study Elisabeth Druel, Pascale Ricard, Julien Rochette (IDDRI), Carole Martinez (French Marine Protected Areas Agency)

Transcription

1 study n 04/12 september 2012 biodiversity Governance of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction at the regional level: filling the gaps and strengthening the framework for action Case studies from the North-East Atlantic, Southern Ocean, Western Indian Ocean, South West Pacific and the Sargasso Sea Elisabeth Druel, Pascale Ricard, Julien Rochette (IDDRI), Carole Martinez (French Marine Protected Areas Agency) Institut du développement durable et des relations internationales 27, rue saint-guillaume Paris cedex 07 France PROTECTING MARINE BIODIVERSITY IN AREAS BEYOND NATIONAL JURISDIC- TION AT THE REGIONAL LEVEL Marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) is currently at the heart of various international negotiations, including a process held under the auspices of the United Nations General Assembly. This process may, in the future, lead to the adoption of an implementing agreement to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) on the subject. However, while discussions are ongoing, it is becoming more and more apparent that action at the regional level is needed. Indeed, the regional level is today the most operational level and progress made within regional frameworks could positively influence discussions in other international fora. FIVE CASE STUDIES In order to address this issue, this study analyses five different regional frameworks, highlighting their major gaps and defining options for their closure. In the North-East Atlantic and in the Southern Ocean, protection is being established through regional conventions which have a mandate for ABNJ. In the Western Indian Ocean and in the South West Pacific, major institutional gaps exist, which need to be closed through appropriate actions. Finally, in the Sargasso Sea, where there is no regional framework in place, actions have been undertaken by an Alliance formed with public and private partners. THE COMPLEMENTARY ROLES OF THE REGIONAL AND GLOBAL LEVELS Although each region described in the study has its particularities, there are a number of issues which are coon to all, such as the third and free rider States issue or the question of coordination and cooperation within the regional organisations and between these organisations and the global organisations. A solution to these issues will only be found at the global level. In this respect, the two levels (global/regional) must be seen as complementary, especially if an implementing agreement to UNCLOS on marine biodiversity in ABNJ is adopted in the near future.

2 Copyright 2012 IDDRI As a foundation of public utility, IDDRI encourages reproduction and counication of its copyrighted materials to the public, with proper credit (bibliographical reference and/or corresponding URL), for personal, corporate or public policy research, or educational purposes. However, IDDRI s copyrighted materials are not for coercial use or dissemination (print or electronic). Unless expressly stated otherwise, the findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in the materials are those of the various authors and are not necessarily those of IDDRI s board. Citation: Druel, E., Ricard, P., Rochette, J., Martinez, C. (2012), Governance of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction at the regional level: filling the gaps and strengthening the framework for action. Case studies from the North-East Atlantic, Southern Ocean, Western Indian Ocean, South West Pacific and the Sargasso Sea. IDDRI and AAMP, Paris, France, 102 p. Context of the report In 2011, IDDRI formed a partnership agreement with the French Marine Protected Areas Agency concerning the governance of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. In this regard, IDDRI is focusing on the clarification of key questions for international events relating to the governance of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction and is also conducting various research projects. This study has been realised as part of the work prograe established through this partnership agreement. Disclaimer This document is a preliminary version of a final study which will be published in 2013, and therefore might be subject to further review. The views expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of individuals or organisations consulted in the course of this study. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank all those who kindly contributed to the preparation of this report through the provision of information and insights. Special thanks to Neil Alloncle (French Marine Protected Areas Agency), Stéphanie Belna (French Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy), Raphaël Billé (IDDRI), Duncan Currie (Pew Environment Group), David Freestone (Sargasso Sea Alliance), Ann-Isabelle Guyomard (CDMO), François Lengrand (French Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development and Energy), Géraud Montagut (French Ministry of Foreign Affairs), Tim Packeiser (WWF), Maxime Reynaud (French Ministry of Foreign Affairs), Ricardo Roura (Antarctic Ocean Alliance), Serge Ségura (French Ministry of Foreign Affairs), Aurélie Spadone (IUCN), Dixon G Waruinge (Nairobi Convention Secretariat) and Andrew Wright (CCAMLR). For more information about this document, please contact the authors: Elisabeth Druel elisabeth.druel@iddri.org Pascale Ricard Pascale.ricard@ens-cachan.fr Julien Rochette julien.rochette@iddri.org Carole Martinez carole.martinez@aires-marines.fr ISSN

3 Governance of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction at the regional level: filling the gaps and strengthening the framework for action Case studies from the North-East Atlantic, Southern Ocean, Western Indian Ocean, South West Pacific and the Sargasso Sea Elisabeth Druel, Pascale Ricard, Julien Rochette (IDDRI), Carole Martinez (French Marine Protected Areas Agency) List of acronyms 4 Executive suary 7 1. Introduction The North-East Atlantic The Southern Ocean The Western Indian Ocean The South West Pacific Ocean The Wider Caribbean Region and the Sargasso Sea Conclusions 87 References 89 Annexes 90 Iddri idées pour le débat 05/2011 3

4 List of acronyms ABNJ Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction ACAP Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels ASCLME Agulhas and Somali Current Large Marine Ecosystems ASMA Antarctic Specially Managed Area ASPA Antarctic Specially Protected Area AT Antarctic Treaty ATCM Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting ATS Antarctic Treaty System BBNJ Working Group Ad Hoc Open-ended Informal Working Group to study issues relating to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction BPA Benthic Protected Area CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CAMLR Convention Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources CCAMLR Coission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources CCSBT Coission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna CEP Coittee on Environmental Protection CLCS Coission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf CM Conservation Measure CMM Conservation and Management Measure COP Conference of the Parties CRAMRA Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities CROP Council of Regional Organisations of the Pacific DSCC Deep Sea Conservation Coalition EBSA Ecologically or Biologically Significant Area EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EU European Union FAO United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation FFA Forum Fisheries Agency GEF Global Environment Facility GOBI Global Ocean Biodiversity Initiative IAATO International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators ICCAT International Coission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea IMO International Maritime Organisation IOTC Indian Ocean Tuna Coission IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature IUU fishing Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing ISA International Seabed Authority 4 study 04/2012 Iddri

5 IWC LME MCS MEPC MoU MPA NAFO NAMMCO NASCO NEAFC NGO OSPAR PIC PIF PIROP PNA PSSA RFMO SAI SBSTTA SEA SIODFA SIOFA SOPAC SPAW SPC SPREP SPREP Convention SPRFMO SPRFMO Convention SWIOFC UNCLOS UNDP UNESCO UNEP UNFSA UNGA VME WCPFC WIO WIOSEA International Whaling Coission Large Marine Ecosystem Monitoring, Control and Surveillance Marine Environment Protection Coittee Memorandum of Understanding Marine Protected Area Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation North Atlantic Marine Maal Coission North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation North-East Atlantic Fisheries Coission Non-Governmental Organisation Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic Pacific Islands Countries Pacific Islands Forum Pacific Islands Regional Ocean Policy Parties to the Nauru Agreement Particularly Sensitive Sea Area Regional Fisheries Management Organisation Significant Adverse Impact Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice Strategic Environmental Assessment Southern Indian Ocean Deepwater Fishers Association South Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement Applied Geoscience and Technology Division Protocol on Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife Secretariat of the Pacific Counity Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Prograe Convention for the Protection of the Natural Resources and Environment of the South Pacific Region South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation Convention on the Conservation and Management of the High Seas Fishery Resources of the South Pacific Ocean Southwest Indian Ocean Fisheries Coission United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea United Nations Development Prograe United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation United Nations Environment Prograe United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement United Nations General Assembly Vulnerable Marine Ecosystem Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Coission Western Indian Ocean Western Indian Ocean Sustainable Ecosystem Alliance Iddri study 04/2012 5

6

7 Executive suary Marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) is currently facing increasing human pressures and growing threats. For these reasons, it is at the heart of numerous international discussions, including a process launched under the auspices of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). However, while discussions are ongoing at the international level, it is becoming increasingly apparent and relevant that action at the regional level is imperative to protect marine biodiversity in ABNJ for at least three reasons: because the regional level is today the most operational level; as progress made within regional frameworks could positively influence discussions at the international level; and if a multilateral agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) on marine biodiversity in ABNJ is adopted in the future, it is likely to call for a role for the regional level. Therefore, the main issue raised in this study is the need to reinforce the regional level. In order to address this subject, the following study analyses five different regional frameworks, making the stake of the situation, highlighting the major gaps and identifying options to encompass them. The regions studied are the North-East Atlantic, the Southern Ocean, the Western Indian Ocean (WIO), the South West Pacific and the Wider Caribbean Region coupled with the Sargasso Sea. The North-East Atlantic is one of the most advanced regions in terms of protection of marine biodiversity in ABNJ. Its institutional framework, which is already dense and diverse, encompasses a Regional Seas Convention (the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic-OSPAR), several regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs) such as the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Coission (NEAFC) and the International Coission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), as well as various international sectoral organisations (the International Maritime Organisation-IMO, the International Seabed Authority-ISA, the International Whaling Coission-IWC...). All these organisations contribute, or have the potential to contribute to the establishment of a regional framework for the governance of marine biodiversity in ABNJ. In 2010, the OSPAR Coission established the first ever network of marine protected areas (MPAs) in ABNJ, which was further completed in 2012 with the adoption of another MPA. Some of the regions covered by the seven OSPAR-designated MPAs included areas that NEAFC had already closed to bottom trawling for the protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs). The management of these MPAs, however, raises some challenging questions related to the cooperation between global and regional organisations. For example, the regulation of fishing, navigation and deep-sea mining falls under the mandate, respectively, of a number of RFMOs, IMO and ISA. Therefore, to ensure the efficient management of MPAs in the North-East Atlantic, coordination and cooperation between the relevant organisations is necessary. The OSPAR Coission is working on this issue, having already instigated the signature of Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs), organised informal meetings involving all the competent authorities of the region, and developed a collective arrangement. This report places further emphasis on the key role of cooperation and coordination in ensuring the future success of governance initiatives. It also underlines the importance of expanding the OSPAR network of MPAs in ABNJ to ensure that it is uniform and representative. One of the conclusions reached is that in the absence of a global agreement on the protection of marine biodiversity in ABNJ, there would remain several outstanding issues that lack solutions, one of the most important being the matter of third countries. Iddri study 04/2012 7

8 Of all the regions analysed in this study, the Southern Ocean lies apart. It is currently governed by a regional system that has no equivalent in the world: the Antarctic Treaty System or ATS. This system encompasses several innovative legal instruments: the Antarctic Treaty (AT) itself, the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals, the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty and the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CAMLR Convention). In addition, the IMO and IWC have adopted specific protection measures for the Southern Ocean. It is within the framework and work of the Coission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) that discussions on the establishment of a network of MPAs in the Southern Ocean are currently taking place. In 2009, this organisation designated its first MPA in ABNJ (the South Orkney Islands Southern Shelf MPA). In 2011, it adopted a conservation measure which sets out a general framework for the establishment of CCAMLR MPAs. The three issues currently facing the regional system are the development of the MPA network (several proposals will be discussed at the next Coission meeting later this year), its management and the crucial enhancement of the coordination and cooperation within the Antarctic Treaty System. With respect to the latter, one of the questions raised is related to the complementarities of decisions and actions between CCAMLR and the larger Antarctic Treaty System. In the WIO, issues vary considerably. The IWC has established a whale sanctuary in the entire Indian Ocean, but only two regional institutions, the Indian Ocean Tuna Coission (IOTC) and the newly entered into force South Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement (SIOFA) are competent for the region s ABNJ. A regional seas convention also exists, the Nairobi Convention for the Protection, Management and Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the West Indian Ocean, but its mandate is currently limited to areas under the jurisdiction of its Contracting Parties. In addition, exploration of deep-sea minerals has already started in the region. To ensure the efficient protection of marine biodiversity in ABNJ in the WIO, this study suggests that fisheries management should be strengthened, for example through the renegotiation of the outdated IOTC Agreement and the acceleration of the implementation of the SIOFA. It also recoends that the conservation of marine biodiversity in ABNJ should be placed high on the regional agenda, with discussions on the extension of the mandate of the Nairobi Convention to the region s ABNJ and on the coordination of current and future initiatives. All these actions should go hand in hand with the reinforcement of the regional framework and the Nairobi Convention in particular. In the South West Pacific Ocean, there are numerous organisations, institutions, initiatives and political forums, all with competence for or capabilities to deal with the protection of marine biodiversity in ABNJ. The Convention for the Protection of the Natural Resources and Environment of the South Pacific, coonly called the SPREP Convention, is a Regional Seas Convention which also applies to four high seas pockets in the South West Pacific. No specific conservation measures have been adopted so far for these areas by this Convention. Actually, it is thanks to the adoption of fishing regulation measures that South West Pacific countries have been able to achieve progress on the protection of marine biodiversity in ABNJ. Several measures applicable to the high seas have indeed been adopted in recent years through the framework of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Coission (WCPFC). The South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO), which recently came into force, will regulate fishing of the region s discrete high seas fish stocks. In addition, Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) have imposed certain restrictions on distant-water fishing nations engaged in tuna fishing in their Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ). The challenge is therefore threefold: first, fisheries management must be strengthened, with the reinforcement of the Nauru Agreement, the acceleration of the implementation of the SPRFMO and the development of biodiversity protection measures at the WCPFC; second, the SPREP Convention mandate should be expanded in order to allow the development of biodiversity conservation tools such as MPAs; and finally, it should be reminded that the reinforcement of coordination and cooperation will be, once again, key to any future success, because the governance framework of the South West Pacific is highly fragmented. In this context, the Pacific Oceanscape Framework initiative might help to coordinate activities in the region. Since the EEZ of coastal States cover the entire Wider Caribbean Region, it was decided to extend the scope of this study to include the Sargasso Sea, to provide an example of an ocean area where no regional seas conventions or dedicated RFMOs exist, and where an initiative is currently taking place to enhance the protection of marine biodiversity in ABNJ. The Government of Bermuda, through the Sargasso Sea Alliance, is leading this initiative. The Alliance is seeking to obtain protection through the adoption of sectoral measures by the few organisations present in the region (such as, for example, the regulation of shipping by IMO or 8 study 04/2012 Iddri

9 the identification of the Sargasso Sea as an Ecologically or Biologically Significant Sea Area EBSA) and by enhancing the coordination and cooperation between all the actors present in the region. One of the main focuses of this initiative is to highlight the institutional gaps that still exist when it comes to the protection of marine biodiversity in ABNJ. Most oceans and seas are not yet covered by a regional seas convention and not all fish stocks are regulated through an RFMO. Despite these gaps, there are several ways in which the level of protection in these areas can be enhanced through regional initiatives. But in the absence of a global agreement, this approach will always have limitations, as it does not guarantee the regulation of all activities or solve the issue of third and free rider States. In conclusion, this study discusses some issues that are coon to all the regions described. It highlights the need to identify a champion or a leading organisation for each region on the question of marine biodiversity in ABNJ. Such a role has been played by the OSPAR Coission in the North-East Atlantic, by CCAMLR in the Southern Ocean and the Sargasso Sea Alliance in the Sargasso Sea. This study suggests that the Nairobi Convention in the WIO, and the SPREP Convention in the South West Pacific should take on similar roles. Coordination and cooperation are also discussed, because they appear as a coon issue in all regional frameworks. They can take various forms within the regional institutions themselves: the signature of MoUs, exchange of information, organisation of informal meetings and, in the long term, the merging of RFMOs and regional seas conventions. The solutions proposed today, in the absence of an implementing agreement to UNCLOS on marine biodiversity in ABNJ, are mainly soft law tools, i.e. non-legally binding instruments. In addition, a more complex question is raised when cooperation with global organisations, such as the IMO and ISA, is discussed, as these organisations have a wider participation and regulate activities in larger ocean areas. Finally, the issue of third States and free riders States is coon to all the frameworks studied and on this matter there will not be a complete solution in the absence of a global agreement. The final conclusion reached in this report is that the regional level must be complementary to the global level if an implementing agreement to UNCLOS is to be adopted. For this reason, the international counity should not entirely divert its attention to the discussions on the need for this agreement, but should in the interim also remain focused on the regional level. Iddri study 04/2012 9

10

11 1. Introduction 1.1. Increasing threats to marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ), which are ocean regions that do not fall under the jurisdiction of any State, include both the Area and the high seas 1. Together they represent around half of the planet s surface and a significant amount of the Earth s biodiversity. For centuries, maritime activities were confined to coastal waters and ABNJ were considered to be virtual deserts, devoid of life and resources. However, recent scientific discoveries, along with the depletion of coastal and terrestrial resources and the development of more advanced technologies, have increased interest in these areas and led to the expansion of human activities across the oceans. International maritime traffic has grown exponentially over recent decades 2. Fishing activities in the high seas now range from the exploitation 1. According to Article 1.1(1) of UNCLOS: Area means the seabed and ocean floor and subsoil thereof beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. Article 86 defines the high seas as [ ] all parts of the sea that are not included in the exclusive economic zone, in the territorial sea or in the internal waters of a State or in the archipelagic waters of an archipelagic State. 2. Around 90% of world trade is carried by the international shipping industry and in 2010, total seaborne trade reached an estimated 8.4 billion tons. See UNC- TAD (2011), Review of maritime transport 2011, United Nations Publication, 233p. of highly migratory fish stocks such as tunas, to bottom trawling fisheries for deep-sea fish stocks 3. Along with these more traditional activities, there are certain emerging practices that have started to attract attention. For example, the exploitation of the mineral resources of the Area is no longer a pipe dream. Since the beginning of the 21 st century, several contracts for the exploration of reserved areas in the Pacific and Indian Oceans have been signed between the International Seabed Authority (ISA), which is responsible for administering mineral resources in the Area, and research institutes or States 4. Bioprospecting in ABNJ is also on the increase 5 and is already the cause of major debates amongst the international counity regarding the legal status of marine genetic resources 6. Ocean fertilisation, carbon capture and storage 7 and the utilisation of energy resources in 3. On bottom fisheries, see Bensch A., Gianni M., Greboval D., Sanders J.S., Hjort A. (2009), World wide review of bottom fisheries in the high seas, FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper N 522, Rome, FAO, 145p. 4. For a list of contractors, see: scientific/exploration/contractors. 5. Arnaud Haon S., Arrieta J.M., Duarte, C.M. (2011), Marine Biodiversity and Gene Patents, Science, Volume 331, n 6024, p ; Leary D. (2011), Marine Genetic Resources: the Patentability of Living Organisms and Biodiversity Conservation, in Jacquet P., Pachauri R., Tubiana L. (Eds.), Oceans: the new frontier A Planet for Life 2011, TERI Press, p Germani V., Salpin C. (2011), The status of high seas biodiversity in international policy and law, in Jacquet P., Pachauri R., Tubiana L. (Eds.), Oceans: the new frontier, A Planet for life 2011, TERI Press, p Rayfuse R., Lawrence M.G., Gjerde K.M. (2008), Ocean Fertilisation and Climate Change: The Need to Regulate Emerging High Seas Uses, 23 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, p Iddri study 04/

12 or under the seabed 8 are other activities that are likely to be developed further in the near future. Linked to the growth of activities is the growth of pressures and threats to marine biodiversity in ABNJ. Growth of maritime traffic increases the risks of oil pollution, the introduction of alien species through ballast waters, sound pollution and collisions with cetaceans, while other important global issues include the overexploitation of fish stocks, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU fishing) and the alteration of deep-water habitats due to destructive fishing practices such as bottom trawling. In this regard, the management of deep-sea species raises a number of difficult questions due to the specificities of these stocks, which are typically long-lived and reproduce at a relatively advanced age. Land-based pollution, thought to represent approximately 80% of marine pollution 9, also affects ABNJ, as illustrated by the recently discovered trash vortexes ( high levels of accumulation of plastics and other marine debris in seas convergence zones known as gyres 10 ) in the Pacific and North Atlantic 11. Moreover, for some years other impacts have been coming to light that are raising new concerns within the international counity. In 2011, the Census of Marine Life concluded that the most significant anthropogenic impact on the deep sea comes from exploitation (e.g. fisheries, hydrocarbon and mineral resources). In the future, climate change is likely to bring more global effects, including warming, ocean acidification and expansion of hypoxic and oxygen minimum zones Legal regime and current discussions at the global level The need to protect marine biodiversity in ABNJ is at the heart of numerous debates in various international forums. Indeed, it seems essential to ensure that the current legal framework is appropriate and adequately efficient to address 8. Appiott J. (2011), The Oceans: an Inexhaustible Source of Energy?, in Jacquet P., Pachauri R., Tubiana L. (Eds.), Oceans: the new frontier, A Planet for life 2011, TERI Press, p United Nations General Assembly, Oceans and the Law of the Sea, Report of the Secretary-General, 11 April 2011, Bille R., Druel E., Rochette J. (2011), Advancing the Oceans agenda at Rio+20: where we must go, Policy Brief n 5/11, IDDRI, p For more information, see: gov/info/patch.html. 12. Census of Marine Life (2011), Scientific Results to support the sustainable use and conservation of marine life A suary of the Census of Marine Life for decisions makers, p.5. the threats and various impacts linked to human activities. As of today, a dual regime applies to ABNJ. The Area and its mineral resources (solid, liquid or gaseous 13 ) are the coon heritage of mankind 14. Part XI of UNCLOS and the subsequent 1994 Agreement relating to its implementation define the regime applicable to the exploration and exploitation of mineral resources, a regime administered by ISA for the benefit of mankind as a whole. On the other hand, the legal regime of the high seas is a regime of freedom, defined by Part VII of UNCLOS 15. This regime of freedom is balanced by the general obligation for States to protect and preserve the marine environment (UNCLOS, Article 192). At the global level, discussions on biodiversity in ABNJ are taking place particularly within the Ad Hoc Open-ended Informal Working Group to study issues relating to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction (known as the BBNJ Working Group), which was established under the auspices of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). The BBNJ Working Group was created in 2004 by Resolution 59/24 of the UNGA: its paragraph 73 indicates in particular that the Group s mandate is 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 national jurisdiction. The Group met in 2006, 2008, 2010, 2011 and In 2011, it recoended to the UNGA that a process be initiated [...] with a view to ensuring that the legal framework for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction effectively addresses those issues by identifying gaps and ways forward, including through the implementation of existing instruments and the possible development of a multilateral agreement under UNCLOS 16. Since then, however, progress has 13. Article 133 (a) of UNCLOS: resources means all solid, liquid or gaseous mineral resources in situ in the Area at or beneath the seabed, including polymetallic nodules. 14. Article 136 of UNCLOS: The Area and its resources are the coon heritage of mankind. 15. Article 87 of UNCLOS provides a non exhaustive list of the freedoms of the high seas: (a): freedom of navigation; (b): freedom of overflight; (c): freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines, subject to Part VI; (d): freedom to construct artificial islands and other installations permitted under international law, subject to Part VI; (e): freedom of fishing, subject to the conditions laid down in section 2; (f): freedom of scientific research, subject to Parts VI and XIII. 16. Doc A/66/119, Letter dated 30 June 2011 from the Co- Chairs of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Informal Working Group to the President of the General Assembly. 12 study 04/2012 Iddri

13 been slow and in 2012 the BBNJ Working Group has merely agreed to organise two intersessional workshops, one on marine genetic resources and the other on conservation and management tools with a view to improving understanding of the issues and clarifying key questions as an input to the work of the Working Group 17. The development of a multilateral agreement under UNCLOS on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in ABNJ is an option which has gained support from a growing number of States and non-governmental stakeholders in recent years. The subject has been at the heart of an intense debate in the course of the negotiations of the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, known as Rio In their final declaration, world leaders coitted to address, on an urgent basis, the issue of the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction, including by taking a decision on the development of an international instrument under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea before the end of the 69 th session of the UNGA, in December However, negotiations and the implementation of such an instrument remain a challenge that is likely to take several years to overcome. In fact, while a consensus exists within the international counity to acknowledge that the protection of marine biodiversity in ABNJ suffers from a lack of implementation of existing instruments, there is no such consensus between States to accept the existence of regulatory gaps that need to be closed, and that a new global instrument is therefore required The regional approach to the protection of marine biodiversity in ABNJ While discussions must continue at the global level, it appears important to take action on a level that is currently operational, namely the regional level. Ensuring progress at the regional level can also positively influence discussions at the global level. In addition, if a multilateral agreement under UNCLOS is adopted, it is likely to foresee a role for the regional level, building upon existing instruments and measures Letter dated 11 June 2012 from the Co-Chairs of the Ad- Hoc Open-ended Informal Working group addressed to the President of the General Assembly (advance, unedited version), p See document A/CONF.214/L.1, The Future we want, On the regional approach, see Rochette J., Chabason L. Cooperation at the regional level for the protection of the marine environment is a specific obligation provided by UNCLOS in its article The adoption of regional agreements to protect marine biodiversity started well before the adoption of UNCLOS, with the creation in 1974 of the Regional Seas Prograe of the United Nations Environment Prograe (UNEP) as an actionoriented prograe having concern not only for the consequences but also for the causes of environmental degradation and encompassing a comprehensive approach to combating environmental problems through the management of marine and coastal areas 21. The idea underlying the creation of this prograe was that even if a global framework can establish coon management principles for oceans and seas, only specific measures can address the varied threats affecting diverse marine areas 22. Since it was launched, the Regional Seas prograe has proven attractive, as evidenced by the 143 States participating in 13 regions. UNEP directly promoted and supported some initiatives, in the Mediterranean (1975), the Wider Caribbean (1981) and Western Indian Ocean (1985) for example, whereas other regional arrangements have been developed independently, such as those for the Baltic (1974), Southern Ocean (1982) and North-East Atlantic (1992) regions. Whether or not driven by UNEP, regional seas frameworks seem (2011), A regional approach to marine environment: the regional seas experiences, in Jacquet P., Pachauri R., Tubiana L. (Eds.), Oceans: the new frontier, A Planet for life 2011, TERI Press, p On the role played by the regional level if an implementing agreement to UNCLOS is adopted, see for example the suary report of the International Seminar on Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biodiversity beyond National Jurisdiction organised jointly by IUCN and BfN in Bonn in December 2011 (available at: work/prograes/environmental_law/?9439/iucn- BfN-International-Seminar-on-Conservation-and-Sus- tainable-use-of-marine-biodiversity-beyond-national- Jurisdiction). With respect to Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), the report highlights in p. 34 that their management should be globally coordinated, regionally driven and subject to the responsibility of States. 20. Article 197 of UNCLOS: States shall cooperate on a global basis and, as appropriate, on a regional basis, directly or through competent international organisations, in formulating and elaborating international rules, standards and recoended practices and procedures consistent with this Convention, for the protection and preservation of the marine environment, taking into account characteristic regional features. 21. See UNEP, Achievements and planned developments of UNEP s Regional Seas Prograe and comparable prograes sponsored by other bodies, Nairobi, UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies N 1, See Rochette J., Chabason L. (2011), A regional approach to marine environment: the regional seas experiences, in Jacquet P., Pachauri R., Tubiana L. (Eds.), Oceans: the new frontier, A Planet for life 2011, TERI Press, p Iddri study 04/

14 to currently follow similar processes, applying and extending global-scale coitments. The regional seas indeed all have the ambition to bring together countries bordering a given region in concerted action to protect the marine environment (...) A regional approach often makes cooperative action easier than a global one does, where diverse stakeholders with contrasted interests make negotiations thornier 23. It should be noted however that not all these prograes have the mandate to adopt measures in ABNJ. In its Global Strategic Directions for the regional seas prograes , UNEP recognised the need for regional seas conventions and action plans to focus on addressing the protection of i) marine biodiversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction; and ii) deep-sea biodiversity at the regional scale 24. However, regional seas frameworks are not the only regional institutions which are competent to adopt regulations in ABNJ. Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) also exist and although they do not yet cover all parts of the ocean and do not manage all species of fish, a large number of them have the mandate to adopt measures in ABNJ. Other regional sectoral instruments applicable to ABNJ can also be found, such as agreements to protect seabirds or marine maals. One good example of this type of instruments is the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP), signed in 2001 and entered into force in It applies to a list of species of albatrosses and petrels in all the areas of land or water that any albatross or petrel inhabits, stays in temporarily, crosses, or overflies at any time on its normal migration routes 25. Within these regional systems, global sectoral organisations and conventions also have a role to play. Recent developments have taken place within the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). In 2008, States adopted scientific criteria for identifying ecologically or biologically significant marine areas (EBSAs) in need of protection in open ocean waters and deep-sea habitats 26. Regional workshops are currently organised by the CBD together with the relevant regional organisations with a view to facilitating the description of areas meeting the EBSAs scientific criteria. The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) has the competence to adopt regulatory measures on shipping in ABNJ, such as the designation of MARPOL Special Areas or of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSAs). With regards to the Area, the ISA is taking a number of initiatives to protect the marine environment from the harmful effects of the exploration and exploitation of mineral resources. Projects and initiatives funded by mechanisms such as the Global Environment Facility (GEF) or led by the private sector (NGOs, industry representatives...) also contribute to the development of these regional frameworks. The regional level therefore has an important role to play in future and is already playing an important role when it comes to the protection of marine biodiversity in ABNJ. The questions are whether this level needs to be reinforced and, if so, how exactly should this reinforcement be achieved. To address these questions, this feasibility study looks at five different regional frameworks: the North-East Atlantic (2), the Southern Ocean (3), the Western Indian Ocean (WIO) (4), the South West Pacific Ocean (5) and the Wider Caribbean Region coupled with the Sargasso Sea (6). For each of the regional frameworks, this study sets out the state of play regarding the institutions and prograes that deal with the protection of biodiversity in ABNJ, providing discussion on the need, and potential, to extend the treatment of this issue, while suggesting ways forward to achieve such objectives. Another objective of the study is to look at the limitations of these regional frameworks and to determine if these limitations can be solved in the absence of an implementing agreement to UNCLOS on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in ABNJ. In this respect, the question is whether these two levels (global/regional) can complement to ensure that the legal framework is complete and efficient. Detailed annexes at the end of the study provide an overview of the competent organisations in each region, together with the measures that they have already adopted to protect marine biodiversity in ABNJ. 23. See Rochette J., Billé R. (2012), ICZM Protocols to Regional Seas Conventions: What? Why? How?, Marine Policy, 36(2012), p See document UNEP (DEPI)/RS.9/6 of 31 October 2007, Global Strategic Directions for the regional seas prograes : enhancing the role of the regional seas conventions and action plans, p Article 1 (2) (i) of the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels. 26. CBD COP 9, Decision IX/20 on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity, Annex I. 14 study 04/2012 Iddri

15 2. The North-East Atlantic 2.1. State of play The institutional framework governing the North- East Atlantic is extremely dense and diverse. A regional seas convention, several RFMOs and a number of global international organisations are currently active in the region and their actions contribute, or have the potential to contribute, to the establishment of a regional framework for the governance of marine biodiversity in ABNJ The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic In the 1970s, two regional conventions dealing mainly with pollution in the North-East Atlantic were adopted: the 1972 Oslo Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft and the 1974 Paris Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land-based Sources. During a joint ministerial meeting held in 1992, it was decided to merge the work undertaken under these two conventions and therefore to adopt a new instrument: the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (the OSPAR Convention), adopted in 1992 and entered into force in The Convention, which was ratified by all Contracting Parties 27, contains five annexes, including an Annex V on the Protection and Conservation of the Ecosystems and Biological Diversity of the Maritime Area 28. Although it has not been established under the UNEP umbrella, the OSPAR Convention is considered by this institution as being the relevant regional instrument for the protection of the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic 29. The OSPAR Convention area encompasses the internal waters and the territorial seas of the Contracting Parties, the sea beyond and adjacent to the 27. Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom (UK) and the European Union (EU). 28. The Annexes to the OSPAR Convention are: Annex I on the Prevention and Elimination of Pollution from Landbased Sources; Annex II on the Prevention and Elimination of Pollution by Dumping or Incineration; Annex III on the Prevention and Elimination of Pollution from Offshore Sources; Annex IV on the Assessment of the Quality of the Marine Environment; and Annex V on the Protection and Conservation of the Ecosystems and Biological Diversity of the Maritime Area. 29. See: independent/neatlantic/default.asp. territorial sea under the jurisdiction of the coastal state to the extent recognised by international law, and the high seas, including the bed of all those waters and its sub-soil of the North-East Atlantic 30 (see map 1). Indeed, the OSPAR Convention area is divided into five large marine regions: the Arctic waters, the greater North Sea, the Celtic Seas, the Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coast and the Wider Atlantic. In these areas, the Contracting Parties shall [...] take all possible steps to prevent and eliminate pollution and shall take the necessary measures to protect the maritime area against the adverse effects of human activities so as to safeguard human health and to conserve marine ecosystems and, when practicable, restore marine areas which have been adversely affected 31. To this end, Article 10 of the Convention established an OSPAR Coission which has the mandate to adopt legally binding decisions and non-legally binding recoendations and other agreements. The mandate of the OSPAR Coission therefore extends to the ABNJ of the North-East Atlantic region. Annex V specifically encourages the Contracting Parties to take the necessary measures to protect and conserve the ecosystems and the biological diversity of the maritime area, and to restore, where practicable, marine areas which have been adversely affected 32. However, due to the mandate of other international sectoral or global organisations, its regulatory competences are limited to certain human activities. In this regard, Annex V specifies that the Coission does not have the mandate to adopt measures related to fisheries or maritime transport 33. In addition, and although it is not specified in the text of Annex V, the ISA is responsible for the regulation of the exploration and exploitation of minerals resources in the Area. For several years, the OSPAR Coission has focused some attention on the management of human activities in ABNJ. The first instrument adopted in this respect was, in 2008, a Code of Conduct for Responsible Marine Research in the Deep Seas and High Seas of the OSPAR Maritime Area 34. The document recognises that 30. Article 1 of the OSPAR Convention. 31. Article 2 (1) (a) of the OSPAR Convention. 32. Article 2 of the Annex V to the OSPAR Convention. 33. Article 4 of Annex V to the OSPAR Convention: 1. [ ] no prograe or measure concerning a question relating to the management of fisheries shall be adopted under this Annex. [ ] 2. Where the Coission considers that action under this Annex is desirable in relation to a question concerning maritime transport, it shall draw that question to the attention of the International Maritime Organisation. 34. OSPAR , OSPAR Code of Conduct for Responsible Marine Research in the Deep-Seas and High Seas of Iddri study 04/

16 Governance of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction at the regional level: filling the gaps and strengthening the framework for action Map 1. The OSPAR Convention Area Source : French Marine Protected Areas Agency. the potential impact of many scientific activities on the marine environment is low in comparison to the potential for disturbance by natural processes (...) or other human activities but that scientific activities could have unwanted negative side-effects on particular regions or animals if research activities are not carefully planned and executed35. For this reason, the Code requests all scientists working in the deep seas and high seas of the OSPAR maritime area to adhere to the following code of conduct when planning and carrying out their research36. In particular, paragraph 18 states that a risk assessment should be completed before equipment that may have adverse effect is deployed and where appropriate, a pre-assessment of the site should be conducted to determine possible impact and suitable mitigation measures. Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) are also implicitly referred in paragraph 8, which states that: marine scientists should always evaluate their research plans from a conservative stand point, and choose the most environmentally friendly approach. In addition, the document encourages cooperation and data the OSPAR Maritime Area. This code of conduct has been adopted in the category other agreements and is therefore not legally binding of the Code of Conduct of the Code of Conduct. 16 sharing37 and requests scientists to respect MPAs and assist in their implementation through the use of the best scientific knowledge38. During the OSPAR ministerial meeting held in Bremen, Germany, in 2003, Contracting Parties to the OSPAR Convention agreed to establish, by 2010, an ecologically coherent network of wellmanaged marine protected areas39. As it became clear that this objective will not be met, revised targets were adopted at the ministerial meeting of Bergen in September Contracting Parties agreed to establish an ecologically coherent network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) by 2012, which by 2016 should be well-managed40. As of the Code of Conduct of the Code of Conduct. 39. OSPAR Recoendation 2003/3 on a network of Marine Protected Areas. 40. OSPAR Recoendation 2010/2 on amending Recoendation 2003/3 on a network of Marine Protected Areas. Indeed, the Recoendation states that the purpose of this Recoendation is to continue the establishment of the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas and to ensure that: (a) by 2012 it is ecologically coherent, includes sites representative of all biogeographic regions in the OSPAR maritime area, and is consistent with the CBD target for effectively conserved marine and coastal ecoregions; (b) by 2016 it is well managed (i.e. coherent management measures have been set up and are being implemented for such MPAs that have been designated up to 2010). For areas selected and study 04/2012 Iddri

17 sion 2010/2 on the Establishment of the Charlie Gibbs South Marine Protected Area; OSPAR Decision 2010/3 on the Establishment of the Altair Seamount High Seas Marine Protected Area; OSPAR Decision 2010/4 on the Establishment of the Antialtair Seamount High Seas Marine Protected Area; OSPAR Decision 2010/5 on the Establishment of the Josephine Seamount High Seas Marine Protected Area; OSPAR Decision 2010/6 on the Establishment of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge North of the Azores High Seas Marine Protected Area. 42. OSPAR Recoendation 2010/12 on the Management of the Milne Seamount Complex Marine Protected Area; OSPAR Recoendation 2010/13 on the Management of the Charlie Gibbs South Marine Protected Area; OSPAR Recoendation 2010/14 on the Management of the Altair Seamount High Seas Marine Protected Area; OSPAR Recoendation 2010/15 on the Management of the Antialtair Seamount High Seas Marine Protected Area; OSPAR Recoendation 2010/16 on the Manmap 2. the OsPAR network of MPAs in ABNJ source: German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation at a substantial contribution to achieve this aim, at the same meeting, OSPAR Contracting Parties adopted six decisions and six recoendations establishing six MPAs in the ABNJ of the North- East Atlantic (see map 2). The six decisions, which are legally binding, formally established the MPAs and defined their geographical boundaries 41. reported to the OSPAR Coission after 20 June 2010 management measures should be implemented at the latest five years after its designation. In Recoendation 2003/3, the initial deadline for the establishment of a network of MPAs was 2010; but at the 2010 ministerial meeting, Contracting Parties noted that despite the collective efforts by OSPAR Contracting Parties in selecting and establishing marine protected areas (MPAs) in the North-East Atlantic in the period , the network of MPAs in 2010 is not yet considered to be ecologically coherent throughout the entire OSPAR maritime area. 41. OSPAR Decision 2010/1 on the Establishment of the Milne Seamount Complex Marine Protected Area; OSPAR Deci- The six non-legally binding recoendations deal with the management of these areas 42. These IDDRI study 04/

18 decisions and recoendations entered into force on 12 April In accordance with Recoendation 2010/2, the general objective is for these six sites to be well managed by One interesting point to note is that only two of these MPAs encompass the seabed and the water column above in ABNJ: the Charlie-Gibbs South MPA and the Milne Seamount Complex MPA. The four other protected areas cover only the water column, which is high seas, while their seabed is the subject of a submission made by Portugal to the Coission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) 44. Portugal made its submission to the CLCS in 2009, while the process to designate these four areas as MPAs was already ongoing. It nevertheless agreed that OSPAR should protect the water column and coitted to cooperate for their management. The question was more difficult for the Charlie-Gibbs North area, covered by a submission to the CLCS made by Iceland in A political agreement to designate this area as an MPA could not be reached before June 2012, where OSPAR Contracting Parties finally adopted a decision and a recoendation on the establishment and management of the Charlie-Gibbs North High Seas MPA 45. When these texts will enter into force on 14 January 2013, the OSPAR network of MPAs in ABNJ will comprise 7 MPAs. As previously mentioned, the OSPAR Coission only has a limited mandate when it comes to the management of human activities in ABNJ. The seven OSPAR Recoendations on the management of these areas all refer to measures that Contracting Parties should consider, such as awareness raising, information building, promotion of the OSPAR Code of Conduct for Responsible Marine Research, encouragement of marine scientific research and engagement with third Parties. One of the actions to be undertaken is the conduct of an EIA or a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) agement of the Josephine Seamount High Seas Marine Protected Area; OSPAR Recoendation 2010/17 on the Management of the Mid Atlantic Ridge North of the Azores High Seas Marine Protected Area. 43. For an overview of the process which has led to the adoption of the six MPAs, see O Leary B.C. et al. (2011), The first network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in the high seas: the process, the challenges and where next, Marine Policy 36, pp See also the website prepared by WWF on the Charlie-Gibbs Marine Protected Area and the preservation of marine biodiversity in ABNJ: On the CLCS and the extended continental shelf in the region, see below. 45. See OSPAR Decision 2012/1 on the Establishment of the Charlie-Gibbs North High Seas Marine Protected Area and OSPAR Recoendation 2012/1 on the Management of the Charlie-Gibbs North High Seas Marine Protected Area. for human activities in the designated MPAs and for human activities outside of these areas which might potentially conflict with the conservation objectives of these MPAs. An annual reporting mechanism for Contracting Parties has also been designed. But, as the OSPAR Coission does not have the mandate to regulate a certain number of activities in ABNJ, there are some risks that these MPAs become paper parks. Indeed, in MPAs located in ABNJ, the OSPAR Coission has the competence to: Adopt measures to protect the marine environment against pollution and the adverse impacts of human activities; Protect marine biodiversity and ecosystems during the placement of artificial islands, floating structures, cables and pipelines, during the conduct of marine scientific research activities, and from the introduction of species (regarding the latter, specifying limitations concerning fishing and shipping); Regulate dumping 46 and CO 2 storage in the oceans; Regulate ocean fertilisation; Regulate sub-sea tourism 47. Conscious of the fact that, to be efficient, the management of the OSPAR MPAs will require coordination and cooperation with the other international organisations present in the region, the OSPAR Coission has been engaged in the signature of Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with them. It has also initiated the Madeira process, which aims at developing a collective arrangement between Competent Authorities on the management of selected areas in the ABNJ of the North-East Atlantic. All relevant competent international organisations are invited to participate in the process. The first informal meeting of such authorities took place in Madeira in March 2010, and the second in Paris in January In 2012, Contracting Parties to the OSPAR Coission decided that a third informal meeting should take place in 2013 or The Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in North-East Atlantic Fisheries A North-East Atlantic Fisheries Coission (NEAFC) was created by the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in North-East Atlantic 46. According to Article 4 and Annex II of the Convention, dumping is prohibited in the entire Convention Area; only wastes expressly authorised in a list can be dumped. 47. See Document OSPAR 09/22/1-E, Annex 6, OSPAR s Regulatory Regime for establishing Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ) of the OSPAR Maritime Area. 48. See Document OSPAR 12/22/1 E, Drat Suary Record OSPAR 2012, p study 04/2012 Iddri

19 Fisheries, which was adopted in 1980 and entered into force in The Convention was further amended in 2004 and 2006 in order to integrate the modern principles developed by the 1995 Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks (the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement - UNFSA) 49, and the 1993 Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas. The Convention area extends to the high seas of the North- East Atlantic 50. Its objective is to ensure the longterm conservation and optimum utilisation of the fishery resources in the Convention Area, providing sustainable economic, environmental and social benefits 51. The Contracting Parties to the Convention are Denmark, in respect of the Faroe Islands and Greenland, the EU, Iceland, Norway and the Russian Federation. In addition, it has also three Cooperating Non Contracting Parties: Canada, New Zealand and St Kitts and Nevis. NEAFC regulates the management of all fish, molluscs, crustaceans and sedentary species within its area of competence, excluding highly migratory species already covered by other international agreements and anadromous stocks. With respect to the management of these stocks, NEAFC can adopt measures to establish closed seasons and closed areas 52. When adopting management measures, NEAFC has to apply the precautionary approach, take due account of the impact of fisheries on other species and marine ecosystems, take due account of the need to conserve marine biological diversity 53. In 2006 and 2009, responding to international concerns over destructive fishing practices, the UNGA adopted two resolutions which called upon States and RFMOs to take specific measures in order to protect Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs) from the adverse impacts of bottom fisheries in the high seas and to ensure the long-term sustainability of deep-sea fish stocks 54. The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) also adopted in 2008 the International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas 55, which underline that the establishment of area-based measures is a potential management tool for preventing impacts on VMEs from fishing. To comply with these Resolutions and with the FAO Guidelines, in 2009 NEAFC decided to close five areas to bottom trawling in the ABNJ of the North-East Atlantic 56 (map 3). These measures will remain in place until 2015, at which point the situation will be re-evaluated. On 25 June 2012, a symposium was organised by NEAFC to review its bottom fishing regulations. In a written contribution to this event, the OSPAR Coission highlighted several points. In particular, it noted that the symposium may wish to identify ways of assessing the effectiveness of the fisheries closures and invited NEAFC to consider the potential for additional areas and/or expanded areas closed to bottom fishing 57. This last need was also underlined in a series of recoendations prepared for the symposium by several NGOS, in which it is clearly stated that additional area closures where VMEs are known or likely to occur should be adopted unless the bottom fisheries in these areas can be managed to prevent significant adverse impacts 58. In 2008, NEAFC and the OSPAR Coission signed an MoU which recognised that NEAFC and the OSPAR Coission both have an interest in conserving the living resources of the seas including those located in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Through this informal instrument, the two organisations agreed to promote mutual cooperation towards the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity including protection of marine ecosystems in the North-East Atlantic, and notably to cooperate regarding marine spatial planning and area management According to Article 5 of the UNFSA, these principles include inter alia the precautionary approach, the protection of biodiversity in the marine environment, the assessment of the impacts of fishing, other human activities and environment factors on target stocks and the adoption where necessary, of conservation and management measures for species belonging to the same ecosystem or associated with or dependent upon the target stocks, with a view to maintaining or restoring populations of such species above levels at which their reproduction may become seriously threatened. 50. Article 1 of the NEAFC Convention. 51. Article 2 of the NEAFC Convention. 52. Article 7 of the NEAFC Convention. 53. Article 4 of the NEAFC Convention. 54. UNGA Resolution A/Res/61/105 of 8 December 2006 and UNGA Resolution A/Res/64/72 of 4 December FAO (2009) International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas, Rome, FAO, 73p. 56. Recoendation PV (Postal Vote) 2009 on the Protection of Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs) from significant adverse impacts in the NEAFC Regulatory Area. 57. See document symposium , available under: (g) and (i). 58. See document symposium , available under p Memorandum of Understanding between the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Coission (NEAFC) and the OSPAR Coission available under: basictexts. Iddri study 04/

20 Governance of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction at the regional level: filling the gaps and strengthening the framework for action map 3. Boundaries of the NEAFC fishery closures and their partial overlap with OsPAR MPAs source: German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation at: The Convention for the Conservation of Salmon in the North Atlantic Ocean A North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation was created by the Convention for the Conservation of Salmon in the North Atlantic Ocean which was adopted in 1982 and entered into force in Its objective is to conserve, restore, enhance and rationally manage Atlantic salmon through international cooperation, taking account of the best available scientific information60. The Contracting Parties include Canada, Denmark (in respect of the Faroe Islands and Greenland), the EU, Norway, the Russian Federation and the United States of America. According to its Article 1, this Convention applies to the salmon stocks which migrate beyond areas of fisheries jurisdiction of coastal States of the Atlantic Ocean North of 36 N latitude throughout their migratory range. Its Article 2 further states that: fishing of salmon is prohibited beyond areas of fisheries jurisdiction of coastal States. Discussions on 60. Preamble of the NASCO Convention. 20 the development of an MoU are ongoing between NASCO and the OSPAR Coission The International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas An International Coission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) was established by the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, adopted in 1966 and entered into force in The Convention currently has 48 Contracting Parties, including the EU, Iceland and Norway, which are also Contracting Parties to the OSPAR Convention. It applies to the entire Atlantic Ocean including ABNJ 61 (map 4) and covers the management of tunas and tuna-like fishes. 61. Article I of the ICCAT Convention: The area to which this Convention shall apply, hereinafter referred to as the Convention area, shall be all waters of the Atlantic Ocean, including adjacent seas. study 04/2012 IDDRI