An estimated six billion tonnes of sand are being dug up from the ocean every year.

What’s happening? Marine Sand Watch uses AI to track the movement of dredgers from automatic identification systems (IAS) data provided by Global Fishing Watch. It found the east coast of the US, the North Sea and Southeast Asia were areas of concern. In several locations where dredging is particularly intense, sand is often being removed faster than it can be naturally replenished.

Why does this matter? Sand stands as the second most utilised natural resource globally, trailing only behind water. Each year, approximately 50 billion tonnes of sand and gravel are consumed – a quantity substantial enough to construct a wall measuring 27 meters in height and 27 meters in width, encircling the entire Earth.

Sand assumes a pivotal role in our daily lives and economic progress, serving as an indispensable ingredient in the production of concrete, asphalt, glass, silicon chips, and playing vital roles in land reclamation and flood protection efforts. Furthermore, it plays a crucial role in facilitating the construction of the extensive infrastructure necessary for the transition to cleaner energy sources.

Limited supply – UNEP’s data spanning from 2012 to 2019 reveals a concerning trend: dredging activities are on the rise. Every year, coastal and marine ecosystems depend on an essential influx of 10 to 16 billion tonnes of sand from the land.

Currently, global sand dredging is approaching this critical replenishment rate. Predictions indicate that factors such as the expanding global population, urbanisation, poverty reduction efforts, and the increasing demand for new infrastructure like roads and buildings will necessitate an astonishing 60 billion tonnes of sand and gravel per annum by 2030.

Focusing on the construction sector specifically, estimates suggest that the demand for construction-grade sand will surge from 3.2 billion tonnes in 2020 to 4.6 billion tonnes by 2060, marking a substantial 45% increase.

According to a 2022 UNEP report, it’s important to recognise that global sand reserves remain largely unknown, and assuming the resource’s abundant availability would be a mistake. Shortages are presently emerging due to disparities in the geographical distribution of resources, as well as variations in quantity and quality at regional sites, creating a substantial threat to supply chains.

Furthermore, there’s a rising competition for extraction sites, and numerous regions are implementing restrictions, often in the name of nature conservation, further complicating the situation.

Threat to marine life – Extracting sand not only strains the global supply but also leaves areas of the seabed “sterilised” through the removal of microorganisms vital to marine ecosystems. In some cases where sand is stripped down to the bedrock “life may never recover”, according to UNEP’s Pascal Peduzzi. Dredging affects marine wildlife in various other ways including collisions, noise levels and topology.

Lack of regulation – UNEP highlight that sand extraction is unregulated or under-regulated in many parts of the world. Just a handful of countries know how much sand is being extracted each year, what it is used for and how it impacts the environment or socio-economic issues.

In addition to limited legislation, a lack of data can drive illegal, informal, and unregulated sand mining, which harms the environment and negatively impacts society.

Industries harmed – Excessive sand extraction also threatens local industries. For example, UNEP emphasises that removing sand from beaches can inhibit the development of tourism, which is integral to both local and national economies.

Additionally, mining sand from rivers can result in the loss of livelihoods, including tourism and fishing. An example of this can be seen on the riverbanks along the Mekong and Bassac rivers in Cambodia, which have been collapsing, forcing residents to leave their homes.

Solutions – UNEP has called for new legislation to more effectively govern sand and for resources of the material to be mapped, monitored and reported on. Solutions already exist, such as creating a circular sand economy, including banning the resource from landfills and encouraging reuse in public procurement contracts.

Recycling construction and demolition materials are also potential alternatives to sand, as is ore-sand resulting from the mining and processing of ores.

Source: The Guardian 

Why does this matter? – The UN High Seas Treaty couldn’t have come soon enough. The 2022 IUCN Red List report found that 10% or 42,108 marine species are at risk of extinction, with 41% of those also affected by climate change. Worryingly, this figure is likely to be far higher – just 67% of fishes, 15% of reef corals, 11% of molluscs and 0.1% of green algae have been assessed for extinction. Species may be lost before they can be added to the Red List. The 30×30 Pledge, made at the UN Biodiversity Conference in December, is an agreement to address this issue by protecting a third of land and sea by 2030. Without the High Seas Treaty, the 30×30 pledge would likely fail.

These include the formation of marine protected area (MPA) legislation, the equitable sharing of genetic resources and the requirement of environment impact assessments (EIA’s) for countries considering large ocean projects. However, as is often the case with international agreements, each comes with caveats.

Marine protected areas – Currently, only 1% of the high seas are protected, leaving marine life at risk of overfishing, shipping traffic and the effects of climate change. Protecting the high seas has previously been inherently difficult. However, the treaty establishes formal legislation, creating a legal framework for the creation and enforcement of MPAs on the high seas for the first time. Countries will be able to propose areas for protection which will be voted on by signatories of the treaty.

Genetic resources – Marine genetic resources include any genetic plant, microbial or animal found in the sea that has actual or potential value, for example, krill, coral sponges, or seaweeds. Marine genetic resources are already generating revenue for pharmaceutical companies and garnering scientific attention, with more uses expected to emerge in the future. The management of these resources and the profit they generate was a contentious point. However, an agreement was made that countries will be permitted to gather resources under the condition that profits are shared equitably. The details of this arrangement are yet to be finalised; however, a share of profits will go to a global marine conservation fund, with richer countries contributing a higher proportion.

Environment impact assessments – The EIA section comprises the longest part of the UN High Seas treaty and was at the centre of negotiations. This legislation covers high seas and national waters, meaning countries that wish to conduct activities that could cause “substantial pollution” or “harmful changes to the marine environment” within their jurisdiction will need to complete an EIA. These assessments quantify potential damage whilst advancing our understanding of ocean ecosystems. However, EIAs are expensive and require array of technology and expertise, making it difficult for poorer nations.

Issues unaddressed – Although positive, there are holes in the treaty. Firstly, protected areas cannot be placed in areas with existing fishing agreements, regardless of their sustainability or fishing methods. Additionally, countries that oppose MPAs are exempted, meaning they can continue environmentally damaging practices within them.

Secondly, the treaty does not overrule authorities that oversee existing activities. Organisations including the International Seabed Authority – whose director was recently accused of abandoning neutrality – remain in control of existing deep-sea mining projects. A recent study found deep-sea mining to be highly destructive to ocean ecosystems that are typically undisturbed, causing irreversible damage.

Critics also argue the treaty does not address overfishing. Overfishing is a major diver of dwindling fish numbers and high extinction rates – in 2017, 34% of fish stocks were overfished. However, the words “fish” or “fishing” are only mentioned 6 times in the treaty, all falling under the genetic resources section, whereby any existing fishing practices are exempt.

Finally, the treaty overlooks many of the symptoms of problems in the ocean. These include on-land nutrient pollution, leading to vast “dead zones“, or government subsidies, one of the main drivers of overfishing. A recent study found that over half of the high seas fishing grounds would not be profitable without government subsidies. In most cases, bottom trawling – seen as one of the most damaging methods of fishing – is only profitable due to subsidies.

The High Seas treaty represents a positive step for global ocean governance, demonstrating collaboration at a time of bitter international relations. The treaty, however, is only the first step, with more work to be done in order to combat the serious drivers of ocean decline.

Source:
United Nations

What’s happening? United Nations member states have failed to finalise a treaty on conserving biodiversity in the high seas – the 60% of the world’s oceans that is not covered by any national jurisdiction. A two-week meeting concluded without an agreement in New York on 18 March. The discussions were the fourth round of negotiations since 2018. Talks focused on the creation of marine reserves, environmental impact assessments for potentially harmful activities, the sharing of marine genetic resources and the transfer of marine technology to developing countries. Observers still expect an agreement to be reached by the end of 2022.

Why does this matter? Almost two-thirds of the world’s oceans lie outside of national jurisdictions, also known as Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ). According to scientists, these international waters account for up to 95% of all occupied habitats on Earth, with millions of species yet to be discovered. However, only 1.2% of the high seas are currently under protection. In the absence of effective governance mechanisms, these ecosystems are facing growing threats from various industrial and illegal activities as well as climate change.

The share of stocks fished at unsustainable levels, for example, has risen from 10% in 1974 to 33% in 2015. At the same time, shipping volumes have increased by 1,600% since 1982, leading to increased noise pollution and higher risks of collisions between large marine species and industrial vessels. Oil and gas explorations, water contamination with plastics and chemicals, and habitat destruction are also threatening marine life in international waters, while emerging activities such as geoengineering and deep-sea mining are expected to put further pressure on sensitive species.

In order to address these problems, experts have called for an international legal framework focused on conserving biodiversity in the oceans. While there are more than 20 high sea governance organisations with varying mandates – covering activities such as whaling, shipping and mining – there is currently no cross-sectoral regulatory authority. In 2017, the UN General Assembly voted in favour of establishing such a legal framework, known as the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdictions (BBNJ) treaty or Treaty of the High Seas, which was meant to be developed over four rounds of negotiations.

The proposed framework focuses on four key areas: the equitable sharing of marine genetic resources, the establishment of management tools such as Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), standards for environmental impact assessments of industrial activities, and the transfer of technology and knowledge to developing countries.

Last month, more than 100 countries stressed their ambitions for stronger environmental protection at the One Ocean summit in France, raising hopes for a successful outcome at the fourth and last round of talks. Nevertheless, the UN delegates failed to reach an agreement in New York, which participants blamed on the “glacial pace” of negotiations. Some countries, including Russia and Iceland, have been accused of deliberately prolonging the talks and seeking to water down environmental protections by excluding fishing from the agreement – even though healthy ecosystems are proven to benefit commercial fish stocks. A 2018 study found that fully protected MPAs, for instance, host 670% more fish biomass than unprotected areas and can also boost fish stock outside of their boundaries through the migration of adult fish and the dispersal of larvae.

To advance the negotiations for the BBJN treaty, the UN General Assembly has to approve additional rounds of talks, but experts are worried time is running out to reach an agreement in time for another critical environmental initiative: the international “30×30” pledge aimed at protecting 30% of the world’s oceans by the end of the decade. Without the BBNJ framework, establishing MPAs in international waters would be legally challenging, which means that countries signing up to the pledge at the forthcoming Biodiversity Summit in China in May would have to create MPAs in their national jurisdictions. To reach the 30% target, this would require an area almost as large as all EEZs combined.

Source: Bloomberg

What’s happening? The UK government will create the Global Ocean Wildlife Analysis Network, a £2m ($2.8m), four-year project under its Blue Belt Programme that will assess and monitor ocean biodiversity and coastal ecosystems in UK Overseas Territories. The project will see Blue Abacus deploy 66 baited remote underwater video systems, covering four million sq km across the Atlantic, Southern, Indian and Pacific Oceans, while the data generated will offer insights on how to protect these diverse coastal regions.

Why does this matter? In order to protect marine biodiversity, gathering accurate data on species numbers and distribution can help to inform the right decisions. Using remote monitoring technology to pull back the “blue curtain” and obtain information on ocean ecosystems is one way of doing this.

The Global Ocean Wildlife Analysis Network will be the world’s first project to trial a network of stereo-baited underwater camera system in open ocean ecosystems. The non-intrusive Baited Remote Underwater Video Systems (BRUVS), provided by project partner Blue Abacus, will consist of two small action cameras in a carbon fibre frame, which will gather data on populations including loggerhead turtles, black triggerfish and sea snakes. Recently adapted for use in open ocean environments, the camera system has previously been deployed in shallow reef habitats to monitor species.

Monitoring fish populations, their sizes and distributions across the ocean can detect which species are in recovery or in decline – helping to bolster understanding of the local conservation strategies that can be introduced.

The UK’s Blue Belt Programme was established in 2016 and given £20m of funding to promote the long-term protection of marine environments across the UK Overseas Territories (UKOTs), which include Ascension Island, the Cayman Islands, British Antarctic Territory and Tristan da Cunha. It aims to provide long-term protection for the four million square kilometres of marine environment across the UKOTs, through gaining greater scientific understanding and developing evidence-based marine management strategies.

Closer to home, the UK’s own blue belt was recently expanded to include 41 more protected marine zones around its coastline, bringing the total to 355 over an area almost twice the size of England. Activities considered harmful to local species, such as dredging and large offshore development, will be banned under the programme.

Restorative measures such as this can not only improve biodiversity and conserve the ocean’s natural ecosystem services, but prove beneficial economically too. A report by WWF and Sky Ocean Rescue found that the UK’s economy could be boosted by as much as £50bn if its marine stocks and habitats are allowed to regenerate and recover from overfishing and other destructive practices.

Larger-scale coastline ocean preservation agreements are gaining traction. The High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy – the world’s largest ocean sustainability initiative to date ­– was agreed last year by the leaders of 14 countries including Australia, Indonesia and Kenya.

The nations have agreed to end subsidies contributing to overfishing, combat illegal fishing and regenerate fish populations across 40% of the world’s coastlines. The roadmap for the initiative highlights the creation of global data networks as one of its building blocks – techniques such as those deployed under the Global Ocean Wildlife Analysis Network will be fundamental to achieving this.

Source: www.energylivenews.com/2021/04/05/uk-launches-worlds-largest-ocean-monitoring-system/