Marine biological diversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction

Environmental Policy and Law

Volumn 38, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 182-188

  Broggiato, Arianna ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MILAN   (Italy)

^b INSTITUTE FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIODIVERSITY; CONFERENCE PROCEEDING; MARINE POLICY; NATURE CONSERVATION; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

EID: 49649119934     PISSN: 0378777X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (60)

1. It comprised 89 States' delegations; 4 international organizations having received a standing invitation to participate as observers in the sessions and the work of the General Assembly; 5 international organizations outside the UN system; 8 between specialized agencies and UN bodies and 10 NGOs.
2. For all the documents related to the working group, first and second meeting, please visit the website http://www.un.org/Depts/los/ biodiversityworkinggroup/biodiversityworkinggroup.htm.
3. Principle 21 of the 1972 Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment, widely recognized to be customary international law: Birnie and Boyle, International Law and the Environment (Oxford, 2002), p. 109.
4. Article 86 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
5. Article 87 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
6. "Area means the seabed and the ocean floor and subsoil thereof beyond limits of national jurisdiction", while "activities in the Area means all activities of exploration for and exploitation of, the resources of the Area", article 1.1 of the LOSC; and "resources means all solid, liquid or gaseous mineral resources in situ in the Area at or beneath the seabed, including polymetallic nodules", article 133 of the LOSC.
7. According to articles 87-117.
8. Article 88.
9. Article 89.
10. Article 4 b) of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
11. Such as for example bioprospecting and seabed tourism.
12. UNGA Res. 59/24.
13. "(a) To survey the past and present activities of the United Nations and other relevant international organizations with regard to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction; (b) To examine the scientific, technical, economic, legal, environmental, socio-economic and other aspects of these issues; (c) To identify key issues and questions where more detailed background studies would facilitate consideration by States of these issues; (d) To indicate, where appropriate, possible options and approaches to promote international cooperation and coordination for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction" UNGA Res. 59/24, para. 73.
14. New York, 13-17 February 2006, Report: UNGA Res. 61/65, 20 March 2006.
15. See UNGA Res. 62/215, 22 December 2007, through which the General Assembly acknowledged the report of the first meeting.
16. Dr. Auster, from the University of Connecticut presented "Linking biodiversity in the deep sea to international management needs, Dr. Watling from the University of Hawaii presented "Benthic biogeographic provinces for the high seas and Dr. Escobar-Briones from the National Autonomous University of Mexico presented "The relevance of biogeographic classification in areas beyond national jurisdiction" and "The Assessment of the Assessment". The Assessment of Assessments, established through UNGA Res. 60/63 (8 March 2006, para. 90), represents the first step in this international initiative to improve understanding of the oceans and to develop a global mechanism for delivering science-based information to decision makers and public. In 2007 a report by UNEP and IOC was created highlighting patchiness of data (gaps and emerging uses) and made recommendations. A draft report was distributed in May 2008, with the completed work to be presented in 2009 and finalized in 2010. Please visit the website http://www.unga-regular-process.org/ index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1.
17. UNGA Res. 61/222, 16 March 2007, para. 91.
18. As noted by Argentina.
19. Brazil.
20. Defined as "search for biological compounds of actual or potential value to various applications, in particular commercial applications", A/62/66, para. 150.
21. In the framework of the application of UNGA Res. 61/105 and of the development of international guidelines for the management of deep sea fisheries in the high seas by the FAO.
22. Within the framework of the FAO.
23. Within the framework of the CBD.
24. See for example the InterRidge initiative: http://interridge.whoi.edu/.
25. Kenya and the United States.
26. Who declared that benefits would come from the use of products that will be developed through expensive research, and not from benefit sharing. Even Iceland's delegation declared itself open to discuss benefit-sharing options.
27. Argentina, the EU, the G77 group and China and South Africa.
28. Argentina and South Africa.
29. States auspicated the adoption of these criteria at COP9 of the CBD in May 2008 in Bonn: For more information on the adoption of these criteria see the website: http://www.cbd.int/cop9/.
30. Iceland.
31. Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa and all the States associated with the G77 and China.
32. According to article 136 of the LOSC "The Area and its resources are the common heritage of mankind": This principle is not properly defined in the LOSC, but articles 137-141 describe its core features: No sovereignty of any state, all rights vested in mankind as a whole, on whose behalf the International Seabed Authority acts, no acquisition, final aim of every activity should be the benefit of mankind, equitable sharing of financial and other economic benefits and exclusive use for peaceful purposes.
33. Canada, Japan and United States; the last delegation explicitly rejected the concept of common heritage of mankind for MGRs.
34. India and Mexico.
35. Brazil, Mexico and South Africa.
36. Iran, South Africa, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda and all the States associated with G77 and China.
37. The European Union, Iceland and Japan.
38. Argentina and Mexico.
39. Venezuela.
40. Kenya.
41. Argentina and Russian Federation.
42. Brazil.
43. Canada.
44. Brazil and the G77 group and China.
45. Canada, Japan and United States.
46. Japan.
47. Supported by the Marshall Islands, Mexico, Venezuela, Greenpeace and the Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts and Islands - declaring that the very existence of the WG demonstrates that there is a legal vacuum and that the international community felt it needed to be filled through a global confrontation; and favoured by New Zealand, Norway and the Russian Federation that declared it was open to discuss such a possibility: The first two only regarding MGRs, the third one only after exhausting the implementation efforts of existing instruments.
48. Mexico, supported by WWF.
49. Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Iceland, Japan and Kenya.
50. According to the LOSC and to the 1994 Agreement relating to the Implement of Part XI of the LOSC.
51. The European Union referred to the 1995 Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean, within the framework of the 1976 Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean amended in 1995 (Barcelona Convention). The Protocol provides for the establishment of a list of specially protected areas of Mediterranean interest. This may include sites which are of importance for conserving the components of biological diversity, sites which contain ecosystems specific to the Mediterranean or the habitats of endangered species, that can be partly or wholly on the high seas: In this case the proposal to list a site must be made by two or more neighbouring Parties.
52. The EU proposed to ask the next Conference of the CBD to adopt the criteria that have been elaborated, but the United States objected that the working group is mandated to communicate only with the General Assembly.
53. Signed in 2001 and entered into force in 2004.
54. South Africa and United States.
55. Canada, the European Union and South Africa, supported by IUCN, WWF and the Advisory Committee for the Protection of the Sea.
56. Brazil and Japan.
57. Established in 1999 by the General Assembly in order to facilitate the annual review by the General Assembly, in an effective and constructive manner, of developments in ocean affairs and the law of the sea by considering the report of the Secretary-General on oceans and the law of the sea and by suggesting particular issues to be considered by it, with an emphasis on identifying areas where coordination and cooperation at the intergovernmental and inter-agency levels should be enhanced, UNGA Res. 54/33.
58. Canada, Iceland and the United States.
59. Iceland.
60. In favour for example of coastal states' powers related to pollution prevention.