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 describe EBSAs within national jurisdiction?

Definition of targets; filling the knowledge gaps, links with Natura 2000 if there is the case; monitoring and reporting with regard to conservation status and putting forward conservation objectives and measures.

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.

Canada supports retaining paragraph 2 in Annex X, which would allow Parties to have the option to provide EBSA descriptions and supporting information to the information-sharing mechanism, rather than solely the repository, so that national control over the EBSA identification process is maintained. 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.

Benin supports retaining paragraph 2 in Annex X, which would allow Parties to have the option to provide EBSA descriptions and supporting information to the information-sharing mechanism, rather than solely the repository, so that national control over the EBSA identification process is maintained.

Portugal supports the maintenance of paragraph 2 in Annex X, as it allows for the wider possibility and availability of information associated with the EBSA description process, providing greater clarity and transparency.

#2329 - The Kingdom of Denmark is in line with Canada, Benin and Portugal and supports retaining paragraph 2 in Annex X.

The 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 describe EBSAs within national jurisdiction should be done by commitment of stakeholders

Annex X, 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)

On Annex XII on Annex XII the description of EBSAs straddling areas within and beyond national jurisdiction, Belgium is of the opinion that a proposal should include information on the scientifically sound nationally agreed peer review process.

Portugal supports Belgium proposal because we believe that all EBSAs Description processes must incorporate updated information on the scientifically sound nationally agreed peer review process.

#2358 - The Kingdom of Denmark is in line with Canada and Portugal and supports that a proposal of EBSAs straddling areas within and beyond national jurisdiction should include information on the scientifically sound nationally agreed peer review process.

On Annex X regarding the description of EBSAs within national jurisdiction, incl. those straddling multiple national jurisdiction, similarly to the procedure regarding modifications of EBSAs in areas within (multiple) national jurisdiction, Belgium does not agree with there being an alternative (1 e) where States can choose the "repository path" without going through the endorsement of SBSTTA/COP. If a State does not want this endorsement, it can choose the "information-sharing mechanism path", without this changing the 'value' of the EBSA. Hence we'd suggest the deletion of "for information".
We do not disagree with the option of a "leaner" procedure as such, though.

Annex X
Malaysia agrees with Belgium for the same reason posted by Malaysia for Annex VI. Consistency with Annex II 1(a) needs to be fulfilled for any inclusion into EBSA repository.

Malaysia wish to reiterate the importance of ensuring data accuracy, transparency and integrity. Therefore, texts that reflect this intention should be inserted or retained in 1(b) and 2(b). Text that do not reflect this should be deleted.

South Africa also agrees with Belgium regarding deletion of "for information"

UK supports this point and notes the need for consistency between the Annexes

With regards to the convening of an expert workshop, subject to the availability of resources: IUCN would like to highlight that the need for alternatives to in-person workshops is recognized in Annexes X, XI and XII. In case funds are not available, facilitated online workshops, or online consultations such as this one (CBD Online discussion forum on EBSAs) could be alternatives to the in-person expert workshop.

Portugal is of the view that IUCN proposal to facilitate online workshops or online consultations such as the Bern II process or the online discussion forums on marine and coastal, can be alternatives to overcome funding difficulties and to advance on discussions in order to have more efficient in-person workshops, taking into account the various time zones.

For France, it is important to keep 2 separate paths, but also to ensure that the datas made available are transparent, sound, and based on scientific evidences.

France supports the second paragraph in annex X. It is also opposed to the mention of "if requested by the proponents", so that the datas made available are more transparent.
Globally, the annex XI also seems to rely on a robust procedure to include new EBSA in the EBSA repository, and France supports it. Same comment for annex XII, as description of new EBSAs should be supported with best available information. The idea of having an expert advisory body mandated by the COP would also help to ensure that the datas are scientifically sound (annexes X, XI and XII).

South Africa agrees with France regarding deletion of "if requested by the proponents"

IUCN would like to support here again the extension of the mandate of the Informal Advisory Group supported by France, Sweden, Portugal and TNC. As mentioned here by France, this could notably help to ensure that the data are scientifically sound.

DOSI supports the suggestion.

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.

Sweden supports the proposed changes by Belgium and France for Annex X (para 1b, 1e) and XII (para 1a), and retainment of paragraph 2 in Annex X. We believe that a more flexible process with two paths/ two equally valid endpoints (the EBSA repository and the information sharing mechanism) is a constructive solution. As others pointed out, one key issue to resolve is the presentation and reflection of EBSAs on the EBSA website, as well as making all EBSA information easily accessible.

It might be helpful to place the Annexes on describing new EBSAs before the Annexes on modifying EBSAs to increase the clarity of the EBSA process as a whole.

Portugal supports the proposal from Sweden to change the order of the annexes, having in first place the descriptions and after the modifications.

#2421 - The Kingdom of Denmark supports the proposed changes by Belgium, France and Sweden for Annex X (para 1b, 1e) and XII (para 1a), and retainment of paragraph 2 in Annex X.

And as Portugal, The Kingdom of Denmark supports the proposal by Sweden to place the Annexes on describing new EBSAs before the Annexes on modifying EBSAs to increase the clarity of the EBSA process as a whole.

The 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 describe EBSAs within national jurisdiction should be understanding each other on the basis content of the description respecting national jurisdiction. In this case we should sure that all key element are taking into account.
The description is a scientific way which is universal

Fatimazohra Hassouni - Morocco
ANNEX 10 Paragraph 2

MOROCCO IS IN FAVOR OF MAINTAINING PARAGRAPH 2 OF
ANNEX 10 WHICH WOULD ALLOW PARTIES TO HAVE THE POSSIBILITY TO PROVIDE DESCRIPTIONS OF EBSAs AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO THE INFORMATION SHARING MECHANISM, RATHER THAN ONLY TO THE STANDARD, SO THAT NATIONAL CONTROL OVER THE EBSA IDENTIFICATION PROCESS IS MAINTAINED.

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

Annex IX
- the extended continental shelf submissions and EBSAs in currently ABNJ
Annex X
- 1 (f) accept this option. Consider online and hybrid discussions as options with less cost and similar analysis capacity.
- 2 (a) – (d) accept

To 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 describe EBSAs within national jurisdiction?

Potential compromise options for the differing views among Parties can be:
- improve data compilation and synthesis for the description of areas meeting EBSA criteria will help stronger results to support EBSA repository/information sharing at all scales (local, national, regional, global)
- online and hybrid discussions/meetings requested the Secretariat to convene to advance new EBSA and EBSA repository/information-sharing to the outcomes of national exercises. These could include both describe new EBSAs within national jurisdiction or in ABNJ, considering the connectedness of the ocean
- the online approaches for incorporating new information and new consideration in future description of areas meeting the EBSA criteria
- enhance the EBSA repository and information-sharing mechanism
- new EBSAs are result of scientific and technical study supporting and encouraging the use of area-based management tools (e.g. for protection or activity- specific management) using the best practices and latest knowledge and  tools.
- long term view in capacity building and cooperation

Annex IX
It reads
2. The proponents are encouraged to collaborate with holders of relevant knowledge, including traditional knowledge holders, in the development of proposals.

It should read
2. The proponents are encouraged to engage and cooperate/collaborate with holders of relevant knowledge, including traditional knowledge holders, in the development of proposals.

With regard to some proposals in the thread to require States (or other  bodies / institutions that may in future be given authority to identify EBSAs in ABJN) to describe the "peer review" processes used in evaluating and describing the EBSA, the is a nuance the CBD may want to consider.  "Peer review" (and its linguistic cognates) is a phrase with a well-established and clear meaning in processes that are purely scientific and technical. However, as comments in several threads are highlighting, it is desirable to include contributions for other knowledge systems (inter alia the knowledge of Indigenous Peoples an local communities).   The processes established as "peer review" for scientific and technical information are often considered at least intrusive, if not offensive, when applied to holders of knowledge within other knowledge systems.  It might be more respectful of multi-cultural diversity to have a phrasing which calls for descriptions of new (or even major revisions to existing ) EBSAs  to include short descriptions of the approaches used to ensure both inclusiveness of knowledge and quality assurance of contributed knowledge.  Such phrasings might both accelerate integration across knowledge systems (which in turn might facilitate greater collaboration subsequently in developing appropriate methods for enhanced risk aversion), and ensure quality assurance  was applied appropriately (including FPIC) for all contributed information

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.