今国連で議論されているBBNJ - marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction
ほとんどの日本国民は知らない議論だと思うが、私は坂元教授のアドバイスでこの件を２つ目の博論に選んでしまったので、知ることとなった。
要は、200海里のEEZの外の「海洋生物多様性」の管理をどーするか？という話。
マグロじゃない。「海洋生物多様性」とは遺伝子情報とか、身近では界面活性剤とか。
量じゃなくてDNA情報なので、それを採取し、開発する技術が必要。現在米独日がダントツで特許を申請している。
これにフランス、がイチャモンをつけ、途上国、特に島嶼国の数の力を借りて国連の議案にし、海洋法条約の新たな実施協定しようという動くき。
と、ここまで読んだ一般の国民の皆さんは「ふーん」だと思いますが、その結果日本のような海洋国家はそん技術をタダで提供するとか、島国にお金を渡すとか、奨学金を出す羽目になる。すなわち、国民の負担が増えるんである！
このBBNJ、先進海洋国家の懸念をよそに、話がどんどん進み、先週はとうとう国家間会合の第０回がニューヨークの国連本部で開催された。
ここまでが前置き。
早速会議の様子を報告するペーパーがでていて今読みました。
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 Development
http://enb.iisd.org/oceans/bbnj/org-session/brief/bbnj_org_session.pdf
学術議論ではなく本音で書きたい。
こんな言いがかりのような問題を本当に前に進める気であろうか？話が進んでも太平洋島嶼国が「海洋生物多様性」の知識や技術をモテるのか？持ってどうするのか？お金での話であってもそのお金で太平洋島嶼国の、例えば麻薬問題は解決するのか？
後戻りできないのだろうか？と思っていたら思いっきりロシアが正論吐いているではないか。え、そんな本当のこと言っていいの？いや、レーニンの自決権をロシアは理解しているのかもしれない。
ちょっとロシアの発言だけコピペしておく。ついでに国連がマルクス・レーニンの自決権を誤解している事も説明してくれると良いと思うのだが。。。
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.
