Download Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction

Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction
Environmental Impact Assessments
Statement of the United States of America
March 31, 2016
Agenda Item 7







The United States believes that environmental impact assessments are an important tool
in the decision-making process for protecting, conserving, and sustainably managing the
marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
We have long recognized the importance of incorporating environmental considerations
into planning and decision-making through a systematic interdisciplinary approach.
Although EIAs can entail additional effort, including time and resources, we recognize
the benefits in allowing full and transparent consideration of the environmental impacts
of potential actions.
Under Article 206 of the Law of the Sea Convention, when States have reasonable
grounds for believing that planned activities under their jurisdiction or control may cause
substantial pollution of or significant and harmful changes to the marine environment,
they shall, as far as practicable, assess the potential effects of such activities on the
marine environment and shall communicate reports of the results of such assessments by
publishing them or providing them to competent international organizations.
The United States has long supported the development and implementation of procedures
to assess the potential environmental impacts of activities that may cause substantial
pollution of or significant and harmful changes to the oceans and marine ecosystems,
such as bottom fishing, ocean dumping, shipping, and mining. Under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures in the United States, there is consideration
of alternatives or methods that may avoid the harm to the environment. The NEPA
impact analysis also includes consideration of cumulative impacts.
At the international level, EIAs are done in a number of sectors. For example, the FAO
has International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas;
UNGA resolution 64/72 contains provisions calling upon RFMOs with the competence to
regulate bottom fisheries and relevant States to conduct the assessments called for; Annex
2 of the London Protocol on ocean dumping provides a detailed framework for the
assessment of wastes or other matter that may be considered for dumping; the
International Maritime Organization has guidelines for procedures to establish measures
to protect areas of the sea that are vulnerable to damage caused by international shipping,
which include consideration of environmental impacts; and the Environmental Protocol
to the Antarctic Treaty includes an EIA provision that applies to certain actions taken by
Parties to the Treaty in that region.
We reiterate strong support for these, and other, existing international agreements,
guidelines, and commitments that provide avenues for the assessment of the impacts of
such activities to the marine environment as well as the sharing of those assessments
publically, as appropriate, and believe it is critical to ensure their robust and coordinated
implementation. When performing EIAs, the scope of the marine environment should
include the ecosystem and its component parts, such as the habitat and associated species.
We hope that our discussions on environmental impact assessments can focus on 1)
understanding ongoing and future activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction that may
cause substantial pollution of or significant and harmful changes to the marine
environment, including consideration of their cumulative effects, 2) understanding the
challenges States face in meeting their obligations to assess the potential effects of such
activities, 3) considering how we may utilize existing guidelines for EIAs, and 4)
considering how we might incorporate provisions related to the effective implementation
of EIAs – including consideration of cumulative impacts – into a possible new instrument
on biodiversity beyond national jurisdictions.