Debate currently exists over whether to establish a Marine Protected Area covering the entire Arctic Ocean or just focus on specific areas within national boundaries.

Why does this matter? The Arctic Ocean hosts a wealth of biodiversity and resources. With minimal human intervention, over 21,000 known species have adapted to thrive in the cold and inhospitable Arctic environment.

For the people living in the Arctic, the abundant biodiversity provides not only food but “the everyday context and basis for social identity, cultural survival and spiritual life.” Currently, the ocean is open territory with many fearing an “unprecedented free-for-all” when the ice melts.

What’s happening? As the Arctic’s floating sea ice continues to melt, the region is increasingly exposed to fishing, shipping, mining, and pollution. Efforts to protect the Arctic Ocean’s fragile ecosystem include designating the central Arctic Ocean as a marine protected area (MPA).

The disappearing ice threatens ecosystems above and below the water, and the absence of a natural barrier allows ships to exploit untouched fish populations and seabed minerals. A patchwork of treaties offers some protection, but international cooperation is crucial.

Debate exists over whether to establish an MPA covering the entire Arctic Ocean or focus on specific areas within national boundaries. (The Guardian)

Why does this matter? The Arctic Ocean hosts a wealth of biodiversity and resources. With minimal human intervention, over 21,000 known species have adapted to thrive in the cold and inhospitable Arctic environment.

For the people living in the Arctic, the abundant biodiversity provides not only food but “the everyday context and basis for social identity, cultural survival and spiritual life.” Currently, the ocean is open territory with many fearing an “unprecedented free-for-all” when the ice melts.

Legal patchwork – Preventing overexploitation will require the development of mutually agreed regulations. Much of the Arctic Ocean falls within the eight Arctic states’ 200-mile exclusive economic zones (EEZ), where some MPAs already exist, with Canada’s Tuvaijuittuq MPA being the largest. Outside of the EEZs, a sparse and time-sensitive patchwork of legal frameworks governs the Arctic Ocean’s high seas.

Among these is a 16-year commercial fishing ban, agreed among nine nations and the EU after several years of negotiations in 2018. The language used within the agreement indicates that commercial fishing will one day take place, with the ban’s timespan allowing research to form a science-based management plan.

More recently, the UN High Seas Treaty was adopted, the first ever legally binding treaty governing international waters. Although a promising step, the Treaty has significant gaps. For example, countries can veto MPAs and continue fishing or drilling unpenalised. Our previous blog post discusses the Treaty’s successes and shortfalls, available here.

Deep-sea mining is also a concern for the region, which is rich in polymetallic nodules. Norway aims to open a mining area roughly the size of Germany, retrieving nodules at a depth of 4,000m. As discussed in last month’s blog post, the deep sea is a biodiverse and largely unexplored region, with the impacts of mining relatively unknown.

A study by Flora and Fauna contends that “damage caused by deep-seabed mining would be extensive and irreversible”. Recently, the International Seabed Authority decided to delay the release of deep-sea mining regulations until 2024 after facing intense political and scientific scrutiny.

Fully protected – Countering the complex patchwork of frameworks, the 90 North Foundation are lobbying for the creation of a “fully protected” MPA that would prohibit any human activity across the entire Arctic Ocean, including shipping, mining, fishing and drilling.

The proposed North Pole Marine Reserve would be the world’s largest wildlife reserve at over 1.7 million square miles, making a significant contribution to the 30×30 goal agreed at COP15. The findings from the scientific community reinforce calls for MPAs – according to a study published by the IUCN, fully protected MPAs have been shown to increase biomass by 670%.

In a separate study led by the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, MPAs were found to increase the health and wealth of nearby communities.

MPAs, however, are difficult to enforce and can be ineffective if incorrectly implemented. For example, China’s self-imposed squid fishing bans are failing, according to a report by Oceana. Analysis of AIS data from Global Fishing Watch shows that three of China’s bans were in areas with minimal or no prior fishing activity, whilst unsustainable practices continued elsewhere.

Creating a successful and effective Arctic MPA hinges on collective action at the global scale. Despite its flaws, the UN High Seas Treaty serves as a positive reminder that international collaboration on marine conservation is possible.

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

The ocean has emerged as a key site of action against climate change. Right now, 83% of the world’s carbon is circulating through the ocean, with mangrove forests, seagrasses and tidal marshes acting as vast carbon sinks. These rich ecosystems are being lost at a rate of 1-2% per year, turning sinks into sources. Preserving these ecosystems and capturing and storing carbon in the ocean is an emerging facet of climate discourse, included in mainstream discussions for the first time at COP26. Although gaining momentum, ocean conservation is consistently underfunded, representing just 9% of financial flows into nature-based solutions last year.

At COP15 in December 2022, the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) was agreed upon. The 30×30 target grabbed headlines worldwide, seeking to conserve 30% of the world’s lands, inland waters, oceans, and coastlines by 2030. As of October 2022, 6.6% of the Earth’s oceans fell under protected status. However, only 3% is covered by high-quality protections strong enough to maintain and safeguard biodiversity. According to scientists, the current slow rate of protected area expansion will lead to catastrophic declines in biodiversity and habitats.

Last year, $14bn was spent on marine nature-based solutions, with $980m going towards Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). Protected area finance needs to increase by nine to 12 times to meet the 30×30 goal, according to the UNEP. In North Africa and the Middle East, the funding gap is particularly severe – here, an increase of 93 to 125 times is required.

A similar pattern can be found in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). A study examining SDG14 (Life below Water) concluded that it receives the lowest funding of all SDGs. Achieving its targets, from tackling pollution to supporting small island states, requires $174bn annually. Data from 2019 shows that $19bn was committed to the goal, representing a funding gap of approximately $155bn.

To reach the hundreds of billions required for 30×30 and SDG14, the private sector will need to be more actively incentivised to invest in the blue economy. Of the $14bn spent on marine projects in 2022, 82% was public money. There is a range of tools and mechanisms to entice the private sector, with blue carbon credits emerging as a front-runner.

Blue carbon credits are generated by quantifying the amount of carbon that is captured and stored by ocean restoration projects. Businesses can buy these credits to offset their emissions and continue operating but at a higher cost. The voluntary carbon credit market is expected to grow by 15 times between 2020 and 2030, reaching a value of $50bn. Revenue generated from blue carbon credits can be used to improve and expand MPAs.

The beginning of 2023 was marked with two important stories surrounding carbon credits. First, an investigation revealed that up to 94% of credits issued by the world’s biggest rainforest accreditor have no positive impact on the environment. Meanwhile, the EU rolled out new legislation which forces large companies to disclose their use of carbon offsetting. These developments may increase the demand for high-quality blue carbon credits as a greater volume of companies seeks trustworthy, impactful credit schemes to avoid accusations of greenwashing.

It is important that credit schemes are robust and transparent, not only benefitting the environment but supporting those most vulnerable to climate change, building community resilience and reducing inequalities. There are examples of successful schemes in various countries. In southern Kenya, for instance, the Mikoko Pamoja project has successfully planted 56,000 trees, restoring 117 hectares of mangrove forest. Around 2,500 credits are sold each year generating approximately $24,000, 65% of which is returned to the community providing clean water and education to three villages. More examples can be found here.

This year, Carbonplace will launch, offering businesses an accessible platform to browse credits globally. Meanwhile, the Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets aims to remove barriers to the market. Blue carbon credits are one piece of the ocean conservation puzzle and may prove instrumental in bridging the funding gap for ocean goals over the coming decade.

The study’s findings show marine protected areas (MPAs) can achieve “win-win-win” results for the environment, local communities and fishing industries. This is the first time an MPA has demonstrated protection to highly mobile, migratory species on a large scale and shows their benefits travel beyond the boundaries of MPAs to support broader ocean biodiversity, strengthening the argument for introducing more no-fishing zones – particularly across migratory routes which can benefit species including tuna, sharks and turtles.

MPAs are known to be one of the most effective measures for improving marine conservation. Approximately 6.2% of the global ocean is currently protected through MPAs, but less than half of this – just 2.4% – are fully or highly protected from fishing activity and its associated impacts, according to the Marine Protection Atlas. While it is well understood that marine protected areas offer protection to some sedentary species including lobsters or coral, the spillover benefits of MPAs to marine life in nearby areas have previously been questioned.

The Papahanaumokuakea reserve is around four times the size of California’s land mass and was expanded six years ago. The area spans a cluster of atolls and small low-lying islands and contain a diverse range of coral reefs, submerged banks and lagoons. Hawaiian endemic species make up around 25% of the species found within the reserve. It is also a key breeding ground for the Hawaiian monk seal and a critically important nesting area for green sea turtles. Commercial fishing within the reserve is banned, while additional measures including officer patrols, surveillance flights and US coastguard vessel visits also deter illegal fishing activities.

Researchers from the University of Hawaii and the University of Wisconsin-Madison used a statistical technique known as “difference in difference” to compare catch rates of marine life from 2016 to 2019 with those recorded between 2010 to 2013 – prior to the reserve’s expansion – across the reserve’s central areas with areas located further away.

The biggest fish catch increases were located between 100 and 200 nautical miles away from the reserve’s borders. Alongside catch rate growth (the number of tuna caught per every 1,000 hooks deployed) for tuna species, catch rates for all fish species combined rose by 8%.

The researchers’ findings are a success for marine biodiversity alongside the broader fishing industry, of which tuna generates approximately $40bn in revenue each year and supports employment for millions globally. From a social perspective, yellowfin and bigeye tuna hold cultural significance for local Hawaii communities and represent a key part of their diet.

Marine reserves have delivered simultaneous positive environmental and socio-ecological impacts elsewhere. An MPA established off Mallorca’s coast, for instance, has generated a tenfold return on its investment and improved marine biodiversity, water quality, slowed coastal erosion, boosted tourism and local fishing catches.

From a climate change mitigation perspective, the establishment of MPAs can play a key role in enhancingblue carbon sinks and supporting carbon sequestration. Declaring MPAs protects important, carbon-rich marine habitats such as seagrass and salt marshes from physical disturbances such as bottom-trawling and other damaging fishing practices. Greater protection for marine life will further enable carbon sequestration, particularly from larger fish species such as sharks and tuna, which are known to be carbon stores, with each fish estimated to be 10% to 15% carbon.

However, it’s worth noting that the benefits of no-fishing zones can only be achieved if they are supported by sufficient regulations and enforcement. Governments, such as the UK government have been widely criticised by environmental groups for declaring MPAs but failing to implement the regulations necessary to ensure proper protection across the areas, describing them as “paper parks”. Earlier this year, data found over 90% of the UK’s offshore MPAs are still being bottom-trawled and dredged.

Source: The Guardian