On all matters relating to EIAs: perhaps the purpose of the the instrument should be to establish the minimum standards on the basis of which we are to operate instead of having a ceiling. Believe that one can always go beyond minimum standards, especially in the case of an instrument that aspires to be global. Believe that we can take into account the experience of other international instruments to limit marine damage.
In regard to activities – considers any activity that may entail harm to the marine environment must be subject to an EIA. We say this because at present, there is no standard of minimum risk, which would trigger an obligation to conduct an EIA.
In regard to a list – could be in favour of preparing a list, as long as it is not exhaustive and could be amended. Similar to the EU, could think of the feasibility of having a list as a text of the implementing agreement or as an annex so we can review and update when necessary. Believe that the activities that we want to cover in this new agreement on which an EIA should be conducted, should take into account the potential ecological imbalance that could derive in protected areas established within the jurisdiction of states. Must analyze the potential ecological connectivity that an activity may have between ABNJ and inside national jurisdiction.