UNITED
NATIONS
EP
United Nations
Distr.
Environment
GENERAL
Programme
UNEP(DEC)/NOWPAP/IG.7/10
22 March 2002
ENGLISH ONLY
SEVENTH INTERGOVERNMENTAL MEETING
ON THE NORTHWEST PACIFIC ACTION PLAN
Vladivostok, 20-22 March 2002
REPORT OF THE MEETING
UNEP(DEC)/NOWPAP/IG.7/10
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction.............................................................................................................................................................. 3
Agenda item 1: Opening of the meeting .................................................................................................................. 4
Agenda item 2: Organization of the meeting ........................................................................................................... 5
Agenda item 2 (a): Election of officers.................................................................................................................... 5
Agenda item 2 (b): Rules of procedure.................................................................................................................... 5
Agenda item 2 (c): Language and timetable of the meeting and the final list of documents................................... 6
Agenda item 2 (d): Adoption of the agenda............................................................................................................. 6
Agenda item 3: Credentials of representatives ........................................................................................................ 6
Agenda item 4: Report of the Executive Director on the implementation of the Northwest Pacific Action
Plan Part 1: Program implementation in 2001 ......................................................................................................... 6
Agenda item 5: Report by the RAC Directors on the implementation of the Northwest Pacific Action Plan......... 7
Agenda item 5 (a): Report of the Director of DINRAC........................................................................................... 7
Agenda item 5 (b): Report of he Director of CEARAC........................................................................................... 7
Agenda item 5 (c): Report of the Director of POMRAC ......................................................................................... 8
Agenda item 5 (d): Report of the NOWPAP/1 and NOWPAP/3 meetings ............................................................. 8
Agenda item 5 (e): Report of the Director of MERRAC and report of the NOWPAP/4 meeting........................... 8
Agenda item 6: Report of the Executive Director on the implementation of the Northwest Pacific Action
Plan Part 2: Budget and Trust Fund ......................................................................................................................... 9
Agenda item 6 (b): Progress made in the establishment of a Regional Coordinating Unit (RCU).......................... 9
Agenda item 7: The GEF PDF-B proposal on land-based activities (LBA)............................................................ 9
Agenda item 8: Institutional arrangements for the implementation of NOWPAP suggestions by UNEP ......... 11
Agenda item 9: Work plan and budget for 2002-2003 .......................................................................................... 12
Agenda item 10: Preparation for the Eighth Intergovernmental Meeting.............................................................. 12
Agenda item 11: Other matters .............................................................................................................................. 12
Agenda item 12: Adoption of the report of the meeting ........................................................................................ 13
Agenda item 13: Closure of the meeting ............................................................................................................... 13
ANNEX I: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS ................................................................................................................ 14
ANNEX II: LIST OF DOCUMENTS .................................................................................................................. 21
ANNEX III: DETAILED PLAN OF CO-HOSTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RCU ........................ 23
ANNEX IV: RESOLUTIONS .............................................................................................................................. 30
2
UNEP(DEC)/NOWPAP/IG.7/10
Introduction
1.
The Action Plan for the Protection, Management and Development of the Marine and Coastal
Environment of the Northwest Pacific (NOWPAP) and three supporting Resolutions were adopted at the
First Intergovernmental Meeting (Seoul, Republic of Korea, 14 September 1994).
2.
The Second Intergovernmental Meeting of NOWPAP (Tokyo, 20 November 1996) approved the
Program Document, and Work plan and Budget for the biennium 1997/1998. However, it was decided that
further arrangements for the Trust Fund and the establishment of a Regional Coordinating Unit (RCU)
would be discussed later.
3.
The Third Intergovernmental Meeting (Vladivostok, 9 April 1998) endorsed the revision of the Work
plan and Budget for the biennium 1997/1998 and decided on the procedure for the establishment of a
network of Regional Activity Centers.
4.
Since the inception of NOWPAP, the members have acknowledged setting up an RCU as a
fundamental prerequisite for the successful implementation of the Action Plan. The Second
Intergovernmental Meeting requested in Resolution 2 the Executive Director of the United Nations
Environment Program (UNEP) to compile information on the experiences of other regional seas conventions
and action plans relevant to the establishment of an RCU for NOWPAP.
5.
The Fourth Intergovernmental Meeting (Beijing, 6 - 7 April 1999) decided on the need to establish an
RCU in the future and requested the Executive Director of UNEP to prepare a proposal for its creation for
the consideration of the Fifth Intergovernmental Meeting.
6.
The Fifth Intergovernmental Meeting decided on the procedures of establishment of the RCU of
NOWPAP, including its terms of reference. It further requested the Executive Director of UNEP to prepare
a summary of the offers for hosting the RCU and to present it for discussion by the NOWPAP members
during the Sixth Intergovernmental Meeting in Tokyo.
7.
In Resolution 2 of the Sixth Intergovernmental Meeting (Tokyo, 5-6 December 2000), the NOWPAP
members agreed in principle to establish a co-hosted NOWPAP RCU in Toyama, Japan and Pusan, Republic
of Korea, subject to the confirmation of all members on the basis of their review of the detailed plan
prepared by Japan and the Republic of Korea regarding the modalities of the operation of the RCU. The
meeting also requested the members to confirm and approve the proposal of the co-hosted RCU so that the
consensus of the NOWPAP region could be conveyed to the 21st Governing Council of UNEP. As an
interim measure the meeting requested UNEP to operate the RCU under the authority of UNEP's Executive
Director.
8.
Decision 21/30 of the Governing Council on the implementation of the Northwest Pacific Action Plan
(9 February 2001) requested the UNEP Executive Director to establish an RCU as a secretariat administered
by UNEP and to negotiate co-hosting a single RCU with the Governments of Japan and the Republic of
Korea on the terms reflected in resolution 2 of the Sixth Intergovernmental Meeting of NOWPAP and, if
necessary, consult with other NOWPAP members on the progress of such negotiations.
9.
A "Detailed Plan of Co-Hosting the Establishment of NOWPAP/RCU" (Annex III) was submitted to
UNEP by the Governments of Japan and the Republic of Korea on 24 April 2001 in response to Resolution 2
of the Sixth Intergovernmental Meeting (Annex 2). However, UNEP had not received an approval of this
detailed plan from all NOWPAP members. During the January 2001-March 2002 period, UNEP maintained
negotiations with the Governments of Japan and the Republic of Korea regarding the development of a Host
Country Agreement (HCA).
10. The Sixth Intergovernmental Meeting also decided, inter alia, to establish and implement a new
activity, NOWPAP/7, on the "Assessment and Management of Land-Based Activities" within the NOWPAP
work program (Resolution 1). Following that decision, UNEP's Division of Environmental Conventions, in
collaboration with the UNEP Coordination Office of the Global Program of Action (GPA) for the Protection
3
UNEP(DEC)/NOWPAP/IG.7/10
of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities and UNEP/Global Environment Facility (GEF), was
requested to assist the NOWPAP members in the development of a GEF project proposal on the
"Formulation of a Strategic Action Program for the Northwest Pacific Region to Address Pollution of the
Marine Environment from Land-Based Activities" for consideration at the Seventh Intergovernmental
Meeting with a view to incorporating it into the 2002/2003 work program.
11. Following the offer of the Russian Federation to host the next meeting under agenda item 9 of the
Sixth Intergovernmental Meeting, the Seventh Intergovernmental Meeting was held in Vladivostok, Russian
Federation, from 20 to 22 March 2002.
12. This document is the record of the discussions and deliberations of the Seventh Intergovernmental
Meeting.
13. Representatives of the NOWPAP Members, namely Japan, the People's Republic of China, the
Republic of Korea and the Russian Federation participated in the meeting. Observers were also present from
the People's Democratic Republic of Korea, the International Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of
UNESCO, the UNEP/GPA Coordination Office and the Russian Federation. The full list of participants is
attached to the present report as Annex I.
Agenda item 1: Opening of the meeting
14. On behalf of Mr. Klaus Töpfer, UNEP Executive Director, and Mr. Jorge Illueca, Assistant Executive
Director, Director, UNEP Division of Environmental Conventions (DEC), Mr. Ellik Adler, Senior Program
Officer, Regional Seas Coordinator, UNEP/DEC, opened the meeting at 9.40 a.m. on Wednesday, 20 March
2002.
15. In his opening remarks, Mr. Adler informed the participants of the untimely death of Mr. Makito
Takahashi, former Director of the Global Issues Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan who
had also been the NOWPAP focal point in Japan. He requested the meeting to observe a minute of silence in
honor of the late Mr. Takahashi.
16. He welcomed the representatives of the members of NOWPAP, as well as the delegation of the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea who were attending as observers, and expressed the hope that the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea would become a member of NOWPAP by the next
Intergovernmental Meeting. He also welcomed the observers from the IOC of UNESCO, the GPA, the
NOWPAP Regional Activity Centers and the Russian Federation. He expressed his gratitude to the members
for their patience and understanding of the organizational difficulties that had caused the meeting to be
postponed twice. He said that he was glad that the deliberations would take three days instead of two since
there were several important issues on which reports would be presented.
17. He also informed the participants that Mr. Illueca had requested him to convey his regards to them,
noting that that the latter could not attend the meeting as he was preparing to leave UNEP/Nairobi for New
York to take up an appointment as Head of the United Nations Forests Program.
18. He emphasized the unique attention given to NOWPAP within the Division of Environmental
Conventions and UNEP. He noted that NOWPAP was one of UNEP's major priorities with respect to the
Regional Seas programs and that UNEP had invested heavily in terms of human resources to ensure that the
NOWPAP program succeeded.
19. Mr. Vladimir S. Goncharuk, Director of the Committee on External Economic Relations of the
Primorsky Krai Administration, speaking on behalf of the Primorsky Krai Administration, welcomed the
representatives to Vladivostok and to the Russian Federation. He noted that the Government of the Russian
Federation was deeply concerned about the current state of the marine environment and its decline over the
last 100 years, and noted that addressing these problems must involve all countries of the region as many
problems are regional.
4
UNEP(DEC)/NOWPAP/IG.7/10
20. He said that the Russian Federation agreed fully with UNEP's objectives with regard to better
management of natural resources and the need for improvement of shore and marine-based resources. He
expressed appreciation of NOWPAP and the hope that the Seventh Intergovernmental Meeting would result
in more efficient and productive management of the environment of the NOWPAP Sea Area.
21. Speaking on behalf of the Minister of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation, Mr. Vladimir
Ponomorov, Vice-Chairman of the Committee for Natural Resources of Primorsky Krai, said that the role of
UNEP in solving the environmental problems of the Northwest Pacific region and the active participation of
the countries of the region in the process were evident. He pointed out that because the Far Eastern region of
the Russian Federation has the biggest natural resources potential in the Russian Federation, especially the
marine resources, it is necessary to have comprehensive information on the environmental effects of
development and utilization of these resources.
22. The representative of the People's Republic of China welcomed the participation of the delegation of
the Democratic People's Republic of Korea as observers to the meeting.
23. The representative of Japan said that there was an urgent need to build a solid institutional base for the
effective and stable implementation of NOWPAP's activities. To this end, the RCU needs to be established
immediately to act as a center of coordination and collaboration between all countries for the protection of
the marine environment of the region.
24. The representative of the Republic of Korea said that there was a need for the NOWPAP countries to
demonstrate their commitment to the objectives of NOWPAP through implementation of NOWPAP
activities. He noted that the creation of an RCU would give a sense of ownership to the NOWPAP members.
He welcomed the presence of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, expressing the hope that it would
become a member of NOWPAP, and commended UNEP for persuading it to join.
25. A representative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea expressed his gratitude to UNEP for
having invited them to the meeting. He said that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea would continue
participating in NOWPAP intergovernmental meetings as observers and, after studying the objectives and
activities of NOWPAP, would consider joining NOWPAP.
26. All NOWPAP members expressed their gratitude to the Russian Federation for hosting the meeting
Agenda item 2: Organization of the meeting
Agenda item 2 (a): Election of officers
27. The Chair of the Sixth Intergovernmental Meeting, Mr. Yuji Amamiya, Head of the Japanese
delegation, invited the representatives to elect a Chair, a Vice-Chair and a Rapporteur for the meeting. The
following were elected:
Chair:
Russian Federation
Vice-Chairs:
Japan and Republic of Korea
Rapporteur:
People's Republic of China
Agenda item 2 (b): Rules of procedure
28. The Chair proposed for consideration by the representatives that the rules of procedure of the UNEP
Governing Council, as applicable to meetings convened by the Executive Director, would apply
mutatis mutandis for the meeting. The Chair also proposed that the meeting in principle conduct its business
in plenary. The representatives approved the proposals.
5
UNEP(DEC)/NOWPAP/IG.7/10
Agenda item 2 (c): Language and timetable of the meeting and the final list of documents
29. The meeting was conducted in English. The secretariat introduced the provisional list of documents
(UNEP/NOWPAP IG. 7/INF/1). The final list of documents is attached to the present report as Annex II.
Agenda item 2 (d): Adoption of the agenda
30. The representatives adopted the following agenda on the basis of the provisional agenda prepared by
the secretariat and distributed as document UNEP/NOWPAP IG 7/1 Rev 1:
1.
Opening of the meeting.
2.
Organization of the meeting:
3.
Credentials of representatives.
4.
Report of the Executive Director on implementation of the Northwest Pacific Action Plan Part
1: Program implementation in 2001.
5.
Report of the RAC Directors on the implementation of work during 2001.
6.
Report of the Executive Director on the implementation of the Northwest Pacific Action Plan
Part 2:
(a)
Budgetary summary and status of the NOWPAP Trust Fund;
(b) Progress made on the establishment of a Regional Coordinating Unit (RCU) for
NOWPAP.
7.
GEF PDF-B proposal on LBA for the region.
8.
Institutional arrangements for the implementation of NOWPAP suggestions by UNEP.
9.
Work Plan and Budget for 2002-2003.
10. Preparation for the Eighth Intergovernmental Meeting.
11. Other matters.
12. Adoption of the report of the meeting.
13. Closure of the meeting.
In addition, the timetable proposed by the secretariat was approved.
Agenda item 3: Credentials of representatives
31. The heads of delegations of the NOWPAP members presented their Credentials, which were reviewed
and accepted.
Agenda item 4: Report of the Executive Director on the implementation of the Northwest Pacific Action
Plan Part 1: Program implementation in 2001
32. Upon the invitation of the Chair, the representative of UNEP, Mr. Adler, presented the report of the
UNEP Executive Director on the implementation of the Northwest Pacific Action Plan (UNEP/NOWPAP
6
UNEP(DEC)/NOWPAP/IG.7/10
IG.7/4/1). Noting that progress in the NOWPAP activities was rather slow, he urged the members to be
committed to the establishment of an RCU. He observed that the States had the resources necessary for the
establishment of one of the best RCUs within the Regional Seas Program. He said that during the meeting,
UNEP would suggest an evolutionary change in the activities of the RACs to enable them to deliver
satisfactory results.
33. Referring to the 4th Global Meeting of the Regional Seas and Action Plans (Montreal, 20-22
November 2001) in which he had represented NOWPAP, he said that NOWPAP needed to enhance
horizontal cooperation with other regional seas programs.
34. He pointed out that an amount of $1.25 million had accumulated in the NOWPAP Trust Fund due to a
very low level of implementation of activities, and said that a work plan for use of the money in the coming
years would be presented under agenda item 9.
35. The representative of Japan recommended that a survey of the Yellow Sea Project be incorporated
into NOWPAP/7. With regard to NOWPAP/6, he said that effective awareness-creation should be
undertaken once the RCU had been established. He said that a budget should be set aside for the
development of a NOWPAP Web site after the establishment of the RCU. He also mentioned that Japan and
the Russian Federation had been planning a joint marine monitoring project which he thought would be
appropriate to implement under NOWPAP/3, and suggested that the relevant working group of NOWPAP/3
should give this consideration.
36. The representative of the Republic of Korea agreed that progress had been slow in 2001 and gave his
support to the approach of moving from project-based to RAC-based activities as presented by UNEP.
37. Referring to table 4 of the document, the representative of the Russian Federation pointed out that the
Government of the Russian Federation had contributed $50,000 in 2001.
38. Responding to the above concern, the representative of UNEP said that the table had been produced
by the Budgets and Funds Department of UNEP and showed the contributions as at 31 December 2001. He
also said that a number of editorial changes would be made to the document by the secretariat.
39. The representative of the People's Republic of China suggested that the wording of paragraph 4 be
changed to read like paragraph 45 in order to reflect accurately the decisions of previous meetings.
40. The meeting adopted the report of the Executive Director on the implementation of NOWPAP and on
the status of the NOWPAP Trust Fund.
Agenda item 5: Report by the RAC Directors on the implementation of the Northwest Pacific Action Plan
Agenda item 5 (a): Report of the Director of DINRAC
41. On the invitation of the Chair, the Director of DINRAC, Mr. Jianguo Wang, presented the report on
the Beijing DINRAC Activities (UNEP/NOWPAP/ IG.7/5/2).
Agenda item 5 (b): Report of he Director of CEARAC
42. Upon the invitation of the Chair, the Director of CEARAC, Mr. Masamitsu Oritani, presented the
activities of CEARAC in Toyama (UNEP/NOWPAP IG.7/5/4).
43. The representative of Japan pointed out that CEARAC was the only RAC that had not signed a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) with UNEP and requested UNEP to ensure that an MOU was signed
as soon as possible. The representative of UNEP said that once the activities of CEARAC had been agreed
upon by the NOWPAP members the UNEP secretariat would draft a MOU.
7
UNEP(DEC)/NOWPAP/IG.7/10
Agenda item 5 (c): Report of the Director of POMRAC
44. Upon the invitation of the Chair, the Director of POMRAC, Mr. Anatoly Kachur, presented the
Vladivostok- based POMRAC activity report (UNEP/NOWPAP IG.7/5/3).
Agenda item 5 (d): Report of the NOWPAP/1 and NOWPAP/3 meetings
45. Upon the invitation of the Chair, Mr. Maarten Kuijper, IOC/WESTPAC, presented the report of the
first NOWPAP/1 meeting held in Beijing 23-24 May 2001 (UNEP/NOWPAP IG.7/4/3).
46. The representative of UNEP presented the report on the NOWPAP/3 meeting held from 21 to 22 May
2001 in Beijing (UNEP/NOWPAP IG.7/4/2) and expressed his gratitude to the Government of the People's
Republic of China for facilitating the organization of the three NOWPAP meetings in May 2001
(NOWPAP1 and 3 in Beijing and NOWPAP 4 in Qingtao).
47. He raised concern over the complexity of the division of responsibilities and the organization of the
modalities of work between CEARAC and POMRAC, which are simultaneously responsible for monitoring
and assessment activities. He described the four working groups suggested by the Coordinating Committee
of NOWPAP 3 and the way that their activities would be conducted, and suggested that the meeting adopt
the modalities suggested by the Coordinating Committee of NOWPAP 3. He further suggested that
POMRAC be fully responsible for two working groups: WG 1 - atmospheric deposition; and WG 2 river
and direct inputs. CEARAC would be responsible for WG 3 harmful algal blooms and coastal waters and
WG 4 remote sensing, as well as development of new monitoring techniques. He requested the
representatives to approve a separation of the budgets of CEARAC and POMRAC and suggested that each
RAC should establish focal points in the members States.
48. In response to a query concerning nominations to the Working Group, the representative of UNEP
confirmed that nominations would be made by the NOWPAP members. He added that meetings of the
Coordinating Committees or the focal points of the various RACs (or activities) would be convened after the
nominations of appropriate representatives. He suggested that each RAC director initiate, in collaboration
with UNEP, the establishment of its Focal Points Forum or Coordinating Committee.
Agenda item 5 (e): Report of the Director of MERRAC and report of the NOWPAP/4 meeting
49. Upon the invitation of the Chair, the Director of MERRAC, Mr. Chang-Gu Kang, presented the
MERRAC activities report (UNEP/NOWPAP IG.7//5/1), the report on the development of a home page
(UNEP/NOWPAP. IG7/5/1/1) and the report of the meeting of NOWPAP/4 MERRAC Expert Advisory
Group held in Tokyo from 5 to 9 November 2001(UNEP/NOWPAP IG.7/5/1/2).
50. He expressed his gratitude to the Government of Japan for facilitating the organization of the meeting
of the Expert Advisory Group in Tokyo in November 2001. He also informed the representatives that he had
visited the REMEC center of the Mediterranean Action Plan and exchanged experience and information on
issues relating to oil spills preparedness and response.
51. Mr. Kang and Mr. Adler presented and explained the development of the Regional Contingency Plan
and the related MOU on collaboration between NOWPAP countries in the event of an oil spill emergency.
52. The representative of UNEP expressed his gratitude to the Government of Japan for its assistance and
hospitality during the MERRAC technical meeting on oil spills, preparedness and response. He said that the
commitment demonstrated by Japan and China should be emulated by other countries.
53. Mr. Kang pointed out the issues that had been raised during the Tokyo meeting regarding the
terminology to be used in the regional contingency plan. He suggested that the Intergovernmental Meeting
should address the issue and agree on the terms that would be acceptable to all members.
8
UNEP(DEC)/NOWPAP/IG.7/10
54. The representative of UNEP said that NOWPAP had benefited from the cooperation of the
Mediterranean region and noted that during NOWPAP meetings, experts from the Mediterranean region
were invited to discuss the modalities of setting up regional monitoring and assessment systems or regional
contingency plans. He encouraged NOWPAP countries to exchange information with other regions.
55. The meeting approved the reports of the RAC directors, the terms of reference of the Focal Points
Fora (or Coordinating Committees) of the RACs and the modalities of work presented under this agenda
item.
Agenda item 6: Report of the Executive Director on the implementation of the Northwest Pacific Action
Plan Part 2: Budget and Trust Fund
56. Upon the invitation of the Chair, the representative of UNEP presented Part 2 of the Report of the
Executive Director: Budget and Trust Fund (second part of UNEP/NOWPAP GI.7/4/1).
57. The representative of Japan said that, considering Japan's severe economic situation at present, it is
quite difficult for Japan to raise the present level of contribution and there might even be a reduction.
However, Japan will make utmost efforts toward keeping the present level of contribution.
58. The representative of the Russian Federation said that his country was not in a position to discuss the
issue of contributions, adding that revisiting the issue so soon might be tantamount to opening a Pandora's
box.
59. The representatives approved the reports.
Agenda item 6 (b): Progress made in the establishment of a Regional Coordinating Unit (RCU)
60. Upon the invitation of the Chair, the representative of UNEP outlined the progress made in the
establishment of a Regional Coordinating Unit, mentioning the Detailed Plan for the Establishment of the
Co-hosted RCU (Annex III) prepared by Japan and the Republic of Korea. He also informed the meeting
that the Government of Japan had recently submitted an alternative HCA to the one presented previously by
UNEP to the Governments of Japan and the Republic of Korea. This draft agreement, which had been
received on 20 March 2002, would be forwarded to the Legal Department of UNEP for further review and
negotiations.
Agenda item 7: The GEF PDF-B proposal on land-based activities (LBA)
61. Upon the invitation of the Chair, the representative of the UNEP Coordination Office for the Global
Program of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities (GPA), Mr.
David Osborn, provided a brief outline of the history and objectives of the GPA and their relation to
NOWPAP. He emphasized that the sustainable use of the coastal and ocean resources was linked to public
health, food security and economic and social benefits, including cultural values and traditional livelihoods.
62. He also reviewed the outcomes of the First Intergovernmental Review of the GPA, held in November
2001, including the Montreal Declaration, and outlined the way forward for implementing the GPA. He
noted that the GPA was a suitable means of improving ocean governance and could serve as an effective
global harmonization mechanism to improve coordination and cooperation among the Regional Seas
conventions, protocols and action plans. Furthermore, the respective regional seas programs provided an
excellent platform for developing and implementing a series of systematically integrated actions that were
strategic, ongoing and undergoing continuous improvement.
63. Finally, he emphasized the need for national action to address land-based activities. Such action
should build upon existing national priorities, policies and development plans. Each country must select an
approach that best suits its geographic characteristics and political, institutional and regulatory frameworks,
utilizing current assessments, inventories and data and the best available science and technology.
9
UNEP(DEC)/NOWPAP/IG.7/10
64. Upon the invitation of the Chair, the representative of UNEP presented document
UNEP/NOWPAP IG.7/7 on the Global Environment Facility (GEF) PDF B Proposal. He pointed out that
the proposal was still in draft form that any comments made by the representatives would be incorporated
into the draft. He also informed the representatives that the Governments of the Republic of Korea and the
Russian Federation had not yet been consulted and that the first draft would be distributed to the States only
after negotiations with all the concerned parties had taken place. He further pointed out that GEF currently
had reduced capability for financing projects due to delayed replenishment of its funds.
65. In the ensuing discussion, the representative of Japan pointed out that some of the names given to the
Sea of Japan were unacceptable. He said that "Sea of Japan" was the historically accepted name and that for
practical reasons this name should be used. In the United Nations, the body of water in question should be
called the "Sea of Japan" until negotiations with all concerned parties had been concluded.
66. He said that although the Government of Japan had raised this issue with the drafting consultant the
previous year, its comments had not been incorporated into the proposal. Furthermore, the project should
not deal only with the Sea of Japan but also include the Yellow Sea as it is known that the they shares some
of its problems, e.g. red tides. He noted that according to the timetable of the proposal, NOWPAP had to
have a Strategic Action Plan (SAP) within one year and nine months, before which three meetings of the
Steering Committee and nine meetings with consultants had to be held. He felt that these meetings were too
many and suggested that the progress of other NOWPAP projects should be taken into account because the
project could not be implemented without data from other projects. If the project was implemented hastily,
it might impact negatively on other projects.
67. He observed that further clarification of the budget was needed and that the manner in which the
contributions would be used should be explained. Japan would find it difficult to increase its contribution
beyond the contribution to the Trust Fund and the operation of the RCU. For the redrafting of the proposal,
the RCU must be established as soon as possible.
68. The representative of the Republic of Korea requested the UNEP secretariat, the Directors of RACs
and the representatives of the members of NOWPAP to pay special attention to the name of the sea between
the Korean Peninsula and the Japanese Archipelago. He said that the position of the Republic of Korea was
that "East Sea" and "Sea of Japan" should be used simultaneously describing the water mass until the final
resolution had been agreed upon by the countries concerned, as recommended in Resolution No. III/20
(1997) of the United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical names. Bearing in mind
the resolution of the Second Intergovernmental Meeting, which had decided to describe the geographical
coverage of NOWPAP by longitude and latitude, i.e. from about 121 to 143 degrees East and from 52 to 33
degrees North, the UNEP secretariat was requested to desist from describing the sea in question in a way that
was likely to prejudice the cooperation and collaboration of the NOWPAP members. Any document or
material from NOWPAP should not contain the aforementioned mistakes and the Republic of Korea would
not accept or approve such material or document.
69. The Chair said that the proposal should take into account national and international programs in the
region.
70. The representative of UNEP said that re-opening the issue of terminology could not be avoided in the
development of the PDF-B proposal. He proposed the following terminology for the representatives to take
to their respective countries for discussion and bring their response to the next Intergovernmental Meeting.
With regard to the contentious sea area, the UNEP representative said that the secretariat would use the term
"NOWPAP sea area". Where there was a likelihood of the sea area being confused with the Yellow Sea, the
term "the NOWPAP sea area excluding the Yellow Sea" would be used. With respect to the identity of
parties, the terms "member of NOWPAP" and "NOWPAP member" would be used interchangeably.
71. He pointed out that GEF projects were country-driven, depending on the priorities of each country,
adding that a precise definition of subprojects would be discussed with each country. He also pointed out
that GEF projects were the subject of constant negotiations between the beneficiary and GEF. With regard
10
UNEP(DEC)/NOWPAP/IG.7/10
to eligibility for GEF grants, he observed that Japan was not eligible, which raised the question of how Japan
was going to participate in the project in question. UNEP would like to see Japan participate fully. He also
said that the Yellow Sea had been excluded from the project because there were other GEF supported
projects in the Yellow Sea with objectives similar to those of the project under development.
72. The representative of the People's Republic of China said that his country, currently implementing a
national program for the protection of the marine environment, was very concerned about the proposal. He
said that the proposed project should build on national marine environmental protection programs and take
into account all of the NOWPAP area. He noted that a GEF supported project is under implementation in the
Yellow Sea specifically for the protection of marine resources, which is different from the objectives of the
NOWPAP GEF Proposal under development. Consequently, the project should include the Yellow Sea.
73. In response to the concern that the project had too many meetings, the representative of UNEP noted
that the meetings of the project could take place parallel to the activities of the NOWPAP program. He
informed the representatives that he intended to convene a meeting of experts with a view to getting the
project approved and emphasized the possibilities of linkages between the NOWPAP/7 project and the
development of the proposal.
Agenda item 8: Institutional arrangements for the implementation of NOWPAP suggestions by UNEP
74. Upon the invitation of the Chair, the representative of UNEP presented document
UNEP/NOWPAP G.7/8 on the institutional arrangements for the implementation of NOWPAP. He noted
that the implementation of the NOWPAP program had been rather slow, probably due to various difficulties
in the region. He pointed out that UNEP encouraged the twinning of Regional Seas conventions and
programs and said that UNEP could facilitate the twinning of NOWPAP with one of the other regional seas
programs.
75. In the ensuing discussion, the representative of the Republic of Korea wondered whether the experts
in the NOWPAP Experts Forum were different from the NOWPAP national experts.
76. The representative of UNEP said that the NOWPAP Experts Forum and the NOWPAP national
experts were one and the same thing. He recalled that in 1999, a forum of national experts had been
convened ahead of an Intergovernmental Meeting. It was that kind of forum that the secretariat would like
to revive. He requested the members to prepare lists of experts to represent NOWPAP in their countries and
to represent their countries in NOWPAP.
77. The representative of the People's Republic of China requested the secretariat to produce a document
explaining the division of activities proposed by the secretariat in document UNEP/NOWPAP IG.7/8 and
indicating how to avoid overlap with activities related to the implementation of environmental conventions
to the next Intergovernmental Meeting.
78. The representative of Japan expressed the view that one of the main reasons why NOWPAP activities
did not progress as quickly as desired was the fact that the RCU had not been established, hampering
communication and development. The RCU should be established before institutional arrangements could
be discussed. In addition, it would be a good idea to organize a revitalization meeting.
79. Referring to the concern that monitoring and marine environmental data and information management
might be too large a responsibility to be handled by only one or two RACs, the representative of IOC drew
the attention of the meeting to NEAR-GOOS, which had established and for the past six years succeeded in
coordinating a regional collaborative monitoring and data exchange program, which could act as an
appropriate instrument for assessment, monitoring and data exchange under NOWPAP. It was in this regard
that IOC and the UNEP Regional Seas Program were discussing ways of ensuring synergy between the two
programs. The delegations were invited to take note of the NEAR-GOOS program and if necessary to
request the IOC to prepare a briefing paper on it.
11
UNEP(DEC)/NOWPAP/IG.7/10
Agenda item 9: Work plan and budget for 2002-2003
80. Upon the invitation of the Chair, the representative of UNEP presented the Work plan and Budget
(UNEP/NOWPAP IG.7/9. He pointed out that the budget had been based on the $1.25 million accumulated
in the NOWPAP Trust Fund, $315,000 in the form of contributions of the members and the fact that the
Trust Fund to some degree had to contribute to the running cost of the RCU. The allocation of funds to the
RACs was based on their capacity to implement the programmed activities in their respective areas. He
proposed two options of spending the accumulated funds: a) to spend the money on activities over a period
of four years or b) to spend the unused funds over six years.
81. In the ensuing discussion, the representative of Japan noted that it had not yet been decided which
RAC would be responsible for NOWPAP/7. He said that the decision should be made after consultations
and agreement between the members.
82. The representative of UNEP, replying to the suggestion made by the representative of Japan, proposed
that the NOWPAP/7 project be the responsibility of the RCU until it could be assigned to a RAC. All
delegations agreed to this arrangement.
83. The representative of Korea, noting that the amount of $60,000 allocated to the RCU ($30,000 for
each office) was not adequate for supporting its activities, said that the amount should be increased once the
volume of the fund had increased.
84. The representatives finally agreed that the accumulated money in the Trust Fund should be spent over
six years, ensuring activities could be conducted over a longer period.
85. There was general agreement that the positions of Coordinator and Deputy Coordinator of the RCU
should be filled by one Chinese and one Russian, and that the position of Program Officer in Pusan should
be filled by a Korean expert and in Toyama by a Japanese expert. This arrangement would apply only to the
first four years of the RCU. The representatives agreed to forward that understanding to the Executive
Director of UNEP. It was also agreed that the RCU needed to be reviewed periodically.
86. The representative of UNEP pointed out that the Executive Director of UNEP would undertake the
recruitment of the RCU staff in accordance with the current rules and regulations of the United Nations.
Agenda item 10: Preparation for the Eighth Intergovernmental Meeting
87. The representative of the People's Republic of China announced that his country would host the
Eighth Intergovernmental Meeting in Beijing in 2003 and that the dates of the meeting would be decided at a
later stage in consultation with the Secretariat.
88. The Chair expressed his hope that UNEP would continue to contribute to and assist in the organisation
of these meetings as much as possible, even after the RCU has been established. He also reminded the
meeting that there is potentially a need for another meeting this year to guide the secretariat and review the
activities already adopted and their level of implementation.
Agenda item 11: Other matters
89. With regard to the NOWPAP Web pages, it was decided that although MERRAC and DINRAC had
developed excellent web pages at a low cost, it would be preferable to delay the development of the
NOWPAP web pages until the RCU had been established as this will be one of its responsibilities.
90. The representative of the Republic of Korea drew the attention of the representatives to media reports
of leakage of nuclear waste in the eastern part of the NOWPAP area and the associated hazards to the
environment. He suggested that this could be the subject of a future NOWPAP project.
12
UNEP(DEC)/NOWPAP/IG.7/10
Agenda item 12: Adoption of the report of the meeting
91. The meeting approved the report on the understanding that the secretariat would finalize it and
distribute it to the member countries, and adopted the Resolutions (Annex IV)
Agenda item 13: Closure of the meeting
92. After the customary exchange of courtesies, the Chair declared the meeting closed at 19.30 p.m. on
Friday, 22 March 2002.
13
UNEP(DEC)/NOWPAP/IG.7/10
Annex I
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
CHINA
Mr. Meng WEI
President,
Mr. Chen MINGJIAN
Chinese Research Academy of
Head of Delegation
Environmental Sciences
Director General,
100012, Anwai Beiyuan, Beijing
Marine Environmental Protection Office
THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
State Environmental Protection Administration
Tel. 86-10-8491-3883
115 Xizhimennei, Nanxiaojie, Beijing 100035
Fax. 86-10-8491-5194
THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
E-mail: mengwei@svr1-pek.unep.net
Tel. 86-10-6612-7814
Fax. 86-10-6611-1421
Mr. Hailiang E
Programme Officer,
Mr. Tong YU
Department of Ship Safety and Pollution Prevention
Deputy Director,
Maritime Safety Administration,
Marine Environmental Protection Office
Ministry of Communications
State Environmental Protection Administration
No. 11 Jianguomennei Ave., Beijing 100736
115 Xizhimennei, Nanxiaojie, Beijing 100035
THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
Tel. 86-10-6529-2878
Tel. 86-10-6611-1421
Fax. 86-10-6529-2875
Fax. 86-10-6611-1421
Email: ehailiang@msa.gov.cn
Email: yutong@zhb.gov.cn
Mr. Huang YAOMING
Ms. Zhang MENGHENG
Programme Officer
Programme Officer,
State Environmental Protection Administration
Division of International Organizations
115, Xizhimennei, Nanxiojie, Beijing
Department of International Cooperation
THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
State Environmental Protection Administration
Tel./ Fax. 86-10-6611-1421
115 Xizhimennei, Nanxiaojie, Beijing 100035
THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
JAPAN
Tel. 86-10-6615-1933
Fax. 86-10-6615-1762
Mr. Yuji AMAMIYA
Email: zhangmh@zhb.gov.cn
Head of Delegation
Assistant Director
Mr. Meng JIANHONG
Global Environment Division
Second Secretary
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Department of Treaty and Law
Sumitomo Fudosan Shiba-koen Tower 2-11-1
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Shiba-koen, Minato-ku, 105-8519, Tokyo
2, Chao Yang Men Nan Da Jie, Beijing
JAPAN
THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
Tel + 813 3580-3311 ext. 5509
Tel. 86-10-6596-3251
Fax + 813 6402-2538
Fax. 86-10-6596-3209
14
UNEP(DEC)/NOWPAP/IG.7/10
Ms. Chieko TATSUMI
Capt. Takeo IKEGAMI
Official,
Counselor,
Global Environment Division,
The Japan Association of Marine Safety
Multilateral Cooperation Department,
1-17-1 Toranomon, Minato-ku,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan
Tokyo 105-0001
Sumitomo Fudosan Shiba-koen Tower 2-11-1
JAPAN
Shiba-koen, Minato-ku, 105-8519, Tokyo
Tel: + 81-3-3502-2231
JAPAN
Fax: + 81-3-3581-6136
Tel + 813 6402-2540
Email: itakeo@oak.ocn.ne.jp
Fax + 813 6402-2538
E-mail: chieko.tatsumi@mofa.go.jp
REPUBLIC OF KOREA
Mr. Kuniaki MAKIYA
Mr. Chan-woo KIM
Deputy Director,
Head of Delegation
Global Environmental Issues Division
Environment Cooperation Division,
Global Environment Bureau,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Ministry of the Environment
77, Sejongno, Chongno-gu, Seoul
1-2-2 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku,
REPUBLIC OF KOREA
Tokyo 100-8975,
Tel. 82-2-720-2329,
JAPAN
Fax: 82-2-722-7581
Tel: + 81-3-5521-8245
E-mail: environment@mofat.go.kr
Fax: + 81-3- 3581-3348
Email: kuniaki_makiya@env.go.jp
Ms. Hye-Young MIN
Deputy-Director
Mr. Masayuki FUJITA
Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries
Special assistant to the Director,
139, Chungjeong Ro.3,
Ocean Division, Policy Bureau
Seodaemun-gu 120-715, Seoul
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport
REPUBLIC OF KOREA
2-1-3 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku,
Tel.: 82-2-3148-6544,
Tokyo 100-8918,
Fax: 82-2-3148-6545
JAPAN
E-mail: babycake@dreamwiz.com
Tel: +81-3-5253-8247
Fax: +81-3-5253-1549
Dr. Hee-dong JEONG
Email: fujitam2rp@mlit.go.jp
Senior Researcher
National Fisheries Research and
Mr. Akira HARASHIMA
Development Institute
Section Chief,
408-1, Sirang-ri Kijang-up, Kijang-gun, Busan
Ocean Environment Section
REPUBLIC OF KOREA
Water and Soil Environment Division
Tel. 82 51-720-2230,
National Institute for Environment Studies
Fax: 82-51-720-2225
16-2 Onogawa, Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki 305-8506,
E-mail: hdjeong@nfrdi.re.kr
JAPAN
Tel: + 81-298-50-2508
Mr. Seong-Choon KIM
Fax: + 81-298-50-2576
Consul
Email: harashim@nies.go.jp
Consulate General of the Republic of Korea
Vladivostok 690091 A/Ya 91-270
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Tel. (7-4232) 22-77-29,
Fax: 7-4232-22-9471
15
UNEP(DEC)/NOWPAP/IG.7/10
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Tel. +7 4232-407959
Mr. Sergei B. TVERETINOV
Fax: +7 4232-407733
Head of Delegation
E-mail: prm@online.vladivostok.ru
Director,
Environmental Cooperation Department
Mr. Valery P. SUSLIKOV
Ministry of Natural Resources
Head
4/6 B. Gruzinskaya str, Moscow, 123812, GSP
Pacific Specialized Marine Inspection,
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Ministry for Natural Resources
Tel. +7 095 254 27 33
6 Bashidze St., Vladivostok
Fax +7 095 254 8283
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
E-mail: root@ecocom.ru; tveritinov@mur.gov.ru
Tel. +7-4232-253583,
Fax: +7-4232-252268
Mr. Vladimir N. LENEV
E-mail: tosmi@mail.primorye.ru
First Secretary,
Department of International Organizations
Mr. Igor KOCHERGIN
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Deputy Director
Smolenskaya sq., Moscow
ROSHYDROMET
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Far-Eastern Regional Hydrometeorological
Tel. +7 095 244 41 42
Research Institute
24 Fontannaya St., Vladivostok 690950
Mrs. Tatyana P. BUTYLINA
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Deputy Director & Head of Division
Centre for International Projects
Prof. Peter Ya. BAKLANOV
Ministry of National Resources
Director
117292 P.O. box 165, Moscow
Pacific Institute of Geography,
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Far East Branch,
Tel. +7 095 165 63 81
Russian Academy of Sciences
Fax +7 095 165 08 90
7 Radio St., Vladivostok 690041
E-mail: cip@id.ru
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Tel. +7-4232-320672
Mr. Vladimir S. GONCHARUK
Fax: +7-4232-312159
Director
Committee on External Economic Relations of the
Mr. Yury N. VOLKOV
Primorskii Krai Administration
Director
Vladivostok
Far-Eastern Hydrometeorological
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Research Institute
Russian Hydrometeorological Service
Mr. Vladimir P. PONOMOREV
3 Mordovtseva St., Vladivostok
Vice Chairman
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Committee for Natural Resources
of Primorskii Krai,
Ministry for Natural Resources
31 Okeansky Pr., Vladivostok
16
UNEP(DEC)/NOWPAP/IG.7/10
REGIONAL ACTIVITY CENTRES
Mr. Masamitsu ORITANI
UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL
Director, CEA/RAC
PROGRAMME (UNEP)
Special Monitoring and Coastal Environmental
Assessment Regional Activity Centre
Mr. Ellik ADLER
5-5 Ushijimashin-machi,
Senior Programme Officer
Toyama City 930-0856,
Regional Seas Coordinator
JAPAN
Division of Environmental Conventions, UNEP
Tel: (81-76) 445 1571
P O Box 30552, Nairobi,
Fax (81 76) 445-1581
KENYA
E-mail: oritani@npec.or.jp
Tel. +254 2 624 033 544
Fax: +254 2 624618
Mr. Jianguo WANG
E-mail: Ellik.Adler@unep.org
Director, DIN/RAC
Data and Information Network Regional Activity
Mr. Jerker TAMELANDER
Centre
Junior Programme Officer
No. 1 Yuhuinanlu,Chaoyang District,
Regional Seas Unit
Beijing 100 029
Division of Environmental Conventions, UNEP
PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.
PO Box 30552, Nairobi,
Tel: (86 10) 84630869
KENYA
Fax: (86 10) 8464 0849
Tel: +254-2-624591
E-mail: jgwang@zhb.gov.cn
Fax: +254-2-624618
E-mail: jerker.tamelander@unep.org
Mr. Chang-Gu KANG
Director, MER/RAC
Mr. Kimaru GICHERI
Marine Environmental Emergency Preparedness
c/o Division of Environmental Conventions,
and Response
UNEP
Regional Activity Center
PO Box 30552, Nairobi,
P.O. Box 23, Yusung, Taejon, 305-600
KENYA
REPUBLIC OF KOREA
Tel. 82 42 868 7260
Mr. David OSBORN
Fax 82 42 868 7738
The Global Programme for Action
E-mail: cgkang@kriso.re.kr
GPA Coordination Office
Vuurtorenweg 35-37,
Mr. Anatoly N. KACHUR
PO Box 16227. 2500 BE, The Hague
Director, POM/RAC
NETHERLANDS
Pollution Monitoring Regional Activity Center
Tel. 31703114473,
Pacific Institute of Geography
Fax: 31703456648
Far East Branch
E-mail: d.osborn@unep.nl
Russian Academy of Sciences
7 Radio St., Vladivostok 690041
UNESCO-IOC
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Tel./ Fax. +7-4232-312833
Mr. Maarten KUIJPER
E-mail: akachur@mail.primorye.ru
IOC/WESTPAC
kachur@tig.dvo.ru
C/o National Research Council Thailand
196 Phaholyothin Road
Chatujak Bangkok 10900
THAILAND
Tel. + 66 2 561 5118
Fax. + 66 2 561 5119
E-mail: westpac@samart.co.th
17
UNEP(DEC)/NOWPAP/IG.7/10
OBSERVERS
DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF
Mr. Vjacheslav B. LOBANOV
KOREA
Deputy Director
Pacific Oceanological Institute
Mr. Han Tae SONG
Far East Branch
Deputy Secretary General
Russian Academy of Sciences
National Coordinating Committee for the
43, Baltiyskaya St., Vladivostok, 690041
Environment
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Central District, Pyongyang city,
Tel. +7-4232-312377
DPR KOREA
Fax. +7-4232-312573
Tel. 85-02-3818370
E-mail: lobanov@poi.dvo.ru
Fax. 85-02-3814660
Mr. Dmitry L. PITRUK
Mr. Jo Nam HO
Deputy Director
Director,
Institute of Marine Biology
External Relations Department
Far East Branch
State Hydrometeorological Administration
Russian Academy of Sciences
Oesongdong, Central district,
Vladivostok, 690041,
Pyongyang city,
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
DPR KOREA
Tel. 7-4232-310-905,
Tel. 85-02-3214539
Fax: 7-4232-310-900
Fax. 85-02-3814416
E-mail: inmarbio@mail.primorye.ru
Mr. Kang In SONG
Mr. Vladimir M. SHULKIN
Programme Officer,
Head of Laboratory
Marine Environmental Department
Pacific Institute of Geography
State Hydrometeorological Administration
Far East Branch
Oesongdong, Central district,
Russian Academy of Sciences
Pyongyang city,
7 Radio St., Vladivostok 690041
DPR KOREA
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Tel. 85-02-3124539
Tel. +7-4232-320652
Fax. 85-02-3814416
E-mail: shulkin@tig.dvo.ru
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Mr. Ivan S. ARZAMASTSEV
Senior Research Associate
Prof. Arkady ALEKSEEV
Pacific Institute of Geography
Vice-President
Far East Branch,
Far East Branch
Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
7 Radio St., Vladivostok 690041
50 Svetlanskaya St., Vladivostok
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Tel. +7-4232-312833
Tel. +7-4232268890
Fax. +7-4232-312833
Fax +7-4232-268890
E-mail: arz@tig.dvo.ru
E-mail: araleks@febras.marine.su
18
UNEP(DEC)/NOWPAP/IG.7/10
Mrs. Galina I. SEMYKYNA
Mr. Gennady I. NESOV
Director
Chairman
Center for Environmental Monitoring,
Board of Marine Ecological Foundation
Primorskii Territorial Management for
Primorskii Krai Administration
Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring
Vladivostok
3 Mordovtseva St., Vladivostok
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Tel. +7-4232-407026, +7-4232-407838
Tel. +7-4232-440683, +7-4232-204973
Fax: +7-4232-254705
Fax: +7-4232-221750
E-mail: cms@primpogoda.ru
Mr. Nikolai N. BORTIN
Director
Mr. Vasiliy MISHUKOV
Far Eastern Research Institute of Integrated Use and
Head of Laboratory
Protection of Water Resources (DalNIIVH)
Pacific Oceanological Institute
66 Krasnogo Znameny St, Vladivostok 690014
Far East Branch
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Russian Academy of Sciences
Tel. +7-4232-256798,
43, Baltiyskaya St., Vladivostok, 690041
Fax: +7-4232-256798
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
E-mail: iwf@vlad.ru
Tel. +7-4232-312847,
Fax. +7-4232-312573
Mr. Vladimir I. ZVALINSKY
E-mail: vmishukov@poi.dvo.ru
Research Associate
Pacific Oceanological Institute
Mr. Valery I. PETUKHOV
Far East Branch
Director
Russian Academy of Sciences
Institute Engineering Ecology
43, Baltiyskaya St., Vladivostok 690041
Far East State Technical University
Russian Federation
10 Pushkinskaya St., Vladivostok 690950
Tel. +7-4232-313-080
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Fax: +7-42-32-313-032
Tel. +7-4232-22-16-29,
E-mail: VIZ@poi.dvo.ru
Fax: +7-4232-22-16-29
E-mail: petukhow@mail.ru
Mrs. Svetlana I. KOZHENKOVA
Research Associate
Mr. Leonid N. ALEKSEIKO
POM/RAC NOWPAP
Vice-President
Pacific Institute of Geography
Far East State Technical University
Far East Branch
10, Pushkinskaya St., Vladivostok 690950
Russian Academy of Sciences
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
7 Radio St., Vladivostok 690041
Tel. +7-4232-261060,
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Fax +7-4232-220842
Tel./Fax. +7-4232-312833
E-mail: alexeiko@festu.ru
E-mail: svetlana@tig.dvo.ru
Mr. Mikhail N. BIBIKOV
Deputy Director
Committee of Natural Resources,
Ministry for Natural Resources
93 Pushkinskaya St., Vladivostok
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Tel. +7-4232-220302,
Fax: +7-4232-268574
19
UNEP(DEC)/NOWPAP/IG.7/10
20
UNEP(DEC)/NOWPAP/IG.7/10
Annex II
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
Working Documents
UNEP/NOWPAP IG.7/1
Provisional Agenda
UNEP/NOWPAP IG.7/2
Annotated Provisional Agenda
UNEP/NOWPAP IG.7/4/1
Report of the Executive Director of the United Nations Environment
Programme on progress of the implementation of the Northwest Pacific
Action Plan
UNEP/NOWPAP IG 7/4/2
Meeting report of NOWPAP/3 meeting in Beijing, P.R. China, 21-22 May
2001
UNEP/NOWPAP IG 7/4/3
Meeting report of NOWPAP/1 meeting in Beijing, P.R. China, 23-24 May
2001
UNEP/NOWPAP IG 7/4/4
Meeting report of the Fourth NOWPAP/4 MER/RAC forum meeting in
Qingdao, P.R. China, 14-18 May 2001
UNEP/NOWPAP IG.7/5/1
MER/RAC report of activities 2001
UNEP/NOWPAP IG 7/5/1/1
MER/RAC report on development of a homepage
UNEP/NOWPAP IG 7/5/1/2 Meeting report of NOWPAP/4 MER/RAC Expert advisory group in Tokyo,
Japan, 5-9 November 2001
UNEP/NOWPAP IG 7/5/2
DIN/RAC report of activities 2001
UNEP/NOWPAP IG 7/5/3
POM/RAC report of activities 2001
UNEP/NOWPAP IG 7/5/4
CEA/RAC report of activities 2001
UNEP/NOWPAP IG. 7/7
A draft GEF Project Development Facility (PDF) - B proposal on Land
based activities in the NOWPAP region
UNEP/NOWPAP IG.7/8
Report on the Institutional Arrangements for the Implementation of
NOWPAP recommended review and re-organization of NOWPAP-
suggestions by UNEP
UNEP/NOWPAP IG.7/9
Proposed Work plan and Budget for 2002-2003.
Information Documents
UNEP/NOWPAP IG.7/INF/1 List of Documents
UNEP/NOWPAP IG.7/INF/2 Provisional list of participants
UNEP/NOWPAP IG.7/INF/3 Governing Council Decision on NOWPAP
UNEP/NOWPAP IG.7/INF/4 Report of the Global Programme of Action Intergovernmental Review
Meeting
26 - 30 November 2001, Montreal Canada
UNEP/NOWPAP IG.6/8
Sixth Intergovernmental Meeting on the Northwest Pacific Action Plan:
Report of the Meeting
UNEP (DEC)/RS.4/
Report of the Fourth Global Meeting of Regional Seas Conventions and
Action Plans (Montreal, Canada 21-23 November 2001)
Synergies (2 Issues)
Regional Seas: A Survival Strategy for Our Oceans and Coasts
21
UNEP(DEC)/NOWPAP/IG.7/10
22
UNEP(DEC)/NOWPAP/IG.7/10
Annex III
DETAILED PLAN OF CO-HOSTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RCU
April 24, 2001
Detailed plan of Co-Hosting the Establishment of NOWPAP/RCU
by Japan and Republic of Korea
1.
Background
Japan, given such circumstances as thriving shipbuilding/shipping industry and a variety of industrial zones
in coastal areas, is keenly cognizant of the potential negative impact of marine pollution and has thus been
accumulating knowledge of marine environment protection through various forms of national and
international activities. Furthermore, Japan has acquired significant experience in and knowledge of land-
based marine pollution, through continuous marine environmental monitoring in the NOWPAP region and
actions for mitigating land-based marine pollutants. Having such background, Japan had indicated strong
interest to host the RCU in Toyama since the Meeting of Experts and National Focal Points on NOWPAP,
which was held January 1999 in Bangkok.
On the other hand, Republic of Korea (hereinafter "Korea") is located at the center of the NOWPAP area
and actively participated since the preparatory meetings for the establishment of NOWPAP. With the
importance of the marine environment in mind, Korea has been making many efforts to preserve the marine
ecosystem and develop marine resources in a sustainable way. Attaching great importance to NOWPAP, it
had expressed a willingness to establish the RCU since the first Intergovernmental Meeting in Seoul in 1994.
Furthermore, Korea has tried to stabilize the financial situation of NOWPAP and has contributed relatively
higher amount to NOWPAP than to other similar international organizations.
Japan and Korea, respecting their eagerness each other, have jointly prepared the offer of co-hosting
NOWPAP/RCU, and developed this detailed plan to co-host NOWPAP/RCU based on the resolution 2 of
the 6th Intergovernmental Meeting held in 5-6 December 2000, Tokyo. This plan is prepared for
consideration for China, Russia and UNEP, and we expect all member states to give confirmation, as early
as possible, of their approval to our proposed detailed plan.
2.
The location of the RCU
NOWPAP/RCU will have 2 offices in Japan as well as in Korea in order to fully reflect the intentions of
Japan and Korea to contribute to the NOWPAP activities. One office will be located in Toyama, Japan, and
the other office will be located at the site of the National Fisheries Research and Development Institute
(NFRDI) in Pusan, Korea. The status of both offices is even.
The suitable conditions for international operation and the convenience for the RCU staff's living in Toyama
and Pusan are referred in proposal documents submitted to UNEP in August 2000 by Japan and Korea
respectively (chapter 2 of Japan's document and chapter 2 of Korea's document). It takes about 3hours
between Toyama and Pusan by air via Seoul. There are four Toyama-Seoul flights a week.
3.
Demarcation of the function
To avoid the duplication of works between Toyama office and Pusan office, the function of the RCU will be
demarcated in accordance with the types of projects as follows:
-
Toyama office will handle the work related to NOWPAP/1,NOWPAP/3 and NOWPAP/6; and,
-
Pusan office will handle the work related to NOWPAP/2, NOWPAP/4 and NOWPAP/7.
23
UNEP(DEC)/NOWPAP/IG.7/10
The above demarcation is made from the standpoint of close linkage of the activities, efficient continuity of
the present activities, effective cooperation among the RCU and RACs, and balance of project workload
between both offices. This demarcation will be reviewed, as appropriate, following the expansion of
NOWPAP activities in the future.
4.
Facilities to be provided
(1)
Office space
Toyama office is ready to be housed in a state-of-the-art intelligent building, Intec Meiji Insurance Co.
Building (Tower 111), located in the center of Toyama City. The space prepared for Toyama office occupies
100 m2 on the 4th floor.
Pusan office is ready to be housed at the site of NFRDI. Composed of 670 researchers and staff members,
NFRDI is a governmental research institute that conducts various ocean-related research activities,
concerning, for example, coastal management and environmental studies. It also operates the Fisheries
Science Museum, Korea Oceanographic Data Center, etc. NFRDI will provide one office room (101m2) in
which the space for a reference library could be partitioned.
(2)
Office equipment
Each staff will be able to use his/her own personal computer with Internet access and his/her own printer and
telephone. Desks, bookshelves, fax machines and copy machines necessary for office work will be also on
hand. All the furniture and equipment installed in both office is listed in Table 1.
(3)
Others
The building where Toyama office will be housed boasts a number of restaurants, tea lounges and banks as
well as a multipurpose hall, art gallery and private cultural institution. The entire building is fully air-
conditioned system providing a comfortable working environment. Ample parking space is available,
although the location of Toyama office has good and easy access to public transportation.
NFRDI has suitable facilities for the RCU office and staff. There are a conference room, seminar room,
computer center, library, athletic facilities, restaurant, parking space, etc. Korea will also try to provide any
additional facilities that are needed once regular operations are underway.
(5)
Services to be provided
(1)
Maintenance
Toyama office will be cleaned under an outsourced service contract twice a week. For any request for office
maintenance, the technical staff in charge of facilities is always on standby.
All the facilities of the Pusan office will be regularly maintained by NFRDI. In case of any other
maintenance needs, NFRDI has technical staff on standby.
(2)
Others
For security of the building of Toyama office, three professional guards are always on duty at the building in
the daytime and two guards patrol at night. The building is near the Toyama Police Station so that police
quickly respond to any emergency.
NFRDI has its own security service system connected to the Police Station, and is prepared to provide
special attention to the security of the office.
24
UNEP(DEC)/NOWPAP/IG.7/10
6.
Staffing
Composition of the staff in the RCU will be as follows:
- 1 Coordinator (P5);
- 1 Deputy-Coordinator (P4);
- 2 Professional Staffs (P3), one will be assigned in Toyama office and the other will be in Pusan office
and,
- 2 locally recruited Secretaries (equivalent to UN level G7 or G6), one will be assigned in Toyama and
the other will be in Pusan
The position of Coordinator will rotate between Toyama office and Pusan office every 4 years. The position
of Deputy-Coordinator is assigned to the office where the position of Coordinator is not assigned. For first 4
years from the establishment of the RCU, Coodinator will be assigned to Toyama office and Deputy-
Coordinator will be to Pusan office. Coordinator and Deputy-Coordinator will take their task respectively in
accordance with the demarcation listed in Table 2.
Part time personnel from host countries will be available for lending assistance to the above staff in each
office. As regards the staff of Toyama office, 3 persons from the Japan Association of Marine Safety
(JAMS) (1 specialist in the marine pollution and 2 secretaries, with English capability) and 1 person from
the Northwest Pacific Region Environmental Cooperation Centre (NPEC) (1 specialist in the coastal
environmental management) will be available. And for the Pusan office, NFRDI is planning to provide two
gratis staffs, i.e., data manager and information specialist, both of whom have English language proficiency,
and can also consider the provision of additional manpower in view of the workload of Pusan office.
The outline of JAMS and NPEC is referred in Chapter 4 of the proposal document submitted to UNEP in
August 2000 by Japan.
7.
Financial contribution
(1)
Startup cost
For establishing Toyama office, Toyama Prefectural Government will secure office space and office
equipment. Toyama Prefectural Government also will cover the necessary deposit and the cost for
remodeling of the office at startup. These contributions will be made in- kind.
For the Pusan office, Korea will also provide office space and equipment. In addition, Korea considers
providing appropriate contributions, in kind or in cash, for the smooth launch of the RCU.
(2)
Annual operation cost
The cost of staff and operational cost for each office will be contributed by each host country respectively,
except for the expense paid from the NOWPAP Trust Fund ($60,000 annually). The contribution from the
Trust Fund will be equally allocated between both offices.
Moreover, the expenses for implementing the programme of work of NOWPAP, such as official travel,
communication, and hosting meetings which have been normally borne by the NOWPAP Trust Fund will
continue to be financed by the Trust Fund as indicated on the footnote of the Annex II of Annex V of
UNEP/NOWPAP IG.5/6.
Japan will make an annual contribution for the operation of the Toyama office, as mentioned above. In
addition, Toyama Prefectural Government will cover the running costs such as the rental of premises,
utilities and equipment maintenance. Japan firmly believe that all the necessary costs of Toyama office
including personnel expenses and other operation costs can be covered by the contributions from Japan
together with a reasonable allotment from the NOWPAP Trust Fund.
In addition, Japan has the intention to continue to provide financial contribution to the operation of Toyama
office for the following years by annually appropriated budgets in Japan and in accordance with its relevant
and applicable laws and regulations.
25
UNEP(DEC)/NOWPAP/IG.7/10
For Pusan office, NFRDI will finance the remaining staffing costs not covered by the NOWPAP Trust Fund,
on the presumption that the level of financing from the Trust Fund be reviewed as appropriate, with a view
to increase its contribution to the running costs of the RCU if possible. However, for administrative purposes
during the first five-year period, staffing assistance will be extended by reviewing the activities of the RCU
and the status of the trust fund every two years.
The operating costs of Pusan office will be provided by NFRDI at approximately the level illustrated in the
Annex II of Annex V of UNEP/NOWPAP IG.5/6. These costs don't include the above expenses for
implementing the programme of work financed by the Trust Fund.
8.
Contribution towards NOWPAP
Contributions towards NOWPAP are referred in proposal documents submitted to UNEP in August 2000 by
Japan and Korea respectively (chapter 5(3) and 6 of Japan's document and chapter 7 of Korea's document).
26
UNEP(DEC)/NOWPAP/IG.7/10
Table 1. Furniture and equipment in the RCU office
Room Item
Number
in
Number in
Toyama
Pusan
Coordinator (P5)/
Desk/chair
1
1
Deputy- Coordinator (P4)
Table for guests
1
1
Long chair for guests
1
1
Toyama: 25 m2
Chairs for guests
2
2
Pusan: 25 m2
Bookshelf
1
1
Locker
1
1
Telephone
1
1
PC/printer
1
1
Programme Officer (P3)
Desk/chair
1
1
Bookshelf
1
1
Toyama: 16 m2
Locker
1
1
Pusan: 16 m2
Telephone
1
1
PC/printer
1
1
Administrative Assistant
Desk/chair
1
1
(G6/7)
Bookshelf
1
1
Toyama: 11 m2
Locker
1
1
Pusan: 11 m2
Telephone
1
1
PC/printer
1
1
Meeting space
Table for meeting
1
1
Toyama: 14 m2
Chairs for meeting
8
8
Pusan: 14 m2
Bookshelf
1
1
Common space
Fax machine
1
1
Toyama: 20 m2
Copy machine
1
1
Pusan: 20 m2
Bookshelves
2
2
Library
Bookshelves 2
2
Toyama: 14 m2
Pusan: 15 m2
Others
Stationery (Papers,
envelopes etc.)
*Additional facilities can also be considered if the RCU needs more facilities for the future full scale
activities.
27
UNEP(DEC)/NOWPAP/IG.7/10
Table 2. Terms of Reference for Coordinator and Deputy-Coordinator
The terms of reference for NOWPAP/RCU (UNEP/NOWPAP IG.5/6 ANNEX V, ANNEX I) will be
demarcated between Coordinator and Deputy-Coordinator in the following manner (C: Coordinator / D.C.:
Deputy-Coordinator)
Task
C. D.C.
I. General coodination
(a)
Coordinator will treat general issues beyond the function of each
office.
(b)
This task will be divided in accordance with the function of each
office.
(c)
×
Deputy-Coordinator's opinion will be taken into account
appropriately.
(d)
×
Deputy-Coordinator's opinion will be taken into account
appropriately.
(e)
Coordinator will treat general issues beyond the function of each
office, although Intergovernmental Meetings and Meetings of Experts
(f)
and National Focal Points may be prepared by each office in rotation
under authorisation of Coordinator.
(g)
This will follow the adjustment referred in (e) and (f).
(h)
Coordinator will treat general issues beyond the function of each
(i)
office.
(j)
×
Deputy-Coordinator may represent the Secretariat when Coordinator
gives him the mandate.
(k)
This should be considered as the need arises.
II. Specific programme management tasks
The tasks in this category can be divided in accordance with the functions of each office.
III. Resource mobilisation
Coordinator should carry out the tasks in this category in principle, although Deputy-Coordinator may carry
out certain specific tasks on authorisation and under supervision of the Coordinator.
IV. Financial management
(a)
Each office will be responsible for the financial management of the
projects of its mandate within approved budget allocation to each
project. Coordinator will be responsible for the overall financial
management.
(b)
×
(c)
×
(d)
×
(e)
Each office will deal with these tasks respectively.
(f)
(g)
28
UNEP(DEC)/NOWPAP/IG.7/10
Task
C. D.C.
V. Administration
(a)
×
Coordinator will be responsible for the supervision and coordination
of all the staffing and personnel needs, fully taking into consideration
the each office's initial assessment in the light of workload.
(b)
Each office will deal with this task respectively.
(c)
This will follow the adjustment referred in (e) and (f) of section I.
(d)
Each office will deal with this task respectively.
(e)
This will follow the adjustment referred in (e) and (f) of section I.
Note) Each item of "Task" follows the item described in UNEP/NOWPAP IG.5/6 ANNEX V, ANNEX I.
/×: Coordinator will carry out the task exclusively.
/: Deputy-coordinator will carry out the task when it is solely related to his office's business.
/: Coordinator and Deputy-Coordinator can carry out the task within their own mandate
independently.
29
UNEP(DEC)/NOWPAP/IG.7/10
Annex IV
RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION 1
PROGRAMME OF IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE 2002-2003 BIENNIUM
Noting the progress made in the implementation of the priority projects in the work program for
2000/2001,
Taking into consideration the experiences from the work plan for the 2000/2001 biennium, and aware
of the shortcomings in its implementation and the need to accelerate the process of implementation of
NOWPAP activities,
Recognizing the work of the Regional Activity Centers and other organizations currently
implementing part of the NOWPAP priority activities in the region, locally nationally and regionally
The Seventh Intergovernmental Meeting
1.
Approves the report of the Executive Director of UNEP on the progress in the implementation of
NOWPAP and the reports of the Directors of NOWPAP Regional Activity Centers for 2001.
2.
Approves the Work plan and Budget for the 2002/2003 biennium as presented in Table 1 and
emphasizes the importance of carrying out the work plan as scheduled.
3.
Encourages members, projects and Regional Activity Centers to implement the projects efficiently
and according to the work plan.
4.
Requests the Executive Director and the Directors of NOWPAP Regional Activity Centers to
implement NOWPAP activities according to the modalities presented during the meeting.
5.
Requests the Secretariat to disburse the allocated budgets from the Trust Fund to the activity centers
according to UNEP procedures, as soon as possible as the biennium has already started.
6.
Requests UNEP to facilitate the implementation of work by providing programmatic support as well
as administrative and practical assistance to the RACs and the RCU, which is to be established.
7.
Encourages the members of NOWPAP to make efforts to establish partnerships and cooperate with
relevant international bodies, local governments and civil society in activities related to the implementation
of NOWPAP.
30
UNEP(DEC)/NOWPAP/IG.7/10
Table 1. NOWPAP Budget and Work plan for 2002-2003 in US$
Total for the
Activity
2002
2003
Biennium
NOWPAP1 DINRAC
55,000 70,000 125,000
Database and Information
NOWPAP 2 RCU
5,000 5,000
Survey of Nat'l Legislation
NOWPAP 3 POMRAC
WG 1- Atmospheric deposition
55,000 70,000 125,000
WG 2 Rivers and direct inputs
NOWPAP 3 CEARAC
WG 3 - HAB & monitoring coastal waters
55,000 70,000 125,000
WG 4 Remote sensing
New techniques
NOWPAP 4 MERRAC
90,000 105,000 195,000
Oil spill prep. & response
NOWPAP 6 RCU
10,000 15,000 25,000
Public Awareness
NOWPAP 7 RCU
55,000 65,000 120,000
Land Based Activities
Co-ordination of RACs RCU
25,000 30,000 55,000
Implementation of NOWPAP RCU
35,000 43,000 78,000
Operation of RCU
60,000 60,000 120,000
Sub-Total
445,000 528,000 973,000
13% of the sub-total as Programme Support
Cost
58,000 69,000 127,000
Total
503,000 597,000 1,100,000
Remark - Assuming the use of US$1.25 million accumulated as savings in the Trust Fund on an average rate
of US$ 230,000 per year, in addition to constant income of $ 315,000 per year from contributions.
31
UNEP(DEC)/NOWPAP/IG.7/10
RESOLUTION 2
FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF NOWPAP
IN THE 2002-2003 BIENNIUM
Recognizing the regional need for prompt, efficient and cost-effective implementation of priority
projects in support of the Action Plan,
Noting the need for sound financing of activities under the Work Plan of NOWPAP as key to
successful implementation,
Recognizing the need to secure a sustainable funding mechanism through an effective resource
mobilization system,
Commending the pledges and payments made by the members for the past biennium but aware of the
fluctuating economy of the region and the effect thereof on the capacity of the members to contribute
financially
The Seventh Intergovernmental Meeting,
1.
Decides to maintain the level of contribution of previous years, with a view to revise this at a later
stage should a particular need arise.
2.
Endorses the following tentative scale of contributions to the Trust Fund for activities in 2002.
COUNTRY (percent)
ADDITIONAL
(percent)
TOTAL
(US$)
Japan 5
20
125,000
Peoples Republic of China
5
3
40,000
Republic of Korea
5
15
100,000
Russian Federation
5
5
50,000
TOTAL 20
43
315,000
3.
Recognizes the pledges made for 2002 and encourages the members of NOWPAP to pledge the same
amounts for 2003.
4.
Encourages the members of NOWPAP and the Executive Director of UNEP to make all possible
efforts to secure funds from sources external to the Trust Fund, including civil society, local government,
international and regional organizations and financial institutions in order to reduce the financial burden of
the members.
32
UNEP(DEC)/NOWPAP/IG.7/10
RESOLUTION 3
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS OF NOWPAP
Recognizing the need for structural changes in the institutional framework of NOWPAP for
improving the effectiveness of project implementation
Taking into account the proposal made by UNEP as regards to the allocation of new responsibilities
and activities to the Regional Activity Centers (RAC), the need to move from a project-based
implementation of activities to RAC and RCU-based activities, and to establish strong structural elements in
NOWPAP in order to improve the efficiency of its work
Considering the opportunity of establishing partnerships and joint activities with international
organizations, other Regional Seas programs, and civil society
Welcoming the kind offers made by Japan and Republic of Korea to co-host the RCU in Toyama and
Pusan respectively
Acknowledging UNEPs experience and input to the evolution process of the institutional
arrangements of NOWPAP
Acknowledging the need for co-ordination between RACs and Projects for implementation of
activities in a timely manner, and the fact that the RCU is yet to be established
Noting the variation in the success of the RACs in implementing the NOWPAP projects in accordance
with the work plan as well as the different mandates they operate under
Aware of the need to establish regional contacts for each RAC, in view of strengthening the regional
nature of the activities assigned to the RACs
Recognizing the need for an intermediate co-ordination and communication between the
Intergovernmental Meetings, Projects and Regional Activity Centers as well as the future RCU;
Further recognizing the need for a technical/experts group for the development of proposals and
preparation of strategies, documents and activities that should meet more often than the IGM
Noting that these intermediate groups are common in many Regional Seas Programs, from which
model examples can be taken
Aware that a similar structure was underway in the NOWPAP region through the focal points meeting
for activities established during the NOWPAP/1, 3 and 4 Meetings in China in May 2001, but that this body
did not get endorsement for operation
The Seventh Intergovernmental Meeting
1.
Welcomes the proposal by UNEP for the institutional arrangements of NOWPAP in document
UNEP/NOWPAP IG.7/8, and recognizes that it should be implemented through an evolutionary process.
2.
Decides, however, to postpone the practical implementation of these changes to a period after the
establishment of the RCU, subject to further decisions of future Intergovernmental Meetings.
3.
Calls upon UNEP, acting as Interim Secretariat of NOWPAP to further develop this document as the
base for the development/restructuring of the action plan, in consultation with all members.
4.
Decides to consider, until the next Intergovernmental Meeting, the establishment of the NOWPAP
Experts Forum which will serve as a high-level intermediate body between the IGM and the operational
33
UNEP(DEC)/NOWPAP/IG.7/10
levels of NOWPAP, based on the experience gained in other Regional Seas programmes and according to
the Terms of Reference submitted by UNEP.
5.
Requests the Interim Secretariat of NOWPAP to guide, supervise and coordinate the activities of the
RACs in view of implementation of the biennial work plan until the RCU is operational
6.
Approves the demarcation of the responsibilities and activities between CEARAC and POMRAC as
presented by the secretariat in document UNEP/NOWPAP IG.7/8 and requests the Executive Director to
allocate different budgets for their activities as reflected in the work plan, and to revise the Memorandum of
Understanding between UNEP and the respective RACs, including their Terms of Reference
7.
Approves the modalities and terms of reference of Focal Points and Working Groups of various
NOWPAP RACs and projects
8.
Requests the Directors of the RACs and the secretariat to establish appropriate Fora of National Focal
Points for each RAC and calls upon the NOWPAP members to facilitate the establishment of such fora by a
timely nomination of relevant focal points, upon the request of the secretariat and the directors of the RACs
34
UNEP(DEC)/NOWPAP/IG.7/10
RESOLUTION 4.
ESTABLISHMENT OF THE NOWPAP REGIONAL COORDINATING UNIT (RCU)
Noting the arrangements made by the Executive Director of UNEP for support NOWPAP in the
implementation of its activities
Recognizing the undertakings of the Government of Japan and the Republic of Korea to ensure the
availability of necessary facilities and conditions to enable a Regional Co-ordinating Unit (RCU) to perform
its functions as a part of United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
Taking note of the Governing Council Decision 21/30 on the implementation of the Northwest Pacific
Action plan, 9 February 2001,
The Seventh Intergovernmental Meeting
1.
Agrees to the detailed plan (Annex IV Report of the Meeting) submitted by the Governments of Japan
and the Republic of Korea to UNEP and the NOWPAP members
2.
Calls upon the Executive Director of UNEP to urgently embark on recruiting the staff for the Regional
Co-ordinating Unit co-hosted in Toyama, Japan and Pusan, Republic of Korea, according to the request of
the NOWPAP members at this meeting
3.
Urges UNEP and the host countries to finalize the host country arrangements
4.
Request the Executive Director to take any other necessary action for timely, in-practice establishment
of the RCU as a part of UNEP in Toyama, Japan and Pusan, Republic of Korea
5.
Requests UNEP to advertise the vacancy announcements in accordance with Table 2 and the summary
descriptions of the positions of the RCU
Table 2. Interim responsibilities of the two offices of the RCU*
PUSAN OFFICE
NOWPAP RCU Office
TOYAMA OFFICE
Coordinator P-5
Deputy Co-ordinator P-4
Information/Data & Finance
Staff
Scientific and Technical Officer P-3
Management Officer P-3
Administrative Assistant G-6/7
Administrative Assistant G-6/7
Environmental Management
Monitoring and Assessment
Capacity Building
Finance and Resource Mobilization
Legal Aspects
Interim responsibilities
Publications and Public Awareness
Marine Pollution Preparedness and
Data and Information Management
response
Land Based Activities
NOWPAP 2 Survey of Legislation
NOWPAP 1 Data & Information
NOWPAP 4 Marine Pollution
Responsibility for
Management
Preparedness &
NOWPAP Activities
NOWPAP 3 Monitoring
Response
NOWPAP 6 Public Awareness
NOWPAP 7 - Land Based Activities
* The Co-ordinator and Deputy co-ordinator will prepare a plan and vision on a permanent demarcation of
responsibilities of the two offices, for approval by the next IGM
35
UNEP(DEC)/NOWPAP/IG.7/10
Summary description of the Positions at the RCU
Co-ordinator (P-5) Toyama, Japan
The Coordinator will be responsible for the overall management of the NOWPAP RCU and the
implementation and co-ordination of NOWPAP activities and UNEP/NOWPAP projects. The Coordinator
develops policies and strategies for the protection, management and development of the marine and coastal
environment of the Northwest Pacific region and assists member Governments in the formulation of regional
and national environmental programs including the initiation of new protocols. He/she will exercise the
overall supervision of the administration of the NOWPAP RCU and is responsible for the financial
management, resource mobilization, public awareness, monitoring, and data and information management of
NOWPAP activities. He/she will represent the UNEP Executive Director in regional meetings and will
conduct high-level diplomatic consultations for the implementation of NOWPAP.
Deputy Coordinator (P-4) Pusan, Korea
The Deputy Coordinator will be responsible for the day-to-day management of the NOWPAP RCU in Pusan,
including substantive activities for the co-ordination of NOWPAP activities specific to the Pusan office and
for the implementation of UNEP/NOWPAP projects appointed to the Pusan office and specifically related to
marine pollution and Land Based Activities (LBA). The Deputy Coordinator will participate in developing
policies and strategies for the protection, management and development of the marine and coastal
environment of the Northwest Pacific region. He/she will exercise the overall supervision of the scientific
and technical related activities, to the legal aspects of NOWPAP activities and the scientific information and
data banks under the responsibility of Pusan office, and will encourage intergovernmental, governmental and
non-governmental institutions to participate in the NOWPAP activities, in consultation with the Coordinator.
The deputy Coordinator will represent UNEP and NOWPAP at meetings and in different fora.
Scientific and Technical Officer (P-3), Pusan, Korea
Under the guidance and supervision of the Deputy Co-ordinator, the Scientific and Technical Officer will
participate in the planning, co-ordination and implementation of NOWPAP scientific and technical programs
and activities and evaluate and follow up the related activities carried out by the member Governments,
participating institutions, UN Agencies, and NOWPAP Regional Activity Centers (RACs). He/she will
develop projects within approved budgets and program priorities in the form of the project documents, and
co-ordinate and monitor the projects in their implementation. He/she will negotiate with Government
authorities and stakeholders in order to establish a program of work on the scientific and technical aspects of
NOWPAP activities under the responsibility of Pusan office, such as Marine Pollution, Land based
Activities (LBA), scientific information and data management and related activities. The Scientific and
Technical Officer will plan, negotiate with Government officials and co-ordinate programs on Marine
Pollution Preparedness and response and LBA.
Data / Information and Finance Management Officer (P3), Toyama, Japan
Under the guidance and supervision of the Co-ordinator, the Data/Information and Finance Management
Officer will assist in the planning, co-ordination and implementation of NOWPAP programs and activities,
and evaluate and follow up the related activities carried out by the member Governments, participating
institutions, UN Agencies, and NOWPAP Regional Activity Centers (RACs). He/she will be responsible for
co-ordination of preparations and dissemination of information, resource mobilization for the programs and
activities, accounting assignments and certain administrative, personnel and fund management assignments,
monitoring, data and information management, and will prepare strategies for mobilizing additional
resources and support for the programs of NOWPAP. He/she will supervise the financial management of
projects supported by the Environment fund and the NOWPAP Trust Fund managed by UNEP. He/she will
communicate regularly with member countries to discuss with government focal points and national experts
to gather scientific and technical information on their participation in and the implementation of the
programs and projects and will prepare information material on NOWPAP activities, including
scientific/technical and public outreach materials.
36
UNEP(DEC)/NOWPAP/IG.7/10
Locally recruited Secretary in each of the offices (equivalent of G 6/7 in the UN), Toyama, Japan and Pusan,
Korea.
Under the guidance and supervision of the Co-ordinator and Deputy Co-ordinator, the incumbent is
responsible for providing secretarial support services, as well as assist in accounting and travel-related
assignments and certain administrative, personnel and fund management assignments.
37
UNEP(DEC)/NOWPAP/IG.7/10
RESOLUTION 5
DEVELOPMENT OF A GEF PDF-B PROPOSAL ON LAND BASED ACTIVITIES
Noting the progress made in the development of the GEF PDF-B Proposal entitled `Strategic Action
Program for the Northwest Pacific Region for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based
Activities'
Aware that the proposal is still under development, in a consultation phase and under review of
NOWPAP members
Recognizing the partially common aims and objectives of the proposed PDF-B proposal and the
NOWPAP/7 project on land based sources of pollution
Acknowledging the GEF and the GPA for their significant contribution to the development of similar
activities in other regions through direct support and provision of expertise and guidelines
The Seventh Intergovernmental Meeting,
1.
Requests the Executive Director of UNEP and the GEF to take all necessary action to finalize the
proposal, in full consultation with the NOWPAP members and the GPA, for submission to the GEF
Secretariat as soon as possible,
2.
Calls upon the NOWPAP members to fully participate in the finalization of the proposal and take the
necessary steps for its implementation, particularly in providing significant co-financing to the project
3.
Decides to convene a meeting for the finalization of the proposal as part of the activities under
NOWPAP/7
-----
38
Document Outline
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ
- þÿ