What are they key important elements that need to be reflected in these modalities?  What could potential compromise options be for the differing views among Parties regarding the role of SBSTTA/COP and the EBSA repository/information-sharing mechanism with respect to the outcomes of national exercises to modify EBSAs within national jurisdiction?

Sudan: It will be reasonable if a section is added to the EBSA modification stating the steps that would be taken to concern the proposed EBSA and avoid future deuteration of the fauna and flora in the EBSA.
Addition of a mechanism to facilitate information sharing among existing EBSAs to promote learning from their experience in conservation and legal aspects. An example can be given from Sudan's EBSAs:
Sanganeb marine national park joined the World Heritage List as continuous efforts from local scientists, government, regional (PERSGA) and international (UNESCO) organizations.
Another EBSA (Dongunab Marine National Park) received funds from the World bank for a project implemented by PERSGA to support the fishermen living within the EBSA by providing boats, fishing gear, solar energy units and alternative livelihood projects.

South Africa agrees with Sudan that it would be good to have an information mechanism for experiences with EBSAs

Of course we take into account all the work doing till to now mainly in Swakopmud Namibia. It's a complete work.

The key element is a brief description of a monitoring programme by a relevant institution, for instance, that will be implemented to follow-up the state of the marine environment within the EBSA.
Information sharing mechanism could be in the form of an annual report describing the state of the marine environment in various EBSAs.

Caroline Longtin - Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada

In terms of the role of SBSTTA/COP, Canada does see CBD bodies to continue leading the overall processes and host the repository/information-sharing mechanism while expanding cooperation with competent bodies operating under the UNCLOS and further building synergies to ensure coherence and application of equivalent scientific criteria and processes.

Should paragraph 2 be retained in Annex X, Canada supports retaining paragraph 2 in Annex VI, which would allow Parties to have the option to modify EBSAs included in the information-sharing mechanism, rather than solely the repository, so that national control over the EBSA identification process is maintained. If Parties have submitted EBSA descriptions via the information sharing mechanism, the ability to modify those descriptions in the information sharing mechanism should also be supported. It is important to note that the scientific credibility of the EBSA process is maintained in this option as Parties are required to provide information on the scientifically sound nationally agreed peer-review process (para 2.a) to support their submission.

Annex III
What could be added to the list, is “1.h Reanalysis of boundary delineations” or a similar appropriate term. In South Africa (and Namibia) we applied data-driven techniques, complemented with expert knowledge, to redefine boundaries of our original EBSAs so that they were more closely aligned with the features described. The modified boundaries are more useful for us in terms of integrating EBSAs into finer scale planning processes, than the typical “blocks” representing the original descriptions. Newly available/accessible knowledge on the features (reason 1a) were incorporated in the re-analyses in many cases, but boundary re-analyses were conducted irrespective of whether there were new data or not. That is to say, they were brought about by us employing a different approach, not by new knowledge of the features or any of the other reasons listed.

(#2336)
That makes sense to us. Not only approaches, but technologies are always evolving.

Annex VI, with regard to paragraph 2a
There seems to be little point for proponents to have to include information on the scientifically sound nationally agreed peer-review process, unless there is requirement for the Secretariat to first be satisfied with the soundness of the process before disseminating the information as in (2b)

Pointing out the need to consider alignment between paragraph 1 of Annex VI and paragraph 1 of Annex VIII, including between 1b of VI (including currently bracketed text) and 1c of VIII - to avoid mismatch between commenting for EBSAs with national jurisdiction and those straddling between national jurisdiction and ABNJ.

On Annex III:
Belgium strongly disagrees with reason 1.f. What and who would even determine when there is a dispute?

France is also strongly opposed to the mention of "land and/or maritime boundary disputes" in the annex 3, as the EBSA process is not the appropriate mechanism to settle and answer to that kind of conflict. It is also possible to refer to the 2012 decision XI/17 : "The description of marine areas meeting the criteria for ecologically or biologically significant marine areas does not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Nor does it have economic or legal implications, and is strictly a scientific and technical exercise."

#2353 – The Kingdom of Denmark supports interventions from Belgium and France and strongly opposed to the mention of "land and/or maritime boundary disputes" in the annex 3

UK supports deletion of para 1f in Annex III on maritime disputes, and France's suggestion to refer to the 2012 decision XI/17 - noting the previous footnote on this element.

MedPAN supports the opposition to the mention of "land and/or maritime boundary disputes" in the annex 3, as expressed by Belgium, France, Denmark and UK

On Annex IV:
Belgium strongly disagrees with any reference to "disputes".
In b and c we can agree to lift the brackets.

Sweden agrees with Belgium. It is important to include EBSAs in ABNJ.

#2354 – The Kingdom of Denmark agrees with Belgium and Sweden.

France also agrees with Belgium, Sweden and Denmark to delete the brackets concerning areas beyond national jurisdiction (annex IV, (b)) or areas both within and beyond national jurisdiction(s) (annex IV, (c)). As indicated by Sweden in the first thread, it is necessary to take into account the scope and development of the EBSA process over time, initially conceived to be in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Decisions IX/20, X/29, XI/17 attest that EBSAs can and have already been described in areas beyond national jurisdiction. It should be possible to modify their description as well.

Norway also supports lifting the brackets in b and c concerning areas beyond national jurisdiction

IUCN supports the suggestion made by Belgium and supported by Sweden, Denmark, France and Norway to lift the brackets in annex IV, (b) and annex IV, (c).

On Annex V:
Belgium agrees that for editorial reasons, a more speedy procedure is useful and hence agrees with the proposals in this Annex to task the Secretariat to do such changes.

On Annex VI, first of all Belgium would like to repeat that the distinction between one path leading to (modifications of) EBSAs ending up in the repository and another path leading to (modifications of) EBSAs ending up in the information-sharing mechanism does not have any influence on the "value/worth" of the EBSA. Both paths are equally valid, they are simply a choice to overcome a dichotomy.

paragraph 1 regarding the repository:
Belgium suggests deleting the concept of "for information" in paragraph 1 e). Paragraph 1 e) seems to propose a procedure which would be leaner/swifter than the one proposed in d (for example without the 3 month dialogue period etc). This leaner procedure, with the proponent simply sending its proposal to SBSTTA, is acceptable, however, it should be sent to SBSTTA for consideration and possible endorsement, not merely for information. Without SBSTTA and COPs endorsement information should end up in the information sharing mechanism and not in the repository.
Again: the "entry ticket" for the repository is going through SBSTTA and COP for endorsement. If you do not wish to have SBSTTA/COP's endorsement, this does not change the value of the EBSA, it only means the EBSA will end up in the information-sharing mechanism.

On paragraph 2b, where a suggestion that will also allow for a "dialogue" for the procedure ending up in the information-sharing mechanism, we consider this useful. Even if a State decides it doesn't want SBSTTA/COP endorsement, it could be of the opinion that reactions by other States can be useful.

We were hoping to at least avoid a dichotomy within a dichotomy, which 1e seems to present if it is retained as suggested here by Belgium, i.e. a choice of options that parties may take towards the repository including a ‘fatter’ and a ‘leaner’ option. We think strongly that it’s in the best interests of the CBD EBSA process that there is a single route to the repository, as in 1a-d.

We’re less concerned about the information mechanism for EBSAs outside of SBSTTA-COP process (as per our comment for Annex II, we feel that this information mechanism should be specific to the EBSAs that are described or modified outside of SBSTTA-COP process). Referring to Belgium's suggestion in their last paragraph, we do think that the brackets should be deleted in 2b (i.e. the bracketed text should remain). However, if this is not the preferred option of (some/most) parties opting for the information mechanism, then the text in the brackets could be a subparagraph on its own, providing an alternative ‘ticket’ towards the information mechanism. That is, there would be a dichotomy of options here in paragraph 2 for those who wish to make use of the comment/dialogue period, and those who do not (fatter and leaner). 

This should be applicable also to Annex X....

Responding to South Africa: there is a lot of merit in not having a dichotomy within a dichotomy and I have to say that their comment prompted me to look at this again.
Indeed, we could live with having only one route leading to the repository and as such, a route that involves some dialogue/some back and forth seems like the option that is the most conducive to complete information.

(#2356 and #2410)
Aligned with Belgium's thinking. See also related post (#2410) under thread#2: "......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). "

In Annex VIII on the the modification of descriptions of EBSAs straddling areas within and beyond national jurisdiction, it would make sense to also imagine a path, for the part within national jurisdiction, leading up to the information-sharing mechanism should the State not with to go through SBSTTA and COP.

IUCN supports Belgium's contribution on this point.

(#2357)  Belgium's suggestions seem to be a good solution to address concerns from States about SBSTTA and COP considering the part or whole of EBSAs described within its jurisdiction. If so wished by a State, that part of the EBSA modified within the country's jurisdiction would be  sent for SBSTTA and COP for information, and the new description of that part sent to the information sharing mechanism.

Regarding the requirement for convening expert workshop, subject to the availability of resources (in Annexes VII and VIII), IUCN would like to highlight the need for alternatives to in-person workshops, such as facilitated online workshops, or online consultation.

Malaysia supports IUCN on the suggestions to keep options on the modality of convening experts group workshop open. The COVID 19 pandemic has shown that virtual meetings are possible during unprecedented events that hinders face to face meetings. However, due considerations need to be given on time zone differences. Differences in time zone may hinder dynamic discussions.

South Africa also supports IUCN's point regarding consideration of online alternatives, but keeping in mind that many African countries have faced challenges with virtual CBD meetings

Annex VI,

Malaysia retains our original stand of ensuring data accuracy, transparency and integrity. Therefore, Malaysia would like to suggest deletion of the bracketed text [If requested by the proponent(s)] in 1(b).

Malaysia also believes that certain level of ensuring ensuring data accuracy, transparency and integrity should also applies for modification of areas that will be included in the information sharing mechanism (para 2).

For paragraph 1(e), there is a need to maintain consistency with Annex II para 1 (a) which states that EBSA repository is to contain descriptions of areas meeting the EBSA criteria that has been considered by the Conference of Parties. Therefore, any modification for inclusion into the repository, has to be considered by COP and not to just inform COP.

Concerning Annex VI, Portugal agrees with the amendment proposed by Malaysia to delete [If requested by the proposer(s)] in 1(b), as the disclosure of information by the Secretariat should always be part of the SCBD and not be dependent on the request of the proponent.

South Africa also supports this point by Malaysia

Sweden agrees with Malaysia and Portugal.

France agrees with Malaysia, Portugal, Sweden, and South Africa.

IUCN also agrees with the point made by Malaysia and supported by Portugal, Sweden, South Africa and France.

MedPAN IUCN agrees with the point suggested by Malaysia and supported by Portugal, Sweden, South Africa, France and IUCN

Kaitlyn Curran – Maritime Aboriginal Peoples Council (MAPC)

MAPC is opposed to the mention of "if requested by the proponents” in all sections of the document, including 1 (b) of Annex VI and 1 (b) of Annex X and accepts the bracketed text but requests the following changes “Indigenous Peoples, other Governments and relevant organizations and holders of relevant knowledge”.

Requiring rightsholders and/or stakeholders to request to provide commentary may increase the barriers of rightsholder and/or stakeholder participation as this process would require more time and effort on the rightsholder’s and/or stakeholder’s behalf. This is also true for the CBD administration as asking for proponents to submit requests would require undertaking a review and selection process which seems like a misuse of time.

What are they key important elements that need to be reflected in these modalities?

Among the key elements that need to be reflected in all 5 modalities are a) as mentioned in Thread 2 the EBSA repository and information-sharing mechanism in ABNJ and EEZ may develop under different schemes in the next years according to ongoing programs; b) EBSAs are dynamic as is the biodiversity in these; c) The connectedness and 4D condition in scales of time and space of the ocean; d) Modifying the description of EBSA meeting the scientific criteria and describing new areas should become a habit as knowledge of the oceans and its diversity increases.

Among the potential compromise options for differing views are a) applying best practices for the repository/information sharing mechanism; b) engaging and having feedback from ongoing initiatives, actions and programs in ABNJ and within national jurisdiction to enrich the endorsed EBSA and be able to propose new EBSAs.

Identifying Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas reflects capacities and infrastructure for biological diversity assessment and flagging areas that serve important purposes to support a resilient ocean. GOSR, 2020 (https://en.unesco.org/gosr) and other the 2022 Global Deep-Sea Capacity Assessment (https://deepseacapacity.oceandiscoveryleague.org/) have recognized regional differences in capacities the regions. Reducing these regional differences is important in the capacities of recognising essential habitats, food sources or breeding grounds for species in all seabed habitats and the water column.

Matters of how changes to EBSA descriptions might occur, and if so, how and where they should be recorded / reported was discussed in depth at several of the early workshops and contact groups on EBSAs,  The understanding that all perspectives bought into pretty readily was
1. Just because EBSAs are areas that are biologically or ecologically significant, it is hoped that they will be studied further and, as needed, monitored better.
2. As additional information is acquired on an existing EBSA, the incremental information should be made available through the information-sharing mechanisms.
3. SOMETIMES the new information is sufficient to justify changing either the boundaries of the EBSA OR the specific criteria that it has been found to meet. In THOSE cases the change should be reported to the Repository, and it should clear all the steps that had to be cleared to initially be approved for inclusion in the repository.
4. In the second clause of c) on changes that would alter status as recorded in the Repository. If the original EBSA description was of an area that covered waters/seabed of two or more States, then it would be those States that jointly propose the revision.  If it was partly in national waters and partly in ABNJ, than whatever process initially proposed it for inclusion in the Repository would have to bring the revision together, again jointly. 
5. The circumstance brought up in the Threads.  that a change to transboundary EBSA would be supported by one Party and opposed by another, was not discussed in any earlier workshop or contact Group that I remember.  However, to be consistent with existing practice, if such an unlikely case did occur, the States involved would jointly have to bring forward a proposal that they wished the EBSA in the Repository to be dropped altogether, and each Party (or whatever) would then have to bring forward a new EBSA in its jurisdiction, with a description and boundaries within its own jurisdiction.

I fully agree with Dr Rice' comments

Point 5. The circumstance brought up in the Threads.....  that a change to transboundary EBSA .... acquires relevance with the expected changes with global change impact, deoxygenation, stratification. EBSA process platform assists and support States and stakeholders to cooperate at an ecosystem scale across sectors and national boundaries fostering cooperation.

IUCN recognizes the importance of reducing regional differences in capacities for conducting research activities, monitoring and assessments, within and beyond national jurisdiction, in an interconnected ocean and under changing conditions.

IUCN also would like to highlight the importance of engaging with ongoing initiatives. This could be one of the functions of the Informal Advisory Group.

MedPAN supports the point made by IUCN about the importance of reducing regional differences, and also the engagement with other ongoing initiatives as a function of the Informal Advisory Group

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.

Women4Biodiversity supports the comments of Maritime Aborginal People's Council.