covered areas of shared competences. Indeed, in the Explanatory Memorandum of
23 January 2018, the Minister of UK Government has remarked that Decision 2016/
455 had an environmental legal basis (Art. 192, par. 1, TFUE) to reflect the existence
of shared competences and made special provision for the coordination between the
Commission and the Member States in areas of shared competence and that neither
of which may be found in the current proposal. He indicates that this matter may be
addressed in the COMAR negotiations on this draft Decision.
58
Now, in order to analyse the contribution of the EU, it is important to recall that
Ad Hoc OICP Working Group (AHWG) began its work during the 2015; in this
context, the EU was represented by officers of the EU Council and of European
Commission.
59 The AHWG was aimed at studying issues relating, inter alia, to the
conservation of marine biodiversity in the ABNJ, in which the EU is a pioneer. In
fact, as stated by Declan Smith on behalf of the EU at the UN OICP meeting of
8 June 2004: “In principle the European Union would support the development of an
instrument, within the framework of the Law of the Sea Convention, that will
provide for the conservation and management of marine biological diversity, including the establishment and regulation, on an integrated basis, of marine protected
areas where there is a scientific case for establishing these areas.” Besides, at the
2005 OICP meeting, the position of EU outlined the importance to differentiate
between the medium-term track and short-term track. In that occasion, Liesbeth
Lijnzaad declared on behalf of the EU that: “In the short-term, urgent action to
address destructive practices and to protect marine biodiversity and particularly
vulnerable eco-systems must be taken. The medium-term track should be aimed at
the development of an implementing agreement of UNCLOS.”
Before the opening of the 2015 OICP, the EU and its Member States jointly
expressed the view that a third ILBI under the UNCLOS “. . .will bring an added
value to the present legal regime of ocean and sea moving from sectorial and
fragmented approaches to a global and more coherent vision.”
60 The EU completely
agreed on a new ILBI under the UNCLOS. Together with its 28 Member States, the
EU highlighted that the adoption of such ILBI reaffirms the importance of the longterm conservation, management and sustainable use of the living marine resources of
the world’s oceans and seas, as well as the obligations of States to cooperate to this
end, in accordance with international law, as reflected in the relevant provisions of
the UNCLOS, according to Part V and Part VII. The adoption of such a new ILBI
will give the possibility to intervene effectively into the legal gaps of the UNCLOS.
Indeed, in December 2016, the EU and its 28 Member States submitted several
observations relating to the topics addressed by the informal working group on
58 For further details, see https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmeuleg/301xiii/30109.htm#_idTextAnchor013.
59 On the final list of participants to the OICP of 2015 to study issues relating to the ABNJ, see http://
www.un.org/depts/los/biodiversityworkinggroup/documents/participants_wg9.pdf.
60 Opening Statement on 20 January 2015 by Tullio Scovazzi on behalf of the EU and its Member
States. Cf., Scovazzi (2015), pp. 65–67.
414
L. Riccardi
23 January 2018, the Minister of UK Government has remarked that Decision 2016/
455 had an environmental legal basis (Art. 192, par. 1, TFUE) to reflect the existence
of shared competences and made special provision for the coordination between the
Commission and the Member States in areas of shared competence and that neither
of which may be found in the current proposal. He indicates that this matter may be
addressed in the COMAR negotiations on this draft Decision.
58
Now, in order to analyse the contribution of the EU, it is important to recall that
Ad Hoc OICP Working Group (AHWG) began its work during the 2015; in this
context, the EU was represented by officers of the EU Council and of European
Commission.
59 The AHWG was aimed at studying issues relating, inter alia, to the
conservation of marine biodiversity in the ABNJ, in which the EU is a pioneer. In
fact, as stated by Declan Smith on behalf of the EU at the UN OICP meeting of
8 June 2004: “In principle the European Union would support the development of an
instrument, within the framework of the Law of the Sea Convention, that will
provide for the conservation and management of marine biological diversity, including the establishment and regulation, on an integrated basis, of marine protected
areas where there is a scientific case for establishing these areas.” Besides, at the
2005 OICP meeting, the position of EU outlined the importance to differentiate
between the medium-term track and short-term track. In that occasion, Liesbeth
Lijnzaad declared on behalf of the EU that: “In the short-term, urgent action to
address destructive practices and to protect marine biodiversity and particularly
vulnerable eco-systems must be taken. The medium-term track should be aimed at
the development of an implementing agreement of UNCLOS.”
Before the opening of the 2015 OICP, the EU and its Member States jointly
expressed the view that a third ILBI under the UNCLOS “. . .will bring an added
value to the present legal regime of ocean and sea moving from sectorial and
fragmented approaches to a global and more coherent vision.”
60 The EU completely
agreed on a new ILBI under the UNCLOS. Together with its 28 Member States, the
EU highlighted that the adoption of such ILBI reaffirms the importance of the longterm conservation, management and sustainable use of the living marine resources of
the world’s oceans and seas, as well as the obligations of States to cooperate to this
end, in accordance with international law, as reflected in the relevant provisions of
the UNCLOS, according to Part V and Part VII. The adoption of such a new ILBI
will give the possibility to intervene effectively into the legal gaps of the UNCLOS.
Indeed, in December 2016, the EU and its 28 Member States submitted several
observations relating to the topics addressed by the informal working group on
58 For further details, see https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmeuleg/301xiii/30109.htm#_idTextAnchor013.
59 On the final list of participants to the OICP of 2015 to study issues relating to the ABNJ, see http://
www.un.org/depts/los/biodiversityworkinggroup/documents/participants_wg9.pdf.
60 Opening Statement on 20 January 2015 by Tullio Scovazzi on behalf of the EU and its Member
States. Cf., Scovazzi (2015), pp. 65–67.
414
L. Riccardi