For many observers, it is a “historic” document which has just been signed by members of the UN. The text of the treaty to protect the high seas, finalized by UN member states last weekend after very long negotiations, was made public on Monday 6 February. This agreement provides tools for “the conservation and sustainable management of marine biological diversity beyond national jurisdictions”, which corresponds to more than half of the oceans.
The text will apply on the one hand to the high seas, i.e. the part of the oceans beyond the exclusive economic zones (EEZ) of the States, which extend to a maximum of 200 nautical miles (370 kilometers) from the coasts, and will cover also the seabed and its subsoil located outside national jurisdictions. An essential legal framework for the establishment of marine protected areas in these waters which contain a very rich biodiversity. But also a diplomatic “prowess” for the protection of this “common framework” according to Julien Rochette, director of the “Ocean and International Governance of Biodiversity” programs within the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (Iddri).
L’Express: Many commentators spoke of a historic agreement. What is historical in this treatise?
Julien Rochette: I think it’s first of all a big step forward for the ocean because the high seas represent about half of the planet. This treaty provides an international framework for the sustainable and equitable management of biodiversity in the high seas. did not deal with certain activities, such as bioprospecting for example. From today we have a legal and political framework that is more complete.
The historical character is also linked to the fact that the discussions were long and complex. In 2004, the UN created a working group on the high seas, and it met many times from 2006, before formal negotiations were launched in 2018.
What does this treaty include?
This treaty has four pillars. Firstly, marine protected areas: it makes it possible to create them on the high seas, which was not possible before, and this is why the majority of protected areas today are found in territorial waters. It also provides, and this was a sensitive issue, for sharing the benefits of genetic resources from the high seas with developing countries. Concretely, this means that when a drug derived from marine molecules hits the market, part of the profits will go to developing countries. It is a question of fairness, and this is the point that has been debated the most. This was no longer an environmental issue, but really a fair sharing of the benefits that can be derived from the high seas.
In addition, the treaty also provides for the obligation to have recourse to environmental impact studies before authorizing an activity on the high seas. Finally, there is a fourth pillar which relates to the support of the countries of the North to the countries of the South in the research and development of marine technologies.
Why is this part of the genetic resources treaty important?
Today we know that there are a number of drugs created from marine substances, but we do not know if they come from the high seas or from coastal areas, because there is no traceability . So that had to be cleared up first. Then, it is also the future of pharmaceutical products that are being played out on the high seas for scientists. They believe that many future drugs are found in the high seas, in the depths, due to the genetic particularities of the biodiversity that inhabits it. This represents a potentially very significant financial windfall given the development of this activity, and the countries of the South know this, and did not want to be set aside.
Where are we with the approval process?
The treaty has been approved by the States, there remains an adoption procedure at the UN, as well as a ratification stage. After 60 ratifications – that is to say when 60 countries have indicated their intention to be bound by the text – this agreement will enter into force and will begin the most important phase, that of implementation. Today we are celebrating a treaty, and we are right because there are many advances and important elements, but this treaty must now find its concrete translation. On this there is good news: this text does not overlook questions of implementation. In particular, it provides for a funding mechanism and a committee responsible for monitoring implementation. There was the creation of a scientific and technical committee, but also a committee which will have to make it possible to follow its application.
How did the discussions go, what were the positions of each?
The States agreed in 2011 on the four pillars of the treaty. The European Union and New Zealand, for example, had a position that was initially based on this new legislation allowing the creation of marine protected areas. A position on which the countries of the South found themselves, but in the context of the discussions they made it a point of honor that there is a section on fair equity around the redistribution of benefits from marine genetic resources. This is why there are conservation tools in this agreement, but also means to allow equitable management of the exploitation of resources. The countries of the South have long asked for monetary benefits, which was refused by the countries of the North. But in the end the latter had to accept this request, because today the States of the South submit any environmental ambition to financing conditions to implement these ambitions.
If it took more than 15 years to reach this agreement, it is obviously because it was difficult to find compromises. But in a world crossed by full geopolitical tensions, it is necessary to underline this prowess to have succeeded in fixing rules for the management of a common space.
There has also been talk of a “binding” agreement, to what extent could it become binding?
The agreement is a binding legal instrument, in the UN sense of the term, that is to say that the States which have ratified it will have the obligation to implement its provisions. And the agreement provides for a system for monitoring and controlling compliance with these obligations.
How can it be ensured that these marine protected areas could be truly effective?
That’s going to be the main issue, that’s obvious. The application of international law is generally a little complicated, we cannot put a policeman behind each user of the sea, but we have technological tools. Satellite imagery provides global monitoring of these areas. The challenge is also that the management plans for these future areas provide the necessary means for monitoring activities and applying future management plans. For this we can rely on more and more tools developed by States, and organizations such as Global Fishing Watch to have a regular monitoring of fishing fleets for example.
Moreover, the fact that this treaty has included a section for environmental impact studies is quite reassuring at this stage. Beyond the legal text, there is nevertheless the sign of a political will for management based on international cooperation. There are possibly many limitations to this agreement, and many challenges in terms of implementation, but it is a very big step. Because to move towards more protection of the oceans, we needed this text.