Healthy oceans are a human right (commentary) – Mongabay

The Intersection of Ocean Health, Human Rights, and Sustainable Development

UN Recognition and the SDG Framework

In 2022, the United Nations affirmed the fundamental human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. This recognition directly supports the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, as the attainment of numerous Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)—including those concerning health (SDG 3), food security (SDG 2), and life itself—is contingent upon a healthy planet. However, for coastal communities experiencing the direct consequences of ocean degradation, the protection of this right remains a significant challenge, impeding progress on key SDGs.

The Impact of Ocean Decline on Coastal Communities and SDG Attainment

Ocean degradation, driven by pollution, overfishing, and climate change, disproportionately affects coastal communities, undermining their basic rights and hindering the achievement of multiple SDGs. The following case studies illustrate these impacts:

Case Study: West Africa – Threats to Livelihoods and Food Security (SDG 2, 8, 14)

In nations such as Senegal and Ghana, industrial and distant-water fishing fleets encroach upon the resources of small-scale fishers. This practice, termed “ocean grabbing,” has severe consequences:

• It directly threatens SDG 14 (Life Below Water) by depleting fish stocks.
• It undermines SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) by reducing local food availability as catches are diverted to foreign markets or for fishmeal production.
• It compromises SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) by stripping local communities of their primary source of income and economic agency.

Case Study: Peru – Industrial Disasters and Socio-Economic Fallout (SDG 3, 8, 12)

An oil spill off the coast of Peru in 2022 devastated artisanal fishing communities, highlighting the failure to uphold SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production). The disaster’s aftermath demonstrated clear setbacks for other goals:

• The closure of fisheries and contamination of marine ecosystems jeopardized community health, conflicting with SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being).
• The sudden loss of livelihoods for over 1,500 fishers represented a significant blow to SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), compounded by stalled compensation and inadequate support.

Case Study: Alaska – Climate Change and Indigenous Rights (SDG 11, 13, 16)

The gradual impacts of climate change, such as warming seas and coastal erosion in communities like Shishmaref, present a slow-moving crisis. This situation directly challenges several SDGs:

• It is a direct manifestation of the threats addressed by SDG 13 (Climate Action).
• The crumbling coastline threatens the viability of settlements, undermining SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).
• The potential need for relocation threatens cultural heritage and community stability, impacting the principles of justice and strong institutions outlined in SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

Across these regions, vulnerable groups, including Indigenous communities, women, and small-scale fishers, bear the heaviest burdens, which is contrary to the aims of SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

Responsibilities of Stakeholders in Achieving Ocean-Related SDGs

Governmental Obligations

To translate the right to a healthy ocean into tangible outcomes aligned with the SDGs, governments must take decisive action. Key responsibilities include:

1. Legal and Policy Integration: Enshrine the right to a healthy environment in national law and implement policies that protect marine ecosystems, contributing to SDG 16.
2. Investment in Natural Infrastructure: Treat the restoration of mangroves, reefs, and seagrass as critical infrastructure investments that support SDG 14 and enhance community resilience (SDG 11).
3. Sustainable Fisheries Management: Implement effective management and eliminate harmful subsidies to protect fish stocks and local livelihoods, directly supporting SDG 14 and SDG 8.
4. Pollution Control: Reduce land-based and marine pollution at its source to ensure healthier seafood and coastal environments, advancing SDG 12 and SDG 3.

Corporate Accountability

The private sector has a critical role in preventing environmental harm and upholding human rights. This aligns with SDG 12 and requires corporations to:

• Conduct transparent environmental and social impact assessments with community participation.
• Ensure supply chain accountability to prevent negative impacts on marine ecosystems and local populations.
• Establish clear and accessible mechanisms for remedy when harm occurs, ensuring corporate activities do not undermine progress on the SDGs.

Empowering Local Communities for Sustainable Ocean Management

The Role of Participation and Local Leadership

Effective ocean governance requires the active participation of local communities, a principle central to SDG 16. Governments and corporations must guarantee three fundamental rights to coastal populations:

1. The right to be informed of planned activities in nearby waters.
2. The right to participate in decision-making processes.
3. The right to access justice and timely remedy when harm occurs.

Community-Led Success Stories

Local initiatives demonstrate the power of community-led conservation in achieving sustainable development outcomes.

• In the Western Indian Ocean, locally managed, temporary fishing closures have successfully rebuilt octopus stocks, improving household incomes and contributing to SDG 14 and SDG 8.
• In Brazil, the “Mothers of the Mangrove” initiative, a women-led effort to restore mangrove forests, safeguards a critical ecosystem. This work supports SDG 5 (Gender Equality), enhances climate resilience (SDG 13), and protects biodiversity (SDG 15).

Conclusion: A Human Rights-Based Approach to Ocean Sustainability

The success of ocean conservation efforts must be evaluated through human-centric metrics that align with the Sustainable Development Goals. Progress is measured by the ability of communities to maintain their livelihoods, preserve their cultural identity, and secure a healthy environment for future generations. Applying a human rights framework is essential for holding governments and corporations accountable and ensuring that the transition to a sustainable ocean future is both just and equitable, leaving no one behind.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article highlights a range of interconnected environmental and human rights issues affecting coastal communities, which directly relate to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The analysis identifies the following SDGs as being central to the article’s discussion:

• SDG 14: Life Below Water: This is the most prominent SDG, as the entire article focuses on “ocean decline” and its consequences. It explicitly discusses marine pollution (oil spills, plastics), overfishing, and the need to protect and restore coastal ecosystems like mangroves and reefs.
• SDG 13: Climate Action: The article connects ocean health to climate change, citing “warming seas” and “thinning ice” in Alaska as planetary threats that erode the rights of coastal communities and force them to consider relocation.
• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth: The economic devastation faced by coastal communities is a core theme. The article describes how pollution and overfishing “unravel a season’s income,” leaving artisanal fishers with “idle boats and markets closed,” directly impacting their right to work and economic stability.
• SDG 2: Zero Hunger: The article links ocean decline to food security, stating that in West Africa, overfishing “robs communities of… food from the table as local catches are diverted.” This connects the health of marine ecosystems directly to the ability of coastal populations to feed themselves.
• SDG 1: No Poverty: By discussing the loss of income and livelihoods for small-scale fishers, the article touches upon the risk of increased poverty in coastal communities that depend on marine resources for their economic survival.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: This SDG is heavily emphasized through the lens of human rights. The article calls for a “human rights framework” to hold polluters accountable, demands a “clear path to justice and timely remedy” for affected communities, and stresses the importance of community participation in decision-making. It also highlights the need to protect “ocean defenders” who face harassment and violence, linking environmental protection to fundamental freedoms and strong, just institutions.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the specific problems and solutions discussed in the article, several SDG targets can be identified:

1. Target 14.1: By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds.
   • Explanation: The article repeatedly mentions marine pollution, citing the container ship wreck off India that left “toxic pollution” and “plastic pellets,” the oil spill in Peru, and the general call to “reduce pollution and plastics at the source.”
2. Target 14.2: Sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems.
   • Explanation: The article advocates for investments in “protecting and restoring coastal ecosystems like reefs, seagrass and mangroves” and calls on companies to “avoid irreversible impacts on critical habitats, ecosystems and species.”
3. Target 14.4: Effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing.
   • Explanation: The issue of “overfishing” by “large distant-water and industrial fleets” in West Africa is a key example used in the article to illustrate “ocean grabbing” and its impact on local communities.
4. Target 14.b: Provide access for small-scale artisanal fishers to marine resources and markets.
   • Explanation: The article describes how industrial fleets are “impinging on small-scale fishers’ resources and rights,” pushing them off traditional grounds. It implicitly calls for securing their access to ensure their livelihoods.
5. Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards.
   • Explanation: The example of the Inupiat community in Shishmaref, Alaska, whose island is “crumbling into the sea” due to warming seas, directly relates to the need for resilience and adaptation, including planning for potential relocation.
6. Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law and ensure equal access to justice.
   • Explanation: The article points to justice system failures, noting that “legal claims crawl through the courts” and compensation stalls. It calls for communities to have a “clear path to justice and timely remedy when harm occurs.”
7. Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making.
   • Explanation: A central argument of the article is that “participation is not optional.” It demands that communities have a “real voice in the hardest choices” and the “right to take part in shaping those decisions,” from coastal permits to relocation plans.
8. Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms.
   • Explanation: The article advocates for the “right to know what is planned for nearby waters” and highlights the need to protect “ocean defenders” so they can “speak, organize and protest without fear.”

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article does not cite official SDG indicators, but it implies several practical, human-centric measures of progress that can serve as qualitative or quantitative indicators.

• Indicator for Marine Pollution (Target 14.1): The article suggests judging success by whether a “child born today inherit[s] plastic-free shorelines.” This implies an indicator related to the quantity of plastic pellets and other pollutants on beaches and in coastal waters.
• Indicator for Sustainable Fishing (Targets 14.4 & 14.b): Progress can be measured by answering the question: “Did a local fishing boat launch this morning and return with a legal, decent catch?” This implies an indicator measuring the stability and sustainability of catches for small-scale fishers.
• Indicator for Economic Well-being (SDG 8): The article mentions that after an oil spill, “artisanal fishers suddenly found their boats idle and markets closed.” A positive indicator would be the rate of employment and income stability among small-scale fishers in coastal communities.
• Indicator for Climate Resilience (Target 13.1): The article asks if “families are able to hold on to their homes and their cultural identity.” This suggests an indicator measuring the number of people displaced by climate-related coastal erosion versus the number of communities with effective, dignified adaptation or relocation plans.
• Indicator for Access to Justice (Target 16.3): The text notes that “legal claims crawl through the courts” and “compensation stalled.” A key indicator would be the average time taken to process and deliver compensation for environmental damages to affected communities.
• Indicator for Participation (Target 16.7): The article calls for environmental and social impact assessments to be “co-designed and discussed with local people.” An indicator could be the proportion of coastal development projects that include formal, co-designed community participation mechanisms.
• Indicator for Protecting Freedoms (Target 16.10): The article highlights that “ocean defenders” have faced “harassment, criminal charges and even violence.” A relevant indicator would be the number of reported incidents of harassment, criminalization, or violence against environmental advocates.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: news.mongabay.com