Commonwealth nations including Aotearoa and Pacific Island states have adopted the Apia Commonwealth Ocean Declaration.
The declaration includes commitments to increasing marine protected areas, reducing plastic pollution and shipping emissions, and maintaining countries’ maritime boundaries in the face of sea level rise.
The Science Media Centre asked experts to comment.
Jonathan Gardner, Professor of Marine Biology (Adjunct), Te Herenga Waka – Victoria University of Wellington, comments:
“In many respects the statement highlights the difficulty of achieving political consensus across many states whilst also committing to rapid action. There is very little new in the declaration’s 41 points, given that most are based on ‘reaffirming’ or ‘noting’ or ‘emphasising’ or ‘recommitting’ to statements and/or agreements already made. All of the points that are made in this statement are important, and indeed many are critical to the ocean’s future well-being and how human societies interact with, protect, and benefit from, the ocean.
“But disappointingly, only the last three points deal with ‘Implementation’ (how improvements will be achieved) and one of these isn’t about how the key points will be implemented but is instead a statement about looking forward to future outcomes and more meetings. From the perspective of the general public, many or perhaps even most of whom want to see rapid action and concrete change, this CHOGM statement is going to be a disappointment. What was really needed was a statement outlining the details of commitments to and/or legally binding agreements for new actions with appropriate methods and timeframes by which change can be measured. Yes, some of this is already in the pipeline, but the CHOGM statement is still very short on detail as to how many of the key points will be achieved.
“For example, Point 11 notes the urgent need to keep global warming to within a 1.5º C goal yet many climate scientists would now argue that the 1.5º C goal is long gone and that we are struggling to keep within a 2.0º C goal.
“A surprising omission is the subject of deep-sea mining. For many states within the Commonwealth, including New Zealand and the small island Pacific states, deep-sea mining has the potential to generate important revenue. But such mining activity brings with it environmental impact. How do Commonwealth states propose to balance mining revenue versus environmental impact?
“The reader is left with the feeling that, despite addressing many critically important points, this statement, as well-meaning as it doubtless is, has missed an opportunity to show global leadership by making commitments (with timeframes) to real-world changes that are long overdue.”
Conflict of interest statement: “I have received funding in NZ from Dept of Conservation, MPI and MBIE for marine protected areas research. I am on the Technical Advisory Board of CIC Ltd – a deep-sea mining company.”
Sione Tekiteki, Senior Lecturer, Auckland University of Technology, comments:
“The Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) Ocean Declaration ‘is as expected’ of a colonial construct that is made up of 56 former colonial powers, and decolonised states. In today’s context, the CHOGM is better categorised as comprising developed states, and developing states. Developing states includes Small Island Developing States, which have unique vulnerabilities to climate change and sea level rise.
“The text of the Declaration reflects the compromise that would have occurred during the drafting stage between countries of different sizes and different strategic interests.
“The 1.5°C wording on climate change is underwhelming as it would have had to cater for the interests of fossil fuel reliant countries. It still refers to keeping global emissions to “well below 2°C above preindustrial levels” and makes no reference to the phasing out of fossil fuel.
“This contrasts with positions taken in the 2023 Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) Leaders Declaration and Pacific Leaders 2023 Suva Call to Action, which make explicit calls for limiting global temperature to 1.5°C and the phasing out of fossil fuel.
“It is also not what is in the Declaration, but what is not. Despite declarations made by Pacific Islands Forum Leaders in 2023 and AOSIS in 2024, the Declaration makes no reference to continuation of statehood in the face of sea level rise. The United States in 2023 for example has already announced that it considers that “sea level rise driven by human-induced climate change should not cause any country to lose its statehood”, and was noted in the PALM10 Japan-PIF Leaders Declaration in July 2024. Deep sea mining does not appear in the Declaration despite it being a critical and emerging oceans governance issue.”
Conflict of interest statement: “I have worked in the Pacific for over 20 years. I know pretty much all the leaders and senior officials from Pacific island countries in some capacity. In addition to my role at AUT, I also do consultancies for the Pacific islands from time to time, and currently doing some work for Tonga through the Prime Ministers Office.”
Simon Thrush, Professor of Marine Ecology, Institute of Marine Science, University of Auckland/Waipapa Taumata Rau, comments:
“Addressing the Ocean, this is necessarily a declaration that is wide in scope. There are many laudable aspirations, such as addressing plastic pollution, building a nature positive blue economy, restoring biodiversity. The 8 key aspects highlight both the diversity of impacts we have on marine ecosystems, including its people, and the range of opportunities we have to address these issues. Some of the key aspects of the declaration are time bound, e.g., protection of at least 30 per cent of the ocean and restoring at least 30 per cent of degraded marine ecosystems by 2030. All of the issues raised in the declaration require urgent attention.
“But the most difficult question is how we move from declaration to action. Mobilising finance to support action is important, but we need real commitment, real leadership and real action if we are to achieve the declaration’s goals. We have the scientific knowledge to progress in many areas, such as marine protection. Other areas will require a new understanding of how marine systems work. Meeting the aspirations is achievable if we start with viable solutions now and by expanding our knowledge we adapt and refine our actions. Let’s hope we can look back on the declaration from Samoa as a moment when we collectively transitioned to a more nature positive future.”
No conflicts of interest.
Dr Iati Iati, Senior Lecturer – Politics and International Relations Programme, Victoria University of Wellington, comments:
“The 2024 CHOGM is currently held in a country that’s in the middle of the worst marine environmental disaster in its history. The irony is unmissable – New Zealand, a Commonwealth founding member, helped develop The Ocean Declaration that purports to address marine pollution while its naval ship lies crashed off the coast of Samoa, leaking an estimated 200 plus tonnes of diesel.
“The timing though is perfect – CHOGM has the opportunity to demonstrate that the Declaration means something by supporting a call for an independent inquiry into this disaster. Will they do so, or simply turn a blind eye to the injustice experienced by the Samoan people whose economic and environmental security has been compromised?
“The Samoan Prime Minister has declared that the architects of the Declaration “will leave no one behind” as they advocate for stronger ocean protection. Samoa is now the test case of whether the Declaration means anything or is just a bunch of empty words.”
No conflicts of interest declared.
Dr Dalila Gharbaoui, political & social scientist, Adjunct Research Fellow, University of Canterbury, comments:
“The Apia Commonwealth Ocean Declaration for One Resilient Common Future is marking a historic milestone and one more crucial step towards setting up standards for ocean protection. It also reaffirms recognition that the interconnectedness of climate change and ocean health are central to climate justice. The Declaration is timely, because the idea of “non-economic loss and damage” from climate change, including loss of biodiversity and loss of territory due to rising sea levels, is gaining momentum. We are likely to see progress on the implementation of the loss and damage fund at COP29 in Baku next month.
“The Declaration also reaffirms the value of the integration of modern science and technologies where there is free, prior and informed consent, with the knowledges and practices of Indigenous Peoples, traditional knowledge of local communities. This recognition is important as there is real value in combining the best of existing technology and sciences with deep local understanding of nature systems in place safeguarding intergenerational and equitable sharing of benefits for all.
“Every “drop in the Ocean” counts towards achieving climate justice and the Declaration is a major achievement but it will also be critical to translate it into concrete actions and address controversial issues such as deep-sea mining for example. It is also important that coastal communities are empowered to come up with their own climate adaptation plans and strategies. These can include “nature-based solutions”, like planting trees or restoring mangrove and wetlands to help guard against floods and storms. If local communities are empowered to make these decisions themselves, we can avoid recreating long-standing power imbalances.”
No conflicts of interest.
Dr Viktoria Kahui, Senior Lecturer in Environmental Economics, University of Otago, comments:
“The Apia Commonwealth Ocean Declaration highlights the urgent need for coordinated action to restore and protect our oceans. Fittingly, it was signed by Commonwealth members at a meeting in Apia, Samoa, given the disproportionate impact of over-exploitation, pollution and sea level rise on Small Island states. Some of the key aspects of the declaration focus on protecting at least 30% of marine and coastal areas, the restoration of at least 30% of degraded marine ecosystems by 2030 and the urgent global need to focus on plastic pollution.
“The Declaration focuses on the need for ‘tangible funding from a wide variety of sources’ which is an important signal that Small Island States rely on a global effort to address the threat to coastal nations. The benefits of blue carbon ecosystems such as mangroves, seagrasses, and salt marshes by coastal nations stretch far beyond and need to be recognised and rewarded accordingly.”
No conflicts of interest.
Professor Karen Scott, Faculty of Law, University of Canterbury, comments:
“This Declaration demonstrates a very strong interest of the Commonwealth in the health and wealth of oceans and their importance to Small Island Developing States, which comprise about half of the Commonwealth states. It builds on the 2018 Commonwealth Blue Charter.
“The Declaration has a strong focus on climate and significantly confirms the right of Commonwealth states to ‘fix’ their baselines or maritime zones so that ocean rights are not eroded as a consequence of sea level rise. It urges states to include ocean commitments in their Nationally Determined Contributions under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change regime and also highlights the importance of ocean ecosystems as a carbon sinks and the potential of the oceans for renewable energy. It also addresses ecosystem protection, reinforcing the global goal of protecting 30 percent of the marine environment by 2030, as well as plastics pollution and sustainable fishing.
“The Commonwealth comprises 56 states and around 2.5 billion people. This Declaration is therefore a very welcome development with the potential to galvanize action internationally and within domestic waters.”
No conflicts of interest.