Remi Parmentier is a global leader in the defense of the ocean. Almost half a century of dedication and involvement support an activist who never stops traveling the world with her conservationist message. It is already her history that she participated in the beginnings of Greenpeace against radioactive spills and the killing of whales, which were managed to stop. Today, from the consulting firm Varda Group she continues to work for that immensity in which life emerged, in its governance and protection.
Recently, he has been appointed by Emmanuel Macron’s team as co-facilitator to mobilize civil society in what will be the “world ocean summit” that the French president and the president of Costa Rica will convene in Nice in 2025. The objective: to get it out an agreement as emblematic as the Paris climate agreement of 2015. But the geopolitical situation is very different and there are many pending challenges. Before that event, scientists from around the world will meet in Barcelona from April 8 to 12 at the 2024 Ocean Decade Conference to take stock of an ocean situation that is not encouraging.
How did you end up ‘immersed’ in oceanic themes?
I was very young when I saw on television, in 1974, the first ecological candidate in a presidential election, René Dumont. He showed a glass of water and said that drinking water would generate wars in the 21st century. I went up to meet him on his boat and I embarked with him. That changed my life. Back then, little was said about the environment, and even less about the sea, but we could be heard more than now because there was less background noise. In those times, referring to the legacy for future generations was almost a philosophical concept, but now we not only talk about our children and grandchildren, but also about our own future.
In this half century, what impacts you the most about what has happened?
The most important thing is oceanic change, which is immersed in the more global climate change. On the one hand, we know that the ocean is part of the solution because it absorbs CO2 and heat, but we also know that this has a cost for it because increasing CO2 concentrations change its chemical composition, acidify it, and sea temperatures decrease. they elevate That threatens its balance to the point that it may stop capturing that gas. This is why it is so important that 10 years after the Paris Agreement a new UN conference on the ocean is held. We need a global agreement like the climate agreement. This summit, which takes place every three years, will be the third and will take place in Nice, co-chaired by France and Costa Rica. It is not a COP [Conference of the Parties] because there is no agreement behind it and the framework is the Sustainable Development Goals, specifically goal 14, dedicated to the ocean. But it will be a conference at the highest level to evaluate the fulfillment of the goals that were set in 2015 for 2030.
In this context, it has recently launched the initiative Let’s be Nice to the ocean. It sounds good, but what does it consist of?
Beyond a nod to the city of Nice, Nice in French and English, it is about going beyond those goals for 2030. We have to make ocean protection the norm and not the exception. Now there is talk of protecting 30% of the land and 30% of the ocean globally. Very good, but I’m worried about the remaining 70%. You can protect some areas from impacts from outside. Furthermore, what ‘protected’ means is under discussion, because in many places harmful extractive activities are allowed in areas that already are. Until now, we ocean defenders have had to claim, almost beg, for marine protected areas. Each proposal takes years to achieve and, even approved, putting it into action is a challenge. I am talking about a new ‘principle of protection’, which consists of extractive companies having to prove that their activities are safe, that they comply with the need to preserve the ocean and that it is mandatory to mitigate their environmental footprint. Now it is the defenders who have to prove the damages. And we have to reverse the burden of proof. Nice is an opportunity to propose it to world leaders. It is a step beyond the precautionary principle adopted at the Rio Summit in 1992, which was not applied with the expected results.
The situation is already complex to achieve 30% protection and we see it in ‘vetoes’ such as the one to protect more areas in the Antarctic Ocean. In the current geopolitical context, is this global agreement on the ocean feasible?
I have identified three cases that are along those lines. Firstly, we have the opportunity to prevent a major destructive activity such as mining in large seabeds. It is not yet a reality and we can prevent it before it causes damage. There is already a coalition of 25 countries calling for a moratorium, including Spain. At the moment, they are few, but the Nice summit could increase their number and allow a consensus to stop it.
Those who defend seabed mining argue that it is a necessary activity for the energy transition that will stop climate change.
Everyone uses the reports they want. Joan Manuel Serrat already said in a song that ‘it would be fantastic if science were neutral’. Science is not above good and evil because we have gaps in our scientific knowledge that lead us to value judgments. We must analyze what jobs support those who advocate for this mining. Furthermore, technology is evolving at high speed and some batteries are being developed, such as sodium batteries, which will not require many minerals currently considered critical. On the other hand, you cannot solve an environmental crisis by generating another, and the circular economy, that is, the reuse of minerals, can put a stop to the desire for extraction.
I mentioned two other points on which a global agreement is important.
Another is the one I mentioned, the southern ocean. There the Indian, Pacific and Atlantic basins meet. It is the heart of the ocean and the largest climate thermostat on the planet. In a world in turmoil at a geopolitical level, a consensus to protect it seems difficult, but let us remember that in 1959 the Antarctic Treaty was adopted in the middle of the Cold War. Although it is frustrating to see that the negotiations have not progressed so far, it is to be hoped that a high-level summit can unblock them. The third objective has to do with the 50th anniversary of the Barcelona Convention, which, starting in 1976, allowed the coordinated work of the countries bordering the Mediterranean. Now there are more spills, more impacts of climate change, more cruise tourism and because of these new challenges we have to catch up; to make it relevant in the 21st century. To what extent will there be a paradigm shift? It is early to say, but it is important to plant the seed so that it grows for the next UN roadmap because the 2030 Agenda is running out.
As a prelude to the Nice meeting, there is another important ocean event in Barcelona this April…
This will be a meeting of the International Oceanographic Commission, a scientific body under the aegis of UNESCO. Let us not forget that we are in the decade of ocean research, although it started ‘limp’ in 2021 due to the pandemic. The scientists will adopt their message for the leaders who meet in Nice in 2025, where there will also be a science forum and another on the so-called ‘blue economy’. An international panel on ocean sustainability is also being promoted, along the lines of the IPCC. We’ll see if it goes ahead and is relevant. The dynamics between the UNESCO Oceanographic Commission and this new project will remain to be seen how it is resolved.
You mention the ‘blue economy’. Is it possible to combine it as it is now with the total ocean protection that it promotes?
Of course, but you have to be careful with solutions like aquaculture versus fishing. It is important that the first be with non-carnivorous species so that they do not cause more environmental damage than benefits. We see this with the farming of salmon in Norway that feed on Antarctic krill, a crustacean at the base of the southern ecosystem on which whales and penguins depend. Caring for the ocean is not about dedicating more funds to its protection, but about making better use of what already exists. Today, fishing subsidies favor large industrial fleets to the detriment of artisanal fishing. However, mentalities change; In December 2022, within the Convention on Biodiversity, governments committed to eliminate state aid that is harmful to biodiversity from 2025. According to this agreement, 500 billion dollars a year must be transferred from destruction to ecosystem restoration. And it’s not just the money. Structures in governments must also evolve. We have to change the Fisheries ministries for Ocean ministries, which take into account a comprehensive ecosystem vision. In Spain, Ecological Transition has marine protected areas under its mandate, but not the management of fishing resources.
He has recently been at UN meetings in Nairobi where they are working on a Treaty on plastic waste. What are the prospects for it being achieved?
The discussion is whether this global Treaty, whose adoption should take place at the end of this year, will be an instrument of mere waste management or whether it will include the entire plastic production cycle to reduce it. There are about 60 countries with high ambition (coordinated by Norway and Rwanda) that advocate reducing the proliferation of plastic, especially disposable plastic. But there is another group (made up of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Cuba, Bahrain and China) that only want to talk about waste. If the position of the latter is followed, incinerators and recycling will be promoted… But if the more ambitious positions win, production can be controlled and limited. There are two negotiating sessions left this year, of five days each, in Ottawa and South Korea, and there are uncertainties about the result because 10 days are insufficient to close an agreement. There is an attempt to have continuous work, but the most reticent block prevents this for the moment. The latest was a meeting in Nairobi, in February, to advance systems for reuse, where I was a facilitator. And it is important, because recycling can ensure that single-use (throwaway) plastics are used, while reusing is the opposite.
What other marine pollution is unregulated or poorly regulated?
It is better to talk about zero discharges. The word pollution carries a value judgment because what it encompasses varies depending on the interests of the country or the company responsible. He who pours denies or relativizes the damage. An example is France and the United Kingdom. Both dumped radioactive waste into the ocean from their nuclear reprocessing plants, arguing that they did not pollute, but the currents carried them to Ireland, where they did confirm the increase in concentrations in their waters. Schedules must be met to eliminate all discharges of dangerous, toxic, bioaccumulative and persistent substances to stop poisoning the sea. We give a lot of attention to plastic because it is visible, while regarding invisible chemical substances there is a great lack of awareness, although the concentration of these toxins in food and in our bodies is a reality.
Do we still have much to know about the ocean?
It is often said that we know more about the surface of Mars than about the bottom of the sea. Every week news comes out about discoveries of unknown marine species and ecosystems. A few days ago the discovery of more than 100 species in some seamounts off Chile was announced. The greatest mountains on Earth are on the high seas, not in the Himalayas, and they must be protected. Around it there are endemisms, species that only live there, that we are destroying without knowing them.
Today, do we have that 45% of the planet without control?
Not really. There are agreements and regulations for maritime traffic, deliberate dumping or deep sea fishing in some regions. Whales are also protected outside jurisdictional waters. And in 2023, a new treaty for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity was adopted that will allow the designation of marine protected areas on the high seas when it comes into force. They are slow and insufficient steps, but the fact that they exist is proof that it is possible to strengthen international law.
