The Black Sea Biodiversity and Landscape Conservation Protocol

Introduction

The Black Sea was once a sea abundant in biodiversity and marine living resources. However, by the 1970s industrialization, the so-called green revolution in agriculture, the Cold War all contributed to the near environmental collapse of this unique sea. In 1992 the United Nations Environmental Programme established the Black Sea regional seas programme. One of the important goals was to stop the loss of biodiversity and restore the once thriving biodiversity and marine life. In 2002 the Black Sea States adopted the Black Sea Biodiversity and Landscape Protocol which entered into force on June 2011. The Protocol provides the Black Sea with a comprehensive legal instrument that represents a modern and innovative approach for protection of biodiversity in the Black Sea. This paper will provide an overview of the key aspects of the Black Sea Biodiversity Protocol.

1. Geomorphology of the Black Sea

The Black Sea, including the adjoining Azov Sea, forms an enclosed basin with a catchment area of over two million square kilometres. The Black Sea shoreline stretches for a total of 4,340 kilometres with a total surface area of approximately 386,000 km2 and a maximum depth of 2,206 metres. The Black Sea is considered to be one of the most isolated seas from the world oceans, connected only by the very narrow Turkish Straits system.  The cumulative effect of the abundance of fresh water flowing into the Black Sea from a multitude of rivers from the European and Asian continents,[1] coupled with the narrow Turkish Strait outlet to the Mediterranean Sea creates an extremely slow rate of water exchange for the Black Sea, which in turn has created one of the most anoxic bodies of water and also one of the most poisonous. The marine life of the Black Sea is supported by a narrow layer of surface water, underneath which a 2000-meter column of hydrogen sulphide prevents the sustainability of marine life at lower depths. The precarious water margin within which the Black Sea biodiversity must survive has been further eroded by the anthropomorphic impacts, which began during the 1970s with the so-called green revolution that introduced toxic run-offs from agricultural pesticides and the rapid industrialization that marked this period.  The influx of nutrients, phosphorus, pesticides, industrial waste from the surrounding countries, and to a great extent introduced by the Danube River, brought the Black Sea marine environment to the precipice of irreversible damage by 1991, when the UNEP regional sea programme became involved.[2]

2. Decline of Biodiversity

Until the 1960s, the Black Sea was considered to be one of the most productive seas in the world noted for its rich biodiversity. A total of 3774 biological species were identified in the Black Sea before 1996.  However, the biodiversity of the Black Sea has significantly declined over the past three decades.  In total, the biodiversity taxa for the Black Sea includes 1, 1619 species of fungi, algae and higher plants; 1,983 species of invertebrates, 168 species of fish and 4 species of mammals.  A total of 160 species are listed in the Black Sea Red Data book of which forty-one are Black Sea fish species.[3]

However, during the 1970s and early 1980s, the Black Sea began to change from an oligotrophic (high in oxygen) body of water to a eutrophic body of water as a result of anthropogenic factors.[4] Since the 1960s, many anthropogenic factors had an impact on the Black Sea, such as organic matter from agricultural and industrial runoff, domestic sewage, nutrients, toxic substances from industries, pesticides from agriculture, toxic materials from rice culture in the northwestern coastal lowlands, dumping, sand extraction from the shelf, bottom trawling of fish, and introduction of exotic species from ship ballast water.[5]

Eutrophication was exacerbated by industrialization and the development of agriculture[6], the so-called Green revolution, especially along the Danube River, which brought an influx of nutrients and other pollutants. The Danube River discharge into the Black Sea off the Romanian coast reached up to 210 km3 and accounted for approximately seventy percent of the total runoff into the Black Sea. Studies showed that nitrogen runoff had increased eight fold in the Danube and Dneiper Rivers, and two-fold in the Dniester River between the 1960s and 1980s.[7]

One of the most severe impacts of eutrophication has been the dramatic reduction in phytobentos, or algal macrofloral. A victim of the nutrient-created eutrophication in the NWS has been Zernov’s Phyllophora field, the largest aggregation of red agar-bearing algae of the Phyllophora genus in the world. However, between the 1950s and the 1990s, Zernov’s Phyllophora field decreased from occupying an area of 11,000 km2 to 500 km2, and from a biomass of 7-10 million tons to 300,000- 500,000 tons respectively. This massive loss has depleted the Black Sea of an important source of oxygen generation through photosynthesis as well as an important bio-community for 118 invertebrates and 47 species of fish.

One of the great calamities to visit the Black Sea was the accidental introduction of the Mneiopsis leiydi (rainbow comb jelly fish), believed to have been brought by ship ballast water from North America in the early 1980s.[8] By 1988 the Mneiopsis leiydi had penetrated the entire Black Sea, including the Turkish Straits and the Sea of Marmara as well as the Sea of Azov. Without any natural predators, the Mneiopsis leiydi essentially ate and reproduced its way through the Black Sea, attaining a formidable biomass of nearly one billion tons by the end of the 1980s.[9] However, in 1997 the accidental introduction of another exotic species known as the Beroye ovata, also a ctenophore that most fortuitously also happened to be a natural predator of the Mneiopsis leiydi caused a collapse of the Mneiopsis leiydi population.[10]

3. Developing a regional regime for protection of biodiversity

Following the collapse of the former USSR, in 1992 the Black Sea coastal States adopted the Convention for the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution[11] (hereinafter the “Bucharest Convention”), laying the foundation for an historical legal and political collaboration in the region.  In addition to the Bucharest Convention the six Black Sea coastal States also adopted three Protocols: the Protocol on the Protection of the Black Sea Marine Environment Against Pollution from Land-based Sources (“LBS Protocol”)[12]; Protocol on Cooperation in Combating Pollution of the Black Sea Marine Environment by Oil and Other Harmful Substances in Emergency (“Emergency Protocol”);[13] and the Protocol on the Protection of the Black Sea Environment Against Pollution by Dumping (‘Dumping Protocol”).[14] However, the Black Sea Biodiversity and Landscape Conservation was not adopted until 2002.  The need for a separate protocol on biodiversity had been highlighted by the 1996 a Black Sea Transboundary Diagnosis (BS-TDA).[15] Three of the seven categories of “perceived major problems” identified under the 1996 BS-TDA, a science-based assessment of the Black Sea marine environment, concerned threats to marine living resources and marine biodiversity. Paradoxically, however, these remain as the areas where the least progress has been achieved in creating a binding and effective regional legal regime.

The 1996 Black Sea Strategic Action Plan (BS-SAP), which was based on the 1996 BS-TDA, required the Black Sea States to develop and adopt a Black Sea Biodiversity Protocol by 2000, which was to be ratified by national systems by 2001.[16] The 1996 BS-SAP further included a requirement that new conservation areas be designated and existing ones be enhanced. The 1996 BS-SAP, in addition, required that the Black Sea States adopt a Regional Strategy for Conservation Areas by mid-1998 and that it be reviewed every five years.[17] Further, the 1996 BS-SAP provided that by 2000, each Black Sea State was to endeavour to revise or adopt regulations and planning instruments for the protection of conservation areas, which were to be in conformity with relevant international instruments and the Regional Strategy for Conservation Areas.[18]

However, by 2002 when it became evident that almost none of these targets and others set under the 1996 BS-SAP would be fulfilled the timelines were amended and extended. In 2007 a second BS-TDA (2007 BS- TDA) was conducted forming the basis for a second BS-SAP. However, by 2009, when the second BS-SAP was adopted based on the findings of the 2006 BS-TDA, many of the commitments made under the 1996 BS-SAP, as revised in 2002, remained unfulfilled. Somewhat apologetically the 2009 BS-SAP sought to explain this failure on the “overambitious” nature of the commitments made in 1996.[19] Little progress was made between 1996 and 2009; the Black Sea Biodiversity and Landscape Protocol had not been adopted, no regional strategy for an ICZM was adopted, no Regional Strategy for Conservation Areas was adopted, and there has been very slow progress on developing MPAs for the Black Sea. While the Black Sea Commission Report on the Implementation of the Strategic Action Plan for the Rehabilitation and Protection of the Black Sea (2002-2007) reported improvement in biodiversity for the Black Sea since the 1990s, giving the example of the Northwest Shelf, which once deemed dead has shown increased biota (life), the Report, nevertheless, recognized the need for further action, in particular the need to establish a regional conservation strategy for protected areas. The Black Sea Ecological Network was identified as the core objective of the 2002 Black Sea Biodiversity and Landscape Conservation Protocol (BSBLCP-SAP).

4. The 2002 Black Sea Biodiversity and Landscape Conservation Protocol to the Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution (“Black Sea Biodiversity Protocol”)

In 2002 the Contracting Parties adopted the fourth Protocol to the Bucharest Convention, which was the Black Sea Biodiversity and Landscape Conservation Protocol (“Black Sea Biodiversity Protocol”) which entered into force in 2011.[20] The Black Sea Biodiversity Protocol consists of eighteen articles and three annexes. It has incorporated  principles from the main international conservation conventions, in particular the 1992  Biodiversity Convention. In addition, as reflected in its title, the Black Sea Biodiversity and Landscape Protocol has further incorporated principles from the 1998 Pan-European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (“PEBLDS”).[21] One important characteristic of the Black Sea Biodiversity and Landscape Protocol is its application to both the Black Sea proper and the Azov Sea, the latter having been excluded from the Bucharest Conventions and the other Protocols. The extension of the geographic scope of application to include the Azov Sea is essential to ensure a truly regional, harmonized and cooperative legal framework for the protection of marine living resources and biodiversity, especially those of a transboundary nature.

The stated purpose of the Black Sea Biodiversity Protocol is to “maintain the Black Sea ecosystem in the good ecological state and its landscape in the favourable conditions” as well as to “preserve and to sustainably manage the biological and landscape diversity of the Black Sea in order to enrich the biological resources”.[22] The objective of achieving the status of “good ecological state” is understood to mean return to the state of the Black Sea marine environment during the 1960s and also to actively “enrich” the level of biodiversity. Furthermore, the Protocol is to serve as the legal instrument “for developing, harmonizing and enforcing necessary environmental policies, strategies and measures in preserving, protecting and sustainably managing nature, historical, cultural and aesthetic resources and heritage of the Black Sea states for present and future generations”.[23] While the intergenerational principle was adopted as part of the application of the principle of sustainable development in the 1996 BS-SAP[24] the Biodiversity and Landscape Protocol marked the first time it was incorporated into a Black Sea legal instrument. However, other than the intergenerational principle and the principle of sustainability, the Protocol does not adopt any other principles or approaches consistent with the Rio Declaration, Agenda 21, the 2002 WSSD decisions or the 1992 Convention on Biodiversity. The Protocol makes only a general reference to the Back Sea ecosystem but with no invocation of the ecosystem or integrated management approach, the precautionary principle, access to information and public participation, scientific cooperation and exchange of information, use of best available scientific evidence etc.

Given that all six of the Black Sea coastal States have ratified the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity (“CBD”) the Protocol should operate as a regional instrument of cooperation for implementation of its objectives, principle and polices.[25] And while the Black Sea Biodiversity and Landscape Protocol adopted verbatim the definition of “biological diversity” as provided by the CBD[26] the Protocol cannot, however, be characterized as a regional reiteration of the latter.  For example, the objectives of these two instruments differ. The CBD provides for 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, including by appropriate access to genetic resources…”[27] Whereas, the Black Sea Biodiversity and Landscape Protocol makes no reference to the principle of fair and equitable sharing of genetic resources. Rather, the common purpose, as stated, is to maintain the Black Sea ecosystem and its landscape and to protect, preserve and sustainably manage the biological and landscape diversity of the Black Sea. Furthermore, the Protocol does not contain any provisions related to genetic technology.

One of the important tools of in-situ conservation under the 1992 CBD is promoting the establishment of protected areas. The CBD requires that Parties, as far as possible and appropriate, establish a system of protected areas or areas where special measures are needed to conserve biological diversity[28] and to develop guidelines for the selection, establishment and management of such protected or special areas.[29] In regard to marine protected areas, in 2003 the CBD Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice noting the lack of coastal and marine protected areas recommended the establishment of marine protected areas.[30] Among other obligations, the 1992 CBD also requires, as far as possible and appropriate, the use of environmental impact assessments on proposed projects that are likely to have an adverse impact on biological diversity, and to involve public participation.[31] The 1992 CBD further includes a requirement for Parties to promote international technical and scientific cooperation.[32]

The Black Sea Biodiversity Protocol requires the listing of  protected areas[33] and  species of  Black Sea importance,[34] and a list of special measures to protect species listed in Annex II.[35] The Black Sea Protocol also included a provision for exemption of traditional activities meeting certain criteria,[36] the duty to inform the public on the value of protected areas, promote public participation and information on the Protocol;[37] for the Parties to provide financial support according to the capabilities,[38] and the requirement for the Parties to cooperate in conducting scientific research, undertake joint scientific programmes and projects.[39] The Parties are also required to adopt the necessary measures to prevent or regulate the international or accidental introduction of non-indigenous species or genetically modified organisms;[40] the use of environmental impact assessments, making express reference to using criteria and objectives to be regionally developed pursuant to the Convention and international experience …giving as an example the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Espoo Convention).[41]

The Black Sea Biodiversity Protocol also includes a  provision requiring that the Parties adopt a legal instrument of integrated coastal zone management as part of their duty to introduce intersectoral interaction at the regional and national levels.[42] Furthermore, the Black Sea Protocol states the responsibility of each of the Parties to fullfil their international obligations for the protection and conservation of the Black Sea, and the requirement for each Party to adopt rules and regulations on the liability of damage caused to the biological and landscape diversity cause by natural or juridical person. Each Party must ensure that its laws “facilitate” legal action and the obtaining of “prompt and adequate compensation or other relief’ for damages caused by human activities or pollution. The Protocol also mandates for the Parties to “co-operate in developing and harmonizing their laws, regulations and procedures relating to liability, assessment of and compensation for damage damage caused by human activities and/or pollution …in order to ensure the highest degree of deterrence and protection for the biological and landscape diversity of the Black Sea as a whole”.[43] Although the Black Sea Biodiversity Protocol made express reference to the Pan European Biological and Landscape Diversity Strategy (PEBLDS), notably missing is any reference to establishing a “network” of protected areas, which is one of the core elements of the PEBLDS. The “network” approach is also a requirement of the EC Habitats Directive[44] for the establishment of the Natura 2000 coherent European ecological network of special areas of conservation, as well as the commitment undertaken by States under the 2002 WSSD Johannesburg Plan of Implementation to establish a representative network of marine protected areas by 2012.[45] The 2008 Black Sea TDA in its review of biodiversity  also had recommended an increase in both the number and area of protected areas in the Black Sea.[46]

5. Black Sea Biodiversity and Landscape Strategic Action Plan

According to Article 4(6) of the Black Sea Biodiversity Protocol the Contracting Parties to the Bucharest Convention are required to adopt a Strategic Action Plan for the Protocol within three years of the Protocol coming into force.[47] However, adopting a practical approach, without waiting for the Protocol to come into effect the Parties prepared a strategic action plan as required under the aforementioned provision. The Black Sea Biodiversity and Landscape Protocol – Strategic Action Plan (“BSBLCP-SAP”) aims at adopting specific actions with set time tables. For example, BSBLCP-SAP includes references to the decisions of the 2002 WSSD, including that of halting the loss of biodiversity, which had not been included in the text of the Protocol. The BSBLCP-SAP also makes reference to the 2008 European Marine Strategy,[48] which had not been included in the text of the Protocol.

The core of the BSBLCP-SAP  requires that specific actions are to be taken with specified dates. Annex A of the SAP provides a list of all actions to be accomplished between 2005-2007. Under the heading of “Biodiversity and Habitat Conservation” in Part 5.2, the BSBLCP-SAP outlines in detail three key objectives: to prevent appearance of new threatened species and to halt the losses of known threatened species by 2010;[49] increase and improve management of protected areas, in particular marine protected areas;[50] and to restore and rehabilitate damaged areas of previously high biodiversity value.[51] Most of the detailed actions to be taken involve listing of species and habitats as well as establishing common criteria and methodological guidelines. However, in relation to protected areas, for the first time the BSBLCP-SAP makes reference to “networks of Black Sea Reserves”, and emphasizes the designation of transboundary marine protected areas alongside national marine protected areas.[52]

The BSBLCP-SAP also includes detailed series of actions and dates for the fifth objective for landscape conservation. These actions emphasize cooperative actions among the Black Sea coastal States and with the European Landscape Convention. The Parties are also required to cooperate to create a Manual of Best Available Practices in the Field of Landscape.[53]

The BSBLCP-SAP identifies the ecosystem approach and ICZM as the two main tools to be applied in its implementation.  However, there is no mention of specific ICZM tools such as marine spatial planning, which has become a key aspect of ICZM in Europe, especially the Marine Strategy and other regional seas programs.

Even before the entry into force of the 2002 Black Sea Biodiversity and Landscape Protocol, the Black Sea Commission, through its Secretariat, have taken measures for the de facto application of the Biodiversity SAP. For example, in May 2007 the European Environmental Agency-EEA-Topic Center for Biodiversity- and the BSC jointly organized a workshop on Habitats Classification and Mapping where a  List of Black Sea habitats was developed.[54] The “Lists of Species of Black Sea Importance” and the “Species which exploitation shall be regulated” were further developed and have been regularly updated. Mapping of habitats was undertaken (fish nursery grounds, spawning areas, etc.; sensitivity areas mapping), as a step towards designation of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in the Black Sea. New species were added to the List of species whose exploitation should be regulated under Annex 4 of the Protocol.[55] In accordance with the  Protocol and SAP the  Black Sea Commission also standardized regional methodologies for the collection and analysis of plankton and zoobenthos samples. Guidelines were developed and, according to the BSC Secretariat are widely used in the region.

In relation to designation of marine protected areas, including transboundary areas, an area in between Bulgaria and Romania, Vama Veche to Cape Kaliakra, in the Danube Reserve has been proposed as a site for a transboundary marine protected area. Furthermore, in 2009 the Phyllophora field of Zernov in the north-western part of the Black Sea located in Ukrainian waters, was designated as marine protected area.[56]

In its aim to develop a network of marine protected areas in the Black Sea, the Black Sea Commission had developed guidelines.[57] The first Black Sea Red Data Book was published in 1999 with 158 species. It was recently updated with a total of 259 species are enlisted so far with identified status based on IUCN criteria. The revised Red Data Book were published in 2010.[58] In addition, the BSC conducted a Feasibility Study for an ICZM instrument to the Bucharest Convention. According to the conclusions of the study Black Sea region should develop a number of “soft law” legal instruments such as an ICZM Declaration, a Code of Practice (ICZM Guidelines) and an Action Plan. In the long-term (5-10 years), the study suggested that the BSC could consider developing a legally binding instrument, most likely an in the form of a protocol to the Bucharest Convention.

Conclusion

Some twenty years has lapsed since 1992 when the Bucharest Convention and its implementing protocols were adopted by the six Black Sea coastal States, and  a decade since the adoption of the Black Sea Biodiversity Protocol. During this time period the legal process has proven to be slow. The need for protection of biodiversity in the Black Sea was one of the priorities highlighted in the first Black Sea TDA in 1996 and continues to be so. Nonetheless, progress in implementing the Biodiversity Protocol and in creating regional MPAs has not matched the urgency identified by scientific studies and reports. The 2002 Black Sea Biodiversity Protocol is  an important framework for creating regional cooperation in the protection of biodiversity in the Black Sea as it represents a unique combination of international norms taken from the 1992 CBD and regional norms taken from the UNEP Regional Seas protocols, as well as European norms. It is of the utmost importance that the Black Sea Biodiversity Protocol and the implementing SAP become legally activated and fully implemented in order to protect the disappearing and vulnerable biodiversity of this unique sea.

Endnotes

1. Shalva Jaoshvili, Rivers of the Black Sea, Technical Report no. 71 (EEA, 2002). Available online at http://reports.eea.europa.eu/technical_report_2002_71/en/tech71_en.pdf.
2. State of the Environment of the Black Sea Pressures and Trends 1996–2000 (Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution, Istanbul, 2002). Available online at http://www.blacksea-commission.org/_publ-SOE2002-eng.asp.
3. See http://www.blacksea-commission.org/_publ-SOE2002-eng.asp.
4. Shiganova, T.A., Mnemiopsis Leiydi Abundance in the Black Sea and its Impact on the Pelagic Community in Sensivity to Change: Black Sea, Baltic Sea and North Sea, (Emin Ozsoy Alexander Mikaelyan eds.), NATO-ASI Series, The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997, p.117 ; K. Prodanov, K. Mikhailov, G. Daskolov, C. Maxim, A. Chashchin, A. Arkhipov, V. Shlyakhov & E. Ozdamar, Environmental Management of Fish Resource in the Black Sea and their rational exploitation, (FAO 1997).
5. Zaitsev Yy. & Alexandrov, B.G., “Recent Man-Made Changes in the Black Sea Ecosystem” in Sensitivity to Change: Black Sea, Baltic Sea and North Sea, op.cit., pp. 25-31, 26.
6. The authors also draw a correlation between the Green Revolution in world agriculture and the eutrophication of the Black Sea as well as other seas in the world during the 1970s. Ibid.
7. M. Kotlyakov & A.F. Mandych, “Current Trends and Environmental issues of the Black Sea Regional Development”, Conservation of the Biological Diversity as a Prerequisite for Sustainable Development in the Black Sea, Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop, Batumi, Republic of Georgia, October 5-12, 1996 (V. Kotlyakov, M. Uppenbrink and V. Metreveli, eds.) NATO-ASI Series, 1998, p. 42.
8. The Mneiopsis leiydi was first observed in November 1982 in the Sudak Bay of the Black Sea and then in 1986 in the north-eastern waters, see T.A. Shiganova, “ Mnemiopsis leiydi abundance in the Black Sea and its impact on the pelagic community” supra note 4 Sensitivity to Change: Black Sea, Baltic Sea and North Sea (E. Ozsoy and A. Mikaelyan (Eds.).
9. Y. Zaitesev and V. Mamev, Biological Diversity in the Black Sea: a Study of Change and Decline, Black Sea Environmental Series, Vol.  3 (United Nations Publications, 1997), p.65.
10. For detailed discussion of the using the B. ovata to control the Mneiopsis leiydi, see S. P. Volovik, Use of Beroe (sic) Ovata to control Meniopsis populations in the Caspian Sea, in FIRST INTERNATIONAL MEETING OF THE CASPIAN ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME ON THE INVASIONS OF THE CASPIAN SEA BY COMB JELLY MNEIOPSIS-PROBLEMS, PERSPECTIVES, NEED FOR ACTION held in Baku, Azerbaijan, 24-26 April 2001. Available at http://www.caspianenvironment.org/newsite/Caspian-MnemiopsisLeidyi.asp?doc=mnem_report.htm&ttl=Report&lev3doc=mnemmenu1.htm.
11. Done at Bucharest 21 April 1992. In force 15 January 1994. 32 International Legal Materials 1101 (1993).
12. Done at Bucharest 21 April 1992. In force 15 January 1994. 32 International Legal Materials 1122 (1993).
13. Done at Bucharest 21 April 1992. In force 15 January 1994. 32 International Legal Materials 1127 (1993).
14. Done at Bucharest 21 April 1992. In force 15 January 1994. 32 International Legal Materials 1129 (1993).
15. Black Sea Transboundary Diagnostic Anlaysis (UNDP 1997).
16. Para. 60.
17. Para. 65.
18. Para. 65 (a)-(b).
19. Strategic Action Plan for the Environmental Protection and Rehabilitation of the Black Sea, adopted in Sofia, Bulgaria, 17 April 2009, para.1.2.
20. As of 21 June 2011 the Black Sea Biodiversity and Landscape Protocol enterted into effect, following the deposit of the fourth instrument of ratification by Ukraine on the 21st April, 2011. See http://www.blacksea-commission.org/_table-legal-docs.asp.
21. The PEBLDS is a twenty-year strategy (1996-2016) for the entire continent of Europe to implement the 1992 Biodiversity Convention in Europe by filling in gaps and harmonizing nature conservation initiatives. See on-line at http://www.peblds.org/.
22. Article 1(1).
23. Article 1(2).
24. Article 8 of the BS-SAP specifically provided that “the concept of sustainable development shall be applied, by virtue of which the carrying capacity of the Black Sea ecosystem is not exceeded nor the interests of future generations prejudiced”.
25. Convention on Biological Diversity, done in Rio de Janeiro, 5 June 1992, in force 29 December 1993 (1992) 31 International Legal Materials 818.
26. Article 2 (d) of the Black Sea Protocol defines “biological diversity” as 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 as defined by Article 2 of the Convention on Biological Diversity”.
27. Article 1.
28. Article 8 (a).
29. Article 8 (b).
30. See also, Biodiversity Working Group on Marine Protected Areas, Draft Policy for the Development of Marine Protected Areas in the Black Sea, (Version 1, March 2008).
31. Article 14.1 (a).
32. Article 16.1.
33. Annex I.
34. Annex II.
35. Annex III.
36. Article 8.
37. Article 9.
38. Article 12.
39. Article 10.
40. Article 5.
41. Article 6.
42. Article 7. The UNEP Regional Seas Programme for the protection of the Mediterranean on 21 January 2008 adopted a separate Protocol on Integrated Coastal Zone Management in the Mediterranean (ICZM) which entered into force on 24 March 2011. See MEPIELAN E-Bulletin, ICZM Protocol to the Barcelona Convention Enters Into Force Following Syria’s Ratification, News, Friday, 26 November 2010.
43. Article 11 (1)-(4).
44. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
45. Paragraph 31© of the “World Summit on Sustainable Development Plan of Implementation” (4 September 2002).  See http://www.iisd.ca/2002/wssd/PlanFinal.pdf.
46. Black Sea Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (2008), p. 120. Available at http://81.8.63.74/Downloads/BS-TDA_may2007.pdf.
47. See http://www.blacksea-commission.org/main.asp.
48. DIRECTIVE 2008/56/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 17 June 2008establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive), OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19.
49. Objective 1.
50. Objective 2.
51. Objective 3.
52. Objective 2 (a) and (b).
53. Objective 6 (a).
54. See http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/documents/2356.
55. A total of 37 new species were added. These are: Mollusca species Mytilus galloprovincialis, Rapana venosa;  Crustacea, 29 Pisces; 2 Aves (including the Cormorant Ph. Carbo) and 1 Insecta species.  Information provided from the Black Sea Commission Secretariat in an unpublished report: Violeta Velikova and  Ahmet Kideys “Status of the implementation of the Strategic Action Plan for the Black Sea Biodiversity and Landscape Conservation Protocol” ( 2010, Black Sea Commission Permanent Secretariat).
56. Ibid.
57. Ibid. 1. Guidelines for the Establishment of Marine; 2. Designation Dossier for the Establishment of Marine Protected Area in the Black Sea; 3. Preliminary Management Plan for the Small Phylophora Field; and (4) Marine Protected Area Karkinitsky Bay, Black Sea, Ukraine.
58. Ibid.

About the author

Nilufer Oral

Co-chair of the IUCN Specialist Group on Oceans, Coasts and Corals Reefs for the World Commission on Environmental Law, Faculty of Law, Istanbul Bilgi University, Turkey

• Nilufer Oral

  #molongui-disabled-link

  

  February 18, 2014

  IUCN WCEL Oceans Coasts and Coral Reefs Specialist Group written statement submitted to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLSO) for Case no. 21, Request for an Advisory Opinion submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission