Environmental Impact Assessment Under the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Agreement and the Equivalence Exception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A key consideration for the implementation of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) Agreement is managing the relationship between overlapping international frameworks and institutions. Parties to the BBNJ Agreement are required to apply and interpret the BBNJ Agreement in a manner that does not undermine other legal instrument and frameworks and that promotes coherence and coordination between the BBNJ Agreement and other legal instruments. In relation to environmental impact assessment (EIA), this requirement for coherence finds expression in article 29(4 , which provides an exception to the general obligation to conduct an EIA where the planned activity has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of another relevant legal instrument that is equivalent to the EIA provisions of the BBNJ Agreement. The equivalence exception is, however, ambiguous in the sense that equivalence is a matter of degree. Interpreting equivalence too narrowly risks redundancy and conflicting outcomes, while interpreting equivalence too broadly may render the BBNJ Agreement EIA provisions superfluous.Understanding how EIA processes differ and determining the legal and practical implications of these differences for equivalence determinations will be an important early step in defining the role of the BBNJ Agreement’s EIA processes. This paper seeks to contribute to this understanding by conducting a comparative analysis of four EIA process that have potential to overlap with the BBNJ Agreement’s EIA process. Specifically, we examine the EIA processes under the Antarctic Environmental Protocol; the proposed EIA rules for deep seabed mining in the International Seabed Authority’s Exploitation Regulations; the environmental assessment process for marine geoengineering under the London Protocol, and fisheries assessment processes required by regional fisheries management organizations. Each process is examined with reference to the specific EIA requirements under the BBNJ Agreement to assess the degree of equivalence. This approach allows us to develop a clearer picture of the contours of equivalence for EIA processes that apply to high seas activities and to identify areas of divergence that may require further attention by the Parties to these agreements.We conclude the paper by commenting on the potential pathways for developing coherence and coordination of EIA processes in the high seas.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.040 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".