Agenda 21, Chapter 17, Section B
Marine Environmental Protection
Belin Maginn
In today�s increasingly competitive market, the commercial shipping industry is under increasing pressure to deliver their cargos in a more cost effective manner. The issue of substandard shipping is coming more and more to the fore as companies are forced to take what appear to be unnecessary risks in order to meet tight deadline, such as reducing maintenance schedules to a minimum, or cutting corners on loading/discharging procedures. This can have severe effects on the marine environment if an accident occurs as a result, perhaps involving an oil spill, or worse still, a collision at sea. Traditionally, it was the responsibility of the ship�s master to ensure the safe passage of a vessel, and to ensure that the vessel was in a seaworthy condition. However, with the emergence of larger companies, the role of the master has changed � now he has relinquished much control to the parent company, forced to follow orders, sometimes against his better judgement.
Port State Control (PSC) is the inspection of foreign ships in national ports for the purpose of verifying that the condition of the ship and its equipment comply with the requirements of international conventions and that the ship is manned and operated in compliance with applicable international laws. The primary responsibility for ensuring that a ship maintains a standard at least equivalent to that specified in international conventions rests with the flag State and if all flag States performed their duties satisfactorily there would be no need for port State control. Unfortunately this is not the case as evidenced by the many marine accidents around the world - hence the need for additional control.
While flag states are ultimately responsible for the implementation of IMO conventions, , PSC, has been defined as the last safety net in maritime safety. The development of PSC can be viewed as necessary due to the failure of those who would traditionally ensure a high standard of shipping, such as ship-owners, classification societies, insurers and, of course, the flag state administration. In an ideal world, PSC would be as a back up to the work of these persons, and not as the mainstay of the eradication of sub-standard shipping.
The first regional agreement on Port State Control was signed in Paris in 1978 and updated in 1982. This is known as the Paris Memorandum of Understanding. The International Maritime Organisation actively assisted in the establishment of similar regimes in other areas of the world. However, if PSC is to be a successful tool, then global coverage is required. When Agenda 21 came into existence, the Paris MOU was the only memorandum in existence, and as such would not have been sufficient to aid in the accomplishment of the objectives of Chapter 17. Commentators of Chapter 17 remarked on this, stating that unless greater coverage was achieved, then protection of the marine environment could not be achieved.
Regional co-operation on port state control
While national port State control alone will already enhance the safety of ships and the protection of the marine environment, only a regional approach will ensure that sub-standard ships and sub-standard operators have fewer places left to hide. Operators will just divert their ships to ports in the region where no or less stringent PSC inspections are conducted. This may seriously hamper the economical situation of the ports of those countries that do conduct proper inspections. To remedy this and to improve the effectiveness of inspections in general, many regions of the world have already or are beginning to enter into regional agreements on PSC. A second reason for co-operating with other ports in the region is to ensure that identified sub-standard ships are effectively monitored. This applies especially to ships that have been allowed to sail with certain minor deficiencies on the condition that these are rectified in the next port of call. Such ships can only be monitored by a constant exchange of information between ports.
The most important benefit from co-operation, however, is ensuring that port State inspections are carried out in a uniform manner in all countries, and ultimately regions, and that similar standards are applied with regards to the detention of ships and the training standards of PSCOs. To achieve this it is common practice of many existing agreements to conduct joint seminars for PSCOs in order to harmonise procedures. However, the development of PSC raises some questions: Is the traditional role of the Flag State, which has the ultimate responsibility for safety, being eroded? Are we promoting yet one more set of already numerous on-board inspections
Existing regional agreements on port state control
At present there are seven regional PSC agreements in operation, which enhances the effectiveness of Agenda 21 in protecting the marine environment:
the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control (Paris MOU), adopted in Paris (France) on 1 July 1982;
the Acuerdo de Vi�a del Mar (Vi�a del Mar or Latin-America Agreement), signed in Vi�a del Mar (Chile) on 5 November 1992;
the Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control in the Asia-Pacific Region (Tokyo MOU), signed in Tokyo (Japan) on 2 December 1993;
the Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control in the Caribbean Region (Caribbean MOU), signed in Christchurch (Barbados) on 9 February 1996;
the Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control in the Mediterranean Region (Mediterranean MOU), signed in Valletta (Malta) on 11 July 1997;
the Indian Ocean Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control (Indian Ocean MOU), signed in Pretoria (South Africa) on 5 June 1998; and
the Memorandum of Understanding for the West and Central African Region (Abuja MOU) signed in Abuja (Nigeria) on 22 October 1999.
Steven Ley
The Threat to Global ecosystems
The transfer of non-indigenous or invasive species as they are better known, from native to foreign waters has been occurring ever since the birth of sea borne trade. During this time, coastal regions around the world have witnessed deleterious impacts on ecological balance, human health and livelihoods, effectively changing the identity of natural bio-geographic zones.
Barriers to an International response: �Pre Rio� (1992)
Very few International agreements and protocols were in force prior to the Rio Earth Summit. This restricted co-operation and co-ordination between states in identifying principle issues and forming a firm basis for action. Standing in the way of a concerted International effort, were a number of �stumbling blocks� including the following:
Poor access to information and data.
Policy makers often ill-informed of the scale of the problem.
Difficulties in early detection of invasive species upon introduction.
The challenge laid down by Agenda 21
Agenda 21 recognises the general absence of international measures to tackle the spread of non-indigenous species. The focus of action is placed on setting appropriate rules to control introduction primarily through ballast water. The IMO has been challenged with spearheading developments and acting as a co-ordinating and advisory body. The aim is to create a platform from which national and regional organisations can work in parallel with the IMO to tackle the issue of invasive species.
Has the challenge been met?
In the last 10 years the international community has been confronted head on by an escalating problem, and one requiring direct action. The response has been swift (refer to table below), both at the international and regional scale, with IMO and ICES guidelines taking a hard line approach to control the spread of invasive species in ballast waters and through aquaculture, respectively. The precautionary principle and cost benefit analysis (Hayes.K.1998) concepts play a key role in many of the protocols and guidelines that currently exist.
The challenge put forward by Agenda 21 has been met to a certain extent, but this has been achieved in a rather complacent manner with a failure to use foresight and look beyond the boundaries set by the Agenda. Achieving long-term goals that identify control technology aimed at eradicating the problem have yet to be developed. Decision makers are currently at a �red light�, unable to advance policy forward, until effective and reliable technology can be conceived. The International dimension
Introduction through ballast water is the greatest threat identified by states. The IMO has established a number of initiatives designed to reduce this threat, including a Model Ballast Water Management Plan.
In recent years a Global ballast water project has developed under the IMO auspices. Over 50 on-going research projects are currently exploring biological, physical and chemical control techniques in an attempt to find a realistic solution.
AN ASSESSMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE TO AGENDA 21
| CONVENTION/ GUIDELINES | PRINCIPLE FEATURES | STRENGTHS | WEAKNESSES | RATING (out of 10) |
| ICES code of practise on the introductions of marine organisms (1994) | 1) Sets out criteria that must be fulfilled prior to controlled release.2) Requires producer to undertake an analysis of potential impacts. | - Adopts an ecosystem based approach.- Recommendations given for existing practises not just new introductions.- Promotes dialogue between states and the council. | - Does not make reference to contingency planning.- Fails to recognise and make exceptions for developing countries. | 8 |
| IMO guidelines for preventing the introduction of unwanted organisms and pathogens from ships ballast waters. | 1) Identifies procedures to reduce risk associated with introduction.2) Port State Authority determines extent to which guidelines apply. | - Promotes information exchange.- Suggests practical and attainable measures (sec. 7.12).- Lays down strict enforcement and compliance measures. | - Fails to recognise situation in developing countries.- Creates additional administrative work for port authority. Small ports may lack capacity to deal with extra responsibility. | 9 |
| FAO code of conduct for responsible fisheries | 1) Deals with invasive species from a fisheries perspective.2) Recognises that the transfer of invasive species is an increasing threat | - Highlights important role fisheries sector can play in early identification of invasive species (sec. 132).- Encourages development of contingency planning.- Promotes education, training and awareness of harmful introductions. | - Reliance heavily on need for research and limited scope for identifying new methods of control. There is already a wealth of knowledge pertaining to invasive species.- Adopts IMO and ICES guidelines without building on them. | 6 |
| Global Programme of action for the protection of the marine environment from land based activities | 1) Acts as a source of conceptual and practical guidance.2) Facilitates states to preserve and protect the marine environment. | - Identifies methods by which developing countries can comply.- promotes co-operation between states and capacity building. | - Uses principles from agenda 21 but does not build upon.- Devotes very little attention to invasive species and is lacking in specific guidelines. | 4 |
| UNCLOS | 1) Advises states to take measures to prevent, reduce and control introduction of alien species. | - UNCLOS was devised prior to Agenda 21 and was the first convention to make reference to alien species, thus acting as a catalyst for more research. | - Devotes one paragraph to non-indigenous species (Article 196).- Provides no guidance on how states should control alien species. | 2 |
| The Global convention on Biological Diversity. | 1)Puts forward general principles for avoiding the transfer of non indigenous species. | - Stresses the need for prevention.- Adopts an ecosystem based approach which recognises the role of education. | - Sets some unrealistic long term goals such as eradication of invasive species, without any short term planning.- Offers no specific measures for control. | 3 |
The Regional dimension
At the regional level a number of states have acted in collaboration or independent of each other to form guidelines and protocols. The USA, Australia, New Zealand, Chile and Canada (GESAMP.2001) have taken the lead role in developing ballast water management plans with strong provisions attached.
On a wider scale, the UNEP regional sea programmes have incorporated provisions for the spread of invasive species into protocols and strategies. The Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP) under its protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity advises that all appropriate measures should be taken. However, there is no advice as to how this should be achieved.
Summary
<>
The test for the International community has yet to be met as the number of possible pathways for introduction are predicted to increase. An increase in global shipping trade and aquaculture coupled with global climate change, leading to a breakdown in bio-geographic boundaries will intensify pressures to identify effective control measures, which are currently lacking.
Since Rio, the IMO and ICES guidelines have been successful at incorporating stakeholders and setting forth strong foundations for future action to be taken. A number of regional initiatives have failed to reduce the rate at which species are being introduced into the marine environment. This tends to suggest that we can not become over complacent with current policy and every effort should be made to explore all available avenues for finding a solution.
The outcome of current global research programmes will be studied with close interest by scientist and policy makers alike, who will endeavour to �conger up� an answer to a problem which has frustrated modern society for many years.
Liam Fisher
Introduction
It is recognised that the degradation of the marine environment by land-based activities is one of the three most important threats to the quality and productivity of the coastal and marine environment. The important and yet ambitious attempt by Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 to provide a solution to this �substantive global� problem has largely failed in developing countries.
In developing countries the most significant land-based activity affecting the coastal and marine environment is the release of untreated domestic and industrial sewage. Addressing the problems of adequate sewage treatment involves confronting the diverse and complex aspects of the �pollution stream�, the obvious point source and the more problematic diffused sources of land-based pollution. The solutions available in most developing countries are inextricably linked with the underlying problems of poverty (and overcoming) the lack of political will.
The problems of land based sewage discharges, due to the usually localised geographical impact, are not considered a truly global issue in comparison to sea based or shipping sources of pollution. The adverse effects, and the solutions required, perhaps have a global socio-economic dimension requiring a redistribution of wealth incompatible with current western economic colonialism.
The extent of the sewage problems in developing countries
Before the global initiatives such as the Montreal Guidelines and Agenda 21, there was a historical problem of sewage treatment in low-income countries and a possible link to urbanisation. More recent studies estimate that 90% of the sewage in developing countries is discharged without any form of treatment. In Asia only about 33% of wastewater is treated, while in Latin America the figure is 13%.
Many sewage hotspots are found in heavily urbanised regions. With no sewage disposal system, Bangkok alone discharges an estimated 10,000 metric tons of raw sewage and municipal wastes daily into nearby rivers and canals. On average for developing countries 95% of urban sewage is discharged untreated into rivers and the marine environment.
In comparison with higher income regions, the gap between current practice and the success in achieving the Agenda 21 objectives is painfully obvious. The OSPAR Commission concluded in its 2000 Quality Status Report that 80 to 98% of the region's population receive at least basic levels of sewage treatment.
An important initiative from the Agenda 21 objectives was the formation in 1995 of the Global Plan of Action (GPA/LBA) with the overall aim of protecting the marine environment from land-based activities. The Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP), analysing the current progress on the implementation of the GPA/LBA objectives, found that out of the 15 Regional Programmes of Action (RPAs) that were identified or initiated, in eight regions domestic sewage remained the prime threat to the coastal and marine environment. All these regions are considered to be low income or developing areas, the problems of domestic sewage in one of the regions, East Africa (EAF), will be discussed in more detail.
In these low-income RPA areas, it is estimated that three billion people lack any access to sanitation. The consequences of inaction can be measured through quantifiable direct costs and missed economic opportunities. The 1992 cholera epidemic in Peru, caused by poor sanitation, resulted in a 34% loss of gross national product due to the collapse of fish exports and tourism. The loss of economic output and the direct health costs totalled over US$1 billion, amounting to 10 times that spent on sanitation.
Sewage problems in East Africa
The East Africa region consists of the coastal nations bordering on the Indian Ocean and includes Madagascar, Mauritius, Mozambique, Seychelles, Somalia and Tanzania. The coastal region has a population of over 25 million; the urban growth rate of 6% annually results in pollution hotspots such as the city of Dar es Salaam (Tanzania).
The East Africa region has a diverse coastal and marine ecology, two thirds of the 600km Tanzanian coastline is covered with coral reefs; there are also extensive mangroves forests and seagrass meadows. Associated with the potential for widespread environmental degradation, the consequences of microbiological contamination from inadequately treated sewage such as the release of pathogens and the growth promotion of dino flagellates, may reduce important the sustainable development of economic revenues from tourism and coastal fisheries. Masalu, D. C. P., (2000)
The Dar es Salaam region has an estimated population of over 3.5 million, 70% of which live in unplanned settlements isolated from the present sewage system. Only 15% of households have access to the sewage system, resulting in most domestic waste being discharged into coastal waters without treatment, with pollution load of 56,800 kg/day of BOD and 78,500 kg/day suspended solids resulting in widespread eutrophication. In inland waters, the faecal coliforms count ranges from 2.8 x 105 to 2.8 x 106 coliforms per 100ml, and in the ocean from 2.8 x 104 to 2.8 x 105.
The current practice of considering the marine waste disposal as a cost free environmental service in Dar es Salaam is being challenged as part of an initiative under the GPA/LBA programme. It was estimated the cost of creating an integrated wastewater management system could cost between US$500 million and US$220 million. The justification and creation of a willingness to pay for the investment in treatment programmes, capacity building and adequate monitoring to comply with the GPA/LBA guidelines, is based on conducting a cost benefit exercise.
The cost benefit analysis is a process of balancing project costs with the financial liabilities of domestic sewage releases in terms of the lost revenue from activities such as tourism, fishery exploitation, human health and property devaluation. The tourism revenue for the Dar es Salaam from the annual influx of 201,000 people is US$190 million; the cost benefit analysis involves future predictions of the potential decline from the continued sewage problem or an increase if the treatment project goes ahead. Therefore for Dar es Salaam the net present value, the cost of sewage pollution over a 25-year period, is estimated at US$565 million, under the cost benefit analysis the project costs could be justified.
It is important that these approaches must be used cautiously, with the application of �Western� technological solutions being re-evaluated in terms of suitability. In low income or developing countries the prohibitive timescale to achieve a western sewage treatment standards can be unrealistic. (Table 1) Studies conducted into the operation and maintenance costs revealed that countries required a GNP above US$2,200 to finance sanitation and basic wastewater collection. Statistics from the World Bank show that 4 billion people live in low-income countries with an average GNP below US$1,400.
Table 1 Estimated time needed to meet European Union (EU) effluent standards at an investment level of 1.5 percent of gross national product (GNP)
| Country | Population (Millions) | GNP per capita (US$) | Cost to meet EU standards (US$) | Years needed at 1.5% GNP/year |
| Egypt | 60 | 1030 | 4000 | 259 |
| India | 935 | 335 | 3750 | 746 |
| Kenya | 29.2 | 290 | 4500 | 1034 |
| Mexico | 92.1 | 2705 | 3750 | 92 |
Contribution of Local Agenda 21
A potentially useful future contribution to help reduce environmental degradation and the associated problems of domestic sewage could be the proliferation of the guidelines under the Local Agenda 21 initiative.
The provisions of Local Agenda 21 provide the opportunity for government and authorities to plan for an environmentally sustainable future through meaning public participatory planning and community empowerment. Local forums organised under Local Agenda 21 establish a platform for the co-operation of different stakeholders in devising realistic and sustainable solutions with widespread community based decision-making.
The contribution of Local Agenda 21 depends on the adoption on certain prerequisites, including the change in development perceptions by accepting the principle of sustainable use of resources, and responsible participatory decision making through a community oriented approach.
A key to realising these changes in perceptions depends on challenging the current dogmatic western attitudes to low-income countries, the continued application of titles such as developing and third world makes the implied assumption of automatic benefits of having a high-income economy. Higher level of Gross Domestic Product can be a false indication of quality of life, hiding social and environmental sacrifices, which enable economic growth.