Abstract
While the detrimental effects of cities have received increasing attention from decision-makers and scholars, their role in sustainable ocean governance and within public international law has often been neglected. This article aims to explore the ocean-city nexus at the interface of sustainability. This is done by reviewing the impacts of cities on the marine and coastal environment and by analysing potentially applicable rules and obligations in public international law. In the understanding that these questions are part of a broader discourse on the integration of non-State actors in public international law, it is demonstrated that cities may be important actors in sustainable ocean governance. With this, the article aims to contribute to the understanding of what sustainable cities may entail and to highlight the significance of the ocean-city nexus for sustainable development.
Introduction1
Ocean cities operate at the intersection of land- and sea-based human activities, such as trade, agriculture, industry and urban development. The regulatory framework of this intersection is very complex in nature and includes a variety of different actors and legal regimes. Cities have been growing extremely fast in the last decade (on average 2.3 per cent annually) and take up more than 1.5 per cent of earth’s surface.2 Most of the world’s megacities are located in coastal zones3 and many of these are situated in large deltas, where combinations of specific economic, geographic and historical conditions attract people and drive coastal migration.4 This trend, however, is not restricted to mega-deltas alone.5
It is known that coastal and ocean cities may be a significant source of direct pressures, such as pollution of the marine environment.6 Further, the consumption of food and transport of city inhabitants also cause a significant indirect footprint on ocean sustainability. Increasingly, these pressures and drivers of marine environmental degradation have been addressed in international law through regulatory tools. The importance of cities as actors in public international law with a responsibility to provide concrete measures has only been pursued in a limited manner.7 The relationship between cities and international law has only partially been studied, with a focus on human rights and climate change.8 However, it is admitted that the status and position of certain cities in international law, such as the Free City of Danzig between 1920 and 1939 or Jerusalem, has been of significant historical and legal importance and subject to extensive research.9
International local government law, an approach emphasising the role of cities as influential actors shaping the international sphere of rule-making and agenda setting, questions and challenges the traditional concept of international law, which builds on a State-centric system.10 Cities reflect the socio-political context, including community interests and participatory governance structures, and bear an important role as a focal point for knowledge transfer to the national, regional and international levels. They can emphasise the importance of local traditions, values and institutional mechanisms in the context of regulation, allowing for harmonisation of local management mechanisms with national, regional or even international institutions mandated to tackle the issue at stake. Increasingly, cities are ‘required to take international normative expectations into account when they plan and make decisions’.11 However, their participation in ocean governance and law-making also depends on the process of decentralisation and the mandate they have been given by the respective State, creating procedural and material limits.12 Therefore, a more holistic approach to meaningfully engage non-State actors in ocean governance must be assumed. As has been done to a certain degree in other fields, the approach of applying a broader concept of sovereignty, under which individuals and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are attributed a specific form of non-State authority, may be extended to cities, recognising their role as quasi-sovereign actors in the field of public international law.13 ‘By considering sovereignty as more of a continuum and less of a binary, cities’ rights should clearly prevail over claims of unassailable centralized sovereignty by the state’.14 Cities are placed at an important nexus between the sources of the socio-ecological crisis caused by overconsumption and production, while at the same time also being a place of regulatory solutions with significant potential to create change.15
While this concept can serve as a methodological approach, it has to be noted that the influence of cities is limited and context dependent. With regard to current efforts to achieve the objectives of the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Agenda, cities appear to be a highly suitable place to pursue these.16 In correlation with the increase of urbanisation along the coast, the role of cities in sustainable development of the coasts and the adjacent marine environment is essential. The article aims therefore to set out what rules and obligations exist in international law to strive for sustainable ocean cities with limited negative impacts on the marine environment. To this end, a conceptual understanding of what may constitute the ocean-city nexus and a coastal city is developed. Then, an overview of direct and indirect impacts of cities on the marine and coastal environment is presented. This forms the basis of a subsequent analysis on whether and how the direct and indirect impacts of cities are being regulated in international law pertaining to the marine and coastal environment. This analysis includes an account of how cities are being addressed as subjects of public international law and how strategies may be developed to explicitly provide a maritime dimension to the on-going work on sustainable cities on a global level. In doing so, the focus is placed on the ocean-city nexus through the sustainability lens and touches upon broader challenges of exploring and understanding cities as actors in international public law.
Defining What May Constitute an Ocean City in the Context of Sustainable Ocean Governance
In general, a large number of people live and work in cities.17 Therefore, cities are hubs of commerce, transport and government.18 To define a city, different approaches have been used, such as applying administrative boundary criteria or urban agglomeration density. However, it is not easy to categorise which concentration of inhabitants makes a city and which does not. Due to national differences, the UN does not apply a general definition of a city to individual countries.19 It argues that a distinction depends on the circumstances and needs of a single country.20 Usually, urban and rural areas are distinct from each other because cities provide a different way of life and a higher standard of living.21 According to the UN, the distinction has to go beyond rural and urban areas to include places such as agricultural localities, market towns and industrial centres.22 A useful criterion may be the locality (distinct population cluster) and international comparability.23 Since this standard cannot be clearly applied in every country, the distinction is alternatively based on population density.24 Megacities are defined as cities with more than 10 million inhabitants.25 In 2021, there were about 33 megacities worldwide.26
Nevertheless, in order to delineate cities, urban and rural areas for international statistical comparisons, the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat), the International Labour Organization (ILO), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), the World Bank, Eurostat and the European Commission have developed a method called ‘the degree of urbanisation’ (DEGURBA).27 This method classifies the State territory into three categories: cities, towns and semi-dense areas, and rural areas. Cities are characterised by a population size of at least 50,000 inhabitants in contiguous dense grid cells, meaning that there are more than 1,500 inhabitants per square km.28
A population size of at least 5,000 inhabitants in contiguous grid cells with a density of at least 300 inhabitants per square km is considered to be a town or semi-dense area. This is especially relevant to archipelagic States, small island (developing) States and island territories of continental States, as their capitals or local authorities may not fall under the scope of the definition of a city.29 Therefore, it is a challenge to define the responsibilities of these entities to address and manage the (environmental) impacts of areas of urbanisation. Despite the absence of city criteria (size or density) as discussed in this article, they remain responsible to also work towards the achievement of relevant international and regional obligations. Some work has been undertaken to use micro-cities as a concept to examine models of how adjacent cities may be improved in terms of their sustainability performance, among others.30 However, this approach seems to be limited to specific local circumstances and has not been taken up in a significant manner by global institutions or decision-makers. No particular reference has been made to symbolic cities within the UN’s approach.
Moreover, cities and urban entities vary not only in size compared to mega cities, but also in geographic contexts, socio-economic aspects, governance structures and in their respective capacities, which are important factors from an ocean governance perspective and in what could possibly constitute an ‘ocean city’. The term has appeared in different contexts. For example, it has been used to describe artificial islands,31 or a place of well-being and mental health,32 as well as in different UN programmes and activities, such as the Ocean Cities Network and the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) Ocean Cities Project.33 The range of uses points to a lack of a comprehensive definition or common concept. Similarly, the World Bank defines a ‘coastal zone’ as ‘the interface where the land meets the ocean, encompassing shoreline environments as well as adjacent coastal waters. Its components can include river deltas, coastal plains, wetlands, beaches and dunes, reefs, mangrove forests, lagoons and other coastal features’.34
The lack of a coherent concept or definition also applies to the field of international public law, where the constitutional structures of the various States differ too much to allow the formation of a uniform concept. Nevertheless, there are certain norms and normative processes in public international law that explicitly refer to cities, which are also interchangeably called city governments, city councils or local authorities.35 In most cases it is assumed that there is a local administrative structure. This article therefore takes a broad approach to what constitutes cities in the context of ocean governance. Ocean cities for the purpose of this article may be understood through their interconnectedness with the ocean through waterways or the atmosphere, but also through impacts on food systems through consumption and production patterns. Their geographical scope may thus include shorelines, waterways, wetlands, lakes and rivers, but their activities can also extend to the different maritime zones of their home country, as well as the high seas. In geographic terms, the definition also extends to landlocked countries and therefore cities connected through waterways. A notable example is the work of the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) of the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea and the inclusion of Belarus as an observer.36 Similarly, Switzerland and Luxembourg are Contracting Parties to the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention).37 Small island States and island territories of continental States are also considered for the purpose of this article as these are directly governed by local authorities due to their geographical isolation and distance from their respective national capital or central government structures.38
Impacts of Cities on the Ocean
Cities may have different direct and indirect impacts on the marine environment, depending on their geographic and economic conditions. Whereas the below approach may appear oversimplified, a fundamental baseline on impacts, be it direct or indirect, is suggested so as to allow for an initial classification of the impacts and possible interactions which may emanate from a city (Figure 1). The listing cannot be considered as being exhaustive and responding to all scientific interactions and impacts, but is intended to establish a certain factual baseline on which the subsequent legal analysis is resting.
Non-exhaustive overview of impacts from cities on the marine and coastal environment
Citation: The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 37, 4 (2022) ; 10.1163/15718085-bja10102
Direct Impacts
There are a number of ways in which cities have a direct impact on the ocean. These include pollution and impacts by light pollution, noise pollution, sewage and wastewater, urban runoff, fishing practices, dredging and waste. Light pollution results from harbours, marinas, piers and promenades, interior and exterior lighting, advertising, factories, airports and streetlights in urban areas, among others. Light pollution penetrates under the water, leading to a changed environment for marine organisms living in shallow reefs near urban environments.39 It may have an effect on the migration pattern of animals and predator-prey behaviour.40 It can irritate animals in their navigation, especially birds, sea turtles, fish and larvae.41
Similarly, noise pollution disrupts the behaviour of animals in their ability to find food, to breed and to avoid predators.42 It furthermore reduces growth of an animal population and its fecundity.43 There are different sources of noise pollution. Transport, such as road traffic on bridges or low altitude flying aeroplanes over the ocean for example, produce low-level, continuous noise that can penetrate underwater.44 The main sources of urban noise pollution are considered to be road traffic and industry.45 Construction sites, for example, contribute significantly to noise pollution due to loud equipment and vehicles.46 For port cities, sound may have negative impacts both from ships in the ports as well as port activities, however, this remains largely understudied.47 Sound waves, especially from ships, sonar devices and oil rigs, can carry undiminished for miles and disrupt natural noises in the marine environment.48 For many marine mammals, like whales and dolphins, low visibility and long distances make non-visual underwater communication critical.49 The mortality rate of marine animals grows with increased exposure to noise pollution.50 Noise pollution also negatively impacts marine organisms’ behaviour and reproduction,51 and can lead to stranding and damage of the auditory system.52
A significant amount of marine pollution results from the lack of sustainable management of the sewage and wastewater of cities.53 Sewage can originate from different sectors, including domestic, commercial and industrial activities.54 It can access the ocean through a decayed infrastructure, malfunctioning facilities and heavy rainfall that overwhelms such facilities.55 Even centralised sewage systems may release untreated sewage to the ocean through harbours, bays and coastal waters.56 Wastewater57 and nutrient-rich materials in the ocean can lead to algal blooms, which contributes to loss of oxygen, resulting in dead zones.58 Research has found that fibres of plastic (microplastics) that are contained in certain plastic-based clothes can be released into the sewage system during washing.59 Several jurisdictions have taken legal actions to address microplastics at the regional, national or local level due to its risk potential to marine animals and potentially also humans.60 Another form of direct pollution can result from urban runoff.61 About 706 million gallons of waste oil end up in the ocean every year, half coming from land drainage and waste disposal.62 Oil pollution in the ocean results from urban runoff, unregulated boating and port operations.63 Chemicals enter the ocean through the atmosphere, runoff into waterways and direct disposal into the ocean.64
Pollution by waste in the form of marine debris, particularly plastics, also is a direct impact of cities. Sports fields65 and tyre abrasion are two more common examples of marine debris that are washed into the (marine) environment.66 One of the key sources of waste in the marine environment is mismanaged solid waste management from urban conglomerations.67 It is assumed that the global demand for plastics will increase, and therefore lead to a significant increase in the generation of waste.68 This may, in the absence of effective waste management and prevention strategies, end up in the marine environment.
Urbanisation along the coast (marine urbanisation) has led to the depletion of fishery resources.69 In some countries, fisheries (especially small-scale and subsistence fishing) remain a source of livelihood, especially for coastal communities in urban areas.70 Most overfishing occurs along the coast71 since there is a strong spatio-temporal relation between human density and urban growth and resource exploitation.72 Recreational and subsistence fishing have the potential to remove target fish and shellfish.73 Damage of marine habitats and injury of marine animals can occur through boat collisions and contact with fishing gear.74
Aquaculture takes place in both freshwater and marine environments and in many different forms, including land-based culture systems, ponds and lakes, wetlands, and cages and culture-based fisheries.75 Aquaculture can have negative environmental impacts caused by excessive nutrients and chemicals, spread of disease and the escape of non-native species, to name a few.76 A lot of traditional and emergent aquaculture is located close to urban settlements.77 Urban aquaculture has been increasing in correlation with urbanisation and the need to ensure food security. It is therefore not limited to areas further away from urban environments, as is evident from practices in cities such as Singapore, Hong Kong and Valencia by way of example.78
Another pressure from cities may be dredging, which is the removal of sediment to improve access in harbours and ports, among others.79 It re-suspends sediments into the water column, which leads to turbidity.80 Adjacent to urbanised areas, sediments can contain many organic and inorganic contaminants, for example, pesticides, hydrocarbons and heavy metals.81 Dredging can lead to a change of bathymetry and sediment transport patterns.82 Sediment suspension decreases the access of light and releases toxic materials.83 For example, in Australia, many heavy metals were released into the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area through the dredging operation in the Gladstone Harbour, which led to an increased mortality rate of marine animals.84 Dredging can sometimes be necessary when sand and silt fills channels and harbours.85 Thus, it is often used to maintain channels, or to increase their depth for the navigation and passage of ships.86
Indirect Impacts
Indirect impacts of cities are manifold and their classification and measurement heavily depend on data collection, availability and valid results of correlations. This difficulty in turn, also manifests in the ability to take responsive measures. In the case of climate change, major cities situated on the coast or in large estuaries have proven to have adaptation and resilience strategies in place,87 while smaller cities and coastal towns often lack information about concrete climate change impacts at the local level and the capacity to take appropriate action.88 Acknowledging this challenge, indirect impacts of cities are, for the purpose of this article, considered those impacts which do not constitute a direct impact and which may be the result of a complex pathway of other associated activities that take place in and around the city. Following this broader approach, different indirect impacts at the ocean-city nexus can be considered.
Marine pollution, for example, can result from indirect impacts of land-based activities. Pollution can be associated with impacts or consequences, including emissions from urban environments or from cities’ infrastructure and consumption behaviour. The main sources of greenhouse gas emissions are energy use, land-use and industrial activities.89 Human activities within urban areas are also a large source of greenhouse gas emissions.90 It is estimated by UN-Habitat that 75 per cent of the global carbon dioxide emissions come from cities, particularly from transportation and building activities.91 This is due to the concentrated transportation systems, industry, construction and households that urban centres have, which release a large amount of greenhouse gas emissions.92
An aspect which is relevant for harbour cities is commercial marine transportation. Even though maritime transportation is considered to be the most energy-efficient and cost-effective way of transporting goods and people,93 port operations in urban harbours affect regional water and air quality.94 Marine diesel engines may be considered as a significant source of atmospheric pollution.95 These engines emit different kinds of oxides.96 International shipping produces approximately 2.4 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions and also affects water quality through the reduction of water’s pH value.97
The ocean is a key body in regulating the earth’s climate, serving as a natural carbon sink. However, it is impacted by climate change through the increase of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.98 Climate change has a significant impact on the increase of water temperature, ocean acidification and ocean deoxygenation.99 Further, climate change leads to a change in the richness and diversity of marine organisms.100 The increasing temperature of the atmosphere causes thermal expansion of the ocean, which leads to the melting of ice and glaciers, and ultimately sea level rise.101 This has an impact on shorelines, especially those with human settlement.102 The temperature rise also leads to extreme weather events.103
Cities, with concentrated and high population density, can have a strategic advantage for environmental management.104 Since not only people but also enterprises are concentrated in cities, it is cheaper to enforce environmental legislation.105 The distance between homes and businesses in cities is overall less than in rural areas. Therefore, city residents are encouraged to walk, cycle or use public transport instead of motor vehicles.106 The concentration of people, businesses and distribution of energy and water has the potential to have a decreasing effect on the amount of emitted greenhouse gas.
Cities are largely dependent on oil, coal and gas for energy production,107 which contributes to greenhouse gas emissions and ultimately has negative impacts on the ocean. There are a number of cities which have set targets to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions from energy production. For example, Frankfurt adopted a 100 per cent renewable energy supply roadmap for achieving 100 per cent renewable energy supply and reducing its energy use by 50 per cent by 2050.108
Cities are constantly expanding and constructing new buildings. They therefore also have the potential to build energy efficient infrastructure.109 One of the problems is construction that relies heavily on steel and concrete, materials that are extracted and manufactured110 and produce carbon dioxide.111 Transportation, particularly on roadways, produces a significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions. Cities with a high population density can have a lower greenhouse gas emission per capita if they have implemented efficient public transport methods.112
Globalisation, growing economies and greater mobility has led to a growth in tourism.113 Although tourism creates jobs and strengthens the economy,114 it also puts pressure on the environment,115 as many tourist hotspots cannot manage the overflow of tourists.116 There is particularly strong pressure on coastal cities.117 The impacts of tourism on the marine environment are manifold, and may include biodiversity impacts through increased use of specific areas, including biodiversity rich areas, or the use of sunscreen which can impact certain marine organisms.118
Preliminary Conclusion
Cities are essential actors in the current efforts to increase marine environmental protection. Their manifold impacts reveal the need for resilient urban planning, design, low-carbon plans for infrastructure and basic services to sustainably promote local economic development. Cities also need to pay specific attention to water management to prevent further contribution to environmental degradation in the marine and coastal environment. How is this currently being addressed under the international framework? What role can cities take in that context to reduce their impacts?
Cities and Ocean Governance: Applicable Legal and Policy Framework
Cities have a variety of impacts on the marine environment, as outlined above, and therefore face a set of challenges that evoke different regulatory regimes. This will be assessed in the following section with a special focus on the role of cities in the presented framework. The main guiding questions will be: How does the contemporary framework of treaty law and soft law apply to cities and how can cities address the reduction of their impacts with which kind of instruments and initiatives in order to tackle these challenges?
Cities as Actors in International Law and within Ocean Governance
Even though States have long ceased to be regarded as the only subjects of international law and a veritable ‘proliferation’ of actors endowed with rights and obligations under international law has emerged, the international role of cities remains largely unnoticed in international law literature.119 The State-focused subjectivity of international law premises that States may conclude international treaties, not cities, and that a separation between the international and domestic affairs prevails.120 Violations of international law which are the result of the actions of cities are attributed to the State, since the actions of cities – through their representatives – are regularly the actions of organs of the State within the meaning of the law of State responsibility.121 Sources of international law are international conventions, customary law, principles of international law and court decisions and scholarly writings as defined by Article 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice.122 States have been subject to conventions and customary law, and they may also take legal standing in international courts and tribunals. So far, legal research has not considered cities as a subject of international law but rather as national actors.123 When cities enter the field of international politics, to a certain extent they operate below the threshold of the traditional radar system of international law, or are associated in their actions with their respective home State.124
This presents a dialectical process: on the one hand, local units are affected by globalisation processes, and vice versa.125 Their sphere of action becomes the subject of international law-making. The cities and municipalities no longer have to observe only national legal requirements in their activities, but are assigned new duties derived from international law, whereby it is necessary to differentiate, on a case-by-case basis, whether these obligations affect them directly under international law, or whether they affect the local level through an act of implementation by the respective nation State.126 The following sections will analyse the extent to which different international conventions and agreements address cities in their obligations.
Sustainable Development Goals and Sustainable Ocean Cities
Cities must be seen as emergent actors and subjects of international law. The adoption of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) reflects this emerging role.127 The SDGs were adopted by the UN Member States in 2015 as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.128 They are a call for action that recognises that ‘ending poverty and other deprivations must go hand-in-hand with strategies that improve health and education, reduce inequality, and spur economic growth – all while tackling climate change and working to preserve our oceans and forests’.129 The two SDGs that are of focus here are SDG 11: Sustainable cities and communities and SDG 14: Life below water.130 Focusing on these two SDGs aims to explore ways to maximise their interactions, as currently they are often not seen as standing in direct correlation, an assumption this article attempts to change.
UN-Habitat defines a city as a discrete place-based nexus for tackling multiple interconnected SDGs. Most centrally, SDG 11 focuses on good urban governance by aiming to make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable and sets targets, such as equitable access to nature.131 This is also strengthened through the inclusion of SDG 14. There are interactions between the on-going efforts to implement SDGs 11 and 14.132 Such interactions have occurred in the Urban SDG Knowledge Platform from ESCAP.133 This platform shows efforts that have been made concerning cities and settlements.134 Interactions between SDGs 11 and 14 are also identified by UN-Habitat.135 On the other hand, due to its mandate as a UN specialised agency for safety and security of shipping and the prevention of marine and atmospheric pollution by ships, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) focuses centrally on SDG 14 (as well as other SDGs),136 not SDG 11.137
In the current framework, it is up to individual cities to take on the responsibility of achieving SDGs through their chosen means and approaches. Although there are some who have done so, the recognition of a city’s responsibility to implement SDG 14 (life below water) is limited. Several cities have launched individual efforts to keep their coasts and environments clean.138 However, there is not always a direct correlation between such efforts and urban planning within the city. The default is typically a sectoral approach that does not address the direct correlation between these two SDGs.139 Furthermore, cooperation between different levels of government is missing. Thus, there is a lack of structural cooperation despite some policy guidance.
Regulatory Instruments of Public International Law and their Potential Applicability to Coastal Cities
As has been established above, public international law has not been focused on the role of non-State actors, which includes cities. Yet, through a plethora of instruments of public international law, cities already may be included in the regulatory framework relating to ocean governance. The following systematic review of relevant international and regional instruments relating to ocean governance provides an overview on what kind of instruments may create legal norms which also affect cities. The analysis is focused first and foremost on whether and to what degree coastal and ocean cities may be affected by the established norms. Then, an overview is given as to whether the material scope addresses direct and indirect pressures as categorised in the previous section.
Admittedly, there are certain tools available which may serve as a framework for the land-ocean interface. These may be planning tools that include land and urban planning and area-based management tools, such as marine spatial planning (MSP) and integrated coastal zone management (ICZM). While these can be seen as important mechanisms to address land and ocean interaction, it is argued that these approaches are also flawed and limited in providing the sole solution to address the city-ocean nexus. This is because of missing connectivity between terrestrial and marine planning approaches and jurisdictional questions.
These legal instruments include conventions with a global mandate, conventions with a specialised mandate to conserve and protect the marine environment, as well as agreements that indirectly address the impacts of cities (see Fig. 2). The aim is to understand how and to what degree certain types of pollution and direct and indirect impacts from cities may already be regulated through international (environmental) law. Admittedly it is a challenging undertaking to comprehensively understand the interrelationships between international law and cities as subjects and actors within this realm. This is to be understood as a preliminary attempt to structure these and to develop further thoughts on how to effectively expand this sphere in the future with a view to strengthen the land-ocean nexus of cities to achieve sustainable use and conservation of the marine environment.
Non-exhaustive overview of potentially applicable instruments of public international law that may pertain to the ocean-city nexus
Citation: The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 37, 4 (2022) ; 10.1163/15718085-bja10102
A starting point to understand how one may approach the positioning of cities in ocean governance is to understand and systematise the relationship between cities and international organisations.140 Cities are increasingly the addressee of international instruments and are explicitly targeted in the work of international organisations to meet policy objectives and goals. Cities are therefore increasingly thought to be engaged in the decision-making process of international organisations, rather than merely receiving policy guidance from them.141 In the following paragraphs, an attempt is made to understand how certain marine (environmental) instruments are addressing cities within their scope. From the outset, it is notable that most of these instruments do not directly refer to cities in their convention text.
The above-mentioned direct and indirect effects of human activities on marine and coastal ecosystem are addressed and regulated under different international instruments, foremost global and regional treaties. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC) establishes various rights and obligations for States in relation to different jurisdictional zones.142 This zonal approach provides the basis for an ocean governance framework and needs to be considered in the context of city-related activities and impacts, as cities may affect different marine areas established under the LOSC. Land reclamation, for example, listed as an activity associated with urban conglomerations, may take place outside a coastal State’s territorial waters. Plastic pollution resulting from various city activities can have an extra-territorial impact and may be transported through ocean currents to neighbouring States’ maritime zones and indeed the global commons. In that way, local actors contribute to transboundary problems on a global scale. Therefore cross-sectoral and integrated approaches in tackling these issues have gained increased attention in ocean governance (as discussed below). While national sovereignty and jurisdiction starts at the coastline for most States, some States provide coastal municipalities with the mandate and responsibility to manage the resources in coastal waters.143
Part XII of the LOSC establishes important obligations regarding the protection and preservation of the marine environment. These include the general obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment (Article 192), to take measures to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment from all sources, including land-based sources (Article 207), from or through the atmosphere (Article 212), and sea-based sources, including dumping (Article 210) and from vessels (Article 211), the seabed (Article 208) and the subsoil. The obligation to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment is reflected in domestic laws of coastal States, many of which introduce approaches such as national or transboundary MSP and ICZM. The LOSC also enfolds an obligation on States to cooperate on a global and regional basis (Article 197). This duty to cooperate also indirectly impacts cities, as in most jurisdictions local governments also have the responsibility to regulate, manage, monitor or licence an activity or space within their own boundaries or within certain marine areas.144 Cooperation between ports and port cities across borders is also increasing with attention to sustainability issues, including noise pollution.145 Different norms addressing land- and sea-based sources of pollution have emerged in the past. These will be outlined in more detail below, as will their relevance in the context of cities.
As has been the subject of much legal scholarship, land-based pollution of the marine environment is addressed on a global scale only through the Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities (GPA), which is non-binding in character.146 Certain activities in the marine environment correlate, however, directly with land-based activities and may therefore transform one type of pollution to another. For example, the dumping of waste in the marine environment as an alternative to find adequate disposal means on land.147 In this regard, the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter148 and the London Protocol (LP)149 are applicable. The LP prohibits dumping with the exception of dredged materials, fish wastes, inert, inorganic geological material, specific bulky items, sewage sludge, vessels and platforms at sea, and organic material of natural origin if assessed to be allowed to be dumped (Annex 1, Article 4(1)(b)). As dredging activities of coastal cities have increased due to the growing demand for infrastructure,150 such as port structures, so too has the amount of dredging material that has to be disposed of and regulated. Contracting parties to the LP have to comply with provisions of Annex 2 regarding the conduct of a waste prevention audit, the assessment of potential effects, and permits and permit conditions. To this end, a series of waste assessment guidelines has been put in place.151
Other instruments regarding sea-based pollution only indirectly address cities or port cities as their reception facilities and subsequent treatment play an important role in preventing or reducing discharges at sea.152 The important treaties in this regard are the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 and its 1978 Protocol (MARPOL),153 the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation,154 and its protocol on hazardous and noxious substances,155 and the Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships.156 The measures introduced under these instruments, in particular MARPOL, have been beneficial in improving environmental and human health conditions, especially for populations living in port cities and coastal communities.157 Traditionally, instruments adopted by the IMO create international shipping standards and do not focus heavily on ports or coastal/port cities.158 It can, however, be argued that they are included and affected by IMO standards as participants in the global shipping system.159 In addition to these international efforts, some national certification standards and monitoring and sewage treatment plans, applying to waters under the jurisdiction of a State, have been established to address these issues. The collaboration between ports and cities has proven to be effective in that regard, for example, as a way to locally manage wastewater from ships.160
With regard to the protection of biodiversity and (marine) species, two important conventions are the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)161 and the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS).162 The Conference of the Parties (COP) to the CBD has adopted a number of decisions related to cities and subnational governments. The 2009 Decision IX/28163 was the first decision on cities and subnational governments to be adopted under a United Nations multilateral environmental agreement.164 The 2010 Decision X/22 adopted a plan of action for local authorities,165 which provides suggestions to Contracting Parties on how to mobilise and coordinate local actions on biodiversity to bring national strategies and plans into the local context. According to Decision XI/8,166 the Executive Secretary is requested to support the activities of the Global Partnership on Local and Subnational Action on Biodiversity and Contracting Parties are invited to develop and support tools and initiatives that facilitate the subnational implementation of the Convention. Decision XII/9 focuses on sustainable urbanisation and encourages Contracting Parties to support initiatives,167 such as the Maritime Innovative Territories International Network,168 and the Executive Secretary to collaborate with other actors, such as the Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention, on issues related to subnational and local implementation. Moreover, the CBD recognises the dependence of indigenous and local communities on biological resources in its preamble. Article 8(j) recognises the contribution of traditional knowledge to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. Local and indigenous communities are closely linked to their respective cities as they reflect the specific socio-political context and can be directly involved in the decision-making process.169 Their role in the conservation of biological diversity is therefore recognised at the international level, as expressed in the provisions of the CBD that promote community involvement.170
Similarly, the necessity for conservation also extends to migratory marine species, such as marine turtles, which reproduce in coastal ecosystems and are thus particularly vulnerable to the impacts from cities. The CMS can be seen as an important source of obligations addressing specific pressures, such as light or noise pollution, and also encourages sub-national conservation efforts.171 Under the Convention, the CMS Family Guidelines on Environmental Impact Assessment for Marine Noise-generating Activities have been adopted.172 And in what can be considered as an extraordinary contribution, the CMS Contracting Parties adopted the Light Pollution Guidelines for Wildlife, which also include marine turtles.173 The Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation and Management of Marine Turtles and their Habitats of the Indian Ocean and South-East Asia (IOSEA Marine Turtle MoU) acknowledges that human activities, such as coastal development and pollution threaten marine turtle populations.174 It also calls for concrete actions such as the establishment of an advisory committee and includes a conservation and management plan for implementation of activities.
The Paris Agreement175 and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) also play a role in the ocean-city nexus.176 The UNFCCC, which entered into force in 1994, acknowledges the effects of sea level rise on coastal areas and islands. As stated in Article 4(d), the Convention aims to, inter alia, promote the management of greenhouse gases to protect the ocean and coastal and marine ecosystems. The UNFCCC addresses human activities as a source of the increase of greenhouse gas emissions, therefore, providing a general land-ocean link. The Paris Agreement entered into force in 2016 and aims to keep the global temperature increase to well below 2°C and to achieve greenhouse gas emissions neutrality. It expressly names ‘oceans’ in relation to the ‘importance of ensuring the integrity of all ecosystems’.177
As has been previously established, it is vital for cities to consider their impacts on the management, protection, and conservation of the marine environment as well as living resources. In relation to living resources, the UN Fish Stocks Agreement178 and the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF)179 are both concerned marine-based resources. While the former is an implementing agreement to the LOSC that provides further guidance on implementation of the LOSC fisheries provisions, the CCRF was developed to strengthen the legal framework and to assist governments and local communities throughout the implementation process.180 However, the CCRF is voluntary, which may weaken its application by relevant private industry actors or local fishers that are closely connected to their respective communities and ocean cities.181 Nonetheless, communities and cities may take appropriate measures to establish responsible fishing practices and the use of eco-friendly fishing gear, as reflected in the CCRF.182 By way of example, this can be done through public procurement guidelines relating to food for public institutions, such as schools, with reference to certain criteria or labels for sustainable fishing practices.183
The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Convention)184 is an intergovernmental treaty regulating the conservation and wise use of wetlands and their associated resources through local and national actions and international cooperation. In particular, the recommendation of the CBD COP to involve relevant local authorities and communities as participants on National Ramsar or Wetland Committees emphasises the role of cities in the governance process.185 The Ramsar Convention defines wetlands to include lakes, rivers, deltas, tidal flats, estuaries, coral reefs, mangroves, coastal zones, and marine waters up to six metres in depth.186 These can all appear in close proximity to cities, and may be included in city-scape shorelines, for example, Fujimae, a mudflat system close to Nagoya, Japan.187 By making Fujimae a Ramsar site, the city government successfully stopped construction plans for a waste dumping site,188 demonstrating the important connection between cities and wetlands. These connections are also reinforced by including local communities and indigenous knowledge in the management of Ramsar sites.189 With regard to climate adaptation, wetlands are of particular importance for cities, as they can prevent flooding and therefore serve to protect urban infrastructure. The Ramsar approach thus provides a notable example for non-State actors’ contributions to the coordination and management of the shoreline and sea interaction.
On a global level, certain aspects of chemical and waste pollution which may emanate from cities are regulated by the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants,190 the Basel Convention,191 the Bamako Convention,192 the Waigani Convention,193 and the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management. The latter is a voluntary multi-stakeholder and multi-sectoral policy framework promoting chemical safety worldwide.194 Articles 7, 9 and 10 of the Stockholm Convention stipulate that the local level, in particular civil society, is to be included in the implementation process.
A further example of more local participation in the implementation process is the national hazardous waste strategy provided for under Article 4(4) of the Basel Convention. The Basel Convention restricts the movements of hazardous waste between countries and regulates the global trade in plastic waste.195 It has an annex-based structure whereby wastes are subject to differing control procedures depending on their material properties, characteristics and hazardousness.196 In May 2019, amendments to the Basel Convention were adopted to require prior informed consent for the export of plastic waste destined for recycling unless sorted by polymer. The amendments entered into force in January 2021. Although the Convention text itself does not refer to cities or local authorities per se, the Guidance Document on National Reporting to the Basel Convention197 makes reference to the local context. It identifies wastes to be controlled through cooperation with local partners and calls for technical assistance to be carried out in accordance with local procedures.198 It also identifies local authorities as the responsible actor for municipal waste management under their own legislation and emphasises the need for national legislation for hazardous waste management due to local capacity limits.199 Export restrictions adopted under the Basel Convention regarding hazardous waste are to be stated in local legislation or policies and technical assistance is to be provided by local institutions such as universities or chambers of commerce.200 The Basel Convention makes explicit reference to the local level and also has indirect relevance for the ocean-city nexus in the context of marine pollution.
In addition to these international instruments, various regional agreements address the protection and conservation of the marine environment and biodiversity. Some regions have adopted a regional approach by establishing regional seas conventions, protocols and action plans201 to target specific regional problems collectively. Most of the regional seas conventions provide for an integrated approach covering land and sea interactions. Yet, a preliminary analysis has shown that most of these instruments do not seem to integrate cities in the implementation of adopted decisions and recommendations. A notable exception is HELCOM, which has adopted recommendations on municipal wastewater and sewage treatment in municipalities.202
International Organisations and Networks to Support the Ocean-City Nexus
A city’s engagement in the regional and international field occurs in different forms and through a variety of initiatives. It can occur, among others, in the form of information sharing between cities and national governments, as in support of sustainable use of shared river basins.203 Cooperation can also be facilitated through regional and international organisations, as in the case of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Regional Seas Programme, where a regional platform allows for discussions between cities facing the same problems, such as coastal zone pollution. However, it is clear that there has only been limited consideration of strategic thinking with regard to the ocean-city nexus in instruments of international law and institutions. As will be discussed below, while initiatives consider this nexus, they tend to be ad hoc and non-strategic in nature. The UN, such as initiatives under UN-Habitat, has worked only in a limited manner systematically on the ocean-city nexus. The main impetus has come from networks of cities that have not convened under the UN framework per se, utilising what can be seen as a bottom-up rather than top-down approach.
By integrating coastal zone pollution issues into policy documents such as city development strategies (Cities Alliance) or Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (International Monetary Fund, World Bank), and by participating in UNEP’s Global Environment Outlook process in cities, local governments can ensure that coastal zone pollution is included in local, national and regional development strategies from the start. One of the primary examples of cities appearing as actors at the international and UN-level is the UN Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat III)204 and New Urban Agenda (NUA),205 which was endorsed by the UN General Assembly at its 68th plenary meeting on 23 December 2016. The NUA lays the groundwork for a future where people have equal rights and access to the benefits and opportunities that cities can offer. The logic applied depicts cities as a source of solutions, rather than the cause of contemporary challenges. Urbanisation can be seen as a powerful tool for sustainable development for both developing and developed countries. The NUA aims to present a paradigm shift based on the science of cities and lays out standards and principles for planning, construction, development, management, and improvement of urban areas. There is a strong connection between the NUA and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, especially SDG 11 on sustainable cities and communities. SDG Target 11.B, for example, instructs cities to adopt mitigation, adaptation and disaster resilience plans, which is of particular importance to coastal cities as they are exposed to climate change related risks of sea level rise and extreme weather events, and are faced with high costs if they fail to adapt.206 Similarly, paragraph 14(c) of the NUA comprises the target of achieving urban resilience through disaster risk reduction and climate change mitigation and adaptation.207 Paragraph 68 of the NUA emphasises the significance of urban deltas and coastal areas as fragile ecosystems providing important resources, which SDG Target 11.4 refers to as conservation of natural and cultural heritage, such as wetlands.208
International Initiatives to Address the Ocean-City Nexus: Role of Networks and Collaboration among Cities
As the recognition of the role of cities in ocean governance increases, so too is the number of initiatives at the international level. The Ocean Cities Network is a recent example as it is a project launched within the framework of the UN Decade of Ocean Science. Its goal is to foster the relationship between coastal communities and the ocean, link city councils, harbour authorities, and research institutions, among others, with the aim of renewing local stewardship and strengthening the role of natural sciences. There are a lot of examples of cooperation between cities at the international level. The United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG) is the main local government partner of the United Nations and supports the United Nations Advisory Committee of Local Authorities. It appears, however, that it has not dedicated substantive work to the impacts of cities on the marine environment.209 Networks, such as ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability, support local governments’ campaigns and global and regional connections with regard to sustainability questions. Initial steps towards a standardisation of science-based targets for cities have been taken in the context of the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group.210 The C40 Cities is a global network of mayors that was formed to confront the climate crisis.
Assessing the Ocean-City Nexus: Challenges and Opportunities
The greatest challenge with regard to the ocean-city nexus remains its dependence on wider contextual questions in relation to the role of cities in public international law. Cities implement obligations and strategies that were internationally agreed on or developed by States, but which may be mandated by local authorities.211 Many of the issues discussed above are of transboundary nature and require an integrated approach to cooperation with different local sectors, blurring the lines between local, national and international responsibilities and jurisdictions over transboundary problems.212 Cities thus appear to be implicated in regulatory instruments when multi-stakeholder, integrated and multi-level-governance approaches are recognised. This is especially the case with transboundary issues, shared resources or environmental impacts with a regional or international dimension, which require joint coordination, management and governance.213 Where local authorities and communities are not involved, conflicts are likely to emerge due to top-down decisions leaving out the local perspective.214 The different jurisdictional divides and approaches along the coast pose a central challenge to a city’s ability to partake in various ocean governance processes. It also impedes developing an understanding of what a coastal city signifies in legal terms. It may also challenge legal certainty in assigning and therefore estimating environmental impacts from a specific activity or actor within a city’s scope. While ocean cities present various risks to the marine environment, as presented above, they may also contribute to reducing negative effects and deliver outcomes in accordance with the provisions of the LOSC and the UN Sustainable Development Agenda that aim to protect human health and (marine) ecosystems.
There are several structural normative and regulatory questions associated with strengthening the ocean-city nexus, however, cities already make use of certain tools to address their direct and indirect impacts on the (marine) environment.215 This of course also depends on the means of implementation, capacity and infrastructure of a given city. Therefore, strengthening the ocean-city nexus may pose a particular challenge for cities in developing or least developed countries, a perspective which must not be forgotten in the paradigm presented in this article.
The tools available to meet these challenges are manifold and range from eco-engineering,216 green-blue-infrastructure to citizen education,217 strengthening cities’ roles in achieving circularity and climate change resilience, and similar solutions.218 Cities’ participation in ocean governance and law-making also depends on the process of decentralisation and the mandate they have been given by the respective State, which creates procedural and material limits.219 Therefore, integrated approaches, ones that include actors from the local level in the policy-making process, appear to have been successful in ocean governance. There is also a need for integrated planning as expressed in the prominent role of urban planning, area-based management and providing inclusive organisational tools to manage collective and shared spaces. There are examples of cities that are already actively addressing their pressures on the marine environment. One such example is the approach taken by the coastal city of Xiamen towards managing the restoration of the coastal zone, which implemented a mangrove restoration plan to tackle biodiversity loss.220 The implementation of the ICZM plan in Xiamen has been recognised as a successful example of tackling the impact of land-based pollution on the marine environment.221
With the necessary mandate, cities can engage in the processes of MSP and ICZM, including baseline and ecosystem assessments, data collection, and management and monitoring activities. They hold an important role in reflecting the needs and behaviours of different stakeholders and in defining the spatial use and distribution relevant for an effective national or transboundary MSP and ICZM.222 Cities can tailor planning approaches to the local context, including administrative, socio-economic capacities and ecologic priorities, as well as land-ocean interactions in their coastal and marine environment. Although these processes often require national legislation and a specific mandate for cities to develop their own plans or implement national strategies, cities are important facilitators of information exchange and cooperation. In Indonesia, for example, the MSP process launched in 2017 requires the provincial government to identify relevant stakeholders, including coastal communities, businesses, NGOs and universities. These stakeholders need to register and confirm their active participation in order to prove their engagement in the MSP process and the meeting notes are made publicly available to ensure transparency.223 In Croatia, with the support of the World Bank, the Coastal Cities Pollution Control Project improved wastewater collection, treatment and disposal abilities by developing a key institution responsible for wastewater services and a water management strategy.224 Although the lack of jurisdiction to include interactions between the marine environment and urbanisation processes into planning procedures remains a challenge for cities, MSP and ICZM can be regarded as important tools to advance this interaction.225
Given their impact and by applying a broader concept of sovereignty, under which individuals and NGOs are attributed a specific form of non-State authority, the same approach can be extended to cities, recognising their role as quasi-sovereign actors in the field of public international law.226 ‘By considering sovereignty as more of a continuum and less of a binary, cities’ rights should clearly prevail over claims of unassailable centralized sovereignty by the state’.227
This argument is reinforced through the various roles the city takes on at the international level and in relation to the rules and standards of public international law. These roles are expressed in concepts such as biophilic cities,228 sponge cities,229 circular cities,230 and smart cities231 attributing specific qualities to cities and in soft governance functions,232 such as ocean literacy.233 Soft governance functions can be beneficial if a wider network of local government (municipalities), national, regional and international levels of organisations and institutions can be mobilised to cooperate. Setting up forums and workshops with a broad target audience may be one way to engage citizens and ensure wide participation. It is thus no surprise that an increasing number of stakeholders request that cities effectively reduce negative direct and indirect impacts and effects through the application of science-based targets that allow measurement of progress.234 Cities are crucial actors in the fight against climate change and environmental protection, but lack a clear framework and pathway in targeting these challenges. Creating targets for food, waste, energy and the choice of construction materials can help in that regard and offer the potential for cities to become leading examples and leverage in the system tackling similar problems at a global scale. Science-based targets have to address a different set of questions, including design options for such targets, bottlenecks of the system that they need to address, and concrete actions that have to be followed.235 Important aspects that should be considered and incorporated throughout the design process of science-based targets concern relevant scientific findings and knowledge of coastal communities and indigenous people. The definition of clear targets can be regarded as an initial step in creating policies and strategies aimed at sustainable development.
Conclusion: Significance of the Ocean-City Nexus for Ocean Governance and Law
There is a clear need for broadening the understanding and approach of who constitutes an important actor in ocean governance. Of course this may be dependent on broader discussions on the involvement of non-State actors in public international law, but arguably an ocean governance approach addressing sustainability must be expanded to recognise the role of cities. However, a preliminary review of potentially applicable rules and obligations stemming from global and regional public international law demonstrates that cities have only been addressed in a limited manner by certain norms and policy objectives of different fora, mainly through a sectoral specific approach. As has been outlined throughout the analysis here, several organisations, in particular UNEP, UN-Habitat and ESCAP, address the land-ocean interaction and increasingly engage with cities on this matter. Key approaches to changing the paradigm on the inclusion of cities in international law are networks and collaboration among individual cities, which appear to have strong convening power in other aspects, such as climate change.236 However, the ocean-city nexus has not yet been centrally considered in these fora. Barriers to effective integration of cities into negotiations, which recognises the ocean-governance nexus, stem from broader and structural issues of public international law. Without systemic shifts in the understanding of cities as important non-State actors, ocean governance may be hindered from effectively integrating sustainability issues stemming from urban conglomerations.
A Stöfen-O´Brien and L Del Savio acknowledge the funding provided by The Nippon Foundation to support the World Maritime University (WMU)-Sasakawa Global Ocean Institute as well as the WMU-Nippon Foundation Closing the Circle: Marine Litter, Sargassum and Marine Spatial Planning Programme. L Del Savio acknowledges the funding provided by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany through the DAAD Carlo Schmid Fellowship at WMU.
P Newman, ‘The environmental impact of cities’ (2006) 18(2) Environment and Urbanization 275–295, at p. 279.
R von Glasow et al., ‘Megacities and large urban agglomerations in the coastal zone: Interactions between atmosphere, land, and marine ecosystems’ (2013) 42(1) Ambio 13–28, at p. 13, doi: 10.1007/s13280-012-0343-9.
KC Seto et al., ‘A meta-analysis of global urban land expansion’ (2011) 6(8) PLoS ONE, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023777; accessed 21 January 2022.
Mega-deltas can be defined as very large low-lying landforms developing from accumulated sediments at river mouths and accommodating large populations due to their rich biodiversity and agricultural attractiveness. They are located on the coast and are home to important port cities. F Ka Shun Chan et al., ‘Flood risk in Asia’s urban mega-deltas, drivers, impacts and response’ (2012) 3(1) Environment and Urbanization Asia 41–61, at p.41; CD Woodroffe, ‘Assessing the vulnerability of Asian mega deltas to climate change using GIS’ in DR Green (ed), Coastal and Marine Geospatial Technologies (Springer, Dordrecht, 2010) 379–391; C Paola et al., ‘Natural processes in delta restoration: Application to the Mississippi delta’ (2011) 3(1) Annual Review of Marine Science 67–91; F Sultana, ‘Living in hazardous waterscapes: Gendered vulnerabilities and experiences of floods and disasters’ (2010) 9(1) Environmental Hazards 43–53.
A case study of pollutants in Halifax Harbour, Canada, revealed that sources of pollution have increased due to processes of urbanisation and the expansion of the population in coastal areas. C Morales-Caselles et al., ‘Emerging contaminants of concern in Canadian harbours: A case study of Halifax Harbour’ (2016) 15 Marine Affairs Program Technical Report, available at http://www.dal.ca/faculty/science/marine-affairs-program/research/research-news/maptechnical-series-reports.html; accessed 21 January 2022.
Y Blank, ‘The city and the world’ (2006) 44(3) Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 877–939, at p. 878.
B Oomen and M Baumgärtel, ‘Frontier cities: The rise of local authorities as an opportunity for international human rights law’ (2018) 29(2) European Journal of International Law (EJIL) 607–630, at p. 610, https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chy021; K Gomes da Silva, ‘The new urban agenda and human rights cities: Interconnections between the global and the local’ (2018) 36 Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 290–310; H Aust, ‘The shifting role of cities in the global climate change regime: From Paris to Pittsburgh and back?’ (2019) 28 Review of European, Comparative and International Environmental Law 57–66.
Y Blank, ‘International legal personality/subjectivity of cities’ in H Aust and J Nijman (eds), Research Handbook on International Law and Cities (Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, 2021) 103–120, at p. 104.
C Colombo and M Groenleer, ‘How domestic legal systems respond to international local government law: Between accommodation, resistance and transformation’ in Aust and Nijman (eds) (n 9), at p. 400.
H Aust and A du Plessis, ‘Introduction’ in H Aust and A du Plessis (eds), The Globalisation of Urban Governance (Routledge, New York, 2019) 4.
Limits to local government engagement, such as establishing mandates and ordinances, can be imposed by national legislation, for example, through preemption laws. In Texas, cities ready to implement bans on plastic bags had to annul their actions due to conflicting national solid waste management laws. L Korte, ‘Plastic bags are killing horses and cows across the state. What’s Texas to do?’ (The Texas Tribune, 14 August 2019) available at https://www.texastribune.org/2019/08/14/texas-wont-approve-bans-plastic-bags-which-can-be-fatal-livestock/; accessed 24 January 2022.
A Bodiford, ‘Cities in international law: Reclaiming rights as global custom’ (2020) 23(1) City University of New York Law Review 1–37, at p. 5.
Ibid.
S Singh, ‘Brandeis’s happy incident revisited: Cities and the new laboratories of international law’ (2005) 37 The George Washington International Law Review 537–557, at p. 537.
United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) Res 70/1 (25 September 2015), Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, UN Doc A/RES/70/1.
UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), Population Division, The World’s Cities in 2018 (UN, New York, 2018) 1–28, at p. 1.
Ibid.
UN Statistic Division, ‘Population density and urbanization’ available at https://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/sconcerns/densurb/densurbmethods.htm; accessed 26 January 2022.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
DESA (n 17), at p. 2.
Ibid.
UN Statistical Commission, ‘A recommendation on the method to delineate cities, urban and rural areas for international statistical comparisons’, Background document prepared by the European Commission, ILO,FAO, OECD, UN-Habitat and World Bank for the fifty-first session (New York, 36 March 2020) available at https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cros/system/files/bg-item3j–recommendation-e.pdf; accessed 21 January 2022.
L Dijkstra, E Hamilton, S Lall and S Wahba, ‘How do we define cities, towns, and rural areas?’ (World Bank Sustainable Cities Blogs, 10 March 2020) available at https://blogs.worldbank.org/sustainablecities/how-do-we-define-cities-towns-and-rural-areas; accessed 21 January 2022.
UN DOALOS, The Law of the Sea: Current Developments in State Practice IV (United Nations, New York, 1995) 294 as well as the Lisbon Declaration on implementation by local authorities of the marine chapter of Agenda 21 of the UN Conference on Environment and Development, 3–5 May 1993 (Law of the Sea Bulletin No. 26, 1994, 69).
N Jafry and G Silvers, ‘Microcities’ in WW Clark (ed), Global Sustainable Communities Handbook (Butterworth-Heinemann, Waltham, 2014) 539–558.
K Dafforn, A Bugnot, E Heery and M Mayer-Pinto, ‘Future “ocean cities” need green engineering above and below the waterline’ (The Conversation, 25 March 2018) available at https://theconversation.com/future-ocean-cities-need-green-engineering-above-and-below-the-waterline-93843; accessed 21 January 2022; C Fitzpatrick, ‘Legal issues of ocean cities’ as cited in F Galea, ‘Artificial Islands in the Law of the Sea’ (J.D. Dissertation, University of Malta, 2009) 53.
SJ Pittman and K Moseley, ‘Transforming our coastal cities into ocean cities: An urgent call for action’ (2019) Biophilic Cities Journal 12–17, at p. 14.
The United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) defines ocean cities as ‘coastal urban centres’ and ‘where urban landscapes and seascapes meet, where the built and natural environments near coastlines interface and where human behaviour and urban development have profound impacts on both terrestrial and marine ecosystems’. ESCAP, Ocean Cities Regional Policy Guide (Bangkok, 2019) 8 et seq.
JC Post and CG Lundin, Guidelines for Integrated Coastal Zone Management (World Bank, Washington, DC, 1996) 3; A Bera and T Komatsu, ‘Chapter 26: Land-sea physical interaction’, World Ocean Assessment I (United Nations, 2016) 1–28, at p. 1, available at https://www.un.org/depts/los/global_reporting/WOA_RPROC/Chapter_26.pdf; accessed 25 January 2022.
For the purpose of this article ‘local authorities’ include all levels of government below the subnational, national or federal level, such as prefectures, districts, counties, municipalities, cities, towns, and communes. The term thus needs to be differentiated from states, provinces, domains, territories and regional governments.
Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (Helsinki, 9 April 1992, in force 17 January 2000) 1507 UNTS 197; HELCOM, ‘Observers’ available at https://helcom.fi/about-us/observers/; accessed 21 January 2022.
Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North–East Atlantic (Paris, 22 September 1992 (1993), in force 25 March 1998)2354 UNTS 67; OSPAR Commission, ‘OSPAR Convention’ available at https://www.ospar.org/; accessed 21 January 2022.
UN DOALOS (n 29), at p. 294.
TW Davies et al., ‘Biologically important artificial light at night on the seafloor’ (2020) 10(12545) Scientific Reports 1–6, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-6946.
PA Todd, et al., ‘Towards an urban marine ecology: Characterizing the drivers, patterns and processes of marine ecosystems in coastal cities’ (2019) 128(9) Oikos 1215–1242, at p. 1218.
Ibid., at p. 1221.
Ibid., at p. 1218.
Ibid.
CM Duarte et al., ‘The soundscape of the Anthropocene ocean’ (2021) 371(6529) Science, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba4658.
R Bhatia, ‘Noise pollution: Managing the challenge of urban sounds’ (Earth Journalism Network, 20 May 2014) available at https://earthjournalism.net/resources/noise-pollution-managing-the-challenge-of-urban-sounds; accessed 21 January 2022.
Ibid.
E Murphy and A King, ‘An assessment of residential exposure to environmental noise at a shipping port’ (2014) 63 Environment International 207–215; C Schenone et al., ‘The impact of environmental noise generated from ports: Outcome of MESP project’ (2016) Noise Mapping 26–36, at pp. 26, 27.
W Munk, P Worcester, and C Wunsch, Ocean Acoustic Tomography (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995) 14.
Ibid.
United Nations, World Ocean Assessment II (United Nations, New York, 2021) 301, 312.
Duarte et al. (n 44).
CL Parente, JP de Araújo and ME de Araújo, ‘Diversity of cetaceans as tool in monitoring environmental impacts of seismic surveys’ (2007) 7(1) Biota Neotrop, http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1676-06032007000100007.
United Nations (n 50), at pp. 40, 82, 104.
KG Blaettler, ‘The effects of sewage on aquatic ecosystems’ (Sciencing, 28 November 2018) available at https://sciencing.com/effects-sewage-aquatic-ecosystems-21773.html; accessed 24 January 2022.
United Nations (n 50), at p. 40.
Ibid.
S Adler, ‘From smart cities to smart ocean cities’ (ODS Blog, 8 June 2019) available at https://www.opendatasoft.com/en/blog/world-oceans-day-from-smart-cities-to-smart-oceans-cities/; accessed 21 January 2022.
Blaettler (n 54).
F De Falco, E Di Pace, M Cocca and M Avella, ‘The contribution of washing processes of synthetic clothes to microplastic pollution’ (2019) 9 Scientific Reports 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-43023-x.
For current efforts in the European Union to address microplastics in a comprehensive manner see European Commission, ‘Microplastics’ available at https://ec.europa.eu/environment/topics/plastics/microplastics_en#ecl-inpage-823; accessed 21 March 2022. Measures could cover microplastics in personal care products, sports pitches, tyre abrasion, and fragmentation of macro-sized plastic, amongst others.
The UN Statistics Division defines urban runoff as ‘storm water from city streets and adjacent domestic or commercial properties that contain litter and organic and bacterial wastes’. UN Statistics Division, Glossary of Environment Statistics (United Nations, New York, 1997) 75. Urban runoff is often used simultaneously with the term stormwater, whereby the former relates to the hydrological context and the latter describes the transported medium. A Müller et al., ‘The pollution conveyed by urban runoff: A review of sources’ (2020) 709 Science of the Total Environment 2–18, at p. 3.
M Lloyd-Smith and J Immig, Ocean Pollutants Guide (IPEN, 2018) 42; https://ipen.org/sites/default/files/documents/ipen-ocean-pollutants-v2_1-en-web.pdf.
Ibid., at pp. 13, 42.
Ibid.
H Cheng, Y Hu and M Reinhard, ‘Environmental and health impacts of artificial turf: A review’ (2014) 48(4) Environmental Science & Technology 2114–2129.
Y Andersson-Sköld et al., Microplastics from Tyre and Road Wear: A Literature Review (Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute (VTI), 2020).
JR Jambeck et al., ‘Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean’ (2015) 347 Science 768–771.
S Kaza et al., What a Waste 2.0: A Global Snapshot of Solid Waste Management to 2050, Urban Development (World Bank Group, Washington, DC, 2018) 25.
Todd et al. (n 40), at p. 1216.
Ibid., at p. 1219.
Adler (n 57).
Todd et al. (n 40), at p. 1216.
Ibid., at p. 1217.
Ibid.
M Allsopp, D Santillo and C Dorey, ‘Sustainability in aquaculture: Present problems and sustainable solutions’ (2013) 27 Ocean Yearbook 291–322; S Bunting and D Little, ‘Urban aquaculture for resilient food systems’ in H de Zeeuw and P Drechsel (eds), Cities and Agriculture: Developing Resilient Urban Food Systems (Routledge, Abingdon, 2015) 312–335.
Allsopp et al. (n 75).
Bunting and Little (n 75).
A Trottet, C George, G Drillet and FM Lauro, ‘Aquaculture in coastal urbanized areas: A comparative review of the challenges posed by Harmful Algal Blooms’ (2021) 52(6) Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 2888–2929, https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2021.1897372.
Lloyd-Smith and Immig (n 62), at p. 44.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Todd et al. (n 40), at p. 1217.
Ibid.
Lloyd-Smith and Immig (n 62), at p. 45.
United Nations (n 50), at p. 189.
Ibid., at p. 206.
M Lehmann et al., ‘Towards a typology for coastal towns and small cities for climate change adaptation planning’ (2021) 212 Ocean & Coastal Management 1–6, at p. 2, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2021.105784 (in the cases of New York and Copenhagen).
Ibid.; see generally, D Major and SK Juhola, ‘Guidance for climate change adaptation in small coastal towns and cities: A new challenge’ (2016) 142(4) Journal of Urban Planning and Development, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000356; J Liu et al., ‘Sustainability assessment of port cities with a hybrid model-empirical evidence from China’ (2021) 75 Sustainable Cities and Society 2–18, at p. 3, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103301 (emphasising that existing literature on port cities is sparse).
UN-Habitat, Cities and Climate Change, Global Report on Human Settlement (Earthscan, London, Washington, DC, 2011) 9.
United Nations Environment Programme, ‘Cities and climate change’ available at https://bit.ly/32pws9c; accessed 24 January 2022.
Ibid.; D Dodman, ‘Blaming cities for climate change? An analysis of urban greenhouse gas emissions inventories’ (2009) 21(1) Environment and Urbanization 185–201, at p. 186, https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0956247809103016.
UN-Habitat (n 89), at p. 10.
CJ Kruse et al., ‘Marine transportation and the environment’ (2018) 313 TR News 12–20, at p. 12.
Ibid.
Ibid., at p. 13.
Ibid.
Ibid.
NL Bindoff et al., ‘Changing ocean, marine ecosystems, and dependent communities’ in HO Pörtner et al. (eds), IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (IPCC, 2019) 456.
Ibid., at p. 450.
Ibid., at p. 481.
Todd et al. (n 40), at p. 1227.
IPCC (n 98), at p. 496.
Todd et al. (n 40), at p. 1227.
Dodman (n 91), at p. 185.
Ibid., at p. 186.
Ibid., at p. 185.
KPMG International, Cities Infrastructure: A Report on Sustainability (2012) 10.
A Bringault, M Eisermann and S Lacassagne, Cities Heading Towards 100% Renewable Energy by Controlling their Consumption (CLER, Energy Cities and Réseau Action Climat, 2016) 8.
‘Cities: A “cause of and solution to” climate change’ (United Nations News, 18 September 2019) available at https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2019/09/cities-a-cause-of-and-solution-to-climate-change/; accessed 24 January 2022.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Dodman (n 91), at p. 193.
J Laclé, A Dragozet and M Novotny, ‘Tourism is damaging the ocean, Here’s what we can do to protect it’ (World Economic Forum, 26 March 2019) available at https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/03/tourism-is-killing-our-oceans-heres-what-we-can-do-to-protect-them/; accessed 24 January 2022.
Ibid.
Ibid. Coral reefs can be significantly impacted by touristic activities. For example, in Curaçao, a company dragged anchors along a protected coral reef area to clear a certain path to build a pier. ‘Massive damage done to Curacao coral reef; construction company BAM blamed’ (NL Times, 28 April 2017) available at https://nltimes.nl/2017/04/28/massive-damage-done-curacao-coral-reef-construction-company-bam-blamed; accessed 25 January 2022); G Baldwin, ‘How does tourism impact ocean health? Coastal development’ (Sea Going Green, 17 January 2018) available at https://www.seagoinggreen.org/blog/tourismimpactoceanhealth; accessed 24 January 2022.
Laclé et al. (n 113).
Baldwin (n 115).
Approximately 14,000 tonnes of toxic sunscreen end up in the ocean every year. CA Downs et al., ‘Toxicopathological effects of the sunscreen UV filter, oxybenzone (benzophenone-3), on coral planulae and cultured primary cells and its environmental contamination in Hawaii and the U.S. Virgin Islands’ (2016) 70 Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 265–288, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-015-0227-7; Laclé et al. (n 113).
For an overview of cities as subjects in international relations see Aust and Nijman (eds) (n 9); H Aust, ‘Shining cities on the hill? The global city, climate change, and international law’ (2015) 26(1) EJIL 255–178, at pp. 255, 256; JE Nijman, ‘Renaissance of the city as global actor: The role of foreign policy and international law practices in the construction of cities as global actors’ in G Hellmann et al. (eds), The Transformation of Foreign Policy: Drawing and Managing Boundaries from Antiquity to the Present (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2016) 210.
MN Shaw, International Law (9th ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2021).
K Creutz, ‘Responsibility’ in Aust and Nijman (eds) (n 9), at p. 135; Oomen and Baumgärtel (n 8), at p. 607.
Statute of the International Court of Justice (San Francisco, 26 June 1945, in force 24 October 1945) 1946 UKTS 67.
Blank 2006 (n 7), at p. 878.
Y Takashiba, ‘Sources and law-making’ in Aust and Nijman (eds) (n 9), at p. 121.
Blank 2021 (n 9), at p. 109.
H Aust, ‘Cities as international legal authorities: Remarks on recent developments and possible future trends of research’ (2020) 4(1) Journal of Comparative Urban Law and Policy 82–88, at p. 85.
Aust and du Plessis (n 11), at p. 4.
UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, ‘The 17 Goals’ available at sdgs.un.org /goals; accessed 19 March 2022.
Ibid.
Ibid.
‘UN Sustainable Development Goals Knowledge Platform, ‘Sustainable Development Goal 11’ (captured 18 December 2019) available at https://perma.cc/4EHZ-XS7C; accessed 26 January 2022.
International Council for Science (ICSU), A Guide to SDG Interactions: from Science to Implementation [DJ Griggs, M Nilsson, A Stevance and D McCollum (eds)] (ICSU, Paris, 2017) available at https://council.science/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/SDGs-Guide-to-Interactions.pdf; accessed 24 January 2022.
ESCAP, “Cities and the SDGs’ (Urban SDG Knowledge Platform) available at http://www.urbansdgplatform.org/index.msc; accessed 26 January 2022.
Ibid.
I Wetzel and T Chiramba, Blue Economy and Cities (UN-Habitat, Nairobi, 2018) 25f.
Convention on the International Maritime Organization (Geneva, 6 March 1948, in force 17 March 1958) 289 UNTS 48 [IMO Convention]. Article 1(a) of the IMO Convention sets out its purpose: ‘to provide machinery for cooperation among Governments in the field of governmental regulation and practises relating to technical matters of all kinds affecting shipping engaged in international trade; to encourage and facilitate the general adoption of the highest practicable standards in matters concerning maritime safety, efficiency of navigation and prevention and control of marine pollution from ships’.
IMO, Linkages between IMO’s Technical Assistance Work and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, IMO Doc TC.1-Circ.69 (15 August 2017), Annex, p. 1f.
See the efforts taken around the Baltic Sea by municipalities, Coalition Clean Baltic, Guideline: How Municipalities Can Reduce the Use of Single-Use Plastics on a Local Level (2020) available at https://irp.cdn-website.com/53007095/files/uploaded/guide_best-practice_on_sup_pfo_bund_21102020_small-final-updated.pdf; accessed 24 January 2022, or the support provided by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, ‘Letter to the Canadian Prime Minister to support a National Marine Litter Strategy’ (2 June 2018) available at https://data.fcm.ca/documents/issues/LET-20180602-FCM-MarineLitter-PM-Env-EN.pdf; accessed 20 January 2022.
FF Nerini et al., ‘Mapping synergies and trade-offs between energy and the Sustainable Development Goals’ (2018) 3 Nature Energy 10–15, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-017-0036-5; D McCollum et al., ‘Connecting the sustainable development goals by their energy inter-linkages’ (2018) 13(3) Environmental Research Letters o33006, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaafe3.
JK Cogan, ‘Cities in the shadow of international law’ (2021) 18 International Organisation Law Review 133–137.
Ibid.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Montego Bay, 10 December 1982, in force 16 November 1994) 1833 UNTS 387.
In Sweden, for example, ‘private land property can include water out to around 300 m from the shoreline’. DSH, ‘Beslut om havet [Decisions on the sea]’ (Swedish Marine Resources Commission, DSH 1983:1, Göteborg) (in Swedish).
J Sir Nindyo Mamola, ‘Towards the Integration of Terrestrial and Marine Spatial Planning in Indonesia: A Case Study of Bali’ (Master’s Thesis, MIT, 2019) 59, 63, 73 (in the cases of the United Kingdom, Australia, China, and Indonesia).
O Merk, The Competitiveness of Global Port-Cities: Synthesis Report (OECD, Paris, 2013) 134; see also, L Recuero Virto, H Dumez, C Romero and D Bailly, ‘How can ports act to reduce underwater noise from shipping? Identifying effective management frameworks’ (2022) 117 Marine Pollution Bulletin 113136, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2021.113136.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities, UN Doc UNEP (OCA)/LBA/IG.2/7 (5 December 1995) 7.
IMO, Coastal Management issues associated with activities to prevent marine pollution, IMO Doc LC/SG 32/8 (24 April 2009); WJ Davis, ‘Global aspects of marine pollution policy’ (1990) 14(3) Marine Policy 191–197, at p. 193.
Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (London, 13 November 1972, in force 30 August 1975) 1046 UNTS 120.
Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (London, 7 November 1996, in force 24 March 2006) 36 ILM 1.
RN Bray, Environmental Aspects of Dredging (1st ed., CRC Press, London, 2008).
See among others and as an example, IMO, Guidelines for the assessment of wastes or other matter that may be considered for dumping (Generic Guidelines), Report of the nineteenth Consultative Meeting of the Contracting Parties to the London Convention, IMO Doc LC 19/10 (14 November 1997), Annex 2.
Merk (n 145), at p. 127.
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 (London, 2 November 1973, in force 2 October 1983) 1340 UNTS 184 and Protocol of 1978 to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973 (London, 17 February 1978, in force 2 October 1983) 1340 UNTS 61 [MARPOL].
International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation (London, 30 November 1990, in force 13 May 1995) 1891 UNTS 78.
Protocol on Preparedness, Response and Co-operation to Pollution Incidents by Hazardous and Noxious Substances (London, 15 March 2000, in force 14 June 2007) [2007] ATS 41.
Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships (Hong Kong, 15 May 2009, not in effect), IMO Doc SR/CONF/45 (19 May 2009), Annex.
K Lim, ‘The Role of the International Maritime Organization in preventing the pollution of the world’s oceans from ships and shipping’ (UN Chronicle, May 2017) available at https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/role-international-maritime-organization-preventing-pollution-worlds-oceans-ships-and-shipping; accessed 24 January 2022.
IMO Convention, Art.1d (n 136), see also Organization of American States (OAS), Inter- American Committee on Ports, IMO and the Ship/Port Interface, 12 October 1999, OEA/Ser.W.XIII.4.1, CIDI/CIP.doc.21/99.
See remarks by K Sekimizu, ‘OECD Port Cities Conference’ (IMO, 9 September 2013) available at https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/SecretaryGeneral/Pages/oecdportcities.aspx; accessed 26 January 2022. ‘Ports for example, are providing reception facilities for certain categories of shipboard waste; and ships are required to reduce their harmful emissions, particularly in Emission Control Areas which are close to coasts and coastal hinterlands’.
Merk (n 145), at p. 127 (in the case of waste water management in the ports of Trelleborg and Kapellskär, Sweden and Kalundborg, Denmark).
Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio de Janeiro, 5 June 1992, in force 29 December 1993) 1760 UNTS 79 [CBD].
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn, 23 June 1979, in force 1 November 1983) 1651 UNTS 333 [CMS].
Ninth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the CBD, Decision IX/28, Promoting engagement of cities and local authorities of 9 October 2008, UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/IX/28.
CBD, ‘Cities and subnational governments and COP decisions’ available at https://www.cbd.int/subnational/cbd-plan-of-action; accessed 26 January 2022.
Tenth Meeting of the COP to the CBD, Decision X/22, Plan of Action on Subnational Governments, Cities and Other Local Authorities for Biodiversity of 29 October 2010, UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/22, Annex Plan of Action on Subnational Government, Cities and Other Local Authorities for Biodiversity (2011–2020).
Eleventh Meeting of the COP to the CBD, Decision XI/8. Engagement of other stakeholders, major groups and subnational authorities of 5 December 2012, UNEP/CBD/COP/ DEC/XI/8.
Twelfth Meeting of the COP to the CBD, Decision XII/9, Engagement with subnational and local governments of 17 October 2014, UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/XII/9.
See ‘Maritime Innovative Territories International Network’ available at https://www.blue-growth.org/Blue_Growth_Media_A_To_Z/Maritime_Innovative_Territories_International_Network.htm; accessed 6 July 2022.
Limcom, Usaid Resilim, GWP SA, Grid-Arendal and SARDC, Limpopo River Basin: Changes, Challenges and Opportunities (2017) 140.
Forest Peoples Programme, International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity, Indigenous Women’s Biodiversity Network, Centres of Distinction on Indigenous and Local Knowledge and Secretariat of the CBD, Local Biodiversity Outlooks 2: The contributions of indigenous peoples and local communities to the implementation of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and to renewing nature and cultures. A complement to the fifth edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook (Forest Peoples Programme, Moreton-in-Marsh, 2020) available at https://localbiodiversityoutlooks.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Local-Biodiversity-Outlooks-2.pdf; accessed 26 January 2022.
This includes the application of a viewshed approach, which allows one to model direct light pollution and enables local communities, among others, to manage light pollution. GM Verutes, C Huang, RR Estrella and K Loyd, ‘Exploring scenarios of light pollution from coastal development reaching sea turtle nesting beaches near Cabo Pulmo, Mexico’ (2014) 2 Global Ecology and Conservation 170–180.
See CMS, Decisions 13.58 to 13.60, Adverse impacts of anthropogenic noise on cetaceans and other migratory species, available at https://www.cms.int/en/page/decisions-1358-1360-adverse-impacts-anthropogenic-noise-cetaceans-and-other-migratory-species; accessed 2 June 2022.
CMS, Light Pollution Guidelines for Wildlife, UNEP/CMS/Resolution 13.5 (8 April 2020).
IOSEA Marine Turtle MoU (in effect 1 September 2001), Doc MT-IOSEA/SS.1/Inf. 2 available at https://www.cms.int/iosea-turtles/sites/default/files/document/MT_IO1_INF2_MoU_CMP.pdf; accessed 2 June 2022.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Adoption of the Paris Agreement, UN Doc FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev/1 (12 December 2015) (in force 4 November 2016) [Paris Agreement].
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (New York, 9 May 1992, in force 21 March 1994) 1771 UNTS 107.
Paris Agreement (n 175), preambular para 13.
Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (New York, 4 August 1995, in force 11 December 2001) 2167 UNTS 3.
Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF), Report of the Conference of FAO, Twenty-Eighth Session, 20–31 October 1995, Annex 1 to the CCRF (Background to the Origin and Elaboration of the Code).
J Friedrich, ‘Legal challenges of nonbinding instruments: The case of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries’ (2008) 9(11) German Law Journal 1539–1564, at p. 1553.
Ibid., at p. 1558ff. For further on the role and conceptualisation of transnational law see R Cotterrell, ‘What is transnational law?’ (2012) 37(2) Law & Social Inquiry 500–524.
CCRF (n 179), Article 7.2; see also the case study by T Amarullah and Z Sumardi, ‘Eco-friendly fishing gears based on Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries in the city of Banda Aceh, Indonesia’ (2018) 216 IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 1–8.
An example of such a practice may be found in the guidance issued by the Swedish National Agency for Public Procurement (Upphandlingsmyndigheten), ‘Fish and shellfish from sustainable stocks and sustainable aquaculture’ available at https://www.upphandlingsmyndigheten.se/en/criteria/food/fish-and-shellfish/fish-and-shellfish/fish-and-shellfish-from-sustainable-stocks-and-sustainable-aquaculture/advanced/; accessed 2 June 2022.
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar, 2 February 1971, in force 21 December 1975) 996 UNTS 245 [Ramsar Convention].
Fifth Meeting of the COP to the Ramsar Convention (Kushiro, 9–16 June 1993), Recommendation 5.7: National Committees; Tenth Meeting of the COP to the Ramsar Convention (Changwon, 28 October–4 November 2008) Resolution X.1: The Ramsar Strategic Plan; Ramsar Convention Secretariat, The Ramsar Convention Manual: A Guide to the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971) (3rd ed., Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland, 2004) 29, available at https://aquadocs.org/handle/1834/330; accessed 24 January 2022.
Ramsar Convention (n 184), Articles 1.1, 2.1.
Ramsar Convention Secretariat (n 185), at p. 10.
Ibid.
Sixth Meeting of the COP to the Ramsar Convention (Brisbane, 19–27 March 1996), Recommendation 6.3: Involving Local and Indigenous People in the Management of Ramsar Wetlands; Seventh Meeting of the COP to the Ramsar Convention (San José, 10–18 May 1999), Guidelines for establishing and strengthening local communities’ and indigenous people’s participation in the management of wetlands, Resolution VII.8.
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (Stockholm, 22 May 2001, in force 17 May 2004) 2256 UNTS 119.
Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (Basel 22 March 1989, in force 5 May 1992) 1673 UNTS 57.
Bamako Convention on the Ban of the Import into Africa and the Control of Transboundary Movement and Management of Hazardous Wastes within Africa (Bamako, 30 January 1991, in force 22 April 1998) 2101 UNTS 177.
Convention to Ban the Importation into Forum Island Countries of Hazardous and Radioactive Wastes and to Control the Transboundary Movement and Management of Hazardous Wastes within the South Pacific Region (Waigani, 16 September 1995, in force 21 October 2001) 2161 UNTS 91.
L Persson, Å Persson and C Sam, The Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management in Cambodia – Barriers and Opportunities (Stockholm Environment Institute, 2014) available at http://www.jstor.com/stable/resrep00460; accessed 24 January 2022.
Basel Convention (n 191), Articles 1, 4.
Several regional conventions have been adopted, complementing the Basel Convention, such as the Bamako Convention, to address the dumping of hazardous waste in African countries by banning the import of all hazardous wastes.
Committee for Administering the Mechanism for Promoting Implementation and Compliance of the Basel Convention, Guidance Document on Improving National Reporting by Parties to the Basel Convention (September 2009) available at https://www.sprep.org/att/IRC/eCOPIES/Global/364.pdf; accessed 20 January 2022.
Ibid., p. 8.
Ibid.
Ibid., at p. 19.
Several regional agreements and action plans related to the pollution of coastal areas have emerged. They include the Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution (Barcelona, 16 February 1976, amended 10 June 1995, in force 9 July 2004), 1102 UNTS 27, the first of many regional seas treaties under the auspices of UNEP. PH Sand, ‘The rise of regional agreements for marine environment protection’ (FAO) available at https://www.fao.org/3/s5280T/s5280t0y.htm; accessed 25 January 2022. Other agreements include the Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region (Cartagena, 24 March 1983, in force 11 October 1986) 1506 UNTS 157, the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (Canberra, 20 May 1980, in force 7 April 1982) 1329 UNTS 47, and the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (Helsinki, 22 March 1974, in force- 3 May 1980) 1507 UNTS 166.
For example, Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (HELCOM), Recommendation 28E/5: Wastewater treatment (adopted 15 November 2007); HELCOM Recommendation 16/9: Nitrogen removal at municipal sewage treatment plants (adopted 15 March 1995).
LIMCOM et al. (n 169).
United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat III) was held17–20 October 2016, see https://habitat3.org/; accessed 29 June 2022.
UNGA Res 71/256 (23 December 2016) New Urban Agenda, UN Doc A/RES/71/256, Annex: New Urban Agenda, Quito Declaration on Sustainable Cities and Human Settlements for All.
UN-Habitat, The New Urban Agenda Illustrated (UN-Habitat, 2020) 28.
Ibid.
Ibid., at pp. 29, 32.
UN-Habitat, ‘United Nations Advisory Committee of Local Authorities (UNACLA)’ available at https://unhabitat.org/network/united-nations-advisory-committee-of-local-authorities-unacla; accessed 18 January 2022.
C40, ‘About C40’ available at https://www.c40.org/about-c40/; accessed 18 January 2022.
In the case of plastic pollution, local governments of cities have adopted mandates and ordinances due to missing national legislation. RM Krause, ‘Why are we doing this? Issue framing, problem proximity, and cities’ rationale for regulating single-use plastics’ (2021) 23(4) Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 482–495. In the United States, nearly 300 cities have adopted policies, such as bans and fees, in order to reduce the consumption of single-use plastics (ibid.).
Aust (2015) (n 119), at p. 260; Bodiford (n 13), at p. 5.
For example, transboundary water management as in the case of the Limpopo Basin. See LIMCOM et al. (n 169), at p. 138ff.
Ibid., p. 140.
M Betsill and H Bulkeley, ‘Cities and the multilevel governance of global climate change’ (2006) 12(2) Global Governance 141–159, at p. 141.
K Dafforn et al., ‘Concrete coastlines: It’s time to tackle our marine “urban sprawl”’ (The Conversation, 15 March 2015) available at https://theconversation.com/concrete-coastlines-its-time-to-tackle-our-marine-urban-sprawl-38175; accessed 24 January 2022 (on eco-engineering in the case of marine urban sprawl).
‘In cities, green-blue-infrastructure enables water treatment, reduction of urban runoff, and the provision of psychological and social ecosystem services’. S Alikhani, P Nummi and A Ojala, ‘Urban wetlands: A review on ecological and cultural values’ (2021) 13(22) Water 2–47, at p. 1, https://doi.org/10.3390/w13223301.
Pittman and Moseley (n 32), at p. 14.
See (n 11).
UN Environment, Conceptual Guidelines for the Application of Marine Spatial Planning and Integrated Coastal Zone Management Approaches to Support the Achievement of Sustainable Development Goal Targets 14.1 and 14.2 (UN Regional Seas Reports and Studies 207, 2018) 33f.
Ibid., at p. 32.
Ibid., at pp. 13, 43, 52.
Mamola (n 144), at p. 98.
UN Environment (n 221), at p. 40; The World Bank, ‘Coastal Cities Pollution Control Project 2’ available at projects.worldbank.org/P102732/coastal-citiespollution-control -project-2?lang=en; accessed 25 January 2022.
In Canada, for example, the management of coastal regions is divided between many different governing bodies, including national, regional and local bodies as well as indigenous communities. The Constitution Act, 1867, which sets out the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments, shares the responsibility for environmental issues between the two levels of government. The federal government has jurisdiction over coastal waters from the ordinary low watermark seaward to 200 nautical miles, as well as coastal activities, including navigation, shipping and fishing. The federal government has jurisdiction over all federal Crown land.
Bodiford (n 13), at p. 5.
Ibid.
Biophilic cities follow an urban planning approach that systematically integrates nature and biodiversity into its planning principles. See, A Cabanek, ME Zingoni de Baro and P Newman, ‘Biophilic streets: A design framework for creating multiple urban benefits’ (2020) 3 Sustainable Earth 7, https://doi.org/10.1186/s42055-020-00027-0.
XJ Qiao, KH Liao and TB Randrup, ‘Sustainable stormwater management: A qualitative case study of the Sponge Cities initiative in China’ (2020) 53 Sustainable Cities and Society 2–11, at p. 2, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101963. The sponge city initiative aims to make cities more resilient to flooding and adaptive to climate change through sustainable stormwater management (ibid., at p. 1.).
A circular city is one which ‘promotes a just transition from a linear to a circular economy across the urban space, through multiple city functions and departments and in collaboration with residents, businesses and the research community’. ICLEI, ‘Circular City Actions Framework’ available at https://circulars.iclei.org/action-framework/#:~:text=What%20is%20a%20circular%20city,businesses%20and%20the%20research%20community; accessed 2 June 2022.
Smart ocean cities make use of technology and data to transform infrastructure, restore harbours and redesign coastal zones and public space, including the use of wastewater treatment to prevent eutrophication and use of microorganisms to transform chemical pollutants. Adler (n 57).
Functions, such as information sharing and capacity-building are considered soft governance functions of, for example, international organisations. H de Coninck and K Bäckstrand, ‘An international relations perspective on the global politics of carbon dioxide capture and storage’ (2011) 21(2) Global Environmental Change 368–378, at p. 375.
Pittman and Moseley (n 32), at p. 15f.
Different initiatives advocate for a development of targets, such as the Science Based Targets Network (https://sciencebasedtargetsnetwork.org/). Networks such as C40 even suggest the creation of science-based targets as a requirement for a city’s membership.
Science-Based Target Network, Science-Based Climate Targets. A Guide for Cities (2020).
J van der Heijden, ‘City and subnational governance: High ambitions, innovative instruments and polycentric collaborations?’ in A Jordan et al. (eds), Governing Climate Change: Polycentricity in Action? (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2018) 81, 82; F Biermann et al., ‘Navigating the Anthropocene: Improving earth system governance’ (2012) 335(6074) Science https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1217255.
