Addressing Ocean and Climate Issues
Across Relevant Multilateral Environmental Agreements
Summary
The ocean plays a key role in climate adaptation and mitigation. Various Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) are already in place with the capacity to address, regulate and manage human interactions with and impacts on the ocean and climate change. These existing international and regional regimes are, however, not sufficiently aligned to allow for synergies, holistic solutions and rapid implementation. This document lays out the most critical MEAs for addressing ocean and climate change issues simultaneously and synergistically. Actions on setting targets for greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions, the use of area-based management tools, as well as environmental impact assessments, and nature-based solutions can be addressed through relevant conventions to achieve holistic solutions for our ocean, our climate and all life on Earth.
KEY FACTS
The ocean:
• has absorbed more than 93% of the excess heat from greenhouse gas emissions since the 1970s; • absorbs approximately 26% of the carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere from human activities
each year; and
• provides 70% of the atmospheric oxygen (SROCC, IPCC 2019).
• provides fisheries, a primary protein source, for 3 out of every 7 people on the planet (FAO, 2016) yet roughly 1 in 5 of wild-caught fish is derived from illegal or unreported catches (Agnew, D.J et al. 2009).
OCEAN THREATS
• OCEAN WARMING: The rate of ocean warming has more than doubled since 1993; marine heatwaves have increased in intensity and frequency (SROCC, IPCC 2019).
• OCEAN ACIDIFICATION: Ocean acidity has increased by 30% since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. This increase is 100 times faster than any change in acidity experienced by marine organisms for at least the last 20 million years (SROCC, IPCC 2019).
• DEOXYGENATION: The ocean oxygen content has decreased by 2% of its since 1950; there are now over 500 dead or low-oxygen zones, where low oxygen levels are stressing marine life (Laffoley et al. 2019). • POLLUTION: Over 12 million tons of plastic end up in our oceans every year and that number is expected
to triple by 2040. There is no marine environment that is not impacted by plastic pollution including all sea turtle species, more than 40% of cetacean species, and 44% of marine bird species (Pew 2020). • FISHERIES: FAO estimates that 34.2% of the world’s fisheries are over-exploited (FAO 2020). As fish stocks decline, heavily subsidized industrial fishing fleets in particular have doubled the distance they travel to fishing grounds since 1950 but catch only a third per kilometer travelled (FAO 2012, ILO 2013, Tickler et al. 2018). High seas fleets currently receive around $4.2 billion USD in government subsidies to finance fuel and other capacity-enhancing costs (Schubauer et al. 2020). The latter subsidies enable these fleets to access 54% of the present high seas fishing grounds that are only profitable because of these subsidies (Sala et al. 2018).
The Ocean and Climate Change
The ocean is an integral part of the Earth’s climate system, driving many climate processes. The ocean mediates atmospheric temperatures by adsorbing excess heat and is a dominant component of the global carbon cycle by adsorbing excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. By serving as a major heat and carbon sink, the ocean plays a crucial role in mitigating climate change. In addition, the ocean and coasts provide critical ecosystem services such as coastal protection, food provision and income generation.
In order to limit the global rise in atmospheric temperatures to below 2ºC or 1.5ºC compared to pre-industrial levels as mandate by the Paris Agreement¹ (PA), it is necessary to implement mitigation measures aimed at cutting GHG emissions at the source and reducing current CO2 concentrations by enhancing coastal blue carbon sinks. In the maritime environment, these measures should include the decarbonization of maritime shipping, but also the reduction of the drivers which cause loss of coastal and marine ecosystems, thus producing additional GHG emissions and consequently losing a carbon sink function.
In addition to mitigation, it is necessary to take adaptation measures to build resilience. These measures must include the use of Area Based Management Tools (AMBTs), ecosystems-based approaches and Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA), the implementation of Nature Based Solutions (NbS) and the designation of ecologically significant and connected Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in national waters and areas beyond national jurisdiction.
The Role of Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs)
in Addressing Ocean and Climate Stressors and Solutions
Various international agreements and bodies are in place with the capacity to address, regulate and manage human interactions and impacts with and on the ocean as well as climate change. Global agreements relevant to the climate debate include the Paris Agreement, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Other climate relevant regional, sectoral or scientific bodies include: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES); the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar); the International Maritime Organization (IMO); the International Seabed Authority (ISA); the UN Environment Programme; United Nations has proclaimed a Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021–2030); Regional Seas Conventions and Action Plans, and regional fisheries management organisations/agreements (RFMOs/RFMAs). The United Nations is also negotiating a new International Legally-Binding Instrument for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national
jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement) under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) which is also of relevance to the climate debate. Several of these agreements have direct mandates to address both GHG emissions and their impacts and adaptation and resilience measures.
© MATT HARDY ON UNSPLASH
FIGURE 1. Schematic representation showing which relevant MEAs address measures on adaptation, mitigation, reducing stressors, geoengineering, finance and science-policy transfer.
Implementing Climate Mitigation Measures
The reduction of GHGs is a direct mandate under the UNFCCC and in this context, the restoration and preservation of vegetated coastal ecosystems such as mangroves, seagrass and salt marshes can provide an effective tool for carbon sequestration and storage as blue carbon, accounting for 0.5% of the current global emissionsw. While moderate on a global scale, coastal carbon management can have greater significance on the national scale, have numerous many other benefits (adaptation, coastal protection, water quality, food security) and can provide climate mitigation benefit rapidly. Countries have, for a long time, attempted to tackle threats to coastal blue carbon environments. Enhanced alignment of the UNFCCC, CBD and other relevant sectoral or regional bodies through synergistic implementation and financing will increase the impact of efforts to reduce these threats and increase the conservation, restoration and protection of coastal blue carbon ecosystems at an accelerated rate.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has a direct mandate to reduce GHGs from shipping. The IMO and its Member States can rapidly implement the Initial Strategy on Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ships and increase relevant activities to reach their mitigation targets of reducing GHG emissions by at least 50% by 2050 compared to 2008, and strive to phaseout GHG as soon as possible.
Supporting Climate Adaptation, Build Resilience and
Address Drivers
Measures should be taken to strengthen and coordinate actions across relevant Multilateral Environmental Agree-ments (MEAs) to maintain a healthy ocean through guaranteed coordinated protection that builds resilience and adaptation to the impacts of climate change.
Nature-based solutions (NbS)3 are cost-effective solutions to achieve multiple objectives, including those related to climate change, biodiversity and resilience against disasters. Within the UNFCCC, the strengthening of NbS should be further supported by existing UNFCCC bodies. For example, the Nairobi Work Programme4 facilitates knowledge generation and capacity building on coastal and marine NbS in relation to climate change adaptation policies and practice. However, more active integration is needed through other existing work streams, mechanisms, and processes. There is a need to increase efforts to incentivize Parties to communicate their actions and plans that address ocean-related adaptation issues and promote coastal and marine NbS solutions through National Adaptation Plans and Adaptation Communications. In addition, NbS can be used to achieve mitigation measures and Parties should be encouraged to include NbS in their NDCs and related action plans. For more information see the document UNFCCC SBSTA Dialogue on the Ocean and Climate Change to Consider How to Strengthen Mitigation and Adaptation Action.
The BBNJ Agreement on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) currently being negotiated at the United Nations to advance implementation of UNCLOS in ABNJ can provide important tools for addressing the impacts of climate change. An ambitious agreement could ensure that human activities do not further exacerbate negative climate impacts and that climate issues are further integrated in the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. ABNJ represents an immense contribution to the critical role of the ocean in controlling climate change, and to the biodiversity of the planet. Human activities affecting and within ABNJ can exacerbate the ongoing impacts of climate change and its impacts on biodiversity. Therefore, it is critical that climate change is considered in all aspects of the emerging BBNJ Agreement. Hence, the BBNJ agreement should enable a system of highly protected marine protected areas and promote the adoption of other types of area-based measures, including dynamic protection measures that manage for holistic ecosystem health of ABNJ which includes building climate resilience and
© DANIEL URIBE
3 Nature-based Solutions (NbS) are defined by IUCN as “actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural or modified ecosystems, that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits”.
protecting mobile species and ecosystems over time. The effects of climate change on the ocean should be integrated into the BBNJ agreement including but not limited to in the environmental assessment provisions including for environmental impact assessments (EIAs) and strategic environmental assessments (SEAs) as well as provisions for capacity building, marine technology transfer, and marine scientific research. In ABNJ, as should be the case within EEZs, EIAs and SEAs should include recognition of ocean stressors, such as deoxygenation, to be considered as part of cumulative impacts interacting with other stressors already taken into consideration. Within the CBD, the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework should stress the interlinkages between climate change, land and ocean degradation and biodiversity loss and address them in an integrated way. The framework should address the drivers of these issues to achieve the 2050 Biodiversity Vision, that biodiversity is valued, conserved, restored and sustainably used, maintaining ecosystem services, sustaining a healthy planet and delivering benefits essential for all people. The conservation of at least 30% of the ocean, including the high seas, contribute to that vision.
Similarly, other international and regional conventions should address additional drivers of other ocean issues, such as overfishing and pollution. For instance, RFMOs need to consider climate change impacts when defining fish catch quotas and effort limitations and vastly accelerate implementation of the ecosystem approach in fisheries management. RFMOs should improve their assessment of climate vulnerability of targeted species, bycatch and ecological indicators and develop frameworks for decision making that are designed to build further climate resilience through adaptive fisheries management. Only 25% of fisheries are certified as sustainable or under improvements (CEA, 2020). Halting overfishing, eliminating harmful fishing subsidies and ensuring ecologically sustainable use of fish resources can increase the climate resilience of fish populations and of marine ecosystems. Illegal unreported and unregulated fishing is another threat to the sustainability of the industry and to climate resilience. The Port State Measures Agreement5attempts to reduce this threat and would benefit from enhanced implementation and
enforcement by more Parties and increased ratification by more countries.
In addition, the International Seabed Authority should adopt the necessary measures to ensure the effective protection of the marine environment from the harmful effects of seabed mining activities as mandated by UNCLOS. Stringent
environmental rules, standards and indica-tors including EIAs will be essential to ensure that mining activities do not result in a loss of biodiversity, ecosystem integrity, resilience, or the impairment of important ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration. More research is needed as deep-sea mining activities will target inherently vulnerable deep-sea ecosystems which are composed of slow-growing and maturing species. The release of sediment plumes and chemicals during mining operations could have detrimental and widespread impacts on global marine biodiversity. There is a need to apply the precautionary principle and activities should not proceed until there is sufficient scientific research conducted on the impacts of this type of disruption in the seabed. Transparency and wide consultation with all relevant stakeholders, including civil society and those states to be impacted, should exist at all points of decision making.
© BURT JONES AND MAURINE SHIMLOCK
At a regional scale, most Regional Seas Conventions have mandates to work on biodiversity conservation, pollution prevention, as well as on adaptation to climate change vulnerability and sea-level rise, by means of relevant Area-Based Management Tools, MPAs, NbS and Integrated Coastal Zone Management approaches. These efforts need to be strengthened and expanded to all regions and subregions.
Marine geoengineering activities, such as ocean iron fertilization and microbubbles/ sea foam, are under intense consideration as approaches for carbon dioxide removal from the atmosphere. However, the envi-ronmental impacts and efficacy of these approaches is not currently understood. For example, the microbubbles/sea foam technology increases the reflectivity of the ocean and water bodies’ surfaces to sunlight by creating tiny microbubbles in surface waters or by spreading chemical foaming agents. Large-scale implementa-tions of this technology may negatively affect biodiversity, reduce the diffusion of oxygen to the water column, impact ocean light flux and induce changes in oceanic circulation and cause unexpected or
unusual evaporation, which would in turn affect atmospheric heating and circulation. While Parties to the London Convention and London Protocol have adopted an assessment framework for research related to marine geoengi-neering, and called for the prohibition of marine geoengineering operations, the London Convention and Protocol may be too narrow to address emerging geoengineering technologies that could undermine ocean health, resil-ience and productivity. Given the lack of scientific evidence on the effectiveness or impacts of these approaches, a precautionary approach should be used and activities should not take place until there is an adequate scientific understanding and transparent regulatory mechanisms have been put in place. The BBNJ Agreement should also contain robust EIA and SEA provision to ensure that any proposed marine geoengineering technologies are proper-ly assessed. Additionalproper-ly, global-scale scrutiny, consultation and review mechanisms for all types of geoengineering activities are needed. A unique legal framework providing standardized governance principles and specialized regimes on each geoengineering solution is needed, in order to avoid reduplicative work and dispersion of regimes among diverse conventions and agreements.
Effective solutions for our climate and ocean require significant technical and technological capacity — the MEAs mentioned here should create mechanisms for capacity building and technology transfer that will enable their implementation. Better coordination between the finance and funding agendas for climate change and those for ocean action is necessary. Increased funding for adaptation and NbS, particularly in support of Small Island Developing States (SIDS), developing countries and economies in transition, is needed in order to build capacity in the form of knowledge, tools, and scientific and political expertise to empower societies to implement mitigation and adaptation measures.
Way Forward: Increase Synergies and Alignment
in New Solutions
A call for increased coordination and alignment is nothing new but identifying and implementing the specific opportunities is challenging. Existing areas for consideration include, but are not limited to:
• Parties submitting Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the UNFCCC can set emissions targets that incorporate the most recent science on current and projected impacts of climate change on the ocean. • Parties submitting NDCs under the UNFCCC could include coastal and marine NbS that advance important
opportunities for adaptation and mitigation, and also support other co-benefits such as biodiversity conservation.
• RFMOs could set catch quotas that consider climate change impacts on ecosystems and species dynamics and resilience, i.e., lower quotas for species for which higher impacts are expected. By doing so, RFMOS will contribute to enhancing future food security and ecosystem integrity.
• IMO could implement ambitious strategies to reduce GHG emissions from the carbon-intensive shipping industry to rapidly implement clean technology solutions to phase out rather than simply reducing global GHG emissions by 2050.
• Parties to the CBD could set ambitious targets under the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework to effectively protect at least 30% of the marine environment by 2030, support marine spatial planning and the implementation of area-based management measures to build resilience and maintain other ocean-based ecosystem services. Additionally, the new framework would mainstream marine and coastal biodiversity whilst instilling climate resilience in all sectoral activities.
• The Parties to the London Convention and Protocol could embed relevant and updated regulations on other marine geoengineering technologies other than ocean fertilisation in the near future and set up collaboration with other organizations to renew the assessment framework for research related to marine geoengineering given its fast evolution.
• States negotiating the BBNJ Agreement have the opportunity to safeguard nearly 50% of the planet by adopting an ambitious and future-proofed agreement by the next intergovernmental conference currently scheduled for 2021. The agreement should include consideration of how activities in ABNJ will impact climate change and how effects of climate change will impact the ability of ABNJ to maintain a marine biodiversity and an overall healthy ocean through the conservation and sustainable use of the ocean beyond national jurisdiction.
