UN Aims To Transform Urgency Into Action At Nice Ocean Conference
The third United Nations Ocean Conference (UNOC 3) from 9-13 June will bring together Heads of State, scientists, civil society and business leaders around a single goal: to halt the silent collapse of the planet's largest – and arguably most vital – ecosystem.
The ocean is suffocating due to rising temperatures, rampant acidification, erosion of biodiversity, plastic invasion, predatory fishing.
'A state of emergency'
' Our planet's life support system is in a state of emergency,' said Li Junhua, head of the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) and the Secretary-General of the upcoming summit.
He insisted that there is still time to change course.
' The future of the ocean is not predetermined. It will be shaped by the decisions and actions that we are making now,' Mr. Li said on Tuesday during a press briefing at UN Headquarters in New York.
In the eyes of the senior official, UNOC 3 'will not be just another routine gathering.'
'We hope that it proves to be the pivotal opportunity to accelerate action and mobilize all stakeholders across the sectors and borders.'
World-class conference
More than 50 world leaders are expected on the Côte d'Azur, alongside 1,500 delegates from nearly 200 countries.
The programme includes 10 plenary meetings, 10 thematic roundtables, a blue zone reserved for official delegations, and a series of parallel forums during five days of negotiations.
For France, which is co-hosting the conference alongside Costa Rica, the challenge is clear: to make Nice a historic milestone.
'This is an emergency,' declared Jérôme Bonnafont, Permanent Representative of France to the UN, during the press conference.
'An ecological emergency: we are witnessing the deterioration of the quality of the oceans as an environment, as a reservoir of biodiversity, as a carbon sink.'
France hopes to make the conference a turning point and the goal 'is to produce a Nice agreement that is pro-oceans, as the Paris Agreement 10 years ago now was for the climate.'
This agreement will take the form of a Nice Action Plan for the Ocean, a 'concise action-oriented declaration,' according to Mr. Li, accompanied by renewed voluntary commitments.
Three milestones
Three events will prepare the ground for UNOC 3.
The One Ocean Science Congress, from 4-6 June, will bring together several thousand researchers. The Summit on Ocean Rise and Coastal Resilience to be held the following day will explore responses to rising sea levels. Finally, the Blue Economy Finance Forum, on 7-8 June in Monaco, will mobilize investors and policymakers.
For Costa Rican Ambassador Maritza Chan Valverde, there is no more time for procrastination.
' We're expecting concrete commitments with clear timelines, budgets and accountability mechanisms. What is different this time around, zero rhetoric, maximum results,' she said.
'Transform ambition into action'
The conference's theme Accelerating Action and Mobilizing All Stakeholders to Conserve and Sustainably Use the Ocean will address several topics, ranging from sustainable fishing to marine pollution and the interactions between climate and biodiversity.
' This is our moment to transform ambition into action,' Mr. Li concluded, calling for governments, businesses, scientists, and civil society to come together in a common spirit.
He also praised the 'visionary leadership' of France and Costa Rica, without whom this large-scale mobilization would not have been possible.
A slogan promoted by Costa Rica seems to sum up the spirit of the summit: 'Five days. One ocean. One unique opportunity.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
7 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
World Court poised to mark future course of climate litigation
The United Nations' highest court will deliver an opinion on Wednesday that is likely to determine the course of future climate action across the world. Known as an advisory opinion, the deliberation of the 15 judges of the International Court of Justice in The Hague is legally non-binding. It nevertheless carries legal and political weight and future climate cases would be unable to ignore it, legal experts say. 'The advisory opinion is probably the most consequential in the history of the court because it clarifies international law obligations to avoid catastrophic harm that would imperil the survival of humankind," said Payam Akhavan, an international law professor. In two weeks of hearings last December at the ICJ, also known as the World Court, Akhavan represented low-lying, small island states that face an existential threat from rising sea levels. In all, over a hundred states and international organisations gave their views on the two questions the UN General Assembly had asked the judges to consider. They were: what are countries' obligations under international law to protect the climate from greenhouse gas emissions; and what are the legal consequences for countries that harm the climate system? Wealthy countries of the Global North told the judges that existing climate treaties, including the 2015 Paris Agreement, which are largely non-binding, should be the basis for deciding their responsibilities. Developing nations and small island states argued for stronger measures, in some cases legally binding, to curb emissions and for the biggest emitters of climate-warming greenhouse gases to provide financial aid. PARIS AGREEMENT AND AN UPSURGE IN LITIGATION In 2015, at the conclusion of UN talks in Paris, more than 190 countries committed to pursue efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). The agreement has failed to curb the growth of global greenhouse gas emissions. Late last year, in the most recent "Emissions Gap Report," which takes stock of countries' promises to tackle climate change compared with what is needed, the UNsaid that current climate policies would result in global warming of more than 3C (5.4 F) above pre-industrial levels by 2100. As campaigners seek to hold companies and governments to account, climate‑related litigation has intensified, with nearly 3000 cases filed across almost 60 countries, according to June figures from London's Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. So far, the results have been mixed. A German court in May threw out a case between a Peruvian farmer and German energy giant RWE, but his lawyers and environmentalists said the case, which dragged on for a decade, was a still victory for climate cases that could spur similar lawsuits. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which holds jurisdiction over 20 Latin American and Caribbean countries, said in another advisory opinion its members must cooperate to tackle climate change. Campaigners say Wednesday's court opinion should be a turning point and that, even if the ruling itself is advisory, it should provide for the determination that UN member states have broken the international law they have signed up to uphold. "The court can affirm that climate inaction, especially by major emitters, is not merely a policy failure but a breach of international law," said Fijian Vishal Prasad, one of the law students who lobbied the government of Vanuatu in the South Pacific Ocean to bring the case to the ICJ. Although it is theoretically possible to ignore an ICJ ruling, lawyers say countries are typically reluctant to do so. "This opinion is applying binding international law, which countries have already committed to. National and regional courts will be looking to this opinion as a persuasive authority and this will inform judgments with binding consequences under their own legal systems," said Joie Chowdhury, senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law.
NZ Herald
8 hours ago
- NZ Herald
International court will clarify countries' obligations and consequences for polluters
This is the crux of the matter and speaks to the first question put to the court on countries' responsibilities to tackle climate change. ICJ judges will seek to pull together different strands of environmental law into one definitive international standard. Top polluters say this is unnecessary, and that the legal provisions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change are sufficient. But opponents argue the ICJ should adopt a broader yardstick, including human rights law and the laws of the sea. Vanuatu urged judges to consider 'the entire corpus of international law' in its opinion, arguing the ICJ was uniquely placed to do so. The ICJ is 'the only international jurisdiction with a general competence over all areas of international law, which allows it to provide such an answer,' Vanuatu said. 2 And the consequences? This is the more controversial second question the judges will consider: what are the legal repercussions - if any - for countries who significantly contribute to the climate crisis? The United States, the world's biggest historical emitter of greenhouse gases, and other top polluters referred the court to the landmark 2015 Paris Agreement, which does not explicitly provide for direct compensation for past damage. Issues around liability are highly sensitive in climate negotiations, but at UN talks in 2022 wealthy nations did agree to create a fund to help vulnerable countries deal with current impacts caused by past pollution. Many top polluters also say it is impossible to assign blame to individual countries for a global phenomenon with unequal effects. Those on the other side of the debate point to a basic principle of international law - 'ubi jus, ubi remedium' - roughly speaking, where there's blame, there's a claim. In legal jargon, this should result in cessation, non-repetition, and reparation, argue the climate-vulnerable nations. They want the ICJ to propose a stop to fossil fuel subsidies, a drastic reduction in emissions, and a formal commitment and timeline for decarbonisation. They also demand monetary reparation, as well as increased support for adapting to the devastating future effects of climate change. 3 Harm or no harm? Another key point is the issue of 'transboundary' law, often known as the 'no-harm' rule. Put simply, this key tenet of international law means one state should not permit activities on its territory that could cause damage to another. The question ICJ judges will have to consider is: does this apply to greenhouse gas emissions that have contributed to climate change? Major polluters argue this law does not apply to climate change as there is no single, specific source that can be identified as damaging another state. Others say that climate change should not be an exception. Other major international judicial decisions in recent months have looked to increasing scientific precision in the link between human-caused climate change and severe impacts like extreme weather, nature loss and sea level rise. 4 When did they know? A fundamental debating point in the oral hearings was: when did governments become aware greenhouse gas emissions were harming the planet? The late 1980s, according to the United States. Switzerland said no one could have linked emissions to rising temperatures before scientific studies in that decade. Rubbish, say climate-vulnerable countries, who point to research in developed nations as early as the 1960s. This could have an impact on when potential reparations kick in. 5 'Future generations' The concept of 'intergenerational equity' is another fundamental demand of the young climate justice campaigners who helped bring this case to the world's highest court. 'The impact of climate change is not bounded by time,' argued Namibia, with the worst effects hitting people decades or maybe centuries later. But developed countries counter that the rights of as-yet-unborn people have no force in international law. 'Human beings alive now cannot claim rights on behalf of future generations,' argued Germany. -Agence France-Presse
Scoop
10 hours ago
- Scoop
Dunedin Airport Art Protest
Remember that its a climate emergency and in 2018 our government committed to halving emissions by 2030 under the terms of the historical Paris Agreement? Tuesday July 22nd 2pm at Dunedin airport Recently I began a small ongoing 'art meets activism project' with my colleague, Craig Hilton, in which a person simply stands in a high profile place with a small A3 sign saying 'It's a Climate Emergency'. This well dressed person (me) stands somewhere quietly with a small A3 sized sign around my neck saying 'It's a Climate Emergency' and any interesting interactions with passersby or the authorities are documented by Craig. He is not obviously part of 'the protest' but just standing somewhere close by in case something happens which is worth documenting. Yesterday we went out to Dunedin airport, which is jointly owned by the Dunedin City Council, who declared a climate emergency in 2019 and the government, who declared one in 2020. You might think someone standing there with a small and uncontroversial sign reminding the airport of its owners stated policy wouldn't provoke much of a reaction at all? Well, you'd be wrong. It only took a couple of minutes before airport security and police turned up and asked us to leave. It should be noted that I approached the information desk as soon as we arrived and introduced myself and said I'd be wandering around a little bit with this sign and they didn't seem to think it would be a problem. Our timing wasn't random – we were there to greet some of the passengers coming off one of Jetstar's three new direct flights a week from the Gold Coast to Dunedin. These new international flights have provoked a price war with Air New Zealand with both companies offering a greater range of discounted international flights. Remember that it's a climate emergency and in 2018 our government committed to halving emissions by 2030 under the terms of the historical Paris Agreement? The man from airport security he made it clear he wanted us to leave immediately. We hadn't interacted with any of the passengers coming off the plane and I doubt they even noticed me but apparently we were both causing 'a problem.' As a long-time climate activist and artist I can't help but notice the increasing disconnect between the reality of the terrifying and ongoing ecological catastrophe which is overwhelming the planet and the head down 'business as usual' approach which is being promoted by this government, as well as much of the mainstream media. As a passionate believer in free speech and the right to protest, I find it surprising that an old man standing quietly at the airport with a small sign can provoke a police response. Many people stand at the airport holding small signs to highlight themselves to arriving passengers for 'legitimate business reasons' and it's obvious that my tiny sign wasn't the problem, it was the words on it. I elected not to leave until I was trespassed and was duly taken round the corner to the police part of the airport and given a formal trespass notice from the airport for two years. As a climate activist I stopped flying on planes many years ago so this was hardly an imposition. To be clear – I am not saying I don't want anyone to ever fly again but I do want people to understand that their holiday choices have real world implications which affect us all. A return flight from Dunedin to the Gold Coast for one person produces roughly 1.3 to 2.6 tonnes of CO2 per passenger. The average New Zealander individually produces around 7 tonnes of CO2 equivalent (t CO2-e) per year so if two people take a return trip to the Gold Coast then this one return flight will produce up to five tonnes of emissions which is a big whack of someone's annual total and recent climate models (see – 'The Mortality Effects of Carbon' by Daniel Bressler -published in the journal 'Nature Communications' in 2021) predict that just four return flights with around 250 people on board could produce enough emissions to kill someone by heat related causes by the end of the century, not counting all of the fires and floods etc. I would like people to be more aware of their carbon footprints and try to do the best they can to reduce them at a time when people and animals are already dying all over the world from the effects of this ongoing climate emergency. I am not against people making important visits to see their relatives and for other important reasons but I do want people to know the true possible costs of a quick holiday in the sun.
