今国連で議論されているBBNJ - marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction
International Institute for Sustainable DevelopmentというカナダのNGOが出している。
Summary of the Organizational Meeting for the Intergovernmental Conference on an International Legally Binding Instrument under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction: 16-18 April 2018
BBNJ Briefng Note
A Reporting Service for Environment and Development Negotiations
Friday, 20 April 2018
International Institute for Sustainable Developmenthttp://enb.iisd.org/oceans/bbnj/org-session/brief/bbnj_org_session.pdf
The Russian Federation noted that a programme of work is unnecessary at this stage, but will be developed during the IGC depending on the discussions. He reiterated that the report of the PrepCom should not be the basis of a zero draft, and, with Norway, called on the President to prepare and circulate a non-prescriptive working document containing all the elements discussed in the process so far. The Russian Federation also noted that the discussions on cross-cutting issues at the PrepCom had be done “artificially,” noting the duplication of discussions, stating that most of the 2011 package elements are cross-cutting in a nature.
Underlining the need for a consensus-based approach in negotiating an ILBI, the Russian Federation stressed that although the UN is moving towards a Diplomatic Conference “we are not prepared,” since the PrepCom was not able to identify consensus- based elements for a treaty, and General Assembly resolution 72/249 left several issues unclear, including on participation, decision making and modalities for the preparation of a zero draft. He underlined that the zero draft can only be the product of negotiations at the IGC and opposed transforming the report of the PrepCom into a zero draft document, as many of the elements are contradictory and require further consideration; and called
for the speed and “rushed atmosphere” of the PrepCom process
to be replaced by pragmatism and a balanced approach, urging the process to take as much time as will be required to achieve a successful outcome.
The Russian Federation said that cross-cutting issues should only be discussed “if necessary,” but stressed that issues identified as cross-cutting by the PrepCom could be discussed as part of the four elements. Canada noted that some cross-cutting issues could be addressed as part of the elements, but others are stand-alone issues, such as the preamble and final clauses.
The Russian Federation pointed out that although the General Assembly resolution calls for an ILBI “as soon as possible,” this does not mean an emphasis on speed but rather one on consensus building, underlining that the Conference should work “for as long as possible” to reach this goal. He called for time to discuss the rules of procedure with the Secretariat.
Supporting bureau members working in their national capacity, the Russian Federation underlined that the number of bureau members should be defined by the functions of the bureau,
noting that if the bureau is only to address procedural issues, a 10-member bureau would suffice.
The Russian Federation underlined the need for the bureau members to serve in their national capacity, expressed flexibility on 10 or 15 bureau members, and suggested the addition of an explanation that the decision on the bureau does not create a precedent for other processes.
The Russian Federation stressed that the focus paper should: reflect on the preconditions agreed to in the PrepCom outcome (explaining the lack of consensus in the recommendations); define areas for future discussion; include open questions to define contradictory or mutually exclusive issues; with Norway, not prejudge any options set out; not be too detailed; and not lay out prescriptions where there are mutually exclusive options.