1992 OSPAR Convention and the 1992 Helsinki Convention Comparison

It is common for a group of nations to come together to devise a legal framework that can safeguard marine environments. For instance, the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, 1992 (Helsinki Convention) was signed as an international agreement that stipulated measures for the prevention and control of pollution of the Baltic Sea area. Similarly, the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention) provides guidelines that contracting parties must follow to prevent pollution of the North-East Atlantic marine area. The two legislative frameworks share some contracting parties.¹ While the OSPAR Convention and the Helsinki convention have common objectives for the conservation of their respective marine environments, they differ in certain ways.

A common feature in the OSPAR Convention and the Helsinki Convention is the requirement to use the best methods to prevent and check marine pollution. In recognition of the fact that challenges posed by water pollution may call for use of the latest prevention and control tactics, the Helsinki Convention advocates for use of the best available technology. Similarly, the OSPAR Convention uses the term “best available techniques” to refer to the most effective methods that contracting parties can employ to prevent an increase in pollution of the sea. While the terms “best available techniques” and “best available technology” are worded slightly differently, they mean the same thing.

Although the criteria for the determination of the best approaches towards the elimination of marine pollution are identical in the two legislative frameworks, a slight difference can be observed in the non-inclusion of certain factors for consideration in the OSPAR Convention. For instance, the Helsinki Convention mentions low waste (non-waste) technology and the precautionary approach among elements to be considered when determining the best available technology. However, the OSPAR Convention does not mention the two elements with respect to the determination of the best available techniques.

Another similarity between the OSPAR Convention and the Helsinki Convention lies in the precautionary principle. Article 2 of the OSPAR Convention requires contracting parties not to introduce potentially harmful substances into the marine environment.² As per the precautionary principle, preventive measures should be taken whether or not there is sufficient evidence to the effect that the substances in question can harm the marine environment. Article 3 of the Helsinki Convention carries an almost verbatim copy of the precautionary principle text of the OSPAR Convention.

Additionally, the OSPAR and Helsinki legislative frameworks adopt the “polluter pays” principle. As per article 2 (b) of the OSPAR Convention, a contracting party offsets the cost of prevention and control of pollution for which it is responsible. In the same vein, article 3 (4) of the Helsinki Convention requires contracting parties to abide by the “polluter pays” principle.

Both the OSPAR Convention and Helsinki Convention emphasize cooperation and sharing among contracting parties on a number of levels. For instance, article 8 of the OSPAR Convention requires contracting parties to come up with joint programs for scientific and technical research. In the same vein, Article 24 of the Helsinki Convention requires contracting parties to form regional or international organizations to spearhead scientific and technical research that pertains to the protection of the Baltic Sea from pollution. Under the OSPAR and Helsinki legislative frameworks, contracting parties are required to share data and information that can help accomplish the objectives of their respective conventions.

Certain stark differences are evident in the OSPAR Convention and Helsinki Convention. For instance, the OSPAR Convention replaces the Paris Convention for the Prevention of Maritime Pollution from Land-based Sources (Paris Convention) and the Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft (Oslo Convention).³ However, all agreements that were adopted under the Oslo Convention or the Paris Convention remain applicable to the extent that they do not contradict the OSPAR Convention. On the other hand, the Helsinki Convention replaces the 1974 Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area.

Moreover, the OSPAR Convention and the Helsinki Convention differ when it comes to reservations. While article 28 of the OSPAR Convention offers no room for reservations, the Helsinki Convention provides for conditional suspension of certain provisions of the Convention. As per article 33 (2) of the Helsinki Convention, a contracting party may suspend the application of an annex of the convention for a period not exceeding one year. However, if the party in question contracted to the1974 Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area, it must apply the corresponding Annex of the 1974 Convention for the entire period of suspension.

However, the OSPAR Convention and the Helsinki Convention permit the withdrawal of contracting parties from their respective Conventions. A contracting party to the Helsinki Convention may withdraw from it five years from the date the convention becomes effective. On the other hand, the OSPAR Convention gives a two-year expiry period from the date the convention comes into force for a contracting party to withdraw. With both the OSPAR Convention and the Helsinki Convention, a contracting party that wishes to withdraw must notify in writing the relevant depositary government.

Based on their legal status, the OSPAR Convention and the Helsinki Convention have the potential to significantly protect and conserve human health and marine life.⁴ The two legislative frameworks have international jurisdictions, and thus they are capable of getting contracting parties to put in place effective measures that prevent and control the pollution of marine water resources. Evidently, the OSPAR Convention and the Helsinki Convention take similar approaches towards the safeguarding of marine environments. The conventions have similar definitions and implications for common terms such as “waste”, “dumping”, “incineration”, “best available techniques” and “polluter pays” among others.

As such, the OSPAR Convention and the Helsinki Convention can come up with harmonized guidelines to help with the optimized conservation of marine environments. To harmonize the two legal frameworks, contracting parties should be encouraged to demonstrate a high level of honesty, especially when it comes to the sharing of conservation data and information. For instance, the OSPAR Convention and the Helsinki Convention allow their respective contracting parties to withhold conservation data or information that borders on national security. While the practice of withholding information for national security reasons is understandable, it may provide a loophole for contracting parties to violate certain convention agreements.

In the same vein, international agreements aimed at preventing or controlling the pollution of marine environments should take into consideration the economic implications of their provisions. For instance, the loading and discharging of ships’ ballast water have serious ramifications on many species of microscopic organisms⁵. Yet, ships require ballast water for maneuverability and other operations. Thus, international agreements such as the OSPAR Convention and the Helsinki Convention should strike a balance to promote the sustainable utilization of marine resources⁶.

References

HELCOM, Comparing HELCOM PLC guidelines with OSPAR RID guidelines, Finland, 2003, Web.

HELCOM, Convention on the protection of the marine environment of the Baltic Sea area, 1992, Finland, 2004, Web.

HELCOM, Joint HELCOM/OSPAR guidelines on the granting of exemptions under the international convention for the control and management of ships’ ballast water and sediments ,regulation A-4, Copenhagen, 2013, Web.

Hopkins, CCE, The concept of ecosystem health & association with the ecosystem approach to management and related initiatives, Poland, 2005, Web.

IVL, Regional air pollution and air pollutions in the Nordic countries, Sweden, 2004, Web.

OSPAR Convention, Convention for the protection of the marine environment of the north-east Atlantic, 2007, Web.

Footnotes

1. HELCOM, Comparing HELCOM PLC guidelines with OSPAR RID guidelines, Finland, 2003, Web.
2. HELCOM, Convention on the protection of the marine environment of the Baltic sea area, 1992, Finland, 2004, Web.
3. OSPAR Convention, Convention for the protection of the marine environment of the north-east Atlantic, 2007, Web.
4. IVL, Regional air pollution and air pollutions in the Nordic countries, Sweden, 2004, Web.
5. HELCOM, Joint HELCOM/OSPAR guidelines on the granting of exemptions under the international convention for the control and management of ships’ ballast water and sediments ,regulation A-4, Copenhagen, 2013, Web.
6. CCE Hopkins, The concept of ecosystem health & association with the ecosystem approach to management and related initiatives, Poland, 2005, Web.