Towards a New Governance of High Seas Biodiversity Preliminary report from the Monaco seminar, 20-21 March 2008

1. Towards a New Governance of High Seas BiodiversityPreliminary report from the Monaco seminar, 20-21 March 2008

2. Organised in partnership with the Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation, the French Agency of Marine Protected Areas, the French Global Environmental Facility (FFEM) Around 100 experts from international organisations, national administrations, non-governmental organisations and research centres International seminar of Monaco

3. Objectives • Global and interdisciplinary approach • Foster interaction between disciplines and stakeholders to: • Inform current debates • Examine thorniest issues • Consider new/emerging approaches • Explore room for manoeuvre • Key questions: • Where are we in terms of science? • What about the current legal/institutional framework? • What new instruments are needed? • What can we learn from other “global public goods” experiences (climate, forests, …)

4. Programme • 4 workshops : • How can high seas biodiversity be assessed in order to inform decision-making? • Prospects for the sustainable management of fishery resources in areas beyond national jurisdictions • Strengthening the protection of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction • Conclusion: What options for an effective governance of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction?

5. An increasingly threatened biodiversity • Exponential growth of “traditional” marine activities: • International maritime traffic: + 470% since 1970s • Fisheries: from 19 millions of tonnes in 1938 to 95 millions today, over 75% of fish stocks fully or overexploited (FAO, 2006) • Emerging activities and related threats: • Floating energy facilities • Aquaculture • Bio prospecting • Carbon storage and sequestration, ocean fertilization… • Impacts of climate change: • Ocean acidification • Disturbance of ecosystems…

6. Pressing international objectives • December 2008: measures to protect vulnerable ecosystems from bottom trawling • 2010: implement the ecosystem approach • 2012: create a representative network of marine protected areas • 2015: maintain fish stocks or restore them to a level ensuring a maximum sustainable yield

7. Perspectives for “immediate” action (1/2) • Exploiting all the possibilities provided by existing legal instruments / improving implementation: • International maritime traffic: reinforce the application of MARPOL Convention, implement PSSAs, improve the protection of “rare and fragile ecosystems” (UNCLOS, art.194§5)… • International fisheries: use of the dispute settlement mechanism provided by UNCLOS and 1995 Agreement, revise the system of subsidies granted to fisheries activities (discussions at WTO)…

8. Perspectives for “immediate” action (2/2) • Consolidating and developing the regional approach: • RFMOs: control destructive fishing practices, close vulnerable ecosystems, implement the ecosystem approach, combat IUU fishing, encourage the sustainable consumption of fishery products through certification and eco-labelling processes. Need more transparency and participation. • Regional Seas: application of legal framework beyond national jurisdiction and implementation of marine protected areas (e.g. Barcelona Convention).

9. Some issues to address • How to base marine environmental management on principles such as the ecosystem approach, the precautionary principle, integrated management, science-based decision making…? • How to create favorable conditions for the establishment of MPAs in high seas? • How to define the conditions for accessing and using high seas marine genetic resources? • How to make Environmental Impact Assessments binding for high seas activities? • How to precisely define the flag State’s duties & responsibilities?

10. A debate is underway on • A new legally binding instrument, specially dedicated to areas and resources located beyond national jurisdictions? • Which framework? Some agreement (but no consensus) that UNCLOS provides the legal basis for the adoption of such an instrument (an Implementing Agreement). • Which content? Dissociate the conservation and the use of marine biodiversity, MPAs, EIAs/SEAs…

11. Conclusion: need to re-examine the link between science and decision-making • Lack of scientific knowledge: • Marine Biodiversity: 250 000 marine species identified, estimated 500.000-10.000.000 in total • Climate change impacts • Human behaviours… • Pressing research needs: • Mobility and biology of species • Geological/oceanographic features • Socio-economic activities… • Need for integrated assessments (ecosystems connectivity, long term dynamics…) • Need to find ways to better communicate science results

12. BUT: • We have learnt a lot: • Biodiversity hotspots are better known and mapped: seamounts, hydrothermal vents… • Increasing understanding of the way species behave • Increasing knowledge on the mechanisms governing deep sea ecosystems • The lack of scientific data is not the main limiting factor for decision-making / The high seas could be much better governed given existing knowledge • Need to accept some degree of disconnection between the timeframe for assessments and for decision-making • More science will help but will not solve the problem (even with good communication) • Action – even sub-optimal from a scientific/economic point of view – must be taken now (high impact / low cost)

13. Thank you