The role of the regional level in addressing and strengthening the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (
With the entry into force of the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (
This international law framework has, however, many loopholes, accompanied by institutional competency and regulatory gaps, and therefore does not comprehensively and adequately regulate all of the important aspects of the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in
The regional level plays a key role in addressing and strengthening the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in
The Southeast Pacific, an important region of high biological, ecological, and economic importance, is not exempt from the challenges of conserving and managing
Based on this study, this article considers the extent to which the current legal and institutional framework of the Southeast Pacific addresses the four
Biological Hotspot: The Ecological and Socio-economic Importance of the Southeast Pacific
Covering an area of 30.02 million km2 between northern Colombia and southern Chile, the Southeast Pacific is the second most productive fisheries region in the world (see Fig. 1).
The Humboldt Current is one of the main oceanographic features of the Southeast Pacific, transporting surface Sub-Antarctic Water towards the Equator. This cold and nutrient-rich current, which underpins one of the most productive and largest upwelling ecosystems in the world, is responsible for the high primary productivity of the Southeast Pacific.13 In the north of the Southeast Pacific region, around Colombia and Ecuador, the tropical climate with warmer waters influenced by surface equatorial currents have lower primary productivity. In contrast, the south of the Southeast Pacific is characterised by cold waters with high primary productivity that are influenced, off Chile, by freshwater inflow from coastal fjords. The variety of different marine ecosystems in the Southeast Pacific, such as submarine canyons, the Peru-Chile trench, active and passive vents and seeps, seamounts, ridges, abyssal plains, and oceanic islands, allow for a diversity of ecologically important habitats and deep-sea environments, making it an important biological hotspot. Miloslavich et al. (2011) reported around 6,714 identified marine species for the coastal waters off Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, and Ecuador, and around 10,201 off the coasts of Peru and Chile.14
Fisheries provide one of the most important commercial activities and economic revenues for the region, with Peru (60%), Chile (26%), and Ecuador (7%) accounting for approximately 93% of the fishing occurring in the Southeast Pacific.15 Other important economic activities in this region include land mining, agriculture, and aquaculture.16 In 2013, the Southeast Pacific region ranked third in global fisheries production with 8.9 million tonnes, representing 11% of worldwide catches.17 The El Niño-Southern Oscillation (
Within the Southeast Pacific, anchovy, jumbo flying squid, Araucanian herring and Chilean jack mackerel represent about 76% of the total fish catch in the region, with the jumbo flying squid and the Chilean jack mackerel accounting for over 60% of the total fish catch in oceanic areas (see Fig. 3).19
A 2009 study by the Center for Ocean Solutions at Stanford University identified threats from land-based chemicals and nutrient pollution, land-based sedimentation, commercial overfishing, wastewater from aquaculture, oil spills, and antifouling chemicals, coastal development, land reclamation, and the increase of climate change-induced sea surface temperature as having the most severe impacts across the Southeast Pacific region.22 Moderate impacts come notably from solid waste disposal, thermal pollution, artisanal/recreational/subsistence fishing, invasive species, bycatch, waste discharge, and offshore oil exploitation and mining.23
Institutional Framework for
bbnj in the Southeast Pacific
The regional institutional framework of the Southeast Pacific relevant to the conservation of
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission
South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation
Comisión Permanente del Pacífico Sur
Relevance of the Three Regional Organisations to
bbnj Conservation and Sustainable Use in the Southeast Pacific
As summarised in Table 1, the three organisations are complementary in terms of their mandates and geographical scope. Both the
Summary of institutional commonalities and differences
a The geographical scope of the two
Package Elements in the Southeast Pacific: Challenges and Opportunities for
bbnj Conservation and Sustainable Use
Element 1: Area-based Management, Including Marine Protected Areas
International Legal Framework for
There is currently no global legal framework providing comprehensive measures for the establishment, implementation, monitoring, and enforcement of
Legal Framework for
abmts in the Southeast Pacific
To fulfil their objective of long-term conservation and sustainable use of fishery resources,53 both the
In the case of the
Article 20.2 lists a series of specific conservation and management measures that can be adopted, ‘as appropriate’, by the
In contrast, the
Regional Progress on
Within their national jurisdiction, the coastal States of the Southeast Pacific (Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru) have established
Under the umbrella of the
Regionally, under the umbrella of the
To date, the
Element 2: Environmental Impact Assessments and Strategic Environmental Assessments
International Legal Framework for
The obligation to undertake
Despite these hard and soft law obligations, to date no legally binding global instrument on the use of
(i) avoid degradation of ecosystems […]; (ii) [account] for the requirements of other ecosystem components (e.g., non-target species, protected species, habitat considerations, and various trophic interactions) […]; (iii) obtain and maintain long-term socioeconomic benefits without compromising the ecosystem; and (iv) generate knowledge of ecosystem processes sufficient to understand the likely consequences of human actions.94
Legal Framework for
eias in the Southeast Pacific
There is no regional legal framework for the application of
Regional Progress on
The main gap resides in the fact that the ecosystem approach needs to be better implemented for the management of fisheries. Carrying out the
So far, the
Element 3: Marine Genetic Resources, Including Access and Benefit Sharing
Outside of their important ecological function, the diversity of marine micro-organisms and their adaptation to extreme living conditions, such as on and around hydrothermal vents, offers opportunities to find potentially interesting new discoveries for biotechnological applications in areas such as pharmaceuticals, nutraceuticals, cosmetics, and biofuels.101 There is currently no internationally agreed definition of
International Legal Framework for
There is no international legal framework for the use, access to, and sharing of benefits of marine genetic resources in
Legal Framework for
mgrs in the Southeast Pacific
No existing legal framework at the regional level regulates access to and distribution of the benefits of
Regional Progress on
Given the anticipated high level of biodiversity across the whole Southeast Pacific and the relatively high percentage of marine species endemism,111 this region may provide a source of
Under the auspices of the
strengthening cooperation between
cppsmember States to reinforce their capacities in mgrresearch and technology transfer;
organising training and workshops in the region to improve scientific and legal knowledge on the topic;
establishing an internal legal regime for the region on
mgrdata gathering and exchange, the development of scientific projects, or the sharing of their benefits;
creating scientific networks to study the scientific, economic, environmental, and legal aspects of
mgrs and to develop and share mgrinformation;
coordinating a regional position to recognise
mgrs found within the national jurisdiction of cppsmember States as common heritage of mankind; and
promoting a global legal regime for the exploration and exploitation of
mgrs in abnjunder the loscand thereby promoting the establishment of regulatory norms for their access and benefit sharing.114
Element 4: Capacity Building and Technology Transfer
Capacity building, also known as capacity development, is a long-term and continuing ‘process by which individuals, organizations, institutions and societies develop abilities to perform functions, solve problems and set and achieve objectives’ at the individual, institutional, and societal levels.115 Technology transfer is one of the tools by which capacity can be built in countries where access to data and technology is limited.
International Legal Framework for Capacity Building and Technology Transfer
In its Principle 9, the 1992 Rio Declaration emphasises the need for States to ‘cooperate to strengthen endogenous capacity-building for sustainable development by improving scientific understanding through exchanges of scientific and technological knowledge, and by enhancing the development, adaptation, diffusion and transfer of technologies, including new and innovative technologies’.116 This was reiterated in the 2012 ‘The Future We Want’ document.117 Under the
Specifically, States have to:
assist in technical and scientific personnel training;118
facilitate the participation of developing countries in international programmes;119
promote programmes of scientific, educational, technical, and other assistance;120
assist in preparing environmental assessments;121
supply necessary equipment and facilities;122
cooperate internationally and provide international funding for ocean research and development;123
provide advice on and develop facilities for research, monitoring, educational and other programmes;124
enhance equipment manufacturing capacity;125 and
assist in minimising effects of major pollution incidents.126
Technical and scientific cooperation obligations with regard to the conservation and management of straddling and highly migratory fish stocks and to the conservation of biodiversity are also outlined in the
Legal Framework for Capacity Building and Technology Transfer in the Southeast Pacific
Part vi of the
Capacity building is a prominent part of the
Regional Progress on Capacity Building and Technology Transfer
Options for Strengthening Regional Progress on the
bbnj Elements in the Southeast Pacific
Independently of the
Institutional working group or task force
Setting up a Working Group or Task Force between the three institutions to look into one or several of the
bbnjelements will provide a discussion and knowledge exchange platform specifically dedicated to developing coordinated common approaches in the establishment and implementation of the bbnjelements, such as work programmes, scientific criteria, monitoring schemes, and management plans.140 These working groups could be established at the Commission level or at a sub-level, such as between scientific committees or compliance committees. They should have clear terms of reference, work goals and a clear and defined timeline in order to be effective. With the involvement of relevant representatives of each institution, together with relevant stakeholders and experts (for instance from other intergovernmental organisations such as imo, isa, fao, cbd, etc.), these working groups could look into the drafting of a more formal framework for the region. This would be particularly effective in ensuring cooperative approaches between the three institutions in the establishment of a comprehensive and cross-sectoral network of abmts.141
Such a working group could also be established bilaterally between
iattcand sprfmoto ensure the complementarity of conservation and management measures and the standardisation of eiaprocesses for fishery activities in the Southeast Pacific region. A working group could also be established under cppsto further the work of the 2008 expert workshop on mgrs and to facilitate the development of a regional framework for mgrs access, use, and benefit-sharing in the Southeast Pacific. Although this is a less formal approach, setting up a working group or task force would ensure that the relevant bbnjissues for the region can be openly discussed between the main regional players and, where appropriate, together with the relevant international stakeholders. Important synergies and/or challenges can thereby be identified and institutional cooperative mechanisms can be established to tackle these issues further in a more formal setting.
Institutional cooperative mechanism
Formal cooperative arrangements could be instituted as a means to strengthen cooperation and collaboration between the three institutions’ secretariats and committees on matters of mutual interest and concern, such as the development of common scientific and technical work programmes, the collection of scientific data, the establishment of common ̶ or at least complementary and non-conflicting ̶ conservation and management measures, and monitoring, enforcement, and compliance schemes.142 It would also be an important mechanism to formalise the exchange of information between the three regional institutions, for instance on fisheries and environmental data, and to promote capacity building through the organisation of training and workshops. To date, only
iattcand cppshave signed such a MoU.143 A MoU between the sprfmoand the iattcand between the sprfmoand the cppswould contribute towards regional progress on the bbnjelements.144 Elements such as abmts and eias will need to be tackled using a holistic approach and to be institutionalised to ensure their comprehensive application and implementation throughout the Southeast Pacific region.
Therefore, such MoUs would also be useful to ensure formal institutional cooperation with other relevant global, regional, and sectoral organisations. As noted by Scott, there are different forms of cooperative institutional interplay, all with different levels of institutional interactions and overlaps.145 Formal institutional cooperation through, for instance, the establishment of MoUs, aims to achieve common goals and objectives through the use of different cooperative mechanisms, all of which provide for cognitive interaction that will eventually contribute towards more effective governance. The successful negotiation and implementation of these cooperative arrangements depend first on the existence of a secretariat and its legal capacity to undertake such arrangements.146 Secretariats therefore play an important role in inter-institutional cooperation as knowledge brokers and negotiation facilitators.147
Common and external scientific knowledge base
Scientific information is crucial as a basis for informed decision-making. Therefore knowledge generation and data exchange between the three regional institutions are vital. Given that the
cppsis conducting extensive scientific research across the Southeast Pacific, particularly on environmental and climate-related issues, it could provide a scientific platform for the sprfmoand the iattc. Through the signing of scientific cooperation MoUs with the iattcand the sprfmo, the three institutions could establish a scientific information and data exchange, as well as a monitoring programme, to ensure that environmental and climatic data complementary and necessary to fisheries management and biodiversity conservation are shared between the three institutions as part of an ecosystem approach to management.148 Furthermore, ensuring continuous and reliable financial contributions towards furthering scientific research and scientific cooperation in the Southeast Pacific is crucial.
Promoting State interests in
The lack of a current jurisdictional mandate in
abnjunder the cbddoes not prevent States from taking actions themselves on processes and activities carried out under their control or jurisdiction in abnjfor the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity.149 For instance, Southeast Pacific coastal States could request abmts within their national jurisdiction to be extended to abnjor spatial and temporal management tools under the sprfmoand the iattcto be extended into their waters. They could also push for the adoption of management measures for the ebsas identified under the cbd—for instance within the framework of a newly mandated cpps(see point below)—or by bringing this as a common issue to the sprfmoand the iattc. The cppscould also promote marine environmental protection, and particularly marine pollution management, beyond its borders: its member States could raise these issues in the iattcand the sprfmo, thus encouraging these institutions to improve efforts to protect the marine environment.150
The coastal States in the Southeast Pacific could also promote global or region-specific issues to be included in a future implementing agreement under the
losc, for instance, by ensuring that the minimum eiarequirements adopted under the cbdare required to be implemented by all rfmos.151 This setting would ensure that important and relevant issues for the region are brought to other fora if the regional setting does not enable to follow-up on them concretely and directly in a concerted regional way. However, this option may be less collaborative than the two others and therefore may fall short in pushing forward a united regional agenda.
At the 2016 meeting of the United Nations Environment Assembly (
unea) of the United Nations Environment Programme ( unep), States resolved to ‘consider the possibility of increasing the regional coverage of [existing regional seas conventions] in accordance with international law’.152 This could prompt the cppsto look into a formal mandate extension into the abnjof the Southeast Pacific for marine environmental protection, similar to osparin the Northeast Atlantic.153 However, it should be noted that the institutional settings and conditions in the Southeast Pacific are very different from the ones in the osparregion, for instance with regard to institutional membership, distant-water fishing nations, institutional geographical scope, ocean basin shape, etc.,154 so that the ‘ osparmodel’ cannot be simply ‘copy pasted’ into the Southeast Pacific region. Given also the cpps’ current advisory and facilitator’s role, such a mandate extension would therefore at this stage not be possible.
However, its Contracting Parties can, as mentioned above, raise important environmental issues in other fora to encourage and improve efforts to protect the marine environment. The
sprfmoand the iattccould, however, as management organisations, extend their mandates to adopt and implement more biodiversity conservation-related measures, as well as environmental protection measures—for instance, as part of the ebfm—in order to meet an objective of adequately conserving and sustainably using high seas biodiversity.155 Strengthening the current institutional framework and developing institutional cooperation should, however, be a priority for the Southeast Pacific region.
The institutional complementarity in terms of the three institutions’ geographical scope and functional mandates is a strength that can be used positively to improve the conservation and sustainable use of
Overview of regional progress on the BBNJ elements in the Southeast Pacifica
a The * denotes
Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio de Janeiro, 5 June 1992, in force 29 December 1993) 1760
Ibid., Art. 2; A Kiss and D Shelton, Guide to International Environmental Law (Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, 2007), at p. 14.
L Glowka, F Burhenne-Guilmin and H Synge, ‘A Guide to the Convention on Biological Diversity’:
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Montego Bay, 10 December 1982, in force 16 November 1994) 1833
United Nations General Assembly, Development of an International Legally Binding Instrument under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 19 June 2015,
B A Simmons cited in M L McConnell, ‘Observations on Compliance and Enforcement and Regional Fisheries Institutions: Overcoming the Limitations of the Law of the Seas’ in D A Russell and D L VanderZwaag (eds), Recasting Transboundary Fisheries Management Arrangements in Light of Sustainability Principles: Canadian and International Perspectives (Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, 2010) 71–98, at p. 79; D E Johnson, C Martinez, O Vestergaard, D Duval-Diop, M Romani, M C Mcconnell, Beatty, R Jumeau and K Brown, ‘Building the Regional Perspective: Platforms for Success’ (2014) 24(Suppl. 2) Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 75–93.
Johnson (n 8).
C C Durussel, ’Challenges in the Conservation of High Seas Biodiversity in the Southeast Pacific’ (Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, University of Wollongong, 2015), http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/4415/.
In this paper, the Southeast Pacific region, as defined by the
See, e.g.: C E Morales and C B Lange, ‘Oceanographic Studies in the Humboldt Current System off Chile: An Introduction’ (2004) 51 Deep-Sea Research II 2345–2348; F P Chavez, A Bertrand, R Guevara-Carrasco, P Soler and J Csirke, ‘The Northern Humboldt Current System: Brief History, Present Status and a View Towards the Future’ (2008) 79 Progress in Oceanography 95–105; V Montecino and C B Lange, ‘The Humboldt Current System: Ecosystem Components and Processes, Fisheries, and Sediment Studies’ (2009) 83 Progress in Oceanography 65–79.
P Miloslavich, E Klein, J M Díaz, C E Hernández, G Bigatti, L Campos, F Artigas, J Castillo, P E Penchaszadeh, P E Neill, A Carranza, M V Retana, J M Días de Astarloa, M Lewis, P Yorio, M L Piriz, D Rodríguez, Y Yonestigue-Valentin, L Gamboa and A Martín, ‘Marine Biodiversity in the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts of South America: Knowledge and Gaps’ (2011) 6(1) Plos One 1–43, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014631.
Updated from Durussel (n 10) at p. 44. Analyses undertaken using 2015
M Caldwell, T Churcher, Hoffmann, S Palumbi and J Teisch, ‘Pacific Ocean Synthesis: Scientific Literature Review of Coastal and Ocean Threats, Impacts, and Solutions’ (2008), Center for Ocean Solutions, Stanford University, at p. 100.
Ibid.; at p. 42.
Updated from Durussel (n 10) at p. 42. Analyses undertaken using 2015
Updated from ibid., at p. 35. Data obtained from
Updated from ibid., at p. 42. Data obtained from
Caldwell (n 16), at pp. 101–102.
Ibid., at p. 102.
Tuna and tuna-like species are highly migratory species. However, it is important to note that not all highly migratory species identified under
Convention for the Strengthening of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission established by the 1949 Convention between the United States of America and the Republic of Costa Rica (Washington,
United Nations Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (New York, 8 September 1995, in force 11 December 2001) 2167
The members of the
Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fishery Resources in the South Pacific Ocean (Auckland, 14 November 2009, corrected in 2010, in force 24 August 2012) ATS 28 (‘SPRFMO Convention’) Arts. 1.1f and 2.
The members of the
Estatuto sobre Competencias y Estructura de la Comisión Permanente del Pacífico Sur [Statute on Competency and Structure of the Permanent Commission for the South Pacific] (Guayaquil, in force 1 January 2013) (‘CPPS Estatuto’) Arts. 1 and 4f. Available at http://cpps-int.org/cpps-docs/gen-info/estatuto-2012.pdf.
Convenio sobre Organización de la Comisión Permanente de la Conferencia sobre Explotación y Conservación de las Riquezas Marítimas del Pacífico Sur [Convention on the Organisation of the Permanent Commission of the Conference on Exploitation and Conservation of Marine Resources of the South Pacific] (Santiago de Chile, 18 August 1952, in force 6 May 1955). Available at http://cpps.dyndns.info/consulta/documentos/legal/convenios/conf_explot_riquezas_pacif_sur_1952.pdf.
Convenio para la Protección del Medio Marino y la Zona Costera del Pacífico Sudeste [Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and Coastal Area of the Southeast Pacific] (Lima, 12 November 1981, in force 19 May 1986) (‘CPPS 1981 Lima Convention’). Available at http://cpps.dyndns.info/consulta/documentos/legal/convenios/CONVENIO%20PARA%20LA%20PROTECCION%20DEL%20MEDIO%20AMBIENTE%20Y%20ZONA%20COSTERA%20DEL%20PS/TEXTO%20DEL%20CONVENIO.pdf.
CPPS Estatuto Arts. 9 and 18.
CPPS 1981 Lima Convention Art. 1.
CPPS Estatuto, Art. 4.
Acuerdo Marco para la Conservación de los Recursos Vivos Marinos en la Alta Mar del Pacífico Sudeste (‘Acuerdo de Galápagos’) [Framework Agreement for the Conservation of Living Marine Resources on the High Seas of the South Pacific] (Santiago de Chile, 14 August 2000, not in force) (‘CPPS Galápagos Agreement’); available at: http://cpps.dyndns.info/consulta/documentos/legal/convenios/ACUERDO%20DE%20GALAPAGOS/TEXTO%20DEL%20ACUERDO.pdf; Protocolo Modificatorio del Acuerdo Marco para la Conservación de los Recursos Vivos Marinos en la Alta Mar del Pacífico Sudeste [Modificatory Protocol to the Framework Agreement for the Conservation of Living Marine Resources on the High Seas of the South Pacific] (Lima, 27 November 2003, not in force) (‘CPPS Protocol to the Galápagos Agreement’); available at: http://cpps.dyndns.info/consulta/documentos/legal/protocolos/prot_modif_conserv_recur_marinos_2003.pdf.
T Greiber, K Gjerde, E Druel, D Currie and D Diz, ‘An International Instrument on Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in Marine Areas beyond National Jurisdiction: Exploring Different Elements to Consider. Paper V: Understanding Area-based Management Tools and Marine Protected Areas’ (2014). German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, p. 1; United Nations General Assembly, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 23 December 2015,
United Nations General Assembly, Oceans and the Law of the Sea, Report of the Secretary-General, Addendum,
None have currently been established in
1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, Notification of Amendments to the Schedule (Washington, 2 December 1946, in force 10 November 1948) 161
Legal framework related to the powers of the International Seabed Authority on the protection of the marine environment in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, see: International Seabed Authority Legal and Technical Commission, Environmental Management Plan for the Clarion-Clipperton Zone,
Ibid.; Arts. 8a, 8c, and 8d.
Ibid.; Art. 4.
This Ross Sea
Agenda 21 of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (‘Agenda 21’) (Rio de Janeiro, 1992; https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf), Chapter 15 para 15.5g; Agenda 21, Chapter 17 para 17.46f; Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (‘JPOI’) (Johannesburg, 2002; http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI_PD/English/WSSD_PlanImpl.pdf) para 32c and para 44g; United Nations General Assembly, The Future We Want,
Ibid.; Art. 2. The precautionary approach was first outlined in Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/WSSD_POI_PD/English/WSSD_PlanImpl.pdf). The ecosystem approach was endorsed at the 5th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (
Ibid.; Arts. 20.1d, 20.5, and 22.
Ibid.; Arts. 20.2d and 20.2e.
Ibid.; Art. 4. For example, Chile has consented since 2014 to apply inside its
Ibid.; Art. 20.4b.
Ibid.; Art. vii.1f.
Ibid.; Art. v.
Ibid.; Arts. iii and v.1.
Protocolo para la Conservación y Administración de las Áreas Marinas Y Costeras Protegidas del Pacífico Sudeste [Protocol for the Conservation and Management of Marine and Coastal Protected Areas of the Southeast Pacific] (Paipa, 21 September 1989, in force 24 January 1995) (‘CPPS MPA Protocol’) Art. ii, available at http://cpps.dyndns.info/consulta/documentos/legal/convenios/PROTOCOLO%20PARA%20LA%20CONSERV.%20Y%20ADM.%20DE%20AREAS%20MARINAS%20Y%20COSTERAS%20PROTEGIDAS%20DEL%20PS/TEXTO%20DEL%20PROTOCOLO.pdf.
Ibid.; Arts. ii, v, and vi.
Ibid.; Arts. iv.
CPPS Compromiso de Galápagos, Arts. i.2, ix.22, and ix.29. See:
Ibid.; Art. ix.30.
Ibid.; Art. 8c.
Ibid.; Art. 8g.
Ibid.; Art. 22.
Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Espoo, 25 February 1991, in force 10 September 1997) (‘Espoo Convention’) 1989
Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment to the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Kiev, 21 May 2003, in force 11 July 2010) (‘Kiev Protocol’) 2685
See, e.g. Request for an Examination of the Situation in Accordance with Paragraph 63 of the Court’s Judgment of 20 December 1974 in the Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v France) Case 
Espoo Convention; Kiev Protocol.
R Warner, ‘Oceans Beyond Boundaries: Environmental Assessment Frameworks’ (2012) 27 The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 481–499, at p. 482.
Convention on Biological Diversity, Decisions Adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its Eleventh Meeting,
E K Pikitch, C Santora, E A Babcock, A Bakun, R Bonfil, D O Conover, P Dayton, P Doukakis, D Fluharty, B Heneman, E D Houde, J Link, P A Livingston, M Mangel, M K McAllister, J Pope and K J Sainsbury, ‘Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management’ (2004) 305 Science 346–347, at p. 346.
Ibid.; Art. 20.5.
Plan de Acción para la Protección del Medio Marino y Áreas Costeras del Pacífico Sudeste [Plan of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment and Coastal Areas of the Southeast Pacific] (Guayaquil, 1981, updated 12 April 2013), Arts. 6.1 and 12; http://cpps.dyndns.info/cpps-docs-web/planaccion/docs2013/mar/xix_ag/011.%20CPPS(1981)Plan_de_Accion_PSE.pdf.
M Vierros, C A Suttle, H Harden-Davies and G Burton, ‘Who Owns the Ocean? Policy Issues Surrounding Marine Genetic Resources’ (2016) 25(2) Limnology and Oceanography Bulletin 29–35.
H Harden-Davies, ‘Deep-sea Genetic Resources: New Frontiers for Science and Stewardship in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction’ (2017) 137 Deep-sea Research II 504–513, at p. 504.
P Oldham, S Hall, C Barnes, C Oldham, M Cutter, N Burns and L Kindness, ‘Valuing the Deep: Marine Genetic Resources in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction’ (2014) Defra Contract MB0128 Final Report Version One. London: Defra, at p. 143; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273139809_Valuing_the_Deep_Marine_Genetic_Resources_in_Areas_Beyond_National_Jurisdiction.
Ibid.; at p. 144.
R McLaughlin‚ ‘Exploiting Marine Genetic Resources Beyond National Jurisdiction and the International Protection of Intellectual Property Rights: Can they Coexist?‘ (2010) Law, Technology and Science for Oceans and Globalisation 371–382; S Arnaud-Haond, J M Arrieta and C M Duarte, ‘Marine Biodiversity and Gene Patents’ (2011) 331 Science 1521–1522.
Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization (
Ibid; Art. iii.7.
Miloslavich et al. (n 14) at p. 33. Miloslavich et al. found that the percentage of marine species endemism in South America is of: 71.2% for the Tropical East Pacific, 43.4% for the Humboldt Current (Southeast Pacific region), 48.2% for the Tropical West Atlantic, 71.6% for Brazil, and 42.6% for the Patagonian Shelf.
Ibid; at pp. 14–15.
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (Rio de Janeiro, 14 June 1992) 31 ILM 874 (‘Rio Declaration’), Principle 9.
United Nations General Assembly, The Future We Want,
Ibid.; Arts. 202 and 272.
Ibid.; Arts. 143.3b, 144.2, 202, 244, 268 and 274.
Ibid.; Art. 202.
Ibid.; Arts. 202, 268, 274, 275 and 276.
Ibid.; Arts. 270 and 273.
Ibid; Art. 202.
International Plan of Action for Reducing Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries (1999; http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/X3170E/x3170e02.htm), International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (1999; http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/X3170E/x3170e03.htm), International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter, and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (2001; http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/y1224e/y1224e00.htm), and International Plan of Action for the Management of Fishing Capacity (1999; http://www.fao.org/fishery/ipoa-capacity/legal-text/en); Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (1995; http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/v9878e/v9878e00.htm); Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas (Rome, 29 November 1993, in force 24 April 2003) 2221
Nagoya Protocol, Art. 22.
Ibid.; Art. 19.4.
1981 Lima Convention, Art. 10; 1989
Estatuto, Arts. 4g, 4k, 4l, 4m.
See: http://cpps-int.org/index.php/documentos/publicaciones; http://cpps-int.org/index.php/documentos/informes; accessed 11 October 2016.
Durussel (n 10), at p. 328.
Ibid., at p. 336.
An example is the Global Environment Facility (
Durussel (n 10), at p. 336.
An example for this is the existing 2015 MoU between the
K N Scott, ‘International Environmental Governance: Managing Fragmentation Through Institutional Connection’ (2011) 12 Melbourne Journal of International Law 177–216, at p. 184.
F Biermann and B Siebenhüner, Managers of Global Change: The Influence of International Environmental Bureaucracies (
Durussel (n 10), at p. 332.
Durussel (n 10), at p. 334.
Convention on Biological Diversity, Marine amd Coastal Biodiversity: Sustainable Fisheries and Addressing Adverse Impacts of Human Activities, Voluntary Guidelines for Environmental Assessment, and Marine Spatial Planning,
United Nations Environment Assembly of the United Nations Environment Programme, Oceans and Seas,
The Commission for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic, https://www.ospar.org/ (accessed: 7 April 2017). See also Durussel (n 10), at p. 73.
In contrast to the Southeast Pacific region (see Durussel (n 10), at p. 177), only two countries are not members of both
See Durussel (n 10), at p. 334.