The impact of the UNCED Process on the UNCLOS Process is profound and has a number of different aspects.

　

　First of all, it extends the scope of the “Constitution for the Ocean” to the land, the coastal areas, where the majority of humankind now resides. This is inevitable, since most of the activities subject to ocean governance originate on land. Most obviously this applies to Part XII of the Convention, on Protection and Preservation of the Marine Environment, since almost 90 percent of pollution is land-based.

　

　Second, dealing with the problems of the crowded coastal zone, such as the conflicts between uses and between users of ocean space and resources and the threats to the environment, the sustainability of living resources and to human health, required a new emphasis on, and development of, the concept of integrated coastal management: a first embodiment of Pardo=s “seminal idea” that the problems of ocean space are closely interrelated and need to be considered as a whole. The concepts of sustainable development and the precautionary approach in the face of uncertainty also matured or, at least, were given new emphasis in the process. The participation of all “stake holders” is another essential aspect of integrated coastal management.

　

　Third, integrated coastal management cannot be applied in a vacuum. Coastal, i.e. domestic affairs, are affected and often frustrated by developments outside the jurisdiction of the coastal State. It is therefore essential to establish proper linkages between the institutions of the coastal community, the State, the Region, and the global institutions. Developments must move together on all levels of ocean governance. That is the clear message conveyed by all the documents of the UNCED process. To be able to function effectively, the whole system must be comprehensive, consistent, participatory, and bottom-up rather than top down. That is the message conveyed by the Brundtland Report and spelled out in all the documents emanating from the UNCED process. “Comprehensive” means that the system of governance must comprise the four levels indicated above. “Consistent” means decision-making processes correspond to one another: “integrated coastal management” - though, obviously never perfect - can function only if it can be developed on all levels of governance. “Participatory” means the inclusion of civil society - or “Major Groups,” that is, socio-economic actors, local communities, and nongovernmental organizations, in decision-making; and “bottom-up” means that rules and regulation, if it is to be effective, cannot be imposed by central authorities “from the top down” but that the people or institutions affected must be involved, from the beginning, in the making of these rules and regulations so that they will understand them, agree with them, and therefore comply with them, giving rise to a certain degree of self-enforcement.

　

　Fourth, all the documents of the UNCED process concur on the crucial importance of regional cooperation, organization, and development. National ocean space is a political concept. Political space and ecological space, however, no longer coincide. The regional sea comes much closer to what is now called “Large Eco-System” and is considered to be a more suitable basis for integrated management. Most problems of management of the environment, of living resources, of scientific and technological cooperation, of monitoring, surveillance and compliance enforcement, of the suppression of crimes at sea, can best be dealt with at the regional level, which offers economies of scale and represents a commonality of interests and, often, of cultural traits, among the countries bordering a regional sea. The importance of regional cooperation is stressed already throughout the Law of the Sea Convention, but the UNCED Process greatly strengthens this component of ocean governance.

　

　Comparing these first two components of ocean governance, the legal framework and the institutional framework, it is interesting to note that the legal framework really started from the deep sea-bed, and moved from the ocean landwards. The institutional framework starts from the coastal community and moves through the State and the Region towards the institutions of global governance.

In the following sections an attempt is made to design the kind of institutional framework needed to implement the legal framework developed by the UNCLOS/UNCED Process, in accordance with the guidelines contained in that framework itself, at the local national, regional, and global level.

　

In many parts of the world, a new concept of governance is being developed. In many places it is grafted on very ancient traditions. That is the concept of “community-based co-management.” It follows the guide lines laid down in the Brundtland Report, for the “blurring on the boundaries” between Departments and disciplines (“horizontal integration”) as well as between levels of governance (local-national-regional-global: “Vertical integration”). It also makes the whole system “participatory” and “bottom-up,” as it involves all “stake holders” in decision-making at the level of the local community, and the local community in decision-making of the national government. It is a phenomenon of national decentralization and of “empowerment” of the local community. There are good examples for this system in South Africa,¹⁹ in Latin America and the Caribbean, in Japan, in China, in Norway. It is also the official policy of the Canadian Government,²⁰ The most interesting example in Canada is in the former North-West Territories, now the autonomous region of Nunavut, self-governed by the Inuit people.

　

　The Nunavut Final Agreement, ratified by the Canadian Parliament in 1993, provides for the establishment of a complete co-management regime. The Agreement provides that:

　

　

　Each one of the bodies mentioned in this paragraph is itself a co-management body having equal government and Inuit representation. Thus,

　

　

　Article 15 of the Agreement recognizes that Athere is a need for Inuit involvement in aspects of “rctic marine management, including research.” Thus, one beneficial aspect of co-management is greater involvement of fishers in scientific research providing a broader base of information and knowledge.²³

　

　

　At the same time, this arrangement makes science available to fishing communities so that they can use it as a tool along with their indigenous knowledge.

　

　The same applies to technology. Co-management provides the best institutional framework for the blending of native skills and indigenous technologies, contributed by the local community, an high technology which may be provided by the central government. The blending of traditional wisdom and high technology (especially micro-electronics and genetic engineering) into “eco-technologies” is an important contribution to sustainable development in coastal areas.

　

　One aspect of community-based co-management that has not yet received sufficient attention is the need to include the insurance industry among the “stake holders” to participate in the decision-making process.

　

　As is well known, the coastal zone is the planet's most vulnerable zone, exposed to storm surges, tsunamis, typhoons, erosion, sea-level rise, combined and interacting with the pressures coming from land-based activities. Massive pollution is poisoning the food we eat, the bathing water in which we seek recreation and health. The World Health Organization estimates that bathing in polluted seas causes, globally, some 250 million cases of gastroenteritis and respiratory disease every year. The costs, to society, worldwide, are about US$ 1,2 billion a year. Sickness from consuming contaminated seafood is even more devastating. The World Health Organization estimates that between five and ten million cases of infectious hepatitis annually, caused by seafood poisoning, cost society about US$ 10 - 20 billion annually! Destroy the mangrove forests and, indeed they are under heavy pressure from sprawling urbanization and expanding industries and the fury of storms and waves will rage unabated against human lives and human property. Bleach and destroy the coral reefs, and the waves will, unabated, do their slow and steady work of eroding beaches, changing coastlines, and make the sea level rise, so the next storm surge will drown thousands of people, as happens, year after year.

　

　In a seminar, sponsored jointly by the International Ocean Institute and the Swiss Re-insurance Ltd. at the Biological Station in Bermuda in 2000, the proposition was put forward that the insurance industry is one of the “stake holders” and should be included in the process of horizontal integration. The insurance industry's basic need for risk reduction to expand insurability coincides with the coastal community's basic need for risk reduction to reduce vulnerability and human misery, enhance sustainable development and protect the environment.

　

　Coastal communities need the accumulated special knowledge and technology of the insurance industry to assist in identifying vulnerability indicators, to make risk assessments, laws, regulations, to improve warning systems and mitigation measures. The insurance industry needs organizations to create awareness and design training programs, for government officials and local communities and for continued dialogue between the ocean and coastal community and the insurance industry.

　

　If one wanted to generalize the experience of various co-management institutions to envisage some general features of an institutional framework for ocean governance at the local community level, the legislative foundation for this framework might include the following provisions: