By Toby McIntosh
Why did almost no reporters cover the recent United Nations’ negotiations on protecting the diversity of marine life?
The gap seems both understandable and unfortunate.
“Unfortunate” because of the threats to marine life, whose genes may possess vital and beneficial information. Plus, healthy oceans play a key role in the climate change equation.
“Understandable” for many reasons. Public awareness of threats to the ocean is low, likely influencing editorial choices on assigning scarce resources to cover the talks. The subject is complex and hard to simplify. The negotiations are a Rubik’s Cube, with main topics including:
- How should profits from discoveries based on marine genetic resources be shared,
- Whether and how to create protected marine areas, and
- What environmental impact assessments should look like.
A further complication, though not unsurmountable, is that the transparency around the talks is limited. Meeting room doors are mostly closed. Access to documents is minimal. The participants are reluctant to talk candidly, even after the meetings.
Still, the lack of coverage is striking.
Almost no reporters, maybe only one, were physically present at the talks, held at the United Nations headquarters in New York City (Aug. 15-26), according to several persons in attendance.
The UN received only 5 applications to cover the meetings, EYE learned. (Yes, there’s a caveat, any journalist already accredited by the UN could have attended, but they have many other calls on their time, like wars.) By unfair contrast, for the COP26 meetings in Glasgow last November, the officially reported media registration was 3,886.
The UN “high seas” talks almost succeeded, but not quite. They are likely to be resumed next year.
Most of the spot news articles were written by UN correspondents for wire services. They relied on information from nongovernmental organizations, who praised progress and to a limited degree assigned blame. Russia was a major obstacle, they said, but the EU, the US and Iceland also contributed the impasse.
Since the end of the negotiations, the question of what really happened, particularly what positions individual countries took, has so far gone largely unexplored by the press, leaving an accountability vacuum.
What follows looks at the press coverage of the high seas talks. Of particular interest, looking forward, is whether journalists will look into the positions their governments took.
Little Sunlight on Negotiations
To begin with, the transparency of the negotiations is limited.
Especially in the endgame stages, the talks are understandably conducted in smaller groups out of the public eye, some called “informal informals” and others simply “small committees.”
NGO observers are excluded from such meetings, held between delegates from the 168 attending countries. (A 53-page list of participants was available.)
Very few documents are provided on the home page for the talks, officially the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC5) on Marine Biodiversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ). The primary public document was the “draft text” dated June 1 was tabled by President Rena Lee (Singapore).
Documents circulated at the meeting are available only online through the password-protected e-delGate portal, only to delegates and official “observers” from industry and non-government agencies. Not to the media.
In the middle of the talks, Lee unveiled a “refreshed text” that was not made public. Also unavailable is Lee’s “concluding text,” a summation of where agreement has occurred and where disagreements still exist.
The only meetings open to the press are the plenary sessions, of which there were five. They are webcast and mainly feature progress reports from President Lee and committee chairs, and position statements by delegates. A rather complete account of the concluding plenary was done by the UN, which issued four other rather long summary press releases during the meeting.
Daily Coverage by Group With Special Access
The only daily coverage of the meetings, comprehensive but dense, was provided by an organization with UN connections, Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB), a project by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), supported mostly by Canada, other governments and private philanthropies.
By arrangement with the UN, ENB editors have access to sessions out of bonds for regular reporters (although not all meetings), provided they don’t attribute statements to countries or delegates (Chatham House rules). This results in the frequent use of vague phrases such as “some delegates.” Moreover, ENB’s detailed reports can be hard to understand for those not well-versed in the relevant acronyms and shorthand.
ENB provides some overall assessments of progress in charmingly informal summaries called “In the Corridors.” One suggested that even for those at the meetings the proceedings were opaque.
A measure of “cautious optimism” permeated some quarters early Wednesday morning, with clusters of delegates pleased with the rumored progress coming from the President’s consultations. However, as these consultations are held behind closed doors, a number were left guessing on the specific areas where advances have been made. Many participants seemed less persuaded that a new agreement could be finalized over the remaining two days.
A Few Curtain Raisers
In advance of the meetings, only a handful of “curtain opener” stories described the significance of the talks which concern 60 percent of the world’s oceans, the “high seas” located outside of territorial waters?
These included pieces (mostly short) in The Guardian, CBS News, Euronews Green, Straits Times, and Xinhua. (EYE’s searching is English-biased and almost certainly incomplete.)
Some educational Twitter threads cropped up before the meeting. For example, Remi Parmenier, an environmental consultant, did a primer thread.
Interest groups, particularly environmental groups, tried to drum up attention to the meetings. Greenpeace shined slogans on many iconic New York buildings and sponsored a rally including dancers in exotic costumes. Helen Mirren, Jane Fonda and other movie stars recorded appeals. NGOs and individual activists tweeted calls for action on hash tags #IGC5 #HighSeasTreaty #BBNJ.
During the meetings, the NGOs provided limited updates on the meetings. The High Seas Alliance posted a handful of short daily videos, usually with a positive tone, such as, “So the sense of urgency is definitely tangible in the room, and so it should be to really bring the treaty across the finishing line at the end of the second week hopefully.” Maripoldata, a research project funded by the European Research Council, issued a summary at the end of the first week, detailed, but with veiled attribution, such as “large fishing states,” “developed countries” and “a number of States.” Maripoldata on Sept. 12 published a summary of the meeting.
One veteran of these talks told EYE that the NGOs’ strategy was to lay low, saying, “NGOs are refraining from intervening in order not to prolong negotiations.” Several reporters remarked to EYE that the NGOs seems disinclined to be specific about country positions.
Greenpeace Names Names
Greenpeace was the most outspoken group. Toward the end of the first week, it issued a press release saying talks were “stalling” and that “governments must heighten their ambition.”
Still Greenpeace’s criticisms were general: “Delegations have wasted hours discussing minor issues, reopening previously settled issues, or repeating old positions, whilst some global North delegations refuse to make concessions to meet the needs of the Global South on key issues relating to equity. Some delegations even continue to argue that the primary purpose of a marine protected area should not be conservation.”
Greenpeace’s press release attracted some media attention (The Guardian, Australian AP, The Independent).
On Twitter, Greenpeace sometimes got more specific.
- Countries like USA, Canada and EU are being greedy. They’re prioritising hypothetical future profits from Marine Genetics Resources over protecting the oceans. This is undermining all the progress made on the Treaty text on Marine Protected Areas
- The EU’s High Ambition Coalition is failing to deliver on their commitments to protect the oceans and finalise a Treaty at this round of talks – now how will they get it done this year
- The lack of high-level political engagement in these talks has hamstrung them from the start, but it’s become clear in the last days that the High Ambition Coalition’s neocolonial approach to benefit sharing will stop a treaty from being agreed here.
Another effort at identifying parties and their positions came midway through the talks from the High Seas Alliance, a coalition of numerous groups. In its “Treaty Tracker,” the Alliance, said it “expects more ambition to be shown by the United Kingdom, the European Union, Canada and the United States…” The group tweeted updates, too. A flavor: “A range of differing views were expressed in negotiations on Marine Genetic Resources (MGRs), as well as some flexibility from States. The facilitator of the informal group on MGRs called on delegates to “jointly find solutions.”
Limited Coverage as Talks Proceeded
Only a few stories emerged about the talks while they were in progress, some done by reporters miles away from New York.
Natasha Bulowski, writing Aug. 20 from Ottawa for Canada’s National Observer, said activists were seeing a lack of political will. She quoted Susanna Fuller, vice-president of operations and projects at Oceans North as blaming Russia. “ ‘They’re not really into this whole thing,’ she said. ‘They never have been, and now it’s very difficult for, you know, anybody to agree with Russia because of geopolitics.’ ”
Fuller also said, Bulowski reported, that “Iceland, along with Russia, doesn’t want fisheries to be included in the final treaty, so it can maintain control over high seas fisheries.” Fuller said existing controls are not protecting biodiversity.
Adding further detail, Bulowski wrote: “On the other hand, many Pacific Island states are pushing hard for a strong agreement. Canada, the U.S. and the European Union occupy a middle ground with their varying opinions, said Fuller, noting Canada is particularly strong on measures like marine protected areas.
Agence France-Press’s Amélie Bottollier-Depois on Aug. 26, the last day of the meeting, did a story that captured some of the back and forth, touching on the sensitive issue of how the profits from genetic materials would be shared. She quoted a Greenpeace official as saying the EU had rejected a proposal by the developing nations that they should receive two percent of all future sales from products based on marine life genetic discoveries.
AP and many others cited Greenpeace’s negotiator Laura Meller. In the AP story she was quoted as saying, “Russia has also been a key blocker in negotiations, refusing to engage in the treaty process itself, or attempting to compromise with the European Union and many other states on a wide range of issues.”
NGOs Cast Some Blame in Concluding Statements
The last night of the talks went late, ending at 11:15 p.m. Friday, Aug. 26, and were “suspended” with no deal. When the talks will resume remains uncertain, perhaps early in 2023.
The harvest of concluding stories was mainly done by wire services. The accounts were straight-forward: the talks ended without agreement but with the prospect of more meetings. (Examples: AP, AFP, BBC, The Guardian, National Observer, CBC, The Indian Express, Morocco World News)
The stories largely reflected positive statements made by NGOs and delegates. Greenpeace’s Aug. 27 press release said the failure to reach an agreement came “despite significant progress being made during the last 48 hours.”
Most of the reported explanations for why the talks were suspended came from Greenpeace, which said the EU’s High Ambition Coalition and “countries like the USA have moved too slowly to find compromises, despite their commitments.” Also blamed was Russia, called “a key blocker in negotiations, refusing to engage in the Treaty process itself, or attempting to compromise with the European Union and many other states on a wide range of issues.” Greenpeace Canada on Aug. 27 tweeted, “Where was Canadian leadership?”
James Hanson, Greenpeace’s Global Media Lead, said the meetings got “good attention from the world media.” He’d like to see more, he told EYE, but understands that oceans policy “isn’t a big ticket news item” and is sympathetic that covering the talks is difficult.
Asked why Greenpeace didn’t go into more detail about country positions, he told EYE, would “a 15 page tome no one would read.” He noted, “Very few journalists want that kind of granular detail.”
Other NGOs Less Specific
Other NGOs, in their final press releases, said little about specific country’s positions.
The High Seas Alliance final statement lauded momentum. “We’re disappointed that governments at the UN did not bring the High Seas Treaty over the finish line this week. However, it has been uplifting to witness the global momentum for ocean action steadily build throughout these negotiations.
The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) issued a “key takeaways” summary saying. “The amount of work completed was huge, but a little time and flexibility is still needed to get to the finish line, so IGC-5 will be resumed in a second part.”
ENB’s extensive final summary issued Aug 27 displays the complexity of the material and ENB’s required generality of attribution. One key paragraph comes close to summing the whole meeting.
On MGRs [Marine Genetic Resources] and benefit-sharing, delegates made progress on provisions on application, and activities related to MGRs, including their notification. Diverging views still persist on the establishment of an access and benefit-sharing (ABS) mechanism, monetary benefit-sharing, and intellectual property rights. On EIAs, significant advances were made on planned/proposed activities and on strategic environmental assessments. Differences remain on decision-making, thresholds, and an area- versus impact-based approach.
Unpacking that’s a challenge. A helpful and easier read (also without names) is a summary by Glen Wright, senior research fellow with a think tank, IDDRI.
A Handful of More Detailed Stories Published After Meeting
In the days since the negotiations ended, some reporters have dug deeper.
Notably more specific was Elizabeth Fitt, reporting in Mongabay Aug 29. The delegates came “tantalizingly close” she wrote, saying, “Top sticking points included fair access to marine resources for all and how to establish marine protected areas.” While reporting remotely, she delved with more than typical detail into the disagreements and also drew attention to the perspective of some observers as that “there may be a mismatch between strong top-level political will for a robust treaty and negotiating room stalling by a minority of delegates.”
Fitt’s article earned a mention in a New York Times newsletter, but the Times did not cover the meetings. (On Aug 28, the Times published a blockbuster investigation by Eric Lipton about deep sea mining in the Pacific Ocean sanctioned by an international agency.)
The only story EYE found that focused on the positions of particular delegation was by Laura Cole in ENDS Europe, titled, Analysis: Why EU inflexibility has hamstrung the high seas treaty. Although behind a paywall, the next line teases, “Last week’s failure to approve a long-awaited high seas treaty was caused in part by the EU’s inner contradictions and lack of flexibility, according to observers.”
Olive Heffernan, writing in Scientific American, said, “The deal faltered in the final hours, mainly over an issue that has long dogged international ocean talks: how to share profits from commercializing the high seas’ genetic resources.” She described differences in the positions of developed and developing countries.
An article in China Dialogue Ocean by Fermín Koop dealt on areas of agreement and disagreement. Regarding the sharing the benefits of genetic resources, he wrote, “It’s still not clear whether it will be mandatory or voluntary and whether it will include both monetary and non-monetary benefits.”
A broader perspective on how international negotiations succeed or fail was contained in an El Pais story Sept. 4 by Manuel Planelles. He quoted Parmentier, a long-time observer of international negotiations, as saying “it is better to try to have a more ambitious agreement and not rush the pact.”
El Pais cited Pilar Marcos, who followed the negotiations for Greenpeace, as blaming the lack of agreement on scant participation by high-level ministers. A tweet by Parmentier was quoted to buttress the point, saying, “Professional negotiators are very good at defending the interests of their countries, but they rarely have the capacity and tools to approach positions when there are blockades.” Alejandro Lago, “an expert in environmental negotiations,” is quoted as saying, that “making decisions by consensus in the current geopolitical situation is very complicated.”
Another contributing factor, Marcos said, is that “international efforts for biodiversity have accelerated less than other environmental struggles.”
Underlying Factor: Ocean Issues Get Little Media Attention
The media’s general lack of interest in the topic of oceans has not gone unnoticed.
Rebecca Helm, Assistant Professor of Biology at the University of North Carolina Asheville, who followed the BBNJ talks, observed to EYE:
I think partly ocean coverage has historically lagged way behind climate. We don’t really have the influencer base to call on. These negotiations have also been going on for a really long time. It’s hard to hold people’s interest. I also think, and we see this everywhere, that policy measures aimed at stopping bad things from happening get way less attention than measures that respond to bad things that have already happened.
Promoting a Sept. 7 webinar, Human Impacts and Human Rights on the High Seas: A Webinar for Ocean Journalists, the Earth Journalism Network wrote:
“For many journalists, the high seas – the 2/3 of the world’s ocean beyond national jurisdiction – is often uncharted territory, yet the threats to this vast region are multiplying. From piracy and slavery to offshore oil and gas extraction to the exploitation of its genetic resources and potentially, seabed mining, the high seas are at high risk.”
