170 nations in Nice commit to expand marine protected areas, combat pollution
Nice (France): The 2025 United Nations Ocean Conference concluded with more than 170 countries adopting an inter-governmentally agreed declaration committing to urgent action to conserve and sustainably use the world's oceans.
The political declaration titled 'Our ocean, Our future: United for urgent action' calls for concrete steps to expand marine protected areas, decarbonise maritime transport, combat marine pollution, and mobilise finance for vulnerable coastal and island nations, among others.
The declaration -- together with bold voluntary commitments by states and other entities -- constitutes the Nice Ocean Action Plan, successfully concluding the five-day conference with a boost to environmental multilateralism.
'Pledges made this week must be rigorously implemented, tracked, and scaled,' said United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs Li Junhua, who served as the conference Secretary-General.
'The momentum we have generated must carry us forward to COP30, global and regional ocean forums, and national decision-making, and translate into decisive national action.'
Voluntary commitments made during the conference include: The European Commission, as part of its Ocean Pact, announced an investment of 1 billion EUR to support ocean conservation, science and sustainable fishing.
French Polynesia pledged to create the world's largest marine protected area to safeguard its seas, covering its entire exclusive economic zone, approximately 5 million square km (1.93 million square miles).
New Zealand committed over $52 million towards supporting enhanced ocean governance, management and science in the Pacific Islands region.
Germany launched a 100 million EUR immediate action programme for the recovery and clearance of legacy munitions in the German Baltic and North Seas -- the first of its kind.
Indonesia, the World Bank and other partners launched a Coral Bond, a groundbreaking financial instrument designed to mobilise private capital to conserve coral reef ecosystems within marine protected areas in Indonesia.
Thirty-seven countries, led by Panama and Canada, launched the High Ambition Coalition for a Quiet Ocean -- the first high-level political initiative to tackle ocean noise pollution on a global scale.
Italy committed 6.5 million EUR to strengthen surveillance by the Coast Guard in marine protected areas and on oil platforms, including through a satellite surveillance system capable of detecting potential oil spills in real time.
Canada contributed 9 million US dollars to the Ocean Risk and Resilience Action Alliance to help Small Island Developing States and coastal developing countries increase their resilience to the impacts of climate change through nature-based solutions.
Spain committed to creating five new marine protected areas that would allow protection of 25 per cent of its marine territory.
A collective of United Nations agencies and global partners launched a co-design process for One Ocean Finance -- a bold new effort to unlock billions in new financing from ocean-dependent industries and blue economy sectors.
A United Nations Ocean Conference report, listing the voluntary commitments in an annex, will be published after the summit.
In a big step towards entry into force of the agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ Agreement), 19 more states ratified the agreement in the margins of the conference, and 20 more signed it, bringing the total number of signatures to 136, and ratifications to 50 states plus the European Union.
Ten more ratifications are needed for the agreement to enter into force.
The BBNJ Agreement, adopted in June 2023, is a crucial legal instrument to protect marine life and ecosystems in the two-thirds of the ocean that lie beyond any country's jurisdiction.
From June 9 to 13, as many as 55 heads of state and government, along with 15,000 participants from civil society, business, and science, participated in the UN Ocean Conference co-hosted by France and Costa Rica, including more than 450 side events, to accelerate action and mobilise all actors to conserve and sustainably use the world's oceans.
Ten ocean action panels produced forward-looking recommendations to guide implementation across key themes -- from marine pollution and nature-based solutions to the role of women, youth, and indigenous peoples in ocean governance.
The fourth UN Ocean Conference in 2028 will be co-hosted by Chile and Korea.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
41 minutes ago
- Hans India
Why are neighbours always so terrible, Pakistan, Israel-Palestine, Ukraine-Russia
There's a question that haunts not just citizens of conflict-ridden regions but every concerned global citizen: Why are the neighbours always so terrible? Across the world, relationships between many bordering nations are marked more by mistrust and enmity than cooperation and peace. From Russia's ongoing war with Ukraine to the complex, ever-flammable Middle East crisis involving Israel, Palestine, Iran, Yemen, etc., and back to the subcontinent where India and Pakistan remain locked in a hot and cold conflict -- tension is always simmering. Why is it so hard for countries to be civilised neighbours? The answer, of course, isn't simple. Global diplomacy is layered and politically charged. History, identity, borders drawn in haste, and the scars of colonialism have left deep wounds. The role of religion and ideology often worsens these divides. But somewhere in this maze, a disturbing truth exists: some nations choose confrontation not just as a reaction but as a core part of their identity. Take, for instance, Pakistan. Since its inception on August 14, 1947, it has fashioned its national identity in opposition to India. From the very moment it emerged as a separate country -- born of the violent partition of the subcontinent -- it has behaved not like a neighbour wanting peaceful coexistence but like a rival consumed by bitterness. Its obsession with the two-nation theory and religious identity has driven its politics into a perpetual state of hostility. The pattern of aggression was set early. From sending tribal raiders to annexe Kashmir immediately after Independence to initiating multiple wars in 1947, 1965, 1971, and 1999 and finally, cross-border terrorism in the 1990s -- Pakistan has ticked every box on the "how to be a bad neighbour" checklist. And while its political leaders often pronounce the rhetorical words of peace, the control lies firmly with its military establishment, which believes that hostility with India is a means of staying in power. When the Pakistani Army Chief made a communal statement targeting Hindus and Muslims -- and the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack quickly followed it -- it became clear how deep this rot goes. The attack wasn't just another episode of terrorism; it was a loud signal that the facade of deniability was being dropped. Pakistan, which had long pretended not to shelter terrorist elements, is now owning them openly. The pictures and video clips of its army's top ranks attending the funerals of the terrorists killed in Operation Sindoor and being given state honours exposed Pakistan's duality. It has made known to the world that terrorists are its other wings. The political class and the army-led establishment only want to build nurseries for terrorists, and they are least bothered about fighting poverty. According to World Bank data, nearly 45 per cent of Pakistan's population lives in poverty, with 16.5 per cent classified as living in extreme poverty. The economy is on life support, seeking bailouts from the IMF every few years. But despite all this, the country continues to funnel money and manpower into terror factories rather than schools and hospitals. For over three decades, Pakistan has cultivated a shadow war strategy against India -- arming, funding, and sheltering terrorist networks while maintaining deniability on international platforms. The 26/11 Mumbai attacks, perhaps the darkest chapter in modern Indian history, still haven't seen justice delivered because of Pakistan's consistent stonewalling and dishonesty. But the rules are changing now. The April 22 attack in Pahalgam seems to have been the final straw. India has made it clear that this isn't going to be tolerated anymore. Operation Sindoor, the military and strategic response to this latest provocation, signals a turning point. No longer will India allow proxy-war tactics to go unanswered. The gloves are off. In a broader context, this isn't just about India and Pakistan. It's about how nations perceive power, identity, and survival in a polarised world. Russia sees Ukraine's alignment with the West as a threat; Israel, locked in an existential struggle, responds with overwhelming force while its adversaries dig deeper into the cycle of extremism. In each of these relationships, grievance and retaliation feed off each other, leaving little room for dialogue. For Pakistan, the opportunity to reset relations with India has come and gone several times. But so long as its army runs its foreign policy and its politics remain trapped in identity warfare, things are unlikely to change. And currently, no one knows what will happen further in Ukraine-Russia, Israel-Hamas, and now it is Israel-Iran or maybe more hot spots will join in tomorrow. India did well by halting its Operation Sindoor and keeping Pakistan in a perpetual state of nervousness. The neighbour is silent for now, but its covert efforts to foment trouble in Jammu and Kashmir continue. The army has been thwarting infiltration efforts along the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir. Despite being on notice, the sad reality persists: some neighbours seem determined to remain terrible.
New Indian Express
5 hours ago
- New Indian Express
India's real surgical strike wasn't in the skies, but in waters
During Operation Sindoor, while rabid television anchors were replaying fake videos, breathlessly discussing dogfights that never happened and lying about Indian Navy bombing Karachi, the real devastating victory came not from the roar of warplanes but from the flow of waters. India's decision to suspend the flow of the Indus to Pakistan is not just a policy move. It is a tectonic shift in the subcontinent's balance of power; one with consequences far deeper than the craters left by airstrikes. For decades, India, the upper riparian state, abided by the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), a Cold War-era relic negotiated with the help of the World Bank that gifted Pakistan 80 per cent of the waters of the Indus, Ravi, Sutlej, and Beas. Even during wars, when Indian soldiers returned wrapped in tricolour, the rivers flowed. India kept its word. Pakistan sent jihadis; we sent water. This time, India rewrote the rules of engagement, not with fighter jets, but with geography. By moving to suspend rivers from entering Pakistan, India made a strategic move: it reminded Pakistan of what real helplessness looks like. You can build a nuke. You can train a terrorist. But you can't summon a river. Nearly 90 per cent of Pakistan's crops depend on the Indus Basin. Disrupt the water flow, you unleash famine, joblessness, and unrest in a fragile, military-dominated economy. When India bombs a terror camp, Pakistan finds a tame camera crew to shoot its prime minister examining wreckage of a terror group's headquarters. When India stops rivers, there is nothing to hit back at: no fighter jet to shoot, no border post to shell. Pakistan's generals understand airspace. They don't understand aquifers. Their defence budget buys tanks, not fund tubewells. While they staged tactical theatrics for domestic consumption after Balakot, India moved engineers, tunnels, and irrigation projects into place.
India.com
9 hours ago
- India.com
EU Struggles For Trade Deal With US By July 9 Amid Tariff Tensions
New Delhi: European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has reiterated the European Union's (EU) commitment to reach a "good" trade deal with the US before July 9 during a phone call with US President Donald Trump. In a post on social media platform X, von der Leyen said on Saturday that she had a "good call with President Trump ahead of the G7 Summit". The US government's decision to raise tariffs on steel and aluminum imports to 50 per cent took effect earlier this month, escalating a trade dispute that has drawn sharp concern from European producers, who warn the steep new duties could cause significant harm to the sector, Xinhua news agency reported. On May 26, European Commissioner for Trade and Economic Security Maros Sefcovic made similar comments after Trump said talks with the 27-member bloc were "going nowhere" and threatened to impose a 50 per cent tariff on all EU imports from June 1. Following a call from von der Leyen, Trump then agreed to delay the planned tariff hike until July 9. According to von der Leyen's post on Saturday, she and Trump also discussed the situations in the Middle East as well as in Ukraine during the phone call. US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said on June 11 that the European Union is likely to be among the last deals that the US completes, as the administration rushes to secure tariff agreements with other trading partners. Lutnick, who has long expressed frustration with the bloc, indicated on Wednesday that discussions intensified following President Donald Trump's threat to raise levies to 50 per cent -- which he delayed until July 9 to allow more time for negotiations -- but are still proceeding more slowly than others. The Commerce chief said "Europe was more than thorny" before Trump issued his ultimatum, then "all of the sudden they got a little religion and made a proper offer". The US and EU have been grappling over trade terms before the July cutoff. EU trade chief Sefcovic has been in regular communication with Lutnick and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer since the partners agreed to fast-track negotiations two weeks ago. Still, the EU believes trade negotiations with the US could blow past the deadline and officials see an agreement on the principles of a deal by that date as a best-case scenario that would allow further time to work out details, according to people familiar with the matter. Trump administration officials have shown exasperation over talks with the EU, saying it is more challenging to negotiate an agreement with a group of 27-nations with differing priorities. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent in a May interview with Bloomberg Television said most US trading partners have been negotiating "in very good faith" but singled out the EU as an "exception". He also accused the bloc of having a "collective action problem". The EU has struggled to gain more clarity on what Trump is seeking in talks.
