Consultation on and assessment of the proposal - Designation Process for ABMTs/MPAs

From IUCN Marine Biodiversity Matrix
Jump to navigation Jump to search
From the report of the BBNJ Preparatory Committee, 31/07/17 :

The text would set out a process for coordination and consultations on the proposal with relevant global, regional and sectoral bodies, all States, including adjacent coastal States, and other relevant stakeholders, including scientists, industry, civil society, traditional knowledge holders and local communities.↵It would also set out guidance for a scientific assessment of the proposal.

From the President's aid to discussion, 25/06/18:

(a) Taking into account possible approaches as indicated in 4.3 above, would the instrument specify the stakeholders who would be involved in the coordination and consultations process? If so, which stakeholders would be included?

(b) What modalities for coordination and consultations on the proposal would be included in the instrument?

(c) What modalities for the provision of scientific advice on the proposal would be included in the instrument?

Suggestion 1: Review by decision-making body[edit | edit source]

Proposals are be reviewed by the decision-making body, possibly in conjunction with a subsidiary body. The decision-making body may decide to adopt, modify or reject proposals, or request further information.

Decisions may be made by a specified majority or consensus.

Special weight may be given to the voice of Parties in the region or particularly affected.

References: SPA/BD Protocol to the Barcelona Convention, Madrid Protocol Annex V, Art 6 on Designation Procedures, CCAMLR Conservation Measure 91-04, para 3 (establishment of CCAMLR MPAs); IUCN Policy Brief VI: Options and Approaches for Establishing and Managing Marine Protected Areas in ABNJ

Suggestion 2: Review by Scientific/Technical Committee[edit | edit source]

A competent body could be organized with the mandate to review, adjust, or modify MPA management plans and specific measures to reflect the status of the Area based on a review process. This body could also establish procedures to ensure that scientific assessment informs the policy/decision making process on whether and to what extent an MPA could be updated, enhanced, or amended.


Suggestion 3: Public consultation[edit | edit source]

Modalities for coordination and consultation could be built into the agreement. These modalities should bear in mind the purpose of the new agreement which is to promote the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity, and that measures that affect the status of marine biodiversity might need to be subject to similar processes for coordination and consultation.


Suggestion 4: Interim measures[edit | edit source]

Provide that in any area under review, States Parties shall refrain from authorizing or permitting activities with the potential to impact marine biodiversity and its components, and in doing so, shall take into account the precautionary approach.

References: SPRFMO, Art 22 (new or exploratory fisheries)

Index[edit | edit source]

See also: