United Nations Environment Programme

Transcription

1 UNITED NATIONS EP United Nations Environment Programme Distr. Limited UNEP(DEC)/CAR WG.24/6 16 May 2003 Original: English Second Meeting of the Interim Scientific, Technical and Advisory Committee (ISTAC) to the Protocol Concerning Pollution from Land- Based Sources and Activities in the Wider Caribbean (LBS) Managua, Nicaragua, May REPORT OF THE MEETING

2

3 Page i CONTENTS Introduction...1 Agenda Item 1: Opening of the Meeting...1 Agenda Item 2: Election of Officers...3 Agenda Item 3: Organisation of the Meeting...3 Agenda Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda...4 Agenda Item 5: Review of the Status of the LBS Protocol...4 Agenda Item 6: Activities of the Sub-Programme on Assessment and Management of Environmental Pollution (AMEP) and Regional Activity Centres in support of the LBS Protocol...6 Agenda Item 7: Development of National Programmes of Action Jamaica and Saint Lucia11 Agenda Item 8: Small Grants for Agricultural Best Management Practices...13 Agenda Item 9: Protection of Recreational Water Quality in the Wider Caribbean Region...14 Agenda Item 10: Partnership Opportunities for LBS Activities...18 Agenda Item 11: Status on the Development of the Regional Activity Centres for the LBS Protocol...20 Agenda Item 12: Review of the Draft Workplan and Budget of the LBS Protocol...21 Agenda Item 13: Other business...24 Agenda Item 14: Adoption of the Report of the Meeting...26 Agenda Item 15: Closure of the Meeting...28 Annex I: Annex II: Annex III: Annex IV: Annex V: Agenda Recommendations of the Meeting List of Documents List of Participants Report of the Working Group on the Workplan of AMEP

4

5 Page 1 INTRODUCTION 1. Decision No. 29 (b) of the Ninth Intergovernmental Meeting on the Action Plan for the Caribbean Environment Programme (CEP) and the Sixth Meeting of the Contracting Parties to the Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region (Kingston, Jamaica, February 2000) agreed to bring into existence an Ad Hoc Group of Governmentdesignated Experts to begin to function as an Interim Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (ISTAC) on Land-based Sources and Activities (LBS) and Assessment and Management of Environmental Pollution (AMEP) activities as they relate to the LBS Protocol, until the Protocol enters into force. 2. The First Meeting of the LBS/ISTAC was convened in Ocho Rios, Jamaica, February Consistent with the Workplan and Budget of the CEP for , the present meeting was convened in Managua, Nicaragua (12-16 May 2003) as the Second Meeting of the LBS/ISTAC with the following objectives: to review the advancement, current status, and activities of the LBS Protocol; to review the establishment of the two LBS Regional Activity Centres (RACs) for Marine Pollution from Land-based Sources, the terms of reference for the RAC Steering Committee and their intersessional workplan; to review relevant activities of the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities (GPA), including the development of National Programmes of Action for the Wider Caribbean Region; to discuss and make recommendations for protection of recreational water quality; to review, discuss and make recommendations on partnership opportunities for LBS activities, in particular the White Water to Blue Water Initiative; and to develop the Workplan and Budget of the LBS Protocol for subsequent approval by the Eleventh Intergovernmental Meeting. 3. The experts invited to the Meeting were nominated by the LBS or the Technical Focal Points of the Caribbean Environment Programme. Additionally, representatives of international, regional, intergovernmental, and non-governmental organisations attended the Meeting as observers. The complete list of participants is found in Annex IV of this report. AGENDA ITEM 1: OPENING OF THE MEETING 4. The Meeting was opened on Monday, 12 May 2003 at 9:00 am. Delegates were welcomed with remarks from Ambassador Salvador Stadthagen, Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Government of Nicaragua and Mr. Nelson Andrade Colmenares, Coordinator of the Regional Coordinating Unit for the Caribbean for United Nations

6 Page 2 Environment Programme (UNEP-CAR/RCU). The Meeting was officially opened by Mr. Arturo Harding Lacayo, Minister of the Environment (MARENA) of the Government of Nicaragua. 5. Ambassador Stadthagen thanked the experts of the region present for their contribution to the Meeting, stating that this would be a good opportunity for Nicaragua to learn from their experiences. He highlighted the importance of the discussions to be held on the Regional Activity Centres (RACs) and on the GPA, as these constituted key instruments for the development of the region. 6. In his welcoming remarks, the Coordinator of UNEP-CAR/RCU, Mr. Nelson Andrade Colmenares, welcomed all Delegates and thanked the Minister of the Environment for supporting the organisation of this Meeting and specifically Ms. Liza Gonzalez of MARENA for her work prior to the event. He noted that this Meeting was a very important step in the regional implementation of the LBS Protocol and that the link between the Caribbean Environment Programme (CEP) and the GPA is now becoming stronger. 7. Mr. Andrade invited the Delegates to be particularly attentive to the discussions on recreational water quality and sustainable tourism and on the status of implementation of the LBS RACs, following Decision IX of the Tenth th IGM. The Representatives of the Institute of Marine Affairs (IMA) and Centro de Ingeniería y Manejo Ambiental de Bahías y Costas (Cimab) will present the status of the RACs and highlight the successes of two major events which had been organised with the Secretariat. He underlined the important leadership of Mr. Manuel Alepuz, former Director of Cimab, inviting the Meeting to observe one minute of silence in his memory. 8. Mr. Andrade urged Governments to show their support to the Programme by promoting and facilitating accession to the LBS Protocol so as to ensure its early entry into force. Finally, he announced that Mr. Timothy J. Kasten, Programme Officer for AMEP would be leaving the Secretariat shortly to take up a position at the Head Office of UNEP in Nairobi. He noted that he would be a strong ally of CEP in his new function, for which he wished him luck. 9. Mr. Harding Lacayo formally opened the Meeting by reminding Delegates of the importance of their work at the Meeting, as their recommendations will be submitted for adoption to the next Intergovernmental Meeting of the CEP and Meeting of Contracting Parties to the Cartagena Convention. He welcomed the collaboration which existed between governments of the region, NGOs and the private sector, colalboration that would ensure the success of the Meeting. Mr. Lacayo thanked the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) for its support in the organisation of the Meeting and the representatives of the RACs/LBS for their important contributions. Finally, the Minister wished all Delegates and observers a pleasant and productive visit to Nicaragua.

7 Page 3 AGENDA ITEM 2: ELECTION OF OFFICERS 10. The Meeting elected from among the experts the following officers of the Meeting: Chairperson: Mr. Arturo Harding Lacayo/ Ms. Liza Gonzalez (Nicaragua) First Vice-Chairperson: Mr. Paul Hoetjes (Netherlands Antilles) Second Vice-Chairperson: Mr. André Miller (Barbados) Third Vice-Chairperson: Mr. Carlos R. Morales (Guatemala) Rapporteur: Ms. Janin Mendoza (Venezuela) AGENDA ITEM 3: ORGANISATION OF THE MEETING a) Rules of Procedure 11. The Meeting agreed to apply mutatis mutandis the Rules of Procedure of the Governing Council of UNEP, as contained in document UNEP/GC/3/Rev.3. b) Organisation of work 12. English, French and Spanish were the working languages of the Meeting. The working documents of the Meeting were available in all the working languages with the exception of UNEP(DEC)/CAR WG.24/6 which was available only in Spanish and English. 13. The Secretariat convened the Meeting in plenary sessions, with the assistance of working groups established by the Chairperson. Two drafting groups were created for the Meeting. The Delegation of Saint Lucia accepted the role of Chairman of the Drafting Working Group on Recommendations to the 2 nd ISTAC/LBS Meeting; and the Delegation of the United States of America was appointed Chairman of the Working Group on modification to the draft Workplan and Budget for AMEP activities in support of the LBS Protocol. Additionally, the Meeting agreed to continue the Ad Hoc working group established by the Tenth IGM in its Decision IX regarding the establishment of the Steering Committee for the RACs. Simultaneous interpretation in the working languages was available for the plenary sessions and for the working groups.

8 Page 4 AGENDA ITEM 4: ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 14. The Meeting was invited to adopt the agenda of the Meeting as contained in document UNEP(DEC)/CAR WG.24/1. The agenda was adopted without modification, as reflected in Annex I to this Report. AGENDA ITEM 5: REVIEW OF THE STATUS OF THE LBS PROTOCOL 15. The Government of Colombia, as Depository for the Cartagena Convention, presented the current status of the Cartagena Convention and the LBS Protocol regarding ratifications and accessions. It was reported that between October 1999 and October 2002, Colombia, Costa Rica, France, Netherlands, Dominican Republic and the United States of America had signed the Protocol. A strong plea was made for Governments to take steps towards ratifying or acceding to the instrument, as a minimum of nine (9) ratifications were needed in order for the Protocol to enter into force. One country, Trinidad and Tobago, had deposited its instrument of accession and was awaiting formal response from the Depository. 16. Several Delegations present at the meeting reported on the status of signature and/or ratifications of the LBS Protocol. Costa Rica reported that its process was currently at an intermediary level and the hope was that Congress would soon ratify it. The Delegation of Venezuela stated that although it was uncertain how long the process would take, it was being dealt with within the two Ministries concerned, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of the Environment. The Delegation of Cuba reported that the relevant studies were being carried out in order to determine the financial impact of the Protocol and that this process should lead to ratification as soon as possible. The Delegation of the United States of America signalled that there were residual discrepancies relating to the French version of the text of the Protocol and that the Government of the United States of America requires that the three language texts be authenticated prior to ratification. The French government, with the assistance of the United States of America, was now addressing the situation with a view to its earliest possible presentation to the Depository to rectify the discrepancies, prior to its submission to the US Congress for ratification. The Dominican Republic reported that it was currently studying the feasibility of ratifying the Protocol after a series of initiatives. These include a joint workshop with the Ministries of Development and Tourism aimed at sensitising companies and hotels, which discharge wastewater, and the need for tightening effluent standards. 17. The Delegation of Mexico signalled that its country was each day closer to achieving the objectives of the Protocol and possibly ratifying it. Its PROMAGUA initiative was being very well received by the municipalities, with a new water law approved in April The Delegation pointed out that the Ministries of Tourism, Health, Marine Affairs

9 Page 5 and Environment had in fact commenced a joint programme to evaluate beaches. The Delegation of Jamaica reported that it too was taking the necessary steps towards ratification, as new sewage effluent legislation was currently being gazetted. The Netherlands Antilles informed the meeting that an environmental law setting the framework for the islands is in the process of being passed. It also informed the meeting of the Draft Island Ordinance for Wastewater that had been drawn up by an advisory committee and which has been adapted by all five islands according to their specific situation. The Delegation noted that the smaller islands with lesser capacity were being assisted by central government and that the territory should be ready to ratify the Protocol in a year s time. 18. The Delegation of Saint Lucia reported on activities that it hoped would convince Cabinet of the importance of ratification of the Protocol at the earliest opportunity. These include the development of a National Programme of Action and a Sewage Needs Pilot Assessment Project, with the assistance of UNEP. Additionally, draft water and land use policies for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) like Saint Lucia are being developed, which reflect the need to integrate land-use policy and coastal zone management. The Delegation highlighted the assistance of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in a review of existing legislation to provide recommendations that would assist in the effective implementation of the Protocol, once it comes into force. 19. The Delegation of Nicaragua reported that it had only last year ratified the Cartagena Convention and Oil Spill Protocol and was preparing to ratify the LBS Protocol, as well as the SPAW Protocol. The Delegation of Aruba pointed out that a basic Framework Law on Wastewater and Sewage was being developed and that the island was currently working on monitoring and public awareness plans with a special fund being established for five (5) years to execute these plans. 20. Finally, the Delegation of Colombia reported that its Ministry of Foreign Affairs was holding meetings with a view to future ratification of the LBS Protocol. 21. The Secretariat expressed its satisfaction with the progress achieved and the interest shown by a lot of the countries. The Coordinator of UNEP-CAR/RCU pointed to concrete action undertaken by some Governments, such as Barbados, in treating wastewater. He reiterated the need for municipalities to be included in the process as local level governments had an enormous role to play, both financially and practically. He highlighted the fact that small island states have developed measures that can be implemented at another level or in other countries. He pointed to the political message which was to take advantage of available initiatives. He underscored the fact that there were no financial implications to ratifying the Protocol as the Trust Fund was the mechanism through which the LBS Protocol will be established. In response to a request from the Delegation of Costa Rica for the Secretariat to intervene at the official level to ensure full comprehension of the Protocol by legislators, the Coordinator reminded the meeting that such an intervention had taken place with regard to the SPAW Protocol and invited Governments to take advantage of this experience and support.

10 Page 6 AGENDA ITEM 6: ACTIVITIES OF THE SUB-PROGRAMME ON ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION (AMEP) AND REGIONAL ACTIVITY CENTRES IN SUPPORT OF THE LBS PROTOCOL 22. The Secretariat opened the agenda item with a presentation by the Programme Officer responsible for the Assessment and Management of Environmental Pollution (AMEP) sub-programme. The Secretariat reminded the Meeting that overall coordination of AMEP, which encompasses the work on the Protocol Concerning Cooperation in Combating Oil Spills in the Wider Caribbean Region (Oil Spills Protocol) and the LBS Protocol, is carried out by a Programme Officer under the direction of the Coordinator. Within this framework, AMEP coordination includes Secretariat services to the Interim Scientific, Technical and Advisory Committee for the LBS Protocol (LBS/ISTAC) and work related to the Steering Committee for the Regional Activity Centre on Oil Spills (RAC/REMPEITC). As the present Meeting is related to the LBS Protocol, the Oil Spill component of AMEP will not be presented directly. 23. The Secretariat reviewed and updated the activities of the AMEP sub-programme of CEP that are related to the LBS Protocol since the last ISTAC meeting in 2001 in Ocho Rios, Jamaica. The Secretariat, in highlighting the LBS Protocol activities, pointed to the significant amount of work outside of the coordination of specific activities. Several decisions emanating from the Tenth Intergovernmental Meeting were highlighted, those endorsing the Workplan and Budget (Decision I), and those endorsing the Concept Paper for Regional Activity Centres (RACs) and Regional Activity Networks (RANs) (Decision II). Additionally, Decision VI on partnerships gave rise to a strengthening of collaborative relationships, in this case with the London Convention of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) on Marine Pollution and Environmental Management of Ports in the Wider Caribbean, with whom a joint meeting was convened in May Decision IV accepted the offers to the Secretariat by Trinidad and Tobago and Cuba to establish RACs. A list of other partners, consisting of various global and regional organisations, was also brought to the attention of the meeting. 24. The Secretariat further pointed out that the development of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) project (PDF) aimed at Reducing Pesticide Run-off in Colombia, Costa Rica and Nicaragua had been completed in 2001, including reports from countries on pesticides management in their territories as well as the work carried out with Earth College at the regional level. The GEF Project Brief, an output of the PDF, was approved by the GEF Council in May The project document has since been approved by UNEP although confirmation of co-financing from countries is being sought before GEF will release the funding. Of note is the fact that CropLife, a private sector association of agrochemical producers has committed cash and in-kind cofinancing to the project.

11 Page The Secretariat reported further on the ongoing Coastal Development - Post Hurricane Mitch Project which was developed jointly with Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza (CATIE) as a supporting organisation. It was pointed out that CATIE had established a working relationship for the project directly with the countries - Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua - and that watershed management and investment planning would focus on one small urban watershed in each of the three countries that have not previously received significant targeted attention under other programmes following the hurricane. 26. The Secretariat invited CATIE to present its work on this project. Reference was made to UNEP(DEC)/CAR WG.24/CRP.2. The CATIE representative explained that the project falls within the framework of the sub-programme on Assessment and Management of Environmental Pollution (AMEP). The project is represented by UNEP through its Caribbean Environment Programme (CEP) and is financed by the Swedish International Development Agency (Sida) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Its focal points for implementation are the Ministries of the Environment of Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua, under the coordination of CATIE. One of the indirect objectives of the project is to improve communication and coordination among the governments of the countries involved, permitting sustainable, effective and appropriate management of the watersheds of each country. The activities of the project officially began in October The CATIE representative indicated the activities implemented and communicated some of the difficulties encountered so far in implementing the project. She mentioned a series of opportunities generated in the project such as the coordination of efforts among different governmental and nongovernmental organisations, the need to generate information on a micro/watershed scale, the search for other financing sources to complement or intensify some activities and the strengthening of the environmental issue, among others. 27. The Secretariat also reported on the Integrated Watershed Coastal Area Management Project (IWCAM) in thirteen (13) Small Island Developing States of the Wider Caribbean Region (see Annex V(d)). The project, which began in 2000, saw the first Project Development Facility (PDF) being concluded in All outputs of the first PDF national project reports, a regional synthesis and a GEF Project Brief, were successfully concluded and the Project Brief was submitted in May 2002 to the GEF Council for its consideration. The GEF Secretariat provided an additional US$300,000 for further development of the details on the demonstration projects. The new PDF, which began in late 2002, will concentrate on defining and selecting demonstration project sites through hotspot analysis and stakeholder input. The Steering Committee, which was first convened in Havana in March 2003, will be reconvened in October 2003 to select the final demonstration projects. A Project Implementation Unit (PIU) has been set up at the Caribbean Environmental Health Institute (CEHI) and will assist countries over the next three months with their project proposals. Nevertheless, cofinancing is key for the implementation and funding of this project and partners, donors and collaborating projects are being sought for cash or in-kind co-financing. All information on the project is available on the CEP website.

12 Page The activity Training for Rehabilitation of Contaminated Bays is a regional component of a UNDP-implemented GEF project and is aimed at capacity-building for regional governments and other relevant individuals. In this regard a workshop was convened in December 2002 in Trinidad with the IMA/RAC on Nutrient Removal Technologies and another with the Cimab/RAC in Havana in March 2003 on Sewage Sludge Reuse and Disposal. The CIMAB-RAC began coordination of activities in order to assist the national authorities in the construction of a pilot plant in Havana Bay. 29. Other activities of AMEP during the period under review include: a Second Regional Overview of Land-based Sources of Pollution (LBS), the first regional overview was completed in 1994 and needs to be updated to provide a pre-protocol baseline of information; a Small Grants project for Agricultural Best Management Practices (BMPs), for which funding has been secured for its initiation, will be implemented in the latter half of 2003 (a more detailed description of this can be found under Agenda Item 8); the development of National Programmes of Action (NPAs) in Jamaica and Saint Lucia is another significant project, with a second phase to follow, including two additional countries for use as models in region-wide training in the biennium; a project on assessing national needs to comply with Annex III of the LBS Protocol includes a guidance document on pilot projects to be implemented in The Secretariat invited UNEP/GPA to make a presentation on the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities (GPA) with specific emphasis on the activities implemented in the Caribbean. 31. The UNEP/GPA representative explained the objectives, programmes and regional and global implementation modalities of GPA. She stressed that the GPA serves as a source of conceptual orientation and practice to which national and regional authorities can turn to prepare and apply lasting measures to prevent, reduce, control and eliminate the degradation of the marine environment caused by land-based activities. She identified the most important programmatic components of GPA, within which are included municipal wastewater, the physical alteration and destruction of habitat and the national action and nutrients programmes. She emphasised that the regional seas comprise the principal regional implementation platform of GPA and that the Caribbean Environment Programme (CEP) of the Caribbean is an excellent example of this. 32. In her presentation, she detailed the activities implemented by GPA since These include the establishment of a GPA Programme Officer for Latin America and the Caribbean, based in the UNEP Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean (ROLAC) in Mexico City and the organisation of the following meetings: Regional Working Group on Municipal Wastewater in Ocho Rios, Jamaica, in February 2001; the Latin American workshop on municipal wastewater management in Mexico City in September 2001, and the First Workshop on Physical Alteration and Destruction of the Habitat, in Cancun, Mexico, in June 2002.

13 Page GPA has also supported numerous activities of the CEP and has provided assistance to other regional seas of Latin America, contributing to the Plan of Action of the South Pacific and has supported the creation of the Plan of Action of the Northeast Pacific. 34. GPA is currently preparing the Second Workshop on Municipal Wastewater Management, June 2003, in Mexico City, the objectives of which are to review a portfolio of pilot projects to elect those whose implementation will be supported, and establish synergies among regional agencies to support a programme of work on Municipal Wastewater for , among others. The First Caribbean Regional Meeting of the GPA is also planned for 2003 (location to be determined) the aim of which is to prepare the programme of work for the Caribbean, seek synergies among the institutions in the region and attract the attention of donors and financial institutions in support of regional efforts in the implementation of the GPA. 35. Pursuant to the recommendation of the First Intergovernmental Meeting to Examine the Application of the GPA that took place in November 2001 in Montreal, Canada, and to follow up on the recommendations of the First Caribbean Workshop on Physical Alteration and Destruction of Habitat, the following studies have been undertaken: assessment of the erosion processes in the sandy beaches of the Caribbean; comparative analysis of the legislation and legal policies applicable to the management, conservation, use and exploitation of the coastal zone of Belize, Jamaica, Saint Lucia and Trinidad and Tobago; case studies of comparative analysis of the legislation and legal policies applicable to the management, conservation, use and exploitation of the coastal zone in Cuba, Venezuela and Mexico; and utility and effectiveness of user fees in the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Mexico and Saint Lucia. 36. With respect to preparations for the Barbados +10 Meeting for the Small Island Developing States (SIDS), to be held in Mauritius in 2004, the GPA representative explained that Resolution 57/262 of the UN General Assembly called for the organisation of an International Meeting to examine the implementation of the Programme of Action of Barbados for SIDS and designated the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) as the entity responsible for directing the process. In its 11 th session, the CSD agreed that the regional preparatory meeting for the Caribbean will be held in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, on August The GPA representative mentioned that the GPA Coordination Office was responsible for coordinating the contributions of UNEP to this preparatory process and that policy analyses will be made in this regard. Regional consultations will be supported and the implementation of the programme activities of UNEP in the Small Island Developing States will be coordinated and improved. 37. The Director of the IMA of Trinidad and Tobago, one of the RACs for the LBS Protocol, made a presentation in which she highlighted three activities undertaken by the RAC between May 2002 and May 2003, notably the initiative undertaken at the governmental level leading to the deposit of the instrument of accession for Trinidad and Tobago; a presentation on the LBS Protocol at the last Association of Marine

14 Page 10 Laboratories of the Caribbean (AMLC) meeting and a Regional Training Workshop on Nutrient Removal Technologies and Wastewater Management. 38. With regard to the first activity, the IMA director gave a list of the members of a Cabinet Appointed Committee, which included several ministries and other high-level entities. She outlined the Terms of Reference of the Committee as well as its activities over a six-month period leading to the submission of its report to Cabinet in September She highlighted the significant impact which acceding to the Protocol would have on the quality of life of the population, as it would facilitate programmes, plans and projects to prevent, reduce and control pollution. In addition to the recommendation of the Committee leading to the deposit of the instrument of ratification, the Committee made other recommendations relating to the successful implementation of the LBS Protocol. 39. The second activity focused on highlighting the need for member laboratories of the AMLC to become members of the Regional Activity Network for the LBS Protocol. To this end, the 25-member organisation, at its meeting in Merida, Mexico in July 2002, was informed of the LBS Protocol, the functions of the Regional Activity Centre (RAC) and the functions of the Regional Activity Network (RAN). 40. The final activity of the period under review, a Regional Training Workshop on Nutrient Removal Technologies and Wastewater Management, was held in Trinidad and Tobago in December 2002, with the purpose of building regional capacity and addressing the problem of eutrophication and other nutrient enrichment problems resulting from excess inputs of domestic waste into the coastal zone and adjacent international waters. 41. The Secretariat invited the LBS/RAC-Cimab to explain its activities implemented in support of the Protocol between May 2002 and May The RAC representative indicated that the RAC had carried out three regional activities related to the Rio Lyuano treatment plant and a workshop on reuse and disposal of sewage sludge. Cuba, as a focal point of sub-region 4 of the Global International Waters Assessment (GIWA) and within the framework of the Protocol, underscored the significant problem posed by land-based contamination. 42. The Secretariat concluded point 6 of the agenda with general comments in which it stressed that, from the presentations made, it was evident that the CAR/RCU was active in a range of areas that extended beyond those linked to the Cartagena Convention and which are unquestionably beneficial to the region. Additionally the region is attracting resources within the framework of CEP through GEF projects. 43. The Meeting was invited to comment on the implemented activities of CAR/RCU and the RACs and to make suggestions that could be developed further. 44. The Delegation of the Netherlands Antilles applauded the work done by the RACs and asked whether there were any consultations between the SPAW/RAC and LBS/RACs, recommending that they collaborate to address overlapping issues. This was supported by the representative from the LBS/RAC-IMA. The Secretariat agreed that there should

15 Page 11 be collaboration among the SPAW, LBS and Oil Spill RACs and suggested a one-day session for RACs during the next IGM. 45. The Delegation of Cuba indicated that it was an excellent idea to train experts at the regional level to address LBS issues and recommended that this should be extended to the local/domestic level. He further suggested the need for a Committee to establish the RAN through partnerships. 46. The Delegation of Saint Lucia, in relation to the Small Grants Fund for Best Management Practices for Agriculture, recommended a review of lessons learnt from other Small Grants Funds in the region when establishing the criteria for selection and offered to share the experience of Saint Lucia on this matter. 47. The delegation of Venezuela referred to the experience of its country in the management, treatment and final disposal of obsolete pesticides and offered to share information with the other delegations. She also mentioned a joint project with the Secretariat of the Basel Convention, to train custom officers and other members of government institutions in the management of pesticides. She finally asked for assistance for the management of pesticides and training on best practices in agriculture. 48. The Delegation of Antigua and Barbuda requested clarification regarding possible assistance by the RACs to countries in relation to the process of accession to the Protocol. The representative from the LBS/RAC-IMA responded that this would be in the form of advice mainly since there is currently no budget in place for the RACs. The Delegates agreed that training was important and that the RACs could also be utilised as a marketing tool for the LBS Protocol. AGENDA ITEM 7: DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL PROGRAMMES OF ACTION JAMAICA AND SAINT LUCIA 49. During the biennium, a significant project was undertaken to promote the development of National Programmes of Action (NPAs) on LBS for CEP countries. Under a grant from the United States Department of State, the Governments of Saint Lucia and Jamaica are in the process of developing National Programmes of Action, under the guidance of the UNEP Coordination Office for the Global Programme of Action (UNEP/GPA) and with the expertise available within the LBS Protocol. 50. UNEP/GPA gave a presentation on the UNEP Handbook on the Development and Implementation of a National Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities (see reference documents) and other efforts to support NPAs. Following this, the Governments of Saint Lucia and Jamaica presented their advances under this project. 51. The GPA Coordination Office produced a handbook in This handbook, available in seven languages in hard copy, on CD-ROM and on the GPA website ( provides a guiding tool for environmental managers and

16 Page 12 national policy-makers in the implementation of the GPA at the national level. A comprehensive but flexible framework to mainstreaming the GPA into national policies, programmes and plans is outlined. It defines an NPA as a series of systematicallyintegrated actions that are strategic, ongoing and undergoing continuous improvement. It is also envisioned as a dynamic process of phased implementation that builds upon existing national development plans, priorities, existing assessment and data. The National Programme of Action Cycle should: identify and assess problems; establish priorities; set management objectives; identify, evaluate and select strategies; evaluate effectiveness; initiate programme support elements; and encourage national endorsement. 52. Reference was made to the Hilltops to Oceans (H 2 O) initiative for an integrated coastal area and river basin management. This was successfully launched in the Water Dome at the World Summit on Sustainable Development by the GPA Coordination Office. The name H 2 0 illustrates the water concept embodied in the GPA. As far as National Programmes of Actions are concerned, it shows that all of the sectoral programmes (e.g. industrial development, water supply, conservation, forestry, urban development, tourism and coastal development) have an impact on the health of the marine environment and that they can and should, come together to contribute to a National Programme of Action. 53. The Government of Jamaica has commenced work towards the development of its NPA and has completed a comprehensive literature review, a national workshop and an awareness survey. The pollution issues identified at the workshop in order of importance were: sewage, solid waste and industrial wastewater/pesticides/fertilisers, while the barriers for NPA in order of priority are: lack of political will, failure to arrive at a consensus on national priorities, funding for the implementation of the NPA and inadequate institutional capacity. The next steps include the elaboration of the NPA in sectoral workshops, development of an NPA model and the finalization of the NPA model in a final national workshop. 54. The National Programme of Action (NPA) for Saint Lucia will contribute towards the overall effort in the WCR and will be used as a demonstration case study for the development of further NPAs throughout the Convention Area. The project objectives, activities and outputs were outlined in detail and the target groups for the workshops were also highlighted. Target groups included youths, decision makers, planners, managers and the public sector. 55. The Chairperson thanked the Governments of Jamaica and Saint Lucia and the Representative of GPA, and invited Delegates to comment on the foregoing presentations.

17 Page The Delegation of the United States of America requested clarification regarding possible problems in bringing NGOs on board when developing the two (2) NPAs. It was indicated that in Saint Lucia this did not pose a problem since there was a limited number of local NGOs but that efforts had been made to obtain support from community-based organizations and other interested stakeholders. 57. The Delegates also indicated the need for economic tools for wastewater management that could be promoted by NPAs such as the polluter pays principle, green market incentive programme, no payment for value-added taxes and others. 58. The Secretariat indicated that the size of the countries could pose problems in establishing the NPA, but noted that an NPA could provide for a strategic framework while more detailed plans could be drawn up for individual watersheds and hotspots. It was suggested that a National Progamme of Action for watersheds could be considered and that hotspots should be identified in prioritising watershed and coastal areas. The representative of the GPA indicated that this was feasible, however one needs to take into account existing tools as well as cost. Delegations mentioned that the watershed perspective should allow for the optimisation of resources. The issue of cost when developing an NPA was further highlighted and it was indicated that there was no fixed cost as this was dependent on a number of factors including: the needs of the country; the size of the country; and availability of funds. 59. The Meeting welcomed the initiative of the GPA in providing a useful guiding tool in the development of NPAs. In addition, the Chairperson commended the governments of Jamaica and Saint Lucia on progress made in establishing NPAs in their relevant countries, since they will serve as useful demonstration case studies for the rest of the region. AGENDA ITEM 8: SMALL GRANTS FOR AGRICULTURAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 60. The Workplan and Budget for , approved by the Tenth IGM, included in the AMEP sub-programme a project to support the administration of a small grants programme to support best management practices for agriculture in the CEP member countries. The purpose of the project is to provide technical capacity building and information exchange in support of the implementation of Annex IV of the LBS Protocol. 61. The representative of Earth College, in Costa Rica outlined the general objectives of the small grants programme, as presented in UNEP(DEC)/CAR WG.24/CRP.1, which are to promote innovative practices for agricultural and fisheries production management through field work and dissemination of results throughout other countries of the Caribbean. Specific objectives include the establishment and implementation of

18 Page 14 projects, promotion of innovative practices and increased knowledge and information sharing. The presentation also included information on the areas that could fall within the small grants programme, including fertilizer use, soil conservation and sediment retention, alternative methods for soil preparation, agricultural waste management, among others. 62. The presenter pointed to the need for projects to be properly and legally constituted by way of a functional organizational structure as this was a firm requirement of the United Nations. Projects are selected on the basis of their regional or national relevance and should not exceed an execution time of six (6) months. They must of necessity emanate from CEP Member Governments and must provide co-financing of no less than 25% of the total funding in cash or in-kind contribution. The project review process was outlined, with the Secretariat pointing to the benefits of applying through an experienced entity such as Earth College, where the feedback will be documented and can be put through the LBS Clearinghouse Node. The Secretariat further urged Delegations to read the document relating to this initiative carefully in order to decide whether or not they wished to present a proposal. 63. In the ensuing discussion, Delegations sought clarification on a number of issues of national and regional interest including the possibility for partnerships, the status of community-based initiatives and flexibility where there was a multiplicity of activities over a large number of farms. To this, the Secretariat reiterated the United Nation s requirement of a structured way of dispensing grants and that opportunity would be created for funding distinct components of larger projects. It also clarified that grants can address any area of a number of issues. 64. The Delegation of Colombia offered to the Secretariat its environmental guidelines for crops, such that this information can be disseminated throughout the region. 65. In summary, the Secretariat agreed with the Delegation of Saint Lucia regarding the use of lessons learnt in establishing criteria for the Small Grants Fund and indicated that the Small Grants Fund of the SPAW Programme is also an example that could be utilised. The Secretariat also agreed that marketing of the protocol was needed and would be elaborated on further under Agenda Item 11. AGENDA ITEM 9: PROTECTION OF RECREATIONAL WATER QUALITY IN THE WIDER CARIBBEAN REGION 66. The Secretariat introduced this agenda item, highlighting the importance in ensuring that recreational water quality is protected in the Wider Caribbean Region, as it was critical to CEP countries to protect the health of residents and visitors. In 1991 and 1993, the former CEPPOL sub-programme of CEP (precursor to AMEP) conducted seminars on Monitoring and Control of Sanitary Quality of Bathing and Shellfish- Growing Marine Waters in the Wider Caribbean. The reports of these two seminars can be found in CEP Technical Reports #9 and #23, respectively (see reference documents).

19 Page 15 Since these seminars were convened, there have been advancements in the development of quality criteria guidelines and sustainable tourism initiatives in the Wider Caribbean Region leading to the need to revisit this issue. 67. The Pan-American Health Organisation (PAHO) was invited to present the new guidelines being proposed by the World Health Organisation (WHO) for the protection of recreational waters. During his presentation, the representative of PAHO referred to document UNEP(DEC)CAR WG.24/INF.5, which provides a summary of the guidelines. 68. The guidelines, contained in two (2) volumes dealing with coastal and river waters (Volume 1) and swimming pools, spas, etc. (Volume 2), have a single objective which is the protection of public health through a set of guidelines rather than mandatory limits. The presentation highlighted the need for an intersectoral focus as well as the need for a risk-benefit analysis. The full range of adverse effects associated with a lack of protection of the recreational waters was pointed out as well as the absence of criteria for environmental protection. The PAHO representative noted that the various types of risks had been classified depending on the criteria by country; studies however, had only been carried out in temperate waters. The PAHO representative pointed further to some of the future actions to be taken by the WHO such as the promotion of epidemiological studies in Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as evaluation of the countries of the region in order to ensure adaptation of their legislation, monitoring and control. 69. In the ensuing discussion, several Delegations shared the experiences of their own countries in the area of legislation drawn up and/or implemented as well as action taken to monitor or control activity on beaches and in coastal areas. The Delegation of Venezuela pointed to its initiative in working along with NGOs and the training of volunteers in more technical activities such as monitoring ph and temperature. The Delegation of Mexico mentioned that they were the first country of the region to apply the WHO guidelines and offered to share its experience in laboratory procedures, as the need for laboratory certification in the region was acute. The delegation of Cuba stated that each country should establish its own alternatives to caution recreational water users against beach-water pollution due to socio-economical and practical implications this action may cause. This Delegation also expressed concerns regarding beach guidelines since the resultant standards are not always based on their own epidemiological studies. In other words, parallels were being drawn with countries that did not have the same concerns as those of the Caribbean. 70. Other Delegations called on PAHO to collaborate with the Ministries of Environment and Health throughout the region with a view to developing joint efforts in correlating information with effects on health. They urged PAHO to collect regional information that it could apply throughout the region. PAHO replied that the majority of countries in the region did not have well-defined guidelines and that there was also an intersectoral problem between the areas of health and environment. The Secretariat recalled the meeting in Montréal with Ministers of Health and the Environment and noted the need for more tropicalized guidelines. In response to queries from Delegations regarding

20 Page 16 limited laboratory and monitoring availability and capacity, the PAHO representative accepted the suggestion for greater synergy between his organisation and UNEP, while urging countries to formulate their own standards for their own needs. 71. Ms. Mercedes Silva of the Caribbean Tourism Organisation (CTO) was invited to present the Caribbean Blue Flag Programme which illustrates a concerted, regional approach to improving water quality for recreational uses. She noted that the Blue Flag Programme showcases the importance of coordinated efforts between all stakeholders. In Europe and in the Republic of South Africa, the Blue Flag Programme is a voluntary self-awarded certification (eco-label) implemented by 23 countries, encompassing over 2800 beaches and marinas. It is managed by the Foundation for Environmental Education (FEE), which puts emphasis on education, training and public awareness. The objectives of the Blue Flag Programme are to increase the general understanding about the marine environment, the promotion of integrated management in decisionmaking and to incite the industries to self-regulation. It targets local and regional authorities, the general public, the tourism industry and other major stakeholders. 72. The certification criteria consider water quality, environmental education, environmental management, safety and the conditions of the facilities on each beach. Although global, the criteria are adapted to regional or even national characteristics, recognising for example that the context and conditions of the Caribbean are very different to those of Europe. National operators such as NGOs, private sector partners or governmental agencies do monitoring of the beaches. In the case of Jamaica for example, the National Environmental and Planning Agency (NEPA) is implementing the programme; in other parts of the Caribbean, hotel associations will play an important role. These coordinators must get support from the general public and NGOs as it is based on a self-regulatory approach. Ms. Silva highlighted the fact that a Blue Flag Certificate can be removed if the criteria are not fully respected. 73. The partnerships with UNEP-CAR/RCU and the Division of Technology, Industry and Economics and with PAHO were noted and Ms. Silva underlined the importance of these in increasing the scope and impacts of the programme. 74. After reviewing the status of activities and the planned programme of work, the importance of the pilot phase of the programme was underlined. It consists of assessments of the regional conditions and existing threats, including the socioeconomic, institutional and legal contexts. Currently, the Bahamas, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Puerto Rico and Venezuela are participating. Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago have indicated a strong interest in joining the initiative. She announced that the Programme is expected to award the first certifications by November 2004, to coincide with the beginning of the tourist season. 75. Various Delegations enquired about the integration of issues such as nesting areas for marine turtles, the acceptance of motorised marine vehicles (e.g. jet-skis), health criteria and specific water quality criteria. Concerns were expressed regarding constraints imposed by a weak NGO sector in some countries, and on the qualifications and objectivity of the organisation awarding and monitoring the certificates.

21 Page Ms. Silva explained that the criteria were adapted to regional, national, and even local conditions and that management plans were required from beach operators. She highlighted the important role of the local communities and of the users (national and foreign) of the beaches, as the Programme was self-regulated. Increased awareness and information was essential to its success. She noted that monitoring is managed through a network of volunteers or by members of the local community and that the criteria are accurate enough to avoid subjectivity. 77. The representative of the Dominican Republic highlighted her country s experience with the Blue Flag Programme in the pilot phase, its extensive success and popularity with local communities as well as the economic benefits of the programme for tourism activity. She noted that although the government was already applying certain standards, it was seeking regional or global support to increase its impacts. The delegation of Mexico sought clarification on the nature of the Blue Flag Programme s certification. The representative of the CTO responded that certification was awarded by the relevant governmental authority. 78. The Delegation of Costa Rica and Cuba informed the Meeting of comparable national initiatives that have been highly successful. The implication and the acceptance of the programmes by the local communities to guarantee success was illustrated with different examples and the two Delegations offered to share their experience with other countries. Finally, the Delegates discussed the economic implications of the certification, as it could become an important marketing tool for the tourism industry at the global level, as many national and international tourists consider the quality of and respect for the environment when selecting their holiday destination. 79. The Delegation of the United States of America was invited to make a presentation on EPA s BEACH Programme and its relevance to the Caribbean based on the Beaches Environmental and Coastal Health Act (BEACH Act) that was signed in October The goal of the programme is to reduce the risk of infection to users of the nation s recreational waters through improvements in recreational water programmes, communication, and scientific advances. Key provisions of the BEACH Act include ensuring standards for pathogens, protecting human health, conducting research to develop new criteria, establishing monitoring and notification measures ( performance criteria ), and providing development and implementation grants to States and Local governments and authorised tribes (as long as they comply with the performance criteria). 80. The BEACH Act requires publication of guidelines or performance criteria in four general areas; namely beach classification and ranking, monitoring and assessment plan, public notification and risk communication plan and, a public review of the programme to assess success and failure. A national survey was carried out to assess the state of the beaches. Recent beach monitoring activities have provided a valuable tool for managing beach water quality and inform the public. Based on the results, some beaches have been closed temporarily until water quality conditions return to normal. It was pointed out that the BEACH Programme could be of relevance to the Caribbean in terms of illustrating a tool to manage beaches, indicating appropriate indicator bacteria,