cross-cutting issues during the second session of the PrepCom.
61 The EU stressed
the importance of several matters under the UNCLOS related to the new ILBI, such
as: the definition of the objectives and the guide principles of such ILBI; the
international cooperation and coordination in the respect of Part V and VII of
UNCLOS or the sustainable use of marine biodiversity; the strong position that
not only the States may become member of the ILBI. In fact, considering that
similarly to Art. 305 in connection with Annex IX of UNCLOS, it should also be
open for signature by IOs allowing for the participation of the EU and, finally, a
better cooperation and coordination with relevant IOs and to bolster coherence and
complementarity of action among them.
In this last case, the EU outlined that the ILBI should envisage a possibility for the
participation of and/or the cooperation with other IOs, within their respective
mandates, in practical arrangements under the ILBI, mostly to guarantee an effective
coordination with the other international instruments, in the respect of the resolution
69/292, whose respect should not be undermined. In fact, several international
instruments are also applicable in ABNJ, such as those developed by the FAO on
fisheries (such as the International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-sea
Fisheries in the High Seas),
62 the IMO on shipping and the International Seabed
Authority (ISA) on seabed mining and several arrangements made by RFMOs. The
latter includes the UNFSA relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, which establishes the obligation of States to cooperate through the RFMOs and arrangements, by following the
scientific advice, developing standards for accurate reporting of fisheries catch data.
Despite the direct or indirect effects they could have on the ABNJ and considering
the different status that the EU has with(in) such IOs, the EU has actively participated in each of these legal instruments, supporting the adoption of a coherent
standard for the protection of the marine environment.
Then, during 2017, the EU and its 28 Member States expressed a more pragmatic
position, choosing a middle-way path between the two opposite sides described
above.
63 The EU also supported a multilateral benefit sharing regime as a part of an
integrated approach to conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in ABNJ. In
this case, the EU proposed to subject the access to MGRs to notification or authorization, based on a flag state jurisdiction or related to an international mechanism to
be established by a new ILBI.
Indeed, the practice showed that the EU as a whole recognizes that, while the
principle of common heritage of mankind should not be the applicable principle, the
“first come, first served basis” approach to “bioprospecting” activities for marine
biodiversity and especially to the MGRs—based on the high seas freedom principle—could be harmful to the conservation and sustainable use of the marine
61 For the written submissions, see http://www.un.org/depts/los/biodiversity/prepcom_files/rolling_
comp/European%20Union-cross-cutting_issues.pdf.
62 FAO, International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas, 2009.
63 See infra para. 4.
21 The EU and the UN Legally-Binding Instrument on the Areas Beyond National. . .
415
61 The EU stressed
the importance of several matters under the UNCLOS related to the new ILBI, such
as: the definition of the objectives and the guide principles of such ILBI; the
international cooperation and coordination in the respect of Part V and VII of
UNCLOS or the sustainable use of marine biodiversity; the strong position that
not only the States may become member of the ILBI. In fact, considering that
similarly to Art. 305 in connection with Annex IX of UNCLOS, it should also be
open for signature by IOs allowing for the participation of the EU and, finally, a
better cooperation and coordination with relevant IOs and to bolster coherence and
complementarity of action among them.
In this last case, the EU outlined that the ILBI should envisage a possibility for the
participation of and/or the cooperation with other IOs, within their respective
mandates, in practical arrangements under the ILBI, mostly to guarantee an effective
coordination with the other international instruments, in the respect of the resolution
69/292, whose respect should not be undermined. In fact, several international
instruments are also applicable in ABNJ, such as those developed by the FAO on
fisheries (such as the International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-sea
Fisheries in the High Seas),
62 the IMO on shipping and the International Seabed
Authority (ISA) on seabed mining and several arrangements made by RFMOs. The
latter includes the UNFSA relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, which establishes the obligation of States to cooperate through the RFMOs and arrangements, by following the
scientific advice, developing standards for accurate reporting of fisheries catch data.
Despite the direct or indirect effects they could have on the ABNJ and considering
the different status that the EU has with(in) such IOs, the EU has actively participated in each of these legal instruments, supporting the adoption of a coherent
standard for the protection of the marine environment.
Then, during 2017, the EU and its 28 Member States expressed a more pragmatic
position, choosing a middle-way path between the two opposite sides described
above.
63 The EU also supported a multilateral benefit sharing regime as a part of an
integrated approach to conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in ABNJ. In
this case, the EU proposed to subject the access to MGRs to notification or authorization, based on a flag state jurisdiction or related to an international mechanism to
be established by a new ILBI.
Indeed, the practice showed that the EU as a whole recognizes that, while the
principle of common heritage of mankind should not be the applicable principle, the
“first come, first served basis” approach to “bioprospecting” activities for marine
biodiversity and especially to the MGRs—based on the high seas freedom principle—could be harmful to the conservation and sustainable use of the marine
61 For the written submissions, see http://www.un.org/depts/los/biodiversity/prepcom_files/rolling_
comp/European%20Union-cross-cutting_issues.pdf.
62 FAO, International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas, 2009.
63 See infra para. 4.
21 The EU and the UN Legally-Binding Instrument on the Areas Beyond National. . .
415