Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Maritime Studies

Editors --- "Conference Report: The Ocean Policy Summit (TOPS) Lisbon, 11-13 October 2005" [2005] MarStudies 32; (2005) 145 Maritime Studies 27

• CONFERENCE REPORT
• The Ocean Policy Summit (TOPS)Lisbon, 11-13 October 2005

CONFERENCE REPORT

The Ocean Policy Summit (TOPS)
Lisbon, 11-13 October 2005^[1]

The Ocean Policy Summit 2005 commenced on Tuesday morning, 11 October 2005. The three-day meeting began with opening statements from invited speakers and a short session to outline the purpose of the conference. This was followed over the next two-and-a-half days by eight panel sessions that addressed various aspects of integrated oceans management, and working groups to consider guidance on integrated ocean policies and the outcomes of the meeting. There were also special presentations on Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) and marine protected areas, and briefings on several recent meetings.

Diogo Freitas do Amaral, Minister of State and Foreign Affairs of Portugal, officially opened the meeting and highlighted the importance Portugal attaches to ocean issues.

He supported the development of integrated ocean policies, proposed the establishment of a centre of excellence for scientific research, and noted that a growing number of countries are adopting an ecosystem-based approach to maritime and ocean policies. Finally, he welcomed this gathering as an opportunity to share experiences and case studies on lessons learned and emerging best practices.

Joe Borg, European Commissioner for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs, outlined the European Commission’s objectives for 2005-2009, which include developing an ‘all-embracing maritime policy that will unlock the full potential of the sea in an environmentally-sustainable manner.’ He explained that the approach will be intersectoral, interdisciplinary and cross-cutting, incorporating tourism, fisheries, aquaculture, offshore oil and gas drilling, biotechnology, shipbuilding, maritime transport, and other sectors. He supported efforts to improve scientific knowledge and expressed concern at the multiple threats to the marine environment and the fragmentation of decision-making. He also reported on the Commission’s Green Paper on the future of maritime policy, which he said will be adopted in 2006.

The first panel examined the global trend towards integrated national and regional ocean policies. Participants heard presentations on the experiences of speakers from seven countries: Portugal, the US, Republic of Korea, Cook Islands, Tanzania, Brazil and the Russian Federation.

Mario Ruivo, President of the Portuguese Committee for the IOC, said that developing integrated ocean management takes many years. He stressed the importance of engaging the public, the media, civil society and the scientific and research communities. He also emphasised building support in political circles, supporting transparency, and encouraging action at the international, regional and national levels.

The second panel focused on lessons learned from Canada and Australia, which pioneered integrated ocean management in the 1990s.

Donna Petrachenko, First Assistant Secretary, Marine Division, Department of the Environment and Heritage of Australia and Director of the National Oceans Office, presented on the development of Australia’s ocean policy. She noted the National Oceans Office’s development of regional marine plans as the primary implementation tool for ocean policy, and acknowledged that they did not tackle multi-level decision-making as intended. She highlighted lessons learned, including the need for full engagement of sector-specific departments and agencies and the increased support generated by small successes. Looking ahead, she said the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act of 1999, which allows for the creation of bioregional plans, would be employed to provide a focused legislative framework that will deliver biodiversity and ecological outcomes for oceans management and complement existing effective management arrangements.

David VanderZwaag, Dalhousie University, Canada, compared and contrasted the Canadian and Australian approaches. He identified several similarities between their approaches, including that: federal planning exercises were carried out without certainty on how plans would be ‘given teeth’; fragmented institutional and statutory responsibilities persist at the national and provincial/state levels; there is still only a limited scientific understanding of marine ecosystems; and political and economic realities, including vested interests, continue to hinder progress.

A third panel reviewed lessons learned from the establishment of integrated ocean policies, including the catalytic factors involved, the role of legislation and ocean commissions, and the role of external constituencies and international programs.

John Roberts, Head of the Marine and Waterways Division, UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, presented a comparative overview of different countries’ approaches in developing integrated ocean policies. He observed a broad consensus on the importance of an ecosystems approach, best-available science, the precautionary principle, and public participation. Identifying catalysts for action, he noted that countries had often been motivated to act by an environmental crisis or systemic failure, the need to incorporate Law of the Sea or World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) obligations, pressure from non-governmental organisations, government initiatives, external funding, or regional organisations. Barriers to progress have included a lack of knowledge or capacity, sectoral resistance, and the absence of political will.

Hiroshi Terashima, Executive Director, Ocean Policy Research Foundation of Japan, presented an overview of how Japan’s oceans policy has evolved, including its new National Area Reformation Planning Law. Noting that considerable efforts will be needed to realise a cross-sectoral approach, he supported the establishment of comprehensive legal frameworks and a central coordinating body for ocean and coastal issues. He also said the involvement of think tanks, academia and others should be encouraged, pointing to the pro-active role of the Nippon Foundation.

Mary Power, Coordinator Reef Fisheries Observatory, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, outlined the process of creating regional ocean policy and the framework for integrated strategic action in the Pacific Islands. She explained that the regional policy was developed under the concept of good ocean governance and offers a framework for individual countries in developing their own national policies. She stressed that the regional policy is now in its implementation phase, and noted the need for both human and financial resources at the global and regional level to complete implementation. She also acknowledged that, while the policy is not all encompassing, it does demonstrate a commitment to sustainable ocean management.

A fourth panel focused on how to achieve harmonisation among multiple ocean uses and agencies, and on linkages between freshwater, coasts and oceans.

Biliana Cicin-Sain, Co-Chair of the Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts, and Islands, presented a comparative overview of the issue. She raised various questions about the challenge of achieving cross-sectoral harmonisation, including: how to make cross-sectoral agency collaboration and harmonisation work on a continuing basis; what the structures for national ocean policy should be; how to achieve the multipurpose outcomes of sustainable development, conservation, social promotion and maritime security; and how to achieve spatial integration of freshwater, coastal and oceans issues.

A fifth panel was chaired by Awni Behnam, President of the International Ocean Institute, who noted that many developing countries have yet to develop national strategies and stressed the need for national policy to be compatible with global and regional imperatives.

David VanderZwaag, Dalhousie University, Canada, discussed the challenge of developing principled oceans governance, noting the ‘flood’ of principles in international agreements, including concepts of integration, precaution, the ecosystem approach and public participation. He highlighted the difficulties of applying such principles due to multiple meanings and interpretations, and stressed that many countries have a long way to go before they can put them into action.

Prue Taylor, Deputy Director of the New Zealand Centre for Environmental Law, provided an academic perspective on emerging principles for ocean governance in the New Zealand context. She explained that an earlier oceans policy process started in 2000 had been suspended due to controversies over the ownership of the foreshore (the coastal area between the high and low tide marks) and seabed, and access to privately-owned coastal areas. She highlighted some major principles already established in legislation dealing with the terrestrial environment, including recognition of indigenous rights, stewardship and guardianship, subsidiarity, and sustainability. However, she cautioned that these concepts need to be clearly articulated, and said consideration should be given to how to apply ideas designed for the terrestrial environment in the ocean context.

A sixth panel addressed how to achieve national and sub-national collaboration in national ocean policies. The session was chaired by Diane James, Chair of the Victorian Coastal Council, Australia, who highlighted some state concerns about the development of Australia’s regional marine plan, such as its impact on the coastal zone strategy plan.

Isabel Torres de Noronha, Conference of the Peripheral Maritime Regions of Europe (CPMR) and University of Delaware, provided a comparative analysis of the role of the sub-national levels in national ocean policies. Reflecting on Canada and Australia’s experiences, she noted that the sub-national levels are critical in implementing policies on the ground. She stressed the need for sub-national actors to have a clear role and mandate in national ocean policy and the importance of consistency between provinces/states and regional coastal and coastal water plans.

A seventh panel discussion was held to consider issues in implementing national ocean policies, including financial considerations, evaluation and stakeholder support. The session was chaired by Donna Petrachenko, who stressed that decision-makers need to understand the economic value of marine resources.

Dawn Martin, Executive Director, SeaWeb, talked about the major role social marketing and strategic communications can play in generating the political will for action. She outlined the steps needed to achieve political or policy goals, beginning with research to distil the key messages, followed by identifying credible spokespeople, bringing science to the media and the public, and creating an appealing message that targets the intended audience. She noted the power of the media, especially television, but also print media, radio and the Internet, and said a well-informed and planned media campaign can connect science with the media and eventually achieve a ‘tipping point’ where public awareness increases and political/policy changes can occur, especially if that message creates a sense of urgency and empowerment.

An eighth panel addressed regional ocean policies, and ways to facilitate national-regional collaboration and linkages. The panel was chaired by Magnus Ngoile, Director-General, National Environment Management Council of Tanzania. He raised a number of questions, including how to achieve ownership and buy-in for regional programs and policies.

In a special presentation, Vladimir Golitsyn, Director of the UN Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, spoke about EEZs, including continental shelf delimitation, and assessment and management issues. He explained that the Law of the Sea generally allows countries an EEZ extending to a distance of 200 nautical miles. He also expressed some concerns regarding the implementation of the Law of the Sea, raising issues of transparency and information that member States are supposed to provide to the UN regarding continental shelf delimitation under certain circumstances. He outlined members States’ obligations regarding EEZs and discussed maritime boundary delimitation treaties.

A closing session was held on the way forward in further dissemination of integrated ocean policy

Biliana Cicin-Sain, Co-Chair of the Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts, and Islands, thanked the meeting’s organisers, sponsors, supporters, speakers, panelists and participants. She explained that there would be several outputs from this meeting, including a report from IISD Reporting Services. She indicated that another output from this meeting would be a book, to be published in 2006, based on some of the comparative case studies prepared for and presented at this meeting. Also, speeches would be made available on the conference website (http://www.globaloceans.org). Finally, she explained that the main official outcome would be a succinct and forward-looking conference report that will seek to capture the major points made and will be sent to participants for comments in November 2005.

^[1] This paper is an edited version of highlights from the Summit. A full report has been published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development.