Report from the chairman and the technical secretary on the activities of the working group. Explanations and clarifications were provided by the working group members most familiar with the questions raised in these comments. The working group members kept a record of the comments and suggestions so that they could be considered during the finalization of the report.
The chairman of the working group replied that this process ensured a level playing field for administrations and industry. In some cases, GESAMP simply wants to bring these issues to the attention of the marine environment community. Establishment of periodic evaluations of GESAMP achievements and shortcomings by independent reviewers.
Soutar The thirty-seventh session of the Working Group will take place from April 30 to May 4, 2001. In addition, three members of the MEA working group also participated in various GIWA meetings and activities. 4 GESAMP XXX/4 IMO Report of the Working Group on Estimates of Oil Entering the Marine Environment from Marine Activities.
Harmful substances carried by ships – Report of the 36th session of working group 7 GESAMP Chair XXX/7 Issues of special concern.
MEMBERS
SECRETARIAT
OBSERVERS
At the second meeting of the WG, an editorial board was established to coordinate the work on the preparation of the biennial and the LBA reports. The Advisory Committee on the Protection of the Ocean (ACOPS) was welcomed as an additional co-sponsor of the WG. During the reconstitution of the WG at GESAMP XXVII, ten experts were appointed as members of the WG: Michael Bewers (Canada), Richard Boelens (Ireland), Sabine Charmasson (France), Robert Duce (USA), Danny Elder ((USA) , Robert Engler (USA), Michael Huber (Australia), David Insull (UK), Stjepan Keckes (Croatia) and Helen Yap (Philippines).
Michael Bewers, Robert Duce, Michael Huber, David Insull, Ljubomir Jeftic and Stjepan Keckes made up the GP Editorial Board. A particular benefit was the peer review of fairly advanced versions of biennial drafts and LBA reports. The final draft of the biennial report submitted to GESAMP XXX (except Chapter 7) was written by the editor/writer based on the fifth draft of the biennial report (dated 29 July 1999)3 that was prepared by the GP.
UNESCO/IOC covered the costs of two members of the working group attending GESAMP sessions and meetings convened within the framework of the working group (Michael Bewers and Michael Huber). IMO: (i) covered the costs of the participation of two working group members in GESAMP sessions and meetings convened within the framework of the working group (Richard Boelens and Robert Engler); and (ii) hosted and covered the costs associated with technical support for the working group meeting in London. The IAEA covered the costs of one member of the working group attending GESAMP sessions and meetings convened within the framework of the working group ((Sabine Charmasson).
WMO: (i) covers the cost of one member of the working group attending GESAMP sessions and meetings convened within the framework of the working group (Robert Duce); (ii) provided financial assistance for the participation of 6 members of the editorial board at the editorial board meeting in Barcelona; and (iii) agreed to partially cover the costs associated with editing the reports. FAO covered the cost of one working group member attending GESAMP sessions and meetings convened within the working group (David Insull). The UN covered the cost of one working group member attending GESAMP sessions and meetings convened within the framework of the working group (Lawrence Awosika).
Centro de Investigacion y Desarrollo (CID): hosted and provided technical assistance for the meeting of the Editorial Board in Barcelona. These problems became very acute at the time of the November 1998 meeting of the WG. The draft of Chapter 6 of the LBA report (Conclusions and Priorities for Action) was presented – as a.
M.B. 12729 Lagos
TERMS OF REFERENCE
This is especially the case for marine environmental problems that cannot be solved without taking into account the ecological interdependence of oceans, coastal zones and related freshwater systems. On a global scale, the environmental problems of oceans and coastal areas, and their causes, have remained largely unchanged for several decades. However, improved assessment of the extent of other forms of damage and threats to the marine and coastal environment has resulted in a more balanced perspective.
Significant amounts of natural substances and pollutants, especially nutrients, are added to the coastal zone through submarine groundwater discharge in many regions of the world. One of the changes in emphasis is the importance GESAMP places on the need for the kinds of institutional strengthening required by developing countries to enable them to control activities on the ground. Many of the problems and their solutions listed here have been published extensively elsewhere.
National capacities to deal with the problems in the marine and coastal environment are insufficient in most developing countries. Although some of the social and environmental problems can be solved at the individual farm level, most are cumulative – insignificant when considering a single farm, but potentially very significant in relation to the whole sector. A prerequisite for better and more effective planning is also better organization and representation of the sector.
Second, in the absence of any generally agreed environmental quality standards, assessments of the significance of impacts have been highly subjective and inconsistent. Ensuring that activities do not exceed the carrying capacity of the environment is one practical interpretation of this objective. Agreement (at national or local level) on the practical interpretation of this in relation to aquaculture should be one of the first steps in any planning and management initiative.
More integrated planning and management are extremely complex and the outcomes of each stage of the process are likely to be flawed or inadequate in some way. The key point is to develop or adapt a system that allows for the comprehensive application of the principles set out above. Formalization includes the agreement and formal approval of the plan or program, and securing implementation funding.
In addition, it is essential to agree on the nature of the response if standards are violated, procedures fail, or goals are not met. The thirty-seventh session of the working group will take place from 30 April to 4 May 2001.
