Nations Agree on Language for Historic Treaty to Protect Ocean Life

After two decades of planning and negotiation that culminated in a grueling race over the past few days in New York, a majority of countries have agreed on the language for a historic United Nations treaty to protect marine biodiversity.

As marine life faces threats from climate change, overfishing, undersea mining and other dangers, the pact will help create marine protected areas and implement other conservation measures on the “high seas,” the vast ocean that covers almost half of the world.

“Today the world comes together to protect the oceans for the benefit of our children and grandchildren,” said Monica Medina, assistant secretary of state. “We leave here with the ability to create protected areas in the high seas and achieve the ambitious goal of conserving 30% of the ocean by 2030.”

The world’s open oceans have no international agency or agreement with a primary focus on protecting marine biodiversity. This treaty, if enacted, will change that.

However, there is still a long way to go before the treaty can come into force. The next major step will be for the countries to officially adopt the language, which was resolved on Saturday night. The states will then need to ratify the treaty themselves, which usually requires legislative approval.

Here’s a look at this week’s deal, what it means and what could happen next.

What is ‘sea’?

Nations usually control the sea and the seabed extending 200 nautical miles from their shores. In addition, you set sail, which is not subject to the control or laws of any country. They span almost half the entire planet.

The high seas are home to species in the food chain, from phytoplankton to great white sharks. Much of the marine life is also found close to shore in national waters — such as tuna and salmon species, sea turtles and whales — that also spend most of their lives in the open ocean. That fact underscores the need for international cooperation on ways to protect species in need. After all, animals do not recognize national boundaries.

There is also deep-sea life, including interesting exotic species such as anglerfish (which look like scary characters from a haunted house in the sea), three-legged fish (which appear to stand on bony fin-like fins) like stilts) and axfish (whose athletic bodies glow in rows along their bellies).

It is sometimes said that we know more about the moon than the depths of the sea.

What is at stake there?

“Our oceans have been under pressure for decades,” António Guterres, the United Nations secretary general, said in a statement Wednesday as he encouraged delegates to reach an agreement. “We can no longer ignore the emergency at sea.”

Overfishing and climate change are the top threats to marine biodiversity. For example, sharks and rays living in the ocean have decreased by more than 70% since 1970, according to an extensive global assessment.

New threats to marine life are emerging as people look to the oceans to extract valuable minerals and look for possible ways to do “carbon sequestration”, involving efforts The force locks in carbon dioxide to keep it out of the atmosphere, where it is a major contributor to global warming.

Deep-sea mining can pose risks to particularly fragile and unknown species, scientists say. Away from the sun, these creatures grow and recover slowly.

Lisa Speer, director of the international oceans program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the high seas have “perhaps the largest reserve of unexplored biodiversity left on Earth. “Every time scientists go out there, they find species that are new to science.”

Human health is also at stake because the health of the high seas is so important to the health of the entire ocean, scientists say. According to the World Bank, billions of people around the world rely on the oceans for food and jobs.

The oceans, which regulate climates around the planet, have blunt the effects of climate change on land by absorbing carbon dioxide and excess heat from burning fossil fuels. But that is taking a toll on the oceans, making them hotter and more acidic, with less oxygen.

“Liz Karan, director of ocean management at Pew Charitable Trusts, said the oceans are an important part of making our planet habitable, not just for marine biodiversity but for all all life on earth.

Aren’t there already rules?

A variety of international agreements and organizations govern the high seas, but they focus on fishing, shipping, mining, and fossil fuel extraction. Although they must take biodiversity into account, they are not always interested in doing so, environmental advocates say. Even when they do, each organism tends to pay attention to its own specific effects on marine life rather than considering the cumulative effects of all the stresses.

“The current structure for managing human activities at sea is not much more rigorous than that of the Wild West,” Ms. Speer said. (The sea is also famous for abusive and lawless including human enslavement and murder. This agreement will not address crimes like this.)

If ratified, the new treaty would create an international framework with a primary focus on protecting ocean species or ecosystems. It will be possible to designate marine protected areas, where fishing and other activities that harm marine life are restricted or prohibited.

That ability is very important if the world meets ahhistorical target set last December: To protect 30 percent of the planet’s land and oceans by 2030.

What are the sticking points?

A series of questions arose in the negotiations: What parts of the high seas could be considered marine protected areas and how would they be decided? How will environmental assessments work when companies want to mine, drill or perform another potentially harmful activity? What happens when the new treaty collides with the authority of another existing body, such as a fisheries management organization?

And one of the most stubborn: Who benefits if precious genetic resources — such as a cure for cancer — are discovered somewhere on the high seas? Developing countries say they have a right to share both scientific knowledge and possible future profits. Wealthy nations counter that, if companies can’t get a sufficient return on their investment, they may lack an incentive to invest in marine research.

Below is the frustration from developing countries, which have also stirred up negotiations on global climate and biodiversity: They feel that they should not be punished for the problems largely due to the activity of richer countries, not poorer nations.

“African member states are not the reason we are in crisis,” said Michael Imran Kanu, chief negotiator for a group of African countries and Sierra Leone’s deputy permanent representative to the United Nations. marine biodiversity. “You’ve exploited it, you’ve benefited from these resources and now you’re essentially taking away the opportunity for others to come and exploit it,” he said, referring to countries richer family.

while emphasizing the need for a treaty strong enough so that countries do not find loopholes to continue overexploiting marine resources.

In the end what happened?

Just before 9:30 p.m. Saturday, after negotiating for 36 hours, the participants announced an agreement. “The ship has docked,” said the president of the conference, Rena Lee of Singapore. She couldn’t hold back her tears to the standing ovation that followed.

Although the countries did not formally endorse the text, they agreed not to reopen negotiations on it. Marine protected areas would be determined by a vote, delegates decided, a victory for biodiversity because the other possibility, consensus, would allow for the possibility that one country could prevent block action.

A Greenpeace statement called the treaty “a huge victory in protecting the oceans” and an important victory for multilateralism in an increasingly divided world. “Protecting nature and people can win geopolitics,” said Laura Meller, an ocean campaigner for Greenpeace who attended the talks.