F İ _ A X AiK.--^ . A i i L b C K A л ^л ^ "^-î^ ? ^ a J2süi —S» — i» S e - i — ** î M H ¿Í «; V ^w -L b h ,· V e > 'f ^ ^ =Ί w4İ— s « 5 ¿L ¡ г ^ ^ с д / В і Ш â î I V ia, Hi î s-щш î ' j W Î N i S , s ■ ¡H C ^ 'r ^ A 4 - 5
-29
Т З 5·0 3 5
SAVING THE MEDITERRANEAN:
MED PLAN AND INTERNATIONAL
COOPERATION
A THESIS PRESENTED BY ZEYNEP ASLI TALU
TO
THE INSTITUTE OF ECONOMICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
BILKENT UNIVERSITY
JUNE, 1995
НС
I 4 k . s
■гз
T ¿ S
I certify that f have read this thesis and in my opinion it is fully adequate, In scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of International Relations.
Thesis Supervisor Asst. Prof. Dr. Gulgun Tuna
I certify that I have read this thesis and in my opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of International Relatl
ya Akgönenç
I certify that I have read this thesis and in my opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of International Relations.
Asst. Prof. Dr. Omer Faruk Gençkaya
Approved by the Institute of Economics and Social Sciences.
/ //и
L
A B S T R A C T
The pollution of the Mediterranean environment is a problem common to alm o st a ll of the bodies of w ater on the surface of the earth. What sets the pollution in the Mediterranean Sea apart from any others is th a t intensive i n t e r n a tio n a l e f f o r t s at overcoming i t have been underway fo r decades now and w i t h considerable success. The Mediterranean Action Plan is the f i r s t example of an extensive regional e f f o r t at overcoming marine p o llu tio n . Although i t has not been able to revers e the damage done to the Mediterranean Sea, i t has n e ve rth e le ss given r i s e to a consciousness of p o l l u t i o n and the need f o r c o n t r o l l i n g i t and consequently has saved the Mediterranean from a doomsday scenario w hich would o th e r w is e have been awaiting it. Moreover, i t is important in that i t managed to bring all of the Mediterranean l i t t o r a l countries to the n egotiations table despite t h e i r differences, though they were many. In th is respect, the success achieved in the Mediterranean Action Plan can be base to i n t e r n a t i o n a l environmental cooperation in other environmental issues.
Ö Z E T
Deniz kirle n m e s i aşağı yukarı dünya yüzeyindeki tüm su k ü t l e l e r i n i n o r ta k sorunudur. Akdenizdeki k i r l e n m e y i d iğ e rle rin d e n f a r k l ı kılan bu sorunu aşmak için y ı l l a r d ı r sürdürülen ve oldukça başarılı sa yılab ile ce k olan yoğun u lu s la r a r a s ı çabalardır. Akdeniz Eylem Planı deniz k i r l i l i ğ i n i ortadan k a ld ır m a k i ç i n düzenlenen çok yönlü bölgesel çalışmaların i lk örneğidir. Akdeniz Eylem Planı her ne kadar var olan k i r l i l i ğ i ortadan kaldıramadıysa da, k i r l i l i k b i l i n c i n i ve onu te m iz le m e gereğini b e lle k le re y e r l e ş t i r m i ş ve bu sayede de Akdeniz iç in yazılm ış olan kıyamet senaryolarını geçersiz k ı l m ı ş t ı r . Bundan öte, Akdeniz Eylem Planı kıyı ü lk e le r in in tümünü pek çok f a r k l ı l ı k l a r ı n a rağmen anlaşma masasına g e tir e b ilm iş olması dolayısıyla da önemlidir. Bu anlamda, Akdeniz Eylem Planında elde e d i l m i ş olan başarı, d i ğ e r u lu s l a r a r a s ı çevre sorunlarında uluslararası çevre i ş b i r l i ğ i n e örnek olu ştu ra b ilir.
A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S
I would like to express my g ra titu de s to all those people who have been kind enough to lend me t h e ir support throughout my study.
My special thanks go to my fa m ily who provided me w i t h both the moral and f i n a n c i a l support to complete th is study.
i am also very much grateful to my supervisor Asst. Prof. Dr. Gülgün Tuna who p a t i e n t l y assisted me th ro u gh ou t the study w i t h both her v a lu a b le recommendations and encouragements.
I would also like to thank Dr. Oya Akgönenç and Asst. Prof. Ömer Faruk Gençkaya fo r p a rtic ip a tin g in my j u r y and f o r t h e i r valuable comments and recommendations which made possible the fi n a l form of this thesis.
Zeynep Aslı Talu
Abstract... i Özet... ii Acknowledgments... i i i Table of Contents... iv 1. Introduction...1 2. Theoretical framework; Cooperation th eories...7 3. Development of i n t e r n a t i o n a l concern about environmental p o llu tio n in the Mediterranean and the establishment of Med Plan... 25
3.1 Description of environmental p o llu t io n in the Mediterranean and i t s e f f e c t s ... 25 3.2 In te rnational consciousness to w a rd s the problem arises...34 3.3 I n t e r n a t i o n a l e f f o r t s to c o n t r o l e n v i r o n m e n t a l p o l l u t i o n in the Mediterranean...37 3.4 The establishment of Med Plan...41 3.5 The components of Med Plan...42
4. C onclusion: O b s t a c le s h i n d e r i n g the im p le m e n ta tio n of agreements: Can a t t e m p t s at overcoming them be base to f u r t h e r inte rna tio na l cooperation?... 59
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
CHAPTER I; INTRODUCTION
Environmental pro ble ms are taking on a more and more global c h a r a c t e r i s t i c with each passing day. Pollutants of all types are transboundary and thus affect many countries r a th e r than just one.
Countries have become ecolo gica lly
interdependent due to the transboundary nature of pollutants.
The Mediterranean basin which lies at the crossroads of the world (between three continents
and two oceans) has been cradle to many a
c i v i li z a t i o n throughout h is to r y . The ety mology o f its name gives us a good clue as to the nature of the sea. From Latin médius and terra, the word Mediterranean means “ surrounded by land.” In fact, the word “ M é d ite r r a n é e ” means “ ce nte r of the world." '
The Mediterranean has f o r many centuries given man his bread. It is one o f the most beautiful seas of the world, one of phenomenal richness and v a r i e ty . But mankind has been very ungrateful in retu rn and has not, until r e c e n t ly , stopped to think about the health of the sea which p ro vide s fo r him. He has appallingly abused the sea. His a c t i v i t i e s both in the sea and on land have been th reate ningly burdensome on the Mediterranean.
The Mediterranean has long been polluted, but it was not u ntil the Increased ta nke r t r a f f i c o f the early 20th century that p o ll u t io n became v is ib le to the naked eye. Then suddenly c o n s e rv a tio n is ts , s c i e n ti s ts and journalists alike began to talk o f the ‘d e a th ’ of the Mediterranean. Xavier Pastor summarizes the situ ation at the time as follows; “ there seemed l i t t l e doubt that, if no solutions
were found to the growing assault on the
Mediterranean environment, then the fate of the sea would be sealed f o r e v e r . ”^
Indeed the Mediterranean was wounded by the p a r tic u la rly intense and harmful pollutio n on its shores. Moreover, although there is a v i r t u a l lack of currents in the Mediterranean, p o llu ta n ts did tra v e rs e from one country to the next, a lb e it
slowly. Thus, coordinated regional action was
needed fo r its recovery.
The f i r s t United Nations Conference on the environment was held at Stockholm in 1972. This conference was the f i r s t international legal step
taken regarding environmental problems. The
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) was established at this conference.
Not v e r y soon a f t e r the r ea liz a tio n o f pollution the Mediterranean s ta te s , knowing fully well that solutions required regional cooperation and realizing that t h e i r lim ite d a tte m p ts at pollution contr ol were not enough, called on UNEP to take o v e r regional c o n tr o l e f f o r t s .
UNEP responded by establishing the
Mediterranean Action Plan in 1975. The Med Plan, as it is known fo r short, is a series of legally binding agreements to bring various kinds of p ollu tio n under co n tro l and to improve w i ld l if e p ro te ctio n .
Med Plan repre sents an example of a
c o ll e c ti v e e f f o r t to coordinate the c o n tr o l practices o f all eighteen Mediterranean l i t t o r a l countries. And as it is a r e l a t i v e l y successful example of international cooperation, it has been chosen as a case study to be analyzed in this thesis. Indeed, the setting of the Mediterranean is one where extensive cooperation might be least
expected to occur. As Peter Haas indicates,
“ environmental cooperation, as in o th e r
international issues, means th a t d i f f e r e n t p a r tie s accommodate th e ir actions in accord with the desires o f t h e i r p a r t n e r s . ” ^ And, needless to say, these 'd e s i r e s ’ vary. Both p o l i t i c a l and economic c o n tr o v e r s ie s stand in the way o f cooperation. When cooperating in p o l l u t io n contr ol, sta tes
disagree on the level o f q u a lit y desired, the scope of p ollutan ts to co n tr o l and many o th e r issues. Moreover, the Mediterranean reg ion is beset by deep p o l i t i c a l animosities, one v e ry fa miliar example being that of the h is t o r i c a l Turco-Greek enmity. .
Yet, remarkably enough, the Med Plan has succeeded in bringing all of the Mediterranean
countries to the same table to discuss the
p r o t e c t i o n of the sea that they all share. The Med Plan is thus considered to be a r e l a t i v e l y successful case of in terna tio na l cooperation. All
the same, however, th is plan also has it s
shortcomings and there are many obstacles that stand in the way to full cooperation. The purpose o f this study is to make a c r i t i c a l analysis o f the
Mediterranean Action Plan with a v ie w to
understanding the elements of success as well as the deficiencies of the plan. The ultimate o b je ctive of the thesis is to evaluate the a tte m p ts to overcome obstacles to in terna tio na l cooperation and the p ro spe cts of applying the same procedures to oth e r cases of environmental problems.
In this respect, chapte r II w ill lay out a th e o r e tic a l framework fo r the thesis. It w ill b r i e f l y present three d i f f e r e n t th e o rie s of cooperation: neorealism, h is t o r i c a l m ate ria lis m , and the
epistemic community model and decide which of
the three b e st explains cooperation in the
Med iterranean.
Chapter 111 will f i r s t l y look into the development o f in t e rn a tio n a l concern about environmental pollution. A d e sc r ip tio n of pollutio n in the Mediterranean, and i t s e ffe c ts , the rise of international consciousness towards the problem and international e f f o r t s to co n tro l the problem
will be provided within this chapter. The
establishment of the Med iterranean Action Plan, its major regional t r e a ti e s , as well as the coordinated research and mon ito ring, integra te d planning components and financial aspects of the plan w ill also be looked into in th is chapter.
The final chapter of the thesis will look into
some o f the obstacles which bar the fu ll
implementation of agreements. It w ill also study what has been done w ith in the framework of the Med Plan to overcome these problems, and whether or not the Med Plan can set an example to f u r t h e r international cooperation.
As a whole then, th is study will tr y to demonstrate that in terna tio na l cooperation is not a dream over the rainbow, and that it is indeed passible despite problems. A f t e r all, i f the
Mediterranean countries which are so alike, y et so d ifferent, can come together to look for solutions, why can’t others?
CHAPTER II: THEORETICAL COOPERATION THEORIES
FRAMEWORK:
As p o llu tio n in the Mediterranean is of a
transboundary nature, overcoming it requires
c o lle c tiv e action and this can only be maintained through cooperation. “ Environmental cooperation, as in o the r in terna tio na l issues, means that d if f e r e n t p arties accommodate t h e i r actions in accord with the desires of t h e i r p a r tn e r s ,” ’
Robert Keohane w r ite s that intergovern menta l cooperation takes place when "the policies actually followed by one government are regarded by its partners as fa c i li t a t i n g r e a liz a tio n of th e ir own o bje ctives, as the result of a process of policy coo rd inat ion. ”2
Different schools o f thought o f f e r
c o n tr a d ic to ry i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the conditions under which cooperation in the Mediterranean is likely to occur, and its form. This study w ill look into three a lt e r n a tiv e views of cooperation: neorealism, h is t o r i c a l m ate ria lis m , and the approach of e p is te m ic communities.
Neorealism is concerned with the r e la tio n between state power and order, generally in the area of security affa irs and the p o l i t i c a l economy of the advanced In dustrialized societies.
Historical m a te ria lis m is concerned with international equity and the d is t r i b u t i o n of
economic resources, often in North-South
relations.
The approach of e p i s t e m i c communities is concerned with knowledge-based communities and the i n t e r p r e ta t io n of uncertainty. This approach involves groups of s p e c ia lis ts that are responsible for a rticulating p o lic ie s and iden-tlfylng the national interest.^
The neorealism school of thought accepts anarchy to be the p re vailing in terna tio na l condition that a ffe cts the state fo re ig n policy decision making process. This condition is characterized by Kenneth Waltz as being a system of “ s e l f - h e l p . ”"’ Under these conditions, the fundamental problem of world p o l i t i c s is accepted as being the “ uncertainty of r e c ip ro c a tio n ."s This uncertainty increases as do the number o f p artn ers, as a result of the d i f f i c u l t y of monitoring compliance. Neorealists assume th at countries are inhibited from cooperating out of fear that possible partners
may not r e cip ro ca te and that th is leads to a general unwillingness to commit to c o ll e c t i v e action for fe ar of being taken fo r a ‘p a t s y . ’
The notion that s t a t e s are doomed to perish unless they act to p r o t e c t t h e i r own autonomy is also a neo realist assumption. N eo rea lis ts claim that this is the idea th at lies behind c o m p e t it iv e behavior in c o lle ctive action. Nevertheless, even n eore alists , who generally speaking are very much p e s s im is tic about in terna tio na l co operation grant that in areas in which surv ival is not at risk such as environmental relations, cooperation is more lik e ly to occur because “ the costs of unreciprocated concessions are less as sta te survival is less at s ta k e .” 6 All the same, however, n eore alists maintain that it is lik e ly that sta te s will a t te m p t to preserve th e ir autonomy o ver policy choices, so as to reduce th e ir v u l n e r a b i l i t y to decisions made elsewhere. Kenneth Waltz maintains that “ state attachment to autonomy w ill never p e r m i t serious incursions on that autonomy in order to realize other goals, such as environmental p r o t e c t i o n . ’’^
Moreover, the more im p o rta n t environmental problems become, the more they assume “ the trappings o f r e a l is t s e c u r ity concerns.”8 Thus neore alis ts maintain that under such circumstances
the e ffe c tiv e r e s o lu tio n of environmental problems becomes less likely.
Overcoming in terna tio na l environmental
problems places opposite s ta te o b je c tiv e s against one another. While on the one hand all s ta te s wish to p r o t e c t public health and amenities this requires that they coordinate t h e i r policy action with that of th eir neighbors, as environmental problems are transboundary. On the o th e r hand, however, states also wish to “ insulate themselves from decisions made a b r o a d . T h u s , sta te s find themselves in a s itu atio n where environmental p r o t e c t i o n can only be obtained by s a c rific in g policy autonomy and in which policy autonomy can only be preserved at the cost of endangering the env ironment.
Kenneth, Waltz asserts that “ the c o ll e c ti v e goods nature of the problem of all types of shared pollutio n problems str on g ly in h ib its any c o ll e c ti v e e f f o r t s fo r t h e i r management. ” He fu r t h e r maintains that:
With a large number of actors whose a c t i v i t i e s need to be coordinated, the
mon itoring of national compliance is
d i f f i c u l t , and where none can be excluded from enjoying the b e n e fits of o t h e r s ’
unreciprocated p o llu t io n co ntr o l e f f o r t s , c o lle c tiv e action is deemed e x tr e m e ly u n lik e ly .’ '
Neorealists assume that:
If countries did cooperate, such
arrangements would be e x t r e m e l y fragile and t r a n s i t o r y , as sta te s would constantly be s tr o n g ly tempted to defect. They would also be very narrow, and cover very few p o llutan ts , sources o f pollution, or channels o f transmission, as sta tes would be acting to preserve th e i r
limited latitu de of policy making
authority. Uncertainty about the e x t e n t of p ollutio n would f u r t h e r inhibit cooperation, by fu r t h e r discounting the value of future b en efits from a cleaner env ironment. '2
W riters from the hegemonic s t a b i l i t y school of neorealism suggest that “ cooperation is most
likely to occur when i t is imposed by a dominant state or a ‘h e g e m o n . T h i s hegemon would need to have a “ preponderance of national r e s o u r c e s ” including “ c o n tr o l over raw m ate ria l, c o n tr o l over sources o f capital, co ntr o l o ver m arkets, and c o m p e t it iv e advantages in the pro duction of highly
valued g o o d s , a s well as a willingness to use them. The hegemonic s t a b i l i t y school then assumes that such a strong a cto r as described above would be able to persuade o th e r s ta te s to overcome th e i r resistance to cooperation.
There are two d i s t i n c t schools of hegemonic s t a b i l i t y theory: a benign v e rs io n and m ale vole nt one. Their most fundamental diffe re nce lies in:
...their basic presum ption about the
e x te n t of c o n flic t th a t exists in international relations. This o rie n ta tio n bears on whether or not they believe that all states w i l l b e n e fit from hegemonic cooperation.'5
The benign version (as presented by Robert Keohane and Charles Kindle berger), is based on:
a presumption that many cases o f
international cooperation are p o s i t i v e - sum games, and th at all sta te s may b enefit from cooperation, even though
they are leery about in i t i a ll y
p a r tic ip a tin g , out o f fear of n o n r e c i p r o c it y . '6
The hegemon pursues its own long-term
objectives, however, all b e n e fit from such
arrangements due to the nature of the issue in the
benevolent vers io n o f leadership. Smaller
countries may even b e n e fit more th at the hegemon in this version, fo r they reap benefits for which they do not have to pay, as the hegemon takes on the costs for the system to work. Nevertheless, cooperation is like ly to be tr a n s ito ry as the
hegemon, who having sustained the costs o f
leadership will, in time collapse.
The malevolent ve rs io n (as presented by Robert Gilpin and Stephen Krasner) sees "all
international rela tions as being inherently
c o n f l i c t u a l ” as they assume th at “ all states seek to gain contr ol over other s t a t e s . T h e malevolent version of hegemonic s t a b i l i t y assumes that “ all of world p o l i t i c s is a z e ro -s u m -g a m e , as one s t a t e ’s acquisition of power and wealth may only occur at anothers expense.” '® W r i t e r s o f the malevolent version of hegemonic s t a b i l i t y maintain that the hegemon pursues its own s h o r t - t e r m interests. As cooperation takes place in accordance with the in te re s ts of the hegemon, o th e r states do not wish to comply, thus must be forced to do so via a system of sanctions and rewards. However, this does not change the fact that these sta te s are actually being forced against t h e i r own wills to
cooperate, th e re fo re , it is highly lik e ly that they w ill “ flee like r a ts from a sinking s h i p ” in the absence of hegemony.
Cooperation under anarchy which is y e t
another tr a d i t i o n of the neorealism school of thought maintains that “ lim i te d cooperation is possible in the absence o f hegemony, or. in its afterm ath to prevent countr ie s from reneging on previous commitments.
Scholars of the cooperation under anarchy tr a d i t i o n (such as Keohane and A le x ro d ) have suggested that countries w i l l cooperate in o rd e r to acquire a number of In fo rm ational resources that
are commonly unavailable within anarchic
r e la tio n s .2^ These scholars also believe in the need
for “ powerful actors to intervene to create
coordinating i n s t i t u t i o n s ; ” however, they maintain that a number of fa c to rs may lead sta tes to continue to respect t h e i r agreements past the demise o f hegemony.22
One of the most im p o rta n t reasons th at states may favor cooperation in the absence of a hegemon is due to the reason that a situ a tio n of anarchy r e s t r i c t s the c ircu latio n of information; th e re fo re it is like ly that sta te s w ill value cooperative
pollutants, methods for t h e i r c o n tr o l, th e ir
channels of transmission and the costs for
regulation would all make coop era tion a t t r a c t i v e to states even in the absence o f a hegemon. Keohane maintains that a d m i n i s t r a t o r s would have to “ take care to guarantee the quality of i n f o r m a t i o n ” as uncertainty about the accuracy of information could very well ren der sm aller p a rtie s unwilling to cooperate.23
The his torical m a t e r i a l i s t t r a d i t i o n views cooperation from an e n tir e ly d i f f e r e n t perspective.
It sees;
a world o f enduring p o l i t i c a l and economic e x p l o i t a t i o n of Third World sta tes by European and North American states, occurring at m u l t i p le levels o f interactions, as well as the domination of e lite s over n o n e lite s.24
Immanuel Wallenstein o f the h is to r ic a l m a t e r ia l is t school of thought maintains that the world is divided into three spheres according to the international division o f labor. The highly developed Western countr ie s (DCs) are in the core, the newly ind u stria liz in g countries are in the semiperiphery and the less developed countries (LDCs), which e x p o r t raw m ate rials , such as
a g r icultu ra l goods are in the periphery according to th is division of labor.25
Historical m a t e r ia l is t s claim that when cooperation does take place, i t is on the terms o f the North, or the developed countries.26 They fu rth e r maintain that rela tion s between the industrialized North and the less developed South are part of:
a more complex, p ost-co lo n ia l
dependency of the p eripheral countries, in which foreign capital (in te rn a tio n a l corporations), p r o f i t re p a tria tio n , adverse changes in the terms of trade (unequal exchange) all play a role in confining, d is t o r t i n g or halting economic development and in d u s tria liz a tio n .2"
For the above reasons then, scholars of the h is t o r i c a l m a t e r ia l is t t r a d i t i o n believe th a t c a p i t a l is t exchanges with the North, or a t t e m p t s to c o l l e c t i v e l y manage such issues as pollutio n of the marine environment all work to the disadvantage of the developing world. As regards the management of p o llutio n , h is to ric a l m a t e r ia l is t s believe that arrangements would probably make LDCs pay fo r problems th at do not a f f e c t them. H is to ric al m a t e r ia l is t s believe that most concepts in
international re la tio n s and economic development have been formed by the north ern experience; they claim that l i t t l e or no a t t e n t io n has been paid to the conditions and i n t e r e s t s of the LDCs which are essentially quite d i f f e r e n t from those of the
north.28 For this reason then, historic al
m a te r ia l is t s doubt that the LDCs will ben efit from
environmental cooperation. The o ve rrr ld in g
h is to r ic a l m a t e r ia l is t concern is that
environmental cooperation w i ll deepen LDC
dependence on the North.
All the same, however, h is t o r ic a l m a t e r ia l is t s p re dict that a fa ir amount of environmental cooperation w ill take place in the Mediterranean. Yet, they also maintain that such cooperation w ill be subordinated to the broader economic and social factors operating in the region.
The eplste mic community school of thought is ■ an explanatory approach that is concerned with the
e ffe c t that expert s and knowledge-based
communities have on governmental learning and the
development of new sta te o bje ctives. This
approach looks into the conditions under which
behavior may change based upon a new
understanding of causal re la tio n s h ip s in the world.
The e p is te m ic community approach is based on an episte m o log ical warrant. Ep iste m o log ically, there is no such thing as a bru te fact. Anscombe, a scholar in this t r a d i t i o n maintains that:
All in t e r p r e ta t io n s come from a p r i o r
framework erected to organize
experience, from which certain
phenomena are id e n tified as facts and set into a given causal framework that w ill denote the Implica tions of such "facts. ” 29
Scholars from the e p is te m ic community t r a d i t i o n believe that our i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f events is processed through f i l t e r s , including those of p r i o r experience and expectations. This shaping of i n t e r p r e t a t io n s consequently gives way to a
subjective approach in responding to
environmental changes. They fu rth e r maintain that “ responses to changes are often lagged.
Very few of the many forms of environmental pollution are visible. Thus environmental changes themselves are not imm ediately apparent; th is renders sta te s re lian t on s c i e n t i s t s fo r the id e n ti fi c a ti o n o f po Hut ants.
The episte m ic community t r a d i t i o n maintains that leaders of the Mediterranean sta te s would be likely to turn to regional s c i e n t i s t s to "gain policy a d v ic e ” when confronted with “ evidence of coastal po llution. ”3’
The knowledge-based group of s c i e n t i s t s is an “ episte mic community.” Haas defines an epistemic community as being “ a pro fe ssional group that
believe in the same ca use -a n d -e ffe ct
relationships, truth te s ts to assess them, and shares common values.” Scie ntists of the e piste m ic community must share a “ common approach to
understanding.”32 xhey must be able to draw
sim ilar in te r p r e ta tio n s from given evidence, o ff e r sim ilar advice and make s im ila r policy conclusions if need be.
The most successful components of the Med Plan are those where UNEP’s episte m ic focus combined with the in t e r e s t s of the marine scientists. The failures of the Med Plan lie in the areas where the epistemic community was not functioning as i t should.33 The broad s c i e n t i f i c c o alition was what made the components o f the Med Plan understandable to policymakers and it was in issues that were understood by the leaders that success was achieved.34
The Med Plan’s e v o lu tio n confirms a number of the pro po sition s about the episte m ic community model. The epistemic community was consulted by governments so as to understand the level o f
pollution. The e p is te m ic community had a
considerable influence on the form and duration of environmental cooperation. It made i t s e l f f e l t both nationally and in te rna tio na lly .
The episte mic community was successful in arising public concern, s e ttin g the agendas, id e n tify ing the sources o f p o l l u t i o n , pollutants, and channels of pollution for regulation as well as:
... proposing sp ecific standards ... se tting the general universe of discourse by
extending concern with d is c r e te
pollution problems to a more generalized discussion of coastal land use patt erns and integrated planning.
The episte m ic community was thus able to influence the range and sources of pollutants that were contr olle d, and the channels by which they were tr a n sm it te d . By pro vidin g the Mediterranean countries with tim e ly s c i e n t i f i c evidence, it influenced both the pace of negotia tio ns and its content.
By shaping the agenda and persuading the foreign m in is tr y delegates o f the need to c o n tr o l specific pollutants, members o f the epistemic
community were able to achieve a more
comprehensive scope of p o llu t io n control. Those meetings at which the members of the epis te mic community were present were more successful than the ones without them. The 1979 s c ie n tific meetings are one example of the success that the presence of episte m ic communities brings about. As Haas puts it, “ in general, meetings where episte m ic communities are widely represented can
be contentious, but they are likely to yield
consensus.
Three d if f e r e n t approaches to inte rnational env ironiTiental cooperation were studied above. The international comm unity’s a b i l i t y to pre serve the quality of the planet f o r future generations depends upon international cooperation. However, this is not as easy as it may sound, fo r there are
many obstacles standing in the way o f
environmental cooperation. Some fa cto rs
complicating international environmental
cooperation in general w ill be described below.
F irs tly , the way th a t national governments perceive the th re at in question a ffe cts the e x te n t of t h e i r cooperation. The geographical location o r
in d u stria liz a tio n level of a country may Influence the way that it judges the th r e a t, as being e it h e r immediate or remote. Consequently, if the th re at is Judged to be a remote one, then ste ps towards its elimination or p re ven tio n are lik e ly to be postponed. The fact that "the actual costs and ris ks of environmental degradation are not d is t r i b u t e d equally among all s t a t e s ” re n de rs some sta te s less willing to cooperate.
A second obstacle barring internatio nal
environmental cooperation is th at sta te s d i f f e r in th e ir “ perceptions of equitable solutions to environmental issues.” 38 in p articu la r, there are
real differences between the LDCs and DCs
regarding this matter. While the DCs which have
already reached s u f f i c i e n t levels o f
in d u str ia liz a tion are now in te re s te d in promoting pollutio n control, the LDCs on the oth e r hand, which are r e l a t i v e l y less in d u stria liz e d , are concerned
that this would “ diminish the international
commitm ent to the economic development of t h e i r reg ions.” 39
“ The re la tiv e s t r e n g t h of a domestic environmental constituency is another c r i t i c a l fa c to r in environmental p o l i t i c s . i f there is l i t t l e or no public awareness on environmental issues in a given state, it becomes easier fo r the
government of that state to avoid international commitments towards in terna tio na l cooperation. Generally speaking, the public in the LDCs are more concerned with economic and p o l i t i c a l issues and regard environmental ones as being very much insignificant. The public in the DCs on the other
hand, are quite concerned with environmental
issues and form organized groups which are
e ffe c tiv e enough to influence government
decisions.
Yet another fa c to r which stands in the way to full international cooperation is that states d i f f e r in th e ir capacity to p a r ti c i p a te in cooperative
programs towards in terna tio na l environmental
control. Some international proposals may be too expensive for LDCs to implem ent, as most solutions
for international environmental issues require
advanced technological and scienific capabilities as well as skilled personnel, and these require vast amounts of capital, something that the LDCs do not have.
Finally, the world p o l i t i c a l system Its e lf
stands as an obstacle to inte rnational
environmental cooperation as it is made up of “ independent autonomous n a tio n - s ta te s and governed by the premises of exclusive national s o v e r e i g n t y .”"*' Cooperation means th a t sta tes
accommodate t h e i r actions in accord with the desires o f t h e i r partners.^2 This is turn may well mean that sta te s will have to give concessions from th e ir sovereignty in o r d e r to realize cooperation in environmental p ro te c tio n . Such concessions may adversely a f f e c t the national in te r e s ts o f sta tes and create “ strong incentives for noncooperation.
Obstacles specific to the Mediterranean
Actio n Plan which bar the fu ll Implementation of agreements w ill be studied in the final chapter o f this w o r k .
CHAPTER III: DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL CONCERN ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION IN THE MEDITERRANEAN AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MED
PLAN
3.1 DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
POLLUTION IN THE MEDITERRANEAN AND ITS EFFECTS
A rtic le 1 (1) of the Convention fo r the
P rote ctio n of the Mediterranean Sea Against
Pollution (the Barcelona Convention) defines the geographical coverage of the Mediterranean as being:
the maritime waters of the
Mediterranean Sea p ro pe r, including its gulfs and seas, bounded to the west by
the meridian passing through Cape
Spartel lighthouse, at the entrance o f the Stra its of Gibra lta r, and to the east by the southern l im its o f the S tra its o f the
Dardanelles between Mehmetçik and
Kumkale lighthouses.'
The Mediterranean, like o the r semi-enclosed bodies of water, is thre atened by a p ro g re s s iv e accumulation of various fo rm s of p o l l u t i o n.2 A r t i c l e
2 (a) of the Barcelona Convention defined p ollu tio n as follows:
“ P o llu tio n ” means the intro du ctio n by man, d ir e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y of substances or energy into the marine environment which r e su lts in such d e le te rio u s e f f e c t s as harm to living resources and marine life, hazards to human health, hindrance to marine a c t i v i t i e s , including fishing and oth e r le g itim a te uses of the sea, impairment of quality fo r use of sea and water and reduction of amenities.^
Although the terms ‘marine p o l l u t i o n ’ and the ‘p ollutio n o f the marine e n v ir o n m e n t’ are often used interchangeably, the p ro pe r d e fin itio n of the terms connote that the fo r m e r is used to r e f e r to pollution arising from marine a c t i v i t i e s , while the l a t t e r suggests p ollutio n arising from a wider range o f sources, including land-based activities."^ As this study w ill be looking into a vast scope of pollutants, the second term of ‘p o llu tio n of the marine e n viron m e n t’ will be used where references are made to po llution.
Some forms of p o llu t io n such as t a r - b a l l s on beaches and algae blooms near sewage o u tf a lls are highly v isib le . Other forms of p o llu tio n such as
industrial wastes are somewhat less obvious, though perhaps more serious in the long run.
Pollutants disperse very slowly in
semlenclosed seas like the Mediterranean.
Pollutants tend to linger near the coasts due to the v i r t u a l lack of tides and weak currents; all the same, however, even though the process may be slow, pollutants do flow from one country to another.5
^ Industries and c i t i e s along the coast
The Mediterranean Sea is densely populated along the coast. Much o f the urban and industrial waste that is dumped into the coastal waters is e it h e r untreated or inadequately treated.^ Very few o f the 56 coastal c itie s have su fficie n t sewage tr e a tm e n t fa c ilitie s ; most of the organic municipal wastes go into the sea. Such waste accounts fo r a large amount of the pollution. It is estimated th at as many as 100 m illio n people live in the Mediterranean coastal zone all year round and that an additional 100 m illio n spend the summer in the are a."7
Municipal and in d u s tria l wastes (used oils) account for about one fo u r th of the t o t a l 0.5 to 1
m illio n tons of oil that are discharged into the sea each year.»
Some countries of the North Mediterranean now t r e a t 50% of th e ir urban sewage. This is considered to be a d is t in c t improvement of th e ir beaches in the last fe w ye a rs.
* Ships
As many as 220,000 ships carrying over 100 tons cross the Mediterranean each year; in other words, 20% of international oil t r a f f i c tr a n s its through 0.7% of the e a r t h ’s seas (th is is the surface area of the Mediterranean Sea). The Mediterranean remains a dumping ground f o r ships despite the MARPOL Convention (1973) th at was put into force.^
As part of standard operatio ns, tankers
discharge th e ir ballast into the sea before entering the harbor, and clean t h e i r tanks with sea water. As much as four hundred m il l i o n tons of petroleum are annually unloaded in the Mediterranean ports. In A p ril 1979, UNEP and the In te r-Governm ental Maritime Consultative Organization estim a te d that constructing su fficie n t f a c i l i t i e s for deballasting
would cost the Med iterranean countries
app ro ximate ly US $145 m illion . Of the nineteen crude oil-lo a din g te rm ina ls in the Mediterranean
only nine have deballasting stations. Tankers discharge t h e i r ballasts into the sea in the remaining ten p o r ts w ith o u t deballasting f a c i l i t i e s . '0
Although the Mediterranean has not
encountered a very large o il s p ill up to date, the danger is nevertheless always there. Such a sp ill would have both a negative environmental impact (the e x te n t o f which would be dete rmined by the ecological v u ln e ra b ility of the area) as well as
serious economic consequences through its
negative e ffe c t on tourism.^ ’
Though oil clots are r e l a t i v e l y less harmful than other pollutants , they do n everthe less mar the aesthetics of beaches fo r t o u r i s t i c purposes; they also clog fish erm e n ’s nets and the engines of th e i r boats.
Freighters and cruise ships also tend to dump th eir garbage overboard ra th e r than saving i t fo r disposal in p o r t . '2
^ O ff s h o r e dredging and mining operations
Generating heavy concentrations o f suspended m ateria ls in the sea, dredging ope rations may in terfe re with fish progeny.'3
* Inland sources via r i v e r s
About 500 r iv e r s flow into the Mediterranean, some o f which drain vast a g r ic u ltu ra l and ind u str ia l regions (Ebro, Rhone, Po, Nile). Most of the pollution is carried to the Mediterranean by r iv e r s ; the pollutant load they carry is higher than d i r e c t dumpings from the coast.
Moreover, rad ioa ctive wastes from inland
nuclear power plants located in Spain, France and Italy are tr an sm itte d to the Mediterranean via the riv e rs. Greece and Egypt also have similar power plants, but these are of a sm a lle r capacity.'^
^ A g r ic u ltu r a l spraying
A g ric u ltu ra l spraying produces a r u n o ff of
organic and inorganic fungicides, biocides,
pesticides, and f e r t i l i z e r s which reaches the sea and (c o n tr ib u te s to the buildup of inorganic
chemicals such as organochlorines,
organophophattes, and carbamates) leads to
eutr ophication and the loss o f fish eries in areas
receiving heavy inputs of phosphorous and
n it ro g e n .’ 6
This form o f p o llu t io n is very d i f f i c u l t to quantify. Rubbish thrown overboard by crews, l e f t behind on beaches by t o u r i s t s , or dumped ille g a lly , ends up floating on the sea or clogging the seabed or l i t t e r i n g beaches often quite far from where it o r i g i n a t e d . T h e presence of such p ollutio n can be unesthetic and offensive.'® This form o f solid pollutio n is gradually becoming a v e ry serious problem because of the time that it takes to d is in te g r a te (up to 450 years fo r a plastic container) and the threat th at it repre sents to marine animals (like t u r t l e s ) that get tangled in it (nets, packing m ate ria l) or ingest it ( s t y r o f o a m ) . '9
The d ele te riou s e f f e c t s of pollutio n can be classed into three groups as follows;
1. health
2. natural resources 3. amenities
1. Urban sewage dumped into the sea is a
serious health hazard. It brings b a cte ria l and vira l pollution to the seawater and causes various diseases including typhoid, h e p a t it is and g a s t r o e n te r it is . The pathogenic organisms (these reach the water mainly, if not e n t i r e l y , through the discharge of domestic sewage) which are contained
in such pollutio n can cause infectio n both by d ir e c t contact (skin ailment) during swimming and oth er water sports and by the consumption o f infected sea food or even by accidental seawater ingestion. Industrial effluents contain heavy metals which can create serious health pro ble ms as they go up the food chain and contaminate fish and shellfish both of which are very popular foods with the local people of the Mediterranean as well as the vast number of t o u r i s t s who flock to the region each year. The increased m o b i l i t y of people around the world enhances the chances o f tr a n s fe r and d is t r i b u t i o n of epidemic diseases between countries; this is only one example showing the transboundary nature of environmental p ollu tio n and what its e ffe c ts can be.
2. “ Domestic sewage and other industrial
e fflue n ts carry fine p a r t i c l e s of m a t t e r in suspension which can, even in small concentrations, seriously a ffe c t the transparency and appearance of the w a te r.” 20 Domestic sewage contains plant
n u trie n ts which encourage the growth of minute free swimming algae and thus cloud the c l a r i t y of the water. These plan n u t r i e n t s also lead to the growth of seaweed on the beaches which again is quite unaesthetic in appearance, especially when the plants decompose. Pollution which reduces the a ttr a c tiv e n e s s of the beaches and the Inshore
waters also is lik e ly to have an adverse e ff e c t on the popula rity of the Med iterranean for to urists . Any outbreak of ill health a t t r i b u t a b l e to contaminated sea water, e it h e r through bathing or contaminated sea food tends to receiv e widespread international p u b lic ity and thus has negative consequences fo r the to uris m s e c to r o f the area.2’
3. Water pollution has many diverse e ffe c ts on fish eries. Marine p ollutio n very seriously a ff e cts
fishing stocks already th reatened by excessive fishing.
Images of coastal waters choked with
gelatinous mass where hundreds of dead fish flo a t are common images presented by the mass media. This phenomenon, called e utrophication, is caused by excessive concentra tion in the sea of n utrie n t salts brought down by a g r ic u ltu ra l r u n - o ff and r iv e r s (phosphates and n i t r a t e s of f e r t i l i z e r s , u rb a n ■ sewage, dete rge nts). Through t h e i r decay, these n u tr ie n t salts cause p r o l i f e r a t i o n of the microscopic algae ( p h yto pla nkto n ) which consume all the oxygen available in the water: fish and crustaceans all die because o f the lack of oxygen. Eutrophication phenomena are common in the deltas of the large r i v e r s (Po, Rhone, Ebro) and in the bays which receive large amounts of untr eate d sewage.22
3.2 INTERNATIONAL CONSCIOUSNESS TOWARDS POLLUTION ARISES
Following World War II, the world became indiffere nt to most e ve r y th in g w ith the possible exception of a nuclear co n flic t. Towards the end of the 60s and the beginning o f the 70s, the long spell was broken.23
The Mediterranean s ta te s f i r s t confronted evidence of pollutio n in the 1960s. The coastal area and harbors had long been polluted by Industrial growth, but the increasing ta nke r use of the sea in the 60s had g re atly in ten sified the problems.24
Although concerned about p ollutio n by the late 60s, governments lacked any real s c i e n t i f i c knowledge about marine pollution. Concern was dominated by the most v i s i b l e type of marine pollution: “ ta r balls from ta n ke r op orations. "25 i t
was in this atmosphere o f uncertainty that
governments began to look into ways of gaining information about the sources, types and degree o f pollution and what could be done to improve the quality of the Mediterranean.
International concern about environmental
threats rose in the 1970s. Concern also developed about the long distances that p o llu ta n ts could
tr a v e l, that is to say t h e i r transboundary nature. The in terna tio na l community responded by devising new c o l l e c t i v e measures to co n tr o l transboundary pollutio n, in September 1970 the IOC’s Group o f Experts on Long-Term S cie n tif ic Policy and Planning id e n tifie d the Mediterranean (along with the Baltic, the North Sea, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Sea o f Japan) as an area th at was p o t e n t i a l l y s e v e r e ly threatened by p o l l u t i o n.26
Environmental issues were f i r s t popularized i n t e r n a tio n a lly at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (UNCHE) held in 1972. They have remained on the International agenda since. It was at this conference that marine p o llu tio n was
id e n tifie d as a key problem. While 16
recommendations covered p ollutio n in general, another nine dealt s p e c ific a lly with marine p o l l u t io n .27
However, these i n i t i a t i v e s were not enough. Information was often scanty and various studies o f the Mediterranean were not comparable with each other. There was no hard ev idence of env ironmental p ollutio n besides the visual evidence o f oil pollution. A ll the same, popular s c i e n t i f i c accounts were quite e f f e c t i v e at increasing concern about pollution. However, decision makers were s t i l l ignorant about the sources and e x t e n t of p ollutio n .
Moreover, most co untr ies lacked the ca p a b ilitie s and equipment to assess t h e i r own pollution. At a s c ie n tific meeting he Id in February I 974, s c i e n ti s ts concluded that:
The a tte n tio n drawn to the impact of pollution on marine communities is too recent and, as a r e s u lt, data is s t i l l to spare for it to be possible to draw an
overall picture of the situation.
Furthermore, the word ‘p o l l u t i o n ’ is used to cover very d i f f e r e n t attacks, both in kind and in intensity and pollution may r ig h tl y be considered to include thermal effluents just as much as the discharge of excavation waste, industrial waste, and urban e fflu e n ts .2®
In 1972, Lord Peter R itch ie-Calder alerted the world that;
The Mediterranean Sea is sick. It needs Intensive care, day and night nursing. By nature it has always been delicate but its condition has g rie v o u s ly d e te r io r a te d in recent years. The s h o r t te rm prognosis is obvious: on p re sen t trends, things will get worse because the e ffe c ts will be m ultip lie d and magnified by the increase
in in d u stria l a c t i v it y . Recreational beaches w ill be out o f bound fo r bathers. Seafood w ill be a health hazard. In te rm s of epidemic diseases, the Mediterranean can become a bio logical time bomb. The trees w ill be dying around the coasts, suffocated or poisoned by polluted sea
winds.2^
The Economist reported on March 30 1973 that;
(the Mediterranean’s) ecological balance was not seriously d isturbed until the
early 1960s. Now overpopulation, the
t o u r is t boom, ind ustrial development and maritime i r r e s p o n s ib ility are combining to turn it into a dead sea.^o
Such 'gloom-and-doom' prophesies worked to establish environmental consciousness and a need to work co op era tively to devise new c o ll e c ti v e measures to control transboundary pollutio n.
3.3 INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS TO CONTROL
ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION IN THE MEDITERRANEAN
The IOC launched the Cooperative
Investig ations in the Mediterranean (CIM), a join t research programme in 1 971. However, the m a j o r i t y
of Mediterranean coastal s ta te s re je cte d Clh, as they thought it to be an “ a tte m p t by outside powers to use marine s c i e n t i f i c research as a cover for resources e x p l o it a t i o n and intelligence gathering." As amusing as i t may sound in the new age of s a t e l l i t e technology, the Mediterranean countries suspected CIM of being a fr ont, for e it he r the Soviet Union or the United States by which they would be able to gain data about the ocean floor, which they could later use fo r hiding submarines.^·
The General Fisheries Council for the
Mediterranean (GFCM) of the Food and Agric u ltu re Organization (FAO) had formed a working party in cooperation with the International Commission fo r the Scientific Exploration o f the Mediterranean (ICSEM) in March 1 9 6 9 .^ 2 |n March 1972, the, GFCM
presented The Review on the State of Marine Pollution in the Mediterranean Sea, at the eleventh session of the GFCM that was held in Athens. The r e p o r t which was the f i r s t comprehensive re vie w of the state of p ollutio n in the Mediterranean included a number of sources of p o llu tio n that all posed p o te n tia l threats to public health; the r e p o r t concluded that p o llu tio n in the Mediterranean had reached a c r i t i c a l level.
The GFCM r e p o r t (which would pro vide the only s c i e n ti fi c information about the e x te n t o f pollutio n
in the Mediterranean fo r the next five years) id e n tified the principle sources of p o llu t io n as being untr eated and inadequately t r e a te d sewage and in d u stria l waste, in a d d itio n to oil p o l lu t io n from tanker t r a f f i c . The p rin cip le channels fo r transmission of sewage and in d u s tria l wastes were id e n tified as being riv e r s , marine outf lows, and pipe lines.
In itia lly concern was d ir e c te d towards the most v is ib le type of pollution: oil p o l lu t io n resulting from tanker ope ra tio ns, which accounted for oil emissions of 300,000 - 500,000 tons. There were no available data that dem onstrated the existence of widespread p o llu tio n from sources other than oil.
The conclusions of the GFCM r e p o r t were found to be p a r tic u la rly i n te r e s tin g , since p o llu tio n from ships due to its high v i s i b i l i t y had, as mentioned, been widely regarded as the main issue. A f t e r reading Review on the State of Marine Pollution in the Mediterranean Sea, the GFCM sta te s called upon the FAO to take action fo r a “ convention to c o n t r o l the discharge into the sea of pollutan ts that would a ffe c t its living resources, bearing in mind the economic e f f e c t s o f such c o n t r o l , a s well as to develop p i l o t p r o j e c t s fo r mon itoring pollution. The legal office o f the FAO dra fted a tr e a ty in 1947
that included all o th e r Mediterranean pollutio n co ntr o l e f f o r t s .
The GFCM r e p o r t had convinced countries of
the need fo r international action to combat
pollutio n ; they also rea lized that the range o f problems exceeded the FAO’s narrow focus on
living resources. However, the Med iterranean
sta te s lacked any real information on the e x te n t of pollutio n , its sources and then methods for c o n tr o llin g them. It was with this reason on mind that in August 1974Spain o f f i c i a l l y Invited UNEP to “ d ir e c t regional e f f o r t s to coordinate marine pollution c o n t r o l . ” “ UNEP w ith its c a ta ly tic mission
and comprehensive approach was just the
organization to conduct such an e n t e r p r i s e . ” ^·^
Together with the GFCM, IOC, and ICSEM, UNEP cosponsored the International Workshop on Marine Pollution in the Med iterranean between 9 -1 4 September 1974.35 it was th is technical meeting that served to set the agenda fo r all subsequent pollutio n discussions. By procuring consensus an e x tre m e ly comprehensive lis t of sources and channels of pollution, UNEP established a base by which it could accordingly develop controls fo r this comprehensive l i s t of po lluta nts later on.
UNEP so lic ite d input from f o r t y o f the r e g i o n ’s marine s c ien tists to develop a selection of studies. The seven monitoring and research p r o j e c t s that were developed thus r e fle c te d a compromise between the d if f e r e n t alliances at the meeting. Moreover, they encompassed a comprehensive set of sources and types of p ollutio n .
1. Baseline studies and monitoring of oil and petroleum hydrocarbons,
2. Baseline studies and monitoring of
metals, p a rtic u la rly mercury,
3. Baseline studies and monitoring of DDT, PCBs, and oth e r chlorinated hydrocarbons in marine organisms,
4. The e ffe c ts o f pollutants on marine organisms and th eir populations,
5. The e ffe cts o f pollutants on marine communities and ecosystems,
6. The coastal t r a n s p o r t o f pollution,
7. A coastal w ater quality co n tro l p r o j e c t to co rrela te pollution of the sea and pathogenic infectio ns in seafood and public health.
These pro jects would la t e r be adopted at the Barcelona convention.
3.4 THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MED PLAN
Following extensive p re p a r a to r y a c t i v i t i e s involving a number of United Nations bodies, UNEP convened the Inte rg overnm enta l Meeting on the P rote ctio n of the Mediterranean in Barcelona,
between January 28 and February 4 1975.^^
Representatives of six te en o f the Mediterranean l i t t o r a l governments ( A lg e ria , Egypt, France, Greece, Israel, Italy, Lebanon, Libya, Malta, Monaco,
Morocco, Spain, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey and
Yugoslavia)^^ attended the meeting at the end of which the Mediterranean Action Plan (Med Plan) was adopted.
Designed by UNEP, the Med Plan is a c o ll e c ti v e e f f o r t to coordinate the marine pollutio n c o n tro l practices o f all eighteen Mediterranean countries.
Under the Med. Plan, the Mediterranean
governments jo i n t l y conduct mon itoring and research, and develop and diffuse actual coastal
management practices to reduce pollution. It
establishes areas in which countr ie s may develop p ro je c ts to co n tro l various aspects of pollution. It not only repre sents the i n t e r e s t s of all of the l i t t o r a l countries, but also additional components
pertaining to “ UNEP’s desire of promoting
integrated economic planning to regional
planners. ”“=*0
The Med Plan consists of four interconnected components:
A. The integrated planning of the
development and management of the resources of the Mediterranean Basin.
B. A coordinated p o llu tio n monitoring and research program in the Mediterranean.
C. A framework convention and related
p ro to co ls with technical annexes fo r the p ro te c tio n of the Mediterranean environment.
D. In stitu tion al and financial implications of the action plan.^'
All four components of the Med iterranean Action Plan are interdependent. They provide a framework fo r comprehensive action to promote both the p r o te c tio n and the continued development of the Mediterranean ecoregion.
The legal components of the Med Plan were devised so as to support the already ongoing
exercises under UNEP’ s supervision. This
component was underway by February 1975 (2-16) at the Conference o f Ple n ip o te n tia rie s of the Coastal States of the Mediterranean Region fo r the P rote ctio n of the Mediterranean Sea in Barcelona.
The sixteen governments th at attended the meeting approved the following legal instruments;
1. Convention for the p r o t e c t i o n of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution (Barcelona convention);
2. Protocol fo r the Prevention of Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by Dumping from Ships and A i r c r a f t (the dumping p ro to c o l) ;
3. Protocol concerning Cooperation in
Combating Pollution of the Mediterranean Sea by Oil and Other Harmful Substances in Cases of Emergency (the emergency protocol)M2
The t e x t for the Barcelona Convention was adopted on 15 February 1975 by the Conference of Ple nip ote ntia ries o f the. Coastal States of the Med iterranean Region for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea, at Barcelona. It came into force on 12 February 1978.^^ The convention served as the Med Plan’s legal framework fo r subsequent pollution control e ffo rts .
The underlying philosophy of the governments was to organize a syste m, which would, on a permanent basis, m o n ito r the "health of the M e d i t e r r a n e a n . I t was ve ry broad in scope; it laid out s t a t e s ’ general commitment to p r o t e c t the Mediterranean as fo llow s in A r t i c l e 4 of the
Convention For the Prote ction of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution:
1. The Contracting Parties shall
individually or jo i n t l y take all appropriate measures in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and those p ro to co ls in force to which they are party, to prevent, abate and combat pollution of the Mediterranean Sea Area and to enhance the marine environment in
t h a t a r e a . 4 5
The Barcelona Convention specified the forms of pollution for which c o n tr o ls should be implemented as being:
1. Pollution caused by dumping from ships and a ir c r a f t ,
2. Pollution from ships,
3. Pollution resulting from e x p lo ra tio n and e x p lo it a tio n of the continental shelf and the sea bed and its sub-soil, and
4. Pollution from land-based s o u r c e s .46
The convention f u r t h e r provides fo r
cooperation in dealing with p o llu t io n emergencies and s c i e n ti fi c mon itoring and research, as well as s c ie n tific and technological cooperation.
“ When adopting the Barcelona Convention, the Mediterranean governments also signed the two in i ti a l p ro to c o ls giving the legal agreement its ‘t e e t h ’ ” 47;
The f i r s t pro to col, the Protocol fo r the Prevention of Pollution o f the Mediterranean Sea by Dumping from Ships and A i r c r a f t deals with the dumping of pollutants from ships and a ir cra ft. The contracting p arties to the p ro to c o l agreed to; “ take all appropriate measures to prevent and abate pollution of the Mediterranean Sea Area caused by dumping from ships and a i r c r a f t . ”
The most dangerous wastes
mercury, cadmium, crude oil,
hydrocarbons, p e sticid e s, and
including chlorinated rad ioa ctive substances - were all ' b l a c k l i s t e d ’ in annex 1 of a r tic le 4. The dumping of b la c k l is t wastes was p ro hib ite d by A r ti c l e 4 o f t h e pro to co l.
A second or ‘g r e y ’ l i s t which includes the somewhat less noxious m a te r ia ls such as arsenic, lead, copper, zinc, b e r y lliu m , chromium, nickel, cyanides, flu oride s and some s y n th e tic organic chemicals was liste d in Annex 11 of A r t i c l e 5. A r ti c l e 5 called fo r “ a p r i o r special p e r m i t from
the competent national a u t h o r i t i e s ” for the clumping of these wastes.
Article 5 of the p ro to c o l calls fo r a “ p r i o r
general p e r m it from competent national
a u t h o r i t i e s ” 5 0 for the clumping of all other wastes
or o th e r matter.
In August 1979 the Med iterranean states
developed both standardized forms fo r issuing dumping permits and an annual reporting system by which they would r e p o r t the number of p erm its issued and the amount of wastes dumped annually.
The second protocol, the Protocol Concerning
Cooperation In Combating Pollution o f the
Mediterranean .Sea by Oil and Other Harmful
Substances in Cases of Emergency, or the
emergency protocol as it is known fo r short, calls on sta te s to n o tify each o th e r in case of an oil spill 5' and fo r cooperation among the partie s:
... in cases of grave and imminent danger to the marine environment, the coast or related interests... due to the presence of massive qua ntitie s o f oil or o th e r
harmful substances resulting from
accidental causes or an accumulation o f small discharges which are polluting or
threatening to pollute the sea ( A r t i c le
D.52
The t e x t for the emergency p ro to c o l was adopted on 16 February 1976 by the Conference of Ple nip oten tiaries of the Coastal States of the Mediterranean Region fo r the Protectio n o f the Mediterranean Sea, at Barcelona. It came into force on 12 February 1978. By October 1991, all 18 Mediterranean states and the EEC had become p arties to this Protocol.
A reso lutio n calling on the Executive D ire c to r to “ continue the p re parato ry work fo r a d r a f t Protocol for the Protection o f the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution from Land-Based Sources"
was also adopted at the Conference of
Plenipo tentiaries.53
UNEP and the World Health Organization (WHO) j o i n t l y convened an Inte rg overnm enta l Consultation concerning a Draft Protocol f o r the P ro te c tio n of the Mediterranean Sea against pollutio n from Land- Based Sources at Athens from 7-1 1 February 1977, in response to this request. Pollution from “ man’s a c t i v i t i e s on land” was declared as being the "m o s t sign ifican t source of p o ll u t io n in the Mediterranean Basin” at the Inte rg overnm enta l Review Meeting held in Geneva in February 1979.54
