And what does it have to do with the Law of the Sea Treaty? A treaty is something that, for some, is better known as an agreement or convention, where two or more countries agree on something. For example, the Svalbard Treaty or the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
The latter regulates navigation and economic activity on the high seas, and the rights coastal states have over their sea areas (up to 200 nautical miles) and the continental shelf. These are sovereign rights that countries like Norway must explore and utilize resources, such as fish or oil.
The ocean environment agreement aims to take the Law of the Sea Treaty a step further, regulating the use and protection of biodiversity in areas beyond national economic zones. This – like everything else – is critical, given that we now know we have exceeded many of the planet's limits in various areas.
Both fishers and other marine industries already – and increasingly going forward – must navigate a "tangle of processes," as Fiskarlaget wrote in an opinion piece earlier this spring. A 55 percent cut in greenhouse gases. A 30 percent conservation and restoration of nature, before 2030 – in just 6.5 years. Plastic treaty negotiations with unclear consequences for fisheries and aquaculture are also coming in a few years.
The EU taxonomy - catch technology that will automate reporting using artificial intelligence and machine vision. But in a downward spiral, we must put everything into action to accelerate the transformative changes that we now understand we need to deal with. The ocean environment agreement and its consequences are yet another process we must embrace.
Takes time
Still, no one is likely to notice much of this new agreement for a while, even though it covers all ocean areas in the world that are not owned by any country, 65 percent of all the oceans, 95 percent of the ocean’s volume, and about 40 percent of the Earth's surface. It could, and probably will, take time for the agreement to come into force. First, it must be signed, which happens in June 2023. Then it must be ratified – or approved – by the countries that signed it initially, and this has no deadline. At the same time, it does not come into force until 120 days after at least 60 of these countries have approved it – and then it only applies to those who accepted it! This is after many years of discussions – dating back to 2002, more than 20 years ago.
What does the agreement say about fisheries and aquaculture? Not much – and what is mentioned is more about exclusion than anything else. The word "fish" is mentioned 7 times in the final agreement. Most of it refers to the fact that the agreement doesn’t apply to fish – but the ocean environment agreement is meant to work closely with the around 20 regional fisheries management organizations (RFMO) globally. These organizations develop and enforce regulations on species like tuna (highly migratory species, such as bluefin tuna), migratory fish stocks that are both within and beyond national economic zones, and other special species like krill in Antarctica (CCAMLR).
Distribution of benefits
What exactly does this global agreement regulate? In line with the nature agreement, it includes marine conservation. This could also affect the marine industry – not just those operating in these areas but also those in adjacent areas. But more importantly, this agreement regulates the extraction and distribution of benefits from marine genetic resources. These genetic resources are the entire hereditary material of a marine organism, and they can have valuable properties for humans – both medically and economically.
Perhaps they could lead to a new cancer drug. Maybe a curative treatment for autoimmune diseases like multiple sclerosis. Or a cure for Alzheimer's disease and other dementias. Any of these would have great economic value. But will you, who work in marine-based industries, notice anything? Perhaps in the long run – when these medicines become available to the public.
For those working in the fishing industry, however, the focus will primarily be on possible protected areas in international waters – but this will be a long process that will go through the regional fisheries management organizations. Is there still reason to be optimistic about this agreement, given all the crises we face? I would say a cautious yes – because, if nothing else, it shows that it is possible for states to agree on one of the major challenges we face in the world today – namely the loss of biodiversity and the need to preserve it.
This viewpoint has been translated from norwegian and was first published in Fiskeribladet.
