Download Advancing US Leadership on Oceans Governance

Workshop Summary Report
Advancing U.S. Leadership on Oceans Governance
December 17, 2014
Washington, DC
Rapporteurs: Daniel Chardell, Research Associate, International Institutions and Global Governance
(IIGG) program; Naomi Egel, Research Associate, IIGG
This workshop was sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations’ (CFR) International Institutions and Global
Governance program and included civil society groups, private sector representatives, and government officials. The
workshop was made possible by the generous support of the Robina Foundation. The discussion was held on a not-forattribution basis.
Oceans are critical to the environment, commerce, and life on earth. Today, however, the oceans face
unprecedented challenges. Climate change and ocean acidification, the rapid depletion of marine resources,
overfishing, rampant pollution, and weak governance on the high seas are all contributing to the declining
health of the world’s oceans. This decline threatens not only the environment, but also economic growth,
security, and sustainable development. 2014 proved to be a pivotal year for global efforts to protect the
world’s oceans, with the Obama administration’s Our Ocean initiative and the release of the Global Ocean
Commission report, but 2015 will be even more critical for oceans governance. United Nations (UN) member
states and civil society are negotiating new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which are expected to
include a benchmark for oceans governance, with associated targets. Additionally, the outcome of the
December 2015 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change meeting in Paris, where states will finalize a
replacement to the Kyoto Protocol, will shape the future of oceans conservation. In light of current challenges
and upcoming opportunities to protect the world’s oceans, IIGG convened “Advancing U.S. Leadership on
Oceans Governance” as part of the Making Multilateralism Work workshop series on December 17, 2014.
The following is a summary of the discussion, which was conducted on a not-for-attribution basis.
Session One
Negotiating a High Seas Maritime Biodiversity Agreement Under UNCLOS
The high seas—the sections of the oceans not covered under any country’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ)—
are particularly vulnerable to human activity. Encompassing 60 percent of the world’s ocean and 43 percent of
the planet’s surface, the high seas remain an essentially ungoverned Wild West zone where anything goes. In
1
the absence of effective oversight, devastating overfishing practices degrade marine ecosystems. The world’s
seventeen-odd regional fisheries management arrangements are a patchwork of agreements with weak
enforcement authority and capability. The main international instrument—the UN Convention on the Law of
the Sea (UNCLOS)—lacks strong conservation provisions for the high seas. To better understand current
dilemmas, panelists began by reviewing the five drivers of ocean decline identified by the Global Ocean
Commission: rising demand for resources; new technology allowing exploitation of natural resources; the
decline of fish stocks due to overfishing and mismanagement of fisheries; climate change, loss of biodiversity,
and habitat destruction; and weak high seas governance. The commission’s report warned that the world’s
food supply and marine biodiversity will be at risk unless countries take prompt, major steps to protect the
high seas. Priorities include eliminating subsidies that support high-seas fishing and establishing a new
multilateral governance framework for waters beyond national jurisdiction. Specifically, the commission calls
for a new high-seas implementing agreement under the UNCLOS to protect marine biodiversity. Proponents
argued that such an agreement would provide more effective and equitable global regulation than currently
delivered by regional organizations and specialized multilateral agencies. The United Nations has agreed to
consider such a treaty, focusing on the two issues of marine conservation and access to and benefit-sharing of
marine genetic resources. The UN General Assembly will vote on whether to proceed with negotiations by
the end of the sixty-ninth (2014–2015) session on September 14, 2015.
Participants discussed the importance of U.S. participation in negotiations for a treaty on high-seas
biodiversity—given its naval dominance, economic interests, and role in advancing conservation—but also
acknowledged the Obama administration’s discomfort with the framing of the proposed treaty. Whereas the
conservation provisions of any such treaty are likely to be broadly consistent with U.S. positions, provisions
related to marine genetic resources are likely to be more controversial in the United States. Developing
countries have long insisted that they be guaranteed equal access to and benefit-sharing from such resources,
which they call the “common heritage of mankind.” U.S. officials object that such a stance could infringe on
intellectual property rights of U.S. businesses, including pharmaceutical companies, and is an unwarranted
restraint on private sector activity. Anticipating opposition from a U.S. Senate that has yet to approve
UNCLOS, the Obama administration has remained outside negotiations on the high-seas implementing
agreement. It makes little sense, these individuals argued, for the United States to participate in a multilateral
process likely to legitimate a principle to which the United States fundamentally objects. Given the obstacles
to securing Senate approval, particularly after gains by the Republican Party in the November 2014 elections,
some participants suggested that U.S. policymakers should concentrate on alternative oceans conservation
efforts, such as information-sharing and monitoring frameworks, to enforce existing regulations.
Other participants disagreed, arguing that U.S. diplomats, if involved fully in such negotiations, would have a
better opportunity to alter any treaty draft to safeguard U.S. interests. Any negotiation is likely to last years,
and the political landscape both at home and abroad might well evolve. Still others noted that the principle of
benefit-sharing had already come up in negotiations over UNCLOS itself, and been accepted by previous
administrations, which presumably calculated that a good though imperfect agreement was better than none
at all. In this case, too, the United States should not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.
Some people noted that despite U.S. government misgivings, no pharmaceutical company had yet
expressed concern about the treaty under discussion. Moreover, such a convention could in fact level
the playing field for the U.S. genetic industry, which is at a disadvantage due to strict rules governing
activities inside the United States’ EEZ and no rules for other countries.
2
Session Two
Combating Illegal, Unregulated, and Unreported Fishing
Illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing undermines the economic and environmental sustainability
of fisheries around the world. An estimated $10 billion to $23 billion [PDF] in global losses are attributed to
IUU fishing annually, corresponding to between eleven and twenty-six million tons of fish. IUU fishing also
supports myriad illicit activities—such as piracy and trafficking in humans, drugs, and arms—which
contribute to instability, particularly in poorly (or barely) governed countries. For example, unsustainable
fishing practices and weak enforcement of regulations contributed to the collapse of fisheries off the Horn of
Africa, depriving communities of their livelihood and leading to a surge in piracy. At the multilateral level,
several participants underlined the importance of binding rules—particularly the Agreement on Port State
Measures to Prevent, Deter, and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing, commonly called the
Port State Measures Agreement (PSMA), which the United States ratified in April 2014. Adopted by the UN
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in 2009, the PSMA requires state parties to exert greater control
on foreign-flagged vessels, including closing loopholes in many jurisdictions that allow rampant sale or
transfer of IUU fish cargoes. The treaty will go into effect after it has been ratified by twenty-five states.
Currently, a number of UN agencies are charged with containing IUU fishing, but their performance is
uneven and the overall picture is bleak. Although the FAO, International Maritime Organization (IMO), and
International Labor Organization (ILO) regularly coordinate on IUU-related matters, panelists argued that
the regime concerning IUU fishing is inadequate and outdated, and pales in comparison to regulation of other
major maritime industries, such as oil and grain transportation. The most significant accord regulating fishing,
the Torremolinos Convention, is nearly four decades old. A 1993 protocol to the convention was amended in
2012, but never came into force. To complement these global efforts, other panelists endorsed the Global
Ocean Commission proposal to transform underpowered regional fisheries management arrangements
(RFMAs) into more fully fledged regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) and equipping them
to address the IUU challenge.
Regulating IUU fishing has been complicated by insufficient “maritime domain awareness”—specifically, the
ability to track the whereabouts of fishing vessels. One potential solution would be to enhance monitoring of
IUU fishing by leveraging technology and “big data.” To this end, one panelist advocated requiring location
transponders on all fishing vessels to help identify and interdict ships that violate fisheries rules. However,
other participants countered that even if ships’ locations were recorded, neither countries nor international
organizations could effectively police them with current capacities and multilateral rules. Consequently,
efforts to protect the oceans should incorporate incentives for industry to adopt and maintain responsible and
sustainable fishing practices. At the same time, technological advances allow civil society to independently
track fishing vessels and shame those involved in illegal activities. In the Mediterranean, for example, Oceana
(an NGO) has mapped the use of large driftnets, which are banned. Though civil society groups do not have
the legal authority to police the use of driftnets, they can increase the reputational risk for companies that
violate the ban. In parallel, participants advocated greater international efforts to build the capacity of coastal
states, such as improving law enforcement and security infrastructure in developing countries. One person
argued that consumer-targeted campaigns—such as the Oxfam “Behind the Brands” campaign encouraging
consumers to pressure major food and drink companies to address climate change and inequality—can be
highly effective at encouraging suppliers to conform with the law or emerging global norms.
3
Participants also discussed the recent report of a presidential task force on IUU fishing, which was released on
December17, 2014. Its fifteen recommendations [PDF] echoed the major workshop themes of international
cooperation, better enforcement, new partnerships, and traceability. To help direct high-level attention to this
issue at home and abroad, the U.S. government should recognize IUU fishing as a national security concern,
argued one participant. Still, no single country has sufficient resources to combat IUU fishing alone—
particularly on the high seas, where it is often unclear which country has jurisdiction. Moreover, inspectors
have limited resources and cannot reliably patrol the vast high seas. Therefore, effectively countering IUU
fishing requires innovative means of enforcing regulations.
Session Three
Creating a High Seas Regeneration Zone
Human activity in the oceans is essentially extractive and allows little opportunity to restore the natural
resources of the oceans, with the exception of a still-modest number of marine protected areas under
sovereign jurisdiction. Giving the high seas a chance to regenerate is critical—and need not require a decrease
in the overall global fish harvest. Only 12 percent of fish globally, it should be noted, are caught on the high
seas. As one panelist explained, a recent study had estimated that if all fishing on the high seas were to halt
while fishing within EEZs increased by 18 percent, the overall stock of fish in both the high seas and EEZs
would increase, and global catch levels could remain constant. In this scenario, even Japan would benefit; only
Taiwan and South Korea would experience a net decrease in fish caught. (Although Spain would also
experience a net decrease, the European Union as a whole would see an overall increase in catch.)
Moreover, halting high-seas fishing would not harm people who rely on fish for sustenance. Communities
that depend on fish traditionally harvest from coastal fisheries, whereas high seas catch is sold primarily to
markets in Japan and the United States. In fact, today’s high-seas fishing practices exacerbate global economic
inequalities. Fishing on the high seas is carried out overwhelmingly by the fleets of a dozen countries. As a
recent McKinsey and Company study noted, these fleets are only kept afloat thanks to generous government
subsidies, since high seas fishing is not otherwise commercially viable. In effect, these ships steal fish that
would otherwise surface in other countries’ EEZs, thereby undermining poorer countries’ ability to feed
themselves. Increasing fish stocks in EEZs (from closing fishing on the high seas) would also bring indirect
benefits, including promotion of tourism.
Fostering high-seas regeneration can also help manage the challenges of climate change. Participants
highlighted pollution from high-seas fishing fleets as an underappreciated factor contributing to
climate change, responsible for perhaps 2 percent of global emissions. In addition to depleting fish
stocks, bottom trawling devastates ocean environments. Some participants advocated closing the high
seas as soon as possible. Though a high-seas regeneration zone could be renegotiated or reversed later,
there is a limited window of opportunity to preserve the high seas while they are still able to
regenerate. Another person suggested that vulnerable areas such as the Mediterranean and Antarctic
could be closed as preliminary steps, if closing the high seas proves politically unpalatable. Noting that
the fishing industry supported the establishment of EEZs, despite opposition from many powerful
states, another suggested that EEZs could be expanded to cover new regeneration zones. This
country-specific approach with more localized targets might be more attainable and easier to
implement. However, others objected that expanding EEZs would not address the root of the
4
problem: unsustainable fishing practices. Since fisheries are also mismanaged within EEZs,
participants argued that this piecemeal approach would not succeed.
Session Four
Our Ocean Initiative, Vision and Prospects: A View From the Obama Administration
Despite the failure of the U.S. Senate to approve UNCLOS, international participants emphasized that the
United States has long been a leader in global oceans governance. The Obama administration continues to
view oceans as a priority and thus spearheaded the Our Ocean initiative, which held its inaugural meeting in
June 2014 and gathered policymakers, scholars, private sector representatives, and NGO leaders to discuss
sustainable fisheries, marine pollution, ocean acidification, and marine protected areas. The meeting resulted
in more than $800 million in commitments globally toward conservation projects, while Norway announced
plans to allocate over to $1 billion to climate change mitigation and adaptation assistance in 2015. Countries
also committed to establish new marine protected areas, or strengthen existing ones, covering more than three
million square kilometers of the ocean. President Barack Obama announced the expansion of the Pacific
Remote Islands Marine National Monument in the Pacific Ocean as well as a new task force to combat IUU
fishing, which released its recommendations on December 17, 2014. A second Our Ocean conference will be
held in Chile in October 2015 and a third will take place the following year, reflecting Secretary of State John
Kerry’s desire to institutionalize the initiative and secure the gains from the June 2014 conference.
The coming year should continue to elevate the importance of oceans within U.S. foreign policy. When the
United States assumes the rotating two-year chairmanship of the Arctic Council in mid-2015, the Obama
administration will push for additional safeguards for the Arctic Ocean. In particular, the United States and
other Arctic states have agreed to adopt a new agreement to prevent commercial fishing in the high seas areas
of the Arctic until further scientific research is conducted and a mechanism to manage Arctic fisheries is
concluded. The United States also remains active in the Sargasso Sea Commission, which facilitates
collaboration among governments and other stakeholders toward the conservation of the Sargasso Sea,
located in the North Atlantic Ocean. Finally, the United States and New Zealand have proposed the world’s
largest marine-protected area in the Ross Sea, a bay in Antarctica considered one of the most pristine marine
ecosystems on earth. Despite these efforts, the challenges facing oceans governance continue to attract scant
interest within the broader U.S. foreign policy–making community. A number of participants suggested that
advocates for the oceans should seek out more creative means of conveying the urgency of combating IUU
fishing, unsustainable use of marine resources, and climate change to a wider constituency—including
members of the development, trade, and defense communities.
Conclusion
Improving oceans governance requires global action, but insufficient cooperation among governments,
international organizations, regional bodies, and civil society undermine efforts to protect the oceans. The
United States has led global oceans governance for decades, but its future role is uncertain. On the one hand,
the Obama administration’s efforts to elevate oceans governance in U.S. foreign policy through the State
Department’s Our Ocean initiative, the presidential task force on IUU fishing, and robust participation in
multilateral venues, such as the Arctic Council and the United Nations, are promising developments. On the
other hand, the U.S. failure to ratify UNCLOS and ambivalence toward a proposed high seas biodiversity
agreement could complicate U.S. leadership on this agenda.
5