Global solutions are required to safeguard the ocean. The chance to increase protection is provided by two sets of regulations that are now being developed, although more alignment between the two is required.
Researchers from the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies in Potsdam, Germany, describe how this might be accomplished in a recent scholarly study. States will get together once more to resume their negotiations in July and August.
On our globe, life depends heavily on the water. The current legislative frameworks for marine conservation, however, exclusively focus on certain industries like fishing, mining, or shipping.
“These governance regimes are too fragmented to safeguard the integrity of the marine environment in the long term. This is of particular concern with respect to areas beyond national jurisdiction, where pressure on ecosystems is increasing due to both more intensive use of marine resources and climate change,” says the study’s lead author, Sabine Christiansen.
The ecosystem approach seeks to balance conservation and human use
Two legally separate zones of regulation exist far from the shore, in places that are outside of national jurisdiction: on the one hand, the global seabed, the so-called “Area” with its mineral resources, and on the other, the water column above it, the “High Seas.”
The International Seabed Authority (ISA), which is now debating a set of laws to permit future exploitation activities, is in charge of managing the mineral resources in the Area. The ISA’s member states will get together at their headquarters in Kingston, Jamaica, as early as the end of July to resume talks on this issue.
The management of human activities needs to change: We need an integrated and coherent global governance solution. The ecosystem approach is the most promising of the available options, as it provides a clear framework, but also allows for the development of tailored solutions for specific contexts.
Sabine Christiansen
A worldwide agreement for the preservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas outside of national jurisdiction (the BBNJ treaty) is being negotiated multilaterally at the same time. In late August in New York, the fifth and, for the time being, last round of United Nations negotiations is slated.
Although deep-sea mining has significant consequences for the preservation of deep-sea species and habitats, the two negotiating processes have thus far mostly been conducted independently. The authors of the essay go into detail on ways to improve how these two processes interact with one another.
Regional Environmental Management Plans to guide decision-making
A best practice for ocean governance has been identified as the ecosystem approach. This strategy aims to control human activities in order to preserve or improve the well-being of spatially defined ecosystems.
“The management of human activities needs to change: We need an integrated and coherent global governance solution. The ecosystem approach is the most promising of the available options, as it provides a clear framework, but also allows for the development of tailored solutions for specific contexts,” explains Christiansen.
Integrated ocean management may benefit particularly from regional environmental management plans, such as those the International Seabed Authority envisions for the fulfillment of its environmental commitments.
When establishing criteria for impacts on affected maritime regions, these strategies could enable informed decision-making in places with mining interests. In relation to longer-term conservation objectives, it is crucial that the plans balance economic and environmental concerns. However, the ISA has not yet made an effort to realize this potential.
For instance, mining stakeholder interests are prioritized over the preservation of deep-sea species and ecosystems in a draft regional environmental management plan currently under discussion for the “Mid-Atlantic Ridge,” a region in the central Atlantic with significant hydrothermal vent fields.
Enable broad stakeholder participation
The authors argue that an ambitious BBNJ treaty should support and strengthen the application of the Seabed Authority’s environmental impact assessment guidelines and aims for marine conservation.
A significant step towards the implementation of an ecosystem-based management strategy would be the consistent and coherent integration of sectoral, regional, and global goals, standards, and metrics.
Then, deep-sea mining could only be permitted if it can be proven that regional and international environmental quality requirements and goals won’t be jeopardized. The ecosystem approach also allows for extensive stakeholder involvement, continual evaluation of deep-sea mining’s environmental effects, and thorough risk management in accordance with the precautionary principle.
Deep-sea mining and its effects on the marine ecosystem have recently drawn a lot of attention at the UN Ocean Conference in Lisbon and the G7 Summit in Elmau. The G7 leaders committed to an extensive precautionary approach to any prospective mining of marine minerals in the Area as part of the “Ocean Deal” they reached under Germany’s G7 Presidency in order to minimize any detrimental environmental effects.
During the UN Ocean Conference, a number of nations went a step further and demanded a moratorium on deep-sea mining. These nations included Chile, the Pacific island nations of Palau and Fiji, and the United States. Even the French president, Emmanuel Macron, called for a legal framework to prevent the expansion of deep-sea mining.
