The proposal was made by Greenpeace and was debated, and rejected, by the
OSPAR Commission at its meeting in June 2016.
104 One of the five regions of
OSPAR is the one consisting of the Arctic waters,
105 but the Arctic coastal state
members of OSPAR (Iceland, Denmark and Norway) claimed the role of “the
relevant coastal states”. They noted that three coastal states of the Arctic Central
Ocean (United States, Canada and Russia) were not members of OSPAR and,
therefore, OSPAR was not the right forum to discuss Arctic issues in general, or a
particular Arctic MPA. Instead, they pointed to the Arctic Council, which brings
together all the Arctic coastal states. The European Union and four of its Member
States (France, Germany, the Netherlands and Spain) contested the position of these
three states, recalling OSPAR’s mandate to designate MPAs. Although they
emphasised the role of the Arctic Council, they rejected that it could be made
the main forum for the discussion of Arctic affairs. Thus, the proposal for this
MPA failed as a result of the potential overlap between OSPAR and the Arctic
Council.
106
4 Final Considerations
Currently an intergovernmental conference is working to elaborate the text of an
international legally binding instrument under UNCLOS on the conservation and
sustainable use of the marine biodiversity of ABNJ. The Conference is addressing
four topics, one of which is area-based management tools, including MPAs. At
present, MPAs essentially cover areas under national jurisdiction, although since
2009 they have also covered ABNJs (the Area and high seas). Therefore, they are not
a tool that must be developed from scratch, but rather one that already exists. The
main debate from a jurisdictional perspective leads to states, in general, and coastal
states, in particular.
The expression “beyond national jurisdiction” does not mean alien to any
national jurisdiction. It refers to jurisdiction from a territorial point of view, so
these areas, as such, are not subject to national jurisdiction. This expression rules
out the exclusivity or predominance of a single state in relation to these marine areas.
However, to the extent that the International Seabed Authority is not competent
104 OSPAR Commission, 20–24 June 2016, Tenerife (Spain). See: “Proposals on the establishment
and management of MPAs in ABNJ” (points 6.24–6.28). Summary Record—OSPAR 2016,
OSPAR 16/20/1-E.
105 Region I: Arctic Waters. Region II: Greater North Sea. Region III: Celtic Seas. Region IV: Bay
of Biscay and Iberian Coast. Region V: Wider Atlantic.
106 Commenting on this event, Molenaar (2017, p. 65) wrote: “However, the Arctic Council’s output
on area-based management has so far been fundamentally different from that of the OSPAR
Commission, notably due to the former’s lack of multilateral designation and adoption of associated
restrictions on human activities”.
462
M. Sobrido-Prieto
OSPAR Commission at its meeting in June 2016.
104 One of the five regions of
OSPAR is the one consisting of the Arctic waters,
105 but the Arctic coastal state
members of OSPAR (Iceland, Denmark and Norway) claimed the role of “the
relevant coastal states”. They noted that three coastal states of the Arctic Central
Ocean (United States, Canada and Russia) were not members of OSPAR and,
therefore, OSPAR was not the right forum to discuss Arctic issues in general, or a
particular Arctic MPA. Instead, they pointed to the Arctic Council, which brings
together all the Arctic coastal states. The European Union and four of its Member
States (France, Germany, the Netherlands and Spain) contested the position of these
three states, recalling OSPAR’s mandate to designate MPAs. Although they
emphasised the role of the Arctic Council, they rejected that it could be made
the main forum for the discussion of Arctic affairs. Thus, the proposal for this
MPA failed as a result of the potential overlap between OSPAR and the Arctic
Council.
106
4 Final Considerations
Currently an intergovernmental conference is working to elaborate the text of an
international legally binding instrument under UNCLOS on the conservation and
sustainable use of the marine biodiversity of ABNJ. The Conference is addressing
four topics, one of which is area-based management tools, including MPAs. At
present, MPAs essentially cover areas under national jurisdiction, although since
2009 they have also covered ABNJs (the Area and high seas). Therefore, they are not
a tool that must be developed from scratch, but rather one that already exists. The
main debate from a jurisdictional perspective leads to states, in general, and coastal
states, in particular.
The expression “beyond national jurisdiction” does not mean alien to any
national jurisdiction. It refers to jurisdiction from a territorial point of view, so
these areas, as such, are not subject to national jurisdiction. This expression rules
out the exclusivity or predominance of a single state in relation to these marine areas.
However, to the extent that the International Seabed Authority is not competent
104 OSPAR Commission, 20–24 June 2016, Tenerife (Spain). See: “Proposals on the establishment
and management of MPAs in ABNJ” (points 6.24–6.28). Summary Record—OSPAR 2016,
OSPAR 16/20/1-E.
105 Region I: Arctic Waters. Region II: Greater North Sea. Region III: Celtic Seas. Region IV: Bay
of Biscay and Iberian Coast. Region V: Wider Atlantic.
106 Commenting on this event, Molenaar (2017, p. 65) wrote: “However, the Arctic Council’s output
on area-based management has so far been fundamentally different from that of the OSPAR
Commission, notably due to the former’s lack of multilateral designation and adoption of associated
restrictions on human activities”.
462
M. Sobrido-Prieto