188
M. Seta
10.3.1 MPAs
In 2010, the Aichi Targets were adopted at the 10th Conference of the Parties of the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) held in Nagoya, Japan. One of the targets,
Target 11, provides that ‘(b)y 2020, at least 17% of terrestrial and inland water areas,
and 10% of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for
biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably
managed, ecologically representative and well connected systems of protected areas
and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECM), and integrated into
the wider landscapes and seascapes (emphasis added)’.
56 This target is also reaffirmed
as target 5 of Goal 14 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). SDG 14.5 does
not provide the detail of the MPA, and ‘simply echoes the target for the spatial extent
of MPAs (10%)’.
57 Under these two targets, all States are expected to establish MPAs
for 10% of their coastal and marine areas.
However, although it is hotly debated at the inter-governmental meeting to establish the new legal instrument on biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction, the definition of MPAs has not been established under general international law.
58 Moreover,
especially within the framework of the CBD, the scope of the OECM has recently
been debated.
59 These facts indicate that even though the specific target of MPAs
was set as 10%, the target is still unclear because of the lack of a legal definition.
Consequently, States have the discretion to define MPAs and OECMs and determine
whether they have successfully achieved the set goals to some extent.
In this context, after the Aichi Targets were introduced in 2011, the MOE published
the Marine Biodiversity Conservation Strategy. In this strategy, after examining the
definition of MPAs in BDC and International Union for Conservation of Nature
(IUCN) documents, the MOE defined MPAs as ‘(m)arine areas designated and
managed by law or other effective means, in consideration of use modalities, aimed at
the conservation of marine biodiversity supporting the sound structure and function of
marine ecosystems and ensuring the sustainable use of marine ecosystem services’.
60
According to the MOE, as of 2011, Japan had established several protected areas,
such as Natural Parks and Designated Waters under the Marine Resources Development Promotion Act (hereinafter, Designated Waters). Therefore, without taking
56 Decision Adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at
Its Tenth Meeting, (18–29 October 2010) (UNEP/CBD/COP/10/27/Annex).
57 Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, (25 September 2015)
(A/RES/70/1).
58 See, for example, Elizabeth M. De Santo, ‘Implementation Challenges of Area-Based Management Tools (ABMTs) for Biodiversity beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ)’, Marine Policy, Vol.
97 (2018) pp. 34–43.
59 Daniela Diza, David Johnson, Michael Riddell, Sian Rees, Jessica Battle, Kristina Gjerde, Sebastian Hennige, J. Murray Roberts, ’Mainstreaming Marine Biodiversity into the SDGs: The Role of
Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (SDG 14.5)’, Marine Policy, Vol. 93 (2018),
pp. 251–261.
60 MOE, Marine Biodiversity Conservation Strategy (March 2011), p. 34, available at https://www.
env.go.jp/nature/biodic/kaiyo-hozen/pdf/pdf_eng_honbun.pdf (last visited 21 May 2019).
M. Seta
10.3.1 MPAs
In 2010, the Aichi Targets were adopted at the 10th Conference of the Parties of the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) held in Nagoya, Japan. One of the targets,
Target 11, provides that ‘(b)y 2020, at least 17% of terrestrial and inland water areas,
and 10% of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for
biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably
managed, ecologically representative and well connected systems of protected areas
and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECM), and integrated into
the wider landscapes and seascapes (emphasis added)’.
56 This target is also reaffirmed
as target 5 of Goal 14 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). SDG 14.5 does
not provide the detail of the MPA, and ‘simply echoes the target for the spatial extent
of MPAs (10%)’.
57 Under these two targets, all States are expected to establish MPAs
for 10% of their coastal and marine areas.
However, although it is hotly debated at the inter-governmental meeting to establish the new legal instrument on biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction, the definition of MPAs has not been established under general international law.
58 Moreover,
especially within the framework of the CBD, the scope of the OECM has recently
been debated.
59 These facts indicate that even though the specific target of MPAs
was set as 10%, the target is still unclear because of the lack of a legal definition.
Consequently, States have the discretion to define MPAs and OECMs and determine
whether they have successfully achieved the set goals to some extent.
In this context, after the Aichi Targets were introduced in 2011, the MOE published
the Marine Biodiversity Conservation Strategy. In this strategy, after examining the
definition of MPAs in BDC and International Union for Conservation of Nature
(IUCN) documents, the MOE defined MPAs as ‘(m)arine areas designated and
managed by law or other effective means, in consideration of use modalities, aimed at
the conservation of marine biodiversity supporting the sound structure and function of
marine ecosystems and ensuring the sustainable use of marine ecosystem services’.
60
According to the MOE, as of 2011, Japan had established several protected areas,
such as Natural Parks and Designated Waters under the Marine Resources Development Promotion Act (hereinafter, Designated Waters). Therefore, without taking
56 Decision Adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at
Its Tenth Meeting, (18–29 October 2010) (UNEP/CBD/COP/10/27/Annex).
57 Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, (25 September 2015)
(A/RES/70/1).
58 See, for example, Elizabeth M. De Santo, ‘Implementation Challenges of Area-Based Management Tools (ABMTs) for Biodiversity beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ)’, Marine Policy, Vol.
97 (2018) pp. 34–43.
59 Daniela Diza, David Johnson, Michael Riddell, Sian Rees, Jessica Battle, Kristina Gjerde, Sebastian Hennige, J. Murray Roberts, ’Mainstreaming Marine Biodiversity into the SDGs: The Role of
Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (SDG 14.5)’, Marine Policy, Vol. 93 (2018),
pp. 251–261.
60 MOE, Marine Biodiversity Conservation Strategy (March 2011), p. 34, available at https://www.
env.go.jp/nature/biodic/kaiyo-hozen/pdf/pdf_eng_honbun.pdf (last visited 21 May 2019).