Download POLICY BRIEF on Recent Progress in the Management of Marine Areas

POLICY BRIEF
on
Recent Progress in the Management of
Marine Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ)
at Global and Regional Levels
This policy brief was produced by researchers at the Global Ocean Forum
with funding support from the French Marine Protected Areas Agency.
Recent Progress in the Management of
Marine Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ)
at Global and Regional Levels
Prepared by Joseph Appiott, Gwénaëlle Hamon, and Miriam Balgos
Global Ocean Forum and University of Delaware
October 2013
Table of Contents
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………..
Background………………………………………………………………………………………..
Expanding Activities and Threats in in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ)……
Legal and Institutional Framework for ABNJ…………………………………………….
Importance of Multilateral Approaches…………………………………………………...
Ongoing Policy Discussions………………………………………………………………
Global Level Developments……………………………………………………………...……….
Political Mobilization around Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction………………………
Progress in Sectoral ABNJ Management………………………………………………….
Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives……………………………………………………………...
Regional Level Developments…………………………………………………………………….
Progress in Designating Marine Protected Areas in ABNJ……………………………….
Strengthening Regional Fisheries Management in ABNJ………………………………...
Catalyzing Broad Political Support at the Regional Level for ABNJ Management………
Encouraging Stewardship for Scientific Research………………………………………..
Areas in Need of Further Action………………………………………………………………….
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………... 0 [Type a 1
1
1
2
3
4
4
5
6
7
9
9
9
11
12
13
14
INTRODUCTION
Marine areas beyond national jurisdiction make
up more than 60% of the world‘s oceans and
represent one of the last global commons on
Earth. They are rich in biodiversity, play a
crucial role in the functioning of marine
ecosystems, provide critical ecosystem services,
including nutrient cycling, carbon storage, and
ocean circulation, and possess a unique cultural
value for many people around the world. These
areas also contain resources of significant
socio-economic
value,
including
food
resources and cancer-curing medicines. Marine
areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) have
also become an important realm of scientific
research, as knowledge of biodiversity and
ecosystems in the open ocean and deep-sea
remains limited.
towards improving management of ABNJ at
the global and regional level, with a focus on
multilateral approaches and progress towards
cross-sectoral collaboration. This policy brief
has been prepared for the 3rd International
Marine Protected Areas Congress by the
Global Ocean Forum, with funding support
from the French Marine Protected Areas
Agency.
BACKGROUND
Expanding Activities and Threats in ABNJ
Advances in technology and scientific
innovation have allowed many uses that were
once confined to coastal areas to be conducted
in marine areas beyond national jurisdiction.
The commercial fishing industry in ABNJ has
seen consistent growth in recent years. In 2009,
the FAO reported that the global catch of
deepwater fish species had more than doubled
since 1999.1 Shipping, a large portion of which
is conducted in ABNJ accounts for a vast
majority of global trade and is a critical factor
of the global economy. There is also increasing
interest in deep-sea mining, with a growing
number of companies planning mineral
exploration activities. Scientific research has
also expanded in ABNJ, including through
large cooperative research initiatives, such as
the Census of Marine Life. There is also
increasing interest in new and emerging
activities in ABNJ, such as energy exploitation
(e.g., oil and gas, wind energy), offshore
aquaculture,
and
various
forms
of
geoengineering for climate change mitigation
(such as ocean fertilization and carbon
sequestration).
However, lack of knowledge of marine
biodiversity and ecosystems in ABNJ,
difficulties in enforcement of existing
conservation and management measures, and
disagreements
over
appropriate
policy
responses, among other factors, have hindered
the sustainable management of ABNJ. The
value of ABNJ resources and the various
threats from expanding human uses in ABNJ
underscores the need for effective management
to ensure that the social and economic benefits
of ABNJ are sustainably realized while
avoiding adverse impacts on fisheries,
biodiversity, and ecosystems.
The 3rd International Marine Protected Areas
Congress, taking place in Marseille and
Corsica, France, 21-27 October 2013, provides
an important opportunity to review progress
made thus far in advancing management of
marine areas beyond national jurisdiction,
namely through multilateral approaches at the
global and regional level, and consider how
best to further develop and build on these
efforts to achieve major goals related to
conservation and sustainable use of marine
biodiversity and ecosystems in ABNJ.
These activities provide important economic
and social benefits, but also carry various
threats to species and ecosystems in ABNJ.
Illegal, unregulated, and unreported (IUU)
fishing, in particular, has become a prominent
problem and has proven especially difficult to
curb in ABNJ. As well, even the non-extractive
uses in ABNJ can have adverse impacts on the
marine environment, including through
physical alteration of habitats, and the
introduction of light, heat, noise, or chemicals
As a contribution to the discussions of the 3rd
International Marine Protected Areas Congress,
this policy brief outlines major recent
developments that have taken place to work
1
FAO 2010
1 to the environment. Additionally, knowledge
gaps in ABNJ make it difficult to understand
and predict the vulnerability of certain species
and ecosystems to certain types of activities,
complicating management even further.
States adopted the 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 and
Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (also called the
UN Fish Stocks Agreement) in 1995. The UN
Fish Stocks Agreement imposes more stringent
obligations on coastal and fishing nations with
respect to the management of highly migratory
and straddling fish stocks.2 A number of other
fisheries-related instruments have been
developed to support management of high seas
fish stocks, including the FAO Agreement to
Promote Compliance with International
Conservation and Management Measures by
Fishing Vessels on the High Seas, the FAO
Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, the
FAO International Plan of Action to Prevent,
Deter, and Eliminate IUU Fishing (IPOA-IUU),
and the International Guidelines for the
Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High
Seas.
Legal and Institutional Framework for ABNJ
Global Level
The international framework for ABNJ is
composed of a web of global and regional
instruments that oblige States to protect the
marine environment, and conserve and
sustainably use living resources. The global
ABNJ framework is largely articulated in the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS). There are a number of
provisions within UNCLOS that apply
explicitly to ABNJ.
UNCLOS delineates ABNJ into two separate
legal areas, the water column beyond 200
nautical miles of a nation’s coastline (called the
High Seas) and the seabed and subsoil beyond
national jurisdiction (called the Area), each
having their own respective legal regimes
within the Convention. Part VII of the
Convention provides for the freedom of
navigation, laying of submarine cables, fishing,
and scientific research, among others, in the
area known as the High Seas. UNCLOS also
provides that the High Seas are to be used for
peaceful purposes and does not allow claims to
sovereignty or sovereign rights its resources.
The legal regime for the Area is put forth in
Part XI of the Convention along with the
subsequent Part XI Implementation Agreement.
Jointly, these provisions hold that the Area and
its resources (defined by Article 133 as all
solid, liquid or gaseous mineral resources in
situ in the Area at or beneath the seabed,
including polymetallic nodules) are considered
the common heritage of mankind, and that all
rights in the resources of the Area are vested in
mankind as a whole. Part XI also establishes
the International Seabed Authority (ISA) and
gives it jurisdiction over the Area and the
responsibility to operationalize the provisions
of the “common heritage of mankind” principle
for the Area.
The Convention on Biological Diversity* is
also relevant to the management of ABNJ, as
Contracting Parties are to ensure that activities
carried out under their jurisdiction or control,
within or beyond national jurisdiction, do not
adversely impact biodiversity (Art. 4), and are
required to implement the CBD with respect to
the marine environment consistently with the
rights and obligations of States under
UNCLOS (Art. 22). Contracting parties are
also required to “cooperate with other
Contracting Parties, directly or, where
appropriate, through competent international
organizations, in respect of areas beyond
national jurisdiction and on other matters of
mutual interest, for the conservation and
sustainable use of biological diversity” (Art. 5).
As well, the CBD’s Aichi Biodiversity Targets,
agreed to at the tenth meeting of the
2
UNEP 2006
*
While the CBD does not apply to biodiversity
in areas beyond national jurisdiction, it does
oblige State parties to individually apply
relevant provisions to activities under their
jurisdiction or control and to cooperate in
the conservation and sustainable use of
biodiversity.
In order to support the implementation of some
of the fisheries-related provisions of UNCLOS,
2 Conference of the Parties to the CBD in 2010,
also provide important targets and timetables
for advancing management of ocean resources.
In particular, Aichi Target 11 calls for the
effective and equitable management of at least
10 percent of coastal and marine areas,
including through marine protected areas, by
2020.
action plans, to protect their shared marine and
coastal environment. Many of these action
plans
are
reinforced
by
multilateral
agreements. While most of the agreements
address coastal waters, some also extend into
the ABNJ.
The Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) approach
has also become an important vehicle for
engaging
neighboring
States
in
the
conservation and sustainable use of marine
resources and of addressing transboundary
ocean issues, and has, in some cases, led to the
establishment of an organizational structure
such as in the case of the Benguela Current
Commission. While LME projects generally
focus on coastal area issues, some have
included ABNJ issues in their remit.
As well, there are a number of other global
instruments that apply to ABNJ, including
agreements negotiated in the context of the
International Maritime Organization (IMO)
and the Food and Agriculture Organization of
the UN (FAO).
Regional Level
There is also a relatively robust legal and
institutional framework for ABNJ at the
regional level. There is a strong basis in
UNCLOS, as well as in other international
conventions,
for
regional
multilateral
cooperation, which enable States to conclude
regional agreements among themselves,
providing that these agreements do not affect
the rights and obligations of other States and
are in accordance with the general principles of
UNCLOS.3
Importance of Multilateral Approaches
In light of the need to pursue a more integrated
and ecosystem-based approach to ABNJ and to
more effectively implement management
provisions for multilateral governance, much
of these discussions have focused on the need
to identify means for States and competent
organizations to improve cooperation and
coordination with respect to governance and
management of ABNJ.4
Regional Fishery Bodies (RFBs) are the
primary organizations through which States
cooperate in the management of highly
migratory, straddling and high seas stocks.
UNCLOS calls for States to cooperate through
the appropriate regional fisheries organization
or establish one, if no such organization exists
(Art. 64, Art. 118). Much of the international
governance framework for high seas fishing is
implemented by these RFBs, including
Regional Fisheries Management Organizations
(RFMOs), which undertake activities such as
establishing catch limits for specific fisheries
and delineating fishery closures for specific
vulnerable marine ecosystems.
There is a clear basis in international law for
multilateral cooperation with respect to ABNJ.
UNCLOS obliges State parties to cooperate in
the protection and preservation of the marine
environment (Article 192), the promotion of
marine scientific research, including through
publication and dissemination of information
and knowledge arising from marine scientific
research (Article 244), and enforcement of
management provisions (Article 235). State
Parties are obliged to “cooperate on a global
basis and, as appropriate, on a regional basis
directly or through competent international
organizations” in the protection and
preservation of the marine environment, taking
into account characteristic regional features
(Articles 197).
There is also growing focus on the role of
Regional Seas Conventions, which are often
implemented by Regional Seas Programmes
(RSP). RSPs engage neighboring countries in
specific actions, mainly through agreed-upon
Regional organizations belonging to member
states of a region have been identified as
3
Appiott 2011
4
Ibid
3 central to effective ocean governance. 5
Regional approaches present a number of key
benefits, providing for flexibility in adapting
multilateral policy approaches to unique
regional contexts. As States that share coastal
borders and are located in similar areas often
have similar concerns regarding the marine
environment and capacity to enforce and
implement management provisions, the
regional approach is often looked to as a
potentially viable means to address concerns
related to biodiversity in areas beyond national
jurisdiction, especially where there exists little
prospect for global agreement on certain issues.
However, regional approaches also have
inherent weaknesses, including the fact that
management provisions do not apply to States
that are not a party to the regional agreement.6
behavior, interest and performance among
collaborating implementers and stakeholders
and their institutions. 9 The performance of
regional organizations varies, with most of
them in need of strengthening and further
capacity development to be able to function
effectively and efficiently.
Ongoing Policy Discussions
The expansion of activities into ABNJ has
raised concerns over potential adverse impacts
on biodiversity and ecosystems, as well as
potential gaps and weaknesses in the
international legal and regulatory framework
for ABNJ. As a result, ABNJ issues have
become a prominent area of debate in the
international arena, including in the UN
General Assembly and the UN Ad Hoc Openended Informal Working Group to study issues
relating to the conservation and sustainable use
of marine biological diversity beyond areas of
national jurisdiction (also called the UN BBNJ
Working Group) where the political
divisiveness of this topic has come to light. In
these fora, States often articulate differing, and
often conflicting, positions on issues related to
the implementation of management tools, the
legal regime for marine genetic resources of
the deep seabed, and the potential need for new
institutional mechanisms. Discussions in these
fora have yet to come to a decisive agreement
on how best to improve management of ABNJ,
with a growing number of States supporting
the negotiation of a new Implementing
Agreement under UNCLOS for ABNJ.
In particular, regional organizations, with vast
ocean areas under their management, are
considered essential to implementing oceansrelated decisions made at Rio+20. 7 These
organizations are in a unique position to fill the
implementation
divide
between
the
international and national levels and satisfy the
vacuum of leadership needed to ensure
collaboration and cooperation between and
among member states in the regions.8 As well,
regional organizations provide a platform for
linking
and
relaying
common
and
transboundary issues and related information
from member states to the global fora, and
receive and communicate international
prescriptions and guidance to member states
from global institutions. The functions of
regional organizations include, among others,
elimination or alleviation of the problems that
triggered their creation, putting in place and
enforcing appropriate policies and programs
effectively and efficiently, application of
desirable values, principles and cross-sectoral
approaches to management (e.g., ecosystembased management, gender and social equity,
stewardship,
participation,
capacity
development and public outreach) in regional
governance, and encourage changes in
Although progress has been relatively slow in
the global debates, there has been a growing
level of political engagement in the need to
address ABNJ issues as well as important
developments
elsewhere
in
improving
management of ABNJ at the global and
regional level.
GLOBAL LEVEL DEVELOPMENTS
The global level policy framework for ABNJ is
believed by many to be somewhat fragmented
and inadequate to support conservation and
sustainable use of ABNJ. As such, global
policy discussions in the past decade have
5
Gupta 2010.
6
Ibid
7
Pew 2012.
8
Ibid
9
Valencia 1996, as cited in Gupta 2010
4 focused on means to improve the global
framework
and
facilitate
improved
management of ABNJ and implementation of
the major global provisions for ABNJ
management. Progress in doing so, however,
has been relatively slow.
Working Group in 2010 increased the
momentum of the discussions by adopting a set
of recommendations to initiate a process on the
legal framework for the conservation and
sustainable use of marine biodiversity in ABNJ,
by identifying gaps and ways forward,
including through the implementation of
existing instruments and the possible
development of a multilateral agreement under
UNCLOS. This served to stimulate greater
political attention on ABNJ issues in the lead
up to Rio+20. Following Rio+20, which called
for a decision on whether or not to negotiate a
new agreement, more substantive discussions
on key issues areas have been organized in the
context of the BBNJ Working Group to
support the decision a new international
agreement for ABNJ.
Nonetheless, a number of important initiatives
and developments have emerged at the global
level, signifying positive steps towards
improved management of ABNJ. These
include important developments in enhanced
political attention on ABNJ issues, progress in
sectoral approaches to ABNJ management, and
initiatives engaging a broader group of
stakeholders to support conservation and
sustainable use of ABNJ.
Political Mobilization around Areas Beyond
National Jurisdiction
ABNJ has significantly risen on the global
political radar, with many high-level decision
makers focusing increased attention on this
issue. In light of growing threats facing ABNJ
resources, many political leaders have focused
their attention on the urgent need for improved
management of ABNJ and the importance of
developing and implementing improved
policies for ABNJ.
ABNJ as a Central Topic of the Rio+20
Conference
In particular, ABNJ issues were a prominent
topic at the Rio+20 Conference. The
Conference addressed a wide range of complex
issues related to sustainable development,
including food security, renewable energy, and
urban development, among others. As well,
oceans was a major theme of the Conference
discussions, and was addressed in an extensive
way by the Rio+20 outcome.11 ABNJ, and the
global ABNJ policy framework, quickly
emerged as one of the most prominent ocean
issues at Rio+20, with a large number of States
articulating the need for improved management
of ABNJ. These discussions were viewed in
complement to the discussions in the BBNJ
Working Group, and the Rio+20 outcome
advanced the global ABNJ discussions notably,
calling for States ‘to address, on an urgent
basis, the issue of the conservation and
sustainable use of marine biological diversity
of [ABNJ] including by taking a decision on
the development of an international instrument
under UNCLOS.’ The political mobilization in
the context of the Rio+20 Conference was seen
by many as a key step in advancing this
important step on the global ABNJ debates.
Progress in Moving Towards a Resolution to
the UN ABNJ Debates
Marine biodiversity in ABNJ has become a
prominent topic of international discussion and
debate in various fora, but most notably within
the United Nations. In 2006, the UN General
Assembly created 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 (also called the “BBNJ
Working
Group”)
to
advance
intergovernmental policy discussions on means
to improve governance and management of
marine biodiversity in ABNJ. 10 The ABNJ
debates were stalled for years on key issues,
namely marine genetic resources of the deepseabed and the potential need for a new
implementing agreement under UNCLOS for
ABNJ. However, the 4th meeting of the
10
Appiott 2013
11
Cicin-Sain 2012
5 Global Ocean Commission
The Global Ocean Commission, launched in
February 2013, is a key illustration of the
growing level of political attention on ABNJ
issues. The Commission originated as an
initiative of The Pew Charitable Trusts, in
partnership with Somerville College at the
University of Oxford, Adessium Foundation
and Oceans 5 and was mobilized to build wide
high-level political support for improved
governance of ABNJ. The objective of the
Commission is to formulate politically and
technically feasible short-, medium- and longterm recommendations to address four key
issues facing the high seas, namely: 1)
overfishing, 2) large-scale loss of habitat and
biodiversity, 3) lack of effective management
and enforcement, and 4) deficiencies in high
seas governance. The Commission is
composed of sixteen high-level political
leaders and is co-chaired by José María
Figueres, former President of Costa Rica,
Trevor Manuel, former Minister of Finance and
current head of the National Planning
Commission in South Africa, and David
Miliband, former UK Secretary of State for the
Environment, former UK Foreign Secretary,
and President and CEO of the International
Rescue Committee (IRC). 12 The influence of
these high-level political leaders will likely
have a tangible catalyzing effect on the
advancement and improvement of ABNJ
management in the coming years.
FAO International Guidelines for the
Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High
Seas
In 2008, the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) developed International
Guidelines for the Management of Deep-sea
Fisheries in the High Seas. These voluntary
guidelines are intended to support States and
Regional Fisheries Management Organizations
and Arrangements (RFMO/As) in formulating
and implementing appropriate measures for the
management of deep-sea fisheries in the high
seas. The guidelines are designed for fisheries
that occur in ABNJ and where catch includes
species that can only sustain low exploitation
rates, and fishing gear likely to contact the sea
floor. The guidelines aim to facilitate and
encourage the efforts of States and RFMO/As
towards sustainable use of marine living
resources, prevention of significant adverse
impacts on deep-sea vulnerable marine
ecosystems (VMEs), and the protection of
marine biodiversity that these ecosystems
contain.13
UN General Assembly Resolutions on DeepSea Fishing
The UN General Assembly has also taken steps
to address potential adverse impacts of deepsea fishing, namely through UNGA Resolution
59/25, adopted in 2004, which calls on states
and RFMOs to protect vulnerable marine
ecosystems (VMEs) from destructive fishing
practices, and UNGA Resolution 61/105,
which commits nations that authorize their
vessels to engage in bottom fisheries on the
high seas to take a series of actions to mitigate
adverse impact on ecosystems. Much more
action, however, is required to ensure that these
management provisions are advanced and
implemented by flag states. In 2009, the
UNGA determined that Resolution 61/105 had
not been implemented sufficiently. As a result
the General Assembly adopted additional
provisions in Resolution 64/72 in 2009, which
reaffirmed the Resolution 61/105 and made it
clear that the measures called for in Resolution
61/105 should be implemented in a way that is
Progress in Sectoral ABNJ Management
The global ABNJ framework is currently most
clearly articulated and carried out through
sectoral mechanisms and approaches. As such,
this is where the majority of experience in
ABNJ management lies and where there are
notable opportunities to advance ABNJ
management in the near-term. In this context, a
number of meaningful initiatives have emerged
in different sectors in recent years with a view
to improving ABNJ management, including on
fisheries, biodiversity, and mining.
13
Sanders
2013-http://www.ccrs.eu/Upload/FR/Agenda/DocsAnnexes/FAO
-Deepsea-Fisheries.pdf
12 Global Ocean Commission Website:
http://www.globaloceancommission.org
6 consistent with the FAO Guidelines on DeepSea Fisheries. The 2009 resolution also placed
particular emphasis on conducting impact
assessments of bottom fisheries on the high
seas and called on states and RFMOs to ensure
that vessels do not engage in bottom fishing
until impact assessments have been carried
out. 14 These resolutions fomented increased
attention on deep-sea fisheries issues and
catalyzed tangible action at the regional level,
with a number of RFMOs taking steps to
improve management of deep-sea fisheries in
their regions. Implementation of these
resolutions is still lacking in many areas, 15
however, the resolutions themselves signify
increased global political attention on the need
for sustainable fishing in the high seas.
(ISBA/16/A/12/Rev.1). These provide for the
application of the precautionary approach in
the conduct of exploration in the Area, in order
to ensure effective protection of the marine
environment from the potential harmful effects
of mining activities.18
Identifying Ecologically and Biologically
Significant Areas (EBSAs)
Important steps have also been taken in the
context of the Convention on Biological
Diversity, through the development of a
process to identify Ecologically and
Biologically Significant Areas (EBSAs).
Following a process of expert consultation, the
ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties
to the Convention on Biological Diversity
(COP 9) in 2008 adopted the following
scientific criteria for identifying ecologically or
biologically significant marine areas in need of
protection in open-ocean waters and deep-sea
habitats: Uniqueness or rarity; special
importance for life history of species;
importance for threatened, endangered or
declining species and habitats; biological
productivity; biological diversity; naturalness;
and vulnerability, fragility, sensitivity, slow
recovery. In order to support States in
implementing the EBSA criteria, the tenth
meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the
CBD in 2010 initiated a set of regional
workshops to be organized by the CBD
Secretariat, in cooperation with competent
authorities, with the goal of compiling and
reviewing available data and describing EBSAs
in different regions using the seven EBSA
criteria. Thus far, EBSA workshops have been
held in the North-East Atlantic, the Western
South Pacific, the Wider Caribbean and
Western Mid-Atlantic, the Southern Indian
Ocean, the Eastern Tropical and Temperate
Pacific, the North Pacific, and the SouthEastern Atlantic, 19 and additional workshops
are planned for the Northern Indian Ocean/Red
Sea/Gulf of Aden/ROMPE Sea, East Asian
Seas, Arctic, Northwest Atlantic. The EBSA
criteria have been applied in ABNJ and within
national jurisdiction. While EBSAs do not
constitute management tools or proscribe
Developing a Framework for Sustainable
Deep-Sea Mining
While prospects for deep-sea mining were an
important driver of the formation of the legal
regime for ABNJ as articulated in UNCLOS,
most of the seabed mining activities are still
prospective, limited by economic and
technological factors. Polymetallic manganese
nodules, polymetallic sulphides and cobalt-rich
ferromanganese crusts are the main potentially
exploitable sources of deep-sea minerals. 16
However, the private sector has shown
renewed interest in this industry in recent years.
In 2011 the subsidiary of Nautilus Minerals,
Tonga Offshore Mining Ltd (TOML) became
one of the first private sector organizations to
be granted exploration licenses by ISA. In
January 2012 TOML formally signed the
agreement with the ISA to conduct
explorations in the Eastern Pacific. 17 The
International Seabed Authority, which
regulates deep-sea mining in ABNJ and is
responsible for granting the exploration and
mining licenses, has developed a set of
regulations on prospecting and exploration for
polymetallic nodules and sulphides in the Area
adopted in 2000 (ISBA/6/A/18) and 2010
14
Rogers and Gianni 2010
15
Ibid
16
UNGA 2011
17 Nautilus Minerals Website:
http://www.nautilusminerals.com/s/ClarionClipperton.asp
18
UNGA 2011
19
Druel 2012
7 specific management measures, they are an
important means to focus attention on areas
that may be in need of improved management.
marine resources and ecosystems, a project for
strengthening global capacity to effectively
manage ABNJ, and a project to finance
effective management and transitional reform
of oceanic fisheries. A key element to the
success of the Program and sustainable longterm conservation of marine ABNJ ecosystems
is the project or strengthening global capacity
to effectively manage ABNJ led by the Global
Ocean Forum.20
Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives
Clearly, there have been notable efforts on the
parts of governments and intergovernmental
organizations to advance conservation and
sustainable use of ABNJ resources. As well, a
number of civil society efforts and multistakeholder initiatives have emerged. These
efforts have been instrumental in heightening
awareness of ABNJ issues, engaging a broader
range of stakeholders with relevant knowledge
and expertise in dialogue on ABNJ, and
supporting government action in ABNJ
management.
Global Ocean Biodiversity Initiative
The Global Ocean Biodiversity Initiative
(GOBI) was first developed in 2008 as an
international partnership advancing the
scientific basis for conserving biological
diversity in the deep seas and open oceans. It
aims to help countries, as well as regional and
global organizations, to use and develop data,
tools, and methodologies to identify
ecologically significant areas with an initial
focus on the high seas and deep seabed beyond
national jurisdiction. GOBI is was initially a
collaborative effort between the German
Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN),
IUCN, UNEP World Conservation Monitoring
Centre, Marine Conservation Biology Institute,
Census of Marine Life, Ocean Biogeographic
Information System and the Marine Geospatial
Ecology Lab of Duke University. Additional collaborators joined the effort in subsequent
years. The initiative continues to seek
additional collaborators to help bring the best
science and data to bear on the identification of
ecologically significant areas beyond national
jurisdiction. The work under this initiative
ultimately aims to help countries meet the
goals adopted under the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) and at the 2002
World Summit on Sustainable Development.
These global goals relate to reducing the rate of
biodiversity
loss,
applying
ecosystem
approaches, and establishing representative
marine protected area networks by 2012.21
GEF/FAO ABNJ Program
The Global Environment Facility (GEF)
Council approved a new and ambitious
program on ABNJ management in 2011.
Seeking to generate a catalytic change the
Global sustainable fisheries management and
biodiversity conservation in the Areas Beyond
National Jurisdiction Program aims to promote
efficient and sustainable management of
fisheries
resources
and
biodiversity
conservation in ABNJ to achieve the global
targets agreed in international fora. The Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO) is the coordination agency for
the Program, working in close collaboration
with two other GEF implementing agencies,
the United Nations Environment Program
(UNEP) and the World Bank, as well as other
partners. The five-year ABNJ Program is an
innovative, unique and comprehensive
initiative working with a variety of partners.
The Program brings together governments,
regional management bodies, civil society, the
private sector, academia and industry to work
towards ensuring the sustainable use and
conservation of ABNJ biodiversity and
ecosystem services. The ABNJ Program
consists of four projects, each addressing
different weaknesses of the current ABNJ
management. They include a project for the
sustainable management of tuna fisheries and
biodiversity conservation, a project for the
sustainable
fisheries
management
and
biodiversity conservation of deep-sea living
Multi-Stakeholder Dialogues by the Global
Ocean Forum
Since 2005, the Global Ocean Forum has been
engaged in an informal process to bring
20
Fonseca 2012
21
GOBI 2010
8 together major relevant interests to facilitate
open and constructive multi-stakeholder policy
dialogue to inform and support the UN ABNJ
process regarding governance of marine areas
beyond national jurisdiction. The general intent
is to work to clarify the issues, lay out various
perspectives, discuss options, and identify
possible avenues for consensus-building
among disparate interests. This work includes a
three-part
series
of
multi-stakeholder
workshops in 2008,22,23,24 highlighting ABNJ
issues as a central topic of the fourth and fifth
Global Ocean Conferences in 2008 and 2010,
respectively, and convening dialogues on the
margins of the formal UN debates on ABNJ. 25
and have garnered significant attention for their
applicability in ABNJ, especially due to the
site-specific nature of ABNJ ecosystems and
human uses in ABNJ. While a global policy
framework for MPAs in ABNJ is still notably
lacking, a number of regional initiatives have
come to fruition to advance cross-sectoral areabased management of ABNJ.
South Orkney Islands MPA
In November 2009, the Commission for the
Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living
Resources (CCAMLR) established a marine
protected area near the South Orkney Islands in
the Southern Ocean. The South Orkney MPA
was the world’s first completely high seas
MPA, and also the first in the Southern Ocean.
The MPA prohibits all forms of fishing and
waste disposal and covers roughly 94,000
square kilometers.27 The MPA also allows for
improved coordination of scientific research
activities and facilitates monitoring of the
effects of human activities and climate change
on the Southern Ocean. The MPA also has
significant ecological value as a key habitat for
Antarctic krill and is an important foraging
area for Adélie penguins. There are also a
number of seamounts in the MPA area that
have been shown to posses high levels of
biodiversity.28
Formation of the High Seas Alliance
The High Seas Alliance is a partnership of
organizations and groups aimed at building a
strong common voice and constituency for the
conservation of the high seas. Twenty-seven
NGOs plus the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) constitute the
Alliance. Its objective is to facilitate
international cooperation to establish high seas
protected areas and to strengthen high seas
governance. The Alliance emphasizes the
importance of beginning the process to
negotiate a High Seas Biodiversity Agreement
under UNCLOS.26
REGIONAL LEVEL DEVELOPMENTS
There has been notable progress at the regional
level on a number of different fronts, including
the designation of marine protected areas
(MPAs), fisheries management, political
engagement, and stewardship for responsible
scientific research in ABNJ. There are some
key examples of progress in regional
management of ABNJ that can be highlighted.
Marine Protected Areas in the Northeast
Atlantic
In the Northeast Atlantic, the OSPAR
Commission (which administers the Oslo and
Paris Conventions for the protection of the
marine environment of the Northeast Atlantic)
along with the North East Atlantic Fisheries
Commission, have led an initiative to create an
ecologically-coherent network of cross-sectoral
marine protected areas in ABNJ. In 2010,
contracting Parties to the OSPAR Commission
established six marine protected areas in the
ABNJ area of Northeast Atlantic. In parallel
with the establishment of these MPAs, the
Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission
designated bottom-trawl fishery closures in
four of these MPAs. With a view to developing
coordinated and legally binding management
Progress in Designating Marine Protected
Areas in ABNJ
Marine protected areas are one of the main
tools used for ocean and coastal management
22
Global Ocean Forum 2008a
23
Global Ocean Forum 2008b
24
Global Ocean Forum 2008c
25
Global Ocean Forum 2012
26
High Seas Alliance Website:
www.highseasalliance.org
27
Bossar et al., 2009
28
British Antarctic Survey 2009
9 measures for these MPAs across sectors, the
OSPAR Commission is seeking coordination
and cooperation with other sectors, namely
through the signing of Memoranda of
Understanding (MoUs) with various regional
and global sectoral bodies. The OSPAR
Commission has also initiated the “Madeira
process,” which aims at developing a collective
arrangement among competent authorities on
the management of these MPAs in the ABNJ
of the Northeast Atlantic.
Indian Ocean, which calls on Contracting
Parties to undertake data collection, develop
information and identification standards for
vessels, and facilitate processes to enable
scientific assessment regarding fisheries in the
SIOFA area, among other provisions.29
Bottom Fishery Closures in the Northeast
Atlantic
Recent progress has also been made in the
Northeast Atlantic, where, in 2008, the
Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission
(NEAFC) closed five high seas areas to bottom
trawling in the region. NEAFC was established
in 1982 by the Convention on Future
Multilateral Cooperation in North-East Atlantic
Fisheries. 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. The bottom fishery closures
extend until 2015, at which time they will be
reviewed.30
Strengthening Regional Fisheries
Management in ABNJ
The majority of experience in managing
activities in ABNJ at the regional level lies in
the fisheries sector. The regional framework
for fisheries is comparatively much more
developed than other sectors and many
regional fishery bodies have competence in
ABNJ. While the effectiveness of these
regional fishery bodies significantly varies, a
number of these organizations have taken
notable steps in recent years to improve
management of fisheries in ABNJ. As well,
recent UN General Assembly Resolutions
addressing deep-sea fisheries have stimulated
notable progress at the regional level.
Additionally, NEAFC and the OSPAR
Commission are moving forward in advancing
cross-sectoral management of ABNJ in the
region. As previously noted, four of these
bottom-fishery closures align with the OSPAR
high seas MPAs. Furthermore, NEAFC and the
OSPAR Commission have signed a
Memorandum of Understanding, in which the
organizations recognized that “NEAFC and the
OSPAR Commission both have an interest in
conserving the living resources of the seas
including those located in areas beyond
national jurisdiction” and also agreed to
cooperate
in
advancing
area-based
management and marine spatial planning in the
ABNJ areas of the region.31
Managing High Seas Fisheries through the
Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement
In 2006, the Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries
Agreement (SIOFA) was adopted by Australia,
Comoros, the EU, France, Kenya, Madagascar,
Mauritius, Mozambique, New Zealand and
Seychelles, with the Cook Islands acceding to
the agreement in 2008. SIOFA provides a
cooperative management framework for
Contracting Parties to effectively manage
fisheries resources in the high seas between
eastern Africa and Western Australia. SIOFA
fills an important geographical management
gap in the region, as it is adjacent to the
Convention Area of the Commission for the
Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living
Resources (CCAMLR), the South Pacific
RFMO Convention Area in the east and South
East Atlantic Fisheries Organization (SEAFO)
Convention Area to the west. In 2006, the EU
and the Parties to SIOFA also agreed to adopt a
Resolution
on
Interim
Arrangements
concerning the High Seas in the Southern
Druel et al., 2012
30
NEAFC 2009
31
Memorandum of Understanding between the
North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission
(NEAFC) and the OSPAR Commission.
Available at:
http://www.neafc.org/basictexts
29
10 Bottom Trawl Ban on the Seamounts of the
Northwest Atlantic
The Northwest Atlantic has also taken
measures to protect vulnerable seamounts in
the high seas. In 2010, the Northwest Atlantic
Fisheries Organization (NAFO) closed 11
seamount areas, which will remain in effect
until December 2014. 32 As the 35th annual
meeting of NAFO in 2013, Parties agreed to
take additional measures to protect marine
ecosystems in the high seas, which include
seafloor organisms vulnerable to bottom
fishing, through the extension of existing
closed areas for large gorgonian corals and
seapens, and the designation of new protected
area. All of these closed areas will be revisited
in 2014.33
Figure 1. Area of competence of the south
Pacific Regional Fisheries Management
Organization.35
Catalyzing Broad Political Support at the
Regional Level for ABNJ Management
In addition to progress in the advancing
management tools and sectoral approaches in
ABNJ, there has also been an increasing degree
of political attention on the need to conserve
and sustainably use marine resources in ABNJ
and to protect vulnerable ecosystems in these
areas. This enhanced degree of political
engagement was evident at the recent Rio+20
Conference, where ABNJ issues were a
prominent topic, and has also manifested in
different forms at the regional level.
Formation of the South Pacific RFMO
An important step was taken to improve
management of high seas fisheries in the South
Pacific, through the creation of the South
Pacific Regional Fisheries Management
Organization (SPRFMO). The SPRFMO was
created in 2012 when the Convention on the
Conservation and Management of the High
Seas Fishery Resources of the South Pacific
Ocean entered into force. The members of the
SPRFMO are Australia, Belize, Republic of
Chile, People's Republic of China, Cook
Islands, Republic of Cuba, European Union,
Kingdom of Denmark in respect of the Faroe
Islands, Republic of Korea, New Zealand,
Russian Federation, and Chinese Taipei. The
Convention Area encompasses the ABNJ of
the South Pacific Ocean (see Figure 1). One of
the main focuses of the SPRFMO is to mitigate
the destructive bottom-trawling practices on
the orange roughy stocks in the region, which
also pose a threat to the unique ecosystems of
the region’s seamounts.34
Implementing an Ecosystem-Based Approach
in the Mediterranean
In 2008, an initiative was launched the
Coordinating Unit of the Mediterranean Action
Plan to promote the application of an
ecosystem approach to the management of
human activities within the Barcelona
Convention area, which includes areas in
ABNJ.36 In January 2009, the Mediterranean
Action Programme (MAP) received a €685,000
grant from the European Union for
implementation of the ecosystem approach.37
Sargasso Sea Alliance
An innovative initiative was recently launched
35
South Pacific Regional Fisheries
Management Organization. Available at:
http://www.southpacificrfmo.org/currentnews/
36
United Nations General Assembly 2011
37
Mediterranean Action Plan 2009
32
United Nations General Assembly 2011
33
Ecology Action Centre and Deep Sea
Conservation Coalition 2013
34
Schiffman 2013
11 to enact cross-sectoral conservation and
management measures for the Sargasso Sea, an
area of roughly 2.6 million square miles (the
vast majority of which is in ABNJ) (see Figure
2). With the support of the International Union
for the Conservation of Nature, the government
of Bermuda, and funding support from several
foundations, the Sargasso Sea Alliance was
launched in 2011 with the aim of utilizing
sectoral instruments and the existing regional
and global framework, with the political
support of key countries, to enact
complementary protection and management
measures across different sectors, including
through Regional Fisheries Management
Organizations (RFMOs), the International
Maritime Organization (IMO), and the
International Seabed Authority (ISA). The
Sargasso Sea Alliance is also working to build
political support from governments active in
the region with the goal of developing a
political declaration, and an eventual
agreement, regarding the protection and
sustainable management of the Sargasso Sea
region.
Development Program, has initiated an effort
to convene a “Western Indian Ocean
Sustainable Ecosystem Alliance,” which is
envisaged as a coalition of governments,
international and regional organizations, and
relevant stakeholders in the region to agree on
cooperative approaches to ecosystem-based
management of the Western Indian Ocean.39
As well, the IUCN conducted a project on
“Applying an ecosystem approach to fisheries
management in the high seas: a focus on
seamounts in the Southern Indian Ocean”
between 2009 and 2012, with a focus on
identifying legal and institutional gaps in the
region and identifying potential avenues
toward integrated regional management of
seamounts.40
Pacific Oceanscape Framework
Another important development in regional
political mobilization is the mobilization of the
Pacific Oceanscape initiative. On August 8,
2010 at the Pacific Islands Leadership Forum,
heads of state from Australia, the Cook Islands,
the Federated States of Micronesia, the
Republic of Kiribati, Nauru, New Zealand,
Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, the Republic
of Marshall Islands, Samoa, Solomon Islands,
Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu endorsed a draft
framework for the long-term, sustainable, and
cooperative management of 38.5 million km2
of marine areas surrounding their collective
islands. Introduced by President Anote Tong of
Kiribati and designed with technical and
scientific
support
from
Conservation
International (CI), the Pacific Oceanscape
framework aims to comprehensively address
all ocean issues in the region as well as craft
policies and implement practices that will
improve ocean health, support the provisioning
of marine resources and management expertise,
and encourage governments to factor ocean
issues into decisions about economic and
sustainable
development.
The
Pacific
Oceanscape framework will address ocean
issues both within the EEZs of the countries
participating in the framework as well as in the
Figure 2. Map of the Sargasso Sea Alliance
study area.38
Advancing an Ecosystem-Based Approach in
the Western Indian Ocean
A number of promising initiatives are
underway to work towards an ecosystem-based
approach in the Western Indian Ocean. The
Agulhas and Somali Current Large Marine
Ecosystems Project, with the support of the UN
38
Sargasso
Sea
Alliance
website:
http://www.sargassoalliance.org/
39
ASCLME (no date)
40
Warner et al., 2012
12 high seas connecting them.41
Rio+20 outcome document44, and other sources,
on ways by which regional organizations may
improve their performance.
Encouraging Stewardship for Scientific
Research
As scientific research is expanding in ABNJ,
spurred by discoveries of new species and
ecosystems, there has been growing attention
on the need for stewardship to support
responsible research practices. While not a
major extractive use, scientific research can
carry a number of potential impacts on
ecosystems and species in ABNJ, especially in
remote deep-sea areas that are especially
vulnerable to certain types of physical
disturbances. At the global level, InterRidge, a
global non-profit organization that promotes
international collaboration on research of midocean ridge and back-arc basin systems,
developed a Code of Conduct for Responsible
Science at Hydrothermal Vents to support
sustainable research practices and mitigate
adverse impacts on these vulnerable
ecosystems, most of which are located in
ABNJ. Similar steps have been taken at the
regional level, notably in the Northeast Atlantic,
an area subject to a high degree of research.
Improving the Effectiveness of Regional
Fishery Conventions
• Increase use of existing guidelines,
management tools, and information in
their efforts towards sustainable use of
marine living resources exploited by
deep sea fisheries, including the
prevention of significant adverse
impacts on deep sea vulnerable marine
ecosystems (VMEs) and the protection
of marine biodiversity that these
ecosystems
contain
(e.g.,
FAO
International guidelines for the
management of deep-sea fisheries in the
high seas)
OSPAR Code of Conduct for Responsible
Research
In 2008, Contracting Parties to the OSPAR
Commission adopted a Code of Conduct for
Responsible Marine Research in the Deep-Seas
and High Seas of the OSPAR Maritime Area,
which encourages Contracting Parties to ensure
that the granting of research funds and ship
time should be contingent on the application of
the code of conduct. It also encourages Parties
to take measures to protect features on the
OSPAR list of threatened and/or declining
species and habitats, by ensuring that risk
assessments and equipment modifications are
carried out to reduce impacts from research.42
AREAS IN NEED OF FURTHER ACTION
The following provides recommendations
gleaned from the 2012 Evaluation of FAO’s
support to the implementation of the Code of
Conduct for Responsible Fisheries 43 , the
41
Conservation International. 2010
42
United Nations General Assembly 2011
43
FAO 2012
•
Raise awareness and develop capacity
on implementing IPOA-IUU and the
PSM Agreement among member
countries and develop their capacity in
fisheries management as an integral
part of plans and strategies for fisheries
and aquaculture
•
Improve research and other capacity,
e.g., resources, human and financial, to
provide the capillary type of assistance
that RFB/RFMOs, being closer to
Member Countries, can, or could
potentially deliver in practice
•
Promote the adoption of the
instruments for use in market measures
such as the EU Council Regulation.
Based on the IPOA IUU, such market
measures show signs of becoming
effective in driving fish exporting
countries to take action on fishing
control
•
Help countries solve their problems of
over-capacity
in
fishing
fleets,
problems that are becoming more
severe as stocks deplete and that are
more rooted in national fishing and
socio-ecological systems at several
scales
44
United Nations 2012
13 •
Strengthen collaboration with member
countries in data collection, verification,
and management to help define and
assess fish stocks
•
Address the need for information on
unregulated and unreported aspects of
IUU fishing which is also important for
fisheries and aquaculture decisionmaking
•
•
•
•
Mainstreaming the Ecosystem-Based and
integrated Approaches in All Regions
• Promote the use of existing guidelines
on EBM and integrated management
(e.g., FAO’s guidelines on EAF and
other guidelines that promote EBM and
integrated approaches) in managing
national activities in ABNJ
Promote
transparency
and
accountability in fisheries management
by regional fisheries management
organizations and the implementation
of recommendations emanating from
independent performance reviews.
Strengthen disciplines on subsidies in
the fisheries sector, including through
the prohibition of certain forms of
fisheries subsidies that contribute to
overcapacity and overfishing
o Encourage States to further
improve the transparency and
reporting of existing fisheries
subsidies programmes through
the World Trade Organization
o Encourage States to eliminate
subsidies that contribute to
overcapacity and overfishing,
and to refrain from introducing
new such subsidies or from
extending or enhancing existing
ones.
•
Develop/promote regional frameworks
for national implementation, e.g.,
through regional ocean policies and
frameworks, e.g., OSPAR, Med,
PEMSEA, CTI, LMEs, RFMOs,
RFBs/RFAs, UNEP RSPs, other
•
Develop
and
use
coordinating
mechanisms across countries within the
framework of regional and national
ocean policies that incorporate EBM
and integrated management
Facilitating Cooperation among Global and
Regional Organizations
• Strengthen
coordination
and
cooperation to: protect biodiversity,
promote sustainable use of marine
living resources, reduce exposure to
risk for the protection of people, and
infrastructure
and
other
national/international assets, from the
impact of disasters (marine debris and
pollution, maritime shipping, etc.)
o Exchanges of information and
lessons learned
o Collaborative MSR
o CBD and other Expert Working
Groups
Help identify and mainstream strategies
that further assist developing countries,
in particular the least developed
countries and SIDS, in developing their
national
capacity
to
conserve,
sustainably manage and realize the
benefits of sustainable fisheries,
including through improved market
access for fish products from
developing countries.
•
Help ensure access to fisheries and the
importance of access to markets, by
subsistence, small-scale and artisanal
fisherfolk and women fish workers, as
well as indigenous peoples and their
communities, particularly in developing
countries, especially SIDS.
14 Capacity development on three
dimensions: individual, organizational,
enabling environment
o Identify common needs, available
expertise and resources, and
potential
partnerships
and
networking
opportunities
at
national, regional and interregional
levels, to assist and implement
respective
human
capacity
development plans. UN bodies
(e.g., UNITAR, UN DOALOS),
universities and other training
organizations should be considered
as outreach partners for the long
term.
REFERENCES
ASCLME (no date). “A Briefing Note on the
Western Indian Ocean Sustainable Ecosystem
Alliance.” Agulhas and Somali Current Large
Marine Ecosystem Project.
•
Promote collaboration and consultation
among all RFBs or arrangements on
matters of common concern
•
Protection of the environment and
biodiversity, e.g., need collaboration
among regions, North America, Europe,
and Asia on the management of
shipping through the Arctic
Appiott, J. (2011). Breaking the Stalemate:
Analyzing State Preferences in the Global
Debates on Marine Biodiversity on Marine
Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (Master’s
thesis). University of Delaware
CONCLUSION
There is no question that biodiversity and
ecosystems in marine areas beyond national
jurisdiction face critical threats in the near
future from a variety of sources, including
destructive fishing practices, pollution, and
climate change. As well, there is much to be
done to improve the global and regional ABNJ
policy framework to provide for improved
implementation of management provisions and
cross-sectoral approaches. Nonetheless, there
are a myriad of recent and ongoing efforts and
initiatives in a range of different ABNJ issueareas laying positive groundwork for improved
ABNJ management in the future. As a wider
range of stakeholders become engaged,
political attention is further mobilized, and
experience in ABNJ management continues to
grow, trends toward improving ABNJ
management are likely to continue. However,
we must also note these efforts have seen
varying levels of success and often fall short of
the urgency and ambition required for
meaningful change. Nonetheless, it is critical to
focus on and support positive trends to build
upon these efforts, link them together (where
appropriate), and replicate them in other areas
and at different levels.
Appiott, J. (2013) UN Workshops on Marine
Biodiversity in Areas Beyond National
Jurisdiction: Key Information Emerged, But
Will it Affect the Debates? Summary and
Analysis .Global Ocean Forum Newsletter.
June 2013.
Bossar, A., Capanna, S., Gilera, C.L., and J.
Von Der Weppen. (2009). “Update on MPAs
beyond National Jurisdiction.” Document
prepared by The Johns Hopkins School of
Advanced International Studies (SAIS) for the
International Union for Conservation of Nature
(IUCN) within the framework of a project on
High Seas Governance. Available at:
http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/sais_policy
_brief_update_1_29_10_formatted_3.pdf
British Antarctic Survey. (2009). “South
Orkneys Marine Protected Area.” (online)
National Environmental Research Council. 20
Nov
2009.
Available
at:
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/about_bas/news/ne
ws_story.php?id=1054
Cicin-Sain, B., Balgos, M., Appiott, J., Wowk,
K., and G. Hamon. (2011). Oceans at Rio+20:
How Well Are We Doing on the Major Ocean
Commitments from the 1992 UNCED and the
2002 WSSD? Global Ocean Forum.
While important questions related to the legal
and institutional framework for ABNJ will
need to be addressed in the coming years and
key differences resolved to provide for an
effective and robust ABNJ regime, progress in
various sectors provides source of optimism for
the future.
Cicin-Sain, B. Perspective: Rio+20 and Its
Aftermath. Global Ocean Forum Newsletter.
April 2013. A 2012 Retrospective for Oceans,
Coasts, and Islands.
Conservation International. 2010. “New
‘Pacific Oceanscape’ Makes History” [online].
Conservation International, August 2010.
Available
at:
15 http://www.conservation.org/newsroom/pressre
leases/Pages/Pacific_Oceanscape_creation.asp
x
(2010). “Global Ocean Biodiversity Initiative:
Working towards high seas conservation”
(brochure).
Available
at:
http://www.cbd.int/marine/doc/gobi-glossybrochure-2010-en.pdf
Druel, E, Ecologically or Biologically
Significant Marine Areas (EBSAs): the
identification process under the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) and possible ways
forward, Working Paper N°17 /12, IDDRI,
Paris, France, 24 p.
Global Ocean Forum Report of Activities. 2012.
Global Ocean Forum. 2008a. Report from the
Strategic Planning Workshop on Global Ocean
Issues in Marine Areas Beyond National
Jurisdiction in the Context of Climate Change,
Nice, France, January 23-25, 2008. Available:
http://globaloceanforumdotcom.files.wordpress
.com/2013/05/high-seas-pb-april9-2.pdf
Druel, E., Ricard, P., Rochette, J., and C.
Martinez (2012), Governance of marine
biodiversity in areas beyond national
jurisdiction at the regional level. Case studies
from the North-East Atlantic, Southern Ocean,
Western Indian Ocean, South West Pacific and
the Sargasso Sea. IDDRI and AAMP.
Global Ocean Forum. 2008b. Submission of
the Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts, and
Islands to the UN 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, New York, 28 April – 2
May 2008. Available:
http://globaloceanforumdotcom.files.wordpress
.com/2013/05/high-seas-pb-april9-2.pdf
Ecology Action Centre and Deep Sea
Conservation Coalition. (2013). “NAFO Makes
Progress on Protecting Deep Sea Ecosystems:
Bycatch and Unregulated Fisheries Continue to
be a Conservation Problem” (Press Release).
Ecology Action Centre and Deep Sea
Conservation Coalition. Available at:
http://www.savethehighseas.org/publicdocs/EA
C-DSCC-NAFO-Press-Release-Sept27-2013Final.pdf
Global Ocean Forum. 2008c. Summary of the
Workshop on Governance of Marine Areas
Beyond National Jurisdiction: Management
Issues and Policy Options, Singapore,
November 3-5, 2008. Available:
http://globaloceanforumdotcom.files.wordpress
.com/2013/05/singapore-workshopexecutivesummary-2.pdf
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations) (2010). The State of World
Fisheries and Aquaculture: 2010. Rome FAO.
197p.
Available
at:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1820e/i1820e0
0.htm.
Gjerde, K. (2008). Regulatory and Governance
Gaps in the International Regime for the
Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine
Biodiversity in Areas Beyond National
Jurisdiction. Marine Series I (IUCN/Natural
Resources, 2008).
FAO (UN Food and Agriculture Organization)
(2012) Evaluation of FAO’s support to the
implementation of the Code of Conduct for
Responsible Fisheries. Final Report. Available:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/026/me173
e.pdf
International
Institute
for
Sustainable
Development (IISD) Earth Negotiations
Bulletin (2012). Fifth meeting of the Working
Group on Marine Biodiversity Beyond Areas
of National jurisdiction. 7-11 May 2012.
Gupta, M. (2010). Indian Ocean Region. The
Political Economy of the Asia Pacific.
Springer.
Fonseca, G. (2012) Global Ocean Forum
Newsletter Special Issue of ABNJ. May 2012.
Mediterranean Action Plan. (2009). MedWaves,
Issue 58. Mediterranean Action Plan, United
Nations Environment Program. Available at:
Global Ocean Biodiversity Initiative (GOBI)
16 http://195.97.36.231/acrobatfiles/Medwaves/E
nglish/MW58.pdf
United Nations (2012). The Future We Want.
Rio+20 Outcome Document. Available:
http://daccessods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/RES/
66/288&Lang=E
Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission.
(2009) Recommendation PV (Postal Vote)
2009 on the Protection of Vulnerable Marine
Ecosystems (VMEs) from significant adverse
impacts in the NEAFC Regulatory Area.
UNDOALOS. (2013). Report of 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 and CoChairs’ summary of discussions. Advance,
unedited reporting material
Pew Environment Group (2012). Building on
Rio+20: What this means for fisheries
management.
Available:
http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/d
ocuments/1793PEWFactSheet_RioRFMO_CRA_web%20(2).pdf
UNEP (United Nations Environment Program)
(2006). Ecosystems and Biodiversity in Deep
Waters and High Seas. UNEP Regional Seas
Reports and Studies No. 178. UNEP/
IUCN, Switzerland 2006.
Rogers, A., and M. Gianni. (2010). The
Implementation of UNGA Resolutions 61/105
and 64/72 in the Management of Deep-Sea
Fisheries on the High Seas: A report from the
International Programme on the State of the
Ocean. Report prepared for the Deep-Sea
Conservation
Coalition.
International
Programme on the State of the Ocean, London.
Available
at:
http://www.stateoftheocean.org/pdfs/61105Implemention-finalreport.pdf
Van Dover, C. (2011). “Tighten Regulations on
Deep-sea Mining.” Nature. Vol 470, pp. 31-33.
Schiffman, H. (2013). “The South Pacific
Regional Fisheries Management Organization
(SPRFMO): an improved model of decisionmaking for fisheries conservation?.” Journal of
Environmental Studies and Sciences. Vol. 3(2),
pp. 209-216
Warner R., Verlaan P., and G. Lugten (2012),
“An Ecosystem Approach to Management of
Seamounts in the Southern Indian Ocean,
Volume 3 – Legal and Institutional Gap
Analysis”, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 58 + iv
pp.
United Nations General Assembly. (2011).
“Report of the Secretary-General: Oceans and
Law of the Sea.” Sixty-sixth session of the UN
General Assembly. A/66/70
17