What are the key elements that need to be addressed in these paragraphs and why?

There is a need to assure Parties that on the acknowledgement of sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction of States although references had been made on previous COP Decisions. Therefore, it is suggested that such texts to be explicitly included in paragraphs 1-5.

Belgium agrees with Malaysia that it is important to have a paragraph like current paragraph 2.

Norway agrees with Malaysia that this is inportant to include in the preambular

.

Sweden agrees with Malaysia, Belgium and Norway that it is important to have a paragraph like current paragraph 2 on the acknowledgement of sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction of States.

# 2324 - The Kingdom of Denmark agrees with Malaysia and others that it is important to have a paragraph like current paragraph 2.

The UK agrees with Malaysia, Belgium, Norway, Denmark and Sweden that it is important to acknowledge of sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction of States. Paragraph 2 seems appropriate to address this.

Patricia Carbajal Enzian – Peru – Peruvian Sea Institute

Peru agrees with Malaysia on the importance of referring in the introductory paragraphs to the sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction of States for the description and modification of EBSA, as is done in paragraph 2.

[#2324]
Saint Lucia agrees with Malaysia that a paragraph like that should be included in the document.

It may also be beneficial to include elements on how the EBSA process could be a program of work under the Marine and Coastal Working Group to facilitate Parties in achieving the Post 2020 GBF especially in increasing areas under forms of protection or management. This may be included in the preambular paragraphs.

IUCN supports the suggestion made by Malaysia.

Colombia agrees with Malaysia and UICN, that a reference about how the EBSAS program will be addressed in the Post 2020 Framework should be included in the preambular paragraphs.

Portugal supports Malasya, IUCN and Colombia for the inclusion of EBSA process in the Program of Work for the Marine and Coastal Biodiversity Working Group, to facilitate Parties implementation of the Post 2020 GBF, namely target 3.

MedPAN agrees with the proposal made by Malaysia and supported by IUCN, Colombia and Portugal

Caroline Longtin – Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada

As per the opening webinar yesterday (slides 16-17 in the presentation), we would like avoid causing confusion and share our understanding that EBSAs do not prescribe management measures, nor do they prescribe which activities should/should not take place within the area. CBD COP Decision X/29, paragraph 26 “Notes that the application of the ecologically or biologically significant areas (EBSAs) criteria is a scientific and technical exercise, that areas found to meet the criteria may require enhanced conservation and management measures, and that this can be achieved through a variety of means, including marine protected areas and impact assessments, and emphasizes that the identification of ecologically or biologically significant areas and the selection of conservation and management measures is a matter for States and competent intergovernmental organizations, in accordance with international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.”

It is true that EBSA process is a scientific and technical process to describe areas that meets its criteria. Parties are encouraged to consider areas that meets EBSA criteria to warrant management or conservation measures. However, if exercises to describe more areas meeting EBSA criteria are not scale up and are not part of the Program of Work for the Marine and Coastal Biodiversity Working Group, Parties would not consider such areas or such process as critical, as there are a lot of tools and methodologies to describe biologically and ecologically important areas. But then again, this really depend on the Group's planning and whether describing areas meeting EBSA criteria will be a long term program. If this is going to be a long term program to facilitate Parties in describing  biologically and ecologically important areas in order to justify for further actions, then it should be accorded with appropriate weightage such as associating this with Post 2020 GBF.

I agree with that because the CBD criteria is the scientific one. It's a full description

Canada believes that marine conservation decisions should be based on scientific and Indigenous knowledge, and as such, the identification of EBSAs supports the future implementation of target 3 as the previous work supported the implementation of Aichi Target 11. We support building in linkages in the GBF, such as a reference to prioritizing "areas of particular importance for biodiversity" in target 3 and associated indicators in the monitoring framework. We would suggest that an explicit reference to EBSAs is not necessary in the target language, but could instead be reflected in headline indicators.

I agree with Canada because we can not do anything without local community and endogenous knowledge

May be getting of topic, but South Africa agrees on elevating the EBSAs in the GBF, in particular the indicator framework (or else there would seem less point in what we are doing). Also agree that specific reference to EBSAs in the actual target language should not be necessary, and the same applies to other examples of areas of importance, such as KBAs...

We are aligned with the views shared by Canada that links the EBSAs with the GBF, but also that an explicit reference wouldn't be necessary in the Target 3 - including, given there are some other areas of importance for biodiversity and to mention all would not be the best approach to a streamlined target.  We believe that the EBSAs are a long established CBD-led process that should inform future actions of Parties and other stakeholders to implement not only (the current draft) target 3, but others of the GBF.

The UK agrees that there is value in acknowledging the contribution EBSAs will make to Target 3, but that there is no need to detail them (along with other areas of importance such as KBAs) in the actual Target 3 wording. Including such areas of importance for biodiversity within the monitoring framework would be the most streamlined approach.

Peru joins the suggestion of Canada and UK in recognizing EBSA contribution to achievement of GBF Action Target 3 without necessarily being mentioned in its wording.

[#2342]

Saint Lucia agrees with Canada because a lot of knowledge lies with indigenous people and local communities that are uses of the resources.  knowledge comes in may forms and scientific knowledge are just one form of knowledge, therefore other knowledge types should be considered.

It is necessary to understand the long history of the EBSA work within the CBD as well as the development of the scope of the EBSA process over time. The original intention and focus was to describe EBSAs in areas beyond national jurisdiction to support the work of the General Assembly (e.g., IX/20, X/29 and XI/17).
The scope of the EBSA process has increased since the beginning and presently it also includes EBSAs located partly or solely in areas within national jurisdiction.

Agree it's useful to look at the EBSA process from its conception.

Belgium is of the opinion that the preambular paragraphs all have their value/importance and are rooted in the history of the process.
The first preambular paragraph refers to the "founding decisions" for the EBSA process and are hence a solid basis we need.
The second is a recurring and necessary reference to UNCLOS. We are fully aware that this paragraph is controversial and has been the subject of long and tiresome hours of debate. However a careful balance was crafted and we would continue to support this balance and it is our sincere hope that we will not use our precious negotiation time to try and improve a solution that has proofed to be the only way out.
The third and fourth preambular paragraph make a connection to the BBNJ process, confirming that this process needs to be taken into account, but that it is being negotiated within the UNGA.

Nabil Medaghri Alaoui - France - Ministry of foreign affairs

France also supports the inclusion of the preambular paragraphs mentioning COP decisions, UNCLOS, UNGA and the ongoing negotiations on an internationally legally binding instrument on areas beyond national jurisdiction.

# 2348 - In line with comments from Belgium and France, The Kingdom of Denmark supports the inclusion of the preambular paragraphs mentioning COP decisions, UNCLOS, UNGA and the ongoing negotiations on an internationally legally binding instrument on areas beyond national jurisdiction.

TNC also sees of critical relevance for the Decision to include a paragraph on the link between the CBD and the BBNJ treaty process, particularly the use of the EBSA information in the implementation of this future treaty.
The modalities in which these EBSAs will be used will be decided by the future COP of the BBNJ treaty. Therefore, CBD wouldn't be pre-empting any decision of that body by encouraging Parties-to-be of the new agreement to consider this important set of areas.
It is worth recalling that the UN General Assembly through its resolutions and the Ad Hoc Informal Open-ended Working Group to study issues relating to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction established by the General Assembly, recommended a collaborative work with the CBD on technical and scientific issues related to areas beyond national jurisdictions.

Aligning itself with the previous comments in relation to connections to UNCLOS and BBNJ made by Belgium, France, the Kingdom of Denmark, the IUCN and others, Canada proposes adding a new paragraph to explore options for further strengthening the exchange of information and cooperation between the CBD and UNCLOS in an effort to support the implementation of BBNJ and post-2020 global biodiversity framework with respect to marine and coastal biodiversity issues. This would go beyond para 5 (which focuses on the BBNJ negotiations) and provide for cooperation during the implementation of the BBNJ and post-2020 global biodiversity framework. The text of this new paragraph is reflected in the compilation of proposals as contained in document CBD/SBSTTA/24/INF/41 and would read as follows:

Requests the Executive Secretary and invites the Executive Secretary of the United Nations to explore options for further strengthening the exchange of information and cooperation to support efforts to conserve and sustainably use marine and coastal biodiversity and to implement the post-2020 global biodiversity framework with respect to issues related to marine and coastal biodiversity.

DOSI supports the statement by Canada

Belgium strongly supports paragraph 2. We are of the opinion that COP15 should agree on the procedure described in the annexes. This is necessary to keep the EBSA process scientifically sound, up-to-date, relevant and legitimate.
We have worked long and hard on these annexes and now is the time to deliver on a long overdue promise.

IUCN joins Belgium in strongly supporting paragraph 2 for implementation of procedures described in the annexes.

France joins Belgium and the IUCN in supporting paragraph 2.

#2349, #2366, 2372. We align with Belgium, IUCN and France in that paragraph 2 is a fundamental one for this Decision.  It is critical that Parties and the other referred to stakeholders act to implement the modalities so that described EBSA can provide the most up-to-date and accurate information possible to inform future conservation actions in the marine environment.

# 2349 – The Kingdom of Denmark joins Belgium, IUCN and France in supporting paragraph 2.

MedPAN agrees in supporting paragraph 2 as expressed by Belgium

Belgium would support an additional paragraph regarding the inclusion of the summary reports of the workshop on EBSAs in the North-East Atlantic Ocean in the EBSA repository.

Benin joins Belgium in strongly supporting paragraph 2 for implementation of procedures described in the annexes.

Portugal supports previous contributes (Belgium) related to the references to COP decisions, UNCLOS, UNGA, BBNJ,  the implementation of procedures described in the annexes and the inclusion of the summary reports of the regional workshop to facilitate the Description of EBSAs in the North-East Atlantic Ocean.
Additionally, Portugal believes that a simplified scheme of the process of description and modification of EBSA, for easier reference, would allow better understanding of the whole process and related discussions. An option could be the representation of both processes leading to the repository and to the Information sharing mechanism.

As a general comment, The Kingdom of Denmark find it important to include indigenous peoples as knowledge holders and would stress for a clear and adequate reference to; “...including indigenous peoples, as holders of indigenous knowledge, with free, prior and informed consent in accordance to UNDRIP” throughout the entire recommendation.

Canada supports the Kingdom of Denmark in seeking a clear and adequate reference to including indigenous peoples, as holders of indigenous knowledge, with free, prior and informed consent.

The Deep Ocean Stewardship Initiative also supports this.

The UK would support adequate reference to indigenous peoples to prevent any implication that information could be obtained without free, prior and informed consent, and to ensure that free, prior and informed consent is ensured throughout the full EBSA process.

Kaitlyn Curran – Maritime Aboriginal Peoples Council (MAPC)

MAPC highlights the importance of recognizing the implications of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) throughout the recommendation. One component of UNDRIP that is particularly important to highlight here is free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). FPIC as an inherent right of Indigenous Peoples, which allows them to give or withhold consent to projects that may affect them or their traditional land and to conduct their own independent and collective discussions and decision making (FAO, 2016). The normative framework for FPIC consists of a series of international legal instruments including the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), the International Labour Organization Convention 169 (ILO 169), and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (FAO, 2016).

Given the relevance of UNDRIP and FPIC to the entire text of the recommendation, MAPC is requesting that recognition of UNDRIP and FPIC is given in the preambular text and emphasized throughout the recommendation, specifically in Annex II (d) and Annex VI (a). Currently UNDRIP is not referenced at all in the document and is only suggested to be included in Annex VI.

Therefore, MAPC requests the following statement be included under the Annex to the recommendation:

“Reaffirming the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), with emphasis on Article 19 which requires states to consult and cooperate in good faith with the Indigenous Peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them,”

Key elements needed to be addressed for the Preambular paragraphs 1-5 of the introduction to the annex:
1 Highlight the definition of EBSA, the complexity of fixing spaces in a fluid connected ocean. This will help participants to recognize the importance of scientific, technical and other knowledges contributing to the EBSA process
2 Provide EBSAs brief background. This will help participants to follow in one paragraph the EBSAs origin and development and how knowledge in the repository has evolved.
3 Distinguish the regional gaps and need for scientific and technical cooperation and engagement. This will help understand the regional differences and needs in capacity development, biodiversity assessment and management of EBSA and criteria (e.g. pathways to assess the biodiversity)
4 Paragraphs 4 and 6 should be joined and have its own section on a) consultations, b) meetings next steps. This would open spaces for dialogue and contribute in the new normal with diversified options, e.g. this blog; facilitating hybrid interactions.

In Thread 2

In the process we must take into account indigenous and locals communities contributions knowledge. Everything must be done in a participatory approach

In Thread 2

Carolina Hazin (based in the UK) - Senior Policy Advisor, area-based conservation measures. The Nature Conservancy.

We believe that there is a positive value in a scientific and technical process, such as the EBSA one, to count on support, strategic advice and critical assessment from an expert advisory group (which includes representatives of the indigenous and traditional knowledge holders). Therefore, we support the reference to the extension of the mandate of the Informal Advisory Group (as Annex III of CBD Decision XIII/12), that includes tasks and responsibilities referred to on the modalities to modify exiting and describe new EBASs – Paragraph 5. We believe that this group would be instrumental to support the roles and responsibilities taken by the Secretariat on the EBSA process, to the Parties to the CBD and a  wider community as a whole.

With regard to using information other than “scientific”,  the phrase IPBES has taken on, uses consistently, and has developed extensive guidance for, captures the intent of most comments.  Given that the CBD interests are closely aligned with IPBES, this seems like an easy and efficient step to take. The phrase they use is  “scientific knowledge and the knowledge of Indigenous People and local communities”.    This brings in the multiple knowledge systems and does not require long established “local communities” to establish indigeneity in order to be recognized.  It has been helpful in many settings where “indigeneity can be highly politicized and   acknowledges that communities which have been living in an area for MANY generations often have developed deep understanding of their relationship with local Nature, and the dynamics of their local Natural systems.

Sweden supports the extension of the mandate of the Informal Advisory Group.

Portugal also supports the extension of the mandate of the Informal Advisory Group.

IUCN joins The Nature Conservancy, Sweden and Portugal in supporting the extension of the mandate of the Informal Advisory Group.

UK also supports extension of the mandate of the Informal Advisory Group

MedPAN joins The Nature Conservancy, Sweden and Portugal , IUCN and UK in supporting the extension of the mandate of the Informal Advisory Group.

Sweden also supports the inclusion of the preambular paragraphs mentioning COP decisions, UNCLOS, UNGA, BBNJ, implementation of procedures described in the annexes, and the inclusion of the summary reports of the regional workshop to facilitate the Description of EBSAs in the North-East Atlantic Ocean. In addition, we support a paragraph on the continuation of describing EBSAs and forward-looking aspects. In line with Canada and others, we believe that marine conservation decisions should be based on sound scientific information and knowledge of Indigenous People and Local Communities and that the identification of EBSAs supports the GBF and associated indicators.

FatimaZohra Hassouni - Morocco
THE DOCUMENT SHOULD NOT CAUSE CONFUSION. AT THE DOCUMENT LEVEL,
THE UNDERSTANDING OF EBSA NEEDS TO BE MORE CLEAR. IT SHOULD NOT
BE RELEASED SOLELY AS AN EXERCISE IN SCIENTIFIC DESCRIPTION SINCE,
IF THIS IS READY, THEY CAN BE ESTABLISHED IN AMPS AND MANAGEMENT
MEASURES CAN BE ESTABLISHED

Fatimazohra Hassouni - Morocco
Morocco is in favor of the IUCN proposal regarding the facilitation of online consultations within the framework of this process

The observation  by Morocco that the language used to describe the EBSA process needs to be carefully nuanced.  On one hand, many contributions to the Forum call attention to  carrying over past language that the EBSA Process  is a "scientific and technical" activity needs to be broadened enough that it the CBD clearly acknowledges the value of the knowledge of Indigenous Peoples and local communities when identifying areas that are "ecologically and biologically significant:.  In addition, the language needs to be clear that even though the act of identifying and reporting an area as an EBSA does not IN ITSELF have any direct policy or management consequences,  it does identify the area as warranting more risk averse approaches to management than the "background" in which it  is located.  It just does not proscribe that way(s) in which policy and management could deliver the enhanced risk aversion.  THAT is context-specific, with "context" including ecological, biological, socio-economic and cultural considerations