procedural fairness is focusing on preferred proceduresfor obtaining consent to risk: reveal the risk (market driven soci-ety); include it in the contract (hierarchial system); explicit con-sent (egalitarian system). Inter-generational equity is a functionof the time scales the social systems are prepared to consider:short time scales, with weak inter-generational responsibility (mar-ket driven system); longer or intermediate time scales with a bal-anced responsibility for coming generations (hierarchial system);strong inter-generational responsibility, favouring quick imple-mentation of policies to protect ocean and coasts, with the burdenof payment on the living generations (egalitarian system).

THE ROLE OF GOVERNANCE

Fishery governance may be decomposed into two basic com-ponents: organizational scope (aim, goal), and organizational struc-ture. The scope is related to the long-term planning, the vision forthe fishery, expressed in a set of operational objectives for thedifferent fishery components. The structure is related to the abil-ity of the governance to accommodate the behavioural incentivesof the users (Hanna 1998). In principle the management of otherresources can also be considered according to such a decomposi-tion. Today the fisheries management is considered to be in acrisis. This is reaching beyond fisheries since fishery governanceis concerned with the management of a complex, dynamic andpublicly owned resource, which are issues of most other uses ofthe ocean and coasts. Fishery management has to work with andtake into account the large variability of the ocean. At the sametime the management system must be able to accommodate thebehavioural incentives of the users. These are all human. Toachieve success in the governance it appears mandatory that re-source users and managers share the same long-term vision forthe resources. Consensus must be built with a dialogue betweenall stakeholders and participation of users in the management struc-ture. Hanna (1998) argues on basis of a review that, following theintroduction of the EEZ, the fishery management scope and struc-ture have been opposite to their desirable characteristics: the struc-ture has been sluggish (inert) instead of adaptable; the scope hasbeen variable instead of stable. The result is biological overuse,economic loss, costly management, inequitable processes andoutcomes. The scope must be stabilized and a flexible structureconstructed, based on well-defined rules of participation, deci-sion making, property rights, responsibilities, incentives encour-


| 28

aging full dissemination of information, containing transac-tion costs, anticipating competition and ensuring monitoring. Aformidable task. Can this be achieved when fisheries is only asmall part of the national economic base, with decreasing politicalinfluences?

Expanding international markets for sea food imply greaterdistances between points of production and consumption, mak-ing control even more difficult than before. One conclusion maybe that greater efforts should be put into managing better thannow other uses of the ocean where the economic importance aswell as public concern and interest are larger than in the case ofthe fisheries sector, and use some of the resources consumed forfisheries management for these other efforts. In any case it has tobe accepted that alternative fisheries management systems areneeded if the management is to be successful. These alternativesshould meet the requirements identified above. One such alter-native system, meeting some of the requirements, is the systemintroduced in New South Wales, Australia (Young 1998). This isbased on a corporate management approach with a share systemof the fishery, not species specific.

EDUCATION AND CAPACITY BUILDING

There is a strong need for education, which is a must for thedevelopment of any nation. In to-days highly scientific and tech-nological world human intelligence is a resource for any nation,which must be developed and utilized. It must be used to achievethe benefits from the scientific and technological breakthroughs.Territory and possibly natural resources are not as important anymore. Intelligence, education and use thereof are.

In relation to ocean and coastal governance, including as re-gards SIDS, there is likewise a basic need for education and aware-ness enhancement about the ocean and coastal conditions. Ex-cept possibly in SIDS and some other limited regions, the peopleare very ignorant of the ocean, and the management of the vari-ous economic user sectors generally likewise. During the lastcouple of decades the ocean research has made great advances. Itis now possible to achieve reasonable and useful forecasting ofocean conditions , using ocean observations with delivery of datain near-real time, modeling and data assimilation. These forecastscan be used in management of many sectors of great importancefor conditions also on land, for example freshwater availability,flooding, climate variability, agriculture, tourism, as well as coastalprotection and shipping. There is a strong need to build capacityin the uses of these tools. This capacity must be built in the usersectors, not the ocean community. Hence the regional coopera-tion and capacity building must endeavour to reach and link withall these economic sectors. There is also a need to enhance ca-pacity in marine research, ocean observations and management,not necessarily only for the sake of the ocean but rather for thegood of the human society on land. The ocean must be seen aspart of our life supporting system, just as the atmosphere and theland. One way to achieve this capacity building is through col-laborative, international partnerships. These can cover ocean re-search, observations and technology, management and provisionof related services. The WSSD partnership idea is an appropriatevehicle to use, involving the public and the private sectors, andrelevant organizations. In order to achieve the goal , inter alia of

enhancing ocean governance, it is imperative that the user sec-tors, essentially all economic sectors, are involved: food produc-tion, energy, tourism and recreation, waste management, fresh-water, transportation, human health, coastal resources develop-ment and protection. Of special concern is the security of humanpopulation and property, against various types of events origi-nating at sea, as well as terrorism at sea. National capabilities arealso a requirement for an effective implementation of interna-tional agreements. The potential of UNCLOS and UNCED 92can only be achieved when the coastal states have the capacity tomanage and exploit the resources for the benefit of their ownpeople. The situation today with respect to living resources, tour-ism, trade, coastal developments in general, shows that this ca-pacity does not exist in many parts of the world. This situationbenefits those who have the capacity, for instance as regards fish-eries, related negotiations, technology and control. Those who donot have the capacity are loosing. The situation reflects the eq-uity and fairness problem discussed above.

The capacity building may most reasonably be achievedthrough regional cooperation, built on common interests, likeaddressing common threats, as well as trust and desire to achievea common vision and goals, including as regards security. Part ofthe capacity building should therefore address the need for a com-mon enforcement and control mechanism. This involves ques-tions related to national jurisdiction and territory. However, therelated problems must be tackled, and they can be consideredwithin a regional alliance. The regional cooperation in capacitybuilding would help generate co-management and further part-nership opportunities with respect to shared resources, with jointapplications of technology. This would also stimulate accuratereporting on activities, including fisheries, waste management andpollution, tourism, implementation of international agreements,and exchange of data for common uses. The regional alliancewith a capacity building element could also play a role in inter-regional and global affairs.

National ocean and coastal area policy plans should includeas essential elements education, capacity building and publicawareness enhancement, as well as aim at stimulating public par-ticipation. In this context regional cooperation could be utilizedto pool resources and avoid too much duplication. This approachis used in regional oil pollution combating planning. Such part-nerships are also mechanisms to be used. The regional coopera-tion could establish the minimum national needs and capabilitiesrequired to meet the responsibilities associated with various in-ternational agreements and conventions. The capacity buildingthrough partnerships could then address these needs. This wouldstimulate the implementation and the ocean and coastal gover-nance.

CONCLUDING REMARK

Sustainable governance of ocean and coastal resources re-quires abilities to adjust to changing conditions. A major issueconcerns the creation of solidarity and achievement of fairness ofdistribution of the resources and uses at all levels. The presenteconomic, ecological, political, technological and social forceshave some common trends and coincidences. This provides for awindow of opportunity to seek sustainable development with re-

29 |


alism and idealism possibly coinciding. The realism of the forcespoint at the need for comprehensiveness in management, solidar-ity, trust, sustainable development, security enforcement, throughadequate governance and government. The lack of trust in gov-ernments and politicians is demonstrated for instance by the trans-fer of human rights affairs to an international judiciary. The ideal-ism of UNCLOS, UNCED 92, and WSSD 2002, and of otherrelated international agreements, provide for required legal andother regimes, and point at the need for comprehensiveness, bal-ance of forces and institutional integration. Regional cooperationcan provide the vehicle to achieve the vision by building on com-munity-based co-management and partnership units working to-wards sustainable development. By linking these units togetherat regional level the development of further units will be stimu-lated. At the same time a grouping or alliance can be created whichinvolves all economic sectors, the scientific communities, civilsociety, authorities and governments in a balanced fashion.Through such a balance solidarity, trust and synergism may beachieved. The governance system will not function without trustbetween all those involved.

The governance should have a long-term goal based on theagreed vision, and an adaptable management structure able tocope with changes. Security aspects and enforcement mechanismsshould be included, but built primarily on incentives rather thancontrol measures. Education and capacity building, for instancein form of partnerships, should be part of the cooperation, aimingat creating the required institutions and human resources.

REFERENCES

Costanza, R. 1998 The ecological, economic and social importanceof the oceans, pp 69-98 in Ecological Economics and SustainableGovernance of the Oceans, editors R. Costanza and F. Andrade, SIL-VAS, Lisbon

Haas, P.M. 1990 Saving the Mediterranean: The Politics of Interna-tional Environmental Cooperation, Columbia University Press

Hanna, S.S. 1998 Strengthening governance of ocean fishery re-sources, pp 257-276 in Ecological Economics and Sustainable Gov-ernance of the Oceans, editors R. Costanza and F. Andrade, SIL-VAS, Lisbon

Holling, C.S., Berkes, F., and Folke, C. 1995 Science, Sustainabilityand Resource Management. Beijer Discussion paper 68, Beijer In-ternational Institute of Ecological Economics, Stockholm, Sweden

Rayner, S. 1998 Civil society and fairness in sustainable gover-nance strategies, pp 169-209 in Ecological Economics and Sustain-able Governance of the Oceans, editors R. Costanza and F. Andrade,SILVAS, Lisbon

Young, M.D. 1998 The design of fishing right systems-The NSWexperience, pp 277-294 in Ecological Economics and SustainableGovernance of the Oceans, editors R. Costanza and F. Andrade, SIL-VAS, Lisbon


| 30

31 |


TOWARDS A REGIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORKFOR INTEGRATED COASTAL AREA MANAGEMENT

IN THE MEDITERRANEAN

Harry CoccossisProfessor of Environmental, Urban and Regional Planning,

Department of Planning and Regional Development, University of Thessaly, GreecePedion Areos 1, GR 38 334 Volos, Tel +3024210 74475

[email protected]

INTRODUCTION

Centuries of civilization have developed an intensive and com-plex pattern of exchange and development concentrating popula-tion and economic activities in coastal towns along the Mediter-ranean coastlines. Coastal areas, throughout the Mediterranean,face severe pressures and problems which threaten coastal re-sources and undermine the viability of economic activities (UNEP/MAP/PAP, 2001).

Coastal urbanization is evident in most of the countries ofsouth Mediterranean but also of the north. It has contributed tolosses of agricultural land and traditional activities, as well as tohabitat loss due to increased pressures on natural ecosystems. Ur-banization is also leading to a reduction of scarce coastal resources(like water), overexploitation and salinization of undergroundwater aquifers, coastal soil erosion and destruction of naturalshoreline defenses, desertification inland and reduction of riversediment supply.

Pollution is still critical particular in some locations as a re-sult of a lack of appropriate infrastructure. Industry and urbancenters are the main sources of pollution. Around 100 priority hotspots have been identified in 19 Mediterranean countries.

The above issues need to be considered in the broader socio-economic and institutional context of the area.

RESPONSES

The significance of the coastal areas is widely recognized aswell as the need to act in the immediate future since pressures onthis fragile environment are continuously intensifying in the Medi-terranean. It became apparent early that problems of environmentalquality in the marine environment are linked to the human activi-ties many of which are concentrated along the surrounding coastalareas. So, environmental protection was linked to the control ofhuman activities in coastal areas. Integrated Coastal Area Man-agement (ICAM) has been widely recognized as a coherent frame-work to organize actions for managing coastal areas.

The burden for integrated coastal zone management, from aninstitutional perspective, worldwide, falls at the national level inspite of the fact that many problems might be regional or local incharacter. Responses vary on the basis of the particularities of thedevelopment stage, institutional context and environment/devel-

opment issues. .It is evident that there are more than one ways toICAM. There are few examples of comprehensive coastal man-agement policies at the national level in the Mediterranean andeven fewer applications. Yet, problems in coastal areas still per-sist. National coastal policies in Mediterranean countries are typi-cally more prescriptive than facilitative. They rely on traditionalroles of government vs. governance. Process rather than outcome-oriented approaches and participatory management could offer away forward (UNEP/MAP/PAP, 2001).

In contemporary times of globalisation, national administra-tive systems, in spite of their fundamental regulatory role, areincreasingly in search of partners at sub-national or local levels(or even Regional) that offer specific competitive advantages. Atlocal level a variety of initiatives exist ( CAMPs, etc) with vary-ing performances, successes and failures. It is necessary that Medi-terranean communities develop and function as strong, co-op-erative and inventive partners in the decision-making processesof coastal management. Although many problems of coastal ar-eas are highly localized there is strong ground to support sharedaction (UNEP/MAP/PAP, 2001). Shared action requires a com-mon framework so it is necessary to develop a vision of the futurefor the Region.

While national experiences in ICAM are sparse there is a pro-liferation of initiatives and activities at an international level.Among the world Regions, the Mediterranean is probably the mostadvanced in terms of developing cooperation in ICAM. Collabo-ration is established on the strong basis of the MediterraneanAction Plan and recently in the context of other fora but espe-cially the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership. So the Regional levelis very important in the Mediterranean and is likely to remain soin the future.

During the past years, ICAM has been promoted in a system-atic way through various national and international initiatives inthe context of the Mediterranean Action Plan and the Mediterra-nean Commission on Sustainable Development, the Mediterra-nean Environmental Technical Assistance Program, the EuropeanUnion and the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership. CAMP projectsand EU Demonstration projects on ICZM are some of the attemptsto implement such initiatives.

These concerns have led to the preparation of “Guidelines forIntegrated Coastal Area Management in the Mediterranean”(UNEP/MAP/PAP, 1997), “Formulation and implementation of


| 32

CAMP projects-Operational manual” (UNEP/MAP/PAP, 1999),and “Assessment of Integrated Coastal Area Management Initia-tives in the Mediterranean: Experiences from METAP and PAP”(METAP, 1998) have been prepared. Similar initiatives have beenalso undertaken in the European context as presented in “Towardsan European Strategy for ICZM” and “Lessons from the Euro-pean Community Demonstration Program in ICZM”.

In spite of a long Mediterranean cooperation in ICAM:.

• A strategic view of the Mediterranean is still missing.ICAM still lags behind in terms of effective interven-tions given the importance of coastal areas in theMediterranean and the complexity of their problems.

• In spite of advanced state in defining goals andprinciples there are no mechanisms of pursuingnational administrations to adopt them except in theform of very formal and administratively cumbersomeprocedures (as is the case with Protocols).

• At the regional level, there are no mechanisms toensure follow-up as is the case with the recommenda-tions of the MCSD working committee on integratedcoastal area management.

• In spite of an early concern with coastal areas in theMediterranean and a qualitative approach in outliningsuch dynamics, there is no accurate basis of estimatingthe extent of the problems as a basis for regional levelpolicy making.

• Furthermore, although indicators have been developedthere is no mechanism or established process to utilizethem in a policy-making process taking a long-termperspective.

NEED FOR INTEGRATED COASTAL AREAMANAGEMENT

Prospects of growth in the Region suggest that developmentproblems are likely to intensify in some areas, particularly for thecountries to the south and east of the Mediterranean Basin, in aninternationally increasingly more competitive climate. Such con-ditions are likely to lead to increasingly deteriorating socio-eco-nomic conditions in a certain number of countries, thus encour-aging geopolitical instability in the Mediterranean Basin, or deg-radation of the environment and natural resources.

To break up these tendencies, it is obvious that internationalcooperation is necessary in promoting a completely different ap-proach to environmental problems such as internalisation of pro-tection costs and decision-making, less centralisation but bettercoordination of activities, greater involvement of local commu-nities in decision-making and management, etc.

ICAM is a continuous, proactive and adaptive process of re-source management for environmentally sustainable development

in coastal areas. The overall objective of integrated coastal man-agement is to provide for the best long term and sustainable useof coastal resources and for perpetual maintenance of the mostbeneficial coastal environment. Resource management and envi-ronmental conservation, which provide the motivation for ICAMare not incompatible with economic growth. In fact, enhancedlong term economic development can and must be the overalldriving force of ICAM. Specifically, ICAM aims to:

• Strengthen sectoral co-operation, i.e. through training,legislation.

• Preserve and protect the productivity and biodiversityof coastal ecosystems, through preventing habitatdestruction, pollution and overexploitation.

• Promote rational development and sustainableutilisation of coastal resources.

Fundamental to ICAM is a clear understanding of the rela-tionships between coastal resources, their uses and the impacts ofdevelopment on economy, society and the environment. Sincecoastal resources can be used at the same time by various eco-nomic sectors and social actors, the clarification and comprehen-sion of all their uses and relationships is essential. Also for ICAMto succeed, a broad context of involvement of major actors andinterest groups is essential. The participatory process must focuson facilitating horizontal and vertical dialogue, agreements andcompromises between all parties and actors involved in the har-nessing and exploitation of coastal resources, in a comprehensiveand integrated manner.

The degradation of coastal areas and the deterioration of thequality of life due to the current trends of increasing poverty incoastal communities as well as increased pressures from devel-opment and population growth (i.e. decline of habitat and naturalresources, climate change) exaggerate the need for integratedcoastal area management.

NEED FOR A REGIONAL FRAMEWORK

The MAP/Mediterranean Commission for Sustainable Devel-opment has outlined the major steps that can be taken:

• Strengthen or establish legislative tools, regulationsand property management leading to controllingurbanisation and protecting the most precious naturalsites. Among other things this means :

- providing coastal zones subjected to strong develop-mental pressure with plans for development and landmanagement that take environmental questions intoaccount,

- avoiding generalised urbanisation too close to coastsand the building of roads parallel and close to coast-lines that promote this kind of urbanisation

- identifying the most remarkable coastal sites (such aswetlands, sand dunes, and so forth) and implementingmeasures that ensure their protection

33 |


It is necessary to adopt Integrated Coastal Area Managementwidely across the Mediterranean and to that respect special ef-forts at the Regional, national and local levels are needed. Al-though in principle there is mobilization towards this directionthe efforts are not commensurate with the speed of change andthe severity of the problems. The rapid transformation and in-creasing complexity of the Mediterranean coastal areas imposethe need for further effort.

Integrated Coastal Area Management (ICAM) thus involvesa range of coastal planning, day-to-day coastal resources man-agement and support activities (applied research, monitoring,education, law, institutional capacity building and finances) thatmust be coordinated in order to address issues of real concern.The process of coastal management involves policy (programmeor plan) formulation, implementation, monitoring and evaluatingthe results, and, where appropriate, revising both the policy andimplementation measures to ensure that the issues of concern areeffectively addressed.

Developing an integrated coastal area management approachis not an easy task, and needs to be worked towards, progres-sively, over time, through successive project generations. First,attention needs to be drawn to the subject of coastal manage-ment. Then, awareness needs to be built around the subject. Dia-logue needs to be fostered amongst the various role-players. Co-operation can then be promoted, followed by co-ordination ofactivities. Finally, integration can be realised

Three different scenarios were considered in respect to devel-oping further Regional level action towards ICAM.

• Trend (do nothing): to continue existing arrangementsbased on international cooperation, voluntary mobili-zation at the national level and the propagation ofdemonstration projects. Such an option would implyefforts of streamlining further assumed and plannedactivities mostly relying on the activities and supportof MAP, EuroMed and EU (and other actors).

-The benefits of this scenario is the tested grounds anda common basis of cooperation by adopting Regionalgoals and principles and probably multiplying demon-stration projects

-The major shortcomings stem from the reliance essen-tially on supra-national level guidance reducing the ef-fectiveness of interventions and the limitations derivingfrom the availability of funds and external priority set-ting.

• Intermediate : to rely further on existing legalstructures and systems on the basis of the traditionalrole of the state in regulating development andproviding for environmental protection. This wouldmean efforts to improve cooperation across sectorsand levels of administration within each state, inaddition to a continuation of cooperation at theRegional level.

-The benefits of this scenario is the existence of a longtradition in regulating matters at the national level re-flecting the complexities of cultural, social and economiccontingencies. Implementation could be facilitated sincetested and established institutional procedures and le-gal grounds form the basis of this approach.

-The shortcomings of this scenario stem from the rigidi-ties and administrative inertia in central administrativesystems to adopt innovation and adapt to change. Ac-tion depends on contingencies and resource mobiliza-tion at the national level.

• Wide-range pro-active: to expand and solidify regionalcooperation in the direction of adopting a strongregional instrument such as a Protocol. This wouldimply strengthening national and regional capacitiesfor ICAM and developing mechanisms of ‘coercion’.

Several criteria were employed to assess the options whichwere developed. Criteria include: political acceptability, adapt-ability, implementability, financial burden and added value to MAP.

.


| 34

35 |


VOLGA/CASPIAN BASIN. REGIONAL CO-OPERATION –BENEFITS AND PROBLEMS

by Dr. I. Oliounine

Executive DirectorInternational Ocean Institute – Headquarters

University of MaltaTal Qroqq, Msida MSD 06. Malta

Tel: +356 (-) 21 346 528/9, Fax: +356 (-) 346 502,E-mail: [email protected]

REGIONAL CONCERNS AND NEEDFOR CO-OPERATION

Long experience in regional cooperation in the use and man-agement of shared seas gives us an opportunity to come to somegeneral conclusions on the benefits of this type of cooperation:

Regional perspective helps define priorities and priority needs;It helps pooling resources; It fosters regional and national devel-opment and supports a multi-lateral economy; It helps to addressadequately environmental threats (sea level risk, pollution, fish-eries depletion, etc.); It helps to establish better surveillance andenforcements; It creates conditions for comprehensive regionalsecurity to prevent armed conflicts and fulfill basic human needsand amenities.

For closed and semi-closed seas co-operation among the ri-parian countries is the necessity as it is dictated by the dynamicsof the sea and marine environment, lack of geographical bound-aries, common resources problems, etc. The present most seriousenvironmental and socio/economic problems associated with theclimate change and experienced at regional scale in the Caspianregion can be resolved only through the cooperative integratedapproach. They include inundation and flooding; dissertification;fresh water availability; food security, including fisheries; impactson coastal zones all and many others.

All these problems are inter-related. Consideration of envi-ronmental problems in isolation or separately from the socio/eco-nomic ones will be counterproductive. The way to meet the prob-lems should be through shared responsibility of all riparian coun-tries in such matters as safety, water quality, forecasting systems,data and information collection and exchange, etc. This approachcreates the basis for regional cooperation and helps to reducemanagement costs.

EXPERIENCE ON REGIONAL ACTIVITIES IN THECASPIAN SEA

The need for the protection and management of the CaspianSea region has always preoccupied not only the Caspian Sea bor-dering states but also international organizations: governmentaland non-governmental.

A number of UN agencies have been active in the CaspianSea region and its Deltas mainly through fact-finding missions,

organization of scientific meetings, training courses and formu-lating project proposals.

There are a number of existing regional programmes or asso-ciated activities which are responding to the regional problemsidentified above. These include those implemented by UNDP,UNEP, WMO, IOC, EU, NATO, UNESCO and some others.

• The most significant international effort is beingimplemented by UNDP/GEF Caspian EnvironmentalProgramme. The Programme has a wide rangingscope covering many environmental, social andassociated disciplines, including monitoring andcontrol of pollution; fisheries and bio-resources;studies of the sea level change; combating desertifica-tion; integrated coastal management, as well as legaland regulatory issues. The first phase of theProgramme had finished last year after four successfulyears and the Programme is entering the second phase.

• Since 1999 UNESCO environmental and socialprogrammes are involved in the development of theInterdisciplinary Demonstration Project in the VolgaCaspian Basin. It is a pioneer project in the imple-mentation of the integrated approach in the coastalzone management advocated by WSSD in 2002 and isknown as from the Tophills to the Ocean approach.Physical, chemical, biological processes and humanactivities in the Volga/Caspian Basin are addressedwith the overall goal to prove that through interdisci-plinary research, analysis and subsequently proposedsolutions the most urgent problems of the sustainabledevelopment of the Volga-Caspian Region can besolved. The proposed project will provide theopportunity for the participating institutions andscientists to develop new scientific concepts andapproaches. The Project Document entitled “Vision”will be finalized by the end of this year which willconstitute a roadmap for the programme developmentand implementation.

• WMO has developed a draft of the integrated projectfor a monitoring and information system for theassessment and forecasting of the state of the environ-ment and pollution in the Caspian Sea region


| 36

(CASPAS). The objective of the project will be to providea practical contribution to the modernization, enhance-ment and further development of the network ofmarine, coastal and delta monitoring stations and portsas well as enhancement of human resources andestablishment of a special Info-System. WMO is co-operating with EU in this effort.

The International Ocean Institute (IOI) is collaborating closelywith these and other organizations, in assisting Caspian Sea ri-parian countries in capacity building, creation awareness and gov-ernance. The Institute is contributing to the above-mentionedinitiatives by applying its long experience in organizing confer-ences, seminars and workshops, addressing maritime issues andinternational cooperation, regional security and ocean governanceand policy.

IOI organized the Leadership Seminar on Sustainable Devel-opment and Regional Security of the Caspian Sea and its deltasRegion with the support of its Caspian Operational Centre, theAdministration of the Astrakhan Region, the Astrakhan Techni-cal University and the European Union. The seminar took placein Astrakhan from 27 – 30 May 2003. Twenty-seven experts fromand outside the region took part at the seminar.

The objective of the Seminar was to present an independentexpert opinion on possible ways to address the current situationin the Caspian Sea and deltas, using experience and lessons drawnfrom other maritime regions facing similar problems, within theframework provided by relevant international legal instruments.It was a real think-tank expert meeting for which experts wereselected to provide a first-hand knowledge of the Caspian Seaproblems and experience from other regions where similar issueshave been and are being successfully addressed. The in-depthdiscussions provided an extensive overview of the coastal andmarine management of the Caspian Sea. The Seminar discus-sions were organized around three main themes: socio-economicrenewal; social and environmental challenges; and status, delimi-tation and distributive justice. The expert analysis and assess-ment of existing problems were based on a comprehensive ap-proach reflecting the fact that conditions in the entire Caspianmaritime and deltas regions are inter-related and that most prob-lems have a basin-wide nature. Various mechanisms of manage-ment and reconciliation, operational within the international le-gal framework were considered.

The output of the Seminar was recommendations for improv-ing the existing management practices at national, sub-regionaland regional levels, and for improving the state of the coastal andmarine environment and natural resources.

The full text of Conclusions and Recommendations can befound on the IOI website URL://http//www.ioinst.net

The experience of the last decade in regional co-operationand implementation of programmes showed that in spite of nu-merous achievements and success stories there are still consider-able drawbacks which hamper the effectiveness of implementa-tion and the benefits of final results. The main drawback is thelack or very low level of cooperation especially at the nationaland international levels. In spite of a wide acceptance of the im-

portance of partnership in the programmes formulation and imple-mentation there are scarce examples of bringing partnership con-cept to real life. Each national institution or international organi-zation tries to preserve and guard carefully its own domain. As aresult very often we face duplication of efforts, ambiguous andsometimes contradictory results. In spite of seeing clearly theadvantages of an integrated approach many projects have narrowone discipline coverage. Many programmes lack results evalua-tion and no maintenance funds are foreseen in the budgets. Lackof the plan of the follow up actions and financing creates the prob-lem of sustaining capability and maintaining the progress achieved.

Regional and national priorities for action on Caspian Seaproblems should be determined through consultations among andwithin coastal countries. These consultations should be open tocivil society and non-governmental organizations, experts fromacademia and research institutes, coastal communities and ad-ministrations, the private sector, and other stakeholders in accor-dance with national regulations.

So there is plenty of opportunity for increasing the feedbackof the regional programmes for the benefits of the peoples of theCaspian riparian countries. It is indisputable that governmentsare becoming more and more sensitive to opportunities and con-flicts in their respective coastal waters and in sea areas undertheir national jurisdiction. There is an increasing willingness towork together for the benefit of all concerned. If sustainable de-velopment is to be achieved national decisions must accommo-date regional needs.

CREATION OF MECHANISMS TO DEAL WITHCONCERNS

Regional cooperation on behalf of the marine and coastal en-vironment fostered during the last decade in the Caspian regionhas been accomplished by the creation of some regional mecha-nisms and the formulation of the national and regional legal in-struments. Perhaps, as Mrs. L. Kimball noted the most long-last-ing accomplishment till today was achieved by UNDP/GEF CEP.There were 10 Thematic Centres established, located in differentcountries with a focus on integrated coastal area management plan-ning, sustainable use of aquatic bioresources, emergency responseactions, and institutional, legal, regulatory and economic frame-works. Few protocols have been drafted, e.g. Concerning Re-gional Cooperation in Combating Oil Pollution in Cases of Emer-gency; Framework Convention on the Protection of the MarineEnvironment of the Caspian Sea. The CEP Data and Informationmanagement Initiative has laid the groundwork for an informa-tion management system that will serve decision-makers, educa-tors, researchers and the public.

However, the processes are only so far beginning. Furthersteps are needed to develop and strengthen legal instruments, toestablish co-ordination mechanisms for sea research and moni-toring, to identify financial mechanisms for fund raising and pool-ing resources, etc.

The IOI Leadership Seminar considered mechanisms that areoperational in other regions and are recommended for consider-ation and application in The Caspian Sea region. To apply themto the Caspian sea environment there will be a need for a critical

37 |


review, for adjusting the mechanisms to new conditions, chal-lenges and priorities:

• Each coastal state should establish a high – level unitor designate an official responsible for inter-agencycoordination of Caspian Sea issues at the nationallevel;

• Creation of Regional Bodies within relevant UNorganizations dealing with Caspian marine science andservices, and management;

• Creation of a marine regional center for the improve-ment of partnership in the region between variousinstitutions to work closely with the existing Associa-tion of the Caspian Bordering States universities;

• Establishment of a regional Forum which will involveall principal stake-holders to further advance publicawareness and transparency regarding activities in theregion. It should facilitate and ensure that theseprojects collaborate and consult widely;

• Creation of a regional centre for the emergencyresponse;

• Creation of a regional Trust Fund or another financingmechanism for sustainable (private) investment insupport of environmental and sustainable developmentprojects.

• (vii) Establishment of an integrated monitoringsystem to respond to various users’ needs and requestswhich will compose date collection and data andinformation processing, archiving and exchangecomponent.

The responsibilities of the proposed mechanisms are partlyoverlapping and partly complementary. They all targeted on theestablishment of a framework to encourage the open exchange ofideas; identification of needs; debating the problems; develop-ment of multifaceted regional programs and action plans; devel-opment of capacity building activities including training; settingof rules for marine data and information sharing, etc.

Most of the Caspian Sea riparian states are ill-prepared foradditional demands for jurisdiction and management. UNCLOSand Conventions and Agreements reached through UNCED 92have given together an internationally agreed and comprehensiveframework for the ocean governance. However, it must all beimplemented and enforced.

There is a need to develop or reinforce legal instruments. Itwill involve national legislation, regional agreements, and globalconventions. All Caspian coastal states should become parties toand strive to fully implement conventions which are relevant tosolving the sea problems. Establishment of a Caspian Sea Con-flict-Prevention Centre may facilitate a legal review, identifica-tion of gaps and ways to fill them in.

Caspian States should strive to establish coherent protectedareas networks in the Caspian Sea, as called for in the WSSDdecisions, to reduce over-fishing and for other purposes, Theymay consider establishment of a coastguard for marine safety,marine pollution and fishing as it is proposed by EU and all Medi-terranean States, or a Sea Peace Keeping mechanism for jointregional surveillance and enforcement programmes which is be-ing successfully implemented in some regions. National naviescan be used to jointly combat illegal activities, such as poaching,drug and human trafficking, illegal migration, etc.

Regional cooperation on the Caspian Sea should build onexisting national and regional institutions and programs and inte-grate them in an efficient and well-coordinated manner. New con-cepts and new mechanisms of cooperation are emerging and areoperational or being tested in different parts of the world. It is forthe Caspian States scientists and governmental authorities to studycarefully the experience gained in other regions and see how itcan be applied to the region. The regional community is nowready to reach an agreement on the framework and mechanismsfor cooperation and integration of sustainable development andhuman security.


| 38

39 |


MANAGING THE MANAGERS: IMPROVINGTHE STRUCTURE AND OPERATION OF FISHERIES

DEPARTMENTS IN SIDSRobin Mahon and Patrick McConney

Centre for Resource Management and Environmental Studies (CERMES),University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus, Barbados,

Phone 246-417-4570, Fax 246-424-4204,[email protected], [email protected]

INTRODUCTION

As fisheries management evolved, it became clear that it wasabout managing people not fish. The people in question were thefishers. This perspective then broadened to include other fisherystakeholders. Now it seems we must question whether these arethe only groups of people in need of management. Could themanagers themselves need managing?

This paper focuses on issues affecting the management offisheries when fisheries departments are small1 , as is typical inmost Small Island Developing States (SIDS), but also in manydeveloping countries regardless of size. SIDS are stewards of alarge amount of ocean space relative to land space, populationand economic output. Consequently, even if proportional in sizeto their populations, fisheries departments of SIDS are small rela-tive to the ocean space they must manage and to the importanceof fisheries in the national economy, especially national food se-curity.

The fisheries management issues for SIDS have become in-creasingly urgent as they struggle to cope with their commitments,binding or otherwise, to international fisheries agreements andprogrammes of action such as the FAO Code of Conduct for Re-sponsible Fisheries, the FAO Compliance Agreement, the UN FishStocks Agreement, IPOA on IUU Fishing (FAO 1995a, FAO1995b, United Nations 1995, FAO 2001). Following the WorldSummit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) which highlightedthe need for action in fisheries and set time targets for stock re-building, ecosystem based management and implementation ofIPOAs, the urgency is even greater.

PROBLEMS WITH FISHERIES DEPARTMENTSTRUCTURE AND FUNCTION IN SIDS

In order to assess the likelihood that SIDS will meet WSSDFisheries Targets, there is the need to evaluate whether their Fish-eries Departments are up to the task and, if it they are not, why? Isit simply that they are under-funded and need to be made larger?Or is it that their size is appropriate to the resource base and thattheir structure and function is inappropriate to their size.

It is very likely that the answer to the first question is yes inmany cases. However, the data to determine if fisheries adminis-trations are under-funded relative to other productive sectors isnot readily available, or at least has not been assembled for thispurpose. This question raises a whole host of other questions. Forexample, what is an appropriate level of expenditure on the man-agement of a productive sector, and more specifically, on fisher-ies to ensure sustainability and optimal benefits? Unless theseissues are addressed, Fisheries Administrators will always claimthey are badly under-funded and cannot get the job done with theresources they have. Thus failure is preprogrammed. It is appro-priate for Fisheries Administrators to seek increased resources tocarry out the work of their departments, but within some time-frame, there needs to be acceptance of the resources availableand planning for the most efficient use of those resources.

It is in addressing the second question, regarding the appro-priateness of structure and operation of fisheries departments inSIDS, that most attention will be devoted in this paper. It is ourview that there are often serious deficiencies in the structure andfunction of small fisheries departments that must be addressed ifSIDS are to make timely progress towards WSSD targets. As func-tion generally follows from structure we will take these in turn.

Much of the problem in the structure of small fisheries de-partments is that they are modeled on large fisheries departmentsin large and/or developed countries often with large fisheries. Themodel is one of having a range of professional capability in theform of different persons to cover the full range of technicalareas including: biology and stock assessment, economics, soci-ology, fishing technology, post harvest technology, marketing anddistribution, international relations and community development.This model is based on the conventional approach to fisheriesmanagement with heavy dependence on stock assessment andeconomic modeling, requiring intensive data collection, techni-cal analysis and top down enforcement (Mahon 1997). The ten-dency for small fisheries departments to be modeled on large onesis also reinforced by many development agencies and donors whoseek to have their own organizational structures mirrored in re-cipient organizations.

1 Small means departments with up to 10 professionals with some specialised training in one of the areas listed.


| 40

Even within the above model, assuming that the departmenthas progressed past the economic fisheries development admin-istration mode, there is a tendency to perceive fisheries manage-ment as a biological problem. Consequently, staff with training inthe biological and environmental sciences often predominate insmall fisheries departments.

Small fisheries departments are highly susceptible to unpre-dictable perturbations. Crises, that subsume the time of a few staffcan bring the normal operations of a small department to a halt.Each staff member comprises a significant proportion of thedepartment’s institutional memory. The departure of a few indi-viduals in a short time can result in loss of continuity in activitiesor even strategic directions. This may occur due to factors suchas staff taking up training opportunities (often not returning) andlow opportunity for advancement in small organizations, or evenretirement. This is exacerbated by the difficulty in establishingsystems for institutional memory in small departments due to in-adequate resources. There is the tendency for small fisheries de-partments to be highly influenced by one or a few individuals,either positively or negatively.

WHAT IS APPROPRIATE STRUCTURE FOR SMALLFISHERIES DEPARTMENTS?

The answer to the question of how a small fisheries depart-ment should be structured is a complex one. It depends on a num-ber of contextual factors. These are primarily the scale, value anddiversity of the fisheries to be managed. If there is a large, high-monetary value resource then a small island may be able to afforda large, conventional fisheries department. Most often this is notthe case. SIDS are often dealing with a large number of small-scale fisheries each with relatively low value (Mahon 1997). Theaggregate value may be high, but each fishery requires manage-ment and few warrant a full conventional management approach.In the latter situation, a small fisheries department using the con-ventional approach may have sufficient resources to address oneor two fisheries properly. The others may be left unmanaged.However, it is not uncommon for the resources to be spread acrossall fisheries so that no fishery is well managed.

An alternative is to adopt much less technically-based ap-proach (lower demand for data and analysis). It is becoming clearthat much can be achieved in managing fisheries through effec-tive planning, coordination and consensus building using basicinformation on catches and fleets and stakeholder knowledge ofthe situation (Mahon 1997, Johannes 1998). This approach wouldrequire a differently structured and staffed fisheries department(Berkes et al, 2001, Allison and McBride 2003). The key skills

would be planning, project development and management, me-diation and facilitation. Technical inputs would be hired in on aproject basis, as needed or more likely as opportunities arose.This approach has implications outside of the fisheries depart-ment itself, it has links to the need for linkages with sources of thetechnical skills required. These are available on the internationalmarket, but there are advantages in developing local and regionalcapacity. Thus consultants, local NGOs and academic institutionsbecome a part of the capacity building strategy. This approachalso leads to increased emphasis on regional coordinating orga-nizations that can provide expertise to several SIDS or assist withthe linkages to expertise2 .

WHAT IS AN APPROPRIATE OPERATIONAL MODEFOR SMALL FISHERIES DEPARTMENTS?

The structure proposed above for small fisheries departmentsindicates that their operational emphasis will be more on coordi-nation than on actual technical activities. This will include man-aging projects, facilitating multi-stakeholder process and itera-tive planning and review. Being much more people-based thanthe conventional approach, this operational mode will require amuch greater emphasis on planning and process, although theseare valuable regardless to approach. Planning has numerous ben-efits, particularly in small departments. Most of these come un-der the heading of accountability.

Planning facilitates transparency which in turn strengthens ac-countability as fisheries department staff cannot easily deviatefrom what is planned without explaining why. In a similar veinplanning includes prioritization which reduces the opportunitiesfor ad hoc activities. Small fisheries departments are particularlysusceptible to diversion of staff time into such activities. Oftenthese activities may be seen as high priority by individuals whilebeing of relatively low priority in the overall scheme. Some ex-amples are foreign travel3 and pursuit of special interest activi-ties4 .

Planning that includes stakeholders increases the chances thatthey will buy into the plan (ownership). It also requires that therebe information exchange and capacity building in order to par-ticipate effectively in planning. This can shift the distribution ofknowledge power among stakeholders and in turn stimulate po-litical will.

Planning and process can stabilize small departments by re-ducing influence of strong personalities. Without planning, strongnegative personalities lead departments astray; strong positive onesfocus all the decision-making and leadership in one person. When

2 In addition to exploring the most appropriate model for small fisheries departments there is the need to consider the relative capacity thatshould be established in national and regional institutions. Models of national/regional arrangements that take advantage of limited resources areonly now beginning to emerge (Sydnes 2001). This further complicates the matter of national investment in management, because regionalinstitutions must be supported from national funds, usually at the expense of the national institutions. Thus it can be expected that in addition tocollaboration between the two levels, there will be tensions.3 Without clear prioritised plans, there is scope for a great deal of ad hoc activity on the part of fisheries department staff. This activity may beopportunity driven by offers of travel to workshops and training. Travel with associated per diems may increase annual salaries of fisheriesofficers substantially. For example a two week trip to a workshop with US$100 per day surplus per diem (after hotel and food costs) wouldleave participants with $US1400 in pocket. For a fisheries officers with an annual salary of US$14,000, the trip can provide a 10% supplementto annual salary. Consequently, in the absence of transparent planning, activities that include well-paid travel may get priority.

41 |


this person leaves, the department may be left in a dysfunctionalstate.

Planning and consensus lead to upward and downward link-ages from decision-makers through fisheries officials to industryand community stakeholders. They also facilitate lateral commu-nication with non-fishery stakeholders such as the public and re-lated sectors such as tourism and shipping.

Not surprisingly, there is resistance to planning as it may beperceived as a loss of freedom. In a small fisheries department,with everyone in daily communication, planning may also be per-ceived as redundant. Planning may also be perceived as difficultparticularly for those without a management background. Thisproblem is exacerbated by the fact that there is very little guid-ance in the fisheries development literature on planning processfor fisheries management and even less for planning of fisheriesdepartments.

A systemic/structural impediment to planning is that post-co-lonial administrations remain formally rigid, slow to adapt andunwieldy. Informally there is a large amount of arbitrariness andpolitical fluidity that circumvents formal lines. Both of these un-dermine effective planning.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

It is clear that the issues relating to appropriate structure andfunction for small fisheries departments in SIDS are complex.Some are also relevant to larger fisheries departments. Still oth-ers are more broadly contextual issues affecting public sectoradministration in general. While this paper cannot address thistopic comprehensively in the space available, it raises the keyissues which can serve to stimulate discussion on the topic.

A small fisheries department cannot simply be a small ver-sion of a large one. When this attempted, the functions becomecompressed into a few individuals who cannot possibly have theexpertise required to carry them out effectively. Since fisheries inSIDS are no less complex than those in larger and/or developedcountries it is unreasonable to expect that they can be managedwith less expertise if the same approaches are used.

The issues identified relating to small size of fisheries depart-ments make SIDS particularly likely to fail to achieve WSSDtargets. The appropriate structure and function of developing coun-try fishery departments based on levels of financial support thatare appropriate to the value of resources to be managed have notbeen systematically addressed. Similarly, although the need forimproved planning and review processes is frequently identified,there is little to guide managers in these areas. Consequently, sys-tematic action to address these issues has been minimal. Some ofthe issues may be active topics in the area of public administra-tion. If so, these deliberations do not appear to be reaching thefisheries management community.

If these issues are to be addressed, there will be the need tobring them into active discussion and to develop programmes thatfocus on solving them. There is the need to conduct research onthe appropriate structure and function for small fisheries depart-ments. Alternative structures and mechanisms to ensure stabilityand resilience of small departments must be explored. There isalso the need to develop literature that can provide guidance onthe planning and operation of these departments.

REFERENCES

Allison, E. H., R. J. McBride. 2003. Educational reform for im-proved natural resource management: fisheries and aquaculture inBangladeshi universities. Society and Natural Resources, 16: 249-264.

Berkes, F., R. Mahon, P. McConney, R. Pollnac and R. Pomeroy.2001. Managing small-scale fisheries: Alternative directions andmethods. IDRC, Ottawa, Canada, 308 p.

FAO 1995a. Code of conduct for responsible fisheries. FAO.

FAO. 1995b. Agreement to promote compliance with internationalconservation and management measures by fishing vessels on theHigh Seas. FAO, Rome, Italy

FAO. 2000. The international plan of action for the management offishing capacity. FAO, Rome, Italy

FAO. 2001. International plan of action to prevent, deter and elimi-nate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. FAO, Rome, Italy

Johannes, R. E. 1998. The case for data-less marine resource man-agement: examples from tropical nearshore fisheries. Trends in Ecol-ogy and Evolution 13: 243-245.

Mahon, R. 1997. Does fisheries science serve the needs of manag-ers of small stocks in developing countries? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.54: 2207-2213.

United Nations 1995. Agreement for the implementation of the pro-visions of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea of10 December 1982 relating to the conservation and management ofstraddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. UN Confer-ence on Straddling Fish stocks and Highly Migratory Species, Sixthsession, New York, A/Conf.164/37.

United Nations 1983. The Law of the Sea. Official text of the UnitedNations Convention on the Law of the Sea with annexes and tables.United Nations, New York.

4 Without clear prioritised plans individual agendas may exert a strong influence over the department’s priorities. For example, in a small fisheriesdepartment a fisheries officer with strong inclinations to reef conservation may shift the departmental focus in this direction while providinglimited attention to offshore fisheries. Formal planning can provide balance and prioritisation that can help to overcome these effects.


| 42

43 |


ENVIRONMENT OUTLOOK OF SMALLISLAND DEVELOPING STATES

Sherry Heileman1 and Marion Cheatle2

1Consultant; 2Head, Global Environment Outlook Project United Nations Environment ProgrammeDivision of Early Warning and Assessment

P.O. Box 30552, Gigiri, Nairobi 00100, Kenya1Tel: 33 1 40590834, fax: 33 1 44371474,

email: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION

In 1999, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)published environment outlook (EO) reports for Small IslandDeveloping States (SIDS) in the Caribbean, Pacific Ocean andWestern Indian Ocean (UNEP 1999a, 1999b,1999c), within theframework of its Global Environment Outlook project. Thesereports came at a critical time for SIDS when the internationalcommunity was reviewing agreements reached at the Global Con-ference on Sustainable Development of SIDS held in Barbadosin 1994, i.e., Barbados +5. More recently, in 2002, UNEP pub-lished the third Global Environment Outlook report – GEO 3(UNEP 2002) as a contribution to the World Summit on Sustain-able Development. GEO 3 also includes an analysis of environ-mental trends in these three SIDS regions.

ENVIRONMENTAL TRENDS IN SIDS

The 1999 SIDS EO reports and GEO 3 showed indisputableevidence of continuing and widespread environmental degrada-tion in SIDS, relating to all the priority environmental issues (cli-mate change and sea level rise, natural and environmental disas-ters, waste management, coastal and marine, freshwater, land,energy, tourism, and biodiversity resources) identified in the Bar-bados Programme of Action (BPoA). These changes have beenbrought about by several drivers, including high population den-sities and socio-economic factors. All three SIDS regions facedsimilar environmental challenges, though the magnitude and ex-tent of the problems varied among them. As the last century drewto an end, SIDS continued to face challenges of environmentaldegradation, increasing frequency and intensity of natural disas-ters, habitat destruction, and natural resource depletion. This wasaccompanied by associated negative health and social impacts,loss of life, and substantial economic losses.

Nevertheless, significant achievements have been made inenvironment management, for example, governments havestrengthened environmental policies through institutional changesand legislation, the number of global and regional environmentalagreements have increased, and there was more public participa-tion than ever before in environmental management and decisionmaking. These initiatives, however, have not significantly slowed

the pace of environmental degradation or improved the environ-ment – their impacts were isolated and achievements slow in com-ing. Analysis of the implications of future scenarios revealed that‘business as usual’ will exert immense pressures on the environ-ment and natural resource base of SIDS.

The 1999 SIDS reports and GEO 3 discussed future perspec-tives and emerging environmental issues that may become priori-ties for SIDS in the future. These included unexpected transfor-mations of existing issues and well-known issues that were notbeing adequately addressed. Alternative policy responses requiredto more effectively address these environmental problems wereproposed. These reports recognized the need for new and alter-native policy responses that are integrated across sectors, forgreater political determination, financial resources, and institu-tional capacity, and involvement of all stakeholders in environ-mental management. ((For further information and reports seehttp://www.unep.org/geo/index.htm)

SIDS EO BOOKLETS 2004

In preparation for the 10-year review of the BPoA to be heldin 2004 (Barbados+10), UNEP will publish EO reports in theform of booklets (~60 pages each) for SIDS in these three re-gions, and including Eastern Atlantic SIDS. This is in accor-dance with a UNEP Governing Council Decision in 2003 tostrengthen the institutional capacity of SIDS to effectively achievesustainable development goals through provision of dedicatedtechnical and financial support.

The SIDS EO booklets will provide an overview of the envi-ronmental state and trends relating to environmental issues ofpriority importance in SIDS, followed by an analysis of interna-tional, regional and national policy responses undertaken in eachof the three SIDS regions. The booklets will also identify emerg-ing environmental issues that require further research, and willpropose some alternative policy responses for consideration.

The SIDS EO booklets will provide information that can beused to assess the level of success of the BPoA, where it has beenimplemented, i.e. whether implementation of the BPoA has hadany impact on slowing down or reversing negative environmentaltrends, and in achieving environmental sustainability, in SIDS.Analysis of policy responses would indicate achievements and


| 44

failures, and constraints to successful implementation of in-ternational, regional, and national policies. Such an analysis wouldpoint the way forward to improved environmental governance.

Thus, the booklets will provide a forum for highlighting pri-ority and emerging environmental issues in these countries. Theanalyses included in the booklets will also provide another op-portunity for SIDS to revisit and refocus their national and re-gional priorities with regard to achieving sustainable develop-ment, which is closely intertwined with the environment in SIDS.

• The major objectives of the 2004 SIDS EO bookletsare to:

• Highlight the state of the environment in SIDSregions, showing the trends of national, regional andglobal significance;

• Provide policy guidance and early warning informa-tion on environmental threats;

• Produce material to feed into national and regionalprocesses leading up to the 2004 review of the imple-mentation of the BPoA for Sustainable Development ofSIDS;

• Help to catalyze and promote international co-operation and action based on the best scientific andtechnical capabilities available.

These booklets, which are being prepared in collaboration withthe University of the West Indies Centre for Environment andDevelopment, the South Pacific Regional EnvironmentalProgramme, and the Indian Ocean Commission, are currently invarious stages of preparation. They will be based on materialpresented in GEO 3, National Assessment Reports, and other re-cent sources of information. The outline and structure of the book-lets will be similar to that of the previous reports, with the follow-ing issues highlighted for each region:

• The pressures, impacts and policy responses critical toSIDS for sustainable management of fisheries, coastalareas, exclusive economic zones and continental shelf;

• The development of community-based initiatives forsustainable tourism;

• Measures to help SIDS effectively control waste andpollution, and their health-related impacts;

• Efforts to build capacity for maintaining and managingsystems to deliver water and sanitation services, inboth rural and urban areas;

• Issues related to the adverse effects of climate change,sea level rise and climate variability;

• Environmental policy measures aimed at povertyalleviation.

Drafts of the 2004 booklets are expected to be ready in timeto feed into regional preparatory processes for Barbados+10, andwill be circulated for review by decision makers and other stake-holders in their respective regions. UNEP is aiming to have thesecond drafts ready for distribution at the interregional prepara-tory meeting to be held in the Bahamas in January 2004. Thebooklets are scheduled to be launched immediately before, or atthe Barbados +10 meeting in 2004.

REFERENCES

UNEP, 1999a. Caribbean Environment Outlook. Chapman Bounfordand Associates, London.

UNEP, 1999b. Pacific Islands Environment Outlook. ChapmanBounford and Associates, London.

UNEP, 1999c. Western Indian Ocean Environment Outlook.Chapman Bounford and Associates, London.

UNEP, 2002. Global Environment Outlook 3. Past, present and fu-ture perspectives. Earthscan Publications Ltd., London.

45 |


BEYOND THE LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION ?STATUS AND PROSPECTS OF THE LAW OF THE SEA

CONVENTION AT THE 20TH ANNIVERSARY

Tullio TrevesJudge of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea

Professor at the University of MilanoEmail: [email protected]

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea wasopened for signature on 10 December 1982 and entered into forceon 16 November 1994. Last year the United Nations celebratedwith a special meeting the twentieth anniversary of the signatureof the Convention. Next year, four days from now, it will be thetenth anniversary of the Convention’s entry into force. Novem-ber 2003, nestled between the round figures of these anniversa-ries, seems an appropriate time for taking stock and looking for-ward.

There is no doubt that today the international law of the sea isdominated by the 1982 Convention. The Convention plays a sig-nificant stabilizing role. At the same time, it is a forward-lookingtext flexible enough to absorb many new trends and developments.Nevertheless, it has never been, and even more so, it is not now,and most likely it will not be in the future, all the internationallaw of the sea.

If compared with other major treaties for the codification andprogressive development of international law, the Convention hasbeen a major success as regards the number and quality of theparties it has attracted. The Convention has now 144 ratificationsor accessions corresponding to more than two thirds of the exist-ing States and including the European Community. States partiesbelong to all areas of the world. They are developed as well asdeveloping, coastal, maritime and land-locked States.

We must acknowledge that progress towards universal par-ticipation in the Convention is still incomplete. Obviously, themost important missing State party is the United States. All friendsof the Convention feel that participation by the United States, inlight of the importance of this main actor in world politics, andalso of the great contribution made by it to the shaping of theConvention, is long overdue and would be a decisive step to-wards the consolidation of the Convention as the basic set of ruleson the law of the sea. The positive attitude of the Clinton Admin-istration and now of the Bush Administration must be welcomed.Recent hearings held at the United States Senate seem to openprospects for overcoming the obstacles met by the U.S. ratifica-tion. A few other important accessions are still missing, nonethe-less. The most visible is perhaps that of Canada, another protago-nist of the Third UN Law of the Sea Conference. It may also beregretted that the few States which keep away from the Conven-

tion because of concerns relating to boundary disputes withneighbours have not yet come to recognize that, under the Con-vention, their situation is no worse that under customary law.

There is no doubt that the Convention enjoys great authorityas a guide for the behaviour of States in maritime matters. Itsauthority as an instrument setting out in written form customaryrules, either existing before the Convention, or cristallized or de-veloped because of the impact of the Convention in the interna-tional community, has been confirmed, sometimes even beforethe entry into force of the Convention, by decisions of interna-tional courts and tribunals.

The Convention has shown from the outset that it is, at thesame time, strong and resilient.

The Convention is strong because no doubt has been cast onits authority as the basic set of rules concerning the rights andobligations of States in matters concerning the sea. Recent evi-dence of such authority are the provisions, contained, although indifferent form, in multilateral international agreements concludedafter the 1982 Convention, according to which the new agree-ments are without prejudice to the rights, jurisdiction and dutiesof States under the Convention, and must be interpreted and ap-plied in the context of and in a manner consistent with the Con-vention.

The Convention is resilient because, while States realized fromthe outset that it could not be considered perfect and complete,they have preferred to build upon it rather than to question itsauthority. So it was that Part XI was amended, before entry intoforce of the Convention by the well-known Implementing Agree-ment of 1994. So it was that the brief and somehow puzzlingprovisions on straddling stocks and highly migratory fish stockswere completed and expanded, in light inter alia of recent devel-opments of international environmental law, by the so-called Strad-dling Stocks Agreement of 1995, which has entered into forcevery recently and has found a regional development in the Con-vention on highly migratory fish stocks in Central and West Pa-cific, signed at Honolulu in 2000. In order to develop the briefprovisions on historical and archaeological objects, as well as tofill the gap in the Convention as regards such objects found onthe continental shelf, in 2001 an admittedly controversial Con-


| 46

vention on underwater cultural heritage was adopted withinthe framework of UNESCO.

Contrary to the Implementing Agreement of 1994 which amendsthe Convention and becomes a necessary part of it (as, since itsadoption, States must at the same time become parties to theConvention and to the Agreement), the Straddling Stocks Agree-ment, the Honolulu Convention, the UNESCO Convention, aswell as two recent multilateral conventions on fisheries, the FAOCompliance Agreement of 1993 and the Windhoek Convention of2001, may be ratified or acceded to also by States that are notparties to the 1982 Convention. This makes particularly relevant,as regards the authority of the 1982 Convention, the clauses men-tioned above safeguarding the rights and obligations under theConvention which one finds in all these texts.

Another aspect of the Convention, which confirms its strengthand resilience, is that this instrument is at the centre of a networkof institutions. The Convention presupposes a highlyinstitutionalised world, and contributes to the development of in-ternational institutions.

On one side, the Convention gives new functions to existinginstitutions, such as, for example, the International Maritime Or-ganization as regards passage through straits, archipelagicsealanes, or removal (or non-removal) of abandoned and disusedinstallations on the continental shelf. On the other side, in com-plying with their obligations under the Convention, States partieshave set up a number of new institutions: the very Meeting ofStates Parties, the International Seabed Authority, the InternationalTribunal for the Law of the Sea, and the Commission on the Lim-its of the Continental Shelf. Through their participation in theseinstitutions States parties have many opportunities to implementthe provisions of the Convention in a cooperative way, to fill someof its gaps and to clarify the constructive ambiguities the necessi-ties of negotiation have compelled the contracting parties to leavein the text.

Perhaps the most important of positive developments, con-firming the strength and resilience of the Convention, is the mecha-nism for the settlement of disputes. Although with important limi-tations and exceptions, this mechanism is compulsory. In otherwords, disputes concerning the interpretation or application ofthe Convention may be submitted by one party, without the needto obtain the consent of the other, to a judge or arbitrator whosedecision is binding. Since the entry into force of the Convention,a number of cases have been brought unilaterally, on the basis ofthe compulsory settlement clauses of the Convention, to the In-ternational Tribunal for the Law of the Sea or to Arbitral Tribu-nals set up under Annex VII of the Convention.

The importance of the limitations to the scope of compulsorysettlement cannot be denied and has been underlined in particularin the controversial Arbitration award of 4 August 2000 on theSouthern Bluefin Tuna case. It must be observed, nonetheless,that, even though entitled to add to the automatic limitations ofarticle 297 “optional exceptions” through the written declarationsenvisaged in article 298, States parties have used such right verysparingly. About fifteen States only have made such declarations,and in some cases they have not excluded all the categories of

disputes listed in article 298. Abstention from making the declara-tions under article 298 confirm that disputes concerning impor-tant topics are subject to compulsory adjudication. They includemaritime boundary delimitation, enforcement activities in fish-ery matters, military activities.

Multilateral maritime negotiations held since the end of theThird UN Conference on the Law of the Sea confirm that theadvantages of the mechanism for the settlement of disputes of theConvention are broadly recognized. The Straddling Stocks Agree-ment in 1995, the Honolulu Convention in 2000, the WindhoekConvention in 2001 and the UNESCO Convention in 2001 haveadopted the rules of the Law of the Sea Convention concerningthe settlement of disputes in order to settle with binding decisionsdisputes concerning the interpretation or application of their pro-visions. The Straddling Stocks Agreement extends this possibil-ity to the settlement of disputes arising from regional or sub-re-gional agreements concerning straddling or highly migratory fishstocks. In this way, all these recent multilateral instruments, to-gether with the Law of the Sea Convention, become intertwinedeven though not all States parties to one instrument is are partiesto each of the others. A complex system, broader than the 1982Convention, is in the making. It seems significant that the unify-ing element of such system is the mechanism for the settlement ofdisputes.

The strength of the Convention appears in clear light whenwe consider its effects on unilateralism, the very phenomenonagainst whose destabilizing effects the Convention has been setup . If we look at domestic legislation adopted by States since1982, we must recognize that the influence of the Convention insetting spatial as well as jurisdictional limits to coastal States’claims is evident. Unilateralism has been contained. Most newlegislation follows the pattern set by the Convention. Economiczones, archipelagic baselines, contiguous zones etc. have beenadopted, in most cases at least, in compliance with the provisionsof the Convention. Sometimes previous excessive claims havebeen “rolled back”; in some other cases States utilize only in partthe rights recognized by the Convention. Claims, sometimes froma time preceding the adoption of the Convention, of zones or pow-ers exceeding what the Convention permits have become rare.Their incompatibility with the Convention may be declared bythe International Law of the Sea Tribunal, or by other judicial orarbitral bodies. This happened in the Saiga No. 2 judgment of theInternational Tribunal for the Law of the Sea as regards theGuinean law extending customs enforcement powers of the coastalState to a “customs radius” of 250 kilometres from the coast.

Unilateralism is not dead, however. Undeniably the limit of200 miles set by the Convention as the external border of Statejurisdiction in the economic zone, and consequently the freedomsof the high seas, are under attack. It is well known that a numberof States have adopted unilateral legislation extending in variousforms their jurisdiction over fishing activities conducted by for-eign ships on high seas waters adjacent to their economic zone.These unilateral extensions (especially by Canada and some Latin-American States) have met strong reactions, bringing about, as acompromise, the Straddling Stocks Agreement that strengthensthe flag States’ responsibilities and prescribes a cooperative ap-

47 |


proach for enforcement activities, which coastal States claimed toconduct unilaterally. It is, however, far from clear whether allunilateralist States (as well as all long distance fishing States)have been convinced that the compromise set out in the Strad-dling Stocks Agreement is acceptable.

Trends towards the development of the protection of the en-vironment have some times encouraged proposals for unilateralaction. Sometimes provisions whose compatibility with the Con-vention is highly debatable are set out in multilateral agreementsconcluded between countries with similar interests. A recent ex-ample, which is frequently quoted, is the so-called “GalapagosAgreement” of 2000, not yet in force. It concerns certain highseas fisheries and was negotiated, in isolation from other Statesinterested in the fisheries, by a State that is party to the Conven-tion and other three which are not. This form of multilateralunilateralism, which could also be called militant regionalism,has met strong resistance. Even the European Community, a groupof States that is bound by the Convention as a group as and in itsState components, and whose general policy has always beenfavourable to the Convention, in reacting to recent environmentaldisasters, from the Erika to the Prestige, gives the impression thatit considers the obligations set out by the Convention as too con-straining for an adequate reaction.

One cannot forget, nevertheless, that historically unilateralismhas been one of the main engines, perhaps the main engine, of thedevelopment of the law of the sea. In a world where new needsemerge and where the law cannot remain static forever, unilateralinitiatives cannot be branded as always bad, as always to be foughtagainst. They must, nevertheless, be reconciled with the generalobligation of cooperation which is part and parcel of modern in-ternational law and with the rights and obligations of States par-ties to the Convention as well as the rights and obligations undera customary law which the Convention strongly influences, ofthose States that are not parties to it.

The general obligation of cooperation – whose importancethe International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea has stressedmore than once, lastly in its Order of 8 October 2003, as regardsthe protection of the marine environment - is also the basic toolfor dealing, within the framework of the Law of the Sea Conven-tion, with new problems that arise and which the Convention doesnot envisage directly. Such problems may sometimes emerge indisputes and be accommodated through the mechanism for thesettlement of disputes which may explore the possibilities of theConvention to cope with them. Relevant examples have been, inthe case-law of the Law of the Sea Tribunal, the question of thelegal regime of bunkering at sea and of the consequences on theenvironment and on navigation of land reclamation. Another wellknown issue, not yet submitted to adjudication, on which a coop-

erative approach, perhaps in the framework of the InternationalSeabed Authority, may be productive is that of the legal regime ofbio-diversity on the bottom of the high seas, especially in con-nection with hydrothermal vents.

A further aspect that is taking shape and will characterize theLaw of the Sea for the future is the combination and cross-fertili-zation of approaches which tends to overcome the separation be-tween different branches of international law, one of which is thelaw of the sea with its dominant component, the 1982 Conven-tion. The 1995 Straddling Stocks Agreement is at the same timean important law of the sea agreement and an important environ-mental agreement, which would have been impossible withoutthe developments at the Rio Conference. The UNESCO Conven-tion comes at the crossroads between the law of the sea and thelaw of the protection of cultural goods. The Law of the Sea Tri-bunal, in stressing the limitations to the use of force at sea andthat “considerations of humanity must apply in the law of theseas, as they do in other areas of international law” underlinedthe linkages between the law of the sea and human rights law. Inthe Shrimp-Turtles case the Panel and Appellate Body of theWTO explored the intertwining of law of the sea , environmentallaw and international trade law. A wholistic approach has beenadopted by the United Nations in launching the Open-ended in-formal consultation process established in order to facilitate theannual review of developments in oceans affairs.

While all forms of cooperation are important, a strong mecha-nism for the settlement of disputes and a strong reliance on courtsand tribunals seems to be essential in order to envisage new prob-lems in a way as effective and smooth as possible. As mentionedabove, the Law of the Sea Convention, as well as the other multi-lateral instruments, which complement it, do contain such strongmechanism for the settlement of disputes. Reliance on it, espe-cially on its compulsory facets, is just beginning. States are justbeginning to realize that they are parties to instruments, whichcan be used in such a way that may make going to court on mostlaw of the sea matters a routine and undramatic event. It may beregretted that most States parties to the Convention have not yetfully reviewed the pros and cons of expressing a preference forpermanent courts, as the International Court of Justice and theInternational Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, in lieu of arbitra-tion tribunals. Such preference, which could be expressed with adeclaration to be made under the Convention, and which a vastmajority of States parties have so far abstained form making, wouldprobably ensure a more consistent development of the law.


| 48

49 |


A SUGGESTED CALL TO ACTION BY THE OCEANSFORUM ON CARRYING OUT THE WSSD PLAN

OF IMPLEMENTATIONXavier Pastor, I. L. Pep. Fuller, Jorge Varela

OceanaTel: 34 629 132 186

Email: [email protected]

BACKGROUND

The Global Conference on Oceans and Coasts at Rio+10, heldat UNESCO headquarters, Paris December 3-7, 2001 agreed thatthe world oceans and coasts were in a critical situation of declin-ing trends. The Conference Co-Chairs called on the WSSD todevelop an action plan for the sustainable development of theworld’s oceans and coasts to ensure the sustainability and lifesupport functions of the world’s oceans and coasts, and islands.Some of the reasons given for this crisis included: increased popu-lation and coastal development; depleted fish stocks and poorfisheries management; polluted runoff; fish contamination; deg-radation of important ocean and coastal habitat; and inadequateinternational, national and sub-national laws, regulations andpolices governing the management and protection of the world’soceans, coasts and island resources.

Representatives of the various stakeholders who had attendedthe 2001 Oceans and Coasts Conference played a critical role inensuring that the ocean, coasts and small island states concernswere properly addressed in the multi-year negotiations of theWSSD which ended on September 4, 2002 with the adoption ofthe WSSD Plan of Implementation and the Johannesburg Decla-ration on Sustainable Development.

The Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts and Islands formed fol-lowing the completion of the WSSD, is now holding this impor-tant meeting to assess progress made in carrying out the Oceans,Coasts and Islands related commitments made in the historicagreement in Johannesburg. Having played a critical role in ob-taining the above commitments, the Forum is in a position to pro-vide a catalyst for carrying out the commitments.

SUGGESTED CALL TO ACTION

The Forum should consider calling on the Commission onSustainable Development (CSD) to set forth a specific blueprintto enable and encourage countries to carry forward the WSSDagreed Plan of Implementation to successful fruition. This wouldinclude but not be limited to:

SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Depletion of fish stocks and ocean habitat destruction contin-ues because of poor fisheries management. Reform is needed.

The FAO estimated in 1999 that 70 to 78 percent of world widemarine fish stocks require urgent intervention to halt populationdeclines and to rebuild species depleted by over-fishing. Damag-ing fishing practices such as bottom trawling and dredging de-stroy ancient seafloor habitat which in many instances is unableto fully recover. Millions of pounds of commercially,recreationally and ecologically important marine species arewasted each year as bycatch.

Of utmost importance, is the incorporation of ecological prin-ciples into fisheries management decisions so that fisheries arenot only sustainable in a single species context, but also in anecosystem context.

• To accomplish sustainability in a single-speciescontext, depleted fish populations must be rebuilt tohealthy levels on an urgent basis. For each fishpopulation of concern, a safe target (well below MSYand determined, in part, based upon the level ofscientific uncertainty and the degree of naturalvariability associated with the population) and a targetfor rebuilding should be established with in 2 years.The rebuilding timeframe should not extend beyond2015 unless this goal is biologically impossible, inwhich event, a level of no less than BMSY should bereached by 2015. The mechanisms for achieving therebuilding target (catch restrictions, closed areas, gearrestrictions, seasons, etc.) within the established timeframe should be set within 4 years, with monitoringand adjustment made no less than every 2 years.Fishery rebuilding plans must incorporate ecosystemconsiderations.

• To accomplish sustainability in an ecosystem context,precautionary management principles should beapplied to all fishery management decisions. Forexample:

- Fishing levels must be set in a highly precautionarymanner to preserve ecological relationships betweenharvested, dependent and related species, rather thanon an MSY basis (e.g. F75%)

- Bottom trawling must not be expanded beyondcurrent levels until benthic mapping and research can


| 50

show that bottom trawling in new areas will not damageessential fish habitat.

• Bycatch should be counted, capped, and phased in andcontrolled to ecologically insignificant levels in allfisheries. Regulations establish minimum observercoverage levels to provide adequate information onbycatch and quotas.

• Fishing should occur at levels that ensure the sustainedabundance of all species impacted by the fishery.

• Comprehensive research, including benthic mappingof the seafloor must occur to provide science formanagement decisions.

• Fishing effort, including economic value, must berecorded and mapped.

• Tracking and monitoring systems, including onboardobservers where appropriate, must be required on allcommercial fishing vessels.

• Sensitive areas of the ocean such as essential fishhabitat, deep sea corals, sponges and rocky reefs andspawning areas must be mapped and closed to bottomtrawling.

• Legally binding International and national standardsshould be developed for bottom trawler gear tomandate removal of so called roller gear and “rockhoppers” used to invade fish refugia and crush livingcoral to access fish.

• Countries should separate conservation and allocationdecisions, and remove the conflict of interests betweenthe resource users and managers.

• Government subsidies to the commercial fishingindustry should be eliminated except to provide for thereduction of capacity.

• To properly carry out the Summit commitment to“support the sustainable development(emphasis added)of aquaculture….” the Commission should call for theestablishment of international standards to prevent theuse of non-native species; minimize the use of chemi-cal pesticides, antibiotics, fish meal ; prevent escapesand adverse effects on wild populations; and effluentguidelines for nutrient, chemical, pathogen andparasitic discharges.

GENERAL CONCEPTUAL STEPS TO IMPLEMENTWSSD FISHERIES COMMITMENTS

1 Develop and ensure international oversight for overallimplementation. As noted above, the Global Forumshould call upon the Commission on Sustainable

Development (CSD) to set forth a specific blueprint toenable and encourage countries to carry forward theWSSD agreed Plan of Implementation to successfulfruition.

2 The Global Forum might suggest using a lead countryapproach and call on concerned governments tovolunteer to in order to set this in motion

3 Implement commitments at other relevant internationalfora. The Global Forum should identify key fora,activities, and players for each major commitment. Forexample, for the destructive fishing, IUU fishing, andMSY goals commitments, the Forum could target theFAO, analyze current agreement and work with leadcountries to develop more stringent targets & time-tables. For the subsidies commitment, the Forum couldtarget the WTO DOHA round and do the same.

4 Develop strategic regional or country-specificnetworks to further the commitments in particularregions or countries. In the United States, a loosecoalition of NGOs that work on marine conservationissues routinely meet and strategize on nationalfisheries activism. Global Forum members could helpdevelop such coalitions in other targeted countries orregions of the world.

VESSEL ACCIDENTS

The Forum should recommend that, particularly in view ofthe oil disaster caused by the break-up and sinking of the Pres-tige, a 26 year old single hulled tanker carrying 70,000 tons ofindustrial oil and similar incidents over the years, the IMO beasked to identify flag and other states that have not implementedagreements relating to the protection of the marine environmentfrom damage caused by ships and identify areas which lack anyadequate international coverage including adequate inspection ofaging vessels and adequate liability coverage for such massivespills. The IMO should on an urgent basis report on strongermechanisms to secure implementation of IMO agreement includ-ing especially possible changes in current ratification procedureswhich allow a minority of countries to veto or bloc implementa-tion of broadly supported international agreements.

AQUACULTURE

Marine finfish aquaculture is a growing industry fraught withrisks to wild fish populations, fisheries and marine ecosystemsfrom diseases, non-native introductions, genetic alternations, in-creased competition, reduced water quality, chemical use, andalteration of physical habitat. Gaps and deficiencies in laws havecreated uncertainty and confusion with respect to the standardsand control of marine aquaculture activities. We therefore urgethat:

• International standards should be established for thelocation, design and operation of marine aquaculturefacilities to protect the marine ecosystem; prevent the

51 |


use of non-native species; minimize the use ofchemical pesticides, antibiotics, fish meal andtransgenic species; prevent escapes and adverse effectson wild populations; and reduce conflicts with usergroups;

• Discharges from marine finfish aquaculture operationsshould be subject to effluent guidelines to addressnutrient, chemical, pathogen, and parasitic discharges;

• A moratorium should be placed on locating new orexpanding existing finfish aquaculture operations inthe marine environment until such standards areestablished.

REPORTING MECHANISM

The Forum should recommend that the Commission establishand encourage a reporting mechanism by which all countries wouldsubmit annual specific accomplishments in reaching the agreeddeadlines with examples of methods which have proved effectiveand can be shared. Any obstacle which might interfere with acountry meeting the agreed deadlines should be identified andthe Commission should ensure that relevant international organi-zations and concerned countries are given the opportunity to as-sist in overcoming such obstacles.

OVERSIGHT

The Forum should encourage the early establishment of the“effective, transparent and regular inter-agency coordinationmechanism on ocean and coastal issues within the UN system”agreed to at the Summit and suggests that such a mechanism bedesigned not only to include all existing UN fora but that it invitethe participation of other relevant international organizations in-cluding lending institutions as well as all concerned stakeholders.This overarching mechanism should have the responsibility toidentify gaps and unnecessary overlaps in present coverage ofexisting bodies with ocean related responsibilities.

The Forum should offer to meet periodically with representa-tives of the new mechanism to give advice on alternatives forreaching the goals agreed to at the WSSD.


| 52

53 |


SHIP & OCEAN FOUNDATION’S PERSPECTIVESON WSSD IMPLEMENTATION

Hiroshi TerashimaExecutive Director

Institute for Ocean Policy, SOFKaiyo Senpaku, Bldg., 1-15-16 Toranomon

Minato-ku, Tokyo 105-0001 JAPANTel. 81-3-3502-1837

e-mail

INTRODUCTION

The inclusion of oceans, coasts, and islands issues into theWSSD Plan of Implementation was the happy outcome of hardwork by representatives from special agencies of the UN, nationalgovernments, NGOs and individual scholars and researchers. Al-though not originally scheduled as an agenda topic inJohannesburg, the untiring efforts of these ocean spokesmen atthe various preparatory meetings resulted in a clear formulationof targets and timeframes for some of our main concerns.

These efforts began here at UNESCO headquarters in De-cember of 2001with the Global Conference on Oceans and Coastsat Rio + 10 Conference. I would like to express again my thanksto all who made that conference possible, giving us the opportu-nity to discuss our future ocean and coastal initiatives. These dis-cussions among representatives from both the public and privatesectors, were to form the backbone of the ocean related issuesincluded in the Plan of Implementation. Furthermore, the confer-ence itself served as a bridge linking those initiatives developedin the ten years after Rio and those to be undertaken over the nextten to fifteen years around the world.

WSSD reaffirmed the international consensus on the impor-tance of sustainable development and provided a plan for its imple-mentation. As the legal and policy frameworks for sustainabledevelopment regarding the oceans are to be found in UNCLOSand Chapter 17 of Agenda 21, the WSSD Plan of Implementationsection on the oceans not surprisingly begins by urging the ratifi-cation of the one and further implementation of the other.

The WSSD Plan of Implementation goes on to give a com-prehensive review of the problems and policy responses regard-ing oceans, coasts, and islands, noting especially cross-sectoralaspects, fisheries, biodiversity and ecosystem functions, marinepollution, maritime transportation, marine science, and Small Is-land Developing States. The Plan should be congratulated for re-affirming the fundamental polices of Chapter 17, and for its con-crete recommendations and timeframes for the actions we shouldtake at the global, regional, and national levels, and in the coop-eration and coordination between relevant bodies over the nextten to fifteen years. The WSSD Plan of Implementation was alsoimportant for its role in bringing to the attention of the world’spolitical leaders the urgency of the issues facing the oceans.

CARRYING OUT THE PLAN OF IMPLEMENTATION

WSSD was a new starting point for sustainable developmentof the oceans in the 21st century. The Plan of Implementationdrew on the advances of the initiatives of the last ten years toproduce a more concrete document than that of Chapter 17. Con-creteness does not however necessarily guarantee ease of imple-mentation. For practical purposes, looking at the Plan of Imple-mentation is like looking at a distant mountain: the closer youapproach it the higher and steeper it seems, until the difficultiesto be overcome can induce a sense of despair. Now more thanever, then, we need the common good will and wisdom of peoplefrom all sectors to develop strategies for the future. With this inmind, I would like to offer the following suggestions concerningthe creation of a framework for initiatives that promote the Planof Implementation and that might also help us address more ef-fectively the ocean-related problems we will face in the future.

INITIATIVES AT THE GLOBAL LEVEL

Regular Global Conferences

Based on their knowledge that the vast ocean covers 71% ofthe earth’s surface at an average depth of 3,800 meters, and thatits properties and complicated current movements affect the globe,the drafters of the Law of the Sea pointed out our course in theirphrase: ‘Conscious that the problems of ocean space are closelyinterrelated and need to be considered as a whole…’

The Commission on Sustainable Development and UNICPOprovide fora for comprehensive discussion of ocean issues. TheCSD is not devoted to ocean issues alone however, being estab-lished within the Economic and Social Council shortly after theRio Summit to address a broad range of sustainable developmentissues. In fact, its schedule allows it to concentrate on sustainabledevelopment in the oceans only once every•@ten years. Also,while the United Nations Informal Consultative Process on theOceans was established in 2000 to facilitate the annual review bythe General Assembly of developments in ocean affairs, the timeallocated and the number of participants admitted is limited. Giventhe large number of issues needing discussion and the difficultyof mobilizing the broad range of public and private sectors neededto meet the targets set out in the Plan of Implementation, these


| 54

initiatives are insufficient. I therefore believe it essential thatglobal conferences of the scope of Ocean and Coasts at Rio+10and this week’s Global Forum, are held regularly to allow repre-sentatives from governments, international organizations, NGOs,and scholars and researchers of ocean affairs to come togetherand discuss implementation of WSSD targets. And I would em-phasize that such meetings be held at regular intervals, ratherthan on an ad hoc basis, so that discussion of the issues canproceed in the systematic fashion that their importance deserves.For these reasons, I would recommend that such global confer-ences as this be held in future at distinct, regular intervals, prefer-ably once every year.

Increasing the Scope of Global Forum Activities

With coastal states’ Exclusive Economic Zones now totalingmore that 40% of the planet’s total ocean surface, national andlocal initiatives are playing an increasingly important role in imple-menting ocean governance for sustainable development. How-ever, Agenda 21, Chapter 17 considered that response by centralgovernments alone in its implementation would be insufficient,and called for participation from a wide spectrum of stakehold-ers, including ‘academic and private sectors, non-governmentalorganizations, local communities, resource user groups, and in-digenous people’.

Now, the WSSD Plan of Implementation calls for nationalgovernments to begin formulating national sustainable develop-ment strategies and begin implementing these by the year 2005.Although these strategies are not limited to oceans alone, out of191 countries only a handful have at present set out ocean poli-cies or national sustainable development strategies for the oceans.Difficulties include a lack of concrete guidelines on what to in-clude in these sustainable development strategies, the implica-tions such strategies might have on different states’ political andadministrative frameworks concerning ocean issues, and the re-lations between oceans and their economies and daily lives. For-mulating and implementing a national ocean policy based on acommon philosophy of ocean governance while at the same timedirecting strategies to meet common targets as well as nationalneeds is therefore no easy task. Against this background, then,the progress on these problems that we can expect from individualnational initiatives is somewhat limited. There is a need to con-sider what might be done on the part of the international commu-nity to break through this impasse. In my opinion, there is a needfor cooperation on concrete projects by the world’s researchers,practitioners, and NGOs into what should be included in nationalocean policies and strategies for sustainable development. Thiswould include research into what forms they should take and whatissues they should deal with, construction of policy models andthe making of policy recommendations and guidelines. Policyformulation assistance to specific countries might also be pro-vided upon request. There are many other ways to promote WSSDimplementation, including regional cooperation, education andcapacity building, technology transfers, financial assistance, andnew research areas. Academics, practitioners, and NGOs involvedwith the sustainable development of the oceans should organizethis necessary research and then coordinate their efforts by a di-vision of labor according to the issues addressed. The creation ofsuch a collaborative framework is a matter deserving our imme-

diate attention, and it is my own opinion that the quickest way toachieving such a framework is the expansion of activities by theGlobal Forum on Oceans, Coasts, and Islands, which was foundedduring the WSSD in Johannesburg and is the moving force be-hind today’s meeting.

INITIATIVES AT THE REGIONAL LEVEL

PEMSEA

Cooperation at the regional level has great potential for ad-vancing the WSSD Plan of Implementation. As I mentioned ear-lier, sustainable development initiatives undertaken by individualcountries have often encountered difficulties or been late in start-ing. In such situations the sharing of initiatives and success sto-ries of neighboring countries provides encouragement as well asuseful reference data. If, in addition to this, there is regional co-operation in capacity building, exchange of technology and know-how, and, importantly, acquirement of funds, the road to WSSDimplementation is made a much smoother one for all concerned.

In the East Asia region, the UNDP is implementing and theIMO is executing, with GEF funding, the twelve-member statePartnerships in Environmental Management of the Seas of EastAsia. Begun in 1994, PEMSEA has implemented integrated coastalzone management and semi-enclosed seas environmental moni-toring projects, and more recently has formulated a SustainableDevelopment Strategy for the Seas of East Asia. At the East AsianSeas Congress to be held December 12th in Putrajaya, Malaysia,a Putrajaya Sustainable Development Declaration is expected tobe released from the Ministerial Forum meeting and the Sustain-able Development Strategy for the Seas of East Asia will also beformally adopted. I look forward to this strategy playing a largerole in WSSD implementation in the East Asian region. Anothermain event at the December East Asian Seas Congress will be the‘International Conference on the Sustainable Development of theEast Asian Seas: Towards a New Era of Regional Collaborationand Partnerships”, which will comprise eight workshops, suchas, Local Governance and Alliances, Skills and Expertise, etc.The Institute for Ocean Policy, SOF is happy to announce that itwill be hosting the ‘National Coastal Policies and Regional Col-laborative Arrangements’ workshop. We hope that our efforts, withthe cooperation of so many esteemed experts, will contribute in asmall way towards promotion of the WSSD Plan of Implementa-tion.

Cooperation among Ocean Policy Research Centers

In the implementation of WSSD, it is important that there becooperation and collaboration between ocean policy researchcenters in various countries. In areas such as ocean monitoringand in the various ocean sciences there already exists a healthycooperation and collaboration between research centers, but in-ternational communications and exchanges between ocean policyresearch centers is still rather rare. However, in regard to promo-tion of the WSSD Plan of Implementation, there has been a steadyincrease in needs calling for action, with high expectations espe-cially for the role of ocean policy research centers in providingadvice, research, and proposals for ocean policy. As ocean prob-lems are international by nature, including the necessity for man-

55 |


agement within international frameworks, there is an especial needto respond by the strengthening of coordination and cooperationbetween ocean policy research centers in future. This need is es-pecially great at the regional level, calling for active mutual ex-changes and collaboration between regional ocean policy researchcenters. Beginning with but not limited to North-East Asian oceanpolicy research centers, the Institute for Ocean Policy, SOF istherefore actively seeking to deepen and expand its network ofcooperation in areas of ocean policy, integrated management ofcoastal and marine areas, education and capacity building, andregional cooperation.

INITIATIVES AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL

Establishing an Appropriate Coordinating Mechanism forAddressing Ocean Problems

‘Conscious that the problems of ocean space are closely in-terrelated and need to be considered as a whole…, ’ Chapter 17of Agenda 21 calls for cooperation and coordination in initiativesaddressing these problems, such as that, “Each coastal State shouldconsider establishing, or where necessary strengthening, appro-priate coordinating mechanisms (such as a high-level policy plan-ning body) for integrated management and sustainable develop-ment of coastal and marine areas and their resources, at both thelocal and national levels(17.6).” However, the reality is that in allhighly organized countries, responsibility for administration ofocean issues is divided among a number of separate offices mak-ing it extremely difficult to create such a cross-cutting coordinat-ing mechanism. Japan is no exception to this and has not yet suc-ceeded in establishing such an appropriate mechanism. This prob-lem is an especially important one for implementing sustainabledevelopment, calling for us to double our efforts to see thesemechanisms established in each coastal country. If present condi-tions continue, there is a real danger of leaving undone the workof creating sufficient frameworks for implementing those initia-tives which call for the comprehensive approach urged in Agenda21 and WSSD. On this point, while continuing to press at thegovernmental level for an appropriate response, I would suggestthat fora such as the Global Forum should be used to address thisproblem by offering venues where experts could objectively re-search, analyze, and evaluate national initiatives

Oceans and National Initiatives

The Japan Council for Sustainable Development was formedand has a long track record as a clearinghouse for implementa-tion of Agenda 21 among academics, the public, and the privatesector. However, until just before the opening of the WSSD therewere no ocean issues members of JCSD, nor was there evidencethat ocean issues had previously come up for discussion. In otherwords, until just before WSSD, when SOF first approached andbegan to participate in JCSD activities, all ocean researchers fromacademia, the public, and the private sectors had been left out ofthe central forum for sustainable development debate in Japan.

My question today is whether similar conditions do not alsoprevail in other countries. Should the oceans sector remain iso-lated from the larger sustainable development initiatives beingundertaken in countries around the world, we cannot consider

those initiatives to be successful. We must ask whether oceanproblems are being seriously addressed within the larger sustain-able development initiatives all of our countries. Given the WSSDdeclaration to formulate and begin implementation of sustainabledevelopment national strategies by 2005, it would be an embar-rassing step backwards to discover too late that ocean issues hadnot been included those strategies.

I conclude by repeating that there is an urgent need for us toincrease our efforts to ensure that ocean problems occupy a defi-nite place in larger sustainable development agendas in all thecoastal states. Also, that we must work to make sure academics,researchers, and administrators in the public and private sectorshave appropriate cooperative networks. Should we not pool therelevant information and data from each of our countries into theGlobal Forum in order to address these tasks?•@I believe that ifwe do these things, not only will our individual national initia-tives gain momentum, by expanding these efforts to the regionaland global levels we can expect new and effective synergies toemerge.

The Institute for Ocean Policy, SOF, in order to promote theaims of WSSD, is actively participating in the JCSD interim meet-ings to make sure that ocean issues are not left out of Japan’slarger sustainable development initiatives. An immediate step wehope to take in this direction, is the creation of a national WSSDImplementation Plan communications network for oceans andcoasts, which we hope will lead to fruitful cooperatives ties in thefuture. These are just a few examples of the challenges we faceand the responses we hope will lead to a more sustainable future.

Thank you.


| 56

57 |


Dr. François BailetDeputy Director

International Ocean Institute1226 Le Merchant St.

Halifax, Canada B3H3P7Tel: 902 494 1979 / Fax: 902 494 1334


CAPACITY BUILDING IN SUPPORTOF WSSD IMPLEMENTATION

“Integral actors in WSSD implementation are the Nongovern-mental Organizations (NGOs) related to oceans, coasts, and SIDS,and the foundations which often fund this work. In this panel,major NGOs and foundations report on their initiatives related toWSSD implementation.” (Conference Program)

It is widely observed that the implementation of all instru-ments and programs related to Sustainable Development is ahighly complex matter which challenges even the most developedpolitical structures and organised communities. However, compe-tent NGOs and Foundations may be in a unique position to serveas catalysts, or even as principal actors, in the development andpursuit of Sustainable Development objectives.

This engagement may occur at all levels: from the interna-tional fora of policy and treaty making, to the regional levels ofcooperation and coordination, to the national levels of participa-tion and integration. For it is often through these organisations,which may be well connected to the constituents and relativelyfree of political encumbrances, that the most effective action maybe taken.

When considering the necessary actions in support of imple-menting the Oceans, Coasts and Islands related targets of theWSSD, it becomes clear that achieving such ambitious goals willrequire full participation of all relevant civil society actors, andthis at all levels. The potential contributions of NGOs and Foun-dations in this regard are numerous and diverse in nature, and fordiscussion purposes, Table 1 provides some examples of pos-sible NGO and Foundation activities which could be undertakenin support of achieving WSSD targets.

Note that although the title of this intervention may indicateotherwise, the sample examples provided in this table are notlimited to capacity building activities as it is hoped that these willalso contribute to the wider discussion on NGO and Foundationcontributions.

This short (and by no means exhaustive) listing illustrates thebroad range and diversity of possible NGO and Foundation con-tributions, which could be further grouped into the following fourfollowing categories:

1. Information gathering and dissemination;

2. Promotion and facilitation of civil society participation;

3. Contribution to development of policy and programs; a

4. Mobilizing new and additional sources of funding.

NGOs and Foundations pursue these activities at various lev-els of implementation (local, national, regional and global), andfocus their work on either specific issues (or combinations ofissues under a theme) and/or geographical areas.

However, it must be noted that it is critical to also provide inparallel to these activities relevant capacity building programs insupport of the Sustainable Development implementation agenda.This is an imperative, as it is only through providing capacitybuilding to enable indigenous policy makers, managers and stake-holders that initiatives will be effectively implemented. In manyrespects, the international community has elaborated more thenenough policies, programs and legal instruments, and it is nowtime to concentrate on this implementation gap.

Responding to these capacity building needs has been one ofthe primary mandates of the International Ocean Institute (IOI)1

for some 30 years. In fact, the initial raison d’être of the IOI Net-work was the pursuit of this very mandate in support of the Lawof the Sea, and later the UNCED Process.

Still today, the IOI remains very engaged in capacity buildingat all levels, including:

1. The Community level: where IOI’s capacity building effortshave been inclusive and focused on projects yielding immediatebenefits for the communities taking great care not to act in acounterproductive manner by introducing specialized innovationswhich are likely to disrupt their original social organization whichmay have been in place for generations. It is through inclusiveapproaches to capacity building activities that the identificationof those who could be the carriers of beneficial social change ismade possible and the projects are realized with maximum ben-efits.

Coastal villagers and the slum dwellers of coastal mega-citiesconstitute the majority of the coastal population, which now rep-resent some 60 percent of the world population. These individu-als must be included in the so-called community-based integratedcoastal management, for, if they are not, what do we mean byintegrated management? However, their integration requires ho-listic capacity building. Thus, IOI will continue and expand this


| 58

activity, in India as well as in other parts of the world, throughits Eco-Village Program.

In sum, capacity building at the community level must consistin learning to harness the people’s productivity while controllingthreats to their environment and thus their well-being.

2. The National level: At which, still today, many decision-makers do not feel the need to reform government structures andfunctions, and to engage civil society in order to meet the newapproaches proposed by Agenda 21 (Chapter 17). This situationcan be due to the lack of awareness of the importance of suchapproaches to the oceans and the direct impacts these holisticapproaches have on the nation’s economy and public health.Furthermore, there is a marked lack of constituency in the nationwho hold the government accountable, to whose demands it mustrespond, and which can effectively participate in formulation andimplementation of approaches. Both conditions can be consider-ably rectified to the benefit of all through targeted capacity build-ing programs.

Responding to this need, the IOI has undertaken a number ofLeadership Seminars, especially on the economic value of sus-tainable ocean and coastal development, and the risks and costsof failing to take appropriate action. However, without pressurefrom constituencies, such action may still not be taken. Cam-paigns of consciousness raising are therefore another essentialpart of the ongoing capacity building process, and eventuallygovernments will come to realize the need to adjust their function,structures and approaches.

3. The Regional level: offers a rich opportunity for capacitybuilding projects relating to common regional issues and ap-proaches. For it is at this level that many of the Ocean, Islandsand Coastal issues should be tackled in order to rationalize theuse of limited resources, adopt common programs to deal withcommon issues, mobilize large scale funding, and even work inpartnership with regional programs of international and/or regionalorganisations such as UNEP/Regional Seas and UNEP/GPA.

In response to these needs, the IOI has conducted Leader-ship Seminars with the aim of providing opportunities for theexchange of information, the fostering of cooperation and even-tual joint action at a regional level. However, much more remainsto be done in this realm, particularly in the areas of MaritimeSecurity and regional programs in support of the GPA.

4. The Global level: there have been limited opportunities forcapacity building programs within the United Nations system,and those that exist often do not go beyond workshops and shortcourses offered by, inter alia, the United Nations Institute forTraining and Research (UNITAR) on very specific topics. Thiscapacity building gap has been noted by UNITAR and DOALOS,and they are attempting to address it through the provision of anannual briefing on the Developments in Ocean Affairs and Law ofthe Sea for UN delegations in NY. Although this is a very positiveinitiative, much more remains to be done in this area so as tofacilitate the development of the necessary skills within the inter-national civil service.

Some universities in Europe and North America offer degreecourses in ocean affairs, but usually these are not holistic and are

limited by the offerings of one university department. But mostimportantly, academic programs are prohibitively expensive forthe large majority of perspective students from developing na-tions, and scholarships remain few compared to the need. Fur-thermore, small nations with limited human resources cannot af-ford to send their staff overseas for the extended period of timerequired to complete many of these degrees.

The IOI has attempted to fill this gap by offering its for some24 years its Training Program on Ocean Governance, which hasbecome the most widely recognised and longest standing capac-ity building program in Ocean Governance. The Program contin-ues to evolve and provide an up-to-date and holistic curriculumfor the mid-level civil servants and professionals from developingnations who are desirous to equip themselves with the necessaryknowledge to tackle the problems of ocean space in an integratedand sustainable manner. Over the years, the IOI has raised liter-ally millions of dollars to pay not only for the cost of the course,but also for the expenses of a large majority of the participants.However, the course does not lead to a university degree, al-though quite a number of the participants go on to obtain a Master’sDegree at Dalhousie University through its Marine AffairsProgramme or its Marine and Environmental Law Programme.Nonetheless it provided opportunity for an entire generation of“ocean people” to build their skills in Ocean Governance andcontribute positively to the further elaboration and implementa-tion of the regimes.

Unfortunately, the capacity building lacuna – the lack of hu-man capacity for implementation – remains the single largest lim-iting factor facing almost all nations of the world in their effortstowards effective implementation of Agenda 21.

However with the gradual realisation of the importance ofmeeting this need, a comprehensive agenda for capacity buildingat all levels is emerging as thousands of coastal managers, harbourmasters, coastal engineers, fisheries experts, civil servants, etcwill need to be trained in sustainable approaches to dealing withOcean, Coasts and Island issues. In anticipation of this develop-ment, NGOs and Foundations must immediately begin focussingon the Capacity Building imperative. Initial steps could be under-taken immediately, such as the identification of funding sources,networking amongst centres of excellence to develop commonunderstandings, conferencing and joint research in support ofthe capacity building agenda, etc.

Of course, helping to fill this lacuna, at all levels, will continueto be the International Ocean Institute’s primary objective, as ithas been for the last three decades.

1 The International Ocean Institute is an international non-govern-mental organisation incorporated in the Netherlands and headquartered inMalta. Founded in 1972 by Elisabeth Mann Borgese, it is a knowledge-basedinstitution comprised of some 25 operational centers world-wide which aredevoted the promotion of the concept of

pacem in maribus – peace in the Ocean

– and the management and conservation of the Ocean so that futuregenerations can share in the benefits. Thus, its mission is to ensure thesustainability of the Ocean as “the source of life”, and to uphold and expandthe principle enshrined in the Law of the Sea that the seabed and the Oceanare the common heritage of humankind, for the benefit of humankind as awhole, with particular consideration for the poor.

59 |


Table 1: Major WSSD Oceans, Coasts, and Islands Related Targets and Potential NGO/Foundation Implementation

Activities

Targets and time-frames1 Potential NGO/Foundation Activities

Integrated ocean and coastal management

Ratify or accede to and implement the Law of the Sea

and promote the implementation of Chapter 17 of

Agenda 21.

Lobby national authorities;

Engage in training and education activities targeted at

decision makers, and capacity building activities for

implementers;

Develop and promote approaches to implementation based

on lessons learned and best practices.

Take note of the open-ended informal consultative

process (ICP). Participate and contribute in the ICP;

Promote the importance of the ICP to National authorities;

Disseminate the results of the ICP.

Encourage the application of the ecosystem approach by

2010 for the sustainable development of the oceans,

particularly in the management of fisheries and the

conservation of biodiversity.

Provide forums for the informal exchange of scientific

information, scientific methods, best practices, etc;

Encourage the standardization of methodologies; and

Serve as monitoring networks.

Establish an effective, transparent and regular inter-

agency coordination mechanism on ocean and coastal

issues within the United Nations system.

Contribute ideas with regards to the creation of the

mechanism;

Disseminate information regarding the mechanism and the

potential contributions Major Groups could make;

Facilitate the participation of the Major Groups as

appropriate.

Promote integrated coastal and ocean management at the

national level and encourage and assist countries in

developing ocean policies and mechanisms on integrated

coastal management.

Lobby for the formulation of such policies;

Provide objective information on ICM approaches;

Assist in relevant civil-society consultations, including

opportunities for conflict resolution;

Engage in capacity building activities in support of

development and implementation of national policies.

Assist developing countries in coordinating policies and

programs at the regional and sub-regional levels aimed

at conservation and sustainable management of fishery

resources and implement integrated coastal area

management plans, including through the development of infrastructure.

Provide national and regional level information on relevant

approaches;

Provide fora for exchange of information and to foster

common understandings and approaches;

Serve as focal points for civil society participation at relevant levels;

Engage in capacity building activities;

Mobilise new and additional sources of funding.

Fisheries2

To achieve [equitable] and sustainable fisheries. Provide neutral and objective information to government

officials on fisheries issues;

Provide opportunities for consultations between fisheries policy makers, regulators and fishers;

Contribute to the constructive mobilization of fishers;

Disseminate policy related information to the fishers.

Implement the FAO International Plan of Action to

Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and

Unregulated Fishing by 2004.

Disseminate information related to impacts of IUU fishing;

Foster community involvement in fisheries management

and promote community-based management approaches;

Engage in capacity building with the aim to provide

1 Adapted from the Global Oceans Forum website: www.globaloceans.org 2 Note that the FAO instruments referred to infra make detailed provisions on implementation activities, including many

which NGOs and Foundations could undertake in support of national, regional or international efforts.


| 60

alternate sources of livelihoods.

Aid in the surveillance, monitoring and possibly the control

of fisheries.

Implement the FAO International Plan of Action for the

Management of Fishing Capacity by 2005. Contribute to the conduct of national, regional and global

assessments of capacity and improvement of the capability for

monitoring fishing capacity;

Participate in the preparation and implementation of

national plans;

Help identify immediate actions for coastal fisheries requiring

urgent measures;

Contribute to the elaboration and maintenance of national

records of fishing vessels.

Maintain or restore depleted fish stocks to levels that can produce their maximum sustainable yield on an

urgent basis and where possible no later than 2015.

Provide forums for the exchange of scientific information, scientific methods, best practices, etc;

Encourage the standardization of methodologies; and

Serve as monitoring networks.

Eliminate subsidies that contribute to illegal, unreported

and unregulated fishing and to overcapacity. Lobby national governments;

Engage in capacity building with the aim to provide

alternate sources of livelihoods.

Support sustainable aquaculture Disseminate information on best practices and lessons

learned;

Engage in capacity building activities;

Provide forums for discussions on related issues, including

possible CZ conflicts.

Conservation of Biodiversity

Promote conservation and management of the oceans. Disseminate information on conservation benefits;

Promote and facilitate local-level engagement in

management approaches;

Provide discussions forums for stakeholders and national

authorities;

Engage in capacity building activities.

Develop and facilitate the use of diverse approaches and

tools, including the ecosystem approach, the elimination

of destructive fishing practices, and the establishment of marine protected areas consistent with international law

and based on scientific information, including

representative networks by 2012.

Contribute to the development of conservation approaches,

including the dissemination of best practices and lessons

learned;

Promote and facilitate civil society engagement in the

development and implementation of approaches and tools;

Mobilize new and additional funding in support of

biodiversity protection;

Disseminate targeted information and provide capacity

building.

Develop programs for halting the loss of biodiversity

(coral reefs and wetlands) Provide education and capacity building related to

ecosystems, best practices and lessons learned;

Engage in targeted information campaigns;

Contribute to the monitoring of the health of ecosystems.

Protection from Marine Pollution

Advance implementation of the Global Programme of

Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment

from Land-based Activities in the period 2002-2006

with a view to achieve [sic] substantial progress by

2006.

Contribute in the development and implementation of

national and regional plans of action;

Provide capacity building in support the implementation of

plans of action;

Disseminate information on best practices and lessons

learned, including experiences from other nations;

Participate in the community level implementation of action plans.

61 |


Science and Observation

Establish a regular process under the United Nations for

global reporting and assessment of the state of the

marine environment, including socioeconomic aspects,

by 2004.

Facilitate the exchange of information and approaches in

support of the establishment and implementation of the

reporting efforts;

Serve as local, national and regional coordination bodies for

the gathering and processing of standardised information;

Broadly disseminate summarised information on the state of the marine environment.

Increase scientific and technical collaboration in marine

science. Provide fora for the exchange of information and technical

capacities;

Promote scientific cooperation through informal networks;

Promote and support the participation of indigenous

knowledge holders.

Build capacity in marine science, information and

management, including environmental impact

assessments (EIAs) and environmental

reporting.

Engage in capacity building activities.

Small Island Developing States

Develop community-based initiatives on sustainable

tourism in small island developing States by 2004. Provide micro-financing for appropriate small tourism

enterprises;

Engage in relevant local level capacity building activities;

Disseminate information on sustainable tourism approaches

to operators and tourists;

Serve as catalyst for the establishment of community-level

operations;

Promote successful approaches through awards and other relevant means.

Reduce, prevent, and control waste and pollution and

their health-related impacts in small island developing

States by 2004 through the implementation of the Global

Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine

Environment from Land-based Activities

Fully participate in the development and implementation of

the GPA as per supra under “Protection from Marine

Pollution”.

Undertake a comprehensive review of the

implementation of the Barbados Programme of Action

for the Sustainable Development of Small Island

Developing States in 2004

Contribute lessons learned from the implementation of the

Barbados Programme through the gathering of information at

all levels;

Provide new and innovative ways to meet the Plans

challenges in consultation with civil society;

Engage in capacity building activities in support of the

Plan’s implementation.

Assist SIDS in managing their coastal areas and EEZs as well as regional management initiatives.

Engage in capacity building activities which provide insight into SIDS-specific approaches;

Convene regular conferences and workshops where SIDS-

specific issues and approaches can be discussed;

Mobilize new and additional funding for SIDS’ ICZM

initiatives.

Support and build capacity in SIDS to implement

programs of work on marine and coastal biodiversity

and fresh water programs.

Engage in targeted capacity building activities.

Assist SIDS in adapting to the effects of climate change. Provide area specific information related to climate change

vulnerability;

Work with coastal communities and national authorities in

the development of appropriate coastal zoning;

Disseminate information on climate change issues and prevention measures.


| 62

Extend assistance to SIDS for hazard and risk

management, disaster prevention, mitigation and

preparedness.

Gather and compile coastal zone risk assessments;

Propose risk management strategies;

Disseminate relevant information to costal communities;

Promote and facilitate the involvement of coastal

community representatives in the elaboration and

implementation of risk-reduction and disaster response

measures;

Engage the insurance industry as a stakeholder in ICZM.

Maritime Transport

Enhance maritime safety and protection of the marine

environment Lobby national authorities to Ratify, accede to and

implement IMO instruments;

Engage in training and capacity building activities

accordingly;

Monitor marine environmental quality with particular

attention to coastal areas adjacent to shipping routes and in

ports;

Serve as advocates for seafarers’ issues.

Accelerate the development of measures to address

invasive species in ballast waters. Provide National authorities with scientific information, and

regulatory and monitoring approaches;

Monitor the marine environment for invasive species;

Disseminate information to coastal communities related to

the identification of invasive species and possible mitigation

activities.

63 |


SUSTAINABILITY AND VIABILITY: REINFORCINGTHE CONCEPTS OF THE JOHANNESBURG DECLARATION

ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENTEduardo Marone (1) & Paulo da Cunha Lana (2)

(1) Executive Director – South Western Atlantic Operational Center of the International Ocean Institute.(1) Director – (2) Course Coordinator – Center for Marine Studies of the Federal University of Paraná.

P. O. Box 50.002 – 83255-000 – Pontal do Sul – PR – Brazil.e-mail: (1) [email protected] – (2) [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Social and natural systems are more complex than originallyaccepted when the sustainable development concept was estab-lished. It appeared based in some equilibrium ideas and, equilib-rium, even in a dynamical sense, is more an exception in naturaland social systems than a rule. Variability, irreversibility, feed-back and chaotic behavior need to be considered in order to trans-form sustainability in a feasible reality.

Also, as non linear and chaotic, dynamical systems are stronglydependent of initial conditions. Differences in the initial condi-tions that could be observed between, at least, developed anddeveloping countries, imply in the need of different approachesin order to succeed in promoting changes in the well being ofsociety and in the protection of the environment, particularly forthe achievement of the common goals of sustainable viable de-velopment.

On that sense, it must be considered that both, socio-diversityand bio-diversity have the same importance and that they deter-mine each other. Instead of threatening the ecosystems, the estab-lishment of a friendly relationship needs to be prioritized, play-ing with the variability instead of ignoring it.

Not considering any ideological approaches, it seems to benecessary to continuously update, based in scientifically soundinformation, the sustainable development concept, as will be dis-cussed here.

INTRODUCTION

The Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development– JDSD – (2002) began with the statement:

1. We, the representatives of the peoples of the world, as-sembled at the World Summit on Sustainable Developmentin Johannesburg, South Africa from 2-4 September 2002,reaffirm our commitment to sustainable development.

The concept of sustainability was based in some academi-cally built ideas, particularly in the understanding, at those times,that natural systems would be in some equilibrium state, at leastdynamical, or that they can be sustained in such level for a while,provided the perturbations are small enough not to change themean equilibrium. Basically, developments at population, commu-

nity and ecosystem ecology were at the base of the dynamicalequilibrium concept that leads to the sustainability one.

Particularly in natural sciences, no concepts are “permanent”and they are under permanent improvement, whenever possible.Otherwise, it could become a dogma, which is all but science.From the time the concept of sustainability was developed to thepresent days, it evolved following many new scientific discover-ies, evolution that was not followed at the same level outside theacademia.

When a scientific concept as sustainability reach the society,in a wider sense, it usually acquires many interpretations, whichthe scientists need to accept as a common feature, without re-nouncing to continue with the improvement of the concept, alert-ing the academy and the society about any evolution. In any case,science cannot be in confrontation with society, but helping withits evolution. What is clearly highlighted is that the multiplicityof the actors’ points of views, which are confronted around thenotions of development and of sustainability, and other concepts,needs to be properly considered, which not just a scientific mat-ter is. Most of the actors have their own intuitive and many timessubjective definition of a given problem. These less or not scien-tific point of views, where the matter is not conceptual or specu-lative, are positions which will guide strategies of concrete actionand need to be properly acquainted, never ignored.

The concept of sustainability was defined as a way to pro-mote development without compromising the future of both thepopulation and the environment (Jacobs & Munro, 1987). Thefeasibility of any sustainability was credited to the fact that anynatural system, which include humans, is at or reach some kind ofequilibrium, if not disturbed. In such a concept, human societyand the environment could co-exist in some balanced way be-cause the equilibrium would be an inherent state of nature. It isimportant to note that sustainability is actually a concept put un-der new lights, and the use of viable development to extend theone of sustainable development is not only a question of words,but have strong implications, particularly in the developing world.We need to do so in order to follow the second statement of theJDSD, which says:

2. We commit ourselves to build a humane, equitable and car-ing global society cognizant of the need for human dignityfor all.


| 64

This work intends to show, in a simple way, how the changesinthe scientific sense of sustainable development and the evolu-tion to viable and sustainable one could improve the success ofthe human society as a whole, as expressed in the above commit-ment. Also, but not less important, we would like to explain, byusing scientific elements, that there is a need to assess in a differ-ent way and by scientific means the sustained development pathsfpr developed and developing countries.

THE CONCEPTS AND CONSTRAINS

Other important point of the JDSD indicates:5. Accordingly, we assume a collective responsibility to ad-vance and strengthen the interdependent and mutually rein-forcing pillars of sustainable development – economic devel-opment, social development and environmental protection –at local, national, regional and global levels.

The sustainability concept was based in the hypothesis thatequilibrium is a common feature of natural systems. Thus, havinga sustainable development case means that we are or we will ar-rive in a world where both environment and society are in somedynamical equilibrium, both evolving without compromising the fu-ture of both, environment and society. While economic and social devel-opment are accomplished, environmental protection is in place, main-taining some equilibrium. In other words, sustainable development meansthat while the natural systems is maintained in some equilibrium or suf-fering slight changes, the social system could evolve, resulting in theimprovement of the quality of life of its members.

Equilibrium in natural systems (as in population dynamics) isa concept that has evolved from a purely static one (case A ofFigure 1) to a more dynamic one (B in Figure 1) and, actually, toa non linear chaotic one (case C, same figure). While in A theoldest equilibrium idea the system was “fixed” in time and space,in the case B, which was behind the sustainability idea, any natu-ral system could evolve till some equilibrium level, which couldbe a constant or oscillate around a “mean” condition. On the lastcase, C, the population could evolve as in case B, but they arebifurcation points that may move the system to another equilib-rium level (1), to extinction (2) or to pure chaos (3). First twocases could be represented by physical systems like a fixed mass(a constrained pendulum, as in A) or a free oscillating pendulum(in B). On the non linear case (C) the cord of the pendulum of Bhas an extra forcing, by the introduction of an extra spring, whichin turn is responsible for the chaotic behavior of its evolution. Inall the figures, the one at the left side represents a physical case,while the right figures are the way the population dynamic wouldbe represented following the equilibrium mode represented bythe physical one: a trapped pendulum with no way to move (A), afree pendulum (B) and a chaotic pendulum (C).

It was proved, during the last decades of the 20th century, thatthe dynamic of natural systems is mainly non linear, as any sys-tem dominated by strong feedback mechanisms, and it they canlead to chaotic behavior. The key issue here is the strong depen-dence of the path of any evolution of natural communities, in-cluding human ones, with the initial conditions, because chaoticsystems are, by definition, strongly dependent on those initialconditions. Any slight difference in one apparent similar case

could not be perceived, and the final result could be very differentfrom the expected one. As dynamical systems with such charac-teristics of non linear behaviour, variability, irreversibility and soare rarely in some equilibrium state, we have suggested that theuse of the viable development concept, as an evolution of thesustainable one, even if just a little bit different, could be moreappropriate when planning humane, equitable and a caring globalsociety, particularly at developing areas, where social variabilityand unbalances are marked.

One of the potential threats to the whole idea is based in thefact that most developed countries have almost established suchdynamical equilibrium in many ways and at least inside their bor-ders, in both the environmental and the human dimensions. Wecould mention many developed countries where the well being ofthe population and the environment seem to be in such equilib-rium or near it in the present days. On the other hand, even if insome cases the environment seems to be in apparent “equilib-rium” with itself (except, probably, when natural disasters oc-cur), human society is not always equilibrated with itself, mostlyin developing countries, where social inequities are pretty muchmarked and unbalanced, violating the principle of equilibrium, atleast dynamic, on which the sustainability concept is based. Be-fore the sustainability, we need to ensure the viability of both, theenvironment and the society. Developed countries seem that haveproved their viability, which is not the case of many developingones. The concept of viable development, as presented by FreireVieira & Weber (1997), seems to be more adequate to describethe case of developing countries. In other words, due to the vari-ability, the irreversibility and the uncertainty of dynamical sys-tems, it is a wisest idea to think on viable development as a needto obtain a sustainable one. The viable development consists inmanaging the variability, instead of trying to preserve the systemin some “equilibrium”, in order to ensure to the society and theenvironment, in the long run, their viability.

MOVING AHEAD

Here it is important to take a time to discuss the implicationsheld by the concepts of sustainability or viability, to better under-stand why initial conditions are so important for making the dif-ference between developed and developing worlds.

Each local social situation could be characterized by configu-rations, which are distinct and variable through time and interac-tions. It forms part of the normal course of every human grouphistory and it is reflected by the relationship kept with portions ofnature on which they are working. For every social group,sustainability, for instance, is shown as a constantly renewed gameof temporary balances, tensions and conflicts leading to thesechanges. It is never reduced to immobility or stability (Raynaut etal, 2003).

Then, if we want to better manage the social and environmen-tal issues, it is a wise idea to play with variance instead of equilib-rium, particularly at the developing world, where variances, asone can see, are much marked. In particular, social inequalitiesand population dynamics show higher variability in developingcountries, and need to be assessed carefully.

On the Figure 2 we represented an idealized plot of the

65 |


population in a country versus the individual values of the Hu-man Development Index (nHDI – normalized to 1) of each citizen.At the left, the case of a developed country, while at the right, thecase of a developing one is represented in a schematic way. Wecan pinpoint n “initial conditions” for describing the social sys-tem, as the here used HDI, but most of them will present similarbehavior: while the mean and the mode are at almost the samepoint in the developed case, both are very different in the devel-oping country example.

If we assume or accept that the HDI could indicate the wellbeing of the individuals of any society, at least in a first approxi-mation, the normal distribution of the developed case is truly adifferent initial condition for the first case when compared withthe developing case. But differences do not stop there, variancesare also very different and it is recognized that extreme differ-ences in the social network imply in social instabilities thus. it isa non equilibrium situation.

Finally, it is necessary to note, again, that the natural and so-cial systems are essentially chaotic and the science has provedthat even the most simple system, like a given biological popula-tion, could evolve to very different stages just by its chaotic be-havior, because the appearance of bifurcations on its evolution(May, 1976), Figure 1C. If at any moment we can have a hugchange in some considered equilibrium state, because the dynami-cal system is a non linear chaotic one, how to deal just with thesustainability concept without considering, as a need, to work morewith the intrinsic variability of the system than with any theoreti-cal equilibrium?

Most developed societies reached its actual well being stateafter exploiting its own, at least, environmental resources, manytimes near starvation. Such societies advanced in such a way thattoday, for instance, the area covered by natural forests are higherthan during pre-industrial age periods, and the well being of itscitizens are top ranked. On the other extreme, we have examplesof poor countries that, trying just to survive, depleted in such away their natural resources that it is hard to believe they will re-cover in some future without hug external support .

Often, models, policies and laws intended to protect the envi-ronment do not work. In particular, efforts to protect natural re-sources in the developing world generally fail, and there is a needto develop new mechanisms to help on that issue. In most cases,the main reason for the failure of methodologies stems from themarkedly different initial conditions of well-being and culturaltraditions of the populations involved (Raynaut et al, 2003). Also,the search for “sustainable” development models applied to lessdeveloped regions seems to fail more frequently than expected,probably because sustainability alone seems to be, from a theo-retical point of view, the “best” way to induce changes for betterquality of life without compromising the environment, but notnecessary the “wisest” or more viable one. In any case, assistingpopulations ‘to manage change’ lies at the centre of human devel-opment. This is in accordance with other statements of the JDSD:

7. Recognizing that humankind is at a crossroad, we haveunited in a common resolve to make a determined effort torespond positively to the need to produce a practical andvisible plan that should bring about poverty eradicationand human development.

And, also, with:11. We recognize that poverty eradication, changing con-sumption and production patterns, and protecting and man-aging the natural resource base for economic and socialdevelopment are overarching objectives of, and essential re-quirements for sustainable development.

The recognition of the variability of natural systems (Henry,1987) is a key issue for the successful implementation of sustain-able viable development.

CONCLUDING

Social and natural systems are more complex than originallyaccepted when the sustainable development concept was estab-lished. Equilibrium, even in a dynamical sense, is more an excep-tion in natural and social systems than a rule. Variability, irrevers-ibility, feedback and chaotic behavior need to be considered inorder to transform sustainability in a feasible reality, not an uto-pia.

Also, as non linear, chaotic, dynamical systems are stronglydependent of initial conditions. Differences in the initial condi-tions that could be observed between, at least, developed anddeveloping countries, imply in the need of different approachesin order to succeed in promoting changes in the well being ofsociety and in the protection of the environment, particularly forthe achievement of the common goals of sustainable viable de-velopment.

On that sense, it must be considered that both, socio-diversityand bio-diversity have the same importance and that they deter-mine each other. Instead of threatening the ecosystems, the estab-lishment of a friendly relationship needs to be prioritized, play-ing with the variability instead of ignoring it.

REFERENCES

UNITED NATIONS 2002. World Summit on Sustainable Develop-ment. The Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development.Johannesburg, South Africa 26 August–4 September 2002. A/CONF.199/L.6/Rev.2.

FREIRE VIEIRA, P. & Weber J. (orgs.) 1997. Gestão de recursosnaturais renováveis e desenvolvimento. Novos desafios para apesquisa ambiental. S. Paulo, BRA. Ed. Cortez, 500 pp.

HENRY C. 1987. Affrontement ou connivence. La nature, l’ingénieuret le contribuable. Laboratoire de Econometrie, Ecole Polytechnique.CNRS, Paris.

JACOBS, P. & MUNRO D. (Eds) 1987. Sustainable and equitabledevelopment: an emerging paradigm, UICN, Genève.

MAY R. M. 1976. Simple Mathematical Models with Very compli-cated Dynamics, Nature, 261, 459-467.

RAYNAUT, C., ZANONI, M., FERREIRA, A. & LANA, P. 2003.Sustainability: Where, When, for Whom? Past, present and futureof a local rural population in a protected natural area (Guaraqueçaba,Brazil). XV ICAES Humankind/Nature Interaction: Past, Present,Future. Sustainability and Communities of place. Florence, July 5th– 12th 2003.


| 66

67 |


OBSTACLES TO ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT

Lawrence JudaProfessor Department of Marine Affairs

University of Rhode IslandKingston, Rhode Island

[email protected]

Life and human well-being depend on the functioning of natu-ral systems that provide goods, such as clean air, clean water, andfood, and services, such as the filtering of pollutants and provi-sion of living resource habitat. Yet over time these systems havecome under growing pressure as a consequence of:

• increasing world population and the present globalscale of markets that generate growing demands fornature’s resources

• modern technology that increases human capabilitiesto exploit natural resources, often with attendant shortor long-term damage to the environment, and

• human impacts on the ocean/coastal environmentincluding living resource habitat destruction andthe introduction into the environment of vast quantitiesof waste, including effluents which may or may not bebiodegradable, may be highly toxic, or may signifi-cantly affect oxygen availability

The cumulative effect of these developments is that ecosys-tems may demonstrate declines in productivity of desired goodsand services and, in the worst case, be totally overwhelmed andcease to function. An example may be seen in regard to marinefisheries where both overexploitation and threats to essential fish-ery habitat, a deadly combination, are in evidence.

Given the inadequacy of existing efforts to respond to suchproblems and the expanding knowledge of the operation of natu-ral systems, attention has been turning increasingly to the con-cept of ecosystem-based governance to provide a basis for moreeffective ocean/coastal management. The concept of governancemerits careful consideration as governance is recognized as be-ing crucial to advancing ecosystem-based management (WorldResources Institute 2003). Governance should be understood toextend beyond government, to include other mechanisms that serveto alter and influence human behavior. The author’s workingdefinition is that governance refers to the web of formal and in-formal arrangements, institutions, and mores that structure howresources and the environment are used, how problems and op-portunities are evaluated and analyzed, what behavior is deemedacceptable, and what rules and sanctions are applied to affectpatterns of use.

In this view key mechanisms of governance include govern-ment, but also the marketplace, and non-governmental organiza-tions and social institutions (Juda 1999; Juda and Hennessey 2002;World Resources Institute 2003). Their mutual interplay and theirrelationship with the use of natural systems are diagrammed insimple fashion in Figure 1. Examples of some of the ways thoseelements may influence the use of the environment are also notedin Table 1 and may be suggestive of how necessary changes maybe addressed. Clearly, the mix, character, and relative influenceof these mechanisms will vary by country and region and theiroperation in particular locations must be understood empiricallyrather than assumed (Juda and Hennessey 2002).

The ecosystem-based approach to governance begins with anunderstanding of the functioning of natural systems and a carefulconsideration of human impacts on those systems. It then makesprotection of ecosystems a first order priority and seeks to havehuman behavior accommodate, rather than undermine, those sys-tems. In general terms and in various forms, ecosystem-basedmanagement has been supported not only in academic studies(Alexander 1993; Sherman 1995; Christensen, et al. 1996), butalso in international declarations (UNEP Rio Declaration 1992;UNEP Agenda 21 1992; WSSD Plan of Implementation 2002),international agreements (UN Fish Stocks Agreement 1995), in-ternational programs (Global Programme of Action 1995; Inter-national Coral Reef Initiative 1994), international organizations(FAO 1995; FAO 2003), national legislation (Canada, OceansAct 1996) and in the work of ocean commissions (Pew Commis-sion 2003; U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy 2002; IndependentWorld Commission on the Oceans 1998). This approach, how-ever, presents many difficulties as attempts are made to proceedfrom broad conceptualization and vague endorsement to real worldapplication and implementation (FAO 2003). Indeed, continuingnational efforts in the U.S., Canada, and Australia illustrate thenature of problems encountered in this regard (Juda 2003).

This brief paper points to some of the basic dilemmas facedby those seeking to operationalize ecosystem-based management.Among them, whether at the global, regional, or national level,are the following interrelated elements:

• giving definition to ecosystem-based management anddesignating appropriate spatial frameworks

• addressing the disconnect between politically definedand ecologically defined space


| 68

• encouraging integrated, cross-sectoral approaches toocean/coastal management

• minimizing government “turf” problems in bothhorizontal and vertical dimensions

• integrating science into public policy

• coming to terms with the allocative implications ofecosystem-based management efforts and differentpriorities among those sharing ecosystems

• overcoming the mismatch between political andecological time frames

• involving the wider public and generating necessarypublic support for ecosystem-based governancemeasures

ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT DEFINITIONAND SPATIAL FRAMEWORKS

It has been dryly quipped that the lack of opposition to eco-system-based management stems from the fact that “there is notenough agreement on the meaning of the concept to hinder itspopularity” (GAO 1994). But the reality is that, however de-fined, attention is generally turning toward systemic rather thansectoral approaches to ocean/coastal management and, to a grow-ing degree, focusing on the operation of selected ecosystems. Animportant question asks whether this effort requires a total break

with the past or if it is a next step in the continuing evolution ofocean/coastal governance. Is it an all or nothing approach or is itpossible to take meaningful individual measures that collectivelycan have significant impact on and foster the emergence of a newgovernance ethic? Will we become bogged down in discussionsof the design of perfect systems or will we be able to make aseries of changes that will allow progress toward a more ecosys-tem-based governance system?

Spatially, what is the operational ecosystem for managementpurposes? Ecosystems range from puddles of water to the earthas a whole, with one system nested in another. Currently, opera-tional frameworks are being developed at the levels of large ma-rine ecosystems, watersheds, and semi-enclosed seas as well as atthe level of bays and selected marine protected areas. In all theseefforts, the significance of addressing the interplay of land-basedactivities with the oceans is emphasized (GESAMP 2001).

POLITICALLY DEFINED AND ECOLOGICALLYDEFINED SPACE

The territorial extent of nation-states and sub-national politi-cal units has been determined by politics and history and, often oreven typically, is not congruent with the spatial areas over whichnatural systems, such as large marine ecosystems and watersheds,extend. Successful governance of such areas requires coopera-tion among political units and some degree of surrender of sover-eign or jurisdictional prerogatives for the common good of theshared ecosystem. Problems among the different authorities ex-ercising responsibilities in geographical areas encompassed byecosystems can easily arise as attempts are made to reach con-sensus on required measures and in regard to distribution of costsand benefits (equity issues) associated with those measures.

At both the international and national levels, a wide variety ofefforts to overcome such difficulties are in evidence. At the inter-national level, for example, the UNEP-sponsored Regional SeasProgram has encouraged cooperation in semi-enclosed seas. Inthe United States the Chesapeake Bay Program is but one of nu-merous initiatives at regional approaches to management of ocean/coastal environments (Juda, Burroughs, Hennessey 2003). Itwould be well worthwhile to examine carefully the developmentof these and other programs and to profit from the lessons thatmight be learned.

THE NEED FOR INTEGRATED, CROSS-SECTORALAPPROACHES TO OCEAN/COASTAL MANAGEMENT

The failure of sectoral approaches to ocean/coastal manage-ment has been noted continuously since the issuance of the StrattonCommission report (Commission on Marine Science, Engineer-ing and Resources 1969). Underdal (1980) has provided a clas-sic statement of the need for integrated ocean policy. Others havedeveloped this theme in detail and have noted that attempts arebeing made to implement more systemic management systems ina variety of countries (Cicin-Sain and Knecht 1998).

The new element that has been added to consideration of themultiplicity of uses of ocean/coastal space and their interplay isthe spatial context of ecosystems. Comprehension of the require-

Table 1. Governance Mechanisms Examples ofFactors Influencing Behavior

1. Government• regulatory policies• governmental programs• tax policies• education and outreach

2. Marketplace• profit motive• ecosystem goods and service valuation• eco-labeling

3. Social Institutions and Non-GovernmentalOrganizations• socialization processes• framing of issues• constituency roles• co-management efforts

Source: based on Juda, L. and Hennessey, T. 2001.Governance Profiles and the Management of the Uses ofLarge Marine Ecosystems. Ocean Development andInternational Law. 32:43-69.

69 |


ment to consider the spatial dimension is evidenced, for example,in the reports of American ocean commissions (Pew Commission2003; U.S. Oceans Commission 2002) and others issued by theAustralian and Canadian governments (Commonwealth of Aus-tralia 1998; Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans 1998).

Internationally, recognition of the necessity to provide for ef-fective management on an ecosystem scale is seen, for instance,in the financial support provided to states in southwestern Africaby the Global Environment Facility for joint efforts to managethe Banguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem (UNDP, StrategicAction Programme 1999, 2002). And the FAO and UNEP areexploring how the Regional Seas Program and the many conven-tions and programs it has spawned might be coordinated with thegrowing number of marine regional fisheries bodies in attemptsto advance ecosystem-based ocean management (UNEP/FAO2001).

GOVERNMENT “TURF” PROBLEMS

A major premise of ecosystem-based management is the needto consider the totality of activities affecting the defined ecosys-tem and the cumulative impact of those activities. Ecosystem-based management provides significant challenges to governmentsthat have traditionally been organized sectorally, that is, by func-tion such as agriculture or defense (Stratton Commission 1969;Pew Commission 2003). Moreover, there appears to be a globalphenomenon that government bureaucracies (and internationalagencies, as well) tend to mark off and defend as their own par-ticular areas of policy space or “turf.” (Downs 1967; Lévy 1988,1993).

Ecosystem-based management necessitates some meaningfuldegree of interdepartmental, interagency cooperation and behav-ioral modification to assure considerations of policy externali-ties; that is, thought must be given to the effects of department oragency actions on the broader environment and not just on thesector for which the department or agency has responsibility. Forexample, decisions by an agricultural ministry to encourage in-creased use of fertilizers can have significant implications forentire watersheds and that consideration must be internalized inthe decision making process.

Further, many governments are federal in character with im-portant responsibilities posited in sub-national governmental units.Turf considerations are also relevant in this context. Yet effortsmade at the national or sub-national levels will fail without ap-propriate cooperation. The fact is that among the diverse depart-ments and agencies at any particular level of government (thehorizontal dimension) and among levels of government (the ver-tical dimension), harmonization of policies and efforts is requiredto avoid conflicting actions and to maximize management effec-tiveness. Ongoing efforts are being made in a number of states toattain necessary levels of cooperation (Juda 2003).

INTEGRATING SCIENCE INTO PUBLIC POLICY

Ecosystem-based management requires the collection andconsideration of a substantial amount of data together with com-prehension of relationships within the natural environment and

understanding of the effects of human uses on the environment.It may be clear what people want from the environment, but it isessential that there be an appreciation of the capability and limitsof natural systems to deliver desired goods and services. Sciencemust try to indicate the system productivity parameters for policymakers and those limits must be taken seriously, even outweigh-ing the force of political pressures. This is no easy matter asobserved in fisheries management. Educating the public is a keyelement in making it possible for science to play an appropriaterole in ocean/coastal management. In this context, scientists mustbe willing to go beyond the task of discovering knowledge andseek to make that knowledge and its societal implications com-prehensible to decision makers and to the wider public.

It should be added that while the natural sciences may pro-vide an understanding of natural system dynamics and the im-pacts of human use on those systems, social science can contrib-ute to the understanding of human perception of nature, how peopleuse the ocean/coastal environment and its resources, and why theyuse it as they do. The answers to the “why” questions are crucialto altering human behavior patterns that damage natural systems.Varied answers to the “why” question may suggest the need foralternative governance efforts at management (e.g.: education orenforcement). Pernetta and Mee (2001) have correctly noted theimportance of recognizing the “root causes” and “causal chains”associated with use of the natural environment.

ALLOCATIVE IMPLICATIONS OF ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT AND DIFFERING PRIORITIES

Politics, it has been said, is the study of who gets what, when,and how (Lasswell 1958). In this sense, environmental and re-source management have important political dimensions. Differ-ent environmental policies have varied distributive consequencesboth internationally and domestically, consequences that raisequestions regarding equity of both costs and benefits. The casemay be made that ecosystem-based management makes sense insome manner of speaking, but changes in distributive effects mayprovide an underlying basis for opposition to change. And itshould be noted that at local, national, and international levels,groups that share a common ecosystem may not necessarily agreeon relative priorities; their alternate preferences will require me-diation. Accordingly, if required changes are to be made, wide-spread support, based in broad public participation, understand-ing, and process transparency must be developed.

DIFFERENT TIME HORIZONS

In democratic states, the time frameworks of political leadersare governed by election cycles, while ocean management requiresefforts on a longer time scale. Policy makers feel the imperativeto demonstrate results in the short run, but safeguarding or restor-ing natural systems may require extended time commitments be-fore it is clear that notable improvements have taken place. Costsmay be incurred early on, but benefits may not be apparent forsome time. In this context, the role of education in promotingattitudinal change and that of non-governmental organizations inbuilding constituency support may be especially important inobtaining needed backing for long term efforts.


| 70

Public involvement and support. A number of the points notedabove give credence to the urgency for early and continued pub-lic understanding and participation in developing and implement-ing efforts in support of ecosystem-based management. Wide-spread understanding, endorsement, and participation increase thelikelihood of success through having the public share a sense ofownership of emerging governance systems (World ResourcesInstitute 2003). Strong public backing can translate into bettersurveillance and oversight, reduce the costs of regulation by en-couraging voluntary compliance, and provide the political con-stituency needed to further ecosystem-based governance measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Do the difficulties outlined above preclude substantial move-ment toward ecosystem-based management or, rather, do theyserve to suggest that the road ahead will be difficult but eventu-ally navigable? This author optimistically believes the latter.Important changes are already occurring. Most notably, signifi-cant change has occurred in human perception of the natural en-vironment and how it works. This change carries with it implica-tions favoring systems-based approaches to ocean/coastal gover-nance and represents a major starting point for governance re-forms. Change can and will come through alterations not just ingovernment policy and institutional structure, but through modi-fications in other key governance mechanisms including the mar-ketplace, non-governmental organizations and social institutions.In this governance mosaic, education and public involvement arerequisite elements for required behavioral change and can assistin altering the context of what is politically acceptable and pos-sible.

Some may view ecosystem-based management, with its focus on theprotection of natural systems, as stemming from abstract, and per-haps romantic views of nature. This approach, however, can bedefended as being in accord with reality. Human survival and well-being depend upon coming to terms with nature and ensuring thesustainability of the ecosystems producing the conditions that makelife as we know it possible and worthwhile. There are many prob-lems and difficulties inherent in defining and operationalizing eco-system-based management but, in appropriate form, such manage-ment may offer the best and most realistic manner for providing forsustainable human use of the environment and its resources. Thechallenge is to develop widely accepted governance measures thatoffer both rationale and guidance for human behavior in the contextof the need to sustain the operation of the natural world.

REFERENCES

Alexander, L.M. 1993. Large Marine Ecosystems: A New Focus forMarine Resources Management. Marine Policy 17:186-198.

Canada. 1996. Oceans Act. 45 Elizabeth II.

Canada. Department of Fisheries and Oceans. 1997. Role of theFederal Government in the Oceans Sector. Ottawa: Fisheries andOceans.

Christensen, Norman, et al. 1996. The Report of the Ecological So-ciety of America, Committee on the Scientific Basis for EcosystemManagement.” Ecological Applications 6:665-691.

Cicin-Sain, B. and Knecht, R.W. 1998. Integrated Coastal and OceanManagement. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources. 1969.Our Nation and the Sea. Washington, D.C.: Government PrintingOffice. Online at <www.lib.noaa.gov/edocs/stratton/title.html>.

Commonwealth of Australia. 1998. Australia’s Ocean Policy. Envi-ronment Australia. Online through <www.oceans.gov.au/the_oceans_policy_overview.jsp>.

Downs, A. 1967. Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little, Brown andCompany.

Food and Agriculture Organization. 1995. Code of Conduct for Re-sponsible Fisheries. Online at <www.fao.org/fi/agreem/codecond/ficonde.asp>.

Food and Agriculture Organization. 2003. Fisheries Management:The Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries. Online at <www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y44470E/Y44470E.HTM>.

General Accounting Office (GAO). 1994. Ecosystem Management:Additional Actions Needed to Adequately Test a Promising Approach,GAO/RCED-94-111.

GESAMP. Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Ma-rine Environmental Protection. 2001. Online at <www.gpa.unep.org/documents/other/gesamp/GESAMP-LBA%20Report.pdf>.

Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Envi-ronment from Land-based Activities. 1995. UNEP, (OCA)/LBA/IG.2/7. Online through <www.gpa.unep.org/documents/about-GPA-docs.htm>.

Independent World Commission on the Oceans. 1998. The OceanOur Future. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

International Coral Reef Initiative. 1994-. Online at<www.environnement.gouv.fr/icri/index.html>.

Juda, L. 1999. Considerations in Developing a Functional Approachto the Governance of Large Marine Ecosystems. Ocean Develop-ment and International Law. 30:89-125.

Juda, L. 2003. Changing National Approaches to Ocean Gover-nance: The United States, Canada, and Australia. Ocean Develop-ment and International Law. 34:161-187.

Juda, L., Burroughs, R, and Hennessey, T. 2003. Regional Planningand Management in the Coastal Zone. Paper prepared for the Na-tional Governors Association.

Juda, L. and Hennessey, T. 2000. Governance Profiles and the Man-agement of the Uses of Large Marine Ecosystems. Ocean Develop-ment and International Law. 32:43-69.

Lasswell, H. 1958. Politics: Who Gets What, When, How. Cleve-land: World Publishing.

Lévy, J.P. 1988. Towards an Integrated Marine Policy in Develop-ing Countries. Marine Policy. 12:326-342

Lévy, J.P. 1993. A National Ocean Policy: An Elusive Quest. Ma-rine Policy. 17:75-80.

Pernetta, J. and Mee, L. 2001. The Global Water Assessment.<www.giwa.net/giwa_doc/documents_article.phtml>.

Pew Oceans Commission. 2003. America’s Living Oceans: Chart-ing a Course for Sea Change. Online at <www.pewoceans.org>.

Sherman, K. 1995. Achieving Regional Cooperation in the Man-agement of Marine Ecosystems: The Use of the Large Marine Eco-system Approach. Ocean & Coastal Management. 29:165-185.

71 |


Figure 1

Key Governance Mechanisms

Source: L. Juda and T. Hennessey. 2001. Governance Profiles and the Management of the Uses of Large Marine Ecosystems. Ocean

Development and International Law. 32:43-69.

Marketplace

NGOs/Social

Institutions

Government

Economic

Pressures

Legal/Political

Pressures

Social

Pressures

Human Uses of Marine/Coastal Environment

Underdal, A. Integrated Marine Policy: What? Why? How? MarinePolicy. 4:159-169.

United Nations. 1995. United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement. In-ternational Legal Materials. 34:1547-1580. Online at <www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/fish_stocks_agreement/CONF164_37.htm>.

United Nations Development Program (UNDP). Strategic ActionProgramme. 1999, 2002. Integrated Management, Sustainable De-velopment and Protection of the Benguela Current Large MarineEcosystem (BCLME). Online at <www.bclme.org/resources/sap.asp>.

United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). 1992. Agenda 21.Online at <www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english>.

United Nations Environment Program (UNEP). 1992. Rio Declara-tion. Online at <www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex>.

United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)/Food and Agricul-ture Organization (FAO). 2001. Ecosystem-based Management ofFisheries: Opportunities and Challenges for Coordination betweenMarine Regional Fisheries Bodies and Regional Seas Conventions.FAO, RFB/II/2001/7. Online at <www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y4470E/Y4470E00.HTM>.

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 2002. Developing a NationalOcean Policy. Online at <www.oceancommission.gov/documents/midterm_report/midterm_report.html>.

World Resources Institute. 2003. World Resources 2002-2004. Wash-ington, D.C.: World Resources Institute. Online at <www.wri.org/wr2002>.

World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD). 2002. WSSDPlan of Implementation. Online at <www.un.org/esa/sustdev/docu-ments/WSSD_POI_PD/English/POIToc.htm>.


| 72

73 |


WHEN CAN MARINE PROTECTED AREAS IMPROVEFISHERIES MANAGEMENT?

Ray Hilborn1 , Kevin Stokes, Jean-Jacques Maguire, Tony Smith, Louis W. Botsford, Marc Mangel, LoboOrensanz, Ana Parma, Jake Rice, Johann Bell, Kevern L. Cochrane, Serge Garcia, Stephen J. Hall, G. P.

Kirkwood, Keith Sainsbury, Gunnar Stefansson, and Carl WaltersUnited Nations Food and Agricultural Organization

Tel: 39 06 5705-6467Fax: 39 06 5705-3020


ABSTRACT

MPAs are a promising tool for fisheries management and con-servation of biodiversity, but they are not a panacea for fisheriesmanagement problems. For fisheries that target highly mobilesingle species with little or no by-catch or habitat impact, MPAsprovide few benefits compared to conventional fishery manage-ment tools. For fisheries that are multi-species or on more seden-tary stocks, or for which broader ecological impacts of fishingare an issue, MPAs have some potential advantages. Successfuluse of MPAs requires a case by case understanding of the spatialstructure of impacted fisheries, ecosystems and human commu-nities. MPAs, together with other fishery management tools, canhelp achieve broad fishery and biodiversity objectives, but theiruse will require careful planning and evaluation. Mistakes willbe made, and without planning, monitoring and evaluation, wewill not learn what worked, what did not, and why.

If MPAs are implemented without case by case evaluationand appropriate monitoring programs, the risk is run of unful-filled expectations, the creation of disincentives, and a loss ofcredibility of what potentially is a valuable management tool.

INTRODUCTION

Globally, there is a wave of environmental groups, poli-ticians and ecologists pushing for the large-scale implementationof Marine Protected Areas (MPAs2 ), with many calls for protect-ing 20-30% of the oceans (Roberts & Hawkins. 2003). Propo-nents argue that by eliminating all fishing from an area MPAsprotect biodiversity, serve as an insurance policy, and benefit eco-system and fisheries management. Initially, there was a clear dis-tinction between MPAs for protection of biodiversity and MPAsas a fisheries management tool. Most current calls, however, arefor large scale implementation of MPAs and argue they will pro-vide both biodiversity and fishery benefits, whilst potential costsare seldom mentioned (Roberts & Hawkins. 2003; NCEAS, 2003).

While the value of MPAs for the protection of habitat and

biodiversity is clear, their potential for improving fisheries man-agement and particularly fisheries yields will be limited unlessthe roots of fisheries management failures are addressed; the sameholds for other management tools. The major problems in fisher-ies management and conservation stem from improper incentivesand institutional structures (Botsford, Castilla & Peterson, 1997;Ludwig, Hilborn & Walters, 1993.; Heinz Center , 2000) that failto control the race for fish leading to over-capacity, over-fishingand economic loss. MPAs are a tool for specifying the locationof fishing; they do not affect the incentives, nor the institutionalstructures responsible for over-fishing (Hanneson, Fraser, Garcia& al., 2000). Furthermore, imposition of ill-considered MPAsmay in fact be detrimental, and the promotion of MPAs as alwayslikely to result in improved yields is misleading.

Area closures are just one tool of fisheries managementand MPA implementation needs to be guided by the scientificprinciples of adaptive management: experimental treatments, con-trols and evaluation (Walters, 1986). For MPAs to be an effec-tive fishery management tool, they need to be considered case bycase in light of the objectives and the current state of the fishery.They need to be evaluated and compared to viable alternativefisheries management tools, and used, where appropriate, as oneelement in a broader package of measures. Planned programs areneeded for testing the effectiveness of MPAs for fisheries man-agement. The utility of MPAs in relation to alternative tools willlikely be very different for different types of fisheries, as dis-cussed below.

POTENTIAL OF MPAS

There are several well-defined ways in which MPAs may beexpected to have merit as a fisheries management tool. These areexamined briefly below.

Increases in yield

The empirical evidence that MPAs enhance fish yields is sparse(National Research Council, 2001). - Setting aside an MPA ini-tially reduces the area that can be fished, thus reducing yield.The question then is whether the yield in the area remaining open

1 † To whom correspondence should be addressed. e-mail: [email protected] The term MPA is used here to mean areas that are closed to fishing, the meaning that is more widely used by the public.In the scientific literature, these areas are more commonly referred to as marine reserves (i.e., 9).


| 74

will increase enough to make up for losses from the closedarea. We know that in many marine reserves, the abundance andsize of fish increases (Halpern, in press). This is expected. Yieldfrom the fished open area can increase in two ways: (1) biggerfish can swim out of the closed area and be caught, and (2) thelarger fish in the closed area can contribute more eggs and ulti-mately more larvae to the fished open area. However, neitherresult is guaranteed. If the fish or invertebrates species of con-cern are sessile they will not move into the fished open area.Conversely, if they are too mobile, virtually all will move into thefished open area, thus removing the anticipated benefit (Polacheck,1990; De Martini, 1993). Also, larval dispersal patterns must besuch that enough larvae are transported to the open areas(Hastings, in press), and (compensatory) density-dependentgrowth does should not negate benefits within the closed areas(Parrish, 1999). Benefits will accrue only if recruitment to the pre-MPA fished area was less than the maximum possible. Thus,MPAs will increase yields only in fisheries in which heavy fishingmortality has substantially reduced recruitment (Quinn, Wing &Botsford, 1993; Holland, 1996; Sladek-Nowlis & Roberts, 1999;Botsford, Morgan, Lockwood et al., 1999). This is a corollary of aformal result: MPA-based and conventional management are ana-lytically equivalent (Mangel, 1998; Hastings, 1999) with respectto yield of the target species.

Buffer against uncertainty

Conventional management through catch or effort controls canfail due to stock assessment errors and inadequate institutionalframeworks. To the extent that MPAs may be effective at pro-tecting breeding stock, they may help to buffer the impact of suchfailures (Botsford, Castilla & Peterson, op. cit.; Lauck, Clark,Mangel et al., 1998; Mangel, 2000). However, persistence ofpopulations in MPAs, and their ability to replenish surroundingareas, depends on the MPA configuration and larval dispersalpatterns, which are poorly known (Botsford Hastings & Gaines,2001). Thus, while MPAs reduce uncertainty in the effects thatfishing regulations will have, lack of relevant biological knowl-edge adds uncertainty.

Reduced collateral ecological impacts

Fishing has wider impacts on marine ecological systems, notjust on target species (Hall, 1999). MPAs can reduce impacts offishing on benthic habitats, by-catch and protected species, andecosystem structure and function. To the extent that the objec-tives of fisheries management have been broadened to includeconcern for such impacts (Sainsbury, Punt & Smith, 2000), MPAsare potentially an important tool in meeting such specified objec-tives.

Stocks of sedentary organisms

The term “sedentary” , as used here, does not mean immobile.Sedentary organisms are those whose movements are short-rangewhen compared to the spatial scale of the fishing process (fleet

displacements) and/or pelagic larval dispersal. MPAs are one formof spatial management. For sedentary species, it has long beenrecognized that spatial management can be more easily under-stood, accepted and implemented than catch limits (Caddy, 1989;Oransanz & Jamieson, 1998). In the case of many fisheries tar-geting relatively small stocks of sedentary organisms, conven-tional stock assessment and catch regulation are unlikely to beaffordable or effective. Instead, locally supported regulations,including spatial management such as MPAs, have been shown toprovide significant benefits in some cases (Castilla et al., 1998;Castilla, 1999). In addition, global catch controls may be inap-propriate for many sedentary invertebrates in terms of their popu-lation biology. For example, broadcast spawners require highdensity concentrations in order to reproduce successfully, and thesehigh density concentrations are the first ones targeted by a fisheryregulated by catch limits. Spatial management may achieve largerreproductive outputs than global controls for comparable harvestrates.

Multispecies fisheries

When a fishery targets a multispecies complex, existing catchand net size limits may be poor management tools for some spe-cies. For example, in many fisheries the chief management toolcurrently used is ITQs/TACs3 . These apply to a few species,whilst the fisheries land dozens or even hundreds of species anddiscard many more4 . Extending quota management to all speciesis not practicable - even if sufficient data were available, suchfisheries are rarely profitable enough to afford the assessmentcosts. Prohibiting landings simply forces dumping, and settingcatch limits on every species would likely close the fishery be-cause at any time at least one species would likely need protec-tion. Properly designed MPAs may be a cost-effective manage-ment tool for such fisheries.

Improved knowledge

MPAs may provide valuable scientific reference areas to serveas controls on trends in fish production in the absence of take, onthe age, size and sex structure of the stock, and on impacts offishing on habitats (Smith, Botsford & Wing, 1998; Castilla &De Feo, 2001). Closed areas may provide the best basis for un-derstanding the broader impacts of fishing on ecological systems.The spatial scale of the MPA would need to be appropriate to thelife history of the species, but stock assessments that include datafrom an unfished control site would be highly informative. Suchreference areas are particularly appropriate during the develop-ment of new fisheries, when sustainable exploitation rates of newlyexploited species are highly uncertain, so that there is risk of over-fishing (Perry, Walters & Boutillier, 1999).

3 The Total Allowable Catch (TAC) is the catch limit for a whole stock. The way in which that limit is allocated and managed will vary betweenmanagement regimes. Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs) are one was of allocating and managing TACs.4 Australia’s south east trawl fishery, for example, catches well over 100 species, of which up to 80 are sometimes landed, but only 18 arecurrently managed by quotas (Smith and Smith, 2001).

75 |


POTENTIAL AND ACTUAL PROBLEMSWITH MPAS

Conversely, MPAs present problems under a number of cir-cumstances which are reviewed briefly below.

Effects of spatial shifts in fishing effort

A consequence of closing an area to fishing is for thefishing effort to move elsewhere, which may have a number ofundesirable consequences5 (Rijnsdorp et al., 2001). If an MPAwere large relative to the dispersal of adults and juveniles, pro-tecting 30% of the area would lead to a 30% reduction in poten-tial yield. Unless the quota or effort were reduced 30% outsideof the MPA, the sedentary stock outside would be severely over-fished. If catch limits were reduced proportionally, the conserva-tion benefits would come from reduced catch, not from the MPA.The spatial re-allocation of effort that occurs when areas are closedcan have detrimental impacts on target species, non-target spe-cies and habitat in the areas that remain open. The impact ofeffort re-allocation must always be considered when planningMPAs.

Stocks of highly mobile organisms

Many of the species caught in industrialized and some artisanalfisheries are mobile enough that MPAs would have to be verylarge to effectively protect breeding stock. With mobile stocks,closing some areas imposes economic inefficiencies, forcing thecatch to be taken at other times and places. The stock would notbe protected without additional measures, but economic costswould be imposed.

Better options may be available

When existing fisheries systems protect the breeding stockthrough catch, size or area limits, it is unclear that MPAs willprovide additional yield benefits. Where conventional fisheriesmanagement systems have not protected breeding stocks, such asNew England groundfish and in many European fisheries, scien-tific recommendations have not been implemented. Similar prob-lems may befall MPAs. Many countries have attempted to im-pose top-down catch or size regulations on local fishermen withlittle success. Top-down imposition of MPAs is equally unlikelyto work; what is needed, as for any management measure, is bot-tom-up support of fishery stakeholders and communities.

Hardship to fishing communities

Just as many fish stocks have complex spatial structure, andspecies may have limited mobility, the same is true of many fish-ing communities. MPAs may cause extreme hardship to fishingcommunities, forcing them to travel much farther to unfamiliargrounds, and MPAs that are large enough to protect some speciesmay exclude local people from any form of fishing. The spatialstructure of the fish and the human community must be consid-ered in the analysis of MPAs.

HOW SHOULD WE PROCEED?

MPAs can be appropriate as a tool for the conservation ofidentified habitat, species and community biodiversity. However,to minimize the yield losses to fisheries, and to achieve the de-sired conservation benefits, MPAs need to be evaluated in thecontext of: (1) clear biodiversity and fisheries objectives; (2) thesocial and institutional ability to maintain and enforce the clo-sures; (3) existing fisheries management actions; and (4) the abil-ity to monitor and evaluate success. Unqualified advocacy forMPAs ignores the need for scientific evaluation and the potentialnegative impacts to stocks, yields, and communities.

We need to learn how MPAs might be used to improvefisheries yields, and this will need careful experimental designand evaluation using the principles of adaptive management.Different size MPAs need to be set up in different environmentswith replicates and controls. Long-term evaluation needs to be inplace and criteria for success need to be determined a priori. Lackof scientific studies and inadequate sampling will be a major im-pediment to the successful implementation and evaluation ofMPAs. The appropriate scientific frameworks for the placementand evaluation of MPAs are critical.

References

Roberts, C.M. & Hawkins, J.P. 2003. Fully Protected Marine Re-serves: A Guide (World Wildlife Fund – United States, Washington,DC, available at http://www.panda.org/resources/publications/wa-ter/mpreserves/mar_dwnld.htm

NCEAS. 2003. Scientific consensus statement on marine reservesand marine protected areas. University of California. Statement sub-mitted at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for theAdvancement of the Sciences (AAAS), 17 February 2001. NationalCenter for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS). Http://www.nceas.uscb.edu/Consensus

Botsford, L.W. ; J.C. Castilla, C.H. Peterson. 1997. Title missing.Science 277, 509: pages ?

Ludwig, D., Hilborn, R., & Walters, C. J. 1993. Title missing. Sci-ence 260, 17, 36: pages ?

Heinz Center . 2000. Fishing Grounds: Defining A New Era forAmerican Fisheries Management. John Heinz III Center for Sci-ence, Economics, and the Environment. Island Press, Washington,DC.: pages ?

Hanneson, R., Fraser, D., Garcia, S., Kurien, J., Makuch, Z.,Sissenwine, M., Valdimarsson, G. & Williams, M. 2000. Governancefor a Sustainable Future: II Fishing for the Future. A Report by theWorld Humanity Action Trust, 67pp.

Walters, C. J. 1896. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources.McGraw Hill, New York: pages ?

National Research Council. 2001. Marine Protected Areas: Toolsfor Sustaining Ocean Ecosystems. National Academy Press, Wash-ington, DC: pages ?

Halpern, B. (In Press). Title missing. Ecol. Appl.

5 Rijnsdorp et al. (2001) for example, showed that a closed area for protection of cod in the North Sea led to unintended transferof effort to areas where skates and long lived benthic species were more vulnerable.


| 76

Polacheck, T. 1990. Title missing. Natur. Resource Modeling 4(3),327: pages ?

DeMartini, E.E. 1993. Title missing. Fish. Bull. 91(3), 414: pages ?

Hastings, A. & Botsford, L.W. In Press. Title missing. Ecol. Appl.

Parrish, R. 1999. Title missing. Calif. Coop. Oceanic. Fish. Invest.Rep. 40, 77 pages ?

Quinn, J.F., Wing, S. R. &L.W. Botsford. 1993. Title missing. Am.Zool. 33, 537 pages ?

Holland, D.S. & Brazee R.J. 1996. Title missing. Mar. Resour. Econ.11, 157 pages ?

Sladek-Nowlis, J. & Roberts, C. M.. 1999. Title missing. Fish. Bull,97, 604 pages ?

Botsford, L. W.; Morgan, L.E.; Lockwood, D.R. & Wilen, J.E. 1999.Marine reserves and management of the northern California RedSea urchin fishery (CalCOFI Rep. 40: 87-93

Mangel, M. 1998. Title missing. Ecol. Lett. 1, 87 pages ?

Hastings, A. & Botsford, L.W. 1999. Title missing. Science 284,1537 pages ?

Lauck, T., Clark, C.W., Mangel, M. & Munro, G. R. 1998. Titlemissing. Ecol. Appl. 8, S72

Mangel, M. 2000. Title missing. Evol. Ecol. Res. 2, 547 pages ?

Botsford, L.W., Hastings, A. & Gaines S.D. 2001. Title missing.Ecol. Lett. 4, 144 pages ?

Hall, S.J. 1999. The Effects of Fishing on Marine Ecosystems andCommunities. Blackwell, Oxford, UK pages ?

Sainsbury, K.J., Punt, A.E. & Smith, A.D.M. 2000. Title missing.ICES J. Mar. Sci., 57, 731

Caddy, J.F. 1989. Title missing. In: Caddy J.F. (Ed.) Marine Inverte-brate Fisheries: Their Assessment and Management. J. Wiley, NewYork: 665-700.

Orensanz, J.M. & Jamieson, G.S. 1998. Title missing. In Jamieson,G. S. & Campbell, A. (Eds.). Proceedings of the North Pacific Sym-posium on Invertebrate Stock Assessment and Management, Can.Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 125, 441 pages ?

Orensanz, J.M., Armstrong, J., Armstrong, D. & Hilborn, R. 1998.Title missing. Rev. Fish. Biol. Fisher. 8, 117 pages ?

Castilla J.C. et al. Names missing. 1998. Artisanal “caletas” as unitsof production and co-managers of benthic invertebrates in Chile. InJamieson G.S. & Campbell, A. (Eds.) Proceedings of the North Pa-cific Symposium on Invertebrate Stock Assessment and Manage-ment. Can. Spec. Pub. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 125, 407: 407-413

Castilla, J.C. 1999. Title missing. Trends Ecol. Evol. 14, 280

Smith, B., Botsford, L.W. & Wing, S.R. 1998. Title missing. Can. J.Fish. Aquat. Sci. 55, 1236 pages ?

Castilla, J.C. & Defeo. O. 2001. Title missing. Rev. Fish. Biol. Fisher.11, 1: pages ?

Perry, R.I., Walters, C.J. & Boutillier, J.A. 1999. Title missing. Rev.Fish. Biol. Fish. 9. 125 pages ?

Rijnsdorp et al. Names missing. 2001. Reference incomplete. Seeendnote vi

77 |


THE REGIONAL MANAGEMENT OF FISHERIES

Hance D SmithReader, Cardiff University, School of Earth, Ocean and Planetary Sciences,

PO Box 914, CARDIFF. CF10 3YE. United Kingdom.Tel: +44 2920 875569. Fax: +44 2920 874326

e-mail: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION

Viewed in the long perspectives of history, there is little doubtthat fisheries management world wide is at a turning point, thescale and significance of which lies beyond human experience todate. The accelerating collapse of the whale fisheries between the1930s and 1960s may be regarded as a portent, amplified by thefailure to agree a moratorium on whaling until the 1980s – half acentury after the slide started. The forces at work in the world’sgreat pelagic fisheries have been more difficult to disentangle. Inthe cases of, for example, the great upwelling fisheries – the Cali-fornian sardine, Peruvian anchovy, and South African pilchards;as well as shelf pelagics such as North Sea herring, there havealways been profound natural variations in the level of stockswhich have been difficult to separate from pressures due to over-fishing. Nonetheless, in successive cases – the Californian sar-dine in the 1950s, the Peruvian anchovy and North Sea herring inthe 1970s, overfishing to varying degrees triumphed. At first sightthe relatively dispersed bottom-dwelling demersal stocks mightseem to make these more secure from overfishing, and arguablyit has indeed been so. However, there is now every appearancethat the spectacular collapse of the Grand Banks cod stock in theearly 1990s is a harbinger of events to come, no less menacing inits implications than the decline of whaling and pelagic fisheries.

The history of fisheries management which has had to copewith these and innumerable other unfolding events has been mixedat best. On relatively small scales, particularly with individualstocks, there have been successes, such as the fur seal populationin the Bering Sea, managed since the 1890s; and the halibut popu-lation of the North East Pacific in the 1920s. Overall, however,the story is one of ultimate ineffectiveness, as the prevalence ofsevere overfishing demonstrates so starkly. Fisheries manage-ment in particular situations seems often to have concentratedovermuch on only one or two approaches, be it the underlyingnatural science, the basic economics, or technological approachesreliant on gear regulations; rather than on any broad, overarchingapproach taking into account the innumerable combinations andpermutations of influencing factors which exist in reality.

The purpose of this paper in the context of the WSSD pro-cess, therefore, is to suggest that over-reliance on a single ap-proach is unwise. Rather, at the present juncture in both the de-velopment of world fisheries and associated fisheries manage-ment systems, a more useful way forward may be to view fisher-

ies in a regional context which takes account of all the variousinfluencing factors in whatever combinations these exist in par-ticular cases. While apparently less clear cut, such an approachmay be more effective. The first section of the paper thus dealswith the establishment of management priorities. This is followedby discussion of the technical aspects – the toolbox – of measureswhich are available for directly influencing the relationships be-tween human activities and fish stocks. The third section of thepaper then focuses on the people involved – a general manage-ment dimension encapsulating the nature of the human inputs intofisheries management. Finally, the combination of the previousthree themes within specific regional frameworks is considered.

MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES

The starting point for the discussion of management prioritiesis the objectives of fisheries management. A cursory glance wouldsuggest that there are many, rather than few, objectives. And yetis it likely that there are only three fundamental sets of objectives.The pre-eminent set in historical terms is undoubtedly the eco-nomic, which has to do with the allocation of resources. Sec-ondly have been the biological objectives which deal with con-servation: here, interestingly enough, the language of fisheriesmanagement has often seemed to give priority to conservation,while in reality allocation has been more important. It was everthus, beginning with the seventeenth-century conflict between theEnglish and Dutch over the North Sea herring fisheries. Finallythe social objectives have been very poorly articulated for themost part. These are concerned with employment, maintenanceof fishing industries and communities and related ways of life.Effective management overall is dependent on achieving a vari-ety of balances among these three objective groups in specificsituations, particularly regionally, elaborated further below.

The immediate task in fisheries management is to influencethe physical interactions between human activities -–principallythe gear – on the one hand, and the environment – principally thecommercial fish stocks, on the other. This is the realm of techni-cal management, which is aimed at the major influencing factorsinvolved, being in turn technological, environmental, economicsocial and temporal. The starting point has often been and oftremains gear regulations. Economic measures are primarily con-cerned with the industry itself and allocation of resources. Socialand political aspects are concerned with the roles of ‘stakehold-ers’ – individuals, fishing communities, companies, the state and


| 78

others organised in a number of different ways. The idea oftemporal risk is more marginal, unlike the shipping industry, wheremarine insurance remains a key element in its operation.

The general management level is about the specifically hu-man inputs into the management system. Of particular interest isthe way in which decisions are taken, leading in turn to the con-sideration of the organisations which take these decisions. This inturn depends on the ideas – in short, the policies – which drivethe overall system. Finally, implementation of policies dependson strategic planning by individuals and especially organisations,including companies and the state.

Technical and general management functions operate withina set of factors external to the fisheries management ‘system’,which have a profound influence on its operation. Apart fromoverfishing and localised, mainly coastal pollution, the first set ofsuch factors are environmental. Direct human influence on envi-ronmental factors per se is minimal. Indirect influences, such asglobal warming, are another matter. However, in both cases theability of fisheries management systems as presently constitutedto mitigate or eliminate these factors is negligible, at least on shorttime scales of a decade or two. The role of technological factors,on the other hand, is driven by innovation. It is here that humaninfluence is paramount. The efficiency of fishing gears and tech-nological sophistication of fish finding and fishing vessels aresuch as to be a decisive influence in the promotion of overfish-ing. However, here again, the role of the management system hasbeen generally ineffective at best. The position occupied by eco-nomic factors is similar. Demand for the product drives the in-dustry. Fisheries management has little to say on demand, whichoriginates in a market established almost everywhere by expand-ing human populations and, at least in the developed world, alsoby rising incomes. Social and political factors are arguably atthere most influential in the devising of fisheries managementsystems themselves. However, population changes and barriersto trade, for example, operate very largely beyond the direct in-fluence of fisheries management systems. Finally to be taken intoaccount is time itself, when the interaction of the above factorsproduces concomitant elements of risk which it may be possibleto quantify in some cases.

In devising the fisheries management systems of the future itis crucially important to realise that objectives, technical and gen-eral management functions, and external factors all operate withinreal geographical frameworks. In order to be managed, the globalfisheries have to be organised on a regional basis, which is theway to properly take account of the contributing elements to thesystem comprising both the fisheries and fisheries management.

THE TOOLBOX

In the long perspective of history there is no doubt that it isthe economic measures which have and, by and large, continue totake precedence. Fundamentally these are all concerned with theallocation of resources. Closed areas and seasons, and quota sys-tems have been the main tools in the box. Indeed the notion offishing limits was perhaps the earliest concrete measure to beapplied, and this remains fundamental to the concept of geographi-cally expanding state jurisdiction over fisheries resources. Themost remarkable development, however, is the recent and ongo-

ing ‘privatisation’ of quota systems, achieved through making thesetransferable mainly, of course, within individual state jurisdic-tions where national quota shares have already been agreed atinternational level. The process is notable in having been mostprominent initially in geographically relatively isolated regions,such as Iceland, New Zealand and Australia. It still has some wayto run, and may be especially useful in rural areas with some formof co-management system, in which the community via local gov-ernment owns and leases the quota. By contrast, in the capitalintensive distant water fisheries run by companies it may be moreappropriate to allocate the quota to companies within nationaland/or international frameworks. A particular characteristic of theimplementation of these systems over time is to focus on bothhistoric rights and the principle of relative stability, notably inEuropean fisheries, which have a long and complex history. Thisis all very well if the fisheries hold up, but result in major crises ifthe fisheries collapse.

The second main element in the toolbox is conservation. Itcan be confused with the first, which is often couched in conser-vation terms, including conservation of the overall human impacton the ecosystem rather than the commercial fish stocks whichare the primary focus of attention here. Conservation measuresmay also include closed areas and seasons – the idea of ‘no take’zones is a comparatively recent variation on this theme; also im-portant are the settling of minimum sizes of fish, as well as over-all quota limits, particularly at ‘global’ level for specific fisher-ies. Conservation measures of course rely on the application ofscience and technology. An important issue at present is the long-standing application of science virtually independently of the fish-ermen and the knowledge they possess. This is a major weaknessas science relies on sampling and long-term monitoring and re-search programmes. In this way ‘non-scientific’ information ofvalue is liable to be lost. This is particularly important in trying toarrive at what may be termed sustainable or safe biological lim-its, a near impossible task if levels of information, including dis-cards, cannot be reliably estimated. Here much remains to be done,especially in integration of scientific effort more effectively intothe fishery management process, a theme returned to below.

The third set of tools are social in nature. These include legis-lation governing all technical and general management aspects;and licensing schemes which can be designed to incorporate allthe other technical management measures, such as days at sea,and gear regulations. Such licences inevitably acquire an eco-nomic value, and can be used to concentrate or prevent concen-tration of ownership, and for decommissioning of individual ves-sels or even whole fleets deemed surplus to requirements. Hereagain there may be some way to go, as such tools are central tocoping with the fundamental transition in the fisheries alluded toin the Introduction. It should also be noted that the legal systemevolves in parallel with the development of the industry itself,with periods of incremental legislation punctuated by major con-solidation, on a scale of decades. As such legislation is liable tolag behind development and therefore practice.

Understanding such lags is crucial to application of techno-logical measures, including gear and vessel regulations upon whichmuch management relies. Paradoxically the process of innova-tion upon which application of technology relies is largely be-yond management influence, which is a major reason for legisla-

79 |


tion lagging behind application, and thus necessitating legisla-tive consolidation at periodic intervals. Nonetheless regulationof gears in particular is often viewed as the first line of defence infisheries management, especially when allied to scientific inputssuch as measurement and monitoring of fish stocks and indi-vidual fish sizes. Indeed this is one of the most sophisticatedelements within the toolbox, once the innovations have been fullydeveloped.

Finally, there is the temporal element, which involves under-standing the complex interplay of external factors discussed inthe previous section, and their interactions with the combina-tions of tools used to manage specific fisheries. This is the worldof interruptions due to bad weather; longer term variations in fishstocks and therefore supplies to markets; gluts and shortages; goodtimes and distress at the individual, community and industry lev-els. Long ago Adam Smith observed that, despite the vagaries offishing in the short term, in the long term the returns were certainenough. It is a measure of the seriousness of the present situationthat for the first time since he wrote in the 1770s, this may nolonger be the case in many of the world’s fisheries. However, thesystematic application of risk analysis as applied in shipping op-erations or marine insurance, is largely absent in fisheries man-agement, perhaps at least partly because, unlike shipping, fisher-ies are substantially small scale in business terms.

At this all important technical management level, a regionalapproach can avoid over-reliance on only one or a few tools inthe box, such as gear regulations, or quotas; but rather can takeaccount of more sophisticated combinations of measures pecu-liar to particular regions, together with temporal variations, whichare also often regionally specific. Of particular importance is theneed to acquire and organise data on a practical regional basis,and an overall awareness of the true complexities inherent in theuse of this data.

THE PEOPLE

The starting point for the assessment of the human element infisheries management is the understanding of the processes ofdecision-making by individuals and organisations in relation totheir respective spheres of responsibility. Arguably over time themost important aspects of decision-making in the first instancerelate to the overall co-ordination of technical management, es-pecially with regard to the mix of technical measures used. Asalready noted, the history of fisheries management in many casesis characterised by relatively straightforward approaches relyingupon one or only a few tools. However, the range of possiblemeasures is considerable, and there may well be considerablescope for increasing sophistication in application of multiplemeasures in some cases.

Discussion of decision-making naturally leads to consider-ation of the roles of organisations within which much decision-making occurs, although the individual decisions taken by fisher-men constitute a further key element in this context. The initialdynamics and operation of external influences of the majororganisations involved would repay research through improvingmanagement decision-making.

In practice of course, fisheries management involves a range

of organisations or stakeholders, including as well as the fisher-men and fishing communities, the shore-side industries, scientificresearch organisations, government agencies (national/interna-tional) central government, industry, politicians, non-governmentalorganisations and the public – especially the consumers of fishproducts.

The functioning of organisations in turn depends on both policy– sets of ideas relating to the management tasks in hand; and imple-mentation of these ideas through planning of one kind or another.Fisheries policies are as many and varied as the fisheries them-selves. These are often seen as mainly a function of government,although the policies of other stakeholders – notably the non-governmental organisations – are becoming increasingly influen-tial. At state level, the specific plans may not exist, except in somedeveloping countries, where these are liable to be development-focused.

Crucially, a regional approach would mean a move away fromoverarching state influence or even control, to more evenly bal-anced sets of partnerships among public, private and voluntarysector organisations which nonetheless takes proper account ofthe regional patterns of fisheries resource exploitation and thenatural environments upon which these depend. In such a worldover-reliance on either ecosystems, or spatial planning approachesbased on industrial development would often be inappropriate,or even impossible; rather, again, combinations of factors – dif-ferent for each region – would be the rule. Perhaps most impor-tant of all initially, is that the fishermen themselves should be atthe centre of responsibility for decision-making.

REGIONAL FRAMEWORKS

The starting point for discussion of regional frameworks isthe existing regional pattern of fisheries development. Within thispattern, the most important fisheries are the major regional con-centrations of the developed world, especially in Western Europe,Eastern Europe, North America and Japan/Korea. Both individualnational policies, and regional policies (in the case of the Euro-pean Union) affect most of the world’s fisheries – coastal, shelfand deep ocean, although the most important category is the con-tinental shelf.

The developing world presents a different set of circumstances.Geographically more extensive, predominantly tropical and sub-tropical, most of the current fishing effort is external to the re-gion. There is a large measure of subsistence fishing. It may alsobe useful to consider the emerging rights of ‘first nations’ (geo-graphically extensive in the developed world) within this con-text.

The open oceans beyond state jurisdiction should probablyalso be regarded as a series of distinct regions. Major consider-ations here are the issues surrounding the Straddling Stocks Agree-ment; whaling; the fisheries of the Southern Ocean; the fisheriesof the South Pacific islands region; and the tuna fisheries gener-ally. These partly overlapping issue areas may require a strength-ening of international institutions to oversee management.

How long will it take to develop truly effective fisheries man-agement systems? And how long have we got? To answer the


| 80

second question first, the time scales available vary region-ally – it is vitally necessary to aim for the next twenty to thirtyyears at most , before some ecosystems are damaged any further,and perhaps permanently changed where this has not alreadytaken place. Sustaining truly effective systems are likely to takelonger, but surely not beyond the middle of the present century?

The regional fisheries management systems of the future,therefore, will have to provide for integration of technical andgeneral management elements with influencing factors, which willbe regionally specific and capable of constant re-adjustment intime, as required by particular regional circumstances. A particu-larly important aspect concerns the mode in which regional man-agement organisations evolve, especially at smaller geographicalscales. It would be an intellectual exercise (most probably car-ried out in government and academia) to devise a set of manage-ment regimes at various scales. However, lasting success will ratherbe based on the emergence of groups of stakeholders who emergeto define their own regions, and establish links with neighbouringgroups. There are some signs of this in Europe. The result will bea major contribution to the emerging ocean governance of the21st century, with influence extending politically far beyond fish-eries to other aspects of marine affairs.

CONCLUSION

It tends to be forgotten that fisheries management has achieveda great deal. In some cases fisheries have been managedsustainably; the role of international agreements such as the Codeof Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, and the Straddling StocksAgreement are not to be underestimated; while the sustained in-vestment in fisheries science remains worthwhile, even if it couldbe used more effectively.

Nonetheless fisheries management requires fundamental re-appraisal. Unlike, for example, safety of navigation which ben-efits from a global approach, fisheries management depends onglobal ideas applied locally, in a regionally specific way. It re-quires original approaches to the integration of tools and people,and it requires a keen awareness of the history and cultural sig-nificance of the world’s fisheries.

Effective fisheries management emerging over the next twoor three decades will depend on the flexible setting of manage-ment priorities on a regional basis, which incorporates a thor-ough understanding of both technical and general managementmeasures and their inter-relationships, as far as possible balanc-ing the special interests involved. Particularly important will bethe integration of continual change in all the elements involved,permitting flexible responses, especially to factors beyond thedirect control of fisheries management systems. The outcome willbe a set of management regions, both national and international,at a variety of geographical scales, which are above all manage-able.

81 |


DEVELOPING A CAPABLE, RELEVANT NETWORKTO ADDRESS MARINE AND COASTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS AND FOODSECURITY IN AFRICA AND NEIGHBOURING SMALL

ISLAND DEVELOPING STATES (SIDS)Grant Trebble

Coordinator AMCROPSP O Box 300, KloofSouth Africa, 3640

Mobile No. +27 (083) 446 1447E-mail: [email protected]

CAN THE WSSD SUBSTANTIVE OBJECTIVES ONOCEANS, COASTS AND SIDS BE ACHIEVED INAFRICA?

A study of the Negotiated Text from the WSSD inJohannesburg reveals a thorough and balanced plan of action formeeting the WSSD’s Substantive Objectives. In so far as Africais concerned, the following clauses hold special significance.

Clause 29 (c) Establish an effective, transparent and regularinter-agency coordination mechanism on ocean and coastal is-sues within the United Nations system;

Clause 29 (f) Strengthen regional cooperation and coordina-tion between the relevant regional organizations and programmes,the UNEP regional seas programmes, regional fisheries manage-ment organizations and other regional science, health and devel-opment organizations;

Clause 29 (g) Assist developing countries in coordinatingpolicies and programmes at the regional and sub regional levelsaimed at the conservation and sustainable management of fisheryresources, and implement integrated coastal area managementplans, including through the promotion of sustainable coastal andsmall-scale fishing activities and, where appropriate, the devel-opment of related infrastructure.

Clauses 32 (a), (b) and (c) also bear comment, notably fortheir reference to facilitation, strengthening capacity and elabo-ration of regional programmes. The intentions of Clause 34 arerelevant to Africa due to the notable lack of scientific educationon the continent.

One year after the WSSD there have been few attempts madeto begin the process of delivering on these objectives and no no-ticeable benefits have accrued to communities reliant on marineand coastal resources. This is not due to a lack of effort but mainlyas a result of a fragmented and unstable implementing environ-ment that cannot be efficiently utilized to address the ideals ofsustainability as they pertain to environment and poverty, in so

far as the current process is concerned. The goal of deliveringsubstantial progress by the next Global Programme of Actionconference in 2006 and other key dates will not be realized.

FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO A FRAGMENTED ANDUNSTABLE IMPLEMENTING ENVIRONMENT

A significant number of organizations such as DFID, IUCN,The United Nations and The World Bank, amongst others, arecommitted to delivering the substantive objectives of the WSSDand have met with varied, but questionable in terms ofsustainability, success in Africa. Africa’s recently formed AfricanUnion and NEPAD initiative have begun the process of develop-ing linkages between African governments and international in-stitutions and governments. These are positive steps and must befully supported but concerns remain that:

• International institutions and Developed Countrygovernments interact almost exclusively with Africangovernment structures due to internal policy restric-tions and a perceived lack of viable alternatives.

• The African Union and NEPAD have both beenaccused of ignoring civil society and communities andimposing a rigid ‘top-down’ approach with a limitedfocus on environmental issues. The section onsustainable development contained in the NEPADdocument of October 2001 (paragraph 71) does notmention the word environment and, furthermore, thedocument refers alarmingly to “utilizing coastalresources to optimal effect”. (Wildlife and Environ-ment Society of South Africa, Commentary)

• The African Union argues that poverty, disease andarmed conflict are of much greater importance thanthe environment in the allocation of limited resources.

• Environmental awareness campaigns are largely non-existent in Africa.


| 82

• Little effort is being employed to involve civil societyin environmental programmes or develop their capacityto fill the void evident in sustainable environmentaleffort, even less so in marine and coastal matters.

• Beneficiary African government agencies and, in rareinstances, NGOs are unprepared when internationalorganizations introduce environmental programmesand lack the capacity to adapt, develop and integratethe programmes to suit local and regional conditions.Furthermore, the interaction between local andinternational agencies takes place at a level that doesnot filter through to communities and build a broad-based acceptance for sustainable resource utilization.

To emphasize these points consider the following:

• Conflict: Some 20% of Africa’s people are directlyaffected by conflict and many more suffer from theimpact of that conflict. The World Bank conserva-tively estimates that conflict is knocking 2% a year offAfrica’s economic growth. Conflict, often combinedwith drought, triggered six of the seven major Africanfamines since 1980.

• Poverty: The 27 least developed countries in theworld are all African according to the United NationsDevelopment Programme. 35% of the population isconsidered chronically undernourished (FAO – 19THRegional Conference).

• Disease: Several Sub-Saharan countries have HIV/AIDS rates in excess of 25%. Regional instability alsocripples efforts to control the spread of HIV. Theimpact of HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases isleaving many African households struggling to surviveon the labour of orphaned children (FAO FoodInsecurity).

• Compliance: In Africa’s economic powerhouse, SouthAfrica, the police services concerned with environ-mental protection have turned to the private sector toassist with co-financing their compliance activities. InMozambique military personnel have recentlyrequested the use of private, dive-charter boats to fendoff illegal foreign trawlers. Machinegun exchangesbetween the military and the trawlers and the use ofrocket-propelled grenades (RPG-7) by the militaryhave resulted in trawlers by-passing certain areas fornow.

• Chronic Poverty and Environmental Degradation:Notably in Sub-Saharan Africa the link betweenenvironmental degradation and poverty is heighteneddue to the above-mentioned points.

The enormity of these problems, some best described as ca-tastrophes, leaves those in authority with very little latitude tofocus on the environment and, as is the case globally, even less on

marine and coastal concerns. NEPAD’s best intentions will opti-mistically only yield real community benefits within ten years.More realistically, a turnaround in the situation may only eventu-ate after twenty years, a time too far off for the marine and coastalenvironment. The optimum solution would be to develop civilsociety networks in Africa that would provide much needed con-tinuity and act as environmental support and implementing agen-cies on behalf of international institutions while African govern-ments remain focused on their current priorities. This networkmust work compatibly with local governments to build thecountry’s environmental capacity and benefit communities di-rectly. Civil society would be most suitably equipped to providethe continuity that that is required to address complex concernssuch as environment and food security, due to the fact that theygenerally transcend and withstand political instability.

THREATS TO MARINE AND COASTAL RESOURCES.

The threats faced by African marine and coastal environmentsand to communities dependent on these environments are numer-ous and increasing alarmingly due generally to the lack of suit-able legislation and the complete inability of protection servicesto ensure compliance of local environmental management poli-cies, let alone regional or international treaties.

• Fisheries agreements do not take account of theeconomic and environmental impact they have on thecountries concerned. The livelihoods of many fishingcommunities along the coast of African countries areseriously threatened by the overexploitation that is theresult of the exported EU fishing capacity. Both men(who do the fishing) and women (who do the process-ing and marketing) see their incomes endangered. Theenvironmental consequences of over-fishing are severeas complete eco-systems are being disrupted (HarryDe Vries, Eurostep). “The European Union, Russiaand Asian countries are mainly responsible foroverexploiting the fish resources, which ought to beproviding food for Africa now and in the future,”(Claude Martin, WWF International).

• Up to 38 per cent of the African coastline of 40 000km is considered to be under a high degree of threatfrom developments which include cities, ports, roadnetworks and pipelines, including 68 per cent ofmarine protected areas. It is projected that Westernand Central African coastal populations will double to50 million in the next 25 years (UNEP, GEO 2000).

• Marine pollution from major coastal cities is commonand has even reached toxic levels in some cases. In1990 coastal cities and towns in Southern Africadischarged more than 850 million litres of industrialand human wastes into the sea daily through more than80 pipelines, largely without any treatment (Cock andKoch 1991). There are no immediate prospects ofreducing the coastal pollution problems faced by manyAfrican countries (UNEP, GEO 2000).

83 |


• Coral reefs are increasingly under threat from humanactivities, particularly from coastal development andoverexploitation as well as blast fishing and land-based pollution. The Indian Ocean contains about 15per cent of the world’s mapped coral reefs, of whichmore than one-half is estimated to be at risk fromhuman activities (UNEP, GEO 2000).

SOLUTIONS FOR EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OFWSSD SUBSTANTIVE OBJECTIVES IN AFRICA

While marine fisheries are important to Africa’s food secu-rity, its marine environment has been severely degraded by fac-tors such as land erosion, pollution, over-exploitation and destruc-tive fishing methods. Africa’s ability to protect its food securitydiminishes daily and very little is being done to reverse thesealarming trends due to economic constraints. Even South Africa,with one of the strongest economies on the continent and its world-class environmental legislation, cannot adequately address theprotection of its marine and coastal biological resources. Thelack of compliance, in South Africa’s case, is extremely seriousin that the argument of resource deficiency is not entirely justifi-able.

In dealing with Africa’s coastal resources, as with most globalresources, it is important to establish regional perspectives as fishstocks migrate across jurisdictions and do not recognize interna-tional borders. However, African nations have no common ap-proach to their fisheries conservation and management. Recentefforts to develop regional ties have again ignored civil societyand local communities and are still restricted by insufficient re-sources. The imperatives for the development and conservationof common fish stocks often clash, and heavily capitalized for-eign fleets are over-harvesting the resources in many areas withthe consent of African governments and elsewhere operate openlybut illegally. Appropriate policies are needed to balance marinefisheries conservation and harvest allocation, and to stabilize de-clining stocks. This will not be achieved without the participationof those most affected by the collapse of marine resources as wasevident in Europe.

In Africa, perhaps more than in any other region, the World’smission to fight poverty is inescapably linked with the need forenvironmental protection and improved management of renew-able natural resources. In both rural and urban settings, the poorare the most affected by the loss of natural resources and the de-terioration of environmental services. They are also at the great-est risk from natural disasters, particularly droughts and floods,whose impacts are aggravated by environmental degradation (AgiKiss).

A newly formed group of African specialists, AMCROPS, hasdeveloped a comprehensive strategy to address these issues. Itspersonnel have a confirmed network along the African coastlineand plan to commence operations in Critical Focus Areas (CFAs).A highly mobile, specialized unit will identify a complete net-work of competent NGOs in coastal African countries and SIDS,partner and train them in methods to protect the marine and coastalenvironment and provide ongoing support until they are fully func-tional. AMCROPS will also develop a coordinated African front

to lobby global fora concerning regional threats, utilizing bothlocal and international law and the media. The underlying phi-losophy in all these activities will be to bridge the divide betweenenvironmental conservation and food security in the coastal re-gion.

The strategy is to develop the capacity of each NGO withregard to:

• Some of the world’s finest environmental legislation,policies and integrated management plans, developedby South Africa for poverty alleviation and sustainablecommunity development.

• Effective NGO management and operational struc-tures, using the model of South Africa’s Coastwatchproject.

• Their experience in negotiating with governments toimplement, monitor and comply with legislation.NGOs must be able to competently interact with theirgovernments in the implementation of marine legisla-tion, policies and management structures.

• Type II initiatives adapted to African needs, empower-ing the NGOs to participate in global structures.

• The scientific background needed for implementationof best practices in the management of the marineenvironment.

The provision of this expertise will empower the NGOs to thehighest global standards so that they can:

• Ensure that resource and environmental over-exploita-tion is reported and brought to an end.

• Develop sustainable fisheries in conjunction withrecognized research institutions through a process ofcommunity co-ownership.

• Network with other NGOs in the region on environ-mental conservation policies, trans-national marineprotected areas and sustainable fishing practices.

• Present a consolidated lobby at global forums tohighlight the status of continental resources and theimpact that over-exploitation is having on alreadyimpoverished communities.

IN SUMMARY, THE QUESTIONS ARE:

Will all the global efforts to alleviate Africa’s poverty, dis-ease and lack of sustainable development come to nothing be-cause of the failure to protect and maintain some semblance ofenvironmental integrity?

Will African governments be able to afford the necessary ef-fort needed for that environmental integrity to be sustainable orwill other priorities continue to take precedence?


| 84

Should the global effort to provide Africa with answers toenvironmental degradation, food security and poverty alleviationnot be developed through networks that offer continuity and broad-based community acceptance?

Can the WSSD Substantive Objectives on Oceans, Coasts andSIDS be achieved in Africa? The answer to this question is defi-nitely no. However, the solution lies in civil society taking thelead in environmental matters. With regard to marine and coastalmatters the solution is, to a large extent, in place and internationalagencies need to accept and support a capable and relevant formof implementation strategy. Likewise, African governments needto support these networks unreservedly, in particular, because theyare focused on matters outside of their current priorities.

REFERENCES:

Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa. 1 July 2002. TheEnvironment and NEPAD – Commentary.

Nineteenth FAO Regional Conference for Africa. 1996.Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.

UNEP Global Environment Outlook 2000

Harry De Vries. Undated. The Fight for Fish – Towards Fair Fisher-ies Agreements, Eurostep.

Agi Kiss. 2001. Environment Matters. World Bank Publication

85 |


TARGETING DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCETO MEET WSSD GOALS RELATED

TO MARINE ECOSYSTEMS

Alfred M. DudaSenior Advisor, Global Environment Facility

1818 H St., N.W.Washington, D. C. 20433;


ABSTRACT

Global commitments agreed in the last two years at Doha,Monterrey, and Johannesburg represent the potential for a politi-cal turning point in reversing the degradation of coastal and ma-rine ecosystems. International finance institutions, bilateral do-nor agencies, international organizations, and governments of theNorth and South all must realign their policies and programs ifprogress is to be made. Since 1992, the Global Environment Fa-cility (GEF) has supported countries to address Chapter 17 ofAgenda 21. Many thematic actions GEF has supported on a pilotbasis have been incorporated into the WSSD Plan of Implemen-tation (POI), and in early 2003 GEF adjusted its strategic priori-ties to align with WSSD goals. The paper outlines GEF supportfor countries in the biodiversity and international waters focalareas related to oceans, coasts and SIDS since 1992 . Examplesof GEF projects are provided that illustrate interventions at dif-ferent scales as part of its ecosystem-based approach involvingLarge Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) that address WSSD mandates.The LME approach and its intent of facilitating integration acrosssectors and developing adaptive management frameworks withsite-specific targets is described. Since 1991, GEF has approved46 projects in its international waters focal area for $440 millionGEF and $1.38 billion in total cost as well as 58 projects in thebiodiversity area for $330 million from GEF and $1.22 billion intotal cost for some 118 countries supporting marine ecosysteminterventions described in paragraphs 30-34 and paragraph 58 ofWSSD’s POI. Additional support in the GEF pipeline is describedalong with reforms needed in both northern as well as developingcountries in order to reverse marine ecosystem decline.

INTRODUCTION

The emptying of coastal oceans is but one symptom of ourmismanagement of the Earth along with abuse of land, depletionand pollution of freshwater systems, and wasteful energy prac-tices that load our atmosphere with climate changing carbon. Lackof attention to policy, legal, and institutional reforms as well aslow priorities for public investments and for enforcing regula-tions in private sector compliance now place at risk not only coastaland marine ecosystems but also communities that depend on themfor economic security and social stability.

The Millennium Development Goals and the JohannesburgSummit (WSSD) targets can not be achieved without restoringbiomass to depleted marine ecosystems, protecting wetland habi-tat with its biological diversity, and reducing pollution loadingfrom basins draining to the coast.. Traditional sector-by-sectorapproaches to economic development have created this globalcrisis. New calls for establishment of environment programs fo-cused solely on marine systems are doomed to failure withoutincorporation into those economic sectoral policies. Rather, anecosystem-based approach to marine systems that can operate atmultiple scales and harness stakeholder support for integratedmanagement is needed in both the North and the South. The pa-per discusses this concept and the need to realign the develop-ment assistance community and policies in the North to practicethis approach. It argues that the GEF has undertaken this type ofwork for a dozen years and that the experiences and lessons from117 nations is ready to be scaled up in support of partnershipswith development assistance agencies to meet WSSD goals.

IMPERATIVE FOR URGENT REFORMS ANDINVESTMENTS

Continued over-fishing in the face of scientific warnings, fish-ing down food webs, destruction of habitat, and accelerated pol-lution loading have resulted in the dramatic collapse of coastaland marine ecosystems of both rich and poor nations as recentanalyses show the oceans to be depleted of large fish with 90% ofthe larger fish being extirpated in some regions (Myers and Worm,2003). This over-fishing of marine ecosystems with modern tech-nology and subsidized distant factory fishing fleets has resultedin ecosystem disruption globally with 75% of ocean fisheries de-pleted, over-fished or fished at limits according to FAO (2002).When coupled with habitat loss and land-based pollution, thedegraded coastal environment leaves poor communities at risk interms of livelihoods and food security and endangers the economyof coastal nations.

Global commitments made in Monterey to increase develop-ment assistance, in Doha to reform damaging trade policies, andin Johannesburg to follow a specific path to sustainable develop-ment provide an opportunity for realigning policies of the Northand development assistance to the South to place our planet on a


| 86

sustainable pathway. Continued single sector developmentprojects and fragmented programs driven from capitals will im-pede these reforms as noted by Duda and Sherman(2002). A moreecosystem-based approach, aimed at establishing adaptive man-agement institutions and partnerships to sustain them will be nec-essary, and both the North and South will need to implement them.WSSD POI elements provide a roadmap, and GEF’s one dozenyears of pragmatic experience in assisting 117 developing coun-tries toward these ends with demonstration-level projects may beof interest to policymakers.

GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY

The Global Environment Facility (GEF) is best knownas the financial mechanism for a number of global environmentconventions like climate change and biodiversity signed at theEarth Summit in 1992. Only 12 years old, GEF’s mandate is toprovide incremental cost finance to address global environmentissues like climate change, biodiversity and international waters—which covers both transboundary freshwater and marine systems.GEF projects are implemented through a partnership among theUNDP, UNEP, and the World Bank. Policies are set by a Coun-cil representing 176 developing and developed nations that bal-ances the interests of all.

The only new funding source to emerge from the 1992 EarthSummit, the GEF has allocated in its first dozen years $US 4.35billion in grants supplemented by more than $US 14 billion inadditional financing, for 1350 projects in 150 developing coun-tries and those in economic transition. For the international wa-ters focal area, 84 transboundary water projects have been fundedwith 141 different cooperating countries totaling $2.0 billion intotal cost and $675 million in GEF grants. The GEF is clearly asignificant funding source for transboundary systems—especiallymarine ecosystems— and is rapidly growing as shown in Figure1.

In 1995, the GEF Council included the concept of LargeMarine Ecosystems (LMEs) in its operational strategy as a ve-hicle to foster ecosystem-based management of coastal and ma-rine resources in the international wa-ters focal area. Ninety five percent ofthe global fisheries catch comes from65 “Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs)” that parallel the continental shelvesand potentially represent multi-coun-try, ecosystem-based managementunits for reversing fisheries depletion(Duda and Sherman, 2002). This rep-resents a pragmatic way tooperationalize the “ecosystem ap-proach” with an area sufficiently largeto include transboundary consider-ations, especially mobile living re-sources. GEF also utilizes support atother appropriate geographic scalesranging from integrated coastal man-agement for individual municipalitiesor provinces like its PEMSEA pro-gram (Chua, 1998) to support in its

biodiversity focal area at the specific reef or coastal ecosystemscale for protected areas or community-based sustainable use.Scaling up or scaling down from the LME to individualbiodiversity sites determines which focal area is appropriate sothat both transboundary resources as well as biodiverse sites areaddressed

GEF STRATEGIC PRIORITIES ALIGN WITH WSSDGOALS

As a result of its participation with the UN Commission onSustainable Development at WSSD, strategic priorities have beenset by GEF that continue to respond to Chapter 17 while embrac-ing priorities in WSSD targets. As a development finance institu-tion, GEF presented its alignment right after the JohannesburgSummit in GEF (2002) and further elaborated targets consistentwith WSSD for each focal area in GEF (2003). Emphasis is givenin biodiversity to protected areas consistent with paragraph 32 ofWSSD and the Jakarta Mandate of the CBD and to sustainableuse of biodiversity, including coastal waters and fisheries. In theinternational waters focal area, specific targets for coverage werepresented to the GEF Council in GEF (2003) that relate to revers-ing the decline of marine ecosystems and addressing the 2010and 2015 targets in paragraphs 30 and 31. Developing partner-ships among bilateral assistance programs, international financeinstitutions, and countries sharing LMEs constitutes a specificstrategic priority.

Table 1 presents a summary of funding provided by GEFsince 1992 in its international waters and biodiversity focal areasrelated to oceans, coasts, and SIDS as expressed in paragraphs30-34 and 58 of the POI. A total of $440 million in GEF grantsand $1.38 billion in total cost is being devoted to marine systemsin the international waters area while an additional $330 millionand $1.22 billion in total cost for biodiversity projects addressingcoastal and marine ecosystems. The total of about 2 and 2/3 bil-lion dollars in projects places GEF as the largest contributor insustaining marine ecosystems for developing countries and thosein economic transition.

Table 1. GEF Allocations for Coastal, Marine, and SIDS Projects from 1991-2003 inthe International Waters (IW) and Biodiversity (BIODI) Focal Areas (US$)

Type of Projects GEF $ Total ProjectCost

WSSDParagraph

Total IW Marine-related Projects $ 440 mil $ 1380 mil

Large Marine Ecosystems $ 140 mil $ 213 mil 30 & 31

GPA-related Demo Proj $ 184 mil $ 878 mil 33

SIDS-related * $ 56 mil $ 136 mil 58

Ship waste/oil $ 92 mil $ 214 mil 34

Total BIODI Coastal/Marine Proj $330 mil $ 1220 mil 32

Totals # projects 103 $ 770 mil $ 2600 mil

*all SIDS projects accounted for in other categories for totals

87 |


GEF AND THE SCALE OF OCEANS

The GEF LME projects are piloting and testing how integratedmanagement of oceans, coasts, estuaries, and freshwater basinscan be implemented though an ecosystem-based approach. In-cluding a project for the South Pacific SIDS “Warm-water PoolLME Equivalent”, 10 LMEs and their adjacent freshwater ba-sins, where appropriate, have been approved for project fundingby GEF with 78 GEF recipient countries participating in theseprojects. Good examples are the Benguela Current LME projectin southern Africa or the South China Sea LME in Asia. Table 1shows that about $140 million in GEF grants have been devotedwith a total cost of $213 mil. GEF has also contributed to im-proving contingency plans for ship-related spills, constructed pi-lot port reception facilities, improved safety of navigation, andfacilitated development of the new convention on alien species inship ballast water along with port-specific demonstrations ofmeasures that benefit oceans consistent with paragraph 34 of thePOI. Conventions under UNCLOS and the 1995 U.N. Fish StocksAgreement are being negotiated, the FAO Code of conduct is beingadopted, and alternatives to destructive shrimp trawling gear arebeing piloted.

GEF AND THE GPA

GEF also works at the scale of municipalities and coastal prov-inces as evidenced by the acclaimed PEMSEA program (Chua,1998). Similar tools as the LME projects are utilized to fosterintegration, participation, and reform processes. GEF also worksat the scale of river basins draining to coasts in order to improvewater flow regimes and reduce pollution loading consistent withthe GPA. Consistent with paragraph 33 of the WSSD POI, Table1 shows almost $1 billion in total cost of projects related to theGPA and land-based activities supported by GEF. This includedenormous investments such as GEF’s Hai Basin initiative drivenby China or the very large Danube/Black Sea Basin StrategicPartnership with the World Bank that realigns the Bank policydialogue with 15 countries of the basin to include needs pollutionreduction reforms and investments. These projects and others areavailable for viewing on the web-based GEF International Wa-ters Resource Centre associated with GEF’s international watersportfolio learning program known as IW:LEARN(GEF/UNDP,2003).

GEF AND SMALL ISLAND DEVELOPING STATES

A rich tuna fishery is the life blood of Pacific island econo-mies. Heads of States of the 13 PACSIDS developed their GEFaction program in September 1997 and began implementation oftheir GEF/ UNDP international waters project. One componentincluded GEF support to the countries through the Forum Fisher-ies Agency for negotiation of a regional convention on conserva-tion, management, and sustainable use of their highly migratoryfish stocks. GEF assistance helped level the playing field amongthe Pacific SIDS and developed nations as they negotiated theconvention. Following 7 sessions, the “Convention on the Con-servation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks ofthe Western and Central Pacific Ocean” was signed in September2000—the first agreement to be successfully negotiated on the

basis of the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement under UNCLOS.This follows the GEF strategy for SIDS that embraces the Barba-dos Program of Action. The Pacific countries have now agreedto undertake needed reforms, and with these commitments, GEFhas approved development of an implementation project. In to-tal, GEF has fostered about $136 million in SIDS projects(Table1) with another 7 under preparation for at least $75 million morein GEF grants in the near future..

GEF AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION

Consistent with its mandate as the financial mechanism forthe Convention on Biological Diversity and in response to guid-ance from its Conference of the Parties, GEF has adopted a newset of strategic priorities for biodiversity that build on past suc-cesses, encompasses new guidance, and are consistent with WSSDgoals(GEF, 2003). GEF assistance on the scale of a specific coralreef or protected area is often requested by countries in this focalarea. Since 1991, 58 projects in 44 different countries have beenfunded by GEF for coastal and marine biodiversity protectionand sustainable use for a total of $330 mil in GEF grants and$1.22 billion in total cost (Table 1).

REFORMS AND PARTNERSHIPS TAKE TIME ANDCOMMITMENT

GEF is closely aligned with the reforms and activities includedin the WSSD POI. It has helped that the POI incorporates manyof the things that GEF has supported in developing countries inits different focal areas for one dozen years on a demonstrationscale and that GEF participated in the WSSD process. With lim-ited GEF funding and with no mandate for developed countriesof the world, the North and the South still have much to do to inundertaking the reforms and making the investments associatedwith WSSD. In its international waters focal area, GEF has foundthat operationalizing country commitments to reforms takes time,patience, capacity building, and specific change agent processesthat involve forming partnerships to sustain fragile political will.These partnerships facilitate other organizations to align withWSSD mandates as well. GEF-funded processes of supporting(a) country inter-ministerial committees, (b) incorporating jointscience-based analyses as part of priority setting in aTransboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA), and (c) identifyingjointly agreed reforms and investments to address the prioritiesin a country-driven Strategic Action Program (SAP), and (d) as-sisting with reform implementation are well known and describedelsewhere (Duda and Sherman, 2002).

Whether undertaken at the transboundary level in LMEs orthe equivalent as shown by the GEF/UNDP/IMO PEMSEA projectat the local level as part of ICM, such place-based participativeprocesses facilitate development of politically agreed ways aheadfor commitments to reverse marine degradation and depletion.This allows sound science to inform policy-making and fosters ageographic location upon which an ecosystem-based approach tomanagement can be developed and stakeholders can be engaged.Without the place-based participative processes engaging gov-ernments and stakeholders in understanding what is needed forintegrated management and building capacity to actually imple-ment them, marine science has often remained confined to the


| 88

science community or has not been embraced in policy-mak-ing.

The shared commitment and vision for action embodies in theSAPs has proven essential in GEF projects for developing part-nerships that can sustain commitment to action. Countries coop-erate in establishing adaptive management structures as part ofGEF monitoring and evaluation requirements for establishing in-dicators. This has led countries to adopting their own LME-spe-cific ecosystem targets so that they may track on-the-groundprogress and to enact conventions or protocols to existing trea-ties to express their joint commitments to action. Establishingthese partnerships with different bilateral, multilateral, and UNagencies is resulting in the realignment of their priorities towardWSSD targets within the development assistance community asthe organizations help countries with commitments for policy,legal, and institutional reforms in different economic sectors.

Partnerships for 10 LMEs are underway with preparation start-ing in an additional 7 LMEs involving 126 different countries intotal, including 16 from the North. Designed for consistency withChapter 17 of Agenda 21, the FAO Code of Conduct, UNCLOS,and the 2010 and 2015 WSSD targets, GEF is bringing the Northand South together around the particular LMEs they share to jointlyadopt reforms and undertake pilot investments. Still to be under-taken by the North are global trade reforms to eliminate distor-tions and subsidies as well as rich countries adopting WSSD re-forms and investments for their own marine ecosystems. Time isrunning out.

REFERENCES

Chua, T-E. 1998. Lessons learned from practicing integrated coastalmanagement in Southeast Asia. Ambio 27: 599-610.

Duda, A. M. and K. Sherman. 2002. A new imperative for improv-ing management of large marine ecosystems. Ocean and CoastalManagement 45: 797-833.

Food and Agriculture Organization. 2002. The State of the WorldFisheries and Aquaculture, 2002. Fisheries Dept. FAO, Rome. 150pp.

Global Environment Facility. 2002. The Challenge of Sustainability-An Action Agenda for the Global Environment. Washington. 103pp.www.gefweb.org

Global Environment Facility. 2003. GEF Strategic Planning: Direc-tions and Targets. GEF/C.21/Inf.11. Washington. 44 pp.www.gefweb.org

GEF/UNDP. 2003. GEF IW:LEARN International Waters ResourceCentre. www.iwlearn.net.

Myers, R. A. and B. Worm. 2003. Rapid worldwide depletion ofpredatory fish communities. Nature 423: 280-283.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

FY91

-94

FY96

FY97

FY98

FY99

FY00

FY01

FY02

FY03

$mGEF Allocation

Co-Financing

Figure 1

89 |


A FISHERMAN’S PERSPECTIVE ON SUSTAINABLEDEVELOPMENT AND THE GLOBAL OCEANS AGENDA

Pietro ParravanoU.S. Delegate, World Forum of Fish Harvesters & Fishworkers

Member, Pew Oceans CommissionPresident, Institute for Fisheries ResourcesP.O. Box 29196 (Bldg. 991, The Presidio)

San Francisco, California, USATel: (415) 561-3474; Fax: (415) 561-5464

E-Mail: [email protected]: www.ifrfish.org

I wish to thank the co-chairs for this conference, Drs. BilianaCicin-Sain, Patricio Bernal and Veerle Vandeweerd, and for theirkind invitation to me to participate, examining strategies for imple-menting commitments made at the 2002 World Summit on Sus-tainable Development (WSSD). It is a pleasure to be here todiscuss strategies and share with you my perspective as one whoselivelihood depends on a healthy ocean and the sustainable har-vest of fish and shellfish.

I am the owner and operator of a small fishing boat out of theport of Half Moon Bay, California, just south of San Francisco. Ihave been active in fishing organizations in California, the UnitedStates and the world, that have played a critical role in leadingefforts to protect fish habitats and ensure sound fishery regula-tions. I currently serve as president of the Institute for FisheriesResources (IFR), a non-profit, non-governmental organizationestablished by the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Asso-ciations (PCFFA) to conduct fisheries research, restoration, out-reach and education. Since 1997, I have been a U.S. delegate tothe World Forum of Fish Harvesters & Fish Workers (WFF) thathas given me the opportunity to visit and work with other fishingmen and women throughout the world and learn of their prob-lems. And, for the past three years I have been a member on theprivate Pew Oceans Commission, a blue-ribbon panel appointedto conduct the first comprehensive review of United States oceanspolicy in 30 years. So, I obviously have some experiences andopinions to share with you at this conference.

As you know, for there to be commercial fishing three thingsmust exist: First, there must be fish stocks of a sufficient size toallow for a harvest. Second, there must be access to those fishstocks. Third, there must be markets (or a demand or need) forthe fish. And the most important of these is abundant fish stocks,because if there are no fish, there is nothing to access, and there isnothing to sell. It is important to remember, too, that having goodmarkets for fish, as long as good fishing regulations are in place,provides an economic impetus for governments to protect habi-tats and manage for sustainability.

These fundamentals of commercial fishing are important toreiterate, because, in my experience, fishermen, scientists, con-servationists, and policy makers too often get lost in the minutiae

of fishery management, arguing the “cure du jour” whether it beimplementation of “soft” or “hard” TACs [total allowable catch],or creating MPAs [marine protected areas], or establishing IFQs[individual fishing quotas], whatever. They lose sight of the threeessential elements of a fishery and the ability to think and actclearly. My remarks here today will be centered on these ele-ments, and the WSSD Plan of Implementation timelines, as wediscuss sustainable development and its implementation.

ILLEGAL FISHING

The WSSD Plan of Implementation calls for the control ofillegal fishing by 2004. There is no doubt that for a number ofmajor fish stocks unlawful fishing activity poses a major threat.The threat of poaching to Patagonian toothfish or Caspian stur-geon stocks, for example, is well documented and there are evenconsumer boycotts being organized to eliminate the markets forthese fish taken illegally or lawfully. Poaching not only threatensfish stocks, it hurts law abiding fishing men and women, either bydenying them fish to harvest legally or their ability to sell law-fully harvested fish - as we have seen with the consumer boy-cotts.

The cooperative efforts of the Russian Federation, Canadaand the U.S. are having results in curbing poaching in the NorthPacific. In the southern oceans, the efforts of Australian authori-ties in seizing international toothfish pirates are to be lauded.

For there to be effective enforcement of fishing laws, how-ever, three things must happen. First, developed nations, wheremuch of the illegally caught fish is sold have to enact strict mea-sures to prevent the entry and sale of illegally harvested fish, evenif it incurs the wrath of powerful fish importing lobbies.

Second, there must be cooperation among ocean nations inenforcing international treaties as well as bi-lateral and multi-lat-eral agreements for the conservation of fish stocks. Most of thepoaching does not occur off the coasts of developed nations, butrather on the high seas or offshore developing nations – too oftennations without the financial wherewithal to support an effectiveenforcement presence. Developed nations, and especially my own,have an obligation to go beyond mere conservation rhetoric, and


| 90

lend support to the world’s developing ocean nations. Thismeans assistance in training enforcement personnel; this meansmaterial support, and this means financial support, if necessary.

Third, to effectively combat illegal fishing, fishery laws mustbe just and have the support of the fishing community who canaccept these fishery regulations as scientifically based and in theirlong-term economic interest. No matter how great the enforce-ment presence, “illegal” fishing will not be stopped if the fishingcommunity does not believe in or support the laws. How can youexpect fishing communities, often times thousands of years old,to sit by and let their governments take away the fish to sell thequotas to fleets from other nations? How can you expect genera-tions of fishermen to abide by laws made in some far-off capitol,without their input, to reallocate their fish to a multi-national con-glomerate?

What I am saying here, is that to meet this ambitious goal nextyear of the WSSD Plan of Implementation’s control of illegalfishing, we have to know that the fishery laws are not only scien-tifically based and designed to promote sustainability, but aredeveloped in a transparent process and are fair.

MANAGING FISHING CAPACITY

The WSSD Plan of Implementation also has an ambitious goalof managing fishing capacity by 2005. Managing fishing capac-ity, that is, matching fishing capacity to the stocks available forharvest, is important not just for preventing over fishing – whichcan be accomplished most of the time by establishing an enforce-able total allowable catch (TAC) – but to assure the economicviability of the participants in the fishery. By that, I mean assur-ing there is enough fish for every fisherman, or every vessel, tobe economically sustainable.

A number of nations have confronted the issue of limitingfishing capacity and others are now in the process, including theU.S. The elements of managing fishing capacity are fairly straightforward, although in practice it can be more difficult. First, isplacing a limit on the number of individuals or vessels that canparticipate in a fishery, usually starting with a moratorium. Animmediate step here, of course, is halting all subsidies for newvessel construction until a plan for managing fleet size is in place.

Second, is to determine what level of fishing effort the stockcan sustain and then determining the number of participants, in-dividuals or vessels, the fishery can economically sustain. This isseldom an easy calculation, since there are natural fluctuations instock sizes, and often times wide disagreement about what con-stitutes “economic sustainability.”

Third, is working toward the ideal or “optimum” participantlevel, whether it is individuals or vessels. In most fisheries thismeans a reduction in the number of participants, which can bethrough attrition, or vessel buybacks or buy out of rights to afishery. It is well to remember too, that the issue is not always theglib “too many fishermen for too few fish.” Factors such as typesof fishing gear, vessel sizes, and even markets have to be consid-ered when calculating optimum participant level in a fishery.

It is certainly recognized by most that management of fishingcapacity is useful for the biological sustainability of fisheries and

critical for the economic viability of fisheries, but it is not as simpleas perhaps the 2005 goal in the Plan of Implementation makes itseem. To be implemented plans for managing fishing capacitymust have the buy-in from the participants in the fishery. Therehas to be buy-in before there can be buy-outs. Like fishery laws,the process for development of plans for managing fishing capac-ity must be transparent and fair.

The last thing that should be noted, is that managing fishingcapacity alone will not bring about sustainability in fisheries with-out also addressing habitat damage, from all different sources, aswell as unacceptable levels of bycatch.

ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT

Most of my fishing and that of the members of my federationis centered on salmon. With Pacific salmon, fishermen came tounderstand the concept of ecosystem management early on. Inthe 19th Century California fishermen learned their fishing wasonly one of many factors affecting the health of fish stocks ashydraulic mining inundated salmon streams, followed later bylogging, dams and massive water diversions. In the 1960’s, ac-tivism by commercial fisher-men began working to change a Cali-fornia policy that “it is not in the public interest of the state tomaintain the salmon resource” to getting the state’s legislature toestablish late in that decade a Citizen’s Advisory Committee onSalmon & Steelhead Trout, made up of commercial and recre-ational fishermen and scientists. The Committee submitted its firstreport to the Legislature and Governor Ronald Reagan in 1971,“An Environmental Tragedy” and in its report the following yearsaid, “Good salmon and steelhead management is a marriage ofenvironmental protection and restoration, artificial propagationand sound fishing regulations.” Fishermen understood the con-cept early on. Indeed, fishermen are now among those workingto establish coast-wide ocean-monitoring instrumentation sys-tems to help us better understand oceanic factors affecting Pa-cific salmon and other fish, such as the Ocean Observations &Coastal Systems Act (S.1400) now before the U.S. Congress.

During the three years I spent with the Pew Oceans Commis-sion, the interconnectedness of systems also became apparent.As commissioners, we not only toured the coast, but we spenttime in the American heartland, in farm country. There the con-nection between land use and, in this instance, a dead zone in theGulf of Mexico became apparent, along with the more apparentrelationship between coastal land uses, such as development incoastal wetlands, and the health of our oceans. What I am sayingis that when we manage ocean ecosystems, we have to be cogni-zant of the need for good management of terrestrial ecosystems.Implementing ocean ecosystem management will likely not suc-ceed, or very well anyway, unless we also do a good job manag-ing our coasts, estuaries, rivers and riparian ecosystems.

ESTABLISHMENT OF A NETWORK OF MARINERESERVES

The WSSD Plan of Implementation calls for the establish-ment of a network of marine reserves by 2012. Marine ProtectedAreas (MPAs), including marine reserves, have been discussedby my organization for at least the past five years and are a major

91 |


topic of discussion and concern among most every fishing orga-nization, commercial or recreational. MPAs, including no-takemarine reserves, are a tool that can be used in some instances tofoster ecosystem protection or even the rebuilding of certain resi-dent fish stocks. They may be useful in protecting discrete habi-tats of importance, or helping to protect or rebuild resident fishpopulations, but their value is limited.

Pollution or overfishing of migratory stocks knows no bound-aries. MPAs, including no-take reserves, aren’t going to stop oceanpollution or halt over fishing of migratory fish stocks. Nor arethey of much value when there are oceanic regime changes. Sim-ply declaring areas off limits to fishing without controlling otherhuman impacts or being mindful of what is happening in ouroceans, may do little to protect biodiversity or ecosystems. Formany, however, marine reserves are an easy answer. It may makefolks feel good, it may give scientists their own private areas ofstudy; it may be good for some eco-tourism operator. Marine re-serves are of dubious value, I fear, and give the public a falsesense of security regarding ocean health, unless they are coupledwith strong measures to prevent pollution and ensure responsiblefishing practices. The emphasis on reserves, of late, has takenaway from the more difficult and necessary task of tackling oceanpollution, and of studying and understanding oceanic systems.While some marine reserves may be justified, and that was notedin the Pew Oceans Commission report, let us not lose sight of themuch more important task of protecting all ocean waters, not justsome percentage where fishing is banned.

The other note I wish to make about MPAs, is that they mustbe based on good science, not advocacy by scientists. Their es-tablishment must include public participation, particularly fromfishermen who are the most familiar with ocean waters. And, theremust be monitoring of MPAs or reserves to assess their impacts.

OCEANS AND FISHERIES RESEARCH

At the outset I mentioned the importance of maintaininghealthy fish stocks as critical for the survival of our fisheries andfishing communities. While many of the elements of the WSSDPlan of Implementation are important underpinnings for sustain-able fisheries, I cannot emphasize enough the need for good fish-eries research and stock assessments. We cannot operate our fish-eries on ignorance, yet that has been what we’ve been doing intoo many fisheries for too many years. We cannot know of theimpacts of illegal fishing or overfishing without good research.In fact, we may not even know if overfishing is occurring withoutsuch research. We cannot manage fishing capacity without re-search, since it is the data that will tell us what the capacity is. Wecannot implement ecosystem management without research, norcan we site and monitor MPAs without research. Perhaps thebest thing all of us here can do is work to assure funds are avail-able from all of our governments for the necessary research tobase sustainable development decisions on. Here, too, wealthiernations should lend assistance to developing nations to assure wehave good research, good data on our oceans and fisheries through-out the world.

We can work to keep the cost of research down by tappingthe knowledge of fishermen – working collaboratively with scien-tists – and their utilizing vessels wherever possible. Moreover,we need to develop resource information systems, that act as re-positories for the research data, to determine trends, to find theinformation gaps and simply to make information available to all– to democratize our decision-making. Even in the world’s rich-est nation, finding funds for fishery research will not be easy, Iknow. My organization is currently floating a legislative proposalfor a special research fund in light of current record U.S. budgetdeficits. It will be even more difficult for developing nations, butwe must conduct the research to have the information upon whichto make sound decisions for sustainable development.

TRADE POLICY

Last, I wish to caution at this conference and in our discus-sions on sustainability in the future to be mindful there are othertalks going on in the world with very different agendas. It iscritical as we go forward, that participants at these forums onsustainability be included in trade discussions taking place, in-cluding those at the WTO Ministerial level, to assure trade poli-cies foster sustainability and not undermine conservation. Con-servation cannot be subservient to global trade; trade policies mustsupport sustainability.

CONCLUSION

The theme of this conference is implementation of the WSSD.Gathered here are leaders from governmental and non-govern-mental organizations alike. What strikes me, however, as impor-tant as this conference is and the value I am certain that will comefrom its proceedings, is that we need to get the Plan of Implemen-tation before the people. For my part, that will be walking thedocks talking to fishermen, much the same as I will be explainingto U.S. fishermen the value of the Pew Commission recommen-dations to them. If people don’t know about the WSSD Plan ofDevelopment, don’t understand it or don’t see its value, then itwill be difficult to get government support or private sector sup-port for implementation. If after this conference, we take thetime to discuss the plans for world sustainability with those werepresent, with our colleagues, our friends and neighbors, ourcommunities, than I believe implementation will happen. If wedo not, and nothing happens but more papers, I fear we will beback here in five, ten years talking to ourselves, wondering whythe Plan of Implementation is not moving, wondering why humandespair has worsened, wondering why we failed. Let us not fail.Let us assert our leadership in carrying forward a global oceanpolicy that reflects economic, environmental and culturalsustainability. Thank you.


| 92

93 |


Scott E. Smith*

Senior Policy AdvisorThe Marine Initiative/External Affairs Division

The Nature Conservancy4245 North Fairfax Drive

Arlington, Virginia 22203 USA(703) 841-8175 [email protected]

PERSPECTIVES ON GLOBAL FUNDING MECHANISMSFOR OCEANS, COASTS AND ISLANDS

Substantial increases in funding at local, national, regional,and international levels will be needed to implement the commit-ments made at the World Summit on Sustainable Development(WSSD) related to oceans, coasts and islands. And regardless ofhow much additional financing is mobilized in support of thesecommitments, resources are likely to remain extremely limited rela-tive to the challenge, requiring constant attention to assuringthat the funds available are used in the most cost-effective man-ner.

The creation of a Global Oceans Fund has been identified as away to help raise and channel some of these resources. Similarly,a conference of scientists and conservation non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs) to identify an action agenda for DefyingOcean’s End, convened by Conservation International in May2003, recommended that a global fund be considered. Variousoptions for establishing and managing a Global Oceans Fund,drawing on experience of other global funds in areas such as HIV/AIDS and water, will be discussed at the Global Conference onOceans, Coasts and Islands at UNESCO headquarters in Paris inNovember 2003. The aim of this paper is to contribute to thediscussion, at the Paris conference and beyond, of how to mobi-lize substantial additional resources and partnerships in supportof the WSSD oceans, coasts and islands agenda. It is intended tohelp identify and frame the possible role(s) of a Global OceansFund in supporting sustainable ocean and coastal developmentand biodiversity conservation.

This paper starts from the proposition that obtaining and ef-fectively managing the recurrent and investment costs needed tomeet the WSSD commitments related to oceans, coasts and is-lands will require a diversity of funding mechanisms and ap-proaches to reduce and share costs. The role of a possible Glo-bal Oceans Fund should be considered as a component of sucha diversified funding strategy. In that context, architects of theFund should carefully assess how it can be designed to:

• concentrate attention – and funding calculations – onresults,

• positively influence the incentives provided bynational and international policies related to sustain-able development and conservation of ocean andcoastal natural resources,

• leverage the active participation and financialcontributions of a wide range of public and privategroups,

• attract new resources and focus on specific gaps inthe existing institutional and financial “architecture”that would be feasible and appropriate for it to fill, and

• achieve the high standards of accountability andconfidence needed to satisfy its contributors,including conservation “investors” and taxpayers indeveloped and developing countries.

A DIVERSIFIED PORTFOLIO

No single source of financing will be adequate to cover, on along term and predictable basis, the recurrent and investmentcosts needed to implement the WSSD commitments. Govern-ments must balance many demands and are unable to budgetsufficient funding for these activities. Funding from bilateral andmultilateral aid agencies is unpredictable, vulnerable to economicand policy shifts, and typically comes in the form of short termprojects with high transactions costs. Donors are often uninter-ested in supporting recurring costs, focusing instead on infra-structure and other visible investments. Tourism, a potentialsource of income for many ocean and coastal conservation andsustainable development activities, is subject to political events

* This paper draws on the results of a workshop held as part of the marine and sustainable finance streams at the September 2003 World Parks Congress,entitled Building Complex Portfolios to Sustainably Finance Marine Protected Area Networks. This paper also draws on the author’s work on sustainablefinance at The Nature Conservancy during the past three and a half years, and on an evaluation of the experience with conservation trust funds he led in1999 while a member of the monitoring and evaluation team of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) Secretariat.


| 94

and economic conditions. Fluctuations in financial marketsaffect endowment returns and philanthropic giving.

Diversified portfolios of financial support are critical, but noone size fits all. Some approaches may be appropriate in someplaces but not others. Some finance mechanisms operate at alocal level and may generate resources for a single MPA or onetype of activity. Others will function at a national level, necessi-tating transparent arrangements to allocate resources among sitesand programs. Creating and financing MPA networks – one of theWSSD goals – introduces a new level of complexity and need fordiversifying and sharing resources among protected areas withina network.

Governments have substantial roles to play in the resourcemobilization and financial sustainability beyond funding salariesand operating costs. Government policies and programs (e.g., taxtreatment, land and ocean zoning, subsidies for economic activi-ties, fee retention by protected areas, flexibility and transparencyof transfers among MPAs) – and the incentives they provide –often have more significant impacts than mechanisms that gener-ate or allocate funding.

Meeting direct operational and investment costs is neces-sary, but not sufficient, to achieve long term sustainability ofocean and coastal conservation and sustainable developmentactivities. Even well-financed protected areas cannot survive asislands within a sea of poverty and destructive livelihood activi-ties. Planners need to identify the indirect and opportunity costsincurred, and benefits provided, by a wide range of groups. Thisrequires a portfolio that is diverse in terms of its financial recipi-ents and mechanisms for benefit generation, as well as its sources.Calculating these costs, and identifying opportunities for meet-ing them, requires a sound appreciation of the economic value ofocean and coastal resources, including MPAs.

KEY CONSIDERATIONS FOR NATIONAL AND GLOBALFUNDING MECHANISMS

What are some key steps to create a diverse set of financialmechanisms and management approaches to implement the WSSDagenda? Five are suggested to guide our efforts.

1. Develop realistic resource needs based on the results to beachieved.

Funding estimates are typically calculated by adding up whatplanners project it will cost to expand certain activities. Instead,resource needs to achieve the WSSD goals in specific countriesor regions should be based on well articulated objectives relatedto conservation and sustainable use of ocean and coastal re-sources that reflect the input from all interested stakeholders. Weshould be clear about the results we want, creatively examinealternative ways to achieve them, and choose the most cost-effective. Financial needs can then be quantified, and their naturedescribed.

We need to be bold, but realistic, in developing global, oreven national, cost estimates. While large numbers – such as theestimated $25 billion funding gap for protected areas reported atthe recent World Parks Congress – have their place, we need to be

careful that the magnitude of such estimates does not frightenaway prospective donors or influential constituencies. Frankly,funding to meet gaps of this size is not going to be forthcoming inthe near future. And since there is little experience in carrying outprograms on the scale envisioned, no one can accurately estimateor aggregate their costs anyway – especially if we focus on achiev-ing outcomes rather than financing inputs. It will be best to startsmall, learn from individual efforts, and build support for largerfunding based on methods that get results.

2. Proactively and creatively examine ways to share costs andspread them among a range of groups.

Many of the investments and recurrent expenditures neededto achieve the WSSD goals can be shared or assumed by commu-nities, NGOs, private businesses or others with a clear interest inconservation and sustainable development. Management ap-proaches that lower costs and engender a greater sense of owner-ship for conservation activities by key stakeholders are importantingredients of sustainable financing strategies. Integrated coastaland ocean governance mechanisms and collaborative manage-ment of protected areas can generate support for conservationand sustainable development. They can also leverage fundingfrom local governments for activities that benefit target communi-ties.

Donor-funded projects, which have to be disbursed within alimited period of time and sometimes base salaries on capital-cityor international rates, may provide disincentives for cost control,local ownership, and creative partnerships. On the other hand,NGO and private sector involvement can provide discipline tokeep costs low and attract additional resources and donors. Vol-unteer programs, in-kind support from the tourism industry, andsharing resources among communities or government agenciescan also reduce costs.

Opportunities to share costs, expand contributions from apotentially large number of interested groups, and build greaterownership of and commitment to an oceans and coastal sustain-able development agenda should be actively pursued. Assess-ments of the values people receive from coastal and marine areasand resources, as well as the costs that would be incurred andbenefits that would be provided from achieving the oceans, coastsand islands goals, may be helpful in identifying these opportuni-ties. Valuation assessments of watersheds and other important“upstream” areas would also be useful.

3. Identify the characteristics of financial needs and appropri-ate mechanisms to meet them.

Not all funding mechanisms are appropriate for all kinds ofactivities or needs. For example, governments often have diffi-culty transferring resources to private businesses or efficientlycovering a large number of small expenditures related to fieldwork. Private foundations and NGOs may not be interested incovering government salaries. Donor-funded projects often havehigh transactions costs for design or reporting; they are usuallyshort term in focus and concentrate on equipment or “bricks-and-mortar” rather than on-going operational costs. Endowment fundsmay be best able to provide a relatively modest but secure sourceof funding to underpin operating costs and allow managers toconcentrate on fund raising for specific investments. Business

95 |


promotion activities, including credit programs to support thedevelopment of more sustainable livelihoods, may be most effec-tively administered by business and financial institutions. Parkentry fees and other tourism-related funding sources may be bestretained by the areas that generate these payments. Financingstrategies must take all of these characteristics into account whendeveloping diverse portfolios of funding sources and manage-ment approaches that are appropriate to each situation.

A clear idea of the kinds of funding that are needed to achievespecific objectives can help identify gaps that need to be filled.Just because not enough funding is presently being provided orgenerated does not necessarily mean that existing mechanismsare inadequate. A thorough understanding of how existing fi-nance mechanisms for ocean, coastal and island conservationand sustainable development have performed, and why, is needed.This would provide a solid foundation for assessing whether newapproaches are needed to achieve desired results and attract newresources, and whether they are likely to succeed where othershave not. Possibly, effort is more effectively aimed at increasingthe amount and flexibility of resources available through existingmechanisms, such as the Global Environment Facility (GEF), orproviding assistance to break bottlenecks currently limiting ac-cess to available funding, e.g., developing procedures to meet theaccountability requirements of private contributions.

4. Identify effective and efficient management and account-ability approaches.

It is essential that funding be channeled effectively and effi-ciently to activities on the ground. Mechanisms that are likely tomake allocations based on political or bureaucratic criteria, ratherthan to activities that will have the greatest and most effectiveimpact on achieving explicit conservation and sustainable devel-opment objectives, should be minimized.

Administrative and governance approaches must generate ahigh degree of confidence. In particular, local confidence in andsupport for funding systems is critical. The willingness of usersto pay entrance and other fees to protected areas is significantlyaffected by their confidence that the proceeds will be used effi-ciently and at that site. New “conservation philanthropists” typi-cally come from successful business careers where high stan-dards of transparency, accountability, and flexible managementare prized – and they expect the same for their conservation in-vestments.

The pace at which priority activities can be carried out de-pends on the absorptive capacity to effectively and efficientlyuse increased funding in transparent and accountable ways.Appropriate management and accountability procedures need tobe identified and put in place. As part of this process, the per-sonal and institutional skills, abilities, and reputations needed toimplement these arrangements should be determined. Whereneeded, programs should be developed to strengthen this capac-ity.

5. Adapt based on experience and results-based measures.

It will take years – perhaps decades – to achieve a diverseportfolio of complementary financial mechanisms and manage-ment approaches that provides reliable funding for and tangible

benefits from the conservation and sustainable development ofocean and coastal resources. Even when they are mature, financestrategies need to be continuously updated based on changingconditions. Therefore, it is important to develop a small set ofresults-oriented and easily understood benchmarks for measur-ing progress toward financial sustainability. These measures canbe used to monitor the performance of funding mechanisms andmanagement approaches and their impact – financially and interms of compatibility with other conservation and sustainabledevelopment objectives. Implementation approaches can thenbe adapted based on experience, and new opportunities identi-fied based on changed circumstances.

A POSSIBLE ROLE FOR A GLOBAL OCEANS FUND?

Based on this discussion, how might a Global Oceans Fundcontribute to mobilizing the additional resources and diverse fund-ing approaches needed to accomplish the WSSD commitments?The following are questions that architects of a possible Fundmay wish to consider:

• Is there a need for a new mechanism to catalyzepartnerships or innovative financing and managementapproaches? If so, what is the most effective role aGlobal Oceans Fund might play in this regard?

• Is there a need for additional funding mechanisms thathave important characteristics different from existingones? Would a Global Oceans Fund effectively fill anunoccupied niche? Could it serve as a catalyst forpositively influencing national or internationalpolicies, or mobilizing new and additional funding, insupport of the WSSD oceans, coasts and islandsagenda? How could competition with existingmechanisms for funding and human resources beavoided?

• How might a Fund be structured to catalyze orreinforce high standards of efficiency, transparency,and accountability for resources devoted to meetingthe WSSD oceans, coasts and islands commitments? This applies equally to the procedures that wouldgovern the allocation and approval of a Fund’s ownresources and to the kinds of programs – includingcapacity building – that it might undertake to help putin place effective administrative and governancemechanisms on the ground.

• Would the creation of a “virtual” Global Fund – acoordinated network to help existing financingmechanisms at the local, national, regional, andinternational levels realize their strengths and enhancetheir effectiveness – provide an efficient,non-competitive, and high value-added alternative todeveloping a new, independent mechanism?


| 96

97 |


THE WORLD OCEAN OBSERVATORY:A FORUM FOR OCEAN AFFAIRS

Peter NeillPresident, South Street Seaport Museum

207 Front Street, New York, NY. USA(212) 748-8678 Fax: (212) 748-8610


THE PROJECT

The South Street Seaport Museum proposes to create TheWorld Ocean Observatory, a new institution dedicated to the fu-ture of the world ocean and its importance to human well-beingand the exhilaration and meaning of the human experience. TheObservatory will serve as a central place of exchange for oceaninformation, education, and public discourse, and will be uniquein the world.

The Observatory will be both physical and virtual and willinterpret knowledge about the ocean to new constituents and con-stituencies, bridging science, culture and public policy. It will beboth an inter-disciplinary forum for ocean affairs and a dynamicmuseum of contemporary ocean science.

The Observatory will transcend the facts of the physical ocean,and the ocean as biological habitat, to express and interpret theocean as a unified and unifying global social system.

Based in New York City, the Observatory will also be linkedworld-wide through web-based technology with the express pur-pose of bringing distant and disparate communities and perspec-tives together in topical and timely connection. The fundamentalobjective is to vibrantly, visibly and visually extend the reach ofocean science and information and to amplify current understand-ing.

Just as the ocean connects all shores, nations and people, sowe cast the ambition of the Observatory.

In its physical form, the Observatory will be a beautiful newstate-of-the art presentation and exhibition space located in LowerManhattan in New York City, footsteps from the sea, adjacent tothe current South Street Seaport Museum. The Observatory willdesign, curate and mount innovative permanent and traveling ex-hibits, symposia, educational curricula, and policy-linked presen-tations. The Observatory will have galleries and meeting facili-ties. It will derive curatorial content from the frontiers of oceanscience, including current and actual data-gathering by specialistindividuals and institutions, including real-time remote sensingfrom the ocean surface, ocean depths and outer space.

The virtual Observatory will consist of a specially designedand constantly updated network of networks. It will include indi-viduals and organizations not necessarily primarily identified with

ocean or environmental issues but where an ocean-interest existsto be highlighted. The virtual Observatory will constantly seek,receive, synthesize and redistribute information in various for-mats and clusters. The Observatory web platform will also serveas a linkage of links, constantly referring site users to participat-ing and partnering organizations. Thus, the virtual component ofthe Observatory will both complement the physical exhibits, andserve as a constant source of new exhibit and installation con-cepts.

Both the virtual and physical Observatory aim to explore thefuture of the world ocean and the implications for the quality,stability and enhancement of human life.

RATIONALE: A SHIFT IN THE BASIC CONDITION

All life, especially human well-being, depends on the oceanfor water, food, energy, climate, transport, and vitality. This isthe basic condition.

The impetus for the Observatory, then, flows from the criticalshift that has occurred in the status of the ocean: from abundanceto scarcity and from accommodation to conflict.

Factors causing this shift are as follows:

• Growth in intensity of use and abuse of the ocean

• Erosion of ocean capacity to accommodate these newintensities

• Loss of isolation for the ocean from activities on land

• Threat of significant release of toxic and otherdetrimental material

• Rapid growth in population and coastal industrializa-tion

• Increase in science-based technology to exploit newpotentials

• Decrease in effective governance of the seas


| 98

This fundamental change has profound implications for thefuture of human endeavor.

Thus, the long-term goals of the Observatory are:

• To promote peace and security on the ocean

• To enhance equity and new methods for valuing theocean for all people

• To understand the impact of ocean science andtechnology on human life

• To rationalize use of ocean resources to preservefuture options

• To advance effective ocean governance

• To increase global awareness of the ocean throughinformation exchange

A CALL BEYOND HISTORY

Maritime museums, by conventional definition, look back-ward, surveying the history of the ocean with all its global impli-cation. Indeed, the world today has been defined by maritimeendeavor - immigration, trade, warfare. The sea has served toconnect the peoples of the earth, to stimulate human endeavor,and to inspire worldwide culture. And it has been the mission ofthe South Street Seaport Museum to document this importantrecord and interpret the maritime contribution to the commerceand culture of the City of New York, the State, and the Nation.With its important fleet of historic ships, the dramatic new “WorldPort New York” exhibit in a newly renovated Schermerhorn Row,and its growing programs in educational and social service, SouthStreet enjoys pre-eminence as one of the world’s most energeticand imaginative maritime museums.

But why look only backward? Surely there is as much at staketo warrant a comparable presentation on the ocean’s potential forfuture connection, future endeavor and future culture.

A UNIQUE WORLD ROLE

There are many organizations around the world devoted tounderstanding ocean life and the physical ocean — aquariums,natural history museums, universities, oceanographic researchinstitutions, and not-for-profit and non-governmental organiza-tions engaged in public education, advocacy and litigation. Theseorganizations are essential and have demonstrated success andworth.

The World Ocean Observatory expressly seeks to extend thereach of existing institutions. However, the Observatory also addsvital new value and dimension, in that there is no organizationwhose express dedication is to science-based, inter-disciplinaryexchange of information across national boundaries, audiences,and generations. The Observatory is devoted to holistic under-standing of the ocean as a social eco-system, an inter-connectedlocus for a collision of interests that must be reconciled if theshift in the basic condition is to be redressed and the basic condi-tion restored.

The World Ocean Observatory will stand apart by virtue of itsrole as a physical and virtual focal point for ideas and expressionon myriad ocean-related issues.

The Observatory will be a window on the future of the oceansfor the general public and decision-makers worldwide - a placefor understanding, discourse, mediation, reconciliation, invention,action, and progress in the affirmation of ocean equity.

99 |


BUILDING A CONSERVATION VISIONFOR THE GRAND BANKS OF NEWFOUNDLAND,

CANADACharlotte Breide

Solicitor, Senior Legal Advisor - High Seas WWF International, Avenue du Mont Blanc, 1196 Gland, Switzerland

Phone: +41 22 364 9025, Fax: +41 22 364 0526Email: [email protected]

Dr Robert RangeleyDirector Atlantic, WWF Canada

5251 Duke Street, Suite 1202 Halifax NS B3J 1PJ, CanadaPhone: +1 902 482 1105, Fax: +1 902 482 1107


The Grand Banks ecosystem is a globally outstanding eco-system, one that has been explored for more than 500 years bymore than a dozen States. The resources of the Grand Banks,most notably cod, have supported whole economies, and influ-enced migration and trade from the time of Vikings to the presentday. One of the most recognized and storied marine features inall the world’s oceans, The Grand Banks also offers perhaps thebest-known example of an ecological collapse.

Over a decade after a fishing moratorium was imposed, codstocks have not recovered - indeed, some populations have con-tinued to decline. However, cod stocks do not tell the full story.There are important ecosystems values on the Grand Banks inaddition to, and often contributing to the value of, commercialfisheries such as seabirds, whales corals and other marine life.Many of these ecosystems are also showing signs of stress andlarge ocean predators such as swordfish and sharks, are estimatedto be at about 10 per cent of their historic numbers.

WWF are pursuing practical and feasible steps to advance theimplementation of an ocean zoning approach to the conservationan management of the Grand Banks and the development of aglobal legal and institutional mechanisms to support the exten-sion of this work to the high seas. This will require mobilizationof investment and new cooperative initiatives involving the com-bined efforts of, for example, government, non-government andprivate sector agencies at international, regional and internationallevels.

THE GRAND BANKS

The Grand Banks area includes Canada’s EEZ, the extendedcontinental shelf and seawards beyond national jurisdiction on tothe high seas. Resources (fish stocks in particular) and habitatsstraddle the boundary between the EEZ and the high seas. Spe-cific legal regimes apply to the EEZ and the continental shelf,whereas no over-all embracing legal regime applies to the highseas. The high seas are increasingly appreciated for their vastresources, for their role in influencing global climate, and for the

unique habitats that support high levels of biological diversity.

Threats to the Grand Banks ecosystem include commercialfishing, oil and gas exploration, seabed mining, shipping,bioprospecting and marine pollution. Technological advances infishing and oil production allow the industry to operate at depthsgreater than 2,000 m, which have and will lead to substantial pres-sure on deep seas habitats and species.

The Grand Banks ecosystem is amongst the most disruptedmarine systems in the world. Pauly and Watson (2003) show thatthe average trophic level of reported landings over the last 50years has declined significantly. When species are depleted, fish-ing effort increases or move from large predators to other smallerspecies lower in the foodweb, causing further disruption tobiodiversity and resources. In the western Atlantic fishing hasshifted from predatory finfish such as haddock, invertebrates andsmaller fishes. Non commercial are also impacted. Deep sea cor-als provide structure and habitat on the sea floor, for many spe-cies including juvenile fishes. Corals have been severely damageby bottom trawling for more than 50 years. Seabirds thrive onthe rich productivity of the banks, which provide breeding andyear round feeding habitats for millions of seabirds of severalspecies. It is estimated that on average 300,000 seabirds are killedannually owing to illegal discharges of bilge oil from ships in theGrand Banks region.

New industries have emerged in the Grand Banks area in re-cent years that brings benefits to the region, but also new chal-lenges and stresses to the ocean environment. The oil and gasindustry raises concerns about the effects on seabirds, juvenilefish and deep seas habitats. Pipelines and communication cablesare laid on the ocean floor, potentially damaging sea floor habi-tats. Scientific research, bioprospecting and deep sea mining, allconstitute potential threats.

A lasting and effective solution to management of the resourcesof the Grand banks will need to consider and address these cur-rent and future uses.


| 100

THE EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH - A LARGE SCALEZONING COMPLEX

Many of the important components of the Grand Banks eco-system occur in relatively stable patterns and are amenable tospatial planning and management. This applies to both the un-derlying physical geography of the Grand Banks, and to marineliving and non-living resources and diverse habitats. Drawingboundary lines on the open ocean may seem abstract, especiallywhere management, capacity. enforcement and compliance mea-sures are limited. However, it would appear that the Grand banksecosystem is ideally suited for a large multizoned conservationregime accompanied by various degrees of protection.

In addition to zoning, incentives and requirements for “bestpractices” and guidelines for the industry can provide an effec-tive way forward, will assist in setting precedents, and have asignificant impact at the operational level for specific activitiessuch as fishing, shipping and oil and gas developments.

It is suggested that three distinct conservation strategies needto be employed to ensure a successful comprehensive manage-ment regime based on zoning; protection, management and resto-ration. New and coordinated institutional arrangements will haveto be put in place. Political will and support from the industryand other stakeholders, including the international community, isimperative for a successful outcome of this project.

LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The conservation and management approach envisaged forthe Grand Banks is focussed explicitly on a large marine ecosys-tem, acknowledging that the natural systems at stake do not stopat national boundaries. It must also be recognized that there arelegal zones that cut across this ecosystem - zones that carry limi-tations as to what coastal States or other actors may do in theimplementation of any management scheme. In addition, thereare other agreements and institutional arrangements that maymodify the jurisdictional entitlements within these legal zones.

The development of a broad zoning approach to the GrandBanks area (including both conservation and sustainable use) mustbe supported by at least three fundamental requirements satisfiedfor each of the legal zones at both national and international lev-els. First, there must be a jurisdictional entitlement, whether inthe coastal State or some other entity, that permits the necessarylegal actions to be taken. Second, the jurisdiction must be exer-cised through specific legislative and regulatory instruments. Fi-nally, there must be the institutional capacity to implement andmanage the regulatory tools, which would otherwise be left assterile, formal regimes.

Ocean zoning presumes that conservation and managementmeasures must be tailor-made to suit the particular requirementsand circumstances of the identified resources, geographical ar-eas and user groups involved. This necessary flexibility presentsparticular challenges for legal systems which have traditionallybeen based around more uniform approaches.

Some of the requirements discussed already exist or may beadapted from existing structures, but there are also a number of

gaps that have to be identified and addressed. The followingsections briefly consider the current situation in each of the juris-dictional zones that could be engaged in zoning the Grand Banksarea: national jurisdiction within 200nm, national jurisdiction overthe extended continental shelf beyond 200nm and the high seas.WWF is currently exploring a number of options for a legal andtechnical proposal for the Grand Banks area within and beyondnational jurisdiction.

WITHIN 200 NM

Within Canadian jurisdiction seawards to 200nm, it wouldappear that sufficient jurisdictional entitlements exist under thelaw of the sea to permit most of the required zoning and manage-ment activities. These entitlements are, however, variable acrossthe separate zones of internal waters, territorial sea and the EEZ.There are some restrictions on the use of fully restrictive pro-tected areas insofar as they interfere with shipping and some otheractivities, such as pipelines and cables, that are lawful activitiescarried out by other states within the EEZ.

Canada has not yet ratified the 1982 UN Law of the Sea Con-vention (the Convention). Whilst this is not necessary to the defi-nition of Canada’s jurisdictional entitlements, ratification wouldstill be an important step in the implementation of the broaderconservation objectives of the Convention, in part by givingCanada access to the full range of dispute resolution options un-der the Convention.

A wide range of Canadian legislative and regulatory instru-ments can be applied in carrying out the functions anticipated inzoning the Grand Banks area. These include inter alia the Fisher-ies Act, the Shipping Act, and the Oceans Act. The application ofthese instruments will, of course, be subject to any constitutionalrequirements to consult and/or negotiate with First Nations.

Many of the specific actions foreseen in the Grand Banksproject have already been taken in various forms, albeit not in thecontext of an overall zoning exercise. These include, for example:the development of marine parks and MPAs; fisheries closure areasand gear restrictions (both for fisheries management and envi-ronmental protection); moratoria on oil and gas development inspecific areas; vessel traffic schemes tailored to marine mammallocations; requirements for environmental impact assessment foroffshore developments; site planning and assessment for oceandumping. This clearly indicates that within Canadian jurisdictionthe actions anticipated are by no means unusual.

It may be necessary to consider the development of legisla-tion specifically tailored to the processes and criteria by whichoverall zoning would be conducted, but it would appear that themore specific operational requirements could be encompassedwithin existing legislation.

The planning and management institutions necessary to zon-ing within 200nm are primarily those federal ministries and agen-cies tasked with implementation and enforcement of the legisla-tion referred to above. One exception is the Offshore PetroleumBoard, a joint federal-provincial agency which manages hydro-carbon development offshore Newfoundland.

101 |


While there are some jurisdictional issues under the Conven-tion which may limit the ability of the Canadian government toact without reference to the rights of other States, for the mostpart the jurisdiction exists and the core regulatory tools are inplace to permit the initiation of the suggested zoning approach,including both fisheries management actions and the continueddevelopment of marine protected areas.

THE EXTENDED CONTINENTAL SHELF

Canada claims extended continental shelf jurisdiction beyond200nm over significant portions of the relevant area. This juris-diction is, however, limited under the law of the sea to “sovereignrights for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its naturalresources” (including non-living resources and sedentary species).Jurisdiction does not extend to the water column, except for mat-ters incidental to shelf activities.

While it seems clear that the coastal state does not have ageneral power to zone (or create MPAs) in this area, some op-tions do exist. For those activities which fall within the jurisdic-tion of the coastal State (exploration and exploitation of shelfresources) it is within the power of the State to carry out zoningexercises with a view to conservation of all resources of the shelfand the water column. The protection of these resources fromdamage by shelf activities is considered an obligation under theConvention. Thus, Canada can implement the suggested manage-ment approach over its extended continental shelf, but this poweris limited to those activities over which it has jurisdiction, andcannot be extended to a comprehensive spatial approach dealingwith other activities.

As with the EEZ, the essential regulatory mechanisms are inplace ( e.g. Fisheries Act, Accord Act, Coastal Fisheries Protec-tion Act (sedentary species) and the Oceans Act) to carry out theessential functions foreseen by this document. There may, how-ever, be a requirement to “expand” the planning requirements ofexisting legislation (particularly that dealing with offshore oil andgas) to accommodate zoning and ensure that it takes place ac-cording to well-defined and predictable criteria. The planning andmanagement institutions are in place as within the 200nm area.

THE HIGH SEAS

There is no an over-arching international legal regime for theconservation and management of the high seas, nor an interna-tional institution with the jurisdictional competence to meet all ofthe functions anticipated for the Grand Banks area. There are,however, specific legal instruments and institutions which couldbe employed to carry out some of the required activities. For ex-ample, NAFO as a regional institution has a mandate that includessome, though not all, of the fisheries management functions thatwould be part of this exercise. Legally, this is supported both bythe NAFO Convention and the obligations to cooperate enshrinedin the the global, level, there may be some role for UN Food andAgriculture Organisation (FAO). For seabed activities beyondnational jurisdiction, the International Seabed Authority could beinvolved in assessment and environmental management functions(although this may not be of immediate practical concern in theareas at issue here). Similarly, the provisions of the International

Maritime Organisation (IMO) for the creation of PSSAs could beutilized to deal with shipping issues.

Despite the availability of partial solutions such as regionalfisheries management organizations (RFMOs), however, there isstill no legal regime or international institution that brings thecomprehensive planning and conservation mandate that wouldbe required to implement an ocean zoning exercise in these areasof the high seas.

With respect to Canada’s potential role on the high seas, un-der international law the coastal State has no broad-based juris-diction on the high seas to create or to manage the zoning exer-cise envisaged here. There are, however, some avenues for coastalState action that are anticipated in the Convention and other in-ternational and regional legal regimes. First, all States have a gen-eral obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment ofthe high seas (A. 192 of the Convention) and States are also boundby the obligation to cooperate for the protection of the marineenvironment (A.197) and for the conservation and managementof high seas living resources (A.117-118). Second, in furtheranceof this obligation, the coastal State can regulate the environmen-tal impacts resulting from the activities of its own nationals andflag vessels (including fishing vessels) on the high seas (A.94).Thus, for example, the Canadian government could unilaterallyregulate to prohibit or limit certain activities by its own nationalsin a defined zone beyond national jurisdiction, even though itwould not be able to exert similar power over nationals of otherstates.

While there are some possibilities for action at the national,regional and international levels, there is nonetheless a funda-mental gap in both the jurisdictional and institutional structuresthat might support a conservation-based zoning exercise in thehigh seas portions of the target area. Apart from the direct impli-cations for the high seas areas, this problem creates real difficul-ties at the intersection between national jurisdiction and the highseas. The effectiveness of habitat and species protection withinnational jurisdiction can be compromised by the lack of a comple-mentary legal regime and institutional capacity in adjacent highseas areas.

CONCLUSIONS

he very general survey set out above makes it clear that thereare both opportunities and challenges in moving ahead with theproposed approach to zoning and protection of this critical oceanhabitat. What is paramount now is to identify practical and politi-cally feasible steps that can be taken to advance two general ob-jectives: the implementation of the ocean zoning approach to theconservation and management of the Grand Banks area; and theparallel development of global legal and institutional mechanismsto support the extension of this work to the high seas.

Based on the assessment above, it would appear that theseobjectives could be furthered by at least three general categoriesof actions: First, Canada could act unilaterally, so far as its juris-diction allows, to implement the overall zoning exercise and thespecific protection measures and zones set forth in this proposal.As noted earlier, within the EEZ the specific measures would rep-resent a continuation and expansion of past work, although the


| 102

introduction of the comprehensive zoning component wouldbe an essential new element. Outside the EEZ, on the extendedcontinental shelf, Canada’s unilateral options are more limited.However, it would still be possible to act in an exemplary mannerby prescribing various conservation and management measuresapplicable to Canadians engaged in various activities in the iden-tified zones (including, of course, the seabed operations overwhich it has jurisdiction). A similar approach could be taken onthe high seas.

Second, Canada, acting with like-minded partners, could pur-sue and promote the development of either building on existinglegal mechanisms or the drafting of new regional legal instru-ments and institutions to assume responsibility for the identifiedconservation activities beyond national jurisdiction. Such a de-velopment would be analogous to the existing regional approachesto fisheries management, but with a purpose and mandate whichwould be both broader than a single sector, and more explicitlydirected to the conservation and sustainable use of habitat andbiodiversity. Useful precedents for this type of action can be found,for example, in the UNEP Regional Seas Programme, which pro-moted the development of broad-based regional level conserva-tion efforts. At the same time, efforts could be made to use exist-ing arrangements (especially NAFO) more effectively, within thelimits imposed by their mandates.

Third, Canada should continue to be involved in the globaldiscussions directed at the enhancement and further definition ofobligations to protect and preserve the marine environment of thehigh seas. The development of concrete measures that wouldsupport and permit the creation of high seas management regimes,including the development of high seas MPAs, would provideglobal legal structures that could encompass specific regional ar-rangements, in much the same way that UNFA is built around thedevelopment of RFMOs. It should be noted that Canada, in pur-suing a combined suite of national, regional and global actions,would be adopting a strategy similar to that which it adopted withrespect to the issue of straddling stocks in the early 1990s.

The suggestions set out here will not result in the resolutionof all issues related to the implementation of the proposed ap-proach to zoning of this area. They are, however, intended to rec-ognize both the obstacles that exist and the opportunities to moveforward, with immediate action being taken where possible un-der the existing law, coupled with a longer-term strategy to dealwith the important legal and institutional gaps that remain.

103 |


PROGRESS TOWARDS A TEN-YEAR HIGH SEASMARINE PROTECTED AREA STRATEGY

Kristina M. GjerdeHigh Seas Policy Advisor, IUCN Global Marine ProgramUl. Piaskowa 12C, 05-510, Konstancin-Chylice, Poland,

Phone: 48-22-754-1803; Fax: 48-22-756-2919;email: [email protected]; website: iucn.org/themes/marine

The increasing impact of human activities on high seas eco-systems, habitats and species has prompted expressions of con-cern in a variety of global arena. Alarm at the destructive effectsof deep sea bottom trawling on the rich biodiversity of seamountsand cold water coral communities is now resulting in calls forurgent and immediate action. At the World Summit on Sustain-able Development in 2002, governments committed to maintain-ing high seas biodiversity and productivity, applying the ecosys-tem approach by 2010, and establishing representative networksof marine protected areas by 2012. To assist in efforts to imple-ment these commitments, IUCN, together with WWF Internationaland WCPA have developed a joint high seas initiative. As part ofthis initiative, we have i) convened an Experts Workshop on HighSeas Marine Protected Areas (Malaga, Spain, 15-17 2003); ii)participated in a variety of global meetings including the UnitedNations Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law ofthe Sea (New York, New York, 2-6 June 2003) and the High SeasBiodiversity Conservation Governance Workshop (Cairns, Aus-tralia, 16-20 June 2003); iii) initiated the development of a highseas coalition to reach out to additional partners and stakehold-ers; and iv) organized a session on high seas biodiversity conser-vation at the 5h World Parks Congress (Durban, South Africa, 8-17 September 2003).

As a result of deliberations at the World Parks Congress,Marine Theme participants strongly recommended the establish-ment of a global system of high seas MPA networks by 2012,calling for the establishment of at least five ecologically signifi-cant high seas MPAs by 2008. They further urged immediate ac-tion to protect deep sea features such as seamounts, cold watercorals and hydrothermal vents, and open-ocean features such aseddies, fronts and upwelling zones. In addition to protectionthrough MPAs, the United Nations General Assembly was invitedto consider a moratorium on high seas bottom trawling in areaswith seamounts and cold water coral reefs pending developmentof an effective conservation regime. Marine Theme participantsadditionally elaborated a ten-year strategy to promote the devel-opment of a global representative system of high seas marine pro-tected area networks. The resulting Ten-Year High Seas MPAStrategy is offered here for discussion.


| 104

BACKGROUND

The past thirty years of ocean exploration have revealed anincredible diversity of life inhabiting our oceans, including deepocean ecosystems and communities with a wealth of unique spe-cies; however, much of the oceans remain poorly explored or un-derstood.

Despite our lack of knowledge, we do know that thebiodiversity and productivity of the high seas—the deep seabedand water column beyond national jurisdiction—are under immi-nent threat primarily from fishing activities (deep sea trawling,long-lining, etc.). The common assumption that living marine re-sources are inexhaustible has often been proven incorrect.

Sector-based, single stock and short-term management effortshave failed to protect target species, bycatch species and fragileseabed habitats. Achieving precautionary, integrated and eco-system-based management is an essential goal.

This Ten-Year High Seas Marine Protected Area Strategy (Ten-Year HSMPA Strategy) provides a framework for achieving a vitalstep towards that goal. It provides a strategy for coordinatedaction over a ten-year period to develop, establish and effectivelymanage a representative system of marine protected area net-works for the high seas (HSMPAs).

Marine protected areas covering the full range of IUCN pro-tected area management categories can help to ensure biodiversityconservation, species protection, equitable resource use and sus-tainable exploitation through integrated area-based management.

A representative system of MPAs is essential to protect habi-tats or ecosystems that are unique, special, fragile or representa-tive on a regional biogeographic basis, including benthic habitatssuch as shelf edges, cold-water coral reefs, canyons, seamounts,hydrothermal vents, cold seeps and abyssal plains and open oceanfeatures such as eddies, fronts and zones of upwelling.

Similarly, networks of MPAs are essential to link marine eco-systems and better protect species and habitats that depend onprocesses outside a protected area. An ecologically coherent net-work of MPAs is crucial for sustaining populations of many ani-mals and plants and particularly for highly mobile seabirds, mam-mals, turtles, and fish, safeguarding the habitats necessary tocritical stages of their life cycle and migratory routes. Most impor-tantly, perhaps, networks can ensure that management failuresand natural catastrophes inside and outside these areas do notresult in irreversible biodiversity loss.

While more is required to create a sustainable framework cov-ering the world’s oceans, a system of HSMPA networks is thus akey mechanism for 1) securing protection from immediate threats;2) enabling coordinated decision-making involving a range ofstakeholders (e.g., fishing, maritime navigation and commercialshipping, marine conservation, seabed mining, etc.); and 3) de-veloping comprehensive, integrated and ecosystem-based oceansmanagement.

The Ten-Year HSMPA Strategy identifies seven core compo-nents to focus action over the next ten years and elaborates stra-tegic steps necessary to implement these components. A series of“Tool Boxes” indicate key international and regional fora for pro-moting HSMPAs, mechanisms for HSMPA establishment, andpriorities for research. It was introduced for discussion at the 5thWorld Parks Congress, Durban, South Africa (8-17 September2003). This Summary Version contains the seven core compo-nents endorsed in World Parks Congress Recommendation 5.23,and key strategy steps as elaborated by marine experts at theWorld Parks Congress.

CORE COMPONENTS AND KEY STRATEGIC STEPS

I. ENDORSE AND PROMOTE the World Summit on Sustain-able Development (WSSD) Joint Plan of Implementation to-gether with the goal of establishing a global system of effec-tively managed, representative networks of marine protectedareas by 2012 that includes within its scope the world’soceans and seas beyond national jurisdiction, consistentwith international law; including through:

• Identifying and dedicating financial and humanresources to raise awareness, educate, conductresearch and build capacity;

• Establishing cost-effective mechanisms and providingvenues to educate and raise awareness amongstakeholders;

• Establishing a coalition among like-minded govern-ments, international and regional organizations, non-governmental organizations, scientists, business andindustry leaders, fishers and other ocean users, andthe media to promote coordinated action and monitorand report on progress; and

TEN-YEAR HIGH SEAS MARINE PROTECTED AREA STRATEGY:A TEN-YEAR STRATEGY TO PROMOTE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A GLOBAL REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM

OF HIGH SEAS MARINE PROTECTED AREA NETWORKS

SUMMARY VERSION

As Agreed by Marine Theme Participants at the 5th World Parks Congress,

Durban, South Africa (8-17 September 2003)1

1 Preparation of the Ten Year HSMPA Strategy was made possible through the generous support of the J.M. Kaplan Fund. Kristina M. Gjerde, High SeasPolicy Advisor, IUCN Global Marine Programme, prepared the initial draft in cooperation with the WCPA High Seas Working Group and other marineexperts. We wish to thank all those who so enthusiastically shared their knowledge and insight both before and during the World Parks Congress.

105 |


• Promoting the conservation of biological diversity,productivity and species on the high seas and thevalue of a global representative system of HSMPAnetworks as tools for this purpose at relevant interna-tional organizations and meetings.

II. CALL on the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) toconsider an immediate moratorium on deep sea trawling inhigh seas areas with seamounts and cold-water coral reefcommunities until legally binding international conserva-tion measures are in place2 ; including through:

• Developing global campaigns to inform decisionmakers and the general public about the value andimportance of seamounts and cold water coral reefs;

• Encouraging scientists and fisheries managers tosynthesize current information on seamounts and coldwater corals and the impacts of associated fisheries in away meaningful to decision makers and the generalpublic; and

• Promoting immediate dialogue with the fishing andseafood industries on mechanisms for, and benefits of,protection of these systems, communities and habitats.

III. UTILIZE available mechanisms and authorities to estab-lish and effectively manage by 2008 at least five scientifi-cally significant and globally representative HSMPAs con-sistent with international law and based on sound scienceto enhance the conservation of marine biodiversity, spe-cies, productivity and ecosystems, including through:

• Developing explicit proposals for pilot HSMPAs whileplans for a representative system of HSMPA networksare under development.

• Using known opportunities under regional and globalagreements to establish HSMPAs through binding andnon-binding agreements; and

• Encouraging broad-based support and endorsement ofHSMPAs by any states not party to such agreementand regional and global bodies.

IV. ESTABLISH a global system of effectively managed, repre-sentative networks of marine protected areas; includingthrough:

1) Taking immediate and urgent action to protect thebiodiversity and productivity of seamounts, cold-water coralcommunities and other vulnerable high seas features and eco-systems and especially to safeguard species and habitats atimmediate risk of irrevocable damage or loss; includingthrough:

• Producing an expedited report on seamount and coldwater coral habitats, their biological diversity and

associated fisheries as well as options for internationalaction;

• Identifying within two years priority candidate sitesfor protection through MPAs;

• Encouraging full and effective application of theprinciples and provisions of the UN Agreement onStraddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory FishStocks (UN Fish Stocks Agreement) to all high seas(including deep ocean) fishing activities, together withdevelopment of tools such as networks of strictlyprotected/managed areas to ensure long-term protec-tion, conservation and sustainable use of marinebiodiversity; and

• Promoting, developing and implementing mechanismsto protect vulnerable high seas (including deep ocean)features, ecosystems, habitats and species fromhuman activities at sea, such as fisheries, shipping,dumping of hazardous substances, harmful prospect-ing, military operations and deep-seabed mining.

2) Taking immediate and urgent action to protect thebiodiversity and productivity dependent on large-scale, per-sistent oceanographic features, such as currents and frontalsystems, known to support marine life and contain criticalhabitat for species such as those listed in the IUCN Red Listand the appendices of the Convention on International Tradein Endangered Species (CITES), the Convention on Migra-tory Species (CMS) and related Agreements; includingthrough:

• Producing a review of such oceanographic featuresand related biodiversity hotspots to identify prioritycandidate sites for protection through MPAs; and

• Promoting, developing and implementing mechanismsto enable urgent action to protect threatened marinespecies, especially highly migratory species, and theirhabitats from human activities at sea, such as fisheries,shipping, transportation, dumping of hazardoussubstances, harmful prospecting, and military opera-tions.

3) Developing mechanisms to enable urgent and long-lastingprotection of non-target species and habitats threatened byhigh seas fishing activities, particularly by ensuring that mea-sures to mitigate bycatch, incidental catch and habitat/eco-system damage are developed for and implemented in all rel-evant fisheries; including through:

Supporting and promoting all national and internationalactivities to eliminate Illegal, Unregulated and Unre-ported (IUU) fishing, inter alia, by outlawing flags ofconvenience;

2 Endorsed by Marine Theme Participants at the World Parks Congress as being of significant importance meriting recognition as an emergingissue.


| 106

Assisting in identifying those fisheries whose interactionswith non-target species of invertebrates, fish, sharks,turtles, marine mammals and seabirds are causing, orhave potential to cause, unnecessary and/or unsus-tainable levels of mortality, especially of threatenedspecies;

Promoting the development and use of new measures,equipment and techniques to mitigate and/or eliminatethe bycatch of invertebrates, fish, sharks, turtles,marine mammals and seabirds, especially throughdialogue and cooperation with fisher- and industry-based approaches and solutions; and

Promoting the mandatory and regulated use of bestpractice measures, equipment and techniques appliedon a fishery-specific basis, to mitigate and/or eliminatethe bycatch of invertebrates, fish, sharks, turtles,marine mammals and seabirds, especially throughdialogue and cooperation with fisher- and industry-based approaches and solutions.

V. INITIATE action to identify marine ecosystems, habitats,areas, processes and biodiversity hotspots for priority at-tention, develop agreed criteria and guidelines for the iden-tification, establishment, management and enforcement ofHSMPAs, develop guidance for a representative system ofHSMPA networks, establish sustainable financing strate-gies and determine future research needs and priorities; in-cluding through:

• Convening international, regional and nationalmeetings of key stakeholders, researchers and dataholders to identify marine ecosystems, habitats, areas,processes and biodiversity hotspots for priorityattention and develop criteria and guidelines for theidentification, establishment, management and enforce-ment of HSMPAs;

• Convening multidisciplinary expert workshops and/orgroups to analyse available information to assesspotential HSMPAs, to develop a provisional represen-tative system of MPA networks, including appropriatecriteria and guidelines, and determine future researchneeds and priorities within a three-year time frame;

• Promoting adoption of the criteria and guidelines atrelevant meetings;

• Developing and making available scientific, legal,socio-economic and policy research relevant to thedevelopment of a global representative system of MPAnetworks and the protection and sustainable use ofbiodiversity, species and ecosystem processes withinthe high seas; and

• Convening meetings of groups of key stakeholdersincluding donors, finance institutions and the privatesector to discuss options and develop mechanisms forfacilitating sustainable financing.

VI. COOPERATE to develop and promote a global frameworkor approach, building on the United Nations Convention onthe Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the Convention on BiologicalDiversity (CBD), the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, CMS andother relevant agreements, to facilitate the creation of a glo-bal representative system of high seas MPA networks con-sistent with international law, to ensure its effective man-agement and enforcement, and coordinate and harmonizeapplicable international agreements, mechanisms and au-thorities in accordance with modern principles of precau-tionary, ecosystem-based and integrated management andsound governance as defined in the UN principles; includ-ing through:

• Requesting those countries which have yet to sign orratify UNCLOS, and other relevant internationalagreements (e.g. Kyoto Protocol, Convention onBiological Diversity, UN Fish Stocks Agreement) toimmediately ratify and implement these agreements;

• Promoting work pursuant to the CBD, CMS, andUNCLOS, in cooperation with relevant internationaland regional bodies, to identify appropriate mecha-nisms for the establishment and effective managementof a representative system of HSMPA networks,consistent with international law and based onscientific information;

• Promoting work relating to regional fisheries manage-ment and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement to ensureecosystem based management that recognizes thevalue of and incorporates the use of HSMPA networks;

• Promoting legally binding commitments for all Re-gional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs)in respect of implementing sound governance, compre-hensive data acquisition and dissemination and bestpractice management operations including all appropri-ate elements of current and relevant United NationsFood and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Plans ofAction, as key contributions towards the implementa-tion of appropriate conservation and managementmeasures within potential MPAs;

• Promoting cooperation within and between regionalseas conventions and other regional bodies (includingRFMOs) to address threats at the level appropriate toconserve regional ecosystems and biodiversity(watersheds to open ocean);

• Promoting further work within the United Nationssystem to improve intergovernmental coordination andcooperation; and

• Supporting high-level consideration of the need foradditional mechanisms, including UNCLOS implement-ing agreements, to facilitate the effective managementof a global representative system of HSMPA networksand an effective governance system.

107 |


VII. JOIN TOGETHER through formal or informal networks topromote the development of a global representative systemof high seas MPA networks within their own governmentsand organizations and in broader international forums toachieve protection of the biological diversity, productivityand sustainable use of the high seas, with the global repre-sentative system of MPA networks being a principal tool,reporting back on progress at the International Marine Pro-tected Area Congress (IMPAC1) in Geelong, Australia in2005 as well as at other relevant forums.

These core components and key strategy steps are comple-mented by a general call for action throughout the life of theStrategy for capacity building, education and awareness raising,stakeholder engagement, and scientific, socio-economic and le-gal research to further understanding, awareness and the abilityto protect high seas biodiversity, species, productivity and eco-logical processes.

INVITATION

Those interested in learning more about high seas biodiversityand coordinating efforts to achieve its protection and sustainableuse are invited to contact Kristina Gjerde, IUCN High Seas PolicyAdvisor at [email protected]. Additional information is availableat iucn.org/themes/marine.

WCPA HIGH SEAS WORKING GROUP EXECUTIVECOMMITTEE

Charlotte Breide, WWF International, Solicitor, Senior LegalAdvisor, Endangered Seas Programme

Simon Cripps, WWF International, Director, Endangered SeasProgramme

Kristina Gjerde, IUCN, High Seas Policy Advisor, Global MarineProgramme

Graeme Kelleher, WCPA Marine, Senior Advisor, and ChairWCPA High Seas Working Group

Carl Gustaf Lundin, IUCN, Head Global Marine Programme

Alex Rogers, WCPA High Seas Working Group Scientific Advi-sor

Tomme Rosanne Young, IUCN Environmental Law Center, Se-nior Legal Officer


| 108

Managing the managers: improving the structure and operation of small fisheries departments,...

Documents

Transcript of Managing the managers: improving the structure and operation of small fisheries departments,...