Preambular paragraphs 1-4 of SBSTTA recommendation 24/9.

We believe that concrete efforts should be done for joining views and cooperation between sustainable use of marine resources and preservation, for this to happen we would need to bring in the rights voices to the discussions in this regard ( 30 x30, OEDMs etc).  Small scale fisher organizations at the global level ( example WFF and WFFP ) should be invited concretely to participate and collaborate so parties can listen the impacts and views concerning their needs towards supporting marine and coastal biodiversity conservation.

#2133 I can only agree with the fundamental need to closely associate fishers and small-scale communities representatives to the discussion. I would also mention, for example, the importance of having at the table the International Collective in Support of Fish Workers (ICSF) and the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF). I stress that I do not belong to any of the two.

#2133. I would also like to remind us that if industrial fisheries are often referred to as responsible for a major impact on ocean biodiversity, and hence may be the sub-sector from which corrective action is required, it is of utmost importance that they are closely associated to the information-building process and to the search for effective solutions.

Mrs Fatimazohra Hassouni Maritime Fisheries Department Morocco
Cooperation should be further strengthened with resource users. In this sense, it would be important to involve fishermen, all segments combined, including representatives of artisanal communities in the discussion and to participate in the process of building information and developing solutions.

The majority of fishers are aware that their future is closely connected with that of biodiversity and are willing to contribute directly to its maintenance or recovery. They also have the potential to adapt to external drivers of biodiversity such as climate change (they already do). They therefore can contribute to the CBD Agenda (and sustain their own future) if equitably called into do participate in elaborating solutions.

Alexander Shestakov, Russia.
While discussing any draft decision we need to keep in mind that the key is to ensure and strengthen implementation at national level. This means that at national level officers when reading the decision need to clearly understand what they need to do. Thus decision should keep VERY SHORT preambular and focus only on clear action oriented operative paragraphs. Preambular has 5 paras and they need to be reduces to 2-3 only.
1) keep para 1 as it is, references can be useful,
2) cooperation with other relevant organisations is important for successful marine conservation and SU. Suggest to keep para 3 as a shorter version and delete para 2
3) can delete para 4
4) Can keep link to post2020 and reduce it in further paras. Suggest to keep as follows: "Recognizing the importance of marine, coastal and island biodiversity as one of the key elements of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework and critical to achieving the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity"

Anna Metaxas, Deep-Ocean Stewardship Initiative

I believe paragraph 4 is important and should not be deleted. It underscores the importance of grounding decisions on scientific evidence. In fact, I would propose that although the Ocean Decade is important, mention of "and other competent scientific bodies" may be added to the paragraph.

Agree on the need to keep a reference to science in the preambular, it does signal the importance of, as Anna indicates, grounding decisions in science.

In agreement, it is important to mention that decisions should be made based on scientific evidence, therefore it is necessary to encourage and seek cooperation to generate and share information on biodiversity.

Reponse from the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of UNESCO:

We support keeping para 4 and would like to add reference to the important work of IOC (recognised by UNCLOS as a competent organisation for marine scientific research) and its partners in monitoring biodiversity, which is essential to deliver the information to the GBF in a consistent and coordinated manner. We would like to make the following suggestions between brackets (long and short versions below):

4. Invites relevant global and regional organizations, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the International Maritime Organization, the International Seabed Authority, [the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO], the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, regional fishery bodies, and regional seas conventions and action plans, to support the implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework with respect to marine and coastal biodiversity, and to contribute to monitoring and reporting with respect to the implementation of the framework; [Recognizing the framework for ocean observing [1] led by the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) and supported by the Marine Biodiversity Observation Network (MBON), which is developing (i) communities of practice around long-term biological observing programs, (ii) manuals and best practices and (iii) capacity in monitoring Essential Ocean Variables related to Biology and Ecosystems and providing open-access, quality control and interoperability of marine biodiversity data and information through the Ocean Biodiversity Information System (OBIS) of IOC-UNESCO which acts as the ocean biodiversity data clearing-house [2] for science, conservation and sustainable development.]

[1] A Framework for Ocean Observing. By the Task Team for an Integrated Framework for Sustained Ocean Observing, UNESCO 2012, IOC/INF-1284, doi: 10.5270/OceanObs09-FOO

[2] Decision IOC-XXX/7.2.1, page 40, available from https://oceanexpert.org/downloadFile/44665


Short version:

4. Invites relevant global and regional organizations, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the International Maritime Organization, the International Seabed Authority, [the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO], the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, regional fishery bodies, and regional seas conventions and action plans, to support the implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework with respect to marine and coastal biodiversity, and to contribute to monitoring and reporting with respect to the implementation of the framework; [Recognizing the framework for ocean observing led by the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) and supported by the Marine Biodiversity Observation Network (MBON) and the Ocean Biodiversity Information System (OBIS) of IOC-UNESCO which acts as the ocean biodiversity data clearing-house for science, conservation and sustainable development.]

[#2170] Jeremiah EdmundSaint Lucia.
I agree with Anna that the reference to science should remain. we have had experiences where decisions were not grounded in science and and the outcomes of these decisions created more problems than solutions

We would agree that paragraph 3 is a simpler formulation of paragraph 2, so would support retaining paragraph 3 and deleting paragraph 2.

We would not support deleting paragraph 4, which alludes to science as a primary input for decision-making.

Farah Chaudry, Head of Marine CBD, UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Agree with many posts here that paragraph 4 has value in terms of the reference to the importance of science based decision making and the link to the UN Decades.

Would support retaining para 1 as is currently written and para 3 as a shorter alternative to para 2.

We are share the same view and therefore would support leaving paragraph 3 with its reference to the role of science in decision-making.

We also support the third paragraph starting with "Also recognizing". It important to strengthen collaboration with all competent intergovernmental organizations in support of the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas both within and beyond national jurisdiction.

Like others, we also support the references to the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development and UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration given the importance of scientific basis in decision making.

Elisa Goya, Peruvian Marine Research Institute
In the same line of thought, we agree to keep paragraph 1, delete paragraph 2 and leave paragraph 3 since it is more summarized and collects all the key points of paragraph 2; and keep paragraph 4.

Regarding the need to address cooperation and collaboration with other intergovernmental organizations, although its importance has been recognized, there is still no clear consensus on the modalities to achieve it, so further discussion is required on this point.

1. contains useful references
2. Identifies the need to collaborate with other organisations with a role both within and beyond national jurisdiction which will be key to implementation of the post 2020 framework. All responsible organisations will need to participate to ensure that the post 2020 framework is achieved. Precautionary approach and science are absolute key. The UN decades are captured within this.

Completely agree that cooperation among all competent organisations is essential for the implementation of the GBF in both areas within and beyond national jurisdiction. The CBD jurisdictional scope applies to both areas (Art 4). And science should play an underpinning role in decision-making indeed. ( in ref to #2159)

Daniela Diz, The Lyell Centre, HWU

With regards to the synergies between the post-2020 GBF and the work of regional and competent organisations (regional seas programmes and regional fisheries bodies/regional fisheries management organizations), WWF believes that the COP decision should officially recognise the role of regional and competent organisations in achieving the GBF goals and targets and facilitate coherence regarding implementation at regional sea level. It could also recognise their role in facilitating the links between Parties and resource providers for regional capacity building.
Regional and competent organizations can have an important role to report on progress, in particular with regards to shared resources (e.g. fish stocks), transboundary ecosystems (e.g. coastal ecosystems) and areas beyond national jurisdiction (e.g. area-based management tools in areas beyond national jurisdiction).

After decades of ineffective discussions about collaborations between RFMOs and Regional Seas Organizations, we have seen very positive developments in the North Atlantic (between NEAFC and OSPAR) in the Mediterranean (between GFCM and the Barcelona Convention) and in the Baltic Sea (between FAO and HELCOM, on OECMs). These are examples to be scaled up globally. The efforts of the CBD Sustainable Ocean Initiative (SOI) in this respect are really important and should be further. FAO might be invited to address the issue at COFI and in the Regional Fishery Bodies Secretariats Network that it hosts.

Very much agree  that SOI (Sustainable Ocean Initiative) program is a key one to promote collaboration and linkages between sectors and also could provide new cooperation with fisher and fisher organizations linking them to the training programs and discussions, hopefully emphasizing the need for sustainable use were fishers considerations and examples can be discuss and also good practicas of collaboration.

Fully agree with Serge and Vivienne regarding SOI and the interest in linking it with fishermen for capacity building and discussions.

#2132 The cross-sectoral area-based coordination of conservation initiatives at ecosystem level is essential. The participation of the sectors and the fostering of collaborative initiatives is essential, for instance in the identification and use of relevant OECMs, in order to ensure they all threats are taken into account and effectively addressed

Important to highlight the collaboration with other organisations and agreement (e.g. CBD and BBNJ) both within and beyond national jurisdiction on effective and comprehensive implementation of the post 2020 framework.

Important also to have references to UN decades.

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  in accordance with the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) the International Seabed Authority (ISA) is the organization through which States Parties shall organize and control activities in the Area, particularly with a view to administering the resources of the Area. The ‘Area’ is defined by UNCLOS as the seabed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof, beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. All 168 States Parties to UNCLOS are, ipso facto, members of ISA. UNCLOS vests all the rights in the resources of the Area in humankind.

UNCLOS also expressly provides that these rights are to be exercised through ISA, acting on behalf of humankind.

ISA has the mandate to ensure the effective protection of the marine environment from harmful effects that may arise from deep-seabed related activities, in accordance with Article 145 of UNCLOS.

According to the decisions X/29 and XI/17 of the Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), ‘the application of the scientific criteria for ecologically or biologically significant marine areas is a scientific and technical exercise and (…) the identification of ecologically or biologically significant marine areas and the selection of conservation and management measures is a matter for States and competent intergovernmental organizations, in accordance with international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea’. It is worth highlighting further for the purpose of this discussion, that the Convention on Biological Diversity provides that “Contracting Parties shall implement this Convention with respect to the marine environment consistently with the rights and obligations of States under the law of the sea” (Article 22(2)).

The post-2020 approach should be kept clear in the CBD because a specific multilateral agreement for ABNJ is being discussed in the framework of the United Nations, and there is already a draft document in which, among other things, the issues of protected areas beyond national jurisdiction, access to genetic resources and environmental impact assessments are discussed.

There are also other mandatory treaties that are specific to certain issues, such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships.

POSTING ON BEHALF OF CHINA FOR TECHNICAL REASONS

There has been a rapid rise in international legal instruments concerned with the environment and biodiversity, thus there is an urgent need of means for coordinating the negotiation, assessment and implementation of related agreements, including on coastal and marine biodiversity between conventions and treaties, between conventions and UN Specialized Agencies. Countries are becoming overtaxed by the resources needed to engage in negotiations and implementation and overwhelmed with inter-ministerial coordination on the same issues covered by different conventions, international organizations or mechanisms.

To overcome the challenges, resolution 14/30 provides a good example of cooperation, collaborating among conventions, international organizations, processes and mechanisms in general and on issues specific to conservation and sustainable use of coastal and marine biodiversity. And it is unnecessary to specify biodiversity within or beyond the national jurisdiction, as it is sufficient to mention conservation and sustainable use of coastal and marine biodiversity within the jurisdictional scope of the convention and its protocols.

As a framework convention, CBD distinguishes itself in that it advocates ecosystem approach, supported by the rigorous use of best available science and peer-reviewed assessment of the status of biodiversity, which is under the remit of the SBSTTA in accordance with Article 25 of the CBD. These principles and practices should be maintained to guide the coordination and collaboration among CBD and other conventions.

"It is sufficient to mention conservation and sustainable use of coastal and marine biodiversity within the jurisdictional scope of the convention and its protocols" South Africa can support text along these lines, it will cover whatever is meant to be covered, without pre-supposing anything.

The preambular paragraphs help set the stage for cooperation on marine and coastal biodiversity. In accordance with Article 4 of the Convention, the CBD applies to components of biodiversity found within national jurisdiction, as well as the processes or activities under the jurisdiction or control of any Contracting Party affecting biodiversity both within and outside of national jurisdiction (e.g, on the high seas). Therefore references to areas beyond national jurisdiction (e.g., in draft PPs 2 and 3) are appropriate, though qualifiers about the scope of the Convention could be appropriate if Parties feel it is necessary. It is important that the PPs address that the scope of the CBD extends beyond areas under national jurisdiction, as CBD Decisions, including those operationalizing the GBF, will need to be interpreted in line with the scope of the CBD itself. However, the CBD is but one intergovernmental treaty/organization among many with a legal mandate to address biodiversity in certain areas, for example the high seas. Therefore we believe that references to cooperation with "other competent intergovernmental organizations" are welcome.

I understand that we are not negotiating detailed wordings here, but I would like to take this opportunity to make some proposals for minor modifications.
Regarding Preambular Paragraphs 3, "precautionary principle" should be replaced by "precautionary approach," which should be consistent with the wordings of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.

Agree with those who have noted the need to reference precautionary approach, which not only links to Rio but is the accepted formulation and understanding in FAO.  Similar to an ecosystem approach, this is what coastal  communities and fisheries managers are employing, i.e. a precautionary approach, as opposed to suggesting a legal principle.  This can be addressed by either replacing "principle" with approach, or as suggested by Norway a combination, i.e. ecosystem and precautionary approach.  Canada would also like to see a reference to traditional knowledge here to complement the reference to science. Here is a possible formulation for preambular para 3...
“Also recognizing the need to strengthen collaboration and cooperation with other competent intergovernmental organizations in support of the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity, including of areas beyond national jurisdiction, applying the ecosystem approach and the precautionary approach and using the best available science informed by traditional knowledge”

We fully support the coordination and cooperation of the CBD with other intergovernmental organizations with mandate in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Given the ecological connectivity of the marine ecosystem, only with such approach marine biodiversity will be safeguarded and the use sustainably planned and managed.
It is of our view, however, that paragraph 1 should recall the jurisdictional scope of the CBD as in the Convention text Article 4, outlining that the provisions of the CBD apply "In the case of processes and activities, regardless of where their effects occur, carried out under its jurisdiction or control, within the area of its national jurisdiction or beyond the limits of national jurisdiction."
This could either be embedded in para 1 or be a para 1 bis.

We believe that paragraph 4 is crucial for the objectives of the CBD and should not be limited to consultations but also to stress the importance of cooperation and collaboration. In this sense, among the relevant organizations for the conservation and sustainable use of marine and coastal biodiversity, it would be important to recognize and strengthening the cooperation with networks of marine protected areas managers. Those networks  play a crucial role in the ground implementation of the CBD targets related to MPAs, as well as in building capacity for effective management, and connecting different levels of action; from the CBD targets, to the regional, the national and local levels. This role will be even more relevant in view of the 30 x 30 target for MPAs.