REPORT ON SECOND NATIONAL CONSULTATION ON ENVIRONMENTAL TREATIES AND PROGRAMMES IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA AND GULF OF THAILAND

Transcription

1 United Nations UNEP/GEF South China Sea Global Environment Environment Programme Project Facility Fifth Meeting of the Regional Task Force on Legal Matters for the UNEP/GEF Project: Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand Batam, Indonesia, 18 th 21 st September 2006 UNEP/GEF/SCS/RTF-L.5/6.Mal Date: 11 th September 2006 Original: English REPORT ON SECOND NATIONAL CONSULTATION ON ENVIRONMENTAL TREATIES AND PROGRAMMES IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA AND GULF OF THAILAND

2 Page 1 Introduction The Second National Consultation On Environmental Treaties and Programmes in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand held on 29 h Agust The primary objectives of the consultation session are (Annex I): To discuss the final draft report on alternative instruments; To present and discuss the findings from the questionnaire survey; and To obtain views on the proposed mechanisms for regional cooperation. Unlike the first consultation only 10 external participants attended the meeting (Annex II). However, the discussions were livelier and questions were raised about the mechanisms proposed in the report by the regional expert. Opening Session Mr. Mohd Nizam Basiron welcomed the participants to the consultation on behalf of the The Director General of MIMA and thanked the respondents of the survey as well as the other participants. Presentations Report of the Questionnaire Survey for Malaysia (Annex III) Ms. Siti Nazatul Izura Ishak, Research Assistant involved in the survey presented the findings from the Malaysian survey and highlighted three key points (please see attached report): Survey respondents agree on the inadequacy of the present mechanisms to meet national and regional needs and the need for new mechanisms; Most respondents called for a more focused approach towards regional co-operation based on an issues approach; and Respondents are not able to identify the single most appropriate approach for implementation in the region. This was followed by a presentation by Ms. Cheryl Kaur, Researcher at MIMA who summarised the national survey results from all the participating countries. During the discussions, the following questions were raised and responded to: The statistical viability and adequacy of the survey and responses. In reply Mr. Nizam Basiron noted that the surveys were intended to obtain general views on the instruments and issues and not to provide any definitive statistical information from the respondents; The different approaches to the reporting of the survey and national consultation. It was explained that the different approaches were the result of the different administrative situations and requirements of the countries. Moreover no standard format of reporting was agreed upon and provided to the countries. It was noted that there were no responses from NGOs. Questionnaires were sent to five NGOs but none were returned. However representatives from NGOs attended the First National Consultation. Presentation of Revised Report on Review of Instruments and Mechanisms for Strengthening Marine Environmental Cooperation in the South China Sea Mr. Mohd Nizam Basiron presented the revised report and highlighted the rationale for cooperation, the weaknesses of the present arrangements and the various options available. The presentation on the options also noted the pros and cons of each of the proposals. The following views were obtained from the participants based on the presentation and focus questions provided by the Project Coordinating Unit. Copies of the report were also provided to the participants of the First National Consultation for them to consider during the period between the two meetings.

3 Page 2 On the need for cooperation. There is a general consensus that the level of cooperation needs to be improved on. While the participants agree on the need for strengthened formal cooperation betwen governments, the nature of such cooperation and the instrument to be used still needs further examination. In relation to the above point, the following issues were raised - How could a common legal instrument be developed if there is no common legal problem to be addressed? In response, it was suggested that the need for cooperation is outlined in UNCLOS and the degradation of the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand environments does present a common challenge, albeit one which has not been given a legal definition; - The question of maritime boundary disputes could not be put aside all of the time, as the issue will come up during negotiations of a legally binding instrument. - Functional cooperation could not continue without some form of legal backing. - The nature of countries in the region which are averse to the development of legal instruments. The ASEAN example was mentioned as a body which is comfortable with declarations and MOUs but not necessarily a legally binding instrument. - Using ASEAN as a platform for cooperation may also be problematic as China is not a member of ASEAN. Some of the participants suggested that the report should examine home-grown examples of functional cooperation such as the Malaysia-Thailand Joint Development Area for ideas on how the issue could be resolved and to find examples of win-win situations. Other suggestions included the transboundary protected area for turtle conservation between Malaysia and the Philippines. Dato Lamri Ali, Director of Sabah Parks pointed out that in the case of the Turtle Island Heritage Protected Area (TIHPA) between Malaysia and the Pihilippines, cooperation is hampered by financial and institutional issues. The situation has made holding joint meetings and discussions difficult and while the model is good, it is not easy to ensure the sustainability of the venture. He also mentioned that the proposal to expand the TIHPA to the Sulu- Sulawesi Sea has also encountered problems following the decentralisation of administration in Indonesia. Participants mentioned other barriers to a legally binding cooperation in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand: - Lack of trust among the littoral countries. For example, the inability of Malaysia and Indonesia to resolve boundary issues without going to the International Court of Justice. - The region is a diverse one with peculiar issues that need to be prioritised. - The need to translate common regional issues into national action and then to use the national actions as a basis for a regional instrument. - What are the incentives and benefits for developing a regional instrument if most of the problems require national actions? And what are the incentives for compliance? The participants also suggested that the UNECE Water Convention be explored further, particularly in terms of the limitations of its adoption as a possible model for the region and how these limitations could be overcome? Closing In closing, Mr. Mohd Nizam Basiron thanked the participants for their inputs and mentioned that the inputs will be forwarded to the Regional Task Force on Legal Matters at its coming meeting. The meeting ended at p.m.

4 Page 3 Annex I NATIONAL CONSULTATION ON ENVIRONMENTAL TREATIES AND PROGRAMMES IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA AND GULF OF THAILAND 29 August 2006 (Tuesday) Registration Welcoming Remarks Y.Bhg. Dato Cheah Kong Wai Director General MIMA National report on questionnaire results and the first national workshop for Malaysia National reports on questionnaire results and the first national workshop for participating countries Discussions Coffee break Review of the regional instruments and mechanisms for regional environmental cooperation in the South China Sea Discussion Any other matters 1230 Lunch

5 Page 4 WORKSHOP ON NATIONAL CONSULTATION ON ENVIRONMENTAL TREATIES AND PROGRAMMES IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA AND GULF OF THAILAND 29 August 2006 Institut Penyelidikan Perikanan (IPP) / Fisheries Research Institute, Penang 1. Ms. Chee Phaik Ean Head of Aquatic Ecosystem Section Fisheries Research Institute Department of Fisheries Malaysia Batu Maung, Penang Tel : / H/P: Fax : chee@fri.gov.my Sabah Parks 2. Y. Bhg. Datuk Lamri Ali Pengarah Taman-Taman Sabah (Sabah Parks) National P.O. Box Kota Kinabalu, Sabah Tel : / / Fax : / National Oceanography Directorate (NOD) 3. YM Raja Saadiah bt. Raja Shariff Assistant Director National Oceanography Directorate Ministry of Science, Technology & Innovation Level 6, Block C4, Parcel C Federal Government Administrative Putrajaya Tel : / Fax : rsaadiah@mosti.gov.my Annex II Jabatan PERHILITAN 4. Mr. Ahmad Shamsuddin Haji Shaari Wildlife Officer Jabatan PERHILITAN Km 10, Jalan Cheras Kuala Lumpur Tel : / h/p: Fax : shamsuddin@wildlife.gov.my Arkib Negara Malaysia 5. Puan Hajjah Mahfuzah Yusuf Archivist Head of Special Research Branch National Archives of Malaysia Jalan Duta, Kuala Lumpur Tel : Fax : mahfuzah@arkib.gov.my

6 Page 5 6. Puan Wan Zainon bt. Wan Awang, Archivist National Archives of Malaysia Jalan Duta, Kuala Lumpur Tel : Fax : zainon@arkib.gov.my Department of Environment 7. Ms. Carol Hoh Mui Ling Assistant Director Department of Environment Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Level 1 4, Podium Block 2 & 3 Block 4G3, Presint 4 Federal Government Administrative Centre Putrajaya Tel : Fax : chml@doc.gov.my 8. Cik Norazma Zainuddin Pegawai Kawalan Alam Sekitar Jabatan Alam Sekitar Kementerian Sumber Asli dan Alam Sekitar Aras 1 4, Podium 2 & 3 Blok 4G3, Presint 4 Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan Putrajaya Tel : Fax : nz@doc.gov.my Marine Department Peninsular Malaysia 9. Mr. Noor Ariff bin Yusoff, Director Safety of Navigation Division Marine Department Peninsular Malaysia P.O. Box 12, Jalan Limbungan Pelabuhan Kelang, Selangor Tel : / Fax : ariff@marine.gov.my University of Malaya 10. Y. Bhg. Datin Mary George Faculty of Law University of Malaya Fax : En. Mohd Nizam Basiron Research Fellow Centre for Coastal and Marine Environment

7 Page Cik Zahaitun Mahani Zakariah, Reseacher Centre for Coastal and Marine Environment 13. Cik Cheryl Rita Kaur a/p Dalbir Singh, Researcher Centre for Coastal and Marine Environment 14. Cik Siti Nazatul Izura Mohamed Ishak, Research Assistant Centre for Coastal and Marine Environment 15. En. Nazery Khalid, Research Fellow Centre for Economic Studies & Ocean Industries 16. En. Iskandar Sazlan Mohd Salleh, Senior Researcher Centre for Maritime Security & Diplomacy 17. Puan Sumathy Permal, Researcher Centre for Maritime Security & Diplomacy 18. Puan Siti Norniza Zainul Idris, Researcher Centre for Ocean Law & Policy

8 Page Cik Jalila Abdul Jalil, Researcher Centre for Ocean Law & Policy 20. Cik Homaiyamal a/p Chelladurai, Research Assistant Centre for Maritime Security & Diplomacy 21. En. Ragupathy Kanagaratnam, Editor/Research Assistant Publication Unit As of 1 September 2006

9 Page 8 Annex III Report on Questionnaire Survey on Environmental Treaties and Programmes in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand Introduction A questionnaire survey was conducted on behalf of the UNEP-GEF Project on Reversing Environmental Degradation Trends in the South China Sea and Gulf of Thailand over a period of 3 months from March to June questionnare survey forms were mailed or faxed to government agencies, universities, research institutions and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). 21 responds were received comprising 16 survey forms and five letters indicating the organisations noninvolvement in the subject matter covered the survey. The following report is based on the questions asked in the survey form. 1. Awareness/Involvement 1.1 For which international agreements, action plans or programmes relating to the marine environment is your Ministry, Department or organization responsible? 10 out of the 16 respondents (62.5%), have involvement with one or more multilateral agreement, programme or co-operations such as CBD, RAMSAR, SEAFDEC, COBSEA, BOBLME, IMO, GEF, FAO,UNCLOS, Kyoto Declaration, OPRC-1990, ICG-IOTWS. 1.2 Is your Ministry, Department or Organization collaborating with any other Ministry, Department or Organization in the framework of any other international agreements, action plans or programmes? If yes which agreements? 81.3% answered yes. They said that their agencies collaborated with Ministry of Science Technology and Environment, Marine Department of Malaysia, Fisheries Department of Malaysia, Marine Park Division in implementing agreements such as CBD, RAMSAR, UN Forum on Forest, Reef Balls Project, OPRC-1990,PAMSEA, WMO/IOC, FAO-CRF, SEAFDEC-RCCF,BOBLME,IOC-SEAGOOS, Nat-ICZM Policy Formulation, ASEAN- SEAFDEC. 2. Necessity 2.1 What benefits does your country and or Ministry, Department or organization currently derive from participation in the environmental agreements listed under item 1.1 above? Diverse answers were diverse. 81.3% respondents said that their organisations received financial and technical assistance, knowledge; created networking, exchanged information, training via workshop/courses, improvement in resource management, recognition from the international community. 2.2 What additional benefits should be provided under these agreements? The answers include several additional benefits such as; improving cost-effective technologies, capacity building, enhanced the role of academicians, strengthened the efforts targeting on a long term and sustainable use of the biodiversity, publicized widely the funding sources.

10 Page Are the existing regional cooperative mechanisms adequate to deal with degradation of the marine environment and problems of a trans-boundary nature in the SCS? Yes/No 69 % respondents answered that the existing regional co-operative mechanisms were not adequate to meet national need to deal with marine ecosystem protection. Others said that the co-operation only work depending on the mechanisms. 2.4 If existing mechanisms are not adequate for dealing with identified trans-boundary problems please list the identified problems (e.g. Tsunami warning system) Only half of the respondents answered this question. The identified problems among others were not enough commitment, non-sustainability of mechanisms, problems related to willingness in data sharing, disparity in level of preparedness in participation countries in technical co-operation or technology transfer. 2.5 What are the obligations (if any) regarding co-operation/collaboration under the agreements listed under 1.1 above. 50 % of the respondents answered that they need to have proper commitment to manage, to conserve, to identify the sensitive area and undertaking the plans as agreed. Besides that they need to be sincere and have strong political support to undertake the collaboration with relevant parties 2.6 Do you think it is necessary to strengthen formal inter-governmental regional co-operation to address trans-boundary environmental problems in the marine environment of the SCS? Yes/No Apart from the Department of Environment and Fisheries Research Institute, the others agencies agreed that there was a need for formal inter-governmental regional co-operation. 2.7 What instrument (e.g. Convention, declaration, programmes) would you propose to strengthen regional co-operation in environmental management? The answered given were diverse. Some respondents insisted that the instruments were adequate, but lack will to sustain the action. Others suggested collaborative programmes, multilateral/bilateral arrangement, specific programmes with clear objectives and accompanied by funding support without much elaboration. 2.8 Through what mechanisms should the instruments be implemented (e.g. Secretariat, Commission, NGO, Existing international or regional organization). There are several views on this point; Some agreed with the existing organization whether on regional or international level, the NGOs, research institutions and institutions on higher learning. Some suggested a permanent secretariat to address the issues such as ASEAN Secretariat. There was also a suggestion to encourage participation of the other stakeholders such as oil industries, shipping corporations and fishermen association. 3. Feasibility 3.1 What is the process of domestic approval of a regional co-operative mechanisms? Most of the respondents agreed that the matters must obtain approval from the relevant ministry / government for implementation.

11 Page What are the main obstacles to forging new or strengthening existing regional cooperative mechanisms in the South China Sea? Apart from the major problem that was financial constraint, poor coordination, overlapping functions, lack of enforcement at regional level and data sharing were among the obstacles need to be addressed to strengthen the existing co-operation. 3.3 How should these obstacles be addressed? Ideas of most respondents were to enhance the human resource development, stream lining of objectives to avoid duplicating and to have more contributions/ commitment from member countries. 4. Forms of Co-operation 4.1 Do you/your Ministry (?) prefer broader co-operation mechanisms on the marine environment in general or more focused mechanisms dealing with specific issues/areas or particular environmental problems? 75% respondents preferred on more focused mechanisms to address the issues efficiently. Others said depend on co-operation or issues concerned. 4.2 What environmental issues/areas are the most appropriate for formal regional co-operation in the SCS?*marine environment protection,*management of coastal habitats (mangroves, coral reefs, seagrass, wetlands), *fisheries,* land-based pollution, *natural hazards (e.g. typhoon, tsunami, storm surges) Most of the respondents prioritized marine environment protection and management of coastal habitats as the main issues. Fisheries, natural hazard and land based pollution were also included. Some even suggested looking into the offshore installations and treasure looters. 4.3 What kind of regional co-operative mechanisms would you suggest to promote the regional co-operation in the SC? While some agreed that the existing regional co-operation was adequate and proposed the co-operation to be strengthen and maintain, others suggested fellowship staff/researchers exchange within ASEAN region for sharing technical expertise and knowledge. Conclusion Through the survey answers, we found respondents felt that existing instruments were inadequate. They believe more focused co-operation needed. But respondents were not sure what instrument should be put in place. Hence more extensive work are needed to identify appropriate instrument for the region.