COMMENTARY: From Cali to Yerevan - Who protects the Ocean Inhabitants?

I write this as COP 16, the UN summit meeting on biodiversity, has just ended in the Colombian coastal city of Cali. On a human level there is progress: indigenous people are promised a stronger voice in the fight to protect threatened species on planet Earth. Many of these nations live near the oceans, some on islands that are also threatened with extinction because of climate change. Their voices will be important for the protection of those who inhabit the oceans.

The UN has established as a goal that 30 % of the planet’s surface should be protected by 2030 to halt the ongoing extinction of species, a result of man’s ruthless exploitation. Since oceans, lakes and rivers make up 70% of the surface area, the areas that must be safeguarded from intrusive human activity are enormous. Lakes, rivers and coastal waters are easiest for man to see and care for. Agreeing on restrictions and protection in regions that are understood to be a common resource is forever a challenge, often called “the tragedy of the commons”.

The Nobel Prize winning economist Elinor Ostrom spent her life looking for the good examples of how such problems can be resolved. Oftentimes Ostrom found the best examples of sustainable use of resources among people in close contact with the sea. She listed seven parameters for a group of people to be able to share a common resource fairly: 1) Clearly defined boundaries; 2) Proportional equivalence between benefits and costs; 3) Collective choice arrangements; 4) Monitoring; 5) Graduated sanctions; 6) Fast and fair conflict resolution; 7) Local autonomy; 8) Appropriate relations with other tiers of rule-making authority (polycentric governance).

A coastal, autonomous population can often arrange this on their own (7), but when it comes to the large oceans the problem is with the last parameter (8). Just look at our own Baltic Sea, so small in places that you can look from one coast to the opposite. When there is a discussion about a threatened species of fish, like the local herring, there is still no common ground. The discussion will inevitably be about how to divide the herring as an industrial resource, not the survival of the species. The reason is simple: politicians protect national, economic interests – and their chances of staying in power after the next election. The survival of a species of fish lies beyond that horizon.

If we raise our eyes to look out over the large oceans, how far are we today from protecting 30% of the surface? Various organizations that monitor the status of the oceans estimate that about 8% have some kind of protection today, about half compared to the land surface. If you zoom in closer, only 3% of the seas are protected from human activity. In the waters around the British Isles, trawling is permitted in some form in 98% of all Marine Protected Areas (MPAs).

If you google the best ways of protecting the sea, you always get a list of simple actions, directed at us who live or spend our vacations on the sea: save water, stop throwing waste in the sea, use non-poisonous paint on your boat – activities most of us are already familiar with. The kind of actions that would make world leaders agree on really protecting 30% of the oceans are much more difficult to find, particularly since all that is hidden under the surface is invisible to 99% of the human population. If you look at the map for MPAs, they are, for obvious reasons, located far away from densely populated shores. The largest areas are near the poles, which we can be thankful for, since those waters are abundant with natural diversity.

USA was the first country in the world to institute a marine national park, as early as 1973. The world’s largest MPA, Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, covers much of the Hawaiian islands and the surrounding waters. Hawaii’s MPA was conceived as an example for the world to follow, but there is a great risk that there won’t be any follow-up in the nearest four years. President Trump is not particularly interested in biodiversity or climate change mitigation, nor is he willing to assume the leader’s Jersey for international cooperation. That position is, you could say, vacant for the coming four-year period.

But it is only two years until the next UN meeting on biodiversity. It will be the small island nations’ first opportunity to make their voices heard in the discussion about protecting the oceans, after the promises from COP 16. Until then they must strive to seek new alliances among the powerful nations in the world to push for their demands. It makes one a little uneasy, though, considering that COP 17 is hosted by Yerevan, the capital of Armenia. I have many pleasant memories of Yerevan, but from that city the world is literally shielded by the biblical mountain called Ararat. It is a long time since Noah stranded there. Today it is very far from the sea.