Align with the various groupings that PSIDS belong to – G77 + China and AOSIS.
Would like to come back to a few points on identification (4.3.1).
On the listings of standard and criteria for the identification of areas. The PSIDS stress the need to reference climate change and ocean acidification – in light of new knowledge of impacts on biodiversity. Must be explicitly stated in establishment criteria. In this regard, we are flexible with the wording and placement.
PSIDS stress the need to retain some reference to cumulative impacts in the listing. As climate change/ocean acidification build up over time – to decide whether a particular part of the ocean needs to be managed in light of impacts. The conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity will not be achieved unless the management of all sectors of human activities affecting the ocean is coherent and takes into consideration the impact over time and across all sectors. We can be flexible with wording of item in the listing.
About traditional knowledge – wish to clarify, not only is it relevant to ABMT but traditional knowledge is already recognised in several major and multilateral processes related to BBNJ instruments (CBD, Nagoya protocol, UNFCCC, Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries Agrmt).
Lastly – traditional knowledge is a complimentary basis for knowledge (along with science). Rather than replace or minimise science. PSIDS greatly value science – as have numerous agencies in the regions. But also have significant traditional knowledge about oceans built over millennia.
(Intervention on options omitted)
UNTV link to Statement from the Federated States of Micronesia on behalf of PSIDs, 28th March
