- Email: [email protected]
UNEP's Regional Seas Programme and the UNCED future: Apres Rio
Ocean & Coastal Management 18 (1992) 101-111
UNEP's Regional Seas Programme and the UNCED Future: Apres Rio Peter C. Schr6der Director, Oceans and Coastal Areas Programme. ActivityCentre, United Nations EnvironmentProgramme,Nairobi, Kenya INTRODUCTION The Regional Seas Programme of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) was established in 1974.~ It is operated by UNEP's Oceans and Coastal Areas Programme Activity Centre (OCA/PAC), headquartered in Nairobi, Kenya. The Regional Seas Programme presently encompasses 13 regional seas world-wide, with some 140 coastal countries and island states and territories participating.
THE PAST The establishment of the Regional Seas Programme followed the adoption by the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, Sweden, in June of 1972 of an action plan, 2 the decision by the United Nations General Assembly to have UNEP 'serve as the focal point for environmental action and coordination within the United Nations system', a and a subsequent decision by UNEP's Governing Council at its first session4 to choose oceans as one of seven priority areas in which it would focus its efforts to fulfill its catalytic and coordinating role. The Regional Seas Programme has always been recognized as a global program implemented through regional components. Cooperation among the various regions was always regarded as an important element. When the Regional Seas Programme was created in 1974, the major concerns for the oceans were trans-boundary pollution, ocean dumping, conservation, and scientific research. 5 They have been the main concerns until fairly recently. More recently increasing pollution caused 101
102
Peter C. Schr6der
by human activities in the coastal areas and the resulting degradation of the marine environment, has become the focal issue. In the past eighteen years OCA/PAC's strategy has been to encourage the countries in a region to become signatories to a legally binding convention, including appropriate protocols, while nudging them toward an action plan, based on priorities as identified by the governments in the region. The action plan almost invariably consisted of: --Environmental assessment: This concerned the assessment and evaluation of the causes of enviroilmental problems, as well as their magnitude and impact on the region. Emphasis was given to baseline studies, research and monitoring. --Environmental management: Each regional program included a wide range of activities in the field of environmental management, such as cooperative regional projects on environmental impact assessment, management of coastal lagoons, estuaries, and mangrove ecosystems, as well as control of industrial, agricultural, and domestic waste, and the formulation of contingency plans for pollution emergencies. --Environmental legislation: An umbrella regional convention, elaborated by specific technical protocols, most often provided the legal framework for cooperative regional and national action. It was reasoned that the legal commitment of the governments expressed their political will to manage individually and jointly their environmental problems. --Institutional arrangements: When adopting an action plan, governments would agree upon an organization to act as the permanent or interim secretariat of the regional action plan. Governments were also expected to decide on the periodicity of intergovernmental meetings which were responsible for reviewing the progress of the agreed workplan, and for approving new activities and the necessary budgetary support. --Financial arrangements: UNEP, together with selected United Nations and other organizations, provided 'seed money' or catalytic financing in the early stages of the regional programs. However, as the program developed, it was expected that the governments of the region would progressively assume full financial responsibility. THE PRESENT It is immensely satisfying to be responsible for the Regional Seas Programme, which is often referred to as the pearl in UNEP's crown,
UNEP's regional seas programme and the UNCED future: apres Rio
103
but it is equally worrisome to know that the program needs restructuring, refocusing and reinforcement to meet the challenges of the future. They differ from the ones perceived as relevant during the past two decades, and even a few years ago. Almost twenty years after the Stockholm conference, it is found that the health of the oceans has not significantly deteriorated; that by and large monitoring and assessments have not always yielded results of immediate practical value to decision makers; that environmental management has been mainly that in name only, and has been mainly focused on the 'downstream' effects; that regional conventions have rarely led to the desired amendments in national legislation, let alone regulatory enforcement; that regional institutional arrangements leave a great deal to be desired; and that financial arrangements are, at best, inadequate to do what needs to be done. Although there are, of course, exceptions to the above generalizations, the thrust of it is certainly true. This is cause for serious concern in the light of the fact that at present three and a half billion people, or two-thirds of the world population, live within some eighty kilometers of the world's coastlines, and that in less than thirty years from now that number will have grown to seven billion. It requires little imagination to visualize the magnitude of development activities that will inevitably accompany this population growth and, since population densities are not evenly spread along the world's coastlines, the high-density population areas will suffer first and most. It can be said confidently that if, by the year 2020, these densely populated coastal areas of the world have not been brought under proper management, many of t h e m D i n an environmental sense at leastDwill have passed the point of no return. And, if we were to look back at that particular point in time, it would not require 20/20 vision to see that we have failed today to recognize the challenge ahead. There is another sicle of the coin and another worry. It concerns the Regional Seas Programme which came into being to cause the problems of oceans and coastal areas to be resolved through catalytic and coordinative activities. Given the shortcomings of the existing program, it is evident that the program is not as effective as it should be, which is the reason that it needs to be restructured, refocused, and reinforced. Nonetheless, and in spite of its weaknesses, the Regional Seas Programme has created a functional and functioning regional structure world-wide. In fact, the program is rather unique in this respect, as it is the only UN program with a clear regional structure and scope, covering all populated marine coasts of the world, with the exception of the North Sea, the Baltic, and the polar seas. This is an extremely
104
Peter C. Schrrder
attractive feature of the program for other UN agencies and organizations with world-wide ambitions in the oceans' realm. In fact, in 1988 there were 17 major organizational units of the United Nations system and 11 specialized agencies undertaking distinct marine affairs activities. 6 Indeed, it is reasonable to suggest that if the UN system operated as the business world does, OCA/PAC at its present low strength, would be an easy target for a take-over by anyone of these UN organizations or agencies. The structure of the United Nations system would prevent this from happening under normal circumstances. However, with the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) looming ahead in June of 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, circumstances are not exactly normal.
THE FUTURE One of the main features of UNCED in 1992 is Agenda 21. Chapter 10, Section III, Part Three of the draft of Agenda 21 refers to 'Protection of oceans, all kinds of seas including enclosed and semi-enclosed seas, coastal areas and the protection, rational use and development of their living resources. 7 This draft of Agenda 21, after stating in its introduction that oceans and coastal areas form an integrated whole and are a positive asset presenting opportunities for sustainable development. It also asserts that 'the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides the international framework within which to pursue the protection and sustainable development of the marine environment and its resources', and this requires 'new approaches to ocean and coastal area management and development at the national, regional and international levels'. It does not require bold imagination to recognize that such new approaches will be especially applicable to the Regional Seas Programme. Indeed, the Agenda 21 draft sets out specific objectives to be attained with these new approaches, and they present a formidable challenge to the Regional Seas Programme. The draft states for instance, that: --by 1994 guidelines for agreement should be reached on integrated coastal zone management and development
UNEP's regional seas programme and the UNCED future: apres Rio
105
---by the year 1996 new arrangements should be introduced in regional bodies to ensure effective coordination in the fields of environmental protection, marine resource utilization and development with due regards to the needs of the population ----by the year 2000 integrated planning, management, and development processes should be established at the national, regional, and global level --and all this at the cost of US$85 billion spread over the seven years between 1993-2000.
Specificially on a regional level, the Agenda 21 draft states that in terms of capacity building, existing capabilities, facilities and needs for human resources development, scientific and technological infrastructure required, and potential for expansion in regional marine and coastal areas, the research, training, management and technologies should be identified. Secondly, regional centers should be established capable of assisting countries in analyzing information and assessing the principal marine environmental problems, in reinforcing surveillance and in implementing environmental impact assessment and monitoring programs with predictive capabilities. In a special chapter entitled 'Strengthening international, including regional cooperation and coordination', the draft sets out the opportunities within the UN system to create regular intergovernmental reviews and consideration of environment and development with respect to oceans and coastal areas as a whole, as well as agreed principles, strategy and standards. Under the activities required to accomplish this, the draft refers to the need to strengthen coordination and improved relationships among international organizations with major ocean responsibilities (UNEP, UNESCO, IOC, WMO, IMO, FAO, IAEA, UN OALOS, etc.), including their regional components. The strengthening and coordination with other UN organizations, institutions and specialized agencies dealing with development, trade and other related economic issues is also called for, as well as better coordination of international and regional coastal and marine programs. From the foregoing it is perfectly evident that an existing functional and functioning regional structure such as the Regional Sea Programme, would provide an eminently suited vehicle for carrying out the relevant oceans and coastal items on Agenda 21, provided, of course, that it has the capacity to do so. It is assumed here that it is more
106
Peter C. Schri~der
efficient to utilize an existing regional structure than to create one or more new ones. The capacity to do so lies essentially in two areas, namely by increasing (a) the intrinsic strength and (b) the coordinative efficacy of UNEP's Regional Seas Programme. This statement bears analyzing. The essential mandate of the Oceans and Coastal Areas Activity Centre ( O C A / P A C ) is to catalyze and coordinate. Catalyzation and coordination are fundamentally management functions. In the past, the emphasis in O C A / P A C professional staff selection has been more on scientific expertise than on managerial ability. This has skewed the staff composition heavily toward ecology, biology, and oceanography. There has been, of late, no argument that, to address the multitude of problems in the coastal areas and near-shore waters, comprehensive, integrated coastal zone management is required. Thus, to meet the challenge of the very near future, in which environment and development will be indispensable adjuncts of each other, staff composition needs to be broadened to cover the multi-disciplinary requirements of such comprehensive, integrated coastal zone management. Staff should include resource economists, coastal engineers or morphologists, hydrologists, physical geographers, management and computer specialists as a minimum, as well as the aforementioned expertise. This broad spread of disciplines will permit O C A / P A C to communicate in 'the same language' not only with the environmental sector, but also with the development sector. The importance of this communication cannot be overemphasized. In the past the focus of communication has been with, for instance, Ministries or Departments of Environment. In the very near future O C A / P A C needs to communicate effectively with Ministries or Departments of Planning and Development, Public Works, Industry, Agriculture, etc. That this is required, stems from the simple truth that much of the environmental problems occurring in the coastal areas and near-shore waters are caused 'upstream'. 'Downstream' protective measures, valuable as they may be, will no more suffice. The need is f o r ' a great deal more of anticipatory, pro-active and pre-emptive measures rather than the somewhat traditional reactive approach. Although many of the scientific staff of O C A / P A C have become more or less adept in dealing with management issues, the need at present is for a wider spectrum of disciplines, made up of generalists with a good scientific background and managerial talent. The more general level of expertise within O C A / P A C will then, as a
UNEP's regional seas programme and the UNCED future: apres Rio
107
second prerequisite, require scientific backstopping at the highest, best available level. To provide OCA/PAC with this, plans are being developed to create a consortium of top-level non-profit institutions of recognized international reputation which, between them, could support OCA/PAC with the specialist expertise needed to cover all components of comprehensive, integrated coastal zone management in all climates of the world. These components range from pure nature conservation, to structural engineering, and would include legal, social, economic, and other aspects encountered in proper management of coastal areas. The distinct advantage of such a consortium would be that not only will the required expert advice be readily accessible, but also that top experts can be readily drawn into the Regional Seas Programme activities from the institutions in the consortium, and, equally important, that through the consortium a large pool of well-qualified Third World counterparts will become available. A similar arrangement is necessary to access the expertise available in and through the other entities in the United Nations family of agencies and organizations. The recent experience of superb cooperation--coordinated by OCA/PACmbetween more than a dozen of the main UN agencies and organizations in the rehabilitation effort in the Gulf was and is not only unique in UN history, it also showed the strength and effectiveness of such UN inter-agency cooperation. This arrangement has already been a topic of discussion among the UN agencies involved in the Gulf rehabilitation effort. Another necessity is to access adequate financing. With the closer cooperation of The World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and UNEP in the tripartite Global Environment Facility, cooperation at the level of OCA/PAC's Regional Seas Programme has become a reality. Not only is there at present close cooperation in the Regional Seas Programmes for the Mediterranean, the Black Sea, The Gulf of Aqaba, the Red Sea, and the Persian Gulf, tripartite discussions are at present being held between OCA/PAC and the relevant units of The World Bank and UNDP on further expansion of this cooperation. Through this cooperation two important aspects are being addressed. Closer cooperation with UNDP greatly facilitates access to the 'upstream' Ministries and Departments of Planning and Development and other non-environmental national government bodies. And, closer cooperation with The World Bank significantly facilitates involvement in the environmental components of large investment-worthy projects requiring considerable funding. On the other hand, the environmental
108
Peter C. SchrOder
expertise offered The World Bank and UNDP through UNEP's OCA/PAC, fills a recognized need which receives increasing emphasis. The overall advantage of the configuration as described above, lies in the benefits which will be derived especially by the developing countries. As the confidence and trust in the quality and efficacy of the performance of OCA/PAC's Regional Seas Programme increases, so does the resolution of burning priority issues in the vitally important coastal areas. This is true particularly since in the developing world, at present, activities of development partners proliferate at a seemingly ever increasing rate. Thus far, little effort has been made to prevent overlap, if not duplication, in terms of effort and financing. To prevent this from happening, regional coordinating units, or RCUs as they are called in OCA/PAC's Regional Seas Programme, would serve an extremely useful and essential function. Not all of OCA/PCA's regional seas have a RCU as yet. Every effort is currently made to establish RCUs at an accelerated pace, with the intent that they would, in the shortest possible time, be fully staffed by qualified personnel drawn from countries of the region. Both the selection and training of the RCU staffs, as well as their operational effectiveness will be enormously enhanced once the above described cooperative configuration becomes full reality. Another aspect of having a full complement of RCUs is that through them a world-wide compatible multi-disciplinary data-base, such as is being used in the UN rehabilitation effort in the Gulf, can be operated. Such a data-system would enormously enhance the global exchange of salient data and information on coastal areas. Let us assume for a momemt that the restructuring, refocusing and reinforcement of OCA/PAC's Regional Seas Programme is achieved, and that the cooperative configuration mentioned above becomes a reality. Then---one would expect--the items pertaining to oceans on Agenda 21 could be dealt with in an effective manner. Or could they? Could the objectives referred to above, to be reached by 1994, 1996, and the year 2000, indeed be reached. For example, will it be possible in the few years remaining, to unravel the jumble of existing jurisdictions in many coastal areas, ranging from village-related traditional rights to national laws and regional and global conventions, and ---establish a high-level planning body or a national co-ordinating mechanism for integrated coastal and EEZ management involving governmental, academic and private sectors and the local populations, responsible for:
UNEP's regional seas programme and the UNCED future: apres Rio
109
--appropriate policy and legal framework for regulating access and rates of use, promoting environmentally sound technology and sustainable practices, excluding the harmful ones, making environmental impact assessment mandatory, and establishing liability and compensation provisions; [and] --management systems using economic instruments, including accounting systems for coastal resources, allocation schemes establishing explicit user's rights and fees, and shifting investments from overcapitalized activities to environmentally safe uses, habitat rehabilitation, infrastructure adaptation and alternative employment. To list only two out of two dozen or more equally demanding activities coastal states should undertake under the chapter heading Management. Under the chapter headings Biological diversity and productivity, Data and information, Human resources development, Capacity building, etc., more than fifty demanding 'should do's' of considerable complexity for countries (or island states) are provided in considerable detail. For example, countries should: --preserve biological diversity and productivity ---increase their capacity to collect and use information for prior assessment of adverse environmental impacts of major governmental and private policies, programs and projects affecting the coastal and EEZ environment -----create an interministerial mechanism for policy-making and long term planning on EEZ and coastal areas ---rationalize and/or coordinate sectoral programs and restructure/simplify governmental institutions responsible for development and protection of coastal areas, EEZs and marine ecosystems ---establish advisory bodies for broad consultation on coastal issues with local administrations, the business community, the academic sector, user groups and the general public --progressively introduce or strengthen systems of land and sea tenure, regulating access, user's fights and rates of use ---develop a concerted approach to land-based activities damaging the marine environment --establish regional and national action plans --adopt precautionary approaches to development and management --building and maintaining sewage treatment facilities in accordance with national policies -----control entry of non-domestic effluent containing contaminants
110
Peter C. Schriider
-----enforce discharge provisions of the marine pollution conventions for ships through port state control and aerial surveillance -----establish port facilities for the collection and disposal of waste oil, chemical residues and garbage ---develop oil and chemical spill contingency plans at local, national and regional levels ----establish a regional network of oil/chemical response centers ---provide training for marine scientists, marine laboratory technicians and hydrographic surveyors, at national and regional levels ---develop and manage high seas fisheries through ecosystem, multispecies approaches, incorporating environmental factors and ecologically sound practices consistent with the best available scientific information --keep or restore fish populations at the level at which recruitment ensures greatest net annual increment. -----effectively monitor and control fishing activity of national vessels and crews --assess high seas resource potentials, inventory all stocks, and establish optimal fishing regimes --adopt special measures to cope with potential climate change and sea-level rise ---strengthen or establish National Oceanographic Commissions ---strengthen existing intergovernmental regional co-operation, particularly the Regional Seas Programme of UNEP to harmonize policies and integrate cooperative activities With the exception of the last one of these examples, this is not to say that the coastal states should not strive to accomplish all this, by themselves and with the support and advice of international and regional organizations, as the Agenda 21 draft indicates. The complex ramifications of the above examples certainly justify doubt that these objectives can be reached within the time-frame suggested. The case that is being made here, is that: (a) by themselves most of the coastal states will not be able to meet the Agenda 21 deadlines, and (b) with the international and regional organizations they may-provided such organizations themselves restructure, refocus, and reinforce their intrinsic and cooperative strength. It is this exercise that OCA/PAC has embarked on to meet the challenges of the very near and the further distant future. Not by itself, but by offering its existing and functioning regional structure as a vehicle, strengthened by the cooperative configuration described above. To achieve this, much needs to be done in the remaining few months
UNEP's regional seas programme and the UNCED future: apres Rio
111
until U N C E D in Rio in June 1992. It will require bold imagination, a cooperative spirit, and recognition that unless collective and wellcoordinated action is forthcoming, the very areas where most of the world's population dwells will b e c o m e dismal evidence of our lack of foresight. A n d what is more, it will show future generations how little we really cared for the quality of their lives.
REFERENCES 1. UNEP. Report of the Governing Council on the work of its second session. 1974. 2. Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. 1972. 3. UN General Assembly resolution 2997 (XXVII), 15 December 1972. 4. UNEP. Report of the Governing Council on the work of its first session. 1973. 5. ibid. 6. UN/ECOSOC. Cross-organizational programme analysis of the activities of the United Nations system in marine affairs. Report of the Secretary General (E/AC.51/1983)/2). 1983. 7. UNCED. Revised options for Agenda 21, draft 6. 1991.
UNEP's Regional Seas Programme and the UNCED Future: Apres Rio Peter C. Schr6der Director, Oceans and Coastal Areas Programme. ActivityCentre, United Nations EnvironmentProgramme,Nairobi, Kenya INTRODUCTION The Regional Seas Programme of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) was established in 1974.~ It is operated by UNEP's Oceans and Coastal Areas Programme Activity Centre (OCA/PAC), headquartered in Nairobi, Kenya. The Regional Seas Programme presently encompasses 13 regional seas world-wide, with some 140 coastal countries and island states and territories participating.
THE PAST The establishment of the Regional Seas Programme followed the adoption by the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, Sweden, in June of 1972 of an action plan, 2 the decision by the United Nations General Assembly to have UNEP 'serve as the focal point for environmental action and coordination within the United Nations system', a and a subsequent decision by UNEP's Governing Council at its first session4 to choose oceans as one of seven priority areas in which it would focus its efforts to fulfill its catalytic and coordinating role. The Regional Seas Programme has always been recognized as a global program implemented through regional components. Cooperation among the various regions was always regarded as an important element. When the Regional Seas Programme was created in 1974, the major concerns for the oceans were trans-boundary pollution, ocean dumping, conservation, and scientific research. 5 They have been the main concerns until fairly recently. More recently increasing pollution caused 101
102
Peter C. Schr6der
by human activities in the coastal areas and the resulting degradation of the marine environment, has become the focal issue. In the past eighteen years OCA/PAC's strategy has been to encourage the countries in a region to become signatories to a legally binding convention, including appropriate protocols, while nudging them toward an action plan, based on priorities as identified by the governments in the region. The action plan almost invariably consisted of: --Environmental assessment: This concerned the assessment and evaluation of the causes of enviroilmental problems, as well as their magnitude and impact on the region. Emphasis was given to baseline studies, research and monitoring. --Environmental management: Each regional program included a wide range of activities in the field of environmental management, such as cooperative regional projects on environmental impact assessment, management of coastal lagoons, estuaries, and mangrove ecosystems, as well as control of industrial, agricultural, and domestic waste, and the formulation of contingency plans for pollution emergencies. --Environmental legislation: An umbrella regional convention, elaborated by specific technical protocols, most often provided the legal framework for cooperative regional and national action. It was reasoned that the legal commitment of the governments expressed their political will to manage individually and jointly their environmental problems. --Institutional arrangements: When adopting an action plan, governments would agree upon an organization to act as the permanent or interim secretariat of the regional action plan. Governments were also expected to decide on the periodicity of intergovernmental meetings which were responsible for reviewing the progress of the agreed workplan, and for approving new activities and the necessary budgetary support. --Financial arrangements: UNEP, together with selected United Nations and other organizations, provided 'seed money' or catalytic financing in the early stages of the regional programs. However, as the program developed, it was expected that the governments of the region would progressively assume full financial responsibility. THE PRESENT It is immensely satisfying to be responsible for the Regional Seas Programme, which is often referred to as the pearl in UNEP's crown,
UNEP's regional seas programme and the UNCED future: apres Rio
103
but it is equally worrisome to know that the program needs restructuring, refocusing and reinforcement to meet the challenges of the future. They differ from the ones perceived as relevant during the past two decades, and even a few years ago. Almost twenty years after the Stockholm conference, it is found that the health of the oceans has not significantly deteriorated; that by and large monitoring and assessments have not always yielded results of immediate practical value to decision makers; that environmental management has been mainly that in name only, and has been mainly focused on the 'downstream' effects; that regional conventions have rarely led to the desired amendments in national legislation, let alone regulatory enforcement; that regional institutional arrangements leave a great deal to be desired; and that financial arrangements are, at best, inadequate to do what needs to be done. Although there are, of course, exceptions to the above generalizations, the thrust of it is certainly true. This is cause for serious concern in the light of the fact that at present three and a half billion people, or two-thirds of the world population, live within some eighty kilometers of the world's coastlines, and that in less than thirty years from now that number will have grown to seven billion. It requires little imagination to visualize the magnitude of development activities that will inevitably accompany this population growth and, since population densities are not evenly spread along the world's coastlines, the high-density population areas will suffer first and most. It can be said confidently that if, by the year 2020, these densely populated coastal areas of the world have not been brought under proper management, many of t h e m D i n an environmental sense at leastDwill have passed the point of no return. And, if we were to look back at that particular point in time, it would not require 20/20 vision to see that we have failed today to recognize the challenge ahead. There is another sicle of the coin and another worry. It concerns the Regional Seas Programme which came into being to cause the problems of oceans and coastal areas to be resolved through catalytic and coordinative activities. Given the shortcomings of the existing program, it is evident that the program is not as effective as it should be, which is the reason that it needs to be restructured, refocused, and reinforced. Nonetheless, and in spite of its weaknesses, the Regional Seas Programme has created a functional and functioning regional structure world-wide. In fact, the program is rather unique in this respect, as it is the only UN program with a clear regional structure and scope, covering all populated marine coasts of the world, with the exception of the North Sea, the Baltic, and the polar seas. This is an extremely
104
Peter C. Schrrder
attractive feature of the program for other UN agencies and organizations with world-wide ambitions in the oceans' realm. In fact, in 1988 there were 17 major organizational units of the United Nations system and 11 specialized agencies undertaking distinct marine affairs activities. 6 Indeed, it is reasonable to suggest that if the UN system operated as the business world does, OCA/PAC at its present low strength, would be an easy target for a take-over by anyone of these UN organizations or agencies. The structure of the United Nations system would prevent this from happening under normal circumstances. However, with the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) looming ahead in June of 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, circumstances are not exactly normal.
THE FUTURE One of the main features of UNCED in 1992 is Agenda 21. Chapter 10, Section III, Part Three of the draft of Agenda 21 refers to 'Protection of oceans, all kinds of seas including enclosed and semi-enclosed seas, coastal areas and the protection, rational use and development of their living resources. 7 This draft of Agenda 21, after stating in its introduction that oceans and coastal areas form an integrated whole and are a positive asset presenting opportunities for sustainable development. It also asserts that 'the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides the international framework within which to pursue the protection and sustainable development of the marine environment and its resources', and this requires 'new approaches to ocean and coastal area management and development at the national, regional and international levels'. It does not require bold imagination to recognize that such new approaches will be especially applicable to the Regional Seas Programme. Indeed, the Agenda 21 draft sets out specific objectives to be attained with these new approaches, and they present a formidable challenge to the Regional Seas Programme. The draft states for instance, that: --by 1994 guidelines for agreement should be reached on integrated coastal zone management and development
UNEP's regional seas programme and the UNCED future: apres Rio
105
---by the year 1996 new arrangements should be introduced in regional bodies to ensure effective coordination in the fields of environmental protection, marine resource utilization and development with due regards to the needs of the population ----by the year 2000 integrated planning, management, and development processes should be established at the national, regional, and global level --and all this at the cost of US$85 billion spread over the seven years between 1993-2000.
Specificially on a regional level, the Agenda 21 draft states that in terms of capacity building, existing capabilities, facilities and needs for human resources development, scientific and technological infrastructure required, and potential for expansion in regional marine and coastal areas, the research, training, management and technologies should be identified. Secondly, regional centers should be established capable of assisting countries in analyzing information and assessing the principal marine environmental problems, in reinforcing surveillance and in implementing environmental impact assessment and monitoring programs with predictive capabilities. In a special chapter entitled 'Strengthening international, including regional cooperation and coordination', the draft sets out the opportunities within the UN system to create regular intergovernmental reviews and consideration of environment and development with respect to oceans and coastal areas as a whole, as well as agreed principles, strategy and standards. Under the activities required to accomplish this, the draft refers to the need to strengthen coordination and improved relationships among international organizations with major ocean responsibilities (UNEP, UNESCO, IOC, WMO, IMO, FAO, IAEA, UN OALOS, etc.), including their regional components. The strengthening and coordination with other UN organizations, institutions and specialized agencies dealing with development, trade and other related economic issues is also called for, as well as better coordination of international and regional coastal and marine programs. From the foregoing it is perfectly evident that an existing functional and functioning regional structure such as the Regional Sea Programme, would provide an eminently suited vehicle for carrying out the relevant oceans and coastal items on Agenda 21, provided, of course, that it has the capacity to do so. It is assumed here that it is more
106
Peter C. Schri~der
efficient to utilize an existing regional structure than to create one or more new ones. The capacity to do so lies essentially in two areas, namely by increasing (a) the intrinsic strength and (b) the coordinative efficacy of UNEP's Regional Seas Programme. This statement bears analyzing. The essential mandate of the Oceans and Coastal Areas Activity Centre ( O C A / P A C ) is to catalyze and coordinate. Catalyzation and coordination are fundamentally management functions. In the past, the emphasis in O C A / P A C professional staff selection has been more on scientific expertise than on managerial ability. This has skewed the staff composition heavily toward ecology, biology, and oceanography. There has been, of late, no argument that, to address the multitude of problems in the coastal areas and near-shore waters, comprehensive, integrated coastal zone management is required. Thus, to meet the challenge of the very near future, in which environment and development will be indispensable adjuncts of each other, staff composition needs to be broadened to cover the multi-disciplinary requirements of such comprehensive, integrated coastal zone management. Staff should include resource economists, coastal engineers or morphologists, hydrologists, physical geographers, management and computer specialists as a minimum, as well as the aforementioned expertise. This broad spread of disciplines will permit O C A / P A C to communicate in 'the same language' not only with the environmental sector, but also with the development sector. The importance of this communication cannot be overemphasized. In the past the focus of communication has been with, for instance, Ministries or Departments of Environment. In the very near future O C A / P A C needs to communicate effectively with Ministries or Departments of Planning and Development, Public Works, Industry, Agriculture, etc. That this is required, stems from the simple truth that much of the environmental problems occurring in the coastal areas and near-shore waters are caused 'upstream'. 'Downstream' protective measures, valuable as they may be, will no more suffice. The need is f o r ' a great deal more of anticipatory, pro-active and pre-emptive measures rather than the somewhat traditional reactive approach. Although many of the scientific staff of O C A / P A C have become more or less adept in dealing with management issues, the need at present is for a wider spectrum of disciplines, made up of generalists with a good scientific background and managerial talent. The more general level of expertise within O C A / P A C will then, as a
UNEP's regional seas programme and the UNCED future: apres Rio
107
second prerequisite, require scientific backstopping at the highest, best available level. To provide OCA/PAC with this, plans are being developed to create a consortium of top-level non-profit institutions of recognized international reputation which, between them, could support OCA/PAC with the specialist expertise needed to cover all components of comprehensive, integrated coastal zone management in all climates of the world. These components range from pure nature conservation, to structural engineering, and would include legal, social, economic, and other aspects encountered in proper management of coastal areas. The distinct advantage of such a consortium would be that not only will the required expert advice be readily accessible, but also that top experts can be readily drawn into the Regional Seas Programme activities from the institutions in the consortium, and, equally important, that through the consortium a large pool of well-qualified Third World counterparts will become available. A similar arrangement is necessary to access the expertise available in and through the other entities in the United Nations family of agencies and organizations. The recent experience of superb cooperation--coordinated by OCA/PACmbetween more than a dozen of the main UN agencies and organizations in the rehabilitation effort in the Gulf was and is not only unique in UN history, it also showed the strength and effectiveness of such UN inter-agency cooperation. This arrangement has already been a topic of discussion among the UN agencies involved in the Gulf rehabilitation effort. Another necessity is to access adequate financing. With the closer cooperation of The World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and UNEP in the tripartite Global Environment Facility, cooperation at the level of OCA/PAC's Regional Seas Programme has become a reality. Not only is there at present close cooperation in the Regional Seas Programmes for the Mediterranean, the Black Sea, The Gulf of Aqaba, the Red Sea, and the Persian Gulf, tripartite discussions are at present being held between OCA/PAC and the relevant units of The World Bank and UNDP on further expansion of this cooperation. Through this cooperation two important aspects are being addressed. Closer cooperation with UNDP greatly facilitates access to the 'upstream' Ministries and Departments of Planning and Development and other non-environmental national government bodies. And, closer cooperation with The World Bank significantly facilitates involvement in the environmental components of large investment-worthy projects requiring considerable funding. On the other hand, the environmental
108
Peter C. SchrOder
expertise offered The World Bank and UNDP through UNEP's OCA/PAC, fills a recognized need which receives increasing emphasis. The overall advantage of the configuration as described above, lies in the benefits which will be derived especially by the developing countries. As the confidence and trust in the quality and efficacy of the performance of OCA/PAC's Regional Seas Programme increases, so does the resolution of burning priority issues in the vitally important coastal areas. This is true particularly since in the developing world, at present, activities of development partners proliferate at a seemingly ever increasing rate. Thus far, little effort has been made to prevent overlap, if not duplication, in terms of effort and financing. To prevent this from happening, regional coordinating units, or RCUs as they are called in OCA/PAC's Regional Seas Programme, would serve an extremely useful and essential function. Not all of OCA/PCA's regional seas have a RCU as yet. Every effort is currently made to establish RCUs at an accelerated pace, with the intent that they would, in the shortest possible time, be fully staffed by qualified personnel drawn from countries of the region. Both the selection and training of the RCU staffs, as well as their operational effectiveness will be enormously enhanced once the above described cooperative configuration becomes full reality. Another aspect of having a full complement of RCUs is that through them a world-wide compatible multi-disciplinary data-base, such as is being used in the UN rehabilitation effort in the Gulf, can be operated. Such a data-system would enormously enhance the global exchange of salient data and information on coastal areas. Let us assume for a momemt that the restructuring, refocusing and reinforcement of OCA/PAC's Regional Seas Programme is achieved, and that the cooperative configuration mentioned above becomes a reality. Then---one would expect--the items pertaining to oceans on Agenda 21 could be dealt with in an effective manner. Or could they? Could the objectives referred to above, to be reached by 1994, 1996, and the year 2000, indeed be reached. For example, will it be possible in the few years remaining, to unravel the jumble of existing jurisdictions in many coastal areas, ranging from village-related traditional rights to national laws and regional and global conventions, and ---establish a high-level planning body or a national co-ordinating mechanism for integrated coastal and EEZ management involving governmental, academic and private sectors and the local populations, responsible for:
UNEP's regional seas programme and the UNCED future: apres Rio
109
--appropriate policy and legal framework for regulating access and rates of use, promoting environmentally sound technology and sustainable practices, excluding the harmful ones, making environmental impact assessment mandatory, and establishing liability and compensation provisions; [and] --management systems using economic instruments, including accounting systems for coastal resources, allocation schemes establishing explicit user's rights and fees, and shifting investments from overcapitalized activities to environmentally safe uses, habitat rehabilitation, infrastructure adaptation and alternative employment. To list only two out of two dozen or more equally demanding activities coastal states should undertake under the chapter heading Management. Under the chapter headings Biological diversity and productivity, Data and information, Human resources development, Capacity building, etc., more than fifty demanding 'should do's' of considerable complexity for countries (or island states) are provided in considerable detail. For example, countries should: --preserve biological diversity and productivity ---increase their capacity to collect and use information for prior assessment of adverse environmental impacts of major governmental and private policies, programs and projects affecting the coastal and EEZ environment -----create an interministerial mechanism for policy-making and long term planning on EEZ and coastal areas ---rationalize and/or coordinate sectoral programs and restructure/simplify governmental institutions responsible for development and protection of coastal areas, EEZs and marine ecosystems ---establish advisory bodies for broad consultation on coastal issues with local administrations, the business community, the academic sector, user groups and the general public --progressively introduce or strengthen systems of land and sea tenure, regulating access, user's fights and rates of use ---develop a concerted approach to land-based activities damaging the marine environment --establish regional and national action plans --adopt precautionary approaches to development and management --building and maintaining sewage treatment facilities in accordance with national policies -----control entry of non-domestic effluent containing contaminants
110
Peter C. Schriider
-----enforce discharge provisions of the marine pollution conventions for ships through port state control and aerial surveillance -----establish port facilities for the collection and disposal of waste oil, chemical residues and garbage ---develop oil and chemical spill contingency plans at local, national and regional levels ----establish a regional network of oil/chemical response centers ---provide training for marine scientists, marine laboratory technicians and hydrographic surveyors, at national and regional levels ---develop and manage high seas fisheries through ecosystem, multispecies approaches, incorporating environmental factors and ecologically sound practices consistent with the best available scientific information --keep or restore fish populations at the level at which recruitment ensures greatest net annual increment. -----effectively monitor and control fishing activity of national vessels and crews --assess high seas resource potentials, inventory all stocks, and establish optimal fishing regimes --adopt special measures to cope with potential climate change and sea-level rise ---strengthen or establish National Oceanographic Commissions ---strengthen existing intergovernmental regional co-operation, particularly the Regional Seas Programme of UNEP to harmonize policies and integrate cooperative activities With the exception of the last one of these examples, this is not to say that the coastal states should not strive to accomplish all this, by themselves and with the support and advice of international and regional organizations, as the Agenda 21 draft indicates. The complex ramifications of the above examples certainly justify doubt that these objectives can be reached within the time-frame suggested. The case that is being made here, is that: (a) by themselves most of the coastal states will not be able to meet the Agenda 21 deadlines, and (b) with the international and regional organizations they may-provided such organizations themselves restructure, refocus, and reinforce their intrinsic and cooperative strength. It is this exercise that OCA/PAC has embarked on to meet the challenges of the very near and the further distant future. Not by itself, but by offering its existing and functioning regional structure as a vehicle, strengthened by the cooperative configuration described above. To achieve this, much needs to be done in the remaining few months
UNEP's regional seas programme and the UNCED future: apres Rio
111
until U N C E D in Rio in June 1992. It will require bold imagination, a cooperative spirit, and recognition that unless collective and wellcoordinated action is forthcoming, the very areas where most of the world's population dwells will b e c o m e dismal evidence of our lack of foresight. A n d what is more, it will show future generations how little we really cared for the quality of their lives.
REFERENCES 1. UNEP. Report of the Governing Council on the work of its second session. 1974. 2. Report of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. 1972. 3. UN General Assembly resolution 2997 (XXVII), 15 December 1972. 4. UNEP. Report of the Governing Council on the work of its first session. 1973. 5. ibid. 6. UN/ECOSOC. Cross-organizational programme analysis of the activities of the United Nations system in marine affairs. Report of the Secretary General (E/AC.51/1983)/2). 1983. 7. UNCED. Revised options for Agenda 21, draft 6. 1991.