Summary report, 20–24 June 2011
The twelfth meeting of the UN Open-ended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea (Consultative Process or ICP-12) took place from 20-24 June 2011, at UN Headquarters in New York. The meeting brought together over 200 representatives from governments, intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations and academic institutions. During the week, delegates focused their discussions on contributing to the assessment, in the context of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD or Rio+20), of progress to date and the remaining gaps in the implementation of the outcomes of the major summits on sustainable development and addressing new and emerging challenges.
Delegates convened in plenary sessions throughout the week to discuss: interagency cooperation and coordination; the process for the selection of topics and panelists so as to facilitate the work of the UN General Assembly; issues that could benefit from attention in future work of the General Assembly on oceans and the law of the sea; and the outcome of the meeting. In addition, four discussion panels were held to consider: sustainable development, oceans and the law of the sea; overview of progress to date and the remaining gaps in the implementation of relevant oceans and seas outcomes of the major summits on sustainable development; new and emerging challenges; and the road to Rio+20 and beyond.
The Co-Chairs, Amb. Don MacKay (New Zealand) and Amb. Milan Jaya Meetarbhan (Mauritius), proposed elements that could benefit from attention at Rio+20, which was distributed on Thursday afternoon. In addition, the draft Co-Chairs’ summary of discussions was distributed on Friday morning. Both were considered in plenary on Friday. Co-Chair MacKay emphasized that the summary of discussions is intended for reference purposes only, reflecting the discussions of the plenary and panel discussions. After discussing the summary paragraph by paragraph it was accepted and will be submitted to the General Assembly for consideration at its 66th session under the agenda item, “Oceans and the law of the sea.” Participants briefly turned their attention to the Co-Chairs’ proposed elements. After noting that no consensus could be reached on the document, except for on the importance of ensuring the elements relating to small island developing states (SIDS) be reflected in the Co-Chairs’ Summary Report, Co-Chair MacKay gaveled the conference to a close.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE LAW OF THE SEA AND THE CONSULTATIVE PROCESS
On 1 November 1967, Malta’s Ambassador to the UN, Arvid Pardo, asked the nations of the world to recognize a looming conflict that could devastate the oceans. In a speech to the General Assembly, he called for “an effective international regime over the seabed and the ocean floor beyond a clearly defined national jurisdiction.” The speech set in motion a process that spanned 15 years and saw the creation of the UN Seabed Committee, the signing of a treaty banning nuclear weapons on the seabed, the adoption of a declaration by the General Assembly that all resources of the seabed beyond the limits of national jurisdiction are the common heritage of humankind, and the convening of the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment. These were some of the factors that led to the convening of the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea during which the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) was adopted.
UNCLOS: Opened for signature on 10 December 1982, in Montego Bay, Jamaica, at the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS sets forth the rights and obligations of states regarding the use of the oceans, ocean resources, and the protection of the marine and coastal environment. UNCLOS entered into force on 16 November 1994, and is supplemented by the 1994 Deep Seabed Mining Agreement and the 1995 Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of UNCLOS relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks.
GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 54/33: On 24 November 1999, the General Assembly adopted resolution 54/33 on the results of the review undertaken by the UN Commission on Sustainable Development at its seventh session under the theme “Oceans and Seas.” In this resolution, the General Assembly established an open-ended Informal Consultative Process to facilitate the annual review of developments in ocean affairs. The General Assembly decided that the Consultative Process would meet in New York and consider the Secretary-General’s annual report on oceans and the law of the sea, and suggest particular issues to be considered by the General Assembly, with an emphasis on identifying areas where intergovernmental and interagency coordination and cooperation should be enhanced. The resolution further established the framework within which meetings of the Consultative Process would be organized, and decided that the General Assembly would review the effectiveness and utility of the Consultative Process at its 57th session.
ICP-1 to 3: The first three meetings of the Consultative Process identified issues to be suggested and elements to be proposed to the General Assembly, and highlighted issues that could benefit from attention in its future work. The first meeting of the Consultative Process (30 May-2 June 2000) held discussion panels addressing fisheries and the impacts of marine pollution and degradation. The second meeting (7-11 May 2001) focused on marine science and technology, and coordination and cooperation in combating piracy and armed robbery at sea. The third meeting (8-15 April 2002) held discussion panels on the protection and preservation of the marine environment, capacity building, regional cooperation and coordination, and integrated oceans management.
GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 57/141: On 12 December 2002, the 57th session of the General Assembly adopted resolution 57/141 on “Oceans and the law of the sea.” The General Assembly welcomed the previous work of the Consultative Process, extended it for an additional three years, and decided to review the Consultative Process’s effectiveness and utility at its 60th session.
ICP-4 and 5: The fourth meeting of the Consultative Process (2-6 June 2003) adopted recommendations on safety of navigation, the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems, and cooperation and coordination on ocean issues. The fifth meeting (7-11 June 2004) adopted recommendations on new sustainable uses of oceans, including the conservation and management of the biological diversity of the seabed in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
ICP-6: The sixth meeting of the Consultative Process (6-10 June 2005) adopted recommendations on fisheries and their contribution to sustainable development, and considered the issue of marine debris.
ICP-7: The seventh meeting (12-16 June 2006) enhanced understanding of ecosystem-based management, and adopted recommendations on ecosystem approaches and oceans.
ICP-8: The eighth meeting (25-29 June 2007) discussed issues related to marine genetic resources. Delegates were unable to agree on key language referring to the relevant legal regime for marine genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction, and as a result no recommendations were adopted. However, a Co-Chairs’ summary report was forwarded to the General Assembly for consideration.
ICP-9: The ninth meeting (23-27 June 2008) adopted recommendations on the necessity of maritime security and safety in promoting the economic, social and environmental pillars of sustainable development.
ICP-10: The tenth meeting (17-19 June 2009) produced a Co-Chairs’ summary report collating outcomes of its discussions on the implementation of the outcomes of the Consultative Process, including a review of achievements and shortcomings in its first nine years, which was forwarded to the General Assembly for consideration.
ICP-11: The outcome of the eleventh meeting (21-25 June 2010) was a Co-Chairs’ summary of discussions on, inter alia: capacity building; transfer of technology; marine science; inter-agency cooperation and coordination; issues that could benefit from attention in future work of the General Assembly on oceans and the law of the sea; and the process for the selection of topics and panelists so as to facilitate the work of the General Assembly. This was forwarded to the General Assembly for consideration.
On Monday, 20 June 2011, Co-Chair Amb. Don MacKay (New Zealand) opened the twelfth meeting of the UN Open-ended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea, noting the particular opportunity it provides for contributing to the UN Conference on Sustainable Development, and said it also allows participants to: take stock of progress to date with regard to oceans and seas; highlight gaps in the implementation of the outcomes of major summits on sustainable development; and address new and emerging challenges.
Co-Chair Amb. Milan Jaya Meetarbhan (Mauritius) urged that the Consultative Process outcome truly contributes to the assessment of progress and gaps in the implementation of the outcomes of the major summits on sustainable development. He emphasized that oceans must feature prominently in the UNCSD agenda, and highlighted the special case of small island developing states and islands supporting small communities.
Highlighting that the world’s attention is now turning to Rio+20, Patricia O’Brien, Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and the Legal Counsel for the Secretary-General, underscored that ICP-12 can bring attention to oceans and seas in the context of the sustainable development agenda. Sha Zukang, Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs and UNCSD Secretary-General, underscored that the oceans are Earth’s most threatened ecosystem, and recalled that a “Blue Economy” approach was emphasized during the second session of the UNCSD Preparatory Committee in March 2011.
Co-Chair MacKay introduced the annotated provisional agenda (A/AC.259/L.12), which was adopted without amendment. Delegates also agreed to the programme of work.
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, OCEANS AND THE LAW OF THE SEA: On Monday afternoon, Brice Lalonde, Executive Coordinator for the UNCSD, made suggestions for reducing fragmentation in the ocean management regime, and outlined possible goals for Rio+20, including an agreement on adherence to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Cherdsak Virapat, International Ocean Institute, stressed the need for humanity to change its behavior to achieve sustainable interactions with the world’s oceans, which requires broad stakeholder participation in decision-making and planning.
The subsequent discussion addressed: the rights and responsibilities of flag and port states; potential for expanding the mandates of Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs); the feasibility of regional approaches to implementing international goals; and the extent of the legal framework provided by UNCLOS. A more detailed summary of the presentations and discussion is available at: http://enb.iisd.org/vol25/enb2572e.html
OVERVIEW OF PROGRESS TO DATE AND THE REMAINING GAPS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF RELEVANT OCEANS AND SEAS OUTCOMES OF THE MAJOR SUMMITS ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: On Tuesday morning and afternoon, participants convened for this discussion panel. Luis Valdés, Head of the Ocean Science Section of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), spoke on issues currently jeopardizing the management and sustainability of regional seas and oceans. Kriangsak Kittichaisaree, Thailand’s Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to Australia, identified gaps and challenges in capacity building and transfer of marine technology. Sebastian Mathew, International Collective in Support of Fishworkers, called for building inclusive governance of coastal and marine ecosystems. Philip Weaver, Hotspot Ecosystem Research and Man’s Impact on European Seas, delineated the impacts of bottom trawling on fish abundance and on vulnerable marine ecosystems. Babajide Alo, University of Lagos, discussed land-based sources of marine pollution and the need for integrated management of coastal areas. Yoshinobu Takei, Utrecht University, outlined actions needed to achieve integrated management of oceans.
The subsequent discussion covered:
- the IOC Criteria and Guidelines on the Transfer of Marine Technology;
- the possibility of an implementing agreement on the transfer of marine technology;
- the International Seabed Authority as a model for bilateral technology transfer;
- the effectiveness of and upcoming review of UN-Oceans;
- governance needs of coastal states;
- bilateral options for addressing issues affecting areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ);
- incorporating ocean acidification into integrated management;
- the role of ocean science and underwater environmental disturbances caused by data collection;
- the impacts of bottom trawling;
- ballast water, noise, and pollution from transport and offshore oil development; and
- the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) long-range identification and tracking system as a model for fishing vessels.
A more detailed summary of the presentations and discussion is available at: http://enb.iisd.org/vol25/enb2573e.html
NEW AND EMERGING CHALLENGES FOR THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF OCEANS AND SEAS: On Wednesday morning, Alex Rogers, University of Oxford, reviewed a summary report of the international earth system expert workshop on ocean stresses and impacts. Ussif Rashid Sumaila, University of British Columbia, discussed global warming as a new and emerging challenge for the sustainable development and use of ocean fishery resources. Tullio Scovazzi, University of Milano-Bicocca, reviewed the divergent legal perspectives on addressing the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ). Jacqueline Alder, Division of Environmental Policy Implementation, UN Environment Programme (UNEP), discussed new and emerging challenges for the sustainable development and use of oceans and seas, including those related to governance, pollution and industrialization.
In the ensuing discussions, which continued in the early afternoon, delegates addressed, inter alia:
- the outcomes of the fourth meeting of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Informal Working Group to Study Issues Relating to the Conservation and Sustainable use of BBNJ;
- whether there is a need for an implementing agreement to UNCLOS to address possible governance gaps;
- changes in fish migratory patterns in the tropics and respective consequences for tropical developing countries;
- the importance of marine spatial planning for climate change adaptation;
- the need for inclusion of ocean-related discussions in the Durban Climate Change Conference in December 2011;
- the existing linkages between harmful subsidies and overfishing; and
- UNEP’s lead role in contributing to the environmental pillar for Rio+20.
A more detailed summary of these presentations and discussions is available at: http://enb.iisd.org/vol25/enb2574e.html
THE ROAD TO RIO+20 AND BEYOND: On Wednesday afternoon, Biliana Cicin-Sain, Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts and Islands, reviewed the Rio+20 process, and provided recommendations for achieving significant outcomes. Maria Teresa Mesquita Pessôa, Permanent Mission of Brazil to the UN, discussed Rio+20 as a blueprint for overcoming poverty and attaining sustainable growth with equity.
In the subsequent discussion, comments covered, inter alia:
- the importance of targets;
- the need to protect the high seas;
- the interface between ocean and climate negotiations;
- the need for political engagement from a higher level at UN-Oceans to promote integrated governance; and
- the importance of participation by the oceans community in UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) discussions.
A more detailed summary of these presentations and discussions is available at: http://enb.iisd.org/vol25/enb2574e.html
GENERAL EXCHANGE OF VIEWS ON CONTRIBUTING TO THE ASSESSMENT, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE UNCSD, OF PROGRESS TO DATE AND THE REMAINING GAPS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE OUTCOMES OF THE MAJOR SUMMITS ON SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND ADDRESSING NEW AND EMERGING CHALLENGES: On Monday morning, recalling that the Ad Hoc Open-ended Informal Working Group to Study Issues Relating to BBNJ agreed during its fourth meeting to initiate a process in 2012 to consider all aspects pertaining to these resources as a package, Argentina, for the Group of 77 and China (G-77/China), with the European Union (EU), expressed support for the negotiation of an implementing agreement to UNCLOS.
Spain, for the EU: supported Rio+20’s focus on greening the economy; and expressed interest in continuing the BBNJ Working Group’s discussions. New Zealand, for the Pacific Islands Forum, lamented, inter alia, the pressure from distant fishing fleets.
The Federated States of Micronesia, for the Pacific SIDS, supported by Palau, said Rio+20 should define timelines and targets to turn words into action on ocean sustainable development. Japan reviewed its marine biodiversity strategy, including work on marine protected areas (MPAs). On accountability, Palau called for the General Assembly to review the activities of RFMOs.
Monaco said cetaceans remain unprotected and are one of the main issues of “unfinished business” for UNCLOS. Maldives called for regional centers on oceans management, and for promoting states’ marine scientific and technical capacity. Canada said improved coordination and cooperation, including knowledge sharing, would allow governments to “work smarter” within fiscal constraints. Chile called for a broad focus on oceans at the UNCSD. Brazil said ICP-12 should identify opportunities for cooperation to raise ocean issues to a higher level of attention. South Africa hoped ICP-12 would endorse the recommendations of the BBNJ Working Group. India spoke of developing countries’ capacity and technical needs in the area of marine science. New Zealand called for action-oriented outcomes for Rio+20, including on monitoring and assessment, and a process for addressing BBNJ.
The US underscored three areas of interest: food security, ocean acidification, and effective conservation and management of ocean ecosystems. Australia, supported by Thailand, stressed the need to identify how commitments made in previous summits can actually be implemented. China called for cooperation on scientific research and greater support to developing countries. Thailand called for assistance from developed to developing states to improve environmental standards. Trinidad and Tobago noted the need for assistance in enforcement and surveillance of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, and supported an implementing agreement to UNCLOS on BBNJ. Venezuela emphasized the need to focus on ensuring the sustainable development of the oceans, particularly as it relates to food security.
The Convention on Biological Diversity Secretariat reviewed outcomes of the Convention’s tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties, including a 20-point “biodiversity rescue strategy” that strives for MPAs to cover 10% of the oceans by 2020. On the lead up to Rio+20, IUCN suggested that the Consultative Process consider, inter alia, development of assessment processes. IMO highlighted its Rio+20 activities, including participation in the UN’s “Delivering as One” initiative and the UNEP Green Economy report. The Deep Sea Conservation Coalition proposed establishing an intergovernmental conference to negotiate a new implementing agreement for BBNJ. The Ocean Policy Research Foundation highlighted the need for additional human resources equipped with rich knowledge to ensure the sustainable management of the oceans. The International Fund for Animal Welfare emphasized the UN’s role in, and the economic benefits of, protecting cetaceans from direct takes in ABNJ. Greenpeace opined that a new implementing agreement under UNCLOS would, inter alia, enable the establishment of a network of marine reserves on the high seas. The Pew Environment Group said RFMOs only manage a subset of the biodiversity in their designated area and there is no oversight by the General Assembly. Conservation International proposed the creation of a High Seas Partnership Fund. UNEP highlighted its efforts to support states in the lead up to Rio+20.
A more detailed summary of these discussions is available at: http://enb.iisd.org/vol25/enb2572e.html
INTERAGENCY COOPERATION AND COORDINATION: On Thursday morning, Andrew Hudson, UN Development Programme and UN-Oceans, reviewed key results and activities of UN-Oceans’ members, and described its task forces on ABNJ, MPAs, and other issues. He noted that UN-Oceans would pursue an assessment review. Hudson also reviewed the role of the Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection as an interagency body that provides advice to UN agencies. He said it has strengthened the scientific basis for implementing Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 and the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI), including in the area of ballast water.
Hudson welcomed suggestions: from Argentina for UN-Oceans to track meeting schedules to avoid overlap; and from Brazil to strengthen UN-Oceans ahead of the UNCSD and raise its capacity, visibility, transparency and relevance. Canada encouraged states to ratify the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments.
A more detailed summary of this discussion is available at: http://enb.iisd.org/vol25/enb2575e.html
PROCESS FOR THE SELECTION OF TOPICS AND PANELISTS SO AS TO FACILITATE THE WORK OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY: On Thursday morning, Co-Chair MacKay opened this agenda item recalling that the outcome of the meeting is supposed to include a summary of issues and ideas to ensure a transparent, objective and inclusive process for the selection of topics and panelists to facilitate the work of the General Assembly. The topic for ICP-13 is marine renewable energies.
Canada called for balanced agendas for future ICPs, suggesting that ICP topics continue to be decided for two consecutive years. Argentina supported Canada in encouraging the selection of experts as early as possible, but the G-77/China cautioned against the selection of topics for two consecutive years, emphasizing the need for proper consideration of these topics. She also recalled an outcome from ICP-10 on integrating the three pillars of sustainable development and, supported by Canada and Morocco, emphasized the need for discussions of the Consultative Process to focus on all three elements. On the concept paper to inform the selection of topics, she proposed that it be presented during the first round of negotiations of the General Assembly resolution on Oceans and Law of the Sea.
A more detailed summary of this discussion is available at: http://enb.iisd.org/vol25/enb2575e.html
ISSUES THAT COULD BENEFIT FROM THE ATTENTION IN FUTURE WORK OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON OCEANS AND THE LAW OF THE SEA: On Thursday morning, Co-Chair MacKay directed delegates to consider the Co-Chairs’ composite streamlined list of issues that could benefit from attention in future work of the General Assembly, which was distributed on Monday, or to propose other topics. IUCN stressed that ocean acidification affects all three pillars of sustainable development.
Serguei Tarassenko, Director, Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (DOALOS), reiterated the appeal for contributions to the Voluntary Trust Fund. He noted two recent contributions from New Zealand and said the current balance stands at approximately US$15,000.
CONSIDERATION OF THE OUTCOME OF THE MEETING
CO-CHAIR’S SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS: A draft Co-Chairs’ summary of ICP-12’s discussions was distributed Friday morning.
The report collated the week’s discussions on: sustainable development, oceans and the law of the sea; overview of progress to date and the remaining gaps in the implementation of oceans- and seas-related outcomes of the major summits on sustainable development; new and emerging challenges for the sustainable development and use of oceans and seas; the road to Rio+20 and beyond; inter-agency cooperation and coordination; the process for the selection of topics and panelists for consideration by the General Assembly; and issues that could benefit from attention in the future work of the General Assembly on oceans and the law of the sea.
Following a suspension of the session to enable participants to review the document, discussions commenced at 11:30 am. Co-Chair MacKay emphasized that the summary was not an agreed or negotiated record of the meeting but “on the heads of the two co-Chairs.” He expressed hope that the document accurately reflects the week’s discussions, and invited comments from the floor to that end.
Sustainable development, oceans and the law of the sea: Delegates suggested changes to clarify the level of support on particular issues, and the meaning of the text. Argentina wished to note that in addition to lacking capacity, RFMOs also lacked a mandate to address additional issues such as MPAs, while the EU disagreed. On common but differentiated responsibilities, the US suggested specifying that only “some” delegations recalled the principle, while the G-77/China posited that its 132 delegations would qualify as “many.”
The overview of progress to date and the remaining gaps in the implementation of the outcomes of the major summits on sustainable development: Norway requested adding to the reference on migrating cetaceans that delegations had highlighted that renewable resources must be harvested in a sustainable way, and they were ready to cooperate with existing competent fora.
On MPAs in ABNJ, delegates discussed adjusting the reference, with the G-77/China aiming to place the issue in the context of the process to be initiated by the General Assembly following the outcome of the fourth meeting of the BBNJ Working Group. The US wished to specify the number of delegations that noted the absence of a regime for designating MPAs beyond ABNJ, as “some,” but Spain, for the EU, asserted that it had been a large number of delegations.
On hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation, the EU, supported by Nigeria, Indonesia and the Philippines, recommended changing language to reflect the discussion of some delegations about the “possibility of developing new instruments” to address these emerging issues. Argentina suggested adding a sentence to show that “other delegations” emphasized that the issue is adequately covered by existing obligations under international law, including UNCLOS, to protect the marine environment and stressed the need to fully implement these obligations.
On capacity building, the G-77/China, supported by Trinidad and Tobago, requested reference to the importance of capacity building and transfer of technology for developing countries, especially SIDS, for fully realizing the benefits of the exploration and exploitation of marine living and non-living resources in areas within and beyond national jurisdiction. The Philippines, supported by New Zealand, stressed the “need for” a coordinated approach to capacity building and technology transfer. New Zealand suggested the establishment of a clearinghouse mechanism, but Argentina recalled the lack of consensus on this, and therefore recommended language to show that this had been proposed by “some delegates.”
New and emerging challenges for the sustainable development and use of oceans and seas: On the impacts of climate change on oceans, including sea level rise and ocean acidification, delegates agreed to note that many delegations highlighted the need for this to be addressed in the context of the UNFCCC. New Zealand proposed, and delegates agreed, to add language on the importance of applying the precautionary approach to avoid the possible environmental impacts of marine renewable energy.
The EU clarified that “some delegations,” instead of all, suggested the need for an international instrument on the allocation of fish stocks, and the US preferred referencing marine noise, not its specific causes, such as “military activities,” be linked to dramatic reductions in fish catch rates.
Delegates agreed to add a new paragraph expressing concern over the possible impacts of ocean fertilization on the marine environment.
On the legal regime for marine genetic resources in ABNJ, Mexico, supported by the EU, Brazil and the G-77/China, called for including language reflecting support for the possible development of an implementing agreement in the outcome of the UNCSD.
On overfishing it was agreed to delete a paragraph that placed equal emphasis on developing and developed country involvement in harmful subsidies, as suggested by the G-77/China, and Japan emphasized their belief that the World Trade Organization is the correct forum to discuss fishery subsidies.
The road to Rio+20 and beyond: The need for the precautionary approach was noted in relation to the development of renewable and alternative sources of energy. The G-77/China reminded the Co-Chairs of the need to reflect that, for BBNJ, there is a need for a specific regime under UNCLOS, with the US adding that many, but not all, delegations stressed this point. Language on establishing MPAs in ABNJ was deleted, and the need for institutional frameworks was recognized as enabling integration across the three pillars of sustainable development.
Regarding specific elements to be forwarded by ICP-12 to the UNCSD for discussion, the G-77/China, supported by the EU, requested including mention of a “specific legal regime of BBNJ,” with the US saying they understood this section of the summary of discussions to reflect one specific intervention and asked that it be modified accordingly.
Interagency cooperation and coordination: On UN-Oceans, Brazil suggested adding language to signal the need to strengthen not only the “visibility and relevance” of this mechanism, but also its “transparency” in view of the UNCSD. Argentina proposed making clear that during ICP-12, UN-Oceans “was reminded of the need to coordinate” the scheduling of ocean-related meetings to avoid overlaps, and that it was further noted that such a task is expected to be done by the secretariats that comprise UN-Oceans.
The process for the selection of topics and panelists so as to facilitate the work of the General Assembly: The G-77/China cautioned against embracing a two-year topic cycle.
Issues that could benefit from attention in the future work of the General Assembly on oceans and the law of the sea: The Philippines suggested expanding a reference to ocean acidification to note its harmful effects on coral reefs that serve as resources and provide protection for communities.
Noting that discussion on the draft Co-Chairs’ Summary of Discussions had been lengthier than usual, Co-Chair MacKay said it was particularly important this year to ensure that everyone was comfortable with the content, despite it not being a negotiated document.
CO-CHAIRS’ PROPOSED ELEMENTS: Participants then turned their attention to the Co-Chairs’ proposed elements. The document consisted of nine sections, each with elements that could be forwarded to the UNCSD, if consensus could be reached. The sections were:
- general elements;
- legal and policy frameworks at the global level;
- sustainable fisheries;
- conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity;
- climate change;
- marine pollution;
- marine science;
- SIDS; and
- capacity building and transfer of marine technology.
Co-Chair MacKay acknowledged the decision of past ICP meetings to avoid negotiating processes, and wondered if any of the proposed elements had attracted a “natural consensus” and could be identified without negotiation.
The first interventions, from the G-77/China and the EU, indicated that they did not wish to enter into discussion on the elements, and preferred to use only the Co-Chairs’ Summary of Discussions as the meeting’s outcome. The G-77/China said ICP-12 had been very productive despite its huge task, and that the Summary of Discussions would be useful for delegations’ future evaluation of oceans issues. Attempting to reach agreement on the elements document, however, would “lead inevitably to negotiations.”
The EU said the elements document should have: more clearly expressed regret at the failure to reach some goals, including on marine biodiversity and MPAs; reflected statements that linked oceans with the themes of the UNCSD; and “gone further on BBNJ, a strategic issue for so many delegations.” Overall, both the Co-Chairs’ Summary of Discussions and the proposed elements reflect the discussions, yet remain a “minimum minimorum,” the EU said, and the Summary retains the highest value for its comprehensive, accurate reflection of messages from the meeting. The EU affirmed its commitment to sustainable development, including oceans issues, that it expects a positive and forward-looking outcome from the UNCSD, and that the UNCSD should reaffirm commitments on marine biodiversity and MPAs and review their implementation.
Subsequent statements from the US and Fiji acknowledged the G-77/China and EU’s desire to leave aside the elements document, and did not oppose it. Fiji expressed satisfaction with the elements on SIDS, which included: reaffirm the importance of sustainable fisheries for the economic, environmental and social well-being of SIDS; and urge states and international organizations to increase efforts to address the particular vulnerability of SIDS to the effects of climate change on the oceans. He asked that the SIDS elements be incorporated in the Co-Chairs’ Summary of Discussions for forwarding to the UNCSD.
Brazil echoed the G-77/China’s view that negotiating the elements would be undesirable. She underscored the “tremendous success” of the meeting, and praised the Summary as a needed starting point on oceans for one of the UNCSD’s objectives—renewing political commitments to sustainable development.
Co-Chair MacKay then led a discussion on options for conveying the Summary, which delegates agreed should be reviewed to ensure inclusion of the SIDS elements, to the UNCSD in light of the “time crunch” presented by the 1 November 2011 deadline for contributions to the UNCSD compilation document. It was decided that the Co-Chairs would send it to the President of the General Assembly as a non-official document, as prepared by the Co-Chairs “of their own volition,” with the request to convey it to the UNCSD Secretariat on that basis. This would not conflict, it was indicated, with the General Assembly’s consideration of the document as part of its normal schedule.
In closing, Co-Chair MacKay thanked delegates, panelists, interpreters, and all members of DOALOS for ICP-12’s discussions and valuable inputs, and wished those involved in Rio+20 a successful conference. Co-Chair Meetarbhan thanked all participants, Director Tarassenko and his team for a very positive and constructive week, wishing them safe travels. He closed the meeting at 5:09 pm.
A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF ICP-12
The twelfth session of the UN Open-ended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea (Consultative Process or ICP-12) convened on the cusp of two glittering milestones in the world of sustainable development as it relates to oceans: the 20th anniversary of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED or Earth Summit) and the 30th anniversary of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). These events provide a rare opportunity to garner high-level political attention to intersecting issues that affect oceans. Cognizant of this extraordinary opportunity, ICP-12 set out to review the lingering implementation gaps and new and emerging challenges for oceans, with an eye to pinpointing issues likely to benefit from the high-level considerations the June 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD or Rio+20) agenda will afford.
Making the most of this occasion is not straightforward work, however. The road to Rio+20 is still long and the final destination hazy. One preparatory committee and two intersessional meetings remain, along with regional preparatory meetings and numerous informal events, all of which will determine the form of the outcome of the conference. What role did ICP-12 play in advancing ocean issues as possible candidates for attention, and was it effective? This brief analysis examines these questions.
AN OCEAN OF CHALLENGES
For nearly 40 years, major summits have advanced principles, goals, timelines, and targets for addressing shortfalls in the three pillars of sustainable development (social, environmental and economic), with many touching on oceans. The 1972 Stockholm Declaration asserted the need to safeguard representative samples of natural ecosystems for present and future generations. The 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, adopted at the Earth Summit, called for wide application of the precautionary approach, and urged that environmental protection should constitute an integral part of the development process and should not be considered in isolation. Agenda 21, also adopted at the Earth Summit, included commitments on the protection of the oceans, seas and coasts and the protection, rational use and development of their living resources.
Ten years later, the JPOI was adopted at the World Summit on Sustainable Development to facilitate implementation of Agenda 21’s commitments. The JPOI added a call for a representative network of marine protected areas by 2012. It sought the elimination of subsidies propping up IUU fishing and over-capacity, the strengthening of monitoring, reporting and enforcement and control of fishing vessels, including by flag states, to address IUU fishing, and urged states to achieve, by 2015, the maintenance and restoration of fish stocks to ensure they produce maximum sustainable yield. It also called on states to implement the UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s International Plans of Action of the on IUU fishing by 2004 and on fishery capacity by 2005.
Additional commitments have long existed on the transfer of marine technology, as set out in Part XIV of UNCLOS. Oceans are, furthermore, central to the national, regional and international actions specified in the Barbados Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States, and are relevant to the Millennium Development Goals on poverty elimination and environmental sustainability.
Despite this long, and far from comprehensive, list of aspirations cutting across the pillars of sustainable development—and as participants of this year’s Consultative Process reviewed—action has tragically failed on virtually every front. The result: the world’s oceans are in crisis. To date, a little over 1% of the world’s oceans are protected; subsidies still comprise about 25% of the catch value of world fisheries; 85% of global fish stocks with data are fully exploited, overexploited, depleted or recovering from depletion; and coastal habitats are under pressure, with roughly 20% of the world’s coral reefs lost and another 20% degraded, and 35% of mangroves degraded. Adding insult to injury are the emerging challenges of marine debris, ocean noise, and the consequences of climate change, making the list of “to dos” long and daunting.
For oceans, then the question is which of these problems could benefit from attention at Rio+20 and, perhaps more importantly, which issues have the greatest likelihood of delegates adopting a strong decision or call for action? In a sense, the international community has been here before. If the past instructs the future, then Rio+20 could serve to advance the adoption of a new oceans instrument, as occurred after delegations to the Earth Summit agreed to a conference dedicated to tackling the persistent problem of managing highly migratory and straddling fish stocks. This commitment led to the negotiation of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, which was adopted in 1995 and entered into force in 2001. For many participants at ICP-12, the question was whether the week’s discussions could set the stage for a similar kind of success in 2012.
CRUISING THE MIDDLE CHANNEL?
To capitalize on this opportunity, the right issue is needed. But what issue should it be? Before the opening of ICP-12, participants were wondering how to balance past and emerging issues, and which warranted the backing of ICP, if any. Would a strong, focused message emerge, or would it be scattered in “a confetti of issues,” as one delegate asked. And if one issue gained attention, would it produce a “natural consensus,” necessary for ICP endorsement?
In the course of the week, action on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ) came closest to motivating delegates to seek a natural consensus. A panel early in the week explored the possible character of an implementing agreement on BBNJ. Many delegates, in reaction, supported action on BBNJ, reaffirming their commitment to the outcomes of the BBNJ Working Group. Others, however, objected and questioned the characterization of the Working Group process, suggesting the very discussion of an implementing agreement was premature. These vastly divergent perspectives signaled that a “natural consensus” would be virtually impossible within the week. On a broader level, further discussion of the issue might also rewind progress by reopening discussion in areas where agreement has already been reached, such as the upcoming General Assembly process on BBNJ.
Draft “proposed elements” distributed on Thursday by the Co-Chairs sought the middle ground by urging “States to effectively address issues relating to the conservation and sustainable use of BBNJ, and to continue to engage actively in the process initiated by the General Assembly to this end.” In reaction, many participants were disappointed that the language did not even endorse the recommendations of the General Assembly Ad Hoc Working Group on BBNJ issued on 3 June 2011.
Ostensibly, however, even though several participants called for “bold” and “visionary action,” ICP’s recent self-restraint —aimed to prevent a progressive creep towards negotiations—worked against a strong voice on oceans forming on any of the laundry list of issues flagged. This self-restraint originated at ICP-8 when delegates were unable to agree to a set of elements on marine genetic resources. ICP-10—a year dedicated to a review of the Consultative Process— established that many delegates preferred to see the ICP as a discussion forum, rather than a negotiating session. They felt it should inform, but not steer, the General Assembly in its annual discussion on oceans and the law of the sea. Others felt that negotiated elements produced by the Consultative Process, which were forwarded to the General Assembly, helped to speed up the Assembly’s work, and enhanced the value and impact of the ICP. This same dilemma permeated the discussions at ICP-12, with moderation winning the day. Rather than finding a way to move diverging perspectives towards a natural consensus—which would have involved negotiations—the delegates chose to use the ICP to informally feed into the UNCSD. The Co-Chairs’ Summary of Discussions will be forwarded to the President of the General Assembly with a request to submit it to the UNCSD Bureau to inform the compilation document on which the zero draft of the UNCSD outcome will be based.
STILL SPACE IN THE UNCSD HOLD
As one delegate reflected on the final day of ICP-12, “This is not the last shot,” for influencing the Rio+20 agenda. The second session of the Preparatory Committee for UNCSD, held in March 2011, adopted a decision that, inter alia, set out the process for input to a compilation document that will provide the basis for the draft outcome of the UNCSD. Subsequently, the UNCSD Bureau invited all member states, relevant UN organizations, and relevant stakeholders to provide their inputs and contributions in writing by 1 November 2011. Further input can then be made and negotiations on the “zero draft” of the outcome will continue through to the final Preparatory Committee meeting in May 2012.
Even though the Co-Chairs’ “proposed elements” were not adopted, the Co-Chairs’ Summary of Discussions was widely considered to be an invaluable output that can contribute to the negotiations of the UNCSD outcome. Hence, although ICP’s self-restraint, which prevented negotiation of consensual “elements,” the discussions themselves, as they were reflected in the Co-Chairs’ Summary, will provide input to the preparatory process.
However, in light of the urgent need for creative and innovative ways to tackle the many challenges facing the state of our oceans, as delegates left the UN on Friday evening, one question seemed to permeate the air: “Will the oceans agenda be ambitious enough at Rio+20?” Throughout ICP-12 delegates repeatedly highlighted the need for a robust outcome from Rio+20 to counteract the current rate of environmental impacts and emerging threats to the health of oceans. An ambitious outcome would not only honor the anniversaries of landmark environmental summits and one of the most significant conventions in human history, but, as participants reflected, would also provide the enabling conditions, particularly high-level political attention, necessary for the implementation and advancement of their commitments and obligations to the protection of the marine environment. Perhaps it would be wise for all ocean stakeholders to heed Co-Chair Don MacKay’s advice that “the perfect can be the enemy of the good,” and that at heart of all these discussions is a bold vision to save our seas.
Second Meeting of Ad Hoc Working Group of the Whole of the General Assembly on the Regular Process for Global Reporting and Assessment of the State of the Marine Environment, including socio-economic aspects: This meeting will convene in June 2011. dates: 27-28 June 2011 location: UN Headquarters, New York contact: Secretary of the Meeting of States Parties, DOALOS phone: +1-212-963-3962 fax: +1- 212-963-5847 email:email@example.com www: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/global_reporting/global_reporting.htm
82nd meeting of the IATTC: The 82nd meeting of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission and meetings of two subsidiary groups will take place in California. dates: 29 June - 8 July 2011 location: La Jolla, California, USA contact: Monica Galvan phone: +1-858-546-7100 fax: +1-858-546-7133 email:firstname.lastname@example.org www: http://www.iattc.org/Meetings2011/Jun/IATTC-82nd-Meeting-June2011ENG.htm
Third Joint Tuna RFMOs meeting (Kobe III): The third joint meeting of tuna RFMOs will take place in July. dates: 11-15 July 2011 location: La Jolla, California, USA contact: Melanie King email:Melanie.King@noaa.gov www: http://www.tuna-org.org/Kobe3.htm
2011 World Water Week: The theme for the 2011 conference is “Responding to Global Changes - Water in an Urbanising World.” dates: 21-27 August 2011 location: Stockholm, Sweden contact: Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI) phone: +46-8-522-139-60 fax: +46-8-522-139-61 email: email@example.com www: http://www.worldwaterweek.org/
Seventh International Conference on Marine Bioinvasions: This conference will convene under the title “Advances and Gaps in Understanding Marine Bioinvasions.” Participants will consider the following themes: development and tests of invasion theory; drivers of invasibility; patterns of invasion and spread at local, regional, and global scales; impact of bioinvasions on ecosystem structure and function; and new tools for identification, monitoring, risk assessment, and management. The organizing committee of this conference includes Luis Valdes, Spanish Institute of Oceanography (IEO) of Gijón and UNESCO’s IOC. dates: 23-25 August 2011 location: Barcelona, Spain www: http://www.icmb.info/
Ninth International Meeting on the Environmental Management of Enclosed Coastal Seas (EMECS 9): The purpose of EMECS 9 is to improve our ability to manage coastal seas in all their ecological, economic, and cultural dimensions. The conference will work to cross barriers of discipline and culture by bringing together experts and stakeholders from different backgrounds to share information, insights, and lessons learned. dates: 28-31 August 2011 location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA contact: Jhanna Gilbert, Conference Coordinator phone: +1-352-392-5930 fax: +1-352-392-9734 email:firstname.lastname@example.org www: http://conference.ifas.ufl.edu/emecs9/index.html
141st American Fisheries Society Conference: This meeting will focus on “New Frontiers in Fisheries Management and Ecology: Leading the Way in a Changing World.” dates: 4-8 September 2011 location: Seattle, Washington, USA contact: Larry Dominguez, Conference Co-Chair email: LD50_@msn.com www: http://afs2011.org/
Workshop to Discuss Sustainable Fisheries: This workshop will discuss implementation of paragraphs 80 and 83-87 of General Assembly resolution 61/105 and paragraphs 117 and 119-127 of Resolution 64/72 on sustainable fisheries, addressing the impacts of bottom fishing on vulnerable marine ecosystems and the long-term sustainability of deep sea fish stocks. dates: 15-16 September 2011 location: UN Headquarters, New York contact: DOALOS phone: +1-212-963-3962 fax: +1-212-963-5847 email: email@example.com www: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/reference_files/workshop_fisheries_2011.pdf
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization 33rd Annual Meeting: NAFO is an intergovernmental fisheries science and management body that contributes through consultation and cooperation to the optimum utilization, rational management and conservation of the fishery resources of the Convention Area. dates: 19-23 September 2011 location: Halifax, Canada phone: +1-902-468-5590 fax: +1-902-468-5538 email: firstname.lastname@example.org www: http://www.nafo.int/
ICES Annual Science Conference 2011: The 2011 Annual Science Conference of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea is hosted by the Polish Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Fisheries Department. The annual conference provides a forum where an international community of marine scientists, professionals, and students gather to share their work in theme-based series of oral and poster presentations. dates: 19-23 September 2011 location: Gdańsk, Poland contact: Görel Kjeldsen, ICES Secretariat phone: +45-33-38-67-00 fax: +45-33-93-42-15 email: ASCinfo@ices.dk www: http://www.ices.dk/iceswork/asc/2011/index.asp
Fifth International Conference on Flood Management: This event is organized by the International Centre for Water Hazard and Risk Management, under the auspices of UNESCO and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism of Japan. It will be organized around the theme “Floods: From Risk to Opportunity.” dates: 27-29 September 2011 location: Tokyo, Japan contact: Ali Chavoshian phone: +81-29-879-6815 fax: +81-29-879-6709 email: email@example.com www: http://www.ifi-home.info/icfm-icharm/icfm5.html
High-level Meeting on Review of UN-Oceans: The UN Oceans and Coastal Areas Network (UN-Oceans), the UN inter-agency coordinating mechanism on oceans and coastal issues established in 2003, will undergo a review at the request of the UN Secretary-General, concluding with a high-level meeting in October 2011. date: October 2011 (tentative)contact: Andrew Hudson, UNDP email: firstname.lastname@example.org www: http://www.oceansatlas.org/www.un-oceans.org/Index.htm
North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) Annual Meeting: dates: 7-11 November 2011 location: London, UK contact: NEAFC Secretariat phone: +44-207-631-0016 fax: +44-207-636-9225 email:email@example.com www: http://www.neafc.org/neafcmeeting/3689
22nd Regular Meeting of ICCAT: The 22nd regular meeting of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas and its compliance meeting will take place in November 2011. dates: 9-19 November 2011 location: Istanbul, Turkey contact: ICAAT Secretariat phone: +34-914-165-600 fax: +34-914-152-612 email: firstname.lastname@example.org www: http://www.iccat.int/en/meetingscurrent.htm
Seventh Inter-American Dialogue on Water Management: The Inter-American Water Resources Network and the Organization of American States have organized this Dialogue to reflect on advances on integrated water resource management in the region, its challenges and future demands. Among other things, the Dialogue will discuss water management in a changing environment, including climate change, and collaborative mechanisms for transboundary water resources management. dates: 13-19 November 2011 location: Medellin, Colombia contact: Secretariat email: D7@iwrn.org www: http://d7.iwrn.org
Meeting of Experts on Sustainable Use of Oceans: H.S.H. Prince Albert II of Monaco will convene a meeting of experts to focus on ways to promote the sustainable use of oceans. Monaco will invite oceans experts, economists and business representatives from the five regional groups to reflect on the issues of food security, energy, and tourism in order to formulate concrete recommendations as well as implement and ultimately replicate the best learned practices from their local and regional experiences. The meeting will also discuss the relationship of these issues with the themes of the UNCSD. dates: 28-30 November 2011 location: Monaco contact: UNCSD Secretariat email:email@example.com www: http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/index.php?menu=50
UNFCCC COP 17 and COP/MOP 7: The 17th session of the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP 17) and the 7th session of the Meeting of the Parties (MOP 7) to the Kyoto Protocol will take place in Durban, South Africa. dates: 28 November - 9 December 2011 location: Durban, South Africa contact: UNFCCC Secretariat phone: +49-228-815-1000 fax: +49-228-815-1999 email: firstname.lastname@example.org www: http://unfccc.int/ and http://www.cop17durban.com
Oceans Day at UNFCCC COP17: The Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts and Islands will organize Oceans Day during the Durban Climate Change Conference. date: 3 December 2011 location: Durban, South Africa contact: Miriam Balgos, Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts and Islands phone: +1-302-831-8086 fax: +1-302-831-3668 email: email@example.com www: http://www.globaloceans.org/content/rio20
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission Session: The 8th Regular Session of the Commission (WCPFC8) will take place in December. The meetings of its Northern, Scientific, and Technical and Compliance Committees will take place prior to the session. dates: 5-9 December 2011 location: Koror, Palau contact: WCPFC Secretariat phone: +691-320-1992/1993 fax: +691-320-1108 email: firstname.lastname@example.org www: http://wcpfc.int/meetings/2011/8th-regular-session-commission
Second Intersessional Meeting for UNCSD: The second intersessional meeting for the UNCSD will be convened in late 2011 to prepare for the June 2012 UNCSD. dates: 15-16 December 2011 location: UN Headquarters, New York contact: UNCSD Secretariat email: email@example.com www: http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/index.php?menu=25
Third Intergovernmental Review of the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-Based Pollution (GPA): The Third Intergovernmental Review Meeting of the GPA is expected to take place in January 2012. dates: 23-27 January 2012 location: TBA contact: Takehiro Nakamura, UNEP phone: +254-20-762-4793 fax: +254-20-762-4249 email:firstname.lastname@example.org www: http://www.gpa.unep.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=68&Itemid=49
Second Asia-Pacific Water Summit: This regional meeting will contribute to the preparations for the UNCSD. dates: 5-6 February 2012 location: Bangkok, Thailand contact: Department of Water Resources, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Thailand phone: +66-0-2271-6000 Ext. 6602 fax: +66-0-2298-6604 www: http://www.apwatersummit2.org/home.html
Sixth Global Oceans Conference: This conference seeks to provide an input to Rio+20. dates: 20-24 February 2012 (tentative) location: TBA contact: Miriam C. Balgos, Program Coordinator Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts, and Islands phone: +1-302-831-8086 fax: +1-302-831-3668 email: email@example.com www: http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/index.php?page=view&type=13&nr=229&menu=27
Sixth World Water Forum: This Forum will focus on the theme “Solutions for Water.” dates: 12-17 March 2012 location: Marseille, France contact: Secretariat phone: +33(0)4-95-09-01-40 fax: +33(0)4-95-09-01-41 email: firstname.lastname@example.org www: http://www.worldwaterforum6.org/
Sixth Session of the Sub-committee on Aquaculture of the Committee on Fisheries: The Sub-Committee provides a forum for consultation and discussion on aquaculture and advises COFI on technical and policy matters related to aquaculture and on the work to be performed by the Organization in the subject matter field of aquaculture. dates: 2-6 April 2012 location: Cape Town, South Africa contact: Rohana Subasinghe email:email@example.com www: http://www.fao.org/fishery/nems/39840/en
Third Intersessional Meeting for UNCSD: The final intersessional meeting for the UNCSD will be convened in March 2012. dates: 26-27 March 2012 location: UN Headquarters, New York contact: UNCSD Secretariat email: firstname.lastname@example.org www: http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/index.php?menu=25
Third PrepCom for UNCSD: The third meeting of the Preparatory Committee for the UNCSD will take place in Brazil just prior to the conference. dates: 28-30 May 2012 location: Rio De Janeiro, Brazil contact: UNCSD Secretariat email: email@example.com www: http://www.uncsd2012.org/
Oceans Day at UNCSD: The Global Ocean Forum will organize Oceans Day during the thematic days immediately preceding the UNCSD. dates: 1-3 June 2012 (tentative) location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil contact: Miriam Balgos, Program Coordinator Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts, and Islands phone: +1-302-831-8086 fax: +1-302-831-3668 email: firstname.lastname@example.org www: http://www.globaloceans.org/content/rio20
UN Conference on Sustainable Development: The UNCSD will mark the 20th anniversary of the UN Conference on Environment and Development, which convened in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992. dates: 4-6 June 2012 location: Rio De Janeiro, Brazil contact: UNCSD Secretariat email: email@example.com www: http://www.uncsd2012.org
This issue of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin © <firstname.lastname@example.org> is written and edited by Graeme Auld, Ph.D., Robynne Boyd, Daniela Diz, Ph.D., and Faye Leone. The Digital Editor is Dan Birchall. The Editor is Pamela S. Chasek, Ph.D. <email@example.com>. The Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI <firstname.lastname@example.org>. 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 Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), the European Commission (DG-ENV), and the Italian Ministry for the Environment, Land and Sea. General Support for the Bulletin during 2011 is provided by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Government of Australia, the Ministry of Environment of Sweden, the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, SWAN International, Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, the Japanese Ministry of Environment (through the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies - IGES), the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (through the Global Industrial and Social Progress Research Institute – GISPRI) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Funding for translation of the Bulletin into French has been provided by the Government of France, the Belgium Walloon Region, the Province of Québec, and the International Organization of the Francophone (OIF and IEPF). Funding for translation of the Bulletin into Spanish has been provided by the Spanish Ministry of the Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs. The opinions expressed in the Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD or other donors. Excerpts from the 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@example.com>, +1-646-536-7556 or 320 E 46th St., APT 32A, New York, NY10017-3037, USA. 代表団の友