Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Marine life wikipedia , lookup
Indian Ocean wikipedia , lookup
Ocean acidification wikipedia , lookup
Raised beach wikipedia , lookup
History of research ships wikipedia , lookup
Marine debris wikipedia , lookup
Ecosystem of the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre wikipedia , lookup
Marine habitats wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on oceans wikipedia , lookup
The Marine Mammal Center wikipedia , lookup
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