- Email: [email protected]
Whither the East Asian Seas?
Marine Pollution Bulletin
aforementioned examples of global issues, we are advised that ozone holes give rise to melting polar ice caps, and refrigerators which are not recycled lead to horrendous skin cancers. In these circumstances, despair is surely a close companion of the career environmental scientist. The remedy, however, is clear. We must be prepared to educate both the public and the politicians that they cannot become au fait with the more complex environmental issues overnight, any more than they can instantaneously become brain surgeons or astronauts. Environmental decisions of any importance must be based upon sound advice, from highly-qualified professionals. The onus is on the qualified environmental scientist to drive such decisions, and this implies not only a greater effort in the political arena per se, but also a higher profile at cocktail parties (which the voters attend). Unless this occurs, we risk a major credibility problem in the environmental arena, and all the gains, in Britain or elsewhere, will be lost. DAVID J. H. PHILLIPS
Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 21, No. 6, pp. 262-263, 1990. Printed in Great Britain.
0025-326X/90 $3.00+0.00 © 1990 Pergamon Press plc
Whither the East Asian Seas ? In 1981 the governments of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand adopted the Action Plan for the Protection and Development of the Marine and Coastal Areas of the East Asian Seas Region (EAS Action Plan). With that was born another regional seas programme under UNEP's Programme Activity Centre for Oceans and Coastal Areas or O C A / PAC (although in 1981 it was still the RS/PAC). Initially limited in membership to the five original members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the programme is theoretically open to future membership of the other littoral states in the southeast Asian region. Nearly a decade after its inception, the programme seems to be in the doldrums. Although focused on one particular area, the observations in this article may well apply to other regions as well, particularly in the developing world. Following the regional seas programme approach, the EAS programme started with six assessment type projects with the intention that activities would eventually shift towards management. The projects were farmed out to four of the five countries with the provision that each project involve participation of the others. In the early days of implementation, there was much enthusiasm although it was apparent that the financial resources available were limited. Nevertheless, after some start up difficulties, all six projects got underway. It soon became apparent, however, that national focal points had little appreciation for UNEP's procedures in project management. Implementation of projects faltered as individual countries tried to learn 262
the ropes of project accounting. The growing pains were further complicated by the forced transfer of O C A / PAC from Geneva to Nairobi barely two years after the start of the EAS programme. But through all this, one important factor became increasingly apparent. A champagne programme was being supported with a beer budget. The programme had limited success after half a decade of implementation as revealed in an evaluation report published in 1987 (UNEPReg. SeasRep. &ud. No. 86). Is the situation hopeless? Most definitely not. The region is not without its environmental scientists and a good deal of work on various aspects of marine environmental protection and management is going on. Refer, for example, to the special issue of Arnbio (Vol. 17, No. 3, 1988) on the East Asian Seas. The problem appears to be focused on the lack of adequate integration of effort and the insufficiency of funding for the EAS programme. The EAS programme is funded from two sources: UNEP's Environment Fund and the EAS Trust Fund set up by the five countries. It was clear from the inception of the programme that funding from the UN System was to be at the initial stages, i.e. it was meant to be catalytic and diminishing with time. The government representatives to the managing body (Coordinating Body on the Seas of East Asia, or C O B S E A ) may have failed to grasp and appreciate this. It was impressed on them time and again that their contributions to the Trust Fund must increase with time. In all the years that that fund has existed, it was increased only once by 10% so that it now stands at less than SI00 000 per year. The U N E P Environment Fund more than generously matched whatever contributions the governments made. However, U N E P has apparently reached a point of exasperation, waiting for a pledge from the governments to make a significant increase in their contributions. It has been giving signals that its support to the programme may diminish considerably in the near future. Government representatives have not been happy with this. Instead, they have asked U N E P to increase its support, perhaps not realizing that U N E P is not a funding organization. They have also asked U N E P to source funds for them from third parties. For one reason or another, U N E P has not been able to do this although some attempts were made. The question is, have the governments themselves taken any concrete steps in this direction? The answer seems to be mainly in the negative. Certainly, not as COBSEA. One wonders whether the environmental agencies in the region are ready to take on marine environmental problems in a big way. Indications are to the contrary. Aside from the above, it will be noted that concern for the environment in general in the region is many rungs below concerns for economic development, poverty alleviation and population issues, security, and other priorities. When it comes to environmental concerns, the orientation of the officials is terrestrial. Is it therefore any wonder that the EAS Trust Fund has stagnated ? Even as the environmental bureaux are looking for a
Volume 2 l/'Number 6/June 1990
scapegoat, they become green faced when they see the relative success of ASEAN marine science programmes under the aegis of the science bureaux. They would do well to emulate this approach of seeking substantial funding from donor countries. The irony is that in some countries these well-funded projects are being implemented by other than the environmental bureaux although some of the activities could fall naturally
UK Attacked Again Over
Dumping The UK came under attack at the North Sea Conference held in the Hague on 7-8 March for slowing progress towards more strict pollution controls in the North Sea. The stronger criticism came from the German Environment Minister, Klaus Toepfer, who accused the British of dragging their feet over the question of dumping sewage sludge and industrial waste in the North Sea. He was joined by both environmental lobby groups and other North Sea states in condemning the UK decision to continue singlehandedly dumping waste into the North Sea until well into the 1990s. The nine countries represented at the Hague,
under their purview. Besides the new approach in funding, is there need for a new approach in management'.) A start can be made by not barking up the wrong tree. Indeed, UNEP's role needs to be better appreciated• UNEP should be viewed as an ally rather than as an adversary. Only then can the EAS programme really move ahead• E D G A R D O D. G O M E Z
Belgium, Britain, Denmark, France, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and West Germany did, however, agree to halve the 1985 discharge levels of 37 chemicals into the North Sea either directly or through river discharge by 1995. It was also decided to cut the discharge of more dangerous heavy metals such as cadmium, mercury, and lead and also dioxins by at least 70% by the same date. The problem of eutrophication was also discussed. Eutrophication results from the relationship between nutrient enrichment of the sea and algal blooms. It was agreed that the discharge of nutrients such as phosphates, present in many domestic detergents, and nitrates should be cut by at least 50% in sensitive areas• This could be achieved by encouraging the construction of new sewage works to include equipment for the biological processing of phosphates and nitrates. The use of nutrients as fertilizers in agriculture also came under scrutiny (see Mar. Pollur Bull. 21, 219).
• =a-.*;,. - -
•
~
"
"~='~ .
.
.
.
;~.4.,i ....
;
....
INTERIVATIONAL CONFERENCE oh/
I A,IARIN
,1 U; >., ;/t
PO t,t.,(.rllON )~,
%-- ~
~/'C7 , .:*g (~ ./ , ";~ {
:.:~
i
"You could say a dark cloud looms over the entire proceedings, acid comments are raining everywhere, and the general atmosphere is contaminated by crass ignorance and bloody mindedness."
263
aforementioned examples of global issues, we are advised that ozone holes give rise to melting polar ice caps, and refrigerators which are not recycled lead to horrendous skin cancers. In these circumstances, despair is surely a close companion of the career environmental scientist. The remedy, however, is clear. We must be prepared to educate both the public and the politicians that they cannot become au fait with the more complex environmental issues overnight, any more than they can instantaneously become brain surgeons or astronauts. Environmental decisions of any importance must be based upon sound advice, from highly-qualified professionals. The onus is on the qualified environmental scientist to drive such decisions, and this implies not only a greater effort in the political arena per se, but also a higher profile at cocktail parties (which the voters attend). Unless this occurs, we risk a major credibility problem in the environmental arena, and all the gains, in Britain or elsewhere, will be lost. DAVID J. H. PHILLIPS
Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 21, No. 6, pp. 262-263, 1990. Printed in Great Britain.
0025-326X/90 $3.00+0.00 © 1990 Pergamon Press plc
Whither the East Asian Seas ? In 1981 the governments of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand adopted the Action Plan for the Protection and Development of the Marine and Coastal Areas of the East Asian Seas Region (EAS Action Plan). With that was born another regional seas programme under UNEP's Programme Activity Centre for Oceans and Coastal Areas or O C A / PAC (although in 1981 it was still the RS/PAC). Initially limited in membership to the five original members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the programme is theoretically open to future membership of the other littoral states in the southeast Asian region. Nearly a decade after its inception, the programme seems to be in the doldrums. Although focused on one particular area, the observations in this article may well apply to other regions as well, particularly in the developing world. Following the regional seas programme approach, the EAS programme started with six assessment type projects with the intention that activities would eventually shift towards management. The projects were farmed out to four of the five countries with the provision that each project involve participation of the others. In the early days of implementation, there was much enthusiasm although it was apparent that the financial resources available were limited. Nevertheless, after some start up difficulties, all six projects got underway. It soon became apparent, however, that national focal points had little appreciation for UNEP's procedures in project management. Implementation of projects faltered as individual countries tried to learn 262
the ropes of project accounting. The growing pains were further complicated by the forced transfer of O C A / PAC from Geneva to Nairobi barely two years after the start of the EAS programme. But through all this, one important factor became increasingly apparent. A champagne programme was being supported with a beer budget. The programme had limited success after half a decade of implementation as revealed in an evaluation report published in 1987 (UNEPReg. SeasRep. &ud. No. 86). Is the situation hopeless? Most definitely not. The region is not without its environmental scientists and a good deal of work on various aspects of marine environmental protection and management is going on. Refer, for example, to the special issue of Arnbio (Vol. 17, No. 3, 1988) on the East Asian Seas. The problem appears to be focused on the lack of adequate integration of effort and the insufficiency of funding for the EAS programme. The EAS programme is funded from two sources: UNEP's Environment Fund and the EAS Trust Fund set up by the five countries. It was clear from the inception of the programme that funding from the UN System was to be at the initial stages, i.e. it was meant to be catalytic and diminishing with time. The government representatives to the managing body (Coordinating Body on the Seas of East Asia, or C O B S E A ) may have failed to grasp and appreciate this. It was impressed on them time and again that their contributions to the Trust Fund must increase with time. In all the years that that fund has existed, it was increased only once by 10% so that it now stands at less than SI00 000 per year. The U N E P Environment Fund more than generously matched whatever contributions the governments made. However, U N E P has apparently reached a point of exasperation, waiting for a pledge from the governments to make a significant increase in their contributions. It has been giving signals that its support to the programme may diminish considerably in the near future. Government representatives have not been happy with this. Instead, they have asked U N E P to increase its support, perhaps not realizing that U N E P is not a funding organization. They have also asked U N E P to source funds for them from third parties. For one reason or another, U N E P has not been able to do this although some attempts were made. The question is, have the governments themselves taken any concrete steps in this direction? The answer seems to be mainly in the negative. Certainly, not as COBSEA. One wonders whether the environmental agencies in the region are ready to take on marine environmental problems in a big way. Indications are to the contrary. Aside from the above, it will be noted that concern for the environment in general in the region is many rungs below concerns for economic development, poverty alleviation and population issues, security, and other priorities. When it comes to environmental concerns, the orientation of the officials is terrestrial. Is it therefore any wonder that the EAS Trust Fund has stagnated ? Even as the environmental bureaux are looking for a
Volume 2 l/'Number 6/June 1990
scapegoat, they become green faced when they see the relative success of ASEAN marine science programmes under the aegis of the science bureaux. They would do well to emulate this approach of seeking substantial funding from donor countries. The irony is that in some countries these well-funded projects are being implemented by other than the environmental bureaux although some of the activities could fall naturally
UK Attacked Again Over
Dumping The UK came under attack at the North Sea Conference held in the Hague on 7-8 March for slowing progress towards more strict pollution controls in the North Sea. The stronger criticism came from the German Environment Minister, Klaus Toepfer, who accused the British of dragging their feet over the question of dumping sewage sludge and industrial waste in the North Sea. He was joined by both environmental lobby groups and other North Sea states in condemning the UK decision to continue singlehandedly dumping waste into the North Sea until well into the 1990s. The nine countries represented at the Hague,
under their purview. Besides the new approach in funding, is there need for a new approach in management'.) A start can be made by not barking up the wrong tree. Indeed, UNEP's role needs to be better appreciated• UNEP should be viewed as an ally rather than as an adversary. Only then can the EAS programme really move ahead• E D G A R D O D. G O M E Z
Belgium, Britain, Denmark, France, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and West Germany did, however, agree to halve the 1985 discharge levels of 37 chemicals into the North Sea either directly or through river discharge by 1995. It was also decided to cut the discharge of more dangerous heavy metals such as cadmium, mercury, and lead and also dioxins by at least 70% by the same date. The problem of eutrophication was also discussed. Eutrophication results from the relationship between nutrient enrichment of the sea and algal blooms. It was agreed that the discharge of nutrients such as phosphates, present in many domestic detergents, and nitrates should be cut by at least 50% in sensitive areas• This could be achieved by encouraging the construction of new sewage works to include equipment for the biological processing of phosphates and nitrates. The use of nutrients as fertilizers in agriculture also came under scrutiny (see Mar. Pollur Bull. 21, 219).
• =a-.*;,. - -
•
~
"
"~='~ .
.
.
.
;~.4.,i ....
;
....
INTERIVATIONAL CONFERENCE oh/
I A,IARIN
,1 U; >., ;/t
PO t,t.,(.rllON )~,
%-- ~
~/'C7 , .:*g (~ ./ , ";~ {
:.:~
i
"You could say a dark cloud looms over the entire proceedings, acid comments are raining everywhere, and the general atmosphere is contaminated by crass ignorance and bloody mindedness."
263