THIS is a great day for the oceans and all that reside in them. Not since 1982 has the world taken such decisive action to protect our most precious resource. In that year, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea went into effect. Last week, the United Nations signed the High Seas Treaty. What does it mean?
Some time ago, we talked about the 30 by 30 plan, whereby nations would agree to designate thirty percent of the world’s surface off-limits to human use. There were so many problems and questions concerning the plan that is has not really gained any traction. For example, what does “off-limits” mean? Conservation or preservation? What about food? Or energy?
Those most concerned about protecting the oceans have proven to be better organized than those concerned with the land. The High Seas Treaty aims to place 30% of the seas into protected areas, to safeguard marine life and natural resources. Human activity such as fishing and subsea mining will be severely curtailed or even forbidden. It is a monumental step in the direction of saving the planet from human devastation.
Two-thirds of the world’s oceans are categorized as international waters, which means that no nation has jurisdiction over them, and everyone has equal, unfettered access to fish, mine, do research, or conduct commercial activities such as shipping. Until now, only 1% of the high seas have been protected from human exploitation. With that number jumping to 30% by the year 2030, it becomes clear how impactful this treaty is going to be.
For example, the International Seabed Authority, the group that issues licenses for deep-sea drilling, says that “any future activity in the deep seabed will be subject to strict environmental regulations and oversight to ensure that they are carried out sustainably and responsibly.” Until now, development of the ocean floor has resembled the Wild West.
If we all agree that protecting marine resources from waste, mismanagement and overexploitation is important, why did the treaty take 10 years to hammer out? The devil is in the details, as they say.
Funding has been a big issue. Everyone wants to benefit equally from the bounty of the seas, and everyone wants to protect it, but when it comes to stationing patrol ships on the high seas to monitor illegal fishing, or hiring an army of attorneys to research and write up the thousands of pages of documents that will bring the treaty to life, who pays the bill? Some argue that all nations should share the cost, while others think wealthier nations should pick up the tab. Developing countries want to share in the benefits but not the costs.
Another point of disagreement has been regarding technological or pharmaceutical benefits that will be derived from the high seas. Once again, one faction favors equally shared costs and rewards, while the other demands that wealthier nations carry the cost burden for exploration and development. Dr. Robert Blasiak of Stockholm University says the challenge is that no one knows how much ocean resources are worth, and therefore how can they be split. “We have recorded about 230,000 species in the ocean, but it is estimated that there are over two million.” To fully explore and develop the ocean floor, which we know so little about, will be a massive, and expensive process. If there is no financial incentive to do so, who will go?
Clearly, much works remains, but the treaty is real progress from a body not known for such. Years from now, will we look back on this as a turning point as significant as the 1982 treaty? Possibly. I want to believe that is so.
BC Cook, PhD lived on Saipan and has taught history for 20 years. He currently resides on the mainland U.S.
BC Cook
