Paragraphs 10-15 of SBSTTA recommendation 24/9.

We feel that there is a need to have two additional paras here as we proposed in our previous submission. These paras are linked to mainstreaming, synergies and capacity building. The exact place in the recommendation could be somewhere else, not necessary in the end:

• First para refers to the synthesis on the establishment of MPAs and application of OECM. This is very valuable information especially on information how Governments have recognised OECMs.

• The reference to Glasgow Climate Pact paras 60 and 61 to, is important as it integrate and strengthens ocean-based actions. It is also important to request the Executive Secretary to enhance cooperation with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, with respect to marine and coastal biodiversity and climate change, highlighting that nature-based solutions, marine protected areas and OECMs are critical elements in rebuilding and strengthening the resilience of marine and coastal ecosystems.

Paragraph 10, does mentioned OECMs.  We would like to see that this cooperation that promotes the identification  of OECMs should add a clear inclusion of IPLC, women, small scale fishers and other rightsholders and ensure suport to Indigenous Comunity Conserved Areas, Marine Managed Areas, Local Management Marine Areas and other fisheries, community-based and shared-governance arrangemente with a variety of primar goas that are relevante to biodiversity and that FPIC should be consider concerning this areas.

Capacity building on paragraph 11, should include the issue of marine governance describe above.  Capacity building concerning sustainable small scale fishing practices and protection of local value chains and local markets needs to be discussed and good practicas shared between parties and observers.

A synthesis of information on how Governments have approached marine OECMs would be extremely useful.

Paragraph 15 requests the ES to enhance cooperation with the UNFCCC, with respect to marine and coastal biodiversity and climate change. Once again, if it is necessary to highlight specific elements or tools (and we think it is not), there is a range of them besides protected areas and OECMs that are relevant to strengthening resilience, including also species-specific management (safeguarding genetic diversity), reducing pollution levels, effective, sustainable ecosystem management, etc. We also urge to stick to language of our Convention in this Recommendation. Ecosystem-based approaches refer to a wide range of ecosystem management activities to increase the resilience and reduce the vulnerability of people and the environment, including to climate change and disasters.

First, the acknowledgements to all the organizations should be synthesized in a single paragraph. We believe that the OECMs should be separated from the acknowledgements paragraph to include a paragraph requesting governments to report the establishment of new OECMs as far as possible.

It is also important to establish cooperation mechanisms to help countries to 1. identify areas within their territory that could be considered for recognition as OECMs, and 2. generate internal regulations for such recognition. 

It is also necessary to include in the existing paragraphs or create a new one that establishes a cooperation mechanism to generate, mobilize, standardize and publish biodiversity data that can be used for decision making, such as GBIF and OBIS, if applicable.

Canada can support the additional paragraphs submitted by Finland.
There are important linkages between oceans and climate change, which require close attention and cooperation as we are facing twin crises at the same time – climate change and biodiversity loss, and that we need to protect and restore ocean ecosystems to help achieve climate mitigation and adaptation goals.

Past and current discussions under the CBD marine and coastal programme of work have showed the inextricable link between activities thereunder and the law of the sea as reflected in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as well as a number of processes under the UN General Assembly.
In that regard, it is recalled, in particular, that the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea of the UN Office of Legal Affairs (the Division) serves as the secretariat for UNCLOS and the 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. 
The Division discharges the responsibilities entrusted to the UN Secretary-General by UNCLOS and that Agreement, as well as the mandates provided to it in the annual resolutions of the General Assembly on oceans and the law of the sea and on sustainable fisheries.  This includes providing secretariat support to the Intergovernmental Conference on an international legally binding instrument under UNCLOS on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ IGC), to the Meeting of States Parties to UNCLOS, to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, and to the Regular Process for Global Reporting and Assessment of the State of the Marine Environment, including Socioeconomic Aspects.
As such, it is suggested that a specific reference to the Division be added among those bodies with which cooperation should be enhanced.

WCS strongly supports a reference to the protection, conservation, and restoration of ocean ecosystems as one means of achieving our global goals for climate change mitigation and adaptation (as proposed here). We do concur, however, that these will not be the only linkage between biodiversity and climate regimes, and we welcome the additional suggestions such as species-specific management, etc.

WCS welcomes the existing cooperation between the CBD, FAO, and IUCN on mainstreaming the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in fisheries. However, we note that there are discrepancies between guidance materials being produced to identify OECMs in different contexts, which may have significant implications not only for the identification of candidate OECMs, but for any amendments to national legislation that Parties may wish to undertake to better identify and conserve such OECMs. It is essential that these intergovernmental organizations continue to further develop voluntary guidelines with transparency and policy coherence in mind, including full consultation with end users and all relevant stakeholders (including technically qualified organizations and experts in marine biodiversity) so that Parties are equipped with the best available tools and guidance.

The UK welcomes and is supportive of the suggestions made by Finland in that:

1) An additional paragraph on a synthesis of information on the implementation of OECMs, including measuring the success of their outcomes, which will be a valuable tool as we continue to explore the application of OECMs in the marine environment.

2) There is greater opportunity here for synergies with the UNFCCC given the commitment to an annual dialogue on strengthening ocean-based action made at COP26, particular with regard to nature-based solutions, MPAs and OECMs as critical tools to tackle climate change and biodiversity loss, through protecting and restoring ocean ecosystems. I would suggest this could be better captured in paragraph 15.

The UK suggests there could be clearer reference in this section that highlights the need to cooperate with a broader range of stakeholders, including IPLCs, women and youth. Paragraph 13 might be an opportune place to include this.

Ms Fatimazohra Hassouni Department of Maritime Fisheries Morocco

Paragraph 10 “OMCE”: The Kingdom of Morocco requests information on how governments have legally recognized OMCE “other effective area-based conservation measures”?

Paragraph 11: In addition to capacity building, a mention of good country practices should be shared.

I understand that we are not negotiating detailed wordings here, but I would like to take this opportunity to make some proposals for minor modifications.
Regarding Operative Paragraph 14, “the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction” should be replaced by “the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction”. The wordings regarding BBNJ should be consistent with those of the UN General Assembly resolutions on BBNJ.

POSTING ON BEHALF OF CHINA FOR TECHNICAL REASONS

On paragraph 11: the GBF covers a broad areas of expertise and therefore existing mechanisms of capacity development and cooperation can also be strengthened in collaboration with global mechanisms, initiatives and forums in addition to Parties, other governments and non-governmental organizations.

Paragraph 14: BBNJ negotiation is ongoing, and the text of the agreement is not yet finalized. Under this circumstance the Convention cannot pre-suppose the outcomes of the negotiation and encroach the negotiation process as cautioned by some Parties in Geneva negotiation. Cooperation and collaboration can be explored within the jurisdictional scope of the Convention and its protocols once the BBNJ agreement takes effect.

With regards to paragraph 12, WWF would suggest that the Executive Secretary not only continues but also strengthens the collaboration in the context of the implementation of the post-2020 GBF, as enhanced collaboration will be key to implement the GBF. This will also require parties to support the Secretariat with adequate resources to do so.

Canada supports UK’s suggestion to add a clear reference to IPLCs, women and youth in paragraph 13 to account for the need to collaborate with these underrepresented groups. To reflect this suggestion, Canada would like to suggest the following formulation for paragraph 13:

“Requests the Executive Secretary to enhance cooperation and synergies with other global and regional organizations Indigenous peoples and local communities, stakeholders such as women and youth, in support of the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals with respect to various thematic issues related to marine and coastal biodiversity;

Responding to the comment by China on paragraph 14, Belgium feels China's concerns are covered by the last words in the sentence of this paragraph: "upon its adoption". Any building of synergies to support the implementation of the future BBNJ agreement will start upon its adoption. We believe it is of crucial importance that the CBD is able to play its part making sure the future BBNJ agreement is effectively implemented and needs to be ready to do this from the adoption onwards, without needing to wait for the forthfollowing COP decision.

Para 10: OK to keep as it is
Para 11: OK to keep as it is
Para 12: suggest to keep this para shorter only in relation to post-2020 and thus move this para above to cluster with other GBF related elements of the decision. 12 Alt "Further welcomes the collaborative efforts among the Secretariat, the United Nations Environment Programme, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the International Maritime Organization, the International Seabed Authority, the regional seas conventions and action plans, regional fishery bodies, large marine ecosystem projects/programmes and other relevant initiatives to strengthen cross-sectoral cooperation at the regional scale in order to
accelerate  the implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework" . While we fully support work under SOI it seems excessive to refer to it here again and keep SOI references in previous paras (in particular para 8)
para 13: potentially merge with 15 under one heading "Requests the Executive Secretary to enhance cooperation and synergies with:" and two points (a) and (b) following language of para 13 and para 15
Para 14: with the current pace of negotiations and further process for the new convention coming into force this para seems premature at this stage. At the same time Parties may wish to urge further cooperation between Parties and the ES in further development of the BBNJ agreement as many elements of it are relevant directly to various decisions and work of the CBD while avoiding preempting any decisions under BBNJ process.

This thread is fundamental for the implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework with respect to marine, coastal and island biodiversity. Specific resources to strengthen all those different dimensions should be allocated by the Convention and the Parties to ensure that are implemented at all the different scales, from international, to regional, national and local. Actually, most networks of MPA mangers are acting at regional and national levels and are also coordinating actions at international level, supporting the implementation of policies and becoming key actors for all those dimensions of Thread #5 regarding marine and coastal biodiversity.

Regarding Paragraph 11 MedPAN fully supports the paragraph and considers that more resources should be mobilized to allow the Sustainable Ocean Initiative to develop the capacity-building and partnership activities that are crucial for the implementation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework with respect to marine, coastal and island biodiversity.

Regarding Paragraph 13, the text could identify and include different kinds of global and regional organizations that could support of the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. This would be especially important for the marine topics of the SDGs. In this sense, the regional networks of MPA managers are relevant actors to support the SDGs achievement.