Paragraphs 3-6 of SBSTTA recommendation 24/9.

Paragraph no. 3: we do not feel the need for the element of the global protection area target (30%) for the world’s oceans (bracketed text in line 5 and 6) to be in this paragraph. Not only does this seem to pre-suppose the CBD-COP decision on Target 3, it appears to single out and advance spatial protection above the other actions listed in the previous line, which include sustainable use and restoration.
If there is to be a particular focus on spatial protection in this paragraph, we would like (without us trying to craft specific text) to see it rather include important principles/elements for effectiveness of protected area networks, including ecological representivity and protection of areas of high biodiversity importance (e.g. EBSAs), and with an emphasis on effective management.

Many good comments on the question of whether to include a specific reference to % protection, and with respect to the nature of the protection we want.
With regard to the 30% reference - this does add emphasis to this part of the GBF, but should not be considered the only important part. Many analysis have assessed the Aichi commitment to % protection as one of the most successful commitments because it was clear to communicate, straight forward to understand (at least on the face of it), could be measured, and it prompted much action. While it is the implementation of the GBF as a whole that will have significant effect, it is not surprising that this kind of target continues to garner emphasis within and outside the GBF. The trends showing increasing the areas that are protected, conserved and managed have some of the best biodiversity outcomes. Canada views the proposed 30% target as a strong political motivator that can have significant positive outcomes, and for these reasons supports a reference in this decision as it both links to GBF, and influences future work in the marine programme.  As has been suggested, given the link to the GBF this would have to be revisited as the GBF evolves.

In regards to the type of protection we want - I strongly agree with the comments that we need to employ a system of tools and approaches, and should avoid restricting ourselves to one way. As indicated by a number of participants we need to focus on effectiveness, and using only one approach is very unlikely to be effective in all situations. The protection and conservation prescriptions need to be tailored to the status, pressures, and threats in a particular area; as such we do not favour limiting measures to "highly and fully" protected (comment 2179). A system of tools are needed, and states need the flexibility to apply the measures that are most effective.

On paragraph 3, the UK welcomes this reference to the importance of marine and coastal biodiversity in achieving the post-2020 GBF. However, we would urge the strengthening of language, including by highlighting the need to acknowledge the critical importance of the ocean within the post-2020 GBF, and the urgency needed in action to tackle pressures and threats.

Agree this is a hugely valuable conversation on the key elements that should be highlighted here and the question of including reference to a 30% global protection target here. We fully support Canada’s comments on the success of Aichi target 11 in terms of the % coverage, noting that more needs to be done to ensure protection is effective and achieving conservation outcomes.

Acknowledging South Africa’s comments on singling out spatial protection, rather than removing reference to the 30%, we feel this section is appropriate to highlight some of the key elements that the GBF can drive action for marine and coastal biodiversity, including to tackle threats from marine pollution, plastic litter and illegal, unregulated, unreported and unsustainable fishing, overfishing, impacts on target and non-target species and ecosystems, bycatch and entanglement, harmful subsidies and climate change.  We do want to avoid a long list (as it will never be exhaustive) but highlighting the most significant threats to the ocean (including those identified by IPBES and other reports) would seem useful here to drive awareness of the role the GBF can play.

Cameroon supports the statement made by South Africa on para 3. Just like South Africa we think it's not prudent at this stage to include numerical values or elements which are still under negotiations and strongly debated  in the post-2020 GBF.

Moreover, we find para 3 very long with the inclusion of alot of concepts and elements that renders its targeted objectif difficult to understand. Reducing this para will facilitate its rationale thus its understanding.

We support and share this comment. Any targets especially numerical values are to be established only within the GBF itself. Decisions on specific topics are in this case supplementary and may refer to the GBF targets. Thematic decisions are to support and organise implementation of targets and not to substitute them.

The key elements seem to be:

3. Urging Parties and other Governments to implement the post 2020 framework
4. Acknowledging the role that other organisations have to play in post 2020 implementation.
5. Output of the work that the Secretariat has conducted and (6) use of this information in implementation of the post 2020 framework.

With regard to 3

This is clearly the key paragraph. It shouldn't pre-empt the outcomes of the post 2020 discussions. The role of indigenous peoples and local communities will be key in achieving the goals & targets.

With regard to 4

Other organisations are are key supporting players for the implementation of the post 2020 framework. It seems appropriate to acknowledge this.

With regard to 5&6

These can probably be combined. References to the reports should be added and Parties, other governments and relevant organisations should be urged to use them as they are useful compilations of options to implement the post 2020 framework. Similar to the outputs of the Thematic workshop

#2161. I support this statement. I would add, however, that the role of the economic sectors in achieving the GBF commitments is essential. On the ground, it is the compliance and initiatives, knowledge, and mastering of technology in the various economic sectors that will make the difference between international theoretical commitments and real outcomes on the ground. It will be fundamental to let these sectors have the opportunity to report on what they have done to contribute to the GBF achievements. This should be done, of course, at national level, through the usual channels but also at international level through the dedicated sectoral institutions (FAO, IMO, ISA, etc.). In this regard the absence of a successor target to the Aichi Target 6 is a blow to reporting from this important sector. It would be very important and consequential to find ways to refer more specifically and precisely to what is expected from it by 2030.

The threats and pressures listed under paragraph 3 are very narrow and miss important threats such as extractive industries of non-living resources (e.g. oil&gas and deep-sea mining), habitat loss, alien species, and of course climate change (warming, acidification, deoxygenation).

Totally agree that especially pressures coming from industries and big economic sectors need also to be presented here, jdeep-sea mining impacts, Climate Change etc as suggested.   Here again we need to stress that it is not only recognition of the role of IPLC in conserving and sustainably managed marine and coastal resources but that they are rightsholders in their territories of life that need to be recognized through the  FPIC for every action taken in these territories.

I agree, it would be important to mention in a general way more threats.

In relation to paragraph 3, WWF would propose to refer to “all relevant” threats of pressures, in order to ensure an encompassing approach. Marine litter and unsustainable fishing are two out of several threats and pressures to the marine environment.

The Kingdom of Morocco recognizes the important role and effective support of international and regional organizations (RFMOs) for the effective implementation of this global framework.



The use of marine and coastal ecosystems must also apply the precautionary approach while making efforts to develop the MSP approach

Jeremiah Edmund Saint Lucia Sustainable Development and Environment Officer
I agree with Mr. Dunstan's statement in relation to paragraph 3. Local communities and indigenous people and local communities being cry in achieving the goals and targets of the Post 21020 GBF. IPLCs need to be more that just recognized in their role in conserving and sustainable managing coastal and marine biodiversity. They should be involved in the development of management plans and actions to be undertaken in coastal and marine areas as they rely heavily on these resources for their livelihoods.

The list of items in Paragraph 5 seems strange. It combines impacts and processes. I would like to note that the work of the Executive Secretary includes some but not all important impacts (e.g. habitat loss is not included yet it is one of the most significant contributors to the loss of biodiversity); and impacts of extractive industries of living and non-living resources (i.e. deep-sea mining) should be included in the list.

There is a lot packed into paragraph 3.
I hear the comments of colleagues saying that a number of issues, including the 30% target are to be decided in the GBF itself. I do feel however, that this paragraph will have such an influence on guiding CBD's marine work that it should contain the major elements of the GBF that are important for marine biodiversity. I hence feel like items such as the correct percentage of protection can be kept in brackets and adapted accordingly.
This being said Belgium, as part of the Blue Leaders, strongly supports a numerical target of 30% protection. The Blue Leaders also believe that the quantity should be backed up by quality. 30% paper parks does not help the ocean. The Blue Leaders aim at protecting 30% highly and fully. We would hence also support the introduction of text, similar to the World Conservation Congress's text which references to the quality of the protection.
The EU biodiversity council conclusions also make reference to quality of protection: "WELCOMES the objective of creating a coherent network of well-managed protected areas and to protect a minimum of 30% of the EU’s land area and 30% of its sea area, one third of which strictly protected, representing 10% of EU land and 10% of EU sea;"
Of course for this post-2020 Global Diversity Framework, mutatis mutandis, we should be speaking of the entire ocean, outside and inside national jurisdiction.

Realising fully well we are contributing to the Christmas tree effect, we would like this paragraph to also contain references to bycatch, underwater noise and climate change.

In conjunction with paragraph 4, we'd like to suggest the following additional language: Taking into account paragraphs 60 and 61 of the Glasgow Climate Pact (Decision - /CP.26) to integrate and strengthen ocean-based actions, requests the Executive Secretary to enhance cooperation with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, with respect to matters related to marine and coastal biodiversity and climate change, highlighting that nature-based solutions, marine protected areas and OECMs are critical elements in rebuilding and strengthening the resilience of marine and coastal ecosystems.

Nature-based solutions are still under discussion and should not be included until there is consensus.

Totally agree!

We support this statement from Ecuador that "nature-based solutions" should not be included since its an approach still under discussions and haven't received a consensus as of now. Cameroon believes that the Geneva discussions and the debates that surrounded the nature-based solutions approach still needs to put forward a convincing rationale within the CBD so as to bring more Parties in the consensus line. We don't think is prudent at this stage to include it in any para within this recommendation.

Agreed also by South Africa

Agree with Belgium on the need to strengthen linkages with UNFCCC/Paris Agreement, including through nature-based solutions (NbS). UNEP/EA.5/Res.5 (2022), para 1 has defined NbS as: “actions to protect, conserve, restore, sustainably use and manage natural or modified terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine ecosystems which address social, economic and environmental challenges effectively and adaptively, while simultaneously providing human well-being, ecosystem services, resilience and biodiversity benefits”.  It is also important in my view to frame NbS in the context of the ecosystem approach (as per CBD decisions V/6 (2000) and VII/11 (2004) to ensure that all safeguards (social, cultural, environmental, economic, etc) are in place in a holistic manner, and ensuring that the balance of the 3 objectives of the Convention is therefore achieved (since EA has been recognised a means to achieve this balance).

We feel that this is one of the main part of the recommendation. To make this clearer and more focused we support to split para 3 to 3 paras.

The first para should refer to post 2020 framework and on the protection of marine and coastal biodiversity, including the aim to protect and effectively conserve 30 % of oceans. 

The second para should highlight the need to raise more awareness to marine and coastal genetic resources, which are  increasingly threatened due to bad status of marine and coastal habitats and species.

The third para is one of the most important one and we feel that this should be seen more as a checklist than a “Christmas tree”. We should list the threats that are affecting marine and coastal biodiversity. We think it is very important to have a comprehensive list, to really know all the threats oceans are facing to be able to tackle them all. We would also like to highlight the cumulative effects.  If we list only few of these, there might be a risk to undermine those threats and pressures that are not mentioned.
We would like to include from our previous submission, also pressures like the loss and disturbance of habitats and species due to various constructions and other activities degrading marine and coastal biodiversity. This includes e.g. oil-and gas production facilities, renewable energy installations as well as seabed mining and other extractions of sea bottom.

Para 4  Regarding to the preamble on collaboration on post 2002 framework implementation, it would be important to list in this para,  those most relevant organisations that can contribute to the work in their own programmes and actions. This would promote mainstreaming and a stronger commitment for the implementation of post 2020 frameworks.

We also support addressing cumulative impacts and call for action to better understand, regulate, prevent and significantly reduce the immediate, long-term and cumulative effects of various stressors on marine life and ecosystems.

Taking note of some of the comments. Paragraph 3 is to urge Parties/other governments to take marine and coastal biodiversity into account in the implementation of the GBF. We don’t think there is a need to draw Parties’ attention to what will be in the GBF (especially before it is finalized), by specific mention of certain elements or targets of the GBF, thereby seemingly elevating them above others. The entire GBF will be important, including for the oceans and coasts. If we are going to make special mention of certain targets or elements, we could end up with a Christmas tree list for this, similar to the one that seems be developing for the list of threats and pressures in the second part of paragraph 3.

Regarding the growing list of threats and pressures referred to in other comments and previous input at Geneva, we wonder if it really is necessary to provide such an exhaustive list here? Inevitably, some threat that may be critical somewhere, could be omitted and potentially end up being undermined through not registering on this “all-encompassing” list. We think that the paragraph would be fine with “addressing threats and pressures, including but by no means limited to…..” followed by one or two examples, and otherwise keeping the paragraph more or less to its original length and straightforwardness. 

If however, there has to end up being an exhaustive list, we would like to draw attention to all seabed mining (not only deep-sea), coastal mining, reduction of freshwater flow (watershed management) and associated impacts, and desalination impacts (perhaps covered under pollution) – in addition to others that have been listed by other Parties and organizations, on this forum or at Geneva.

In para 3, as mentioned previously, we would prefer a list of the major current issues and threats to marine and coastal biodiversity and propose the following:

"3. Urges Parties and invites other Governments to acknowledge the critical importance of marine and coastal biodiversity in efforts to implement the post-2020 global biodiversity framework particularly for the most vulnerable ecosystems, and noting the evidence highlighting the need to protect at least 30% of the global ocean, urgently addressing threats and pressures, such as marine pollution, illegal, unregulated, unreported fishing, overfishing, impacts on target and non-target species and ecosystems, bycatch and entanglement [in active and abandoned, lost and otherwise discarded fishing gear], eliminating or reforming harmful subsidies…"

However, we acknowledge concerns the list could become very long. If a shorter list is preferred, we would suggest possibly focusing on those direct drivers of biodiversity loss as identified in the IPBES Global Assessment (2019) - for marine ecosystems these were: direct exploitation of organisms (mainly fishing), followed by land-/sea-use change, climate change, pollution and invasive alien species.

The ability to use the synthesis of information under paragraph 5 to achieve conservation and sustainable use of marine and coastal biodiversity will vary between parties/countries and especially between developed and developing parties/countries. We therefore welcome the acknowledgement of national priorities and circumstances in paragraph 6.

We also agree with including the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities if it helps the discussion.

Supported by South Africa

In agreement with comments against specifying the 30% protected area target in para 3, as all targets in the GBF are important for action, and for marine systems, perhaps the harmful subsidies (Target 18) sustainable production (16) and managed area (1 and 10) targets might be more important for limiting the most harmful practices around exploitation and with due regard to people and rights.

It is highly distorting and damaging in the global context to continually emphasize (in words and in practice) just one target of the biodiversity conservation strategies (as witnessed in the Aichi Targets) - so repeating this in the GBF will only project Aichi failures into the GBF.

“It is highly distorting and damaging in the global context to continually emphasize (in words and in practice) just one target of the biodiversity conservation strategies (as witnessed in the Aichi Targets) - so repeating this in the GBF will only project Aichi failures into the GBF.” South Africa agrees. The GBO-5 reported Aichi target 11 as “partially achieved” because the area coverage target was close to being met – more so in terrestrial than marine, where there was a shortfall of about 3% after starting with a baseline of a little over 2%, and for which a large portion of the progress was due to the declaration or expansion of a couple of vast MPAs in the Pacific. The emphasis of the reporting and the evaluation of  Aichi target 11 was on percentage area coverage - according to the GBO-5 (referring to NBSAPs): “The greatest emphasis of national targets is on expanding the size of ….protected areas estate…. fewer national targets deal with components such as representativeness, management effectiveness, protecting important areas and connectedness”. The results for most other Aichi targets were comparatively poor.  With the relentless emphasis on 30% both inside and outside of the ongoing Post-GBF negotiations, there is a clear danger that it will be more of the same (but more so), whereby a single element of just one target distracts from all the rest. The whole Post 2020-GBF is equally important. We reiterate our view that preempting the Post-2020 GBF in this Recommendation through specific reference to a desired protected area target value is unnecessary and inappropriate.

Para 3 – strongly endorse the call to address marine and coastal biodiversity issues in the post-2020 GBF, and in relation to this, the last paragraph on the role of IPLC is particularly important for assuring equity in its implementation. So retain this last bracketed sentence.

Para 4 – mentions the role of international and regional organizations in supporting the monitoring of the GBF. This is a very important item for marine and coastal as many states don’t have the resources for adequate monitoring, and given regional dynamics of marine and coastal systems, regional resources may be in place to support national monitoring, and to assure trans-national integration and cohesion of data and reporting, and therefore also of decision making.

So retaining this paragraph is important, and using it to support deliberations of the monitoring and indicators workshop in Bonn (June 29-July 1) is also important, that regional resources are particularly recognized and mandated to support monitoring, in addition to national ones. The monitoring and indicators workshop should consider incorporating this into its findings and structures.

Importantly, many regional monitoring assets are contained in networks of organizatoins and actors, rather than formal organizations and governments, as in GOOS, and GEOBON and their constituent observing networks. So consider adding the term ‘networks’ to ‘Invites relevant global and regional organizations AND NETWORKS’.

I fully support comments from David Obura and, in the same sense, I would stress in particular the role and potential contributions of the regional networks of MPA managers.

POSTING ON BEHALF OF CHINA FOR TECHNICAL REASONS

On paragraph 3, support the view of South Africa not to mention 30 percent target in this paragraph not only on the ground that this will pre-suppose the CBD-COP decision and single out and advance spatial protection above other actions in the CBD such as MSP and restoration, but also impose an obligation to an internationally legal binding agreement which is yet still under negotiation. From the Geneva negotiation this is already a call for CBD not to encroach ongoing process of BBNJ.

Paragraph 3 also calls for Parties and other Governments to address threats and pressures, such as marine plastic litter, bracketed illegal, unreported and unregulated and unsustainable fishing. There is an obvious lack of clarity on the value of compilation of submissions from Parties, other Governments and relevant stakeholders to be considered as potential elements of a strategic review and analysis of the programme of work on marine and coastal biodiversity if these issues are itemized here. To resolve this overlapping and lack of clarity, new issues should be included for strategic review and analysis consistent with the process of identifying emerging issues in the SBSTTA. For existing issues, either paragraph 3 and a separate paragraph can be dedicated to suggest additional efforts for partners to make to ensure effectiveness of implementation of previous resolutions or decisions. Countries are becoming overtaxed by the resources needed to engage in negotiations and implementation and overwhelmed with inter-ministerial coordination on the same issues covered or under the mandate of different conventions, international organizations or mechanisms.

On paragraph 4, while we are making reference to a number of conventions, organizations and frameworks we are overlooking other similar bodies with a similar mandate on coastal and marine biodiversity. Being cautious of this, it might be worthwhile to only mention relevant global and regional organizations without citing specific examples. Meanwhile, we may also wish to request these global and regional organizations to provide status and trends of coastal and marine biodiversity, and the information on good practices on achieving effectiveness of conservation and sustainable use of marine and coastal biodiversity.

On paragraph 5, we also welcome the Secretariat’s work on FURTHER compilation and synthesis of information which are “based on experiences of relevant international organizations”. On item c on MSP, we may wish to ask the Secretariat to facilitate sharing of experiences on the use of MSP in the conservation and sustainable use of coastal and marine biodiversity. We also like the Secretariat to further its work on compilation and synthesis of information of efforts on the conservation of mangroves, seagrass, algae, seabirds, sea turtles, etc.

Regarding the itemization of threats and pressures, we agree with China the need for strategic review and analysis, as per the process for identifying emerging issues.

Implementation of the GBF  in marine and coastal areas necesario needs to,   "ensure that the decision-making and work related to marine and coastal biodiversity are inclusive, open and transparent and respect the rights of women, IPLC and youth; in particular, traditional knowledge associated with marine and coastal biodiversity that is held by indigenous peoples and local communities shall only be accessed with the free, prior and informed consent or approval and involvement of these indigenous peoples and local communities taking into account the role of women in all their diversity as holders of traditional knowledge."

We concur with our colleagues from Dalhousie University, Ecuador and elsewhere that the threats identified in OP3 are not exhaustive. There is, however, a risk of “a Christmas tree,” as highlighted by our colleague from South Africa, and therefore there is a balance to be struck between identifying *all* threats and identifying those with outside impacts on marine biodiversity (e.g., exploitation, climate change, pollution). It will be challenging to identify a concise list, given the variance in threat levels and impacts across marine ecosystems — for example, land-based activities and sediment pollution can be a major threat to coral reefs while wild capture fisheries may have a larger impact on marine biodiversity globally.

However, this is slightly different than OP5, which addresses specific initiatives and work that has been undertaken by CBD previously on specific threats and issues. We strongly support the reference to this work, and potentially the combination of paragraphs 5 and 6 (as proposed by the colleague from Australia), to recognize that such momentum and work should be maintained in the context of a future work programme. The goals and targets of the GBF should respond to the issues previously identified in the context of the programme of work on marine and coastal biodiversity.

Acknowledging that, we therefore believe that there should be strong congruence between the threats identified and addressed by the CBD’s work on coastal and marine biodiversity and those threats and solutions identified as a priority in the context of the CBD post-2020 GBF. We recognize that brackets may be necessary as the post-2020 GBF continues to develop, but there should be strong linkages between the threats identified to marine and coastal biodiversity, existing work with in the CBD to address such threats, and how GBF goals and targets create the space for further international cooperation.

Given the importance area-based conservation measures to addressing multiple threats, we do welcome a reference to significant and quantitative targets that will be tracked within the marine realm, such as the proposed target to protect/conserve at least 30% of marine areas/ecosystems. These form unique and measurable contributions of the GBF to marine conservation. However, this may not be the only solution identified. This paragraph can also be an important place to clarify the CBD’s mandate in areas beyond national jurisdiction, in line with the jurisdictional scope of the Convention, and would propose that this be made explicit here.

We concur with the comment from our colleague from China that listing of particular organizations in OP4 can indeed present another ‘listing’ challenge, with the explicit mention of some organizations risking prioritization where Parties have not agreed (and where such prioritization is not really practical where the GBF will be implemented through many different pathways and in different contexts based on Party membership or participation in these initiatives or organizations). We therefore suggest that streamlining of this list may be necessary. Alternatively, many other organizations could be added.

Finally, we welcome the discussion of biodiversity- and nature-positive nature-based solutions in marine and coastal environment to global threats such as climate change. We note that nature-based solutions have been defined by the UN Environment Assembly (Member States being inclusive of CBD Party governments) as “actions to protect, conserve, restore, sustainably use and manage natural or modified terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine ecosystems which address social, economic and environmental challenges effectively and adaptively, while simultaneously providing human well-being, ecosystem services, resilience and biodiversity benefits….” [UNEP/EA.5/Res.5].

Very interesting and valid discussions around the 30% in need of protection as it is referred to in Paragraph 3.
We see this is the central paragraph to the Resolution as it is the one that urges Parties for action to generate positive biodiversity outcomes, based on the available scientific information on the needs for protection and existing major threats to the marine environment.
The mention to 30% is a recognition of the need to protect this surface area, at a minimum, to curb biodiversity loss. This figure is based on a number of scientific peer reviewed papers.
Therefore, in our view, the 30% there is not a determination of a global target as such. And, that said, it does not pre-empt the negotiations of the GBF and should be kept in.

I fully agree with this comment

Ms Fatimazohra Hassouni Department of Maritime Fisheries Morocco

Regarding paragraph 3, it is necessary to add the mention "Connected" for Protected Areas. Other Conservation Measures by Management should also be mentioned in this paragraph.

I understand that we are not negotiating detailed wordings here, but I would like to take this opportunity to make some proposals for minor modifications.
Regarding Operative Paragraphs 3, “effectively protect at least 30 per cent of the global oceans” should be replaced by “effectively conserve or protect at least 30 per cent of the global oceans”. 30 by 30 should be aimed to achieve by utilizing Other Effective area-based CONSERVATION Measures.

Japan has made a good point here, and we support the suggestion to add - conserve or protect.  Our formulation should cover both, as both MPAs and OECMs have been needed (in relation to Aichi 11) and will be needed to achieve Target 3.

We also would like to see a reference to “subnational governments” or “at all levels” after “other Governments” to ensure coverage in all jurisdictions given that the successful implementation of the new biodiversity framework will rely on all actors and partners, including subnational governments, cities and other local authorities, indigenous peoples and local communities. We also would to propose adding a reference to “subnational governments” in paragraphs 6, 9 and 11.

We also feel a reference to IPLCs would be esp appropriate around para 3, but we will await the conclusion of the current discussion around Bbis.

Para 3: This decision is not to set any targets and not to preempt or to repeat the GBF. So do not see the need to make a reference to numerical target here which is the element of the GBF. Instead this decision should focus on implementation of the GBF and unfolding elements of GBF as related to marine. The role of this decision is to provide action on implementation, guidance on how to approach targets from GBF and focus on quality aspects rather then just do a repetition. The GBF has marine elements across the framework and this para may better interpret and articulate these elements. Thus though long para and a kind of a list it can be OK for this case as it may stress some detailed missing in short and concise language of targets. This also will help to keep targets' language shorter and instead in necessary to refer to this decision in the decision introducing the GBF (para 5 of CBD/WG2020/3/3/Add.3) . We should avoid the risk of a focus on 1 issue but rather ensure comprehensive and quality coverage of marine issues.
Para 4: The para is important to invite important organisations. UNFCC need to be excluded from the list as is not an organisation and para is about key marine relevant ORGANISATIONS.    
Para 5 and 6: para 5 is not really an operation para and probably it is better to move it to preambular or at the beginning or very end of the text. It does not provide any actions or orientation for the further work. As para 6 is linked to para 5 there is an option to reorganised and merge them into operative para directed to further work on those themes in the context of the GBF. This will allow future activities of Parties and the ES on those areas and will allow to monitor implementation under GBF

Regarding paragraph 3, we consider that the threats are a little narrow and it would be important to include specific references to two topics: a) the conservation of mobile species, and the interest to promote a network-based management for them, and b) the need to enabling marine resilience.

Regarding a), Travelling through territorial waters, Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) and Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ), mobile species are going, during their life cycle, across varied, changing legislation and management frameworks. These migratory movements geographically link locations and stressors in distant ecosystems. This highlights the challenge of their conservation that requires coordinated actions at different scales by many nations, international and regional organisations, and stakeholders. Mobile species conservation requires to be designed and implemented over a very large geographical area. This stresses the importance of capturing ecological connectivity between and beyond the MPA borders and the national boundaries. In this regard, MPAs and networks of MPAs managers play unarguably a key role. They protect important habitats of mobile species, facilitate the implementation of harmonized protocols. But to embrace the geographical scale relevant to the ecology of these species, they should also be used in conjunction with additional measures beyond their spatial boundaries.

Regarding b), from MedPAN we provide below the rational targeting the Mediterranean region, but this could be easily extrapolated to the global ocean:
During the last decade, the close relation between climate change and the ocean has been acknowledged particularly in the framework of the UNFCCC driving a special attention to the threats and risks of climate change on marine ecosystems but also opening discussions on the opportunities they could offer in terms of nature-based solutions. The Union for the Mediterranean Climate Change Adaptation Framework, Ministerial Declarations on Environment (Athens 2014) and on Blue Economy (Brussels, 2015) recognize strong links between the marine ecosystem and the climate change concerns. The Barcelona Convention agreed the “Regional Climate Change Adaptation Framework for the Mediterranean Marine and Coastal Areas” (2016), and additionally considers climate change adaptation as a cross-cutting issue in the ICZM Protocol (2016) and the UNEP/MAP Mid-Term Strategy 2016-2021. At the UNFCCC COP 26, Governments recognized the need for a cross-cutting incorporation of the ocean under the work of all relevant constituted bodies and workstreams.
As reminded by the UNFCCC SBSTTA (2021), protecting, and restoring nature is fundamental for resilience “nature-based solutions include preserving and restoring blue carbon ecosystems, establishing and maintaining climate-smart MPAs, supporting climate-smart fisheries and small-scale fisheries, ecosystem-based adaptation, sustainable natural resource management, and protecting and restoring coastal ecosystems”. By design, MCPAs protect important coastal and marine habitats and reduce other non-climate ocean stressors (Pisco 2016, Roberts et al. 2017, Sala et al 2021). They reduce risk and support resilience in allowing the recovery of ecosystems (Tittensor et al., 2019). In doing so, they support the effective functioning of the land-sea interface and the carbon sink function of ecosystems. They provide refuge, replenishment zones, and ecologically connected corridors for shifting species. They serve as sentinel (research) sites to monitor climate change effects and climate change “schools” to increase understanding and awareness (Garrabou et al. 2019). The Mediterranean MPAs have both a privileged role and responsibility in climate change mitigation, resilience, and adaptation but there is still important room for progress. The latest Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Global Assessment indicates that there are “few protected areas whose objectives and management take climate change into account” while only limited studies exist on this issue, with no comprehensive synthesis (Rilov et al., 2020; IPBES, 2019). Even for the most famous marine World Heritage sites the available information is still incomplete and fragmented, 75% of them lack knowledge to understand how climate change will impact their biodiversity and ecosystem functioning (UNESCO 2021). In the region, 90% of MPAs do not have the essential capacity, technology, and resources to generate and process data, including the baseline observations, data collection and interpretation (MPA Roadmap 2016).

The essence of the paragraph 3 appears to be to ensure that the framework addresses the main threats and sets the targets for global conservation, restoration and sustainable use of biodiversity and that Parties take into account marine and coastal biodiversity in implementing the framework. The Parties can always be more ambitious than the framework in its implementation concerning the various elements to be covered by this decision and any potential limitations of the framework could be addressed through the PoW.