Tomorrow, on 8 June 2022, World Oceans Day takes place. It's meant to draw attention to the dramatic conditions in our seas and raise awareness of the negative impacts of human activities on biodiversity and marine ecosystems. On this occasion, political scientist Alice Vadrot from the University of Vienna highlights the political challenges facing international ocean protection. She points out that debates often lose sight of the fact that there's no political consensus on what exactly international ocean protection should look like, or what binding targets and measures can be agreed upon. The divide between states of the Global North and the Global South over who is responsible for protecting marine biodiversity, who pays for it, and how it should be implemented, couldn't be greater. The main dispute is over who actually owns marine biodiversity and who benefits from it. Since World Oceans Day was introduced at the United Nations Earth Summit in 1992, little has changed in this regard.
Scientific facts and missing knowledge
What has changed considerably: we know much more today about the impacts of human activities on the state of our oceans. These have already altered 40% of the ocean surface, created "dead zones" in the sea, and nearly halved the stock of living corals over the past 150 years.[1] For this reason, the UN launched a Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development in 2021. The aim of the initiative is to bring together evidence and present it to policymakers. At the same time, the UN emphasises that we cannot manage what we don't understand, and that many aspects of the ocean remain a mystery. To date, only 19% of the ocean floor has been mapped. Large areas of the deep sea and polar regions are said to lack any knowledge about the distribution of species, ecosystems, ocean processes, and stressors.[2]
The dual appeal coming from the UN Decade — on the one hand to scientists to close knowledge gaps and engage more actively in policymaking, and on the other to policymakers to fund ocean research and listen to it — carries the risk, according to Alice Vadrot, that political decisions will be postponed and that inaction will be justified by pointing to a lack of knowledge. But: "Waiting even longer would be fatal," says the political scientist, who leads a research project at the University of Vienna funded by the European Research Council[3] on the international political regulation of marine biodiversity. Currently, only 7.44% of the oceans are protected[4] and clear international rules for the protection and sustainable use of marine biodiversity are lacking. "This is particularly true for the High Seas, which make up 64% of the oceans, are often interpreted as a legal vacuum, and are exploited and polluted without legal consequences," Vadrot notes, adding a warning: "The facts and the solutions are actually there, as the many scientific reports and calls to action show. Now it's finally time for policymakers to act and actually enforce effective treaties and rules to protect the oceans and their biodiversity."
A new agreement to conserve marine biodiversity in the High Seas
Against this backdrop, and almost unnoticed by the general public, UN member states have been negotiating a new legally binding agreement on the protection and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in international waters since 2018[5]. From 15 to 26 August 2022, government representatives will gather for the fifth time at UN headquarters in New York to try to reach an agreement. Many NGOs see this as the last chance to commit states to establishing marine protected areas and carrying out environmental impact assessments. However: "The future agreement isn't just meant to create new instruments to conserve and sustainably use marine biodiversity in the High Seas. The conditions for the commercial use of marine genetic resources are also being negotiated, as well as capacity building and the transfer of marine technology," says Vadrot.
North-South conflict
At the heart of the negotiations — according to the hypothesis of the aforementioned research project — lies the unequal distribution of the scientific and technical capabilities to document and commercially exploit marine biodiversity. "By analysing the scientific literature, we were able to show that scientific knowledge and opportunities for international cooperation are concentrated in a small number of wealthy countries," Vadrot points out. It is primarily the USA, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Japan, and South Korea that possess the necessary infrastructure and scientific data needed to, for example, manage marine protected areas and conduct environmental impact assessments.
The divide between states of the Global North and South doesn't only run along the unequal distribution of marine technology and knowledge, however. There's also a dispute over the unequal distribution of the economic opportunities arising from this: since 2008, the privatisation of marine biodiversity has increased significantly. The number of patents on genetic resources from the High Seas has risen sharply since then[6]. "The freedom of research that applies in international waters makes it easier to access these resources, but leads to many states feeling excluded from the use of — and the profits derived from — a common good," says Vadrot. Her research shows that differing views prevail on who actually owns marine biodiversity in the High Seas: "While many states of the Global South view ocean biodiversity as a common good from which a handful of wealthy states benefit disproportionately, many states of the Global North are concerned with protecting their ocean research and industry from new regulations," the political scientist continues.[7]
Preserving marine biodiversity as a common good for future generations
According to Vadrot, this conflict becomes visible in the negotiations over whether the ocean should be regarded under the international law principle of the "Common Heritage of Humankind": "If the principle remains in the negotiating text, it could sustainably change access to and use of marine biodiversity in favour of the Global South. If the USA, the EU, Japan, South Korea, and other opponents succeed in preventing this, they will need to offer these states something else to address the current imbalance — such as concrete concessions on the transfer of marine technology to the Global South."
For Vadrot, current developments show one thing above all: "We can only talk about conserving marine biodiversity if we also take economic constraints and interests into account and acknowledge the historically grown inequalities between states of the Global North and South." Marine biodiversity must indeed be recognised as the "Common Heritage of Humankind." "But this shouldn't only be about the equitable distribution of profits between states in the here and now. Rather, the conservation of marine biodiversity for future generations must take centre stage," Vadrot concludes.
Literature and other references
Tolochko, Petro and Vadrot, Alice B.M. 2021: Selective world-building: Collaboration and regional specificities in the marine biodiversity field. Environmental Science & Policy 126: 79-89.
Vadrot, Alice B.M. Langlet, Arne. Tessnow-von Wysocki, Ina. 2021. Who owns marine biodiversity? Contesting the world order through the `common heritage of humankind´ principle. Environmental Politics 31 (2): 226-250.
Vadrot, Alice B.M. Langlet, Arne. Tessnow-von Wysocki, Ina. Tolochko, Petro. Brogat, Emmanuelle. and Ruiz-Rodríguez, Silvia C. 2021. Marine Biodiversity Negotiations During COVID-19: A New Role for Digital Diplomacy?. Global Environmental Politics 21 (3): 169–186.
Tolochko, Petro. and Vadrot, Alice B.M. 2021. The usual suspects? Distribution of collaboration capital in marine biodiversity research. Marine Policy 124: 104318.
Vadrot, Alice B.M. 2020. Multilateralism as a 'site' of struggle over environmental knowledge: the North-South divide. Critical Policy Studies 14(2): 233-245.
