Ocean Acidification

To meet scientific, policy, and community goals, there is a critical need to strengthen research capacity, increase monitoring, and inform adaptation and mitigation policies to enhance resilience against ocean acidification (OA) and associated multi-stressors in the Caribbean. In 2023, an OA Needs Based Assessment survey of ocean professionals was conducted, engaging 59 participants from across the wider Caribbean to evaluate regional challenges and opportunities in OA research and monitoring. To understand differences in OA research capacity related to training and funding, we divide the respondents into four groups: those that have received 1) training and funding, 2) training only, 3) funding only, and 4) neither training nor funding. Results indicate regional strengths include awareness of local oceanic conditions, access to nearshore sites, and strong social support networks in ocean research. Regional barriers include limited technical capacity and funding to conduct oceanographic research and monitoring, and in particular, carbonate measurements. The four training and funding groups vary significantly, suggesting that access to training and funding are important factors to increasing the amount of access that respondents have to different types of equipment, the number of different types of measurements they conduct, the number of different habitats they research, and the amount of experience they have conducting OA research. This study also demonstrates the community-led efforts to address local OA challenges by presenting a case study on the formation of the Global Ocean Acidification Network (GOA-ON) OA Caribbean Hub that was founded by local leaders (co-authors of this study) who were inspired through the survey process and engagement that was conducted by co-authors. This study provides examples of avenues and challenges to build OA capacity for research and monitoring from the ground up within the wider Caribbean to advance towards global sustainability goals.

The ocean plays an essential role in regulating the global climate, absorbing around 25 % of global CO₂ emissions. Scientific knowledge of the ocean’s capacity as a carbon sink is therefore essential for policy-making at the national and international level. However, the capacity of the existing marine science system to deliver this information at sufficiently high quality, without geographical and temporal gaps, and with equitable contributions by and access for less affluent national science systems, is far from assured. This contribution applies the six guiding principles of Open Science as a yardstick for science in the service of society to assess the current state of marine (carbon) science, pointing out strengths and shortcomings, and deriving specific recommendations for science policy. This contribution results from a three-year interdisciplinary research project with researchers from Brazil and Germany and was discussed within the UN Ocean Decade Program Ocean Acidification Research for Sustainability (OARS) to validate the applicability of insights and recommendations beyond these particular contexts.

Although scholars largely agree that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is a “living instrument”, the case law shows UNCLOS tribunals’ reluctance to fully engage with questions other than those strictly speaking regulated under the Convention. Amongst these are questions relating to the protection of marine biodiversity and human rights, which have frequently arisen in the context of UNCLOS disputes but received considerably little attention. This is particularly surprising, given the interconnected nature of the marine environment with biodiversity and ecosystems, and with the rights of the communities thriving on them.

Against this background, the present paper unpacks the principle of systemic integration as discussed by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in its 2024 Advisory Opinion, investigating two mechanisms regulating the relationship between UNCLOS and other international instruments, namely the rule of reference technique and Article 237 UNCLOS. Then, it shifts the focus onto international biodiversity law and international human rights law, critically assessing to what extent the Tribunal’s cautious approach to these two regimes was justified in the light of systemic integration. Finally, it offers some remarks on the prospects of litigating the conservation of marine biodiversity and the protection of human rights before UNCLOS international dispute settlement mechanisms.

Our oceans are changing fast, and, in particular, human-induced climate change has negative effects on the ocean. Ocean acidification (OA), sea-level rise, and ocean warming are endangering oceanic ecosystems and ecosystem services simultaneously. In addition, other human activities cause ocean stress at the same time, such as fishing or pollution. The research and understanding of these repercussions of climate change are growing, but not everything is understood. In particular, the interaction between different repercussions of climate change and other ocean stressors still requires research. Nevertheless, science is progressing fast; for example, nature-based solutions could be a helpful tool in the fight against these negative influences on the ocean. As science advances, law and policy must also evolve to prevent changes in the ocean environment and avoid reaching critical tipping points. These tipping points mark significant and often irreversible shifts in the climate system, including the ocean.