UN Ocean Conference political declaration: where are the fishers?

In May 2019, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) agreed that the next UN Ocean Conference (UNOC) “should adopt by consensus a brief, concise, action-oriented and inter-governmentally agreed declaration” which would focus on “science-based and innovative ideas” to implement Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 14, to conserve sustainably the oceans.

Postponed due to Covid-19 related restrictions, UNOC took place during the last week of June 2022 in Lisbon, with such a high attendance that there was a 3-hour line at the airport to get a taxi. Beyond the official sessions, more than 300 side-events were organised by different stakeholders inside and outside the venue, some that led to constructive and diverse dialogues, including several on artisanal fisheries, and some for which the connection with ocean was far-fetched.

Although stakeholders at the conference raised important questions to discuss and underscored the urgency for action, the final declaration, drafted following 3 rounds of consultations prior to the conference, seems like good intentions went up in smoke. In this declaration, the ocean needs to be saved “urgently” “scaling up actions” which are only vaguely described. Prominent in the declaration is the need for increased funding for saving the ocean, funds to be attracted “via capital market instruments”. In previous publications, CFFA has highlighted how problematic the financialisation of conservation is, which transforms the ocean into an asset and service provider, rather than a common good.

Not only that but also the question that comes up when reading the declaration “Our ocean, our future, our responsibility” is: what are we saving the ocean for? And for whom? The UN declaration largely ignores human rights and the fact that there are people that have lived of and protected the ocean for centuries. Coastal communities have a right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment and the ocean, which they care for, is a provider of food, health and water to them.

The set up of the conference shows the challenges for civil society to participate, English being the main language. Although some languages were available in the main sessions, many of the side-events inside the venue did not the technical set up for interpretation. Small-scale fishers organised their own.

The declaration lists the findings of the IPCC reports and the grim future that awaits the ocean, but carefully avoids pointing at responsibilities, optimistically mentioning nature-based solutions. Yet, just as human ability to recover from trauma is not an excuse to continue perpetuating human rights violations, so nature’s capacity to absorb anthropogenic shocks should not be an excuse to continue business as usual. While there are paragraphs on mitigation, nothing in the declaration points at the necessity for systemic change. The focus on “innovation” (the new word for progress) is a subtle way to continue the unsustainable growth model, while ignoring the fundamental fact that it is not compatible with the fight against climate change.

Furthermore, innovation is to be championed by “all stakeholders” including the same industries, like fossil fuel exploitation companies, that have caused and contribute to climate change in the first place. These industries were present at the UNOC also via their foundations and philanthropic organisations, which, in some countries, is a way companies have found to avoid taxes. Some of these philanthropic organisations not only are 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, but also are increasingly taking the space of civil society, including talking on behalf of coastal communities, being accountable only to their board members.

1. Protecting the ocean: who will do it, for whom and for what?

Civil society organisations have been sounding the alarm bell for some years of the subtle but swift change in the global decision-making sphere, with an increased and open influence from the corporate sector and a decreasing focus on a human-rights based approach. At the last UN Food Systems Summit, in September 2021, the UN Committee on World Food Security Civil Society and Indigenous People Mechanism stated that “the strong threat that a deliberate multi-stakeholder approach poses to the UN system should not be underestimated.” On the other hand, it is ever more complicated for civil society, indigenous peoples, local communities or small-scale producers to engage in these processes, as attending such an increasing number of international conferences around conservation requires time, funds, efficient organisation (for the UNOC meeting, in many cases, visas were denied to bona fide artisanal fishers representatives), but also a good understanding of the different processes. Furthermore, in practice, their voice is weaker because it is more fragmented and they are facing a strong competition with the messaging.

Meanwhile, the corporate sector has captured and appropriated some of the language, is using the same buzzwords, makes use of marketing techniques to pass along its message, and is developing social and environmental responsibility programs to distract from the fact it continues polluting elsewhere. Some big international environmental organisations have changed their strategy, partnering with businesses to reconceptualize conservation “into a financial asset that attracts private investment”. The UNOC buys into this trend involving the corporate and investment funds, as the final declaration argues that “all stakeholders” are needed to “take ambitious and concerted action” and that effective partnerships, such as “multi-stakeholder” and “public-private” are the essential to success.

The wall map at the “Ocean Blue Camp”, a “safe haven” for civil society and environmental organisations, speaks volumes about the difficulties indigenous peoples, local communities or small-scale producers face in engaging in decision-making processes.

These organisations are also bringing their corporate cultures into conservation. Neither corporate businesses involved in the destruction of oceans nor their foundations have practice in 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 see their participation more as a way to decrease potential threats to the success of their projects.

Decision-making on conservation of the ocean, however, should first and foremost include those that are most affected by decisions in a transparent, participative and gender-inclusive way. Coastal communities, particularly small-scale fishers -who are the biggest group of ocean users - are the ones who need to shape the decisions around the ocean. As several small-scale fisher organisations jointly declared at the end of the conference, “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.”

2. The elephant in the room: unsustainable growth

In the declaration, members states commit to take “science-based and innovative actions”, such as exploring, developing and promoting “innovative financing solutions to drive the transformation to sustainable ocean-based economies, […] including through public -private sector partnerships and capital market instruments, provide technical assistance to enhance the bankability and feasibility of projects […].” What this jargon refers to is the concept previously called “blue growth”, which seeks to combine ocean conservation with the idea 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 focus on growth. However, decoupling growth from ecological degradation is an oxymoron, regardless of how filled the discourse is with the “right” wording.

Moreover, this paragraph opens the door for dubious “innovative” forms of financing conservation, such as debt-for-ocean swaps, which pose threats to sovereignty, democracy, green-wash odious debts, reduce aid and public spending for conservation, while benefit almost exclusively the creditors and investors. In short, they make the rich richer with little proven impact on the ground that they benefit either ecosystems or the communities that depend on them for their survival.

Iris Maertens, a liveart illustrator, summarized the exchanges between environmental NGOs and small-scale-fisheries at the Ocean Base Camp, where the latter asked to be included in conversations about conservation.

What these recent and constantly rephrased blue concepts actually bring is a ruthless competition over the use of the oceans. CFFA and other civil society organisations are deeply concerned about this “blue acceleration”, a race among diverse and often competing interests for ocean food, resources and space. As the general secretary of CAOPA, Dawda Foday Saine, from The Gambia, pointed out at one of the side-events concerning the future of the ocean, the divergence of interests that is driving the (sustainable) blue economy push, and in consequence, marine spatial planning decision-making, is endangering the most vulnerable stakeholders. This “blue fear” is a reality throughout the world, where small-scale fishers face the competition of deep-sea mining, oil and gas exploitation, industrial fisheries, maritime transport, tourism or industrial aquaculture.

This concern was highlighted as one of the five priorities of the joint call to action drafted by artisanal fishers from 5 continents at the occasion of UNOC: The growing accumulated negative impacts of more powerful sea and land-based sectors, promoted in blue economy strategies, jeopardize their future. They ask their governments “not to allow or support any new ocean use that may negatively impact ecosystems and the communities that depend on them” and ask that coastal communities participate throughout decision-making processes from the impact assessments, through consultation and conflict resolution mechanisms.  

While the declaration mentions “collaborative processes for decision-making that include all stakeholders, including small-scale artisanal fisheries”, this only appears in the paragraph that talks about ending harmful subsidies to fisheries. The depletion of fish populations is the main threat to small scale fishers livelihoods, but not the only one… Healthy fish stocks are useless to small-scale fishers if they cannot safely access fishing grounds for example.

3. The urgent necessity of a human rights approach to conservation

At the core of the problem is the lack of a human rights-based approach into these new blue concepts. Prior to any 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.

While the declaration (self-)congratulates those member states that have committed to protect at least 30 per cent of the ocean by 2030, the paragraph has no mention of the need that these be agreed upon with local communities and indigenous peoples. There are many examples where members states have almost arbitrarily placed Marine Protected Areas on a map to quickly put their words into action, sometimes displacing fishing communities or more often reducing their traditional fishing grounds.

Co-management systems can be successful in providing the ground for communities to remain informed, participate, to contribute to governance and conservation and for their rights to be respected.

What small-scale fishers ask for instead is the co-management of 100% of coastal areas, where government and local communities share responsibilities for governance and conservation. Governments are seeking funding for their conservation projects and the “funding gap” is perceived as one of the key challenges to save the ocean. Nevertheless, they are avoiding to look some of the real challenges in the face: the contribution of corruption and poor governance to ecological degradation. Sorting these latter does not only require funding, but strong political will.

To ensure shiny commitments of “innovation” for the ocean result in concrete improvements for coastal communities, member states should invest in many other services to ensure that communities are resilient and continue contributing to food security, livelihoods, poverty eradication and the sustainable use of marine resources. In many fishing communities, access to safe drinking water and sanitation is still today wishful thinking, with many women in fisheries working in inhumane conditions. In such conditions, it is very difficult for communities to bring forth lasting innovation... Small-scale fishers ask their governments to prioritise investments in basic services “such as access to potable water, electricity, drainage, sanitary facilities at processing sites; in infrastructures that improve women living conditions and those of their families”, and to also help them access “land and credit to support innovation.”

Likewise, there is still a lot of work to do to ensure the social rights of fishing communities, such as access to education, decent housing and social security. UN Members states actually committed to improve all these through the Voluntary Guidelines to secure sustainable small-scale fisheries.

4. Nature-based solutions for human-made problems?

The declaration stresses that “science-based and innovative actions […] can contribute to the solutions necessary to overcome challenges” and “nature-based solutions” can help “mitigate and adapt to climate change”. But we cannot expect science and nature to cover for human-made problems without addressing the root cause. It will only result in sticking plasters here and there. As mentioned in the introduction of this article, the UNOC declaration “Our ocean, our future, our responsibility” in fact carefully avoids placing responsibilities. The “all included” approach puts all actors at the same level of responsibility, when there is little doubt that rich nations owe huge ecological debts to developing countries and that the corporate sector contributes to a major scale to ecological degradation.

This page of Dickens’ novel “Great Expectations” one of the participants had in her backpack fell on the floor at the UNOC… Was it augural? The final political declaration fails to appropriately acknowledge the role and importance of the biggest group of users of the ocean, artisanal fishers, while it encourages forms of financing that might end up destroying coastal fishing communities.

Yet the latter are not only not ready to take their responsibilities, but are also inventing new ways to profit from the climate crisis. In this new market that emerges from conservation, the protection of biodiversity and loss and damage payments, the most vulnerable are again forgotten with little trickling down.

Often, limited investment into local and grassroots initiatives can greatly improve the resilience, the working conditions and livelihoods and at the same time, contribute to the sustainable use of resources and good marine governance. Governments and partners should make sure funds and aid are managed transparently, involving those at local level who most need them.

5. Conclusion: protecting the oceans and securing sustainable small-scale fisheries

At the end of the day, the question remains: who are we protecting the oceans for? The title of the declaration refers to the collective of the ocean: “our future”. But some futures are more at risk than others. Coastal fishing communities are at the frontline of the impacts of climate change. Fishing communities are also at the frontline of initiatives for resilience, willing to make a sustainable use of the oceans, ensure the food security of their communities and guarantee livelihoods for future generations.

The UNOC declaration simply fails to recognize the key role small-scale fisheries play, in fact the mention “recognizing their role in poverty eradication and ending food insecurity” at the end of the paragraph on responsible fisheries was shoehorned in the last version of the draft. However, they can contribute beyond responsible fisheries to other decisions that can help protect the oceans. Who will listen to what they have to say? They have five priorities they ask their governments to put in place by 2030. And, they have a right to “genuine participation of our communities in the decisions that affect [their] lives but also the health of the oceans and your”- dear reader - “source of food.”

Banner photo: 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”.

---