Download Areas of the High Seas in Need of Protection - CHARLIE

Agenda Items 6
BDC 01/6/ -E (L)
Original: English
English only
OSPAR CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT OF THE
NORTH-EAST ATLANTIC
MEETING OF THE BIODIVERSITY COMMITTEE (BDC)
SECRETARIAT: 5 - 9 NOVEMBER 2001
Comment on:
"Areas of the High Seas in Need of Protection"
BDC 01/6/2
Presented by WWF
Background
1.
At the Meeting of the OSPAR Biodiversity Committee (BDC) in November 2000, WWF presented a
new set of proposals for potential offshore marine protected areas under OSPAR, including one site in
the high-seas zone of the OSPAR Maritime Area (cf. document BDC 00/8/4). WWF suggested that
actions would be required by OSPAR to address the question of the conservation of species and
habitats beyond the 200 nm zones of Contracting Parties (also see OSPAR 00/20/1).
2.
OSPAR BDC 2000 further received a report on “Legal regulations, legal instruments and competent
authorities with relevance for marine protected areas (MPAs) in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)
and the High Seas of the OSPAR Maritime Area” by Czybulka & Kersandt, submitted by Germany as
document BDC 00/8/Info.1.
3.
OSPAR BDC 2000 "recognized that in future it might be necessary to deal with questions of
establishing high seas marine protected areas in accordance with international law, as appropriate,
in the OSPAR Maritime Area" (§ 8.18, BDC 00/15/1). BDC agreed further to assess the “relationships
between BDC and the powers of Contracting Parties under Annex V, UNCLOS and other relevant
international organisations concerning actions beyond 200 nm” (§ 8.16, 8.21, BDC 00/15/1, see § 33
of document OSPAR 01/6/1).
4.
From 27 February – 4 March 2001, an international workshop was hosted by Germany, taking the
subject of the scientific requirements and legal aspects of nature conservation in the high-seas further.
(BDC 01/6/4 Info.01-E). The meeting concluded that "there are areas of the high seas where more
effective means of sustainable management and conservation within this framework are considered
desirable, and in some cases urgent, to give effect to the obligation to protect and preserve the marine
environment. ... Such approaches have to include identifying the risks which need to be managed and
establishing the basis for management actions."
5.
BDC 2001 will examine a document by the OSPAR Executive Secretary (BDC 01/6/2) on the
relationship between functions of the Commission under Annex V and the powers of Contracting
Parties under UNCLOS and other relevant international agreements concerning the protection of
marine biodiversity beyond 200 nautical miles. The document proposes a way forward to OSPAR
BDC in developing its policy with regard to the protection of species and habitats in the high seas.
The strategy to be taken by BDC as outlined in BDC 01/6/2 focusses on "identifying areas which are
sensitive and the risks to which they are subject, and then pursuing the appropriate risk-management
strategies with those responsible". With respect to threats posed on species and habitats by fisheries,
6.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________1
OSPAR BDC 2001
BDC 01/6/ -E
it is recommended "to establish better working relationships with NEAFC", NEAFC, ICCAT and
NASCO being the bodies responsible for "management of risks arising from fisheries".
7.
WWF welcomes the proposed approach, in particular the identification of "High Seas
Environmentally Sensitive Areas (HSESAs)" and the associated threats. However,
a.
there is more than a spatially defined aspect to sensitive species and habitats in the high seas.
Numerous species of seabirds are threatened by e.g. longlining. Other species are threatened by
various fisheries techniques because they get caught as a bycatch in open ocean fisheries.
Therefore, it should read species, habitats and areas.
b.
although there may be no commercial interest in sedentary species (para 23), benthic habitats
and communities are clearly affected by certain fisheries techniques. NEAFC manages the fish
stocks in the northeast Atlantic and at present does not consider the conservation of
biodiversity, as requested by the Biodiversity Convention, in their fish stock management.
Hence, the protection of species and habitats would constitute a new aspect to the NEAFC
policy.
c.
BDC should also develop proposals for management actions required (in particular regarding
the urgency of measures and the reduction of impact to be achieved) and submit these to the
responsible bodies.
d.
there should be a tight feed-back system between OSPAR, recognized as the body competent
for identifying HSESAs and species, threats and management action required, and the
respective sectorial organisations.
e.
in the case that management action is required by more than one organisation, this should be
done in an integrated manner (also see BDC 01/6/4 Info.01-E).
8.
As a first step to reviewing information on offshore species, habitats and areas and all possible
sources of threats, WWF presented a draft version of the "Offshore Directory", a compilation of
conservation action required in the offshore OSPAR maritime area (IMPACT 99/4/8).
9.
In May 2001, WWF and IUCN launched a report on "The status of natural resources on the high-seas
- an environmental perspective and legal considerations" on the occasion of the Second Meeting of
Parties to the United Nations Open-ended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of
the Sea (UNICPOLOS). It is a first global comprehensive assessment of conservation action required
in the light of current and potential human threats. A summary of the WWF & IUCN report is at
Annex 1 to this submission. The full version of the report can be downloaded at
http://www.panda.org/resources/publications/water/highseas.pdf . One hardcopy per delegation will
be available at BDC 2001.
The study is an independent, scientific and legal review of published evidence for the need to take a
precautionary approach to the exploitation of the natural resources on the high-seas. The legal and
political review, inter alia , concludes that
a. In view of the current uncertainty as to the state of exploitation of the living resources of the highseas and the extent of uses (both current and potential), a precautionary approach to the
exploitation of these resources is critical;
b. High-seas marine protected areas may be one of the flexible and focussed tools available that are
called for to address this uncertainty; and
c. International law should not necessarily be an obstacle or impediment to the establishment of
high-seas MPAs (HSMPAs). Rather, in its present form the international legal regime imposes a
duty on States to cooperate in managing resources of the high-seas and does not prohibit or
preclude the establishment of marine protected areas on the high-seas.
Action Requested
________________________________________________________________________________________________________2
OSPAR BDC 2001
BDC 01/6/ -E
10.
BDC 2001 is invited to examine WWF’s proposed amendments to § 36 of document BDC 01/6/2.
BDC may wish to make use of the information provided in the WWF & IUCN High Seas report when
discussing further steps to identify "High Seas Environmentally Sensitive Areas (HSESAs)" and the
associated threats.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________3
OSPAR BDC 2001
BDC 01/6/ -E
Proposed amendments (in bold):
Excerpt from BDC 01/6/2
....
CONCLUSIONS
36.
BDC is invited to consider whether it can accept the following propositions:
a.
given the structure of international law, the protection of environmentally vulnerable areas of
the seas beyond national jurisdiction should be achieved by identifying the areas, habitats and
species which are sensitive and the risks to which they are subject, and then pursuing the
appropriate risk-management strategies with those responsible;
b.
the risks from impacts from navigation through discharges and emissions, through dumping and
through shipwrecks and total loss are probably already being managed as well as they can be;
c.
it is not clear whether risks to any sensitive areas from disturbance and noise from shipping are
significant; if they are, guidance as to the existence of such areas is probably the first approach
to managing such risks that should be tried;
d.
the risks from overflying and constructing artificial islands do not seem sufficient at present to
justify effort in considering them further;
e.
OSPAR needs more information on how the regime for the placement of cables and pipelines in
areas of national jurisdiction works, and how in practice it is related to the routeing of such
cables (and, if they exist, pipelines) under the high seas; this needs to be considered in the
planned assessment of this activity;
f.
the management of risks arising from fisheries is a matter for NEAFC (or, in their special
fields, ICCAT and NASCO); OSPAR needs to establish better working relationships with
NEAFC;
g.
the risks from scientific research are appropriately handled by guidance on appropriate
approach to sensitive areas; OSPAR should the development of such guidance by IOC, and (if
need be) supplement with its own;
h.
the risks from seabed mining under the high seas will be adequately managed by ISBA,
provided that they are alerted to the significance of sensitive areas;
i.
there is a role for OSPAR to identify, on the basis of comprehensive reviews of all possible
sources of threats, and publicise areas which are sufficiently sensitive from the environmental
point of view to justify consideration of how to manage the risks; such areas might be called
“High Seas Environmentally Sensitive Areas” (HSESAs). Non-spatially defined risks to
seabirds and other migratory species have to be reviewed and management measures
recommended to the responsible bodies.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________4
OSPAR BDC 2001
BDC 01/6/ -E