CAR WG. 35 INF.8 (lbs cop2)-en

Transcription

UNITED
NATIONS
EP
Distr. LIMITED
United Nations
Environment
Programme
UNEP (DEPI)/CAR WG.35/INF.8
21 April 2014
Original: ENGLISH
Second Meeting of the Contracting Parties (COP) to
the Protocol Concerning Pollution from Land-Based
Sources and Activities (LBS Protocol) in the Wider
Caribbean Region
Cartagena, Colombia, December 10, 2014
REPORT OF THE SECOND GLOBAL LAND-OCEAN CONNECTIONS
CONFERENCE (GLOC-2)
Montego Bay, Jamaica
2-4 October, 2013
For reasons of economy and the environment, Delegates are kindly requested to bring their copies of the
Working and Information documents to the Meeting, and not to request additional copies.
*This document has been reproduced without formal editing.
Report of Second Global Land-Ocean Connections
Conference (GLOC-2),
October 2-4, 2013, Montego Bay, Jamaica
Report of Second Global Land-Ocean Connections Conference (GLOC-2), October
2-4, 2013, Montego Bay, Jamaica
Executive Summary
UNEP and the GPA, in collaboration with the Government of Jamaica, successfully
organized the Second Global Land-Ocean Connections Conference (GLOC-2) during
the period October 2-4, 2013 in Montego Bay, Jamaica. It gathered scientists, experts,
policy makers and NGOs from around the world. Over the three days, the conference
had very lively, entertaining, and sound technical presentations. Out of these
presentations, and the discussion they generated, a number of recommendations were
made towards the implementation of the Manila Declaration on Furthering the
Implementation of the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine
Environment from Land-Based Activities (GPA). Approximately 230 participants from 55
countries were able to explore current and emerging environmental management
challenges that result from land-based activities, with a priority focus on the
management of marine litter, wastewater and nutrients, as well as identify possible
solutions and opportunities for improved management of these issues at global, regional
and national levels.
A High-Level Plenary on Day 1 set the tone for the event, and the Day 2 parallel
sessions on wastewater, nutrients, coral reefs and marine litter allowed participants to
drill down deeper into the issues, discuss, debate, argue, and even reach consensus on
the way forward. The conference concluded on Day 3 with a series of recommendations
for future work.
An added bonus of this conference was a media workshop, press conference, additional
live press coverage, and an associated field trip. Side Events during the lunch breaks
and on evenings presented and discussed related topics as well. The conference also
included 5-minute Speed Presentations at the end of Day 2, which allowed for exposure
of young scientists, project managers, and NGOs and added more value to the event.
Main discussion points on wastewater (WW) included the need for data, impacts of
climate change, the risks and rewards of wastewater reuse and the need to view
wastewater as a resource. Participants discussed the trends related to urbanization and
how it created new challenges and identified gaps which need to be addressed, such as
the MDG targets, political will, funding, capacity building, cost-effective solutions, and
greater collaboration. Suggestions for inclusion in the Global Wastewater Initiative (GWI)
Work Plan included agricultural generation and reuse of WW, public awareness,
technology sharing, resource recovery and energy production, coordination of activities,
and facilitated learning from others. These recommendations fed into the first steering
committee of the GWI, which decided to invite UNEP and UN-Habitat to serve as the first
Co-Chairs of the Steering Committee.
Main discussion points on marine litter (ML) included the definition of the work plan for
the Global Partnership on Marine Litter (GPML), plastics management, indicators,
biodegradability of plastics, the role of the private sector, Extended Producer
Responsibility (EPR), behaviour change, impacts on marine animals, waste-to-energy,
regional and national ML partnerships, and the roles of governments in addressing ML.
The conference recommended that the GPML Work Plan focus on pilot projects;
Abandoned, Lost and Discarded Fishing Gear (ALDFG); awareness-raising (e.g. waste
as a resource; waste-to-energy); monitoring; target-setting; recovery of ML from sea;
and knowledge-sharing.
Main discussion points on nutrients considered losses, particularly of reactive nitrogen
and phosphorus, from the agricultural and sewerage systems, as the main causes for
eutrophication of aquatic and marine ecosystems around the world, affecting water
quality for human use and also aquatic and marine biodiversity.
The conference noted
the high correlation between increased hypoxic zones and the amounts of nitrogen being
released. Public awareness of impacts of nitrogen on ecosystems is a problem. The
increase in livestock farms and the related fertilizer use are rapidly becoming a severe
source of nitrogen. Solutions to nutrient loading proposed included promoting Fertilizer
Best Management Practices (such as soil fertility and soil conservation) and improving
nutrient use efficiency in agriculture. A number of research topics and economic
assessments were proposed, as well as indicator development, awareness-raising and
education, for inclusion in the future work of the Global Partnership on Nutrients
Management (GPNM).
Main discussion points on coral reefs and related tropical coastal ecosystems included
their continued global decline due to multiple interacting anthropogenic threats. The
need to anticipate and plan for projected climate and ocean acidity change in
management of coral reefs and related ecosystems was recognized. It was noted that
integrated and ecosystem based approaches are required to address direct stresses,
including reduced water quality and other impacts arising from nutrient and wastewater
pollution. Furthering application of ecosystem service assessment and valuation to
support policy decisions and management planning in coral reef areas was recognized
as a priority. It was also noted that policy guidance drawing on enhanced state of
environment reporting and management performance reporting is required at multiple
levels to improve management outcomes. The need for a global partnership mechanism
to support communication, collaboration and exchange of relevant experiences, tools
and approaches between regions was reaffirmed by Regional Seas Programmes, UNEP,
UNEP-WCMC and UNEP GRID-Arendal.
Report of Second Global Land-Ocean Connections Conference (GLOC-2), October
2-4, 2013, Montego Bay, Jamaica
The Second Global Conference on Land-Ocean Connections (GLOC-2) was a three-day
gathering of scientists, experts, government and private sector representatives, policy
makers and NGOs, held in Montego Bay, Jamaica, from Wednesday 2nd to Friday 4th
October 2013, with the overall objective to identify approaches to address current and
emerging issues in the marine and coastal sector with a focus on the three priority
source categories of the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine
Environment from Land-based Activities for 2012-2016, namely marine litter, nutrients
and wastewater. The overall purpose of Conference was to emphasize the
interconnectedness of activities on land and how they impact on the oceans, with a
focus on pollution prevention, reduction and control, while proposing ways to address
these impacts through international and, as appropriate, regional cooperation.
The outputs of the conference have provided sound science-based and objective
recommendations for the GPA and inform the future work plans of the three global
partnerships – nutrients, wastewater, and marine litter – being managed by the GPA.
The Global Partnership on Marine Litter (GPML) convened its first official Steering
committee meeting, while the Global Wastewater Initiative (GWI) convened its first
formal meeting of partners.
The GLOC-2 was structured around the priority themes for the GPA: nutrients,
wastewater, and marine litter, with the intention to formalize the GPML and GWI
structures. The GLOC-2 was attended by over 230 participants from more than 55
countries with over 20 governments, 90 IGOS/NGOs and industry representatives and
90 delegates from the host country, Jamaica (see Annex 1).
Over the course of the three-day conference, 3 break out groups/parallel sessions and 4
Side Events were held (see the Conference Agenda as Annex 2). Speed Presentations
were also made on various topics on the evening of the second day (see a list of topics
presented as Annex 3). Specialist presentations by science, industry and policy
representatives were made. These presentations1 stimulated active discussions that
were focused on identifying issues, including emerging issues, that participants felt the
GPA and the global partnerships should address in the period 2013-2016 and beyond.
Recommendations have been compiled and will be discussed further in developing
action plans. These recommendations are summarized below and presented in relevant
Annexes to the report.
The conference also featured a media workshop, which exposed members of the media
from Jamaica, other Caribbean countries and Latin America to the issues related to landocean connections. Members of the media participated in some sessions, held
interviews with experts present at the GLOC-2 and attended field trips to sites around
the north of Jamaica. A summary of the Workshop is included as Annex 4.
Agenda Item 1: Opening Ceremony
1
Presentations can be found on the GPA website at http://www.gpa.unep.org/index.php/gloc-2
The GLOC-2 began with an Opening Ceremony on Wednesday, Oct 2, chaired by Dr.
Jacqueline Alder, Coordinator of the Freshwater & Marine Ecosystems Branch, UNEP.
Participants were welcomed to the conference by the Mayor of Montego Bay, His
Worship, Glendon Harris; Mrs. Elizabeth Mrema, Acting Director, Division of
Environmental Policy Implementation, UNEP; and the Minister of Water, Land,
Environment & Climate Change for Jamaica, the Honourable Robert Pickersgill. The
Head Table also included the Honourable Ian Hayles, Minister of State in the Ministry of
Water, Land, Environment & Climate Change for Jamaica.
In welcoming participants to Montego Bay, Mayor Harris mentioned that 70% of the
population of Jamaica resides in coastal areas, and as much as 90% of the GDP of the
country depends on coastal and marine environments. He emphasized the need to
maintain aesthetically pleasing and sustainable coastal ecosystems, the success of ongoing cleanup campaigns implemented in collaboration between the City Council and
the National Solid Waste Department, as well as the contributions of wetlands
management to enhancing the health of the Montego Bay Marine Park. He concluded by
congratulating the organizers of GLOC-2 and wished participants a productive and
enjoyable conference.
Mrs. Mrema, in her opening statement, expressed appreciation to those involved in
organizing and funding the GLOC-2, and particularly to the government of Jamaica, for
hosting the event (see Annex 5). She noted that coastal ecosystems produce at least
38% of the worlds‟ GDP, and that continued development of coastal economies must
ensure reduction and mitigation of negative impacts on the environment to achieve
sustainable development. She highlighted the history of the GLOC and its focus on
directing future work of the GPA. She also reminded of the importance of the oceans
and the challenges faced by coastal and marine ecosystems. Bringing it into the context
of the Caribbean, she highlighted the particular dependence of SIDS on the coastal zone
and marine resources. She further highlighted the challenge faced in Jamaica, balancing
economic development and environmental management. Mrs. Mrema, while recognizing
the progress being made in managing land-based sources of marine pollution,
challenged the conference to build on successes and do more, particularly through
partnership approaches. She also thanked the USA, Norway and The Netherlands,
among others, for recognizing the importance of land-ocean connections and providing
support for organization of the conference.
Minister Pickersgill, in his feature address (see Annex 6), noted that the strong and
complex link between land and sea is increasingly recognized, but that this requires wide
expertize and collaboration between actors, making the „partnership‟ theme of the
conference very appropriate. He also highlighted the relevance to the 2014 SIDS
conference in Samoa, being organized under the theme of „sustainable development of
SIDS through genuine and durable partnerships‟. Recognizing the need to strengthen
regional instruments addressing land based sources of pollution, he also confirmed
Jamaica‟s intention to accede to the LBS protocol of the Cartagena convention, and
commitment to implementing Ridge to Reef approaches.
Mrs. Mrema nominated Jamaica as chair of the conference, noting that the meeting is
enjoying both the hospitality as well as considerable support from Jamaica. The
nomination was approved by acclamation, after which Minister Pickersgill assumed the
Chairmanship of the conference, on behalf of the host government. During his absences,
other representatives of the government of Jamaica deputized for him.
Agenda Item 2: Organization of the Conference
Dr. Jacqueline Alder, Coordinator of the Freshwater & Marine Ecosystems Branch,
UNEP, introduced the objectives of the conference, which included to identify
approaches to address current and emerging issues in the marine and coastal sector
with a focus on the three priority source categories of the Global Programme of Action
for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities for 2012-2016,
namely marine litter, nutrients and wastewater, as well as development of a new
partnership on coral reefs. She outlined how the conference would be structured,
including a combination of plenary sessions, parallel sessions, Side Events, posters and
Speed Presentations.
Agenda Item 3: Manila Declaration
In order to set the stage for the conference, the GPA Coordinator, Vincent Sweeney
presented a report on progress since January 2012 on the implementation of the Manila
Declaration by the GPA (see Annex 7). He provided a description of the Declaration and
the issues prioritized, and the guidance provided on further implementation of the GPA
through multi stakeholder partnerships addressing three priority source categories:
nutrients, sewage and marine litter. In this regard, the progress with development of
these partnerships, work conducted, and future plans was presented. He also pointed
out that the Manila Declaration called for technical and policy guidance during the
intersessional periods of the GPA IGR, and that GLOC-2 provides such a mechanism.
Agenda Item 4: Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans – a platform for
implementation of the GPA
Focus then shifted to the Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans (RSCAPs), as a
platform for implementation of the GPA. During this session, the conference looked at
the impact that the RSCAPs have had to date, and what role they can play with regard to
the global partnerships under the GPA.
The chair introduced the speakers in the session, Mr. Jorge E. Illueca, former Assistant
Executive Director of UNEP and Director of UNEP‟s Division of Environmental
Conventions; and Dr. Tim Carruthers, Coastal and Marine Adviser, Secretariat of the
Pacific Regional Environment Programme.
Mr. Illueca recalled the birth and early history of the UNEP Regional Seas Programme
(RSP), acknowledging the contribution of several key individuals, including UNEP‟s first
Executive Director, the founder of the Regional Seas Programme at UNEP, and a
number of Directors of individual Regional Seas Programmes. He reviewed the
chronology of the Regional Seas Programmes, highlighting characteristics including their
outstanding degree of political support from developing countries, their function as
platforms for supporting regional cooperation on the implementation of global MEAs, and
their success in combining soft and hard policy instruments towards coordination and
implementation of environmental management. He stressed the fact that no other
programme has had that degree of political support from countries. The RSP is indeed
an effective platform for supporting the implementation of multi-focal area projects of the
GEF. He also stressed a number of factors that have affected the Regional Seas
Programme, including institutional and leadership change, trends in donor contributions
as well as prioritization within UNEP; and reduced frequency of guidance provided to
Regional Seas through the UNEP Governing Council. He concluded by identifying a
number of critical steps in revitalizing and strengthening the Regional Seas, such as the
need for governments to follow up on decisions of the Governing Council in relation to
the Regional Seas, as well as enhanced budgetary allocations towards the programme.
He also reminded that next year is the 40th anniversary of the RSP and noted that while
they have done a lot it is just a small fraction of what needs to be done.
Dr. Carruthers, of SPREP, through his presentation, stressed the multiple challenges our
seas are facing which require an integrated solution and how countries, through the
regional secretariat, organized themselves and their work through a convention and
action plan. There are actually 143 countries currently involved in 18 Regional Seas
Programmes. Each RSP has however some unique features. For example, in the
Pacific, SPREP oversees the implementation of the overarching action plan (2011-2015)
which is supported by a Pacific Vision/visionary framework, supported itself by a marine
sector working group. He outlined SPREP‟s role within regional governance
arrangements, including the Pacific Oceanscape Framework, stressing the value of the
SPREP in facilitating services to and linkages between countries in addressing the
priorities of global MEAs. He further reviewed action towards implementation of the
Regional Seas Strategic Directions 2013-2016, including data synthesis and streamlined
reporting in support of regional planning as well as global efforts such as the World
Ocean Assessment, and called for enhanced efforts across Regional Seas to promote
and strengthen regional ocean governance, effective management of biodiversity in
areas beyond national jurisdiction, and facilitating a transition to a green economy in a
blue world. Key elements of a future revitalization for the RSP were presented such as
the needs for strong partnership, inter-regional collaboration, collaboration with MEAs
and global mechanisms, use of the LME approach, delivery of scientific information such
as on marine litter (ML) or the use of different approaches such as marine spatial
planning. Dr. Carruthers discussed the future of RSCAP and their relevance in
implementation of the GPA. He concluded by stressing the need for Regional Seas to
focus on services and support to member states, with the help of and in collaboration
with UNEP, including the GPA.
Agenda Item 5: Partnerships – trends and approaches on global, regional and
national scale and operationalization of the same
Partnership trends and approaches on global, regional and national scale were next
discussed, including approaches to their operationalization. In a session moderated by
Mr. David Coates of the CBD Secretariat, perspectives were shared from UNEP, the
private sector, the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the World Bank Global
Partnership for Oceans, and the Global Water Partnership.
Mr. Steve Rochlin, co-CEO, IO Sustainability, identified a number of critical
considerations in establishing and operating partnerships, including the need to start
from a common principle, commitment to common broader goals of the partnership, and
a willingness to be held accountable against these; the need for partners to be able to
stick to their respective and often differing core values and being clear about the
different objectives partners may have within a partnership; the importance of slowly and
carefully developing working practices as a foundation for more effective delivery in the
longer term; and the need for structural clarity and clear and simple bureaucratic
processes. In relation to seeking private sector engagement, he cautioned against
seeking partnerships as a means for funding activities, and identified a number of helpful
characteristics, such as companies that have adopted standards and procedures on
relevant issues; those that innovate, develop new solutions, and reach out to or embrace
the approaches of other companies; and those that make significant business model
changes towards supporting sustainability.
Mr. Stanley Rampair, representing the Global Water Partnership, echoed the importance
of a common vision embraced by partners, and the need for strategic goals developed
carefully and meticulously, the need for structural clarity, and the need for key
components including a secretariat as well as oversight mechanism, and criteria of
membership.
Mr. Christian Severin, of the Secretariat of the Global Environment Facility, provided an
overview of partnership projects implemented with GEF funding through its international
waters portfolio. He outlined the Transboundary Diagnostic Assessment (TDA) Strategic
Action Programme (SAP) process, and illustrated it with examples from the South China
Sea and Mekong river basin, including partnerships for local level implementation with
municipalities.
Mr. Peter J. Kristensen, of the Global Partnership for Oceans (GPO), World Bank, noted
the many challenges countries face in addressing pressures on the marine environment,
and thanked Jamaica for the expertise offered towards development of the GPO.
Pointing out that ocean degradation impacts the poor disproportionately, but that the
ocean also provides enormous opportunities to meet their needs, he provided an
overview of the rationale for the evolving Global Partnership for Oceans. He emphasized
the need to scale up and speed up efforts, to mobilize and provide support and funding
that enables a transition towards blue growth, by making adoption of policies with
considerable short-term cost or social implications possible, and how the respective
strengths of different partners can be harnessed.
Mrs. Elizabeth Maruma-Mrema, Officer in Charge and Deputy Director, Division of
Environmental Policy Implementation, UNEP, highlighted the need for partnerships to
also extend to the national level, where much action towards better environmental
stewardship ultimately needs to take place. She also encouraged building on concrete
examples from the Caribbean and Jamaican context towards supporting global
partnerships.
A panel discussion addressed issues related to engaging beneficiaries and communities.
Examples of policies for involving communities and reducing potential negative impacts
on communities were mentioned, but it was noted that while beneficiaries may at times
be involved in setting partnership goals and metrics for measuring performance, this is
the exception rather than the rule. The key aspects of transparency and accountability
as well as commitment to sharing knowledge and data to promote common
understanding were reemphasized. It was further noted that a very significant challenge
is enabling consideration of the costs of environmental degradation in planning.
Desired outcomes of the GLOC-2 conference identified included: shared commitment
around key priorities and processes; sharing of knowledge; new collaboration; joint
action plans steered by countries; strengthening and support to existing partnerships.
Agenda Item 6: The contribution of marine and coastal ecosystems to sustainable
development
The next plenary session focused on the contribution of marine and coastal ecosystems
to sustainable development. It discussed policy pathways for a transition towards a
Green Economy for Oceans in key ocean-based sectors and the macroeconomic
reforms to facilitate the enabling conditions. It also discussed the contribution of natural
capital by coastal and marine ecosystem services, particularly the climate related
services of productive coastal ecosystems (i.e. blue carbon), into a Green Economy
transition. Specific examples of re-direction of sector policy reforms in the island and
coastal states and incorporation of blue carbon in national policies were presented. The
session was moderated by Mr. Anthony McKenzie, from NEPA, Jamaica.
Ms. Jacqueline Alder, Coordinator, FMEB, UNEP, speaking about possible policy
pathways for transition to a Green Economy (GE) for Oceans, brought attention to the
„Green Economy in a Blue World‟ report launched in 2012, and the rationale presented
therein for incorporating ocean issues into efforts on national mainstreaming of Green
Economy concepts. She provided examples from the report based on its sector analyses,
noting the economic gains available from cleaner, more robust marine and coastal
ecosystems. She also noted that, while technologies are often available, policy pathways
and incentives require focus and concerted efforts, and that UNEP through its work is
seeking to develop appropriate means of implementation, including through the UN
system.
Mr. Andreas Hutahaean, Head-Research Group on Blue Carbon, Research Centre for
Coastal and Marine Resources, Indonesia, presented National Blue carbon policy
development in Indonesia. He pointed out that the commitment made by Indonesia in
Copenhagen to reduce emissions by 26% through national efforts did not incorporate
reductions arising from blue carbon, mainly due to lack of scientific information as well
as challenges arising from the common property status of coastal ecosystems and
limited attention and funding for this compared to terrestrial ecosystems. However,
Indonesia‟s very extensive mangrove area and considerable annual rates of loss
provides an opportunity to work towards a coastal blue carbon policy based on a science
foundation. He stated that a series of demonstration sites were being established to fill
knowledge gaps, and also emphasized the need for effective communication and
outreach to the general public as well as policy makers, and provided examples of
outreach strategies utilized.
A panel discussion addressed actions to accelerate transition to a GE, including
valuation tools and trade off tools, better consideration of non-monetary values, and
packaging information better for decision making; raising awareness and offering
support; and understanding and developing appropriate incentives in close collaboration
with the private sector. It was pointed out that, in the resource constraints of small island
nations, the role of the sector in taking on GE initiatives is very important, but this needs
to take place in a sound regulatory context. The need for increased focus on socioeconomic analyses in relation to blue carbon was recognized.
Agenda Item 7: Priority areas: nutrients, wastewater and marine litter – where are
we?
Day 1 concluded with three presentations on where we are in relation to the GPA priority
areas of nutrients, wastewater and marine litter.
Jan Willem Erisman, Director, Louis Bolk Institute gave a presentation on nutrients,
highlighting the mandate and guidance provided in the Manila Declaration and providing
an overview of the GPNM in facilitating implementation. He noted the strong correlation
between population, N and P use and CO2 emissions, and that nearly 75% of nutrients
used for agriculture are lost to the environment, often with detrimental effects on water
quality, biodiversity, human health etc. While noting that e.g. the Netherlands has
increased agricultural productivity while decreasing nutrient inputs and losses, he stated
that nutrient inputs and inappropriate fertilizer practices will continue globally, albeit with
uneven distribution. In identifying priorities, he mentioned a broad range of issues that
require policy and management focus, including consumption, food waste, agriculture
production, energy use etc. and that this also needs to be accompanied by relevant
extension services. Tasks for a GPA-led process could include development of suitable
indicators and targets, building on the preparatory work on nitrogen use efficiency
improvement targets discussed at the GPA IGR-3.
Steven Ntifo, Jacobs Engineering UK, gave a brief overview of the many problems of
wastewater emissions and some opportunities, as highlighted in the Sick Water report.
Noting that a global partnership is yet to be formed, a good information base for
concerted action exists through existing reports, including e.g. Sick Water, GLAAS. He
pointed out that while notable progress has been made, e.g. through bringing access to
improved sanitation to 1.8 billion people between 1990 and 2010, sanitation coverage is
now 64% globally, more widespread in urban than in rural areas, and the MDG target is
unlikely to be met. Progress made is a result of political will, science for evidence based
policy, and availability of financial resources, and, e.g. the urban wastewater treatment
directive of the EU provides a good example of how major impact can be achieved
through planning, regulation, monitoring and reporting, and mechanisms for dealing with
non–compliance. He recommended that a wastewater sector be created in countries, as
the value and benefits of this outweigh the costs. This requires involvement of
international organizations and bodies, national and regional parliaments, governments,
civil society, establishment of proper regulators, enforcement through courts, provision of
finance and ensuring accountability throughout the system, as well as consideration of
demand and value of the service.
Peter Kershaw, Vice-Chairperson, The Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects
of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP), characterized Marine Litter as a truly
global issue that crosses boundaries and sectors, but one that ought to be possible to
control. Plastic litter predominates due to slow degradation and poor waste management
and control. A number of detrimental effects on ecosystems and economic activity are
well described, but he pointed out that a number of knowledge gaps remain in relation to
distribution in areas away from shorelines, including the seabed and water column; the
population level impacts on ecosystems; the extent of the economic impact; and the
potential risks associated with micro-plastics. He called for education across the board,
reiterating that it is essential to ensure that the general public is aware and engaged,
and called for a more focused approach to get marine litter concerns communicated to
policy makers. He also called for enhanced cooperation and harmonization of actions
through partnerships involving relevant sectors. In conclusion, he pointed out that
actions to address marine litter need to be realistic and tailored to the context, and that
any precautionary action needs to be proportionate and adaptive.
Day 1 concluded with a poster session, video presentation and “Meet & Greet” social
event.
Day 2 of the GLOC-2 organized three parallel sessions (Agenda Item 8) addressing
Wastewater, Nutrients and Marine Litter and a workshop on development of a coral reef
partnership. The agendas for these sessions are included as Annexes 8-11. These were
followed by Partnership Forum meetings for the three global partnerships and the
evolving coral reef partnership on the Day 3. During the parallel sessions on the three
source categories of GPA there were presentations by various stakeholders from
different parts of the world and panel discussions centered around a few key issues.
These provided room for deep exchange on the challenges but more importantly on the
potential and possible solutions and responses to address these issues.
Main discussion points on wastewater (WW) included the need for data, impacts of
climate change, the risks and rewards of wastewater reuse and the need to view
wastewater as a resource. Participants discussed the trends related to urbanization and
how it created new challenges and identified gaps which need to be addressed, such as
the MDG targets, political will, funding, capacity building, cost-effective solutions, and
greater collaboration. Suggestions for inclusion in the Global Wastewater Initiative (GWI)
Work Plan included agricultural generation and reuse of WW, public awareness,
technology sharing, resource recovery and energy production, coordination of activities,
and facilitated learning from others. These recommendations fed into the first steering
committee of the GWI, which decided to invite UNEP and UN-Habitat to serve as the first
Co-Chairs of the Steering Committee. A full report of the parallel session is included as
Annex 12.
Main discussion points on marine litter (ML) included the definition of the work plan for
the Global Partnership on Marine Litter (GPML), plastics management, indicators,
biodegradability of plastics, the role of the private sector, Extended Producer
Responsibility (EPR), behaviour change, impacts on marine animals, waste-to-energy,
regional and national ML partnerships, and the roles of governments in addressing ML.
The conference recommended that the GPML Work Plan focus on pilot projects;
Abandoned, Lost and Discarded Fishing Gear (ALDFG); awareness-raising (e.g. waste
as a resource; waste-to-energy); monitoring; target-setting; recovery of ML from sea;
and knowledge-sharing. A full report of the parallel session is included as Annex 13.
Main discussion points on nutrients considered losses, particularly of reactive nitrogen
and phosphorus, from the agricultural and sewerage systems, as the main causes for
eutrophication of aquatic and marine ecosystems around the world, affecting water
quality for human use and also aquatic and marine biodiversity. The conference noted
the high correlation between increased hypoxic zones and the amounts of nitrogen being
released. Public awareness of impacts of nitrogen on ecosystems is a problem. The
increase in livestock farms and the related fertilizer use are rapidly becoming a severe
source of nitrogen. Solutions to nutrient loading proposed included promoting Fertilizer
Best Management Practices (such as soil fertility and soil conservation) and improving
nutrient use efficiency in agriculture. A number of research topics and economic
assessments were proposed, as well as indicator development, awareness-raising and
education, for inclusion in the future work of the Global Partnership on Nutrients
Management (GPNM). A full report of the parallel session is included as Annex 14.
A workshop (on Day 2 and Day 3) was organized to discuss the nascent coral reef
partnership between UNEP, Regional Seas Programmes and other organizations. The
sessions sought to provide information on partnership development and broaden
collaboration in the partnership. The need for the partnership was confirmed, the draft
partnership description was revised, and programmatic priorities identified through
discussion among participants. Guidance was also provided on further development of
the partnership.
Main discussion points on the coral reef partnership included the need to focus on coral
reefs as an integral part of the broader tropical coastal ecosystem, in order to enable
and effectively support ecosystem based approaches, and utilizing Regional Seas
mechanisms to ensure the partnership responds to national and regional needs common
to many coral reef regions, and to seek broad adoption and uptake of activities and
outputs. Elements of a work programme were discussed, including ecosystem service
assessment and valuation, with focus on better utilization of this in policy, planning and
management; supporting planning and management that responds to climate change
proactively, anticipating future change; providing mechanisms for access to and sharing
of information and knowledge, contributing to policy setting; providing a community of
practice, exchange of experience and lessons learned between regions; and capacity
building at multiple levels. A full report of the parallel session is included as Annex 15.
Day 2 concluded with parallel sessions which included 5-minute Speed presentations on
various relevant topics, which allowed for exposure of young scientists, project
managers, and NGOs, added value and provided an entertaining end to the second day.
Day 3 resumed in plenary (Agenda Item 9) and recapped the discussions from the
parallel sessions on Day 2, captured above.
Agenda Item 10: The power of partnerships: Awareness & Outreach
Approaches to awareness-raising and outreach were discussed using vivid and emotive
videos and other presentation tools. The session was moderated by Mike Biddle,
representing Waste Free Oceans. The first presentation featured a brief film clip on the
impacts of marine litter on birds in the Pacific. This film was then discussed by Daniella
Russo of the Plastic Pollution Coalition. A joint presentation on the impacts of microbeads followed, by Ms. Maria Westerbos, Plastic Soup Foundation and Jeroen Dagevos
of the North Sea Foundation, where they discussed development and use of an iPhone
App to identify the presence of micro-beads in various cosmetic and other products. Mr.
Andrew Russell, then presented on the Plastic Disclosure Project, followed by Professor
Mark Sutton, of the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (CEH), who used the example of the
International Nitrogen Assessment to highlight the outreach challenges related to
nutrient management, and indicating a role for the GPA in this regard.
Mrs. Patricia Aquing, of the former Caribbean Environmental Health Institute (now
known as the Environmental Management Unit of the Caribbean Public Health Agency),
elaborated on how the GEF-funded project on Integrating Watershed and Coastal Areas
Management (IWCAM) in the Small Island Development States (SIDS) of the Caribbean
approached its outreach and awareness activities and the impact of such activities.
Agenda Item 11: Institutional financing mechanisms and opportunities at global,
regional and national levels
The final technical session of the GLOC-2 focused on financing mechanisms and
opportunities. This session was moderated by Mr. Gérard Bonnis of the OECD. The first
presenters, Mr. Christian Severin, of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), and Mr.
Peter Kristensen, of the Global Partnership for Oceans, focused on global level financing
opportunities. Mr. Severin outlined the proposed GEF-6 International Waters Strategy
and investment modalities, highlighting the opportunity which the GEF still presented for
financing viable and relevant initiatives. Mr. Kristensen reiterated the added value of the
Global Partnership for Oceans and confirmed that it will deliver the finance and
collaboration needed to close the implementation gap which existed in relation to the
problems being faced in oceans management. This would be through a Global Fund for
Oceans, combined with public and private investments, initiated by requests from
countries.
The next presenter looked at regional level financing mechanisms. Ms. Denise Forrest,
Project Coordinator for the GEF-funded Caribbean Regional Fund for Wastewater
Management (GEF-CReW), described the project and why it was so critical to the
Caribbean. She explained the fund and how countries in the Caribbean were benefiting
from this innovative revolving fund, to improve wastewater management and
infrastructure.
Agenda Item 12: Draft elements for a report from the Conference
The meeting then considered draft elements for a report from the Conference, which
was presented by Jerker Tamelander, as Chief rapporteur, on behalf of UNEP. Following
his summary, a number of participants, representing governments and agencies were
invited to reflect on the conference and the recommendations. Those invited to share
their reflections included Peter J. Kristensen (Global Partnership for Oceans); Gerard
Bonnis (OECD); Mr. Gabriel Filippelli, representing the United States government; Ms.
Hermien Busschbach, representing the Government of the Netherlands; and Anthony
McKenzie, representing the host government of Jamaica.
A common theme of the reflections was the need for partnerships if our efforts are to be
successful, and the willingness of all speakers to actively participate in future work.
Agenda Item 13: Closing of the Conference
The final session officially closed the Conference. A representative of the government of
Jamaica, Ms. Sharon Miller, on behalf of the Conference Chair, Minister Pickersgill and
Ms. Elizabeth Maruma Mrema, on behalf of UNEP, both thanked the participants for their
active participation. It was noted that the GLOC-2 had been able to gather scientists,
experts, policy makers and NGOs from around the world. Over the three days, the
conference included very lively, entertaining, and sound technical presentations. Out of
these presentations, and the discussion they generated, a number of recommendations
were made towards the implementation of the Manila Declaration on Furthering the
Implementation of the GPA. Participants were able to explore current and emerging
environmental management challenges that result from land-based activities, with the
priority focus on the management of marine litter, wastewater and nutrients, as well as
identifying possible solutions and opportunities for improved management of these
issues at global, regional and national levels.
The UNEP representative noted that the Conference was able to emphasize the
interconnectedness of activities on land and how they impact on the oceans, with a
focus on pollution prevention, reduction and control, while proposing ways to address
these impacts through cooperation. She confirmed that UNEP and the GPA were
fortunate to have been able to organize the conference with the Government of Jamaica.
She observed that the almost 200 participants from all around the globe thoroughly
enjoyed the conference, including the social events. She further noted that the mix of
NGOs, academics, the private sector, media representatives, inter-governmental
organizations, and governments made for lively discussion, with the High-Level Plenary
setting the tone for the event, and the parallel sessions on wastewater, nutrients, coral
reefs and marine litter allowing for deeper discussion and debate on the issues, leading
to consensus on the way forward. Making reference to the Speed Presentations, media
workshop, press conference, additional live press coverage, and the field trip, she felt
that these added great value to the event. She was impressed that people gave up their
lunch to attend Side Events as well.
In conclusion, UNEP thanked all who had made the event possible, noting the
challenges faced in preparing for the Conference, in coming up with a programme that
would be of interest to participants and which would serve to provide much-needed
technical input to the design of the future Work Programme of the GPA. She promised to
take forward the recommendations to the rest of UNEP and recognized the UNEP Team,
both in Jamaica and elsewhere, particularly those in Nairobi, who played a role in the
successful convening of the Conference. Credit was given especially to those who
supported from the various agencies and Ministries in Jamaica, who UNEP thanked
immensely for their efforts.
UNEP also thanked other partners for their technical and financial inputs, acknowledging
the many experts from numerous organisations involved in the deliberations over the
three days. UNEP looked forward to continued involvement of colleagues and
organizations in the implementation of the GPA and the global partnerships. Finally,
congratulations were offered to all for a most successful event.
COUNTRY
ACADEMIA/
NGO/ CIVIL
Govt
TITLE SURNAME
OTHER NAMES
DESIGNATION
ORGANIZATION
TELEPHONE
E-MAIL ADDRESS
Ms.
Samira
Nateche
Directrice
Ministere De L'amanegement Du
Territoire, De
0550 91 95 96
[email protected]
Antigua &
Barbuda
Govt
Mr.
Christian
Linroy
Laboratory Manager,
[email protected]
Aruba
Govt
Mr.
Boekhoudt
Gisbert
Director
Australia
NGO
Ms.
Gunn
Rikki
Project Coordinator
Fisheries Division Laboratory, Ministry 268-764-8338
of
Agriculture, Lower North Street, Point
Wharf
Directorate
Nature and Environment,
297-5841199
Bernhardstraat 75, San Nicolas, Aruba
Ghostnets Australia
0427 476 500
Australia
Australia
Barbados
Academia
NGO
Academia
Mr.
Ms.
Dr.
Kenchington
Jankevics
Cashman
Richard
Jodie
Adrian
Professorial Fellow, E
Head of Campaigns
Senior Lecturer
+61 2 62515597
61 428 767 005
246 417 4829
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Barbados
Academia
Mr.
Trotman
Cabral Larc
1 246 417 4768
[email protected]
Belgium
NGO
Ms.
Priestland
Emma
Filmmaker/Technical
Officer
Policy Officer
32 2 893 0967
[email protected]
Belize
Govt
Mr.
Rosado
Samir
Coastal Science
Research Officer
501 223 0719
[email protected]
Bermuda
NGO
Mr.
Hunt
Gregory
President, Board of
Directors
1-441-293-4770
[email protected]
Brazil
NGO
Mr.
Barretto
Fabiano
Project Manager
University of Wollongong
WSPA
University of the West Indies, Cave
Hill, Centre for Resource Management
and Environmental Studies (CERMES)
P.O. Box
64 Bridgetown
Creative
Imagination, University of the
West
Indies,
Seas
at Bridgetown
Risk, Marine Litter, Rue
D'Edimbourg
Coastal Zone Management Authority &
Institute, Princess Margaret Drive, P.O.
Box
Clean Islands International, 18 Town
Hill
Road,
Flatts FL07
Smiths
Local Beach
Garbage
e.V.,Parish
Associaçào
49 40 4609 3539
[email protected]
Brasileira do Lixo Marinho - Global
Garbage Brasil Süllbergsterrasse 56,
22587, Hamburg
Av. Carlos Ermelindo Marins, 494 Jurujuba
24370-195
Niteroi/RJ
Brazil
Universidade
Federal de
Lavras
55 21 2711 9875
[email protected]
+55 35 38291259
[email protected]
Algeria
Brazil
NGO
Mr.
Palermo
Vinicius Pinheiro
Brazil
Academia
Mr.
Guilherme
Luiz
Coordinator of
Project
Associate Professor
Brazil
Media
Ms
Chiaretti
Daniela
Special Reporter
Valor Econômico
Brazil
Brazil
Burkina Faso
Media
Media
UN/IGO
Ms.
Mr.
Mr
Cai
Qingyue
Doucoure
Wei
Sun
Idrissa
Cameraman
Correspondent
Chief Executive
Officer
CCTV Latin America
CCTV Latin America
Water and Sanitation for Africa (WSA) 226 50 36 62 10
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Canada
Academia
Ms.
Jaja
Jessica
Canada
Canada
Cayman Islan
UN/IGO
UN/IGO
Media
Mr.
Coates
Van Lavieren
Sulliman
David
Hanneke
Tammi
China
NGO
Mr.
Russell
Andrew
Lu
Yuelei
China
China
Colombia
NGO
Govt
Mr.
Mr
Woodring
Lacera Laguna
Doug
Gustavo Alfonso
Colombia
Private
Mr.
Tosic
Marko
Colombia
UN/IGO
Ms
Walker
Laverne
Cote d'Ivoire
UN/IGO
Mr.
Bamba
Abou
Cuba
Cuba
Media
Govt
Ms
Liu
Terry Berro
Bin
Carmen Cristina
Dominican
Republic
Dominican
Republic
DRC
NGO
Ms.
Heinsen
Ginny
Govt
Mr.
Cordero
Otto
Govt
Mr.
Kasololo
Mwene-Batende
Itongwa
Ecuador
UN/IGO
Soldi
Hector
MA Candidate
Task Manager
Senior
Reporter/Producer
Director, Plastic
Disclosure Project
University of Ottawa, Human
1 613 276 0044
Geography and environmental
sustainability, 298 Beechgrove Avenue
K1Z 6R3, Ottawa
CBD
UNU-INWEH
1-289-2442767
Cayman27
(345)326-1153
[email protected]
Ocean Recovery Alliance, 20F, Central 852 6601 4325
Tower,
28 Queens Roaad, Central, Hong Kingo
[email protected]
China Sustainable Agriculture
Innovation
Network (SAIN)
Co-Founder
Ocean Recovery Aliance
Degree in Biology
Cundianamarca, Ministry of
57-1-3323400
Environment and
Sustainable Development Street 37 No
8-40
Professional, EnvironmentalPlayascol
SciencesCorporation E.U. Wataer
57-301-746-1113
Resources, Carrera 80 No.T39-179,
Suite 502
Senior Project Officer
UNDP GEF Caribben Large Marine
57-5-664-0914
Ecosystem Project (UNOPS Executing
Agency) Edificio Chambacu, Cra 3B
No.26-78
Oficina 405 Cartagena, Colombia
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Head of Secretariat
UN-China
Regional Coordinator
UNEP, Abidjan Convention
FMEB/DEPI 01
P.O. Box
1747Agency
Photographer
Xinhua
News
Senior Specialist in
Ministry of Science, Technology and
Science, Technology and Environment, 11300, Havana, Cuba
Environment
Education
CEDAF
Departmental
Manager
Expert
SECRETARY GENE
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
225-22-418851
[email protected]
(537) 202 9372
[email protected];
809-5655603
[email protected]
Ministry of Environment & Natural
18097070729
Resources
Ministry of Environnement,
243 991298082
CGLME/CICG, P.O. Box Avenue Des
Cliniques, Immeuble De L'Inera,
Commune De La Gombe, Kinshasa
RCOMISION PERMANENTE DEL
593 42221202
PACIFICO
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Ecuador
Egypt
UN/IGO
Govt
Huerta
Gerges
Hector
Makram
Regional Technical Co
Professor Emeritus
Federated
States of
Micronesia
NGO
Mr.
Kastl
Brian
Coastal Watershed
Management Specialist
France
Resource person
Mr
Bonnis
Gerard
Principle Analyst
Germany
NGO
Ms
Barreto
Eva
Executive Secretary
Germany
NGO
Ms.
Mihaylova
Bistra
Ghana
Govt
Mr.
Amoah
Greece
UN/IGO
Ms.
Greece
Grenada
Private
Govt
Guyana
Guyana
Permanent Commission for the South 593 4 2221202
Pacific –
Oceanography
Department, National
202-2623-0625
Institute of Oceanography & Fisheries,
Egypt, 19
Abdel Kader El-Maghraby Street Apt.
14
The Nature Conservancy, Micronesia 1 360 620 1476
Program, Moylans Insurance Bldg.
Rm204, P.O. Box 216 Kolonia,
Pohnpei FM 96941
OECD
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Local Beach Garbage e.V., Associaçào 50 40 4609 3539
Brasileira do Lixo Marinho - Global
Garbage Brasil Süllbergsterrasse 56,
22587, Hamburg
Regional Policy
Women in Europe for a Common
49 89 2323938-0
Coordinator Balkan
Future, Jakobs Platz 10 80331, Munich,
Countries and Azerbaijan Germany
[email protected]
Justice
Metropolitan
Development Planning
Officer
[email protected]
Silva Mejias
Maria Luisa
Executive Secretary and
Coordinator
Ms.
Mr
Tsakona
Paterson
Maria
Gordon
Media
Media
Mr
Mr
Nigel
Earle
Williams
Johann
Editor
Reporter/Freelance
Haiti
UN/IGO
Mr.
Pardo
Maximilien
Hongkong
India
NGO
Resource person
Ms
Mr
Read
Pattnaik
Tracey
Ajit
UNEP South Haiti
Programme Manager
CEO
CEO
Cape Coast Metropolitan Assembly
(CCMA) Metropolitan Planning
Coordinating Unit (MPCU), John
Street, Kotokoraba, P.O. Box
200, Cape Coast, Ghana
233-208169398
UNEP, Mediterranean Action
30-210-7273101
Plan/Barcelona Convention, 48
Vassileos Konstantinou Avenue 11634
Product Manager
D-Waste, Acharnon Str. 141A, 104 46, 30 2155302450
Athens, and National Parks
Head of Watershed
Forestry
1-473-440-2934
Management unit/Ramsar Department, Ministry of Agriculture,
Focal point
Lands, Forestry, Fisheries and
Environment, P.O. Box Queens Park,
St. Georges, Grenada
Guyana Times/ Evening News
Stabroek News, Reuters Alertnet, O
Eco
Amazonia
United Nations Environment
Programme
Plastic Free Seas
Chilika Development Authority
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected], [email protected]
00509 36776237
[email protected]
+852 6222 3244
[email protected]
[email protected] ; [email protected]
India
Resource person
Mr
Ramachandran
Ramesh
Director
Ministry of Environment and Forests, 91 44 22300108
National Centre for Sustainable Coastal
Management, Koodal Building, Anna
University
Indian Nitrogen Group
+91 9891252943
India
Resource person
Dr.
Raghuram
Nandula
Associate Professor
Indonesia
Govt
Mr
Hutahaean
Andreas
Head-Research Group on Research Centre for Coastal and Marine
Blue Carbon
Resources
Israel
Govt
Mr.
Amir
Rani
Director
Italy
Italy
Jamaica
UN/IGO
UN/IGO
Govt
Mr.
Ms.
Ms.
Chopin
Erikson
Powell
Francis
Karine
Deleen
Jamaica
Jamaica
Govt
Academia
Mr
Mr.
Bailey
Benkeblia
Nicholas
Noureddine
Programme Officer
Associate legal officer
Public Education and
Community Outreach
Officer
IT Tech
Professor
Jamaica
NGO
Mr.
Shim
Hugh
Executive Director
Jamaica
Govt
Mr.
Streete
Ludwig Don D
Manager
Jamaica
Jamaica
Resource person
Mr.
Reid
Rampair
Sylval
Stanley Dhram
Jamaica
Academia
Ms.
Sutherland
Anika
Senior
Hydrogeologist
Jamaica
Govt
Mr.
Jerome C
Thomas
Reporter/Freelance
FAO
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Govt
Govt
Secretariat
Dr.
Lt. Col
Mr.
Hales
Khan
Cover
Alwin
Oral
Tito
Minister's Party
Delegates
Clerk/Driver
CAR/RCU
Marine and Coastal Environment
Division, Ministry of Environmental
Protection, Pal yam st. 15a, 31007,
Haifa, Israel
FAO
FAO
National Environment and Planning
Agency
MWLECC
The University of the West Indies,
Department of Life Sciences, 4
Anguilla Close, Mona Campus,
Kingston
Montego Bay Marine Park
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
972-4-8633520
[email protected]
39 0657055257
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
1-876-754-7540
1 876 977 6849 ext
3849
[email protected]
1876 952 5619
[email protected]
Manager, Quality Assurance
876 733 5478-79
Chlorination & Environment, National
Water Commission, 4
Marescaux Road, Kingston 5, Jamaica
West
Premier Land and Water Dept. Limited, 1876 5799704
2B Edam Drive Russel Hts, Kingston 8
The University of the West Indies,
876-420-4209
Centre for Resource Management and
Environmental Studies, Heartease
District, Williamsfield P.O. Box
Manchester
+876-922-9267 (-
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Jamaica
Secretariat
Mr.
Campell
Victor
Administrative Clerk
CAR/RCU
+876-922-9267 (-
[email protected]
Jamaica
UN/IGO
Mr
Corbin
Christopher
Programme Officer
CAR/RCU
+876-922-9267 (-
[email protected]
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Govt
media
Secretariat
Govt
Govt
Mr
Mr
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Harris
McFadden
Andrade
Pickersgill
Christie
Rohan
David
Nelson
Robert
Wykham
Admin
Correspondent
Coordinator
Minister
Minister's Security
Ministry of Environment
The Associated Press
UNEP CAR/RCU
+876-922-9267 (-
[email protected]
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Govt
Govt
Govt
Govt
Govt
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Knight
McKenzie
Shim
Shirley
Green
Peter
Anthony
Herman
Gordon
Andrew
Delegate
Delegate
Delegate
Delegate
Minister's Driver
Caribbean Maritime Institute Rep
Port Authority Rep
Jamaica
Govt
Mr.
Coello Vazquez
Alfredo
Technical Specialist
CRES Project
Inter American Development Bank
18767641055
[email protected]
Jamaica
Jamaica
Govt
Resource person
Mrs
Ms
Smith
Forrest
Loureene Jones
Denise
NEPA
GEF-CreW
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Secretariat
Secretariat
Secretariat
Govt
Govt
Govt
Ms
Ms
Ms
Ms
Ms
Ms
Williams
Levy
Muchai
Kolbush
Simpson
Constantine
Chrishane
Lesma
Annie
Paulette
Sheries
Suzanne
CAR/RCU
CAR/RCU
CAR/RCU
NEPA
NEPA
Jamaica
Jamaica
Govt
Govt
Ms
Ms
Guthrie
Christie
Gillian
Winsome
Jamaica
Academia
Ms.
O'Connor
Ann-Tenneil
Delegate
Protocol/Media
Officer
Graduate Student
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Govt
Govt
Govt
Ms.
Ms.
Ms.
Miller
Roper
Campbell
Sharon
Le Anne
Cherett
Delegate
Delegate
Note taker
Jamaica
Govt
Ms.
Gibbs
Monique
Liaison officer to
Hotel
Executive Assistant
[email protected]
[email protected]
University of the West Indies, Mona
876-844-3469
Campus, c/o JRC and Pesticide
Research Laboratories, Department of
Life Sciences
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign
Trade
[email protected]
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Govt
Govt
Secretariat
Ms.
Ms.
Ms.
Daley
Edwards
Vanzella- Khouri
Marlene
Jennifer
Alessandra
Secretary
Delegate
Programme Officer
Jamaica
Jamaica
Academia
Prof.
Mr.
Webber
Diaz
Dale
Piere
Delegate
Oceanographer
Jamaica
Jamaica
media
UN/IGO
Mr.
Qingxiang
Opperer
Zhu
Thomas
Correspondent
Second Secretary
NSWMA
+876-922-9267 (Programme
Caribbean Regional Coordinating Unit
UWI
TECHNOLOGICAL &
876 920 6012
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
NETWORK LTD (TEM NETWORK)
Xinhua News Agency
European Union Delegation - Jamaica 876 924 6333
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Govt
Govt
Mr.
Mrs
Mr.
Ms
Goodison
Jones Smith
Williams
Sanchez Alcolea
Keith
Loureene
Joseph
Maria Teresa
Delegate
Note taker
Central Waste Water Treatment
NEPA
Interpreter
CIIT
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
media
NGO
Thompson
Stanley
Knollis
Stein
Corbett-Baugh
Kimone
Suzanne
King
Graham
Martha
Features Editor
Jamaica Observer
Jamaica Environment Trust
Govt
Ms
Ms.
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
Govt
Ms.
Mr
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
Mr.
Ms.
Ms.
Ms.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Daley
Barnett
Lee
Bolton
Fagaw
Hoyl
Cummings
Myers
Christaini
Clyde
Gibson
Chambers
Austin
Gulick
O'Reggis
Snow Young
Grant
Owen Allen
Davis
Kadine
Mark
Gerald
Camile
Colin
Paul
Jason
Daalon
Riley
Harrison
Olando
Marie
Dwane
Sharon
Nicole
Patricia
Ainsworth
Dave
Kenric
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Govt
Interpreter
CIIT
Chairman
Negril Area Environmental Trust
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Jamaica
Jamaica
Govt
Govt
Mr.
Mr.
Dixon
Gray
Hugh
Orville
Jamaica
Govt
Ms.
Parchment- Clark
Natasha
Jamaica
Govt
Mr.
Forbes
Rochelle
Jamaica
Govt
Mr.
Oniel
Gordon
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Govt
Govt
Govt
Mr.
Ms.
Ms.
McKinney
Scott
Woodit
Robert
Cynthia
Tamara
Jamaica
Govt
Mr.
Carroll
Rudolph
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Jamaica
Japan
Kenya
Govt
Govt
Govt
Govt
Govt
Mr.
Hon.
Hon.
Prof.
Mr.
Mr.
Resource person
Dr.
Parris
Fagan
Hayles
Webber
Russel
Goureau
Tkalin
Masso
Samuel
Collin
Ian
Dale
Carlton
Thomas
Alexander
Cargele
Kenya
Secretariat
Mr
Datta
Anjan
Programme Officer
Kenya
Govt
Mr
Katua
Stephen
Deputy Director
Kenya
Kenya
Secretariat
UN/IGO
Mr
Mr.
Sweeney
Otieno
Vincent
Pireh
Kenya
UN/IGO
Mr.
Waruinge
Dixon
Kenya
Kenya
Secretariat
Secretariat
Ms
Ms
Alder
Savelli
Jacqueline
Heidi
Kenya
Kenya
Secretariat
Secretariat
Ms
Ms.
Mrema
Odhiambo
Elizabeth
Caroline
Head of GPA
Human Settlements
Officer
Head Nairobi
Convention
Coordinator
Communication
Officer
OIC - DEPI
Team Assistant
Direcor
NAB
Marine Park & Environmental
Manager, Montego Bay
Rotary Club of Montego Bay
Environmental
Officer
Chief Public Health
Inspector
Sandals Foundation
Manager
Manager
Enforcement
Coordinator
Enforcement Officer
Rose Hall Development
Rose Hall Treatment Plant
President
Global Coral Reef Alliance
UNEP/NOWPAP
International Institute of Tropical
Agriculture
(IITA) c/o ICIPE, Kasarani, P.O. Box
30772UNEP/GPA
Project Leader
St. James
254 708090089
[email protected]
254 207625276
[email protected]
National Environment Management
254-721210267
Authority (NEMA) Coastal, Marine and
Freshwaters, P.O. Box 67839 Mombasa
UNEP/GPA
254 207625722
UN-Habitat
+254 20 762 3143
[email protected]
UNEP/GPA
254 20762025
[email protected]
UNEP/FMEB/CRU
UNEP/GPA
254 207624013
254 207625187
[email protected]
[email protected]
UNEP
UNEP/GPA
254 20 7624782
254 207624793
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Kenya
Secretariat
Ms.
Lamizana
Birguy
Programme Officer
UNEP/GPA
Kenya
Mexico
UN/IGO
Private
Ms
Ms.
Goverse
Reveles
Gonzalez
Tessa
Maria Barbara
Programme Officer
Project Manager
[email protected]
[email protected]
Mexico
Private
Ms.
Romero Paredes
Rubio
Arturo
Director
UNEP
254 207623469
New Technologies for Ecotourism,
52 1 988 1050177
Avenida Zamna antes calle 39 entre 42
y 44 altos, Izamal, Yucatan, Mexico
97540
Escoturismo y Nuevas Tecnologias
52 55 58162704
S.A. De C.
Monaco
Netherlands
UN/IGO
NGO
Mr.
Mr
Osborn
Dagevos
David
Jan
Resource person
Ms
Westerbos
Maria
Netherlands
Govt
Ms.
Busschbach
Hermien
Senior Policy Advisor
Netherlands
Academia
Erisman
Jan-Willem
Director
New Zealand
NGO
Mr.
Judd
Sam
Co Founder & CEO
Norway
Panama
Panama
Govt
Govt
Johan
Jorge
Arelys Leydiana
Specialist Director
Mr.
Ms
Willems
Illueca
Fuentes Castillo
IAEA
North Sea Foundation, Drieharingstraat
25, Utrecht, 3511Bh
Plastic Soup Foundation,
Oudebrugssteeg 1113, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Ministry of Infrastructure and the
Environment, P.O. Box 20901, 2500
EX,
Louis Bolk Institute
523 8
The Sustainable Coastlines Charitable
Trust, Level 1, 54 Upper Queen Street,
Eden Terrace, Auckland 1010
COFI
[email protected]
Netherlands
Director
Project Leader Marine
Litter
Resource Person
Panama
Portugal
Secretariat
Academia
Mr
Ms.
Laguna
Sobral
Alejandro
Maria Paula
Information Officer
Professor
Puerto Rico
Academia
Ms.
Ramírez Colón
Cristina Isabel
Graduate Student
Saint Lucia
UN/IGO
Ms.
Aquing
Patricia
Manager
Saint Lucia
NGO
Ms.
Sutton
Mary Beth
Executive Director
Laboratorista de
Calidad Ambiental
Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente,
Edificio
804, Albrook. Panamá, Rep. de Panamá
UNEP/ROLAC
IMAR - Institute for Marine Research,
Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Campus
da Caparica, 2829-516 Caparica
Urb. Sabanero del Rio calle Tulipanes
No. 419
CEHI/CARPHA, Environmental
Management
Unit, The Morne 1111 Castries, St.
Lucia
Caribbean SEA Student Environmental
Alliance, Carilec Box CP 5907 Desir
Avenue, Sans Souci, Castries, Saint
Lucia
254 207624163
+377 97 97 72 01
31 0 30 234 0016
birguy,[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
31 6524 75455
[email protected]
+31 (0)34364 21 058 9349
[email protected]
0047 9002 4446
[email protected]
[email protected]
351 2948500 ext
10106
[email protected]
[email protected]
787 341 4103
758-452-2501
[email protected]
758 726 1973
[email protected]
Saint Lucia
Saint Lucia
Govt
Ms.
Mr.
Arlene Bushell
Alexander
Deborah
Lavina
Samoa
IGO
Mr.
Carruthers
Tim
South Africa
Industry
Mr.
Kieser
John
Spain
Resource person
Mr.
Sancho
Francesc-Hernández
St. Lucia
UN/IGO
Mr.
Cox
St. Vincent & theGovt
Grenadines
Mr.
Suriname
Switzerland
Media
Resource person
Switzerland
Resource person
Switzerland
Resource person
Thailand
Secretariat
Togo
Sustainable Development Sustainable Development and
1-758-451-8746
and Environment Officer Environment Division, Coastal Zone
Management Unit, Caribbean Cinemas
Complex, Choc Estate, Castries, Saint
Lucia West Indies
[email protected]
Francesc.Hernandez.uv.es
Coastal and Marine
Adviser
Environmental
Manager
Secretariat of the Pacific Regional
+685 21929 ext
Environment Programme
264
Plastics SA, Sustainability P.O. Box
27-21-591-5512
1137, Sun
Valley, 7985, South Africa, Cape Town
University of Valencia
[email protected]; [email protected]
Christopher
Programme
Manager/Technical
Coordinator
Caribbean Public Health Agency
Lockhart
Andrew
Superintendent
National Parks Rivers and Beaches
784 453 1623
Authority, Marine and Terrestrial Parks
Vishmohanie
Alabaster
Thomas
Graham
Journalist
Times of Suriname
Chief Waste Management &UN-Habitat
Sanitation
[email protected]
Mr
Mr
Ouedraogo
Paul
Ramsar Convention
[email protected]
Cisse
Gueladio
Senior Advisor for
Africa
Research Leader
[email protected]
Mr.
Tamelander
Jerker
Programme Offices
Swiss Tropical & Public Health
Institute
UNEP/FMEB/CRU
Academia
Mr.
Adjoussi
Pessiezoum
Doctor-Lecture & Researcher
University of Lome
228 90 142176
[email protected]
Trinidad and
Tobago
Govt
Mr.
Banjoo
Darryl
Principal Research
Officer
Institute of Marine Affairs
1-868-634-4291
[email protected]
UK
UK
United
Kingdom
United
Kingdom
NGO
NGO
Resource person
Ms.
Ms.
Dr.
Toole
Bass
Sutton
Joanna
Claire
Mark
Oceans Campain Coor
Oceans Campaign Lea
WSPA
44 0 207 239 059
WSPA
44 207 239 0585
Natural Environment Research Council +44 (0) 131 445 8
[email protected]
[email protected]
UN/IGO
Mr
Haag
Fredrik
Technical Officer
IMO
[email protected]
758 452 2501
[email protected];
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
United
Kingdom
NGO
Ms
Kinsey
Sue
Senior Pollution
Policy Officer
Marine Conservation Society, Pollution 44 0 1989 561 58
Programme, Unit 3, Wolf Business
Park, Alton Road, Herefordshire
United
Kingdom
UN/IGO
Ms.
Thomas
Hannah
Senior Programme
Officer
Programme
- World Conservation Monitoring
Centre
United
Kingdom
United
Kingdom
United
Kingdom
United
Kingdom
Private
Mr.
Johnson
David
Resource
Person
Mr.
Kershaw
Peter
GESAMP
[email protected]
Mr.
Ntifo
Steve
Jacobs UK
[email protected]
UN/IGO
Ms.
Cox
Tanya
PROJECT OFFICER,
MARINE PLASTICS
USA
Resource person
Dr.
Biddle
Mike
President
USA
NGO
Mr
Wilson
Stephen
USA
NGO
Mr.
Pacarro
Kahi
USA
USA
USA
UN/IGO
Govt
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Rochlin
Ameri
Filippelli
Steve
Michele
Gabriel
USA
NGO/Resource
Ms
Russo
Daniella
USA
UN/IGO
Ms.
Franc
Emily
Ms.
Krushelnytska
Olha
Mr.
Ms.
Severin
Budziak
Christian
Ania
USA
USA
USA
NGO
[email protected]
FAUNA & FLORA
INTERNATIONAL (FFI)
+441223 431 982
[email protected]
Waste Free Oceans Americas and
Founder, MBA Polymers, Inc, 610
Castle Rock Road, Walnut Creek, CA
94598
Policy and Communication The
Director
5 Gyres Institute 3131 Olympic
Blvd. Monica CA 90404
1 510 701 7516
1 5039137381
[email protected]
Executive Director
1 808 221 2678
[email protected]
Legal Officer
Senior Science
Advisor
Sustainable Coastlines Hawaii, 3409
Sierra
Drive 96816, Honolulu
DOALOS
U.S. Department of State
1 917 367 3085
001-202-647-023
[email protected]
[email protected]
Plastic Pollution Coalition
Research and Grant
Officer
The Ocean Foundation
12028878992
World Bank
Associate Director,
Science & Policy
GEF
Project AWARE Foundation, 30151
Tomas suite 200 6288, Rancho Santa
Margarita, USA
[email protected]
[email protected]
949 267 1221
[email protected]
[email protected]
USA
UN/IGO
Ms.
Friedrich
Carla
Associate Programme
Officer
USA
Academia
Ms.
Bohnsack
Karen
NOAA Coral Reef
Management Fellow
USA
NGO
Brown
Randy
Executive Director
[email protected]
USA
Resource person
Diaz
Robert
Clean Islands International, Inc 8219
1-410-647-2500
Elvaton
Drive, Pasadena, Maryland USA 21122
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
USA
Academia
Ms.
Nicholson
Lia
Master’s Student
Yale University
203 909-3202
[email protected]
USA
Private
Mr.
Dungan
Michael
Director of Sales and
Marketing
RES Polyflow
133 02535912
[email protected]
USA
USA
USA
USA
Private
Private
Resource person
NGO
Murray
Christman
Roberts
Sonnenschein
Michael
Keith
Terry
Leonard
Managing Director
President
President
1 202 249 6610
[email protected]
[email protected]
JANGINA AGILYX.COM
USA
Resource person
Mr
Sims
Tom
Professor of Soil & En
USA
USA
USA
USA
Vietnam
Private
Mr.
Mr.
Ms
Angin
Nygard
Hogan
Kristensen
Chu Hoi
Johnathan
Jostein
Elizabeth
Peter
Nguyen
Vice President
American Chemistry Council, Plastics
Division
International
Plant Nutrition Institute
World Aquariam and Conservation for
the
Oceans Foundation, 701 North 15th
Street,
2nd floor Saint
Louis, Missouri
University
of Delaware,
College63103
of
Agriculture & Natural Resources, 531
South College Avenue, 113 Townsend
Hall, 19716
NewarkCorporation
Delaware
Agilyx
World Bank
World Society for the Protection of
Animals,
O
World
Bank
Vietnam National University (VNU)
Yemen
Govt
Al-Turaik
Nadhem
Environmental Protection Authority
EPA, Zubairy Street, Sana,a
9671297817
NGO
Mr
Academia
Mr.
Campaigns Manager
Assoc. Prof. Dr.
Senior Researcher and
Lecturer
UNEP/RONA 900 17th St NW, Suite
506,
20006 Washington D.C
Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, Coral Reef Conservation
Program
1 202 621 5038
1 305 795 1204
[email protected]
1-314-647-7874
302 463 0728
[email protected]
15039065246
1 202 374 7068
844-3558-3305 or
840936186366
[email protected]
UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME
PROGRAMME DES NATIONS UNIES POUR L'ENVIRONNEMENT
PROGRAMA DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS PARA EL MEDIO AMBIENTE
Second Global Conference on Land-Ocean Connections
2-4 October 2013, Montego Bay, Jamaica
Welcome to the Second Global Conference on Land-Ocean Connections
The Second Global Conference on Land-Ocean Connections (GLOC-2) is a three-day gathering of scientists, experts,
policy makers and NGOs who will make recommendations towards the implementation of the Manila Declaration on
Furthering the Implementation of the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from
Land-based Activities (GPA) 1 . This conference will explore current and emerging environmental management
challenges that result from land-based activities, with a priority focus on the management of marine litter,
wastewater and nutrients, as well as identifying possible solutions and the associated opportunities that exist in
managing these issues at global, regional and national levels.
Conference Objectives:
The objective of this conference is to identify approaches to address current and emerging issues in the marine and
coastal sector with a focus on the three priority source categories of the Global Programme of Action for the
Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities for 2012-2016, namely marine litter, nutrients and
wastewater. The overall purpose of Conference is to emphasize the interconnectedness of activities on land and how
they impact on the oceans, with a focus on pollution prevention, reduction and control, while proposing ways to
address these impacts through international and, as appropriate, regional cooperation.
Specific objectives:
 To identify possible policy pathways at the national level for the implementation of the GPA, including
Integrated Coastal Management, other relevant national policies etc;
 To update on progress with implementation of the GPA Manila Declaration
 To showcase contribution of Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans to the implementation of the GPA
Manila Declaration
 To serve as a Partnership Forum for the three Global Partnerships on marine litter, nutrients and wastewater
The conference will provide sound science-based and objective recommendations for the three Global Partnerships
on Marine Litter, Nutrients and Wastewater respectively. The GLOC is structured around the priority themes of the
GPA: water quality (nutrients and wastewater) and marine litter (solid waste management), at regional, national and
sub-national levels.
Expected Outcomes
 Agreement on measurable targets for selected source categories and regions;
 Identification of voluntary commitments to be proposed to relevant sectors (target setting within various
areas)
 Commitment of new partners (preferably non-traditional)
 Identification of priority activities for each partnership to be implemented at global, regional and national
levels
 Additional support and resources mobilized for the three global partnerships under the GPA
1
The Manila Declaration on Furthering the Implementation of the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marie Environment from Land-based
Activities was adopted by the Third Intergovernmental Review Meeting of the GPA (IGR-3 25-26 January 2012). Under the Manila Declaration, signatories
reaffirmed their commitment to develop policies to reduce and control wastewater, marine litter and pollution from fertilizers. The Declaration contains a total of
16 provisions focusing on actions to be taken between 2012 and 2016 at international, regional and local levels the implementation of the GPA, which is hosted
by UNEP. The GPA - the only global initiative directly addressing the connectivity between terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine ecosystems - targets major
threats to the health, productivity and biodiversity of the marine and coastal environment which result from human activities on land.
1
Provisional Agenda
Second Global Conference on Land-Ocean Connections (GLOC-2)
Wednesday
2 October
Day 1 of Conference: Rose Hall Ballroom
Opening of Conference: Ms. Jacqueline Alder, Coordinator, Freshwater and Marine Ecosystems Branch,
UNEP
Prayer: Rev. Clement Clarke, New Testament Church of God, Montego Bay
Welcome: His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Glendon Harris
Item 1:
09:00-09:45
Opening Remarks: Mrs. Elizabeth Maruma - Mrema, Officer in Charge and Deputy Director, Division of
Environmental Policy Implementation, UNEP
Keynote Address: Honourable Robert Pickersgill, Minister of Land, Water, Environment & Climate
Change, Government of Jamaica
Closing Remarks: Ms. Jacqueline Alder, Coordinator, Freshwater and Marine Ecosystems Branch, UNEP
Organization of the Conference2
Item 2:
09:45-10:00
Item 3:
10:00-10:30
10:30-11:00
2
Jacqueline Alder, Coordinator, Freshwater and Marine Ecosystems Branch, UNEP
Manila Declaration – Progress to date since the Third Review Meeting on the Implementation of the
Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities (GPA)
at the international, regional and national levels.
Vincent Sweeney, Coordinator, Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment
from Land-based Activities (GPA)
Coffee Break
Plenary discussions in English and Spanish only. All documentation is issued in English only.
2
Item 4:
11:00-12:30
Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans – a platform for implementation of the GPA
The 18 Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans (RSCAPs) fulfill an important role in implementing
the international agenda on marine and coastal issues and are key for the implementation of the GPA at a
regional and national level. In bringing together governments, the scientific community, intergovernmental organizations, and other stakeholders, the various RSCAPs provide valuable regional
frameworks for:
i)
assessing the state of the marine environment;
ii)
addressing key developments that interact with the marine environment; and
iii)
agreeing on appropriate responses in terms of strategies, policies, management tools and
protocols.
This session will look at the impact that the RSCAPs have had to date, and what role they can play with
regard to the global partnerships under the GPA.
Mr. Jorge E. Illueca, Former Assistant Executive Director of UNEP and Director of UNEP’s Division of
Environmental Conventions.
Dr. Tim Carruthers, Coastal and Marine Adviser, Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment
Programme
Lunch
Side-event: Rippling the Plastic Disclosure Project out to your Regional Sea, community, region,
and country (13.00-14.00, Rose Hall Ballroom)
12:30-14:00
Come learn how you can bring about change in your communities that reduces plastic and marine litter
at the source. This seminar will introduce you to the Plastic Disclosure Project, how it helps companies,
institutions, events and others become more sustainable in their use of plastic. You will then be able to
promote this programme in your areas, contributing directly to the goals and objectives of Rio+20,
Honolulu Strategy, Manila Declaration and the GPA.
Partnerships – trends and approaches on global, regional and national scale and
operationalization of the same
To instigate and develop initial thoughts, a moderated plenary discussion will focus on engagement of
stakeholders and the role and possible responsibilities of various groups including civil society, the
private sector, individuals and media.
Item 5:
14:00-15:30
Mrs. Elizabeth Maruma - Mrema, Officer in Charge and Deputy Director, Division of Environmental Policy
Implementation, UNEP
Mr. Steve Rochlin, co-CEO, IO Sustainability
Mr. Stanley Rampair, Global Water Partnership
Mr. Christian Severin, Secretariat, The Global Environment Facility
Mr. Peter J. Kristensen, Global Partnership for Oceans, World Bank
15:30-16:00
Coffee Break
3
The contribution of marine and coastal ecosystems to sustainable development
Item 6:
16:00-17:00
The session is aimed at discussing policy pathways for a transition towards a Green Economy for Oceans
in key ocean-based sectors and the macroeconomic reforms to facilitate the enabling conditions. One
specific item for discussion is the contribution of natural capital by coastal and marine ecosystem
services, particularly the climate related services of productive coastal ecosystems (blue carbon), into a
Green Economy transition. The session will be focused on specific examples of re-direction of sector
policy reforms in the island and coastal states and incorporation of blue carbon in national policies.
Possible policy pathways for transition to Green Economy for Oceans: Ms. Jacqueline Alder, Coordinator,
FMEB, UNEP
National Blue carbon policy development: Mr. Andreas Hutahaean, Head-Research Group on Blue
Carbon, Research Centre for Coastal and Marine Resources, Indonesia
Structured discussion
Priority areas: nutrients, wastewater and marine litter – where are we?
Jan Willem Erisman, Director Louis Bolk Institute (Nutrients)
Item 7:
17:00-18:00
Steven Ntifo, Jacobs Engineering UK (Wastewater)
Peter Kershaw, Vice-Chairperson, The Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine
Environmental Protection (Marine Litter)
“Meet & Greet” & Poster session
Side-event: Caribbean Environment Programme Visual Feast - Take a peep into the Deep
(19.00-20.00, Rose Hall Ballroom)
18:00-21:00
Reality cannot be captured in one single image or description; imagery sometimes tells the real story.
CEP’s story is of the Caribbean Sea - the life force of the Caribbean People, which is threatened by a
diverse set of issues including pollution from activities on land, which affects our precious marine
ecosystems.
The Wider Caribbean Region is gravely threatened by the effects of marine litter, improper wastewater
disposal and agrochemical run off, including fertilizers, into the Caribbean Sea, but this sad reality is
hidden when one sees the predominant images of white sandy beaches and crystal clear waters. Take a
Peep into the Deep is an insightful montage of images and videos that showcases damage being done to
our beloved Caribbean Sea and the accomplishments of CEP and its member states in protecting this
much valued and shared resource from the effects of pollution.
4
Thursday
3 October
Day 2 of Conference
Item 8:
08.30-18.00
Parallel sessions for nutrients, wastewater, marine litter and coral reefs (separate agendas)
18.00-19.00
Speed presentations: nutrients, wastewater and marine litter & GPA
19.30-21.00
”Jamaica night” Reception (hosted by Government of Jamaica)
Friday
4 October
Item 9:
09:00-09:15
Day 3 of Conference (Rose Hall Ballroom)
Recap: Conclusions and recommendations from 2nd Day’s work.
The power of partnerships: Awareness & Outreach (Moderator: Dr. Mike Biddle)
Ms. Maria Westerbos, Plastic Soup Foundation/Mr. Andrew Russell, Plastic Disclosure Project
Item 10:
09:15-10:30
Professor Mark Sutton, Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (CEH)/ International Nitrogen Assessment
Mrs. Patricia Aquing, Integrating Watershed and Coastal Areas Management (IWCAM) in the Small Island
Development States (SIDS) of the Caribbean
10:30-11:00
Coffee Break
Institutional financing mechanisms and opportunities at global, regional and national levels
(Moderator: Mr. Gérard Bonnis)
Plenary to discuss institutional financing mechanisms and opportunities
Item 11:
11:00-12:00
Global: Mr. Christian Severin, The Global Environment Facility (GEF); Mr. Peter Kristensen, Global
Partnership for Oceans
Regional levels: Ms. Denise Forrest, Caribbean Regional Fund for Wastewater Management, (GEF-CReW)
Item 12:
12:00-12:45
Item 13:
12:45-13:00
Draft elements for a report from the Conference: UNEP
Reflections on recommendations
Closing of the Conference: Chair & UNEP
5
Lunch
13:00-14:00
Global
Partnership
Forums
14:00-18:00
Side-event: Beat the microbead (13.15-14.00)
Global partnership discussions (Separate agendas):
 Global Partnership on Nutrient Management
 Global Partnership on Marine Litter
 Global Wastewater Initiative
 Coral Reef Partnership Forum
Target Audience: Government policy makers, Scientists, NGOs, Regional Institutions, National Institutions, Local
government, Private sector.
6
SPEED PRESENTATION
GROUP 1 (Marine Litter)
NO.
COUNTRY
NAME
TITLE
Bermuda
1.
Gregory Hunt
Origin of Bermuda's Marine Litter External verses External
Greece
2.
Ms. Maria
Tsakona
Waste Atlas: Mapping Marine Litter
New
3.
Zealand
Sam Judd
United
4.
Kingdom
Ms. Sue Kinsey
Spreading sustainable solutions: tackling marine debris and
nutrient loss using open-sourced tools
Can six different environmental NGOs work together towards
one goal?
NOWPAP
5.
Alexander Tkalin
NOWPAP efforts against marine litter
Portugal
6.
Maria Paula Sobral Marine litter in Portugal: towards co-responsibility
USA
7.
Mr. Kahi Pacarro
Solving Plastic with Plastic: Leveraging Corporate
Partnerships
Jamaica
8.
Chrishane
Williams
An Solid Waste Management Challenge for the Wider
Caribbean Region
Netherlands
9.
Maria Westerbos
Beat the microbead campaign
Israel
10.
Mr. Rani Amir
Marine Litter – The Israeli Perspective
DOMINICAN
11.
DR toward a 3R Culture
REPUBLIC
Ms. Ginny
Heinsen
CPPS
12.
Hector Soldi
Marine Litter in the Southeast Pacific Region
GROUP 2 (Wastewater & Generic GPA)
NO.
COUNTRY
NAME
TITLE
1. 5
Jamaica
.
Christopher
Corbin
Domestic Wastewater Management in the Wider Caribbean Challenges and Opportunities
2. 6Canada
Mr. Cabral Larc
Trotman/ Jessica
Jaja
Reclaiming paget farm: A participatory documentary film and
restoration initiative.
3. 9USA
Mr. Thomas J.
Goreau
4. 1
0AUSTRALIA
Mr. Richard
Kenchington
5. Cuba
Carmen Cristina
Terry Berro
6. 1
SAINT LUCIA
2
Dr. Christopher
Cox
7. Jamaica
Denise Forrest
Jamaica coral reef eutrophication: past, present, & future
CORAL REEFS AND EBM
CUBAN STRATEGY TO REDUCE THE IMPACT OF
POLLUTING SOURCES ON COASTAL AND MARINE
RESOURCES
OVERVIEW OF THE INTEGRATING WATER, LAND AND
ECOSYSTEMS MANAGEMENT (IWECO) IN CARIBBEAN SIDS
PROJECT
CReW project, financing mechanisms, policy and regulation
GROUP 3 (Nutrients & Generic)
NO.
1.
2.
COUNTRY
NAME
TITLE
Sri Lanka
Anura Jayatilake
Protection of the South Asian Seas
Ms. Sanya
Compton
Understanding the perceived communication structure of
coastal resources management in small island developing
states of the Eastern Caribbean: case study- St. Vincent and the
Grenadines
USA
3.
Egypt
4. 4
. Monaco
5. .
USA
6. 7
. USA
Makram Gerges
Strategies to Reduce/ Eliminate Marine Environmental
Degradation from Land-Based Activities in the Egyptian Red
Sea Waters through National Plan of Action
David Osborn
Land Ocean Connections and the IAEA
Mr. Michele
Ameri
Overview of the provisions of UNCLOS relevant to the
protection and preservation of the marine environment from
pollution from land-based sources and the ongoing work of the
General Assembly and its subsidiary bodies in this regard.
Ms. Lia
Nicholson
Connecting the dots: understanding caribbean-regional
knowledge and capacity for action in conservation
7.
Vietnam
Nguyen Chu Hoi
ICM approach in management of marine pollution from landbased source: A lesson learnt from Vietnam
8.
Canada
Ms. Hanneke
Van Lavieren
Strengthening Coastal Pollution Management in the
Caribbean: focus on persistent organic pollutants (POPs)
9.
Haiti
Maximilian
Pardo
Haiti: The waves of change
Media Workshop: Second Global Conference on Land-Ocean Connections
The Media Workshop organized on the sidelines of the Second Global Conference on Land-Ocean Connections (GLOC-2)
sought to provide media professionals with relevant information, tools and data related to the effects of and possible solutions
to marine pollution.
The workshop was organized by UNEP in coordination with the Jamaican Government. The UNEP Newsdesk and UNEP-GPA
organized the workshop with the support of Winsome Christie, Director of Communications at the Ministry of Housing,
Environment, Water and Local Government of the Government of Jamaica. The event was coordinated by Heidi Savelli
(UNEP-GPA) and facilitated by Alejandro Laguna, Information Officer of UNEP’s Regional Office for Latin America and the
Caribbean.
Following a selection process based on the applications received by UNEP, 13 media professionals working for print and
electronic media, news agencies and television in 8 different countries were sponsored to participate.
Apart from providing relevant information related to marine pollution, the workshop was designed to allow journalists to engage
in discussions with experts in different fields, and to hold interviews that could support their articles.
The media professionals attended the GLOC-2 Opening Ceremony, and immediately afterwards they were invited to a media
briefing which was presided over by the Honourable Ian Hayles, Minister of State in the Ministry of Water, Land, Environment
and Climate Change, who was accompanied by a number of high-level government officials and UNEP Programme Officer
Christopher Corbin.
The media briefing was followed by a session with one-on-one interviews. The agenda then focused on three themed sessions
with a wide array of experts. The session on “nutrients” was chaired by Anjan Datta, UNEP-GPA’s Coordinator of the Global
Partnership of Nutrient Management; the session on “wastewater” was chaired by Idrissa Doucure, from Water and Sanitation
for Africa; finally, the session on marine litter was chaired by Heidi Savelli, UNEP-GPA Programme Officer.
The second day of the workshop started with a session on the value of ecosystems. Jerker Tamelander, head of the UNEP
Coral Reef Unit, delivered a presentation on Coastal Ecosytems Services and Values, followed by a presentation by Loureen
Jones-Smith, a marine expert from NEPA, who focused on different studies conducted in Jamaica, mainly on the services
provided by coral reefs.
Field trip
The first stop of the field trip was a visit to the Montego Bay Marine Park. The visit was coordinated by Hugh Shim, Executive
Director of the Montego Bay Marine Park Trust. After attending a presentation on the challenges and achievements of the
Marine Park, the workshop participants took a tour in a glass-bottom boat in order to witness the effects of marine litter on
some areas of the park.
The media professionals also had the opportunity to visit the Rose Hall wastewater treatment plant, where they interviewed
Cynthia Scott, the manager of Rose Hall Development. This plant collects the sewage water of some hotels in Montego Bay,
treats it, and later resells it to the same hotels so they can irrigate their golf courses. The Rose Hall plant can treat 1.25M
gallons of sewage water per day.
One of the issues that triggered a significant discussion during the workshop was the possibility of using treated sewage water
for agricultural purposes. During the workshop, the Permanent Secretary in the Jamaican Ministry of Agriculture, Donovan
Stanberry, had announced that the ministry was planning to recycle treated effluent from the Soapberry Treatment Plant to
irrigate sugar cane fields.
The field trip concluded with a brief visit to two tourist attractions: Dolphin Cove and the Dunn’s River Falls.
The workshop came to an end that evening with a final session analyzing the outcome of the event. The journalists expressed
their satisfaction with the dynamics of the workshop, because it allowed them to listen to a series of thematic presentations
while allowing them to engage in enriching discussions with experts and recording many interviews that they could later use
for their articles. They suggested the organization of further such workshops in the future.
2nd Global Conference on Land-Ocean Connections (GLOC-2)
Montego Bay, 2-4 October 2013
Opening Statement
By Elizabeth Maruma Mrema
Officer-in-Charge and Deputy Director, UNEP-DEPI
Honourable Robert Pickersgills, Minister of Water, Land, Environment & Climate
Change, Government of Jamaica; His Worship, Councillor Glendon Harris, the
Mayor of Montego Bay; Reverand Clement Clarke (New Testament Church of
God, Montego Bay)
Excellencies, Distinguished Colleagues, Ladies and Gentlemen
-
On behalf of the United Nations Environment Programme, I am delighted to
be here in person and welcome you all to the 2 nd Global Conference on
Land-Ocean Connections.
-
We would like to take this opportunity first of all to extend our appreciation
and thanks to the Government of Jamaica for generously agreeing to host
this event and for its contribution to preparation for this global event which
has brought of us here from different corners of the globe.
-
Under your leadership Honourable Pickersgills and through you to the
Ministry, accept our special thanks for the logistical and financial support.
Our thanks are also sincerely extended to the Governments of Norway, the
Netherlands and the United States, amongst other for recognizing the
importance of land-ocean interface and thus providing us with resources for
this meeting.
1 of 9
-
Permit me to already thank in advance, those who will make statements and
share their technical expertise through presentations at this meeting which
will be extremely valuable for our deliberations in the coming days as we
prepare the way forward for the better implementation of the GPA on Land
Based Sources of Marine Pollution program.
-
We also express appreciation to our colleagues, both here, and in Nairobi,
who have been working tirelessly in preparing for this event, and have been
able to remain focused during the final stretch, notwithstanding the crisis we
experienced in Nairobi just a few days ago.
-
I am sure you will agree with me that all these efforts pave the way for
success in our discussions over the coming days.
-
I see this meeting as re-energizing the GPA. My wish is that the momentum
created by this meeting will not only increase the awareness of the GPA
program but will also enable us to mobilize political will necessary for its
operations and implementation.
The First Global Conference on Land-Ocean Connections (GLOC) was held in
Manila, Philippines over a year and a half ago and provided the impetus and
recommendations for the Third Session of the Intergovernmental Review (IGR-3)
on the Implementation of the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of
the Marine Environment from Land-Based Activities (GPA) that immediately
followed. As does this meeting, that event brought together scientists, experts,
policy makers and NGOs to discuss current and emerging issues in the marine
and coastal sector with a focus on GPA related topics. The conference, was
structured around the proposed priority themes for the GPA, namely, water
quality (to include nutrients and wastewater); marine litter, and integrated coastal
zone management at regional, national and sub-national levels. It provided
sound science-based and objective recommendations for the GPA. The meeting
was so successful that together with partners and stakeholders, we decided to
make the GLOC a regular event on the calendar of the GPA.
Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,
Let us all remind ourselves of the context in which we find ourselves convened
today. In terms of economic goods and services, coastal ecosystems contribute
at least 38% of the world’s total GDP - as much as all terrestrial ecosystems.
Open ocean areas alone provide another 25%. This is a substantial contribution
not to be underestimated.
-
It is a common knowledge that the oceans of the world are interlinked and as
such, an action on one side of the ocean can have far-reaching
repercussions on the other side. Therefore, the way we see marine litter
scattered along many beaches across the globe clearly demonstrates the
nature of the impacts we have to deal with under the GPA program for which
we need the concerted efforts of all of us if we are to succeed.
-
In recent years, for instance, we’ve realized how coastal habitats such as
mangrove forests, salt marshes, and seagrass meadows have additional
value due to their important carbon sink capacities. According to UNEP’s
Blue Carbon Report, the improved management and restoration of the
ocean’s blue carbon sinks would contribute significantly to offsetting global
emissions and mitigating climate change.
-
Let us move closer to where we are in Jamaica and its neighborhood islands
which are part of the Small Island Developing States (SIDS), where the value
of the marine environment is far more apparent. As we look out our bedroom
windows here in Montego Bay, we can all see how the marine environment is
the life-blood of the economies of these countries, and thus the reason why
many of us save money for years to experience a piece of this “paradise”. Let
us hope we too will have such a privilege this time while in this city and near
its coast.
With all the economic values attained as a result of land based activities, we also
know unfortunately that a number of those activities are equally a source of great
harm to the world’s oceans and seas. The major causes of damage or harm to
the environment come from excessive nutrients, habitat destruction and
wastewater.
Excessive Nutrients flowing into the sea from land-based activities cause harm to
human health, loss of biodiversity and reduced fishing. Imagine, some 20 million
tons of phosphorous is mined every year and nearly half of it enters the world’s
oceans - 8 times the natural rate of input.
Alteration and destruction of habitats and ecosystems threatens 70% of coral
reefs, of which 27% are at a high risk of degradation.
In the case of sewage, 90% of wastewater in developing countries is estimated to
be discharged untreated, much of it reaching the marine environment.
These are alarming statistics despite the fact that we know the root cause of the
problem.
-
More than 50% of the world’s population is estimated to live within 100
kilometres of the coast, a figure that could rise to 75 per cent by the end of
the current decade.
-
Two thirds of the world’s cities with more than 2.5 million inhabitants are
coastal cities
-
The pressures are particularly acute along the coasts of many developing
countries - where rapid population growth combined with persistent poverty,
is a deadly cocktail. For example, 40% of Africa’s coastline and 70% of its
marine protected areas are under threat from development
-
A number of activities are poorly planned as they take little account of the
cost implication of the development of such coastal environments. For
instance, explosive growth of coastal cities, increases in industrialization,
tourism, development of ports and the expansion of aquaculture all bring
about different impacts.
-
The link between economic growth and protection of rich marine ecosystems
is often ignored - Development sacrifices the environment in an attempt to
create wealth quickly to achieve immediate needs, while forgetting the long
term implications of such development.
What should be our way forward?
-
The marine and coastal environment continues to degrade, particularly in
terms of water quality, physical alteration and destruction of habitats.
There
is therefore, a need for countries and all of us individually and together to
accelerate the implementation of the Global Programme of Action and other
commitments, such as what came out of the Rio+20 Conference in 2012.
Growing pressures on marine and coastal ecosystems require more effective
management approaches, bearing in mind the new challenges of the 21st
century.
-
The future work programme for GPA, as outlined in the Manila Declaration of
2012, will focus on the effective management of nutrients, wastewater and
marine litter and, by so doing, hopefully contribute to improvements in coastal
water quality. These substances should be viewed, not only as pollutants but
also as important resources, vital for our economies and for sustainable
development.
-
To take these issues forward effectively, global multi-stakeholder partnership
approaches are necessary for nutrients, wastewater and marine litter,
bringing Governments together with key industrial sectors, major groups,
scientists and other stakeholders around a shared agenda.
-
We in UNEP, within our meager resources, will be ready to leverage
complementary mechanisms, such as, ecosystem services valuation, to help
quantify trade-offs like improvements in water quality versus health and
economic growth. The Global Programme of Action, as an inter-governmental
platform, should therefore be used to promote and accelerate marine and
coastal management approaches.
What have we therefore done to bring about the desired changes?
We begun way back in 1995 with the adoption of the GPA. Years later in 2012,
the adoption of the Manila Declaration reinforced the need for a GPA and
refocused its work.
Although more needs to be done, a lot of progress has been made. For
-
instance:
-
National Programmes of Action (NPAs) in over 70 countries have been
developed and helped identify problems and remedial action.
-
Over seven Land Based Pollution Protocols have been adopted under the
regional seas conventions in the Caribbean, Mediterranean, Eastern and
Western Africa regions, to mention but some.
-
A number of countries have mainstreamed marine and coastal issues into
wider development planning, including implementing legal and institutional
reforms.
-
Some countries have significantly increased their funds and spending to
address GPA-related issues.
-
Many countries have developed integrated coastal zone management
policies and plans which help to better value the contribution of marine and
coastal ecosystems to livelihoods and development.
We can therefore give a pat on our backs and congratulate ourselves for all
these efforts put in place.
-
Nonetheless, they are not enough. Hence let us all build on the
achievements and successes and do more and better.
-
I therefore urge all participants to fully engage in the coming days to take
stock, discuss obstacles and agree on a way forward. We must use this
conference to formulate recommendations upon which we will act to put in
place solutions to the problems, which continue to flow into and around the
world’s oceans.
For this meeting, I hope that we can agree on the mechanisms which need to be
established to bring Governments, industrial sectors, scientists and other
stakeholders together around shared agendas. One way to do this is by the
operationalization of multi-stakeholder partnerships with a view to producing
tangible results, nationally and globally, in reducing the impacts of land based
pollution.
Excellencies,Ladies and Gentlemen,
Our successes will depend on:
-
Taking responsibility - All stakeholders must recognize that they have roles
to play and that they have to shoulder their responsibilities.
-
Funding – which is required to solve existing problems and avoid problems
in the future. Investment should be made by a variety of stakeholders, not
only by governments, but by the private sector and development agencies.
-
Partnerships between all stakeholders are extremely valuable. This can be
seen in the establishment of the Global Partnership for Nutrient
Management. Similar progress must be seen in future development of
partnerships addressing marine litter, wastewater and coral reefs.
-
Cooperation and Coherent Action – governments’ efforts and those of the
other sectors should not and cannot function in isolation – they must be
linked to other on-going processes, such as international initiatives, including
those of the GPA and processes such as the Post-2015 Development
Agenda.
-
The results of our deliberations here should feed into other processes
on related matters, in particular the GEF International Waters Conference and
the Caribbean Water & Wastewater Association Conference, both being held
in the Caribbean later this month. Other related conferences, such as the
Budapest Water meeting, the International Oceans Conference and the World
Marine Protected Area Congress, provide opportunities to keep the
momentum going from this GLOC. Let us use them effectively.
-
For us in UNEP, our Executive Director is fully committed to the
implementation of the Global Progamme of Action over the coming years. The
COST of delaying implementation is too high.
-
I commend us all to the task ahead; simply put, we cannot afford to fail. We
must have a positive and action-oriented outcome from this meeting.
-
Your support is vital to the success of this conference. I urge you to give of
your best and I look forward to a successful conference and future
collaboration with you all.
Thank you for your attention and listening on the important matters which brought
us here to deliberate upon.
Address
by
The Hon. Robert Pickersgill
Minister of Water, Land, Environment and Climate Change
at the
2nd Global Conference on Land-Ocean Connections (GLOC-2)
Hilton Rose Hall Hotel, October 2, 2013
Mayor of Montego Bay, His Worship Glendon Harris, Ms.
Elizabeth Mrema, Officer in Charge and Deputy Director of the
United
Nation
Environment
Programme‟s
Division
of
Environmental Policy Impementation (DEPI), my colleague
Ministers, Excellencies, Distinguished Delegates, Ladies and
Gentlemen
On behalf of the Government and people of Jamaica, let me extend
a warm welcome to you to our island and to this important 2 nd
Global Conference on Land-Ocean Connections.
1
(HM to choose one of these sayings)
 It was the Roman Philosopher Cicero, who said..”Brevity
is a great praise of eloquence”,….
 It is said that “Good things, when short, are twice as
good”….
 It was the late great Orator and Prime Minister of England,
Sir Winston Churchill who said… “A good speech should
be like a woman's skirt: long enough to cover the subject
and short enough to create interest”…..
 It is said that "A good speech should be like a comet:
Dazzling, eye-opening and over before you know it"….
…and so I will keep my remarks this morning brief.
Ladies and gentlemen, distinguished delegates and guests, it is
indeed an honour for the Government of Jamaica to host this
Conference under the theme „Building Partnerships’.
In this regard, the Government would like to express its
appreciation to the UNEP for its kind support on this occasion.
2
We would also like to take this opportunity to request that Ms.
Mrema communicate to the Executive Director of the UNEP,
Jamaica‟s appreciation for the work that the UNEP has been
undertaking, particularly through its Regional Coordinating Unit,
in support of our efforts to address land-ocean issues
Indeed, this
is an example of a successful working partnership.
Historically, the approach to protect the environment has separated
terrestrial and marine ecosystems. However, there is a growing
recognition by many stakeholders, including scientists, that the
terrestrial and marine ecosystems are intimately connected. Hence,
any approach to successfully manage our environment must
recognize and take into account the strong, yet complex, link
between activities on land, including land use and planning, and
the marine and coastal environments. It is the complex nature of
this relationship which makes the theme “Building Bridges
through Partnerships”, for this Conference appropriate and
relevant.
I would like to highlight the three Global Partnerships established
under the Global Programme of Action on marine litter, nutrients
and wastewater.
3
The importance of partnerships in the achievement of sustainable
development cannot be discounted. While we continue to nurture
and enhance existing partnership arrangements on land-ocean
issues, we welcome new and innovative partnerships between and
among governments, the private sector, the inter-governmental,
non-governmental
and
scientific
communities
and
most
importantly the people.
As American Industrialist Henry Ford said, “Coming together is a
beginning; keeping together is progress; working together is
success”.
There is greater need for networking and the sharing of
experiences at all levels, so that countries and indeed communities
can learn from each other in identifying and applying best practices
which are applicable to their own situations. Indeed, one of the key
objectives of this Conference is to serve as a Partnership Forum for
three Global Partnerships.
In fact, the word TEAM in both its original form, and as an
acronym, has the same meaning and indeed, Together, Everyone
Achieves More.
4
Ladies and gentlemen, as you are aware, the United Nations has
designated 2014 as the „International Year of Small Island
Developing States‟.
The 3rd International Conference on Small Island Developing
States will be held in Samoa in September 2014 under the
proposed theme of “The sustainable development of Small Island
Developing States through genuine and durable partnerships”.
Indeed, the Bridgetown Outcome document recognizes that a
shared common vision among Small Island Developing States can
only be realized through “….inclusive dialogue anchored
……and empowered partnerships based on mutual trust,
equality, respect and accountability.”
The document further highlighted the fact that the economic
foundation of many SIDs is ocean-based. The health of our coastal
and marine environments is therefore paramount in ensuring food
security and in ensuring, where possible, increased employment
opportunities in key ocean-based sectors such as tourism and
fisheries.
Hence, pollution from land-based activities can have
detrimental effects on the economic growth and development of
these States.
5
There is therefore, an urgent need to strengthen the existing
regional instruments that relate to land-based sources of pollution
and institute such agreements where none exist.
In this regard, let me take this opportunity to inform you that a
Submission will be sent to the Cabinet in the coming weeks
relating to Jamaica‟s accession to the Protocol Concerning
Pollution from Land-based Sources and Activities (the LBS
Protocol), under the Cartagena Convention for the Protection and
Development of the Marine Environment in the Wider Caribbean
Region.
Jamaica‟s accession to the LBS Protocol is now being
contemplated, based on the fact that Wastewater and Sludge
Regulations have now been promulgated under our principal
environmental legislation. These Regulations came into effect in
April of this year, and they address sewage and trade effluent,
industrial and sewage sludge, and they also provide the regulatory
means to manage wastewater releases from human activities in
Jamaica.
The regulations will allow for the provisions of the LBS Protocol
to be effectively implemented at the national level.
6
We look forward to sharing additional information on these
Regulations with you during the Conference.
The Government of Jamaica has demonstrated its recognition of
land-ocean connections and the need to address these impacts,
through “Ridge-to-Reef” activities undertaken across the island,
including the recently concluded “Drivers River Watershed
project”, which was supported by the UNEP, in conjunction
with our principal environmental management agency, the
National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA), and
other stakeholders.
Meaningful interventions have been achieved under that Project,
most importantly the paradigm shifts that have been created and
the strong partnerships that have been forged. Community
members have been empowered to sustainably manage their
watershed and coastal zones. As a result of these activities, the
Driver‟s River Watershed is now visibly cleaner. The communities
have identified the solutions necessary to improve the watershed
and have become key players in the implementation of these
solutions.
7
This Project was an excellent example of a genuine and sustained
partnership involving twenty organizations, fourteen communities
and NGOs with the support of the UNEP to address the major
issues that have plagued the Drivers River Watershed.
This Conference will therefore complement the earlier work
carried out, and will provide an opportunity for Jamaica to
showcase its experiences.
Another success story involving land-ocean issues is the
rehabilitation of the Kingston Harbour, which is one of the largest
well protected natural harbours in the world.
The Kingston Harbour is located on the southeastern coast of
Jamaica and borders Kingston, the capital city. It is the country's
major port.
The Harbour is a valuable resource for the people of Jamaica, and
provides port and airport facilities. It is also home to hundreds of
industrial and commercial enterprises and hundreds of thousands
of Jamaicans have made their homes in the area. Direct uses of the
Harbour include fishing, recreation and transportation.
8
Indirect uses include coastal protection of mangroves and waste
assimilation as well as economic production. The present day value
of the Kingston Harbour has been estimated to be US$510.31
million per annum.
However, the rich biodiversity of the Harbour is threatened by
pollution, in part from the discharge of trade effluent and sewage
from facilities in the Kingston Metropolitan Region.
Trade
effluent accounts for between 24% and 44% of the organic
pollution in Kingston Harbour while sewage contributes between
29% and 53%.
Based on the deterioration of the water quality of the Harbour, it
was essential that the Government took the necessary steps to
arrest or reverse the damage caused by pollution from land-based
activities. These measures required a reduction in the quantity of
untreated sewage, trade effluent and industrial sludge that was
discharged, thereby contaminating water basins.
Therefore in
2009, the National Environment and Planning Agency commenced
a Kingston Harbour Environmental Management Programme.
9
The aim of this programme was to identify facilities with effluent
discharges or operational practices that could have a negative
impact on the Kingston Harbour, and to bring all facilities,
inclusive of public and private sector entities, which are potential
or actual polluters of the Kingston Harbour into compliance with
the requisite environmental regulations, standards and guidelines.
Overall, significant progress is being made in achieving the
objectives of the Programme. To date, fifty six per cent (56%) of
the companies that border the Harbour are now in full compliance
with the regulatory requirements while another twenty six percent
(26%) of these facilities is at an advanced stage of being
compliant.
The improvement in the water quality of the Harbour, has been
aided significantly by the commissioning in 2008, of the Soapberry
Wastewater
Treatment
Plant,
which
serves
the
Kingston
Metropolitan Area. The plant has the capacity to treat of 18 million
gallons or 75 thousand cubic meters of wastewater per day. It is
currently treating approximately 13 million gallons or just over
49,210 cubic meters of wastewater per day.
The Soapberry
Wastewater Treatment Plant is a major plank in the expansion of
sewerage services for the city of Kingston.
10
Ladies and gentlemen, at the regional level, the Government was
pleased to participate in the Summit of Caribbean Political and
Business Leaders under the Caribbean Challenge Initiative (CCI)
in the Bahamas in May 2013.
Under the CCI, regional governments have committed to, inter
alia, conserve at least 20% of their near shore marine and coastal
environments in national marine protected areas systems by the
year 2020. The CCI is a true example of a multi-stakeholder
partnership involving regional governments, Chief Executive
Officers and the private sector working collaboratively to manage
and protect the Caribbean region‟s marine and coastal resources.
Colleagues, I have shared with you a snapshot of the activities
being undertaken in Jamaica and the region on land-ocean
connected issues. As we work towards achieving the Vision 2030
National Development Goal of making “Jamaica, the place of
choice to live, work, raise families and do business”, I look
forward to sharing our experiences, knowledge and best practices
with you, and to hearing from you, the initiatives that are being
undertaken by your respective governments and organizations
which will redound to the benefit of us all.
11
I hope that through our deliberations during these three days we
will see the further strengthening of existing Partnerships as well
as the development of new and innovative partnerships that are
inter-regional and multi-sectoral in character, that will address the
land-ocean issues that affect us all.
I wish for you a productive Conference. Once again, welcome to
Jamaica and I do hope you will find some time to enjoy our
beautiful island.
12
Manila Declaration – Progress Report
October 2013
GPA Coordination Office
1
What is the Manila Declaration?
The Manila Declaration is an outcome of the Third
Intergovernmental Review meeting of the GPA,
January 2012.
• Represents views of 65 Governments and the
European Commission, International Financial
Institutions, IGOs, the private sector, NGOs,
other stakeholders and major groups
• Supports and serves
as
the
principal
guiding
UNEP/GEF WIO-LaB Project
2
document for the future work of the GPA
The Manila Declaration “recalls”, “recognizes”,
“acknowledges”, “stresses”, and “notes” many
things:
• Recognizes our dependency on the oceans
• Recognizes our vulnerability (e.g. CC-related
disasters; ocean acidification etc.)
• Recognizes threats to marine biodiversity
3
The Manila Declaration “recalls”, “recognizes”,
“acknowledges”, “stresses”, and “notes” many
things:
• Recognizes lack of capacity in S&T
• Recognizes the value of RSCAPs, GEF, IFIs etc.
• Recognizes importance of improved water
quality
4
The Manila Declaration (most importantly for the
GPA) “recognizes” and/or “acknowledges”:
Eutrophication
and oxygen
depletion caused
by excess nutrients
5

Sewage &
wastewater,
inter-alia, take a
severe toll on
health, wellbeing and
coastal and
marine
ecosystems
6

The global
problem of
marine litter, and
threats to
coastal habitats
& species
7

The importance of
multi-stakeholder
partnerships
8
The Manila Declaration also however “DECIDED”
on future actions, for which GPA and others were
expected to respond. These include:

To develop
guidance
strategies and
policies on the
sustainable use
of nutrients
9
To find innovative
solutions and
initiatives to
address marine litter
 To establish Global
Partnership on
Marine Litter (GPML)

10
To support further
development of a
Global Partnership on
Wastewater
 To share information,
technologies etc.

11

To provide technical and policy guidance to
the GPA during the inter-sessional period,
as necessary – (GLOC-2, 3 & 4?????)
12
UNEP’s response, through the GPA
1. Catalyze change – collaborate with partners to
leverage resources for national action in Nutrients,
Wastewater, and Marine litter;
2. Take advantage of existing mechanisms– make
the case for mainstreaming the GPA within
Regional Seas Programmes (administered by
UNEP);
3. Assess, monitor and report on innovative & bestpractice approaches that protect the marine
environment from land-based activities; and
4. Raise awareness and reach out – raise the profile
13
of the GPA
…….Achieved through:
National Action
Regional Cooperation
International Cooperation
(underpinned by the development of
Partnerships for implementation)
GPA Response

Establishment of Global Partnerships
1. Nutrient Management
2. Wastewater (Sewage)
3. Marine Litter
GPA Focal Areas, 2012-16

– Provide technical support/prepare
guidance documents
– Develop demonstrations/pilots
– Mobilize resources for the work of
partnerships
– Add value as a forum
Nutrients
Primarily Nitrogen &
Phosphorus
 Fertilizers
 Detergents
Impacts:
 Eutrophication
 Hypoxia “(Dead
Zones”)

Global Footprints of nutrient pollution
MacDonald et al.
PNAS 2011
Hypoxic Zones
GPA Response:

Nutrients
– Further develop GPNM
– Aim to promote improved nutrient
use efficiency
– Develop nutrient uptake efficiency
management strategies
– Knowledge generation (e.g. global
nutrient cycles)
Action on Nutrients:
– Published Global Overview: “Our
Nutrient World - The challenge to
produce more food and energy with
less pollution”
– Promoted issues at Rio+20, WWW
CBD CoP, UNEP Governing
Council, Global Nutrient
Management Conference,
European Parliament, & GEF STAP
Action on Nutrients:
– Launched GEF project on Global
Nutrients Cycle
– Prepared GEF PIF on Nitrogen
– Initiated pilot projects in Lake
Chilika and Manila Bay
– Began compilation of BMP
– Engaged in partnerships:
• BOBLME
• FAO
• Dutch Nutrient Platform
23
Wastewater management….a big challenge
Sewerage systems
are lacking, underdimensioned or
decayed
Up to 90 % of all wastewater in developing countries is
discharged untreated directly into rivers, lakes or the oceans
Loss of Biodiversity
Loss of shoreline protection
Loss of blue carbon sinks
Loss of food security
Action on Wastewater/Sewage:
– Co-Chairing UN-Water TF on WW
– Facilitating efforts to develop targets
and indicators for WW to feed into
possible SDG Goal for Water
• Technical brief (Johnstone Report)
• Consultations on Post-2015 Wastewater & Water
Quality Target-setting and Monitoring
– Face-to-face, July 2013, Nairobi
– On-line consultations
– Facilitated training (in Safe Reuse of
wastewater for agriculture)
Action on Wastewater/Sewage:
– Global Wastewater Initiative (GWI)
announced, May 2013
– “Founding” Members: UN-Habitat;
ADB; USEPA; WSA; IAEA; FAO;
UEMOA; UNDP; UNIDO; CBD; Ramsar;
STPHI; WECF; UNU-INWEH; private
companies (Jacobs UK); etc.
GPA Focal Areas & Impacts
Marine Litter
 ‘any persistent, manufactured or processed
solid material discarded, disposed of or
abandoned in the marine and coastal
environment’
 Found on shores, in water column & on
seafloor
 Land-based – waste from dumpsites,
recreational activities, fishing, ship yards
 Sea-based – ALDFG; shipping activities
“plastic debris continues to kill
marine life, and pollution from
land is creating areas of coastal
waters that are almost devoid of
oxygen” Ban Ki Moon,
International Day for Biological
Diversity, May 22, 2012
Platform for invasive species
Affects recreational use of waters

Marine Litter/Debris
– Reduce litter influx to coastal areas
• Improvement of land-based solid waste
management
• Improved standards/regulations
• Demonstration projects
– Implement Honolulu Strategy
• Identify innovative solutions
• Create on-line forum
Actions on Marine Litter

Launch GPML
• Formal event at Rio+20
• Further in regions (e.g. Europe, Africa)
• ToR for GPML drafted
– Engage partners
• Regional Seas Programmes (NOWPAP; CEP;
MED; CPPS etc)
– Mobilize resources
– Norway
– Netherlands
– Develop demonstration projects
Actions on Marine Litter
Implement Honolulu Strategy
 Outreach
• Animal Entanglement Symposium
• North American ML workshop
• Media Roundtable during 27th UNEP GC
– Focus on role of business
• Engage plastics industry and
chemical associations
• Support “plastics disclosure”
• “Beat the micro-bead” campaign
Home Page
Projects
The Final Word…….Ban Ki Moon,
May 2012
“Rio+20 must galvanize action
to improve the management
and conservation of oceans
through initiatives by the United
Nations, governments and other
partners to ……reduce ocean
pollution…..,”
THANK YOU!
Presented by:
Vincent Sweeney
GPA Coordinator
DEPI, UNEP
[email protected]
WWW.GPA.UNEP.ORG
Wastewater Session Agenda, October 3rd 2013
Subject
Global Wastewater Initiative: global challenges, key
issues and some responses; and developing the future
agenda for joint actions
Run Dates
3 October 2013
Wastewater is a global concern and has a direct impact on our water resources, the
biological diversity of aquatic ecosystems, disrupting the fundamental integrity of our life
support systems, on which a wide range of sectors from urban development to food
production and industry depend. But, despite the magnitude of wastewater challenges,
most politicians and policy makers, both at global and local levels, give low priority to the
provision of sustainable wastewater management. A major driving force to stimulate
effective wastewater management is the realisation that wastewater is a resource, and
not just a noxious material to be hidden out of sight and out of mind.
Background
Wastewater, when properly managed, is a huge source of water (even the strongest
domestic sewage is over 99% water), of nutrients which could supply much of fertilizer
normally required for crop production. Wastewater sludge can also be used on
agricultural land as soil conditioner and fertilizer, to manufacture construction materials,
and to generate biogas, biofuel, electricity, heat and in gas to grid systems. However,
when poorly managed, wastewater can lead to eutrophication, dead zones, loss of
ecosystem services and of economic opportunities. It affects climate change as
wastewater-related emissions of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) are more
harmful than CO2.
There are many potential benefits of wastewater (and its sludge), although these are not
necessarily known everywhere nor are they universally realized. On the contrary, there is
a common perception that managing wastewater is a waste of energy and money. This
session will examine the nature of global wastewater challenge and more importantly,
explore adequate responses and joint actions for a better wastewater management.
Chair/Facilitator
Dr. Graham Alabaster and Dr. Jacqueline Alder
Location
Attendees:
Objectives
Key questions
Expected
recommendations
from the discussion
Time: Start
08:30
Time: End
18:00
Representatives of governments, River basin organization, Private sector, Research
institute, Scientific community, NGOs and UN agencies.
To raise awareness on the need to better manage wastewater
To get voluntary commitments from stakeholders and build a strong GWI
To provide guidance for the GWI partnership forum in terms of priority activities
What are the major wastewater challenges at global and regional levels?
What can be done to reverse the trends?
What are the opportunities for better management and cooperation?
Increased awareness on wastewater issues; established a strong wastewater partnership
Wastewater and Agreed activities to feed into GWI workplan
Organization partners
GWI Partners: ADB, AfDB, CBD,FAO, GEF, Ramsar Convention, UEMOA, UNDP, UN-DESA,
US-EPA,WECF,WSA, and others
Structure for discussion
Presentations and panel discussions
Program Outline
Duration
Topic
08.30-13.00
Lead/Chair/Facilitator/Speaker
Session A-Setting the scene: The Global challenge, key issues for the future and some responsesChair: Graham Alabaster, UN-Habitat & Co-chair of UN- Water TF on Wastewater
08:30- 08:45
Introduction to the session
Dr. Graham Alabaster, UN-Water
8:45 – 09:15
Wastewater, global issue, trends and impacts
Dr Manzoor Qadir, UN-INWEH
09:15 - 9:45
Shortcutting the trends, responses and opportunities
Mr Pireh Otieno, UN-Habitat
9:45 - 10:30
Integrating wastewater in the global development agenda(Target setting and indicators setting), plus discussion
Dr Gerard Bonnis, OECD
10:30 –11:00
11:00 –13:00
Coffee
–
Panel discussion: on Session A- The Global challenge,
key issues for the future and some responses
–
Questions to be considered:
o What is the status from regions?
o What can we do to reverse the trends?
o What opportunities are there to upscale?
o Is the proposed global response adequate &
appropriate?
Wrap- up of the session- recommendations by the Chair
13:00– 14:00
14:00– 18:00
14:00– 14:10
Dr Sasha Koo-Oshima (US-EPA)
Dr Abdou Guero (NBA)
Dr Idrissa Doucoure (WSA)
Mr Chris Corbin (GEF-CreW)
Dr Manzoor Qadir (UN-INWEH)
Ms Mary Beth Sutton (Caribbean SEA and
TenneSEA)
Lunch
Session B: Developing the future agenda for joint actions to promote sustainable WW management.
Chair Dr Jacqueline Alder
Introduction to the session: Key strategies for sustainable
Dr Jacqueline Alder
wastewater management
14:10– 14:40
Wastewater re-use: opportunities, risks and challenges
14:40– 15:10
Reducing pressure on freshwater, pollution and wastewater
discharge
15:10– 15:30
Wastewater and Sludge Regulation 2013: Example of Jamaica
15:30– 16:00
Panelists to include Representatives from
Development Banks, UN-agencies, IGO
Dr Gueladio Cisse , Swiss Tropical & Public
Health Institute
Mr. Steve Ntifo, Jacobs-UK
Ms Paulette Kolbusch, NEPA
Coffee
16:00-16:30
Economic valuation of wastewater as an incentive for
sustainable wastewater management
Dr Francesc Hernández-Sancho, Consultant
16:30-17:00
The Global Wastewater Initiative (GWI) as a response-
Dr Birguy Lamizana, UNEP/GPA
17:00– 18:00
Panel discussion: Framing the next steps: Key strategies and
actions for sustainable wastewater management
o What could be the GWI role and added value?
o How to organize the partnership for effective delivery?
o What actions on the ground can be undertaken?
o What policy analysis and reforms are needed to shortcut
trends?
Wrap- up of the session: recommendations by the Chair
Panelists include Representatives from River
Basin organizations, Private sector, Research
institutes,
–
–
–
–
–
Dr Gueladio Cisse (Swiss Tropical &
Public Health Institute),
Dr Paul Ouedraogo (Ramsar
Convention),
Mr Steve Ntifo (Jacobs),
Dr Bistra Mihaylova (WECF),
Ms Olha Krushelnytska (GPO)
GPNM Session Agenda
Subject
Background
Sustainable nutrient management: global challenges,
regional priorities and perspectives; and developing
Run Dates
3 October 2013
the future agenda for joint actions
Nutrients - nitrogen and phosphorous are key to growing crops and thus to the world’s food security.
However, in some parts of the world farmers do not have access to enough nutrients to grow crops and
feed the growing populations, while in many other parts of the world there is an ‘excess’ of them in the
environment as a result of industrial and agricultural activity and this has profound impacts, from pollution
of water supplies, creation of dead zones to the undermining of important ecosystems and the services
and livelihoods they support.
The result is a seeming divide between societal needs for food and energy and a complex web of adverse
environmental impacts, which undermine the natural resource base and the services and livelihoods it
provides. This divide – ‘the nutrient challenge’- is set to intensify, to the cost of countries, as population,
urbanization and food and energy demands increase.
If the nutrient challenge is to be met, it will be important to improve nutrient use efficiency and availability
of nutrients in the areas of overall shortage (e.g., in Africa) in order to meet the global target of food
security.
This session will examine the nature of the global challenge and how to meet the challenge of greater
nutrient use efficiency in the food production systems in various regions of the world, as both too little or
too much of nutrients have impacts on food security, human wellbeing and the environment.
Chair/Facilitator
/Moderator
Dr. Greg Crosby and Prof. Mark Sutton
Location
Attendees:
Objective
Key questions
Expected
recommendatio
ns from the
discussion
Organization
partners
Structure for
discussion
Time: Start
08:30
Time: End
18:00
Representatives of governments, industry, science community, NGOs and UN agencies.
To facilitate consensus building among the various stakeholders on the nature and scale of the nutrient
management challenges from a global and regional perspective.
To seek to distill the nature of the nutrient challenge and answering clearly why should anyone care, how
has the problem got worse, what is already being done, and what still needs to be done.
It is argued that if the world is going to learn to manage its nutrients better, then the world's citizens need
to be motivated to make it happen. This session aims among others to frame the key messages for
steering actions by various stakeholders to promote sustainable nutrient management in the context of
food security and environmental sustainability.
GPNM Partners:
Governments of the USA, Netherlands and India
Agencies: INI, IFDC, IPNI, IFA, FAO, CDA, ING, NCSCM and others
Duration
08:30- 08:45
8:45 – 09:15
09:15 - 09:45
09:45– 10:00
10:00 - 12:00
10:00– 10:20
10:20- 10:40
10:40 –11:00
11:00– 11:20
11:20-11:40
11:40-12:10
Program Outline
Topic
Session I: Global challenges, regional priorities and perspectives - Chair Dr. Greg Crosby
Dr. Greg Crosby
US Department of Agriculture
Nutrient Management Challenges and Policy Issues: global overview Prof. Mark Sutton
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, UK
International Nitrogen Initiative
The Coast and Oceans – home of the excess Nutrients!
Prof. Robert Diaz
Prof. Emeritus, Virginia Institute of Marine Science
USA
Questions, Answers and Discussion
Regional Perspectives (15 minutes presentation followed by Q&A)
Nutrient management challenges in Latin America
Dr. Luiz R G Guilherme
Universidade Federal de Lavras, Brazil.
Nutrient management challenges in Africa
Dr. Cargele Masso
International Institute for Tropical Agriculture,
Central Africa Hub, Kenya
Coffee
Nutrient management challenges in Asia
Dr. N. Raghuram
Indian Nitrogen Group/Society for Conservation of
Nature, India
Nutrient management challenges in the Caribbean
Dr. Thomas J. Goreau
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance
The next two presentations are on solutions
12:40 -13:00
Dr. Terry Roberts
International Plant Nutrition Institute, USA
Improving nutrient management in livestock production systems
Prof. Tom Sims
University of Delaware, USA
Questions, Answers, Discussion and Synthesis
13:00– 14:00
Lunch Break
13:00– 13:30
14:00– 18:00
Side event: Ecosystem Health Report Card of Chilika Lake India
Session 2: Developing the future agenda for joint actions to promote sustainable management of nutrients.
Moderator Prof. Mark Sutton
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology UK/International Nitrogen Initiative
Developing a collaborative agenda for sustainable nutrient
Dr. Anjan Datta
management
GPNM Secretariat
12:10– 12:40
14:00 –14:20
Improving nutrient management in agriculture. Industry Perspective
14:20– 14:40
Opportunities for nutrient (nitrogen) management within the CBD
14:40-15:00
Addressing the human impacts on the nitrogen and phosphorus
cycles – an OECD perspective.
15:00-15:30
Addressing the nutrient challenge – where we are and what needs
to be revisited and/or strengthened further.
Coffee
Panel discussion: Framing the next steps “Integrated approach to
nutrient management”: key actions (policy analysis, policy reform,
defining nutrient performance indicator and nutrient use efficiency,
strengthening of partnership, supporting on the ground
interventions) and actors.
Each Panel members will be requested to share their thoughts on
“Integrated approach to nutrient management” for 3 minutes, and
give 5 key action points: “what needs to be done, what are the
crucial levers to facilitate actions, what experiences can you share
15:30-16:00
16:00– 17:45
Dr. David Coates
Convention of Biological Diversity Secretariat
Montreal, Canada
Dr. Gérard Bonnis
Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development, Paris
Prof. Jan Willem Erisman
Louis Bolk Institute, The Netherlands
OECD (Dr. Gérard Bonnis), Governments of the US
(Dr. Sasha Koo-Oshima and Dr. Greg Crosby),
Netherlands (Ms. Hermien Busschbach), CBD (Dr.
David Coates), India (Dr. Ajit Pattnaik) IPNI (Dr.
Terry Roberts)
17:45-18:00
to demonstrate that they worked, and if not what did not work and
why.
Synthesis and key conclusions
Prof. Mark Sutton
Short video show
Nutrient Runoff - Two Minutes on Oceans with Jim Toomey
Day 3: 14:00 to 18:00 hours:
Agenda 1:
GPNM Partnership Forum/Steering Committee Meeting
In the light of deliberations on Day 2 and also taking into account the discussions/decisions of
GPNM Washington meeting (May 2013) the session will deliberate on
What new knowledge, technologies and policy options are needed to ensure that future Nutrient use is
sustainable, improves food security and environmental quality and provides benefits to the poor?
What target should we set for our action, what indicators we should use to assess progress and what actions we
should pursue through GPNM to initiate change and/or improve nutrient use efficiency?
o
o
o
o
Policy development, policy advocacy and support policy reform/development
Development of toolbox to support policy choices and investment decisions
Defining nutrient performance indicator and nutrient use efficiency
Strengthening of partnership
Agenda 2:
New GEF project
Marine Litter Session Agenda
Subject
Marine Litter – breakout day
Run Dates
3 October 2013
Time: Start
8.30 AM
Time: End
18.00 PM
Background
Facilitator/M
oderator
Proposed:
 David Johnson (independent/private
sector)
 Doug Woodring (NGO)
(Government)
 Peter Kershaw, GESAMP (Academia TBD)
 David Osborn (Agency IAEA)
Location
Attendees:
Objective
Key
questions
Expected
recommendat
ions from the
discussion
Organization
partners
Structure for
discussion
Multi-stakeholder audience
To discuss baseline setting, potential (proxy) indicators and targets for ML reduction (#163 Rio
+20)
To get voluntary commitments from stakeholders (industry in particular)
To provide guidance for the GPML partnership forum in terms of priority activities
To share solutions
From Rio+20 to ‘significant reduction of marine litter’ by 2025 – what are essential steps to take
us there? Where should we start, what roles can different stakeholders play and how do we
measure progress?
 Baselines
 Target setting
 Priority Actors
 Priority Steps
Collaborative programme to feed into GPML workplan
FAO, IMO, GPML partners
Presentations and panel discussions. An intro to the ML challenge would already have been given
in plenary the day before.
Parallel session Marine Litter – 3 October 8.30 – 18.00
Duration
Topic
Lead
8.30-10.30
Setting the scene
Moderator: David Johnson
8.30-8.40
Introduction
GPA
8.40-8.50
Land-based Sources: Challenges and solutions
8.50-9.20
Sea-based Sources: Challenges and solutions
 Ship based
 Abandoned, Lost and Discarded Fishing Gear
(ALDFG)
Fredrik Haag, International Maritime Organization
Francis Chopin, Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations
9.20-9.30
Recovery: Challenges and solutions (food for thought)
Mike Biddle, Waste Free Ocean Americas
9.30-10.30
Baseline initiatives & Proxy Indicators (10-15 min)
Peter Kershaw, GESAMP
Panel discussion (45 min) - Regional Perspectives & initiatives
 LAC
 Europe
 Asia
 Africa
Academia panels
10.30-11.00
Coffee Break
11.00-13.00
Stakeholder Voices
11.00 – 12.00
12.00-13.00
13.00-14.00
Stakeholder panel: Priorities – what is feasible in a Rio +20
commitment context
 Industry (Fishing, plastics, cosmetics) – reduction of
lost gear/redesign/phase out)
 Government – timelines and targets/commitments
Stakeholder panel: Priority Actors – roles & engagement
examples
 Community groups
 Youth
 Citizen involvement
 Art, music, sports
Lunch
Moderator: Doug Woodring
Steve Rochlin, co-CEO, IO Sustainability
Maria Tsakona, D-Waste
John Kieser, Plastic SA
Rikki Gunn, Ghostnets Australia
Suzanne Stanley, Jamaica Environment Trust,
Daniella Russo, Plastic Pollution Coalition
Marcos Diaz, Deputy Minister of Sports, Schools
and Universities, DR
Parallel session Marine Litter – 3 October 8.30 – 18.00
Duration
14.00-15.30
14.00-14.10
14.10 – 14.20
Topic
Developing an agenda
Developing a regional marine litter action plan with measurable
targets and timelines.
National level activity – the Netherlands
Lead
Moderator:
Maria-Luisa Silva, Mediterranean Action Plan
Hermien Busschbach, Netherlands
14.20 – 14.30
14.30 -15.30
Global activity (campaign e.g. WSPA)
15.30-16.00
Coffee Break
16.00-18.00
The way forward
Regional nodes
Moderator: David Osborn, IAEA
16.00-16.10
16.10-16.20
National networks
Nancy Wallace, NOAA
16.20-16.30
Crosscutting networks
Eva Barretto, Local Garbage
16.30-17.40
Panel discussion: Priority activities for consideration of the GPML
NGO, government, PS
Mike Biddle, WFO Americas
5 Gyres/
17.40-18.00
Summary
Claire Bass, WSPA
Ocean Recovery Alliance and plastics to oil companies
 Keith Christman, Managing Director of Plastic Markets,
American Chemistry Council Overview of waste and
litter prevention strategies and the evolution of energy
recovery technologies
 Agilyx--Learn how plastics-to-oil technology can
empower communities by creating local jobs,
improving the environment, and turning non-recycled,
used plastics into a new and valuable commodity that
can increase a region’s energy independence. PTO
technologies, such as that deployed by Agilyx, can
convert the sorts of mixed waste plastics found in
marine debris into a local energy resource. These
technologies are available to industrial and municipal
waste managers who are focused on higher and better
use of resources, while meeting challenging
environmental standards.
 RES Polyflow--Mixed polymer and rubber wastes
represent the most robust source of energy present in
the waste stream today, and these resources are
completely wasted if sent to landfill, or worse, wind up
as marine litter. Hear how plastics-to-oil (or pyrolysis)
technologies can economically and efficiently convert
these otherwise landfill-destined wasted into fuels or
energy with minimal pre-sorting or handling.
 Michael Murray, Cynar Plc –TEXT FORTHCOMING
Hector Huerta, CPPS
GPML PARTNERSHIP FORUM 4 October, 14.00-18.00
Duration
Topic
Relevant documentation
14.00-15.00
Formal Establishment of partnership
Item 1
Item 2
Item 3
Item 4
Intro Secretariat
Documentation for the partnership – review of:
 Framework document/Roadmap
Establishment of Steering Committee
Establishment of Advisory committee
15.00-18.00
Draft Workplan 2014-2016
Steering Committee Chair
Item 5
GPML Draft Workplan 2014-16 & Budget needs
 LBS
 SBS
 Recovery, Emerging Issues (TBD)
Collaboration with relevant initiatives e.g.
 Global Partnership on Oceans
 CBD/Basel Convention/etc.
 Brazil, Germany, Portuguese initiatives
 Plastics Industry Joint Declaration
Priority areas beyond 2016
Other business
Closing of Meeting
Draft Workplans from Secretariat & focal area leads
Item 6
Item 7
Item 8
Item 9
Moderator:
Draft documents
Open for nominations
2-pagers of relevant initiatives and brief
presentations
Coffee break @ 15.30-16.00
UNEP-Regional Seas Coral Reef Partnership Workshop
Agenda
Venue:
Second Global Conference on Land-Ocean Connections (GLOC-2)
Time:
Thursday 3 October, 11:00-18:00, Media Room (‘Mount Salem’ room)
Friday 4 October, 14:00-18:00, ‘Trelawny Room’
Background:
The urgency in addressing the downward trajectory of the world’s coral reefs is reflected
in Aichi Biodiversity Target 10, Paragraph 176 of The Future We Want, the SecretaryGeneral’s Oceans Compact and the International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI) Call to
Action and Framework for Action. The Regional Seas Strategic Directions 2013-2016,
adopted in 2012, include effectively applying an ecosystem approach in the
management of the marine and coastal environment, strengthened efforts to address
common objectives, and coordinated regional implementation of relevant global and
regional initiatives, such as ICRI. To this end, UNEP and Regional Seas committed to
collaboration through a global coral reef partnership (strategic direction 6). In taking this
forward UNEP has developed draft partnership Terms of Reference and an initial
biennial Work Programme, through consultation with Regional Seas programmes, the
ICRI Secretariat and a range of organizations and governments. A Workshop is
organized during GLOC-2.
Purpose and outputs:
The purpose of the Workshop is to provide information on partnership development to
date, seek broader collaboration in the partnership, discuss and provide input towards
defining partnership structure and thematic priorities; and provide guidance on further
development of the partnership.
Outputs of the sessions will include:




Document describing partnership structure, main themes and operational modalities,
reflecting recommendations from the session;
Confirmed elements for a work programme 2014-15, including identification of
priority activities;
Indication of participation in and contributions towards activities by participating
organizations;
Guidance to UNEP e.g. on matters related to development of the partnership
business plan; partnership visual identity, communication, etc.
Documents:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Agenda;
Background/information document;
Brief synthesis of consultation with Regional Seas Programmes;
Partnership draft Terms of Reference;
Partnership draft Work Programme 2014-15.
Workshop Agenda Thursday 3 October
Time
Agenda Item
Presenter/Moderator
11:00
Opening, Introductory Remarks
J. Tamelander
Introduction of participants
Review of session agenda, objectives, documents
The coral reef crisis: current trends, international obligations
and targets
R. Kenchington
Regional needs and priorities: overview of findings from
consultation with Regional Seas programmes
R. Kenchington
Partnership overview: origins, development process,
partnership structure and themes
J. Tamelander
13:00
LUNCH
14:00
Moderated discussion to seek further/broader input on
priorities, needs and activities.
Theme 1: Management for Resilient Coral Reefs;
Theme 2: Sustaining coral reef ecosystem services,
businesses and livelihoods;
Theme 3: Data and information for coral reef policy
15:30
BREAK
16:00
…Moderated discussion continued
Identifying existing resources, tools or guidelines that can be
adapted and applied through the partnership;
Statements by workshop participants;
Overview of UNEP marine and coastal EBM initiatives;
Partnership governance arrangements and implementation
modalities.
Synthesis of discussion and inputs for session Friday 4
October
18:00
CLOSE
R. Kenchington
Workshop Agenda, Friday 4 October
Time
Agenda Item
Presenter/Moderator
14:00
Opening and Introductory Remarks
J. Tamelander
Introduction of participants
Overview of agenda
J. Tamelander
Reporting from Workshop on Thursday 3 October:
R. Kenchington
Specific recommendations in relation to partnership themes
and activities, presentation of revised work programme;
Institutional partnerships and ongoing efforts towards achieving
partnership objectives;
Recommendations on process for identifying relevant tools and
resources that can be adapted and applied through the
partnership;
Discussion
15:30
BREAK
16:00
… session continues
Partnership Terms of Reference: Specific recommendations in
relation to partnership structure and governance
Synthesis and conclusions:
Amended Work Programme and Terms of Reference
Next steps: Launching the partnership; outreach; other needs
Concluding remarks
18:00
CLOSE
J. Tamelander
Second Global Conference on Land-Ocean
Connections (GLOC-2)
-----0----The Global Wastewater Initiative Session
3rd October 2013
Meeting Report
Hilton Hotel, Montego Bay, Jamaica
October 3, 2013
1. Background and Overview
1.1 Background
Wastewater is a global concern and has a direct impact on our water resources and the
biological diversity of aquatic ecosystems, disrupting the fundamental integrity of our life
support systems, on which a wide range of sectors from urban development to food
production and industry depend. Despite the magnitude of wastewater challenges, most
politicians and policy makers, both at global and local levels, give low priority to the
provision of sustainable wastewater management. A major driving force to stimulate
effective wastewater management is the realisation that wastewater is a resource, and not
just a noxious material to be hidden out of sight and out of mind.
domestic sewage is over 99% water) and nutrients, which could supply much of the fertilizer
normally required for crop production. Wastewater sludge can also be used on agricultural
land as soil conditioner and fertilizer, to manufacture construction materials, and to
generate biogas, biofuel, heat and electricity to grid systems. However, when poorly
managed, wastewater can lead to eutrophication, dead zones, loss of ecosystem services
and of economic opportunities. It affects climate change as wastewater-related emissions of
methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) are more harmful than CO2.
necessarily known everywhere nor are they universally realized. On the contrary, there is a
common perception that managing wastewater is a waste of energy and money.
This session, held during the second day of the Global Land Ocean Connections Conference
(GLOC-2) examined the nature of the global wastewater challenge and more importantly,
explored adequate responses and joint actions for better wastewater management. The
session brought together several wastewater experts, including members of the Global
Wastewater Initiative (GWI).
1.2 Objectives of this Session
The objectives of this Session were (i) to raise awareness on the need to better manage
wastewater, (ii) to get voluntary commitments from stakeholders and build a strong GWI
and; (ii) to provide guidance for the GWI partnership forum in terms of priority activities.
The expected outcomes were: increased awareness on wastewater issues; a strong
wastewater partnership established; and activities agreed to feed into the GWI work plan.
2. Session proceedings and content
The wastewater session, on October 3rd, 2013 had a comprehensive and thorough agenda
(see Appendix 1). A briefing note on key subjects and working documents was circulated in
advance. Following formal introductions, in order to deliver on the objectives, the agenda
combined oral presentations and plenary discussions.
2.1. Session A: Setting the scene: The Global Challenge, key issues for the future
and some responses
a) Presentations and panels discussions
This Session was chaired by Dr. Graham Alabaster, UN-Habitat & Co-Chair of the UN-Water
Task Force (TF) of Wastewater. Dr. Alabaster welcomed all participants and thanked them
for the work in setting up the session. He also, as Co-Chair of the UN-Water TF on
Wastewater, presented the on-going development of targets and indicators for
wastewater/water quality in a draft SDG on Water. He described the UN-Water TF work
within the Sustainable Development Goals process and gave an update on the process so
far, as well as the work ahead for the TF to deliver the indicators and targets for this stream.
Regarding the indicators, Dr. Alabaster stated that possible indicators are the following:
• Increase (in X% as compared to 201X) the volume of treated wastewater that is
directly used for human activities (e.g. agriculture)
• Increase (in X% as compared to 201X) the volume of wastewater that is directly used
for human activities (e.g. Agriculture) in a safe and productive manner
• % of water reused from the total amount of wastewater generated
• River water quality (classification system)
• Establishment and enforcement of regulatory frameworks for water quality
• Quantity of phosphorous and nitrogen discharged into nature
Dr Manzoor Qadir, UN-INWEH, delivered a keynote on Wastewater, global issue, trends and
impacts. He said that the climate is driving the global issues related to water quality and this
is a reality because the higher temperatures and changes in floods and droughts affect
water quality leading to many forms of water pollution. It is also true that wastewaterrelated emissions have a real effect on climate change and that the rising seawater levels
and seawater intrusion affect water quality negatively in coastal areas and the dry areas are
expected to become drier, with implications for aggravating water scarcity.
He emphasized that wastewater management is a big challenge for developing countries
due to a variety of issues, including: lack of proper infrastructure, poor practices in
wastewater re-use (especially in agriculture/irrigation), increasing unplanned development
and urbanisation, shortage of skilled human resources (high need for capacity building), lack
of regulatory frameworks and lack of political buy-in for prioritizing wastewater
management. This is mainly due to inadequate budgetary allocation for maintenance of
existing systems and implementation of new collection and treatment systems. There is a
direct relationship between the income level of a country and the level of wastewater
treatment.
Regarding the global, regional, and national trends for wastewater production, treatment,
and use, he presented a summary of a work done by Sato et al. 2013 on Agricultural Water
Management. The results are based on databases from 181 countries and published and
web-based country level databases and sources such as FAO-AQUASTAT, Eurostat, and
USEPA. The main conclusions are: (i) for the national level data for 181 countries on
wastewater production, treatment, and use, only 30% of countries have complete data; (ii)
only 37% of data available on wastewater in 181 countries is recent data; and (iii) for
wastewater treatment associated with national level economic situation, he concluded that
wastewater treatment is an income generating activity.
Mr Pireh Otieno, UN-Habitat, provided an overview of shortcutting the trends, responses
and opportunities to the global wastewater challenge. Mr Otieno stressed that within the
framework of urbanization trends from 1960 to 2025, the future urban expansion will be in
less developed regions and many cities and towns are growing in coastal zones. Increased
global trend of urbanisation, particularly along coasts, has severe impact on the
environment, due to improper sanitation and treatment of wastewater generated by the
increased population. However, urbanization should not necessarily be viewed as a threat
but as an opportunity and solution to confront human development challenges including
wastewater management, especially in developing countries. A new urban agenda is being
developed to advocate compact and mixed use cities including open spaces, proximity and
connectivity, and land and systems identified for wastewater management facilities.
International efforts on urbanisation have focused on sanitation without linking sanitation
and water provision to wastewater management and all three need to be considered
together, as they are intricately linked. However, wastewater is not wasted water, and we
better start looking at working with it and conversion to usable material. It is indeed an
under-utilized resource, so there is need to move beyond the question of how to remove
waste from homes and workplaces to issues revolving around what to do with it. Focus
should be on wastewater treatment and conversion of waste into energy and useful
products such as fertilizers, briquettes or building materials. Mr Otieno stressed that the
gaps in wastewater management are huge, however, we can reverse the trends if we put
our efforts to meet the following needs:






Global target (or a strong component on wastewater in the water target)
Proper Monitoring system (to track progress)
Increasing political support and understanding of the value of wastewater
management
Supportive policies and institutional frameworks
Appropriate technology
Funding to support wastewater management
Following the presentations, a panel discussion, comprised of Dr. Idrissa Doucoure (WSA),
Mr. Chris Corbin (GEF/CReW), Dr. Manzoor Qadir (UNU-INWEH) and Ms. Mary Beth Sutton
(Caribbean SEA & TenneSEA) covered the following questions:
 What is the status from regions?
 What can we do to reverse the trends?
 What opportunities are there to upscale?
 Is the proposed global response adequate and appropriate?
The comments from panellists and exchanges with the participants allowed to deepen the
questions, explore potential responses and make recommendations.
b)
Conclusions and recommendations


Better wastewater management is required at local, national and international level.
The key to proper management is viewing wastewater not as “waste” but as a
valuable “resource” – for agriculture, energy production, etc. This will influence
policy makers to implement proper collection and treatment systems and develop
and implement a better regulatory framework.








Regions are different
Educate politicians and insert wastewater within the political agenda
Improve communication; use Media
Address the issue of scaling up and ownership
Prepare a resolution on wastewater management to Ramsar Contracting parties for the
next COP 2014
Wastewater must eventually provide sustainable solutions that work in a diversity of
locations and situations around the globe, are energy and cost-efficient, that focus on
re-use and resource recovery, minimize transfers of potentially hazardous constituents
to the environment, mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, and ensure healthy natural
ecosystems.
Proper monitoring system needed; set a global target for discharge standards and the
implementation of proper wastewater management; political support to be increased;
support policies and institutional frameworks and funding
GWI is an adequate and appropriate Global Response
2.2. Session B: Developing the future agenda for joint actions to promote
sustainable wastewater management. Chair: Dr. Jacqueline Alder, UNEP
a) Presentations and panel discussions
Wastewater re-use: opportunities, risks and challenges, by Dr. Gueladio Cisse (Swiss
Tropical & Public Health Institute),
Dr Gueladio Cissé gave a presentation on “Wastewater Reuse: Opportunities, Risks and
Challenges”. He stated that particularly in water stressed areas, integrated water resources
management is needed that involves considering wastewater reuse as an important
opportunity. An approximate estimate of global wastewater production is 1,500 km 3 per day
and recycling of wastewater for peri-urban agriculture already happens in 4 of 5 cities across
the developing world. Wastewater is estimated to directly or indirectly irrigate about 20
million hectares of land globally— almost 7% of total irrigated areas. Wastewater is a
resource rather than a problem.
Dr Gueladio also stressed that the major wastewater related diseases are Diarrhoea,
Typhoid, Schistosomiasis, Ascariasis, Hookworm disease, Lymphatic filariasis, and Hepatitis
A. The vector-borne diseases of relevance to wastewater use are Dengue, Filariasis,
Japanese encephalitis and Malaria. Direct health effects are disease outbreaks (food, water
and vector borne); persistent diseases (e.g. intestinal helminth infections, diarrhoeal
diseases) and non-communicable diseases (e.g. from industrial waste).
Regarding the issue of ecosystems health risks, he also explained that wastewater from
industries is on the rise; and global annual water use by industry is expected to rise from an
estimated 725 km3 in 1995 to about 1,170 km3 by 2025, by which time industrial water
usage will represent 24% of all water abstractions. This will particularly impact on aquatic
ecosystems receiving wastewater from industries.
As challenges, he pointed out that the increasing occurrence of flooding events in a context
of predominant, very simple, traditional excreta disposal facilities (latrines) and traditional
sources of water (like unprotected wells), will threaten water quality and consequently
health. Safe wastewater reuse is therefore a strategic component of the Global Wastewater
Initiative.
Reducing pressure on freshwater, pollution and wastewater discharge, by Mr. Steve Ntifo,
Jacobs-UK
Mr. Steve Ntifo from Jacobs UK Ltd gave a presentation on reducing pressure on freshwater,
pollution and wastewater discharge. He stated that the following issues are pertinent to
address the pressure on freshwater. Mr. Ntifo listed the sources of pollution and types of
wastewaters including Domestic (organic, chemical), Industrial and commercial (chemical,
organic, particulate), Agricultural and Rural Land Use (pesticides, fertiliser, organic), and
Urban and non-agricultural (chemical, road offs, products, animal sources).
He also explained that to reduce pressure on freshwater there is a need to establish
protection zones for freshwater sources (surface water and groundwater), regulate
activities within these freshwater protection zones (e.g. pesticide use, fertiliser use, animal
manure, sewage discharges), mainstream the integrated water quality and water quantity
management within river basins and catchment and set objectives for water quantity and
quality and determine how and when to achieve them.
While presenting some traditional wastewater treatment solutions, Mr. Ntifo clearly
concluded that wastewater and water services should be paid for in a transparent way (to
know costs and revenues of the service – and drive efficiency as required).
Natural Resources Conservation Authority Wastewater and sludge regulations, by Ms.
Paulette Kolbush, NEPA, Jamaica
Ms Paulette Kolbush, NEPA presented the new reform policy on wastewater and sludge
regulations promulgated in 2013 and which are now implemented. The regulations address
management and disposal of wastewater from sewage and industrial sources. It is
revolutionary in the sense that all disposal and operation of facilities are now subject to a
license. The Polluter Pays Principle is incorporated as annual discharge fees are payable
according to type and volume of waste discharge. In addition, environmentally sound reuse
of the waste generated will lead to discounts in the discharge fees.
Economic valuation of wastewater as an incentive for sustainable wastewater
management, by Dr Francesc Hernandez-Sancho, University of Valencia, Consultant
Dr. Francesc Hernandez Sancho, delivered the preliminary outputs from the ongoing study
on the economic valuation of wastewater- cost of action versus cost of non-action. One of
the Millennium goals of UN is to reduce the number of persons without access to safe
drinking water and improve sanitation by 2015. Linked to this goal is the need for
investment in wastewater treatment systems, especially in developing countries, to achieve
objectives. Because of budget issues and the present global economic crisis, national funds
in developing states are insufficient and critical investments are delayed or cancelled.
Wastewater treatment systems are also not seen as critical or important so there is no drive
to implement the systems required. He presented several methodologies which are
available to show that comparing cost of no action (no system) versus action (system in
place) is great and enormously beneficial. He also provided analytical comparison from the
cost of a wastewater treatment system versus total health effects of no action- medical
expenses, decreased productivity, pain and suffering, and premature death. He concluded
by showing concrete examples which illustrate that it is worth investing in wastewater
management.
The Global Wastewater Initiative (GWI) as a response, by Dr Birguy Lamizana, UNEP
Dr Birguy Lamizana, GPA/FMEB, UNEP, gave a presentation on “The Global Wastewater
Initiative GWI- As a Response”. She detailed why there is need for a GWI because first of all
wastewater is a global concern and while poorly managed wastewater it results in loss of
ecosystem services and of economic opportunities and affects climate change because of
wastewater-related emissions of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) are more harmful
than CO2. She stated that the proper management of wastewater makes it a huge source of
water and nutrients for crop production; and wastewater sludge can be used as soil
conditioner, fertilizer or construction materials, and also to generate biogas and biofuel.
Despite these opportunities provided by wastewater there is a common perception that
managing wastewater is a waste of energy and money. She also alluded to the fact that
wastewater is a resource, not a waste.
Dr. Lamizana explained that the GWI is a multi-stakeholder platform which will be
comprised of UN agencies, international organizations, governments, scientists, private
sectors, industries and Major groups and stakeholders to provide the foundations (including
information, tools and policy mechanisms) for partnerships to initiate comprehensive,
effective and sustained programmes addressing wastewater management. This partnership
will be based on a voluntary and multiple stakeholders’ platform to:
• Facilitate cooperation, coordination, and synergy among the different players
• Provide opportunity to work under thematic groups on major issues, challenges and
potentialities of WW such as WW reuse, nutrient removal, biogas production, etc.
• Provide the foundations (including information, tools and policy mechanisms) for
partnerships to initiate comprehensive, effective and sustained programmes
addressing wastewater management
• Encourage new investments in wastewater management
She presented the proposed focus areas (to be agreed upon) and insisted that a Partnership
needed to look at global initiatives – common purpose, common cause and be voluntary. Dr.
Lamizana stressed that the GWI is an evolving structure and so far, 23 members (IGOs, UN
agencies, Development banks, NGOs, Private sector, research Institutes etc.) replied as
formal members. It is planned to establish thematic groups, a Partnership Forum, an
International Steering Committee (to be created on October 4th) and to date UNEP/GPA
serves as Secretariat (provides guidance; reporting; fund-raising; outreach etc.).
Following the presentations, a panel discussion, comprised of Dr. Gueladio Cisse (STPHI), Dr.
Paul Ouedraogo (Ramsar Convention), Mr. Steve Ntifo (Jacobs-UK), Ms. Bistra Milaylova
(WECF) and Mr. Jostein Nygard (GPO) covered the following questions:
 What could be the GWI role and added value?
 How to organise the partnership for effective delivery?
 What actions on the ground can be undertaken?
 What policy analysis and reforms are needed to shortcut trend?
The comments from panellists and exchanges with the participants allowed to deepen the
questions. The participants agreed on some suggestions, commented on various issues
related to wastewater and proposed some recommendations.
b)
Conclusions and recommendations











Global response is required for wastewater as it is a global challenge and poorly
managed wastewater leads to loss of ecosystems and economic opportunities and
contributes to climate change.
Common perception that management of wastewater is a waste of money needs to
be changed through sound science and economic tools.
Key to the management of wastewater is “Reduce, reuse, recycle and recover”
Better management of wastewater should be tackled as a global initiative, as the
impacts are seen globally, but the details should be formulated at a regional level.
Adaptation of wastewater systems to impacts of climate change should be
researched along with cost-effectiveness of the various solutions.
Need to look at point and non-point sources as a whole, although data is lacking,
particularly regarding non-point sources.
All polluters should be held accountable and incentives can be used in addition to
traditional enforcement activities to encourage compliance and good environmental
stewardship.
Providing wastewater as a true service
Create a long term sustainable and profitable wastewater service sector in every
country
Put in place governance and ownership – parliaments to consumers
Economic valuation of the benefits vs. costs of implementing sound wastewater
management systems can be used as a tool to encourage and persuade policy
makers to implement.
GWI could do the following to expand its role and provide added value:









Raise awareness amongst states, NGOs, Public etc.
Promote wastewater resource management and safe re-use
Link research being proposed with governments and national organisations to
make them more useful
Concrete action plans and funding opportunities should be developed and
researched
Safety and security around hotspots where wastewater treatment is an issue
should be initial focus to make work more relevant
Gather information on institutional framework and legislation around the world
to compare and provide information especially related to implications for cross
implementation.
Collate demonstration projects and coordinate and share outcomes of successful
and unsuccessful projects implemented by partners as a learning tool
Promote the reduction of water consumption
Improve business footprint by encouraging development of business models
GWI Partnership should be organised to ensure:
 Comparisons are done of existing alliances with those already in the field to
avoid duplication and to address only gaps.




Clear role and responsibilities of partnership should be stated
Tasks groups, if established, should be for specific issues and members must be
knowledge based e.g. technical, funding, legislation
Link with other global wastewater initiatives to encourage support
Have right organisations on board
Actions on the ground that GWI can undertake:
o Influence wastewater management worldwide as a vision of the GWI
o Produce regularly reports on the state of the world’s wastewater management
systems and their services
o Provide interim evaluation of states implementation of SDG targets
o Regional workshops on burning topics should be organised and linked with other
MEAs. These workshops should include persons from all fields affected by
o Use videos and new publicity formats for presenting new ideas
o Sensitize funders on issues and have phasing of funding to increase chance of
scaling up
o Increase work with local actors to get message across and reach more decision
makers
What policy analysis and reforms are needed to shortcut trends?
o Prepare studies that clearly outline human impact and marine environment
impact
o Impact on marine environment requires more research
o Develop projects that compare costs of the system to reach the goals set in
selected regions and the cost of implementation
o Encapsulate costs analysis in a simple budgetary analysis to convince law makers
to implement change
o Collect information on baseline status of wastewater policies and laws for
countries to be involved including effectiveness of compliance and enforcement
of existing policies and laws.
o Policy sharing among governments required
o Make wastewater management a bigger issue than cost of services
o Use existing conventions to push and encourage wastewater management as a
resolution to COP to encourage countries to implement changes
Appendix 1: Agenda
Wastewater Session Agenda, October 3rd 2013
Subject
Global Wastewater Initiative: global challenges, key
issues and some responses; and developing the
future agenda for joint actions
Run
Dates
3 October 2013
Wastewater is a global concern and has a direct impact on our water resources, the
biological diversity of aquatic ecosystems, disrupting the fundamental integrity of our
life support systems, on which a wide range of sectors from urban development to food
production and industry depend. But, despite the magnitude of wastewater challenges,
most politicians and policy makers, both at global and local levels, give low priority to
the provision of sustainable wastewater management. A major driving force to stimulate
effective wastewater management is the realisation that wastewater is a resource, and
not just a noxious material to be hidden out of sight and out of mind.
Background
Chair/Facilitator
Location
Attendees:
Objectives
Key questions
Expected
recommendations
from the discussion
Organization
partners
Structure for
discussion
domestic sewage is over 99% water), of nutrients which could supply much of fertilizer
normally required for crop production. Wastewater sludge can also be used on
agricultural land as soil conditioner and fertilizer, to manufacture construction
materials, and to generate biogas, biofuel, electricity, heat and in gas to grid systems.
However, when poorly managed, wastewater can lead to eutrophication, dead zones,
loss of ecosystem services and of economic opportunities. It affects climate change as
wastewater-related emissions of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) are more
harmful than CO2.
necessarily known everywhere nor are they universally realized. On the contrary, there
is a common perception that managing wastewater is a waste of energy and money.
This session will examine the nature of global wastewater challenge and more
importantly, explore adequate responses and joint actions for a better wastewater
management.
Time:
Dr. Graham Alabaster and Dr. Jacqueline Alder
08:30
Start
Time: End 18:00
Representatives of governments, River basin organization, Private sector, Research
institute, Scientific community, NGOs and UN agencies.
To raise awareness on the need to better manage wastewater
To get voluntary commitments from stakeholders and build a strong GWI
To provide guidance for the GWI partnership forum in terms of priority activities
What are the major wastewater challenges at global and regional levels?
What can be done to reverse the trends?
What are the opportunities for better management and cooperation?
Increased awareness on wastewater issues; established a strong wastewater partnership
Wastewater and Agreed activities to feed into GWI workplan
GWI Partners: ADB, AfDB, CBD,FAO, GEF, Ramsar Convention, UEMOA, UNDP,
UN-DESA, US-EPA,WECF,WSA, and others
Program Outline
Duration
Topic
08.30-13.00
Session A-Setting the scene: The Global challenge, key issues for the future and some responsesChair: Graham Alabaster, UN-Habitat & Co-chair of UN- Water TF on Wastewater
08:30- 08:45
8:45 – 09:15
Wastewater, global issue, trends and impacts
Dr Manzoor Qadir, UN-INWEH
09:15 - 9:45
Shortcutting the trends, responses and opportunities
Mr Pireh Otieno, UN-Habitat
9:45 - 10:30
Integrating wastewater in the global development agenda(Target setting and indicators setting), plus discussion
10:30 –11:00
11:00 –13:00
Coffee
–
Pan
el discussion: on Session A- The Global challenge, key
issues for the future and some responses
–
Que
stions to be considered:
o
Wha
t is the status from regions?
o
Development Banks, UN-agencies, IGO
Dr Idrissa Doucoure (WSA)
Mr Chris Corbin (GEF-CreW)
Dr Manzoor Qadir (UN-INWEH)
Ms Mary Beth Sutton (Caribbean SEA and
TenneSEA)
Wha
t can we do to reverse the trends?
o
Wha
t opportunities are there to upscale?
o
Is
the proposed global response adequate & appropriate?
Wrap- up of the session- recommendations by the Chair
13:00– 14:00
Lunch
14:00– 18:00
Session B: Developing the future agenda for joint actions to promote sustainable WW management.
Chair Dr Jacqueline Alder
Coffee
15:30 – 1600
14:00– 14:15
Introduction to the session: Key strategies for sustainable
Dr Jacqueline Alder
14:15– 14:45
Wastewater re-use: opportunities, risks and challenges
14:45– 15:30
Reducing pressure on freshwater, pollution and wastewater
discharge
Dr Gueladio Cisse , Swiss Tropical & Public
Health Institute
Mr. Steve Ntifo, Jacobs-UK
15:30– 16:00
Coffee
16:00-16:30
Economic valuation of wastewater as an incentive for
sustainable wastewater management
Dr Francesc Hernández-Sancho, Consultant
16:30-17:00
The Global Wastewater Initiative (GWI) as a response-
Dr Birguy Lamizana, UNEP/GPA
17:00– 18:00
Panel discussion: Framing the next steps: Key strategies
and actions for sustainable wastewater management
o
W
hat could be the GWI role and added value?
Panelists include Representatives from Women
Organization, Private sector, Research
institutes,
– Dr Gueladio Cisse (Swiss Tropical &
Public Health Institute),
o
H
ow to organize the partnership for effective delivery?
o
W
hat actions on the ground can be undertaken?
o
hat policy analysis and reforms are needed to shortcut
trends?
Wrap- up of the session: recommendations by the Chair
W
–
–
–
–
Dr Paul Ouedraogo (Ramsar Convention),
Mr Steve Ntifo (Jacobs),
Dr Bistra Mihaylova (WECF),
Mr Jostein NyGard (GPO)
Second Global Conference on Land – Oceans Connection (GLOC-2)
2-4 October, 2013, Montego Bay, Jamaica
OUTPUTS FROM THE THEMATIC SESSION OF THE GLOC-2
Title of the Session: Marine Litter
The thematic discussion on Marine Litter of Day 2 was divided into sessions (detailed agenda attached).
1. KEY PARTNERS/SPEAKERS OF THE SESSION
-
Moderators of four segments (setting the scene; stakeholder voices; developing an agenda; the
way forward): David Johnson (Seascape Consultants), Doug Woodring (Ocean Recovery
Alliance), Jennifer Edwards (Jamaica National Solid Waste Management Authority), David
Osborn (International Atomic Energy Agency).
-
Speakers for the first segment: Heidi Savelli (UNEP/GPA), Fredrik Haag (IMO), Karine
Erikstein and Francis Chopin (FAO), Mike Biddle (MBA Polymers/Waste Free Ocean
Americas), Peter Kershaw (GESAMP).
-
Speakers for the second segment (two stakeholder panels): Steve Rochlin (IO Sustainability),
John Kieser (Plastics South Africa) and Andrew Russell (Plastics Disclosure Project), Rikki
Gunn (Ghostnets Australia), Suzanne Stanley (Jamaica Environment Trust), Daniella Russo
(Plastic Pollution Coalition) and Ania Budziak (Project Aware).
-
Speakers for the third segment: Maria-Luisa Silva (Mediterranean Action Plan), Hermien
Busschbach (Netherlands), Claire Bass (World Society for the Protection of Animals), Thomas
Opperer (EU Delegation – Jamaica), Keith Christman (American Chemistry Council), Jonathan
Angin (Agilyx Corporation), Michael Dungan (RES Polyflow), Michael Murray (Cynar Plc.).
-
Speakers for the fourth segment: Hector Huerta (CPPS), Fabiano Barretto (Local Garbage).
2. BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE MAIN DISCUSSION POINTS OF THE MARINE LITTER SESSION:
o
Ms. Heidi Savelli of the UNEP Secretariat introduced the Global Partnership on Marine Litter
(GPML) which is guided by the Honolulu Strategy- a global framework for prevention and
management of marine debris. On-going actions and activities by UNEP in the area of marine
litter were mentioned, as well as the immediate (launch of Marine Litter Network) and future
plans – 2013, 2014-18, 2019-25. Expectations for the session were two-fold: 1. Establish
networks and how people can be involved; and 2. Identify priority actions for the GPML with the
expertise in the room. Globally, the GPML serves as focal point for improved collaboration. The
main channel for communication will be the online marine litter network which will allow users
to network, track progress, find experts in the field, interact, and share knowledge. Future plans
for the GPML include to work towards the Rio+20 commitment of a considerable reduction in
marine litter by 2025, establishment of the regional/national nodes and identification of priority
activities.
o Mr. Fredrik Haag, International Maritime Organization (IMO), presented a synopsis of operative
conventions under IMO which cover marine litter, with emphasis on Annex V of MARPOL and
1 of 15
the London Convention and Protocol on Dumping of Waste and other Matter. Micro-plastics
were mentioned as an emerging area for the Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of
Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP). The action by IMO in the area of marine litter
includes: Regulatory – developing and strengthening international regulations and guidelines (i.e.
MARPOL, London Convention/Protocol and associated guidelines); Outreach and awareness
raising through publications, information campaigns etc.; and Capacity building and assistance
through training workshops, seminars and direct assistance to Member States. For the GPML the
main objectives include: 1) Increase awareness of the impact of ML and solid waste to the
marine environment (among seafarers, regulators/administrators, etc.); 2) Increase awareness of
the existing international and national regulations related to marine litter (among seafarers,
regulators/administrators, etc.); and 3) Increase political/policy level commitments to implement
and enforce existing regulatory frameworks. An example of an innovative approach was given
through the HELMEPA Marine Litter Observation System, where recordings of floating litter
items are carried out by HELMEPA member-vessels transiting the Mediterranean Sea. Voluntary
observations of marine litter are recorded when at sea, anchor or in port using a Marine Litter
Observation Sheet and results are then amalgamated by HELMEPA. HELMEPA now proposes
to expand this activity worldwide by setting up the Global Observatory on Marine Litter
(GOML) where data would be compiled by HELMEPA and then reported to UNEP/MAP and
IMO‟s Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC).
o Mr. Francis Chopin and Ms. Karine Erikstein of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
outlined issues relevant to Abandoned, Lost and Discarded Fishing Gear (ALDFG).
Environmental impacts of fishing can be atmospheric, aquatic, and benthic and lost gear at sea is
still out there “ghost fishing”, resulting in loss of food resources, loss of revenue from fishing,
biodiversity loss, and navigational accidents. Existing regulatory frameworks include UNCLOS,
MARPOL Annex V, Convention on Biodiversity, UN Fish Stocks Agreement, other UN
Resolutions, and FAO voluntary instruments such as the Code of Conduct for Responsible
Fisheries on e.g. marking of fishing gear. FAO is considering the creation of an ALDFG retrieval
process/programme as a pilot project which involves fishermen – they know the grounds, the
seas and have vessels equipped to retrieve lost gear. A participatory approach to ALDFG was
envisaged which is broad-based, long term and aimed at culture change in fishers and port
managers etc. through: Awareness Raising Programmes; Capacity Building to increase
awareness among national fisheries authorities, regional fisheries bodies and the fishing industry;
Improve Port reception facilities for derelict gear, mark fishing gears; Encourage ALDFG to be
addressed in License Conditions; Encourage reporting of lost gears–no penalty approach;
Incentivize Gear Clean up and gear removal; Reviews/studies of legal frameworks in relevant
countries; Public -Private Partnerships for ALDFG Removal: The people with the most
experience on fishing gears are fishermen–make them part of the solution; Reward them for
social and environmental responsibility. The development of a Pilot project for clean up and
removal of ALDFG is envisaged and elements include: Expert Workshop on industry and
government clean-up of fishing grounds and fishing ports; Baseline study and site selection of
candidate G77 country fishery for a public-private sector project for recovery and clean-up
(+Development of indicators); Recovery/clean-up pilot project (Fishing community led).
o Dr. Mike Biddle of MBA Polymer (and President of Waste Free Oceans Americas) indicated that
since the 1960s, more and more plastic is found in waste streams. Whereas 90% of steel is
recycled, for plastics this figure is 10-20% only. Reasons: (1) it started more recently and (2)
plastic recycling is difficult. Traditional separation techniques do not work for plastics. Today
however, this source is becoming available in very large volumes in well-sorted streams – mainly
Europe and Asia. MBA revisited process to make plastic recycling more lucrative by looking at
procurement, processing and selling; company handles 1 million pounds of plastic waste daily.
Whereas it took 20 years to come up with a plastic recycling solution, it is expected that we will
2 of 15
see more people using this in the next decade. Recyclers of plastic have a growing and plentiful
supply which is at a lower cost than virgin material and not tied to oil; 80-90% lower energy
costs and a reduced carbon footprint of 1-3 tons of CO2/ton plastic.
o The Plastic industry and NGOs alike have concerns about degradable plastic as it throws out of
the window the option of recyclability. Only success is where policy is in place to address the
first mile problem of plastic recycling: 1. System to collect the waste (policy to regard it as a
resource, not waste to put it in commodity bracket and collect). 2. Commodity to be traded
consistent with local legislation, e.g. US allows waste to travel overseas without any monitoring.
In Canada, Europe and parts of Asia, waste cannot be shipped. You see the consequences. He
indicated that the majority of marine plastics can be recycled – it is a matter of getting sufficient
mass to do is cost effectively. Particles with POPs (e.g. BFR, PCBs etc.) – a specific concern for
marine litter- can be removed in the sorting process.
o Dr. Peter J. Kershaw, GESAMP (Joint Group of Experts on Scientific Aspects of Marine
Protection, an independent, inter-agency advisory body of the United Nations) spoke to the
importance of how marine litter baselines are determined and set and explained the concept of
proxy indicators (an indirect measure of a Pressure; e.g. coastal population density and shipping
density). He further mentioned that some baselines and (proxy) indicators exist with which
progress toward a target – a desired state- can be noticed. A good indicator is scientifically valid,
simple to understand for the public and policy makers, sensitive and responding to change, cost
effective and policy relevant e.g. quantity of litter on the beach or ingested by animals. The
European target for plastic ingested by birds is ecoQO = 10% - current level is 35%. Some long
term trends can be seen over time (e.g. UK beaches), but there is a lot of variability and there are
spatial issues. Since marine litter is a transboundary issue we should not expect countries to set
tight target when most litter originates from other countries (e.g. only 42% of litter found on
Dutch beaches is from a local source).
o Other examples of indicators could be: Quantity of litter per unit area of beach/seabed/sea
surface; Quantity of litter ingested by bird/mammal/fish/reptile/cetacean; Marine litter on
beaches/shoreline; Average number of items. Challenges to setting a baseline include temporal
variability & trends - a rolling 5- year average may be more useful than a single year. Whereas
one needs to be careful with interpreting data, there are interesting new opportunities for
sampling that have pretty good global coverage – e.g. making use of existing zooplankton
surveys with continuous plankton recorders. Proxy indicators can be used as well: particle
tracking using circulation models and shipping density, among others gives insight in regional
variation of where the sources are. Coastal population density can give an indication of the
relative importance of different sources. There is a potential for earth observation methodologies
to be used. It is also possible to collect data through „opportunistic sampling‟ e.g. using existing
fish stock assessment; cruises for seabed litter; monitoring with the help of divers and remote
cameras. Recommendations for the selection of indicators included: Set biological indicators
that are region specific; Establish litter monitoring guidelines that account for litter on seabed,
litter floating; Offshore, and seafloor biota; Consider indicators such as shipping density; coastal
population density. A roadmap should factor in: Monitoring strategies-tools, timing, locations,
harmonisation between nations; Monitoring implementation; Implementation of management
measures; Review of effectiveness; Revision of targets/indicators; Implementation of further
management measures
Suggestions:
o Recommendations to SIDS countries for recycling based on MBA Polymers in manner usable by
governments: ensure policy that allows collection of material in an organized fashion to facilitate
waste vs. resources; trade commodities in a way that is consistent with local legislation e.g.
shipping policies; reach out to and include NGOs; segment process to lessen cost by, for
3 of 15
example, installing kits to achieve modest value of waste that can be taken to another level in
more cost effective manner; volume determines move to commodity that is tradable; beginning
by sorting out easier plastics would help to create dent in litter.
o Discussions in response to suggestion from floor to consider changing deep sea trawling gear to
biodegradable material indicated that - fishing is a fairly marginal economic activity so may not
be feasible and biodegradable material also impacted ocean life and humans by extension as it
created smaller pieces of litter.
o Recommendations/suggestions for filling knowledge gap regarding measurement, type, location
of marine litter:
 remote sensing (used by Japan after tsunami)
 cameras on board cruise ships and research vessels
Stakeholder/partnership sessions
Speakers for the first stakeholder panel included Steve Rochlin (IO Sustainability), John Kieser (Plastics
South Africa) and Andrew Russell (Plastics Disclosure Project);
MAIN DISCUSSION POINTS OF THE SESSION
o Companies are taking up public policy leadership – we need policy to create incentives to get
producer responsibility. They are looking for results – how much gets recycled – and work with
other stakeholders through the science of developing bio based plastic technology (Coke),
engage with governments and the public to solve the first mile problem: get plastic collected to
enter it in the recycling and reuse chain (Dow), partner with nature conservation organizations on
ecosystem valuation, started using less material and call for the creation of the reuse, recycling
value chain (Nestle).
o Much more attention should be given to marine debris on the African continent. South African
plastic is pushing up North. There seemed to be consensus that adding additives so that plastic
„disappears‟ is a total "no, no" – and that extended producer responsibility (EPR) is the way to
go. EPR is already a big thing in South Africa- written in national waste act. It was also noted
that Africa can ill afford to grow plants to produce biodegradable material.
o Litter can create jobs. Unskilled workers are involved in specific coastline programmes in South
Africa – a country with a very high unemployment rate. An example was given of a 3 year
initiative that employed 250 people, over 200km, earning small money, but at least some
incentive was put in place to address marine litter. The challenge is what to do with collected
plastic. Distance is an issue and transport – from rural to city areas- is expensive. Such initiatives
will not survive without subsidy from government, but there is scope for governments and
industry to work more closely.
o Industry, government and investors have an important role to play in addressing marine litter,
however there are a lot of other actors out there as well that should be engaged. Industry can also
just get on with it without government involvement (Method). For some companies –
sustainability is the reason for being in the market (Interface). Puma wants to be the sustainable
choice. They recycle old cloth and have created in-house competition for sustainable and nonsustainable choices. Government itself can also lead by example, as a big employer – not just
legislate and set policy. Rwanda does e.g. not allow plastic bags. Finally socially responsible
investors, e.g. pension funds; individuals have successfully influenced companies‟ behaviour.
4 of 15
o There is a need to look at labelling of e.g. water bottles and policy effectiveness. What exactly
does this bio plastic mean?
o Social evolution is on-going. Lessons learnt and problems avoided elsewhere in the world (e.g.
stirrers, balloons). Given time – change will happen, slowly but surely. Important to talk about
labelling – e.g. if plastic is not recycled – it gets a negative mark. That makes a producer go for a
plastic that is being recycled.
o There is a serious disconnect if not bad blood between NGOs and industry. The root comes from
perspectives. E.g. propositions, such as GMO corn as feedstock for plant bottles, or big bottle
companies opposing container deposits make NGOs sceptical. Solutions have to address the
problem as it appears in the world, although the whole interlinked footprint is hard to deal with
for individual players. Advocacy and adversarial approaches have important roles to play in
change – as well as more collaborative approaches.
o An interesting discussion ensued about what the take away message was: 1. it is smart because of
marine litter impact that we recycle or 2. We need to reduce plastic? If we talk about recycling,
we talk about industry, recycling etc. If we talk about the environment and impact of plastic in
the environment – we talk about how do we get consumers and producers focused on the
environment – instead of focus on how to become a profitable industry, facilitate job-creation,
and become development conscious. Industry perspective is that plastic is fine, but not in the
environment. Reuse, recycle, etc. needed. Walk away message: plastic is to be kept out of the
environment. Where a particular plastic is very hard to recycle – an untenable situation is
created, and one may need to get rid of it all together.
.
Stakeholder session (continued)
-
Rikki Gunn (Ghostnets Australia), Suzanne Stanley (Jamaica Environment Trust), Daniella
Russo (Plastic Pollution Coalition) and Ania Budziak (Project Aware).
o Ms. Daniella Russo, Plastic Pollution Coalition, highlighted that thousands of communities are
dealing with plastics and that banning is caused because people are not able to handle the issue
anymore. The chasm challenges are pricing and product performance. To find truly sustainable,
biodegradable plastics, we may need to create disruptions to the status quo and challenge all
about plastics. The PPC launched Think Beyond Plastic, an innovation competition for
entrepreneurs working on solutions to the plastic pollution crisis. This brought together
entrepreneurs from around the world to come up with alternatives to plastic as good business.
o Another example of stakeholder engagement was provided by Ms. Rikki Gunn, Ghostnets
Australia, working with indigenous „rangers‟ in low density population areas – from
marginalized communities – for ghost net removal, rescue & data collection in e.g. the Arafura
Sea. Recycling doesn‟t exist in north Australia – because of distance and inaccessibility. An
employment programme - working with the welfare system - was developed to collect fishing
nets. To get correct data on the nets, the local rangers needed to be trained. To talk from the
same background (fisheries) was an important aspect of building the partnership. The findings
showed that ghost nets are a symptom of serious fisheries issues in the region. Following a
workshop in Bali October 22-24, they will embark on the launch of Arafura Fisheries
Management Plan early 2014 by MMAF, Indonesia and the development of a Ghost Net
Reduction Plan.
5 of 15
o An example of engaging local stakeholders and youth was presented by Ms. Suzanne Stanley of
the Jamaica Environment Trust in relation to e.g. the International Coastal Clean-up Day, 21
Sept. 2013 in Jamaica. Islands have their specific problems as they receive a lot of waste – but
have limited space and capacity to deal with it. One of the most important aspects of the beach
clean-up is collecting data – and using this for pollution prevention, influencing legislation and
raising awareness. For some stakeholders, their participation is to check the CSR box, green
wash, community service hours, have a fun day, or a high school social.
o Finally, Ms. Ania Budziak of Project Aware provided an example of working with specific
stakeholder groups (in this case divers) to address the marine litter problem. Project Aware‟s
mission is to mobilize the world‟s divers into a global force to protect our ocean planet. Aim:
Create a database of marine debris found by divers on the seabed that can help drive change on
land. The database was launched in June of 2011 and gets data from a year-round, global
underwater survey of marine debris with data submitted online from repeat surveys in the same
locations. „Dive against Debris‟ removes, records and reports marine debris. Various online
resources are available in multiple languages on their website. By engaging divers these can
drive change in their communities and workplaces.
Speakers: Maria-Luisa Silva (Mediterranean Action Plan), Hermien Busschbach (Netherlands), Claire
Bass (World Society for the Protection of Animals), Thomas Opperer (EU Delegation – Jamaica).
o In terms of governance, examples from national, regional and global level were shared.
o The Regional Plan on Marine Litter Management in the Mediterranean (with legally binding
timelines and targets) was prepared by the Secretariat of the Mediterranean Action Plan for the
Barcelona Convention and is expected to be adopted in December 2013. Objectives include to
Prevent ML Generation; Reduce ML to minimum & impacts; Remove existing ML to the extent
possible; Manage ML to accepted international and regional standards and approaches; and
Enhance knowledge of ML sources, quantities and impacts. Proposed ML Targets:
Decreasing trend in the number of/amount of marine litter (items) deposited on the coast;
Decreasing trend in the number/amount of marine litter items in the water surface and the
seafloor; Decreasing trend in the cases of entanglement or/and a decreasing trend in the stomach
content of the sentinel species; Commitments include to have a Regional Data bank by 2016;
Regional Monitoring Expert group by 2014; and National Monitoring Programme by 2016. In
order to provide assistance to countries for the estimation of costs of specific measures and
activities contained in the Regional Plan, the Background Document on Marine Litter Regional
Plan Measures and Indicative Cost Estimation of Measures Implementation was prepared which
contains many examples of costing for specific measures and activities from different parts of the
world.
o Ms. Hermien Busschbach presented on the Dutch National policy framework and National
implementation strategy. The EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive is the most important
legal framework for implementation of measures on Marine Litter in the Netherlands. 2012:
Initial assessment on the state of the marine environment, define Good Environmental Status
(GES) together with targets and indicators. 2014: monitoring programme; 2015: programme of
measures; 2016: implementation of programme of measures; 2020: achievement of GES? New
MSFD cycle in 2018. Dutch Policy objectives on Marine Litter: Measures to reduce solid
waste/marine litter (by requirements on products and improved waste management); More
attention for micro-plastic; Cleaning beaches and fishing for litter project; and Communication
6 of 15
and awareness. The national policy framework includes two targets for 2020: Reduction of
visible litter on the beach; and Decrease in trend on amount of litter in marine organisms
(Fulmars) - currently 90% of Fulmars have plastic in stomach, 58% exceeds critical level of 0.1
gram. (OSPAR ECoQO: 10% of birds not more than 0.1 gram plastic in stomach). Sources in the
(Dutch part of) North Sea: 44% shipping and fisheries; 30% land; 26% unknown.
Implementation process in the Netherlands: Set up of a policy group involving relevant
ministries, research institutes, lower governments, water authorities. Goal to prepare government
decisions, coordinate Dutch implementation process for MSFD. Organising stakeholder groups
(business, research institutes, NGO‟s, branch organisations). Aim: identifying effective and
feasible measures and to gain support. Six clusters: agenda setting & awareness, beaches, river
basin catchment areas, shipping, fishing and plastic (waste) recycling. Gathering knowledge in
four fields: Development of indicators; Identifying sources; Impact of microplastics; Cost –
benefit analyses of measures; Concrete examples of measures include “fishing for litter” since
2000. In this field Belgium (Flanders) and Dutch harbours are working on harmonisation of
tariffs for taking in “fished-up” waste. Key for tackling marine litter is to start to avoid wasting
resources - Dutch policy paper on “green growth” and particularly by one of the goals: “the
transition from litter to resource”. The Netherlands has the goal to increase the recycling rate by
5% (from 78 -> 83%) and a ban on landfill of 35 waste streams.
o Ms. Claire Bass of WSPA elaborated on impacts of ghost nets on marine animals – she also put
forward an idea for globally tackling the marine debris problem: the “untangled” campaign. The
objective would be to make seas safer homes for animals using 3 Rs: Reduce volume of fishing
gear being abandoned, lost or discarded; Remove entangling ghost fishing gear already in the
marine environment; Enable the effective Rescue of animals already entangled in fishing gear.
WSPA would work towards the formation of an Untangled Alliance: towards ghost-gear free
seas. This could be an alliance of IGOs, NGOs, governments, industry/corporations (e.g. fishing
& plastics) to establish vision and targets towards ghost-gear free seas; engage - and allow
communication between - a diverse range of stakeholders to co-ordinate and catalyse action. The
campaign/alliance would aim to enable: expansion and replication of existing effective solutions,
plus development of new solutions; effective global co-ordination and resource sharing;
monitoring and feedback to show global impact and inspire further change.
o The EU representative, Mr. Thomas Opperer expanded on the Marine Strategy Framework
Directive and Good Environmental Status as well as water management policy framework of the
EU and the findings of the Berlin conference, April 2013, coming up with three core principles:
precautionary principle, polluter pays principle, prevention at the source.
o Discussions ensued with some specific recommendations for the GPML, such as a focus on
closing the plastic cycle, on the basis of voluntary agreements, the sharing of practices and
awareness raising. Legally binding agreements at regional level were discussed and some
subsidies that may need to be eliminated. There is a need for more joined up approaches and
funding and addressing issues at the source and at impact level.
Suggestions for GPML
• Closing of the plastic cycle
– On the basis of voluntary agreements
• particularly for private companies on recycling rates in products and also for
countries improving their recycling rates
• schedules (targets, year and action)
• Sharing best practices on awareness raising and consumers behaviour.
7 of 15
•
•
Untangled campaign – reduce, remove, rescue
Need for joined up approaches and funding.
Speakers at „Waste to fuel‟ session: Keith Christman (American Chemistry Council), Jonathan Angin
(Agilyx Corporation), Michael Dungan (RES Polyflow), Michael Murray (Cynar Plc.).
o The waste to fuel session was building on one of the 6 priority areas in the Declaration by the
plastic industry, namely nr 4: spreading knowledge of efficient waste management systems.
Waste should be seen as a resource, for re-use, recycling and if this is not possible/feasible, for
energy recovery (preferred hierarchy: Reduction, Reuse, Recycle, Compost, Energy recovery,
Landfill).
o Mr. Keith Christman, of the American Chemistry Council presented on “the Global Action Plan
for Solutions on Marine Litter – Spreading Knowledge on Waste Management”. Plastic and
other litter in the marine environment is unacceptable. Plastic materials deliver significant
societal benefits, including: energy and resource savings, consumer protection and innovations
that improve health care, reduce food spoilage and improve quality of life. However, for society
to receive these benefits, it is essential to properly recover plastics so that litter does not threaten
our natural environment, including marine ecosystems. The Declaration on Marine Litter states
will amongst other things Spread knowledge of efficient waste management systems and
Enhance recycling/energy recovery opportunities. Plastics Recycling is Growing – in 2011, 2.6
Billion pounds of plastic bottles; 1 Billion pounds of plastic bags & film; and 934 million pounds
of rigid plastics was collected. Keep America Beautiful‟s National Campaign “I Want to Be
Recycled” was a Partnership with AdCouncil and included a number of outreach products to
increase recycling (www.iwanttoberecycled.org). As Plastics are Captured Energy it is essential
to consider Energy Recovery Technologies such as: Mass burn waste-to-energy  electricity and
steam; Engineered solid fuels  alternative solid fuel and coal/coke replacement; Plastics–tofuel  synthetic crude oil and fuels; Gasification (emerging)  electricity and/or fuels (ethanol)
and chemicals. ACC and partners support Reduce, Reuse, Recycle then Energy Recovery. The
ensuing Plastics to Fuel presentations aimed to spread knowledge however additional work will
be needed.
o Mr. Jon Angin of Agilyx highlighted that Plastics-to-Oil technologies utilizing pyrolysis, are
capable of recovering up to five times more energy than incineration on an MMBTU basis after reduce, re-use and recycle, we should “manage” the waste stream to its highest and best use
recognizing waste as a resource to be leveraged. Critical issues like marine litter are a function of
the relative inability to properly handle all types of waste. The new age of the waste industry
places value on local handling, recovery, conversion and the distribution of recovered items and
products and so developing markets have a unique opportunity to insert new solutions while
integrated waste handling infrastructure is still being planned and built. Integrated waste
handling systems utilizing complementary conversion technologies can address 70%+ of waste
streams in developing markets building new economic incentives and commodity value while
creating jobs.
o Mr. Michael Murray of Cynar Plc, presented on “Successfully Converting End-of-Life Plastics to
Liquid Fuels” using “Pyrolysis 2 Fuel” (P2F) Technology which transforms End of Life Plastic
(ELP) waste into transport/energy fuel. P2F substitutes high cost fossil fuel imports with a CO2
saving of 1402 tpa compared to fossil fuel. Cynar Fuel Output: 1 ton Waste Plastic converts to
264 US gallons (1,000 liters) usable fuels (Diesel: 185 gallons, Gasoline: 53 gallons, Kerosene:
26.5 gallons. Synthetic Gas:16 gallons and Residual Char 5% goes to cement kilns. He indicated
8 of 15
that significant fuel costs saving can be obtained with an average USA pump price of gallon of
diesel (ex. Taxes) at $3.94 and the cost to produce 1 gallon of Cynar Diesel (ex. taxes) is $1.50.
He further mentioned some relevant initiatives such as EU‟s Green Paper on Plastic Waste
catalysing a structured discussion about how to make plastic products more sustainable
throughout their life cycle and reduce the impact of plastic waste on the environment; ACC
advocates close cooperation with a broad range of stakeholders to create solutions for the marine
environment; and China‟s Green Fence where US/ EU States are banned from exporting trash to
China. Cynar can Transform ELP into a Valuable Resource. It can: Harvest plastic waste to road
grade low sulphur Diesel; Reduce plastic waste to oceans by partnering with local Municipalities,
Governments, Investors and Private Industries to drive & incentivise plastic segregation &
recycling; Create employment through harvesting, segregating and processing ELP; Provide
direct substitution on imported fuels; Improve Green credentials and demonstrate case for
reduced tax on fuels produced from world‟s plastic waste. Cynar committed to help to Divert and
Transform ELP from our Oceans to valuable, usable fuels and will partner or work closely with a
broad range of associations and other parties to mobilise these solutions.
o Plastic to oil value proposition was presented, a revenue source for creating new jobs. Pyrolysis
(not incineration) can address 70% of waste stream. Another example presented came from RES
polyflow‟s Mr. Michael Dungan – RES Polyflow designs and manufactures energy recovery
systems that convert mixed polymer waste to fuels and petrochemicals before they reach the
landfill, without excessive handling, sorting or cleaning. Their energy recovery technology
thermally deconstructs hydrocarbon based materials such as end of life plastic and rubber and
converts it into new molecular structures that can be marketed as transportation fuels as well as
feedstocks for new polymer production. He further suggested that instead of human centred
solutions, design could benefit from a system perspective and solution provided in nature
(biomimicry). Landfill or gyres as btu (British thermal unit) warehouse - ocean currents as a
conveyor belt providing supply. Need to collaborate with local officials/providers of the waste
stream and adapt to local circumstances.
Speakers: Hector Huerta (CPPS), Fabiano Barretto (Local Garbage)
o Mr. Hector Soldi from the Permanent Commission for the South Pacific informed participants of
the CPPS/UNEP/FAO/CI Partnership to raise Regional Awareness on Marine Litter. Workshops
in fishing communities to combat marine litter in the Southeast Pacific countries (UNEP / CPPS)
were convened in which almost 600 stakeholders were trained - school teachers, fishermen, tour
operators, local authorities. In addition, CPPS developed educational material: Multimedia,
Videos, Literature, leaflets and a website (http://amigos-del-mar.net/) where all materials are
available.
o Mr. Fabiano Barretto, Local Beach, Global Garbage expanded on initiatives in Germany,
Portugal and Brazil where efforts are underway to establish national partnerships to address
marine litter problem (with the possibility to expand into regional ones, including former
Portuguese colonies in Africa and Indo-Pacific). The Portuguese speaking countries are
developing a network of collaboration across regions – spanning a large part of the world‟s
ocean. In Rio, a large art exhibit is planned – of art made from marine litter – during the
upcoming
football
World
Cup
in
Brazil.
o Environmental education plays an important role in changing behaviour. Wonderful videos and
other products have been developed to sensitize (young) people, of which one example from
Peru was presented. Education and awareness raising needs to consider language and cultural
aspects.
9 of 15
o Legislation is often in place but no implementation. We need to communicate in the language
and culture of the people. To change behaviour – one does not necessarily need to rely on laws;
positive incentives can be more effective. Regulate, enforce and educate (culture and socio
economic specific). Hence, a more regional approach would be more effective than a global
approach for education. Tourists tend to behave differently abroad – NIMBY (Not In My Back
Yard), at home, but elsewhere easily rubbish is left in the environment. Another interesting
observation was made, that people respond to what they see. Instilling a sense of pride („keep
your country clean‟) has yielded good results. Not the policing and enforcer.
Summary:
1. What is feasible in Rio+20 Commitment Context:
 Challenge to determine private vs. public sector contracting within existing policy
regulatory framework. Hard to achieve public sector lead in area so private sector is at
forefront but action requires public backing through regulatory frameworks. Coca Cola,
DOW Chemicals and Nestle Waters are examples of private companies whose work has
attracted public sector involvement by creating demand for government to follow.
 Need to strengthen network in Africa and Indian Ocean Area.
 Consider environmental price tag for products to allow consumer choice.
 Consider socially responsible investment for sustainability of planet, i.e. aim to lessen
plastic footprint.
 Need to establish unity in the field e.g. in labelling of plastics.
 Establish collaborative partnerships with governments.
 Consider exactly what the real message is – environmental or economic? Is aim to
increase use of plastics vis-à-vis recycling or reduce production? Very difficult for
governments to envision.
2. Priority Actors Roles and Engagement
 Aim for a behaviour change towards plastics bearing in mind it is a hydrocarbon and the
high cost for communities to dispose of disposable plastics
 Challenges – pricing and product performance
 Focus should therefore be on:
o Disruption of the status quo
o Technology behaviour market
o Establishing an entrepreneurial forum to “think beyond plastic”
 Three aims of ghost net fishing project:
o Clean up rubbish
o Reduce rubbish
o Dispose of rubbish
o Methods used: educating aboriginal fishers; using rubbish to create art;
identifying source of nets; creating workshops around issue.
 Private sector needed as a participatory actor
 Target specifically affected groups to help drive change on land e.g. divers, sailors
10 of 15
3. Governance
National Level Activity
How international obligations lead to national implementation and action within EU which is
also bound by regional conventions:
 Countries benefit from good environmental status
 Policy objectives – reduce solid waste; focus on micro plastics; cleaning beaches and
fishing for litter; building awareness (e.g. North Sea litter problem)
 Policy group for implementation established
 Stakeholder groups organized to gather knowledge in developing indicators and measures
to avoid waste of resources and build a “green growth” policy
 Need to emphasize the role of Governments
Global Activity
Untangled - campaign to make seas safer for animals by:
 Reducing volume of fishing gear abandoned, lost or discarded at sea
 Removing such gear that exists in marine environment
 Rescuing animals entangled in fishing nets
 Method – creating alliance of NGOs, governments and industries/corporations
 Action – establishing vision and targets towards ghost gear free seas
 Purpose – sharing, expansion and replication of existing solutions and development of
new ones; free monitoring, resource sharing, and feedback to demonstrate global state
and inspire change
 Status – reports are being prepared to help build and create toolbox for ghost net solutions
Crosscutting
 Need for knowledge sharing
 Monitoring is critical
 Network of partnerships is necessary
 Effective use of resources is required
 Obtain view of stakeholders
 Set quantitative targets to address marine litter
 Closing the plastic cycle via voluntary agreements
 Sharing best practices
Prevention Strategies and Energy Recovery Technologies
 Some actions to date include: EPR Log; Waste charging; Green Fence
 Global Action Plan for Solutions to Reduce Marine Litter consists of a six-point strategy
for industry action based on precept that, plastics in marine environment is unacceptable;
plastics provide significant social benefits. Suggested actions:
 Partnership research
 Promoting enforcement
 Disseminating knowledge
 Recycling for efficient energy recovery
11 of 15




Plastics are a potential source of income for SIDS domestic markets
New technologies in ecosystem such as recovery by pyrolysis vs. incineration
While we can use litter from the sea, the real opportunity now is managing waste on
land
Develop integrated waste solution model and integrated technologies suite to help
address energy needs
4. Way forward - Recommendations:
1. Communicate in language and culture of local community
2. Create products that do not cause litter
3. Seek behaviour change
4. Make connection to health
5. Focus on lessening consumer addiction to disposables
6. Look at regulatory responsibilities of agencies, groups, governments which is needed to
support initiatives
7. Behaviour and cultural differences are important but bear in mind it will be different in
different places – combination in focus is necessary
8. Regulate, enforce, educate not only with a cultural focus; should also be socio-economic,
group specific but yet uniform
9. Consider responsible tourism as this is a large income earner for most coastal states
10. Consider regional vs. global approach, e.g. organization such as UN can use cable to
spread word through ads and messages
11. Make move to enforce fines – most exist on paper only
12. Focus on coordination and collaboration; consider whether partnership should be more
than this
13. Consider open source tools for knowledge sharing
14. Manufacturers should be part of the partnership and should take responsibility; how to
include them should be a priority
15. Companies that form partnership will not want their product ending up in the marine
environment
16. Global partnership can serve to broker local partnerships
17. Consider better vetting of solutions for best practices
18. Partnership can serve as a brainstorming platform from which everyone can benefit
19. Acknowledge that plastic is a good product that simply needs to be managed and properly
marketed; genuine multi-perspective consensus needed to guide role of plastic industry
20. Little focus on marine litter on molecular scale – need to consider impact on marine biota
and increase investment in science and impact on marine environment
21. Pilot projects and baseline studies on ALDFG and its retrieval from the marine
environment;
22. Raising awareness and changing attitude towards considering waste as resource
23. Implement ML monitoring and management measures, assess the situation, revise targets
if necessary and then repeat the whole cycle again
24. Partnerships between private sector, environmental NGOs and public sector
25. Innovative approaches to recovery of marine litter from the ocean and to convert litter to
fuel/energy
26. ML-related events during the 2016 Olympics in Rio
12 of 15
27. Combination of regulations, enforcement and education
28. Share experience, knowledge, best practices; use open source tools; make partnership
inclusive, attractive for as many stakeholders as possible.
5.
WHAT ISSUES DID PARTICIPANTS FEEL SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE WORK PLANS OF THE RELEVANT GLOBAL
PARTNERSHIPS
Focus/ scope of the partnership:
 IMO activities dealing with marine litter (including revised MARPOL Annex V as well as
London Convention and Protocol);
 Abandoned, lost and otherwise discarded fishing gear (ALDFG) and possibilities of its retrieval;
 Development of demonstration projects to develop/implement/scale up best practices (reduction
and management of ML);
 Plastic waste management (using waste as resource);
 Baseline initiatives and proxy indicators for marine litter (such as shipping density or coastal
population density);
 Role of private sector (plastic manufacturers, recyclers, and others) in addressing marine litter
problem, including Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR); Global Action Plan for Marine
Litter Solutions (by the Global Plastics Association, launched at the 5th IMDC in March 2011);
 Job creation in relation to marine litter removal (in developing countries and in remote areas);
 Controversial policies in different countries in relation to biodegradable plastics and bans on
certain plastic products as well as “disconnect” between approaches of environmental NGOs and
private sector;
 Behavior change necessary to get rid of marine litter and plastic pollution in particular;
 Beach cleanups and other events to raise public awareness of marine litter problem; working with
divers;
 Increase awareness of impacts, existing international and national regulation and increased
political commitment;
 Create unity, provide guidance to one another and get together so that we are not alone out there
(call for help);
 Strengthen the voice that something needs to be done about plastic debris – the trash is telling us
that we are not doing the job;
 Focus on closing the plastic cycle, on the basis of voluntary agreements, sharing of good
practices and awareness raising;
 Bring information together of what works and what doesn‟t. Exchange experiences and best
practices. For Africa, the Conference is a mirror of where the continent must not go;
 Set baselines; develop indicators and measure state, trends and impact;
 Focus not only on marine litter, but also on source reduction, new materials, redesign etc. –
focus on land-based issue, not only shore line collection;
 Create clearing house of who is doing what (including private sector, NGOs);
 Need to give recognition, guidance, and a platform to examples of companies that stepped up
without government interference;
 Need to start regarding garbage as above ground mines for recycling;
13 of 15



Do not disregard non-surface litter e.g. fishing gear lost. Sampling – do not forget seabed.
Floating litter quite difficult as well. But you need all these little building blocks to know what
the trends and baselines are in the ocean.
Identify creative ways of better monitoring litter. E.g., “See Litter Cam” developed by JRC for
cruise ships and HELMEPA initiative: HELMEPA has introduced an observation sheet for
floating marine litter observation system in the Mediterranean and IMO and the GPML has been
asked to assist in the global implementation;
Prevent plastic from ending up in the environment, learning through the partnership on how to go
about that and correct common mis-communications on the issue, e.g. bottle caps.
Priority areas:
 Biodegradable plastics (pro- and contra- points, in particular in developing countries).
Legislators are pushing for biodegradable plastic. What are problems for recyclers?
Biodegradables fragment in your hand. Once biodegradable are mixed in – nobody wants it.
Make it for use again and again – do not go down the one way path (which is what
„biodegradable‟ plastic will lead to). [maybe NGO and industry should work together to state that
those new alternatives that seem the way of going now in some places are NOT the way to go]
 Cohesive strategy for SIDS needed- recycling industry is committed to help look into this.
 Roadmap for indicators needed – refer to GESAMP.
 WSPA put forward an idea for globally tackling the marine debris problem: the “untangled”
campaign. The objective would be to make seas a safer home for animals using 3 Rs: „reduce‟,
remove, and rescue. There is a need for more joined up approaches and funding. Develop a
Global alliance towards ghost-gear free seas.
 Set ambitious targets for marine litter at all relevant levels.
 Share information on national and regional initiatives such as the Regional Action Plan for ML
management in the Mediterranean; EU policies related to ML; European Conference on ML
(Berlin, 2013); learn from processes – can they be replicated in other countries and regions?
 Role of government authorities in addressing marine litter problem (regulations, policies,
economic instruments, etc.);
Internal functioning GPML:
 Internal dimension of the partnership needs to be looked at.
 Regional “nodes” of the Global Partnership on Marine Litter (GPML) to address land-based
sources of marine litter and sea-based sources as well as to recover litter accumulated in the
marine environment; Work out how the regional nodes will work – the various focal areas may
not apply equally to all nodes. There might be a need for including cross-cutting issues, such as
education and awareness raising
 Use open source tools to share knowledge (Sharing and giving it away for free).
 Strengthen network for Africa and Indian Ocean – growth area, not much talked about.
 Partners have to learn to trust one another – otherwise the partnership will fail.
 Platform can be a place for discussion to come up with solutions on how to manage plastic
responsibly (not to point fingers).
 Where butting heads – set the rules together. Adversarial and collaborative partnerships to
support each other better.
 Participants to be change agents –talk about what has been learnt this week.
14 of 15
Summary of main discussions – GPML Partnership Forum Meeting
The meeting discussed the partnership framework document. While the document is to be considered a
living document, the following suggestions were made to further clarify some areas (which could be
annexes to the document):



Continued work on indicators (not only process oriented) including indicators on improvement
of the state of the marine environment and behavioural change through e.g. open source tools;
TOR for entities such as advisory committee (including selection procedures);
TOR for regional nodes/networks
The Secretariat will act on the suggestions and make these documents available to the GPML members.
Key comments: “Leave ego‟s behind and get to work. Otherwise we can go home now.” Similar
initiatives took 2 year process of getting all parties on board. Make sure people do not get off at the
wrong stop – or too early. Take home messages of this process is that the journey and dialogue are
important not to lose everyone. The GPML (or members) should not aim to exclude partners from the
onset as it would be a very bad start for an “open and inclusive network”.
The work plans of the focal areas were presented and discussed – the final versions will be finalized
taking into account comments from the floor and be made available online.
Further ideas for partnership activities
 Berlin meeting put together a list of ideas – GPML could revisit it.
 MARLISCO – not legal authority, but local practice.
 Has the implementation and effects of port charges for waste deposits been studied? If not, can
this be facilitated by IMO? Cases of ships dumping was happening 20km out of port, if ships
know that they will be charged for waste
 Sustainable Coastlines offered to share information on large beach clean-ups and behavioural
change analysis through open source tools and social media. Another idea was to develop a
capacity building project funded through the International Olympic Committee. Funding sources
are there and influential people can help support;
 “Untangled” campaign led by WSPA
 Communication and outreach strategy for GPML
The Steering Committee of the GPML will initially consist of the leads of the focal areas. As the
mandate to form the GPML was provided to UNEP/GPA by its member governments during the Third
Intergovernmental Review Meeting of the GPA, UNEP emphasized the importance to also ensure that
Governments are represented on the Steering Committee as well and looked forward to the engagement
of the Government of the Netherlands and the Government of the United States of America that have
already contributed substantially to address the marine litter challenge. UNEP also acknowledged the
generous support of the Government of Norway.
15 of 15
Second Global Conference on Land – Oceans Connection (GLOC-2)
2-4 October, 2013, Montego Bay, Jamaica
OUTPUTS FROM THE THEMATIC SESSION
Title of the Session: Sustainable nutrient management: global challenges, regional priorities and
perspectives; and developing the future agenda for joint actions
The thematic discussion on Nutrients of Day 2 was divided in two sessions (detailed agenda attached) 1. Session
–I aimed to set the context and addressed the Global challenges, regional priorities and perspectives, followed
by two presentations on possible solutions, one from industry and the other from academia. The session was
moderated by Dr. Anjan Datta of UNEP/GPA. Session–II was devoted to “developing the future agenda for joint
actions to promote sustainable management of nutrients”. In this session there were four presentations
followed by a Panel discussion. Prof. Mark Sutton of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, UK/International
Nitrogen Initiative was the moderator of the second session.
KEY SPEAKERS OF THE SESSION – I AND THE TOPIC THEY ADDRESSED
1. Prof. Robert Diaz, Prof. Emeritus, Virginia Institute of Marine Science USA - “The Coast and Oceans –
home of the excess Nutrients!
2. Prof. Mark Sutton, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, UK, International Nitrogen Initiative – “Nutrient
Management Challenges and Policy Issues: global overview.”
3. Dr. Luiz R G Guilherme, Universidade Federal de Lavras, Brazil – “Nutrient management challenges in
Brazil and Latin America.”
4. Dr. Cargele Masso, International Institute for Tropical Agriculture, Central Africa Hub, Kenya – “Nutrient
management challenges in Africa.”
5. Dr. N. Raghuram, Indian Nitrogen Group/Society for Conservation of Nature, India – “Nutrient
assessment and management: From India to South Asia.”
6. Dr. Yuelai Lu, Head of the secretariat UK-China Sustainable Agricultural Innovation Network. “Nutrient
management challenges in China.”
7. Dr. Tom J. Goreau, President, Global Coral Reef Alliance – “Jamaica Eutrophication: Past, present and
future.”
8. Ms. Paulette Kolbusch, National Environment and Planning Agency, Jamaica – “Nutrient Management
using Wastewater and Sludge: Jamaica’s approach.”
9. Dr. Terry Roberts, President, International Plant Nutrition Institute, USA – “Improving nutrient
management in agriculture: Industry Perspective.”
10. Prof. Tom Sims, University of Delaware, USA – “Improving nutrient management for animal production
systems.”
MAIN DISCUSSION POINTS OF THE SESSION:
Issues and Challenges: Global Perspectives
o
Prof. Diaz of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science USA, in his opening remarks, reminded the
meeting participants of some key facts. He noted that economic growth and expanding population
caused increasing input of nutrients and organic matter to coastal areas over the last 60 years, resulting
1
For unavoidable reasons Dr. Greg Crosby of the US Department of Agriculture and Dr. Dr. Sasha Koo-Oshima of the US Environmental
Protection Agency could not join the GLOC-2 and the nutrient session as envisaged and agreed upon.
1 of 16
in ecosystem overload. There is a strong correlation through time between (a) increased nutrient
discharges and disruption of global cycles; (b) population growth and agriculture expansion; (c)
increased primary production and (d) increased occurrence of hypoxia and harmful algae blooms. Prof.
Diaz also emphasised that from the start of the ‘Industrial Revolution’ in the 1700s, it has taken >100
years to alter the global Carbon Cycle, whereas with the start of the ‘Green Revolution’ in 1960s it took
<50 years to alter the global Nitrogen Cycle. The Haber-Bosch process is the great accelerator of the
reactive nitrogen (Nr) process and interestingly enough, of the total reactive nitrogen (Nr) produced
through the Haber-Bosch process, only 18 % is consumed by human population and the rest (82%) is lost
to the environment.
o
Prof. Mark Sutton of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, UK noted that many often argue that “we
need nutrients for food security”, but in reality it is not for “food security but food luxury”. Quoting the
European Nitrogen Assessment (2011), he argued that 85% of N harvests in EU goes to feed livestock, on
average, the European eats 70% more protein than needed for a healthy diet and that Europe is a net
importer of N in feed and food.
o
Both speakers also argued that nutrient losses, particularly of reactive nitrogen and phosphorus, from
the agricultural and sewerage systems, are among the main causes for eutrophication of our aquatic and
marine ecosystems around the world. They affect water quality for human use and also affect aquatic
and marine biodiversity, which in turn affect fishing, recreation, carbon sequestration and other
ecosystem services. Climate change can also accentuate the effects of nutrients.
o
Around the world, hypoxic zones are continuously increasing and the rise of hypoxia is correlated with
high amounts of nitrogen being released into the environment and particularly in our aquatic
environment. Interestingly this is not the case in areas in Asia where population is high. Initial increase in
nutrient loading into the aquatic environment leads to an initial increase in fisheries production.
However, as nutrient loading continues to increase, the system approaches an organic matter saturation
point and at some point, organic matter is not efficiently processed through fishery species and the
system gradually collapses.
o
It is important to note that consequences of excess nutrients can be reduced and eliminated through
management. There are approximately 60-70 sites where impacts of nutrient loadings have been
minimized, particularly through implementation of management initiatives, such as municipal sewage
treatment and reduction of discharges from fish/livestock production plants. Public awareness of
impacts of nitrogen on ecosystems is a noted problem.
o
The increased establishment of extremely large livestock farms and the related fertilizer use and byproducts are rapidly becoming a severe source of nitrogen.
o
Nitrogen enrichment is not yet embedded in most country’s national development agendas though the
consequence of too much of nutrients is multiple, with adverse impacts on Water quality; Air quality,
Greenhouse gas emission; Ecosystem services and Soil health (WAGES in short).
o
Under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) a Task Force on Reactive Nitrogen
has been established to implement activities to link effects of reactive nitrogen to policy decisions.
o
The GPNM publication Our Nutrient World addresses many of the above noted issues and attracted
media attention as the report made a link between nutrients use and food security as well food
consumption issues. The report has laid the foundation for various stakeholders to discuss these critical
issues further, in order to engage and motivate countries to take action towards a Nutrient Green
Economy.
o
The meeting recognized that currently there is no global treaty that links many benefits and threats of
altered N & P cycles. Discussion should be led under UNFCCC, UN CBD and UNEP/GPA. UNEP/GPA
2 of 16
certainly can take the lead in the light of the IGR-3 decision and the Manila Declaration that was
adopted during the IGR-3 in January 2012.
Issues and Challenges: Regional Perspectives
Latin American case was presented by Dr. Luiz R G Guilherme of Universidade Federal de Lavras, Brazil. It was
stated that the region has mostly weathered soils and shows a negative “nutrient balance,” meaning that more
nutrients are lost through plant growth and harvest than are replaced through additions of fertilizer, manure, or
legume cover crops and that leads to declining soil fertility. However, recent data shows that in the case of
South America, the magnitude of the imbalance appears to be decreasing as incomes rise and farmers can afford
more fertilizer. Given the soil conditions and agronomic practices in South America, much of the nutrients
applied are easily leached out of soils and the main mechanism by which the P leaves the land and enters
freshwater ecosystems is soil erosion. Agricultural P is the principal driver of eutrophication. P concentrated in
sewage effluents and animal and industrial wastes, including P-containing detergents, could be a relatively small
contributor globally, though P remains an important contributor to eutrophication locally.
To address the challenge, the agricultural practices must increase functional diversity, mimicking natural
ecosystems. Techniques include no-till agriculture, cover crops, crop rotation, and enhancement of natural N
fixation. Intensification must only be encouraged under sustainable practices, where agro-ecosystems and
neighbouring landscapes provide key ecosystem services. It is also suggested that nutrient management should
include, among others, adjusting application rates based on assessment of crop needs; minimizing losses by
synchronizing the application of nutrients with plant uptake; correcting placement to make the nutrients more
accessible to crop roots (micro fertilization and micro dosing) and using controlled-release forms of fertilizer that
delay its availability for plant uptake and use after application. Furthermore, N&P released from untreated
sewage also need urgent attention. For example, in Brazil according to a 2008 national household survey, only
28.5% municipalities had wastewater treatment systems.
Africa: Dr. Cargele Masso of the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture, Central Africa Hub, Kenya in
his presentation divided the continent. Africa could be divided into 5 sub-regions in terms of its soil health. For
example, in the western humid lowlands of Ivory Coast, Ghana, Nigeria and Cameroon, 58% of land area is
degraded. For central humid lowlands of Angola and Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) this stands at 40%;
southern humid lowlands covering Madagascar it is 64%; east and central highlands that covers Burundi, DRC,
Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda and Uganda this comes of 49%; southern moist savannahs covering Malawi,
Mozambique, Tanzania and Zambia this stands at 43% and in the western moist savannahs covering Benin,
Ghana, Nigeria and Togo this goes as high as 90%. The key factors for degradation are soil erosion, nutrient and
organic matter depletion and loss of nutrient to the environment. According to some estimates, in the 38
countries of the sub-Saharan Africa, on average, nitrogen (N) loss stands at 22 kg/ha/annum, for phosphorus (P)
it comes to 3 kg and for potassium (K) this comes to 15 kg/ha/annum. Cost of such losses is huge; for Zimbabwe
the cost of N & P loss is USD 1.5 billion per year.
The Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM) practices such as consideration of improved germplasm, and
the knowledge to adapt these to local conditions, which maximize fertilizer and other agro-input, use efficiency
and crop productivity, are considered the possible solutions to poor land, water and nutrient management in
African agriculture. Currently, Africa uses less fertilizers than other countries in the world. However, where it is
being used, there is increased acidification and loss of soil organic matter due to its inappropriate application
and management.
To promote fertilizer use efficiency, it is recommended to fine-tune recommendations; strengthen the capacity
of the extension systems, taking note of farmers knowledge to understand the history of their soil fertility;
reduce direct and indirect taxes on fertilizer and reduction of fertilizer transport costs; and finally promote 5Rs
(Right Fertilizer; Right Placement; Right Dose; Right Timing and Right Field Management) to make ISFM
interventions affordable and profitable to resource-disadvantaged small-farm holders in Africa.
3 of 16
Asia: Two presentations were made, one covering South Asia, with a focus on India, and the other on East Asia,
using China as an example.
The South Asia presentation, made by Dr. N. Raghuram of the Indian Nitrogen Group, started with a few basic
statistics to elucidate the challenge this region faces. South Asia has 4.8% of the world land area, 4% of the
world’s coastline, 14% of the global agricultural land and with this resources it needs to feed 22% of the World’s
population. Currently, 94 % of the arable land has already been cultivated and this cannot expand further.
Nutrients pollution of the South Asian coastal environment is from a variety of sources, including agriculture,
aquaculture, municipal and domestic sewage and industrial sources. The World’s largest natural hypoxic zone
develops seasonally on the Western side of India while the east coast is relatively less prone to hypoxia.
Agricultural nutrient loading to coastal waters is primarily during the rainy season and floods. Among all these,
sewage is the single main source of pollution of coastal waters from the land. Estuarine and coastal systems in
South Asia are nitrogen limited and N loading can trigger algal blooms and eutrophication. Some of the estuaries
studied, notably along the Indian east coast, are phosphorus limited and are affected by P loading. In South Asia
in general, and India in particular, nutrient use efficiency in rice production system has declined substantially
over the last four decades, while the fertilizer use is higher than the world average. However, in Bangladesh,
Fertilizer deep placement promoted by the International Fertilizer Development Centre, has improved nutrient
use efficiency substantially and that also led to increase in the income of the farm households.
The Indian Nitrogen Group and the Society for Conservation of Nature is currently undertaking a regional study,
with technical support from the South Asia Co-operative Environment Program (SACEP) and the Global
Partnership on Nutrient Management (GPNM), to establish the base line on nutrient use/management systems,
compile the current state of knowledge and to formulate recommendations to address the identified
constraints, in order to promote technological and management measures for a coordinated, sub-regional
approach.
The South Asian group, in order to promote nutrient use efficiency, is working to define Strategic options (i.e.,
improving supply-demand synchrony; improvement in soil health and improvements in varieties); Management
options (i.e., site-specific nutrient management; integrated nutrient management; improving application
methods; improving the fertilizer formulations and integrated crop management); development of Tools and
technologies (i.e., leaf colour chart; decision support system; remote-sensing; geographic information system
and precision farming) and finally on Policy options (i.e., dissemination of available technologies; incentives for
adoption of efficient technology; funding for R&D, development of professional networks, monitoring projects
and infrastructure, subsidy and crop insurance).
The South Asia presentation was concluded with some key highlights of recent initiatives towards sustainable
agriculture in India, which among others includes Organic farming that is catching up, not only because of value
addition, but also for sustainability. Many State governments (such as Delhi and Uttarkhand) have declared their
states as organic farming states. Some NGOs implemented large scale organic farming without compromising
yield. e-sagu (IIIT) is implementing IT-enabled agri-advisory service in many districts for a decade and the
biotechnologists are using genomics, proteomics and bioinformatics in nutrient use efficiency research.
The East Asia presentation by Dr. Yuelai Lu of UK-China Sustainable Agricultural Innovation Network (SAIN)
focused on China, with the message that China’s agriculture and food security is a success story. Since 1980 both
grain and meat production has increased substantially. This has resulted in decrease of under-nourished
population from nearly 145 million in 1995 to roughly 127 million in 2005. But this growth has come at a price.
According to 2010 national pollution survey, 2.7 million MT of Nitrogen (1.7 from crop production and the rest
1.0 million MT from livestock production) and 0.3 million MT of Phosphorus (0.1 MT from crop and 0.2 MT from
livestock production) are discharged in the water system.
It is stated that the nutrient management challenge in China is intimately linked to the changing dietary pattern
of the Chinese society. In China, consumption of rice, wheat and other grans shows a steady decline whereas
4 of 16
consumption of fruits, red meat and poultry, milk, fish and edible oil has marked a significant increase since
1980.
Recognizing the imminent threat of nutrient pollution, the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture has announced its
resource efficiency and climate smart agriculture policy with several measures/targest to reach by 2015,
compared with 2010 and they include: Ammonia nitrogen emission reduced by 10%; Fertilizer use efficiency
increased by 3% and Over 50% of intensive livestock farm or livestock raising community equipped with waste
treatment facilities.
China is exploring probable solutions to decrease N run-off, such as sub-surface application of N, improved
timing of applications, farmer collaboration, use of N inhibitors within the soils, introduction of slow release
fertilizers, and improved policy decisions related to subsidies on fertilizers.
Caribbean: Two presentations were made, one on the nature and challenges of Jamaican Eutrophication
problems by Dr. Tom Goreau of Global Coral Reef Alliance, and the other on Jamaica’s nutrient management,
particularly use of wastewater and sludge, by Mrs. Paulette Kolbusch of the National Environment and Planning
Agency of Jamaica.
Dr. Tom Goreau of the Global Coral Reef Alliance pointed out that eutrophication is a growing problem in
Jamaica and the wider Caribbean. The coastal areas of the Caribbean are prone to eutrophication due to low
currents, low tides and low circulation. It has been stated that excessive overgrowth of algae as a consequence
of nutrients and thus creating hypoxic/dead zones is on the rise. The Kingston Harbour of Jamaica is reported to
be eutrophic. There is an increase in nutrient inputs into the waters resulting from coastal developments. The
eutrophic area initially starts to grow outward from the source and eventually merged with original sources until
they become invisible. The immediate causality of this is coral reef, which needs clearest and purist water to
grow and survive. Once the corals are destroyed the fishery gets affected, as for many of the fish species, coral
serves as the habitat and spawning ground. The process can only be reversed if human nutrient inputs from land
get under control.
Recognizing the importance of coral and health of the ocean for its contribution to Jamaica’s economy, in the
1950s, the first diving research and tropical diving club in the world was established in Jamaica to study the
health of coral and other marine resources. The data starting in the late 50s shows that by the 70s, coral reefs of
the Kingston harbour, Port Royal Cays, Montego Bay and Ocho Rios and Runaway bay areas were all impacted by
over-grown algae and the Ocho Rios and part of Montego Bay reefs were further impacted by dumping of
dredged materials. The situation continued to deteriorate and more and more areas got impacted. Given the
fact that Jamaican coastal waters have already excessive nitrogen, only a small addition of phosphorus triggers
massive algae blooms. To overcome this, Jamaica urgently needs to adopt “coral reef specific water quality
standards” and the thresholds could be defined based on requirements for coral growth and rate of algae
growth as a function of nutrient level. In several coral rich countries, such thresholds have been worked out and
we could draw lessons from their experiences. Jamaica, and for that matter, the Caribbean needs the strongest
water quality standards and nutrient recycling on land to preserve the coral, its tourism and fisheries industry
and thereby making its transition to sustainable development and eradication of poverty. A country such as
Turks and Caicos is working on national coral reef ecosystem specific nutrient standards for nitrogen and
phosphorus. There, by law, all hotels builds their secondary sewage treatment plant and recycle all their waste
water on their property for irrigating the ornamental plants. The nutrient management should be the corner
stone of coastal resources management. The coastal resources and/or zone management must dedicate
resources to enable their people to carry out nutrient mapping. The technology is available for such exercise but
we need to use them to lay the scientific foundation for coastal management.
Mrs. Paulette Kolbusch of the Jamaican National Environment and Planning Agency’s presentation
complemented some of the arguments advanced by Dr. Tom Goreau and she outlined Jamaicaan government
policy with reference to nutrient management and cited the example of recovering nutrients from wastewater
through its various uses and argued that reuse of wastewater for selected land application is more beneficial
than doing it through costly tertiary treatment system. It was also reported that Jamaica, in support of its
5 of 16
nutrient management strategy, has recently banned use of phosphate in detergent through amendment of its
“Commodity Standard for Phosphate in Synthetic Laundry Detergent”. References were also made to several
other supporting policies and legislations that complement government’s effort in managing the nutrients.
Under the current policy, standards for effluents discharge have been defined (e.g., maximum permissible limit
is for nitrogen 10mg/L and phosphorus 4mg/L; for industrial discharge, the standards are 10mg/L for nitrate and
5mg/L for phosphates). However, for use of sewage products as soil conditioner (fertilizer) farms are obliged
under law to submit nutrient management plans for approval and the plan must contain, among others, an
aerial photograph/map of the area and the exact delineation of the area where this will be used and the current
and/or planned crop production/crop rotation plan. The proponent/user is also expected to submit a report on
all nutrients (fertilizers) used and the results achieved. The National Environment and Planning Agency is
responsible for regular monitoring and reporting on the implementation of the newly introduced nutrient
management policy.
A special presentation
“Ecosystem Health Report Card – a tool for monitoring nutrient loads and health of coastal ecosystems:
case study of the Chilika Lake, India”.
This was a joint presentation by Dr. Ajit Pattnaik of the Chilika Development Authority, Government of Odisha,
India and Prof. R. Ramesh of the National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management, Ministry of Environment
and Forest, Government of India.
Dr. Ajit Pattnaik of the Chilika Development Authority started his presentation outlining the ecological and
social significance of Chilika Lake, which is a Ramsar site as well as the largest coastal lagoon in India (1000 sq
kms); is a biodiversity hotspot that houses 211 bird species; has the largest Irrawady Dolphin population; has 217
fish species, nearly one million of migratory birds during the winter period and supports livelihood base of 0.2
million fishers. However, due to natural processes and human interventions the lake ecosystem deteriorated
and in 1993 the Ramsar Convention listed the Chilika Lake in the Montreux Record due to change in the
ecological character. The Chilika Development Authority adopted a Restoration strategy based on the Ecosystem
approach and several targeted studies were undertaken to have a better understanding of the complex
ecosystem, the root causes of degradation and define technological and management interventions. In this
endeavour strategic partnerships with a wide array of organizations were established and a robust monitoring
protocol was put in place. In 2000 a new opening was created to link the lake with the Bay of Bengal. This
technical intervention, aided by management actions, paid dividends. Among others, there was an eight fold
increase in annual fish and prawn landing with consequent increase in monthly family income of fishermen;
invasive species decreased and in 2002 the Lake was removed from the Montreux record. In fact, Chilika was the
first site to be removed from the Montreux record due to its successful restoration.
According to Dr. Pattnaik, the Ecosystem Health Report Card that is being developed in the Chilika Lake would
serve as a tool for management of Chilika Lake and its basin. He apprised that ecosystem report cards are
transformative assessment and communications products that compare environmental data to scientific or
management thresholds and are delivered to a wide audience on a regular basis in a transparent manner.The
concept of an ecosystem health report card was discussed with various stakeholder groups of the Chilika Lake in
simple terms through holding of meetings. The stakeholders welcomed the idea. Subsequently, the concept and
the implementation plan were presented to the highest policy level i.e., the Chilika Governing Board which is
chaired by the Chief Minister of the Odisha state of India, and received its approval.
Prof. R. Ramesh of the National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management, the lead knowledge partner of
the Chilika project gave further details on the methodology of developing the ecosystem health report card. He
emphasized that the report card provides rigorous scientific assessment of key parameters based on welldefined threshold values which could also be used to develop communication products for a wide group of
audiences on a regular basis. Prof. Ramesh informed that to define ecosystem health, three set of indicators
have been selected. They are Water Quality index (such as chlorophyll a, dissolved oxygen, water clarity 6 of 16
turbidity, total nitrogen and total phosphorus); Biodiversity index (bird species count and richness, dolphin
abundance, seagrass distribution, phytoplankton and benthic diversity; and Fisheries index (total fish catch,
commercial species caught -finfish and shellfish and size of species). It was reported that for each set of indices a
threshold value has been defined based on (a) regulations (e.g. Indian Standards and US Environmental
Protection Agency standard); (b) biological limits; (c) socioeconomic requirements; (d) reference conditions, i.e.
another location with similar characteristics; (e) professional judgment and (f) reference site within the system.
Finally all the values will be summed up into one value to give the ecosystem a final grade in a scale of 0 to 10
and be presented with coloured maps and graphics for easy visualization.
Prof. Ramesh finally presented the results of the 2012 Chilika Ecosystem Health Report Card in terms of score,
graphics and GIS maps depicting health of Chilika Lake in general and of different ecological zones of Chilika. He
concluded by stating that the ecosystem health report card is designed not only to provide rigorous assessment
of key indicators to provide an integrated assessment of the ecosystem’s conditions, but also to communicate
science and/or complex information in simple terms to facilitate engagement of various stakeholders in taking
responsibilities for the management of the lake ecosystem. He also informed the meeting that the concept was
presented to the key personnel associated with the World Bank aided Indian Coastal Zone Management
program in the Ministry of Environment and Forest, and the Government of India and the World Bank India
Country Office have agreed to replicate the ecosystem health report card in other coastal states of India. In this
effort the first stakeholders’ workshop has already been concluded in the coastal State of Gujarat, India.
Possible solutions – perspectives from Industry and Academia
Dr. Terry Roberts of the International Plant Nutrition Institute (IPNI) gave the industry’s perspective on
“improving nutrient management in agriculture”. Dr. Roberts started his presentation with a definition of best
management practices that are used by the industry in their work to promote and support farmers in their
efforts. For industry BMP is “Research proven practices that have been tested through farmer implementation
to optimize production potential, input efficiency, and environmental protection”. The goal is to ensure that
plant nutrients are used efficiently and effectively in ways that are beneficial to society without adversely
impacting our environment. For the industry fertilizer best management practices, integrated plant nutrient
management, integrated soil fertility management, code of best agricultural practices, site-specific nutrient
management, etc. are components of plant nutrient management. The International Fertilizer Industry
Association (IFA) in 2007 hosted an international workshop to define principles of fertilizer BMPs and a strategy
for its wider adoption. The outcome of this workshop among others, was conceptualization of 4Rs (Right
nutrient, Right time, Right Dose, Right timing) and that led to publication and dissemination of a document titled
“Fertilizer Best Management Practices; General principles, strategy as the foundation and guiding principles for
fertilizer BMPs and a concept for global framework for their adoption and voluntary initiatives vs. regulation” by
IFA. He reminded the meeting that the role of fertilizer BMPs in sustainability is new and many stakeholders
(e.g., farmers, crop advisers and consultants, policymakers, consumers, and the general public) have an interest
in nutrient management and stakeholders have different expectations of nutrient management which revolves
around the pillars of sustainability. According to him, ideally all the pillars of sustainability would be equally
balanced, but in reality this does not occur and further balance between economic, social, and environmental
goals for nutrient management depend on the issue, its context, and the stakeholders. In consideration of the
above, the concept was further developed by IPNI scientists and they eventually developed the 4R Nutrient
Stewardship programme (right fertilizer sources; right rate, right time and right place) which was also endorsed
by the American Society of Agronomy in 2009. The framework is intended to aid the development and adoption
of nutrient BMPs that meet the goals of sustainable development. Dr. Roberts narrated the key scientific
principles of 4Rs and also gave examples of practical choices on each of the 4Rs. For example, on “right source”
he made reference to commercial fertilizer, livestock manure, compost and crop residue. He also reiterated that
to address sustainability one needs to pay equal attention to all 4Rs, as often rate is overemphasized and source,
time and place are under-emphasised, due to investment and other required changes in farm management
practices. The IPNI has developed a 4Rs use manual and that is available at www.ipni.net/4r. The manual
provides scientific principles of the 4Rs and also includes learning modules, case studies, decision support tools
and use of nutrient experts for location specific recommendations on BMPs consistent with the 4R approach.
7 of 16
Prof. Tom Sims of the University of Delaware, USA talked about improving nutrient management for animal
production systems. He noted that animal agriculture, nutrient management and global food security are closely
linked. Animal production, in essence, transforms nutrients from natural resources, fertilizers and soils into
“manure”. Manure and agriculture were though linked throughout the history of civilization, environmental
concerns about manures emerged in the 1970s, and now the worldwide issue is for water and air quality.
Furthermore, global trends in systems of animal agriculture and human diets are now forcing changes and
demanding innovations in manure management. According to one estimate (Bouwman et al, 2012) by 2025
there will be a “117% increase in global livestock production, which is inherently inefficient compared with crop
production…and that will lead to an increase in global N and P surpluses of 23% and 54% respectively”. There are
now efforts to recover nutrients from manure. For example, according to a report (Kellogg et al., 2000) in the
USA, only 20% of nitrogen and 37% of the phosphorus are recovered from the excreted manure. But it is
possible to improve nutrient use efficiency by animal agriculture and that would ask for strategic, sustainable
agri-environmental policies, tactics, and practices, comprehensive nutrient management plans – for the
farmstead and cropland and alternative uses for animal by-products through technological innovations. Lessons
could be learned from the Chesapeake Bay example. The 2010 Chesapeake Bay Manure Summit identified
priority manure management challenges and actions and they include: achieving nutrient balance on farms, in
sub-watersheds; developing markets to sustain manure management practices and systems; improving
compliance with manure, erosion, and sediment control rules; improvement of on-farm infrastructure;
advancement of technologies for manure application and developing and sustaining manure processing
industries. The USEPA in July 2013 published a document which, based on literature reviewed, outlined
contaminants in livestock and poultry manure and implications for water quality. The US Judiciary is also getting
involved in addressing this. The US District Judge Sylvia Rambo on 13 September 2013 upheld the Chesapeake
Bay plan and ruled that the EPA was within its authority to issue directives. She concluded by stating that
balancing soil fertility in manured soils must integrate crop and animal nutrition (N:P ratios). We can improve
nutrient management for global animal agriculture and that would call for agricultural and environmental policy
frameworks and sustained financial support; systematic, effective education and technology transfer to our
farming communities; integrated, basic and applied nutrient management research; and a strategy to “recouple”
animal and crop production systems. Finally, GPNM should be a leading force in global efforts to improve
nutrient use efficiency by animal agriculture.
PROPOSED SOLUTIONS TO ADDRESS THE NUTRIENT CHALLENGE






Fertilizer Best Management Practices to be actively promoted with appropriate extension services
covering issues such as soil fertility, soil conservation, etc.
Data and information should be processed and disseminated to various stakeholders (e.g. farmers,
policy makers, fertilizer sellers/distributors) in clear terms, on nutrient requirement of various crops
with reference to soil condition and agronomic practice and the nutrient uptake by plants.
Promote Integrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM) practices and adapt research results to suit the
knowledge of farmers and local agro-climatic conditions to maximize fertilizer and other agro-input use
efficiency and crop productivity
Wide application and use of 4Rs nutrient management stewardship system/principles (right time, right
source, right rate and right place of nutrient application).
Ensure adaptive management at farm levels, regional levels and policy levels to effectively implement
best management practices utilizing the 4Rs process. The manual on the 4Rs scientific principles
developed by International Plant Nutrition Institute (IPNI) can be used as a guide to support this process.
The IPNI document is available on WWW.IPNI.NET/4R
There is an urgent need to invest in R&D for development of new fertilizer products (such as fertilizer
deep placement technology as promoted by the International Fertilizer Development Centre in
Bangladesh and other parts) to improve crop production, ensure food security and enhancement of farm
household income.
8 of 16






Strengthening of private sector capacity to improve farmers’ access to appropriate technologies as it is
important to concurrently address supply- and demand-side issues to roll out any technological and
management options to farmers
There is a need for creating a pro-market policy environment and re-visiting current fertilizer subsidy
policies that are practiced all over the world.
There is a crucial need for government intervention to strengthen support systems to facilitate
sustainability of any innovative technology and /or management system.
The current system of concentrated livestock production warrants urgent attention. There has been a
steady increase in number of livestock with trends projected to continue, with further exponential
increase. Consequent of this will be an increase in manure production which has affected water and air
quality severely since the 1970s due to increased N&P loadings.
It would be important to incorporate best practices in animal husbandry, recognizing the value of
manure as fertilizer, use of environmentally friendly manure spreading techniques, development of
nutrient (and manure) management plans, mitigating gaseous emissions from manure through
establishment of treatment ponds, buffer zones between the concentrated animal production farms and
the nearby water courses, and nutrient management in livestock and urban agriculture.
Improving nutrient use efficiency in agriculture and managing nutrients loads from other sources, such
as aquaculture and animal husbandry, has many co-benefits and these need to be highlighted in policy
discussion. Currently there is no global forum/process that addresses the nutrient management from a
holistic/integrated perspective. GPA, based on its mandate coming from the IGR-3, could play a catalytic
role to facilitate dialogues and reaching consensus on nutrient management at the global level.
WHAT ISSUES DID PARTICIPANTS FEEL SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE WORK PLANS OF THE RELEVANT GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS















Further work to explore possible soil management options for trapping Nitrogen in the soils, given the
fact that often it is not the rate of N application but the timing of the applications which lead to mass
loss to the environment.
Develop linkages with other processes and scientific work in the field of such linking N2O emissions to
Ozone depletion.
N loading areas are not only related to N run-off. Work needs to be carried out to understand and
explain why N is staying where it is (around the word) released and multi-dimensional impacts on the
environment.
Economic cost of eutrophication is not to be accounted only for fisheries but also for other sectors and
services such as water quality, agriculture, biodiversity, recreational activities etc.
Exploration of N loading in estuarine areas particularly those receiving more fresh water and the
seasonal dimension of eutrophication, for example South Asia
Oceanic circulatory patterns to N distributions and its relationship/impacts on ocean acidification.
More research on biological recovery (not just biophysical) process, influencing factors (apart from
impact of detergent as its often stated for some of the recovered sites) and the time scale of
eutrophic/hypoxic zones
More research on work in Latin America to identify the types of wastewater treatment systems currently
being built and their potential effectiveness to address the problems identified.
Research on global nitrogen cycle towards the development of an International Nitrogen Management
System should be expedited so that this can contribute in the discussions of the next GPA IGR4 in 2016.
Further research in the use of organic fertilizers which may have more N than artificial fertilizers and its
potential role in addressing food security and environmental conservation.
Development of coral reef specific water quality standards for the Caribbean and beyond.
Nutrients need to be mapped in “real-time” to be able to effectively manage N&P introduction
Economic valuation of coastal ecosystems to assess the impacts of nutrient loading.
Studies to have sound scientific basis on “use of algae as indicators” of nutrient loading
Reaching the farmers on new and innovative methods of farming and nutrients use as a part of best
management practices.
9 of 16



Measureable indicators are needed for best management practices and they need to be disseminated
widely
Research on manure management that is generated from current animal husbandry practices which are
de-linked in often distanced places from the agricultural land which is the potential user of them.
Research on extraction of heavy metals (such as Cu and Zn) from manure is needed
LIST ANY ACTIVITIES THAT THE PARTICIPANTS AGREED TO UNDERTAKE THEMSELVES/JOINTLY IN THE PERIOD 2013-2016 TO
FACILITATE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GPA AND WHAT ROLE THEY FORESEE FOR THE GPA COORDINATION OFFICE IN THAT PROCESS.





Publishing a book exploring the methodologies of trapping nitrogen in soils (Dr. Tom Goreau of the
Global Coral Reef Alliances)
Developing a comprehensive data base and mapping of current and potential hypoxic/eutrophic zones
of South Asia (Prof. Ramesh of the National Centre for Sustainable Coastal Management India with
support from Prof. Diaz and WRI)
Support to African governments and other key stakeholders to develop policies on sustainable land
management and that could facilitate integrated soil fertility management to ensure crop production,
reduce nutrient mining and also reduce nutrients run-off
Advocacy and outreach for drawing attention to the need and importance of wastewater treatment
which have a significant bearing on the quality of coastal waters and human wellbeing
Continue collaboration between SAIN and GPNM to contribute to and monitor implementation of the
Chinese 5 year agricultural plan that is aimed to increase grain yield, introduction of good farming
practices, use of ferti-irrigation and efficient nutrient use.
Session – II: Developing the future agenda for joint actions to promote sustainable management of nutrients.
The session was moderated by Prof. Mark Sutton of the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, UK, Chair of the
International Nitrogen Initiative and Member GPNM Steering Committee.
The session was organized in two parts. It started with four presentations followed by a panel discussion.
The four presentations were made by
1. Dr. Anjan Datta, GPA and GPNM Secretariat – “Developing a collaborative agenda for sustainable
nutrient management.”
2. Dr. David Coates, Convention of Biological Diversity Secretariat, Montreal, Canada – “Opportunities for
nutrient (nitrogen) management within the CBD.”
3. Dr. Gérard Bonnis, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris – “Addressing the
human impacts on the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles – an OECD perspective.”
4. Prof. Jan Willem Erisman, Louis Bolk Institute, The Netherlands, “Addressing the nutrient challenge –
where we are and what needs to be revisited and/or strengthened further.”
Dr. Anjan Datta of GPA & GPNM Secretariat, in his presentation, reiterated that nutrients such as nitrogen and
phosphorus are key for maintenance of soil health to grow crops and thus ensuring world food security. In
today’s world, food security of two-thirds of the world’s population depends on availability and use of fertilizers.
However, often inappropriate use of nutrients leads to a number of unintended consequences, impacting
human wellbeing and ecosystems. Given the present mode of production and its use, nutrient contamination
has become a systemic problem. The global community, while recognising the importance of nutrients, also
called for actions to promote sustainable production and use of nutrients so as to reduce the unintended
impacts of nutrients in the environment. The global community through the Washington Declaration of 1995
identified nutrients as one of the source categories of the Global Programme of Action (GPA). This call was
reiterated by the governments during the intergovernmental review meeting of the GPA in 2001, 2006 and 2012
10 of 16
and the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002 held in Johannesburg, South Africa. The CBD 20112020 Strategic Plan for Biodiversity and the Aichi Targets outlined in “Living in Harmony with Nature”, the
Rio+20 Outcome document “The Future We Want”, and the United Nations Secretary General’s 2012 Oceans
Compact “Healthy Oceans for Prosperity” all made explicit references to the need for and urgency of managing
our nutrient world. In recognition of the above, UNEP in its 2014-2015 program of work committed “to catalyse
actions through the multi-stakeholder Global Partnership on Nutrient Management to reduce and, where
possible, eliminate threats to aquatic environments from land-derived nutrients”. Dr. Datta concluded his
presentation by stating that effective nutrient reduction strategies would call for new approaches and outreach
to society as well as a broad partnership of governments, industry, the science community, international
agencies, regional intergovernmental bodies and NGOs to address the nutrient challenge and the GPNM and
UNEP are fully committed to work with all stakeholders to address the unintended impacts of current
production and use of nutrients.
Dr. David Coates of the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) outlined the CBD’s
conservation agenda and explained the link between biodiversity conservation with poverty eradication and
maintaining value of ecosystem services. He stated that some of the CBD 2011-2020 strategic plan for
biodiversity and the Aichi targets are relevant to GPNM. The Target 8 and the relevant indicators is addressing
pollution and nutrients, while Target 3, calls for addressing incentives, including elimination, phase out or
reforming of subsidies that are harmful to biodiversity and Target 7 calls for managing agriculture, aquaculture
and forestry sustainably for ensuring conservation of biodiversity. He also emphasised that the issues of soil
management and nutrient recycling in soils are of crucial importance for managing sustainability and ensuring
food security. He further reminded that from a conservation perspective, the control of nutrients will not
reduce food security, but instead provide capacity for synergies in land-water-fertilizer use to promote food
security.
Dr. Gérard Bonnis of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Paris talked about
‘human impacts of the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles’ from a water security perspective. He noted that water
security is about establishing an acceptable level of water addressing four risks: (i) risk of shortage ; (ii) risk of
inadequate quality ; (iii) risk of excess and (iv) risk to freshwater systems (resilience). Using the data from the
OECD Environmental Outlook of 2008 and European Nitrogen Assessment of 2011, he projected the cascading
effects of nitrogen on coastal waters by 2030. He also demonstarted the loads on nitrogen and phosphorus in to
the water of various seas (i.e., Artic ocean, Atlantic ocean, Indian ocean ; Mediterranean and Black sea and
Pacific ocean) over time, from 1950, 1970, 2000 and with a projection of 2030 and 2050. He argued that for
managing nutrients it is important to set the acceptable levels of risk that stems from current scale and mode of
uses and the consequences and cost of amelioration. According to him, a risk-based approach allows the
assessment of policy priorities related to biodiversity, energy security, climate change, food security, economic
benefits or water security. The aim of policy should not be to reduce nitrogen emission everywhere and at any
cost, but the aim should be to improve water quality and identify the areas that are at risk of being affected by
nutrient loading. Furthermore, policies related to water security require the use of economic instruments such
as tax incentives, trading schemes, payments for ecosystem services, taxation on externalities, emission taxes,
carbon sequestration, carbon cap and trade, climate mitigation etc. Other interventions would include
agricultural policy reform, farmers’ education and participatory approaches to nutrient management.
Prof. Jan Willem Erisman of the Louis Bolk Institute, The Netherlands spoke on ‘addressing the nutrient
challenge - where we are and what needs to be revised and/or strengthened further’. He stated that in the
coming years nutrient inputs into the environment will increase, and given the uneven distribution of nutrients
around the globe, in some parts, shortages of nutrient will hamper growth and development whereas in surplus
regions pollution and ecosystem degradation will continue to be more intense if measures are not put in place.
The greatest challenge, of course, is ‘how to realize optimum agricultural productivity, high efficiency of
resource use (ie. nutrient use efficiency), improve and sustain soil fertility, better environment quality and finally
profitability for all. Best management practices advocated by various stakeholders are aimed at improving
productivity and profitability, and preserving the environment, but the progress is rather slow. Attention to
policy reform and/or policy development is crucial in order to expedite the process. Consumer’s perception and
behavior can also trigger changes. Information and best practice opportunities or management options that are
11 of 16
cost-effective need further attention for wider dissemination and they could also be used to develop toolboxes
to offer the decision-makers informed and interactive access to cost effective, replicable tools and approaches
to support policy development and implementation of nutrient management strategies. Citing the example of
the Netherlands, he reminded the meeting that it is possible to increase agricultural production while decreasing
nutrient inputs and losses. He concluded his presentation by putting a few questions for deliberation by the
panel in the subsequent session, and they were: (i) what new knowledge, technologies and policy options are
needed to ensure that future nutrient use is sustainable, improves food security and environmental quality and
provides benefits to the poor; (ii) what target should we set for our action, what indicators we should use to
assess progress and what actions we should pursue through GPNM to initiate change and/or improve nutrient
use efficiency; (iii) what indicators we should use as nutrient performance and nutrient use efficiency indicators
and (iv) what further actions we should pursue to strengthen the nutrient partnership.
WHAT ISSUES DID PARTICIPANTS FEEL SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE WORK PLANS OF THE RELEVANT GLOBAL PARTNERSHIPS
CBD has not really focused on agricultural impacts on biodiversity but recognizes that it is important to get the
inter-related issues in to the agenda
LIST ANY ACTIVITIES THAT THE PARTICIPANTS AGREED TO UNDERTAKE THEMSELVES/JOINTLY IN THE PERIOD 2013-2016 TO
FACILITATE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GPA AND WHAT ROLE THEY FORESEE FOR THE GPA COORDINATION OFFICE IN THAT PROCESS.
o
o
The GPNM will endeavor to get the issues of nutrient management on the agenda at global
environmental conferences
CBD to develop collaboration with GPNM in its effort to realize the Aichi Target 8 and outline activities
for global management of nutrients.
Panel discussion: Framing the next steps “Integrated approach to nutrient management”.
Panellists included representatives from OECD (Dr. Gérard Bonnis), Government of the Netherlands (Ms.
Hermien Busschbach), CBD (Dr. David Coates), India (Dr. Ajit Pattnaik) and IPNI (Dr. Terry Roberts).
The members addressed the following key success questions:
o
o
o
o
o
o
What new knowledge and technologies exist and can be introduced to manage nutrient loadings?
What new and relevant nutrient management policies should be developed to promote change?
What are the best indicators to be developed to monitor the effectiveness of nutrient management
plans and programs?
How can the stakeholders be reached and educated to change practices?
What key actions (policy analysis, policy reform, defining nutrient performance indicator and nutrient
use efficiency, strengthening of partnership, supporting on the ground interventions) are needed?
Who will be the main actors?
WHAT ISSUES/CHALLENGES LIMIT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP ON NUTRIENTS
o
o
o
o
o
o
Social political and economic constraints to upgrading the solutions worldwide needs concerted
attention
On-farm nutrient management, technology transfer and incentives to farmers is needed to promote
reduction in nutrient loadings
Integrated approach to economic valuation and benefits should be used as a push to implementing
nutrient management initiatives
More education on nutrient management stewardship and the benefits this brings to individual farmers
and the society as whole
Nutrient use efficiency indicators and indicators on emission of nutrients are needed urgently
Crop production should be linked to animal production to capitalize on manure use
12 of 16
o
o
o
o
o
o
Draw lessons for the Netherlands and other countries where agricultural productivity has not been
compromised while improving nutrient use efficiency and environmental sustainability
Partner with Phosphate Value Chain i.e. return of phosphates to the cycle to facilitate change and draw
lessons
Work with government and other stakeholders for the development of regulations and enforcement to
compliance in a bid to reduce nutrient loadings
Promote subsidizing system approach as opposed to giving subsidies to individuals or a product
Risks associated with nutrient management should be identified, and Concern Assessment of the risks by
the population associated with nutrient loadings (such as diets of people)
Establishment of the acceptable level for nutrient loading (the tipping point)
LIST ANY PRIORITIES, ACTIVITIES AND ACTIONS THAT NEED TO BE UNDERTAKEN FOR THE PERIOD 2013-2016 TO FACILITATE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GPA AND WHAT ROLE THEY FORESEE FOR THE GPA COORDINATION OFFICE IN THAT PROCESS.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Quantify the co-benefit (environment and human health benefit) of sustainable nutrient management
Work being done in Brazil on nutrient management should be explored and replicated
Promotion of organic farming
Timescales for recovery of ecosystems once nutrient loadings are minimized need to be explored
Use global platform events (such as World Cup) and social media to promote information on nutrients
(its relationship with human wellbeing and the environment). N-footprint could be used as a tool to
promote this. In addition, “Champions” should be identified, or even naming signature days/years to
promote GPNM activities
Countries with severe nutrient loading problems should undergo research to understand the types of
loadings and the sources
Explore N-Footprint and use events like UN Environment Assembly (UNEA) to promote further
discussion on this. UNEA Ministerial dinner could be used as an opportunity to expose the link between
our consumption patterns/food choices and the nutrient challenge.
Focus on capacity building of farmers in overcoming the barriers they are faced with in terms of nutrient
management and growing of crops
Close cycle of nutrients (keeping nutrients within the loop)
Nutrient stewardship needs to be science based
Mapping of risks as it relates to the current nutrient use patterns
Restore ecological foundation of farming systems to promote water and food security
Nutrients (mis)use and its relation to trade needs to be studied
Raise profile of science communication
13 of 16
GPNM Session Agenda
Subject
Background
Sustainable nutrient management: global challenges,
regional priorities and perspectives; and developing
Run Dates
3 October 2013
the future agenda for joint actions
Nutrients - nitrogen and phosphorous are key to growing crops and thus to the world’s food security.
However, in some parts of the world farmers do not have access to enough nutrients to grow crops and
feed the growing populations, while in many other parts of the world there is an ‘excess’ of them in the
environment as a result of industrial and agricultural activity and this has profound impacts, from pollution
of water supplies, creation of dead zones to the undermining of important ecosystems and the services
and livelihoods they support.
The result is a seeming divide between societal needs for food and energy and a complex web of adverse
environmental impacts, which undermine the natural resource base and the services and livelihoods it
provides. This divide – ‘the nutrient challenge’- is set to intensify, to the cost of countries, as population,
urbanization and food and energy demands increase.
If the nutrient challenge is to be met, it will be important to improve nutrient use efficiency and availability
of nutrients in the areas of overall shortage (e.g., in Africa) in order to meet the global target of food
security.
This session will examine the nature of the global challenge and how to meet the challenge of greater
nutrient use efficiency in the food production systems in various regions of the world, as both too little or
too much of nutrients have impacts on food security, human wellbeing and the environment.
Chair/Facilitator
/Moderator
Dr. Greg Crosby and Prof. Mark Sutton
Location
Attendees:
Objective
Key questions
Expected
recommendatio
ns from the
discussion
Organization
partners
Structure for
discussion
Time: Start
08:30
Time: End
18:00
Representatives of governments, industry, science community, NGOs and UN agencies.
To facilitate consensus building among the various stakeholders on the nature and scale of the nutrient
management challenges from a global and regional perspective.
To seek to distill the nature of the nutrient challenge and answering clearly why should anyone care, how
has the problem got worse, what is already being done, and what still needs to be done.
It is argued that if the world is going to learn to manage its nutrients better, then the world's citizens need
to be motivated to make it happen. This session aims among others to frame the key messages for
steering actions by various stakeholders to promote sustainable nutrient management in the context of
food security and environmental sustainability.
GPNM Partners:
Governments of the USA, Netherlands and India
Agencies: INI, IFDC, IPNI, IFA, FAO, CDA, ING, NCSCM and others
14 of 16
Duration
08:30- 08:45
8:45 – 09:15
09:15 - 09:45
09:45– 10:00
10:00 - 12:00
10:00– 10:20
10:20- 10:40
10:40 –11:00
11:00– 11:20
11:20-11:40
11:40-12:10
Program Outline
Topic
Session I: Global challenges, regional priorities and perspectives - Chair Dr. Greg Crosby
Dr. Greg Crosby
US Department of Agriculture
Nutrient Management Challenges and Policy Issues: global overview Prof. Mark Sutton
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, UK
International Nitrogen Initiative
The Coast and Oceans – home of the excess Nutrients!
Prof. Robert Diaz
Prof. Emeritus, Virginia Institute of Marine Science
USA
Questions, Answers and Discussion
Regional Perspectives (15 minutes presentation followed by Q&A)
Nutrient management challenges in Latin America
Dr. Luiz R G Guilherme
Universidade Federal de Lavras, Brazil.
Nutrient management challenges in Africa
Dr. Cargele Masso
International Institute for Tropical Agriculture,
Central Africa Hub, Kenya
Coffee
Nutrient management challenges in Asia
Dr. N. Raghuram
Indian Nitrogen Group/Society for Conservation of
Nature, India
Nutrient management challenges in the Caribbean
Dr. Thomas J. Goreau
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance
The next two presentations are on solutions
12:40 -13:00
Dr. Terry Roberts
International Plant Nutrition Institute, USA
Improving nutrient management in livestock production systems
Prof. Tom Sims
University of Delaware, USA
Questions, Answers, Discussion and Synthesis
13:00– 14:00
Lunch Break
13:00– 13:30
14:00– 18:00
Special Event: Ecosystem Health Report Card of Chilika Lake India
Session 2: Developing the future agenda for joint actions to promote sustainable management of nutrients.
Moderator Prof. Mark Sutton
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology UK/International Nitrogen Initiative
Developing a collaborative agenda for sustainable nutrient
Dr. Anjan Datta
management
GPNM Secretariat
12:10– 12:40
14:00 –14:20
Improving nutrient management in agriculture. Industry Perspective
14:20– 14:40
Opportunities for nutrient (nitrogen) management within the CBD
14:40-15:00
Addressing the human impacts on the nitrogen and phosphorus
cycles – an OECD perspective.
15:00-15:30
Addressing the nutrient challenge – where we are and what needs
to be revisited and/or strengthened further.
Coffee
Panel discussion: Framing the next steps “Integrated approach to
nutrient management”: key actions (policy analysis, policy reform,
defining nutrient performance indicator and nutrient use efficiency,
strengthening of partnership, supporting on the ground
interventions) and actors.
Each Panel members will be requested to share their thoughts on
“Integrated approach to nutrient management” for 3 minutes, and
give 5 key action points: “what needs to be done, what are the
crucial levers to facilitate actions, what experiences can you share
to demonstrate that they worked, and if not what did not work and
why.
15:30-16:00
16:00– 17:45
15 of 16
Dr. David Coates
Convention on Biological Diversity Secretariat
Montreal, Canada
Dr. Gérard Bonnis
Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development, Paris
Prof. Jan Willem Erisman
Louis Bolk Institute, The Netherlands
Panellists to include Representatives from
OECD (Dr. Gérard Bonnis), Governments of the US
(Dr. Sasha Koo-Oshima and Dr. Greg Crosby),
Netherlands (Ms. Hermien Busschbach), CBD (Dr.
David Coates), India (Dr. Ajit Pattnaik) IPNI (Dr.
Terry Roberts)
17:45-18:00
Synthesis and key conclusions
Prof. Mark Sutton
Short video show
Nutrient Runoff - Two Minutes on Oceans with Jim Toomey
16 of 16

CAR WG. 35 INF.8 (lbs cop2)-en

Transcription

Similar documents

Ayder Hospital at Mekelle University, Ethiopia

PDF - Monterey Boats

Scuba Dogs at Escambrón Marine Park

Icerette Promo - Raritan Engineering

SelectTN -Technology Park II at Holston Army Ammunition Plant

Wrentham OutLet maLL

Issue 10 - Storrar Marine

syntheticmarinelubric antsyntheticmarinelub ricantssyntheticmarin e

Sanjay Bhat - Municipalika

View bulletin - Comité sectoriel de main