the bbnj prepcom and cross-cutting issues...the bbnj prepcom and cross-cutting issues: the hype...

The BBNJ PrepCom and Cross-Cutting Issues:

The Hype about the Hybrid Approach

Kristine Dalaker Kraabel PhD Research Fellow

K.G. JEBSEN CENTRE FOR THE

LAW OF THE SEA (JCLOS)

Lord Robert Yewdall Jennings (1913 – 2004)

Former President of the International Court of Justice

14.05.14 JCLOS / K.G. Jebsen Centre for the Law of the Sea

Lord Jennings on the Marine Environment

‘[I]t should not be forgotten that Part XII of the Convention on the “Protection and Preservation of the Marine Environment,” was a major contribution to the making of shaping of this aspect of the law. This is a problem which is much larger than the law of the sea itself. Since such an immense proportion of marine pollution is from land-based sources, the old juridical idea that the “land dominates the sea” has acquired a new and sinister connotation. It is perhaps worth adding, however, that this again is a problem which calls for management techniques and the evolution of new kinds of international organization . . .


Lord Jennings on the Marine Environment (continued)

It must be said that this there is some lack of balance in the Convention as a whole, in providing at such elaborate length for dispute settlement, and yet so sparsely for international management, though the latter is probably more important and more urgent. There seem, however, to be reasons for hoping that this imbalance will be adjusted through the follow-up actions to the Rio Summit, especially those concerning straddling and highly migratory fish stocks, small island developing States, coastal zone management, and land-based sources of marine pollution’. !  Sir Robert Y. Jennings, ‘Foreword’ in Myron H. Nordquist and John Norton Moore (eds),

1994 Rhodes Papers: Entry into Force of the Law of the Sea Convention (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1995) at xvi.


Roadmap of Analysis: Need for the BBNJ PrepCom

•  What are we trying to protect? What is marine biodiversity in ABNJ?

•  Where are ABNJ? •  Why does marine biodiversity in ABNJ need

to be protected? What is its value and importance?

•  What are the threats to marine biodiversity in ABNJ?

•  What is the state of the existing ocean governance framework?


What is Marine Biodiversity in ABNJ? Vast marine areas, rich in biodiversity and resources, which

contain some of the world’s most unique species and habitats.

14.05.14 JCLOS / K.G. Jebsen Centre for the Law of the Sea TheJulieBook(h-ps://thejuliebook.wordpress.com/2012/11/20/high-seas-sunsets/)

Where are ABNJ? Dark Blue – Nearly 50% of Earth’s Surface


File:WorldlocaEonmap.svg

ABNJ under UNCLOS: Comprise the “Area” and the High Seas Water Column

Common Heritage of Mankind vs. Freedom of the High Seas

14.05.14 JCLOS / K.G. Jebsen Centre for the Law of the Sea Riccardo Pravettoni, UNEP/GRID-Arendal

Diagram of International Ocean Governance Showing Sectoral Approach and Plethora of Organisations

14.05.14 JCLOS / K.G. Jebsen Centre for the Law of the Sea Source:GlobalOceanCommissionReport2014

What are the Issues with the Existing Ocean Governance Framework?

•  Absence of a comprehensive set of overarching governance principles

•  Fragmented institutional framework •  Absence of a global framework to establish MPAs in ABNJ •  Lack of legal clarity regarding the status of MGRs in ABNJ •  Lack of global rules for EIAs and SEAs in ABNJ •  Limited CBTT •  Uneven and often ineffective governance of high seas

fisheries •  Flag State responsibility


The Package Deal: “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”

•  In 2011, the BBNJ Working Group recommended that a process be initiated to consider “together and as a whole” four key elements, which have come to be known as the “package deal”: –  Marine genetic resources (MGRs); –  Including questions on sharing of benefits, measures

such as area-based management tools (ABMTs), including marine protected areas (MPAs);

–  Environmental impact assessments (EIAs); and –  Capacity building and the transfer of marine

technology (CBTT).


The Mandate of the PrepCom

•  The General Assembly established the PrepCom, prior to convening an intergovernmental conference, for the purpose of recommending substantive elements for the development of an international legally binding instrument under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction.

•  The process set out in paragraph 1 of UNGA Res 69/292 “should not undermine existing relevant instruments and frameworks and relevant global, regional and sectoral bodies”.


PrepCom 1 and PrepCom2: Overall View of the

Options for Institutional Arrangements

•  By the close of PrepCom2, discussions converged around two different approaches:

–  Global Approach: establishment of a new global executive body through which Parties could take decisions, undertake coordination efforts, and perform reviews and assessment of implementation and compliance.

–  Regional and Sectoral Approach: suggest that such a global body would undermine other instruments and frameworks, favoring instead a regional and sectoral approach where specific management approaches would be dictated on topics already regulated by competent bodies.

•  Overall, however, the question remained on how existing ocean governance gaps could be addressed without undermining existing relevant instruments and frameworks and relevant global, regional and sectoral bodies.


PrepCom3 and the Hybrid Approach

New Zealand’s suggested hybrid approach •  Global Body: making high level decisions including the identification of priority

areas for establishment of ABMTs or MPAs; articulating when or how activities in ABNJ trigger the need for an EIA; establishing processes for cooperation and coordination with existing bodies; administering a global information repository; and undertaking a regular review of implementation of the Agreement.

•  Regional and Sectoral Bodies: responsible for implementing the Agreement at

the regional level through decisions and recommendations of relevant regional and sectoral bodies (utilizing existing mandates and well-established processes, where possible); sharing information and analysis; and reporting on implementation of the Agreement.

•  States: responsible for implementation, as well as ensuring compliance and

enforcement of their flag vessels, nationals and entities under their jurisdiction, with respect to the Agreement. States would also be responsible for reporting on implementation of the Agreement.


PrepCom3 and the Hybrid Approach (continued)

•  Institutional mechanisms: Include a COP, to meet regularly and review progress, develop guidance, make recommendations, and take decisions at the global level. Such mechanisms would be necessary to support the hybrid approach.

•  Create Incentives: Incentivize existing organisations to enhance

performance by: –  expanding mandates, –  incorporating new principles into governance framework, –  developing processes for implementing relevant parts of the

Agreement, or –  developing of MOUs with other organisations to ensure better

coordination.


PrepCom3 and the Chair’s Overview of the Hybrid Model

According to the recent Chair’s Overview of PrepCom 3, the second approach could be termed a “hybrid model”, under which the scientific and technical expertise and decision-making mandates of regional and sectoral organizations in the establishment of ABMTs would be relied upon and reinforced, possibly through regional coordination mechanisms. At the same time, at the global level, general guidance and objectives would be developed, building on existing knowledge and the exchange of information between stakeholders, to enhance cooperation and coordination and provide a level of oversight to the decision- making and implementation by regional and/or sectoral mechanisms.


Thank you / Tusen takk [email protected]


the bbnj prepcom and cross-cutting issues...the bbnj prepcom and cross-cutting issues: the hype...

Documents