Atlantic Ocean
4.3. OSPAR and NEAFC:
the Collective Arrangement
In September 2010, the Ministerial Meeting of the OSPAR Commission established the world’s first net-work of marine protected areas in ABNJ. OSPAR ministers declared six protected areas that, together, cover 286,200 square kilometres of the Northeast Atlantic.232 A seventh MPA was declared in 2012.
NEAFC had also designated areas closed for bottom trawling, responding to UNGA Resolutions calling for the protection of VMEs from destructive bottom fishing in ABNJ.233
A complementary network of sites has been estab-lished by both organisations. To some extent, the two organisations worked separately and in parallel on their own designation processes, although there is regular exchange between them and both receive sci-entific advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES).
An MoU between both organisations provided the basis for mutual cooperation towards the conserva-tion and sustainable use of marine biodiversity, including through exchange of data and information, research collaboration, and reciprocal observership.
234 In order to coordinate any activities relating to the management of the selected areas in ABNJ, both organisations have also agreed on a specific coopera-tive mechanism,235 the “Collective arrangement between competent international organisations on cooperation and coordination regarding selected areas in areas beyond national jurisdiction in the North‐East Atlantic”.236 OSPAR and NEAFC are the first participants that have endorsed this arrange-ment and other authorities with managearrange-ment compe-tencies in the region, such as the IMO and the ISA, have also been invited to participate.
Type/mandate
The geographic mandates of OSPAR and NEAFC cover a similar area. The core focus of their activities differs, though both have a mandate for the protec-Outcomes
The project was successful in:
Improving access to financing to develop projects for wastewater management in the four pilot countries and reduce pollution to coastal waters from untreated wastewater.
Replenishing the seed funds provided by the GEF through the revolving fund financing mechanism.
For example, Jamaica’s model of a guarantee account with a revolving fund mechanism has ena-bled the public utility to secure a commercial loan without a sovereign guarantee.
Building capacity in national administrations to develop, harmonise, implement, and enforce national wastewater policies, legislation, and regu-lations in line with the LBS Protocol to the Carta-gena Convention.
Outlook and next steps
As a pilot GEF project, the CReW has tested financ-ing approaches for cost-effective solutions for waste-water management at the national level and helped to build capacity for improved policy, regulatory, and legal frameworks at the national and regional levels.
Drawing on lessons learned, the project can be scaled with wider participation of other WCR countries and donors.
Lessons learned
Regional Banks and other bodies, such as Regional Seas programmes, can play an impor-tant role in directing finances to the national level for the implementation of SDG14.
Developing appropriate national legislation, poli-cies, regulations, and enforcement linked to a wider regional policy objective (e.g. compliance with the LBS Protocol) plays a crucial enabling role to support and leverage investments.
232 O’Leary et al., ‘The first network of marine protected areas (MPAs) in the high seas: The process, the challenges and
where next’ (2012) 36 Marine Policy 598.
233 Kvalvik, ‘Managing institutional overlap in the protection of marine ecosystems on the high seas. The case of the North
East Atlantic’ (2011) 56 Ocean and Coastal Management 35.
234 NEAFC and OSPAR Commission, ‘Memorandum of Understanding between the North East Atlantic Fisheries
Commis-sion (NEAFC) and the OSPAR CommisCommis-sion’ (2008) <http://www.ospar.org/site/assets/files/1357/mou_neafc_ospar.
pdf>.
235 NEAFC and OSPAR Commission, ‘The process of forming a cooperative mechanism between NEAFC and OSPAR’
(2015) 196 UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies.
236 OSPAR Agreement 2014-09.
56
237 Johnson, ‘Can Competent Authorities Cooperate for the Common Good: Towards a Collective Arrangement in the
North-East Atlantic’ in Berkman & Vylegzhanin (eds) Environmental Security in the Arctic Ocean (Springer Nether-lands, 2013).
tion of biodiversity. The two organisations do not have overlapping legal mandates regarding the man-agement measures they are able to take. OSPAR has no competence to regulate fisheries, while NEAFC has no responsibility for biodiversity conservation separate from its fisheries management role. Any attempt to come to more integrated management approaches therefore requires cooperation and coor-dination between both organisations.237 In short:
OSPAR: MPAs established by legally binding OSPAR Decisions and complementary OSPAR Recommendations on the initial management.
NEAFC: Bottom fisheries closures through NEAFC Recommendations, legally binding on all NEAFC Contracting Parties.
Coordination between OSPAR and NEAFC (and potentially other competent international organisations) through a collective arrange-ment.
Scope and objectives
The collective arrangement is currently a bilateral arrangement to facilitate cooperation and coordina-tion between the competent authorities that will ensure that they share information and avoid under-mining each other’s conservation and management measures.
Structure and governance
The Collective Arrangement sets out a general coop-erative mechanism regarding selected areas in ABNJ listed in an Annex to the arrangement. Areas of coop-eration include the exchange of information, notifica-tion of any proposed activities, cooperanotifica-tion with regard to Environmental Impact Assessments and Strategic Environmental Assessments, and data exchange. Following formal adoption of the collective arrangement in 2014, both organisations finalised the submission of areas to be included in the Annex to the Arrangement. Formal annual meetings were held in 2015 and 2016, bringing together the secretariats of both organisations, representatives of Contracting Parties, observers from other competent interna-tional organisations, and NGOs.
Challenges
The Collective Arrangement remains incom-plete without the other key competent interna-tional organisations, in particular the ISA for the management of deep sea bed mining and the IMO for the management of shipping.
Whilst countries within the region have achieved the creation of a common approach through the cooperation of competent regional organisations, reaching out to global level organisations remains a challenge. Third-party countries do not share the same interests and knowledge as countries within the region and may prevent progress within the remit of competent global organisations.
Enabling conditions
Through well-established and functional institu-tions, the regional conventions provided the basis for efficient cooperation and coordination among Contracting Parties as well as with other competent authorities.
Commitment by Contracting Parties to meet glo-bal targets, including the Plan of Implementation of the WSSD and relevant UNGA resolutions on deep-sea fisheries.
Parallel processes in both organisations con-sider the protection and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in ABNJ.
Regional interest in the conservation and sustain-able use of marine biodiversity in ABNJ supported by complementary discussions on the need for a new global instrument regarding ABNJ under UNCLOS.
High degree of cooperation and trust between the Secretariats of both organisations already prior to starting work on ABNJ. Furthermore, a high degree of commitment of Contracting Par-ties to work within their regional organisations and sufficient coordination within national administrations between those persons repre-senting their countries within these organisa-tions.
Lessons learned
OSPAR and NEAFC demonstrated that, despite a lack of an overarching legal framework for the conservation and sustainable use of marine bio-diversity in ABNJ of the Northeast Atlantic, coordination and cooperation between compe-tent international organisations in ABNJ can be achieved.
Cooperation across sectors is easiest at the regional level where there is: a high degree of interest and commitment of Contracting Parties to cooperate;
trust between competent international organisa-tions; and domestic coordination within countries.
Cooperation between the regional and global level, where interest and knowledge regarding those areas are limited, remains a challenge. A new legally binding implementing agreement for conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in ABNJ could facilitate cooperative mechanisms between regional and global organisations.
Science-based and staged approaches in both organisations helped build solid scientific cases for each area based on their conservation values, and later for consideration of possible measures and management.
Outcomes
OSPAR and NEAFC have created an institu-tional mechanism for cooperation and coordi-nation on a regional scale across sectoral boundaries.
Both organisations exchange information routinely and without needing the initiative of an interested party.238
The joint meetings under the collective arrange-ment created a process through which the Secre-tariats, Chairs of relevant committees or working groups established under both Conventions, Con-tracting Party representatives, and other observers meet to discuss and consider relevant issues with regard to the management of these areas.
Outlook and next steps
OSPAR and NEAFC agreed at their last meeting: (1) to pass any updated information (such as on the selected areas) via existing MoUs between organisa-tions on behalf of OSPAR/NEAFC; (2) that their respective secretariats will continue to liaise with and update the IMO and ISA; and (3) that their Con-tracting Parties will promote new participation in the Collective Arrangement and provide updates during formal sessions, as appropriate.239 Consideration of the effects of climate change could be a subject for further discussion, given the future implications for fisheries and environmental protection.
238 NEAFC and OSPAR Commission, ‘The process of forming a cooperative mechanism between NEAFC and OSPAR’
(2015) 196 UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies <http://www.ospar.org/documents?v=35111>.
239 OSPAR Commission, ‘Aide memoire and key actions resulting from the second meeting under the collective
arrange-ment’ (2016) <http://www.ospar.org/meetings/archive/second-meeting-under-the-collective-arrangement>.
58
0
0 250
250 500 kilometers
500 miles
Figure 11: The Micronesia challenge
Area of Conservation Influence Partner/Project Site
Type/mandate
The Micronesia Challenge (MC) is a shared commit-ment among eight Micronesian jurisdictions240 to preserve the natural resources that are crucial to the survival of Pacific traditions, cultures, and liveli-hoods.