This article discusses the current negotiations for an Implementing Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. It discusses, in particular, the issue of the relationship of the new agreement with existing and future relevant regional instruments and bodies and the need for cooperation and coordination amongst them, the guiding principles of the new agreement, and the question of implementation and enforcement of the new agreement. These issues and the choices that delegations will make respectively highlight the controversy on the underpinning tenet of the agreement, ie between the ‘freedom of the high seas’ and the common heritage of mankind. The article concludes with a pessimistic prognosis that, in general, the agreement will fall short of the expectations that many States and international community have had at the early days of the negotiation.

We comment on Zaida Lentini's summary of Session V (titled “Estimating Likelihood and Exposure”) of the 9th International Symposium on the Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms. We provide an explanation of the drawbacks of using empirical pollen dispersion models, based largely on the general representativeness of the data used to generate the empirical models. We exemplify the drawbacks by highlighting the limited data used to develop the empirical model of Gustafson (presented in the same Symposium session). We provide a discussion of the meaning of “worst-case” assessments for pollen dispersion, how “worst-case” assumptions are commonly used in environmental impact assessments and how regulators will view worst-case impact assessments differently from the regulated (biotech) community. Finally, we clarify the advantages and disadvantages of mechanistic models and explain why they are often used in preference to empirical models in environmental impact assessments.