implicit reference to EIAs in Article 204 of UNCLOS also says nothing about the
requirements—procedural and substantive—a good EIA must meet.
39 The President’s aid to discussion proposes three different strategies through which the new
ILBI could provide clarity on this issue: first, the new ILBI could set general
“thresholds and criteria for environmental impact assessments”; second, the new
ILBI could include a “list of activities that require or do not require an environmental
impact assessment”; third, the new ILBI could provide a combination of the two.
40
Such a list need not be exhaustive, and could, for example, allow for regular
updating without a need to formally amend the ILBI. A fourth alternative, not
suggested by the President, would be to impose an obligation to conduct an EIA
on all proposed activities which might affect the marine environment in areas
beyond national jurisdiction. But that would not be in accordance with Article
206 of UNCLOS, which limits such obligation clearly to activities which may
cause substantial pollution of or significant and harmful changes to the marine
environment. In the context of EIA, the general obligation to cooperate of Article
197 of UNCLOS is also relevant, as it obliges States to share information, consult
each other, and so on.
41
These are some of the ways in which the new ILBI could provide the necessary
details for effective implementation of the general obligations under the UNCLOS.
3 Relationship Between the Convention on Biological
Diversity and the ILBI
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was developed
42 as a response to the
loss of biodiversity triggered by certain human activities, on land, in internal waters,
and at sea, by providing an overarching and coherent framework for the conservation
and sustainable use of biodiversity.
43 As such, it complements other instruments
related to nature conservation.
44
The CBD puts forward three main objectives: the conservation of biodiversity,
the sustainable use of its components, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits
from the use of genetic resources.
45 More specifically, the CBD creates obligations
targeting the components of biodiversity found within the limits of national
39 Warner (2018b), pp. 41–42.
40 IGC (2018b), 5.3.
41 See also Wright et al. (2018), pp. 35–36.
42 The CBD was opened for signature at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (Rio Conference), and it entered into force the next year, see CBD (1992), preamble; CBD,
History of the Convention.
43 Yzquierdo (2017), p. 10.
44 E.g. Ramsar Convention (1971); CMS (1979); CITES (1973).
45 CBD (1992), Art. 1.
360
C. Blanchard et al.
requirements—procedural and substantive—a good EIA must meet.
39 The President’s aid to discussion proposes three different strategies through which the new
ILBI could provide clarity on this issue: first, the new ILBI could set general
“thresholds and criteria for environmental impact assessments”; second, the new
ILBI could include a “list of activities that require or do not require an environmental
impact assessment”; third, the new ILBI could provide a combination of the two.
40
Such a list need not be exhaustive, and could, for example, allow for regular
updating without a need to formally amend the ILBI. A fourth alternative, not
suggested by the President, would be to impose an obligation to conduct an EIA
on all proposed activities which might affect the marine environment in areas
beyond national jurisdiction. But that would not be in accordance with Article
206 of UNCLOS, which limits such obligation clearly to activities which may
cause substantial pollution of or significant and harmful changes to the marine
environment. In the context of EIA, the general obligation to cooperate of Article
197 of UNCLOS is also relevant, as it obliges States to share information, consult
each other, and so on.
41
These are some of the ways in which the new ILBI could provide the necessary
details for effective implementation of the general obligations under the UNCLOS.
3 Relationship Between the Convention on Biological
Diversity and the ILBI
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was developed
42 as a response to the
loss of biodiversity triggered by certain human activities, on land, in internal waters,
and at sea, by providing an overarching and coherent framework for the conservation
and sustainable use of biodiversity.
43 As such, it complements other instruments
related to nature conservation.
44
The CBD puts forward three main objectives: the conservation of biodiversity,
the sustainable use of its components, and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits
from the use of genetic resources.
45 More specifically, the CBD creates obligations
targeting the components of biodiversity found within the limits of national
39 Warner (2018b), pp. 41–42.
40 IGC (2018b), 5.3.
41 See also Wright et al. (2018), pp. 35–36.
42 The CBD was opened for signature at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (Rio Conference), and it entered into force the next year, see CBD (1992), preamble; CBD,
History of the Convention.
43 Yzquierdo (2017), p. 10.
44 E.g. Ramsar Convention (1971); CMS (1979); CITES (1973).
45 CBD (1992), Art. 1.
360
C. Blanchard et al.