.
Direkt zum Inhalt.
Direkt zum Inhalt.
Tagungskalender 2006
Jänner
.
 Februar
.
 März
.
April
.
 Mai
.
 Juni
.
Mai
  Mo Di Mi Do Fr Sa So  
  1
.
 2
.
 3
.
 4
.
 5
.
 6
.
 7
.
  
  8
.
 9
.
 10
.
 11
.
 12
.
 13
.
 14
.
  
  15
.
 16
.
 17
.
 18
.
 19
.
 20
.
 21
.
  
  22
.
 23
.
 24
.
 25
.
 26
.
 27
.
 28
.
  
  29
.
 30
.
 31
.
.
.
.
.
  
 
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
  
 
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
  
Service
Live Streaming
.
E-Mail Service
.
Fotos
.
Medienakkreditierung
.
Hotelreservierung
.
Routenplaner
.
Wetter
.

Erklärungen in internationalen Organisationen

14.02.2006

EU Presidency Statement – Working Group on Marine Biodiversity, Agenda Item 5 a


 

Ad Hoc Open-ended Informal Working Group to study issues relating to the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity beyond areas of national jurisdiction; past and present activities of the United Nations and other relevant international organizations; Statement by Prof. Dr. Gerhard Hafner, Austrian Federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs, on behalf of the European Union.

 

Mr Co-Chairman,

I am speaking on behalf of the European Union.

Item 5(a) on our agenda is about surveying the past and present activities of the UN and other relevant international organizations with regard to conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity in ABNJ.

In fact, the EU believes that this item of our agenda has in essence already been covered by section III of the Secretary Generals Report prepared for this meeting, (A/60/63/Add.1). This section provides an excellent overview of activities that have been undertaken within the UN, its specialized agencies as well as other relevant international bodies. The report gives a very impressive account of achievements in recent years in the framework of UNGA, UNEP, FAO, IMO, UNESCO, CBD, CITES, CMS, ISBA, IUCN, IWC, WIPO and regional seas conventions. In these different settings the international community has been able to agree on a long list of resolutions, decisions and initiatives pertaining to the issue of marine biodiversity in ABNJ.

 

Mr Co-chairman,

Let me mention just a few of the highlights of the report’s historic account:

  • Already 14 years ago, at UNCED in Rio, we agreed on Agenda 21, which in chapter 17 notes the inadequacy of high seas fisheries management, and which promotes the application of an integrated, precautionary and an ecosystem approach to oceans management
  • Also, the Convention on Biological Diversity was conceived at UNCED, containing the precautionary principle and ecosystem approach Following the CBD, the Straddling Stocks Agreement was adopted in 1995, again incorporating the precautionary approach.
  • The 2000 Millennium Development Goals stressed the need for sustainable management of living species and natural resources.
  • The 2002 WSSD called inter alia for the establishment of a representative global network of marine protected areas by 2012 and called for the recovery of fish stocks by 2015.
  • UNGA in 2002 reiterated the WSSD outcome in its calls to implement diverse approaches and tools including the ecosystem approach; the elimination of destructive fishing practices; the establishment of representative networks of MPAs by 2012; and the integration of marine and coastal management in key sectors. It further called for the urgent consideration of ways to integrate and improve the management of risks to marine biodiversity of seamounts and other underwater features.
  • In 2003 UNGA called for an improved scientific basis for decision making, and called on international bodies to better address threats and risks to vulnerable and threatened ecosystems and biodiversity in ABNJ, with the principle of an integrated ecosystem-based approach to management in mind.
  • In 2004 UNGA 59/24, Member States reiterated their concerns at the adverse impacts on the marine biodiversity of destructive practices, pollution and alien invasive species, and 59/25 initiated urgent action to address destructive practices and to protect marine biodiversity and vulnerable ecosystems.
  • FAO has developed a number of action plans, technical guidelines, a code of conduct, and codes of practices, technical guidelines regarding sustainable management of fisheries, which were endorsed by its Committee on Fisheries.
  • IMO developed measures on ships-discharges, anti-fouling systems and a convention regarding ballast water. IMO also agreed in 2001 on guidelines for identification and designation of PSSAs.
  • The CBD adopted in 1996 the so called Jakarta Mandate, which provides for a work programme on marine and coastal biodiversity. In 2004, the CBD COP7 concluded that MPAs were deficient in purpose, number and coverage, and called for urgent cooperation in ABNJ, including for MPAs, a process which was started at the 2005 Working Group on marine protected areas, including on ecological criteria and bio-geographical classification systems for their identification.
  • In 2005 UNGA launched the start-up phase (“assessment of assessments”) as a preparatory stage towards the establishment of the regular process for Global Marine Assessment.

 

Mr Co-chairman,

What can we deduct from this impressive account of previous agreements and agreed actions by the international community? Can we conclude that we have properly covered this issue, and that there is no need for further action?

This question of course has to be answered by assessing the state of our marine environment in ABNJ. Section II.E of the same report by the Secretary General illustrates that marine biodiversity in ABNJ is in a dire state. This was stressed by several interventions yesterday, and it is highlighted in recent scientific reports. We will take the opportunity to talk about these aspects under agenda item 5(b) when we will discuss environmental aspects of marine biodiversity in ABNJ.

The answer to this question, for the EU, then is twofold.

On the one hand it means that we have to implement what we have already agreed upon, using the appropriate existing institutions. This is what some delegations in yesterday’s statements have referred to as the “implementation gap”. And this is what the EU calls the short term track. Whatever label we give it; it is important to actually deliver what we have agreed upon.

On the other hand, the EU is of the opinion that we are also facing a “governance gap” in ABNJ, given the largely sectoral nature of the existing legal framework, which does not allow for an integrated impact assessment of human activities on the marine ecosystem, or for an overarching framework for the establishment of MPAs. But this, Mr Chairman, is in fact the reason why the EU sees a need to develop an implementation agreement under UNCLOS and its underlying principles for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity. We will elaborate on this issue further under item 5(d) of our agenda.

 

Mr Co-chairman,

To conclude, we would agree with some of yesterday’s statements that this meeting comes as a historic opportunity to address the issue of marine biodiversity in ABNJ. From this agenda-item 5(a) the EU would conclude that the list of past and present activities is impressively long. Yet, Member States seem not to have been able to reverse the negative trends on marine biodiversity in ABNJ. As we have said before, we have to urgently deliver what we have agreed upon.

 

Datum: 17.02.2006