▾

External sources (not reviewed)

A few participants, however pointed to a danger that the term “quality education” tended to become too broad complicating any assessment of outcomes or measurement of results, and that an agreed-to definition was warranted.

It was also suggested that FAO should undertake technical work in the following five priority areas to assist States and RFMOs implement resolutions 61/105 and 64/72 and the FAO Guidelines: (i) improving and expanding application of the criteria for the identification of VMEs beyond corals, sponges, seamounts and hydrothermal vents; (ii) developing guidance on impact mitigation measures and best practices for developing and applying encounter protocols relevant to VMEs, particularly by RFMOs; (iii) developing guidance on what and how information should be collected to implement measures for managing fishery impacts on VMEs; (iv) defining certain terms that could clarify implementation of the FAO Guidelines; and (v) developing guidance on best practices for conducting assessments.

After discussion, the Working Group agreed that the questions for further consideration on that matter would include (A/CN.9/717, para. 143): (i) whether a provision on protection of the integrity of the arbitral process should be in the form of a general formulation or should contain specific instances that were meant to be specifically addressed; (ii) the interplay between the protection of the integrity of the arbitral process and the provisions in the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules already dealing with that issue; and (iii) how to determine the threshold for a limitation to transparency based on the ground of the need to protect integrity of the arbitral process.