U T T E R W O R T H I N E M A N N

Conference report The First European Seas at Risk Conference, Copenhagen, 26-28 October 1994

The Seas At Risk Federation (SAR F e d e r a t i o n ) is an u m b r e l l a - organization of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) for the protec- tion of several European seas, includ- ing the North Sea and the Irish Sea. The SAR Federation has become the porte parole of the environmental NGOs in the North Sea area, which is not always without problems - - as was shown during this conference. In the course of the years the SAR Federa- tion has extended its scope from the North Sea to all European Seas. Rep- resentatives not only from environ- mental interest groups, but also from governments, science and industries participated in the conference. There were even some participants from the Baltic States and Poland.

It is no coincidence that the venue of the conference was Copenhagen, Denmark. The ministers responsible for the protection of the North Sea met in December 1993 in Copenhagen and, following the agreement to that effect at the ministerial conference in The Hague in 1990, the fourth Inter- n a t i o n a l Nor th Sea C o n f e r e n c e (INSC) will be held in Esbjerg, Den- mark in 1995.

This was not the only similarity be- tween the SAR Conference and the INSCs. Like the INSCs, it was the aim of the SAR Conference to adopt a Declaration concerning the protection of the European Seas. The INSCs are limited to the North Sea area. The SAR Federation wanted its declara- tion to relate to all European Seas (North Sea, Baltic Sea, Mediterra- nean Sea, Black Sea, North-east Atlantic).

Day one of the conference set off with four introductions on the status

and activities of the European Seas. The presentations served to introduce these seas to the conference. The coordination between the speakers as to the content and length of their introductions was poor and these in- troductions were not of great interest. Day one also contained an introduc- tion to the draft Declaration (subjects: hazardous substances, nutrients, ship- ping, habitat and species, fisheries and energy uses), that had been sent pre- viously to the participants of the con- ference.

The European Community's (EC) r e p r e s e n t a t i v e was f r o m t he Directorate-General of the Environ- ment and spoke on the opening day of the conference. The EC's presence in this field is entirely justified since the EC is actively working on many of the issues that are also on the agenda of the International North Sea Confer- ences. The EC is even considerably extending its activities through the in- clusion in its work programme of acti- vities in the fields of habitat protec- tion, coastal zone management and safety of navigation. Unfortunately, the poor presentation of the EC's rep- resentative did not shed much light on the future intentions of the EC in this respect.

On day two the working groups on the different subjects were held. I participated in the shipping working group under the able chairmanship of Gerard Peet. The cooperation in this group - - in contrast to that in certain other working groups - - went very well. Constructive ideas, respect for the opinions which were expressed and a certain agreement as to the framework for the regulation of ship- ping produced a satisfactory result.

Marine Policy, Vol. 19, No. 5, pp. 447-448, 1995 Copyright O 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd

Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0308-597X/95 $10.00 + 0.00

From the reports of the other work- ing groups on day three, it appeared that discussions in some of them - - notably the working group on hazard- ous substances - - had been rather heated, even causing a walk-out of the chemical (chlorine) industry's repre- sentatives from the meeting.

It remain to be seen to what extent the results of the conference will find their way in to the Final Declaration of the fifth International North Sea Conference in Esbjerg in 1995. The wording of the pre-conference draft Declaration was couched in surpri- singly diplomatic terms. Governments could have signed the draft without much hesitation since few new ideas could be found in it. Fortunately, the participants proposed a great many amendments, so much so that the con- ference's secretariat was entirely over- whelmed and was not able to produce a consolidated revised declaration during the conference.

The NGO approach is characterized by a broader and more interdisciplin- ary approach than that of govern- ments. Even in certain governmental circles such an approach is looked upon with some sympathy. However, due to their differing interests govern- ments are forced to compromise. Furthermore, I have the impression that we are approaching the edges of what is generally acceptable and what is accepted. Substantial environmental reform meets with more and more opposition. The conflict between the environmental NGOs and the chlorine industry as mentioned earlier was typical in this respect. This resistance can also be detected in other layers of society which are or will be touched by harsh measures for the protection of the marine environment, eg farmers and fishermen. Thus, in order to meet the agreed reduction aims of 50% for nutrients, measures for the agricultu- ral sectors will have to be taken. To a certain extent the Intermediate Min- isterial Meeting on the Protection of the North Sea (held in Copenhagen in

447

Conference report

December 1993) already announced and agreed to aim to achieve balanced fertilization for nitrogen and phos- phorous in agricultural production by the year 2000 or the year 2002 at the latest, subject to an agreement on definit ions, and having regard to d i r e c t i v e 91 /676 /EEC. Such an approach implies that the quantity of manure should be seriously reduced. The governments failed to provide answers to this problem. The Declara- tion rightly asks the governments in- volved to recognize that the success of the concept of balanced fertilization relies on it being applied in tandem with a general restructuring of Euro- pean agricultural policy. Needless to say, the agricultural sector does not exactly look forward to the debate.

Another sector where resistance against environmental reforms will be met is the fishing industry. An alliance between the fishing industry and en- vironmental NGOs has never really been established. A lack of confidence on both sides meant that occasional alliances always worked on a 'tongue in cheek' basis. The differences of view become more and more clear when it comes to the management and the utilization of fish stocks. Accord- ing to a declaration of the Nordic Fishermen's Environmental Secretar- iat issued on the occasion of the con- ference, the environmental organiza- tions exaggerate and they have never

really understood the working of the North Sea ecosystem. It would be more useful to concentrate on the combat against hazardous substances. It is surprising to see that, of all peo- ple, f ishermen do not notice the change of tide in this respect. It can hardly be subject to discussion that the existing stocks are over-exploited, that the fishing methods which are used destroy large parts of marine eco- systems, that fishing intensity is too high, and that industrial fishing will be fatal for the North Sea. For that reason one should wholeheartedly agree with the Declaration in this re- spect where it states that environmen- tal objectives should be fully inte- grated into national and EC fisheries policy. The same applies to the prop- osal that the precautionary approach be implemented with a view to the restoration of natural processes in the marine ecosystem. The environmental NGOs favour the establishment of closed areas prohibiting fishermen to fish in those areas. A similar initiative had already been taken at the In- termediate Ministerial Meeting of North Sea Ministers (IMM) in 1993 on the so-called 'undisturbed areas'. At present the ICES has advised the Commission of the European Com- munity (CEC) in this respect. Since the EC is exclusively competent in this respect we will now have to wait for the outcome of the discussion within

the CEC and between CEC and mem- ber States.

It is not entirely clear what will be the influence of the final Conference Declaration of the First European SAR Conference. The process of poli- tical decision making is not only influ- enced by the environmental NGOs but also by interest groups, eg from the fishing and the chemical indus- tries. The proposed measures (closed fishing areas for example) may have such a far reaching effect on industrial sectors that the resistance against these measures causes a deadlock in the decision making process. The final Conference Declaration may indicate the direction into which marine en- vironmental protection should go. Yet it is doubtful that in the coming years much of what has been laid down in the declaration will be achieved.

Ton IJIstra Deputy-head of the Interdepartmental

Co-ordination Commission for North Sea Affairs (ICONA), Netherlands

PO Box 20906 2500 EX The Hague

The Netherlands

The Final Declaration of the First Euro- pean Seas At Risk Conference, Copenhagen, October 1994, can be obtained from: SAR, Keizersgracht 384, 1016 GB Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

448