What are the key elements that need to be addressed in these annexes here and why?  What issues could be removed or perhaps better addressed elsewhere in the document?

Anna Metaxas - Deep Ocean Stewardship Initiative and Dalhousie University

While it has been the long-standing standard that EBSAs are described on a scientific basis, the term does not reflect other knowledge systems. So, while paragraph 1a of Annex I refers to different types of knowledge holders, paragraph 1b only refers to a scientific basis. Should there be some clarification that knowledge may not be in the form of the conventional "western science" but instead be inclusive of many knowledge systems?

With respect to paragraph 1c in Annex I, it may be useful to also consider ecological connections, in addition to collaborations, across regions since these may be pivotal in the EBSA description.

With respect to paragraph 2d in Annex II, the square brackets should be removed for clarity and removal of any ambiguity on FPIC. An explicit description of the methodology of weaving different knowledge types may be warranted.

Annex II
South Africa has performed considerable modifications to most of our EBSAs that were previously adopted by COP in 2014, including with regard to reasons 1a and 1b in Annex III. These modifications, as well as new EBSA descriptions, were submitted to SBSTTA in 2020 but further consideration of them is subject to the resolution of the modalities at COP15. We firmly believe that modifications to EBSAs and new EBSA descriptions should follow the international CBD process, in line with the intended global nature of EBSAs, regardless of whether the EBSAs are within national jurisdiction or not. We also value the CBD review and recognition which will benefit our mainstreaming of EBSAs into biodiversity-related planning processes.

We’re disappointed in the alternative as outlined in paragraph 2 of Annexes VI and X, and a compromise taking both into account will inevitably be “messy” and potentially result in confusion with more than one description for many EBSAs, different tiers of EBSAs (internationally recognized and not), less transparency with increased potential for manipulation of the EBSA process for political or economic reasons, and possibly detracting from the credibility and value of EBSAs generally. We would have liked to maintain the sort of rigor that is associated with the Key Biodiversity Areas process, for example, where proposals by countries require final consideration and confirmation by the relevant secretariat following independent review (https://www.keybiodiversityareas.org/working-with-kbas/proposing-updating/proposal-process).

Nevertheless, we realise at this stage that compromise shall most likely be necessary to resolve the modalities for submission and acceptance. In a spirit of compromise, we try to envisage how this could look, and we don’t see the current division of items between paragraphs 1 (repository) and 2 (information mechanism) as being optimal to the compromise - some of the previous suggestions by Japan on this CBD/SBSTTA/24/INF/41) make sense to us. Our suggestions below have relevance to the contents of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Annex II, in event of a compromise.

Regarding the map interface at cbd.int/ebsa, we envisage that there could be 2 maps, one interfacing to the EBSA repository; the second interfacing to an information mechanism for EBSAs outside of the Convention (Note: it could well be that it is possible for all to be on one map with different options linking to the 2 different mechanisms, but it feels simpler to refer to them separately for now, in this explanation). This latter information mechanism must explicitly be only for EBSAs that are described or modified outside of the SBSTTA-COP process, as Japan also previously pointed out.

The EBSA repository (Annex II, paragraph 1) would contain descriptions of all EBSAs that have been considered and endorsed through the CBD process (including through the original regional process and through subsequent national process that ultimately follow the CBD SBSTTA-COP route) as outlined in paragraph 1 of Annexes VI and X. When modifications have been recognized through the CBD process, these must be in the repository, but the previous/original description should not be lost from the repository (as Japan also previously stated). I.e. what is currently 2f of Annex II would be in paragraph 1 of Annex II, with the brackets around “by a decision of the Conference of the Parties” removed. This could entail that an EBSA record should have more than one “tab”, including tabs for the most recent and the previous description(s). We also think that information on national processes and information for these EBSAs that were provided to SBSTTA and COP (currently 2a of Annex II) could be contained in or linked to from the repository; and that other scientific and technical information relevant to these descriptions should also be provided (or linked to) here (currently 2d of Annex II); and that the reports of the regional CBD workshops could be available in the repository (currently 2b of Annex II). On the map interface, two different outline types/colors would be needed for these EBSAs. One for the EBSAs described (and modified where applicable) through the CBD process, and a different one for those described originally through a CBD process, but subsequently modified through a national process. For the latter, these modifications would need to be made note of in the repository, with links provided to the information mechanism for EBSAs outside of the CBD process, where the modifications/updated descriptions through national processes (outside of CBD) can be visible.

The second map interface would illustrate only new EBSAs that did not follow the CBD process, and modified EBSAs where the modification did not follow the CBD process (as outlined in paragraphs 2 of Annexes VI and X). The latter would be linked to the original descriptions in the repository. The information provided for the EBSAs in the information mechanism would be the national descriptions, previous national descriptions where modifications were made on an EBSA that was described/modified outside of the CBD process (equivalent of Annex II - 2f, but for national) and Annex II - 2d other relevant scientific and technical information.

We are not sure where Annex II 2c on guidance can best fit (possibly in both mechanisms), or 2e (we question if 2e on application of other criteria should be here at all, but if so, perhaps in another mechanism). But we feel clear that the information mechanism referred to in paragraph 2 of Annex II must be explicitly only for EBSAs described or modified outside of the CBD process, and it must be named accordingly.  Items that don’t belong in either of the two mechanisms (repository and information mechanism for other EBSAs) possibly then require a separate mechanism(s). We also support Sudan’s suggestion (Thread 3) of an information mechanism for sharing EBSA experiences.

Belgium strongly opposes language regarding disputes in paragraphs 2 or 2bis. The notion of respecting sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction of States is already included in the original EBSA procedure, all EBSA decisions and the current operative paragraphs of the decision.

Belgium thinks the distinction between the EBSA repository and the information sharing mechanism incorporated in the current annexes is key to solving issues we did not manage to move forwards on at the previous COP. We were faced with a situation where equally valid claims were made: the valid claim that national sovereignty gives any State the right to describe EBSAs in their own jurisdiction as they please and the valid claim that any internationally adopted decision can only be changed by another internationally adopted decision. In order to overcome that dichotomy, the procedure described in the annexes cleverly proposes two different paths. Either through SBSTTA and COP into the repository or directly from the State into the information-sharing mechanism. The choice is up to the sovereign State, but going through SBSTTA/COP is a fair entry ticket for the repository. For us, this is the most practical way to reconcile different equally valid objectives and claims and we support this way forwards.
We agree with South Africa that the result will be a bit messy. However we also agree with South Africa that with clever use of overlaying maps, different colours, so basically a top-notch IT-person, can do the magic we need to turn messy into a well-balanced solution, agreeable to all!

In our view it is important to keep the two treads for exposing EBSA information as in annex II- As explained by Belgium this is suggested to try to resolve issues discussed earlier. It is important that the states have the possibility to contribute with information on the national processes describing areas meeting EBSA criteria and share this information in the CBD system and at the same time  have the  right to update this information without going through a CBD/COP decision-if they wish

IUCN supports this contribution made by DOSI and would like to suggest to add the following language in ' ' for Annex I paragraph 1:
(b) A strong scientific'/knowledge' basis as well as the importance of transparency 'and precaution';
(c) Regional dimensions of marine and coastal ecosystems and their ecological and biological features, 'ecological' processes 'including connectivity', 'taking into account' regional differences in data availability, as well as collaboration across regions.

IUCN strongly supports Belgium's opposition to language regarding disputes in paragraphs 2 or 2bis.

IUCN supports Belgium and South Africa on this. This is a useful way to express the two-fold process. It may be a useful compromise but it will entail creative use of maps.

Some key elements that need to be addressed in these annexes are the collaboration with relevant organizations, the scientific basis of EBSA's description. It is also necessary to take into account the regional contexte of those areas.

France would support the idea of a dual system with, on the one hand, a repository that would contain the descriptions of areas endorsed by the COP, and, on the other hand, an EBSA information-sharing mechanism that would include national processes. This dual system can be an adequate compromise to take into account two different methods to describe EBSAs.

As Belgium, France also strongly opposes proposed paragraphs 2 and 2 alt concerning maritime sovereignty disputes.

Women4Biodiversity has been calling for integrating the traditional, scientific, technical and technological knowledge of indigenous peoples and local communities, as well as for the social and cultural criteria, to be included while focusing on the scientific criteria for identification of ecologically or biologically significant areas (EBSAs).

It is important that all the texts that are in square brackets be re-considered, especially those that relate to the full and effective participation and integration of traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples and local communities, with their free, prior and informed consent or approval and involvement.. It is important to integrate the various elements under the Programme of Work on Marine and Coastal Areas, with that of Article 8(j).

While most of these elements were agreed upon in earlier COPs, none of them have been integrated or actually being implemented either in the regional or in the national process. It is essential that these elements are recognised as we re-discuss the need to describe EBSAs through various processes. It is imperative that this is integrated into all the Annex text, irrespective of the jurisdiction of the BESA  or its location.

As highlighted by Sweden, it is good to recall that EBSAs were originally being planned for description in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Over the years, the scope and area have increased.

The context and the issues in describing such areas within coastal waters, and in regions where indigenous peoples and local communities depend on their livelihood and cultural needs, are not taken into account. In such regions, it is important to not only focus on ecological, but cultural aspects as well. There have been numerous efforts undertaken within the CBD's Sustainable Ocean Initiative, as well as with the Informal Advisory Group. The recommendations and discussions from these forums must be integrated in the annex as well.

We agree with the belief of Canada and Benin, that conservation decisions should be based on scientific and indigenous knowledge.

We hope that both the description of new EBSAs, and modification of existing EBSAs taken into account the above aspects, as well for various regions/jurisdictions.  We also support that the EBSA process follows the CBD COP, and not national level processes.

The idea of overlapping maps enables the visualisation of existing EBSAs, whether described by national or international pathways.
We would also suggest including a link to the supporting scientific and technical documentation.

The EBSA process is a purely scientific and technical exercise. The information in the Annexes for modifying and describing EBSAs should therefore only include guidelines of scientific and technical nature. As Belgium, France and IUCN, Sweden also strongly opposes language regarding maritime sovereignty disputes in paragraphs 2 and 2 alt concerning.

Annex 1 The key elements that need to be addressed in Annex I are: a) that scientific and technical knowledge is constantly evolving; b) there is a time lag until this knowledge is acquired and transformed to decision making in conservation.  to identify species, the basis of EBSAs, requires detailed, technical specialized knowledge lacking in some regions; d) scientific and technical knowledge is difficult to articulate or to transfer to a non-specialized decision making; e) changes in the use of ocean resources and its synergy with climate change bring forth the importance of biodiversity, modelling skills and scenarios to understand how to avoid its loss. Therefore, it is expected that EBSA descriptions can/will/should be modified and new EBSAs can be described.
Offering a simple, more flexible mechanism for modifying and recognising new areas of the regional oceans that have special ecological or biological characteristics and importance (e.g. being vulnerable to an activity, recognizing the uniqueness of a function in the ecosystem, providing essential habitats, losing its capacity to provide food sources or breeding grounds, among others) is fundamental and goes hand in hand with ocean observing processes, scientific and technical and other knowledges.

Annex 2   Recall as key elements COP 10 and COP 11 a) when the repository and information-sharing mechanism for EBSAs were established, developed and welcomed. b) open-submission process agreed to by COP 10 compatibility with the regional process for describing EBSAs; c) potential gaps existing for repository data external usage, search and interaction with local/institutional databases; d) document in time the progress of efforts made; e) highlight the importance of capacity development efforts, infrastructure strengthening to carry out EBSAs description and updating and contribute to data repositories and information sharing mechanisms.

Annex I
It says
1. Those who develop and submit proposals for the modification of EBSA descriptions and the description of new EBSAs are encouraged to consider:
(a) Collaboration with relevant organizations, experts and knowledge holders, including indigenous peoples and local communities, as holders of traditional knowledge, with their prior and informed consent or free, prior and informed consent or approval and involvement, in accordance with national circumstances and legislation and international obligations;

It should say
1. Those who develop and submit proposals for the modification of EBSA descriptions and the description of new EBSAs are encouraged to consider:
(a) Cooperation and engagement with relevant organizations, experts and knowledge holders, including indigenous peoples and local communities, where available, as holders of traditional knowledge, with their prior and informed consent or free, prior and informed consent or approval and involvement, in accordance with national circumstances and legislation and international obligations;

This change is suggested for consistency with previous CBD/EBSA reports and COP documents

Annex I
It says
1. …(c) Regional dimensions of marine and coastal ecosystems and their ecological and biological features and processes, including regional differences in data availability, as well as collaboration across regions.

I should say
1. …(c) Regional dimensions of marine and coastal ecosystems and their ecological and biological features and processes, including regional differences in data availability, as well as cooperation and engagement, where required, across knowledges and regions or subregions.

This change is suggested for consistency with previous CBD/EBSA reports and COP documents

Annex I
[Para 2. and 2 alt.] options
Replace these paragraph options linking to original COP 10 text. EBSA criteria are an evolving process that should continue improvement and updating as improved scientific and technical information becomes available in each region.

The text empasizes that EBSA’s identification and selection of conservation and management measures is a matter for States and competent intergovernmental organizations, in accordance with international law, including UNCLOS and stresses sthe use of the best available scientific and technical information and integrating the traditional, scientific, technical, and technological knowledge of indigenous and local communities, to facilitating availability and interoperability of the best available marine and coastal biodiversity data sets and information across global, regional and national scales.

Annex I
3.  Any and all action taken on the basis of this document shall be considered strictly a scientific and technical exercise and shall not have any socioeconomic implications.

Please note that the contents of document UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/16/INF/10 3 April 2012 reviews socio-economic criteria identified for the eventual management of EBSAs by States and competent intergovernmental organizations. Among the identified criteria are a) social, human or economic dependency, category that includes the important ecosystem services; b) social importance, category that includes areas that have existing or potential value to local or international communities; c) economic importance, category that includes areas that have existing or potential economic value and/or uses and may provide economic benefits for communities.

Johnson et al (2018) noted that the Aichi Target 11 texts contained elements among which socio-economic data that were beyond current EBSA, requiring additional consideration at the time.

Reference: Marine Policy 88: 75-85  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.11.014

What are the key elements that need to be addressed in these annexes here and why? 

The repository and information-sharing mechanism give credibility of the EBSA process. The feedback from ongoing data programs and scientific research is important in ABNJ mitigating or managing risks to biodiversity. Engagement and interaction with ocean monitoring programs and endorsed UN Ocean Science Decade Programs (e.g., DOOS, the digital twins of the ocean, DITTO, etc.) may help modelling scenarios and forecast EBSA changes and risks in the face of accelerating global change and expanding ocean economies shared in the regions (e.g., Heatwaves, deoxygenation) or with other biodiversity instruments (e.g. Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas, Areas of Particular Environmental Interest, Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems in ABNJ and diverse modalities of MPAs within national jurisdiction). Annex 2 Paragraph 2 a)
Further development of EBSA repository and information-sharing mechanism at different scales will facilitate updating. Annex 2 Paragraph 2 c)

Promote strengthening the infrastructure, technical and scientific capacities and cooperation. Annex 2 Paragraph 2 c)

What issues could be removed or perhaps better addressed elsewhere in the document?

EBSA repository and information-sharing mechanism in ABNJ and EEZ may develop under different schemes in the next years according to ongoing programs.

Carolina Hazin, The Nature Conservancy

(#2352)
We agree with the critical relevance of Parties to work collaboratively with knowledge (of the various kinds) holders. Non - government organisations (including here also research centres, private sector, etc) and individuals or communities often times produce and/or manages data and information other than that produced or of the immediate knowledge of governments. Therefore, we encourage the clear reference in the Decision that this knowledge is taken into account in the elaboration and/or review of proposals for modification of existing or description of new EBSAs. This is extremely crucial for a robust advancement of the EBSAs process.

(#2352)
We are aligned with the comment made by Belgium about Annex II and the dual system (repository and information sharing mechanism).
The dual system would not intend to pre-judge on the quality or trust of the EBSA described. So it should not be feared. Rather, it would guarantee coherence and harmonization. Users of the information would have the guarantee that the EBSAs in the repository have all been through a similar technical-scientific process (the workshops and/or SBSTTA consideration) and/or and have been endorsed by a sole political process (the COP).

Previous and modified description of an EBSA:
In regards to the presentation of the an 'old' and a 'new' version of one EBSA described, not only the the maps are of relevance. When IT and other relevant experts suggest a good way to profile the information of a modified EBSA on the web, the narrative is also, and primarily, to be considered. In many cases, it is possible that the polygon of the EBSA will stay the same, with some of the features of the EBSA being different.  It is of critical importance that the ecological or the biological description of each modified EBSAs is clear and highlighted, that is, easy to be identified.

# 2351 – The Kingdom of Denmark supports Belgium, France, IUCN and Sweden’s opposition to language regarding maritime sovereignty disputes in paragraphs 2 or 2bis.

#2352 – The Kingdom of Denmark is in line with the comment #2352 made by Belgium including the proposal of two different paths. Either through SBSTTA and COP into the repository or directly from the State into the information-sharing mechanism.

The suggestions made by South Africa that can be used to clearly visualize bit also not lose information on updating EBSAs make sense and would be very helpful/

Colombia supports The Kingdom of Denmark, Belgium, France, IUCN, and Sweden’s opposition to language regarding maritime sovereignty disputes in paragraphs 2 or 2bis. The reference to the 2012 decision XI/17 should be enough.

Fatimazohra Hassouni - Morocco
ANNEX 1

MOROCCO OBJECTS TO PARAGRAPH 2 OF ANNEX 1 CONCERNING MARITIME SOVEREIGNTY DISPUTES. proposal to delete

Jeremiah Edmund Department of Sustainable Development Saint Lucia.

Like Sweden, Belgium, France and IUCN, Saint Lucia believes that he EBSA process should remain a purely scientific and technical exercise and language regarding maritime sovereignty disputes in paragraphs 2 and 2 alt should not be included in the document

The UK also supports not including para 2 on maritime sovereignty in Annex I, noting that there is a footnote capturing similar language to para 2alt.

The UK welcomes and supports the compromise suggestions made by Belgium and South Africa in an effort to reach agreement where Parties have different but equally valid preferences for the process of describing and modifying EBSAs. We agree this good be messy, so some clear description and mapping of the two processes will be needed to make it clear there is no hierarchy of EBSAs in the repository and the information-sharing mechanism, and both are reflected in an equal manner on the EBSA website.

Benin agree with UK proposal: not including para 2 on maritime sovereignty in Annex I, noting that there is a footnote capturing similar language to para 2alt.

In these complex exchanges regarding the Repository and the Information Sharing mechanism, we should keep in the forefront WHY both of those processes were initially associated with EBSAs.
Any Party (or other jurisdiction does have (and SHOULD have) the right to decide what is ecologically nd biologically "significant" with its jurisdiction.  To take the next step of having those actions recognized internationally by the CBD as meeting the criteria adopted by the CBD Parties to a satisfactory standard, some necessary "overhead" at SBSTTA and COP was well spelled out in past Decisions.  When those process requirements are met the desired recognition is awarded via inclusion in the Repository. 
From the outset, it was hoped (for many, even intended) that once recognized as an EBSA by inclusion in the Repository, the EBSA would attract attention by knowledge experts (in MANY disciplines)., policy makers and managers.  This ongoing growth of knowledge about the specific area, the management and policy measures being implemented, and the responses of the system (both Human and Biodiversity components of "the system") could contain many valuable lessons of brood interest. Making the accumulating information available in a timely manner is best done y the information-sharing mechanism, without the inherent delays and adding further demands to the already over-burdened COP and SBSTTA. meetings.  ONLY if the accumulated knowledge required changes to the actual EBSSA designation would there be a need to go back to SBSTTA and COP, and change the content of the Repository - as per a comment made in a Thread yesterday.

Kaitlyn Curran – Maritime Aboriginal Peoples Council (MAPC)

MAPC is requesting for the consistent use of the term “free, prior, informed consent” in line with UNDRIP, therefore rejects the language “…prior, informed consent and approval and involvement” in Annex I (1a) and II (2d). All elements within FPIC are interlinked, and they should not be treated as separate elements. The first three elements (free, prior and informed) qualify and set the conditions of consent as a decision-making process. In short, consent should be sought before any project, plan or action takes place (prior), it should be independently decided upon (free) and based on accurate, timely and sufficient information provided in a culturally appropriate way (informed) for it to be considered a valid result or outcome of a collective decision-making process (FAO, 2016).

Kaitlyn Curran – Maritime Aboriginal Peoples Council (MAPC)

MAPC requests the addition of clause (d) under Annex I as included below. MAPC believes this is important to consider here as although social and cultural criteria for EBSAs have not yet been established, they are expected (INF 10) and should start to be embedded in recommendation documents now, rather than attempting to integrate them later. As the INF 10 indicates, accounting for social and cultural criteria will be instrumental in the management of EBAS as desired outcomes will be dependent on social, economic and cultural factors. Conserving cultural and social components is also something that has been highlighted by the Article 8j Working Group.

“(d) The application of social and cultural criteria, once such criteria have been developed, in addition to already-existing scientific criteria in the identification and modification of EBSAs as recommended in INF/10,”

Kaitlyn Curran – Maritime Aboriginal Peoples Council (MAPC)

MAPC requests for the specific reference to Indigenous Peoples and FPIC in Annex II (d) and Annex VI (a), and suggests the following statement “…and, in cases where information based on traditional knowledge is included, any information on consultations with Indigenous Peoples and local communities conducted with their free, prior and informed consent in accordance with United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

MAPC also requests for modifying the following statements to be in alignment with UNDRIP and reflect the importance of collaborating with Indigenous Peoples regardless of being traditional knowledge holders. UNDRIP recognizes the rights of Indigenous Peoples to autonomy or self-government (Art.4) and to participate in matters of the State, to redress from the State, and to own and develop their resources, cultures, peoples, and institutions to ensure their continuation and development as Indigenous Peoples. These rights of Indigenous Peoples are granted regardless of whether they hold traditional knowledge and are therefore, are still due effective consultation.
- Annex I (1a) “Collaboration with relevant organizations, experts and knowledge holders, including Indigenous Peoples and local communities, and holders of traditional knowledge”
- Annex IV (3) “The proponents are encouraged to collaborate with Indigenous Peoples and holders of relevant knowledge, including traditional knowledge holders, in the development of proposals for modification.”
- Annex IX (2) “The proponents are encouraged to collaborate with Indigenous Peoples and holders of relevant knowledge, including traditional knowledge holders, in the development of proposals.

We do not support the complexity of the EBSA process, but if the two methods are employed, the EBSAs described in each process should not be confused.

#2387-Peru supports Sweden in the sense that the EBSA process should be considered a purely scientific and technical exercise, which should be reflected in the Annexes.

Women4 Biodiversity supports the Maritime Aborginal People's Council, in their comments and statements. We would like to ensure that the informal advisory council, continues to function, and its recommendations are taken into consideration during all EBSA processes.