This intervention is by Greenpeace on behalf of the High Seas Alliance. And we would like to align with the statement delivered by IUCN.
Under VI, on Review, as other suggested, we agree that a Review suggested under Option I, would be a worthwhile addition, and we agree with the EU that it can be conducted by the Conference of the Parties; we also support the Group of Like-Minded Latin American States that it be conducted on a regular basis.
With respect to issues currently not addressed in the Aid to Negotiations, a dispute resolution mechanism is integral to the functioning of the Agreement and we urge that sections on dispute settlement, along with responsibility and liability, and funding of the Agreement be developed as soon as possible. On dispute resolution, we would like to build on Part XV provisions of UNCLOS such as ITLOS and arbitration, to include additional innovative provisions that are accessible, cost effective, facilitative and speedy methods to resolve differences, and might include a facilitative implementation committee, expert fact finding panels, as well as the ability to seek advisory opinions from ITLOS. And we think this should allow standing for NGOs, who at present make submissions on an Advisory Opinion.
As New Zealand said, the South Pacific RFMO provides an interesting model.
In our intervention yesterday with respect to Subsidiary bodies, we noted our support for a compliance or implementation committee. We use these terms interchangeably, and do not envision two separate entities. There are models for this under the Espoo and Aarhus Conventions.
We also hope that the Preambular elements ultimately adopted highlight both the urgency for protection as well as the high ambition of the Agreement.
Finally, with respect to final Clauses, we support the inclusion of a provision on Provisional Application similar to that found under Article 41 of the Fish Stocks Agreement.