By Arne Langlet, Paul Dunshirn & Glen Wright

Twitter has become a central platform for political [1] and scientific communication [2], offering a unique data source for researching digital communication and discussions between diplomats, stakeholders and scientists. During the COVID-19 pandemic, digital communication may have been particularly important for international negotiation processes such as the recently concluded negotiations for a treaty on biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ) [3, 4, 5].

Here we introduce a dataset of tweets related to BBNJ discussions, which we collected from the first of January 2018 to March, 9th, 2023. The resulting dataset contains 72727 tweets from 26137 unique users. We included all tweets that mentioned the hashtag #BBNJ. Below we present a preliminary analysis of the data, focusing on themes such as the intensity of online engagement with BBNJ-related discussions over time, network community structures, and content of tweet texts. We consider these themes as pathways for further research.

We want to invite anyone with an interest in using the data to get in touch with us to discuss possibilities for further engagement.

How did the BBNJ discussion on Twitter evolve?

Our data shows that in early 2018, #BBNJ was already used in an average of around 12 tweets per day. The use of #BBNJ sparked for the first time during the first Intergovernmental Conference (IGC1) in September 2018. Particularly during the first three days of the IGC1 (4-6 September 2018), we can see high activity, peaking at 757 tweets in just one day. A total of ​​13465 BBNJ-tweets were posted during IGC1, averaging around 250 per day. The discussion subsequently went quiet, ahead of the next peak during the IGC2. By then, the hashtag was well established. During the intersessional period between IGCs2 and 3, more tweets were published than in the previous intersessional period.

Tweeting continued during the intersessional period between IGCs3 and 4, which stretched to 30 months owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. This period saw around 17 daily BBNJ-tweets. This continued engagement may indicate that the online dialogues (‘High Seas Dialogues’ and ‘BBNJ Intersessional Work’)  helped to maintain some momentum and visibility during the COVID-19 pandemic [3, 4, 5].

The fourth IGC was originally planned to be the final round of negotiations, and the flurry of BBNJ-tweets on the opening day was relatively high. Nonetheless, this IGC ultimately garnered fewer Tweets in comparison to the previous rounds. Tweets on BBNJ dropped markedly after IGC4 – at around 11 per day, – this period was the quietest since we started sampling in 2018. Usage of #BBNJ once again picked up during the UN Ocean Conference, with civil society and ambitious States using the occasion to call for the finalisation of the BBNJ treaty.

The #BBNJ hashtag exploded during IGC 5 and 5.2, when the hashtag was used in more than 1000 tweets. This correlated with increased media and public attention on the negotiations. The days with the most tweets were March 5th, 6th and 7th 2023 with 5325, 3913 and 2056 Tweets respectively. We were unable to plot these dates on the following graph as they were outliers, and thus, outside of the limits of the visualization.

This analysis reveals a couple of trends. Firstly, BBNJ-related Twitter activity primarily occurs during the in-person negotiation sessions and strongly increased when the negotiations were getting closer to the finish line. After usage of #BBNJ was cemented during IGCs 1 and 2, the hashtag began to occur more often in other ocean events (such as the aforementioned UN Ocean Conference, which was not BBNJ specific). The days after BBNJ was concluded showed the strongest Twitter activity as it became part of the general media coverage.

How did the BBNJ network develop?

From the #BBNJ tweets emerged a social network, which we can visualise by analysing the interactions between users (i.e. retweets and mentions). We found that 13739 users interacted with at least one other user, creating 31842 connections. The following video shows how the BBNJ network has grown since the beginning of 2018.

Video editing: Alexander Medgett

Pathways for further research

Community Analysis

The network is quite closely connected in one large component, and we only see a few  entirely disconnected user groups. A modularity-based community detection algorithm nonetheless identifies different communities within the main component (distinguished by colour in the video). Looking at network evolution over time reveals that certain core communities formed around IGC1, but that subsequent communities joined the discussions at later stages. Particularly, the purple and black communities formed around a small number of highly influential users that attracted a high number of otherwise disconnected users.

Network properties of #BBNJ discussions

Apart from analysing community structures, the relational nature of our data allows the use of established indicators from social network analysis, such as “centralization”. Centralization refers to the distribution of links between nodes [7]. An increase in centralization means that a small number of users are highly connected compared to the majority of people in the network. Table 1 shows that the centralization of the BBNJ network grew steadily after IGC1, indicating that the network grew closer together and a few users became very well connected. During the IGCs (in red), many new users joined the network and the centralization decreased. This indicates that the distribution of connections became more equal, i.e. the gap between hyper- and weakly-connected users shrank and new users joined the BBNJ community. After IGC3, the dynamics of the network did not significantly change and the network grew ever closer around a few highly central nodes for a long time. However, with IGCs 5 and 5.2, the centralization suddenly decreased strongly as many new nodes joined the network by tweeting about #BBNJ and tagging or retweeting other users.

Period	Centralization
Pre IGCs	0,16
IGC 1	0,11
Intersessional IGC 1-2	0,16
IGC 2	0,21
Intersessional IGC 2-3	0,22
IGC 3	0,20
COVID-19 Intersessional IGC 3-4	0,31
IGC 4	0,32
Intersessional IGC 4 – UN Ocean Conference	0,32
UN Ocean Conference	0,34
Past UN Ocean & pre IGC 5	0,34
IGC 5	0.23
IGC 5.2	0.21

Content analysis: other hashtags used in connection to the BBNJ hashtag

Our dataset also contains the actual #BBNJ tweet texts, allowing for a closer analysis of the content of discussion. For example, we can identify other hashtags that were used jointly with #BBNJ. #highseas co-occurs most frequently, reflecting the use of that term as a more readily intelligible alternative and recent discussion about the possibility of renaming the BBNJ Treaty to the commonly used “High Seas Treaty”.

#	Freq
highseas	7230
ocean	3134
highseastreaty	2059
biodiversity	1914
igc5	1754
oneoceanoneplanet	1130
stronghighseas	1045
abnj	1044
igc4	872
sdg14	691
unclos	649
oceans	580
mpas	511
igc2	462
deepsea	417
protecttheoceans	398
igc3	394
oneoceansummit	381
30×30	300

Contact us for collaboration:

We are excited to announce that our comprehensive Twitter dataset on the #BBNJ (Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction) negotiations is available now. The dataset encompasses more than 72.000 tweets and can offer valuable insights into the global discourse surrounding conservation of marine biodiversity and sustainable use of marine resources. We invite fellow researchers, including early-career researchers and master students to utilize this rich dataset for their scholarly investigations, enabling a deeper understanding of public opinions, key themes, networks and emerging trends during the BBNJ negotiations.

Should you wish to access this dataset and collaborate on groundbreaking research, please do not hesitate to contact us:

maripoldata.erc@univie.ac.at

References:

[1] Jungherr, A. (2014). Twitter in politics: a comprehensive literature review. Available at SSRN 2865150.; Jörgens, H., Kolleck, N., & Saerbeck, B. (2016). Exploring the hidden influence of international treaty secretariats: using social network analysis to analyse the Twitter debate on the ‘Lima Work Programme on Gender’. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(7), 979-998.; Pearce, W., Holmberg, K., Hellsten, I., & Nerlich, B. (2014). Climate Change on Twitter: Topics, Communities and Conversations about the 2013 IPCC Working Group 1 Report. PLOS ONE, 9.

[2] Boteler, B. (2016). Scientists and Twitter: How does this Group of Fact Finding Professionals use Twitter? Journal of Visual and Media Anthropology, 1(2), 5-18.; López-Goñi, I., & Sánchez-Angulo, M. (2018). Social networks as a tool for science communication and public engagement: focus on Twitter. FEMS Microbiology letters, 365(2), fnx246.; Su, L. Y.-F., Scheufele, D. A., Bell, L., Brossard, D., & Xenos, M. A. (2017). sci. Science Communication, 39(5), 569-597.

[3] Vadrot, A. B. M., Langlet, A., Tessnow-von Wysocki, I., Tolochko, P., Brogat, E., & Ruiz-Rodríguez, S. C. (2021). Marine Biodiversity Negotiations During COVID-19: A New Role for Digital Diplomacy? Global Environmental Politics, 21(3), 169-186.

[4] Vadrot, A. B. M., & Ruiz Rodríguez, S. C. (2022). Digital Multilateralism in Practice: Extending Critical Policy Ethnography to Digital Negotiation Sites. International Studies Quarterly 66(3). Article sqac051, https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqac051

[5] Langlet, A., Wanneau, K., Dunshirn, P., Ruiz Rodríguez, S. C., Tessnow-von Wysocki, I. & Vadrot, A.B.M. (2022). A matter of time: the impacts of Covid-19 on marine biodiversity negotiations. Négociations, 37, 39-65. https://doi.org/10.3917/neg.037.0039

[7] Borgatti, Stephen P. (2005). “Centrality and Network Flow”. Social Networks. 27: 55–71.
[/av_textblock]

Since 2018, the MARIPOLDATA research team has followed the BBNJ negotiations and provided extensive insights of the diplomatic practices, science-policy interactions and conflicts shaping the development of a new high seas biodiversity treaty (Tessnow-von Wysocki & Vadrot, 2020; Vadrot, 2020; Vadrot et al. 2022). In parallel, we studied the emerging scientific field of marine biodiversity to understand the state of what scientists knew and delve into the global inequalities of the scientific field, which were reappearing at the negotiation sites (Tolochko & Vadrot 2021a, 2021b). To close the gap between the scientific field and the negotiations though, MARIPOLDATA has taken a closer look at the national level to study marine biodiversity monitoring policies and practices from the perspective of deep-sea laboratories. With the aim to compare these perspectives, the laboratory life of laboratories adds a new key site to understand the structure of the politics of marine biodiversity research entangled between science and policy.

This MARIPOLDATA blog series shares insights from three laboratory ethnographies undertaken between October and December 2022 by three researchers of the ERC MARIPOLDATA team. These ethnographies will take our readers to the United States at Scripps Oceanography[1] at the University of California San Diego, France at the IFREMER[2] of Brest and Brazil at the Oceanographic Institute[3] of São Paulo. Our intention in sharing three singular experiences of laboratory ethnography is to provide a first outlook of how national knowledge infrastructures produce marine biodiversity knowledge. 

The IOUSP in São Paulo

The Oceanographic Institute (Instituto Oceanográfico) at the University of São Paulo (USP) is a research and teaching institution focused on marine science. It was founded in 1948 with the goal of promoting the study of oceanography in Brazil and contributing to the development of the country through research and education. The Oceanographic Institute is located in the city of São Paulo. São Paulo is the largest city in Brazil and the capital of the state of São Paulo. It is located in the southeastern part of the country, and is known for its cultural, economic, and political importance. The city is the major economic and cultural center in Brazil and home to a diverse population and a vibrant culture. The IOUSP about a 1-2 hour drive from the Atlantic Ocean, and is affiliated with the University of São Paulo, one of the top universities in Latin America. It possesses more than 40 labs researching all aspects of oceanography, including biological, physical and chemical oceanography, marine geology, marine chemistry, and marine governance.

Over the years, the Oceanographic Institute has played a significant role in the development of marine science in Brazil, conducting research and providing education to students from a variety of disciplines. It has largely contributed to the understanding southern Atlantic Ocean – a previously understudied region – and its role in the earth’s climate and ecosystems but also partakes in missions to the Antarctic station, fulfilling Brazil’s research presence on the Antarctic continent. The institute possesses numerous research facilities and equipment, including a fleet of research vessels, and is home to a large number of researchers, professors, and students. In addition to its diverse research activities, the Oceanographic Institute has been pivotal for marine sciences in Brazil by offering undergraduate and graduate programs in marine science, as well as continuing education courses and workshops. Hence, it is also the Brazilian hub for the UN Decade of Ocean Science, for which a large mural painting was inaugurated during my research stay.

Deep Sea Ecology and Evolution Laboratory (LAMP)

The Deep Sea Ecology and Evolution Laboratory (Laboratório de Ecologia e Evolução de Mar Profundo – LAMP) is mainly focused on the deep-sea biodiversity assessment and on the mapping and description of deep-sea habitats and fauna. Further research interests include ecological and biogeochemical benthic processes in the continental margins of the Atlantic Ocean and Antarctica. The laboratory is led by Professor Paulo Sumida who himself was a master student at the IOUSP in 1994 before pursuing his PhD National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, UK and becoming a Post-Doctoral Fellow at Craig Smith Lab in the University of Hawaii at Manoa.

In November 2022 the laboratory had five ongoing projects that aimed at exploring different aspects of largely unknown ecosystems in the southern Atlantic ocean and the Antarctic. One of them is the DECODE project which seeks to understand the dynamics of deep-water coral ecosystems in the south-west Atlantic. The LAMP team used a combination of an ROV (with camera) Lander (with camera) and a sediment trap for this study. First they explored the area with an ROV and then installed the lander and the sediment trap for continuous monitoring. The sediment trap checked what kind of sediment (and tiny animals in it) was floating around and the lander shot videos in regular intervals to research which fauna visited the coral reef. In this way cold water corals and the potential impacts of oiling activities were monitored.

Providing high quality images of a largely unstudied area

Much of the research at LAMP is aimed at the Santos Basin (Bacia de Santos) which is located in the EEZ of Brazil off the coast of the two large Brazilian cities Rio de Janeiro & Sao Paulo. Here, the research team is active in describing the coral ecosystems. As this part of the Atlantic Ocean remains largely undescribed, one of the main tasks of the research team is to produce images of the flora and fauna of ecosystems in the depth of 400-800 meters. Indeed, producing high quality imagines of rarely seen species was repeatedly highlighted as a “speciality” of the lab, with Sumida famously spending “up to 10 hours” to take the perfect picture of a new species during a cruise.

Collaborative taxonomy

“It is normal that every researcher discovers a new species in this area,” the doctoral student Bruno Henrique told me when I congratulated him to describing a new species in his PhD thesis. Indeed, also Bachelor student André Calloni described a new brittle start in his bachelor thesis which consists of a catalog of spectacular photographs of brittle stars. When asking about their methodology how to identify new species, I began to learn about the collaborative working method that characterizes this laboratory. I learned that when they discover something unknown, “here everyone speaks to everyone” so that everyone´s taxonomic knowledge is quickly aggregated to discover the species at hand – or if unknown – realize that it is indeed a new species. One could describe their method as “visual collaborative taxonomy” – as researchers identify species collaboratively and based on images.

The condensed milk statistic & and strong collaboration with oil companies

Unfortunately, researchers in Brazil have faced significant funding cuts in recent years which has led to making them financially dependent on funding from private sources. The decrease of federal public funding for research in Brazil arguably reached its dramatic yet ironic peak in 2021 when a public spending statistic showed that the previous federal government spent more money on condensed milk than on financing research. Because extractive industries in Brazil are required by law to spent 1% of their yearly revenue on scientific or educative purposes, companies such as Petrobras have filled the spending gap in recent years. Petrobras – the company involved in the “Car Wash” scandal – a massive corruption scheme, in which executives and politicians had taken bribes in exchange for awarding contracts – is now a major cooperation partner as they not only provide funding for research projects such as the DECODE project but also provide crucial infrastructure for the researchers such as the necessary vessels to conduct sampling in the deep sea. This cooperation – as always – comes with advantages and disadvantages. One major disadvantage that researchers lamented is the strict data sharing policy that Petrobras requires from its scientifc project partners. This means that Brazilian researchers involved in Petrobras projects are not allowed to share data (particularly not outside of Brazil), which oftentimes prevents them from engaging in international research projects or cooperations.

Overall, I spent two insightful and fascinating weeks at the LAMP and also got to see the research station in Ubatuba.

 

 

[1] https://scripps.ucsd.edu/

[2] https://www.ifremer.fr/fr

[3] https://www.io.usp.br/

 

A new Marine Biodiversity Treaty in Sight

Marine Biodiversity Negotiations have resumed in New York and negotiators are left with one more week to finalize the new treaty which will govern conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ). The MARIPOLDATA Team has been following the proceedings closely. This blog follows the BBNJ Blog Series and provides an overview of the progress of the first week and outstanding issues, which still need to be resolved in the days to come.

The week was characterized by ups and downs in the different sessions that were covering the package elements Marine Genetic Resources (MGRs), Area-based Management Tools (ABMTs), including Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), and Capacity Building and the Transfer of Marine Technology (CBTMT), as well as overarching “Cross-cutting Issues”. The latter includes provisions on general principles and approaches governing the new instrument, the institutional setup regarding the decision-making organ (Conference of the Parties (COP)), the Scientific and Technical Body, the Secretariat, and the Implementation and Compliance Committee. Overall, the first week was characterized by a spirit of compromise by Parties, gradually finding a “landing zone” – namely agreement – on various contentious issues.

Final drafting of the new treaty

Throughout the first week, negotiations were advancing at different paces on different topics, leaving the issues of firstly, fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of marine genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction and secondly, the establishment of ABMT, including MPAs as the most challenging parts. Compared to the last conference session in August, the section on EIAs went surprisingly fast, with much flexibility from State Parties and proposals for compromise. Also regarding CBTMT, the textual drafting proceeded without substantial conflicts. The hope that negotiations are now in the final days before the adoption of the agreement can be derived from the language that States use in engaging with each other’s positions and arguments. States’s statements showed that they are willing to work together constructively and with the necessary flexibility.

Figure 1: Language analysis of constructiveness of States’ statements

Using our notes from State Parties’ interventions in the plenary and informal informal sessions, we ran a latent semantic scaling language model to evaluate how constructive the language of the negotiators’ statements was. The language used by States is an important indicator for how a negotiation is progressing (Georgiadou, Angelopoulos,and Drake 2020). We see that in the first week at the resumed 5th session “IGC 5.final”, States used more constructive language than during the same time period at IGC 5. State Parties formulated their statements in a particularly constructive manner at the end of week 1, compared to the previous round of negotiations in August. 

Marine Genetic Resources

The discussions on MGRs started on Monday with two new written proposals from developing and developed State Parties. This promised a constructive and engaged start – a lack of written proposals reflecting the ongoing discussions hampered progress during IGC 5 in August 2022. The proposals made big steps towards compromise as they both converged on an obligation for monetary benefit sharing through an upfront payment. Both sides offered significant concessions from their initial pre-IGC 5 positions to get to this point: developed States moved away from their complete opposition to any sort of monetary benefit sharing and developing States in turn accepted that such monetary contributions are purposed for achieving the objectives of this treaty (conservation and sustainable use). Such a spirit of comprise will be needed to resolve the remaining issues. 

Substantial differences remain on whether upfront payments shall be accompanied by a so-called “enabling clause” or an obligation for payments based on the commercialization of MGR-related products. An enabling clause would mean that obligatory payments on commercialization would not form part of the initial agreement, but that the COP would deal with the matter and possibly develop modalities for such payments. The envisioned enabling clause opens the possibility of commercialization-dependent payments without specifying details at this stage. However, the enabling clause as currently proposed leaves too much uncertainty on whether it will ever be invoked, as it requires consensus from all State parties. 

A similar difference emerged over the long-standing debate on how to treat digital sequence information (DSI). Again, one side offered an enabling clause and the other side requested clear commitments. Both sides had in mind the recent decision by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) COP on the inclusion of DSI for benefit sharing in their lines of argumentation. Developed countries preferred to leave this issue open, waiting for the “fair, transparent, inclusive, participatory and time-bound process to further develop and operationalize the mechanism” (CBD, COP decision 15/9, Art. 17) whereas the developing states insisted that “the benefits from the use of digital sequence information on genetic resources should be shared fairly and equitably (CBD COP decision 15/9, Art. 2) and wished for this to be clarified under the BBNJ regime as well. The compromise may lie in the level of details, as the regime needs to a) accomplish legal certainty for developing states that benefits from DSI will be included and b) remain flexible to take up developments occurring under the CBD mechanism. 

It was noted that it would help developed States in the ratification process if reasonable and doable obligations on State parties are clearly stated throughout Part II of the agreement. In terms of the notification mechanism, a realistic landing zone may lie in requiring State parties to ensure the use of standardized identifiers and regular aggregated utilization reports from databases. 

States agreed that some sort of access and benefit-sharing body will be established to overview and inform implementation of this part. The initial proposal to have a “mechanism” appears to draw logic from the “mechanism” established under CBD. Suggestions to replace this wording with “advisory committee” were met with the argument that all subsidiary bodies established under the instrument will be advisory to the COP and hence, this needs not to be explicitly stated for this body only (see MARIPOLDATA blog on marine issues and DSI at CBD COP15.2).

Area-based Management Tools, including Marine Protected Areas 

While the discussion on whether to have consensus-based decision-making in the COP for establishing the new ABMTs/MPAs is still on the table, most States prefer a majority-based voting procedure. This would mean that proposed ABMTs/MPAs cannot be vetoed by one Party alone, if the majority of the international community agrees on the necessity to undertake this new measure to conserve and sustainably use marine biodiversity. Linked to this discussion is the question of so-called “opt-out”, meaning a State Party objecting to the establishment of the new measure can “opt out” of their obligations to comply with the measures (On the delicate balance between opt-outs and majority voting in other instruments see recent IISD guest article). As explained in previous MARIPOLDATA blogs, this risks having States as Parties to the agreement without actually complying with what is agreed by all or by a majority of the COP, threatening the effectiveness of such measures. Throughout the negotiations, and in the spirit of compromise, there is acknowledgement that this agreement will not fully meet one single State’s interest but rather, that it needs to be a compromise solution that works for all and improves the current situation on the high seas. Under this premise, many States have moved away from their original preference of not having the “opt-out” clause, but rather putting in place a majority vote in the COP and – in very special cases – allow for such exemptions. The following days will be crucial in negotiating the knitty-gritty of the legal text to close loopholes and at the same time allow for universal participation of States to the BBNJ treaty.

The second issue is how the new agreement will account for “other relevant legal instruments and frameworks and relevant global, regional, subregional and sectoral bodies” (IFBs) that are already in place and ABMTs that are already established – or will be established – by those bodies and frameworks. Some Parties interpreted the wording in the draft text  as an introduction of a hierarchy between recognized and unrecognized ABMTs/MPAs by the BBNJ instrument, which would neither be possible nor desired in international ocean governance. The coming days will be busy with finding the right wording to agree on the cooperation and coordination of BBNJ with existing International Frameworks and Bodies (IFBs) with the aim to enable coherent biodiversity governance of ABMTs/MPAs, facilitating well-connected networks of ABMTs/MPAs in areas beyond national jurisdiction (this covers the water column and the seafloor but is currently governed by different international regimes). In the light of ecological connectivity – the knowledge of ecological, biological, genetic and cultural interconnections – such joint establishment of ABMTs/MPAs among the different governing bodies is crucial for effective conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity (Tessnow-von Wysocki & Vadrot, 2022) (see: MARIPOLDATA blog on marine issues and DSI at CBD COP15.2).

Towards the end of the first week, discussions were again taken up on issues that were believed to have been resolved already in the past conference session, such as definitions of MPAs, and threatened to throw the negotiations back to where they had left off in August.

Environmental Impact Assessments

The part on EIAs advanced comparatively quickly on passages of the text that were unresolved from the last conference session, due to constructive compromise proposals by several regional groups, which took into account concerns of State Parties that were raised during the past years of negotiation.

The discussions seem to evolve into a two-tiered approach for EIAs between a complete unilateral decision-making over activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction and a full COP decision-making. Several layers of such internationalization at different steps of the EIA process still need to be formulated but both sides seem to converge on a possible “landing zone” and middle ground between the contrasting concepts. In this way, the disagreement about an effects vs. location-based approach could be advanced. Some controversial issues, however, still remain. At one point, the facilitator even felt that “we are rowing backwards”. 

Details of a “call-in” mechanism will still need to be finalized in the coming days, ensuring a process to question a screening undertaken by one Party that would allow the activity to be conducted without an EIA. One particularly contentious issue is the inclusion of a set of guidelines or standards to which the EIAs need to be upheld – as in the current discussions it would be the State Party itself who is undertaking an EIA for their own planned activities. Discussions on whether additionally to voluntary guidelines, this new legally binding agreement should also provide minimum universal standards that all States  need to follow  when conducting their EIAs. This is still a highly controversial topic and remains to be discussed until the last days.

Another issue regards the key question when an EIA will need to be undertaken. In this discussion, two different thresholds on the table would trigger an EIA: 1) significant and harmful changes and 2) minor or transitory effects to the marine environment. This issue has been avoided in discussions, as no easy compromise is expected in this regard. The same attitude was observed for the role of the Scientific and Technical Body, which was left to the very end of week one.

Capacity Building and Transfer of Marine Technology

From the beginning of IGC 5.final, the CBTMT negotiations proceeded relatively smoothly and in clear view on compromise. In the first session, the two State groups holding different views on the topic called the draft text a “clear” and “well balanced” document that “has realistic landing zones”. It was, for example, encouraging to observe that the differences around “shall ensure” in Art. 44 were largely resolved and the wording of the text accepted. 

Disagreement emerged over the proposed addition of the “term” financial to the list of capabilities that shall be enhanced under Art. 46.1. Whereas developing states referred to the required commitment to financial support for capacity-building, developed states argued that the term financial does not fit in the logic of the paragraph. Related to the developments under the MGRs chapter, these differences can certainly be settled by providing the necessary legal certainty and commitment for developing countries that financial support for capacity building is given. 

Unsettled cross-cutting issues

Under Cross-cutting issues, States discussed which principles and approaches should guide the new instrument in two informal-informals sessions. This section of the agreement has been difficult to discuss and left a few concepts up to debate that will form the basis for the new treaty. Negotiations circled back to previous discussions on precautionary principle/approach or the newly phrased term ‘application of precaution’ with a general agreement that the latter could not be a good compromise and would result in further questions of how to define and apply in practice. Developing States pointed to the large  number of countries of regional groups to convey their arguments for the precautionary principle. Yet, whether to use the precautionary principle or approach remains to be discussed.

Also, the option of including the principle of common heritage of humankind as a guiding principle meets much controversy, similar to previous negotiations. It remains to be seen how this disagreement can be resolved to satisfy both proponents of the 1) principle of the common heritage of humankind (mostly developing states) and 2) freedom of the high seas (mostly developed States). In the spirit of compromise, we wonder if a principle encompassing the benefit for the planet could resolve the opposition of two historical principles and provide the basis for  the mandate of the BBNJ treaty focusing overconservation and sustainable use (see: MARIPOLDATA blog on common heritage of the planet).

Figure 2: State (and state-group) positions on whether to include the common heritage of mankind in Art. 5 on general principles and approaches – visualized to depict the conflict over the common heritage principle (position in squares, States in circles). 

Conflict over Common Heritage of Mankind, IGC 2 & 3 Source: Vadrot et al., 2021	Conflict over Common Heritage of Mankind,  IGC 5.final Source: Authors

Another important topic under cross-cutting issues is the future relationship of the BBNJ instrument with other bodies. Considering the already existing amount of international organizations and regimes and the resulting complexity of marine governance, there is the real risk that a strict not undermining clause (Art. 4.2.) may result in little transformative possibility. Proposals to reformulate Art 4.2. that focused on the effectiveness of measures of the instruments were rejected. During the first week, States concerned that BBNJ may turn out too weak instrument provided a  new proposal to strengthen the BBNJ instrument. The text now contains two brackets to “respect the competences of” and to promote “mutual support”, which would reflect the bidirectional relationship of the not-undermining issue (See MARIPOLDATA blog on the relationship with other instruments and organizations). The future of these brackets remains to be seen in week 2. 

On another previously contentious  issue – Art. 52  on funding – a road to compromise is visible. The stronger language “shall provide for” (own emphasis) has become acceptable to most States when the qualifier “in accordance with its national policies, priorities, plans and programmes” is added to the end of the sentence. 

A completely new discussion started around the wording “indigenous peoples” which was capitalized (“Indigenous Peoples”) in the most recent draft text. A number of countries expressed their opposition to this change which for them represents more than a mere editorial drafting change. Countries in favor of the capitalization argued that capitalization followed a precedent and current UN practice in drafting official documents. The editorial capitalization was retained in the new draft text of February 25 but a small working group was set up to solve this issue throughout all provisions of this agreement. 

The “fluffy beast” and other institutional arrangements 

Discussions evolved around the details of an Implementation and Compliance Committee to ensure the effective operationalization of the treaty obligations. As pointed out during the discussions, such a committee will probably rather be a “fluffy beast”, with a non-adversarial and non-punitive character and no real legal sanction case of non-compliance. Still, it was agreed on the importance of such a committee to assist States in their implementation of treaty obligations and, thus, a key institutional arrangement for meeting the treaty’s objectives. Moreover, no consensus has been found on dispute settlement, keeping the divide between Parties and non-Parties to UNCLOS.

Another important institutional arrangement to meet the treaty’s objectives will be the Scientific and Technical Body (STB) and related questions about how scientific advice will flow into the implementation of the BBNJ treaty. While the provision on the STB in Art. 49 was agreed on fairly quickly, modalities and character of such a body remain to be developed by the COP at a later stage. In the specific parts of the agreement dealing with the future role of the STB, there was no easy compromise on the role of this body. Pending discussions include the role of the STB in consultations on and assessment of proposals for ABMTs/MPAs, some sort of oversight of the STB regarding decisions by Parties that screenings or EIAs will not be necessary, it’s involvement in the “call-in mechanism”, and consequential actions that would need to be required in response to the recommendations of the STB. Moreover, a potential role for the STB in assisting EIA processes of States with capacity constraints and in the conduct of further public consultation is being discussed. A potential role of the STB in reviewing, proposing rectifications to and publishing EIA (draft) reports is considered by Parties. Regarding decision-making on whether a planned activity can be carried out, the STB could play a role in reviewing EIA reports prior to authorization of an activity and review reports on the impacts of authorized activities to make recommendations on whether the activity should continue.

As regards the Conference of the Parties (COP), discussions have not been exhausted on whether the COP will take decisions by consensus or majority vote, and if so, which majority. Moreover, it was agreed that there should be regular meetings, however, how often and where such meetings will take place are still up for negotiation. 

In negotiations on the Secretariat, Parties seem to agree on the need for a separate Secretariat apart from UNDOALOS. Which country may host a separate Secretariat is however still up to debate.

Compromising on the future Treaty

Now it will be crucial to see which topics can be agreed on and included in the legally-binding agreement – and which decisions will be left to the COP to decide in future meetings (which then will not be able to gain mandatory character without amendments to the agreement). The final text will need to be ready mid-week in order for the legal drafting committee to give the final touch and have it translated into all official UN languages in time for adoption before negotiators leave to return to their home countries. Reasons to hope for a successful conclusion of the agreement exist: The good work of the secretariat in providing a new comprehensive draft text is a major step. As promised by the president during the plenary on Friday morning, a new text was released “Saturday during daylight” for negotiators to continue bilateral meetings over the weekend.

 

References: 

Georgiadou, Elena, Spyros Angelopoulos, and Helen Drake. 2020. “Big Data Analytics and International Negotiations: Sentiment Analysis of Brexit Negotiating Outcomes.” International Journal of Information Management 51: 102048.

Tessnow-von Wysocki, Ina., & Vadrot, Alice B. M. 2022. “Governing a Divided Ocean: The Transformative Power of Ecological Connectivity in the BBNJ negotiations”. Politics and governance, 10, 28. doi:10.17645/pag.v10i3.5428 

Vadrot, Alice B.M. Langlet, Arne. Tessnow-von Wysocki, Ina. 2022. “Who owns marine biodiversity? Contesting the world order through the `common heritage of humankind´ principle”. Environmental Politics 31(2): 226-250

Watanabe, Kohei. 2021. “Latent Semantic Scaling: A Semisupervised Text Analysis Technique for New Domains and Languages.” Communication Methods and Measures 15 (2): 81–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1832976.

Watanabe, Kohei. 2023. “Introduction to LSX, the Package for Latent Semantic Scaling.” http://koheiw.github.io/LSX/articles/pkgdown/.

 

By Arne Langlet and Simon Fellinger

This contribution is part of a MARIPOLDATA blog series on current developments and discussions about marine biodiversity negotiations – more specifically, 1) the negotiations towards an international legally binding instrument 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) and 2) the second part of 15^th Conference of the Parties (COP15.2) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).  The recently published article “Not ‘undermining’ who? Unpacking the emerging BBNJ regime complex” informs the BBNJ negotiations by untangling the regime complex of existing international organizations (IOs) that operate in the field of marine biodiversity. We show that up to 52 IOs are perceived as potentially relevant for BBNJ which means that negotiators should carefully formulate the “not undermining” Article 4 of the draft text to strengthen cooperation among IOs in the implementation of the BBNJ agreement. The dataset underlying this publication has recently been made publicly available. 

Will BBNJ become a pilot boat for sustainable ocean governance? (Pilot boat guiding a sailboat, Photo by Philipp Straub)

What does article 4 of the current BBNJ treaty draft refer to?

The BBNJ Agreement is intended to complement and cooperate with other marine biodiversity-related agreements administered by several IOs such as treaty secretariats, intergovernmental organizations, and regional bodies. Art 4.2 of the draft text mandates that the ‘Agreement shall be interpreted and applied in a manner that does not undermine relevant legal instruments and frameworks and relevant global, regional, subregional and sectoral bodies’. The article “Not ‘undermining’ who? Unpacking the emerging BBNJ regime complex” contributed to informing the negotiations by providing a list of IOs that have been associated to the BBNJ negotiations, addressing the “who” – or, more specifically,  which IOs negotiators refer to when talking about “not undermining”. The observed multitude of IOs and their complex involvement in the negotiations have led scholars and delegates to describe the situation as a “regime complex”.

What are the effects of regime complexity?

Regime complexity, defined as ambiguity in international standards, inconsistent rules and obligations, and opportunities for “forum shopping,” poses a significant threat to the effectiveness of international cooperation. This is due to actors seeking to take advantage of legal incoherence and competition among international organizations (IOs) to select a negotiation forum that best serves their interests (Alter & Meunier, 2009; Gehring & Faude, 2013). Forum shopping can occur when IOs compete in response to regime complexity and can ultimately undermine the effectiveness of all involved regimes. (Henning & Pratt, 2020, p. 1).

While regime complexity has been shown to pose challenges to international cooperation, research has also revealed positive effects. Increased availability of resources (Kelley, 2009), expertise (Lesage and Van de Graaf, 2013), local knowledge (Yadav & Gjerde, 2020), improved flow of information (Pretty & Ward, 2001), diffusion of practices and management structures (Rosenkopf & Abrahamson, 1999), and increased resilience in times of crisis (Janssen et al., 2006) have been identified as potential benefits. However, these positive effects are dependent on the ability of IOs to engage in cooperation and support each other (Dai, 2002; Perez, Cohen & Schreiber 2019; Sofronova, Holley & Nagarajan, 2014). To maximize the positive effects of regime complexity, it is essential to foster cooperative relationships among IOs, rather than competitive ones. But it remains unclear what factors determine the character of cooperative relationships.

How to facilitate cooperative relationships?

The literature suggests that cooperation between IOs is facilitated by shared goals (Downie, 2021; Carlisle & Gruby, 2019) and a clear hierarchy (Henning & Pratt, 2020). In the case of the BBNJ agreement, the hierarchy is established by the predominant role of UNCLOS, which serves as a reference point for other regimes, including the ISA and the UNFSA. However, principles of environmental governance and conservation remained underdeveloped in UNCLOS, such as the requirements for environmental assessments or the duty to cooperate for the conservation of living resources in the high seas. The BBNJ agreement could specify such principles.

Differentiation, or clarifying differences in scope and tasks, have also been shown to support collaborative relationships and compliance in regime complexes (Henning & Pratt, 2020). In the context of the BBNJ agreement, clear differentiation of scope and tasks with other IOs, such as the FAO or CBD, could provide a basis for institutional cooperation. For example, the description of EBSAs from the CBD could be used to inform MPAs under BBNJ, or the FAO could benefit from clarifying the contribution of BBNJ to achieve the holistic and comprehensive conservation and sustainable use of all marine biodiversity species – including fish – in ABNJ.

Hence, the BBNJ instrument could become an important step to fulfilling UNCLOS’ vision as a ‘constitution of the ocean’ by providing overarching goals under which IOs cooperate with diverse mandates.

The case of RFMOs:

The risk that the current formulation of ‘not-undermining’ may be too wide is particularly present in relation to the exclusion of measures for fish. Observers have warned that if fish is excluded from the scope of BBNJ management in order not to undermine the mandate of FAO or RFMOs, fish may slip ‘through the governance net’, leaving many species that are fished or affected by fishing unregulated and unprotected (Crespo, 2019). Particularly for ABMTs/MPAs it is essential to involve FAO and relevant RFMOs in consultations for effective implementation of protective measures. From the RFMOs perspective, the spatial management provisions in the BBNJ Agreement could serve as a tool for RFMOs to achieve sustainable use objectives. From a BBNJ perspective, it could become a hub to increase engagement between IO secretariats, informed by a robust scientific and technical body. In order to promote cooperation and coordination, the BBNJ text should prioritize coherence and coordination over language on not undermining existing instruments. The International Union on (IUCN) has suggested revising the order of elements in Art 4 to reflect such prioritization.

The case of existing scientific and technical bodies:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) are two further bodies with which BBNJ will interact. The knowledge those bodies aggregate is closely connected to the marine biodiversity regime, as climate change and biodiversity loss are interlinked – on land and in the ocean. Including the expertise of those bodies may have helpful effects for the identification of MPAs, particularly at the beginning of implementation of the treaty, when the BBNJ institutions build their own expertise while many characteristics of the scientific and technical body will likely be defined by the COP in the future.

Further, to strengthen the role of the scientific and technical body that will be established through article 49 of the BBNJ instrument, drawing on existing knowledge practices and lessons learned from IPCC and IPBES should be taken into account (Borie et al., 2021). Both bodies have proven track records for independently aggregating diverse and complex knowledge from a large network of experts, and for communicating it to decision-makers, which will be a key task for the BBNJ scientific and technical body. Yet, this body  needs to be designed for the specific context of marine biodiversity (Beck et al., 2014). Strong institutional links between IPCC, IPBES and the future BBNJ scientific and technical body can help to enhance the knowledge base for decision-making by ensuring exchange and steady flow of information (Pretty & Ward, 2001).

References:

Alter, K. J., & Meunier, S. (2009). The Politics of International Regime Complexity. Perspectives on Politics, 7(1), 13-24. doi:10.1017/s1537592709090033

Beck, S., Borie, M., Chilvers, J., Esguerra, A., Heubach, K., Hulme, M., Lidskog, R., Lövbrand, E., Marquard, E., Miller, C., Nadim, T., Neßhöver, C., Settele, J., Turnhout, E., Vasileiadou, E., & Görg, C. (2014). Towards a Reflexive Turn in the Governance of Global Environmental Expertise. The Cases of the IPCC and the IPBES. GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 23(2), 80–87. https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.23.2.4

Borie, M., Mahony, M., Obermeister, N., & Hulme, M. (2021). Knowing like a global expert organization: Comparative insights from the IPCC and IPBES. Global Environmental Change, 68(12), 102261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102261

Carlisle, K., & Gruby, R. L. (2019). Polycentric systems of governance: A theoretical model for the commons. Policy Studies Journal, 47(4), 927-952.

Crespo, G. O., Dunn, D. C., Gianni, M., Gjerde, K. M., Wright, G., & Halpin, P. N. (2019). High-seas fish biodiversity is slipping through the governance net. Nat Ecol Evol, 3(9), 1273-1276. doi:10.1038/s41559-019-0981-4

Dai, X. (2002). Information Systems in Treaty Regimes. World Politics, 54(4), 405-436. doi:10.1353/wp.2002.0013

Downie, C. (2021). Competition, cooperation, and adaptation: The organizational ecology of international organizations in global energy governance. Review of International Studies, 1-21. doi:10.1017/S0260210521000267

Gehring, T., & Faude, B. (2013). The dynamics of regime complexes: Microfoundations and systemic effects. Global governance, 19(1), 119-130.

Henning, C. R., & Pratt, T. (2020). Hierarchy and differentiation in international regime complexes: A theoretical framework for comparative research. Unpublished manuscript.

Janssen, M., Bodin, Ö., Anderies, J. M., Elmqvist, T., Ernstson, H., Mcallister, R., R. J. , . . . Ryan, P. (2006). Toward a Network Perspective of the Study of Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1), 1-20. doi:10.5751/ES-01462-110115

Kelley, J. (2009). The More the Merrier? The Effects of Having Multiple International Election Monitoring Organizations. Perspectives on Politics, 7(1), 59-64. doi:10.1017/S1537592709090094

Langlet, A., & Vadrot, A. B. M. (2023). Not ‘undermining’ who? Unpacking the emerging BBNJ regime complex. Marine Policy, 147, 105372. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105372

Lesage, D., & van de Graaf, T. (2013). Thriving in complexity? the OECD system’s role in energy and taxation. Global governance, 19, 92.

Perez, O., Cohen, R., & Schreiber, N. (2019). Governance through Global Networks and Corporate Signaling. Regulation & Governance, 13(4), 447-469. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3265793

Pretty, J., & Ward, H. (2001). Social Capital and the Environment. World Development, 29(2), 209-227. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00098-X

Sofronova, E., Holley, C., & Nagarajan, V. (2014). Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations and Russian Environmental Governance: Accountability, Participation and Collaboration. Transnational Environmental Law, 3(2), 341-371. doi:10.1017/S2047102514000090

Rosenkopf, L., & Abrahamson, E. (1999). Modeling Reputational and Informational Influences in Threshold Models of Bandwagon Innovation Diffusion. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 5(4), 361-384. doi:10.1023/A:1009620618662

Yadav, S. S., & Gjerde, K. M. (2020). The ocean, climate change and resilience: Making ocean areas beyond national jurisdiction more resilient to climate change and other anthropogenic activities. Marine Policy, 122, 104184. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2020.104184

 

Since 2018, the MARIPOLDATA research team has followed the BBNJ negotiations and provided extensive insights of the diplomatic practices, science-policy interactions and conflicts shaping the development of a new high seas biodiversity treaty (Tessnow-von Wysocki & Vadrot, 2020; Vadrot, 2020; Vadrot et al. 2022). In parallel, we studied the emerging scientific field of marine biodiversity to understand the state of what scientists knew and delve into the global inequalities of the scientific field, which were reappearing at the negotiation sites (Tolochko & Vadrot 2021a, 2021b). To close the gap between the scientific field and the negotiations though, MARIPOLDATA has taken a closer look at the national level to study marine biodiversity monitoring policies and practices from the perspective of deep-sea laboratories. With the aim to compare these perspectives, the laboratory life of laboratories adds a new key site to understand the structure of the politics of marine biodiversity research entangled between science and policy.

This MARIPOLDATA blog series shares insights from three laboratory ethnographies undertaken between October and December 2022 by three researchers of the ERC MARIPOLDATA team. These ethnographies will take our readers to the United States at Scripps Oceanography[1] at the University of California San Diego, France at the IFREMER[2] of Brest and Brazil at the Oceanographic Institute[3] of São Paulo. Our intention in sharing three singular experiences of laboratory ethnography is to provide a first outlook of how national knowledge infrastructures produce marine biodiversity knowledge. We begin today with Ina’s stay at Scripps.

Diving into Deep-Sea Research at the Lab

Whenever you are standing at the beach and your eyes scroll over the infinite horizon; whenever you are at the railing of a ship looking out to the blue waves or diving down to explore the shallow waters to the point where your snorkelling or scuba gear will no longer let you descend further… Have you ever wondered what lives thousands of meters below the surface of the ocean?

You probably know of the deep sea – you might have seen deep-sea organisms on pictures, videos, or even on your own research cruises and in the laboratory. Maybe you are involved in the United Nations negotiations on marine biodiversity governance as an observer – or even as a negotiator – to follow and take decisions over the life that exists in international waters, down to thousands of meters below the surface. Maybe you have come across pharmaceutical companies that are using deep-sea organisms for product development, and have engaged in conversations about deep-seabed mining – all of which are highly controversial discussions at the global UN level nowadays.

Yet, the deep sea is still little-understood: Humans have more knowledge of other planets, than they have about the deepest parts of this blue planet called Earth (Levin et al., 2019; Smith, 2019). But we do know that there is life in these dark and cold spaces in several thousands of meters depth!

Before I visited the Levin Lab, I had already undertaken social science research on the deep sea for almost 4 years, studied the role of deep-sea science in global negotiations of the United Nations, talked to deep-sea scientists like Sylvia Earle, engaged with colleagues on discussions on marine genetic resources and marine scientific research capacity building, yet, I had never been so close to deep-sea life until I got to meet the Levin Lab.

At Scripps Institution of Oceanography, for the first time, I saw a deep-sea organism – I looked at the little creatures that had lived thousands of meters below the surface. As my hand was shaking, I did not get a clear photo of it – don’t drop it! How many hours must have gone into collecting, identifying, preserving, researching, storing it? How much research money must have gone into the research cruise collecting it? And what would still be possible with researching it in the future? I had heard about it so many times, met many people working on it, I had spoken and written about it, had seen pictures and videos of it, followed international negotiations that set regulations about it for the future – but I had never actually seen it. This is how my laboratory ethnography in the Levin Lab started.

 

Why Laboratory Ethnography at Scripps Institution of Oceanography?

Since 1903, Scripps Institution of Oceanography at University of California, San Diego has contributed to investigations of the ocean and atmosphere and is considered one of the most important centers for global earth science research and education in the world[1]. While Scripps research covers climate change impacts and adaptation, resilience to hazards, conservation and biodiversity, ocean and human health, national security, and innovative technology (ibid) to observe the planet – we would like to zoom into one specific laboratory: the Levin Lab.

Prof. Lisa Levin is a Distinguished Professor Emerita at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego.  She served as Director of the Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation and Oliver Chair at Scripps from 2011-2017. Levin’s research interests include biodiversity and climate change impacts on deep-sea continental margin, and the application of deep-sea science to policy. Her lab studies benthic ecosystems in the deep sea and shallow water and has worked with a broad range of taxa, from microbes and microalgae to invertebrates, fishes and whales. Her recent research has emphasized 3 major themes: (1) the structure, function and vulnerability of continental margin ecosystems, particularly those subject to oxygen and sulfide stress, ocean acidification and deoxygenation; (2) wetland biotic interactions; and (3) larval ecology of coastal marine populations with emphasis on connectivity[2]. Levin’s deep-sea research has been conducted on over 50 expeditions to the margins of the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic Oceans using ships, submersibles, remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) and autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) to observe, sample and conduct experiments. Now, after her retirement, there still remain seven lab members in the Levin Lab, working on the different projects that she oversees.

A regular day in the lab..?

There was no one day like the other in my fieldwork – and this is also true for marine research in the Levin Lab. The two weeks enabled me to shadow the scientists in their meetings, classes, observe their lab work with the samples, identification of species under the microscope, and data analysis of research cruise pictures and videos. Not only is the team diverse in their academic and cultural backgrounds, including researchers from Chile, Brazil, Mexico and the United States, but also the projects they work on within the Levin Lab include different geographical regions with study sites in Southern California, the deep Alaska continental margin and Costa Rica, with research topics ranging from  studying effects of DDT waste barrels in a previous industrial dumpsite in the San Pedro basin of Los Angeles; exploration and characterization of microbial and animal biodiversity in the Southern California Borderland; over effects of phosphorite and ferro-manganese crusts on the biology; to studying methane seeps in Costa Rica and hypoxia in coastal estuaries.

The Levin Lab is working on a range of different types of data: during the cruise they collect temperature, salinity, oxygen values for the water, sometimes turbidity, light, or fluorescence. The hyrographic data are automatically sent to the national database Rolling deck to repository (R2R). Moreover, the biological data are very labor-intensive and can take months to years to generate because the scientists in the Levin Lab have to sort the invertebrates out of the samples and measure the properties of the sediments and fauna (MARIPOLDATA Interview with Lisa Levin, 2022). The Levin Lab scientists then use both the physical samples, as well as pictures and videos from the cruises to map and understand the benthic communities.

There was also time to get a sense of the work of other Scripps laboratories, such as getting to know about gene sequences at Greg Rouse’s Lab  and taking a tour through the benthic invertebrate collection of amazing deep-sea creatures.
Besides getting to know the day-to-day work of Scripps scientists, I also conducted semi-structured interviews to understand how they became scientists, their motivations, what fascinates them in research, and got insights into their time on the vessel, and other moments that I could not capture in the little snapshot of two-week laboratory ethnography. What is it like to be on the submarine Alvin  – what crosses a scientist’s mind when descending several thousands of metres down into the depth of the ocean? What are opportunities, challenges and fears of individual scientists when it comes to funding their research? And what do the United States provide as national infrastructures for monitoring marine biodiversity and supporting science?

Through desk research and interviews, I could identify the conditions and obligations of US scientists, as regards the national and international regulations for their research. While scientists require a research permit in foreign waters, in US waters 3 miles off shore and when conducting research in US sanctuaries, marine scientific research in international waters is currently possible without a permit as regulated under the freedom of scientific research under UNCLOS (Art. 87 (f)).  As US federal funders generally require a data management plan in their grant proposals, scientists will thus commit to uploading their data to specific databases. While making data available to all is desirable, some databases fit certain types of data better than others – e.g. Genbank works well for genetic sequence data – there is currently “no nice, easy home for ecological community data” (MARIPOLDATA Interview with Lisa Levin, 2022), the type of data that the Levin Lab is collecting.

When Science meets Policy

Some things are so small, your eyes cannot see them, so far away, you might never reach them and so different you may not be able to ever relate to them. But still, they are there and they are alive, in the deepest places of our ocean. The research of the Levin Lab is significant for international policy-making on global ocean and marine biodiversity governance because it seeks to understand life on the bottom of our ocean (benthic communities) and the conditions the deep-sea animals need to strive, as well as the implications that their existence has on surrounding ecosystems.

Lisa Levin is increasingly involved with policy through her engagement in different international fora. She is co-founder and co-lead of the Deep-Ocean Stewardship Initiative (DOSI)[3], author on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on The Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, active participant at the Conferences of the Parties (COPs) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and co-lead of the Deep Ocean Observing Strategy (DOOS)[4]. Apart from being involved in the intersections between science and policy herself, she also encourages early career researchers to get involved in communicating their research to policy-makers and the public. For this reason, the Levin Lab was also engaged in the first ever Climate Ocean Pavilion at a 27^th climate conference of the parties (COP27) with Scripps[5].  International policy topics that she is recently engaged in are the link between climate change and the deep sea (Bris & Levin, 2020; Levin, 2019, 2021; Levin et al., 2020) and pointing to the risks of deep-seabed mining (Levin et al., 2016).

Reflecting on the two weeks of laboratory ethnography at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the Levin Lab, this time provided me with – not just increased knowledge about the deep ocean – but also with incredible experiences and insights into the laboratory work, the situation researchers face, their motivations and a better understanding of marine science in the United States.  Throughout 2023, the MARIPOLDATA team will be able to use the data to compare it to the other cases of Brazil and the EU.

At the MARIPOLDATA Ocean Seminar Climate Change and the Deep Sea: Science-Policy perspectives, Lisa Levin gave insights into how climate change and the deep sea are interconnected and should therefore also be in global policy-making. While the science points to the importance of these links, climate change seems to still be marginalized in ocean discussions. Maybe science could be better integrated into global ocean governance through an Intergovernmental Panel for Ocean Sustainability (Gaill et al., 2022)..?

[1] https://scripps.ucsd.edu/about

[2] https://llevin.scrippsprofiles.ucsd.edu/bio/

[3] DOSI integrates science, technology, policy, law and economics to advise on ecosystem-based management of resource use in the deep ocean and strategies to maintain the integrity of deep-ocean ecosystems within and beyond national jurisdictions.

[4] a program within the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) which aims to coordinate deep ocean-observing to address needs of climate science and society.

[5] https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/meet-uc-san-diego-delegates-headed-egypt-un-climate-conference

[1] https://scripps.ucsd.edu/

[2] https://www.ifremer.fr/fr

[3] https://www.io.usp.br/

References

Bris, N. L., & Levin, L. A. (2020). 161Climate change cumulative impacts on deep-sea ecosystems. In Natural Capital and Exploitation of the Deep Ocean (pp. 0). doi:10.1093/oso/9780198841654.003.0009

Gaill, F., Brodie Rudolph, T., Lebleu, L., Allemand, D., Blasiak, R., Cheung, W. W. L., . . . Poivre d’Arvor, O. (2022). An evolution towards scientific consensus for a sustainable ocean future. npj Ocean Sustainability, 1(1), 7. doi:10.1038/s44183-022-00007-1

Levin, L. A. (2019). Oceanography (Washington, D.C.), 32, 180. doi:10.5670/oceanog.2019.224

Levin, L. A. (2021). IPCC and the Deep Sea: A Case for Deeper Knowledge. Frontiers in Climate, 3. Retrieved from https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fclim.2021.720755

Levin, L. A., Bett, B. J., Gates, A. R., Heimbach, P., Howe, B. M., Janssen, F., . . . Weller, R. A. (2019). Global Observing Needs in the Deep Ocean. 6(241). doi:10.3389/fmars.2019.00241

Levin, L. A., Mengerink, K., Gjerde, K. M., Rowden, A. A., Van Dover, C. L., Clark, M. R., . . . Brider, J. (2016). Defining “serious harm” to the marine environment in the context of deep-seabed mining. Marine Policy, 74, 245-259. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.09.032

Levin, L. A., Wei, C.-L., Dunn, D. C., Amon, D. J., Ashford, O. S., Cheung, W. W. L., . . . Yasuhara, M. (2020). Climate change considerations are fundamental to management of deep-sea resource extraction. Global Change Biology, 26(9), 4664-4678. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15223

Smith, N. (2019). Engineering & technology, 14, 63. doi:10.1049/et.2019.0706

Tessnow-von Wysocki, I., & Vadrot, A. B. M. (2020). The Voice of Science on Marine Biodiversity Negotiations: A Systematic Literature Review. Frontiers in Marine Science, 7. Retrieved from https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2020.614282

Vadrot, A. B. M. (2020). Multilateralism as a ‘site’ of struggle over environmental knowledge: the North-South divide. Critical Policy Studies, 14(2), 233-245. doi:10.1080/19460171.2020.1768131

Vadrot, A. B. M., Langlet, A., Tessnow-von Wysocki, I., Tolochko, P., Brogat, E., & Ruiz-Rodríguez, S. C. (2021). Marine Biodiversity Negotiations During COVID-19: A New Role for Digital Diplomacy? Global Environmental Politics, 1-18. doi:10.1162/glep_a_00605