1. The LME Partnerships: Challenges and Opportunities
Summary of Presentation
Implementing LME Strategic Action Programmes <= development of effective and sustainable alliances and partnerships
Over the past two decades, a number of valuable lessons and best practices have arisen from the development and adoption of partnerships within the LMEs, but also beyond, which may be usefully replicated, amended to suit or used as guidance in best lessons and practices.
This presentation will aim to discuss just a few of the current different mechanisms for such partnerships and then define some of the challenges and opportunities facing future partnerships implementing the SDG14 targets

2. Examples of some effective partnership types and modalities
PEMSEA:
Intergovernmental Organization and partnership of public, civil society, corporate and other stakeholders
OSPAR:
Partnerships developed to deliver on the requirements of a Convention
GloBallast:
Full GEF Global International Waters Project. A UN agency working closely with other international entities
Global Industry Alliance:
Innovative Public-Private sector Partnership to assist in creating common solutions for addressing shipping industry impacts on the environment
CLME+:
Full GEF Regional LME Project. Partnership to support a regional management strategy with different levels of membership
Sargasso Sea Alliance and Commission:
A stand-alone legal entity established by law bringing together concerned parties to focus on conservation and stewardship of the Sargasso Sea Ecosystem as an ABNJ/BBNJ

3. PEMSEA Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia
DESCRIPTIVE TYPE:
Intergovernmental organization formalized through the Haikou Partnership Agreement operating in East Asia to deliver a regional declaration of commitment for the sustainable development of the Seas of East Asia
EXTENT AND COVERAGE:
East and South East Asian Seas
MEMBERSHIP:
12 Country Partners plus a significant number of Non-Country Partners and Collaborators
OBJECTIVE/MISSION:
A regional declaration of commitment to implement a Sustainable Development Strategy for the Seas of East Asia (SDS-SEA)
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS:
A Ministerial Forum, an East Asian Seas Partnership Council, the PEMSEA Resource Facility to support implementation of Sustainable Development Strategy plus a network of Regional Centers of Excellence

4. SDG 14 TARGETS ADDRESSED: 1 through 7, A, B, C
PEMSEA Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia
USEFUL LESSONS AND PRACTICES:
Partnerships need to include all relevant stakeholders at all levels and need time to build trust
The ability to adapt and improve. PEMSEA started as a collaborative project in marine pollution and prevention before morphing into the partnership for the implementation of the SDS-SEA
PEMSEA developed and adopted specific ‘stress reduction’ indicators to of environmental and social improvements.
PEMSEA promoted capacity building and organisational strengthening backed up with active communication and advocacy.
SDG 14 TARGETS ADDRESSED: 1 through 7, A, B, C

5. OSPAR DESCRIPTIVE TYPE:
Partnerships developed in support of an existing Convention(s). OSPAR started in 1972 with the Oslo Convention against dumping and was broadened to cover land-based sources and the offshore industry by the Paris Convention of These two conventions were unified, up-dated and extended by the 1992 OSPAR Convention. The Partnerships aim to deliver on the requirements of this Convention
EXTENT AND COVERAGE:
The North-East Atlantic, divided into five regions
MEMBERSHIP:
The 15 Contracting European Parties, together with the European Union. Observer organisations play an essential role in the OSPAR Commission and include IGOs and NGOs
Currently 22 IGO Observers and 40 NGO Observers formally registered

6. OSPAR OBJECTIVE/MISSION:
To identify threats to the marine environment across its maritime area and to institute programmes and measures to ensure effective national action to combat them.
OSPAR has pioneered ways of monitoring and assessing the environmental status of the seas by setting internationally agreed goals and by agreeing commitments by participating Governments to deliver on these.
The results of monitoring and assessment of the status of the marine environment are used to further guide implementation of strategies to protect the marine environment.
The various strategies and measures are developed by the Committees on the basis of proposals from Contracting Parties and these then fit together to underpin the ecosystem approach.
LEGAL BASIS:
The legal basis for OSPAR rests in the formal OSPAR Convention and its Contracting Parties (the 15 member countries). The work of the OSPAR Commission is formally governed by the Rules of Procedure of the OSPAR Commission. Decisions are legally binding on the Contracting Parties
OSPAR has signed MoUs and special cooperative relationships with a number of international bodies and Conventions indicating a convergence of will and an intended common line of action.

7. OSPAR INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS:
The OSPAR Commission consists of representatives from each of the Contracting Parties. The Commission elects a Chairman and two Vice-Chairmen by the unanimous vote of the Contracting Parties
Ordinary meetings of the Commission take place at least once a year. Beyond this, the Chairman of the Commission can be requested to convene an extraordinary meeting
The Commission appoints its Executive Secretary by consensus and that person is responsible for the administration of the OSPAR Secretariat.
The OSPAR Commission Secretariat includes a number of international staff which administer the work under the Convention, coordinate the work of the Contracting Parties and run the formal meeting schedule of OSPAR.
The OSPAR Secretariat also manages reporting of Contracting Parties on the implementation of OSPAR measures and the reporting of data under OSPAR monitoring programmes

8. SDG 14 TARGETS ADDRESSED: 1 through 6, A, C
OSPAR
USEFUL LESSONS AND PRACTICES:
A small core budget provides the leverage to focus significant resources from Government and industry into maintaining a healthy environment for the North-East Atlantic
Sound science, careful monitoring and accurate assessment must underpin agreed policies.
Every OSPAR measure has its implementation reporting and assessment procedures.
The Rules of Procedure of the Commission are very detailed and comprehensive. This tends to restrict flexibility and impose a distinct and often-noted bureaucracy on OSPAR, which has sometimes prevented it from moving ahead with important processes.
On the other hand, when decisions are reached and endorsed, they come into action and are fully supported. For example, OSPAR was one of the first regional agreements to adopt High Seas Protected Areas
SDG 14 TARGETS ADDRESSED: 1 through 6, A, C

9. GloBallast DESCRIPTIVE TYPE:
Full GEF Global International Waters Project implemented by UNDP and executed through the International Maritime Organisation.
IMO taking direct, large-scale action together with other international entities, to address a global threat to the health of the world’s oceans.
Evolution of PPPs. It also piloted the Global Industry Alliance (GIA) model and mechanism (see next example) along with other bilateral partnership arrangements (e.g. EBRD and GESAMP)
EXTENT AND COVERAGE:
Global
MEMBERSHIP:
47 endorsing countries globally (13 are the Lead Partner Countries)

10. GloBallast OBJECTIVE/MISSION:
To assist developing countries globally to reduce the risk of ballast water mediated bio-invasions and to prepare the countries for implementation of the IMO Ballast Water Management Convention and compliance with its requirements at all levels.
In order to achieve this, the GBP has supported and promoted the development of uniform legal, policy and institutional frameworks in several developing countries, and has undertaken a major capacity-building programme in over 70 countries
LEGAL BASIS:
A limited 5-year project funded by GEF through its Implementing Agency (UNDP) and executed by IMO. Endorsed formal by countries but, being a GEF project, it has no legal basis beyond the formal country endorsement process.
The aims and objectives reflect the requirements to deliver on the Global Ballast Water International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships Ballast Water & Sediments which was adopted 2004 and which entered into force in September 2017

11. GloBallast INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS:
Advised by a Global Project Task Force (GEF, UNDP, IMO, the participating countries, the shipping industry and international environmental NGOs).
The Executive Committee (GEF, UNDP and IMO representatives) is the governing body of the Project
Regional Coordinating Organizations (e.g. PERSGA, Regional Marine Pollution Centres, SPREP, MEMAC)
Strategic Partner organizations (e.g. WMU, WWF, IW:LEARN)
The GloBallast Project also pioneered the GloX tiered management modality

12. SDG 14 TARGETS ADDRESSED: 1, 2, A, C
GloBallast
USEFUL LESSONS AND PRACTICES:
The Three-Tier Management Partnership developed though the Project (PCU to RCO to LPC and National Task Forces) has been an excellent model that has been praised by all stakeholders. This is now being used for GloMEEP and GloFouling.
Partnerships do not always need to be formal in nature and simple agreements between two bodies with mutual interests can be just as efficient as formal MoUs which can be time-consuming and complicated by legal concerns and constraints
Setting up such partnerships under a 5-year limited GEF project has its challenges, especially if this is linked into the development and ratification of a Convention
Training and capacity building as part of a Partnership body or agreement can strengthen long-term ownership and knowledge.
Awareness raising, outreach, communication ALL on-going and vital activities a Partnership can agree on and help to deliver.
financial institutions can provide significant leverage at the financial and thus political level when it comes to compliance and to requiring the embedment of global agreements into national policy and legislation.
Furthermore, EBRD partnered in the development of a model on how to invest in ballast water management and shared this with other regional banks as the ‘Ballast Water Management Infrastructure Investment Guidance’.
SDG 14 TARGETS ADDRESSED: 1, 2, A, C

13. Global Industry Alliance
DESCRIPTIVE TYPE:
Innovative Public-Private sector Partnership originally created under the GloBallast Project to identify common solutions for addressing the ballast water issues (new technologies, training and capacity-building) that can be adopted by the private sector
This same successful model is now also being used for the GloMEEP and GloFouling Projects.
EXTENT AND COVERAGE:
A Global body addressing pollution and environmental impacts primarily from shipping but also from ports.
MEMBERSHIP:
The current members of the GIA for GloMEEP (latest model) include public and private sector companies as well as government port/canal management agencies, government joint corporations and open, community-based projects

14. Global Industry Alliance
OBJECTIVE/MISSION:
To bring together maritime industry leaders to support an energy efficient and low carbon maritime transport system to address barriers to low carbon shipping
Leading shipowners and operators, classification societies, engine and technology builders and suppliers, big data providers, oil companies and ports collectively identifying and developing innovative solutions
The GIA currently focuses on five priority areas of collaboration:
1. Energy Efficiency technologies and operational best practices
2. Low- and Zero-Carbon Fuels
3. Ports Efficiency (‘just-in-time’ demonstration at major ports)
4. Digitalization (data and ship efficiency management)
5. Human Element (awareness, human health, etc.)

15. Global Industry Alliance
LEGAL BASIS:
An alliance/agreement of maritime industry leaders to provide technical expertise on tackling the challenges of decarbonizing the shipping sector. Not legally binding
The GIA Fund has been established through an annual membership contribution by the GIA industry partners.
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS:
The steering and advisory body of the GIA consisting of representatives of GIA member companies.
The GIA is recognised by the MEPC of IMO and is the subject of updates to this Committee as required
Expectation of in-kind time to be given by each of the GIA members with two meetings a year being the norm at present, plus reviews of papers and documents
The GIA Fund provides the necessary financial resources for the implementation of selected projects which fall within the scope of the chosen priority areas
Managed as a fund through IMO. The membership itself decides what that funding should be spent on

16. Global Industry Alliance
USEFUL LESSONS AND PRACTICES:
The GloBallast Project managed to use its position within IMO to help to create strong industry partnerships
Strong buy-in and ownership from industry. Concern now is to maintain this after the project and GEF support ends
One of the successes of the GIA has been to address the ‘low hanging fruits’ first such as the e-Learning, developing the Standards for Energy Efficiency, Low Carbon Fuel Guides etc. This has helped to build trust and close collaboration within the Alliance for further developments
The GIA members note that it was easier to accept some of the terms in the partnership documents as they were bilateral agreements with a United Nations organisation (IMO). They would have had difficulty in accepting some of the content or clauses if they had been making such commercial contracts with another commercial company
Only individual companies are members of GIA and not associations or representative bodies. The latter can tend to impede close engagement and dialogue with the actual industry as the ‘associations’ tend to try and represent all of their members (inefficiently)
The process benefits from the impartiality of IMO and the PCU to ensure that no single member ‘hi-jacks’ the process
GIA has become so popular within the industry that many companies and bodies are asking to join but more important to spread the membership across diverse interests and shipping categories and to keep the Alliance small and functional
SDG 14 TARGETS ADDRESSED: 1, 3, A, C

17. Global Partnership for the Sustainable Management, Use and Protection of the Caribbean and North Brazil Shelf Large Marine Ecosystems - CLME+
DESCRIPTIVE TYPE:
Under a 5-year project ( ) implemented by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and co-financed by the Global Environment Facility (GEF)
EXTENT AND COVERAGE:
The Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem plus the North Brazil Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem
Shared by 26 countries and 19 overseas territories,
This vast marine area (4.4 million km2) is a major contributor to regional economic development and is key to many globally relevant ecological processes

18. Global Partnership for the Sustainable Management, Use and Protection of the Caribbean and North Brazil Shelf Large Marine Ecosystems - CLME+
MEMBERS:
Under the draft TORs the Membership is projected to include two types of Members:
Core Members: the CLME+ countries and territories that have politically endorsed the CLME+ SAP, and the IGO’s that are Parties to the MoU that establishes the CLME+ SAP Interim Coordination Mechanism (ICM)
Invited Subscribing Members: it is anticipated that the Partnership will gradually expand, with the core membership inviting major stakeholders to join. These can include stakeholders such as: Governments/Inter-Governmental Organizations, Research Centers, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO’s), etc.
The CLME+ ICM (Interim Coordination Mechanism – see next slide) consists of a number of Inter-Governmental Organizations with an Oceans-related mandate
UN Environment CEP (Regional Seas, Cartagena Convention), FAO-WECAFC (Regional Fisheries Body), IOCARIBE of the IOC of UNESCO
CARICOM Secretariat, OECS Commission + 3 sub-regional geopolitical integration mechanisms
UNDP/GEF CLME+ Project Coordination Unit as (interim) Secretariat

19. Global Partnership for the Sustainable Management, Use and Protection of the Caribbean and North Brazil Shelf Large Marine Ecosystems - CLME+
OBJECTIVE/MISSION:
To improve interactive and cooperative ocean governance inter alia through the integrated management of the shared living marine resources of the CLME+ region through coordination, collaboration, funding, creating synergies and linkages
CLME+ PARTNERSHIP INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS:
Interim Coordination Mechanism (ICM) (GEF Project supported) with initial focus on shared living marine resources, to be transformed into…
Permanent Coordination Mechanism (PCM) for ocean governance in support of sustainable development. A consultation processes with CLME+ countries on mandate, functions, structure and financing mechanism currently ongoing

20. SDG 14 TARGETS ADDRESSED: 1,2,4,5,6,7, A, B, C
Global Partnership for the Sustainable Management, Use and Protection of the Caribbean and North Brazil Shelf Large Marine Ecosystems - CLME+
USEFUL LESSONS AND PRACTICES:
Inter. Coord. Mech = a strong support mechanism for SAP implementation, facilitating cross-sectoral and vertical (i.e. regional –sub regional – national) coordination as well as engagement of member states (multiple sectors of government)
Partnerships in face of financial constraints require building as much as possible on existing institutional framework, engaging partners in alignment with their formal mandate while deomstrating comparative advantages
UNDP/GEF Project support has been fundamental to catalyse this process. Engagement of IGO’s with a long-term mandate allows institutionalising of the TDA/SAP process & give it continuity in time
Collaboration between GEF Projects/UNDP, Regional Seas Programmes, Regional Fisheries Bodies and native IGOs’ has proven highly beneficial in the CLME+ region
(interim) Secretarial services provided by UNDP/GEF Project Coordination Unit has been fundamental to catalyse the process
Moving away from Business-as-Usual requires time and perseverance, and a step-wise/gradual approach
SDG 14 TARGETS ADDRESSED: 1,2,4,5,6,7, A, B, C

21. Sargasso Sea Commission
DESCRIPTIVE TYPE:
A stand-alone legal entity established by Bermudian and US law to bring together concerned parties to focus on conservation and stewardship of the Sargasso Sea Ecosystem as an ABNJ/BBNJ
EXTENT AND COVERAGE:
Open-ocean situated within the North Atlantic subtropical gyre and bounded on all sides by the clockwise flow of major ocean currents. A haven of biodiversity through various stages of species’ life-cycles, a migratory corridor, a spawning ground and supports a range of endemic species

22. Sargasso Sea Commission
OBJECTIVE/MISSION:
Achieve international recognition of the global importance of the Sargasso Sea
Work with existing international and sectoral organisations to achieve better protection in accordance with UNCLOS
Use this experience as an indication of what is possible and not possible under current regime for ABNJ
LEGAL BASIS:
No management authority, “exercise a stewardship role for the Sargasso Sea and keep its health, productivity and resilience under continual review”. The Hamilton Declaration is a non-binding political statement which establishes the Commission
MEMBERSHIP:
Commissioners: Currently 7.
Appointed by the Government of Bermuda and selected through a consultation process by signatory States who support the aims of the Hamilton Declaration
Signatories: Currently 10.
Azores, Bermuda, Canada, Cayman Islands, Dominican Republic, Principality of Monaco, Bahamas, British Virgin Islands, United Kingdom, United States

23. Sargasso Sea Commission
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS:
Meeting of Signatory Governments (once a year)
The Sargasso Sea Commission (independent Commissioners) meets virtually approximately every 2 months.
Sargasso Sea Secretariat (small permanent body)
The Commission also has Observer Status (e.g. ISA, NAFO, etc.) plus more than 30 signed up Collaborating Partners with MoUs (e.g. OSPAR, UNEP, Cartagena and Abidjan Convention, etc.)
USEFUL LESSONS AND PRACTICES:
Constant communication with stakeholders and keeping them involved throughout creates ownership
Collaboration with the Private Sector (e.g. International Committee for Protection of Cables)
Because SSC has no formal and legally-binding Treaty framework behind it, this allows it a lot more flexibility in decision-making (than say OSPAR)
The concept of signatory governments rather than signatory states
SDG 14 TARGETS ADDRESSED: 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, A, C

24. Summary of Lessons and Practices
1. Developing and Evolving New Partnerships
Time is required to forge effective partnerships and trust and to build up a critical mass of support
Can be often be pragmatic to start with a more simplified agreement which includes a long-term intention to explore and adopt as appropriate institutional structures, financial arrangements and member commitments.
Bilateral agreements defining specific activities and shared visions can be easier to agree. However, this can become a burden if dealing with many partners and therefore many agreements.
Various ‘partners’ may have different objectives/needs and may not have a good understanding (or indeed interest) in the functions and needs of other partners which can be a hurdle to partnership collaboration
Sub-components to partnerships can help to resolve these issues with specific thematic targets that partners agree/sign up to support (possibly with a broader and less formal bilateral agreement)

25. Summary of Lessons and Practices
2. Use of Non-Binding Agreements
Non-binding agreements can be surprisingly powerful on a ‘moral commitment’ basis without having to negotiate drawn-out legal processes.
The latter can be adopted in time once trust has been established and if required.
Non-binding agreements tend to allow the ‘agreeing’ parties much more flexibility in moving ahead with mutually-agreed activities.
Non-binding agreements can also allow the concept of Government’s being a partner rather than State membership/partnership (e.g important if dealing with Dependent Territories)

26. Summary of Lessons and Practices
3. Membership and Stakeholders
Important to involve all appropriate stakeholders at the earliest stages of discussion and negotiation if there is to be true ownership and the all-important trust required to make such partnerships functional.
Unevenness of capacities within a region makes continued external input and support essential
Regional Centres of Excellence and Learning Centres can be a valuable tool to help such a Partnership address capacity unevenness.
The use of different levels of partnership and coordination can be a valuable way forward with more formal arrangements at the coordination/management level and less formal Partnership and/or Alliance agreements/ arrangements at the technical and data capture level
Such multi-level partnerships have been seen to be a successful way of including different levels of commitment.

27. Summary of Lessons and Practices
4. Incentives and Commitment
Effective stakeholder engagement may require ‘incentives’ by way of demonstration of the value-added to those stakeholders and their individual aims and vision.
Early collaboration and partnership support can be leveraged through early demonstration of the cost-benefits of such collaboration for all parties (often most effective if it targets local issues on a small-scale initially and/or specific thematic areas of concern)
Long-term funding commitment is an essential requirement and partners need to be part of such a funding commitment to ensure true ownership

28. Summary of Lessons and Practices
5. Management and Monitoring/Reporting
Where possible (allowing for any political sensitivities) it can be advantageous to anchor such partnerships and mechanisms within an existing formally-mandated body with legal status such as a Treaty or Convention. This can provide stronger profile, outreach and support.
Monitoring and Reporting of Partnership/Alliance activities and achievements is very important for progress and maintaining membership.
Such Partnerships/Alliances need a ‘dialogue’ or ‘monitoring’ format/venue on a regular basis (i.e. every year or two) which brings the partners together to update on achievements, discuss challenges and generally monitor and evaluate the functions and role of the partnership/alliance process.
AND, undoubtedly there are many more best practices and lessons that can be captured from LME (and other) experiences with Partnerships.
Hopefully this LME 21 meeting will expand on the aforementioned examples

29. And Finally….
Thank you for your Patience and Partnership and good luck for whatever the future holds!