How a global ocean treaty could protect biodiversity in the high seas

JUNE 5, 2020, by Jennifer Silver, Leslie Acton, Lisa Campbell and Noella Gray, The Conversation
https://phys.org/news/2020-06-global-ocean-treaty-biodiversity-high.html

Oceans are teeming with life and are connected to society through history and culture, shipping and economic activity, geopolitics and recreation.

 Credit: Shutterstock

Oceans cover 70 percent of the Earth's surface. But, because many of us spend most of our lives on land, the 362 million square kilometers of blue out there aren't always top of mind.

While vast, oceans are not empty. They are teeming with life and connected to society through history and culture, shipping and economic activity, geopolitics and recreation.

But oceans—along with coastal people and marine species—are vulnerable, and good ocean governance is critical to protect these expanses from pollution, overfishing and climate change, to name just some of the threats.

The laws, institutions and regulations in place for the oceans are a multi-layered patchwork and always a work in progress.

Common heritage of humankind

Some characterize oceans as the "common heritage of humankind." As such, the United Nations plays a critical role in ocean governance, and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is a key international agreement. The agreement grants coastal and island states authority over swaths of ocean extending 200 nautical miles (360 kilometers) from the shore. These are called exclusive economic zones (EEZ).

EEZs are domestic spaces. Countries enshrine law and delegate authority to state agencies that lead monitoring, management and enforcement in these zones.

Indigenous peoples also assert jurisdictional authority and coastal peoples hold critical insight about coastal and marine ecosystems. Governance is improved when state agencies share power and collaborate.

For example, during the Newfoundland cod collapse, inshore fishermen had local ecological knowledge about changing cod stock dynamics that might have helped avoid the disaster.

Giant kelp grows in a thick, submerged forest near the Channel Islands in California. Credit: Shutterstock

Areas beyond national jurisdiction

A vast portion of the ocean lies beyond EEZs: 64 percent by area and 95 percent by volume. These regions are often referred to as the high seas. The high seas are important for international trade, fishing fleets, undersea telecommunications cables and are of commercial interest to mining companies. The high seas also host a wide array of ecosystems and species. Many of these are understudied or altogether unrecorded.

UN agreements identify high seas using a technical term "areas beyond national jurisdiction" that refers to the water column. The sea floor is identified separately and called "the area." UNCLOS and other pieces of international law regulate activity in these spaces and are responsible for ensuring that no single country or company dominates or benefits unfairly.

Other multilateral, sector-based arrangements manage particularly complex resources. For example, regional fisheries management organizations bring nation states together to collaborate on monitoring and managing fish stocks, like tuna, that have large ranges and cross multiple borders and boundaries.

The biodiversity governance gap

Currently, international law does not meaningfully address biodiversity monitoring and conservation in the high seas. This "biodiversity governance gap" has been of concern for the past two decades.

Without a binding mechanism under international law, countries are not obligated to co-operate on developing and implementing conservation measures in the high seas. In addition, monitoring the impacts of various economic activities, such as fishing and mining, on biodiversity is piecemeal and inadequate. Marine species or even entire ecosystems could be lost before we have had a chance to identify and understand them.

On Dec. 24, 2017, the UN General Assembly voted to convene a multi-year process to develop a treaty on "the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction."

Three of the scheduled negotiation sessions have taken place, while the fourth and final one, scheduled for March 2020, was postponed due to the coronavirus pandemic. Some progress has been made. Notably, the draft treaty addresses four key areas: marine genetic resources; area-based management tools, including marine protected areas; environmental impact assessments and capacity building and the transfer of marine technology.

The high seas host a wide array of ecosystems and species. Credit: Shutterstock

Yet, many disagreements remain.

For example, countries diverge on the extent to which governance should prioritize the principle of oceans as the "common heritage of humankind." Very pragmatic questions underlie this tension: should marine genetic sequences be commercialized? If so, how would this work and will it be possible to agree on a way to share benefits fairly? These are critical and how they are addressed will determine if persistent inequities between the Global North and Global South are lessened or exacerbated.

Another challenge relates to marine protected areas (MPAs), especially how they are defined and implemented. What levels of protection are needed for an area to count as an MPA? How much should the treaty predetermine processes used to establish new MPAs and how will MPA rules be enforced?

COVID-19: Negotiations cut adrift?

Has postponing the final round of negotiations cut high seas biodiversity negotiations adrift? A European research team is surveying participants and experts to learn what impact the disruption may have. However, it is unlikely that the treaty will fall completely by the wayside. Delegates and negotiators may well continue to informally discuss options with one another and refine positions with an eye towards reaching consensus when rescheduling is possible.

A ratified treaty covering biodiversity in the high seas would be an exciting layer to add to the ocean governance patchwork.

But, delegates and negotiators always have to make concessions during talks, and disagreements often persist after the treaty has been signed. Implementation can be as challenging and contentious as negotiation itself. Various human dimensions and economic challenges will also continue to need attention, including human trafficking, perverse fishing subsidies and our collective responsibility to small island states that may be submerged as sea levels rise.

These challenges point to other international forums—the World Trade Organization, International Labour Organization and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change—and serve to remind us of the myriad ways that we are all connected to, and by, oceans.

Recommend this post and follow TCW

https://disqus.com/home/forum/the-coconut-whisperer/

Could corporations control territory in space? Under new US rules, it might be possible

JUNE 2, 2020, by Cait Storr, The Conversation
https://phys.org/news/2020-06-corporations-territory-space.html

Credit: Sipa USA

Last weekend, NASA launched US astronauts to the International Space Station for the first time in a decade, in a rocket designed by Elon Musk's SpaceX.

Under President Donald Trump, the US mission to reassert itself as the dominant power in space has rapidly gathered pace. In the process, the US has also begun to reshape international space law to suit its purposes—a move that has many countries concerned.

In April, Trump released an executive order restating US support for corporate exploitation of lunar and asteroid resources.

The order also rejected a long-held view in international law that space is a global commons and that commercial use of space resources should occur under international oversight.

Then, last month, NASA released the "Artemis Accords", named after its Artemis Program, which aims to return humans to the moon by 2024. The accords claim to "establish a common set of principles to govern the civil exploration and use of outer space."

What the Artemis Accords would do

Although NASA has only released a high-level summary of the accords, two issues for international space law are already clear.

First, the Artemis Accords go beyond simply rejecting the unpopular 1979 Moon Agreement, which declared lunar resources to be the "common heritage of mankind" and committed parties to establish an international regime to oversee space mining. Only 18 countries have signed the treaty.

In its place, the accords envisage a US-centric framework of bilateral agreements in which "partner nations" agree to follow US-drafted rules.
Second, the accords introduce the concept of "safety zones" around lunar operations.

Although territorial claims in space are prohibited under international law, these safety zones would seek to protect commercial and scientific sites from inadvertent collisions and other forms of "harmful interference". What kinds of conduct could count as harmful interference remains to be determined.

The accords claim to comply with the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, a widely supported agreement that declared space the "province of all mankind" and permitted commercial resource exploitation as a "peaceful use" of space.

However, in practice, the accords have the potential to challenge the Outer Space Treaty's ban on territorial claims in space. They could also intensify international conflict over space resources.

Will space continue to be treated as a global commons?

The Artemis Accords effectively kill off the prospect of international oversight of space mining.

The Moon Agreement committed signatories to establish an international regulatory framework when space mining was "about to become feasible". This moment is clearly now, as Japan's Hyabusa2 mission to the Ryugu asteroid and China's Chang'e 4 lunar mission have demonstrated. Both missions are collecting mineral samples.

Although the Moon Agreement itself has attracted little support, the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space has revisited the framework of space resources law in recent years and commissioned a working group to draft a new regime to govern space mining.

These draft principles were due to be considered at a UN meeting this year, but it was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Now, by releasing the Artemis Accords, the US has potentially scuttled these international negotiations for good.

The real difference between the Artemis Accords and an international framework negotiated within the UN turns on whether space will be treated as a global commons when space mining begins.

Under current international law, the benefits from commercial mining in global commons areas, including the international seabed, must in principle be shared equitably by "all mankind".

The idea that the profits of space resource extraction should be shared via an international body garnered much support among developing nations and their supporters in the 1960s and '70s.

But entrepreneurs in the US space sector have long contested the global commons principle. And the US rejection of a global commons framework for space is ultimately a rejection of profit sharing. Mining and tech companies would retain all the profits.

And this, in turn, would further entrench existing wealth inequalities in the space resource industry.

Territorial claims and 'safety zones'

The safety zones under the Artemis Accords would require all commercial and government ventures to share information on the location and nature of their space operations and notify and coordinate any approaches to other sites.

The practical sense of safety zones is clear. However, such zones seriously test a fundamental principle of the Outer Space Treaty—the ban on territorial claims in space.

This revives an old legal debate over whether the distinction between private property and sovereign territory can actually be maintained in space.

Property rights provide commercial certainty, which space mining entrepreneurs have been demanding. But property rights are only effective if the threat of legal enforcement is real.

Whether safety zones can be enforced without amounting to a breach of the ban on territorial claims remains to be seen.
Russian officials have already denounced Trump's executive order as an attempt to "expropriate space" and "seize territory".

Chinese space experts have also concluded that safety zones amount to sovereign claims.

These criticisms have been fuelled by US space entrepreneurs, including Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, actively promoting "space colonisation".

Which countries are likely to sign on?

States already friendly to commercial space mining, including Luxembourg, the United Arab Emirates and India, will likely sign on to the Artemis Accords.

Early reports suggest Russia will not participate, though, and given the current state of US-China relations, Chinese participation is even less likely.

But the real impact of the accords will be determined by the countries in between. The response of the European Space Agency, which has partnered with Roscosmos in its own lunar prospecting mission, remains to be seen.

Australia, for its part, faces an awkward decision. As a party to the 1979 Moon Agreement, it will have to withdraw if it intends to sign an accord with the US.

Significant diplomatic manoeuvring can be expected over the coming months as the US seeks support for its attempt to redirect international space resources law.

Recommend this post and follow TCW

https://disqus.com/home/forum/the-coconut-whisperer/

How a new biotech rule will foster distrust with the public and impede progress in science

JUNE 1, 2020, by Maywa Montenegro, The Conversation
https://phys.org/news/2020-06-biotech-foster-distrust-impede-science.html

Does CRISPR really make it easier for all scientists to produce gene edited crops and animals? 

Credit: Maywa Montenegro, CC BY-SA

In May, federal regulators finalized a new biotechnology policy that will bring sweeping changes to the U.S. food system. Dubbed "SECURE," the rule revises U.S. Department of Agriculture regulations over genetically engineered plants, automatically exempting many gene-edited crops from government oversight. Companies and labs will be allowed to "self-determine" whether or not a crop should undergo regulatory review or environmental risk assessment.

Initial responses to this new policy have followed familiar fault lines in the food community. Seed industry trade groups and biotech firms hailed the rule as "important to support continuing innovation." Environmental and small farmer NGOs called the USDA's decision "shameful" and less attentive to public well-being than to agribusiness's bottom line.

But the gene-editing tool CRISPR was supposed to break the impasse in old GM wars by making biotechnology more widely affordable, accessible and thus democratic.

In my research, I study how biotechnology affects transitions to sustainable food systems. It's clear that since 2012 the swelling R&D pipeline of gene-edited grains, fruits and vegetables, fish and livestock has forced U.S. agencies to respond to the so-called CRISPR revolution.

Yet this rule change has a number of people in the food and scientific communities concerned. To me, it reflects the lack of accountability and trust between the public and government agencies setting policies.

Why a new rule now?

The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or APHIS, serves as the dominant U.S. regulator for plant health. Since the mid-1990s, genetically modified crops have typically fallen under APHIS oversight because Agrobacterium, a plant pest, is commonly used as a tool to engineer GM products. Using a "plant pest" did not prevent many GM crops from being approved. But it did mean that if APHIS suspected a plant pest or noxious weed had been created through genetic engineering, the agency would regulate the biotech product, "including its release into the environment, and its import, handling, and interstate movement."

Changes to APHIS regulations began during the Obama administration. In January 2017, the agency released new draft rules. However, the Trump administration withdrew these nine months later after pushback from industry and biotech developers which argued that the rules would stifle innovation.

Last summer, USDA released a revised rule for public comment, which it finalized on May 18, 2020. Most changes go into effect in April 2021.

What is in the new rule?

Hints to how USDA intended to treat gene-edited crops came early on, when Penn State's nonbrowning mushrooms and DuPont's waxy corn were approved by APHIS in 2015 and 2016, respectively.

Then in March 2018, USDA Secretary Perdue clarified the agency's stance. "USDA does not currently regulate, or have any plans to regulate, plants that could otherwise have been developed through traditional breeding techniques as long as they are developed without the use of a plant pest as the donor or vector and they are not themselves plant pests."

The new SECURE rule establishes several ways for developers to qualify for deregulated status. Included are CRISPR modifications like deletions of sections of the genetic code, tiny substitutions, and introductions of DNA from related species. So, for example, a CRISPR'd cauliflower would not be regulated if a chunk of DNA was deleted. But it would still be regulated if CRISPR introduced foreign DNA into cauliflower in a way that USDA believes could turn the product into a plant pest.

Another significant change is that companies and scientists will get to decide for themselves if a new product qualifies for exemption from oversight. APHIS says that developers may consult regulators if at any point they aren't sure if a new crop is exempt. However, the agency has already expressed confidence that only about 1% of plants might not qualify for an exemption or for deregulation after an initial review.

Backlash from both sides

Ironically, this policy has begun aligning communities typically at loggerheads in the polarized GM conversation. For example, the UC-based Innovative Genomics Institute, founded by CRISPR co-inventor Jennifer Doudna, wrote in its public comments to APHIS: "While we recognize the agency's rationale behind self-determination and desire to provide regulatory relief in order to spur innovation, we are concerned that rather than stimulating innovation, such an undisclosed step may have the effect of dampening trust through the loss of transparency in the development and oversight process."

Meanwhile, GM-watchdog organizations including the National Family Farmers Coalition, Pesticide Action Network and Friends of the Earth issued a joint press statement criticizing a rule that allows industry to self-determine its regulatory status. The new framework, they said, has dealt a "devastating blow to the security of farmers' livelihoods, the health of their farms and communities, and their ability to build the biodiverse, climate-resilient, and economically robust farming systems that we so urgently need."

Imagining democracy

My research on democratizing biotechnology has helped me unpack the problematic ways in which "democracy" is being hitched to technological innovation. When it comes to CRISPR, the public has been told that being cheap, easy to use and "free from regulation" is a powerful cocktail that makes gene editing intrinsically more democratic.

Like many convenient narratives, there are certain truths to this story. But just as clearly, cheapness is not equivalent to democratic. According to USDA, some 6,150 comments were received on the draft rule during the three-month public feedback period, a window designed to give citizens a say in government policy.

The agency admitted that most letters expressed general opposition to GE products. Of the comments that specifically addressed provisions of the rule, "approximately 25 expressed some support for the rule." This means a vast majority of the comments did not. Yet, the USDA disregarded this feedback. Such a lack of civic input can lead to environmental and health concerns being sidelined.

Is there a better way?

Thoughtful scientists, social movements and governments are now asking if there is an alternative way to regulate engineered food. For example, the Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board has set out an ethics-based regulatory framework aimed at advancing genetic technology, while protecting community and environmental health and promoting societal welfare.

In the academic sphere, colleagues in Europe have proposed a framework for "responsible innovation." I have developed a set of principles and practices for governing CRISPR based on dialogue with front-line communities who are most affected by the technologies others usher in. Communities don't just have to adopt or refuse technology—they can co-create it.

One way to move forward in the U.S. is to take advantage of common ground between sustainable agriculture movements and CRISPR scientists. The struggle over USDA rules suggests that few outside of industry believe self-regulation is fair, wise or scientific.

At present, companies don't even have to notify the USDA of biotech crops they will commercialize. The result, as Greg Jaffe of the Center for Science in the Public Interest told Science, is that "government regulators and the public will have no idea what products will enter the market." "Farmers and everyone else will pay the price,"said Jim Goodman, dairy farmer and board president of the National Family Farm Coalition.

Reclaiming a baseline of accountability, then, is the first step in building public confidence in regulatory systems that work for people as well as science that the public believes in.

Recommend this post and follow TCW

https://disqus.com/home/forum/the-coconut-whisperer/

Obama lays out ideas for 'real change' following George Floyd protests, criticizes looting and vandalism

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/obama-lays-out-guidelines-for-real-change-following-george-floyd-protests-criticizes-looting-and-vandalism

Former President Barack Obama on Monday published a piece on Medium addressing the nationwide protests in the wake of the death of George Floyd -- laying out his ideas for how the country “can sustain momentum to bring about real change,” while also deriding the violence and looting that have occurred on the fringes of some demonstrations.

“The waves of protests across the country represent a genuine and legitimate frustration over a decades-long failure to reform police practices and the broader criminal justice system in the United States,” Obama wrote. “The overwhelming majority of participants have been peaceful, courageous, responsible, and inspiring. They deserve our respect and support, not condemnation.”

Thousands of people have gathered in cities across the country over the last few days to protest the police brutality and racial injustice following the death of Floyd, the Minneapolis man who died in police custody May 25 after Officer Derek Chauvin pinned down Floyd and kneeled on his neck for more than 8 minutes in a moment caught on cellphone video.

Chauvin, who was fired from the force along with three other officers involved in the incident, was charged late last week with third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter. He also was accused of ignoring another officer who expressed concerns about Floyd.

In his post, Obama countered the argument made by some protesters that demonstrations will facilitate more societal change than voting.

“I’ve heard some suggest that the recurrent problem of racial bias in our criminal justice system proves that only protests and direct action can bring about change, and that voting and participation in electoral politics is a waste of time,” he wrote. “I couldn’t disagree more.”

Video

Obama added: "The point of protest is to raise public awareness, to put a spotlight on injustice, and to make the powers that be uncomfortable… But eventually, aspirations have to be translated into specific laws and institutional practices — and in a democracy, that only happens when we elect government officials who are responsive to our demands.”

The country’s first black president is himself no stranger to widespread – sometimes violent – protests following the killing of a black man by police officers. Obama was in the White House when protests rocked the towns Ferguson, Mo., and Baltimore following the shooting death of Michael Brown by a police officer and the in-custody death of Freddie Gray, respectively.

While the former president said that the current protests stem from a “legitimate frustration over a decades-long failure to reform police practices,” he roundly condemned the vandalism, looting and violence that has, in part, overshadowed the more peaceful aspects of the protests in many cities.

Despite many protests occurring without incident, there was widespread looting and property destruction over the weekend in cities from New York and Philadelphia to Santa Monica and Seattle. The unrest led to more than 30 cities across the nation declaring curfews over the weekend.

Video

“The small minority of folks who’ve resorted to violence in various forms, whether out of genuine anger or mere opportunism, are putting innocent people at risk, compounding the destruction of neighborhoods that are often already short on services and investment and detracting from the larger cause,” Obama wrote.

He added: “So let’s not excuse violence, or rationalize it, or participate in it. If we want our criminal justice system, and American society at large, to operate on a higher ethical code, then we have to model that code ourselves.”

California man allegedly caught eating body of relative: report

https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-man-caught-eating-body-relative-police-say

A California man was arrested Monday afternoon after police said he murdered a relative and was caught by authorities eating her body, according to a report.

Police said they responded to a Richmond residence after a report of a disturbance. When officers arrived, they said they caught the man in the act of cannibalizing the victim.

Both the names of the suspect and victim have yet to be released, police added, according to The Mercury News.

Following the incident, police said they took the man into custody on suspicion of murder, the paper reported.

California looters seen fighting over their loot amid George Floyd unrest

https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-looters-fighting-over-loot-george-floyd

A group of looters in California’s Bay Area was captured on video Sunday fighting over items they reportedly stole from a retail store.

The video shows six people fighting over handfuls of clothes. Another person pushes past the group and grabs one of the discarded items on the sidewalk.

ABC7 News

✔@abc7newsbayarea

WILD VIDEO: Here's video of #looters in Walnut Creek turning on each other and start fighting over the clothes they stole. Latest here: https://abc7ne.ws/2TV20wr 

2,668

6:40 PM - May 31, 2020

Twitter Ads info and privacy

2,439 people are talking about this

The group then disperses and gets into separate cars after stuffing the clothes in the trunk.

The scene was one of many similar instances throughout the country, sparked by protests over the death of George Floyd and other killings of black people by police and U.S. citizens. Floyd, who was black, died after a white Minneapolis police officer pressed his knee on Floyd’s neck for more than eight minutes.

Multiple stores in Walnut Creek – where the video was recorded – were hit by looters on Sunday.

Mayor Loella Haskew told Fox 2 that the looting was in no way connected to the demonstrations taking place nationwide.

“It was pure and simple criminal behavior,” she said. “It equaled essentially a riot.”

The looting and rioting prompted city officials to issue a curfew effective from 6 p.m. to 5 a.m.

NY Police View of Cuomo and Riots

NYS police union slams Cuomo for ‘zero support’ amid George Floyd protests

By Carl Campanile

June 1, 2020 | 12:23pm | Updated

Enlarge Image

Gov. Andrew CuomoHans Pennink

MORE ON:

ANDREW CUOMO

De Blasio tells NYC George Floyd protesters to 'stay home'

Gov. Cuomo raises possibility of NYC curfew amid protests

Nationwide George Floyd riots are the price of liberalism: Devine

Cuomo: National Guard 'on standby' as George Floyd protests rage on

The head of the union representing the New York State Police slammed Gov. Andrew Cuomo as offering “zero support for us” by not addressing the attacks directed at troopers during violence-plagued protests in the wake of the death of George Floyd in police custody in Minnesota.

State Troopers PBA president Thomas Mungeer also said Cuomo vowed to “diminish the rights of your NYS Troopers” by supporting a law to open up disciplinary records of officers to public inspection and for barring police from cooperating with federal law enforcement under the Green Light Law that allows illegal aliens to get driver’s licenses.

“I find it appalling that you have not condemned the violence directed at your New York State Troopers during the riots across the state. In fact, during your daily briefing today you repeatedly used the word ‘ugly’ to describe recent events but did not acknowledge that the Troopers under your command have been responding to riots with unwavering loyalty to public safety,” Mungeer said in a letter to Cuomo, a copy of which was obtained by The Post.

Mungeer said law enforcement officers are also “outraged” by George Floyd’s deaths at the hands of police and respect the constitutional right of peaceful protest.

“However,” he said, “what Troopers are being called upon to respond to across the state are not peaceful protests or voices of reason urging societal changes, these are violent riots taking place around the state including New York City, Syracuse, Buffalo, Rochester and Albany, just blocks from the Executive Mansion.

“Peaceful protestors do not arrive with hammers and Molotov cocktails, burn police cars, smash the windows of businesses or spray graffiti on St. Patrick’s Cathedral — criminal opportunists and vandals do. Peaceful protestors do not start fires in the streets or to businesses — arsonists do. Peaceful protestors do not gather en masse to openly disregard laws, create havoc and impede on the rights of the general public — rioters do.”

SEE ALSO

Cuomo: National Guard 'on standby' as George Floyd protests rage on

State troopers have been dispatched to New York City and upstate to help keep the peace, Mungeer said.

“Unfortunately, our top elected officials, members of the state legislature and including you, Governor, have offered zero support for us. Why haven’t you pointed out that the assaultive actions of violent protestors cause a more assertive response from law enforcers?,” Mungeer said.

“For fulfilling our duties to the people of the state of New York, the proud members of the New York State Troopers PBA have in return been vilified and lumped into a group who you believe doesn’t have the wherewithal to discipline themselves.”

For good measure, Mungeer criticized New York’s “Green Light Law’’ that provides driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants but also “can result in a felony charge to a Trooper simply for providing information to a fellow law enforcement agency if requested.”

He also criticized Cuomo for vowing “to diminish the civil rights of your New York State Troopers through changes to NYS Civil Rights Law section 50a.”

“Governor Cuomo, now is not the time to be politically ashamed of supporting your New York State Troopers. We deserve better,” Mungeer said in the letter.

https://nypost.com/2020/06/01/gov-cuomo-slammed-by-nys-police-union-for-zero-support/