Sommaire: EU Presidency Statement - Working Group on Marine Biodiversity, Agenda Item 5b (15 February 2006: New York)
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; scientific, technical, economic, legal, environmental, socio-economic and other aspects; Statement by Prof. Dr. Gerhard Hafner, Austrian Federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs, on behalf of the European Union, New York
Mr. Co-chairman,
We are dealing today with various issues under Agenda Item 5(b) - from scientific, technological, and environmental issues to economic and socio-economic as well as legal and political issues. Permit me to address all of these individually:
As far as scientific and technological issues are concerned, there is an overwhelming need to promote the understanding of the ocean as one whole. Our common knowledge of the oceans essentially results from scientific research and the management of data and information. It is the still existing uncertainty of scientific data which leads to the application of the precautionary principle in decision-making processes. Marine scientific research necessarily entails capacity building as well
as transfer of technology in the interest of developing countries so that they can participate accordingly in the benefits of marine scientific research and technology. The EU also recognizes the contribution of the Canadian Workshop on Criteria for Protected Areas and we look forward to study these issues.
A leading German weekly journal, The Spiegel, in its recent edition devoted its top story to the "Planet Deep Sea". The article elaborates on the biological diversity of the oceans, in particular in the deep sea and describes ongoing scientific activities to establish a map of the richness of the oceans. It also deplores the risks and threats to which this richness is exposed: for instance, in the second half of the last century, the biological diversity of the larger fish was reduced by 50%.
Such dramatic reduction of stocks threatens not only the future of the oceans as such, but also that of people deriving their livelihoods from them. Finally, the article makes acclaim for the establishment of MPAs which are seen as an effective means to guarantee marine biodiversity and to permit depleted species to recover.
Mr. Co-chairman,
Allow me now to comment on economic and socio-economic issues:
The need of achieving sustainable use and exploitation of resources calls for further studies. We cannot deny in this regard the importance of technical and scientific input. In the long term, sustainability is inextricably linked to the preservation of biodiversity. Of course, ideally an integrated cost-benefit analysis on both the short and long term should guide our decision-making on the use of marine resources. But given the state of knowledge, we have to err on the side of caution, in
line with the precautionary principle.
The EU and its Member States are committed to reflecting the value of marine ecosystems in their policy making with regard to areas under national jurisdiction and the same also needs to be done in relation to ABNJ. In this manner, the economic benefits derived from protecting biodiversity can best be asserted. The costs of deep sea bed exploration are very high - as are its potential benefits - and there is a need to balance both aspects.
According to the principle of the internalization of external effects, environmental management principles have to be built into the use of marine resources, e.g. through impact assessment. There is a need to assess the economic costs of certain activities so that perverse incentives can be removed: For example, some estimates show that in terms of revenue foregone, the cost of high seas IUU-fishing is $1bn/year. We acknowledge that most of this cost is borne by developing countries.
Mr. Co-chairman,
Let me now turn to environmental issues,
The EU views that evidence of actual destruction of ecosystems is overwhelming and that we know sufficient about growing human pressure on marine biodiversity in ABNJ to warrant taking further steps on international cooperation and coordination for its conservation and sustainable use. We will further explain our preferred options for those further steps under agenda-item 5(d), in order to allow for a structured and focused debate.
I would like to try to explain why we think we already know enough to warrant those further steps. This is not to say that the EU views that no further studies are needed. Indeed our knowledge base and accordingly our thinking needs to develop more, and we have come with an open mind to learn on what could constitute an effective way forward. This is why we look forward to the debate under 5(c).
However, the EU insists to submit to this working group, that - on the basis of the precautionary principle and on the basis of the current status of science - we have to act on both the implementation and governance gaps. We have a very impressive and authoritative information basis to warrant those actions.
Let me say a few words on the current knowledge and information basis on the state of marine biodiversity in ABNJ.I would like to briefly highlight some recently published reports. Together these provide an authoritative knowledge basis on the status and trends of marine biological diversity in ABNJ.
Firstly, there is a wealth of information on the dire status of marine biodiversity in ABNJ in section II.E of the UN Secretary General report A/60/63/Add.1, which was prepared for this very meeting.
Underlying this report are several previous reports by the SG, including report A/59/62/add.1 (on threats and risks to marine ecosystems and biodiversity in ABNJ) and report A/59/298 (on current risks from fisheries to marine biodiversity of vulnerable marine ecosystems including seamounts and coral reefs, including cold water reefs, as well as other underwater features).
Secondly, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Report (MEA) expressed the urgent need to protect the marine biodiversity, which was also noted in UNGA 60 Law of the Sea Resolution. Given the open and transparent process of writing the MEA, the EU attaches great importance to its messages to the policy community.
In 2005 the Working Group on Protected Areas of the Convention on Biological Diversity discussed options for cooperation for the establishment of marine protected areas in ABNJ. For this meeting a scientific study was prepared on the status, trends, and immediate and potential threats to different marine habitats, fish stocks and other marine species. This study is available from the CBD secretariat. The CBD working groups subsequently recognized that the best available scientific information
indicated that seamounts and cold-water coral reefs are the marine ecosystems under most severe threat.
I could go on to give you more and more examples of scientific reports which illustrate the alarming state of the marine biodiversity. I could mention recent publications in Science and Nature, which Dr. Earle reminded us of yesterday. These studies have shown that certain deep sea fish species are now critically endangered; that predator diversity has declined tenfold in all ocean regions of the world over the last 50 years; and that - during this same time period - populations of large ocean
predators have dropped by 90% globally.
I am not trying to be exhaustive in mentioning these alarming reports. The EU merely wants to convey to you, Mr. Co-chairman, that on the basis of these, and other, alarming reports, the EU has come to this meeting with a clearly felt sense of urgency to address international cooperation on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in ABNJ. Indeed it was you, Mr. Co-chairman, who yesterday summarized that science on biodiversity of marine ecosystems in ABNJ may be poor, but
that we do know enough to state that it is on one hand unique, diverse and significant, yet on the other hand extremely fragile and vulnerable.
Mr. Co-chairman,
We feel that the ocean is to be seen as an integrated ecosystem and a critical component of the Earth's regulatory system. In this context we also have to note the threat to marine biodiversity by human induced climate change. Further studies may not delay our actions to fill both the implementation and governance gaps that the EU has mentioned before. Indeed the precautionary principle, in this context, refers to our obligation not to postpone action on the basis of the need for further
detailed studies.
Mr. Co-chairman,
I would like to briefly touch upon legal issues before concluding this statement.
As far as marine scientific research (MSR) is concerned, the EU recognizes the need that MSR must be carried out in conformity with the provisions contained in Part XIII of UNCLOS, including under Article 240. Under UNCLOS all States have the right to conduct marine scientific research in the Area, and MSR is also to be taken forward in conformity with UNCLOS provisions on protection of the environment; States and organizations are required to disseminate knowledge resulting from MSR and
associated objectives.
We have to proceed from the conviction that the efficiency of any legal framework depends on the political will of the states. The best legal regime cannot become effective if the states are not willing to apply it and comply with it. As proved by the recent discussions in this forum, certain legal question still need to be resolved. Any political decisions on these issues have to take into consideration all of the aspects just mentioned - scientific, economic and environmental
considerations.
| Haut |
Etats Membres de l'Union Européenne
Alertes par e-mail
Envoyer par e-mail
Imprimer cette page