2nd Session of the Preparatory Committee on Marine Biological Diversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ PrepCom2 ) SIDE EVENT REPORT Strengthening capacity building and technology transfer to empower developing states: case study on environmental impact assessmentsDate : September 1, 2016 Venue :United Nations Headquarters, NYTime : 1:15 p.m. to 2:45 p.mStrengthening capacity building and technology transfer to empower developingstates: case study on environmental impact assessments1 st September, 2016Conference Room 7(Lunch will be provided in the Vienna Café area starting at 1:00 p.m.)1:15 p.m. to 2:45 p.m.Description: This side event will focus on how capacity building and technology transfer onenvironmental impact assessments (EIA) can empower developing states to achieve conservation andsustainable development in marine areas beyond national jurisdiction.The panel will describe some of the best practices of EIAs based on their experiences and research, bothscientific and legal, and highlight some of the needs from a small-island developing State perspective.This will be followed by discussion of some of the relevant topics raised in the Chair's summary of thefirst Prep Com.PROGRAM1:15 - 1:20 Welcome by Hiroshi Terashima (The Ocean Policy Research Institute, Sasakawa PeaceFoundation)1: 20 - 1:25 Introduction by Kristina Gjerde (IUCN)1:25 - 1:35 Needs of new technology for sustainable use of resources in the ABNJ by Prof. YoshihisaShirayama, Executive Director of the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC)1:35 - 1:45 A brief survey of international requirements for EIAs (eg CBD, London Protocol, bottomfishing, mining, etc.) and best practices for EIAs by Prof. Robin Warner, University of Wollongong,Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security (ANCORS)1:45 - 1:55 Experience and lessons learned on EIA in the Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ)by Prof. Sandor Mulsow, International Seabed Authority (ISA)1:55 - 2:05 Capacity building/technology transfer needs in terms of EIAs in developing countries byMs. Alison Swaddling, former Environment Advisor, Geo-Survey & Geo-Resources Unit, The PacificCommunity (SPC)2:05 - 2:30 Panel discussion on how an agreement can facilitate meaningful capacity-building andtechnology transfer to achieve the conservation and sustainable use of the ocean/marine biodiversityvia EIAs?Facilitator: Kristina GjerdePanelists: Yoshihisa Shirayama, Robin Warner, Sandor Mulsow, Alison Swaddling, Thembile Joyini(South Africa Mission to the UN)The panel will address the following questions:• What are the special needs of, and challenges for, developing countries in conductingEIAs as well as Transboundary EIAs (TEIAs) and strategic environmental assessments(SEAs) in ABNJ?• What are the best practices for EIAs as well as TEIAs and SEAs in ABNJ?• How can an agreement complement existing bilateral capacity building and technologytransfer agreements/ arrangements in terms of EIAs in ABNJ?• What are the best options for a global and/or regional clearing-house mechanism thatcan be implemented to facilitate capacity building in terms of EIAs in ABNJ?2:30 - 2:40 Q&A2:40 - 2:45 Wrap up by Hiroko Muraki Gottlieb (IUCN)Needs of new technology forsustainable use of resourcesin the ABNJYoshihisa ShirayamaJapan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology(JAMSTEC)2 1/28/17Issues need to be taken into account• Feasibility of assessment:• Not too difficult• Accurate enough• Not too expensive• Short enough for investment• Innovation of new technologies:• Applying bioinformatics• Low cost sampling• Artificial IntelligenceZoning is the key• Zoning: Define managing areas and protect them fromimpacts of development.• Managing areas need to be well designed to protectbiodiversity in the areas.• Marine life is resilient even in the deep sea. Thus alsopossible to expect recolonization in the developed area.• Assessments of Environmental Impact ensure resilience.• Accuracy of assessment is essential.Key situation for sustainable developmentin BBNJ discussion• Pelagic biodiversity is under management (FAO etc.)• Biodiversity of benthic organisms are the most vulnerable• Assessment procedure is under development by ISA inrelation to deep-sea mining• From SDG14 point of view, both conservation of benthicbiodiversity as well as development of deep-sea mineralresource are necessary to be realized.Biological Resources• Biodiversity of benthic animals• High species diversity• Maybe vulnerable• Potentially Unique in ABNJ but• Maybe same species exist within EEZ• Under good consideration by ISA• Benthic microbes• Potentially good genetic resource• Maybe vulnerable• Potentially Unique in ABNJ but• Maybe same species exist within EEZ3 1/28/17Please considerHOW ALL STAKEHOLDERS WILL WINThank you1 1/28/17International and Regional InstrumentsRelevant to EIA and SEA• LOSC- Articles 204-206• CBD Article 14• UN Fish Stocks Agreement• Environmental Protocol to Antarctic Treaty• Espoo Convention and Kiev Protocol• CBD Voluntary Guidelines on Biodiversity InclusiveEIA in Marine and Coastal Areas• EU Directives on EIA and SEAEIA and SEA DefinitionsEIA - Systematic examination of likely impacts of developmentproposals on the environment prior to the beginning of any activity(EU Council Directive 85/337 EEC)SEA - Proactive and comprehensive process which identifies andevaluates the significant environmental and sustainabilityimplications of particular plans, programmes and policies to ensurethat they are fully considered and addressed at the earliest stagesof decision making (Noble, 205, Verheem and Tonk, 177).Presentation Outline• International Law framework for EIA and SEA• Existing EIA practices in ABNJ• SEA/EIA distinctions and relationship• Aspects of SEA practiceEnvisioning EIA and SEA in ABNJ - International LawFrameworks and Existing PracticesProfessor Robin WarnerAustralian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security2 1/28/17Environmental Protocol to theAntarctic Treaty• The test applied for screening activities for EIA underthe Madrid Protocol to the Antarctic Treaty has threelevels - the preliminary assessment level, the initialenvironmental evaluation level and thecomprehensive environmental evaluation level.• All activities, both governmental and non-governmental, in the Antarctic treaty area (south of60 degrees south latitude) are subject to theseprovisions, except for fishing, sealing, whaling andemergency operations, as these are covered by otherinternational instruments.UN Fish Stocks Agreement• The UN Fish Stocks Agreement requires States to:• assess the impacts of fishing, other human activities andenvironmental factors on target stocks and species belonging tothe same ecosystem or associated with or dependent upon thetarget stocks;• develop data collection and research programmes to assess theimpact of fishing on non-target and associated or dependentspecies and their environment, and;• adopt plans which are necessary to ensure the conservation ofsuch species and to protect habitats of special concern• 2009 Deep Sea Fisheries Guidelines, call for States to conductassessments of individual bottom fishing activities, and to adoptmeasures to prevent significant adverse impacts on vulnerable marineecosystems (VMEs).Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD) Provisions on EIA• The CBD links Contracting Parties obligations to conduct EIAs moredirectly to the conservation of biodiversity• Contracting Parties must introduce appropriate procedures requiringEIA of proposed projects that are likely to have significant adverseeffects on biological diversity with a view to avoiding or minimizingsuch effects (Article 14 (1) (a)).• Having identified processes and categories of activities which haveor are likely to have significant adverse impacts on the conservationand sustainable use of biological diversity, Contracting Parties mustthen monitor their effects through sampling and other techniques(Article 7(c))LOSC Provisions on EIA• The LOSC provides in Article 206 that where Stateshave reasonable grounds for believing that plannedactivities under their jurisdiction or control may causesubstantial pollution of or significant and harmfulchanges to the marine environment, they shall..assess the potential effects of such activities on themarine environment.• Articles 206 and 205 provide that States shouldpublish reports of the results obtained .... to thecompetent international organizations, which shouldthen make them available to all States.3 1/28/17Typical Components of EIAs• Screening/threshold requirements forconducting an EIA• Scoping and Content of EIA Report.• Notification and Public Participation in EIAProcesses• Post Assessment Obligations/ Final Decisions• During and Post Activity Monitoring ofEnvironmental Impacts and Compliance withMitigation MeasuresKiev Protocol• "Strategic environmental assessment" means the evaluation ofthe likely environmental.... effects, which comprises thedetermination of the scope of an environmental report and itspreparation, the carrying out of public participation andconsultations, and the taking into account of the environmentalreport and the results of the public participation andconsultations in a plan or programme.• Each Party shall ensure that a SEA is carried out for plans andprogrammes referred to in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 which arelikely to have significant environmental, including health,effects.• Also provisions for SEA of policiesEspoo Convention• The Espoo Convention employs a combination ofmechanisms to determine whether a proposedactivity is likely to have a significant adversetransboundary impact and should therefore besubject to an EIA.• Parties are required to establish an EIA procedure foractivities listed in Appendix I that are likely to causesignificant adverse transboundary impact.• They are also required to enter into discussions, atthe initiative of any Party, on whether activities notlisted in Appendix I are likely to cause adversetransboundary impacts and, where they agree, tosubject those activities to the prescribed EIAprocess.Environmental Protocol to theAntarctic Treaty• A preliminary assessment is carried out at the national level forall activities subject to the Protocol with less than a minor ortransitory impact.• If an activity has no more than a minor or transitory impact, aninitial environmental evaluation must be carried out at thenational level.• If it has more than a minor or transitory impact, acomprehensive environmental evaluation must be carried out.4 1/28/17Deep Sea Bottom FishingImplementation of UNGA resolutions and DeepSea Fisheries Guideline by RFMOs is ongoingbut far from comprehensiveMarine Geo-Engineering• London Convention and Protocol Scientific Groups havedeveloped a risk assessment framework (with EIA embedded)for ocean fertilisation experiments or other marine geo-engineering activities when listed. Permits required• Became binding on States Parties to the Convention andProtocol in 2013Deep Seabed Mining• ISA Exploration Regulations - EIA provisions• In July 2016, the Legal and Technical Commissionissued a first working draft of exploitationregulations to Members of the Authority and allstakeholders for comment by 2 November 2016Existing EIA Processes in ABNJ• The obligation to employ EIA to assist in preventingand reducing the adverse impacts of human activitieson marine biodiversity is recognized in global andregional instruments as well as national legislation .• EIA processes are already being applied someactivities beyond national jurisdiction such asexploration for deep seabed minerals, marine geo-engineering activities and some deep sea fishing.5 1/28/17SEA Practice• Different tools can be employed at different stages aspart of an SEA according to the context of the policy,plan or programme being assessed• These include tools to predict environmental andsocio-economic effects, tools to ensure fullparticipation of stakeholders and tools for analysingand comparing options.SEA Practice• The elements in an SEA process tend to be lessprescribed and more iterative than in EIA processes• An SEA process includes an array of "analytical andparticipatory approaches" designed to "integrateenvironmental considerations into policies, plans andprogrammes and evaluate the interlinkages witheconomic and social considerations.SEA/EIA Relationship• Ideally, SEA and EIA should be vertically integratedor tiered with environmental considerations beingtaken into account at the policy, plan and programmelevel and then flowing down to the project level(Craik, 156; Marsden, 208)• EIAs are often described as being nested within aparticular SEA.SEA/EIA Differences• SEA proactively examines a wide range of alternatives forpolicies, plans and programmes and selects the preferred courseof action with a broader environmental and planning vision inmind• EIA is more confined and concrete in focus determining thelikely environmental impacts of a particular project ordevelopment• While EIA is often location specific and limited in time, SEAprocesses broaden the spatial and temporal range ofenvironmental assessment often being applied to whole sectorsof activity or geographic areas as an institutionalised part ofdecision making on a long term basis.6 1/28/17SEA PracticeTools for analysing and comparing options• Scenario analysis and multi-criteria analysis• Risk analysis or assessment• Cost benefit analysis• Opinion surveys to identify prioritiesSEA PracticeTools for ensuring full stakeholder engagement• Stakeholder analysis to identify those affectedand involved in the policy, plan or programmedecision• Consultation surveys• Consensus building processesSEA PracticeTools for predicting environmental and socio-economiceffects• Modelling or forecasting of direct environmentaleffects• Matrices and network analysis• Participatory or consultative techniques• Geographical information systems as a tool toanalyse, organise and present information1Table 1. Licenses Applied to/Granted to for PMN by the International Seabed Authority in the "AREA"1ContractorInteroceanmetal Joint OrganizationContract signed29 March 2001General geographicallocationCCFZ(North) Pacific Ocean2Yuzhmorgeologiya 29 March 2001Sponsoring StateBulgaria, Cuba, Czech Republic,Poland, Russian Federation andSlovakiaRussian FederationArea (km 2 )75,00034Government of the Republic of KoreaChina Ocean Mineral Resources Researchand Development Association (COMRA)27 April 200122 May 2001KoreaChinaCCFZ(North) Pacific OceanCCFZ(North) Pacific OceanCCFZ(North) Pacific OceanCCFZ(North) Pacific OceanCCFZ(North) Pacific Ocean75,00075,00075,00056Deep Ocean Resources Development Co. Ltd. 20 June 2001(DORD)Institut français de recherche pour l'exploitation 20 June 2001de la mer (INFRAMER)Japan 75,000France 75,000Reserved AreaReserved AreaReserved AreaReserved Area16 Cook Islands Investment Corporation 15 July 2016 Cook Islands CCFZ(North) Pacific Ocean -75,00041/28/177 Government of India 25 March 2002 India Indian Ocean 75,0008 Federal Institute for Geosciences and NaturalResources of Germany19 July 2006 Germany CCFZ(North) Pacific Ocean75,0009 Nauru Ocean Resources Inc. (NORI) 22 July 2011 Nauru CCFZ(North) Pacific Ocean -75,00010 Tonga Offshore Mining Limited 11 January 2012 Tonga CCFZ(North) Pacific Ocean -75,00011 G TEC Sea Mineral Resources NV 14 January 2013 Belgium CCFZ(North) Pacific Ocean76,72812 UK Seabed Resources Ltd (I) 8 February 2013 United Kingdom of Great Britainand Northern IrelandCCFZ(North) Pacific Ocean58,62013 Marawa Research and Exploration Ltd. 19 Janaury 2015 Kiribati CCFZ(North) Pacific Ocean -75,00014 Ocean Mineral Singapore Pte Ltd (OMS) 21 January 2015 Singapore CCFZ(North) Pacific Ocean -58,20015 UK Seabed Resources Ltd (II) 29 March 2016 United Kingdom of Great Britainand Northern IrelandCCFZ(North) Pacific Ocean74,91917China Minmetals Corporationapproved, to beGovernment of the People'sReserved AreaCCFZ (Central) Pacific72,740signed Republic of China Ocean - Reserved AreaEnvironmental Impact Assessment: A process"a process of evaluating the likely environmental impacts of a proposed project or development taking intoaccount inter-related socio-economic, cultural and human health impacts, both beneficial and adverse"PMSPMNThese impacts includethe inadvertentintroduction of invasivespecies, noise and airpollution generated byships, fluid leaks anddischarges fromvessels and equipment,and vibrations.CRFC(Clark and Smith, 2013a;3Lately new research and peer review publications on EIA in deep seamining...most of them with little scientific environmental basis..2Environmental Impact Assessment in the Area:experiences and challengesSandor Mulsow and Kioshi MishiroInternational Seabed AuthorityKingston-JamaicaInternationalSeabedAuthority121/28/17The Endowment FundThe Endowment Fund for Marine Scientific Research in the Area aims to promote and encourage theconduct of marine scientific research in the Area for the benefit of humankind as a whole, inparticular by supporting the participation of qualified scientists and technical personnel fromdeveloping countries in marine scientific research programmes and offering them opportunities toparticipate in training, technical assistance and scientific cooperation programmes.Capacity BuildingThe ISA/Contractors Training programmeContractors with the Authority have a legal obligation to provide and fund training opportunities fortrainees from developing States and the personnel of the Authority. The legal basis for the requirementstems from the provisions of the Convention and the 1994 Agreement and is set out in the standardterms of contracts. The purpose of the obligation is to ensure that personnel from developing Statesare provided with appropriate operational expertise to enable them to participate in deep seabedmining. The training programme is generally formulated following negotiations between the Authorityand the contractor, in accordance with the recommendations for guidance issued by the Legal andTechnical Commission, and included as schedule 3 of the contract for exploration.The ISA internship programmeThis programme is twofold: (a) to provide a framework through which students and young governmentofficials from diverse academic backgrounds gain exposure to the work and functions of the ISA toenhance their educational experience and/or gain experience in the work of the ISA; and (b) to enableISA to benefit from the assistance of qualified students and young government officials specialized invarious skills within the scope of activities of the ISA.8Environmental sampling stations at the CCZ: Data from contractors (2001-2016)Prepared by ISA, August 28, 2016Different color points means different years. Light blue boxes = APEIs; green boxes =reserved areas and pink color boxes = contractor's areas7"seabed activities other than mining, (e.g. cable and pipelines, seabed installations,marine scientific research, bio- prospecting, sea-based tourism). Gjerde K.M. et al.(2008)Environmental Impact Assessment: ISARecommendations for the guidance of contractors for the assessment of the possibleenvironmental impacts arising from exploration for marine minerals in the Area. ISBA/19/LTC/8e.i. For PMN, any technique that leaves a fingerprint that exceeds 10,000 m 2 .Activities requiring environmental impact assessment have not been received /evaluate - LTC, yet. *NORI inception Document July 2016Environmental baseline information, only way to understandfunctioning of environment that would be intervene.6Table 2. Licenses Applied to/Granted for PMS to by the International Seabed Authority in the "AREA"Table 3. Licenses Applied to/Granted for CC to by the International Seabed Authority in the "AREA"Sul State (Brazil)5Contractor Contract signed SponsoringStateGeneral geographical location Area (km 2 )1China Ocean Mineral Resources Research andDevelopment Association (COMRA)18 November 2011 China Southwest Indian Ridge, IndianOcean10,0002Government of the Russian Federation 29 October 2012 RussianFederationMid-Atlantic Ridge, AtlanticOcean10,0003Government of the Republic of Korea 24 June 2014 Korea Central Indian Ridge, IndianOcean10,0004Institut français de recherche pour l'exploitation dela mer (INFREMER)18 November 2014 France Mid-Atlantic Ridge, AtlanticOcean10,0006Federal Institute for Geosciences and NaturalResources of Germany6 May 2015 Germany Central Indian Ocean 217,5005Government of India approved, to be signed India Central Indian OceanContractor Contract signed SponsoringStateGeneral geographical location Area (km 2 )1 Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corporation(JOGMEC)27 January 2014 Japan Western Pacific Ocean 3,0002 China Ocean Mineral Resources Research andDevelopment Association (COMRA)29 April 2014 China Western Pacific Ocean 3,0003 Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment ofthe Russian Federation10 March 2015 RussianFederationWestern Pacific Ocean6,0004 Companhia de Pesquisa de Recursos MineraisS.A.9 November 2015 Brazil Rio Grande Rise (about 1,100 kmfrom the coast of the Rio Grande do3,00031/28/17MSR:Cruise 2016Dive 6Dive 12Telepresence Seafloor Mapping in the Pacific Remote Islands MarineNational Monument12MSR:Cruise 2016Cobalt-rich Ferromanganese Crust Exploration Areas in the Pacific Ocean150 0.0'E 155 0.0'E 160 0.0'E 165 0.0'E20 0.0'N 20 0.0'N15 0.0'N 15 0.0'NBackground map: QGISJapan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corporation [JOGMEC] (150 blocks)Government of the Russian Federation (150 blocks)China Ocean Mineral resources Research and Development Association [COMRA] (150 blocks)Republic of Korea Application sites: covers a total of 3,000 square kilometers. The areaconsistsof 150 blocks, each with an area of 20 square kilometers in sizeNOTE: Blocks must not exceed 20 km 2 and must be located within an area measuring not more than 550 km x 550 km.1 The Russian Federation contributed a reserved are under the so-called parallel system, which provides that the application for exploration must cover 2 parts of "equal estimate value". One partallocated to the applicant and the other is to become the reserved area, which is set aside for the conduct of activities by the Authority or developing State.Exclusive Economic Zone (VLIZ, 2013)1 Reserved areaNOAA-Okeanos Explorer 2016© International Seabed Authority, August 25, 2016MSR:ProjectMSR:Cruisehttp://www.snis.ch/project_monitoring-marine-biodiversity-genomic-eraDeepwater Wonders of Wake: Exploring thePacific Remote Islands Marine NationalMonument(July - August 2016)From July 27 through August 19, 2016, NOAA and partners (Japan,China) will conduct a telepresence-enabled ocean exploration cruiseon NOAA Ship Okeanos Explorer to collect critical baselineinformation in and around the Wake Island Unit of the PacificRemote Islands Marine National Monument.Jasper Konter, Geology LeadChristopher Kelley, Biology Lead BrianKennedy, Expedition CoordinatorS. Mulsow, ISA- International Coordination10The ISA/Contractors Training programme2016ACTIVE TRAINING OPPORTUNITIESGSR two-year Masters Programme (one trainee)COMRA At-sea Training (6 trainees) JOGMECAt-Sea Training (5 trainees)Ifremer Internships (5 internships)17 trainees12 traineesCOMPLETED TRAINING OPPORTUNITIESNORI Workshop training opportunities (2015, 2 trainees)COMRA Engineering Training (2015, 2 trainees)JOGMEC At-Sea Training (2015, 3 trainees) RussianFederation At-Sea Training (2015, 2 trainees) COMRAAt-Sea Training (2014)TOML At-Sea Training (2013)11 traineesCapacity BuildingTRAINING OPPORTUNITIES UNDER IMPLEMENTATIONUKSRL PhD Programme (2 trainees)BGR At-Sea Training (6 trainees)COMRA Fellowship Training (2 trainees)TOML At-Sea Training (2 trainees)94151/28/17Thanks16Funding All EIA-related processes costsMan power capabilitiesTransdisciplinary ExpertiseIntegrated and structured environmentalbaseline informationGlobal, regional, public database: Data Management Plan of ISAKey areas for capacity-building identified:How to implement these areas?Full use of ISA current structure and programs for capacity buildingRegional and International Cooperation ProgramsNew schemes for International Technical CooperationMSR:Cruise 201614DIVE 10:MSR:Cruise 2016131 28/01/2017EIA ProcessBradley and Swaddling 2016Environment Impact Assessment1) Samples collected during EIAs for unrelatedactivities2) EIA requirements for bioprospectingNFS Ridge 2000 ProgrammeDeep SeaMineralsExplorationandExploitationMarineGeneticResourcesBioprospectingChuck FisherENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTCAPACITY CHALLENGES INDEVELOPING COUNTRIESAlison SwaddlingDeep Sea Minerals Environment Advisor1 September 2016, New York, USA2 28/01/2017Thank you.GEOMARBradley, M. and Swaddling, A. (2016). Addressing environmental impact assessment challenges in Pacific island countries foreffective management of deep sea minerals activities. Marine Policy. In press.Pacific Community. (2016). Pacific ACP-States Regional Environmental Management Framework for Deep Sea Minerals Explorationand Exploitation. Pacific Community, Fiji.Addressing Capacity Challenges• expertise from regional organisations andexternal consultants will be needed initially• development of a Regional EnvironmentalManagement Framework• training and mentoring government officers• training graduates• build internal knowledge and expertisethrough exposureEIA Challenges• human resource shortfalls• insufficient quality controlexercised over EIA reports• weak ability to monitorcompliance and enforcement• low levels of publicengagement and participationin EIAGEOMAR11/28/17Scope• Conservation of biodiversity in achanging ocean• Implementing SDGs• Implementation, compliance,participation, benefit sharing• Forms• Legal (e.g. EIA)• Policy (e.g. open data, benefitsharing)• Scientific• Technical• Create enabling internationalenvironment for capacity developmentPhoto: Warren KeelanNeeds of new technology for sustainable use of resources in the ABNJ• Yoshihisa Shirayama, Executive Director of the Japan Agency forMarine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC)A brief survey of international requirements for EIAs and best practicesfor EIAs• Robin Warner, University of Wollongong, Australian National Centrefor Ocean Resources and Security (ANCORS)Experience and lessons learned on EIA in ABNJ• Sandor Mulsow, Head of the Office of Resources and EnvironmentMonitoring, International Seabed Authority (ISA)Capacity building/technology transfer needs in terms of EIAs indeveloping countries• Alison Swaddling, Environment Advisor, Geo-Survey & Geo-Resources Unit, The Pacific Community (SPC)Panel discussion: how an agreement can facilitate meaningful capacity-building and technology transfer to achieve the conservation andsustainable use of the marine biodiversity in ABNJ via EIAs?Strengthening capacity building andtechnology transfer to empowerdeveloping states:case study on environmental impactassessmentsSide Event, United Nations, New York1 September 2016IUCN PrepCom2 Agenda Item 6 8/31/2016 PMCapacity building and transfer of marine technologyGuiding principlesIUCN's statement on guiding principles on capacity building andtransfer of marine technologyIUCN appreciates and supports the previous interventions made by various delegations on the need formeaningful capacity building and technology transfer which is long term and meets the needs and goals ofthe recipient country for the conservation and sustainable use of marine areas beyond nationaljurisdiction.With respect to the applicable principles, IUCN would like to suggest that capacity building andtechnology transfer are both important aspects of the principle of common concern of humankind, whichfocuses on the cooperation and collaboration in pursuit of the common interests of all in the conservationand sustainable use of marine biodiversity in ABNJ. This principle is also consistent with numeroussections in UNCLOS, for example, for capacity building, Articles 239, 242 and 244, on technologytransfer, Article 266. UNCLOS Articles 202 and 203 also support scientific and technical assistance todeveloping States.There is great value in improving and expanding capacity building and technology transfer globally asthose efforts can be leveraged to achieve conservation objectives of an implementing agreement throughan effective participation of all States. As Sri Lanka has suggested, a fund could be established so thatthere is sustained and effective implementation of the capacity building/technology transfer mechanisms.With respect to marine scientific research, an implementing agreement could establish a mechanism forenhancing:• access to samples, data and knowledge, including the publication and sharing of scientificknowledge;• collaboration and international cooperation in scientific research;• scientific and training and access to resources, research infrastructure and technology; and• other socio-economic benefits (e.g. research directed to priority needs such as health andsecurity).There are already numerous bilateral and multilateral capacity building and technology transfer initiativeswith respect to MSR that have been conducted or are underway. An implementing agreement couldinclude a provision to support coordination and collaboration of these various initiatives and associatedstakeholders. IOC can be given additional support to play an important role in providing a structure forfostering that coordination and collaboration and taking it a step further. The IOC could be charged withutilizing Ocean Biogeographic Information System (OBIS) to develop an international meta-database orclearing house mechanism to facilitate an effective mechanism for accessing information relevant for theconservation a sustainable use of marine biodiversity in ABNJ.Further, capacity building could include a mechanism to assist developing states in drafting legislationand associated regulatory, scientific and technical requirements on a national or regional level to enablethem to effectively implement various components of an implementing agreement. This could include, aspointed out by the Federated State of Micronesia, how to effectively conduct an environmental impactassessment or participate in a strategic environmental assessment.In this regard, IUCN is very pleased to co-host a side event with Sasakawa Peace Foundation tomorrowduring lunch in CR7 entitled, "strengthening capacity building and technology transfer to empowerdeveloping states: a case study on environmental impact assessments." Lunch will be served in theVienna Cafe starting from 1 p.m. We look forward to exchanging further ideas with you.1 Preparatory Committee established by General Assembly resolution 69/292: Developmentof an international legally binding instrument under theUnited Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the conservation and sustainable useof marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdictionChair's overview of the second session of the Preparatory Committee1. In its resolution 69/292 of 19 June 2015, the General Assembly decided to develop aninternational legally binding instrument under the United Nations Convention on the Lawof the Sea (UNCLOS) on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversityof areas beyond national jurisdiction. To that end, it decided to establish, prior to holdingan intergovernmental conference, a Preparatory Committee, open to all States Members ofthe United Nations, members of the specialized agencies and parties to the Convention,with others invited as observers in accordance with past practice of the United Nations, tomake substantive recommendations to the General Assembly on the elements of a drafttext of an international legally binding instrument under UNCLOS, taking into account thevarious reports of the Co-Chairs on the work of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Informal WorkingGroup to study issues relating to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biologicaldiversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction. The Assembly also decided that thePreparatory Committee would start its work in 2016 and, by the end of 2017, report to theAssembly on its progress.2. Before the end of its seventy-second session, and taking into account theaforementioned report of the Preparatory Committee, the General Assembly will decide onthe convening and on the starting date of an intergovernmental conference, under theauspices of the United Nations, to consider the recommendations of the PreparatoryCommittee on the elements and to elaborate the text of an international legally bindinginstrument under UNCLOS.3. The General Assembly also decided that negotiations shall address the topicsidentified in the package agreed in 2011, namely the conservation and sustainable use ofmarine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction, in particular, together andas a whole, marine genetic resources, including questions on the sharing of benefits,measures such as area-based management tools, including marine protected areas,environmental impact assessments and capacity-building and the transfer of marinetechnology.4. By letter dated 4 September 2015, His Excellency Mr. Sam Kahamba Kutesa,President of the sixty-ninth session of the General Assembly of the United Nations,appointed, in accordance with paragraph 1(d) of resolution 69/292, His Excellency Mr.Eden Charles, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Deputy PermanentRepresentative / Chargé d'Affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of Trinidad and Tobago tothe United Nations, as Chair of the Preparatory Committee.2 5. Pursuant to paragraph 1(c) of resolution 69/292, and taking into account officialholidays at the United Nations, the second session of the Preparatory Committee wasconvened by the Secretary-General from 26 August to 9 September 2016. Representativesfrom 115 Member States of the United Nations, three non-Member States, sixUnited Nations funds and programmes, bodies and offices, 17 intergovernmentalorganizations, and 23 non-governmental organizations attended the session.6. In accordance with paragraph 1(e) of resolution 69/292, and given thatMr. Nonomura Kaitaro (Japan) and Mr. Giles Norman (Canada) were no longer in a positionto serve as Bureau members, the Preparatory Committee elected Mr. Jun Hasabe (Japan)and Ms. Catherine Boucher (Canada) as members of the Bureau. In light of informationreceived from Japan according to which, in accordance with the agreement reached in theAsia-Pacific Group, Mr. Jun Hasebe would be resigning from his position as a member of theBureau on 27 October 2016, the Preparatory Committee further elected Ms. Margo Deiye(Republic of Nauru) to serve as member of the Bureau from 28 October 2016 onwards.7. On 26 August, following opening statements by the Chair and theAssistant Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, the Preparatory Committee adopted theagenda (A/AC.287/2016/PC.2/1) without amendment and agreed to proceed on the basis ofthe proposed programme of work (A/AC.287/2016/PC.2/L.2).8. During its plenary sessions, the Committee heard general statements andconsidered: marine genetic resources, including questions on the sharing of benefits;measures such as area-based management tools, including marine protected areas;environmental impact assessments; capacity-building and the transfer of marinetechnology; and cross-cutting issues. Informal working group sessions were also convenedand facilitated as follows: His Excellency Mr. Eden Charles (Trinidad and Tobago) 1 for theInformal working group on marine genetic resources, including questions on the sharing ofbenefits; Mr. John Adank (New Zealand) for the Informal working group on measures suchas area-based management tools, including marine protected areas; Mr. René Lefeber(the Netherlands) for the Informal working group on environmental impact assessments;Ms. Rena Lee (Singapore) for the Informal working group on capacity-building and thetransfer of marine technology; and His Excellency Mr. Eden Charles (Trinidad and Tobago)for the Informal working group on cross-cutting issues.9. On 8 and 9 September, the Preparatory Committee considered, in plenary, the issuesaddressed by it to date, including on the basis of the oral reports from the Facilitators of theInformal working groups and informal documents containing the Chair's understandings ofpossible areas of convergence of views and possible issues for further discussion (annex I).Owing to time constraints, no plenary discussions could be held on the Chair'sunderstandings of possible areas of convergence of views and possible issues for furtherdiscussion regarding cross-cutting issues, which were presented orally. The Committee alsoconsidered the Chair's proposed road map up to and for the next session of the Committee.1 The Chair facilitated the Informal working group in light of the unavailability of His ExcellencyMr. Carlos Sobral Duarte (Brazil).3 Road map10. In accordance with the road map proposed by the Chair and approved by thePreparatory Committee on 9 September 2016, the Chair prepared the present overview ofthe second session of the Preparatory Committee, which includes the Chair'sunderstandings of possible areas of convergence of views and possible issues for furtherdiscussion revised, where applicable, on the basis of discussions held in plenary on8 and 9 September (see para.9), and the Chair's general observations (annex II).11. In advance of the third session of the Preparatory Committee, the Chair will prepareand circulate a rolling compilation of proposals for elements of a draft text of aninternational legally-binding instrument received from delegations by 5 December 2016. 2The Chair will also prepare and circulate a non-paper which will provide a structuredpresentation of issues and ideas reflected in the rolling compilation as well as of possibleareas of convergence from the Chair's understandings and those issues and ideas whichwere extensively discussed during the second session of the Preparatory Committee. Thenon-paper will be under the Chair's full responsibility and is not meant to precludedelegations from raising issues that may not be addressed in it.12. At the third session of the Preparatory Committee, to be held in 2017, 3 the Chairintends to devote more time to the issues which have emerged at the second session asrequiring further discussions, bearing in mind that in accordance with resolution 69/292,negotiations shall address the topics identified in the package agreed in 2011 together andas a whole.13. Given the need for additional scientific and technical information on some issues,delegations are encouraged to continue organizing side events and workshops featuringexpert presentations both prior to the third session of the Preparatory Committee and onthe margins of the sessions of the Preparatory Committee.14. A preparatory meeting will be convened before the third session of the PreparatoryCommittee.2 Proposals must be sent to doalos@un.org.3 Dates to be decided by the General Assembly in its annual resolution on oceans and the law of the seascheduled for adoption in December 2016.4 Annex IChair's understandings of possible areas of convergence of views and possible issues forfurther discussion emanating from the discussions in the Informal working groupsAppendix 1Chair's understanding of possible areas of convergence of views and possible issues forfurther discussion emanating from the discussions in the Informal working group onmarine genetic resources, including questions on the sharing of benefitsAs revised following plenary discussions on 8 September 2016Possible areas of convergence of views• Usefulness of agreeing on working definitions of marine genetic resources and other keyconcepts at the preliminary stage• Usefulness of drawing on definitions contained in existing instruments• Guiding principles and approaches constitute a cross-cutting issue• Benefit-sharing for non-monetary benefits• The rights of coastal States over their continental shelf should be respected• Benefit-sharing should/should also/could contribute to conservation and sustainable useof marine biodiversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction• Benefit-sharing should be beneficial to current and future generations, build capacity toaccess marine genetic resources of areas beyond national jurisdiction, and not bedetrimental to research and developmentPossible issues requiring further discussions• Whether to take into account the distinction between fish used for its genetic propertiesand fish used as a commodity when developing a definition• Whether the common heritage of mankind and the freedom of the high seas aremutually exclusive or could apply concurrently in an international instrument• Whether access to resources ex situ/resources in silico/genetic sequence data should beincluded in an access and benefit-sharing regime• Whether to include derivatives or not in the scope• Whether to regulate access to marine genetic resources of areas beyond nationaljurisdiction or not• Whether to include monetary benefits or not• Whether to include marine genetic resources of the water column beyond areas ofnational jurisdiction in a benefit-sharing regime• Whether to have a benefit-sharing mechanism• Whether to address intellectual property rights in an international instrument• Role of traditional knowledge in the conservation and sustainable use of marinebiodiversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction5 Appendix 2Chair's understanding of possible areas of convergence of views and possible issues forfurther discussion emanating from the discussions in the Informal working group onmeasures such as area-based management tools, including marine protected areasAs revised following plenary discussions on 8 and 9 September 2016Possible areas of convergence of views• A number of principles and approaches to be taken in the establishment of ABMTs,including MPAs, such as:o Transparencyo ecosystem approacho science-based approach• States have the obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment• ABMTs, including MPAs, should collectively contribute to the objective of conservationand sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdictionPossible issues requiring further discussion• Whether ABMTs, including MPAs, should contribute to rehabilitation and restoration ofocean ecosystems and health• Usefulness of defining ABMTs and MPAs• Whether definitions of/use of terms related to ABMTs, including MPAs, should be basedon existing definitions, adapted to the context of marine biodiversity of areas beyondnational jurisdiction• The possible need to include a definition of marine reserves• Further discussion on what combination of elements, including vertical, horizontal, top-down, and bottom-up approaches would be most effective in delivering on theobjectives of the mandate.• Clarification of what participants understand those different approaches to entail• A new mechanism/process/global framework/instrument would provide for aconsultative, integrated approach to ABMTs, including MPAs• A new mechanism/process/global framework/instrument would provide for atransparent and inclusive approach to ABMTs, including MPAs• The need/ways and means to foster better and enhanced cooperation and coordination• The "architecture" of and need for any institutional mechanisms which would need tobe established, including the role of a possible conference of parties or othercoordinating mechanism• Procedural and decision-making processes• An avenue, such as a scientific committee/process, for seeking the necessary scientificinput to any policy-making body/to provide the necessary scientific input for policy-making under the new instrument• States, individually or through relevant organizations/collectively, would make proposalsin relation to ABMTs• Identification and role of stakeholders6 • The decision to designate an MPA, especially in areas which adjoin areas under nationaljurisdiction, should be taken with the consent of neighbouring coastal States andmanagement of the MPA should be entrusted to the coastal States• The decision to designate an MPA should be taken after a consultation process whichseeks to take into consideration the views and concerns of all stakeholders, includingany neighbouring coastal States as well as humankind as a whole• Follow-up and monitoring mechanism• Principles and approaches needing further discussion include, but are not limited to:o Balance between conservation and sustainable useo Precautionary approach/principleo Cultural value/traditional knowledgeo Adjacencyo Special case of SIDSo Integrated approach, the multi-sectoral approach as well as adaptivemanagemento Inclusivenesso Participatory approacho Accountabilityo Cooperation, as provided for in article 197 of UNCLOSo Liability and the polluter-pays principleo Principles referred to in the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (e.g. article 5)o States as stewards of the marine environmento Flexibilityo Equitable use in the context of intra- and inter-generational equityo Cost-effectiveness• Ways and means to implement the obligation to protect and preserve the marineenvironment• The rights of coastal States with respect to their continental shelf should berespected/taken into account7 Appendix 3Chair's understanding of possible areas of convergence of views and possible issues forfurther discussion emanating from the discussions in the Informal working group onenvironmental impact assessmentsAs revised following plenary discussions on 9 September 2016Possible areas of convergence of views• EIAs should contribute to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biologicaldiversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction• Existing relevant legal instruments and frameworks, in particular UNCLOS, as well asrelevant global, regional and sectoral bodies should not be undermined, as stipulated inresolution 69/292• The need for transparency in the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process,including through involvement of States and relevant stakeholders, and thedissemination of assessment reports• The reports of environmental assessments should be made publicly availablePossible issues requiring further discussions• Capacity-building should address the capacity of SIDS, African States and developingcountries, including land-locked countries, to participate in and conduct EIAs• Whether an international instrument should cover activities in areas within nationaljurisdiction that may have an impact in areas beyond national jurisdiction bearing inmind the need to not undermine State sovereignty• An international instrument would address EIAs for activities in areas beyond nationaljurisdiction that may have an impact that reaches an agreed threshold in areas beyondnational jurisdiction• Article 206 of UNCLOS is the point of departure for the discussion on thresholds andresponsibility for EIAs, and guidance is needed in an international instrument for theimplementation of this provision in areas beyond national jurisdiction• Whether transboundary impacts should be included, and if so, as a consideration withinEIAs or as a separate procedure of Transboundary Environmental Impacts Assessments(TEIAs)• The role of coastal States and the United Nations in any TEIAs being conducted foractivities in areas beyond national jurisdiction that may have an impact in areas withintheir national jurisdiction• What thresholds and criteria should be used for identifying activities requiring EIAs• Whether to use a list of activities requiring EIAs, including for new and emergingactivities, or exempt from EIAs, criteria, or a combination of these approaches• Whether a lower threshold should apply for areas identified as significant• The EIA process should follow the following procedural steps: screening; scoping; accessto information including environmental information; public notification and consultationat the global level, including effective participation of stakeholders and consultationwith States/relevant States/relevant States, including adjacent coastal States,8 coordination with existing sectoral and regional organizations; independent scientificreview of reports at the global level; consideration of reports; and publication of reports• Who should be regarded as stakeholders and how should the consultations withstakeholders be conducted• Whether to develop a list of prohibited activities• Whether the costs for conducting the EIA should be borne by the proponent of anactivity• Whether, or not, there should be any oversight, or involvement, at the global or regionallevel in the EIA process? If so, how should this oversight, or involvement, operate? (a)Should it be at the regional or at the global level? (b) At what stage(s) in the EIA processshould it occur?• The stage(s) at which there should be international involvement or oversight, if any , inthe EIA processes (notably who should be responsible for deciding that an EIA is required,conducting EIAs, reviewing assessment reports, deciding on the admissibility of anactivity, monitoring and reviewing activities• Whether an international instrument should include provisions for monitoring andreview, and if so whether they should be mandatory or voluntary• Whether an international instrument should include provisions for compliance andliability• How would EIAs be reviewed, by whom (organization or State) and how the reviewsshould be conducted• The need for a clearing house or central repository for EIAs and strategic environmentalassessments (SEAs).• Whether the function of central repository could be fulfilled by existing bodies or shouldbe assigned to a new body• What is the specific content of assessment reports• Whether to include SEAs in an international instrument• Whether SEAs can be linked to marine spatial planning• Clarification of the concept, scope and procedural aspects of SEAs, including fiscal policy,taking into account existing definitions and approaches• The interests of people who have not attained full independence or other self-governingstatus recognized by the United Nations, or people of a territory under colonialdomination• The territorial integrity and sovereignty of States and their sovereign rights must berespected9 Appendix 4Chair's understanding of possible areas of convergence of views and possible issues forfurther discussion emanating from the discussions in theInformal working group on capacity-building and the transfer of marine technologyAs revised following plenary discussions on 9 September 2016Possible areas of convergence of views• Capacity-building and transfer of technology are cross-cutting and vitally important toenable developing States to conserve and sustainably use marine biological diversity ofareas beyond national jurisdiction• Capacity-building, including institutional capacity-building, and transfer of marinetechnology should be responsive to national and regional needs, priorities and requests,with flexibility to adapt as needs and priorities change• The IOC Criteria and Guidelines on the Transfer of Marine Technology are useful as aguiding tool for further work on the transfer of marine technology in an internationalinstrument• Importance of the involvement of relevant stakeholders in capacity-building and transferof marine technologyPossible issues requiring further discussions• Whether capacity-building and transfer of marine technology should have a broad andgeneral focus or be specific to the issues identified in an international instrument• The special needs/specific circumstances/particular circumstances/specific challenges ofdeveloping countries, including least developed countries, small island developingStates, landlocked developing States, African States, middle-income States andgeographically disadvantaged States and States that are highly/particularly vulnerable toclimate change need to be considered• How would capacity-building and transfer of marine technology needs and priorities bereviewed periodically• If and how to address the issue of intellectual property rights• Whether and how to address innovation with reference to marine science and transferof technology• Definition/meaning/scope of marine technology, and which technology should betransferred and from which category of countries• Consideration of benefits of transferring particular technologies• Terms and conditions for capacity-building and transfer of marine technology• The nature of any funding mechanism and its modalities of operation, including whetherit is global and provided on a voluntary or mandatory basis• If and how a funding mechanism should be established, and its modalities of operation,including whether it is provided on a voluntary or mandatory basis• If and how to link a capacity-building and transfer of marine technology mechanism witha benefit-sharing regime under an international instrument10 • Ways to incentivize capacity-building and transfer of marine technology, including withreference to the private sector• Whether to establish a clearing-house mechanism for capacity-building and transfer ofmarine technology, if any, or use existing ones• What mechanisms are required to follow-up on the results of capacity-building andtransfer of marine technology programmes• How to coordinate capacity and transfer of marine technology activities under aninternational instrument with existing programmes/mechanisms• How to coordinate and harmonize capacity-building efforts and transfer of marinetechnology activities under an international instrument vis-a-vis existingprogrammes/mechanisms across different partnerships/organizations• How to enhance cooperation• The role of partnerships• Traditional knowledge from indigenous peoples and local communities can provide animportant source of capacity-building in connection with the elements of theimplementing agreement. Similarly, capacity-building can enable indigenous peoplesand local communities to engage in activities relevant to the implementing agreement• Monitoring, reporting and evaluation should be consistent with other existinginstruments• The work and lessons learned from existing instruments and mechanisms should be builtupon or improved. Existing mechanisms should not be undermined or duplicated rathershould be strengthened, harmonized and/or simplified11 Appendix 5Chair's understanding of possible areas of convergence of views and possible issues forfurther discussion emanating from the discussions in the Informal working group on cross-cutting issuesAs read out by the Chair in plenary on 9 September 2016Possible areas of convergence of views• New instrument will take the form of an implementing agreement under the UnitedNations Convention on the Law of the Sea• Overall objective of an instrument, consistent with resolution 69/292, would be theconservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity of areas beyond nationaljurisdiction through the effective implementation of the relevant provisions of theUnited Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea• There seemed to be a convergence of views around considering the following as guidingprinciples and approaches for inclusion in an international instrument:o Respect for the balance of rights, obligations and interests enshrined in UNCLOSo Incorporation of, and non-derogation from, the relevant principles enshrined inUNCLOSo Respect for the law of the seao No undermining of existing relevant legal instruments and frameworks andrelevant global, regional and sectoral bodieso Respect for the rights of coastal States over all areas under their nationaljurisdiction, including their continental shelves beyond 200 nautical miles whereapplicableo Respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of coastal Stateso International cooperation and coordinationo Duty to cooperateo Protection and preservation of the marine environmento Duty not to transform one type of pollution into anothero Use of biodiversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction for peaceful purposesonlyo Ecosystem approacho Science-based approacho Use of the best available scientific informationo Public availability of informationo Public participationo Good governanceo Transparencyo Accountabilityo Intra- and inter-generational equityo Capacity-building and technology transfero Due regard for the rights of others• A distinction should be drawn between principles and approaches• Definitions should be consistent with those contained in UNCLOS12 • Universal participation in the instrument should be sought and participation should beopen to all States, regardless of whether they are parties to UNCLOS• The instrument will be under UNCLOS and, as such, must be consistent with it• Guidance can be drawn from existing instruments, in particular the United Nations FishStocks Agreement, when addressing the relationship of the instrument with UNCLOS• The instrument should not undermine existing relevant legal instruments andframeworks and relevant global, regional and sectoral bodies• The institutional arrangements established by an instrument would have to be "fit-to-purpose", cost-effective and efficient• Some of the functions to be covered by institutional arrangements under aninternational instrument include: decision-making, enhancement of cooperation andcoordination, information-sharing, scientific advice, and capacity-building and transfer ofmarine technology• The institutional arrangement at the global level could include:o a decision-making forumo a scientific forumo a clearing-houseo a secretariat• The provisions of UNCLOS relating to the peaceful settlement of disputes reflect a goodstarting point for consideration of dispute resolution under the instrument• The need for/relevance of capacity-building and transfer of marine technologyPossible issues requiring further discussions• Whether the objective of an instrument should also include the following:o addressing threats and imminent dangers to the oceanso revitalization and recovery of damaged marine ecosystemso contribution to poverty alleviationo contribution to the mitigation of the effects of ocean acidification and climatechangeo addressing existing legal and implementation gapso promotion of international cooperation and coordinationo benefit-sharingo development of an integrated approacho attainment of universal participation• The following guiding principles and approaches would require further discussion:o Common heritage of mankindo Freedom of the high seaso Equal rights of States, whether coastal or land-locked, in areas beyond nationaljurisdictiono Fair and equitable use of resourceso Fair and equitable benefit-sharingo Stewardship for present and future generationso Precautionary principle/approacho Adaptive managemento Flexibilityo Involvement of relevant stakeholderso Role of women13 o Incorporation of traditional and local knowledgeo Adjacency and the requirement to consulto No domination by corporate interestso Common concern of humankindo Special interests, circumstances and needs of developing countries, in particularsmall island developing States, least developed countries and land-lockeddeveloping Stateso Common but differentiated responsibilitieso Avoiding placing disproportionate burden on small island developing Stateso Liability of States for damages to or endangerment of the marine environmento Polluter-pays principle• What principles proposed for inclusion are recognized as such under international law• What approaches are sufficiently well established for inclusion in an internationalinstrument• How would each proposed principle and approach apply to the various elements of the2011 package• How and where to reflect applicable guiding principles and approaches within aninstrument• Which terms need to be defined in an international instrument• Where in the instrument should specific definitions be included• Relationship to other instruments and frameworkso How to set out the relationship with other instruments in the instrumento How best to improve the effectiveness of regional and sectoral bodies, whererequiredo Should existing regional and sectoral bodies be accountable to an institutionalarrangement established under the instrumento How would the instrument address the situation where there is no relevantregional or sectoral body• Whether the instrument should regulate activities with an impact on biodiversity ofareas beyond national jurisdiction• Whether to build on existing institutions, develop new institutional arrangements or acombination of both• The relationship of the institutional arrangement with existing regional and sectoralbodies• Whether there would be a role for the International Seabed Authority• What form might a decision-making forum at the global level have• What form might a scientific forum have• The role of existing scientific and technical bodies and processes• Should institutional arrangements include a compliance mechanism• Who would perform the functions of the secretariat• Whether there would be a role for the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea• Whether it is necessary to include provisions on responsibility and liability, and, if so,what such provisions should cover• Whether relevant stakeholders should be required to contribute to a liability fund orpost a security bond to access resources covered under the instrument14 • What, if any, mechanisms for the review of implementation and compliance should bedeveloped• What, if any, additional mechanisms for dispute resolution should be considered forinclusion in addition to those in UNCLOS• Should a possible dispute resolution mechanism be developed:o Who should have standing to access the dispute resolution mechanismo Should the dispute resolution mechanism allow for the issuance of advisoryopinionso Should the dispute resolution mechanism foresee the creation of a specialchamber under the International Tribunal for the Law of the Seao What would be the relationship between a possible dispute resolutionmechanism under the instrument and existing dispute resolutionmechanisms under regional and sectoral instruments• Whether the final clauses contained in the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement couldbe adapted for the new instrument• What should be the requirements for entry into force of the instrument15 Annex IIChair's general observations1. The Chair thanks all delegations for their hard work and constructive engagementduring the intersessional period and at the second session of the Preparatory Committeeestablished by General Assembly resolution 69/292: Development of an international legallybinding instrument under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on theconservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond nationaljurisdiction. In particular, the Chair is encouraged by the willingness of delegations to makewritten submissions to assist the process moving forward, without prejudice to their futurepositions, and ensure that the Preparatory Committee can deliver on its mandate, as set outin resolution 69/292. In accordance with that resolution, the Preparatory Committee ismandated to make substantive recommendations to the General Assembly on the elementsof a draft text of an international legally binding instrument under the United NationsConvention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), taking into account the various reports of theCo-Chairs on the work of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Informal Working Group to study issuesrelating to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity beyond areasof national jurisdiction. The Chair welcomes the submissions which have tried to identifyways to bridge the gap between different views. The Chair notes that these submissionsshould not be seen as constituting possible treaty language but as useful bases for concreteproposals of elements of a draft text.2. The Chair observes that, under the very skilful guidance of the Facilitators, theInformal working groups have continued to serve as a useful mechanism to assistdelegations in unpacking the package of issues to be considered by the PreparatoryCommittee in accordance with resolution 69/292, including by addressing these issues ingreater detail with a view to identifying possible areas of convergence and areas requiringfurther discussions. The Chair welcomes the fact that many delegations were prepared toengage in the discussions with specific ideas of how an international legally bindinginstrument under UNCLOS might address these issues. Delegations continued to be keenlyaware, in particular, of the need to not undermine existing relevant legal instruments andframeworks and relevant global, regional and sectoral bodies. The Informal working groupshave a