50
J.-P. Beurier
widespread with Agenda 21 which proposed conserving and restoring critical
habitats (Chap. 17 A, h) and urged States to identify marine ecosystems with
high levels of biodiversity in order to designate protected areas (Chap. 17, 85).
This idea was taken up in numerous regional conventions (OSPAR 92; Barcelona,
2008 ICZM protocol) or already existed in embryo (Lima, 1989 MPA convention). None of these documents, however, made any reference to landscapes
until the “biological and landscape diversity” protocol of the Antigua Convention
(North-East Pacific) in June 2002. On the other hand, many non-binding texts already drew connections between MPAs and landscapes, such as the IUCN WCPA
Marine Plan of Action of 2006
2 (5th MPA category = protected landscape and
seascape: developing initiatives for seascapes); and the 2010 United Nations GeneralAssembly resolution
3 (Micronesia Eastern Tropical Pacific Seascape project);
or the 2007 report by the Secretary General
4 (protected area management tools
may have a variety of objectives such as the protection of “beautiful seascapes”);
or lastly the 2002 report by the SG
5 (marine protected areas may be established
for the purpose of protecting [. . . ] “beautiful seascapes”).
Whether the management tools stem from international or domestic law, these fragile
ecosystems should be protected by restrictive measures to avoid damage caused
by human activity. All measures aiming to fight pollution and particularly landbased marine pollution are necessary, like those restricting the use of certain fishing
practices (trawl nets on hard coral grounds, on grass beds, and on the edges of
sea mounts, etc.) or banning ocean mining on hydrothermal springs in activity.
These vital measures will not however suffice; in the sublittoral zone, areas open to
recreational diving should also be laid out. The most outstanding sites have suffered
from their success (Shadwan in Egypt; Les Médès in Spain; the “Pigeon reserve”
in Guadeloupe, the “Donator” on the Var coast in France, etc.). Not only should
mooring areas be created, divers selected, rules established to govern supervision
(Musard 2003, 2009) and use, and boat numbers restricted, commercial operators
must also be required to comply with charters of conduct (Musard 2009) and the
competent authority must introduce appropriate prohibitions and penalties.
4.3 Conclusion
A report from the Secretary General has no legally binding value, no more than a
General Assembly resolution. Yet this provides evidence of two things: firstly, current
legislation does not prevent underwater landscapes from being integrated into nature
conservation concerns, and secondly a consensus would seem to be emerging to take
all forms of landscape into account in environmental protection measures.
2 www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/biome/marine/programme.
3 A/64/L.18– A/RES/64/71 of 12 March 2010 § 157.
4 “Oceans and the law of the sea” A/62/66/Add 2 of 10 September 2007. p. 36.
5 “Oceans and the law of the sea” A/57/57 of 7 March 2002. p. 84.
J.-P. Beurier
widespread with Agenda 21 which proposed conserving and restoring critical
habitats (Chap. 17 A, h) and urged States to identify marine ecosystems with
high levels of biodiversity in order to designate protected areas (Chap. 17, 85).
This idea was taken up in numerous regional conventions (OSPAR 92; Barcelona,
2008 ICZM protocol) or already existed in embryo (Lima, 1989 MPA convention). None of these documents, however, made any reference to landscapes
until the “biological and landscape diversity” protocol of the Antigua Convention
(North-East Pacific) in June 2002. On the other hand, many non-binding texts already drew connections between MPAs and landscapes, such as the IUCN WCPA
Marine Plan of Action of 2006
2 (5th MPA category = protected landscape and
seascape: developing initiatives for seascapes); and the 2010 United Nations GeneralAssembly resolution
3 (Micronesia Eastern Tropical Pacific Seascape project);
or the 2007 report by the Secretary General
4 (protected area management tools
may have a variety of objectives such as the protection of “beautiful seascapes”);
or lastly the 2002 report by the SG
5 (marine protected areas may be established
for the purpose of protecting [. . . ] “beautiful seascapes”).
Whether the management tools stem from international or domestic law, these fragile
ecosystems should be protected by restrictive measures to avoid damage caused
by human activity. All measures aiming to fight pollution and particularly landbased marine pollution are necessary, like those restricting the use of certain fishing
practices (trawl nets on hard coral grounds, on grass beds, and on the edges of
sea mounts, etc.) or banning ocean mining on hydrothermal springs in activity.
These vital measures will not however suffice; in the sublittoral zone, areas open to
recreational diving should also be laid out. The most outstanding sites have suffered
from their success (Shadwan in Egypt; Les Médès in Spain; the “Pigeon reserve”
in Guadeloupe, the “Donator” on the Var coast in France, etc.). Not only should
mooring areas be created, divers selected, rules established to govern supervision
(Musard 2003, 2009) and use, and boat numbers restricted, commercial operators
must also be required to comply with charters of conduct (Musard 2009) and the
competent authority must introduce appropriate prohibitions and penalties.
4.3 Conclusion
A report from the Secretary General has no legally binding value, no more than a
General Assembly resolution. Yet this provides evidence of two things: firstly, current
legislation does not prevent underwater landscapes from being integrated into nature
conservation concerns, and secondly a consensus would seem to be emerging to take
all forms of landscape into account in environmental protection measures.
2 www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/biome/marine/programme.
3 A/64/L.18– A/RES/64/71 of 12 March 2010 § 157.
4 “Oceans and the law of the sea” A/62/66/Add 2 of 10 September 2007. p. 36.
5 “Oceans and the law of the sea” A/57/57 of 7 March 2002. p. 84.