Regional marine programmes are by no means a new phenomenon, the first such activity (International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES) having been in operation since 1902. While in most cases early regional activities began as research programmes, they frequently provided a foundation for the management of marine living resources and, approaching the 1970s, for the control of marine pollution.

The 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm) outlined a ‘master-plan’ for protecting the world's environment which linked environmental assessment, environmental management, and supporting measures, as basic and inseparable elements—also recognizing the advantages of a regional approach in contributing to the solution of global problems. The development of UNEP's Regional Seas Programme, since the Action Plan for the Mediterranean was adopted in 1975, demonstrates that the basic concepts formulated at Stockholm can effectively foster regional cooperation among interested States, and that such cooperation can and does benefit greatly from the support of the United Nations system as a whole.

The viability of any long-term regional programme lies with the political and financial commitment of the Governments concerned. Within the UNEP Regional Seas Programme this commitment is usually formalized through binding regional legal agreements, and is manifested concretely through an agreed set of activities that are revised periodically by the Governments involved. It is expected that these activities will be adequately supported by financial resources put at the disposal of each of the regional programmes primarily by the Governments concerned.

Although the degree of coordination and cooperation achieved generally within the regional programmes reviewed in this paper appears to be satisfactory, it would be surprising if some difficulties did not arise. This is especially true because of the complexity of the venture and the fact that, in many cases, an entirely new type of cooperation is called for and new activities are required in geographical areas with often little experience, limited facilities, and weak infrastructures. For the most part the Governments, their national institutions, and the international, intergovernmental, and regional, organizations involved, are doing their best to work together effectively. Their resources are, however, often very limited, and so it is essential that they be utilized to the best possible advantage.

UNEP, as the major financial contributor to the initial phases of the action plans developed in the framework of the Regional Seas Programme, and as their overall coordinator, has a difficult task to perform if it is to see its early successes in the Mediterranean Region matched elsewhere with real action and positive results.

Environment can be better managed only if people have understanding and appreciation of it. This can be achieved only through environmental education, and that is one reason why environmental education is so important and essential at present. Another is to understand our complete dependence on The Biosphere as our only life-suppert and safeguard it against increasing population-pressures.

The basic aim of environmental education is to make individuals and communities understand the complex nature of natural and Man-made environments resulting from the interaction of their biological, physical, social, economic, and cultural, aspects. There are several major requirements which are likely to contribute to its success. These are interdisciplinarity, interrelatedness, flexibility, non-dogmatism, problem anticipation, emphasis on problem-solving, and ‘practise what you preach’.

Environmental education alone and by itself will not solve all environmental problems, but environmental education is a prerequisite for better environmental management and, ultimately, for safeguarding The Biosphere.

Coal liquefaction processes provide a basis to transform a solid into liquid fuels that are suitable for transportation purposes but release a wide range of air emissions, water effluents, and solid wastes, with considerable potential for locally reducing environmental quality. Compared with other major sources of emissions such as coal-fired power-plants, liquefaction plants release relatively low levels of emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides for an equivalent quantity of coal-feed. However, coal liquefaction processes potentially release hydrocarbons to air, water, and land. The ‘direct’ coal liquefaction processes, which hydrogenate coal under high temperature and pressure, may release potentially more hazardous hydrocarbons than ‘indirect’ processes, which break down coal by partial combustion and then synthesize liquid fuel. The presence of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in process streams of ‘direct’ processes, and their heavy fuel products, may require special processing to minimize environmental intrusion.

Environmental issues in the US are dependent on where coal resources are developed. Plants located in the humid eastern US are likely to have discharges to receiving streams, many of which are already ‘water quality limited.’ Thus eastern locations are more likely to have water quality-related problems and issues than western US locations. However, because of water consumption requirements of the coal liquefaction processes, arid western locations are more likely to experience water availability issues. These more arid regions may also experience greater potential effects on terrestrial environments, as the assimilative capacity and regrowth of vegetation is typically lower in arid than in humid environments.