Can Competent Authorities Cooperate for the Common Good: Towards a Collective Arrangement in the North-East Atlantic

Conference paper
Part of the NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security book series (NAPSC)

Abstract

The OSPAR Commission implements the regional seas convention for the North-East Atlantic and has been at the forefront of delivering the ecosystem approach through the development of robust measures to deal with marine pollution. For purposes of assessment the OSPAR Maritime Area is divided into five Regions, Region I representing ‘Arctic Waters.’ OSPAR Region I includes the transition between the Boreal and true Arctic biogeographic zones, incorporates the presence of the North Atlantic Current as well as the northward flowing Norwegian Coastal Current, and is characterised by seasonally high primary productivity and high natural variability. The starting point for a ‘collaborative arrangement’ between relevant competent authorities, with the aim of ensuring a highest level of conservation of selected areas in the North-East Atlantic beyond national jurisdiction, was explored at an informal Workshop in Madeira in March 2010. The Ministerial Meeting of OSPAR, held in Bergen in September 2010, agreed unprecedented protection of six extensive marine protected areas (MPAs) in Region V, on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and isolated seamounts. Whilst being required to protect biodiversity, OSPAR does not have competence for those activities that are arguably the most likely to have the most impact in these remote areas, namely fisheries, international shipping and seabed mining. Most multilateral environmental agreements have adopted key principles that enshrine sustainable development and governance ideals. Regimes of this sort, designed to limit pressures and impacts of human activities, have elements in common with built in checks and balances designed to govern exploitation. By focussing on a defined geographic area and recognising the value of its natural capital, it has proven possible to scope complementary and mutually reinforcing management measures. OSPAR, the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) [18] and the International Seabed Authority (ISA) have started to consider this in respect of one MPA – the Charlie Gibbs Fracture Zone. The intention is to broaden the discussion to include other competent authorities. A combined regime of this nature demands transparency and trust between competent authorities. It becomes incumbent on States in agreement within one competent authority to influence and work within other competent authorities. It also requires that States reach a common position internally between those dealing with different sectors within their administrations. Given that such a solution is unprecedented, there is merit in establishing a pilot case to focus the best scientific and legal minds. Ultimately, however, such a solution becomes a matter of political will and decision.

Keywords

Competent Authority International Maritime Organisation North Atlantic Current Arctic Council Multilateral Environmental Agreement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    AMAP (2008) Arctic oil and gas assessment 2007. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Oslo. http://www.amap.no/oga/. Accessed 20 Aug 2011Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    AMAP (2009) Update on selected climate issues of concern. Observations, short-lived climate forcers, Arctic carbon cycle, and predictive capability. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Oslo. http://amap.no/documents/index.cfm?action=getfile&dirsub=&filename=Climate%5FUpdate%5F2009.pdf&sort=default. Accessed 20 Aug 2011Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    AMAP (2009) Arctic pollution 2009. Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Oslo. http://amap.no/documents/index.cfm?action=getfile&dirsub=&filename=SOAER%5F2009.pdf&sort=default. Accessed 20 Aug 2011Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    AMSA (2009) Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment. Protection of the Arctic marine environment working group of the Arctic Council, Akureyri. http://www.pame.is/amsa/amsa-2009-report. Accessed 20 Aug 2011
  5. 5.
    Arctic TRANSFORM (2009) Final conference: transatlantic policy options for the marine Arctic. Brussels, 5 Mar 2009. http://arctic-transform.org/events.html. Accessed 20 Aug 2011
  6. 6.
    Berkman PA, Young OR (2009) Governance and environmental change in the Arctic Ocean. Science 324:339–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boyle PR (2009) Life in the Mid Atlantic. An exploration of marine life and environment in the middle of the North Atlantic Ocean from the sea surface to the sea bed. Bergen Museum Press, BergenGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    European Commission (2008) The common fisheries policy. European Commission, Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/publications/pcp2008_en.pdf. Accessed 20 Aug 2011Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    European Union (2008) Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:164:0019:0040:EN:PDF. Accessed 20 Aug 2011
  10. 10.
    FAO (1995) Code of conduct for responsible fisheries. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/v9878e/v9878e00.pdf. Accessed 20 Aug 2011Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ilulissat Declaration (2008) Arctic Ocean conference. Ilulissat, 12 May 2008. http://www.oceanlaw.org/downloads/arctic/Ilulissat_Declaration.pdf. Accessed 20 Aug 2011
  12. 12.
    ISA (2000) Regulations on prospecting and exploration for polymetallic nodules in the area. International Seabed Authority, Montego Bay. http://www.isa.org.jm/files/documents/EN/Regs/MiningCode.pdf. Accessed 20 Aug 2011Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Koivuova T, Molenaar EJ (2009) International governance and regulation of the marine Arctic: overview and gap analysis. WWF International Arctic Programme, OsloGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Koivurova T, Molenaar EJ (2010) International governance and the regulation of the marine Arctic. Overview and gap analysis, Options for addressing identified gaps and A proposal for a legally binding instrument. http://assets.panda.org/downloads/3in1_final.pdf. Accessed 20 Aug 2011
  15. 15.
    MARPOL (1978) International convention for the prevention of pollution from ships, as modified by the protocol of 1978 relating thereto. Signed at London, 17 Feb 1978. http://www.ecolex.org/server2.php/libcat/docs/TRE/Multilateral/En/TRE000112.txt. Accessed 20 Aug 2011
  16. 16.
    NEAFC (2010) OSPAR meetings 2010. Madeira, Funchal 23–25 Mar 2010. Ministerial meeting Bergen 23–24 Sept 2010. http://www.neafc.org/system/files/coop_with_OSPAR_2010_various_dates.pdf. Accessed 20 Aug 2011
  17. 17.
    NEAFC (2011) Vulnerable marine ecosystem closed areas. North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, London. http://www.neafc.org/page/3239. Accessed 20 Aug 2011Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    NEAFC Convention (1980) Convention on future multilateral cooperation in North-East Atlantic Fisheries. Signed at London, 18 Nov 1980. http://ec.europa.eu/world/agreements/downloadFile.do?fullText=yes&treatyTransId=1337. Accessed 20 Aug 2011
  19. 19.
    Orr JC, Fabry VJ, Aumont O, Bopp L, Doney SC, Feely RA, Gnanadesikan A, Gruber N, Ishida A, Joos F, Key RM, Lindsay K, Maier-Reimer E, Matear R, Monfray P, Mouchet A, Raymond G, Najjar RG, Plattner G-K, Rodgers KB, Sabine CL, Sarmiento JL, Schlitzer R, Slater RD, Totterdell IJ, Weirig M-F, Yamanaka Y, An Yool A (2005) Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms. Nature 437:681–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Oslo Convention (1972) Convention for the prevention of marine pollution by dumping from ships and aircraft. Signed at Oslo, 15 Feb 1972. http://sedac.ciesin.org/entri/texts/marine.pollution.dumping.ships.aircraft.1972.html. Accessed 20 Aug 2011
  21. 21.
    OSPAR Commission (2000) Quality status report 2000. OSPAR Commission, London. http://www.ospar.org/content/content.asp?menu=00790830300000_000000_000000. Accessed 20 Aug 2011Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    OSPAR Commission (2008) OSPAR list of threatened and/or declining species and habitants. Reference number: 2008–06. http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/08-06e_OSPAR%20List%20species%20and%20habitats.pdf. Accessed 20 Aug 2011
  23. 23.
    OSPAR Commission (2009) General guidance on the voluntary interim application of the D1 ballast water exchange standard by vessels leaving the Baltic Sea and transiting through the North-East Atlantic to other destinations. http://www.ospar.org/html_documents/ospar/html/ospar_helcom_guidance_ballast_water.pdf. Accessed 20 Aug 2011
  24. 24.
    OSPAR Commission (2010) Quality status report 2010. OSPAR Commission, London. http://qsr2010.ospar.org/en/media/chapter_pdf/QSR_complete_EN.pdf. Accessed 20 Aug 2011Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    OSPAR Convention (1992) Convention for the protection of the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic. Signed at London, 22 Sept 1992. http://ec.europa.eu/world/agreements/downloadFile.do?fullText=yes&treatyTransId=1373. Accessed 20 Aug 2011
  26. 26.
    Paris Convention (1974) Convention for the prevention of marine pollution from land-based sources. Signed at Paris, 4 June 1974. http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/entri/texts/marine.pollution.land.based.sources.1974.html. Accessed 20 Aug 2011
  27. 27.
    Snelgrove PVR (2010) Discoveries of the census of marine life. Making Ocean life count. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stroeve J, Holland MM, Meier W, Scambos T, Serreze M (2007) Arctic sea ice decline: faster than forecast. Geophys Res Lett 34(L09501):1–5. http://www.ualberta.ca/∼eec/Stroeve2007.pdf. Accessed 20 Aug 2011Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    UNCLOS (1982) United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Signed at Montego Bay, 10 Dec 1982. http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm. Accessed 20 Aug 2011

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.OSPAR CommissionLondonUK

Personalised recommendations