REGIONAL FRAMEWORKS FOR LAND BASED SOURCES OF MARINE POLLUTION CONTROL: A LEGAL ANALYSIS ON THE NORTH EAST ATLANTIC AND THE BALTIC SEA REGIONS

There are problems and interests arising in regional areas which are larger than national interests, and in which national actors can participate, but yet which are not global in scope. These are typically special to a particular locality, and not amenable to effective treatment through global rule making. In this context, the management of problems in enclosed or semi-enclosed seas, the management of regional pelagic fisheries and certain regional efforts pertaining to scientific inquiry and information gathering, are important. In relation to joint regional efforts to combat land-based sources of marine pollution (‘LBSMP’), the term ‘regional’ is defined as, ‘efforts by three or more states to manage the oceans and their resources’.


I INTRODUCTION
There are problems and interests arising in regional areas which are larger than national interests, and in which national actors can participate, but yet which are not global in scope. 1 These are typically special to a particular locality, and not amenable to effective treatment through global rule making. 2 In this context, the management of problems in enclosed or semi-enclosed seas, the management of regional pelagic fisheries and certain regional efforts pertaining to scientific inquiry and information gathering, 3 are important. In relation to joint regional efforts to combat land-based sources of marine pollution ('LBSMP'), the term 'regional' is defined as, 'efforts by three or more states to manage the oceans and their resources '. 4 The objective of this paper is to describe new developments and fill the gaps in literature addressing regional efforts to control LBSMP. It analyses regional approaches and comments on developments to control LBSMP. In this context the paper explores the legal and institutional developments in the North-East Atlantic region and the Baltic Sea region. All these arrangements are examined with a view to assess what progress has been made to achieve the goal of LBSMP control under the legal frameworks of these regions. Although LBSMP can be transported globally, they are most intensely felt at regional levels. Schumacher notes that, 'most land-based pollutants are not transported far from their sources of discharge'. 5 It is due to this reason that a regional approach is advocated for LBSMP control. The Paris Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land-based Sources 1974, 6 and the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area 1974 7 are the pioneer legal instruments for regional control.
This article commences with a discussion on 'regional approach for LBSMP control'. Regional legal instruments on LBSMP control in the North East Atlantic and Baltic Sea regions are highlighted and discussed next. In this context the paper analyses the contents of these regional instruments and evaluates their implementation programs and measures on LBSMP control, to identify best practice.

II REGIONAL APPROACH FOR LBSMP CONTROL
In general, there is a natural tendency toward regionalism based on the homogeneity of interests, traditions, and values within small groups of neighbouring states. 8 Political, economic, social and cultural integration and cooperation are more easily attained 9 within a given region to establish mechanisms for environmental development and control. This suggests that, to facilitate environmental protection, 'environmental standards must be tailored to reflect local conditions and varying public preferences '. 10 Caldwell points out: In a world of nations, most of the actual work of environmental protection is done at the local level with the involvement or cooperation of national government. Nearly every nation has a stated policy for the environment, and by treaty or statute, some national policies extend to international commitments. And because many environmental policies transcend national boundaries but fall short of being global, governments have developed bilateral or regional arrangements to deal cooperatively with matters that they cannot effectively manage separately. 11 Although there are some arguments against LBSMP control at the regional level, 12 at present they have lost their retentive power. The regional approach has proven to be enormously attractive and, to a certain extent, successful for LBSMP since the late 1960s. 13 This is because the nature and scope of land-based pollutants differ from one 5 M Schumacher et al, 'Land-based Sources of Marine Pollution in the Caribbean Region: Incentives and Prospects for an Effective Regional Protocol ' (1996) 12 For the details of this debate see B A Boczek, 'Global and Regional Approaches to the Protection and Preservation of the Marine Environment' (1984) 16 Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 38; A Nollkaemper, 'Marine Pollution From Land-based Sources: Towards a Global Approach' (1992) 24 Marine Pollution Bulletin 8. The case for a global strategy is derived from the inadequacy of existing regional approaches to land-based sources. 13 In legal terms, the Bonn Convention on the Prevention of Pollution of the North Sea 1969 was the start of regional efforts for marine pollution control.
Vol 4 No 1 (QUTLJJ) Regional Frameworks for Land Based Sources of Marine Pollution Control region to another according to 'their special hydrographical and ecological characteristics, as well as the predominant patterns of industrial and economic development'. 14 LBSMP are highly specific for different regions. 15 They can cause real disasters in regions with specific geo-ecological features. Predominantly, these include, shallow, enclosed or semi enclosed seas, as they are especially sensitive and receive substantial contamination from land and the coasts. 16  In some cases the living resources have been locally contaminated to such a degree that fishing has been stopped in limited areas, sometimes leading to suspicion among consumers that fish caught elsewhere in adjacent areas may be contaminated and thus causing problems for the marketing of the fish from whole regions. In a number of 'hot spots', the ecosystem balance has been disturbed. In one area of the North Sea (the Waddensea), and the Baltic Sea, pollution has been implicated in reducing the population of some marine animals. 17 Unlike vessel source pollution, LBSMP usually affects local coastal interests, and therefore the global community shares a smaller part of the environmental cost. Because of this, the trend in legal thinking is that regional approaches are suitable for LBSMP control. As all seas are connected, LBSMP also have some impacts on oceanic water. 18 From this point of view, although some global standards are necessary, regulations should be concluded primarily at regional levels on this issue. Alheritiere's statement can be quoted in this context: 'Pollution from land-based sources calls for regional action; while other forms, such as pollution from dumping by ships, could be conveniently tackled at the global level'. 19 III REGIONAL AGREEMENTS SURVEYED AND ANALYSED Various regional LBSMP control agreements have been concluded in different parts of the world's oceans. They contain general provisions concerning, inter alia, the obligation to take appropriate measures to prevent marine pollution (including from land-based sources), cooperation in dealing with pollution, monitoring of pollution, environmental assessment, exchange of information, technological and financial assistance and settlement of disputes. They also provide a basis to establish financial HASSAN (2004) and administrative frameworks and to implement the broad-based regional Action Plan.  21 Ibid 48. 22 Ibid 70. 23 Ibid 86. 24 Ibid 118. 25 Ibid 137. 26 Ibid 159. 27 Ibid 196. 28 19 ILM 869. Article 1(2) provides a general obligation that: The contracting parties shall take, individually and jointly, all possible steps to prevent and eliminate pollution from land-based sources in accordance with the provisions of the convention and shall harmonise their policies in this regard.
The Convention defines LBSMP as: pollution from land-based sources means the pollution of the maritime area (i) through watercourses, (ii) from the coast, including introduction through underwater or other pipelines, (iii) from man-made structures placed under the jurisdiction of a contracting party within the limits of the area to which the present convention applies. 33 The Convention imposes specific obligations on State Parties to eliminate LBSMP by 'black list' substances listed in Part I of Annex A and to strictly limit 'grey list' 29 32 ILM (1990,1993 The OSPAR Convention 1992 reflects in part recommendations of the Stockholm Conference 1972, the Agenda 21 of United Nations Conference on Environment and Development 1992, and the relevant provisions of customary international law as reflected in part XII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The reasons for the replacement of the Paris Convention were that its predecessors, the Oslo Convention on Dumping and the Paris Convention 1974, were not adequately controlling some of the many sources of pollution. It was therefore considered justifiable to replace them with the [new Paris] Convention, which addresses all sources of pollution of the marine environment and the adverse effects of human activities upon it, takes into account the precautionary principle and strengthens regional cooperation. 39 This Convention marks a significant improvement in efforts towards LBSMP control by including more recent concepts in LBSMP control, such as the 'precautionary principle' and 'polluter pays principle '. 40 To implement these provisions, the Convention emphasises adoption of programs and measures making full use of the latest technological developments and practices. 41 34 To facilitate implementation measures, on the basis of persistency, toxicity or other noxious properties and tendency to bio-accumulate, pollutants have been divided into three parts. Annex A, part-I substances include, organohalogen compounds and substances which may form such compounds in the marine environment, mercury and mercury compounds, cadmium and cadmium compounds, persistent synthetic materials which may float, remain in suspension or sink, and which may seriously interfere with any legitimate uses of the sea and persistent oils and hydrocarbons of petroleum origin (Annex A, part I, 1-5).
Annex A, part II substances include compounds of phosphorous, silicon, tin and substances which may form such compounds in the marine environment, elemental phosphorous, non persistent oils and hydrocarbons of the petroleum (Annex A, part II, 1-3 of the Paris Convention 1974). 35 Article 11. 36 Articles 15 and 16. 37 Article 21 of the Convention states: 'Any dispute between contracting parties relating to the interpretation or application of the present Convention, which cannot be settled otherwise by the parties concerned, for instance by means of inquiry or conciliation within the Commission, shall, at the request of any of those parties, be submitted to arbitration…' It is to be noted that in terms of settlement of disagreements, the same mechanisms have been provided in Article 32 of the OSPAR Convention 1992. 38 32 ILM (1993) 1072. 39 Preamble of the OSPAR Convention. 40 In relation to those principles Article 2 of the Convention states: The contracting parties shall apply the precautionary principle, by virtue of which preventive measures are to be taken when there are reasonable grounds for concern that substances, or energy introduced, directly or indirectly, into the marine environment may bring about hazards to human health, harm living resources and marine ecosystems, damage amenities or interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea, even when there is no conclusive evidence of a casual relationship between the inputs and the effects and shall apply the polluters pay principle, by virtue of which the costs of pollution prevention, control and reduction measures are to borne by the polluter. (Articles 2(2)(a) and 2(2)(b) respectively). These include best available technology, best environmental practice, and clean technology 42 and the establishment of complementary or joint programs of scientific research. 43 Thus it employs the principle of cleaner production.
This Convention contains a specific provision on the assessment of the quality of the marine environment taken for its protection. 44 Thus the Convention sets in place a mechanism to render the parties' implementation transparent and publicly accountable.
Other important aspects of the OSPAR Convention 1992 are the inclusion of provisions relating to reporting and compliance to ensure the effectiveness of the measures taken by the parties; 45 access to information for the general public; 46 the possibility of permitting non-governmental organisations to participate in subsidiary bodies; 47 and the 41 Article (2)(3)(a). It is to be noted, that in terms of technological developments, and practices, states must take into account the criteria for the definition of practices and techniques set forth in Appendix 1 of the Convention.

42
Article (2)(3)(b)(i). The term best available technology means the latest stage of development of processes, facilities or methods of operation, which indicate the practical suitability of a particular measure for limiting discharges, emissions and waste. In relation to best available techniques, some special issues need to be considered. They include technological advantages, economic feasibility and the nature and volume of the discharges and emissions (See Article 2, appendix 1 of the Convention).
Best environmental practice means the application of the most appropriate combination of environmental control measures and strategies. With regards to best environmental practice a range of measures need to be considered, such as provision of information and education to the public, saving resources, establishing a system of licensing and application of economic instruments to activities (See Article 6, appendix 1 of the Convention).

43
Article (2)(3)(b)(ii). 44 In this respect Article 6 states: The contracting parties shall, in accordance with the provisions of the convention, in particular as provided for in Annex IV: (a) undertake and publish at regular intervals joint assessments of the quality status of the marine environment and of its development, for the maritime area or for regions or Sub-regions thereof; include in such assessments both an evaluation of the effectiveness of the measures taken and planned for the protection of the marine environment and the identification of priorities for action. 45 Articles 22 and 23. PARCOM is allowed to take measures to assist parties in carrying out their obligations on the basis of the report on any problems, which are a barrier in implementation. 46 Article 9. Article 9(1) states: 'the Contacting Parties shall ensure that their competent authorities are required to make available information ... to any natural or legal person, in response to any reasonable request...' Based on Ireland's understanding of Article 9 of the OSPAR Convention, Ireland requested access to information redacted from reports prepared as part of the approval process for the commiossioning of a Mixed Oxide Plant (the Mox Plant) in United Kingdom. UK declined to provide the information, arguing, among other things, that the information was properly withheld on commercial confidetiality grounds. ( This Convention does not provide a list of black and grey list substances. With a view to addressing all potential land-based pollutants to the fullest possible extent, all potential land-based sources of pollution are subjected to the same processes of control and eventual elimination. This approach creates broader scope for the development of plans for substances which are not listed in the black and grey list, but have harmful effects to the marine environment. Although the provisions of the OSPAR Convention 1992 brought new approaches to LBSMP control, they are not beyond criticism. For example, 'the broad scope to develop plans' for control of all land-based pollutants is very difficult to implement when Contracting Parties have room for dilatory manoeuvres on any debatable issues, such as through risk assessments and priority setting processes. Questions as to its effectiveness were raised by Pallemaerts who noted: 1974 Convention has now been replaced by less explicit treaty provisions and several layers of interpretative political discourse (Ministerial Declaration, Action Plan, Objective, Strategy...) and procedures which tend to qualify the mandate and delay, rather than speed up, implementing action. 52

(a) The OSPARCOM Recommendations, Decisions and Action Plans
The OSPARCOM is the representative body of the OSPAR Convention's Contracting Parties. It works on the basis of the Convention and adopts strategies and mechanisms for the implementation of the Convention and protection of the North-East Atlantic Sea from pollution. As far as implementation mechanisms are concerned, Action Plans, and In 1992 OSPARCOM adopted an Action Plan outlining specific actions for a substantial reduction of toxic, persistent and bio-accumulative substances and mandated the OSPARCOM to determine the specific priorities for control of substances and take action to control the inputs of such substances. 58 The 1996-97 Action Plan was for the development of: a strategy ... for the further reduction of discharges, emissions and losses of hazardous substances in order to implement the Commissions' objective in this respect 59 and consequently protect the regional marine environment from LBSMP.
Although OSPARCOM decisions are binding 60 its recommendations are not. 61 OSPARCOM recommendations became binding on those Contracting Parties who voted for them since March 1998 when the OSPAR Convention entered into force and made a significant contribution towards the prevention and elimination of LBSMP in the North Sea Region. The Action Plans adopted by the Commission do not have a binding force, but they do create political commitment for the implementation of the OSPAR Convention, and eventually, the eradication of LBSMP in the region.

(b) OSPAR Ministerial Declarations
The As a matter of principle, for the whole convention area, discharges and emissions of substances which are toxic, persistent and liable to bioaccumulation, in particular organohalogen substances, and which could reach the marine environment should, regardless of their anthropogenic source, be reduced, by the year 2000, to levels that are not harmful to man or nature with the aim of their elimination. 62 Progress regarding goals set out in the 1992 Paris Declaration was not satisfactory. To improve the situation another ministerial meeting was held in Sintra on 22-23 July 1998. This declaration adopted further measures for the phasing out of marine pollution by hazardous substances within one generation (by the year 2020). By introducing a system for prioritisation and risk assessment, it adopted new strategies on specific LBSMP problems including hazardous substances and eutrophication. 63 Facing the fact that pollution from LBS remained an extremely serious problem in the North Sea Area, and that much more work needed to be done, at the Sintra Meeting Ministers took a more firm stand than that of the 1992 Paris Declaration. They expanded the scope of the OSPAR regime of LBSMP control, 64 recognising that harm from unintentional releases is significant and must be controlled. 65 The Sintra declaration also adopted an Action Plan 66 for 1998-2003 to implement strategies. To make this plan effective, the agreement allowed the Commission to assess reports from Contracting Parties on the implementation of programs and measures and to assess the effectiveness of these programs and measures. To carry out this program the agreement also included the aim to establish a compliance mechanism, along with a revised standard of implementation reporting and a performance assessment procedure. 67 This is significant with regard to improving the LBSMP control measures in the region. These declarations are the commitments at political levels of the Contracting Parties to control LBSMP, although they are not binding upon them. Sintra Declaration, para 17. 65 As defined in Annex 5 to the Strategy, 'losses' are the unintentional transfer of substances directly or indirectly to the marine environment by leaching from a product, waste or structure; by leaching or run-off from land; and through a leak from a container. de La Fayette, above n 63, 285. 66 The Action Plan sets out a basis for action, activities and means of implantation, including specific tasks for the relevant working groups, and this Action Plan also includes undertakings with respect to effecting regular reviews and assessments of the quality status of the marine environment and of parties' implementation of measures adopted under the convention. (Ibid 295 To fulfil this long-term goal, the Esbjerg Declaration agreed to promote best available technology, best environmental practice, and clean technology in a more sophisticated and stringent way. 80 The Declaration's significant advance lies in the call for a cessation of discharges rather than their reduction and in its references to the need for priority setting in toxic reduction measures. 81 At the IMM held in Oslo, Norway in 1997, the concept 'Ecosystem Approach' was discussed as part of the integration of fisheries and environmental policies. 82 At its meeting a workshop was held where present conservation and management measures for the protection of the North Sea Ecosystem received specific attention. The promotion of integrated monitoring and assessments and sustainable utilisation of marine resources were advocated in this workshop for further development of this approach in the management and protection of the North Sea. 83 The fifth North Sea Conference took place in Bergen, Norway on 20-21 March 2002. This Conference covered a wide range of issues such as ecosystem approach to management, sustainable fisheries, hazardous substances and eutrophication. In terms of ecosystem approach this Conference emphasises the coherent, integrated and sustainable management and includes the use of ecological quality objectives as a tool for setting clear operational environmental objectives and as indicators for ecosystem health. 84 It was stressed that increased efforts are necessary in order to meet the target of the cessation of emissions, discharges and losses of hazardous substances to the North Sea by 2020 (one generation target set out in Esbjerg Declaration 1995) and also to 77 Copenhagen statement, para 47(i It is to be noted that these INSC declarations are not binding upon states in international law. However, they create a commitment at political levels to protect the regional marine environment from pollution.  Review 2). As a tool of minimising international competitive distortions arising from LBSMP, the polluter pays principle advocates that the costs of environmental pollution should be internalised. In the international context, it is an attempt to shift the burden of pollution prevention and clean up costs to states or other groups or bodies involved in polluting activities, rather than permitting that burden to continue to be imposed on international society as a whole. As a management tool, the cleaner production principle offers an effective solution for tackling LBSMP problems by Vol 4 No 1 (QUTLJJ) Regional Frameworks for Land Based Sources of Marine Pollution Control management principles in the Convention has created positive opportunities for the protection of the marine environment from LBSMP in a sustainable way as they are suitable for rational management and thus useful for the minimisation of marine and coastal pollution.
As an important step in the implementation of the Convention, OSPARCOM adopted legally binding decisions. Various recommendations, Action Plans and ministerial declarations have been adopted as to the mechanisms of the Convention's implementation. INSCs and EEC directives also have been complemented with this implementation process. All these indicate the signs of commitment at political levels for the protection of the North Sea and North-East Atlantic Sea from LBSMP.
The ambitious goals adopted in the OSPAR, INSC and EEC systems were aimed at substantial behavioural change at the domestic and regional level 98 to control LBSMP in the North and North East Atlantic Sea region. With the adoption of these mechanisms and policies by the states, commitments have been developed and greater compliance has been achieved in the North Sea region. 99 Dumping has stopped and the discharge of major pollutants has been cut roughly in half in only a decade.
This following table indicates that control efforts are progressing to achieve the eventual elimination of LBSMP in some North Sea countries. All these recommendations, plans and directives have been playing a key role to solve the problem of coastal degradation from LBSMP. They have created sufficient institutional frameworks to combat LBSMP in the region. As a positive step to providing the opportunity to conserve and clean up coastal waters, and ensuring environmentally sustainable use of resources by firms and industries in marine and coastal areas (efficient resource utilisation). It also provides an effective solution for protecting the marine and coastal environment from the negative impacts of human activities (reducing waste disposal charges). In this way, few, or, at least fewer, harmful substances would be introduced into the coastal waters. Because of their usefulness, international management principles have been accepted by the international community and incorporated in different international instruments. ICZM can, consequently, be described as a continuous and dynamic process by which decisions are made for the sustainable use, development, and protection of coastal and marine areas and resources (B implement the objectives of the OSPAR Convention these complementary measures have provided greater opportunities to study the problems of LBSMP and to extend and strengthen administrative, scientific, political and financial capacities in the region.
However, 'progress of implementation' in all aspects has been slow because of economic infeasibility and social and political implications. Implementation of all of these plans and declarations requires further development of cooperative programs and measures including a supreme effort and significant capital expenditure for the preparation and review of marine environmental practices.

B Baltic Sea: Helsinki Convention (1972 and 1992)
The Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area ('Helsinki Convention 1974'), concluded on 22 March 1974 101 was the first regional international agreement to institute comprehensive measures to control all sources of regional marine pollution.
In this Convention, the Contracting Parties agreed to 'take all appropriate legislative, administrative or other relevant measures in order to prevent and abate pollution and to protect and enhance the marine environment of the Baltic Sea Area'. 102 In relation to LBSMP: The contracting parties shall take all appropriate measures to control and minimise landbased pollution of the marine environment of the Baltic Sea Area; 103 and … [t]o this end they shall, inter alia, as appropriate co-operate in the development and adoption of specific programs, guidelines, standards or regulations concerning discharges, environmental quality, and products containing such substances and materials and their use. 104 This Convention also imposes specific obligations on the Contracting Parties to counteract the introduction of hazardous substances. 105 It emphasises technological cooperation between Contracting States 106 and establishes a commission (HELCOM) to administer and coordinate the cooperative tasks of State Parties. As a permanent body, HELCOM is composed of all Contracting Parties of the Convention. HELCOM's 101 Rapid fouling of the Baltic waters led to initial contacts between riparian states in 1969 and 1970 after which the Finnish Government expressed, in 1971, its willingness to act as the host for a Conference on the protection of the Baltic environment. As later elaborated, the idea was welcomed by the other riparians and preparations for the establishment of a regional convention were commenced in May 1973. Preparatory work was carried out in a notably efficient manner Article 6(1). 104 Article 6(2). 105 Article 5. 106 Article 16. Although these provisions are significant, a significant omission in terms of LBSMP control was that the Convention did not include internal waters of the Contracting Parties. 111 It is to be noted that Article 4(3) of the Convention obliged the Contracting Parties not to pollute their internal waters. It states: While the provisions of the present Convention do not apply to internal waters, which are under the sovereignty of each contracting party, the contracting parties undertake, without prejudice to their sovereign rights, to ensure that the purposes of the present convention will be obtained in these waters. 112 This deficiency of the Convention does not create a legal obligation of States to control LBSMP in their internal waters. As B A Boczek indicates: Article 18 states: '1. In case of a dispute between Contracting Parties as to the interpretation or application of the present convention, they should seek a solution by negotiation. If the Parties concerned cannot reach agreement they should seek the good offices of or jointly request the mediation by a third party, a qualified international organization or a qualified person. 2. If the Parties concerned have not been able to resolve their dispute through negotiation or have been unable to agree on measures as described above, such disputes shall be, upon common agreement, submitted to an ad hoc arbitration tribunal, to a permanent arbitration, or to the International Court of Justice.' It is to be noted that Article 26 of the Helsinki Convention 1992 provides the same mechanism in this respect. Article 6. It is to be noted that Annex II contains criteria on best environmental practice and best available technology in its four regulations. Regulation 2 defines the best environmental practice, and regulation 3 defines the best available technology. 124 Article 6. Annex III contains criteria and measures that must be applied by the Contracting Parties to prevent marine pollution. For example, regulation 2 describes the specific requirements for the treatment of land-based sources and regulation 3 describes the principles for issuing permits for industrial plants. 125 Article 6(3). Detailed requirements for issuing permit are discussed in regulation 3, Annex III. The 1992 Convention also makes provisions on notification and consultation, 126 reporting and exchange of information 127 and circulation of information to the public 128 on marine pollution issues. All these provisions entail specific legal obligations for the protection of the Baltic Sea from LBSMP.

(c) Recommendations, Action Plans and Declarations
Ongoing efforts to control LBSMP in the Baltic Sea region are pursued through HELCOM recommendations, action programs, and Ministerial Declarations.
HELCOM makes recommendations to reduce pollution from land based sources. 129 The most important among these are: Recommendation 7/4 concerning measures for the reduction of waste discharges from urban areas by the preliminary treatment of waste from industrial plants; Recommendation 9/8 concerning measures for the reduction of industrial pollution; Recommendation 11/5 concerning restrictions on discharges from the iron and steel industry; Recommendation 12/4 concerning the principles of industrial release into municipal sewage systems; 130 Recommendation 21/3 concerning sustainable and environmentally friendly tourism in the coastal zones of the Baltic Sea Area; and Recommendation 23/10 concerning reduction of discharges and emissions from production and formulation of pesticides. 131 These recommendations are nonbinding. They are useful to serve the purpose of the Helsinki Convention 1992 in relation to LBSMP control. Apart from these recommendations, various Ministerial Declarations have been adopted to protect the Baltic Sea from LBSMP.
The 1988 Declaration called for a 'substantive reduction of the load of pollutants' and set forth a quantitative target (50 per cent of total land-based sources discharges) and timetable (as soon as possible but not later than 1995 the program and to improve the status of the Baltic Sea environment. 134 These recommendations and declarations are non-binding in international law. However, they are useful to intensify LBSMP control measures in the Baltic region. For example, following these recommendations and declarations, a series of pollution load compilation ('PLC') exercises were conducted. These included monitoring and evaluation of the pollution load entering the Baltic Sea from land-based sources, 135 and generation of information on land-based sources. 136 Other initiatives included identification of 'hot spots' in the region (mainly municipalities and industrial sites) and a Global Environment Facility ('GEF') proposal for a Baltic Sea Regional Project which addresses reduction of non point source pollution from agriculture. 137 These recommendations, plans and declarations are important steps in the implementation of the Helsinki Convention 1992. Adoption of these measures are the positive indications towards the protection of the coastal environment from pollution. They are also the signs of willingness from political levels for the protection of the Baltic Sea from LBSMP. As a process of implementation, these measures are contributing to the development of behavioural change and compliance culture in the Baltic Sea region.
From the prescriptive point of view, the Helsinki Convention made substantial progress over the Helsinki Convention 1974. Like OSPAR Convention the Helsinki Convention 1992 includes some of the international management principles. Providing criteria and measures for LBSMP control, this regime has become dynamic and more effective for LBSMP control. Openness has increased, 138 together with a willingness to admit LBSMP problems and to cooperate to control or eliminate them. However from the enforcement point of view this Convention's mechanism is still lacking. Uncertainties, non-compliance or inadequacies exist in implementation in several areas. 139 Its 134 The action program is expected to spend 18 billion euros over the 20 year period from 1993-2012 under six headings. They are: policies, law and regulations; institutional strengthening and human resource development; investment activities targeting emissions at both point sources and non point sources, management programs for coastal lagoons and wetlands; applied research; and public awareness and environmental education. In addition to the Contracting Parties, this program involves Belarus, the Czech Republic, Norway, Slovakia, Ukraine, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the European Investment Bank, the Nordic Investment Bank, the World Bank, the Nordic Environment Finance Corporation and the International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission. (J Lothigius, Enviro, Vol 20, April 1996). 135 Victor, above n 98, 189. 136 Of these, the PLC exercises stand out: PLC-2 generated significant new information between 1990-1992, and in 1996 PLC-3 began to provide unprecedentedly comprehensive and comparable data on 1995 pollution loads from land-based sources: ibid 204. This issue was further developed through the 1998 Ministerial Declaration, devoted to carrying out an extensive assessment of the implementation and effectiveness of this regime. 137 UNEP/GPA Coordination Office, Partners in Implementing the GPA, Regional Seas, The Hague, The Netherlands, Issue 1.1, October 1999, 30. institutional organ for implementation, HELCOM, has no independent authority to oversee implementation of the Convention's provisions, HELCOM's recommendations or Minsterial declarations. Implementation of these issues still depends on the goodwill of the Contracting Parties. 140 For example, due to the recommendations' non-binding legal nature, they have not been incorporated in Polish Law. 141 Like the superseded Paris Convention, this Convention's provisions are often indeterminate and the legally binding norms are considerably less explicit here. 142 Substantial amounts of nutrients and hazardous substances are still entering the coastal zones of the Baltic Sea. 143 It indicates that a major task remains for HELCOM and requires a further surge of cooperation between the countries of the region.
In response to this challenge, the 1992 Helsinki Convention Contracting Parties decided in 1999 to reorganise HELCOM to promote the accomplishment of the overall goal of marine environmental protection. The following subsidiary bodies were established in the new HELCOM: a strategy group for following developments within environmental policy; a monitoring and assessment group for focusing on input load and the environmental status; a land-based pollution group for designing measures to reduce pollution from land-based sources; and a nature conservation and coastal zone management group for protecting nature and biodiversity. These bodies prioritise eutrophication (especially the contribution of agriculture); hazardous substances; land transport issues; harmonisation of HELCOM recommendations with EU directives; and implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Environmental Action Program and HELCOM Recommendations. 144 In spite of this restructure, further environmental efforts to build up substantial implementation capacity are needed. 145 Political and economic complexities need to be reduced and funding and commitment increased to improve domestic legislative and administrative infrastructure for greater LBSMP control. 146

IV CONCLUSION
This paper has revealed that regional legal and institutional frameworks for LBSMP control in the North East Atlantic and Baltic Sea regions have come to play a significant 140 See A Kiss and D Shelton, Manual of European Environmental Law (Cambridge University Press, 2 nd ed, 1997) 365. 141 Ciechanowicz, above n 139, 406. (2004) role. These instruments initially led the way forward to control LBSMP. Although the degree of strictness varies, these regional agreements have obliged Contracting Parties to take preventive measures to reduce accidents, and ensure monitoring and inspection by competent authorities to control LBSMP. International management principles are duly undertaken these legal instruments.

HASSAN
Taking into account appropriate measures and techniques, greater emphasis has been placed on the control and elimination of all categories of LBSMP. Various recommendations, plans and declarations have been adopted to protect the marine and coastal environment of these regions from LBSMP. In undertaking Action Plans, organising conferences, adopting recommendations and using best available technology and the best environmental practice these regions have achieved notable development to control LBSMP.
While acknowledging these advances of LBSMP in North East Atlantic Sea and Baltic Sea regions, there are still some deficiencies in these regional arrangements from implementations point of view which require further development of cooperative arrangements and measures, including more efforts for the reduction of political and economic complexities and significant capital expenditure for LBSMP control.