Preambular paragraph 5 and paragraphs 1-2 of SBSTTA recommendation 24/9.

Conservation and sustainable development of marine and coastal biodiversity needs to be built on a strong fundamental of all SDGs, human rights and peace. Without a human rights-base approach and well inform concern about the sustability of ocean uses, biodiversity conservation might become a tool for ocean and coastal land grabbing, disposession, displacement, impoverishment and marginalization of traditional users and an unfair use and distribution of benefits derives from the use of ocean resources . A human rights base approach to marine  and coastal conservation mentioned in the GBF is absolutely necesary.

#2158 The problems referred to in this post are important and too often underplayed if not ignored in many conservation advocacy threads despite some systematic lip-service. In many places, the competition for space implied in the loudly heralded "Blue economy" may be a serious threat to the traditional users of the Ocean. A major re-allocation of resources and space is already taking place with a high risk of violating the established rights and livelihoods of earlier users, many of which vulnerable and with little or no alternatives.  The CBD sense of sustainable use and equity need to guide the States' action.

Marine and Coastal will be responsible for implementation across the largest area of the world. Acknowledgement of the role that will be played is appropriate.

The key elements seem to be:
1. The report of the thematic workshop and what to do with it.
2. A review of the CBD Marine and Coastal workplan and how to use it to implement the post 2020 framework


With regard to 1

The report of the thematic workshop contains a diversity of views on what the post 2020 framework should look like and how it should be implemented. It identifies may options that can be taken forward in different ways. It is a resource for national governments to guide implementation and should be taken as such.


With regard to 2

It seems appropriate that a review of all activities of the CBD Marine and Coastal should occur in light of the post 2020 framework. It seems likely that all parts of the CBD would require this as no part of the CBDs activities will not be effected by the post 2020 framework. However, this para should be moved to be grouped with all paragraphs that request actions by the secretariat. Consideration should be given as to whether it is part of a broader review that may be necessary to identify how the CBD will assist in the implementation of the post 2020 framework.

The UK agrees that the thematic report contains valuable information that can be used by Parties and this should be referenced here. Also agree that the GBF presents a key opportunity to review, assess and update the programme of work for marine and coastal biodiversity, to reflect the latest identified needs and emerging issues, support implementation of the GBF goals and targets and identify synergies, efficiencies and tools for monitoring and reporting. UK is largely supportive of paras 1 and 2 as written.

Reply to #2131. One important area of the Programme of Work should be to fill or promote the filling of the knowledge gaps that are slowing down progress in biodiversity conservation. Gaps are unequally distributed, but there has always been gaps on say, population genetic structure; ecosystem status; relations between ecosystem structure, productivity, and resilience; meaning of Safe Ecosystem Level and of Significant Adverse Impact, and lack of related benchmarks.  In some rural areas, social desertification and drift to urban centers may cause loss of community skills and knowledge, and understanding of the human dimensions of conservation. All of these gaps and many others  affect management effectiveness and performance assessment and the usual knowledge gaps are now aggravated by climate change which affects the utility of past data, parameter and indicators.
Developing the capacity of decision-making under imperfect knowledge is becoming a lot more urgent that in the past and a serious move in that direction is needed.

Inland fisheries represent an important area (for livelihoods and food security of vulnerable rural communities) for which more information is needed, particularly regarding the biodiversity impact and conservation issues that may affect this sector, as well as the positive contributions these small-scale fishery sectors could provide. IUCN Congress Resolution 020  (on valuing and protecting inland fisheries) goes in that direction and an echo of this in the GBF would be useful in attracting States' attention on that too often "forgotten" sector.

To add to this comment, the gaps are not only thematic but they are largely geographically biased. For example, for open ocean and deep water ecosystems, we lack fundamental ecological knowledge in most parts of the ocean. However, we only have knowledge in few areas, mostly adjacent to developed States or in region where the Global North has had scientific or commercial interests. This requires major shifts in our thinking and the way we collect knowledge and concerted efforts in capacity transfer. While the open and deep ocean tend to be ignored in assessments, processes that occur there are intricately linked to processes in near-shore environments (including fisheries).

Decision making when there are knowledge gaps are key to effective implementation of the ecosystem approach - there are few elements of marine and coastal biodiversity where we do not have gaps in knowledge. To offset this lack of knowledge it is important to include monitoring so that the effectiveness of decisions can be ascertained

Regarding the two alternatives for paragraph 1 (1 and 1 alt), Belgium strongly believes that the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework needs to apply to areas beyond national jurisdiction, as well as to areas within national jurisdiction. This was the case for the Aichi targets and this will most certainly not interfere with the work the UN is doing on the "BBNJ" process (which does not include any targets, but merely lays down a system or procedure).

Eva Degré, Norwegian Environment Agency
From the Norwegian point of view we support this comment that the work on implementation of post 2020 global biodiversity framework applies to areas both within and outside national jurisdiction.

Agree with Norway. The ocean conservation needs are not limited to domestic areas, despite some ongoing debate on jurisdictional scope. Nevertheless, like under a number of agreements, CBD parties are responsible for ensuring that their activities or nationals under their control are respecting the decisions/priorities that they agreed to, irrespective of where they occur.

I stress that I am not a lawyer but was puzzled by the comment on the coverage on the Post-2020 GBF. Clearly the Biodiversity issues apply everywhere on the ocean and coastal and high seas as biodiversity and threats to it in these areas are closely connected. But the CBD Convention scope is limited to the EEZ, specially on management and governance matters. However, as comment #2215 rightly stresses, the mandate of CBD Parties and their responsibility on the activities undertaken under their responsibility covers the entire ocean and it is their right and duty to apply what they have agreed at the CBD COP to all their activities in the whole ocean.

From a scientific perspective, we have one global ocean and the physical (ocean currents) and ecological connections between the High Seas and coastal EEZs are strong. If we do not apply effective and consistent measures to both regions, the impacts of harmful activities in the ABNJ will also be evident within EEZs.

It is important that the post-2020 global framework for biodiversity applies to the entire planet, taking into account the objectives of the different agreements and conventions (CITES, CMS, UNFCCC, etc.), seeking to work together to achieve the goals. Therefore, we agree with Belgium...

Agree with Belgium, Norway, Canada and others that successfully addressing the conservation of marine and coastal biodiversity needs to include both areas within and beyond national jurisdiction. Cooperation needs to be at national, regional and global levels to achieve conservation outcomes and ensure use of the marine environment is sustainable.

Finland agrees with Belgiums comments that  the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework needs to apply to areas beyond national jurisdiction, as well as to areas within national jurisdiction.

Para 1: The thematic report of the workshop contains valuable information on different views regarding ways to conserve and protect marine and coastal biodiversity in the post 2020 framework and its implementation. It brings up several threats and pressures in the marine and coastal environment and possible tools to tackle with them.

Gender equality is a fundamental human right and is essential for addressing sustainability challenges in all contexts and ecosystems,   this seems clear when we talk about marine and coastal biodiversity conservation and sustainable use.  This threat must incorporate the clear mentioning of women’s knowledge and inputs to marine and coastal conservation and sustainable use.   In the case of small-scale fisheries, women actively participate in fishing, but also in pre and post fishing working in all the diverse value chains of fishing and mollusk gathering.  Women experience unconscious bias, cultural prejudices, stereotyping, and expectations, as well as bullying and sexual harassment, which puts them at a significand disadvantage compared with their male pairs.  This should be said and be use as another good backup for the idea of supporting a new Target, Target 22 : "Ensure equitable access and benefits from conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity for women and girls, as well as their effective participation in policy and decision-making processes related to biodiversity".

POSTING ON BEHALF OF CHINA FOR TECHNICAL REASONS

1.alt makes better sense to suggest that the Executive Secretary can compile 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 within national jurisdiction in the context of the implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. These potential elements of a strategic review and analysis of emerging issues should follow due process consistent with relevant CBD resolutions and decision, and the mandate of the SBSTTA specified in Article 25.

Jeremiah Edmund Saint Lucia
Saint Lucia welcomes a strategic review of the programme of work on islands biodiversity in the context of implementation of the Post 2020 GBF as islands are faced with unique circumstances that may implementation of conservation programmes challenges. This review should make special considerations for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) as they are rich sources of biodiversity that are threatened by both the direct and indirect drivers of biodiversity loss.

With respect to the OPs, it is probably a better step-wise process to collect inputs on the existing programme of work on marine and coastal biodiversity, in particular from Parties but also from technically qualified Observers, in order to inform the SCBD's strategic review and preparation of documents for SBSTTA-25 and CoP16.

However, our comments on the jurisdictional scope of the Convention can be found in Thread 1. We agree with the comments from Belgium, Norway, Canada, and others that the post-2020 GBF will apply to areas both within and beyond national jurisdiction. This is quite clear when Targets allude to the processes and activities that Party governments may control in such areas. Where there are specific questions about legal obligations and implications for governance structured via other agreements (or potential agreements re: BBNJ), such issues can be identified in Nairobi and resolved quite easily. We are therefore concerned about the reference to "within national jurisdiction" in 1.alt.

We will not provide recommendations here on elements to be reflected in any new programme of work, but would urge Parties to design programmes of work that are closely connected to the GBF in order to reduce complexity and redundancy. However, there will be an important place for a programme of work to explore emerging issues, identify monitoring/reporting synergies, and other functions that may not be narrowly reflected in, for example, goals and targets.

Finally, we concur that a human rights-based approach to conservation and sustainable use will be essential to design a post-2020 GBF that is practical and implementable. This should be reflected in Section B.bis of the post-2020 GBF, with key policy levers in appropriate targets.

We support the step-wise approach of obtaining Parties’ views as basis for updating the programmes of work (PoWs) to support the implementation of post-2020 GBF in relation to marine and coastal biodiversity, alongside the Thematic Workshop, so that the updated PoWs could be adopted by COP16.

With regards to the negotiations that will take place during the OEWG-4 in Nairobi on the Post-2020 GBF, WWF notes with concern that the first draft of the GBF does not yet adequately consider marine and coastal biodiversity. CBD Parties should ensure that the conservation and sustainable use of marine and coastal biodiversity is comprehensively addressed in the post-2020 GBF, taking into account relevant science-based findings and recommendations including those set out by the IPBES Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, the Global Biodiversity Outlook 5,  the IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate and the most recent Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, the Working Group II contribution to the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, which clearly shows that the pace and scale of climate impacts is accelerating rapidly and thus the urgent need to reduce threats and build resilience to better protect vulnerable ecosystems and dependent societies.
It is essential that all relevant threats and drivers are being addressed by the post-2020 GBF, including fisheries, reflecting at least the same ambition set out by the Aichi Biodiversity Targets (including Target 6, in the case of fisheries) and that the post-2020 GBF and its monitoring framework sufficiently reflect marine and coastal biodiversity through the goals and targets as well as the headline and complementary indicators.
Moreover, the post-2020 GBF goals and targets for marine and coastal biodiversity should also align, where relevant, with the frameworks of other relevant multilateral agreements, as well as the targets of the Sustainable Development Goal for the ocean (SDG14).

Achieving the vision of the global framework for the conservation of marine and coastal biodiversity must be done at the local, national, regional and global levels, taking into account the objectives of the various agreements and conventions and working in synergy.

For a number of years the key CBD implementation instrument was a programme of work (often developed for the thematic area or one of the cross-cutting issue). Parties spent a LOT of time to negotiate, agree and work on them.  We believe that programmes of work can play a significant role in GBF implementation being actually the mail common plan of action for implementation supporting national efforts. Thus operative paras 1 and 2 are very important to provide for review of existing PoWs and adjusting them in line with the GBF. We agree that while this work to be organised by the SCBD the ES should build on ideas and suggestions from Parties. So SCBD will organise the collection of views. It is important to complete this process in a time for the next COP to review proposed updates to allow work on the updated PoW (both for marine and coastal, and for islands). The work on language may continue based on Alt options. However both Alt as they are will require more edits on few elements