The fifth session of the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) on Marine Biodiversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) is on its second week of negotiations.
The aim of this IGC is to elaborate a new agreement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) on the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity areas beyond national jurisdiction, including the seabed and the water column, that is, the 61% of the ocean that is not under national jurisdiction.
The IGC is mandated to discuss, among other topics, area-based management tools, such as Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), and environmental impact assessments. Following the commitment by governments at the Conference of the Parties (COP15) of the Convention on Biological Diversity to protect 30% of marine areas by 2030, there is pressure to protect the high seas, including through the setting up of MPAs, to help combat biodiversity loss.
While it is vital to protect the high seas from reckless exploitation, such as over-fishing of highly migratory tuna stocks or the push for deep sea mining, it is also important to ensure that the future instrument does not undermine the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLC), including small-scale fishers.
MPAs on the high seas should not displace fishing into the EEZs
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights noted in June 2022 that “international human rights law provides a solid framework to protect the human rights of small-scale fishers” and urged “countries to actively implement the Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and other People Working in Rural Areas,” reminding that “small-scale fishers have the right to participate in all decision-making processes that may affect their lives, lands and livelihoods.”
It may be hard for some to see what impact would a decision on the high seas have on coastal fishing communities. Yet there are. If Marine Protected Areas (MPA) are created on the high seas without anything being done to reduce the existing fishing overcapacity in some high seas fisheries, like tuna fisheries, this might result in the concentration of industrial fleets in the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) of developing countries, including Small Islands and Developing States (SIDS).
The delegates should make sure that Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities, including artisanal fishers’, rights are respected. This would also mean that their participation in the negotiations should be informed and effective. On the photo, the head of the EU delegation at the negotiations, by IISD.
Artisanal fishers contribute to the economies, health, culture, and well-being of coastal communities, especially in SIDS, and carry out their activities in areas closest to the coast. An increased fishing effort in EEZs would have a negative impact on small-scale fishers (SSF), further endangering their access to marine resources. Additionally, it would place a disproportionate burden on SIDS, who already now struggle to monitor and control their waters.
Delegates must ensure that MPAs or any action under the future BBNJ instrument do not result in increase of the fishing effort in EEZs. Governments should also continue to cooperate with relevant frameworks and bodies, such as Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMO), to ensure the sustainable use of marine resources. At RFMO level, however, there is also a need to revisit allocation criteria, to guarantee that artisanal fishers’ rights are taken into account. CFFA and CAOPA continue stressting that a new approach should allocate quotas to those who fish most sustainably and bring the most economic and social benefits to coastal states.
Free, Prior and Informed Consent is also for the high seas
Small Scale Fisheries (SSF) organisations stress that “the 30x30 process is only possible if indigenous and fishing peoples’ human rights are recognized, respected, and ensured by law” and insist on the “urgent need of implementing a human rights-based approach to marine conservation.” To make sure that Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities, including artisanal fishers’, rights are respected, they must be able to participate, in an informed and inclusive manner, into decision making that affects them, including the on-going BBNJ negotiations.
We are concerned that currently there is no attention to the impacts on human rights of this future instrument. This aspect should be considered beyond environmental impact assessments. The ICG needs to take into account the rights of indigenous peoples and local (fishing) communities, and the principles enshrined in the various human rights instruments (UNDRIP, UNDROP) as well as the Guidelines on sustainable small scale fisheries. They should also use the language from the CBD that acknowledges that “nothing in this framework may be construed as diminishing or extinguishing the rights that indigenous peoples currently have or may acquire in the future” and that has as its target 1 to “ensure that all areas are under participatory integrated biodiversity inclusive spatial planning […] to bring the loss of areas of high biodiversity importance, […] close to zero by 2030, while respecting the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities.”
Banner photo: Women fishing crabs in Guinea Bissau, by Carmen Abd Ali.
The EU Long Distance Advisory Council (LDAC) and CFFA have published the report of the seminar on European fishing investments in third countries they jointly organized last May in Berlin, in the headquarters of the NGO Bread For the World.