Paragraphs 7-9 of SBSTTA recommendation 24/9.

Greetings to all. Just as stated yesterday during our opening webinar, Cameroon strongly welcomes and supports this thread as it seeks to address issues related to plastic litter and deep-sea mining activities which are today one of the major pollution threats to marine and coastal bioidversity. However, we are of the opinion that in a perspective of conservation and sustainable use of marine and coastal biodiversity, it is of great importance to highlight and integrate other tools and actors in para 8 and 9.
- Regarding para 8, we think that, the support to the implementation of marine spatial planning cannot be achieved solely via capacity building and partnership development. As such, elements of technology transfer should be considered and integrated in this para. Capacities can be built, partnerships can be developed but technology transfer is central to achieving this particularly for developing countries. Spatial planning stands today as a tool and strategy for sustainable management not only for marine and coastal biodiversity but for all other ecosystems. Its feasibility greatly depends on levels of technology.

- As for para 9, it is important to encourage parties and other governments to minimize and mitigate the impacts of deep-sea mining on marine and coastal biodiversity. Nevertheless, we believe that this responsibility isn't only that of governments or parties. Other actors like the productive, extractive and economic sectors should be clearly mentioned in this para. As we go towards the new GBF, it is primodial that no one is kept aside from the table of discussions and the CBD should be ambitious and courageous enough to identify all the stakeholders and call them before their obligations with respect to biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. Its true governments set strategies for mitigation of potential pollutions from various sectors of activities but these sectors of activities should also be directly called upon to be cautious of the dangerousity of their activities on biodiversity.

Good day everyone!

With regards to the Paragraph 9, as already raised during the opening webinar, the current text implies that deep seabed mining is happening, however, deep-sea mining should be halted until the criteria specified by IUCN are met, including the introduction of assessments, effective regulation and mitigation strategies.

IUCN calls upon Parties to support and implement a moratorium on deep seabed mining, issuing of new exploitation and exploration contracts and the adoption of seabed mining regulations for exploitation, including “exploitation” regulations by the  International Seabed Authority (ISA), unless and until the conditions set forth in IUCN Resolution
WCC-2020-Res-122 have been satisfied.

The IUCN Resolution WCC-2020-Res-122 reads:
"IUCN calls on its State Members to support and a moratorium on deep seabed mining unless or until: i) rigorous and transparent impact assessments have been conducted, the environmental, social, cultural and economic risks of deep seabed mining are comprehensively understood, and the effective protection of the marine environment can be ensured;
ii) the precautionary principle, ecosystem approach, and the polluter pays principle have been implemented; iii) policies to ensure the responsible production and use of metals, such as the reduction of demand for primary metals, a transformation to a resource-efficient circular economy, and responsible terrestrial mining practices, have been developed and
implemented; and iv) public consultation mechanisms have been incorporated into all decision-making processes related to deep-sea mining ensuring effective engagement allowing for independent review, and, where relevant, that the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples is respected and consent from potentially affected communities is achieved."

Link to the full resolution: https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/resrecfiles/WCC_2020_RES_122_EN.pdf

We strongly believe that CBD should call for a halt of Seabed mining for explorative and for commercial purposes and call for a mining ban. We ask for a total ban also on activities that undermine the ocean capacity for sustainable use and in a framework of a just and equitable distribution of benefits.  Spatial planning should be an opportunity for generating knowledge towards an ecosistem approach, it needs to incorporate traditional knowledge and equitable include all rightsholders.

Regarding para 9 - All uses of Oceans and Coastal areas should apply the precautionary approach and the Ecosystem approach, not just DSM. DSM is a new industry and so implementation is not clear, but it should be noted that the ecosystem approach remains a challenge for most ocean based activities

What I think is missing here is the concept of "cumulative" impacts of the many activities and threats. While in Para. 9, the impact of DSM on other uses is mentioned, a statement that recognizes that all activities will have cumulative impacts (e.g. ocean warming, ocean acidification, deoxygenation, DSM, fisheries, ship traffic, noise to name a few) that cannot necessarily be predicted but may be synergistic or antagonistic depending on the ecosystems and the threat(s) it experiences.

Replying to comment 2174, we strongly agree that cumulative impacts should be taken into account.

Hope everyone is having a good Friday!

Regarding paragraph 7, Belgium is very supportive of the development of this global agreement to be negotiated under the auspices of UNEA. We'd suggest the use of the terminology "plastic pollution" instead of "plastic litter". Perhaps the following proposal could serve as an inspiration: Support the work of the intergovernmental negotiating committee in developing of an international legally binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment – in accordance with UNEA Resolution UNEP/EA.5/Res.14 "End plastic pollution: Towards an international legally binding instrument".

Regarding paragraph 9, Belgium feels that the current formulation is preempting the discussion as to whether or not seabed mining will take place and we are uncomfortable with that implication.
We'd suggest the following language: "Ensure that, before any deep-sea mining exploitation activities, the impacts on marine and coastal biodiversity as well as its impacts on other uses of the marine environment;, and biodiversity and human activities are sufficiently researched, the risks understood and the technologies and operational practices are able to demonstrate that the environment is not seriously harmed in line with the precautionary principle and consistent with United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea."

Regarding paragraph 8, Belgium would like to include a reference to additional stakeholders, so the end of the paragraph would read: "in collaboration with Parties, other Governments, IPLC's as rights holders in accordance with UNDRIP and international human rights law, relevant organisations and stakeholders, including women and youth.

Finland could support the proposal regarding this para  (7).

Could these three paras (7-9)  be transferred after para 3, and especially after the proposed para that is dealing with threats, to have some examples of threats and how to deal with them.

Finland feels the same and could support Belgium on this proposal.

Finland supports the proposal from Belgium.

Norway also support this and we think it is a good idea to move these paragraphs to after para 3. -and maybe at least parts of this could be merged with or set in connection with the list of threats in a split para 3 as suggested by Finland.

Norway also have a suggestion for a new para 9. We think this para  should refer to the processes under the International SeaBed Authority and the regulations for mineral mining that are under development to ensure the highest environmental standards. 

"Encourage parties and invites other Governments to ensure that all seabed mineral activities comply with robust environmental standards and that the regulations for mineral mining under development by the International Seabed Authority provide effective protection of marine ecosystems from harmful effects by applying a precautionary and ecosystem-based approach as well as ensuring effective protection from other uses of the marine environment."

For the purpose of contributing to the discussion and sharing broadly some information that may be of relevance to this thread we are pleased to inform participants of the online forum that the legal framework of the International Seabed Authority (ISA) requires the ISA and sponsoring States to apply a precautionary approach, as reflected in principle 15 of the Rio Declaration.

The work of ISA relating to the protection of the marine environment focuses on the following areas:
• Continued development of the regulatory framework, including environmental standards and guidelines (https://isa.org.jm/mining-code)
• Development and review of regional environmental management plans (REMPs) in priority areas where there are exploration contracts. Under the environmental management plan for the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, a network of areas of particular environmental interest (APEIs) has been established, covering over 1.9 million km2 of seafloor and fully protected from future exploitation of mineral resources (https://isa.org.jm/minerals/environmental-management-plan-clarion-clipperton-zone）
• Assessment of the potential environmental impacts of exploration activities, including the collection of environmental baseline data and establishment of monitoring programmes by the contractors (https://isa.org.jm/files/files/documents/26ltc-6-rev1-en_0.pdf)
• Dissemination of environmental data collected by the contractors through ISA database DeepData (https://isa.org.jm/deepdata)

Marine spatial planning and its implementation can be considerably enhanced by technological innovations that provide relevant and reliable data, and by big data processing ability, lacking in many developing countries. We are in support of Cameroon’s suggestion to include transfer of relevant technology, alongside capacity building and partnership development.

Very much agree, it should also include recording, standardizing, mobilizing and publishing biodiversity data.

We agree that cumulative impacts should be taken into account, however, we must consider that this is also being addressed at the Intergovernmental Conference on an international legally binding instrument under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (General Assembly resolution 72/249), and in the latest draft of the document there are definitions for this terminology.

We agree too.

WCS supports the proposals made by Belgium here.

UK supports the proposal made by Belgium that is more in line with the recent language agreed by UNEA.  We are content with the current placement of paragraphs 7-9, but will give consideration to Finland's proposal to more these paras earlier in the text.

Paragraph 7

We welcome and support the discussion thread, particularly concerning the issues of plastic pollution, which currently constitutes a very great threat to coastal and marine biodiversity. In this sense, we support actions that advocate for building the capacity of the oceans for sustainable use.

Ms Fatimazohra Hassouni Department of Maritime Fisheries Morocco

Paragraph 9 (MSP): MSP is considered today as a tool for the sustainable management of coastal and marine biodiversity and its implementation. For developing countries like the case of the Kingdom of Morocco, it requires more than capacity building and partnership development, the integration of technology transfer is essential for its effective implementation. We supported the term "technology transfer" quoted in Cameron's comment.

We feel also that  "cumulative" impacts are important and have raised it already at thread 3 on para 3.

POSTING ON BEHALF OF CHINA FOR TECHNICAL REASONS

On paragraph 7 in relation to marine litter, an alternative phase is to “support the resolution to End Plastic Pollution: Towards an International Legally Binding Instrument adopted at the UN Environment Assembly, and to initiate negotiation process under the auspices of the intergovernmental negotiation committee.

Paragraph 8 requests the Executive Secretary to support the implementation of marine spatial planning, it is equally important to encourage Parties and other Government and relevant organizations to collaborate and exchange information and experiences in implementation of marine spatial planning. For ease of understanding of the context, it might be useful to annotate what is SOI.

Different from Paragraph 8 where MSP is not mandated to any international organization, Paragraph 9 here is encouraging Parties to minimize and mitigate impacts of deep-sea mining, an subject area that is under the remit of the International Seabed Authority. In proposing the encouraged actions, scientific evidence is not provided, the undertakings under the ISA in relation to the encouraged actions are not specified, and it is unclear how the Parties will monitor the implementation of this paragraph in absence of background, evidence-based information and means of implementation. In spirit of orderly governance of the coastal and marine biodiversity, I strongly suggest that collaboration and cooperation arrangements between CBD and ISA be established in the first place, followed with scientific review of the issues for collaboration facilitated by the SBSTTA consistent with its functions as specified in Article 25 of the Convention, and propose the encouraged actions or even requests for the Parties and other Governments to take. In line with this, and in the absence of the above process, I would suggest to delete this paragraph in its entirety. Alternatively, we may propose the requested actions to be considered or taken under the framework or mechanism of the ISA if no arrangement is made,  with the purposes and effect of minimizing and mitigating significant impacts of deep-sea mining on marine and coastal biodiversity as well as its significant impacts on other uses of the marine environment.

In paragraph 8, even though spatial planning could be, if participatory and inclusive, a good tool to use, we should be concious of the need to incorporate other kinds of knowledge and methodologies used for the management of the IPLC and SSF marine and coastal territories.   These ancestral and traditional knowledge should be key for the management of those territories.  Besides marine spatial planning we should say... other local and regional tools that promote IPLC participation and knowledge inclusion.

TNC believes that marine spatial planning is an important spatial tool that should cover the whole ocean space while aiming at retaining irreplaceable biodiversity areas, including intact, high-quality habitats and those places which support the persistence of life on earth. Preventing degradation and conversion of these areas and avoiding and mitigating negative impacts from industries and other drivers of change should be an objective of integrated spatial plans.
On paragraph 8, we would like to see reference of the need to support countries through capacity building and partnerships which work should be underpinned by the concepts above.

Jeremiah Edmund Saint Lucia

Saint Liucia also agree to Finlands proposal

Jeremiah Edmund Saint Lucia
In Saint Lucia, most plastics reaching the coastal and marine environment originate from land based sources. Solid waste management is a problem in Saint Lucia and many other Island states and we believe that urgent and serious action is needed to remedy this. We believe that transfer of appropriate technologies to deal with solid waste is needed in island states along with capacity building to address marine plastic pollution.

With regards to paragraph 9, WWF urges Parties to the Convention to reflect the need to ensure that deep-sea mining activities are not permitted unless and until it can be clearly demonstrated that such activities will not cause adverse impacts on the marine environment, loss of biodiversity, damage to the flora and fauna of the marine environment, degradation of the resilience of marine ecosystems and ecosystem services including carbon sequestration, or compromise the ecological integrity of deep sea and open ocean ecosystems consistent with the obligations in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and commitments adopted through the Sustainable Development Goals, in particular SDG 14, target 14.2 and other relevant commitments to halt and reverse the loss of biodiversity.

The UK position is not to support deep seabed exploitation until the scientific evidence on the potential impacts is clear, but that is an issue being addressed in the International Seabed Authority, the international body charged under UNCLOS with responsibility for the management of the Area and its mineral resources. That is the appropriate forum for discussions of deep seabed mining. Para 9 as written is useful as an initial statement until the ISA complete discussions on the matter, so we are happy to keep it as currently written and would suggest this is sufficient for the recommendation.

Related to various suggestions related to the plastics para (7), Canada would like to add another option in order to both stress the importance of marine conservation and implementation of GBF, but also to add a specific reference to derelict fishing gear, as follows...
Urges Parties and invites other Governments to support the development of an ambitious, international, legally-binding instrument on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment, to be prepared by an intergovernmental negotiating committee, as adopted at the Fifth Session a global agreement to reduce marine plastic litter under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Assembly, noting in particular the need to reduce the amount of abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear.

Canada suggests modifying paragraph 9 and the reference to seabed mining to more accurately reflect the current process under the International Seabed Authority, and to ensure there is an increased emphasis on effective regulation, informed by science, traditional knowledge, and that it reflects a precautionary approach, as follows...

“Urges Parties and invites other Governments at all levels to ensure sufficient knowledge and regulations are in place, and that activities related to seabed mining are informed by science, traditional knowledge and guided by a precautionary approach, in an effort to minimize and mitigate the impacts of deep-sea mining on marine and coastal biodiversity as well as its impacts on other uses of the marine environment.”

Currently paragraph 5 includes the synthesis work on various stressors in the marine environment, and paragraph 7 is asking for follow-up to these various stressors, except – underwater noise. In this regard, Canada would like to bring to participants’ attention the need to address this gap and suggests a new paragraph. This is one of the overlooked threats to wild species and among the drivers to biodiversity loss and degradation unique to marine areas that need to be agreed globally and implemented locally. To address this gap, Canada has previously submitted the following additional paragraph and would like to bring it forward in this forum under Thread #3 for awareness:
“6(bis). Encourages Parties and invites other Governments at all levels to work in relevant forums to address anthropogenic underwater noise, developing plans and policies to mitigate and minimize impacts on marine biodiversity.”

WCS strongly supports the paragraph 6.bis proposed by Canada, above.

Paragraphs like this will advance work already underway by Parties at the national level and through several multilateral fora to address this issue, and would lock into the GBF through draft Target 7.

Para 7: Very important area, however, this process was already initiated and inaugural meeting was organised recently.  Thus it is redundant at this stage.
Para 8: May consider to move up after para 3 as it is directly related to the GBF (target 1) and can be clustered with other GBF related paras. The language can be reordered in the following way: "Requests the Executive Secretary to support the implementation of marine spatial planning, in collaboration with Parties, other Governments and relevant organizations, including through capacity-building and partnership activities under the Sustainable Ocean Initiative;". We welcome reference to the SOI as an important instrument in building capacity and supporting marine cooperation
Para 9: Keep the para with minor edits: "Encourages Parties and invites other Governments to minimize and mitigate the impacts of deep-sea mining on marine and coastal biodiversity as well as its impacts on various uses of the marine environment". We need to be mindful of processes countries have within the deep see mining authority and probably provide for a reference in the para

IUCN also supports the inclusion of underwater anthropogenic noise and elements suggested by Canada and WCS regarding a proposed paragraph 6bis, recognizing that underwater anthropogenic noise can disrupt vital life functions of many marine species and noise production is associated with much of ocean-based economic activity (both existing and emerging sectors such as the offshore renewable energy, among others).

We call for Parties and international community to implement long-term solutions for effective policy and management commitments to address cumulative underwater noise pollution, the impacts of which can be significantly reduced through existing and emerging options for effective mitigation and regulatory action, ranging from technologies and operational management measures to area- and species-specific measures.

On the Paragraph 5 (or combined with 6 as suggested by others): it might be good to update the text to reflect the latest CBD Technical Series #99 "Review of the Impacts of Anthropogenic Underwater Noise on Marine Biodiversity and Approaches to Manage and Mitigate them" (published by the CBD Secretariat in May 2022, i.e. post the earlier synthesis of information the current text refers to). This would ensure the Parties have the most up-to-date reference that is then reflected in the following Paragraph 6 encouraging the Parties and inviting other stakeholders to follow up (or combined paragraphs 5&6 focused on the action part as suggested by others).  

Overall, it is important to use information and resources listed in Paragraph 5 (incl. but not limited to noise) not only in “efforts to conserve and sustainably use marine and coastal biodiversity, according to national priorities and circumstances”, but also efforts to mitigate and minimize impacts on marine biodiversity from *all* kinds of marine pollution and stressors (incl. but not limited to anthropogenic underwater noise, plastic pollution, etc). Here a potential reorganization of the paragraphs addressing various threats and pressures would be useful as proposed by others in this thread 4.

Peru supports the proposal made by Cameroon regarding the inclusion of technology transfer to strengthen marine spatial planning implementation in paragraph 8 and the inclusion of different involved actors in DSM in paragraph 9.

The growing presence of abandoned fishing gear remains on the seabed has become a serious threat to marine biodiversity. In this sense, we fully agree with paragraph 7 suggested by Canada on comment [#2284], especially with regard to addressing ghost fishing.

Kuwait supports the use of the terminology "plastic pollution" instead of "plastic litter" suggested by Belgium as it gives a wider spectrum.

On the paragraph 8, we encourage further efforts to build national capacity and partnerships for the implementation of marine spatial planning, but also draw attention to the need to support science and research, combined with inclusion of indigenous and local knowledge that are among crucial elements for the successful implementation of marine spatial planning.

We also note that MSP constitutes an iterative and inclusive process, which can support the synergistic achievement of existing and future biodiversity targets, SDGs and national climate change commitments under the UNFCCC. Linking to the other threads: for this it is critical to ensure that cumulative impact assessments of human stressors and threats to marine and coastal biodiversity are consistently undertaken across different sectors at national and regional levels, and to consider Nature-based Solutions - such as the protection, restoration, and sustainable management and use of coastal and marine ecosystems, including coral reefs and blue carbon ecosystems (mangroves, tidal marshes and seagrass meadows) - in the planning and implementation process.