|
|
PDF Format |
Spanish Version |
French Version |
|
|
|
|
| |
Published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development
(IISD)
Vol. 25 No. 28
Wednesday, 14 June 2006
UNICPOLOS-7
HIGHLIGHTS:
TUESDAY, 13 JUNE 2006
On Tuesday,
delegates to the seventh meeting of
the UN Open-ended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of
the Sea (UNICPOLOS-7 or Consultative Process) reconvened in a Discussion Panel on
ecosystem approaches and oceans. In the morning, presentations were
made and a discussion was held on moving to implementation: implications for enabling
elements. In the afternoon, delegates addressed lessons learned from
implementation of ecosystem approaches at the national level in developed
States. In the evening, a Friends of the Co-Chairs group chaired by
Renée Sauvé (Canada) convened to prepare draft elements for
recommendations to the General Assembly, to be considered in plenary on
Friday.
DISCUSSION PANEL ON ECOSYSTEM APPROACHES AND
OCEANS
MOVING TO IMPLEMENTATION: IMPLICATIONS FOR ENABLING
ELEMENTS: Presentations: Jake Rice, Department of Fisheries and
Oceans, Canada, discussed science advisors’ role in implementing the
ecosystem approach. He noted that meaningful change in management will not
be swift, and warned that waiting for integrated management and governance
will delay possible conservation actions. Rice said despite a lack of
comprehensive information for implementing the ecosystem approach, the
ability to provide useful advice is currently available. He acknowledged
the difficulty of advising on the indirect effects of human activities on
predator/prey/competitor interactions. Rice highlighted the need to
facilitate regional and global marine assessments by broad-based teams of
policy-independent but government-supported experts.
Serge Garcia, FAO Fisheries Resources Division, presented the FAO
implementation framework and agenda for the ecosystem approach to
fisheries, emphasizing that successful implementation depends upon
achieving political and community support, economic and social viability,
and sufficient administrative and research capacity. He reported that the
implementation of the ecosystem approach to fisheries is embryonic and
must be progressive, adaptive, multifaceted and trans-institutional.
Garcia said existing problems of open access, perverse subsidies, illegal
fishing, ineffective high seas governance, under-funded research, and weak
administration need to be solved in order for the ecosystem approach to
fisheries to be successful.
Michael O’Toole,
Benguela Current LME Programme, explained that this joint initiative
between Angola, Namibia and South Africa aims to improve their capacity to
deal with transboundary management issues and achieve sustainable and
integrated management of the region’s marine resources. He listed key
components of the programme, including: joint assessment of shared fish
stocks; harmonization of monitoring and management procedures; assessment
of seabed mining impacts; establishment of an early warning system for
extreme events; and assessment and conservation of marine biodiversity.
O’Toole highlighted the development and implementation of an ecosystem
approach for fisheries management in the Benguela Current LME, and
cooperation and partnerships with regional and international
bodies.
John Richardson,
European Commission (EC), discussed the EU’s Green Paper
on a future maritime policy and its significance for ecosystem-based
management. He highlighted challenges to implementing an ecosystem-based
approach, including: fragmented governance structures and ecosystem
models; the difficulty of balancing scientific and economic data because
of shifting baselines; and the need for a decentralized implementation
framework adapted to diverse ecosystems. On the way forward, he stressed:
a move from piecemeal instruments to integrated arrangements; stronger
stakeholder participation to achieve social agreement on goals; and
improved surveillance for effective monitoring and enforcement.
Discussion:
On areas beyond national jurisdiction, the EU noted the governance gap
in these areas and called for the development of an agreement for the
protection of these marine ecosystems. With the NRDC, the EU also called
for the adoption of interim measures in high seas areas where no RFMO
exists. IUCN - The World Conservation Union underlined its
support for an interim prohibition of high seas bottom
trawling.
On scientific
information, the US underscored the importance of impartial scientific
advice for implementing the ecosystem approach. Rice stressed that
scientific advice can inform policy and lead to greater compliance without
leading to greater complexity.
On regional
cooperation, the EC opposed the
view that RFMOs have failed to fulfill their conservation mission. The GEF outlined the LME programme process, which includes:
establishing interdepartmental government committees in member countries;
performing cooperative transboundary scientific research and analysis; and
developing a strategic action programme to address transboundary concerns.
THAILAND stressed the need for cooperation in response to threats to
critical ocean zones, and emphasized the regional differences of
ecosystem-based approaches. NORWAY underscored the need for intersectoral
coordination, and questioned the meaning of “inclusive governance.”
Co-Chair Ridgeway underlined the role of the UN as an integrating body. On
stakeholder engagement, the US noted the need to provide incentives for
all sectors to participate in ecosystem-based management. CANADA
underscored the importance of achieving joint stakeholder ownership of
shared objectives.
On resources for
implementing the ecosystem approach, Garcia called for greater assistance
to developing countries and noted that under-investing in the ecosystem
approach may lead to greater long-term economic costs. Garcia advocated
that costs be borne by both environment and fisheries institutions.
Richardson explained that the EU will use synergies and reduce sectoral
incompatibilities and duplication to improve management using existing
resources. UNEP stressed that moving from a sectoral approach to an
integrated approach requires time and capacity building.
LESSONS LEARNED FROM IMPLEMENTATION OF ECOSYSTEM
APPROACHES AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL IN DEVELOPED STATES: Presentations:
Campbell Davies, Australian Commonwealth
Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, outlined the
Australian context for implementation of ecosystem-based management,
noting key elements such as adaptive management, the application of the
precautionary approach, and stakeholder participation. He highlighted
significant progress towards ecosystem-based management through the
discussion of three case studies: the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park; the
South East Regional Marine Plan; and the transition to ecosystem-based
management in Commonwealth fisheries. He noted the importance of strong
enabling legislation, the iterative development of ecological spatial
frameworks based upon best available scientific advice, and representative
MPAs for conserving ecosystem-level biodiversity.
Camille Mageau,
Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Canada, outlined the
Canadian legislative framework for ecosystem-based management, noting the
use of both top-down property-based and bottom-up activity-based
approaches. On lessons learned, she emphasized that ecosystem approaches
require: a simple but gradual approach; good, but not perfect scientific
knowledge; and multidisciplinary scientific advice. She stressed the
importance of incorporating socioeconomic considerations, engaging all
stakeholders, and revisiting decisions as new information becomes
available. On developing an international work plan, she called for using
existing governance bodies and guidance documents and developing common
scientific advice to guide decision making.
Erik Olsen, Institute of Marine Research, Norway, discussed the
Norwegian ecosystem-based management plan for the Barents Sea and areas
off the Lofoten Islands. He explained that the process involved assessing
the status of available science, carrying out sectoral studies, and
examining overall pressures. Olsen explained that sectoral impact analysis
demonstrates that expansion of the petroleum industry will be the main
change in human activity through 2020. He noted that despite sound
scientific basis for the management plan, gaps in knowledge exist and
require further research and surveys. He underscored that the plan sets up
new ways to allow for cooperation between ministries and other public
institutions.
Johann
Sigurjonsson, Marine Research
Institute, Iceland, reported on domestic implementation and practical
considerations relating to ecosystem-based fisheries management. He
suggested determining management actions on the basis of a comparative
valuation of different marine resources. Noting that single-species
fisheries management can move incrementally towards ecosystem-based
management, Sigurjonsson outlined an inventory for mapping ecosystem
aspects of single-species management that could help identify gaps and
research needs, raise stakeholder awareness, and later contribute to a
more holistic ecosystem approach to management.
Discussion:
On threats to the marine environment, the NRDC said harmful undersea
noise is often left out of current ecosystem analysis and management. The
INTERNATIONAL OCEAN NOISE COALITION encouraged regional
ecosystem-based management to prevent noise pollution impacts,
particularly upon commercially-valuable species and MPAs. Olsen reiterated
that all human impacts on the ecosystem, including noise, need to be
assessed. The SEA TURTLE RESTORATION
PROJECT called for ecosystem-based management approaches to include a
review of the status of endangered marine species, giving the example of
the need to protect leatherback turtles in the Pacific from longline
fishing.
On implementing
the ecosystem approach, the DAVID SUZUKI
FOUNDATION urged States to: implement marine reserves and moratoria to
protect vulnerable ecosystems; adequately fund ecosystem-based management
implementation activities; and define thresholds and measurable targets
for ecosystem values. Mageau stressed the need to consider non-traditional
ecosystem-based management performance measures and to carry out rigorous
assessments. ITALY said the ecosystem approach may be considered as an
evolution of integrated management, outlining a number of initiatives in
the Mediterranean that contribute to an ecosystem-based approach. CANADA
highlighted the presentations’ common key elements for success, including
the use of broad tool kits and flexibility.
On stakeholder
engagement, the INTERNATIONAL COALITION OF
FISHING ASSOCIATIONS inquired how incentives and disincentives were
used to gain community and stakeholder support and what trade-offs were
necessary. Davies stated that providing examples demonstrating the
benefits of an ecosystem approach can maintain the resolve for action, and
participatory processes that maintain transparency and accessibility can
increase stakeholder understanding, awareness, and support for the
approach. He gave the example of participation by both the fisheries and
the recreational sectors in the evaluation process for the closure system
in order to build ownership. Olsen noted that an open and participatory
process is required to reconcile opposing views, but that the ultimate
decision is political. On scientific knowledge, AUSTRALIA highlighted that
scientists need to develop monitoring and assessment strategies to fill
gaps in knowledge.
On high seas
management, GREENPEACE urged
delegates to evaluate the implementation examples outlined by the panel,
and select elements, such as protection of spawning and nursery grounds,
that can be applied to achieve ecosystem-based management of the high
seas.
IN
THE CORRIDORS
Discussions on
ecosystem approaches moved forward cordially on Tuesday and sparked lively
collegial debates. Noting the conceptual nature of this discussion panel
topic and suggesting that ecosystem approaches are still in the design and
development stages, more than one delegate quietly raised the concern that
few tangible outcomes may come out of the meeting’s deliberations. Given
the procedural changes introduced by the Co-Chairs, and with the bulk of
the meeting’s agenda devoted to a relatively uncontroversial issue, some
felt confident that UNICPOLOS-7 would be remembered for its smooth
operation and streamlined process.
However,
issues that led to a deadlock last year, such as marine noise pollution
and high seas governance, resurfaced in plenary, leading one participant
to suggest that the meeting may simply be experiencing the calm before the
storm. It remains to be seen if positions will polarize within the Friends
of the Co-Chairs group, which has just begun its
work.
This issue of the Earth
Negotiations Bulletin © <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is written and
edited by Alice Bisiaux, Robynne Boyd, Andrew Brooke, and James Van
Alstine. The Digital Editor is Dan Birchall. The Editors are Alexis
Conrad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and Pamela S.
Chasek, Ph.D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. The Director of
IISD Reporting Services is Langston James "Kimo" Goree VI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. The Sustaining
Donors of the Bulletin are the Government of the United
States of America (through the Department of State Bureau of Oceans
and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs), the
Government of Canada (through CIDA), the Swiss Agency for
Environment, Forests and Landscape (SAEFL), the United Kingdom
(through the Department for International Development - DFID), the
Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Government of Germany
(through the German Federal Ministry of Environment - BMU, and the
German Federal Ministry of Development Cooperation - BMZ), the
Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the European Commission
(DG-ENV) and the Italian Ministry for the Environment and Territory
General Directorate for Nature Protection. General Support for the
Bulletin during 2006 is provided by the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP), the Government of Australia, the
Austrian Federal Ministry for the Environment, the New Zealand
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, SWAN International, the
Japanese Ministry of Environment (through the Institute for Global
Environmental Strategies - IGES) and the Japanese Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Industry (through the Global Industrial and
Social Progress Research Institute - GISPRI). Funding for
translation of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin into French
has been provided by the International Organization of the
Francophonie (IOF) and the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Funding for the translation of the Earth Negotiations
Bulletin into Spanish has been provided by the Ministry of
Environment of Spain. The opinions expressed in the Earth
Negotiations Bulletin are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the views of IISD or other donors. Excerpts from
the Earth Negotiations Bulletin may be used in non-commercial
publications with appropriate academic citation. For information on
the Bulletin, including requests to provide reporting
services, contact the Director of IISD Reporting Services at <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, +1-646-536-7556
or 212 East 47th St. #21F, New York, NY 10017, USA. The ENB Team at
ICP-7 can be contacted by e-mail at <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | |
