Pew Environment, the environmentally focused wing of Pew Charitable Trusts, is a leading proponent and participant in the process towards the new forthcoming UN Treaty for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biodiversity Beyond Areas of National Jurisdiction.
I made some comments about the draft treaty earlier this week, and, after I contacted her, Liz Karan– project manager for Pew’s entire high seas conservation program– got back to me with some answers to my questions about it and Pew’s role in its creation. Liz says that Pew has been involved with the process since 2014. The resolution to create an actual treaty occurred in 2015.
Liz paints a positive picture, agreeing with me on some points, expertly cooling my jets on others and highlighting the role that the treaty should have in interfacing with other agreements to support goals not detailed in the text itself. I called for more specifics in the body of the treaty; it can be more useful to refer the agreement to whatever suite of existing or future goals are established elsewhere. This seems sensible. The conversation doesn’t end there, however.
The planned structure of the treaty is clear enough. There will be an opportunity to state overall goals, and then four discrete mechanisms for governance will be defined: A set of rules focusing on Marine Genetic Resources (MGR); Procedures for the establishment and enforcement of Area Based Management Tools (ABMTs–places where certain activities take place or are restricted) and the like; Specific requirements for the provision of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) and/or Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs–a more flexible concept allowing for approaches tailored to the specifics of a particular project) as part of the ABMT process; and commitments and procedures for benefit sharing and the transfer of related technologies between nations. There is also reference to a governing body that is to be created to oversee the whole thing using science as it’s guiding light. During the debate, encouraging references have been made to The Precautionary Principle and Local Knowledge. I have criticized the detail for being muddled to a troubling degree for even a draft document, but it’s shape certainly seems to make some sense – overall goals (check), systems of protection (check), ways to get approval to do specific things in specific places (check), checks and balances (check, check, check).
A treaty of this type is long overdue and Liz is clearly enthusiastic for the process to be completed. In her words, it will “fill a critical gap for a more comprehensive approach to conservation of marine biodiversity on the high seas.“
According to Liz, Pew, in its role as an NGO observer, is focusing on the provision of mechanisms for marine protected areas and marine reserves on the High Seas “as well as a process for conducting robust environmental impact assessments”.
… the definition of Genetic Resources in the CBD was shot full of holes the day it was written and looks even more punctured now that the future potential of the uses of genetic data and the new possibilities presented by eDNA (environmental DNA) research is becoming clear.
I asked her about my concern that measures included in the draft treaty might not allow for the creation of protections for species that roam outside of fixed geographical areas. She is sanguine about this, saying that “The proposal process outlined in the draft text would not preclude other area-based [… or…] dynamic conservation management tools”. I’m glad she used the word “dynamic” here, but that word isn’t included in the draft treaty. Maybe I’m just the suspicious type. I suppose area-based measures could be introduced over entire migratory routes. There has also been some great news recently regarding the role that large MPAs have in allowing pelagic species to recover.
Liz is more equivocal when it comes to my dismay over a seeming lack of clarity around what is meant by Marine Genetic Resources (MGR) and exactly what provisions referring to MGR are seeking to protect.
My fear is that the term is too ambiguous. While admitting that the definition of MGR is still up for debate, Liz’s response was to give me a few hours of homework in the shape of scientific papers dealing with the issue’s scientific interpretation.
My homework confirmed two things for me right away– firstly while the intent of the original concept of Genetic Resources, established in the Convention for Biodiversity (CBD) does seem to focus on genetic material intended for research purposes– the collection of data, rather than non-renewable or easily-depleted resources– this definition does include both pure research and commercial research, and the definition is still wide open to all kinds of interpretations.
MGR are mostly utilized in the realm of pure research as I write this, but the boundary between pure and commercial research is fuzzy and the incentives for nation-states and other groups to embark on research programs focused either on commercial applications or pure research that could have commercially lucrative spin-offs may be great. Picture an MGR gold-rush.
Economic activity is not inherently evil, and at the end of the day conservation and sustainable use are both applied sciences. What I’m calling for is a clear separation between the two and a clear emphasis on the collection of data (not sealife) for the purposes of conservation (not commerce).
Secondly, the definition of Genetic Resources in the CBD was shot full of holes the day it was written and looks even more punctured now that the future potential of the uses of genetic data and the new possibilities presented by eDNA (environmental DNA) research is becoming clear.
Some of the literature asserts that the purpose of defining Genetic Resources in the CBD was in order to establish that genetic material has value to humanity and should, therefore, be protected. The danger with this approach is that it immediately obligates people to envision a framework for access to that value and the goal of preservation can often get lost in the bun-fight that subsequently ensues. If someone then has the bright idea of commoditizing access rights to this new base commodity you have likely bought yourself a world of hurt–a world where access to resources gravitates to the highest bidders– typically a small number of wealthy individuals or organizations. We’ve seen it happen to fishing quota in places where people thought that commoditizing quota, as well as fish, was a good idea. Ascribing value to things can be fantastically powerful, just recognize that when you do so you automatically create a market for that thing. Perhaps effective rules for research sharing will prevent such a market from existing. Perhaps those rules will, in turn, make the fight for access via the treaty’s governing body even more bitter.
One alternative might be to take a rights-of-nature approach, enshrining the right of MGR to exist outside of any system of value we might impose on them. Recognizing their innate value, and the innate value of the integrity of the system as a whole; Protect them, protect the biodiversity they represent in aggregate, and only when you have protected them, decide how to study them.
… to be as effective as possible, the treaty needs to serve as a mechanism for working towards goals established in other agreements, notably the UN Oceans Conference, Our Oceans, and the Convention on Biodiversity.
Also, while much MGR related activity does not lead to the use of non-renewable or vulnerable resources, eDNA is at the end of the day a tool for mapping among other things species and ecosystem biomass. It’s not unreasonable to think this that this information could be used for more, not less aggressive resource extraction, and it is not unreasonable to think that access rights to doing that kind of research could themselves be commodified, either officially or unofficially. It’s also not unreasonable to think that other examples of this kind of thing will emerge.
Moving on to Environmental Impact Assessments, Liz makes it clear that how EIAs should function as part of the process is still an important unresolved matter.
In her words “There has been a lot of discussion about what an EIA report should include, but my impression [… of the text…] is that one key question for the August negotiating conference will be how much of these details should be included in a future treaty versus being elaborated by a decision-making body later on.”
She is also clear that EIAs or similar in this context should include assessments of cultural and socio-economic impacts. She mentions that in this regard SEAs may be a better fit for the purposes of this treaty, presumably allowing for a customized approach depending on the circumstances.
Liz does agree with me that UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) could and should be referenced specifically. She also points out that to be as effective as possible, the treaty needs to serve as a mechanism for working towards goals established in other agreements, notably the UN Oceans Conference, Our Oceans, and the Convention on Biodiversity.
She also agrees on the importance of in her words “indigenous and local voices” although doesn’t go so far as to jump on my idea of including indigenous groups as actual signatories. She does say that potential lessons have been learned from previous agreements on this issue, notably the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the Convention on Biodiversity, although she doesn’t expand on what those lessons might be.
Am I heartened by this exchange? Yes, I am. That someone this close to the process is so clear about what we should feel good about and what is still up-in-the-air is encouraging.
It is also pretty great that someone in Liz’s position should take the time to agree with an oik like me about anything, never mind the goals of an international treaty for the High Seas.
I’m nervous though. It must be true that the business-as-usual tone of UN proceedings instills disquiet in anyone for whom the matter In question is a higher priority than business of any kind and highly unusual in its urgency. The clockwork process of the UN should feel like reassuring professionalism, but it doesn’t. It feels like fudge.
One more thing; I’ve looked at the commitments put in place by the UN Oceans Conference, Our Oceans, and the Convention on Biodiversity– fora we are hoping this new treaty will look to for the goals that its mechanisms will support, and while many are inspiring and some of them are specific, some are very general, collected together cover a vast, amorphous range of issues, and taken as a whole seem like grade-A, class-one mishmash.
Discussions on the treaty continue in August. The future health of the High Seas hangs in the balance.
