Economic and Social Council

 Distr. GENERAL
26 February 1996
ORIGINAL: ENGLISH, FRENCH
AND SPANISH

COMMISSION ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Fourth session
18 April-3 May 1996


     PROTECTION OF THE OCEANS, ALL KINDS OF SEAS, INCLUDING ENCLOSED
      AND SEMI-ENCLOSED SEAS, AND COASTAL AREAS AND THE PROTECTION,
         RATIONAL USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THEIR LIVING RESOURCES

        Letter dated 1 February 1996 from the Permanent Representatives of
        Brazil and of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
       Ireland to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General


     We would be most grateful for your agreement to circulate, as an
official paper of the Commission on Sustainable Development's Inter-
sessional Working Group on Sectoral Issues (26 February-1 March) and
also to the Commission on Sustainable Development (18 April-4 May) the
enclosed report - available in English, French and Spanish - on the
London Workshop on Environmental Science, Comprehensiveness and
Consistency in Global Decisions on Ocean Issues, held from 30 November
to 2 December 1995.  This workshop was jointly hosted by the
Governments of Brazil and the United Kingdom.


(Signed)  Celso Luiz NUNES AMORIM              (Signed)  John WESTON          
        Permanent Representative of            Permanent Representative of the
        Brazil to the United Nations           United Kingdom of Great Britain
                                                     and Northern Ireland     
                                                     to the United Nations    


     COMMISSION ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OF PROGRESS ON STRATEGIES
              UNDER CHAPTER 17 OF AGENDA 21 OCEANS AND ALL SEAS


      THE LONDON WORKSHOP ON ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE, COMPREHENSIVENESS AND
             CONSISTENCY IN GLOBAL DECISIONS ON OCEAN ISSUES

         Sponsored by the Governments of Brazil and the United Kingdom
         and held at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, London

                       30 November- 2 December 1995

RECOMMENDATIONS

Presented by the Delegations of Brazil and the United Kingdom


LONDON WORKSHOP ON ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE. COMPREHENSIVENESS AND CONSISTENCY
IN GLOBAL DECISIONS ON OCEANS ISSUES
30 November -2 December 1996

REPORT BY THE CO-CHAIRMEN

1. An international workshop was held in London on 30 November - 2
December 1995, to consider environmental science. comprehensiveness
and consistency in global decision-making on the oceans.

2. It was attended by representatives nominated by 32 national
governments and by 12 international agencies. It was also attended by
representatives nominated by 23 non-governmental organisations. A list
of those who attended is at Annex A.

3. The workshop was chaired jointly by Senhora Aspasia Camargo,
Executive Secretary of the Brazilian Ministry of the Environment,
Water Resources and the Amazon, and the Earl of Lindsay, United
Kingdom Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland.

4. On the first day, after introductory statements by the Co-Chairmen,
Professor Alasdair Mcintyre presented a paper on "What are the key
pressure point issues affecting the sustainability of the oceans?"
This was followed by a plenary discussion.

5. On the second day, after an address to the plenary by the Rt Hon
John Gummer, the United Kingdom Secretary of State for the
Environment, the workshop divided into three parallel discussion
panels to consider issues concerning scientific and policy analysis,
policy formulation and policy implementation. The three panels were
chaired by Dr Georges Pichot (Management Unit, North Sea Mathematical
Model, Belgium), Sir Hugh Rossi (Advisory Committee on Protection of
the Sea) and Mr Claude Morel (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Planning
and Environment, Seychelles). Mr Edwin Barnes (Ministry of
Environment, Science and Technology, Ghana), Senora Paula Caballero
(Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Colombia) and Mr Thomas Laughlin
(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, USA) acted
respectively as rapporteurs to the Panels.

6. The reports of these three panels are attached at Annexes B, C and
D.

7. In the view of the Co-Chairmen, the following are the main
conclusions emerging from the workshop.

8 International decision-making on questions affecting the marine
environment should be the result of a more holistic approach. It must
ensure that decisions take into account all relevant aspects of the
marine and other environments, including economic and social
considerations.

9. International decision-making on these questions also needs to be
based upon the precautionary and other approaches embodied in the
principles adopted at the United Nations Conference on the Environment
and Development held in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992.

10. lt should also be based upon the best available scientific
information, as well as social and economic considerations. Where
relevant, it should also take into account traditional knowledge. The
current wide range of international, regional and national
arrangements for research and investigation provide the basis for
establishing the information base. Although gaps in understanding
exist because of limits on resources and because of the incremental
nature of building up knowledge, in some cases, management of the
marine environment could be improved if existing information was used
more fully. Therefore, it is important to identify and try to fill
those gaps where they do occur and to improve abilities to use ant
access the available knowledge and technology.

11. A better interaction between science and policy formulation in
understanding and regulating the marine environment is an important
objective.

12. Improvements are needed in particular in:

     a.  prediction capability for components of the marine environment,
         including data quality control and the employment of systematic ocean
         observations;

     b.  knowledge of natural and anthropogenic variations;

     c   use of, and access to. the growing body of new technology;

     d.  better assessment of changes in species and habitats
         including the use of environmental quality indicators;

     e.  knowledge of the links between catchment areas and the marine
         environment;

     f.  mechanisms for the exchange of information between states and
         regions.

13. States need to ensure that their input into regional and global
decision-making is based upon national~priorities properly coordinated
between the different national authorities. This coordination should
take account of the recommendations in Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 for the
integration of national policy towards the marine environment.

14. Action should be taken at the national or regional levels when the
issues can be effectively settled at those levels. Where issues
require action at the global level, national action is still essential
and regional action is often also required.

15. Various approaches can be considered for identifying the topics on
which global action is needed. Individual topics can be identified on
the basis of specific concerns about them. Alternatively, criteria can
be established for use in identifying potential topics for global
action.

16. International arrangements for decision-making on questions
affecting the marine environment must recognise the importance of
helping developing countries in need of assistance with he problems
that they face in this work and in implementing the decisions. There
should be a review of existing global and regional arrangements that
fail to address problems of this kind. Capacity-building and the
transfer of information and know-how, particularly between developed
and developing countries. must be considered.

17. There is no need to create any new global agency or institution
for taking decisions at the global level on questions affecting the
marine environment.

18. There remains a need to review the working of the existing
institutions involved in such decision-making, with the aim of
clarifying their roles, making them more effective and improving the
means for establishing coherent priorities for global action. This may
also have the additional benefit of making savings on the cost of such
operations.

19. Three institutional aspects of this were identified.

20. First, there was general agreement that there was a need for more
effective means of coordination among the UN Agencies and other
international organisations active in the field of the marine
environment. It was suggested, inter alia, that there should be a
study of ways of making more effective the work of the Oceans and
Coastal Areas Sub-Committee of the Administrative Coordination
Committee of the United Nations (ACC/SOC) and giving its work more
prominence. As a first step in this study, ACC/SOC, in conjunction
with the non-governmental organisation (NGO) sector. could be asked to
suggest ways to make its work more effective.

21. Secondly, there was also general agreement that it was important
to find means for expressing the consensus of national governments on
the priorities for global action on the marine environment. However,
differing suggestions were made on how this could be achieved. Among
options suggested were that:

     a.  the commitment of the United Nations General Assembly to annual
         debates on the UN Convention of the Law of Sea and oceans issues was
         relevant;

     b.  the Commission on Sustainable Development, assisted by the UN
         Secretariat's Division for Sustainable Development and its Division
         for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, could contribute;

     c.  the Economic and Social Council could devote a part of its
         sessions to this subject;

     d.  periodic joint meetings of the bureaux of the various
         governing councils and executive bodies of relevant UN Agencies and
         other international bodies could be useful;

     e.  it would be helpful to involve finance and industry ministers
         in developing and planning the programmes, as well as environment
         ministers and other ministers directly responsible;

     f.  broader public involvement. including the participation of
         non-governmental organisations, would strengthen the process;

     g.  regional action plans for marine and coastal environments.
         such as hose contained in UNEP Regional Seas Programme, could    
         facilitate global action for the implementation of Agenda 21.

22. The integration of global oceans management would also be
furthered both by the endorsement by national governments, through the
appropriate organs of each specialised agency involved, of the
relevant parts of the Washington Global Programme of Action on the
Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-Based Activities, as
well a the identification of relevant mandates for those agencies, and
by the periodic intergovernmental meetings called for by the
Programme. The contribution lo be made lo the CSD work on oceans by
the three year programme of work on coastal and marine issues, set up
at the second Conference of Parties lo the Convention on Biological
Diversity in Jakarta, was also noted.

23. Thirdly, there was general agreement on the need lo improve the
effectiveness of the means for providing the scientific advice needed
both for the formulation of priorities for global action and for
ensuring a consistent base for action between the various agencies
involved. Such advice could be sought, where necessary. from the Joint
Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Protection
(GESAMP). It was suggested that there should be a study of ways of
making the work of GESAMP more effective

24. There was general agreement that the forthcoming intersessional
meeting in preparation for the 1996 session of the Commission on
Sustainable Development should accord priority to the next steps in
the implementation of the Washington Global Programme of Action and,
taking into account the deliberations of this London Workshop, make
recommendations to address:

     a.  the co-ordination of scientific input to ocean programmes,
         including availability, assessment, impact and response measures, as
         well as social and economic considerations;

     b.  how to make existing organisations and mechanisms more
         effective and better coordinated 

     c.  how to generate the necessary political priority, obtain
         national commitments and arrange for the regular review of ocean
         programmes;

     d.  how to mobilise the necessary knowledge, technology and
         assistance to enable all countries to participate in ocean
         programmes;

     e.  the selection of criteria for defining the issues lo be taken
         forward.


ANNEXES


Annex A Workshop delegates

Annex B Panel I presented by Mr E Barnes as rapporteur

Annex C Panel 2 presented by Senora P Caballero as rapporteur

Annex D Panel 3 presented by Mr T Laughlin as rapporteur


                              DELEGATES LIST                  ANNEX A

Workshop Co-Chairmen

Sra Aspasia Camargo, Executive Secretary, Ministry for Environment,
Water Resources and the Amazon

Earl of Lindsay, Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office


Panel Chairmen

Dr G Pichot, Management Unit, North Sea Mathematical Model
Sir Hugh Rossi KCMG, Advisory Committee on Protection of the Sea
Mr Claude Morel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Planning and
Environment, Republic of the Seychelles



Speakers

Professor A D Mcintyre CBE, Marine Forum for Environmental Issues
Professor E Mann Borgese, International Ocean lnstitute
Dr A Longhurst, 
Dr J H Steele, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Dr G Kullenberg, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission
Professor C Hopkins, International Council for Exploration of the Sea
Ms A Ilett, Department of the Environment, Sports and Territories, Australia
Ms Indrani Lutchman, Worldwide Fund for Nature. UK


National Representatives

Dr Carlos Lasta, National Institute for Fisheries Research & Development,
Argentina
Sr Oscar Padin, Secretariat for the Environment, Argentina
Commander Luis Vila, Argentine Navy, Environmental Protection Department
Ms Alison Airey, Australian High Commission
Mr Abdul Redha Jassim Shams, Directorate of Fisheries, Bahrain
Mr Robson Calixto, Ministry of Environment, Brazil
Sr Luis Figuerido, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Brazil
Mr Bruno Bath, Embassy of Brazil
Mr John Karau, Environment Canada
Mr Geoffrey L Holland, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada
Ms Louise Cote, Dept of Foreign Affairs & International Trade, Canada
Ms Shirley Lewchuk, Department of Foreign Affairs & International Trade,
Canada
Ambassador John A Fraser, Dept of Foreign Affairs and International Trade,
Canada
Mr Bill Bhaneja, Canadian High Commission
Dr Vasantha Chase, Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States
Sr Milenko Skoknic, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Chile
Mr Chen Yaqu, Ministry of Agriculture, People's Republic of China
Mr Liu Yukai, National Environmental Protection Agency, Peoples Republic of
China
Mr Yu Chengguo, Ministry of Communications, People's Republic of China
Dr Paula Caballero, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Colombia
Mr Jorn Kirkegaard, Environmental Protection Agency, Denmark
Mr Thomas Kruse, Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries, Denmark
Mr Rick Boelens, Forbairt, Ireland
Mr David Griffith, Department of the Marine, Ireland
Mr P Gameltoft, European Commission, DGXI
Ms Jill Hanna, European Commission, DGXI
Mr D Levieil, European Commission, DGXIV
Mrs Terttu Melvasalo, Ministry of Environment, Finland
Mr Jean-Marie Massin, Ministry of Environment, France
Mr Megret, Ministry of Environment, France
Dr M A Odei, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, Ghana
Mr E P Barnes, Ministry of Environment Science and Technology, Ghana
Mr A Laskaratos, Mediterranean Action Plan, Greece
Dr Evangelos Papathanassiou, National Centre for Marine Research, Greece
Mr Magnus Johannesson, Ministry for the Environment, Iceland
Mr Sudariyono, Ministry of State for Environment, Indonesia
Ms Maria Dalla Costa, Ente Nazionale Energia Ambiente (ENEA), Italy
Sr Oscar M Ramirez, National Fisheries Institute, Mexico
Monsieur Larbi Sbai, Ministry of Marine Fisheries and Merchant Marine, Morocco
Ms Bente Angell-Hansen, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Norway
Mr Atle Fretheim, Ministry of Environment, Norway
Mr Johan H Williams, The Royal Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries
Mr Salim Al-Jufaili, Ministry of Regional Municipalities, Oman
Mr Presbitero U Velasco, Department of Justice, The Philippines
Mr Ed Maranan, The Philippine Embassy
Dr Oumar Ly, Ministry of Fishing and Maritime Transport, Senegal
Mr John Mascarenhas, Seychelles High Commission
Sr Joaquin Ros, Ministry of Public Works, Transport & Environment, Spain
Mr Ulf Svensson, Ministry for Agriculture and Fisheries, Sweden
Ms Carolyn Dixon, Ministry of Environment, Sweden
Mr R Droop, Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and Environment,
Netherlands
Mr R Dekker, Ministry of Transport, Netherlands
Dr Saad Al Numairy, Federal Environmental Agency, United Arab Emirates
Dr Salem Al Dhaheri, Federal Environmental Agency, United Arab Emirates
Dr Anne McLaren, British Government Panel on Sustainable Development
Lord Selborne, British Government Panel on Sustainable Development
Miss Sarah Soffe, Countryside, Council for Wales
Mr Tom Burke, Department of the Environment, UK
Mr Mike Burn, Department of the Environment, UK
Mrs T Crossley, Department of the Environment, UK
Dr David Fisk, Department of the Environment, UK
Ms Dinah Nichols, Department of the Environment, UK
Mr F A Osborn, Department of the Environment, UK
Mr Alan Simcock, Department of the Environment, UK
Mr P F Unwin, Department of the Environment, UK
Mr Peter Holt, Department of Trade and Industry, UK
Mr John Carroll, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, UK
The Maclaren of Maclaren, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, UK
Mr A Turner, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, UK
Dr Bob Dickson, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, UK
Dr J W Horwood, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, UK
Mr Stephen Wentworth, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, UK
Mr P Whitehead, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, UK
Mr Peter Winterbottom, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, UK
Professor John Shepherd, National Environmental Research Council, UK
Mr David Turner, Overseas Development Administration
Dr J Tarbit, Overseas Development Administration
Ms P Toumin, Overseas Development Administration
Dr A D Hawkins, The Scottish Office
Mr E J Simmonds, The Scottish Office
Mr Lewis Clifton, UK
Mr Tucker Scully, US State Department
Mr Alan Sielen, Environmental Protection Agency, USA
Mr R V Arnaudo, United States Embassy, London
Ms Charlotte Fontauberg, United States Embassy, London
Mr Stanley Wilson, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), US
Mr Will Martin, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), US
Mr Thomas L Laughlin, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), US


International Agencies

Mr C Krishnan, Commonwealth Secretariat, UK
Ms M Lizarraga, Food & Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO)
Professor John D Woods, Global Environmental Facility, UK
Dr David Pugh, Inter-Governmental Oceanographic Commission
Mr M K Nauke, International Maritime Organisation
Dr Ray Gambell OENE, International Whaling Commission
Ms Pragma Toulmin, Overseas Development Administration
Mr Pierre Najlis, United Nations, Division for Sustainable Development
Mr Philip Reynolds, United Nations Development Programme
Mr Jorge Illueca, United Nations Environment Programme
Mr Moritaka Hayashi, United Nations
Mr R J Shearman, WMO Commission for Marine Meteorology
Dr Stephen Lintner, World Rank



Non-Governmental Organisations

Dr B L Bayne, Centre for Coastal & Marine Sciencc, UK
Dr T M G Cloughley, E and P Forum, UK
Mr Tony Read, E and P Forum
Mr Glenn D Quelch, EUROPECHE (NFFO)
Mr Antonio Rengifo, Foundation for International Environmental Law
& Development, UK
Mr Gerard Peet, Friends of the Earth International
Mr Remi Parmentier, Greenpeace International
Dr Malcolm MacGarvin, Greenpeace International
Ms T Robertson, Greenpeace International
Professor David Freestone, Hull University, UK
Professor Philippe Bourdeau, International Council of Scientific Unions
Captain Rod Shaw, International Chamber of Shipping
Mr Joseph E LeBlanc, Jr, International Association of Ports and Harbors
Mr H C Rance, International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation
Association, UK
Mr Lemlin, International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation
Association, UK
Mr Scott Hajost, International Union for Conservation and Natural
Resources (lUCN)
Mr Paul Holthus, International Union for Conservation and Natural Resources
Mr Roger Lankester, International Sailing Federation, UK
Mr Brian O'Riordan, International Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF)
Dr Krishan Saigal, International Ocean Institute
Captain Trygve Meyer, Intertanko, IJK
Mr Sunil Murlidhar Shastri, Marine Forum, UK
Ms Sarah Welton, Marine Conservation Society, UK
Commander M B F Ranken, Parliamentary Maritime Group, UK
Dr Euan Dunn, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, UK
Mr John Maggs, Seas at Risk, UK
Dr Susan Gubbay, UK
Lady Elizabeth Kennet, UK
Mr Colin Taylor, UNICE
Dr Sian Pullen, World Wide Fund for Nature
Dr James Cameron, World Wide Fund for Nature


PANEL I - Scientific and Policy Analysis    ANNEX B

I PAPERS

The two papers presented to this panel were 

- "Ocean Science and the Sustainable Use of Oceans; Definitions and
Current Understanding" *
Dr A Longhurst

- Scientific Investigation and Policy Analysis *
Dr J Steele, President Emeritus, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

2 ISSUES OF CONCERN

The panel considered several issues of concern. The key ones are
described below.

2.1 Better Interaction between Science and Policy At the present time
policies appear to be made with insufficient inputs from the
scientific community. This has occurred for several reasons:

2.1.1  There is often a fundamental paradox between the range of probabilities
that are the products of scientific research, and the absolutes that are
required for effective regulation.

2.1.2  Scientific assessments (and their mode of presentation) are not easily
understood by decision-makers.

2.1.3  There is a need for closer dialogue between scientists in the developed
and developing countries, in order to arrive at a better international
understanding of issues relating to the environment.

2.1.4   Scientists are not always aware of the needs of the decision-maker.
especially the political implications of the measures they advocate.
There seems to be a need for a clearer formulation of the demands upon them
as advisers.

2.2     There is also a need for the scientist to make the decision-makers
aware of the gaps that exist in scientific knowledge, which may prevent the
provision of reliable information within a short time period.

2.3 To address these issues there is a need for better interaction
between policy makers and scientists to clarify needs and expectations
of both parties.

2.4 There is also a need for the scientists to make their results
available in a comprehensible manner for the general public.

2.5 Integrated Coastal Zone Management The management of coastal zones
is often complicated by the absence of a unified body to administer
the land and its adjoining water bodies. Problems arise from the
discharge of municipal, agricultural and industrial wastes into the
water course. causing deleterious effects. These effects include
eutrophication of coastal waters, adverse impacts on marine life. and
the communities that are dependent upon them.

As a result of these increasing pressures manifest at coastal zones it
is necessary to adopt an integrated approach. This will enable
environmental, socio economic and political factors to be considered,
requiring full cost-benefit analysis including environmental values.
It also provides for the consideration of the terrestrial and marine
issues together. This is particularly important in developing
countries where coastal areas represent centres of rapidly increasing
population.

The obligation of implementing fully various recommendations/guidelines/rules
which already exist has been underlined.

2.6 Management of Fisheries.  In most parts of the world fish stocks
are dwindling through over-exploitation. To overcome this state of
affairs there is a need to reconcile the optimum economic yield with
sustainable fisheries management. Further work on theory and
methodologies would also lead to significant improvements in fisheries
biology and management. ln addition, present fisheries policies could
be improved if current scientific knowledge was more strongly
reflected in the management decisions that are made. Notwithstanding
the need for improvements in knowledge, anion on overfishing of many
stocks depends upon readiness to take appropriate anions.

2.7 Protection and Conservation of Species and Habitats The
over-exploitation of the marine environment leads to the loss of
marine flora and fauna. And the destruction and degradation of coastal
habitats to provide for such uses as tourism, housing, industry and
transportation corridors is a serious threat to marine ecosystems. ln
some regions dwindling fish stocks have been linked to the destruction
of habitats as well as the effects of pollution.

To address these issues there is a need to put in place arrangements
to allow for the protection, conservation and sustainable use of
resources in the marine environment. The Convention on Biodiversity
provides a framework for putting such arrangements in place.
lntegrated coastal zone management can also provide a mechanism for
habitat conservation which, in turn, is a practical and effective
means of maintaining marine biodiversity.

3 GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE

3.1 The Improvement in Prediction Capability The quality of
information for decision-making tends to have associated with it
uncertainties which may not make it a fully reliable basis for
decisions. There is thus a need for improving the prediction
capabilities, reducing uncertainties and giving clear information on
error affecting the results. It is also the case that much data that
is available is not comparable. The quality of the analysis is also
variable, meaning that it is not possible to use the information as
the basis of global decision-making. There is therefore the need to improve
the quality control and assurance as well as the reliability associated
with this information. It was noted that the science itself becomes
increasingly complex as one moves from physics, chemistry and biology
to ecosystem theory.   

3.2 Better Appreciation of Natural and Anthropogenic Variations.   At
present il is often difficult lo ascertain whether a particular marine
problem has been caused by anthropogenic factors, or is the result of
natural processes. This calls for more research in order to provide a
sound basis for decision-making.

3.3 Research in the Economic and Social Fields.   In order to promote
sound management decisions on ocean-resource utilisation, research
into economic, social and related fields should be enhanced. In
particular, the effects of pollution and habitat destruction on marine
productivity and marine species recruitment must be better understood.

3.4 Better Assessment of Marine Species and Biodiversity.   Current
understanding of the marine environment is hampered by the absence of
appropriate indicators or criteria for assessing changes in marine
ecosystems. It is important to develop environmental quality
indicators which should help in this effort.

3.5 The Better Use of the Growing Body of Technology During the next
decade it is likely that data availability and techniques, eg
modelling, will be improved such as to provide a better basis for
predictions for changes in the marine environment It is important that
these and other promising techniques are used extensively.

3.6 Techniques for Assessing Links Between Catchment Areas and Coastal
Waters The relationship between the sources and loads of contaminants
from land-based activities and contamination of coastal zone waters,
including the effects of pollution and habitat destruction on marine
productivity, particularly stock recruitments, must be fully
investigated.

4 LEVELS OF ACTION

Protection of the marine environment can be considered at various
levels depending upon the nature of the problem. Climatic aspects
involve ocean and atmospheric interactions. Therefore, these aspects
as well as those linked to the long range atmospheric deposition of
contaminants such as POPs need to be considered at a global level. It
was considered that remaining marine issues should be tackled at the
lowest appropriate level. Iocal or regional, with all stakeholders
involved in the decision-making processes

Science is basically national and regional. But as science is by
definition universal, results and knowledge might be exported by one
region to another one and thus represent a global dimension.

There is also a need to have information networks to allow the
exchange of information, ideas, experiences and research findings
mainly between the local and regional levels and the global one.


5  THE IMPROVEMENT OF EXISTING MECHANISMS

Due to time constraints the panel did not discuss this issue to the
same degree as the other issues

However it was agreed that there is no need to establish another
international body to oversee the management of the marine
environment. lnstead it is essential to reorganise existing
institutional arrangements to ensure that these are fully effective,
more alive to operational priorities and with clear-cut
responsibilities for stakeholders.

As far as the intersectoral aspects of marine science are concerned,
the panel recognised GESAMP as the body which could undertake
co-ordination at the global level. There is the need for regular
reports on the quality of the marine environment to be conducted by
GESAMP. However there will be the need to revitalise the modus
operandi of GESAMP, to examine closely its membership (namely in terms
of experience, expertise and to ensure a better geographical spread)
and to audit its performance. However, the Panel noted that further
reviews and work were likely to require further resources or changes
in priorities for scientific groups.


PANEL 2 - Successful Policy Formulation   ANNEX C

I Papers presented to Panel 2 were:

- "Bringing Environment, Economic, Social and Scientific Considerations
together in Policy Formulation"
Ms A llett, Acting Director, Marine Strategy Section, Department of the
Environment. Sports and Territories, Australia

- "Achieving success in policy formulation: An NGO perspective"
Ms I Lutchman. World Wide Fund for Nature

Three questions were posed and the resulting deliberations are
summarised below.

2 How can scientific, technological, and economic and social
considerations best be integrated into decisions on oceanic and marine
environment issues, in particular to what degree to policy makers have
access to advice and what is the most effective means of delivering
such advice?

The discussion centred on such mechanisms as might be needed to
undertake the objectives set forth above

2.1 There was general consensus on the need for baseline scientific
information in order to identify and evaluate threats to the marine
environment. All sources of information should be accessed, including
those provided by naval and other armed services where their
technology might also be relevant to enforcement issues. In the
context of sources of information, it was felt that developing
countries would require assistance and technology and Wknow-how~
transfer. However, the need for furthering endogenous scientific and
technical expertise was underlined given the fact that national and
regional priorities for scientific research are often value oriented
and that developing countries should be enabled to develop appropriate
technologies in response to their needs and circumstances, including
the need to develop integrated management and policy strategies.
Moreover, the need to integrate socio-economic considerations in the
provision of advice was urged

2.2 Regarding the need for strategic frameworks that identify
sustainable development and conservation objectives, several views
were expressed. In general, however, there was consensus regarding the
fact that no new international institutions should be established.
However, given the plethora of existing institutions with relevant
responsibilities, the need was stressed for some form of mechanism to
crystallise political will and provide a high-level platform for
greater coordination between regional and global initiatives.
Provision should also be made for regular assessment of the state of
the ocean. In addition, such a framework would underline priorities
and mobilize financial resources. It was noted that sustainable ocean
management will not be achieved by a single institution. Some
participants stressed that it would be more productive to give
priority to the national implementation of obligations already
undertaken. Therefore, at the global level, attention should be given to how
governments might be supported in fulfilling existing commitments.

Some examples of integrated approaches to ocean problems were
indicated as possible models, including the Washington Global
Programme of Action, the International North Sea Conference, the Code
of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, the Coral Reef lnitiative and
the working approach in negotiating the UN Agreement on the
conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly
migratory fish stocks.

2.3 It was felt that UNCLOS provides a general legal framework for the
effective management of the oceans. Therefore, no further treaty
framework was considered necessary, but some process needs to be
developed that provides for a regular review and updating. Attention
was called to the fact that there is a need to provide for
coordination with other relevant international instruments such as CBD
and FCCC, and that several issues might need specific sectoral
instruments. The implementation of existing conventions was considered
a key to improving ocean management.

2.4 The need to clarify the conduits between initiatives and
programmes at the national, regional and international levels was
highlighted, although no consensus emerged as to the possible
definition of a hierarchy in this context. At national level, it was
noted that coastal and EEZ management imply a greater responsibility.
At the regional level, it was noted that the present framework relies
on regional implementation of the various initiatives. However, given
that many problems are global in nature, it was noted that not all
global interests coincide with regional interests, and that moreover,
a global perspective enables the harmonization of standards and
controls. Furthermore, a global approach provides for managing
maritime zones beyond national jurisdiction. It was recognized,
nonetheless, that priorities will be defined primarily at the national
and regional levels.

2.5 In relation to the formulation of national policies, the
participatory approach was widely recognized. However, it was pointed
out that the necessary consultation processes would be difficult to
replicate at the global level. Thus decision making needs to be
structured at the various appropriate levels. In particular, social
and economic considerations may be built into the process at the local
level, but there is difficulty in taking these into account of at the
global level. However, at the international level there is access to
scientific information which may be lacking locally

2.6 Consensus was reached regarding the need to ensure a holistic and
ecosystemic approach to ocean management issues. Similarly a
precautionary approach as accepted in the Rio Declaration, was deemed
essential. The importance of involving all relevant stakeholders was
underlined, given that participation at all levels leads to a sense of
ownership of both problems and solutions.

3 What are the topics on which global action is desirable to ensure
the best formulation o policies?

3.1 On the one hand, several issues were suggested that should be
incorporated into any comprehensive treatment of ocean issues. Among
these were biodiversity (particularly marine biodiversity), climate
change, pollution control, mariculture, ecosystem health, deep sea
living resources, untreated sewage and industrial effluents. shipping.
oil exploration and conflict resolution. On the other hand, it was suggested
that a more constructive approach might be lo identify criteria for selection
of relevant subjects, such as topics not covered by existing instruments,
that require intergovernmental coordination, or where external
negative impacts are felt on common resources. A matrix approach
setting out positive categories was also put forward. Finally, another
view stressed the need to determine which issues will be addressed at
a global level, noting that, given complexity of the issues, attempts
to address all simultaneously might impede effective action.

3.2 Conceptual issues that arose included the distinction between
global problems and ubiquitous but more local problems. There was
strong support for the view that certain ubiquitous problems merited
the development of a global approach or initiatives. Other problematic
areas included the off-shore industry.

3.3 The question of poverty alleviation was underlined as a global
issue.

3.4 Various participants argued for the need to address the impacts of
trade on the environment. The importance of the contribution of the
Committee of Trade and Environment to ensuring coherence between the
work of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the
World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the implementation of Agenda 21 was
noted. The issue of "harmful" subsidies was also addressed.

4 How can existing mechanisms be improved to ensure more effective
policy formulation on questions requiring global action?

4.1 It was suggested that the best approach to this question was to
identify a process. which could contain elements such as interagency
coordination, definition of common priorities and lacunae in the
system, as well as the identification of a relevant intergovernmental
forum.

4 2 Consensus was evident regarding the need for the provision of
scientific advice on a comprehensive basis, and it was noted that a
restructured and strengthened GESAMP might provide a possible solution
given that the existing system is characterized by information gaps
and overlaps in competence.

4.3 ln this context, several suggestions were put forward for
establishing a global framework and/or focal point. The need for a
regular high-level meeting was noted as well as for an ovecarching
framework that includes review of the implementation of existing
commitments. The integration of national and international systems
with regional organisations was also deemed important. Nonetheless, it
was also noted that the crucial issue is not the creation or
development of new frameworks, but the actual implementation of
existing commitments, which requires the establishment of an adequate
institutional infrastructure. It was noted that some issues need to be
settled locally.

4.4 Another suggestion was put forth regarding the need to continue
the process of analysis begun at this Workshop given the complexity of
the issues to be addressed and the evident lack of consensus and
clarity as to the best way forward. It was felt that this
"preparatory" process would contribute to elucidating the outstanding
issues.  

4.5  Possible frameworks suggested included the following:
     
- utilizing the Administrative Committee on Coordination (ACC) Sub-Committee
on Oceans and Coastal Areas as a focal point;

- focusing review of ocean management issues in the Commission on Sustainable
Development, with subsequent review by the ECOSOC and the Second Committee
of the UNGA, which already deals with socio economic considerations;

- establishment of joint assemblies of relevant existing international
organisations and/or rotation of review of implementation of relevant
ocean management issues among pertinent UN organisations;

- incorporation of a general debate on ocean management issues into the agenda
of the UNGA. by expanding the present agenda item of UNCLOS;

- implementation of the Global Programme of Action adopted in the Washington
Conference, given that it concerns issues and problems faced in the oceanic
arena, calls upon States to assess their action priorities, and provides for a
global clearing house mechanism, as well as for periodic intergovernmental
reviews.


PANEL 3 - Successful Policy Implementation                    ANNEX D 

I Papers presented to Panel 3 were:

- "Global arrangements for ensuring effective national and regional
implementation of ocean policies - do they exist?"
Dr G Kullenberg, Secretary. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission

- "Linking Science and Management; Implementation based on the lCES
Intergovernmental Model."
Professor C Hopkins, Secretary General, International Council for Exploration
of the Sea

The Panel reached consensus on the following points:

2  How can international mechanisms be improved to promote more
effective implementation? In particular, how would they help remove
the impediments to successful implementation of policies?

2.1 It was agreed that there is no need for a new international
organization to deal with oceans issues. Rather, the Panel favoured
strengthening existing institutions and improving coordination between
them.

2.2 One mean of strengthening policy formulation is to base decisions
on scientific information, within the context of the principle of the
precautionary approach. At the global level, the CSD could consider
the identification of important scientific questions with a view to
requesting GESAMP to consider and prepare a report on these questions.
GESAMP would deal with any such request, according to its usual
practice ie a group of experts with appropriate expertise in the
relevant fields would be formed to respond to the request. Il is
expected that in preparing a report for CSD, GESAMP would need to take
an interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral approach, including
consideration of the relevant work of FAO, SlDS, ICRI and that of the
Convention on Biological Diversity.

2.3 On a regional level, States could consider the strengthening of
scientific advisory capacities of existing regional institutions.
Experience in the North Atlantic and elsewhere has demonstrated some
key elements for such strengthening, including:

2.3.1 use of interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral approaches;

2.3.2 the separation of science from policy decision-making;

2.3.3 the use by multiple and regional decision-making bodies of a
single. integrated scientific advisory structure;

2.3.4 the important role of policy bodies in clearly formulating
questions for which answers are required for decision making.        

2 4 Both at the global and the regional Ievels, scientific
advisory bodies should. inter alia:

2.4.1 insure better understanding of ocean processes for use by
decision-makers;

2.4.2. preserve their independent, non-governmental nature;

2.4.3  identify major trends to permit assessments; and

2.4.4 identify the means to establish long-term monitoring so as to
provide for time series data and permit measurement of the
effectiveness of management programmes.

2.5 Once global priorities have been established, for example in the
context of the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the
Marine Environment from Land-Based Activities (herein after WGPA").
States should assure that decision-making by relevant international.
institutions is consistent with these priorities. A corollary of this
approach is the need for greater internal policy coordination at the
national Ievel.

2.6 With respect to the ability to formulate the necessary political
will to execute programmes related to the marine environment. States
should:

2.6.1 include representatives from finance and industry
ministries at international meetings;

2.6.2 involve multilateral lending institutions and UNDP;

2.6.3 broaden public participation and the involvement of the NGO
community so as to build public support for decisions;

2.6.4 broaden the scope of regional conventions and action plans
geographically, to include watersheds, with respect to social and
economic issues and the inclusion of all relevant economic sectors

2.7 The Panel agreed that there is value in periodic policy level
meetings on oceans issues, consistent with the call in Agenda 21. Preparation
for such meetings should include representatives of the secretariats of the
CSD and UN Division of Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea. Such meetings should
consider progress during the intervening periods, identification of next
steps and links to existing legal obligations, such as UNCLOS. The
meetings should occur every four years and be coordinated with consideration
of oceans issues in the CSD. Also at four year intervals, but offset with the
policy level meetings by two years, States should convene the Bureaus of
regional and global ocean-related conventions to assess progress and next
steps. ln addition, the Panel endorsed the recommendation of the GPA to hold
period meetings to assess progress.

2 8 It was agreed that States should support existing oceans-related
organizations through adequate provision of resources. Further, it was
suggested that regions consider the co-location of secretariat staffs
so as to provide the critical mass needed for effective programmes and
to improve coordination .

2.9 Once having been committed to legal obligations pursuant to
international conventions, States should ensure that they take steps
to implement these commitments.

2.10 States should make the difficult policy decisions to effect
sustainable development of oceans and coastal resources, with
particular emphasis on preventative actions. States should make a
long-term commitment to these policy decisions so as to mobilize the
required domestic resources and raise public awareness of the risks of
environmental destruction and the benefits of its protection.

2.11 When requested, UN oceans agencies should assist States in
assessing the effectiveness of national focal points established to
implement oceans programmes

2.12 Periodically, as appropriate, the attention of ministers should
be brought to oceans issues.

3 What global support (both in the sharing of knowledge and the
provision of resources) is desirable for effective national and
regional implementation of policies on ocean issues?

3.1 The Panel emphasized that actions should be taken at the lowest
appropriate administrative level, whether local, national or regional,
as reflected in the GPA. In this regard, there was also strong support
for the value of policy formulation at the regional level.

3.2 In support of local, national and regional actions, efforts should
be made at the global level to provide access to information on
techniques, funding and expertise. These actions should include
capacity building programmes especially for developing countries.

3.3 Where appropriate, for example with respect to shipping in all its
forms, actions should continue to be taken to maintain and improve
global structures and administrations, such as the IMO, to translate
the scientific and policy decisions into a form, which is easily
accessible to those it is required to influence

4 Are there lessons to be learned between different regions or common
management problems ?

4.1 The Panel agreed that there are certainly multiple opportunities
for exchange of information on what works" between regions. It was
pointed out that care must be taken in the application in one region
of successful ideas developed in another.One example, provided above,
is the application in other regions of the interrelationship between
ICES and policy decision-making bodies. Other examples should be
investigated.

4.2 In this regard, the Panel endorsed the focus on successful lessons
as contained in the clearing house proposal included in the GPA

Date last posted: 3 December 1999 10:25:35
Comments and suggestions: DESA/DSD