This publication is based on a joint contribution by the African confederation of artisanal fishing organisations (CAOPA) and the Coalition for Fair Fisheries Arrangements (CFFA) to the initiative “Let’s be Nice to the ocean”, which aims at collecting the inputs from civil society organisations prior to the UN Ocean Conference in Nice (France) in 2025.
Countdown for the UN General Assembly meeting in New York (2 July 2024) to decide on the 10 panels for the 3rd UN Ocean Conference (UNOC) which should take place in Nice in 2025 and which aims to “provide solutions the oceans need”. This preparatory event in New York is also meant to consider the “elements for a brief, concise, action-oriented, and intergovernmentally agreed declaration.”
On one hand, the final declaration of the previous UN Ocean Conference (UNOC 2) conveyed that the ocean needs to be saved “urgently”, “scaling up actions” which were however only vaguely described. Indeed, after this second conference, most civil society organisations (CSOs) agreed that “current efforts to achieve SDG 14 by 2030, are highly insufficient” and that progress on commitments must be assessed.
On the other hand, prominent in the declaration was the need for increased funding for saving the ocean, funds to be attracted “via capital market instruments”. We have highlighted how problematic the financialisation of conservation is: it transforms the ocean into an asset rather than a common good. Not only that, but the UN declaration largely ignored human rights – the terms “human rights” are not mentioned even once in the declaration – and, it also omitted the fact that there are people that have lived of and protected the ocean for centuries, including coastal fishing communities. The ocean, which they care for, is a provider of food, health, and water to them.
A future declaration should take wording from the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (CDB GBF) and its focus on human rights-based, gender-responsive and socially equitable biodiversity conservation. It should also call states and other stakeholders to ensure that coastal communities and small-scale fishers (SSF) have a right to a safe, clean, healthy, and sustainable environment – a right now acknowledged within the UN system.
The co-hosts of the future UNOC 3 conference, the French and Costa Rican governments, have mandated two organisations to co-facilitate the inputs of civil society. In a joint contribution to this initiative, “Let’s be Nice to the ocean”, the African confederation of artisanal fishing organisations (CAOPA) and the Coalition for Fair Fisheries Arrangements (CFFA), two CSOs that took part in UNOC 1 and 2, call out the power imbalance in ocean governance decision-making processes and the fallacy of sustainable blue growth. To counter these trends, they recommend the implementation of existing tools, such as the Guidelines to secure Small-scale Fisheries, through a human-rights-based approach and call for a meaningful participation of SSF representatives, especially through access to interpretation so they can follow the conference in their languages.
1. The power imbalance in ocean governance decision-making
Decision-making on conservation of the ocean should first and foremost ensure that those that are most affected by decisions participate in a transparent, participative and gender-inclusive way. Coastal communities, particularly small-scale fishers -who are the biggest group of ocean users and have a vast traditional and practical knowledge about it -, are the ones who need to shape the decisions around the ocean.
However, it is ever more complicated for civil society, indigenous peoples, local communities, or small-scale producers to engage in the decision-making processes, as attending an increasing number of international conferences (including preparatory events) around ocean conservation requires time, funds, efficient organisation, but also a good understanding of the functioning of these processes. For example, time, funds, and efficiency are required for fishers to go through the burdensome processes of obtaining visas and despite the efforts, in many cases, still visas are denied to bona fide artisanal fishers’ representatives.
Small-scale fishermen and women from Fiji, Guinea Bissau, Côte d'Ivoire, Tanzania, Senegal, Costa Rica, Gambia, Mexico, Panama and Honduras (left to right) stood up to be heard at a side-event organised by IUCN, FAO and others, “The future of the Ocean: cooperative pathways to 2030” at UNOC 2, in Lisbon (June 2022). This meeting was organised only in English. Fishers who spoke English had to translate for their peers. Photo: CFFA.
In a recent article, Bianca Haas and colleagues, unveil the challenges to ensure inclusivity and meaningful participation of all actors in ocean governance and point at several factors such as the use of English as the lingua franca, the size of the delegation at the meeting, or the ability to steer the narrative. At the last UNOC conference we also pointed at these problems.
In the existing ocean governance frameworks, the corporate sector along with big International Environmental NGOs have largely taken over the narrative of the conservation of the ocean, which is to be “championed by all stakeholders” including the same industries, like fossil fuel exploitation companies, that have caused and contribute to climate change and biodiversity loss in the first place. These industries are “using their power to transform existing frameworks in a way that works for them”, including via their foundations and philanthropic organisations, pouring millions into a top-down type of conservation with money that comes from the same system that continues profiting from the unremitting exploitation of natural resources. We see the same trends repeated in other related fora, such as climate COPs.
It is very problematic that these industries are bringing their corporate culture into conservation. Neither corporate businesses involved in the destruction of oceans nor their foundations have practice in human rights, democracy, and deliberative processes, and they have little understanding of the concept of “free, prior, informed consent”: they appreciate the importance of “including marginalised groups” but, they will try to make them “buy into” the projects decided at the top, and they only see their participation as a way to decrease potential threats to the success of their projects.
2. Unsustainable growth
What these industries seek is to combine ocean conservation with the protection of their assets and activities, arguing that some ocean-related industries have the potential to be expanded albeit “sustainably”. The terms have evolved into new forms of “greener blue” to hide the fact that the focus continues to be on growth. However, decoupling growth from ecological degradation is an oxymoron.
Furthermore, “innovative” forms of financing conservation, such as debt-for-ocean swaps, are posing threats to sovereignty and democracy, green-wash odious debts, reduce aid and public spending for conservation, while benefitting almost exclusively the creditors and investors, making the rich richer.
CFFA and other civil society organisations are deeply concerned about this “blue acceleration”, this ruthless competition over the use of oceans, a race among diverse and often competing interests for ocean food, resources and space. The blue economy push increases the divergence of interests, and in consequence, increases marine spatial planning decision-making, is endangering the most vulnerable stakeholders. At UNOC 2, small-scale fishers coined the “blue fear” concept, which is what they feel as they face the competition of deep-sea mining, oil and gas exploitation, industrial fisheries, maritime transport, tourism, or industrial aquaculture. In a Call to Action launched at UNOC 2, they called their governments to be protected from these competing and more powerful industries.
3. There is an urgent need for a human-rights-based approach
“Ultimately, it is impossible to separate conservation from human rights”, concludes the UN Special Rapporteur (UNSR) on the right to food in his recent report on Fisheries to the 55th session of the Human Rights Council. In it, he also highlights the “commodification and financialization of the oceans” and the threats they pose to human rights [Ed. See also the UN special rapporteur on human rights and the environment and his many reports and statements on the issue].
For example, we agree with the recent report published by the Let’s be Nice to the ocean initiative that the burden of proof should be placed “on those who wish to pursue extractive or polluting activities”, with what they call the “Protection principle”. However, such a principle might place a disproportionate burden of proof over coastal communities who are the primary users of the ocean. These coastal communities, due to their vulnerability, invisibility, and marginalization, have little funds or data to prove their sustainable use, yet they have been using the ocean sustainably for millennia. It is essential that the rights of coastal communities are recognized regardless of their ability to prove the sustainability of their activities. This “Protection principle” will increase competition for marine exploitable spaces: proving will be costly, burdensome, and lengthy, and therefore easier for the more powerful stakeholders. Besides, there are already existing mechanisms, such as Environmental Impact Assessments which place the burden of proof on those that want to exploit natural resources.
Due to their vulnerability, invisibility and marginalization, coastal communities would struggle to find means and data to prove their sustainable use of the ocean, yet they have been using it sustainably for millennia. It is essential that the rights of coastal communities are recognized regardless of their ability to prove the sustainability of their activities. Photo: Carmen Abd Ali.
Indeed, what is needed in international ocean governance is an effective human rights-based approach. Prior to any decision, new investment, or ocean use, what needs to be guaranteed are the title, tenure, access, and resource rights of coastal communities, who depend on access to the ocean for their livelihoods. Human Rights Based Approaches (HRBA) which ensure first the protection of the rights of SSF reduce the chances of inequitable outcomes.
The tools to implement a HRBA are already accessible, states and other stakeholders simply need to uphold the commitments they have already been taken publicly. In his report, the UNSR on the right to food calls States to “respect, protect and fulfil Small-scale fishers’ and Indigenous Peoples’ customary tenure rights, […] fully implementing the Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication”. Additionally, they should also “ensure that small-scale fishers, Indigenous Peoples and fish workers – especially women – are consulted in good faith and are empowered to actively, freely and meaningfully participate in all decision-making processes that may affect their lives, land and livelihoods”.
4. What is needed for a meaningful dialogue
One of the key obstacles to a meaningful participation of SSF representatives at the UNOC 2 was the lack of interpretation available for participants – they could only have it if they had a seat in the plenary room. All the other side-events were exclusively in English, including the one on small-scale fisheries! However, it is vital that fishers are able to participate in all the meetings that concern them – and what concerns them should not be decided by others.
Small-scale fishers have adopted Rules of conduct (2023) of what it means for SSF partners to work with them to protect the ocean. In these Rules, fishers recall the importance of their rights, their participation, and their voice. They also ask of their partners and governments that when “there are decisions made about conservation that concern us and we are not involved; support us to fully participate (such as transport, interpretation, and other means)”. They also demand that “the venues and languages selected for making decisions affecting [them] are suited to [them] and not the other way around”.
In February 2023, small-scale fishing organisations signatories of the Call to Action, drafted Rules of conduct, guidelines of how to work with them in order to protect the ocean. In them, they recall the importance of their rights, their voice and their participation in conservation decision-making. Photo: CFFA.
A common excuse to the question of interpretation is the lack of funds. However, budgeting is an exercise that is done by prioritizing budget lines. We believe that any call for contributions for civil society and that aims at being representative of the global community should be accessible to at least a few of the most spoken languages in the world. For meaningful participation, it essential that interpretation and translation is given a priority in the allocation of funds.
Conclusion
As UN member states gather in New York to decide on the key topics to be discussed about at the future UN Ocean Conference, it will be essential that coastal communities and small-scale fisheries, are given the space they deserve as primary users of the ocean and as the most vulnerable sector of ocean economies, but also as the guardians of the seas. In their own words, “who better than us, […] knows the ocean and its riches? We live in it, we have respected it for thousands of years and we know many of its secrets.”
To protect small-scale fishers and the ocean, UN member states should adopt a human-rights-based approach, including to conservation. It is not rocket science. All the necessary tools exist. The UN General Assembly should take inspiration from the CBD GBF and the SSF Guidelines in its zero draft of the final declaration of the conference.
Banner photo: Mensah Atayi, fishmonger, Thomas Atayi, artisanal purse seine fisher, and Philomène Ahoudji, fish processor, sitting on the beach at Ayiguinnou, in the commune of Grand Popo in Benin, by CFFA.
In a position paper, APRAPAM questions the government's proposal to support the production of fish feed and insists instead on the importance of a management plan for small pelagics and the prioritisation of human consumption.