Outreach at UNCSD Informal Informals - 26 April 2012

inside: Ending the oceans wild west: why we need a high seas biodiversity agreement Plenty more fish in the sea?

a multi-stakeholder magazine on climate change and sustainable development

out reach.

26 April 2012

www.stakeholderforum.org/sf/outreach/

pic: Aaron Parecki

contents.

1

Multiple stressors pushing ocean ecosystems and livelihoods to the brink

2

Ending the oceans wild west: why we need a high seas biodiversity agreement

3

Monitoring ocean acidification and its effects: a proposal for Rio+20

4

Social aspects of sustainable tourism in the context of sustainable oceans, the green economy and the eradication of poverty

5

Riding the crest of ocean decisions for Rio+20

6

Sustainable energy development: The role of coasts, oceans and small island developing states

8

Pacific fisheries need tech to track climate impact

9

Plenty more fish in the sea?

Rio+20 Side Event Calendar

10

2

3

4

Reflections on the negotiations pic: Colin Grey

OUTREACH IS PUBLISHED BY:

About Stakeholder Forum Stakeholder Forum is an international organisation working to advance sustainable development and promote democracy at a global level. Our work aims to enhance open, accountable and participatory international decision-making on sustainable development through enhancing the involvement of stakeholders in intergovernmental processes. For more information, visit: www.stakeholderforum.org

Outreach is a multi-stakeholder publication on climate change and sustainable development.

It is the longest continually produced stakeholder magazine in the sustainable development arena, published at various international meetings on the environment; including the UNCSD meetings (since 1997), UNEP Governing Council, UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP) and World Water Week.

Published as a daily edition, in both print and web form, Outreach provides a vehicle for critical analysis on key thematic topics in the sustainability arena, as well as a voice of regional and local governments, women, indigenous peoples, trade unions, industry, youth and NGOs. To fully ensure a multistakeholder perspective, we aim to engage a wide range of stakeholders for article contributions and project funding.

If you are interested in contributing to Outreach, please contact the team (gmacdonald@stakeholderforum.org or acutter@stakeholderforum.org) You can also follow us on Twitter: @OutreachLive

OUTREACH EDITORIAL TEAM Felix Dodds

Stakeholder Forum

Farooq Ullah

Stakeholder Forum

Editor

Georgie Macdonald

Stakeholder Forum

Co-editor

Amy Cutter

Stakeholder Forum

Editorial Assistant

Jack Cornforth

Stakeholder Forum

Print Designer

Jessica Wolf

Jessica Wolf Design

Web Designer

Thomas Harrisson

Stakeholder Forum

Web Designer

Matthew Reading-Smith

Stakeholder Forum

Editorial Advisors

CONTRIBUTING WRITERS Magdalena A K Muir

Arctic Institute of North America

Kirsty Schneeberger

Stakeholder Forum

Tamasin Ramsay

Kateryna Wowk

Marine Policy Consultant

Nathalie Rey

Greenpeace

Monash University

Johann Bell

Secretariat of the Pacific Community

Naomi Kumazawa

MGCY/Environmental Partnership Council Japan

Emma Puka-Beals

Mount Holyoke College

Joanna Benn

Pew Environment Group

Tourism Concern

Natural Resources Defense Council

Multiple stressors pushing ocean ecosystems and livelihoods to the brink Kateryna M. Wowk Marine Policy Consultant and co-author of Valuing the Ocean

Protecting the ocean must be a priority in global sustainability goals. The ocean – and the life-supporting services it provides – is facing multiple threats including acidification, ocean warming, hypoxia, sea-level rise, pollution, and the overuse of marine resources. It is heavily affected by human activities, from climate change to overfishing to waste runoff and mineral extraction, which are destroying habitats and irrevocably changing ecosystems.

Greater than these individual threats, however, is the underresearched and overlooked issue of the simultaneous, and often synergistic, impacts of multiple stressors. Acting together, impacts from multiple stressors could lead to damages far more severe than those from individual threats alone. In preparation for Rio+20, preliminary results from a new research effort that focuses on valuing ocean resources in the context of multiple stressors is being circulated to key policymakers. The study, Valuing the Ocean, is the work of an international, multi-disciplinary team of experts supported by the Okeanos foundation and coordinated by the Stockholm Environment Institute, in partnership with the Foundation for Design & Sustainable Enterprise.

The book in preparation consists of 12 chapters, each prepared by different expert authors, which present the latest evidence regarding the way in which the ocean is being impacted by different threats, and the expected future consequences. Each of the main ‘stressors’ (ocean acidification, hypoxia, ocean warming, sea-level rise, pollution and overuse of marine resources) is first tackled individually. These impacts are then jointly addressed in the ‘Impacts of Multiple Stressors’ chapter, and examined in a regional context in a chapter dedicated to a case study of the Pacific Ocean. The study also includes a chapter specifically focused on ‘Valuing the Ocean Environment’, which estimates the costs – in terms of degraded ocean services – that could be avoided by addressing the causes of these stressors (CO2 emissions being the most important). Under business-as-usual, the study finds that

climate change alone could reduce the economic value of key ocean services by up to $2 trillion a year by 2100, but by adopting a rapid emission reduction pathway (and limiting temperature increases to 2.2°C) we could avoid almost $1.4 trillion of this total. The study concludes with a warning of the need to ‘Plan for Surprise’ in the face of global environmental change, arguing for new approaches to ‘insure’ against potentially disastrous events that society would have difficulty coping with, together wide a wide range of policy recommendations.

The study deliberately does not attempt to estimate a monetary value for the ocean itself, its priceless species and ecosystems, or some of the critical processes and features of the ocean such as nutrient cycling, ecosystem functioning, and genetic resources, to which meaningful prices cannot be assigned. It also does not attempt to provide a monetary value to irreparable losses to cultural heritage and the dignity and identity of communities that are anticipated to result from global environmental change, nor does it fully consider the catastrophe that will result if global tipping points are reached. What the study does provide, among more regional and local messages, is a concrete picture of yet another category to add to the rising costs of further delaying action on climate and global environmental change.

‘Valuing the Ocean’ calls for bold action to revolutionise our strategies for governing oceans and coasts. With so many threats converging on the oceans at once, a global, integrated approach, including action at the local level, is urgently needed. By stressing the links between multiple marine stressors and the huge value of the vital services that the ocean provides to humankind, the authors hope to help kick-start decisive, collective action to strengthen ocean governance and management across all scales.

This collaborative international study presents an unequivocal argument in favor of placing the ocean at the center of plans to build a sustainable future, while for the first time bringing into sharp relief the monetary value of the critical ocean services that will be degraded if we fail to implement them. National governments and international organisations must strengthen and integrate their efforts toward sustainability to retain the viability of marine ecosystems and resources.

The cost of inaction will rise with every year we delay.

Planning and action now will save money – and livelihoods – in the future. There can be no ‘green’ economy unless we integrate.

.

MORE INFO www.sei-international.org/-news-archive/2305

RIO+20

1

Ending the oceans wild west: why we need a high seas biodiversity agreement Nathalie Rey Greenpeace Once seen as boundless, today there is a growing awareness that the world’s oceans are finite and the marine life they hold can indeed be exhausted. Roughly 90% of big fish have been fished out, coral reefs are disappearing, we are choking our oceans with pollution, and climate change is permanently altering their chemistry, with disastrous effects. As technology has improved, ocean life has disappeared faster and faster, fishing fleets are moving further and further away from the coast in search of decreasing numbers of fish. International waters that cover almost two thirds of our planet – an area that used to be seen as too far, deep and difficult to exploit – are now in peril. Soon, our oceans will not be able to recover from humankind’s reckless destruction. We need to take action fast, and Rio offers a significant opportunity to take a huge step forward on ensuring high seas protection.

The journey from the 1992 Rio Earth Summit to 2012 is littered with unfulfilled commitments to protect our oceans. With less than 1% of the high seas currently under any form of protection, the oceans are the least protected part of the planet.

So why is it taking so long to protect the oceans that are so necessary to our planet’s survival? There is a serious shortfall in the implementation of existing agreements. But, even if all relevant agreements are implemented, massive gaps and loopholes in existing governing activities in international waters would still hamper effective protection. These black holes in oceans governance include no explicit rules on what protection of international waters should look like, little coordination between relevant organisations, no means of establishing marine reserves or assessing the impact of human activities on high seas marine life, poor monitoring, surveillance, compliance and enforcement and no mechanisms to assess and regulate new and emerging human activities.

There are also no clear rules that ensure the benefits arising from the use of valuable marine genetic resources found in the global commons are shared fairly. Scientists, countries and corporations are beginning to research the genetic and chemical compounds found in deep sea creatures for the pharmaceutical and cosmetic industries, and are patenting these resources for their own benefit.

Given the huge financial, knowledge and other benefits arising from the use of these resources, it is essential that these are fairly and equitably shared amongst countries.

Protection of the oceans will have huge benefits – environmentally, socially and economically. A joint World Bank and the Food and Agriculture Organisation study in

2

RIO+20

2008 exposed that a staggering $50 billion is lost annually as a result of overcapacity, subsidies and poor fisheries management. The study concluded that improved oceans governance is key to recapturing a large proportion of this annual loss. In addition, it has been estimated that setting aside 20-30% of our oceans as marine reserves could create a million jobs, enable fish catches worth US$ 70– 80 billion per year and ecosystem services with a gross value of roughly US$ 4.5–6.7 trillion per year. The figures speak for themselves: a green economy will be impossible without a blue backbone.

The changes happening to the oceans will impact the poorest people on our planet the soonest and hardest, but ultimately we will all suffer the consequences. Businessas-usual is not an option: political urgency must be raised and Rio offers that opportunity to make a wholesale change in how we currently manage the high seas.

The world’s governments must give the green light at Rio to start negotiations on an agreement that implements the relevant marine conservation provisions under the UN Convention on Law of the Sea (paragraph 80 of the Zero Draft). This implementing agreement under UNCLOS should ensure that ocean resources are sustainably used, benefits derived from their use are equitably shared, and that it enables governments to act on their long-standing commitments to create a global network of marine reserves. This agreement is supported by the majority of the world’s governments, however a small handful of governments are currently standing in the way of progress.

We urge these government to stand aside and ensure that Rio becomes a critical milestone in safeguarding our oceans for now and future generations.

.

Monitoring ocean acidification and its effects: a proposal for Rio+20 Natural Resources Defense Council Addressing the problem

The single most important step we can take to address ocean acidification is to dramatically reduce CO2 emissions.

But we cannot afford to wait. Ocean acidification is already affecting marine life, and States and coastal communities need information that can help them assess risks, plan for impacts and initiate management strategies, including, for example:

pic: USFWS Pacific

An Integrated Global Monitoring Network The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is calling on the international community to develop, on an urgent basis, an integrated, international program aimed at monitoring the chemical, biological and socio-economic impacts of ocean acidification. Such a monitoring network is essential to provide States and coastal communities with the information necessary to prepare for the impacts of ocean acidification on fisheries, corals and marine food webs.

The problem

Carbon dioxide (CO2) from burning fossil fuels is changing the fundamental chemistry of our oceans. CO2 reacts with sea water to form carbonic acid. As atmospheric CO2 has risen, the oceans have become 30% more acidic over the last 150 years. This effect is measurable and undisputed.

Rising ocean acidity reduces the availability of carbonate, a critical component of shell-building. If acidity gets high enough, ocean water becomes corrosive and shells literally dissolve. Unchecked, ocean acidification could affect marine food webs and lead to substantial changes in commercial fish stocks, threatening protein supply and food security for millions of people, as well as the multibillion dollar global fishing industry. By mid-century, vast ocean regions may be inhospitable to coral growth and reefs will begin to erode faster than they can grow. Regions dependent on healthy coral reefs for fisheries, tourism, and storm protection will be profoundly impacted.

• Vulnerability Analyses – Based on current research and observations, scientists have identified broad geographic regions and marine species that are vulnerable. High latitudes, regions of upwelling, and coastal estuaries with heavy river input, will experience episodes of corrosive water first. In addition, certain species such as tropical corals and some oysters and other mollusks are particularly sensitive to changes in carbonate chemistry. There may be many other marine animals affected, and a more comprehensive and refined understanding of vulnerabilities is greatly needed.

• Early warning systems - Real-time information about ocean chemistry can serve as an early warning system for already affected regions and industries. For example, oyster hatcheries along the west coast of the United States have deployed monitoring systems to alert their operators to corrosive episodes, which are harmful to larval oysters. With the use of these systems, hatchery owners have restored their production by 80% and have rescued their businesses.

• Management guidance – Ocean acidification is happening against the backdrop of a rapidly changing ocean. In addition to changes in ocean chemistry, ocean water is getting warmer, oxygen availability is decreasing, and a host of local stressors exacerbate global change. Enhanced ocean observations are critically needed to improve ocean management in a changing world

.

Currently, there are only approximately thirty monitoring stations capable of measuring ocean acidity, and most of these are in developed countries. There is virtually no monitoring of biological impacts of acidification anywhere in the world. Without better monitoring, it will not be possible to identify areas of vulnerability or develop effective mitigation measures and management strategies.

RIO+20

3

Social aspects of sustainable tourism in the context of sustainable oceans, the green economy and the eradication of poverty Tourism Concern When the tsunami struck in December 2005 in India, Sri Lanka, Maldives and Thailand, it devastated coastal areas where both tourism and the fishing industry were embedded. The tsunami, for all its monstrous consequences to life and livelihood, none the less offered an opportunity for change. Crises normally present such an opportunity. If you are in the middle of such a crisis you can neither see that, nor believe it. But when circumstances are at their most fragile, the opportunity is there to rebuild something better – whether it is the way a family lives together or the way buildings are built and towns are planned. It usually takes an outsider or an outside organisation with experience, determination and commitment to look beyond such externally imposed destruction and perceive its latent potential and help to develop a new way of doing things.

Everyone can learn from mistakes.

Of course, a crisis also opens the door for opportunists of all kinds. Tourism Concern’s experience gave it the knowledge to understand the potential for positive change, particularly given that the coastal areas affected by the tragedy were mostly over-developed and had pre-existing environmental, economic, social and cultural problems.

Because we did not possess the resource capacity to be the supportive, outside organisation, we tried to persuade other agencies, with huge resources at their disposal to take this role. We failed. No-one wanted to hear our message, which was based on considerable research.

The consequences of our failure for these affected coastal people continue to be experienced today, nearly seven years later. These consequences include forced displacement of people from their land and an inability to maintain livelihoods, either because of being placed in new housing too far away or because coastal land has been secured for development and fishermen are no longer able to access the sea. The opportunity was there to rebuild in a consultative, appropriate and sustainable way. It is important to remember that the areas that were worst affected were those where sea defences of mangrove and coral had been removed as a result of tourism developments.

Tourism Concern is a campaigning organisation working to ensure that people’s human rights are not abused by tourism. We believe that destination stakeholders have a right to benefit from tourism and should also be able to participate as stakeholders in its appropriate development.

For more than 21 years, we have gathered evidence which sadly refutes the idea that tourism in poorer countries benefits the poor or that tourism brings people jobs that offer them positive opportunities. Tourism too often embeds people in poverty.

4

Coastal communities in particular are extremely vulnerable to new tourism developments. Tourism Concern knows of too many examples when a beautiful beach – once the fishing village has been removed – becomes the perfect site for the next eco-tourism lodge. Since the tsunami, we have been working with coastal groups in India and Sri Lanka to help them to understand the role of tourism in their current and future lives, and to support them as they combat the challenges to their ways of life, livelihoods and environments being posed by governments and developers and over which they have no control.

Bekal, in the Indian state of Kerala, is a classic example.

It illustrates much of Tourism Concern’s research into the tsunami-hit coasts of India, Thailand and Sri Lanka and also our on-going work. Bekal was established as India’s first Special Tourism Area in the 1990s. The Bekal Resorts Development Corporation Ltd (BRDC), a government agency formed to facilitate the development, has acquired 250 acres of land for six resorts.

Whilst the BRDC claims to focus on environmentallysensitive and socially responsible methods of development, the reality has seen lack of transparency and consultation with communities, violations of coastal regulations, and aggressive land acquisitions. Many local people claim to have been threatened with eviction if they refused to sell their land, often with virtually no prior notice. These include very poor fisher families who were forced into selling for as little as 25% of the market rate. Women were allegedly threatened whilst their husbands were at sea. More than a year after their forced displacement, promises to rehabilitate them are unfulfilled. Land for building new homes remains flooded, the rental accommodation provided is of poor quality, and rents that the BRDC said it would pay are in arrears.

Livelihoods have been undermined as the distance to the sea makes fishing unviable. Jobs promised at the resorts have not materialised. People must travel 1.5 kilometers to access safe drinking water, and there is no power supply. The houses are subject to flooding during heavy rains, exacerbating already poor sanitary conditions.

Various national laws have allegedly been violated by the BRDC and developers, including the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) notification, Wetland Conservation Act and Environment Protection Act. The developers have reportedly destroyed mangroves, reclaimed wetlands,

RIO+20

diverted rivers and taken over agricultural land. Buildings have been constructed within the no-development zone stipulated by the CRZ. Because of the alleged human rights abuses associated with its implementation, the Bekal development has attracted significant civil society opposition, including public campaigning and mass protest. Social tensions and resentment have led to some local people reportedly warning tourists not to visit.

The challenge to governments, tourism associations and the World Tourism Organization, as well as tourism developers, are to recognise the multiple human rights abuses associated with tourism and development. This challenge is reinforced by the new United Nations Guiding

Principles on Business and Human Rights. These Guiding Principles have received unprecedented levels of support from business leaders, governments and human rights groups. If another disaster occurs, the Guiding Principles are there to give a focus to any renewal and redevelopment. Although the tourism industry has been regrettably absent from their formulation, surely Rio+20 is the key opportunity for the industry to move forward and identify how it will accept its business responsibility to respect human rights

.

MORE INFO This article was originally published at the BE Monaco 2011 conference, which took place from 28th-30th November 2011: www.bemonaco2011.org, www.tourismconcern.org.uk

Riding the crest of ocean decisions for Rio+20 Joanna Benn Pew Environment Group Many of us are familiar with a common expression that we’d rather regret the things we did, than regret the things we didn’t.

I am writing as governments convene at the UN in New York to discuss the outcome document for Rio+20. After a year of hard work, oceans were declared as one of the priorities for Rio+20 in the document.

However, that is now at risk of becoming a note on a piece of paper, with the most ambitious and effective language in danger of being stripped out altogether.

To the cynics, Rio+20 will be another talk shop. To the idealists, it is a once in a decade chance to generate agreement around a common ambition and goal, to ensure that the ocean and its precious resources are protected for the future. It is a chance for real progress on the role of ocean conservation in sustainable development.

There is no need to list the benefits of ocean protection, or to reiterate future doomsday scenarios if we carry on with business as usual.

However, the global community needs to understand that multilateral action on a shared resource is complex and requires monumental political will, and that oceans need to be taken beyond the environmental and fisheries worlds and brought firmly into the sustainable development one.

One proposal in the initial Zero Draft document was to start the process to create an unprecedented, strong global commitment to safeguarding our planet’s ocean.

This includes setting in motion negotiations for a new international agreement to protect and conserve biodiversity on the high seas. Rio could enable the establishment of additional marine protected areas and reserves, and to ensure more sustainable fisheries.

Last October, the world's population reached 7 billion.

It is predicted to reach 9 billion by 2050, and as humanity's numbers continue rising, our dependence on the ocean, both as a source of nourishment and commerce, will only increase.

There is currently a huge mismatch between political will, scientific information, and global conservation imperatives.

The challenges are vast, but unlike previous generations, we have an advantage: We understand the consequences of our activities better and know what needs to happen.

The UN has sought to promote the ‘peaceful use of the seas and ocean, the equitable utilization of their resources, and the study, protection, and preservation of the marine environment,’ for decades. The world, however, still has a long way to go in living up to these grand ideals. We need renewed hope that the promise of stronger international stewardship of our ocean will be translated into action.

Pew and the Zoological Society of London are launching an animation on Tuesday 1st May, depicting the choices before governments right now. We have two possible futures. Where do we want to be in 2050? Can we make the right decisions in 2012 to make this occur?

Let’s think again of the popular Rio tagline – ‘The Future We Want’ – and make it happen. Let’s not regret inaction that could cost us the Earth

.

MORE INFO The animation is officially launching in English and Portuguese on Tuesday May 1st but a sneak advance preview can be seen here:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkQa1cyvHXE www.pewenvironment.org/ www.zsl.org/

RIO+20

5

Sustainable energy development:

The role of coasts, oceans and small island developing states Magdalena A K Muir Research Associate, Arctic Institute of North America; Adjunct Professor, John Hopkins University, and Advisory Board Member, Climate, Coast and Marine Union Sustainable energy development is increasingly important globally, nationally, and within the circumpolar Arctic. The tension between environment and development is evident in the production and use of energy. Fossil fuels have supported modern societies and lifted billions of people out of poverty. They have also changed landscapes and polluted both air and water. Now the production of CO2 is changing the climate. Oceans and islands can play a combined and supporting role in sustainable energy development.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has recently launched the Sustainable Energy for All initiative, and 2012 has been designated as the International Year of Sustainable Energy for All. The initiative has three interlinked global objectives for 2030: ensuring universal access to modern energy services; doubling the rate of improvement in energy efficiency; and doubling the share of renewables in the global energy mix.

The circumpolar Arctic, remote regions, small island developing states (SIDS), and developing countries all need flexibility in how they generate energy, but this energy can be low carbon, renewable and both delivered and used efficiently. Terrestrial and offshore winds, solar, geothermal energy, biofuels, and other renewable resources can collectively meet energy needs, while simultaneously supporting local development, achieving greenhouse gas emission reductions, and addressing crucial issues such as energy and water security. In all of these areas, coasts, oceans and renewable energy can play a vital role.

National and regional policies, fiscal initiatives, public-private partnerships, and civil society programs are all key tools for encouraging the development of renewable energy and increasing energy efficiency. This is true across all regions, with the circumpolar Arctic and SIDS being no exception.

Specific projects focusing on education and training are required, as well those striving to emphasise the links between renewable energy and water efficiency – especially in places such as the circumpolar Arctic and SIDS. Renewable energy projects in coasts and offshore areas can address water security as well as water quality and quantity, through innovative integrations of energy and water systems. A particularly good example here is the integration of renewable energy with desalination and aquifer replenishment and management systems. The Arctic, SIDS and arid regions all share a common need to integrate energy and water systems to increase the efficient use of both these resources. Increased efficiency in these areas can in turn be a driver for poverty alleviation and mitigate against climate change.

6

RIO+20

For example, the Arctic, SIDS and arid regions have extensive geothermal, ocean, solar, and wind resources in coastal and marine zones, but typically rely on hydrocarbons to generate electricity. In particular, the Arctic and SIDS share common environmental and oil spill risks to land and seas, from the transport of hydrocarbons from tanker to refinery. All regions have common issues with water quality and water scarcity that renewable energy, desalination, ground water and aquifer management and replenishment, as well as innovative approaches to water treatment can all address.

The Arctic, SIDS and arid regions are also the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Each are already experiencing higher temperatures, fluctuating precipitation rates, depletion of aquifers and groundwater, saline intrusion of coastal and island aquifers, and increased water quality issues and increased incidences of waterborne illnesses. Abundant renewable energy can assist in addressing all these concerns.

In all regions, the intermittent nature of renewable energy can be addressed by energy and water storage options (including hydrogen storage and aquifer re-injection and management) or by retaining hydrocarbon generation as a backup, emergency or peak energy source. For adjacent islands, transmission lines between their coasts can integrate renewable resources and markets. This is yet another service provided by coasts and oceans.

All regions possess rich sources of both local and traditional knowledge and technologies with regards to the use and management of energy and water resources.

These include rainwater water harvesting and storage; agricultural terracing and irrigation; energy and water efficient traditional architecture and buildings. Such innovations can augment and compliment renewable energy knowledge and technology, and the integration of energy and water systems. Similarly, as projects utilising these methods evolve, so too does the scope for knowledge and technology transfer, seeing capacity development occur across the Arctic, SIDS and arid regions.

Sustainable energy development and water linkages have already been recognised in the lead up to Rio+20. There have been preparatory conferences, submissions, and paragraphs in the Zero Draft text, which have all explicitly recognised the links between energy and water. There are opportunities for collaboration and strategic allegiances at Rio+20 and beyond on research, project development, technology and capacity development transfer for energy and water across all key regions. Additionally, there could be opportunities for building synergies between those arid regions, which are currently leading in the use of renewable energy technologies and projects to address

water security and scarcity, the Arctic, small islands and other regions of the world. Last, renewable energy projects that are not integrated in electricity grids may also be eligible for carbon credit as small scale renewable energy projects under the Clean Development Mechanism, which may improve the economics of some of these projects.

Other international meetings and processes have also recognised the linkages between oceans and energy. For example, at the 2nd Assembly of the International Renewable Agency and the World Future Energy Summit in Abu Dhabi in January 2012, there was clear political recognition of the nexus between energy and water by the arid countries of the Middle East and Gulf States, as well as focused assistance on the Pacific region for renewable energy and desalination

by Asian states. This connection was also recognised in the Marseille Declaration, which was issued on March 13,

2012 at the World Water Forum. Finally, the launch of the International Water Summit, in conjunction with the World Future Energy Summit in Abu Dhabi in January 2013, also indicates the growing acknowledgement of the connection between energy and water. Rio+20, therefore, represents an ideal opportunity to further strengthen this connection in both policy and practice

.

MORE INFO This text is derived in part from a sustainable energy development project being implemented by in cooperation with the Master of Science - Energy Policy & Climate Program at John Hopkins University in Washington D.C., the Coastal and Marine Union (EUCC) based in Leiden, Netherlands; and the Arctic Institute of North America at the University of Calgary.

RIO+20

7

Pacific fisheries need tech to track climate impact Johann Bell Principal Fisheries Scientist at the Secretariat of the Pacific Community This article was originally published by Science and Development Network (www.scidev.net/en/)

Climate change could derail plans

by Pacific Island countries and territories (PICTs) to use fisheries and aquaculture to foster economic development and food security.

Bottom-dwelling coastal fish are expected to be hardest hit. Under continued high emissions of greenhouse gases, stocks of these fish are estimated to decrease by 20% by 2050 due to global warming and ocean acidification, which affect the fish themselves as well as the coral reefs that support them. But much uncertainty remains about the impacts of climate change. And contrary to assessments for some other parts of the world, the projections for fisheries and aquaculture in the Pacific are not all negative.

Fisheries boost

In particular, tuna stocks are expected to rise in the eastern Pacific, and increased rainfall is likely to improve the production of freshwater fisheries and pond aquaculture in the western Pacific. Indeed, many communities could switch their fishing efforts to tuna that frequent coastal waters. By installing anchored fish aggregating devices (FADs) to temporarily hold tuna, small-scale fishers could access these valuable resources more easily.

Building networks of inshore FADs to increase coastal communities' access to tuna is an example of a 'winwin adaptation': it will help supply the additional fish needed by growing populations in ways that are likely to be favoured by climate change. Governments should strengthen investments in monitoring the success of such 'win-win adaptations'.

Technical solutions

There are technologies available to help managers monitor the effects of fishing and climate change on coastal fish stocks. For example, digital photography and image analysis can simplify sampling to determine species composition and the size of catches landed at fish markets, providing a baseline against which change can be measured. In addition, governments routinely conduct household and income expenditure surveys which could be modified to assess the success of efforts to increase the proportion of tuna in the catch of coastal communities.

8

Simple methods for collecting remotely-sensed data, and ground-truthing this information, also have a role to play in separating the effects of climate change from other stressors on the coral reef habitats that support fish stocks. Regular mapping of vegetation cover in water catchment areas will also be needed to monitor the success of re-vegetation programmes, designed to prevent sediments and nutrients from degrading coral reefs fringing the coast.

Missing information

But existing monitoring tools are not in place for coastal fisheries in many PICTs. Even the basic information required for fisheries management, such as the relative abundance and sizes of fish landed at main markets, is often missing. Although the technology underpinning some of the priority adaptations to climate change is mature, additional surveys and planning will be needed to identify sites with the appropriate conditions.

Alongside these efforts, training programmes are needed to improve the technical skills of coastal communities that are adapting to climate change by increasing their tuna catches and engaging in pond aquaculture. The training should extend to improving post-harvest methods to increase the shelf life of fish caught and produced in remote areas.

Long-term effort

PICTs will need to invest in a variety of monitoring programmes to improve their understanding of industrial tuna fisheries. The returns could be significant, if not vital — industrial fisheries contribute 10–40% of government revenue in four PICTs, and 10–20% of GDP in two PICTs. Tuna canneries also provide 12,000 jobs across the region.

There are key improvements that governments should make. Observer programmes that currently monitor fishing practices on industrial tuna fleets need to be expanded to provide the basic biological data needed to better understand the function of ecosystems that support tuna, and to determine whether these ecosystems are being affected by fishing and the changing climate.

Investing in more comprehensive observer programmes that improve the quantity and quality of data will also help to build and validate the biophysical models needed to assess the potential production of tuna across the Pacific. And new technology is needed on-board purseseine fishing vessels (boats that surround schools of tuna with large nets). The necessary tools and capabilities for long-term monitoring programmes must be developed as soon as possible — the longer the data are available, the greater the power to detect change and provide the information needed for adaptive management

.

RIO+20

Plenty more fish in the sea?

This issue of Outreach highlights the critical importance of oceans – 70% of the earth – in maintaining the dynamic equilibrium between our ecosystems that support the flourishing of life itself in all its forms. We now face challenges at multiple fronts, from sustaining aquaculture and marine life, to the relationship between energy generation and oceans and how to responsibly explore these options; as well as responding to the multiple stresses that the oceans are under.

In addition to all of the above factors, we acknowledge the need to respect the services that oceans offer us. Respect is borne out of an understanding and appreciation of the significant role of someone, or something, in our lives; and so it is that for millennia people have understood that whilst they are able to fish for food that sustains them, so it is that they must be sustainable in the way that they fish. In applying this fundamental approach to fishing practices, people have been able to ensure that, to use a turn of phrase, there will always be plenty more fish in the sea.

But with the rate of overfishing irresponsibly increasing, we are no longer paying the oceans the respect it deserves, nor are we respecting our responsibilities to future generations to ensure fishstocks do not decline as rapidly as they currently are. Young people now have something to say about this, and would like the Rio+20 process to hear their concerns.

Almost a year ago, on 24th May 2011, a gathering of 5 – 20 year olds converged on the famous London department store – Selfridges - as part of an event that marked the launch of the 'intergenerational contract' between themselves and policy and law makers in the area of fisheries.

Kirsty Schneeberger, Stakeholder Forum Teaming up with organisations such as the Zoological Society of London (ZSL), the Marine Conservation Society and Greenpeace, Selfridges put sustainability at the heart of its purchasing practices and launched ‘Project Ocean.’ - transforming its food policies to only buy and sell fish that had been sustainably sourced. It also teamed up with lawyers from Clientearth who worked to develop an intergenerational contract between young people and their leader,s to protect the oceans for future generations. A Declaration of Young People's Rights to a Healthy Planet will also be presented in Rio+20, which calls on leaders to 'bequeath them a healthy ocean'.

The initiative sparked some lively debates about the responsibility that present decision-makers and leaders (especially business leaders) have to the next generation. It is an admirable and compelling example of how lawyers and young people can work together to not only offer current (and future) generations a way to have their voices heard; but to also teach them the rules of a game that is disproportionately exploiting their share of the resources and natural services that the world provides us all and deserves our respect. In so doing, it is hoped that young people will be inspired to step off the side-lines and take part in the game; or better still, perhaps even rewrite the rules themselves

.

MORE INFO Amended and updated from the author’s blog for the Environmental Regulation and Information Centre, first published online: www.

eric-group.co.uk/environmental_regulation_story.php?content_id=248

Rio+20 Side Event Calendar

01 May 2012

30 April 2012

27 April 2012

26 April 2012

Date

Time

Room

Title

Organisers

1:15-2:45

4

The Future We Want for Rio+20 on Oceans and Seas

UN DPI

1:15-2:45

A

Global outlook and local action: water and energy for sustainable development

Governments of Slovenia, Costa Rica, Cape Verde, Iceland, Singapore, UAE (the Green Group)

6:15-7:45

7

Blue Carbon as a Tool to Mitigate Climate Change and Preserve Key Marine and Coastal Ecosystems

UNESCO, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC)

1:15-2:45

7

The State of the World Environment told by UNEP’s GEO-5 report and Global Solutions for Sustainability

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

1:15-2:45

A

Rights at Risk: Decoding the Green Economy

France Libertes Foundation Danielle Mitterrand

1:15-2:45

4

Planet Under pressure

ICSU-UNESCO-IGBP

1:15-2:45

B

The Power of One Child – Global Action Classroom

Earth Child Institute

1:15-2:45

7

Advancing the Sustainability Science Agenda: To Support Sustainable Development and the Green Economy

Chief Scientists Office, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

1:15-2:45

3

From Harmful Subsidies to Safe Subsidies

Greenpeace International

6:15-7:45

B

New York + 20: Youth led action for sustainable development

Columbia University Coalition for Sustainable Development

1:15-2:45

7

Moving Towards Meaningful Private Sector Contribution to Sustainable Development

Stakeholder Forum for a Sustainable Future

1:15-2:45

B

Taking Natural Capital into account: how can SDG’s, Green Economy Roadmaps and National Sustainability Plans properly maintain and value the Earth’s Natural Capital as part of a postRio+20 framework

BioRegional Development Group

1:15-2:45

3

People and the Planet: The priorities for Rio+20

The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)

RIO+20

9

Reflections on the negotiations - Wednesday, 25th April Emma Puka-Beals

Tamasin Ramsay, PhD

Wednesday’s negotiations on sections III and V opened with CST text on green jobs and social inclusion. The G77 continued to work off of CST text, but moved to delete language on the green job creation that it found overly prescriptive. Several delegates agreed on deleting examples of potential green jobs, as they felt that the list was non-exhaustive and unnecessary.

All non-CST text was deleted between paragraphs pre73 and 77, at which point several delegates asked to retain text on social protection, rights to resources, and special reference to indigenous peoples and migrants. In regards to oceans and seas were very few major edits, with support for inclusion of a ‘blue economy’ and text on limiting ocean fertilisation.

Yesterday was day three of the second round of Informal Informal negotiations on the text of the Rio+20 Outcome Document.

Governments are showing their strength and flexibility as they confer on all areas of Sustainable Development. In equal measure though, resolute sticking points are also becoming glaringly apparent.

Mount Holyoke College

Anthropologist, Monash University, Australia

Afternoon negotiations on acidification, fisheries and subsidies were more contentious, with delegates expressing concern over the increasing amount of retained text and growing resemblance of CST paragraphs to the heavily edited text of the negotiated Zero Draft. Text on limiting fish harvests and transparency was reintroduced, and the conversation on subsidy reform was inconclusive and recommended for deletion, as it had remained unresolved in other fora as well.

In text on marine resource management, six of ten Zero Draft paragraphs were retained.

Fundamental differences in opinion arose during the discussion on the vulnerability of SIDS, which informed opposing deletions and interventions, and were inconclusive. In the text on disaster risk reduction, text linking security with the three pillars was retained, and text on a network of global earth observation systems was introduced

.

One area of debate during the morning session of Working Group 2 was international political support for addressing the complex environmental, social and economic troubles experienced on the continent of Africa.

Some government representatives were adamant that the text must reflect the lack of political commitments to date in supporting Africa’s development needs. A number of others felt it was a pessimistic remark, and failed to consider the work that has been done towards alleviating the problems within Africa so far.

I noted with interest that the governments that are steadfast in their wish to highlight the gap between political commitment and implementation, are the same ones who consistently wish to remove explicit references to areas that empower women: access to modern technologies, adequate child and maternal health and family planning services. They do not accept women as “powerful agents of change [delete]”. I couldn’t help but query the connection. If these governments indeed recognised women as key decision makers, and the central role of women in facilitating positive change, perhaps they could bring about greater progress from within their states, utilising to their fullest capacity the inherent potential within their entire social strata.

(CONTINUED NEXT COLUMN)

Outreach is made possible by the support of

We are all stakeholders in this conversation, and as such our decisions and activities from now on must reaffirm the dignity of each and every human spirit, and the finite capacities and delicate state of the earth’s resources.

Then government and citizens together can create visionary frameworks to help us realise the future we all seek.

.

Naomi Kumazawa

MGCY/Environmental Partnership Council Japan Negotiations of Working Group 2 (Section I, II, & IV) have reached the second round of reading, streamlining the text. On some issues, proceeding has seemed to complicate matters and confuse the negotiators themselves, such as in paragraph 18, about the participation of civil society, access to information and justice, and communication technologies (Principle 10); paragraph 24, on corporate sustainability reporting; and paragraph 2, on the participation of youth and children. Nonetheless, these procedures are beginning to uncover the key issues and specific language each member state is pushing for.

Late in the afternoon, the co-chair commented "I do not need to remind you, that you have not reached a single agreement all afternoon." Finding an agreement point on contradicting issues is one thing, but that is only the start. I do not yet see the negotiation process taking forward steps for making differences toward a sustainable future. The paragraph on participation of youth and children as proposed by some delegates was weakened down to just recognising the influence of present decisions on the future. Isn't it the decisions we make, that will make the future we want?

.