Fish swim close to some bleached coral at Kisite Mpunguti Marine Park, Kenya, June 11, 2022.
| Photo Credit: Brian Inganga/AP
The worldwide ocean, the final frontier for uncivilised and uncontrolled human behaviour, is on the verge of being tamed. The Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) treaty, also referred to as the ‘High Seas Treaty’, has been accepted in precept.
But why ought to we care?
Most of the earth’s floor is roofed by ocean, and two-thirds of the ocean are thought of “high seas”: areas of the ocean outdoors the jurisdiction of any nation. The excessive seas are essential to manage many environmental processes that make the earth habitable for us. The excessive seas have additionally seen a few of the worst unlawful behaviour, from overfishing to blatant human rights abuses, all whereas being topic to land-based air pollution (e.g. plastics and microplastics) and local weather change.
Having a treaty to manage all that is a lot wanted, and the new treaty is predicted to have the greatest world conservation and regulatory footprint (outdoors atmospheric and local weather treaties).
Securing ‘Blue Economies’
A BBNJ treaty couldn’t solely have biodiversity impacts but additionally financial ones. Take the case of excessive seas round the continent of Africa. Since many African international locations lack the capital and technological prowess to have their fishing fleets enterprise outdoors their Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ), European fleets have plundered these worldwide oceans. If these European fleets had been sure by the legal guidelines of their residence international locations, it in all probability wouldn’t make financial sense for them to fish in these waters. India, with its primarily nearshore fishing fleet, is in an identical technological place to those African nations, particularly with respect to Chinese and European fleets outdoors our EEZ.
Being in a position to distribute and regulate our nationwide fishing effort inside and outdoors our EEZ, alongside regulated worldwide fishing effort in the excessive seas, may give India the sustainable fisheries that might safe our ‘Blue Economy’. Doing so would require a number of steps, beginning with monitoring the actions of fishing vessels. Although vessel-monitoring methods have been put in in lots of vessels that journey to the excessive seas, they’re comparatively simple to disable, permitting for the unlawful motion of vessels in addition to unlawful operations. Requiring the use of such vessel-monitoring all through worldwide fishing operations may be a turning level – not solely to safe fisheries but additionally for political stability.
Currently, when worldwide legal guidelines are damaged at sea, the penalties differ. Depending on which international locations have negotiated treaties with which different particular person international locations, there might or will not be scope for punitive motion.
Consider the case of the Chagos archipelago in the Indian Ocean. It is presently claimed to be a British Indian Ocean Territory (albeit disputed by Mauritius) and its waters have been declared an setting preservation and safety zone. Due to its distant location, fishers need to traverse the excessive seas to get there. With the small native inhabitants (expelled many years in the past by the U.Okay.) and use as a U.S. army base, its native fishing exercise is muted. Consequently, the Chagos are a pretty relaxation cease for fishers, particularly from India and Sri Lanka, seeking to plunder the excessive seas.
A current treaty between the U.Okay. and Sri Lanka has resulted in better monitoring and penalties for Sri Lankan boats that fish in these waters, and a ensuing decline in Sri Lankan fishing vessels in that area. India has no such treaty; because of this, Indian fishers proceed to catch species threatened with extinction, comparable to sharks, with few penalties.
A world scale treaty on the motion of fishing vessels via the excessive seas may have ramifications on such points as a result of particular person international locations received’t want to barter such issues on a case-by-case foundation.
Difficult negotiations
The BBNJ treaty, nevertheless, isn’t a panacea for these points. Although negotiations started in 2018 underneath the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, with the purpose of regulating fishing gear and reporting fish-catch information, the closing agreed-upon model of the treaty appears fairly completely different. Although the urgency of marine biodiversity loss and marine ecosystem destruction are evident, the negotiations had been difficult – together with disagreements over the scope of the treaty and the stage of safety it ought to present.
Some international locations raised issues about the potential impression of the treaty on their fishing industries, whereas others known as for stronger measures to defend marine biodiversity. By the time it was accepted in precept, the key objectives turned: to ascertain a community of marine protected areas; to guard genetic assets; and to make sure equitable sharing of advantages gained from genetic assets.
These objectives are vital. Marine protected areas are essential to guard deep sea corals, seamounts, pelagic, and extremely migratory species. These ecosystems are notably susceptible to break from bottom-trawling and different harmful fishing practices. The hope is that these areas could be designated as off-limits to fishing and different actions that might hurt marine biodiversity.
Additionally, sustainable use has been a tenet of the treaty, with important ramifications for the fishing trade and the promotion of biodiversity conservation. These options have made wildlife conservation organisations laud the treaty.
Drawbacks of the treaty
However, the treaty falls in need of addressing some key threats that have an effect on ocean biodiversity, notably fishing and industrial growth, comparable to deep-seabed mining. The social inclusivity of the treaty additionally raises questions. Access- and benefit-sharing has at all times been a extremely negotiated precept inside any treaty, and this treaty requires honest and equitable sharing of genetic assets. However, it stops in need of discussing the sharing of another sort of useful resource.
Another key problem that the treaty failed to deal with is to determine an appropriate worldwide enforcement company that might monitor and implement the rules laid out by the treaty. Such an enforcement physique would additionally require a monetary dedication – one other situation that has not been negotiated or included.
Clearly, the new ‘High Seas Treaty’ is simply the starting of a protracted and tedious means of regulating numerous facets of human use in worldwide oceans. Despite these challenges, there’s rising momentum behind the treaty.
In 2020, a gaggle of greater than 170 environmental and human rights organisations issued an announcement calling for the treaty to be finalised and adopted as quickly as doable. If goodwill had been foreign money, this treaty may very well be thought of wealthy. Its precise impression will depend upon how practicality and goodwill meet, and whether or not future negotiations will handle a few of the key shortcomings of this model of the treaty.
Divya Karnad is Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies, Ashoka University.
