In recent years, marine debris (“any persistent, manufactured or processed solid material discarded, disposed of, or abandoned in the marine and coastal environment”) (1) has emerged as a global priority, one of the most significant problems for the marine environment and a major threat to marine and coastal biodiversity(2).
The Sustainable Development Goal 14, adopted in 2015 (3), and the Aichi Biodiversity Target 8, adopted in 2010 (4), focus on the reduction of marine pollution, including marine debris.
In Decision XI/18, the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity requested the Executive Secretary to organize a workshop to study the adverse impacts of marine debris on marine and coastal biodiversity5. The workshop, held in December 2014 in Baltimore, USA, gathered experts from around the world and produced voluntary practical guidance to be considered by the COP 13 in December 2016. (6)
This article aims to provide a critical analysis of the relevant decisions adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (7) to address the impacts of marine debris on marine and coastal biodiversity.
To this end, it starts by considering the problem of marine debris in the context of global biodiversity loss. After a brief overview of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Jakarta Mandate on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity (8), the paper focuses on Decision XIII/10 dealing with the problem of marine debris and its impacts on marine and coastal biodiversity (9).
- The impacts of marine debris on marine and coastal biodiversity
According to the Convention on Biological Diversity, biological diversity is “the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems.” (10)
The 2019 Report of the Plenary of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has pointed out that human action is causing a rapid decline of biodiversity, threatening more species with extinction now than ever before: unless action is taken to reduce the drivers of biodiversity loss, about 1 million species are going to face extinction (11). According to the Report, “seventy-five per cent of the land surface is significantly altered, 66 per cent of the ocean area is experiencing increasing cumulative impacts, and over 85 per cent of wetlands (area) has been lost”, while marine plastic pollution affects “at least 267 species, including 86 per cent of marine turtles, 44 per cent of seabirds and 43 per cent of marine mammals.”(12)
Biodiversity is better conserved in the areas managed by indigenous peoples and local communities which, nevertheless, are facing a growing pressure (constituted by, inter alia, resource extraction, commodity production and mining) with negative consequences on local livelihoods and traditional management (13). Indigenous peoples and the poorest communities will be “disproportionately hard-hit” by the negative global changes, whose rights and views, traditional knowledge and understanding of ecosystems, are often ignored in regional and global scenarios (14).
In the oceans, the human activities that have the greatest impacts on biodiversity are constituted by “overexploitation, of fish, shellfish and other organisms, land- and sea-based pollution, including from river networks, and land-/sea-use change, including coastal development for infrastructure and aquaculture ” (15)
Land and sea based pollution constitute the sources of marine debris, whose negative impacts on marine organisms and potentially also humans require urgent resolution (16). Marine debris also poses a great risk of ingestion and entanglement to marine and coastal fauna (17).
The three-quarters of all marine debris is constituted by plastic, whose persistence and inherent or acquired toxicity raise the greatest concerns, both for marine environment and human health (18). Furthermore, based on current consumption trends, forecasts indicate that plastic production will reach 33 billion tonnes by 2050 (19). Although plastic usually derives from land-based sources, sea-based types of plastic debris can have significant impacts on marine biota and habitats (20). Abandoned, lost or discarded fishing gear (ALDFG) cause “ghost fishing”, that is the trapping of marine biota in derelict fishing gear, and habitat degradation (21).
Microplastics are pieces or fragments less than 5 millimeters in diameter. They can be categorised as primary microplastics, when entering the environment as particles that are already <5mm (sometimes used in cosmetic and cleaning agents or as abrasive in industrial processes), or as secondary microplastics, formed as a consequence of the fragmentation of larger items (22). Their ubiquitous presence and increasing abundance in the marine environment require additional research to further quantify their concentrations and determine their effects on marine biodiversity (23).
- The Convention on Biological Diversity: overview
The CBD represents the first international instrument tackling the loss of biological diversity in a global way (24). It is one of the outcomes of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in June 1992 (the Rio “Earth Summit”). It entered into force on 29 December 1993 and counts today 196 Parties (25).
The differing views on the objectives and scope of the CBD among the governments and the uneven distribution of biological diversity around the world made its negotiation particularly challenging (26). While developed countries took the view that the Convention should mainly deal with the conservation of wild species, developing countries sustained a broader approach, which considered, inter alia, access to genetic resources and relevant technology, financial support and the differentiation between in-situ and ex situ conservation (27). This process led, eventually, to the affirmation of the national sovereignty over genetic resources, to the recognition of sovereignty rights over biological resources within States’ jurisdiction and to the abandonment of the concept of the common heritage principle for genetic resources. The CBD adopted instead the concept of “common concern”, to express a universal interest and a shared responsibility in the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity (28).
The objectives of the CBD are: the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components, and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources (29).
The third objective was strongly endorsed by developing countries, as before the adoption of the CBD, genetic resources were accessible at no cost in many parts of the world (30). To this end, the CBD establishes several rules (31) on access to genetic resources and benefits sharing (ABS) based on three fundamental principles: state sovereignty over genetic resources, mutually agreed terms (MAT) and prior informed consent (PIC)(32).
A Clearing-House Mechanism (CHM) is established to promote and facilitate technical and scientific cooperation (33), while the Global Environment Facility (GEF) provides financial resources for developing countries (34).
The jurisdictional scope of the Convention is indicated in Art 4, which distinguishes between
(a) components of biological diversity, and
(b) processes and activities.
While in the first case the CBD provisions apply in areas within the limits of national jurisdiction, in the second case, if such processes and activities are carried out under the Party’s jurisdiction or control, regardless of where their effects occur, the provisions apply within the area of its national jurisdiction or beyond the limits of national jurisdiction (35).
Article 22 deals with the relationship with other conventions, and states that the CBD provisions do not affect the rights and obligations deriving from any other existing international agreement, “except where the exercise of those rights and obligations would cause serious damage or threat to biological diversity.”(36)
With respect to the protection of the marine environment, the Parties are required to implement the CBD “consistently with the rights and obligations of States under the law of the sea.”(37)
The governing body of the CBD is the Conference of the Parties (hereinafter COP) (38). It meets every two years, or as needed, to implement the Convention, to adopt programmes of work and provide policy guidance. The COP is assisted by the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical, and Technological Advice (hereinafter SBSTTA) (39), which provides recommendations to the COP on the technical aspects related to the Convention. The “ad hoc open-ended Working Groups” are subsidiary bodies established by the COP to deal with specific issues (40).
- The CBD and the protection of marine and coastal biodiversity: the “Jakarta Mandate”
The COP’s commitment to the protection of marine and coastal biodiversity started during its first meeting, when it requested the SBSTTA to provide scientific, technical and technological information on the conservation and sustainable use of marine and coastal biodiversity (41). The following recommendations were the basis of Decision II/10 (42), adopted by the COP in its second meeting held in Jakarta, Indonesia, in 1995.
In Decision II/10, the COP expressed its concern at the serious threats to marine and coastal biodiversity caused by “physical alteration, destruction and degradation of habitats, pollution, invasion of alien species, and over-exploitation of living marine and coastal resources” (43) and requested the Executive Secretary to prepare for the SBSTTA a study on the bio-prospecting of genetic resources of the deep seabed in consultation with the secretariat of UNCLOS.
The arising global consensus on the importance of marine and coastal biological diversity was indicated in the Ministerial Statement on the Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity as the “Jakarta Mandate on Marine and Coastal Biological Diversity”(44).
A work programme was adopted at COP 4, held in Bratislava, in Decision IV/5, with the purpose to assist the Parties in the implementation of the Jakarta Mandate at the national, regional and global levels. The key programme elements are: integrated marine and coastal area management, marine and coastal living resources, marine and coastal protected areas, mariculture and alien species and genotypes (45). The basic principles on which the programme is founded are: ecosystem approach; precautionary approach; the importance of science; full use of the roster of experts; involvement of local and indigenous communities (relevance of traditional knowledge); three levels of implementation (national/local – regional- global) (46).
At COP 7, held in 2004 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Decision VII/5 was adopted on the basis of the recommendations of SBSTTA. Annex 1 to this decision contains the elaborated programme of work on marine and coastal biological diversity (47). The programme of work has been considered again in Decision X/29, in which the COP operated an in-depth review of the progress made in its implementation (48).
- COP 13 Decision XIII/10
During its 13th meeting, held in December 2016 in Cancun, Mexico, the COP adopted Decision XIII/10, addressing the impacts of marine debris on marine and coastal biodiversity (49). This is the first decision by the COP tackling the issue in a more extensive way. Prior to this Decision, in fact, the impacts of marine debris was only briefly addressed by the COP in its decisions, such as in Decision XI/18 and in the programme of work on marine and coastal biological diversity (50).
In Decision XIII/10, the COP urges Parties and invites Governments, relevant international and intergovernmental organizations and other stakeholders, indigenous peoples and local communities to take appropriate measures to prevent and mitigate the adverse impacts of marine debris on marine and coastal biodiversity and habitats (51).
The COP also invites Governments to consider “extended producer responsibility” in response to damage or sufficient likelihood of damage to marine and coastal biodiversity and habitats from marine debris (52).
It then promotes among the Parties, Governments and relevant international organizations, the development and implementation of “measures, policies and instruments to prevent the discard, disposal, loss or abandonment of any persistent, manufactured or processed solid material in the marine and coastal environment” (53).
The COP also requests the Executive Secretary to facilitate the collaboration among Parties, other Governments and international organizations, and the capacity-building of developing countries, including small island developing States, as well as countries with economies in transition (54). To achieve these objectives, the COP invites to take into account the Voluntary Practical Guidance contained in the Annex to the Decision, which recalls the conclusions and findings of the workshop held in Baltimore in 2014 on preventing and mitigating the impacts of marine debris on marine and coastal biodiversity and habitats (55).
It can be observed how the COP mentions unspecified measures, instruments and incentives to “prevent and mitigate” the impacts of marine debris. It could be argued that the utilization of a generic language allows the Decision to be adapted to varied and differentiated circumstances and scenarios, allowing Parties and other Governments to adjust them in accordance with each State’s needs. However, in the current situation, what seems to lack is an international organization able to clearly frame and regulate the complex interactions between States on a global level, and in particular, the dynamics existing between developed and developing countries. In this scenario, it would be particularly important to assess how the different national environmental legislations, approaches and resources affect the management of the problem as a whole, on a global scale.
The Voluntary Guidance provides three approaches for the prevention and mitigation of the impacts of marine debris:
(a) the prevention of the discard, disposal, loss or abandonment of persistent, manufactured or processed solid material,
(b) the utilization of existing platforms and tools for cooperation and
(c) the implementation of several instruments and policy responses, such as “economic incentives, market based instruments and public-private partnerships” (56)
The COP also establishes the priority actions to be adopted against marine debris. It identifies these actions with respect to: the sources of marine debris (land or sea based); information exchange, knowledge-sharing, awareness-raising, capacity-building and socioeconomic incentives; integrated management and coordination; knowledge gaps and research needs (57).
For the land based sources, the priority actions identified by the COP are the identification of the sources, quantities and impacts of marine debris, the promotion of structural economic changes, the production of environmentally friendlier and alternative materials, the development and transfer of technology, and the dissemination of best practices in resource-efficient and closed product-to-waste cycles(with a specific reference to supporting the design of “long-lasting, reusable, reparable, re-manufacturable and recyclable” products, the limitation of superfluous consumption, the separation of different types of waste, the promotion of reusing and recycling over incineration and landfilling).
The COP also promotes best practices along the plastics manufacturing and value chain, the assessment on whether the existing legislations address the sources of micro plastics and the improvement of waste management systems through the sharing of best practices, and the identification of loopholes contributing to the marine debris generation (58).
For the sea- based sources, some of the actions promoted by the COP are the proper handling of waste on ships and waste delivery to port facilities, the identification of key waste items from fishing industry and aquaculture, and the promotion, dissemination and application of best practices (59).
It is interesting to note the reference to the need for changes in the hegemonic economic system, the consumerism on which it is based and the planned obsolescence business strategy, although these important questions would have probably deserved a greater attention and a different collocation in the Decision (which only refers to them in relation to the dissemination of best practices), along with the “extended producer responsibility”.
The problem of marine debris is, in essence, a problem of pollution, related to the goods placed on the markets and their management as they become waste.
Any attempt to tackle the issue, consequently, should widely consider the above mentioned issues, as well as the distinct contributions given by developed and developing countries and their interactions, with the aim to provide a global governance through an integrated approach (60).
It would be necessary, for example, to confront the practice of developed countries to send their wastes to developing countries (61). The lacking environmental legislations, inadequate waste-management, insufficient infrastructures, technologies and resources, often cause the discharge of the wastes into the sea (62). An assessment of these practices’ consequences could certainly allow to read in a different, more accurate fashion the data related to the waste-management of developed and developing countries (63). The collaboration between Parties, often mentioned in the Decision, would gain a new meaning, as it would not only refer to the assistance provided by developed countries to developing countries, but would allow a more realistic appraisal of the waste management system on a global scale.
The reference to the “economic incentives, market-based instruments and public-private partnerships” should, in the same way, take into consideration the realistic possibilities for developing countries to effectively implement this type of measures (64). While it is certainly wrong to consider developing countries as a monolithic group (the same can be asserted with respect to developed countries), the silence on the objective difficulties, for at least some of them, to comply with economic or market-oriented measures, appears somehow superficial and even counterproductive.
With regard to information exchange, knowledge-sharing, awareness-raising and capacity building, the COP encourages education activities in partnership with civil society groups aimed at individual behavior change, the dissemination of good clean up practice in beaches, coastal and marine environments, the development of best practices on clean up technologies and methods, the promotion of curricula for marine-related education and the exchange of information with international environmental certification schemes, in accordance with the rules of the trading system (65).
It would have been appropriate, especially in relation to knowledge-sharing and information-exchange, a clear reference to the contribution and involvement of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, whose Traditional Knowledge and practices could certainly provide useful tools in the management and protection of marine and coastal environment (66). This silence contrasts the acknowledgment contained in the CBD of the contribution of Indigenous peoples and local communities to the in situ biodiversity conservation (67), and the relevance of the “Ad- Hoc Working group on Article 8(j) and related provisions” in the context of the Convention.
For integrated management and coordination, the COP endorses the development and implementation of national and regional action plans taking into account existing regional action plans and the “Honolulu Strategy: A Global Framework for Prevention and Management of Marine Debris” (68), the development of legislative and institutional frameworks which include the promotion of extended producer responsibility and waste management infrastructure, the development of legislation to integrate marine debris issues and targets, and the definition of marine debris prevention strategies within the context of cross-sectoral and area-based management tools, on the basis of the ecosystem approach (69).
Eventually, the COP indicates the actions aimed at addressing knowledge gaps and research needs, such as, inter alia, the harmonization of approaches and use of standardized methodologies, the sharing of technology particularly with developing countries and studies on the transfer of marine microdebris in food webs, the development of risk assessment and the application of modeling to be used on spatial mapping. The COP also promotes the undertaking of socioeconomic research to understand the social factors contributing to the production of marine debris, its impacts on maritime sectors and communities, preferences, perceptions and attitudes of consumers (70).
Also in this last part of the Annex, as in the previous ones, while some suggestions are certainly relevant (such as the promotion of the extended producer responsibility, the development of prevention strategies and socioeconomic research), others seem to ignore the great differences among the States in terms of resources, expertise, technologies and potentially conflicting interests. Furthermore, the great attention given to the analysis of consumers’ perceptions and preferences, should be also dedicated to the producers to highlight the need for a greater commitment to reduce the amount of disposable plastic and to stop planned obsolescence business strategies.
The issue was recently addressed by the last COP, held in November 2018 in Sharm el Sheik, Egypt, in Decision 14/10, in which the COP urged the Parties to increase their efforts in order to avoid, minimize and mitigate the impacts of marine debris, in particular plastic pollution, on marine and coastal biodiversity and habitats (71).
Conclusions
The Convention on Biological Diversity is the most comprehensive international instrument for the protection of terrestrial, coastal and marine biodiversity.
The recognition of the harmful impacts of pollution on coastal and marine ecosystems began more than twenty years ago, but only in the last few years the efforts of the COP have increased. The urgency and severity of the situation call for some brave and effective actions that Governments still seem to resist, and the COP Decisions reflect this attitude.
The article has tried to highlight some possible shortcomings of Decision XIII/10.
While the Decision contains some important considerations, such as the need for structural economic changes, the extended producer responsibility, the promotion of environmentally friendly materials and the reduction of consumptions, they appear as mere hints, suggestions, not fully developed or extensively discussed.
It is interesting to note that the COP has used a non-binding instrument, the Voluntary Practical Guidance, to address the impacts of marine debris. Using soft law, the COP could have tackled the above mentioned issues in depth, leaving then to the Parties and their domestic legislation a discretion on the degree of implementation at a local level. Nevertheless, the Decision expresses the resistance and reluctance of Governments in tackling the environmental crisis in general, and the impacts of marine debris on marine and coastal biodiversity in particular.
The interactions between developed and developing countries, especially in relation to waste management, should have been fully confronted by the COP, because of their relevant effects on the generation of marine debris. If equity means treating different situations in different ways in order to reach the same outcomes, it would be opportune to assess the possible measures to be implemented in different States in relation to their economic capacity, infrastructures and available technology, to obtain effective results on a global level. In the same way, the responsibility of (multinational) corporations in the generation and increasing of marine debris should be confronted extensively.
Decision XIII/10 reflects the general, widespread incapability of politics to guide, limit and orient the economy, in the name of Nature’s protection.
The COP represents a unique international occasion of discussion, collaboration and diplomacy, between environmentally-aware people having the power to make a change. On the edge of the sixth mass extinction, the world is waiting for some decisions to be made in order to save humanity from self destruction (Mother Earth will adapt and survive, as it did before).
Will the COP be able to live up to the world’s expectations? If not the COP, then who?
Footnotes
1 Marine Debris: Understanding, Preventing and Mitigating the Significant Adverse Impacts on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity.Technical Series No.83. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, 2016, p. 7 https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-83-en.pdf(accessed 5 October 2019) This document updates and reviews the previous study made by the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel of the GEF (GEF-STAP) in collaboration with the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD), and published as CBD Technical Series 67 in 2012.
2 Ibi,p. 11
3 Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015, A/RES/70/1https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E(accessed 28 October 2019)
4 Seehttps://www.cbd.int/doc/strategic-plan/targets/T8-quick-guide-en.pdf(accessed 28 October 2019)
5 COP 11, Decision 11/18https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-11/cop-11-dec-18-en.pdf(accessed 28 October 2019)
6 Report of the Expert Workshop to Prepare Practical Guidance on preventing and mitigating the significant adverse impacts of marine debris on marine and coastal biodiversity and habitats UNEP/CBD/MCB/EM/2014/3/2https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/mar/mcbem-2014-03/official/mcbem-2014-03-02-en.pdf(accessed 28 October 2019)
7 Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992 (hereinafter in the footnotes CBD, 1992)
8 The Jakarta Ministerial Statement on the Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity, in Report of the Second Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, UNEP/CBD/COP/2/19 p. 40 https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-02/official/cop-02-19-en.pdf(accessed 28 October 2019)
9 CBD 1992, COP 13 Decision XIII/10 https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-13/cop-13-dec-10-en.pdf(accessed 6 October 2019)
10 CBD 1992, Art. 2
11 Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem ServicesIPBES/7/10/Add.1, 2019, p.4 https://www.ipbes.net/system/tdf/ipbes_7_10_add.1_en_1.pdf?file=1&type=node&id=35329(accessed 5 October2019)
12 Ibi, pp. 4-5
13 Ibi,p. 6
14 Ibi, p. 7-8
15 Ibi,p. 5
16 Marine Debris: Understanding, Preventing and Mitigating the Significant Adverse Impacts on Marine and CoastalBiodiversity. Technical Series No.83, op. cit, p.11
17 Ibi,p.17
18 Ibi, p. 11
19 Ibi,p.12
20 Ibi,p.13
21 Ibidem
22 J. Mira Veiga, D. Fleet et al, Identifying Sources of Marine Litter,MSFD GES TG Marine Litter Thematic Report; JRC Technical Report, 2016, p. 12-13
23 Marine Debris: Understanding, Preventing and Mitigating the Significant Adverse Impacts on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity. Technical Series No.83, 2016op. cit. p. 24
24 A. Smagadi, op. cit. p. 249
25 Seehttps://www.cbd.int/information/parties.shtml(accessed 5 October 2019)
26 Abdulqawi A. Yusuf, “International Law and Sustainable Development: The Convention on Biological Diversity,” inAfrican Yearbook of International Law 2(1994) p. 112
27 Ibi, p.112-113
28 A. Smagadi, “Analysis of the Objective of the Convention on Biological Diversity: Their Interrelation and Implementation Guidance for Access and Benefit Sharing,” in Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 31, no. 2 (2006): p. 116
29 CBD,1992 Art 1
30 T. Greiber, S. Peña Moreno et al., “Guía Explicativa del Protocolo de Nagoya sobre Acceso y Participación en los Beneficios” IUCN, Gland Suiza p. 6
31 CBD, 1992 Arts, 15, 8(j), 10(c), 16, 18, 19
32 A. Smagadi, op. cit. p .250
33 CBD, 1992 Art. 18
34 Ibi, Arts 21 and 39
35 Ibi,Art. 4
36 Ibi,Art.22
37 Ibidem.For a deepening of the relationship between the CBD and the LOSC see J.A. Frowein and R. Wolfrwn (eds.), Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, 445-480. 2000 Kluwer Law International (The Interplay of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Convention on Biological Diversity); and Study of the relationship between the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea with regard to the conservation and sustainable use of genetic resources on the deep seabed (decision II/10 of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity) UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/8/INF/3/Rev.1 22 February 2003
38 CBD, 1992 Art. 23
39 Ibi, Art. 25
40 Seehttps://www.cbd.int/convention/bodies/intro.shtml(accessed 5 October 2019)
41 COP I, Decision I/7https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/default.shtml?id=7067(accessed 5 October 2019)
42 COP 2, Decision II/10https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/default.shtml?id=7083(accessed 5 October 2019)
43 Ibidem
44 The Jakarta Ministerial Statement on the Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity, UNEP/CBD/COP/2/19 p. 40https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-02/official/cop-02-19-en.pdf; see also The Jakarta Mandate-from global consensus to global work,https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/jm-brochure-en.pdf(accessed 5 October 2019)
45 COP 4, Decision IV/5https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/default.shtml?id=7128(accessed 5 October 2019)
46 Ibidem
47 COP 7, Decision VII/5https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/default.shtml?id=7742(accessed 5 October 2019)
48 COP 10, Decision X/29 https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12295(accessed 6 October 2019)
49 COP 13, Decision XIII/10https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-13/cop-13-dec-10-en.pdf(accessed 6 October 2019)
50 Often referred to as “pollution”: COP 4 Decision IV/5, COP 7 Decision VII/5, COP 10 Decision X/29
51 COP 13, Decision XIII/10
52 Ibidem
53 Ibidem
54 Ibidem
55 Report of the Expert Workshop to Prepare Practical Guidance on preventing and mitigating the significant adverse impacts of marine debris on marine and coastal biodiversity and habitats UNEP/CBD/MCB/EM/2014/3/2https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/mar/mcbem-2014-03/official/mcbem-2014-03-02-en.pdf(accessed 28 October 2019).See para. 1
56 COP 13, Decision XIII/10, Annex
57 Ibidem
58 Ibidem
59 Ibidem
60 See J. Vince, B. D. Hardesty, Plastic pollution challenges in marine and coastal environments: from local to global governance, Society for Ecological Restoration, 2016
61 See H. Varkkey, By exporting trash, rich countries put their waste out of sight and out of mind, https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/29/opinions/by-exporting-trash-rich-countries-put-their-waste-out-of-sight-and-outof-mind-varkkey/index.html(accessed 28 October 2019); see also Holes in the Circular Economy, WEEE Leakage from Europe, Basel Action Network,http://wiki.ban.org/images/f/f4/Holes_in_the_Circular_Economy-_WEEE_Leakage_from_Europe.pdf(accessed 28 October 2019); see also E. Holden, Nearly all countries agree to stem flow of plastic waste into poor nations,https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/10/nearly-all-the-worlds-countries-sign-plastic-waste-deal-except-us(accessed 28 October 2019); see also H. Ellis Petersen, Treated like trash: south-east Asia vows to return mountains of rubbish from west,https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/28/treated-like-trash-south-east-asia-vows-to-return-mountains-of-rubbish-from-west(accessed 28 October 2019)
62 C. Cole, Plastic crisis: divert foreign aid to dumpsites in developing countries, https://theconversation.com/plastic-crisis-divert-foreign-aid-to-dumpsites-in-developing-countries-94341(accessed 28 October 2019)
63 See H. Ritchie, M. Roser, Plastic Pollution, in:https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution(accessed 28 October 2019)
64 See R. Greenspan Bell, C. Russel, Environmental Policy for Developing Countries, Issues in Science and Technology 18, no. 3,2002https://issues.org/greenspan/(accessed 28 October 2019)
65 COP 13, Decision XIII/10, Annex
66 See J. A. Drew, Use of Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Marine Conservation, Conservation Biology1286-1293, 2005 http://foodweb.uhh.hawaii.edu/MARE%20594/Drew%202005.pdf(accessed 28 October 2019); see also L. E. Eckert, N. C. Ban, et al ., Linking marine conservation and Indigenous cultural revitalization: First Nations free themselves from externally imposed social-ecological traps. Ecology and Society 23(4):23, 2018 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol23/iss4/art23/(accessed 28 October 2019)
67 CBD 1992, Art. 8(j)
68 COP 13, Decision XIII/10, Annex
69 Ibidem
70 Ibidem
71 COP 14, Decision 14/10https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-14/cop-14-dec-10-en.pdf(accessed 6 October 2019)
Bibliography
Articles
Eckert L E, Ban N C, et al. (2018) Linking marine conservation and Indigenous cultural revitalization: First Nations free themselves from externally imposed social-ecological traps. Ecology and Society 23(4):23https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol23/iss4/art23/(accessed 28 October 2019)
Frowein A, Wolfrum R (eds.) (2000) Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, 445-480 Kluwer Law International (The Interplay of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the Convention on Biological Diversity) https://www.mpil.de/files/pdf2/mpunyb_wolfrum_matz_4.pdf(accessed 28 October 2019)
Drew J A (2005) Use of Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Marine Conservation, Conservation Biology 1286-1293http://foodweb.uhh.hawaii.edu/MARE%20594/Drew%202005.pdf(accessed 28 October 2019);
Greenspan Bell R, Russel C (2002) Environmental Policy for Developing Countries, Issues in Science and Technology 18, no. 3 https://issues.org/greenspan/ (accessed 28 October 2019)
Smagadi A (2006) Analysis of the Objective of the Convention on Biological Diversity: Their Interrelation and Implementation Guidance for Access and Benefit Sharing, Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 31, no. 2, 243-284
Yusuf, Abdulqawi A (1994) International Law and Sustainable Development: The Convention on Biological Diversity, African Yearbook of International Law 2 109-140
Vince J, Hardesty B D (2016)Plastic pollution challenges in marine and coastal environments: from local to global governance, Society for Ecological Restorationhttps://eprints.utas.edu.au/23597/1/Vince_et_al-2016-Restoration_Ecology.pdf (accessed 30 October 2019)
Reports:
Greiber T, Peña Moreno, S et al, (2012) Guía Explicativa del Protocolo de Nagoya sobre Acceso y Participación en los Beneficios” UICN, Gland, Suiza xviii – 399 https://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/guia_explicativa_del_protocolo_de_nagoya.pdf(accessed 5 October 2019)
Holes in the Circular Economy, WEEE Leakage from Europe, Basel Action Network,http://wiki.ban.org/images/f/f4/Holes_in_the_Circular_Economy_WEEE_Leakage_from_Europe.pdf(accessed 28 October 2019)
Marine Debris: Understanding, Preventing and Mitigating the Significant Adverse Impacts on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity. Technical Series No.83. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, p. 7 This document updates and reviews the previous study made by the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel of the GEF (GEF-STAP) in collaboration with the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD), and published as CBD Technical Series 67 in 2012. https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-83-en.pdf (accessed 5 October 2019)
Mira Veiga J, Fleet D et al (2016) Identifying Sources of Marine Litter, MSFD GES TG Marine Litter Thematic Report; JRC Technical Report
Report of the Expert Workshop to Prepare Practical Guidance on preventing and mitigating the significant adverse impacts of marine debris on marine and coastal biodiversity and habitats UNEP/CBD/MCB/EM/2014/3/2 https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/mar/mcbem-2014-03/official/mcbem-2014-03-02-en.pdf (accessed 28 October 2019)
Report of the Second Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (The Jakarta Ministerial Statement on the Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity p. 40), UNEP/CBD/COP/2/19 https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-02/official/cop-02-19-en.pdf (accessed 28 October 2019)
Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem ServicesIPBES/7/10/Add.1 https://www.ipbes.net/system/tdf/ipbes_7_10_add.1_en_1.pdf?file=1&type=node&id=35329 (accessed 5 October2019)
Study of the relationship between the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea with regard to the conservation and sustainable use of genetic resources on the deep seabed (decision II/10 of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity) UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/8/INF/3/Rev.1 22 February 2003
The Jakarta Mandate-from global consensus to global work https://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/jm-brochure-en.pdf (accessed 5 October 2019)
Primary Sources:
Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992
COP 1, Decision I/7 https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/default.shtml?id=7067 (accessed 5 October 2019)
COP 2, Decision II/10 https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/default.shtml?id=7083 (accessed 5 October 2019)
COP 4, Decision IV/5 https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/default.shtml?id=7128 (accessed 5 October 2019)
COP 7, Decision VII/5https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/default.shtml?id=7742 (accessed 5 October 2019)
COP 10, Decision X/29 https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12295 (accessed 6 October 2019)
COP 11, Decision 11/18 https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-11/cop-11-dec-18-en.pdf (accessed 28 October 2019)
COP 13, Decision XIII/10 https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-13/cop-13-dec-10-en.pdf (accessed 6 October 2019)
COP 14, Decision 14/10 https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-14/cop-14-dec-10-en.pdf (accessed 6 October 2019)
Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015, A/RES/70/1 https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E (accessed 28 October 2019)
Articles from online newspapers and other sources
Cole C (2018) Plastic crisis: divert foreign aid to dumpsites in developing countries, The Conversation https://theconversation.com/plastic-crisis-divert-foreign-aid-to-dumpsites-in-developing-countries-94341 (accessed 28 October 2019)
Ellis Petersen H (2019) Treated like trash: south-east Asia vows to return mountains of rubbish from west, The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/28/treated-like-trash-south-east-asia-vows-to-return-mountains-of-rubbish-from-west (accessed 28 October 2019)
Holden E (2019) Nearly all countries agree to stem flow of plastic waste into poor nations, The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/10/nearly-all-the-worlds-countries-sign-plastic-waste-deal-except-us (accessed 28 October 2019)
Ritchie H, Roser M, Plastic Pollution, Our World in Data https://ourworldindata.org/plastic-pollution (accessed 28 October 2019)
Varkkey H (2019) By exporting trash, rich countries put their waste out of sight and out of mind, CNN https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/29/opinions/by-exporting-trash-rich-countries-put-their-waste-out-of-sight-and-outof-mind-varkkey/index.html (accessed 28 October 2019)
Aichi Biodiversity Target 8: https://www.cbd.int/doc/strategic-plan/targets/T8-quick-guide-en.pdf (accessed 28 October 2019)
Photo on Google
Leave a Reply