On the benefit-sharing, the EU drew attention to the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) and the Global Environment Facility and suggested to
focus on “more readily available and feasible” non-monetary benefit-sharing; to
consider capacity building and sharing of material, information, and scientific
knowledge; and to request notification after MGR collection in ABNJ, including
the possibility of sharing digital sequence information.
On the ABMT, the EU noted that most competent bodies are working in silos and
recommended establishing criteria whereby coastal states. The EU recommended
stating that nothing should prevent parties from adopting additional or stricter
measures and encouraging non-party States to adopt similar measures to those
contained in an ABMT management plan.
On the EIA, the EU, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, and FAO
favoured an activity-oriented approach, while, for example, Colombia preferred a
location-oriented one and the High Seas Alliance an effect based one to avoid forum
shopping. The EU favored several options, such as: placing obligations on parties to
carry out EIAs and make decisions; setting out the basic content of an EIA in the
ILBI; and including explicit obligations to take into account EIA outcomes when
authorizing activities accompanied by mitigation measures. Besides, the EU
favoured consulting adjacent coastal States and addressing their concerns and
making the EIA process transparent through a communication platform.
Furthermore, on the CB&TT, the EU proposed a general provision setting out
CB&TT objectives under the ILBI, supported by the US and Canada; reference to
developing States’ special requirements; and needs-driven and responsive CB&TT.
The EU stressed that all CB&TT measures should be related to facilities and
equipment, human resources and institutional strengthening, and knowledge
dissemination.
The EU emphasized the promotion of cross-sectoral coordination and cooperation between IOs.
73 On this matter, the EU, with the support of the Japan, the US,
and China preferred excluding intellectual property rights, arguing they are
addressed under WIPO and the WTO.
Finally, as described above, despite the divergence of the positions expressed by
the different delegations on the multiple matters of the negotiations, it is important to
outline that during all the session in question the EU has participated actively
speaking on behalf of its Member States, with this assuming a high level of
coordination both internally and externally with its Member States. A fresh start
for an effective development of the Law of the Sea.
73 For the intervention of the EU during the IgC and the meeting coverage, see the UN-BBNJ
(2018). See https://www.un.org/bbnj/content/statements.
418
L. Riccardi
Organization (UNESCO) and the Global Environment Facility and suggested to
focus on “more readily available and feasible” non-monetary benefit-sharing; to
consider capacity building and sharing of material, information, and scientific
knowledge; and to request notification after MGR collection in ABNJ, including
the possibility of sharing digital sequence information.
On the ABMT, the EU noted that most competent bodies are working in silos and
recommended establishing criteria whereby coastal states. The EU recommended
stating that nothing should prevent parties from adopting additional or stricter
measures and encouraging non-party States to adopt similar measures to those
contained in an ABMT management plan.
On the EIA, the EU, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, and FAO
favoured an activity-oriented approach, while, for example, Colombia preferred a
location-oriented one and the High Seas Alliance an effect based one to avoid forum
shopping. The EU favored several options, such as: placing obligations on parties to
carry out EIAs and make decisions; setting out the basic content of an EIA in the
ILBI; and including explicit obligations to take into account EIA outcomes when
authorizing activities accompanied by mitigation measures. Besides, the EU
favoured consulting adjacent coastal States and addressing their concerns and
making the EIA process transparent through a communication platform.
Furthermore, on the CB&TT, the EU proposed a general provision setting out
CB&TT objectives under the ILBI, supported by the US and Canada; reference to
developing States’ special requirements; and needs-driven and responsive CB&TT.
The EU stressed that all CB&TT measures should be related to facilities and
equipment, human resources and institutional strengthening, and knowledge
dissemination.
The EU emphasized the promotion of cross-sectoral coordination and cooperation between IOs.
73 On this matter, the EU, with the support of the Japan, the US,
and China preferred excluding intellectual property rights, arguing they are
addressed under WIPO and the WTO.
Finally, as described above, despite the divergence of the positions expressed by
the different delegations on the multiple matters of the negotiations, it is important to
outline that during all the session in question the EU has participated actively
speaking on behalf of its Member States, with this assuming a high level of
coordination both internally and externally with its Member States. A fresh start
for an effective development of the Law of the Sea.
73 For the intervention of the EU during the IgC and the meeting coverage, see the UN-BBNJ
(2018). See https://www.un.org/bbnj/content/statements.
418
L. Riccardi