Support strong Canadian climate journalism for 2025
The ocean is a trillion-dollar business. Globally, the goods and services generated each year from the ocean are worth an estimated US$2.5 trillion — though the ocean itself as an asset is worth far more, at least US$24 trillion. Certainly, for 49 of the 56 countries in the Commonwealth that have a coastline, the ocean is an undisputed source of economic prosperity, in addition to its social and cultural importance.
Every year, for example, Canadian fishing fleets haul in more than 700,000 tonnes of fish from the sea, valued at somewhere between US$4 billion and US$5 billion, to feed local communities and sell abroad. Australia’s Great Barrier Reef attracts two million tourists, reaping over US$6 billion annually for the economy and supporting 60,000 jobs. Malaysia’s ports process the equivalent of 27 million 20-foot containers per year, contributing to a maritime industry worth 40 per cent of the country’s financial output.
However, the ocean is under significant threat from a variety of crises — mostly man-made. And if we do not act quickly and act together, these challenges will have drastic, irreversible impacts on vital marine ecosystems, and consequently, the industries, livelihoods and lives that depend on them.
Astonishing lack of care
Despite this, the ocean continues to be largely taken for granted. To date, more than 95 per cent of the ocean remains unseen and unexplored by humans, while only 20 per cent has been mapped using sonar and satellites. Yet, even with this dearth of data, countries currently allocate just 1.7 per cent of their research budgets, on average, to ocean sciences.
In fact, of all the global sustainable development goals, ocean targets (SDG14) have received the least financial support, representing less than one per cent of all SDG funding from both development finance and philanthropy.
Since we cannot protect what we do not comprehend, it is not surprising that only seven per cent of the ocean is currently protected by law for conservation purposes. And though the recent UN biodiversity conference in Montréal saw countries commit to quadrupling this figure to 30 per cent within the next seven years, it will require unwavering political will and robust resources to do so.
Interlocking challenges
Achieving the 30 per cent marine protection by 2030 target (or 30x30) will be essential to striking the balance between conservation and sustainable use of the ocean. Currently, about 35 per cent of global fish stocks are overfished due to harmful subsidies as well as illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, which pillages 11 million to 26 million tonnes every year.
Tragically, in return for the massive volumes of fish we take from the sea, we cast into it almost the same amount of rubbish, including 14 million tonnes of plastic waste, annually. Conservative estimates of the economic cost of plastic pollution on marine ecosystems point to at least US$13 billion each year, with impacts on tourism, fisheries and the cost of government cleanups.
These issues are further exacerbated by the climate crisis, given that the ocean absorbs more than 90 per cent of the excess heat in the atmosphere caused by human activities. Warmer waters affect the behavioural and migration patterns of fish and the amount of dissolved oxygen available for them to breathe. This impacts the coastal communities that rely on them for food and livelihoods. Similarly, marine heat waves are exterminating vast swaths of coral reefs, with knock-on effects on reef tourism (a US$35-billion-a-year industry) and fisheries.
Need for co-ordination and co-operation
Solving these interlocking crises requires global co-ordination and co-operation. That is why the Commonwealth Blue Charter was launched in 2018, bringing together 56 countries to work collaboratively on ocean action.
Through 10 country-led action groups, Commonwealth nations are united in tackling the issues outlined above — plastic pollution, ocean climate action, marine protection, sustainable coastal fisheries — and others. The action group for a sustainable blue economy is co-championed by Kenya and Antigua and Barbuda.
Importantly, while these countries recognize the tremendous economic value of the ocean, they also appreciate that it is more than just to be monetized and carelessly exploited. The ocean’s intangible value to communities as an anchor for cultural identity, social relationships and local lifestyle is priceless and should also be protected. Indigenous knowledge rooted in stewardship, connection to nature and sustainable livelihoods can support the transition from the traditional “marine industry” to a holistic and sustainable “blue economy.”
The Commonwealth action group on a sustainable blue economy aims to develop an integrated approach towards the sustainable use of ocean resources for economic growth, improved livelihoods and ecosystem health.
I am excited by the progress the group is making in partnering with the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) in trialling a blue economy transition rapid readiness assessment. This will help governments determine what is needed to map and prioritize the pathway to a sustainable blue economy.
But much more needs to be done. Beyond governments and the private sector, we will need global partners, civil society, academia, funding agencies, industry, banks, insurers and financial markets to be on board.
The ocean — and the blue economy it supports — is under threat. It must be rescued before it drowns in an ocean of apathy, and we can only do so together.
Patricia Scotland is secretary-general of the Commonwealth. She was born in Dominica and is the first woman to hold the post.
Comments
QUOTE: “The ocean is a trillion-dollar business. Globally, the goods and services generated each year from the ocean are worth an estimated US$2.5 trillion — though the ocean itself as an asset is worth far more, at least US$24 trillion.”
Let me rephrase this opening paragraph with minor changes.
“India is a trillion-dollar business. To Great Britain, the goods and services generated each year from India are worth an estimated US$2.5 trillion — though India itself as an asset is worth far more, at least US$24 trillion.”
There are several problems with this opinion, not least of which is the solidly colonial attitude expressed in the first paragraph: that is, the ocean exists for humanity to exploit at will. It is more than a little eyebrow-raising and I wonder if the Baroness, whose own origins are in the colonial Caribbean (Google), in fact, wrote the piece or if she simply affixed her name without reading it over. I’m guessing the latter.
Second strike against is the attempt at placing a value on any part of the biosphere, let alone its single, largest, constituent part (71% of planetary surface), which also happens to be the part that science knows the least about.
NATL GEOG: “More than 80% of the ocean has never been mapped, explored, or even seen by humans. A far greater percentage of the surfaces of the moon and the planet Mars has been mapped and studied then of our own ocean floor.” https://tinyurl.com/yckfd8u7
As soon as one places a value, one opens the gate to the possibility that something else – say, for example, all the minerals and other resources that can be extracted from global sea beds -- is worth more and therefore the oceans and all within them, in this case, can be sacrificed because they are less worthy. This is clearly an absurd notion. Another more granular problem with ecosystem valuation – there are many and books are written on the subject (I’m just now cracking the cover on the newly released: “The Value of a Whale: On the Illusions of Green Capitalism”) -- is that scientists do not fully understand ecosystems and all the interactions within them -- see, for example Suzanne Simard's book "Findiing the Mother Tree: Discovering the Wisdom of the Forest" -- so they cannot possibly determine any sort of absolute, let alone comparative, value. That hasn’t stopped many from trying (Google ecosystem [services] valuation), often as a way of appeasing or being coopted by, in my view, the dominant economic paradigm of our time. In fact, though scientists estimate that there are about 8.7 million species of flora and fauna in the world, only about 1.2 million have been described: most of those being, apparently, insects. https://tinyurl.com/5fww4b9k
How can one possibly fully understand the inner workings of an ecosystem if one doesn’t even know the cast of characters, over time?
The opinion doesn’t get any better.
QUOTE: “Since we cannot protect what we do not comprehend, it is not surprising that only seven per cent of the ocean is currently protected by law for conservation purposes.”
The corollary is that if we don’t comprehend it, we can’t protect it. Or, even more unlikely, if we comprehend it, we WILL protect it.
Further, the last part of the quoted sentence – “it is not surprising…” -- is nothing but a pleading of ignorance, or an excuse, or, if you prefer, a “get out of jail, free” card for extractors and polluters.
QUOTE: “Achieving the 30 per cent marine protection by 2030 target (or 30x30) will be essential to striking the balance between conservation and sustainable use of the ocean.”
I would like the word ‘balance’ to be given a long-overdue sabbatical on an inaccessible South Sea island; it is most often employed (i.e. overused) as either greenwashing or rationalizing.
But, have another look at the sentence. The opinion is setting up “conservation” and “sustainable use” as contrary ideas. Does the Baroness have any clue of what she speaks?
Carrying on, the 30% “target” is qualified with two significant provisos. First, the target is “at least” 30%. Second, the target is set “in the context of recognizing the rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities, and combined with applying effective sustainability measures across the remaining 70% of the planet.“ That is, conserving 30% doesn’t mean that the remaining 70% of Nature can continue to be raped and pillaged.
https://naturebeyond2020.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Conserving-at-l…
Further, there is apparently at least one different view as to how much ought to be protected, stating that not 30%, but 44% of _land_ area must be conserved. https://tinyurl.com/5acsmkey
FROM ABV: “While [30%] is a great step in the right direction, our study suggests that more ambitious goals and policies to maintain ecological integrity beyond this 30% target are crucial.”
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abl9127
Going a step further, ought Canadians to be satisfied by conserving only 30% of our land and waters – just as, say, China or India -- when we are so fortunate to be stewards of such a large slice of the planet, yet populated by such a small percentage of humanity?
The rest of the piece is predictable and, anyway, doesn’t much matter when the discussion has already been framed as indicated above.
And this under the name of the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth?