Daily update August 2019

4.4 implementation and provisions – believe that ILBI should reiterate that it’s the responsibility of states parties to implement management plan on activities under their jurisdiction. Where a state is a party to relevant organization with competence to manage such activities, states party should agree to.

ILBI should promote cross sectoral cooperation and coordination. ILBI should state clearly that nothing in regime should prevent states parties from adopting stricter guidelines on their vessels or processes under their jurisdiction. States should be encouraged to adopt measures in line with ILBI guidelines to support implementation of MPA.

Monitoring and review: who responsible for assessments? Should assess effectiveness of MPAs and management measures and progress made toward conservation measure achievement. Should assess whether amendment required to management plan. Would not agree to time bound measures for MPA this way we can review if anything needs to be changed.

Take into consideration of scientific data reported by states in context of research and monitoring plan and from civil society. G77+China just said this: “states parties should be obliged to report regularly on implementation, scientific/technical committee could review information and assess effectiveness of management plan.” Should establish procedures to ensure that science informs process and whether MPA should be amended, predesignated, etc. Any decisions would be taken by states parties to ILBI.

Cross cutting elements and use of terms. We believe that the specific definitions included in ILBI will depend on provisions of ILBI and can only be considered at a later stage when text/concepts have been finalized. It’s also important to have working definitions that allow clarity around discussions. Term MPA is a term that could bring clarity in interpreting provisions drafted under this chapter. This might meet threshold of being included in final text. No universal definition of ABMT: on basis of existing practice, ABMT can be defined as spatial management tool of geographic area where several activities are managed for conservation objectives

MPA: look at definition in article of CBD, describes MPA as area designated and managed for specific conservation objectives.

Relationship to other agreements and bodies. Already touched on some bodies: on convention, there could be a provision similar to FSA article 4 which states that nothing in agreement should prejudice rights of states and should be applied in manner consistent with convention.

General principles and approaches: ILBI would set these out for CSU of BBNJ. Would be more appropriate to consider this at a later stage. On how, the practical application should be made clear if necessary by specifying what is required from states. This could be operationalized through practical measures, particularly in designation process for MPAs as well as implementation of measures adopted in this respect (examples in EU submission).

See FSA article 6 on Precautionary approach for elaboration.

International cooperation: ILBI could reiterate obligation in UNCLOS to cooperate to protect marine environment, and on conservation and management of living resources – in line with ecosystem approach. We’ve tried to operationalize these obligations for MPAs to a very inclusive consultation process.

Institutional arrangements: we already talked about this.

CLHM: this is an issue where we should discuss specific elements once we have agreed to specific provisions on ABMT so we can discuss how CLHM and data repository can bring value.

UNTV link to Statement from EU, September 13th

Read our latest statementhere!