logo
‘It's the Wild West out there': UN Ocean Conference opens with a push to ratify the High Seas Treaty

‘It's the Wild West out there': UN Ocean Conference opens with a push to ratify the High Seas Treaty

Fast Company3 days ago

The third U.N. Ocean Conference opened Monday as pressure mounts for nations to turn decades of promises into real protection for the sea.
French President Emmanuel Macron, delivering the keynote address in the host city of Nice, urged countries to move 'from words to deeds' in safeguarding the oceans. He warned that 'the fight for the ocean is at the heart of the years-long battles we've been waging—for biodiversity, for climate, for our environment, and for our health.'
The conference comes as just 2.7% of the ocean is effectively protected from destructive extractive activities, according to the nonprofit Marine Conservation Institute. That's far below the target agreed under the '30×30' pledge to conserve 30% of land and sea by 2030.
Atop this year's agenda is ratification of the High Seas Treaty. Adopted in 2023, the treaty would for the first time allow nations to establish marine protected areas in international waters, which cover nearly two-thirds of the ocean and are largely ungoverned.
'It's the Wild West out there with countries just fishing anywhere without any sort of regulation, and that needs to change,' said Mauro Randone, regional projects manager at the World Wildlife Fund's Mediterranean Marine Initiative. 'The high seas belong to everyone and no one practically at the same time, and countries are finally committing to establish some rules.'
The ocean is critical in stabilizing Earth's climate and sustaining life. It generates 50% of the oxygen we breathe, absorbs around 30% of carbon dioxide emissions and captures more than 90% of the excess heat caused by those emissions. Without a healthy ocean, experts warn, climate goals will remain out of reach.
The treaty will only come into force once 60 countries ratify it. As of Monday, just 32 countries had. Advocates hope UNOC can build enough momentum to cross the threshold, which would allow for the first official Oceans Conference of Parties.
'Two-thirds of the ocean is areas beyond national jurisdiction—that's half our planet,' said Minna Epps, director of global ocean policy the International Union for Conservation of Nature. 'We cannot possibly protect 30% of the ocean if it doesn't include the high seas.'
South Korea, France and the European Union have championed the treaty, but most large ocean nations have yet to ratify it, including the rest of the G20. Thousands of attendees are expected in Nice—from delegates and heads of state to scientists and industry leaders. The United States has yet to confirm a formal delegation.
Moving from protections on paper to something real
Beyond new commitments, the conference highlights the growing gap between marine protection declarations and real-world conservation.
France, the conference cohost, claims to have surpassed the 30% target for marine protection. But environmental groups say only 3% of French waters are fully protected from harmful activities like bottom trawling and industrial fishing.
In 2024 alone, more than 100 bottom-trawling vessels were recorded spending over 17,000 hours fishing within France's six marine nature parks, according to ocean advocacy group Oceana.
'The government declares these as protected areas, but this is a lie,' said Enric Sala, founder of National Geographic Pristine Seas marine reserve project. 'Most of it is political box-ticking. It's all paper parks.'
That criticism is echoed across the continent. A new World Wildlife Fund report found that although more than 11% of Europe's marine area is designated for protection, just 2% of EU waters have management plans in place.
Fabien Boileau, director of marine protected areas at France's Office for Biodiversity, acknowledged the presence of bottom trawling in French protected areas, but said it was part of a phased strategy.
'In France, we made the choice to designate large marine protected areas with relatively low levels of regulation at first, betting that stronger protections would be developed over time through local governance,' he said. 'Today, we're gradually increasing the number of zones with stricter protections within those areas.'
France's Port-Cros: A model for conservation
While many marine protected areas struggle with enforcement, others show what real protection can achieve. Off the southern coast of France, Port-Cros National Park is one of the oldest marine reserves in the Mediterranean. There, strict anchoring bans have allowed vast seagrass meadows to grow undisturbed. Massive groupers patrol rocky outcrops, brightly colored nudibranchs munch on algae, and schools of large corbs glide through the shallows, undisturbed by fishing lines.
'Thanks to the protections that have been in place since 1963, we can observe species that are much larger than elsewhere in the Mediterranean and at a much higher density than in other areas,' said Hubert Flavigny, manager of Mio Palmo dive center in Hyeres, France.
Still, such examples remain exceptions.
Advocates say industrial fishing lobbies continue to resist stricter protections, despite evidence that well-managed reserves boost long-term fisheries through the 'spillover effect,' whereby marine life flourishes in nearby waters.
'Protection is not the problem—overfishing is the problem,' said Sala. 'The worst enemy of the fishing industry is themselves.'
Frustrated by government inaction, environmental groups have taken enforcement into their own hands. In May, Greenpeace dropped 15 limestone boulders into France's Golfe du Lion, aiming to physically block bottom trawling in a marine area that has long been designated for protection. The protected zone was established in 2008 to preserve deep-sea ecosystems, yet 12 trawlers continue to operate there, despite scientific warnings of ecological collapse, according to activist group MedReAct.
The Golfe is now one of the most overfished areas in the Mediterranean.
What will UNOC deliver?
The conference will feature 10 panels on topics such as blue finance, sustainable fisheries and plastic pollution. Deep sea mining is expected to feature in broader discussions, while small island states are likely to use the platform to advocate for increased climate adaptation funding.
The outcome of these discussions will form the basis of the Nice Ocean Action Plan—a declaration of voluntary commitments to be adopted by consensus and presented at the United Nations in New York this July.
'There cannot be a healthy planet without a healthy ocean,' said Peter Thomson, U.N. special envoy for the ocean. 'It's urgent business for us all.'
_
Follow Annika Hammerschlag on Instagram @ahammergram.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Opinion - A federal solution: The United States of Palestine
Opinion - A federal solution: The United States of Palestine

Yahoo

time4 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Opinion - A federal solution: The United States of Palestine

As French President Emmanuel Macron tries to revive the same solution that has failed time and time again, the decades-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues. With with no lasting solution in sight, it may be time to revisit a concept both deeply historical and radically pragmatic: the idea that Jordan — long tied to the Palestinian people by geography, identity, governance and religion — should take the lead in shaping a new federal solution for Palestinian self-determination. Few remember today that Jordan was, and in many ways still is, part of historic Palestine. Before the 1921 creation of Transjordan under British supervision, the territory we now call Jordan was understood as part of the larger Palestinian entity — the land between the Mediterranean and the Iraqi desert. Though carved out and handed to a Hashemite emir from the Saudi Hejaz, Jordan has always remained tethered to the Palestinian cause, demographically and spiritually. Today, more than 70 percent of Jordan's population is of Palestinian origin. These Jordanian-Palestinians see themselves not as outsiders but as integrated citizens of the Hashemite state. Their presence has not weakened Jordan's identity — it has enriched it. From Nablus merchants to Jerusalem-born educators, the Palestinian community in Jordan is a cornerstone of the kingdom's civic and economic life. Jordan also has a unique religious and political legitimacy in the region. From 1948 to 1967, it ruled the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and continues to serve as custodian of the Muslim holy sites there, by international agreement. No other government — not the Palestinian Authority, nor Hamas, nor any regional actor — holds that trust. Unlike the divided and often dysfunctional Palestinian political bodies in Gaza and the West Bank, the Hashemite Kingdom has maintained 100 years of strong, stable governance. It has proven its ability to rule justly, suppress extremism and maintain strategic alignment with Western interests. Amman is a loyal U.S. and NATO partner. It has withstood the storms of Arab nationalism, Islamist extremism, regional war and refugee crises — all while keeping its institutions intact and its society relatively moderate and open. In contrast, every attempt at Palestinian self-rule — from the Palestine Liberation Organization's early years through the current Hamas-Fatah split — has ended in disappointment. Palestinian leadership has, at various times, aligned with morally and strategically disastrous actors: the Nazis during World War II, the Soviet bloc during the Cold War, and Saddam Hussein in the 1990s. Internal corruption, repression and a reckless embrace of violence have robbed generations of Palestinians of the chance to live in peace and dignity. It is time to imagine something better: a federal model in which Jordan assumes sovereign oversight of the United States of Palestine. Under this model, Jordan would recognize and integrate several Palestinian states or provinces into a federated structure. Inside current Jordanian borders, three to four states would be formed, each with local state control and democratic representation. The Palestinian-ruled areas in the West Bank would become another state. Gaza, currently caught between Hamas and the Israeli Defence Forces, would form yet another. All of these would retain autonomy over education, internal policing and local governance, while reporting back to a federal authority in Amman — itself restructured to reflect shared governance between the different states. This model may sound unprecedented in the Middle East, but it is not so different from the federal system of the United Arab Emirates or that of the United States. Just as Alaska and Hawaii — non-contiguous and culturally distinct — are integral parts of the American union, so too could a Palestinian West Bank and Gaza remain part of a wider Jordanian federation. Amman would act as the political capital, whilst managing Jerusalem's Islamic holy sites on behalf of all Muslims — a responsibility it already holds with international consent. The Hashemite family would remain the ruling monarchy but the prime minister would be chosen by popular vote by the states. This is almost identical to the United Kingdom, in which the Windsor family are the ruling monarchy but the prime minister is chosen by popular vote by the citizens of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Island. The benefits could be profound. First, dissent within Jordan would be channeled into structured political representation. Palestinian-Jordanians would no longer be torn between their heritage and their passports — they would be empowered stakeholders in a shared, sovereign future. Second, Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza would gain credible, experienced governance. Jordan's bureaucracy, civil service and military are among the most respected in the Arab world. Corruption would fall; investor confidence would rise. With Jordanian oversight, Palestinian autonomy would no longer mean instability and isolation. Third, Israel would gain a reliable partner on its eastern and southern borders — one that has a proven record of rejecting terrorism, maintaining peace agreements, and safeguarding regional stability. This would allow Israel to manage its borders securely while supporting genuine Palestinian self-rule under a legitimate and moderate umbrella. Finally, the broader region and the West — especially the United States — would benefit from an end to one of the world's most polarizing and destabilizing conflicts. Domestic political pressures would ease. Radical groups would lose their most powerful propaganda tool. And a long-elusive dream — a real solution for the Palestinians — would finally emerge. Of course, such a vision would require bold diplomacy, careful constitutional design, and broad popular buy-in from Palestinians, Jordanians and Israelis alike. But the alternative — endless stalemate, fractured governance and cycles of violence — is far worse. A century after the fall of Ottoman rule, the time has come for an old-new vision of federal statehood — one rooted not in slogans or fantasies but in history, practicality and hope. Terry Newman is an entrepreneur and investor who works throughout the Middle East. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

A federal solution: The United States of Palestine
A federal solution: The United States of Palestine

The Hill

time7 hours ago

  • The Hill

A federal solution: The United States of Palestine

As French President Emmanuel Macron tries to revive the same solution that has failed time and time again, the decades-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues. With with no lasting solution in sight, it may be time to revisit a concept both deeply historical and radically pragmatic: the idea that Jordan — long tied to the Palestinian people by geography, identity, governance and religion — should take the lead in shaping a new federal solution for Palestinian self-determination. Few remember today that Jordan was, and in many ways still is, part of historic Palestine. Before the 1921 creation of Transjordan under British supervision, the territory we now call Jordan was understood as part of the larger Palestinian entity — the land between the Mediterranean and the Iraqi desert. Though carved out and handed to a Hashemite emir from the Saudi Hejaz, Jordan has always remained tethered to the Palestinian cause, demographically and spiritually. Today, more than 70 percent of Jordan's population is of Palestinian origin. These Jordanian-Palestinians see themselves not as outsiders but as integrated citizens of the Hashemite state. Their presence has not weakened Jordan's identity — it has enriched it. From Nablus merchants to Jerusalem-born educators, the Palestinian community in Jordan is a cornerstone of the kingdom's civic and economic life. Jordan also has a unique religious and political legitimacy in the region. From 1948 to 1967, it ruled the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and continues to serve as custodian of the Muslim holy sites there, by international agreement. No other government — not the Palestinian Authority, nor Hamas, nor any regional actor — holds that trust. Unlike the divided and often dysfunctional Palestinian political bodies in Gaza and the West Bank, the Hashemite Kingdom has maintained 100 years of strong, stable governance. It has proven its ability to rule justly, suppress extremism and maintain strategic alignment with Western interests. Amman is a loyal U.S. and NATO partner. It has withstood the storms of Arab nationalism, Islamist extremism, regional war and refugee crises — all while keeping its institutions intact and its society relatively moderate and open. In contrast, every attempt at Palestinian self-rule — from the Palestine Liberation Organization's early years through the current Hamas-Fatah split — has ended in disappointment. Palestinian leadership has, at various times, aligned with morally and strategically disastrous actors: the Nazis during World War II, the Soviet bloc during the Cold War, and Saddam Hussein in the 1990s. Internal corruption, repression and a reckless embrace of violence have robbed generations of Palestinians of the chance to live in peace and dignity. It is time to imagine something better: a federal model in which Jordan assumes sovereign oversight of the United States of Palestine. Under this model, Jordan would recognize and integrate several Palestinian states or provinces into a federated structure. Inside current Jordanian borders, three to four states would be formed, each with local state control and democratic representation. The Palestinian-ruled areas in the West Bank would become another state. Gaza, currently caught between Hamas and the Israeli Defence Forces, would form yet another. All of these would retain autonomy over education, internal policing and local governance, while reporting back to a federal authority in Amman — itself restructured to reflect shared governance between the different states. This model may sound unprecedented in the Middle East, but it is not so different from the federal system of the United Arab Emirates or that of the United States. Just as Alaska and Hawaii — non-contiguous and culturally distinct — are integral parts of the American union, so too could a Palestinian West Bank and Gaza remain part of a wider Jordanian federation. Amman would act as the political capital, whilst managing Jerusalem's Islamic holy sites on behalf of all Muslims — a responsibility it already holds with international consent. The Hashemite family would remain the ruling monarchy but the prime minister would be chosen by popular vote by the states. This is almost identical to the United Kingdom, in which the Windsor family are the ruling monarchy but the prime minister is chosen by popular vote by the citizens of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Island. The benefits could be profound. First, dissent within Jordan would be channeled into structured political representation. Palestinian-Jordanians would no longer be torn between their heritage and their passports — they would be empowered stakeholders in a shared, sovereign future. Second, Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza would gain credible, experienced governance. Jordan's bureaucracy, civil service and military are among the most respected in the Arab world. Corruption would fall; investor confidence would rise. With Jordanian oversight, Palestinian autonomy would no longer mean instability and isolation. Third, Israel would gain a reliable partner on its eastern and southern borders — one that has a proven record of rejecting terrorism, maintaining peace agreements, and safeguarding regional stability. This would allow Israel to manage its borders securely while supporting genuine Palestinian self-rule under a legitimate and moderate umbrella. Finally, the broader region and the West — especially the United States — would benefit from an end to one of the world's most polarizing and destabilizing conflicts. Domestic political pressures would ease. Radical groups would lose their most powerful propaganda tool. And a long-elusive dream — a real solution for the Palestinians — would finally emerge. Of course, such a vision would require bold diplomacy, careful constitutional design, and broad popular buy-in from Palestinians, Jordanians and Israelis alike. But the alternative — endless stalemate, fractured governance and cycles of violence — is far worse. A century after the fall of Ottoman rule, the time has come for an old-new vision of federal statehood — one rooted not in slogans or fantasies but in history, practicality and hope. Terry Newman is an entrepreneur and investor who works throughout the Middle East.

U.N. Watchdog Rules That Iran Is Not Complying With Nuclear Obligations
U.N. Watchdog Rules That Iran Is Not Complying With Nuclear Obligations

New York Times

time12 hours ago

  • New York Times

U.N. Watchdog Rules That Iran Is Not Complying With Nuclear Obligations

The International Atomic Energy Agency declared on Thursday that Iran was not complying with its nuclear nonproliferation obligations, the first time the United Nations' watchdog has passed a resolution against the country in 20 years. The long-anticipated vote by the agency's board of governors in Vienna came at a time of high tension over Iran's nuclear program, with American and European officials saying they believe that Israel may be preparing an imminent military strike against Iran. The watchdog also said that Iran had consistently failed to provide information about undeclared nuclear material and activities at multiple undeclared locations. The resolution was put forward by the United States, Britain, France and Germany, and it passed easily, with 19 votes of the 35-nation board. Russia, China and Burkina Faso voted against it, and 11 other countries abstained, while two did not vote at all. Iran had reacted angrily to the prospect of the vote and had threatened to leave the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty altogether. But the vote was also seen as part of the diplomacy around the fraught negotiations on Iran's nuclear program between the United States and Iran. This is a developing story. Check back later for updates.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store