Parties postponed robust discussions on SBSTTA Item 6 – Marine and coastal biodiversity and forgot to include observers on the way forward
On Friday 25 March, the SBSTTA 24 plenary was supposed to continue the deliberation on 2 CRP.2 and CRP.4/Rev1 of item 6 (Marine and coastal biodiversity). Instead, parties reached consensus on a clear understanding that the plenary in Geneva will not be sufficient to move towards a clean text and they still need a robust discussion on marine and coastal biodiversity and to allocate sufficient time at the COP. When the deliberations in the plenary on item 6 came to an halt, observers have not been considered on the way forward. It is also unclear if and how a robust outcome of the discussion on SBSTTA item 6 can still feed in the draft of the Post 2020 GBF (targets 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 14 and 15) so that marine and coastal biodiversity are properly considered in the key outcome of COP15.
Especially CRP.2 lacks a clear direction of the work on marine and coastal biodiversity under the CBD and across bodies and mechanisms towards the objective of the Convention, the halt and reverse of the loss of marine and coastal biodiversity, the goal of living in harmony with nature, not to compromise the ecological integrity of ocean ecosystems and their regulatory services and functions. This needs to be included not only in the preambular but in the operational paragraphs with legal force.
Moreover, CPR.2 does not address the procedural aspects of the work on marine and coastal biodiversity under the CBD. It should be inclusive, open and transparent and actively facilitate the empowerment and participation of marginalized groups.
Both CRP.2 and 4 are women and gender blind thus ignoring the role and rights of critical agents of change which is widely recognized under current international law and practice and particularly in the context of the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, natural resources and ecosystem governance and without which the governance of marine and coastal biodiversity can neither be just nor effective.
Although the inclusion of traditional knowledge has successfully been proposed under some paragraphs, this is needed in the entire CRPs wherever relevant and in systematic relation to the rights of IPLC and the respect of IPLC governance systems.
There is also concern regarding problematic language, especially in paragraph 9 that “Encourages Parties and invites other governments to minimize and mitigate the impacts of deep-sea mining on marine and coastal biodiversity ...”
Deep sea mining is not consistent with the objective, Article 14 and 22.2 of the Convention, the goal of „harmony with nature“, Article 145 and 146 of UNCLOS, the precautionary approach, other relevant commitments and the common heritage and responsibility of humankind to protect the right of present and future generations to live in peace on a healthy planet.
No technologies and operational practices are able to demonstrate that the marine biodiversity and the environment is not seriously harmed.
There is no adequate scientific basis to fully understand the significant adverse impacts on the marine environment and biodiversity and on which to justify such activities and to take appropriate consideration of the risks and their distribution associated with the loss of biodiversity as defined by Article 2 of the Convention, its regulatory services and the resulting cumulative environmental, social, economic and cultural impacts. Deep sea mining would accelerate the loss of marine and coastal biodiversity and undermine any urgently needed steps to reduce existing pressures on the ocean. In the light of the accelerated ISA negotiations to finalize the mining code and a potential start of commercial mining in 2023, the COP15 must request Parties and invite other Governments to ensure that NO deep sea mining takes place in areas under their jurisdiction as well as in the Area as defined by Article 1 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and endorse this position in all relevant fora.
The shortcomings of the CRPs on item 6 are not least the result of a process that did not even allow in depth discussion of all party proposals much less proper observer participation. The plenary on 25 March brought this clearly to light:
After Chile and EU had proposed further text to paragraph 3, Switzerland took the floor noting that the first minutes made it clear that parties are not able to bring that text in conclusion in Geneva.
Switzerland proposed to stop deliberations of the two CRPs on item 6 and use the time focusing on the GBF and DSI as the key outcomes of COP15.
After having consulted with the secretariat, the SBSTTA chair expressed his understanding of concerns on the progress and shared his view that good outcomes from the whole meeting, including SBSTTA and SBI, can only be possible if parties apply discipline in the deliberations in CRP.2 and do not include additional language, so to work as fast as possible with this document, and then they will deal with CRP.4/Re which in his belief is pretty clean.
Switzerland, in a second intervention, asked the chair to allow parties to react to the proposal on the way forward.
Brazil questioned that CRP.4 /Rev.1 would be a clean text as parties even hadn't the opportunity to discuss the document in its entirety in the contact group. Regarding CRP.2, Brazil expressed concern with the chair's insistence that parties do not present new language while referring to the virtual session when parties just made a general statement in three minutes in the first plenary, it is impossible to raise all the issues, so of course there will be new language to be proposed.
Finally, parties consulted informally during a break and then expressed the understanding that this issue is important and that it is too early to move towards something that is considered to be clean text as parties just didn't have the time to really present all ideas and also to discuss and understand all ideas.
They concluded that the best way forward would be to invite all parties now to send in electronically their additional text proposals.
It has been decided that the Secretariat, based on what parties sent by midnight, would establish a compilation and prepare L documents for the final plenary to be sent to the COP.
The compilation as a whole would be bracketed to signal that this was not discussed.
It will be send with a report of SBSTTA to the COP with a clear understanding that they still need a robust discussion as a result of the special circumstances due to Covid, the tremendous pressure and workload related the the GBF in Geneva and the deliberations on item 6 were delayed one week because of the BBNJ IGC 4.
The compilation is still available in Geneva so that parties informally can discuss and can exchange to better understand their views.
The EU proposed that SBSTTA is requesting the Executive Secretary to conduct intersessional work to marine subject to the availability of resources and highlighting the willingness from the marine experts to continue the exchanges.
Regarding the participation of observers, the plenary on 25 March marks the low point for the time being in the item 6 related process that has become more and more problematic during the pandemic:
In 2021, observers were given the floor only at the virtual informal SBSTTA. Then at the first plenary of the formal SBSTTA meeting on item 6, observer statements were not allowed to be delivered on the floor, but uploaded at the conference website.
Some observers were given the floor during the virtual contact group on CRP.4 in 2021 and the in person meeting in 2022 while some proposals from IPLC received support of parties.
However, the contact groups did not consider CRP.4 in its entirety and the imposed time pressures as well as overlapping ocean-relevant meetings hindered meaningful participation.
Regarding CRP.2, the circumstances are even worse. Observer statements prepared after the release of CRP.2 were not even made available at the conference website because there has been no reading of the CRP.2 during the virtual plenary when the SBSSTA chair moved to the next agenda item right after the report of the co-facilitators of the contact group on CRP.4. Then the contact group that was scheduled for Saturday in Geneva on 19 March was suspended and there was no time for friends of the chair.
When parties were not able to discuss this in the plenary on 25 March and decided on a way towards more robust discussions at COP 15, they just didn't care to include observer proposals and ensure their participation on the way forward.