 music music music music Welcome, everybody. My name is Someni Sengupta. I'm the International Climate Reporter with the New York Times. I am very pleased to welcome you to this session. The stakes could not be higher if you've seen a little bit of that slide presentation. You know that the world is at a crossroads. Humanity is at a crossroads. Those are the words of the last United Nations report last September on biodiversity, which reminded us that one million species are at risk of extinction. Not only are we wiping out these species of plants and animals, but the collapse of biodiversity could endanger our own food supply and our own health. The stakes really could not be higher. So I am delighted to welcome you to listen to a panel of experts who are deeply, deeply versed on the subject of oceans and biodiversity. We come together on the eve of another major international meeting when the countries of the world will try to figure out how to slow down and stop this massive collapse of biodiversity. So please let me welcome first the Minister of Maritime Affairs and the Blue Economy from the island nation of Barbados, Minister Kirk Humphrey. He will make opening remarks. He will be followed then by our esteemed panel who you see on the screen now. They include Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, the senator from the beautiful state of Rhode Island in the United States. He is co-chair of the Senate Oceans Caucus, followed by Ebba LaPage. She is Executive Vice President and Head of Corporate Sustainability at Lombard ODA. She is joining from Geneva. We have also with us Carlos Manuel Rodriguez, the Chief Executive Officer and Chairperson of the Global Environment Facility. I know Minister Rodriguez from his former role as the Minister of Environment and Energy of Costa Rica. And finally on the panel, M. Singhayan, the Chief Executive Officer for Conservation International, also joining us like Senator Whitehouse from Washington, D.C. So welcome everyone and I will turn over the mic first to the Honorable Minister from Barbados. Minister Humphrey, the floor is yours. Thank you, Master of Ceremonies, Ms. Summonies and Gupta, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse from the U.S. Ocean State of Rhode Island. Excellencies, distinguished ladies and gentlemen, a good day to each of you. It is my privilege to address these virtual ocean dialogues on behalf of the Honorable Mia Motley, Prime Minister of Barbados and all the good people of Barbados. Prime Minister Motley offers her most profound regret at not being able to deliver these remarks herself, but she also offers her full support to this conference in these dialogues. I want to begin by applauding the Friends of the Ocean Action and the World Economic Forum for hosting these virtual ocean dialogues. These dialogues keep this topic of maintaining a healthy ocean environment in the front of our minds. It is an extricably linked to the whole sustainable development agenda and for island states like Barbados, it remains on the forefront of our individual agendas. Let me also thank Mr. Claus Swab, the founder of the World Economic Forum for inviting me and the government of Barbados to deliver these opening remarks. I speak to you as a representative of a small island developing states with a perspective on the world as big ocean people. We recognize the ocean for its own intrinsic value, we also pay homage to the ocean for the role it plays in bringing balance and securing all forms of life. The government and people of Barbados take very seriously the need to prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities including marine debris and nutrient pollution. A goal which we have set to ourselves to achieve by 2025, which dovetails with one of the objectives of the Sustainable Goals, goal number 14. For us, however, this is not just another target to achieve, but rather a necessity as we acknowledge that a healthy ocean is a wealthy ocean. The sustainable utilization of our ocean wealth is a vehicle to facilitate long-term socio-economic growth as well as resilience to environmental and other vulnerabilities to which Barbados was and still is at risk. Just by way of a fact, our exclusive economic zone is over 400 times the size of our land space and therefore for us, it warrants considerable attention. Given the target of being fossil fuel-free at best or carbon-neutral at worst by 2030, we are focusing on our energy and renewable energy as part of our development program. Recent studies from the Caribbean Development Bank have suggested that our oceans can provide enough energy to power our entire nation and the countries around us. So how do we achieve this? There is a need for continued research and development in hydro-kinetic energy and perhaps this represents an opportunity for Barbados to twin with the great ocean state of Rhode Island to enter into a mutually beneficial relationship. My friends, as Barbados tries to derive benefits from its blue economy, the government has entered into negotiations with the Nature Conservancy for the purposes of establishing a national conservation trust fund as well as the preparation of a comprehensive marine-based, science-based marine spatial plan. I consistently make the point that we are aware that though the blue economy requires significant investment, it is also an opportunity for us to realize our fullest potential. Like our brothers and sisters in the Caribbean region, we have limited fiscal space, debt build-up, slow implementation capacity, and a lot of blue economy investment. All of these, combined with falling over official development assistance at a time when it is most necessary, compounds the enormous challenge ahead, and it is in that tone that I want these dialogues to consider what it is that we are actually facing. As we strive to keep our ocean space healthy, we have embarked on a number of policies and strategic actions to assist us in so doing. I wish to elaborate very quickly on a few of them here, as I believe it will offer real insight on the needs of developing countries. Even for the first time in history established in the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Blue Economy, we partnered with UNDP to conclude a Blue Economy Scoping Study and an initial action plan for Barbados. In addition, we are currently working with the IEDB on a strategic roadmap project, which will also lend significant value to Barbados. My ministry is currently working with the FAO and recently completed a new fisheries policy and we are in the process of improving our fisheries management act. The fact that is that relationships will be the cornerstone of how we now build out. That is why I am pleased to talk about our Sustainable Fish Value Chain project with the FAO, which will make life really beneficial for the fishermen. This project will allow us to remain committed to using sustainable methods as we fish, so as to maintain the balance between man and the sea. And herein I wish to remind you that engaging technologies in fishing and in fisheries must not be the exclusive purview of the developed world. We seek balance in all things and I also wish to remind this forum that illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing or IUU fishing, as it is commonly known, disturbs this balance and it must be halted for all of our sakes. Those of you who can stand, I urge you to stand up and to stand out. My friends, we are also defining the clear path to being zero carbon, to having zero carbon nor shipping and as much I can say on that, but I will at another time. Barbara Shumport has a vision to be the leading green maritime hub in the world. We will be building out infrastructure to allow us to become that green, innovative and sustainable. These are practical tools that we will be employing. We have, like many other countries, banned petroleum single base plastics and in Barbados, for example, we did so in 2019 to stop the spread of plastic pollution in our oceans. But I also must say to this dialogue and to these conferences that it is important for us to also realize that we must stop greenwashing. We cannot cheat and win this war against petroleum based plastics. So let there be no doubt that Barbados gives its fully support to become above Blue Charter. In 2019, we became a member of the Commonwealth Clean Ocean Alliance. We since then joined about six other critically important action groups. It is our hope as a country to be able to play a more leading role in this Blue Charter, given its importance. My friends, if we do not look after the ocean and all we derive from it, then it will not just be the marine flora and fauna that will die. But the lives of our people will also be at stake. Barbados and the rest of the Caribbean have experienced firsthand the fallout from climate neglect in real ways. Every year, between June and November, one of our Caribbean islands is likely to be devastated by a category four or five hurricane. Every year, Sargassum Seaweed, and if you do not know what Sargassum Seaweed is or looks like, I suggest you Google it so that you could get a sense of the devastation that we are actually facing, but it covers and overwhelms our beaches during some of the most beautiful mumps in the Caribbean. Every year, more of our popular West Coast beaches are disappearing and our coral reefs are now a more shadow, a mere shadow of their former selves. We have it in ourselves to find these solutions to these problems, to adaptation and resilience buildings, to halt and to reverse the effects on the impacts of climate on the lives of our people. So our responses are not about being crafted as small island developing states. No, we see ourselves, as I said, as big ocean developing states and countries like Barbados and the rest of the Caribbean, our brothers and sisters like Seychelles in the Indian Ocean, Samoa in the Pacific and indeed all around the world find ourselves facing a raging climate that we have done little to offend and do everything to appease. Yet we remain on the front line of a battle that sees the ocean with whom we have lived with an unspoken and endearing peace treaty or friendly contract built on respect, now posing a real existential threat towards survival due to climate change. I therefore call on each of us on this call and those who can hear my voice and strongly urge that we send a message to those who do most to hurt our climate, requiring them to do more for those who are being hurt by climate change as a consequent and as a result of their actions. We cannot do this on our own. Let us agree to continue these dialogues, well past our COP 15 global forum as they provide the space for us to meet and collaborate on what we can do to ensure that we build sustainable lotions and sustainable solutions into how we treat our ocean environment. These are important dialogues and they offer, on behalf of Barbados, our fully support and I oblige you. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for having me. Thank you, Minister, for for your remarks. They are a profound reminder that not just Barbados, but all of us to some degree or another are big ocean people. We rely on the oceans for food or for work or for play and increasingly for energy. With that, I want to turn to our panelists and, first of all, encourage those of you who are listening in to contribute to this discussion on ocean and biodiversity by sharing your questions with us. And to do that, please take your phone, go to Slido.com, use the event code, hashtag 815-289, or you can scan the QR code with your phone. The QR code should be showing up on your screen and send us questions and we will hopefully have some time at the end of this panel. So welcome back to our panelists. I want to start with just a lightning round. I want to throw a couple of words at you one by one and tell me what comes up in your mind. Just one word or one phrase when you hear these words. Some of these are borrowed from the minister's remarks. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse. Seaweed. algae. Carlos, fish farms. Fish farms. Moving from being hunters and gatherers in the oceans to manage properly the resources. Sanjayan, oil and gas. Opportunity to change. And Evala Paz, deep sea mining. Need to think about transition in a more sustainable way. All of these issues are very much part of the discussion on oceans and biodiversity. I want to start with Senator Whitehouse. You've been an outspoken critic of illegal and unregulated fishing, which the minister from Barbados spoke on. Can you tell us a little bit more about why that is so important from your point of view? And for the rest of us, is it possible in the years ahead to eat only wild caught fish from fisheries that are well managed? Or is it inevitable that we will be eating more and more farmed fish? Well, I think IUU fishing or pirate fishing, as I like to call it, because people who aren't into the jargon understand what you're talking about. Pirate fishing does a couple of things. First of all, it undercuts legitimate and managed fisheries. Second of all, it's a really toxic form of human behavior that also engages a lot of other problems and affect human slavery. If once you're involved in the illegal fishing trade, it's a very short hop to become involved in other illegal trades, trafficking. So it's a scourge that has been able to live in the shadows of the far sea where we have not had coordinated enforcement. And I think it's something that we would do very well to be completely rid of. Everything about it is wrong and indecent, but we simply haven't had international consensus and resources enough to put it out of business. So I don't know how much the ocean can sustain us off wild caught only. Remember that we're starting with an ocean that has been beaten down to where many pelagic species are 90% knocked down from numbers that have happened in our lifetimes. So can the ocean, as it is presently cared for, sustain us with wild caught fish? I would doubt it. But the ocean has a wonderful capacity to regenerate given a chance. Mother nature tends to take care of herself. And we've done a rotten job of giving her that space. Senator, what would it take to eradicate pirate fishing internationally? Well, we're getting there. The International Treaty, the Port States Measures Agreement has helped make landings more difficult. Private work, like the Vulcan Foundation's work to track boats, even with satellite wake recognition software or to recognize when a transponder gets shut off. There are technological advances. We're trying to get the United States military more engaged in this because they have quite good visibility in the seas. They've been reluctant to move, but continuing pressure through our National Defense Authorization Bills is beginning to have an effect on them. And this administration may take the matter more seriously. I think it's a question of starving the markets and driving enforcement on the high seas. I can imagine using the US military to go after pirate fishing could be very tricky diplomatically. It could be tricky diplomatically, but when you're on the high seas, it's quite wide open. And what we're looking at is not so much American destroyers hunting down these boats, but rather the military's surveillance and intelligence resources being deployed to support identification of the pirate vessels so that they can be chased down when they get near port or captured out on the open high seas by whoever's nearby. Quick word of compliment to Indonesia's fisheries minister Susi, who sank a lot of pirate fishing boats. I want to circle back to something you said about nature being given the chance to regenerate. There's been a lot of discussion in the months leading up to the next biodiversity cop about 30 by 30, about setting aside 30% of the world's oceans and land for protection. Sanjayan, I want to turn to you to sort of lay out the context of that. Why are we talking about that now? And why is it important really quickly? Well, I think it's an interesting question. I've been a little bit puzzled by this myself. It's certainly caught people's imaginations. And it's probably a lot of different factors that the world seems tuned to the loss of diversity on the planet. And I think we're afraid our ecosystem so badly that I think in every work of life, in every place, in every community, people are starting to see that direct linkage between nature and their own well-being. And I think this last year probably did more of this than ever before. If you ever needed to have a reminder of the importance of nature, all you needed to do is essentially look outside. So I think that strengthened our connection back into nature. I think there's a bold goal of 30 by 30. I think the science is how much is really needed is a big question. But bottom line is we need a lot more than what is currently detected. When it comes to the oceans, we're protected somewhere between almost 3% to about 7% depending on how you count protected. But let's say on average, we protect about 5% of the oceans. I think most people on the planet, if you actually ask them, is that enough, would say no. They instinctively know we do need more. Now, the good opportunity we have right now is that we are finding that countries are willing to think about large, large-scale ocean conservation. If you go back to when I was in grad school, that was just completely not on the table. And then you had a couple of them being developed, one in the United States, Papahana and Mukwakir, but also what we saw in Kiribati and Phoenix Island protected areas. And you started seeing this idea that very large protection of countries and Thai EEZ, for example, is really possible. So I think there's been a pressure and understanding that we need more than what we have, as well as a willingness by small countries often to really think that they're not small countries. They're actually large island nations. And that confidence gives us this opportunity right now. I think an opportunity we will not see in our lifetime to really make a big leap towards doubling, tripling the amount of oceans under conservation management. But it'll only work if we work together. How much of the world's ocean have we altered or extracted for human needs, whether that's for fishing or mining or something else? Anyone on the panel have a estimate of that? I mean, Senator Whitehouse probably knows it better than I, but I would say virtually all of it has been impacted by humans. For sure. You can go to the deep most all of it. And even where there is nominal protection, if we haven't put the resources into actual guardians and sentinels to make sure that the protection is real, then the problem remains. But some good news is that in ocean systems, it can come back quickly. So this idea that restoration, ocean systems do have some resilience. And you can go to certain places and you can see in my lifetime, I've seen the massive positive change through protection. Costa Rica, Carlos Manuel, I'm sure can speak about some of those examples. But really even in the United States, Monterrey Bay, 100 years ago, it's better today than it was 100 years ago. That's kind of an astonishing thing. Minister Carlos Manuel Rodriguez, I'm going to turn to you about the 30 by 30 efforts. What are the prospects for this becoming reality? And you may be reluctant to read the tea leaves on this, but what will be the sort of diplomatic nitty gritty of this in the months ahead? Well, thank you. I'm very optimistic because this is the first time in my life that I've seen that the gap within the scientific recommendation, the political aspiration, is narrowing down and fast. And these are great news. And I'm very optimistic that the political commitment, around 30%, will be achieved. So here, two things are important. One is that the political commitment should be based on concrete goals and targets. And here, the 30% is a very important and relevant one. And then we need to work on narrowing down the global financial gap so we can be able to put the resources behind the political actions to achieve all expected targets. And this is something which is extremely relevant because we need to mobilize financial resources from all sources. It's not just international ODA, which is going to narrow the gap, or it's not just the private sector kicking in now big time and contributing. It will be a combination of countries generating more policy coherence. And this is key in the marine realm. Countries, and I'm talking about developing country, has a big issue in terms of policy coherence because they still invest through incentives, policies, and subsidies. Way more resources and activities are threatening their marine ecosystem than what they are investing in, protecting and using it properly. That's one element. We need to help countries move the tax burden from taxpayers into polluters. And those are the things that can help us really narrow the financial gap. It's not just mobilizing innovative non-fiscal resources what will help us. It is a combination of a few of them. And Elisabeth Morena and the CPD has done a fabulous job working with an expert panel for resource mobilization that has given light on how we should mobilize resources from all sources that will help us at the same time generate more policy coherence. Because in terms of ocean conservation, at the country level, we've got a big challenge because we've got a minister of agriculture who oversees the fishing agency and a minister of environment who doesn't agree on how we should manage the marine and the ocean resources. That's for me one of the biggest challenges that we need to confront with. Can I circle back on the resources question? You're saying you're very optimistic that the scientists have managed to persuade political leaders that ocean conservation, at least, the 30 by 30 target, is important. But that resources are required. Can you clarify that? Resources for what? Are you saying four countries that commit to protecting land and ocean? Yes, that is correct. We have a lot of information on the racial biodiversity part. And we've got some gaps in terms of the global financial needs with respect to ocean investment. But very simplistically, we need to be able to have one marine spatial planning and actions by which we can design a structure for optimum ocean governance. There's a big gap on how humans manage the land resources and the ocean resources. And as I said in my first question, so many, we humans still behave like we used to behave in the land 15,000 years ago. In the ocean, we're still 100% gatherers. So we need to generate kind of a social contract and understanding on how we manage those ocean resources. If we see the constitutions and the legal frameworks of most nations of the planet, there's a kind of a social agreement on how we manage resources and how we aim for development. On the ocean, we don't have that. We need to begin generating a social understanding that is very well reflected in our constitutions and legal framework. Then we need to put the science. We need to understand what we have there and how we manage that. The marine spatial planning is a key element. And this is what we do in the land. We do land use planning. And based on that, we set policies and establish roles and responsibilities. Then the other elements is ocean governance. The ocean is being governed by those who are not willing to manage it properly. And there's a lot of stakeholders that need to be part of this new structure that we call it ocean governance. And then we need to set the policies to move from this irrational, new classic economic model into a blue economy. And I'm delighted to be able to share the panel today with the minister, Mr. de Humphrey, that is a minister for blue economy. This is the right political decision that we need to see at the country level so we can see a shift from the mindset to the policy action at the country level. So the question of money brings me to you, Abel LaPage. Traditionally, money has been invested into extracting valuable stuff, whether that's oil and gas on the ocean floor or fish or something else. There's lately been a movement to put a value on natural assets. How do you do that? How do you put a dollar figure on a coral reef? If it were only that easy, I think one has to take a step back and first think, how do you ensure that natural capital is relevant to investors? Because when you think about it, I mean, asset managers, wealth managers, pension funds have a fiduciary duty to manage clients' funds and get a return. So how do you then explain that natural capital is key in the decisions that an investor takes? One is what has been mentioned, of course. Now several times today is the part that natural capital and the oceans, obviously, play a role in our global economic activities. Can I stop you and ask you what you mean by natural capital? Natural capital is all the resources that come out of our earth and our guys here, basically. So if we now just focus specifically on the oceans, I'm not going to talk about forests and everything else. But of course, oceans are included in the concept of natural capital. And of course, then you explain to investors that oceans, for example, or other parts of natural capital, have a very important role to play in industries that investors care about, whether it's agriculture, tourism, health care, et cetera. Then some people think, oh, the way we manage our oceans has an impact on what I want to invest in. And the second is to raise people's awareness of the companies that are finding solutions to the problems that we're seeing today. Such as? Such as, for example, the destruction of reefs, for example. And as we know, what I've discovered during these years at looking at this is how shellfish function as natural filters, for example, a muscle can filter 200 liters per day. You have companies who are looking to, in a sustainable way, develop areas, of course, and ways to feed for fish farm, for example, that do not have a negative impact. These are the companies that we need to find and invest in because these are also, they both take care of nature, but also we believe have the best returns. And it's an interesting path. And I would say the mainstream investor today is not really focused on natural capital, but it's coming. Because as you mentioned, I would say the past year or past two years, it's really the next step in sustainable investments. So from what I'm hearing you say, valuing natural capital is an idea, but it is difficult to quantify it and to sell investors on the idea that their returns are gonna be what they have expected. It's difficult to value specifically to say our coral reefs are worth X, for example. That's difficult. So then you need to angle it to say the company that does XYZ, what are the returns of that company and look at the good effects that they're having, the positive impact. That's the way one has to do it right now. So that raises the question, right? Is it, and this is a question for any of you, is it if we're talking about valuing natural capital, if we're talking about ocean biodiversity, is it consistent to both keep investing in oil and gas and be to be subsidizing investments in fossil fuel resources? But from our side, no. I mean, sorry, I'll just very quickly, Senator, say from our side, it's not, I mean, what one has to really transition from fossil fuels to a sustainable economy, there's no question about it. How do you sell your investors on that idea? Have you said to them, we are here to for not funding any more fossil fuel projects, except for the ones that we're already in. What's the bank's position on that at the moment? The way we look at it is that it's really the, you have to support the transition economy because basically you can look at a fossil fuel company that has no plans for the future. They will continue doing what they're doing. We're not interested. You have those companies that are looking to transition to a sustainable economic model. They will move in towards renewable energy, et cetera. We look at those companies and many of them we support. And then of course we follow up. If we see in five years, nothing has changed. Well, then maybe it might not be an investor target anymore, but we have to support the transition. So your window is five years? You wanna take a look at what they're doing in five years? Well, we follow of course every year, but if you have a company, you see no change after five years. You know, not much will happen after one year. It's pretty quick. 10 years is too long, far to look ahead. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, you had an unequivocal answer to that question. Tell me more. Well, the problem for Ms. LePage and others is that the fossil fuel industry has a very, very strong record of simply not telling the truth. They've run a very systematic scheme to mislead the world about climate change, to say that it's a hoax, to say that the repair of their damage will cause economic suffering. It's been probably the biggest information operation ever run. The idea that they're suddenly going to become honest about the transition goes against all our experience of many decades with how dishonest they have been about climate change. So you really have to watch them like hoax and you've got to hold them to really hard objective standards that are things that are measurable now because a promise for 2050 is, can be nothing but, you know, greenwashing noise. So I think you've got to be very, very careful about them and they have been used to living on an enormous subsidy. The IMF puts the subsidy in the United States alone. It's $600 billion every single year. So to protect that, they've gotten involved in politics in a very unhealthy and degrading way to American politics. I suspect that's true in other countries as well, but it just makes it really hard to solve the problems we're talking about when the industry, perhaps most responsible for these problems gets to sit on a $600 billion subsidy and everybody has to compete against that position of economic privilege. Do you see any change, any appetite for change on those subsidies in the United States? And I ask because there was some discussion around the G7 talking about that this year at their meetings. So do you see any change in mood on the question of- I mean, there's a strong appetite in the Senate on the Democratic side for putting a price on carbon to offset that subsidy. And I think there's a recognition- It's a bit different from taking away the subsidy. ... our goals if we don't take on that subsidy. You simply can't ask renewable energy to take on an uphill fight against an incumbent that has a $600 billion annual subsidy and expect good results to come from that. It's interesting that you say- Please. Yes, Sumi. And let me adjust a little bit of complexities to this because we've got the same kind of challenge, political or economic challenge in the food production systems where humans produce our food. Exactly the same thing that we're the senator, the White House is mentioning to us in terms of the political interest, the economic interest, the political challenges to address perverse incentives and subsidies and how do we do a transition trusting the sector? I strongly believe that one big issue in terms of going forward is really understanding how do we balance the economic playing field? So all actors will be reacting to that effort and up to today, all those negative externalities from the energy sector, the food production systems are not fully reflected, not in their own balance sheet or even the national accounting systems. And here's where we will be asking the minister of finance to fully internalize that. You know, the minister of finance will not last a week if he tries to do that alone without really understanding ourselves the whole political approach that we needed. So Congress and parliaments in all countries are key in these elements and the challenges associated to those processes are very complex as Senator White House has mentioned. But that is a very important approach. We need to move towards an economic system that fully internalized those negative externalities and rewards for the positive externalities. This is what happened in my country in Costa Rica. We were able to revert deforestation and double the size of the forest in the same period that the economy tripled because we face out perverse intent in forced conservation and land using went from perversing to positive ones. We put a tax on fossil fuels. With that revenue, we did a payment to owners of forests for their services that they are providing us in terms of carbon and water. So we went from, you know, not reflecting a negative externality all the way to reflect a positive one and people will react to that. I will say that the quiz is a way to get to the part of the person is to the pocket. And that has worked in many ways, not just through the pocket. No doubt about that. Yes, you can educate them values and principle but the quickest way to get to the heart of the person is to the pocket. It's very interesting the way the road to biodiversity and climate change, the road to addressing biodiversity and climate change really does, to a large degree, come down to money and subsidies and where those are channeled from what you all are saying. I want to turn really quickly now to questions coming in and a reminder to our audience. Please do send us questions on ocean and biodiversity. The first one from Sally Sunworth of Mont McDonald, she's asking, do we understand what percentage of species is vulnerable to acidification due to climate change? And what is the subsequent impact expected to be on the food chain? So any of you can take this on if you want to talk about climate change and its impact on food security. So, Diane, you have some experience in this. Yeah. Sure. I mean, the simple answer is that in the oceans, virtually the entire food web, so virtually every species in the ocean is very vulnerable to this issue, both of temperature rise but also of acidification because ocean acidification makes it hard for the smallest organisms in the ocean to survive. And that trickle-up effect really impacts everything all the way up to a blue whale. The last time, you know, the planet, you know, if you go back to sort of, you know, deep history and you look back at times when the atmosphere had a lot more carbon dioxide in it and you look at what marine life looked like in the oceans, you find that say 95% or more of species in the ocean died off during these very, very large extinction effects. That's 95% of species died out in the oceans. So, if we don't get an handle on climate change, if we don't meet our Paris climate targets, et cetera, it is going to become increasingly difficult, ultimately, to maintain the life that you see in the oceans and then the trickle effect of 300 million plus people, actually billions of people, ultimately who are dependent upon it. Senator, I can imagine you are hearing about the impacts of climate change on fisheries in the United States. I wonder if you can address this question of how a warming ocean could impact the food supply chain. Well, there's a general flight pole word of species and in regulated fisheries, the regulated fisheries are very slow to catch up to that move. So you end up with very peculiar anomalies and in less regulated fisheries, you end up with artisanal fishing, people who have developed a particular set of species that they fish for and that's gone. And in fact, you're starting to see sort of a vacancy belt in the warmest equatorial waters where the pole word shift is not being replaced by pole word shift from further south because there's nothing from further towards the equator because there's nothing there. So we have a belt developing that is gonna be hard to figure out how fisheries sustain there. So we're seeing a lot of these problems and of course you're seeing the acidification problem hit the shellfish and the shellfish industry considerably and the humble terrapod, nobody thinks much about the humble terrapod, but studies nearly a decade ago showed more than 50% of the terrapods in the American Pacific coast with severe shell damage, which relates to the acidification and when the terrapod falls out of the food chain, a great number of species fall with it and I think the salmon fishery is looking at that with real concern. With real concern, absolutely. And so me, let me just add one more element here, which is the fact that the scientific community a few years ago, like three, four years ago told us that in the IPBS report that if we humans continue business as usual, we will lose around one million species by 2030. Unfortunately, that report was done before DNA barcode in technology was being used, meaning that we don't know the amount of the species that we have in the planet. We probably have 10 times more species than one we freely thought. So we're not going to lose one million species. We're probably going to lose 10 million species and many of them are known to science. So we are underestimating the impact that we will generate in the biological diversity of the planet. I mean, one thing to keep in mind, Senator, when you were talking about the pole word shift, this of course means not only an impact on what people can eat, their sources of protein, but also on how they make a living. There are a lot of people around the world who make their living from fishing. Sorry, I was going to say in Western Pacific, there are 14 countries heavily dependent on tuna. It's basically powers the entire nation in terms of the economies. That tuna has shifted dramatically in the last decade. And we're working with those countries and others to basically figure out where they've gone, who's now having more tuna than in the past and how better to share that resource. And it's a very dynamic system right now. And countries that have hadn't had these sorts of catches are seeing it, whereas other countries that are entirely relied on tuna are finding that they're absent in their waters. I'm sure you all get this question. And I think it's a really useful one. As a citizen, what are the ways to protect the ocean more effectively? Quick ones. Solve climate change. Vote. I mean, you know, look, pick the companies you support and vote. I mean, to look at the Washington Post today and the article about ExxonMobil and, you know, basically stakeholders saying, you know, we got to do this differently. If people aren't willing to participate in electoral process, if they're not willing to make their voices heard, you know, they're watching their own demise at their own time. And it can really matter. I really believe company CEOs today, more than ever I've seen in my lifetime are actually serious about this issue of conservation, of sustainability, of biodiversity. It is on their radar now. We used to be kept outside the West barriers, you know, a decade ago, then we will let in. Now we're right in there, but we can't do this alone. So you've got to make your voice heard with companies. You got to make your vote count. Let me just say from the United States Senate that that CEO interest in these issues has not penetrated, has not penetrated at all through the political infrastructure that corporate America has erected to give direction to Congress. And one of the ways in which I think these corporations have to be held accountable is to be held accountable for their political lobbying. Because if you think there's a necessary role for government, then it's important that CEOs say one thing and their political apparatus does the exact opposite. Because their political apparatus is still completely in denial, completely in obstruction, or completely absent without leave. There's an interesting question that's come up that I wonder if Eva LaPage can take on. You, it's been mentioned that to an extent there's still some unsettled science about the link between finance and its impact on biodiversity. Can you talk a little bit about that? The link between finance and its impact on biodiversity. Your organization has a partnership with Oxford University to kind of get at this. Could you speak to that briefly? Sure, yeah. I think here that the point was really important is that the investors in the financial industry can have huge, huge impact on climate change and the direction we're taking just on how we allocate capital. So that's the first thing really to think about. And that when our decisions and our investment decisions must be science-based. We firmly believe in that. And this is why, for example, last year we entered into a partnership with, as you mentioned, the University of Oxford. And this is a partnership that fosters research and teaching on sustainable finance and investment. And we focus on climate change, circular economy and nature. And it's both a platform for knowledge exchange between academia and financial services. But we also want sustainable finance to be a field of research so that it becomes ingrained in part of academia. And we, for example, I mean just one example of the way we work in this partnership is that we're working with our partners at Oxford on, for example, business model alignment to a nature positive economy where they are teaching us how to use geospatial analysis, for example. That's just one example. So it's important the partnerships and it's important that we don't work in silence between the financial industry and academia because there's a huge, huge benefit of working together. We've talked a lot about climate change and its impact on ocean biodiversity. The United States is back in the Paris Climate Accord after a brief absence. President Biden has staked out a fairly ambitious set of targets. To carry these out, he needs to a large degree support from the Congress. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, what are the prospects for getting your colleagues in both houses, in both parties to come around to this? And if there is no political consensus, what should the rest of the world make of the U.S. promise? Or really, the U.S. promise on anything? Well, we're gonna have to make that political consensus happen. I think the Biden administration has shown a good opening posture in personnel and policy and in passion on climate. We have not seen that before from any administration. So that's a good step forward. We'll see what the House of Representatives chooses to do, but it's controlled by Speaker Pelosi and they don't have a filibuster. So she's very strongly positioned to get a significant bill done. And we in the Senate, I think, have a substantial democratic contingent that intends to be a firewall to see to it that when we get to the climate aspects of the legislating that needs to be done, we are targeting the 1.5 degrees threshold that is Mother Nature's goal for us and anything less is a failure. It doesn't matter how many people are happy. If you haven't met that goal, you have not succeeded. So we're gonna work very hard to make sure that's the case. We have all the tools necessary to make this happen. It's just a question of the determination to get it done and the parliamentary space to do it. Right now we're on a, I would say bipartisanship detour to see what can be accomplished from a bipartisan perspective. Obviously you're not gonna get much done on climate from a bipartisan, I should say that differently. You're not gonna get the big stuff that we need to get done, done from a bipartisan perspective while the fossil fuel industry has such control over the Republican Party. So at some point we're gonna have to do this as Democrats and we are keenly aware we have a very narrow window in which there's a Democratic president, a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate. And if you lose any one of those three, the chances for real progress here diminished drastically. Speaking of getting the job done, it is my honor now to introduce to you a woman who needs to get the job done in a very short window of time. She is Elizabeth Maruma Morema, Executive Secretary for the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. It is her job to rally the nations of the world who belong to the Convention on Biodiversity. The U.S. is not one of them incidentally. It is her job to get an agreement done. So I'd like to say goodbye and a huge note of gratitude to all of you on the panel, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Minister Carlos Manuel Rodriguez, Eva Lepage and Emson Jayan. Thank you all for joining us in this conversation and please everyone welcome Elizabeth Maruma to the floor. Thank you so many. You are really giving me a hard time, but well worth it. Allow me first to join you to thank not just the World Economic Forum for initiating this dialogue, but to all the panelists, the minister, I mean all of whom have underlined how important the ocean is, not just for species which are out there, but the key species is us human beings. And this human being unfortunately, his and her actions on the ocean are depleting that ocean to the extent that the minister also underlined how negative impacts this polluted ocean with chalked with plastics and the senator has also talked of IUU illegal unreported fisheries, how all these will get the islanders even more difficult to live. So I think from all the panels, one clear message which I got out of it is that ocean is life and without it there's no life. Likewise for this forum, if we are saying now it's run up to our conference of the parties 15 without the ocean community, that community which is looking at sustainable ocean management away from unsustainable incentives and we know fisheries has been one of those areas with unsustainable incentives in terms of subsidies. We need to get some of these funds if not all really redirected into sustainable ocean management. Carlos has talked of yes resources and we have posed questions to him but we should also remember which he also underlined. Resources we are not asking for new resources. Resources are already in place. What we are asking is redirecting existing resources into sustainable marine biodiversity that will already save a lot of the marine biodiversity and the ocean which is being depleted. Examples were given of incentives like positive taxes. So that also the fishing industry sees the benefit of sustainable fishing for the not just for their own business but their own individual life as human beings. So a lot has been said in this panel discussions and as I said without ocean there's no life. You are asking me how do I get the ocean community to the conference of the parties 15. Clearly the panelists have answered that if the community is not with us together not as individual concerted, integrated, mainstreamed ocean management into all sectors of the economy then of course COP 15 will be a failure. And if COP 15 is a failure clearly then it means we the human beings of the current century we have failed and will have failed even for our children and those of the future generation because there will be no ocean to leave behind. We leave them with a toxic ocean which then they cannot survive without it. So despite the historic nature even of the ongoing pandemic clearly we've seized this opportunity to make a historic moments for nature and the ocean. And we've also seen here I think Carlos talked of ocean governance the confluence of major developments across global institutional framework for the ocean has bestowed on us a once in a lifetime four thirds to change our cause of ocean and the life they are in. And the minister underlined that the senator underlined that even the panelists and especially who talked of the natural capital and the impacts on that. We are all aware that the last three decades or three decades have virtually lapsed since the adoption of the Convention on Biological Diversity which together with the De-certification Convention or the climate change which also is the subject here. But then since then while we agree progress has been made clearly that progress much as it has led to expansion of marine protected areas in line with our each biodiversity targets has also increased the mainstreaming of biodiversity into sectoral management responding to sustainable development goal 14 but we still know a lot needs to be done. The ocean is still being chopped with our debris with pollution, with plastics and no single country can deal with this matters alone knowing very well that the ocean is a trans boundary matter. So all of us need to be there together in terms of taking action. So continued by diversity laws, runaway climate change all presents all the fundamental risks to our health and stability of the ecosystems that sustains all of our societies. And the COVID has clearly shown us that we need to reimagine and transform our relationship with nature while promoting this global community of working together in this health. As you may know, we are in the process of developing our post 2020 global biodiversity framework to be adopted at the next conference of the parties. And this will be the primary fundamental one who will say others have even acquitted to each as a Paris for biodiversity that we really expect it to be adopted. And it also builds upon everybody's common goal not just for nature but all the services that nature provides and underpin for a healthy, productive and well functioning society. And this framework will include goals, targets, policy directions, which will include also the ocean to guide our global society for the next three decades and beyond. We recently launched our global biodiversity outlook which had also looked at where do we go from here as far as transitions for nature is concerned. And among the recommendations specifically include transition for fisheries, oceans, climate change, sustainable food systems and all in biodiversity inclusive one health approach. So food systems, panelists have also talked about that. And the report also underlined all these transitions they cannot be achieved if we expect them to be achieved in isolation from each other. The ocean cannot be placed in a silo. It underpins all of the transitions and all together are needed to achieve this healthy planet which we are looking for. We have been celebrating this week International Biodiversity Day with a theme we are part of the solution. So for today, I take it that we all as the ocean community, together we are part of this solution to ensure that we have a future for our children and a life for our children and our grandchildren which will have that clean ocean. Barbados already have enacted legislation to ban plastics. Many more have not yet. We know oceans continue to be choked. Are we emulating those best practices so that together we reach coming for the conference of the parties 15 with that vigor that ready to take action and will not take action from October but actions have already begun continue and will continue to be enhanced and threatened and strengthened moving forward. So let me stop there. So many equally thanking everybody for all these lively discussions which clearly gives me more hope as we run up to the 15th conference of the parties. Thank you. Thank you so much. One thing that's clear, there's a big to-do list. So I'm gonna let you all go so you can get to work. My big thanks to all of you and I look forward to more discussions on ocean and biodiversity and climate change as we head to the big meetings in the fall. Thank you all and thank you to our audience for joining.