ECOND GLOBAL MEETING OF REGIONAL SEAS

SECOND GLOBAL MEETING OF REGIONAL SEAS

CONVENTIONS AND ACTION PLANS

The Hague, 5-8 July 1999

REPORT OF THE SECOND GLOBAL MEETING OF REGIONAL SEAS CONVENTIONS

AND ACTION PLANS

Introduction

1. The regional seas programme, initiated in 1974, has remained the central United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) initiative providing the major legal, administrative, substantive and financial framework for the implementation of Agenda 21, and its chapter 17 on oceans in particular. The regional seas programme is based on periodically revised action plans adopted by high-level intergovernmental meetings and implemented, in most cases, in the framework of legally binding regional seas conventions, under the authority of the respective contracting parties or intergovernmental meetings.

2. Following the adoption of the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities at the Washington Conference in November 1995, UNEP initiated actions to revitalize the regional seas programme. In addition, by its decision 20/19 A of 5 February 1999, the UNEP Governing Council stressed the need for UNEP to strengthen the regional seas programme as its central mechanism for implementation of its activities relevant to chapter 17 of Agenda 21.

3. The second global meeting of the secretariats of the regional seas conventions and action plans, which in the new organizational structure of UNEP falls under the responsibility of the Division of Environmental Conventions, was hosted in response to that need and had the following specific objectives:

(a) To channel more effectively UNEP programmatic support to the regional seas conventions and action plans, particularly in areas complementary to the UNEP programme of work (1999 and 2000-2001);

(b) To promote horizontal ties among regional seas conventions and action plans;

(c) To strengthen the linkages between the regional seas conventions and action plans and the Global Programme of Action through agreed upon specific actions, particularly regarding the role of the secretariats in the implementation of the UNEP/Global Programme of Action strategic action plan on sewage and the Global Programme of Action clearing-house;

(d) To strengthen the linkages between the regional seas conventions and action plans and other global conventions and agreements, specifically the International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Global Plan of Action for Marine Mammals, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea;

(e) To promote cooperation between regional seas conventions and action plans and the UNEP regional offices.

I. OPENING OF THE MEETING

A. Opening statements and organizational matters

4. The meeting was opened at 9 a.m. on Monday, 5 July 1999, by Mr. Jorge Illueca, Assistant Executive Director, Division of Environmental Conventions, UNEP, who, on behalf of Mr. Klaus Töpfer, executive Director of UNEP, welcomed all participants. Ms. Veerle Vandeweerd, Director-designate, Coordination Office for the Global Programme of Action, also welcomed participants to The Hague and thanked the Government of The Netherlands which was hosting the Coordination Office for the Global Programme of Action, for providing the facilities for the meeting.

5. Mr. Illueca read out a statement by the Executive Director of UNEP, Mr. Klaus Töpfer, in which the Executive Director noted that the current meeting was attended by representatives of 21 environmental conventions and related international agreements, making it the largest meeting ever held of environmental conventions and related international agreements.

6. Among the results which the Executive Director hoped the meeting would achieve, he noted, in particular, the identification of clear priorities with strategic actions for the regional seas conventions and action plans which UNEP could support; recognition that the Global International Waters Assessment (GIWA) responded to the priority assessment needs of the regional seas conventions and action plans and of its advantage to them as a valuable tool in the implementation of their programmes of work; proposals for specific actions to accelerate the implementation of the Global Programme of Action; meaningful collaboration between regional seas conventions and action plans and global environmental conventions and related international agreements; and increased technical horizontal cooperation between the more mature and less developed regional seas conventions and action plans.

7. He pledged the support of UNEP in 1999 and in the coming biennium to catalyse the building of synergies among the regional seas conventions and action plans and with global environmental conventions and related international agreements, and recalled that, to facilitate that process, the Governing Council at its twentieth session had approved the establishment of a Division of Environmental Conventions, which would work with the other divisions of UNEP in providing such support.

8. Noting that the current meeting was the first of four important meetings that UNEP was organizing in 1999 to facilitate collaboration among conventions, he assured participants that the results and recommendations of the meeting would be carefully considered by UNEP in the preparation of its strategic action programme on regional seas conventions and action plans for the remainder of 1999 and for the coming biennium and he wished them all every success in their deliberations.

9. The meeting was chaired by Mr. Illueca and considered the agenda contained in annex I to the present report.

B. Attendance

10. The meeting was attended by representatives of the following organizations:

(a) Regional seas conventions and action plans: Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (Helsinki Commission); Black Sea Environmental Programme (BSEP); Commission of the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Commission); Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP); Northwest Pacific Region Environmental Cooperation Centre; Plan of Action of the South East Pacific; Protection Arctic Marine Environment (PAME); Regional Coordinating Unit for the Caribbean Environment Programme (CAR/RCU); Regional Organization for the Conservation of the Environment of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden (PERSGA); Regional Coordinating Unit for the East Asian Seas (EAS/RCU); Regional Coordinating Unit for the West and Central African Action Plan (WACAF/RCU); Regional Coordinating Unit of the Eastern African Region (EAF/RCU); South Asia Cooperative Environment Programme (SACEP); South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP);

(b) Global and international agreements: Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS); Convention on Biological Diversity; Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); Global International Waters Assessment (GIWA); Global Plan of Action for Marine Mammals; Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities; International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI); United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

(c) Intergovernmental organizations: Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); International Maritime Organization (IMO); Marine Environment Laboratory of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); World Conservation Union (IUCN).

11. The list of participants is provided in annex VIII to the present report.

II. LINKING THE REGIONAL SEAS CONVENTIONS AND ACTION PLANS TO

RELEVANT GLOBAL CONVENTIONS, AGREEMENTS AND INITIATIVES

12. Introducing the item, the Chair noted that UNEP played a facilitating role in the area of regional seas and that the actual work carried out under the regional seas programme was driven by the conventions and action plans adopted in the respective regions. He also drew attention to the need to consider how the regional seas programme could interact with such global environmental agreements and organizations as, inter alia, the Barbados Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and ICRI. In addition, he suggested that the meeting should consider such issues as the interface between the regional conventions and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; the importance of information exchange; and the need to ensure the sustainability of the regional seas conventions and action plans.

13. In their introductory statements, representatives drew attention to issues of particular concern to their respective organizations and in respect of which they hoped to receive guidance during the course of the current meeting. Those issues included:

(a) The need for newer organizations and conventions to learn from mature conventions and organizations with longer experience;

(b) Issues of communication and coordination among environmental organizations, as well as with the Global Programme of Action and with organizations outside the UNEP family, such as AOSIS;

(d) The legal regimes covering regional sea areas and other relevant legal issues;

(e) The need to update some regional seas conventions, and to take into account the consequences for those conventions of the Convention on the Law of the Sea;

(f) The need, when determining future action, to be guided by the availability and sources of funding and to ensure follow-up to the recommendations of the Commission on Sustainable Development at its seventh session;

(g) The importance of partnership and, accordingly, of partnership conferences.

A. Global International Waters Assessment

1. Introduction

14. Mr. Per Wramner, Scientific Director of the Global International Waters Assessment (GIWA), gave a presentation on the work carried out by GIWA to date. He noted that, of the four focal areas identified by GEF, only international waters had as yet no assessment: GIWA had been established as a four-year programme to meet that need. He also pointed out that, as a small organization with limited funding, GIWA would be working in cooperation with a number of other partners and would base its global assessment largely on those sectoral and regional assessments already in existence. In view of the limited funding, it was vital for GIWA to prioritize its work and to concentrate on its objective of assessing the ecological status of international waters ? both coastal and inland - and identifying the social and economic causes of environmental degradation.

15. Turning to the working methods of GIWA, he said that it had a regional and subregional emphasis and had provisionally identified 66 subregions, grouped into nine megaregions, for the purposes of its assessment. As an initial stage, a pilot assessment would be conducted at a regional level, possibly in the Mediterranean region, in view of the extensive data already available in the secretariat of the Barcelona Convention. Following that pilot assessment and the establishment of the GIWA network, work would be carried out over a period of four years, in phases, ending with the dissemination of its products, which would be made as widely available as possible. He suggested that the regional seas conventions and action plans could act as focal points for the GIWA subregions which fell within their responsibility.

2. Discussion

16. In the ensuing discussion, the view was expressed that the GIWA subregions ? which were based primarily on environmental and biogeographical factors, taking due account of linkages between freshwater and marine systems - should be harmonized with those applied in other forums, such as UNEP, to avoid the further proliferation of such regional divisions. In addition, it was stressed that the different regional and inter-regional environmental assessments and related complementary activities currently being carried out should be carefully harmonized and synchronized, with a view to avoiding duplication. The need for such harmonization was even greater when it came to a global exercise such as that undertaken by GIWA.

17. On the issue of funding, Mr. Wranmer clarified that $14 million had already been provided to GIWA, half from GEF and half in combined funding from the Government of Finland, the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Municipality and University of Kalmar, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) and UNEP, and that additional funding would be needed for all the work that GIWA had to conduct, especially in studying the social and economic causes of pollution, about which little was known. In addition, he pointed out that GEF funding was restricted to covering incremental costs in developing countries and there was consequently a need for counterpart funding or in-kind assistance from developed countries for activities in their region. The meeting agreed on the need to define precisely what was covered by incremental costs and he explained further that, by raising interest from donors in international waters issues, GIWA would help leverage additional funding for all actors concerned.

18. In response to questions about the relationship between GIWA and other bodies, particular attention was given to cooperation with the Joint Group of Experts on Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP). It was noted that, although GIWA and GESAMP had different schedules for the completion and scope of their respective assessments, their combined involvement with the assessment of marine and coastal areas had resulted in useful cooperative arrangements, in particular, with the activities of the GESAMP Working Group on Marine Environmental Assessments, which was preparing a global report on land-based activities and a report on the state of the marine environment.

19. Concern was expressed by a number of representatives about the different priorities set by different bodies and there was agreement on the need to harmonize those priorities, as it would be unwise to send conflicting signals to potential donors. Representatives also drew attention to the problem, particularly for smaller States, of having to deal with an increasingly large number of intergovernmental organizations.

20. Attention was drawn, also, to the need for capacity-building and technology transfer, to assist smaller countries in complying with their requirements under GIWA. At the same time, it was suggested that the GIWA project document might need to be amended, to ensure that it responded to the actual needs of States.

21. It was pointed out that the scope of GIWA extended beyond the jurisdiction of all except one of the regional seas conventions and action plans ? covering inland areas like river-basins - and, accordingly, it was suggested that there was a need for enhanced coordination among regional bodies for the purposes of GIWA, including through such measures as an inventory of all existing institutions, bodies, etc. In accordance with the work plan currently being drafted, that inventory would be carried out during the initial phase of GIWA.

22. In addition, it was noted that a number of regional seas assessments had already been completed or were being finalized and might help meet the information requirements under GIWA.

23. In response to a question about the future of GIWA, once its four-year programme had been completed, the meeting was informed that, in the view of the Executive Director of UNEP, consideration must be given to continuation of the work undertaken by GIWA.

24. A small contact group was established to consider such issues as the relationship and linkages between GIWA, the Global Programme of Action and GESAMP; the scope of GIWA; complementarity, additionality, synergy and integration of activities; whether and in what way GIWA would use the numerous assessments already produced through the regional seas programme and its subprogrammes, as well as through the Global Programme of Action and GESAMP; what would be the role of the regional seas units and secretariats in the implementation of GIWA; and what would become of GIWA after conclusion of its assessment, and also to suggest how collaborative arrangements could be organized, especially during the four distinct phases of the project.

25. The contact group refined the table setting out the programme for the integration of the regional seas convention plans in the work of GIWA. The table, as revised, is provided in annex II to the present report.

3. Recommendations

26. Following that debate, the meeting agreed on the following recommendations on organizational and operational principles to facilitate effective implementation of GIWA and the regional seas programme:

(a) In the area of consultations, that:

(i) The annual meeting of the regional seas programmes would serve the broad purpose of consultations on GIWA-related issues;

(ii) Regional consultations should precede each GIWA phase;

(iii) At the subregional level, GIWA focal points would facilitate coordination between the GIWA team and other collaborating partners;

(b) In the area of taking stock, that:

(i) GIWA would take into account existing information and data as well as existing programmes and activities;

(ii) Quality assurance procedures would be applied to the data sets and information to be utilized by GIWA and that due recognition should be given to the gaps, in data or information, which may exist, especially in the developing regions;

(d) In respect of contributions by the regional seas programmes to GIWA, that:

(i) The programmes should, to the extent possible, participate actively in the assessment, for instance, as subregional focal points, task team members, etc.;

(ii) Available data should be compiled to meet the needs of GIWA, as follows:

a. Basic ecological data;

b. Data about human impacts on the environment;

c. Environmental assessments, including trends;

d. Basic social and economic data;

e. Data about the social root causes of environmental problems;

(e) In respect of contributions by GIWA to the regional seas programmes, that:

(i) Consideration would be given to the provision of financial assistance to secretariats of regional seas conventions and action plans, to assist them in the conduct of activities under GIWA;

(ii) GIWA should provide subregional assessments of environmental status, information on the social and economic root causes of environmental problems and other data which could be used as a basis, inter alia, for work plans, fund‑raising (especially GEF funds), and more detailed assessments; and

(f) Recognizing the linkages between GIWA and the Global Programme of Action, that GIWA should take into account the particular needs of the regional seas conventions and action plans in terms of scientific assessments on land-based activities and that it should also consider modalities to support the identification or, as appropriate, updating of priority actions as a contribution to the implementation of the regional programmes of action and protocols on land-based activities.

27. The meeting provided inputs into the work plan components that should constitute the four phases of the programme for the integration of the regional seas conventions and action plans in the work of GIWA, including the identification of main institutional players, as set out in the table contained in annex II to the present report.

B. Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine

Environment from Land-based Activities

1. Introduction

28. Introducing the subitem, Ms. Vandeweerd noted that it was important at the current stage to move the implementation of the Global Programme of Action forward, paying particular attention to the need to revitalize some of the regional seas programmes. Given the decisions of the UNEP Governing Council at its nineteenth and twentieth sessions and of the Commission on Sustainable Development at its seventh session, there was a need for real progress to be made in the abatement of the degradation of the marine environment from land-based activities through, inter alia, strengthening the regional seas programmes, particularly those in developing countries. Specific measures should be considered within a holistic framework to implement those regional programmes.

29. The following account of the discussions on the Global Programme of Action is divided in two sections: the first describes the current work of the Coordination Office and the related discussion; the second provides some initial direction for the way forward.

2. Current work of the Global Programme of Action Coordination Office

(a) Regional programmes of action on land-based activities

30. Mr. Omar Vidal, Deputy Coordinator, Global Programme of Action Coordination Office, introduced the background documents relevant to the Global Programme of Action, as listed in annex VII to the present report, drawing particular attention to document UNEP(DEC)/RS.2/INF/8 on the Global Programme of Action implementation of regional and national programmes of action. He affirmed that, in accordance with the provisions in the Global Programme of Action itself and its implementation plan, as well as the General Assembly resolution 51/189 of 16 December 1996 and successive decisions of the UNEP Governing Council, the underlying philosophy of the Global Programme of Action was to foster the implementation of regional programmes of action. One of the principal mechanisms for its implementation was through the regional seas conventions and action plans. Accordingly, a number of workshops had been held in eight regions and, as a result, in six of those, regional programmes of action had now been formulated.

31. The meeting had before it a preliminary summary of proposed actions for delivery by the Coordination Office in 1999 and beyond, contained in the annexes to background document UNEP(DEC)/R.2/INF/8, on the implementation under the Global Programme of Action of regional and national programmes of action. Draft tables of selected needs identified in the regional processes for implementation of the Global Programme of Action are contained in annex III to the present report.

32. In the ensuing discussion, it was noted that the report on progress in the implementation of the Global Programme of Action only covered activities carried out by the Coordination Office. Many other institutions, international and regional organizations and countries were also contributing to implementation of the Global Programme of Action. The Coordination Office needed to remain abreast of the latest developments, programmes and actions undertaken by them (including the regional seas), to implement the Global Programme of Action. It was suggested that a questionnaire could be developed as a means of obtaining up-to-date information and that a compilation of activities that contributed to the implementation of the Global Programme of Action should be published on a regular basis. To compile the document, use had to be made of existing overviews, such as those produced within the framework of the Commission on Sustainable Development, the United Nations Division of Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea and regional organizations. It was also suggested that a diagram be prepared, indicating the linkages between the Global Programme of Action, GIWA, the regional seas, the UNEP divisions and regional offices and other organizations.

33. It was noted that several regions and countries had developed or were in the process of developing regional or national programmes of action for implementation of the Global Programme of Action. The need for a consistent definition of regions throughout UNEP programmes was highlighted but not further discussed. It was pointed out that efforts should be made to avoid a situation where one and the same country had to report to two different regional bodies.

34. Attention was drawn to the forthcoming major conference on water in the Netherlands and the need to present a coherent UNEP water strategy at that conference.

35. The meeting recommended that:

(a) Periodic overviews should be produced of national, regional and international programmes that contributed to the implementation of the Global Programme of Action;

(b) Preparations should be made for the Netherlands water conference.

36. In addition, the strategic approach for the implementation and operationalization of the Global Programme of Action, as set forth in the section entitled "Way forward" below, was approved.

(b) UNEP/Global Programme of Action strategic action plan to address sewage as a major land-based pollutant

37. Mr. Leo de Vrees, Senior Expert, Global Programme of Action Coordination Office, briefed the meeting on activities planned and undertaken by the Coordination Office pursuant to decisions of the UNEP Governing Council, at its nineteenth and twentieth sessions, on the issue of sewage and in response to the prioritization of sewage as a land-based source of marine pollution in most of the regions. He noted that responsibility for the actual implementation of measures to address sewage was at the local and national level. The Coordination Office had developed a strategic action plan on Sewage and, as a first step, was facilitating its implementation by providing assistance to a small number of regions (Eastern Africa, South Asian Seas, East Asian Seas, South-East Pacific). He invited the other regions to contribute and share their experiences.

38. The primary aim of the strategic action plan on sewage was to initiate and facilitate a process leading to the development and implementation of national strategies to address sewage and the promotion of global interest and commitment. The emphasis of the strategic action plan was envisaged to be on linking the sewage problem with social and economic opportunities and benefits. He described the different phases under the plan, for which national, regional and global actions had been identified. Those steps would lead to the global conference on building partnerships for sewage management, planned for the year 2001.

39. Attention was drawn to a tentative draft programme for the conference (contained in the annex to document UNEP(DEC)/RS.2/2) and comments on that programme were invited.

40. In the ensuing discussion, it was pointed out that there were three main components to sewage, namely, bacteria, organic pollutants and nutrients. When developing mitigation measures, the effects of each should be assessed, as it might not be necessary to remove all three components. That could have significant cost benefits in the case of nutrients, the most costly to remove. Other factors, such as point and non-point sources, sludge disposal, storm water run-off and loads of industrial waste carried with the sewage, also had to be considered. It was noted that, in some cases, the reporting of monitoring data, such as the mussel watch, might be politically sensitive, particularly where pollution data had implications for trade.

41. There was some debate on whether or not the issue of sewage was of a transboundary nature and relevant to the regional seas conventions and action plans. The meeting agreed that, in view, in particular, of its extensive transboundary effects and the global extent of the problem, it was relevant to all regions and their conventions and action plans.

42. Attention was drawn to information on useful mechanisms and experience already available under other instruments and organizations, such as the London Convention on Dumping at Sea and its 1996 Protocol, the UNEP International Environment Technology Centre (IETC), the World Health Organization (WHO) and others, as well as to the need for synergies with other instruments, in particular, the provisions on habitat protection in the Convention on Biological Diversity.

43. In addition, it was suggested that countries under financial constraints could be assisted with the auditing of their current environmental situations, with capacity-building measures and with the use of environmental impact assessments. Attention should be given to the introduction of environmentally sound technologies for the management of freshwater resources and for environmental management in urban areas.

44. It was noted that, on sewage, the Global Programme of Action could provide a conducive framework and stimulate action at the national and local levels through, inter alia, regional action plans and agreements, information and knowledge dissemination, the sharing of best practices and the brokering of partnerships. The Global Programme of Action could be instrumental in securing ? or heightening ? the commitment of Governments to address the problems associated with sewage.

45. The meeting recommended that:

(a) The Global Programme of Action should be a standing item on future global meetings of the regional seas conventions and action plans, with a particular focus on the status of, and barriers to, its implementation;

(b) In view, in particular, of its extensive transboundary effects and the global extent of the problem, the issue of sewage must be considered relevant to all regions and their conventions and action plans;

(c) At the next global meeting of the regional seas conventions and action plans, when considering land-based activities, attention must also be given to the issue of sewage and, in that context, the participation at that meeting of the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Bank and other interested international organizations should be encouraged;

(d) The Global Programme of Action clearing-house mechanism should play an important role in the dissemination of information on the issue of sewage and in the related capacity-building process;

(e) At the same time, the Global Programme of Action could not address the problem of sewage at the local level, but should instead develop a framework which national authorities could apply to their own situations, giving particular attention, in that context, to financial, technological and managerial aspects and to the transfer of knowledge and experiences;

(f) Efforts must be made to assess the effects and impacts of sewage discharge, prior to taking action, and to differentiate between pollution control and habitat protection;

(g) Consideration should be given to the provision of assistance to countries under financial constraints, for the auditing of their current environmental situations, through capacity-building measures and the use of environmental impact assessments.

(h) Attention should be given to the introduction of environmentally sound technologies for the management of freshwater resources and for environmental management in urban areas.

(c) Implementation of the Global Programme of Action clearing-house and the role of the regional seas conventions and action plans

46. Mr. Kenneth Korporal, Programme Officer, Global Programme of Action Coordination Office, introduced working document UNEP(DEC)/RS.2/3 on the clearing-house mechanism, which was being set up as envisaged in the Global Programme of Action.

47. In the ensuing discussion, concern was expressed about the compatibility of different databases, in particular, the use of incompatible formats, and it was suggested that standards and protocols should be developed to ensure that the data in the clearing-house were uniform in format. Mr. Korporal said that the issue of data compatibility was being addressed and the clearing-house would use accepted standards and protocols such as the future International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard for metadata.

48. The meeting agreed that databases should not be too complex: the quality, reliability and exchangeability of the data were more important than their overall quantity. In particular, it was important to consider user needs in developing the clearing-house mechanism: to that end, the meeting was informed that the Coordination Office planned to hold a consultation on user needs.

49. It was noted, however, that data constituted only one of the issues addressed in the Global Programme of Action clearing-house. Equally - if not more - important was the information on technologies, policies, strategies and measures to address land-based activities and on financial mechanisms. Investment issues (needs and possibilities) needed to be addressed.

50. The representative of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) informed the meeting that IMO had signed a memorandum of understanding with the Government of Canada, pursuant to which Canada would assist in the development of a joint IMO/Global Programme of Action clearing-house node on oils and litter. The meeting commended Canada and IMO on their spirit of cooperation and encouraged similar cooperative initiatives among other clearing-house players.

51. The meeting recommended that:

(a) In developing any database, use should be made of already available data;

(b) Efforts should be made to ensure compatibility and strong linkages with other clearing-house initiatives, including that of the Convention on Biological Diversity, the UNEP clearing-house on persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and the UNEP Global Resource Information Database (GRID);

(c) The quality, reliability and exchangeability of the data were of paramount importance, and not their overall quantity, and user needs should be borne in mind in developing the clearing-house mechanism;

(d) The clearing-house should strike a balance between technical, scientific and financial information and work with what was readily available;

(e) Bearing in mind the definition of the clearing-house contained in the report of the technical meeting on the Global Programme of Action clearing-house, held in Geneva on 26 and 27 September 1996, particular attention should be given to establishing an appropriate institutional process for developing, organizing and maintaining the directory and the delivery mechanisms.

3. Way forward

52. Given the central role of the Global Programme of Action in the discussions at the current meeting, participants agreed on a strategic approach for the implementation and operationalization of the Global Programme of Action, as set forth in the following paragraphs.

(a) Development of, or follow-up to, the regional programme of actions and legally binding instruments

53. It was noted that, as indicated above, since 1996 UNEP had catalysed the development of regional programmes of action to address land-based activities in eight regions, culminating in the adoption of six regional seas action programmes by government-designated experts. In some regions, legally binding instruments were already in existence or were being developed. In other regions, an overall convention on the protection of the marine resources existed, to which protocols, annexes or decisions specifically addressing land-based activities were associated. An overview of the current status with regard to the regional programmes of action, protocols, etc., related to land-based activities is provided in annex III to the present report.

54. The meeting observed that, in the coming years, the need to develop regional legally binding instruments should be assessed and pursued as appropriate. In that context, it was important to have the regional programmes of action endorsed by the intergovernmental meetings or other decision-making mechanisms of the regional seas programmes, as well as to secure the necessary funding to enable the secretariats of the regional seas to carry out the priority actions identified.

(b) Implementation of the regional programmes of action

55. It was pointed out that, without awaiting the endorsement or acceptance of a legally binding instrument on land-based activities, urgent action must be taken to promote the practical implementation of the existent regional programmes of action. In some regions, action had already been initiated or is planned for 1999, as indicated in the overview contained in annex III to the present report.

56. To forward the implementation of the regional programmes of action, the following clusters of activities were proposed:

(a) Identifying at what stage of the policy life cycle the regional seas were with regard to land-based activities (problem identification and assessment; solution identification and action planning; solution implementation; evaluation);

(b) Preparing a "toolkit" of strategies, measures and policy options (supply side);

(d) Brokering deals between supply and demand;

(e) Conducting evaluation and review.

57. In that context, with a view to avoiding an ad hoc or piecemeal approach to the facilitation of actions in priority areas, as defined in the different regional programmes of action, it was agreed that the Global Programme of Action Coordination Office would develop, maintain and implement a systematic brokering mechanism with a view to linking specific requests for support to possible providers of that support.

58. The meeting noted that, in most cases, the problems, issues and actions identified in the regional programmes of action were too generic in nature to enable practical action to be instigated to address the problem. Accordingly, the Coordination Office would prepare a systematic framework, or checklist, of necessary and required policies, strategies and measures to address the different pollutant source-categories, as they pertained to the different stages of the policy life cycle ? from monitoring to evaluation of effectiveness. For each of those policies, strategies and measures, specific examples of best practices would be provided, together with a reference to areas or institutions where those items had been put into practices.

59. Thus, in the case of addressing sewage, consideration would be given not only to the infrastructure development but also to such issues as:

(a) Institutional requirements: examples of best practices and institutes or organizations that could provide support;

(b) Legal aspects, including enforcement: examples of best practices and institutes or organizations that could provide support;

(c) Financial instruments, such as taxes, subsidies, permits, capital flows and market-based incentives: examples of best practices and institutes or organizations that could provide support;

(d) Voluntary action and public participation: examples of best practices and institutes or organizations that could provide support;

(e) Trade policies, where relevant: examples of best practices and institutes or organizations that could provide support;

(f) Public awareness-building and information dissemination: examples of best practices and institutes or organizations that could provide support;

(g) Capacity-building: examples of best practices and institutes or organizations that could provide support;

(h) Monitoring, reporting and evaluation: examples of best practices and institutes or organizations that could provide support;

(i) Technical measures and cleaner production technologies (see, in this regard, annex V to the present report, listing relevant work by IETC in the area of the development of "soft" and "hard" technology).

60. Annex IV contains examples of implementation of the Baltic Convention and the Baltic Sea Joint Comprehensive Environmental Programme, which could be useful for other regions and in developing the systematic framework for the "supply side".

61. It was agreed that the preliminary compilation of selected needs identified in the regional processes for implementation of the Global Programme of Action, provided in annex III to the present report, would be further developed and completed by the Global Programme of Action Coordination Office, in the light of the outcome of the current meeting.

62. In addition, within the overarching frameworks of supply and demand, the specific actions required in each of the regions would be identified over the coming months, and addressed on a case-by-case basis.

(d) Brokering deals and facilitating financing

63. It was noted that the Global Programme of Action Coordination Office would play a facilitating role, brokering expertise between less developed regions and countries, regional and international programmes, governmental and non-governmental organizations, and United Nations organizations that had the capacity and willingness to provide support. There were regional seas programmes and action plans in need of support, while others were able and willing to provide such support. The support needed would be diverse in nature, depending on regional specifications, and would range from such activities as the training of experts to financial support for implementing specific programme elements.

64. On the issue of funding, as called for by the Global Programme of Action itself, there was a need to identify innovative mechanisms to ensure that projects were self-sustaining and not dependent on donor funding alone. Support to project development and formulation to potential donors would also be provided.

65. It was also observed that an added value of the Global Programme of Action was that, through providing a global overview of needs and supply and promoting participation in a common framework, with the involvement of all stakeholders, in particular the private sector, a cohesive approach could be used when seeking support from major donors. To that end, a particular focus should be placed on sewage, including with the involvement of WHO and financial institutions such as the World Bank. Other important measures included brokering partnerships between developed and developing regions and countries, holding partnership conferences and twinning arrangements would be considered.

C. Jakarta Mandate of the Convention on Biological Diversity on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine and

Coastal Biological Diversity

1. Introduction

66. Introducing the subitem, Mr. Salvatore Arico, Head, Jakarta Mandate on Marine and Coastal Biological Diversity, secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, explained that the Convention contained no specific article on marine and coastal biodiversity and that those issues were addressed, instead, in two decisions of the Conference of the Parties: II/10, a policy decision, now known as the Jakarta Mandate on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine and Coastal Biological Diversity, containing provisions of a general nature, and IV/5, which operationalized that policy through a multi-year programme of work, based on six implementation principles and following the thematic areas identified in decision II/10.

67. The programme of work was currently at the phase of developing implementation tools. He stressed that, while the regional seas conventions and action plans had a major role to play in the promotion of the Jakarta Mandate at the regional level, their programmes and activities could also make a substantial contribution to the development of implementation tools for, and the products of, the work programme. Those included, inter alia, guidelines on integrated marine and coastal area management, criteria for protected marine and coastal area establishment and management and guidelines for ecosystem evaluation, including indicators.

68. On the issue of the regional dimension of the Convention's work, he said that it had close cooperation with the Cartagena Convention and the Permanent Commission for the South Pacific (CPPS) and that negotiations were currently under way with other bodies, such as the Regional Organization for the Conservation of the Environment of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden (PERSGA), the Regional Organization for the Protection of the Marine Environment (ROPME) and the Regional Coordinating Unit for the East Asian Seas Action Plan (EAS/RCU).

69. Mr. Frits Schlingemann, Director, UNEP Regional Office for Europe (ROE), introduced the "Environment for Europe" process under way in the European Union and highlighted, in particular, the activities undertaken in the context of the fifth thematic area of the Jakarta Mandate, on coastal and marine ecosystems, under its pan-European biological and landscape diversity strategy. Of particular relevance to the regional seas programmes were the Code of Conduct for Coastal Zones and the Model Law on the Sustainable Development of Coastal Zones, developed under the auspices of the Council of Europe, the partner organization of UNEP. Drawing attention to the background documents on the issue that had been placed before the meeting, he informed participants that both documents were to be submitted for consideration by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which would be asked to recommend them for use by Governments in addressing and improving national and transboundary coastal zone management. He suggested that the secretariats of the regional seas programmes should screen the documents for their usefulness to their respective regions and provide ROE with their comments and suggested amendments, as appropriate.

2. Discussion

70. During the ensuing discussion, representatives noted the extensive and growing cooperation in the six thematic areas of the Convention on Biological Diversity with the Cartagena Convention and the experience of cooperation between CPPS and the Convention on Biological Diversity, which were offered as a useful model for other regional seas conventions and action plans. Attention was drawn, in particular, to the memoranda of cooperation which the secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity had signed with CPPS and CAR/RCU.

71. The representative of the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR) said that, while his organization was a relative newcomer to species conservation, its work programme bore considerable similarity to that of the Jakarta Mandate and there was, accordingly, wide scope for cooperation with the Convention on Biological Diversity. To that end, he sought clarification of the Convention's working methods, stating that his organization, with a relatively small secretariat, normally worked through lead countries or lead persons.

72. Mr. Arico explained that the Convention secretariat performed its technical work through designated experts and he suggested that the regional seas conventions and action plans might likewise identify experts for the purpose of cooperation with the Convention.

73. The representative of GIWA said that biodiversity was also an important issue in the work of GIWA and he hoped that the assessment would provide useful information for the implementation of the Jakarta Mandate, both through the provision of data directly to the Convention secretariat and, indirectly, through the provision of information to the regional seas conventions and action plans, to assist them in their implementation of the Mandate.

74. The representative of IMO briefed the meeting on work under way within IMO relevant to biodiversity issues and ICRI, relating, inter alia, to ballast water management and banning the use of tributyl tin in anti-fouling paint.

75. Some representatives noted that, notwithstanding the existence of legislation on biological diversity in those regions, implementation remained weak. Legislation and guidelines alone were insufficient: what was needed was more action and implementation and the resources for that implementation. Accordingly, there was a need to identify pragmatic, innovative ways of raising investment for biodiversity projects.

3. Recommendations

76. Accordingly, the meeting agreed that:

(a) With regard to cooperation with the Convention, this should be substantive in nature, comprising three levels: the identification of priorities for action at the regional level; the use of regional networks; and the development of joint implementation strategies and identification of joint activities;

(b) A two-way mechanism for cooperation between the regional seas conventions and action plans and the secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity should be developed and UNEP should be invited, in close consultation with the secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, to formulate options for such a coordination mechanism, to be sent to all participants for their reaction;

(c) There was a good opportunity for collaboration between the clearing-house of the Global Programme of Action and that of the Convention on Biological Diversity, particularly in the areas of habitat degradation and habitat protection and of coastal zone management.

D. Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species

of Wild Fauna and Flora

1. Introduction

77. Mr. Willem Wijnstekers, Secretary-General, secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), briefed the meeting on the work of CITES, with particular reference to regions. He said that there was a strong need within CITES to regionalize its operations but as yet funds for that were lacking. In particular, there was a need for training and capacity-building activities at the regional level. Before those activities could be carried out, legislation would have to be in place and, in that regard, CITES had already made a start, by analysing the legislation and performance of all its parties.

78. He agreed that there was a need for strengthened cooperation among convention secretariats and with regional organizations and that UNEP offered an appropriate vehicle for such cooperation. In addition, there was a need to exploit existing links with such organizations as the World Conservation Union (IUCN) and the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC), which was now under the responsibility of UNEP. In that context, it was noted that CAR/RCU had offered to house the regional office of the CITES secretariat for that region.

2. Discussion

79. In the ensuing discussion, some representatives expressed their wish to develop memoranda of understanding with CITES on regional issues and suggested, in particular, that their respective secretariats could represent CITES in their regions. Ms. Cristina Boelcke, Director, Division of Regional Cooperation and Representation, UNEP, stressed that the UNEP regional offices were ready to work closely both with CITES and with the secretariats of other conventions in assisting, inter alia, with the preparatory process for their conferences of parties. The Chair noted that some regional offices were already housing regional coordination units for the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, particularly in Africa.

80. In response to a question about the relationship between CITES and ICRI, Mr. Wijnstekers explained that, with the exception of fossil corals, corals were included within the scope of the Convention, but that coral reefs constituted one area where protection of the habitat itself - rather than control of trade - was of paramount importance.

3. Recommendations

81. Accordingly, the meeting recommended that collaboration should be strengthened between the regional seas conventions and action plans, on the one hand, and CITES, on the other, particularly in respect of those conventions and action plans which had specially protected areas and wildlife protocols, and that UNEP and CITES would collaborate on the preparation of a proposal to that effect.

E. International Coral Reef Initiative

1. Introduction

82. Mr. Denis Vene, Head, International Affairs Division, and Co-Chair, ICRI secretariat, introducing the work of the Initiative, stressed the need for strengthened cooperation with regions. He pointed out that ICRI was not a permanent structure, but an informal network which neither implemented nor funded projects: instead it acted as a catalyst in identifying best practices and in identifying sponsors. In his view, its successful functioning was largely due to its informal status, which should be preserved.

83. He reviewed the activities of ICRI, listing important areas of cooperation with regional bodies, such as monitoring and capacity-building, and outlining projected activities for the future. In that connection, he invited participants to submit examples of good practices, which ICRI would place on its web site.

2. Discussion

84. The Chair informed participants that, pursuant to the meeting of the ICRI Coordination and Planning Committee (CPC) in Paris in March 1998, UNEP was particularly interested in strengthening the capacity of the regional coordinating units in coral reef areas in the monitoring of those reefs. In response to the urgency of the issue, the GEF secretariat had recently requested UNEP, as an implementing agency of GEF, to act as lead agency for coral reefs. He also said that the Executive Director of UNEP wanted a specific request from the regional seas conventions and action plans for UNEP support to strengthen their participation in ICRI. UNEP would need to collaborate closely with both ICRI and WCMC in the assessment of coral reefs and it had already concluded a memorandum of understanding with the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in that area. All those actions responded, in addition, to the renewed call for action on coral reefs contained in Governing Council decision 20/21 of 4 February 1999.

85. Some representatives reported on initiatives relating to coral reefs in their respective regions. The Regional Coordinating Unit for the Caribbean Environment Programme (CAR/RCU), in particular, had raised $1.3 million for coral-reef activities. There had been little activity, however, on coral reefs in the Indian Ocean and the representative of the Regional Coordinating Unit for the Eastern African Action Plan (EAF/RCU) urged UNEP, ICRI and other concerned organizations to promote awareness of the problem of coral reefs, which were perhaps the most vulnerable of all ecosystems.

86. It was suggested that the issue should also be brought to the attention of the UNEP Division of Environmental Assessment and Early Warning and that consideration should be given to establishing a global watch for coral reefs, on the lines of that already established for forests.

87. In response to a question about an IETC-sponsored initiative on environmentally sound techniques for waste water, which would also have implications for coral reefs, Mr. Vene confirmed that, while ICRI had originally been a purely scientific body, it had widened its scope and was now focusing on management issues as well.

88. The meeting also considered the issue of coral bleaching, and was informed of a decision of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its latest session, that the issue of coral bleaching should be addressed, in conjunction with climate change effects, by the Convention's Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA). SBSTTA had decided that the issue was very specific and should be addressed in isolation. To that end it planned to hold an expert consultation, with the participation of ICRI, perhaps in a tripartite process with the regional seas organizations, in view of the valuable information available in the regions, in particular on social and economic aspects of the problem. It was also pointed out that bleaching was due not only to climate effects, but also to man-made causes, such as cyanide poisoning of fish and that the bottom line in coral-reef protection was enforcement: small island States did not have the capacity to enforce protection regimes.

3. Recommendations

89. The meeting agreed on the following recommendation regarding ICRI:

(a) The regional seas programmes and action plans welcomed the decision by the UNEP Governing Council to renew its support for ICRI. It also welcomed the request by GEF for UNEP, as an implementing agency of GEF, to take the lead on coral reefs;

(b) The regional seas programmes and action plans requested UNEP to strengthen their capacity in the monitoring of the status of coral reefs and to ascribe the utmost importance to capacity-building and training activities;

(c) The relevant regional seas programmes and action plans were actively working with ICRI and called for strengthened cooperation between and among the regional seas and action plans, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Framework Convention on Climate Change in the areas of coral reefs, climate change and coral bleaching. In addition, attention was drawn to the importance of enforcing environmental law development for the protection of coral reefs, in particular, with the assistance of local communities and local authorities;

(d) The regional seas programmes and action plans recommended that those issues should be presented at UNEP ministerial conferences, to gather political will and support for the enforcement of the protection of coral reefs.

F. Buenos Aires Programme of Action of the United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change and its relation to the regional

seas conventions and action plans

1. Introduction

90. Mr. Janos Pasztor, Coordinator, Conference and Information Support, secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, introduced the package of measures comprised by the Buenos Aires Programme of Action and explained that the measures fell into two sections, the so-called "classical issues", deriving from the Convention itself, and more recent issues, deriving from the Kyoto Protocol.

91. Reviewing the various issues in the Programme of Action, he pointed out, in respect of capacity-building in particular, that the role of the secretariat of the Framework Convention on Climate Change was to facilitate and not actually to conduct activities. He also explained that the Programme of Action was addressing political issues, as well as technical issues.

92. Turning to the regional seas conventions and action plans, he identified, as key areas of cooperation, impacts and vulnerability; and capacity-building, involving both the regional seas bodies and the UNEP regional offices. Interaction between the Convention and both the regional seas organizations and the UNEP regional offices could take place in such areas as knowledge management; networking and communication; capacity-building ? through facilitation measures; and issue management, including through an improved inter-agency response. He stressed the need to develop innovative and effective coordination mechanisms.

2. Discussion

93. In the ensuing discussion, representatives of the regional organizations agreed on the importance of the issues covered by the Framework Convention on Climate Change to their regions, particularly those with low-lying coastal areas and atoll islands. One representative noted the need for additional activities, particularly in the area of social and economic consequences, and regretted that awareness of climate change issues and of the need for controls, as well the level of implementation of the Convention itself, were very low in his region. In general, there was a large gap between the actual situation and the stated commitments of Governments.

94. Other representatives outlined specific areas for cooperation between their organizations and the Framework Convention on Climate Change: OSPAR had no specific mandate on greenhouse gases, but was able to address that problem indirectly and did have a mandate to address changes due to the impact of climate change on the marine environment. The Helsinki Commission ? whose scope did extend to greenhouse gases ? had a special annex on reduction measures and a number of initiatives relating to emissions reduction had been carried out in that region. The peoples of the North were also affected by climate change and there was a view that, for their region as well, the issue of atmospheric pollution should be extended to include greenhouse gases. Attention was drawn to the need to explore the relationships between climate change and other climate processes, including extreme climate events.

95. Responding to a question about possible synergies between the climate change and the POPs processes, particularly in such areas as capacity-building, as well as to concerns that adaptation technologies were beyond the reach of most small island States, Mr. Pasztor agreed on the need to harmonize and, where possible, consolidate capacity-building exercises. Plans had already been laid to develop such cooperation with the Convention on Biological Diversity, as well as with the Convention to Combat Desertification. In addition, it was suggested that regional models for adaptation could be development, and that the regional seas organizations could play an important role in that process.

96. Attention was also drawn to the possible benefits to be derived from cooperation with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and organizations such as the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), which was also concerned with climate change issues.

97. It was pointed out that climate change was not exclusively an environmental issue: the source of the problem lay in industry, transport and other sectors, yet, at government level, the issue was assigned to environment ministries. There was a need, accordingly, to raise the awareness, not just of the public, but also of Governments and to promote their commitment to finding solutions.

98. Concerning work with the private sector, considerable progress had been made in securing the involvement of the insurance sector, which, to an increasing extent, was now taking climate change issues into consideration in its work.

99. In response to a specific request for information on regional initiatives in the area of climate change, including, in particular, vulnerability studies, also factoring in extreme climate events and considering social and economic impacts, the representative of the South Pacific Regional Environmental Programme (SPREP) reported in detail on relevant measures taken in his region. The SPREP programme of work for 1997-2000 identified five major areas, the second of which was climate change and integrated coastal management, and the plan contained specific references to the involvement of SPREP in sea-level rise issues and mitigation measures. Other relevant measures related to monitoring, the development of links with meteorological services in the region and capacity-building. He informed the meeting of a course in adaptation developed in the region in cooperation with the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR). The course was currently being run at the University of Fiji and was able to accommodate participants from other regions as well.

100. In addition, SPREP had taken steps, at the regional level, to initiate a study of the consequences of climate change and extreme weather conditions, by approaching scientific appropriate scientific institutions in the region to carry out the study on its behalf. In addition, preparations were being made for a conference on that issue in Rarotonga, Cook Islands, in April 2000.

101. The representative of the Regional Coordinating Unit for the West and Central African Action Plan (WACAF/RCU) said that a task team had been set up, as long ago as 1989, to study the possible impacts of climate change in the WACAF region. A meeting had also been held with a team from EAF/RCU to identify policy options and areas for joint activity. The study had found significant impacts in the region and had made appropriate recommendations.

102. The representative of the Regional Coordinating Unit for the East Asian Seas (EAS/RCU) said that climate change had not been considered a priority issue at the three meetings of experts held in his region.

103. The representative of the Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean (ROLAC) informed participants of plans in his region to hold a meeting on the issues of vulnerability and preparedness, as well as a workshop on adaptation measures.

104. Mr. Pasztor stressed the need to factor climate change in planning at the regional level and to take into account, also, the linkage with man-made events. He noted that continued scientific work was needed at the regional level, to validate the global climate models and that awareness-raising measures must be conducted at the local level. It was also important to ensure the involvement of market mechanisms.

105. It was suggested that regions should give closer attention to the issue of adaptation strategies and the need to raise awareness. To that end, the regional seas conventions and action plans could be offered as a regional framework for joint implementation. In particular, a European-Mediterranean partnership could serve as a model for joint implementation of the Framework Convention on Climate Change. It was noted that a decision of the Conference of the Parties would be required for that purpose.

106. The meeting expressed interest in working more closely with the Framework Convention on Climate Change. Participants noted that the socio-economic and ecological consequences of climate change for the coastal and marine environment were expected to include sea-level rise, flooding and storms, and threats to coral and other species.

3. Recommendations

107. Accordingly, the meeting recommended that the Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change should consider the regional seas conventions and action plans as an effective regional mechanism for the implementation of the activities set forth below and that, to that end, UNEP would follow up with the secretariat of the Framework Convention:

(a) In the area of vulnerability and adaptation, the regional seas conventions and action plans could offer the Framework Convention on Climate Change an existing and effective regional mechanism for assessing vulnerabilities, exploring adaptation options, implementing adaptation strategies, and incorporating climate change considerations into national and regional planning;

(b) In the area of awareness-raising, given that the expected impacts of climate change were extremely negative for the billions of people living in coastal areas and that their compelling and relatively specific nature offered good opportunities for public awareness-raising at the regional level, the regional seas conventions and action plans could cooperate with the secretariat of the Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNEP and other relevant United Nations, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations in launching local and regional awareness campaigns;

(c) In the area of capacity-building, many climate-related impacts would require response options that could also address issues such as sustainable coastal development and the protection of mangrove and other ecosystems. Capacity-building for the Framework Convention on Climate Change should be coordinated with capacity-building offered by institutions dealing with those other issues;

(d) In the area of joint implementation, projects for strengthening adaptation to expected climate change impacts in coastal areas could be implemented through the regional seas conventions, action plans and secretariats.

G. Barbados Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of

Small Island Developing States

1. Introduction

108. Mr. Peter Donigi, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Papua New Guinea to the United Nations, speaking on behalf of AOSIS, presented a statement from AOSIS to the meeting, copies of which were made available to all participants and the text of which is provided in annex VI to the present report. He drew the attention of the participants to the recent meeting of the Commission on Sustainable Development, at which many small island developing States had supported a comprehensive approach to the conservation and sustainable use of the world's oceans, including the overarching issues of coastal management, atmosphere, and tourism - the areas in which UNEP had pioneered global action.

109. He noted that the UNEP regional seas programme, the Barbados Programme of Action, the Global Programme of Action and the regional institutions offered excellent tools for addressing issues relating to the vulnerability of small island developing States to:

(a) Overexploitation of fisheries resources;

(b) Environmental degradation;

(d) Effects of climate change; and

(e) Preparedness for natural disasters.

110. He further stressed the need for capacity-building in general but emphasized, in particular, the area of feasibility studies and project design to meet donors' requirements, so as to facilitate an early draw-down of aid funds for the representation of small island developing States at international meetings.

111. He drew attention to the problems of coordination of programmes associated with the enforcement of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the initiatives of FAO, GEF, IMO, UNEP and other international organisations in respect of oceans and seas. He mentioned in particular the representation problems experienced by small island States in having to cover all those meetings. To address those problems, an initiative had been put forward by a number of small island delegations through the Commission on Sustainable Development, to request the General Assembly to organize an annual informal consultation process over a period of one week devoted to oceans and the law of the sea. He invited support from other organizations at the meeting for that initiative.

2. Discussion

112. Several representatives expressed support for the work of AOSIS and said that even those regional seas areas which had few or no small island States shared many of the same concerns in their low-lying coastal areas. Attention was drawn, inter alia, to the important linkage between fisheries and the environment; the importance for small island developing States of the revitalization of the regional seas programmes and the Global Programme of Action; the need to raise awareness of the greater vulnerability of those States and the important role of the regional seas organizations in monitoring progress in meeting the objectives of the Barbados Programme of Action; the need for capacity-building, in particular, to ensure that project proposals were properly presented and received the necessary support from Governments; and the crucial importance of integrating environmental strategies into national development.

113. Representatives reported on relevant activities in their respective regions, highlighting planned measures in the areas of training and information; the preparation of environment outlook reports on their regions; the organization of donors' meetings; the preparation of waste management programmes; the promotion of sustainable tourism; and logistic problems in dealing with large numbers of scattered States. The meeting noted, in particular, a consultation between the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), CAR/RCU and ROLAC, to prepare a common position for the forthcoming special session of the General Assembly for an assessment and appraisal of the implementation of the Programme of Action of the Global Conference on the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States. Calls were made for strengthened support from UNEP for small island developing States initiatives. It was suggested, inter alia, that AOSIS might consider organizing a high-level political meeting with a view to securing stronger commitment to its members' action plans.

3. Recommendations

114. Following that discussion, the meeting endorsed the measures proposed by the representative of AOSIS in his paper as priority actions in support of the Barbados Programme of Action (see annex VI to the present report) and recommended:

(a) That the extensive involvement of UNEP in the 14 priority areas of the Barbados Programme of Action should be demonstrated to the Commission on Sustainable Development and that input should be prepared for the special session of the General Assembly for an assessment and appraisal of the implementation of the Programme of Action of the Global Conference on the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States, on 27 and 28 September 1999, showing specific results already achieved, including from the UNEP Technology, Industry and Economics Division, and transmitting the outcome of the preparatory meeting of CAR/RCU, ECLAC AND ROLAC;

(b) That UNEP, in consultation with the regional seas conventions and action plans, should prepare a paper for presentation to the General Assembly at its special session, on activities in support of the work of the Barbados Programme of Action.

H. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

1. Introduction

115. Mr. Juan Antonio Escudero, Law of the Sea/Ocean Affairs Officer in the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea of the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs, reviewed the relevance of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to the regional seas conventions and action plans and the kind of assistance that the Division could provide to the regional seas programme. He also addressed institutional issues regarding ocean governance, including the outcome of the last session of the Commission on Sustainable Development.

116. Concerning the Convention, he pointed out that it was generally recognized as "the Constitution for the Oceans". The constitutional character of the Convention, he explained, stemmed from two different facts; on the one hand, the Convention spelt out the rights and duties of States concerning all uses of the oceans; on the other, it was a framework for further global, regional and national development, usually through the competent international organizations.

117. To illustrate those points, he referred to the provisions in the Convention dealing with the protection and preservation of the marine environment and the balance achieved between the rights and obligations of the different categories of States. In that context, he drew particular attention to the rules of the Convention dealing with the control and prevention of pollution from vessels (that was incidental to or derived from the normal operation of vessels), which took into account both the right of the coastal State to protect maritime zones under their jurisdiction against pollution and the freedom of navigation of other States. He explained that, in that context, the competent organization for the further development of the rules contained in the Convention was IMO, which provided a guarantee that a single legal regime would be developed and applied to all States.

118. He also pointed out the need for a coordinated approach to the implementation of the provisions of the Convention. In that regard, he referred to marine protected areas and noted that rules for the establishment of such areas had been adopted or were being considered by different international organizations such as IMO, some of the regional action plans and conventions, UNESCO and the Convention on Biological Diversity. He also pointed out that the Convention on the Law of the Sea laid out rules regarding marine protected areas which needed to be taken into account. In that context, he explained that, from the point of view of the law of the sea, two factors at least needed to be considered when establishing such areas: the different jurisdictional regimes in the various existing maritime zones such as internal waters, territorial waters, exclusive economic zones, fishery zones and the high seas; and, in relation to those regimes, the regulatory measures that could be adopted and enforced in those areas by the coastal State in respect of foreign vessels. He stressed that, although marine protected areas were important and useful tools for the conservation of the marine environment, including its biodiversity and habitats, historical sites, etc., care should be taken to ensure that regulatory measures adopted for such areas were consistent with the provisions of the Convention dealing with the rights and obligations of States.

119. In his view, the examples provided concerning pollution from vessels and marine protected areas illustrated the need for any legal development regarding the law of the sea to conform to the constitutional rules contained in the Convention. In that context, he recalled that the General Assembly, in its resolution on oceans and the law of the sea, reaffirms every year the importance of ensuring the uniform and consistent application of the Convention and a coordinated approach to its overall implementation, and invited the competent international organizations and other international bodies to support those objectives. Those same objectives were also implicit in other international instruments, such as chapter 17 of Agenda 21 and the Convention on Biological Diversity, which recognized the Convention on the Law of the Sea as the legal framework in law of the sea issues, in particular regarding the rights and obligations of States.

120. Other issues dealt with in the Convention of possible relevance to the work of the regional seas conventions and action plans included marine scientific research, transfer of technology, information gathering and dissemination and certain fisheries issues.

121. Concerning ocean governance, he referred to the outcome of the seventh session of the Commission on Sustainable Development, which, in order to make the deliberations on oceans and the law of the sea in the General Assembly more effective, had recommended the establishment of an open‑ended informal consultative process under the auspices of the General Assembly. That recommendation would be considered by the General Assembly during its fifty‑fifth session. The consultative process would identify priority areas in ocean affairs, including the necessary actions to be taken. That goal would be achieved through a comprehensive, in‑depth and action‑oriented discussion on ocean affairs held annually and open to all stakeholders such as States, United Nations programmes and agencies and non‑governmental organizations. He also referred to the different international organizations competent in the field of marine affairs with which the regional seas programmes and action plans might wish to collaborate.

122. He then addressed the way in which the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea could be of assistance to the regional seas programme. In that respect, he noted that the Division should not be seen as the watchdog of the Convention but rather as a partner in ensuring that the declared objective of the international community - namely, the promotion of the uniform and consistent application of its provisions - was achieved. He also noted that one of the mandates of the Division, as stated in different General Assembly resolutions, was to assist international organizations in the development of legal instruments in the field of the law of the sea in harmony with the provisions of the Convention.

123. In conclusion, he referred to the annual report on oceans and the law of the sea prepared by the Division, which provided the basis for the debate on ocean affairs at the General Assembly, and encouraged the regional seas and action plans to contribute to that report and to use it as an instrument to convey to the international community salient issues or matters which might require further action, as well as any recommendations which they might wish to make in their area of competence.

2. Discussion

124. In the ensuing discussion, it was pointed out by one of the participants that boundaries drawn up on the basis of ecological considerations did not necessarily coincide with administrative or political boundaries. Accordingly, efforts to make environmental rules more effective sometimes led to conflicts with other legal regimes. In response, Mr. Escudero said that environmental boundaries and political boundaries were not in contradiction with each other but operated on different levels. According to him, political boundaries were needed in many instances, such as for the actual enforcement of environmental rules. In any event, he agreed with the idea expressed during the meeting that legal disputes on maritime zones and boundaries should not jeopardize or delay intergovernmental cooperation for the protection of the marine environment.

125. Concerning the objection raised by two regional seas bodies that environmental rules needed to go beyond what was provided for in the Convention and that article 237 of the Convention itself allowed such developments, Mr. Escudero recalled what had been said earlier regarding the balance achieved by the Convention as to the interests of different groups of States. In this regard, he noted that developments of the rules of the Convention were desirable, provided that they were carried out in accordance with the rights and obligations of States contained in the Convention or following the appropriate procedures through the competent international organizations.

126. Attention was also drawn to the need for strengthened coordination. It was pointed out that a serious effort was being undertaken in that respect among international organizations, one example of which was the current meeting of regional seas conventions and action plans, but that much work remained to be done at the national level between different ministries and regarding the integration of environmental aspects into other activities.

127. It was agreed that the regional seas programmes and action plans provided the appropriate level for the implementation of global instruments, in particular those dealing with the protection of the marine environment, and for ensuring proper coordination between regional and global conventions as well as a vehicle for the gathering of information. It was pointed out, nevertheless, that, although many international instruments had been adopted for the protection and preservation of the marine environment, implementation was often lacking because of various factors, such as insufficient funding or lack of political will of the States concerned. In that respect, Mr. Escudero said that it was pointless to develop new legal instruments going beyond the legal regime provided for by the Convention when there was already so much to do in implementing the existing instruments. In that context, he referred to the obligation of all States, according to the Convention, to prevent, reduce and control marine pollution from land-based activities and the need to implement the Global Programme of Action.

128. In the area of research, there was a need to develop synergies with the involvement of such bodies as, inter alia, IOC, the IAEA Marine Environment Laboratory. As for technology transfer, Mr. Escudero said that, if that was an important part of the work of the regional seas conventions and action plans, they should work with UNESCO to develop specific programmes for technology transfer. He also stressed the need for concerted efforts to improve the implementation of the existing instruments.

129. In addition, it was suggested that an issues‑oriented process should be fostered among the regional seas and other pertinent organizations for coordinating the work and concerns of the Convention, the regional seas programmes and other interested partners. In that regard, it was suggested that a meeting should be organized, on a regular basis, with the participation of international lawyers, experts and the UNEP legal unit, to address sensitive emerging issues and to elaborate a common approach by United Nations agencies. Mr. Escudero said that his Division could provide legal assistance in any development concerning the law of the sea.

130. The Chair drew attention to the background document on the subitem, circulated under symbol UNEP(DEC)/RS.2/INF/5 and transmitting document UNEP/GC.20/19/Add.1, on UNEP activities regarding oceans management. The document contained inputs for the seventh session of the Commission on Sustainable Development on the subject of oceans and presented a historical overview of the development and future perspectives of the regional seas conventions and action plans. Initially their focus had been more on marine pollution but currently they were focusing on coastal management and fisheries issues. He said that there had been four generations of protocols developed for the regional seas conventions: on oil spills, biodiversity, transboundary movement of hazardous waste and land-based sources of pollution.

3. Recommendations

131. Following that discussion, the meeting welcomed the offer of the secretariat of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to provide its legal expertise to regional seas conventions and action plans and its assistance in the further development of their legal instruments and recommended:

(a) That the regional seas conventions and action plans, the United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea and other competent organizations and interested secretariats should consult with one another periodically, with a view to ensuring a uniform and consistent approach regarding specific issues of common concern, including trade, marine protected areas, land-based sources of pollution and others, and, to that end, should hold regular meetings, on an annual or biennial basis, of technical and legal experts;

(b) That those informal consultations should be complementary to the work of the Subcommittee on Oceans and Coastal Areas of the Administrative Committee on Coordination (ACC);

(c) That the regional seas conventions and action plans would continue, through UNEP, to contribute information on their yearly activities to the annual report of the Convention on the Law of the Sea to the General Assembly.

III. ADDRESSING MORE EFFECTIVELY THE ISSUE OF THE SUSTAINABLE

MANAGEMENT OF FISHERIES

A. Integrating environmental considerations into the fisheries sector

1. Introduction

132. Briefly introducing the item, Mr. Illueca drew attention to Governing Council decision 20/19 A of 5 February 1999, on the contribution of UNEP to the Commission on Sustainable Development at its seventh session in the area of oceans and seas, and, in particular, to its subparagraph 1 (e), calling for an enhanced collaboration between UNEP, FAO and other organizations in the area of sustainable fisheries and aquaculture.

2. Discussion

133. In the ensuing discussion, participants agreed that a strong and effective partnership should be fostered between UNEP and FAO in addressing issues of sustainable fisheries, particularly in areas of complementarity and common concern.

3. Recommendations

134. Following that discussion, the meeting recommended:

(a) That UNEP and FAO should develop a more consolidated approach to integrating fisheries and environmental considerations and should define the role and responsibilities of both UNEP and FAO in the following areas of common concern: protected areas; bycatches; marine and coastal habitat protection; marine mammals; protected species; integrated coastal and marine management, including fish resources conservation; and the effects of fisheries on biological diversity;

(b) That UNEP should prepare a draft paper on those subjects and should ask the secretariats of the regional seas conventions and action plans for their suggestions, following which UNEP would meet with FAO and use that paper as a building block in their consultation.

B. Revitalizing the Global Plan of Action for the Conservation, Management

and Utilization of Marine Mammals

1. Introduction

135. Ms. Monica Borobia, Programme Officer, Global Programme of Action Coordination Office, introducing the background document on the subitem (UNEP(DEC)/RS.2/9) on behalf of the Division of Environmental Conventions, said that the Global Plan of Action for Marine Mammals had been developed jointly by UNEP and FAO, in collaboration with other intergovernmental and non-governmental bodies, in response to growing international concerns about the status of and need for measures to conserve marine mammal populations throughout the world and that the General Assembly had designated UNEP as secretariat to the Plan.

136. Although the Plan had significantly contributed to the enhancement of technical and institutional capacities required for the conservation and management of marine mammals in several developing regions of the world, such as Latin America and the Caribbean, East and West Africa, the Black Sea and South East-Asia, institutional support needed within UNEP for its effective implementation had declined considerably over the years.

137. As part of the implementation of their protocols on such areas as biodiversity, specially protected areas, and wild fauna and flora, certain regional seas conventions had established regional action plans dealing specifically with marine mammals. In addition, cooperation with global convention secretariats and other relevant global instruments had been extremely beneficial and in some cases key to the development of programmes and policies on important marine mammal issues at the international level.

2. Discussion

138. In the discussions that followed, representatives of regional seas conventions and action plans summarized ongoing activities in their respective regions. The meeting voiced strong support for the revitalization of the Marine Mammal Action Plan and endorsed the need for UNEP headquarters to assign sufficient human and financial resources for its implementation. In addition, the recommendations contained in document UNEP(DEC)RS.2/9 were also supported in their entirety.

139. In the light of fruitful past experience, it was reiterated that the Plan offered a suitable vehicle for continued support for the development of regional marine mammal plans under the regional seas conventions and action plans, as it provided the necessary overall framework for cooperation and expertise at the international level. Interest was expressed in the development of such regional marine mammal action plans for the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden and for the ROPME sea area.

140. The protection of endangered species such as the Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus) and the dugong (Dugong dugong), and the maintenance of critical habitats for their survival were identified as areas where the Marine Mammal Action Plan could contribute to advance conservation measures. It was also felt that the Plan should continue to play a coordinating role in promoting interregional sharing of experiences and best practices in the management of marine mammals.

141. The meeting recognized the role that marine mammals could play as bioindicators of the health of the marine environment and their importance in fisheries. As top level predators they had an impact on local food webs and ecosystems as a whole, and also indicated the exposure and effects of pollutants over spatial, temporal and trophic scales.

142. It was stressed that cooperation with the secretariats of global conventions should continue and be strengthened. The representative of the Convention on Biological Diversity offered the assistance of the Convention's secretariat to evaluate how the provisions of the Jakarta Mandate on coastal and marine biodiversity applied to issues of relevance to marine mammals.

3. Recommendations

143. Following that discussion, the meeting recommended:

(a) That UNEP should reaffirm the Global Plan of Action for Marine Mammals as a priority in its and the regional seas conventions and action plans;

(b) That sufficient human and financial resources should urgently be assigned for UNEP to continue its function, at UNEP headquarters, as secretariat to the Global Plan of Action for Marine Mammals;

(c) That a task force should be established within UNEP to oversee technical aspects of the development of the Global Plan of Action for Marine Mammals, in cooperation with the regional seas conventions and action plans;

(d) That UNEP should re-engage key partners and explore modalities for the involvement of other partners such as the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), the Convention on Biological Diversity and the regional seas conventions and action plans for the implementation of the Global Plan of Action for Marine Mammals and, in that context, that it should request the secretariat of the Global Plan of Action for Marine Mammals to undertake, as soon as possible, active consultations with such partners;

(e) That UNEP should recognize the urgent need to support the development of regional marine mammal programmes in those regional conventions and action plans which have not developed such programmes and should promote interregional cooperation and exchange of experience on implementation of the Global Plan of Action for Marine Mammals;

(f) That UNEP, as secretariat of the Global Plan of Action for Marine Mammals, should further explore such subjects as interactions between marine mammals and fisheries; the application of well managed and responsible sustainable uses of marine mammals, such as ecotourism, including whale and dolphin watching and, similar activities; and other emerging issues.

IV. STRENGTHENING HORIZONTAL COOPERATION AND TIES AMONG

REGIONAL SEAS CONVENTIONS AND ACTION PLANS

A. Cooperation between and among the regional seas conventions

and action plans and other interested organizations

1. Introduction

144. Mr. Illueca briefly introduced the subitem, drawing attention to the different levels of development among the regional seas conventions and action plans. He noted that some of the more mature regional seas conventions had developed considerable expertise in the management of coastal and marine areas and that they were currently in a position to provide technical cooperation and assistance to the younger and less developed conventions. The sharing of experience, best practices and lessons learned among the regional seas conventions and action plans would be an invaluable form of cooperation. He concluded that the current meeting represented the first occasion the a meeting of the regional seas conventions and action plans had addressed the issue of horizontal cooperation and that that was a major step forward in the evolution of their work.

2. Discussion

145. Representatives reported on cooperative activities in which their respective organizations were already engaged and also drew attention to areas where further cooperation was needed, including negotiations with the World trade Organization (WTO), information exchange, performance indicators, assessment and monitoring, reporting activities, enforcement measures and their coordination with national legislation, the development of protocols, fund-raising techniques, geographic information systems (GIS), atmospheric transports, and others. In addition, further information was needed on contributions and assistance that could be provided in the area of horizontal cooperation by the Coordination Office and by the UNEP Division of Environmental Conventions.

146. While some representatives expressed willingness to cooperate directly with other organizations, there was a general preference for such cooperation arrangements to be channelled through UNEP, with a view to ensuring that contact was made with the appropriate offices or units. Attention was also drawn to the need for functional relationships among the various regional seas organizations, with a view to exchanging experience and best practices in such areas as tourism, trade and the development of performance indicators, and for increased capacity-building in the regional seas areas.

147. Representatives outlined areas in which their respective organizations had useful experience or expertise, which could be made available to other interested organizations. Those included the development of project proposals and partnerships with non-governmental organizations (Cartagena Convention); monitoring and assessment, reporting, enforcement measures and providing information to the public on the state of the environment (MAP); and traditional ecological knowledge and community-based action (PAME).

3. Recommendations

148. Accordingly, the meeting recommended:

(a) That horizontal cooperation among the regional seas conventions and action plans and other relevant organizations should be of a flexible nature and should be channelled through UNEP;

(b) That UNEP should continue to facilitate such cooperation, where necessary, with the provision of financial assistance;

(c) That the UNEP regional offices should be involved in the regional preparatory process for the various conferences of parties;

(d) That UNEP should reinvigorate its role in the Barbados Programme of Action for Small Island Developing States;

(e) That secretariats of regional seas conventions and action plans whose respective seas areas were contiguous, in particular, MAP, PERSGA and ROPME; EAS and SACEP; OSPAR, MAP and WACAF, should coordinate their activities relating to issues of common concern;

(f) That efforts should be made to enhance the exchange of information in such areas as experience in dealing with international organizations, non-governmental organizations and donors and in the preparation of project proposals.

B. Public information and outreach

1. Introduction

149. The subitem was briefly introduced by Mr. Michael Williams, Chief, UNEP Information Unit for Conventions, who outlined the public and media services offered by UNEP to the regional seas conventions and action plans. The Unit currently managed press relations, published information materials, organized seminars and maintained web sites for a number of global environmental conventions.

150. The Unit also offered to establish a global regional seas web site, as well as region-specific web sites for those secretariats needing such assistance. The global site could include popular and educational materials, official documents, a calendar of events, and links to relevant sites, while the regional sites would carry similar information targeted for that particular region, in the appropriate languages. The regional sites could be maintained on a UNEP server until such time as secretariats were technically prepared to take over responsibility.

151. The Unit also proposed the production of a general brochure describing the environmental challenges facing the seas, their causes and impacts, and the solutions promoted by the conventions and action plans. A quarterly newsletter, perhaps modelled on the highly successful Siren published in the 1980s, could eventually be considered if there was sufficient demand.

2. Discussion

152. The participants welcomed the proposal to produce a global regional seas web site and a general brochure, and many secretariats requested support for establishing or strengthening their own regional sites. The Unit undertook to make those activities a priority during the second half of 1999, on the basis of funds to be provided by the UNEP Environment Fund.

3. Recommendations

153. Following that discussion, the meeting welcomed the undertaking by UNEP to help strengthen the public profile of the regional seas plans by the following measures, to be completed in 1999:

(a) Developing and publishing a general brochure, in the official United Nations languages, explaining the overall regional seas regime, including causes, impacts, and policy responses;

(b) Providing technical and editorial assistance to regional seas secretariats to create or to strengthen their individual web sites;

(c) Establishing a regional seas home page with links to the individual secretariat sites, a brief explanation of the regional seas regime, and links to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, other relevant sites, the brochure and other general information;

154. Furthermore, the meeting recommended:

(a) That UNEP, the regional seas conventions and action plans and other interested organizations should prepare brief inputs on, and links to, their own organizations for insertion in one another's web sites;

(b) That the work on web sites would be carried out in cooperation between UNEP and the Coordination Office of the Global Programme of Action; and

(c) That consideration would be given to developing additional communications tools, such as a newsletter on the lines of the earlier Siren, for the year 2000, in consultation with the secretariats;

(d) That regional seas conventions and action plans should include in their web sites cross-links to other conventions and action plans and to relevant parts of the UNEP web site.

V. UNEP SUPPORT TO STRENGTHENING THE REGIONAL SEAS CONVENTIONS

AND ACTION PLANS

155. The subitem was briefly introduced by Mr. Illueca, who noted that the previous discussions had led to several important recommendations on, first, strengthening the regional seas conventions and action plans and their links to global conventions and related international agreements, particularly the Global Programme of Action and GIWA; second, addressing the priority issues of the regional seas conventions and action plans; and, third, promoting horizontal cooperation. Those recommendations could serve as the basis for UNEP support and for revitalizing the relationship between UNEP and the regional seas conventions and action plans.

2. Discussion

156. In the ensuing discussion, several representatives of regional seas conventions and action plans agreed that the decisions of the current meeting should serve as the framework for UNEP support. A number felt that the decline in UNEP support to their work had reflected a growing lack of interest on the part of UNEP. They felt that the current meeting had gone a long way towards demonstrating that the regional seas conventions and action plans were a priority of UNEP.

3. Recommendations

157. Following that discussion, the meeting welcomed the revitalization of the relationship between UNEP and the regional seas conventions and action plans and recommended that UNEP support to strengthening the regional seas conventions and action plans should be based on the recommendations of the current meeting.

VI. OTHER MATTERS

A. Proposed outputs of the meeting

158. Following a discussion, it was agreed that, in addition to the standard report of the present meeting, several other outputs should be prepared, to ensure maximum benefit from the meeting and to address the needs of different audiences.

159. One such additional output would be a resource document on the regional seas conventions and action plans to be prepared by UNEP, bearing in mind the recommendations of the present meeting and follow-up to the seventh session of the Commission on Sustainable Development, which could include the following elements:

Executive summary.

1. Introduction - an overview:

(a) Objectives and historical perspective of the development of regional seas conventions and action plans;

(b) Role of donors in supporting activities in international waters;

(c) Challenges facing the regional seas conventions and action plans in their follow-up to the seventh session of the Commission on Sustainable Development;

(d) Strengthening interagency partnerships in support of regional seas programmes, between and among, inter alia, FAO, IAEA, IMO, IOC, UNEP, WHO, WMO, WTO and relevant regional organizations;

(e) Challenges facing the regional seas conventions and action plans.

2. Coordination and collaboration among regional seas conventions and action plans:

(a) Second global meeting of regional seas conventions and action plans;

(b) Linkages to global environmental conventions and related agreements;

3. Global International Waters Assessment:

(a) Objectives and scope;

(b) Role of the regional seas conventions and action plans.

4. Global Programme of Action for the protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities:

(a) Status of implementation;

(b) Lin