Angelique Pouponneau: I don’t seek to speak on behalf of all the people in Seychelles, but it certainly has given many small island developing states reason to be hopeful. One that the many nights that we’ve spent negotiating climate text was not for nothing. and especially, the very old findings by the courts, that one. The 1.5 degrees, Celsius temperature limit that, the Alliance of Small Island states had been initially, like they, we were the initial proponents from 2009. Is now, the globally recognized scientific limit that we all need to be working towards.

Mike DiGirolamo: Welcome to the Mongabay Newscast. I’m your co-host, Mike DiGirolamo, bring you weekly conversations with experts, authors, scientists, and activists working on the front lines of conservation, shining a light on some of the most pressing issues facing our planet and holding people in power to account. This podcast is edited on Gadigal land today. On the newscast, we speak with Angelique Pouponneau, an environmental lawyer with an expertise on climate, litigation, oceans, and small island developing states, otherwise known as SIDS. Pouponneau has served as a negotiator on high profile international agreements such as the Global Plastic Treaty, and she’s the lead negotiator on oceans for the Alliance of Small Island States, A-O-S-I-S. She joins us to talk about the recent advisory opinion on the obligation of states in respect of climate change that was issued by the International Court of Justice this past July. She explains two key components of the advisory opinion. The legal implications for nations in general, but especially for small island states, which are particularly vulnerable to climate change and sea level rise. She explains how the clarity provided by the ICJ can be used and how it may influence legal practice for states globally. Additionally, she discusses how this alters the playing field for economies of small island nations. These economies depend heavily on fewer industries than many landlocked or highly industrialized countries. She also explains the fallout from the Global Plastic Treaty, what disappointed her about the process and what she thinks needs to be improved and in future agreements.

Angelique, welcome to the Mongabay newscast. It’s a pleasure to have you with us.

Angelique: Pleasure to be here.

Mike: So, the first thing I would like to ask you is, can you describe the nature and the marine life of The Seychelles? What’s special about this, nation?

Angelique: Yeah. No, I’m happy to do so. The Seychelles can only be described as the jewel of the Indian Ocean, right? Beautiful from it’s very tiny landmass, relative of course at its vast ocean spaces. And, it is a tropical island, very lush green vegetation. but it’s ocean I think is really what takes the prize. And I’ve had the, the, privilege to be able to see. to be able to want to enjoy, what the ocean offers. And I think, I’ll oftentimes we focus on the biodiversity and I think I’ll certainly get to that in a moment, but I, the relationship with you have with the ocean when you live on an island is, very close to heart because of what’s what it provides. And I don’t, and yes, for, amazing food that we get from the ocean, but just a sense of calm, the ability to..to, there’s a sense of a comfort calm refuge if you’re after a very long day and you just sing into the sea, for a while and reconnect with that energy. Of course it’s also extremely beautiful in terms of marine biodiversity. And here I’m thinking of, the just amazing, coral reefs with so many colors and vibrancy all the way to like underwater football pitches, right? Which is sea grass meadows going on for meters and meters. and then of course, just the, some of the most amazing biodiversity, very charismatic creatures. the, Hawks built Turtle, and you’ve got, other very charismatic creatures like sharks, so it’s, really just a, very serene and still in many ways, pristine place. But of course it’s not able to escape threats.

Mike: We are going to talk about those threats for sure. I do want to ask you though, you’ve been a youth environment leader for the small island developing states, otherwise known as SIDS, and now, for the Alliance of Small Island States. A-O-S-I-S. Can you talk about the importance of these alliances for small island nations?

Angelique: Yeah, no, of course. So there, there’s a real victory in, history when it comes to islands, and one of them was, being a state and having a vote at the United Nations. And that in itself, recognized, island nations as, sovereigns and, of course able to really function on the international stage and, being able to have a voice. Now being countries though of populations ranging from 18,000 to a million, oftentimes it’s not very easy to be taken seriously. You’re seen as, the little guys on the block, right? You’re certainly not in the Big Brother group. So, back in the nineties, what small island developing states, and as you can imagine, at the time, states are just becoming independent. They’re now enjoying, this, status within the United Nations. What became very, obvious is amongst developing countries, there were these groups of states that had a lot of similarities. There was born the idea that there needs to be an alliance, a coalition of small island, developing states that have this shared set of characteristics that when you combine together, really creates a different case. And I know in international law we call it the special case on, development and environment. and, here really going to small populations, right? It’s very small land. Mass islands, like in the middle of nowhere. Very remote. Being, a very, vulnerable to external shocks, both economic and environmental. Of course, because of our small economies, we’ve got to import everything. We’re predominantly, dependent on two pillars of an economy, Tourism and fisheries at that about it. Yeah. we’re extremely vulnerable to external shocks. and we’ve seen, and suddenly in my lifetime, I’ve seen it more than twice, where, if Europe sneezes, The Seychelles catches are cold, right? And in 1994, I believe is where, the international community said there’s something different here from other developing countries, and really recognized that special case. But what was important is being able to speak with a common voice, being able to be united in the way we, conveyed our concerns. And there was born the Alliance of Small Island states, and we have been a negotiating block since I think it’s 1991. And we started predominantly in the climate change regime. of course, as you can imagine, why? Because that’s really, I mean our similarity is very much now vulnerability to climate change to the impacts of climate change and we have since then grown into a coalition. That also negotiates on issues of sustainable development as well as ocean, which is the pillar that I currently lead, which covers things like the plastics negotiations as well as, the one I’m doing this week, in fact, the BBNJ agreement negotiations,

Mike: I’ll cover this a little bit more later, but BBNJ stands for Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction.This is a global Ocean protection treaty adopted under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which you’ll hear referred to on this episode as UNCLOS.

Angelique: So that really, the coalition is meant to be a form of solidarity of being united in purpose when we engage in international negotiations.

Mike: So I want to turn to now the, ICJs advisory opinion. So can you describe for our listeners the two fundamental questions that the International Court of Justice addressed, namely state’s obligations under international law regarding emissions and climate change? And the second part, the legal consequences when states cause harm to others through climate change. What were those questions that were answered and how did SEIS people react to that opinion?

Angelique: Yeah, one of the things I think is, really going back to why this advisory. Why was it actually started? And it, boils back to 2000. Oh, it was a Glasgow cop, so Cop 26. It was a Glasgow cop and, the small island developing states had requested, the establishment of the fund for loss and damage.

Mike: Right.

Angelique: Loss and damage, is, I mean in short, beyond your limits of adaptation, you can no longer adapt. And we had made our demand for this, loss and damage fund, and we were given a loss and damage dialogue.

Mike: To learn more about the loss and damage fund, you can hear our interview with Brandon Wu of action aid on the negotiations that took place. Link is in the episode summary.

Angelique: And there was a real question at that point around is multilateralism in that forum of negotiations actually giving SIDS what they need and a number of moves towards looking to the international judicial courts was taken in response to that moment of disappointment. The first was, the first advisory opinion sought from the Inter International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea, and then the second one was this International Court of Justice advisory opinion and really looking at, as you’ve already mentioned, the questions around what are the legal obligations. And one of the things I think that’s really important to highlight is your legal obligations are a many, and there’s not one regime that dictates what you should do in relation to climate. There are fundamentals. So, I would say, your customer, international law, which basically means state practice, and the belief that you are bound to do this, was, part of the advisory opinion that you have a duty to do no harm, right? Especially as it relates to trans boundary, and those were restated. There were certainly a group of countries that attempted to argue that because we had the United Nations Framework Convention and the Paris Agreement that there was Lex Specialis. So essentially, your obligations on climate was dictated by these wet of regimes.

Mike: I think it’s important to know which nations argued Lex specials is covered by the Paris Agreement and they include the United States, China, and Russia,

Angelique: And the court said no. It’s actually broader than that. You actually have customary, international law, other legal, many other legal obligations that you must follow and in, in, addition. The NFCCC and the Paris Agreement Framework. and then of course, one of the things that, SIDS have always felt pained by was a paragraph, I think it’s paragraph 51 of the COP 21 decision in Paris. When we managed to get an article on loss and damage, we had to swallow a very, tough pill, which was a paragraph in a decision that accompanied the Paris Agreement that said having this article means that there would not be claims to damages. There’d be no issue. Something along the lines of there’d be no issues of legal liability. And that was a really difficult pill to swallow.

Mike: Yeah.

Angelique: But in order, of course, it’s thinking of the bigger picture. And of course seeing the decision as constrained to the UNFCC, said, we will we’ll accept that. Some states that ratify the Paris Agreement actually say, this does not stop me from seeking legal redress in other fora. To already indicate their sort of movement away from paragraph 51. But it was really a tough pill to swallow. And I think what’s great about the ICJ advisory opinion, it doesn’t it says that paragraph cannot limit legal liability.

Mike: Yeah.

Angelique: And in fact, there is many forms of redress, from reparations, compensations, and other forms that the advisory opinion highlights. So, in that respect, I don’t seek to speak on behalf of all the people in The Seychelles, but it certainly has given many small island developing states reason to be hopeful. One that the many nights that we’ve spent negotiating climate text was not for nothing. And especially, the very bold findings by the courts that one, the 1.5 degrees Celsius temperature limit that the Alliance of Small Island states had been initially, like they, we were, the initial proponents from 2009 is now the globally recognized scientific limit that we all need to be working towards. I think the other piece that was again, variable was that your nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement is not completely a subjective criterion where you get to decide whatever you want to put in this nationally determined contribution. No, the courts go further than that. They said, actually we take it very seriously that it says that your highest possible ambition and there is an objective metric in that. And it cannot be any, sort of, ‘this is what I feel for this the next five years.’ It’s provided us a lot of hope, especially at the time when the next round of NDCs are due. It’ll be very interesting to see how countries who are now who have yet to submit and now working to submit their NDCs, how they take note and how they give effect to the ICJs advisory opinion.

Mike: Thank you for detailing that. That was incredibly insightful. I think it’s worth highlighting really quick, just for folks, how enforceable this opinion is, whether or not it truly is, and what can be done about that. Can you speak to that?

Angelique: Yeah. So, it’s an advisory opinion, right?

Mike: Yeah.

Angelique: And I think, everybody recognizes that, and I hope it’s clear to folks on the call. That it’s, as the label says, it’s an advisory opinion. That said, advisory opinions are taken very seriously by many, if not most states, in terms of their interpretation of what is expected of them by international law. So, it does influence, state practice from there on, which then leads to international law, right? The creation of international law. So in, in that respect, whilst it is not quote unquote enforceable, and of course that’s very difficult to even think about within an international frame,

Mike: Right.

Angelique: It does provide the legal rules, legal clarity, legal certainty as to the expectations of states as it relates to their obligations. And essentially that is all the advisory opinion could have ever done, which is to clarify, and provide legal certainty on interpretation of international law. I think if I can go beyond your question to say. The interesting pause is how countries are subsequently going to use this advisory opinion. And not only I think many stakeholders can now or can now use this advisory opinion. So, for example, and this is perhaps I think the most successful avenue is there may be, a civil society, youth groups who may feel that they can now have more legal clout, legal basis to take their governments to court. Because they’re not meeting their obligation. So that’s one, certainly the proponents of the advisory opinion, Vanuatu here in New York, they’re looking to.Tthey’re looking to have, it’s the advisory opinion adopted as a UN general assembly resolution, and of course, in adopting it as a UN general assembly resolution, everyone who adopts the resolution kind of says, I sign on. I agree with what the advisory opinion is saying. So, there’s multiple levels, right? You have your international level approach with the UN general assembly resolution, but then you can always have your youth groups and civil society who can really use this as a tool to really ensure that governments are meeting their obligations. And then of course. It’s both a political and legal tool, as members of the small island developing states. We now, I wrote a post about this, we don’t need, it’s not a moral plea anymore, right? It’s not about ‘please consider our future.’ No, you have to. So, it’s a…there’s a legal requirement that you do. Which of course makes it a very different conversation to… please provide me with charity, because the world is burning around me and I’m about to lose my home.

Mike: One thing you’ve highlighted to us, that doesn’t get talked about a ton in the press, it’s the opinion provides legal certainty. That small island developing states maritime boundaries remain regardless of sea level rise. So, can you talk about what this means and why it’s so significant?

Angelique: Yeah, no, absolutely. So, there’s been a lot of literature about this. As it’s an academic, playground as it relates to what would happen to maritime boundaries as a result of the impacts of climate change. And the literature around that has traditionally, been two schools of thoughts. One saying that because of your, because of coastal erosion, as a result of climate change, there is going to be an equal movement of your outer limits of your socio economic zone. Just for folks who don’t read the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea all the time, but essentially, the, convention says you have an exclusive economic zone from your baseline to 200 nautical miles out, and that’s your outer limit. Now, if your coast kind of cross creeps in because of coastal erosion, there’s been arguments that your baseline would then shift in and there will be a corresponding shift of your outer limit and there’s been two schools of thought. Some have said that is the case and others have said, not necessarily, and in the real, in the real world in terms of state practice, many Pacific Island leaders as well as leaders of the Alliance of Small Island states have gone to the General Assembly and said, actually, no. My understanding is that if I have deposited my coordinates for the outer limits of my exclusive economics zone, they will remain those regardless. And but still, the academics had debates, but the intention of making these pronouncements is really to advance this idea of state practice, right? These are what state believes to be the case. And which is of course a form of international law. And declarations were subsequently signed by the Pacific Islands Forum and then subsequently by the Alliance of Small Island States in 2021, as well as 2024. So, when this matter, so the AOSIS decided that it would bring this question looking at statehood, essentially, whereby the Montevideo Convention speaks to, you must have these characteristics in order for you to be a stage, right? So population, territory, effective government, able to enter to foreign, into foreign relations. And the courts pronounce on this and they say, if you don’t have one of the elements, it doesn’t mean it does not necessarily mean you will lose hood. And one of the things that I think people don’t, one, that’s a huge win. But I think the other, piece of the puzzle is its linkage to the ocean economies of small island developing states that are compounded by many threats and one of which is, or was, this idea of the shrinking exclusive economic zone.

Mike: Yeah.

Angelique: And what’s island nations where is trying to guard against real state practice was essentially if there were ever to be loss of territory, it would not mean loss of exclusive economic zone. And really linked to, exactly what I talked about in terms of that rich marine biodiversity, but also resources that lie there. So now the argument that I’ve made is around when, and we’ve heard this many times, sly in the climate for when people question around making investments into small island developing states, there’s always this question around, how long of a loan do I take if they’re at risk of disappearing within the duration of my loan repayment period?

Mike: Right.

Angelique: These are obviously very painful discussions to have, but they’re, they’re, they exist and they were being had. And I think, one of the real, prize of this, I-C-J-A-O is that piece that says, no, I sub, I continue to exist unless I determine otherwise. And here, very much linked to the, this idea of self-determination, which is what members of the Alliance of Develop, Alliance of Small Island States has been advocating for.

That’s another angle that’s not quite, I think the climate angle, understandably is the, focus of, many in the media and many folks, but there was also a very big win on the ocean front.

Mike: Hello, listeners, and thank you for tuning in. Several episodes have been referenced or will be by the end of this conversation. I highly recommend you listen to them to get the full context of what and Angelique Pouponneau is discussing. You can find these. Episodes as links in the show notes or as episode players in the written summary at mongabay.com. They include our talks with Elizabeth Mendenhall about the BB NJ Treaty, our webinar on regional fisheries management organizations, and Brandon Wu of ActionAid discussing the loss and damage negotiations. Please check those out if you can. Don’t forget to subscribe to the show on your favorite podcast platform. And now back to the conversation with Angelique Pouponneau.

Yeah, the climate justice angle is as, you mentioned, extremely important. You do mention this economic development angle or as you put it, sustainable blue economies and since there’s no more–at least it sounds like what you’re saying is that UNCLOS won’t acknowledge the ambulatory baselines, they’re going to acknowledge the, coordinates. So, can you talk about how this, and you’ve already spoken to it, but can you go into more detail about what a sustainable blue economy means now in this context? Like what exactly is that?

Angelique: Yeah. So, let’s perhaps start closer to land and then move out. So, this idea of having a sustainable ocean economy, again, very early proponents of those were small islands back in 2012 before we started discussing the sustainable development goals, right? and really gave birth to SDG 14. and one of the things that island nations, I tried to shift, in terms of the narrative was I may be limited in landmass, but I have this whole huge ocean space. And The Seychelles, for example, we have 1.35 million kilometers square of ocean. And yeah, so just to put it into perspective, a hundred thousand people are responsible for 1.35 million kilometers square of ocean. So huge space. And which means that inevitably our economies are entirely dependent. There’s not much land to do any to do very much. Yeah, your economies are entirely dependent on this ocean space. But of course, one of the things that we’ve needed to think about is how to do it sustainably. And in 2015 when we adopted the sustainable development goals, SDG 14.7 really spoke to how are we supporting SIDS to have the sustainable blue economies? and particularly touched on aquaculture tourism and potentially I think MRE biotechnology. I need to check the text. But in any case, there was this view that there was gonna be a world of potential with the ocean. We haven’t seen that materialize, and I know we’re five years out from achieving the SDGs, and there’s been a lot of investigation as to why that hasn’t materialized. And one of the, one of the sort of theories that exists when it comes to attracting investment is you need to have legal certainty. Investors need legal certainty and what le what legal certainty and what is, there’s a whole list that, researchers have looked to from, they need legal certainty on how contracts are concluded or how things would be settled if there was a dispute and things like that. But one of the things that you require legal certainty of is if you invest.

Somewhere, you know that space will always belong to who you are investing with, right? And I think this is particularly important when dealing with something like the exclusive economic zone and this issue of ambulatory baselines because if there is, if there were to be a shrinking EEZ concept in real terms, the areas that used to be exclusive economic zones would be high seas. So, can you imagine you once had exclusive rights, right? And then the next you turn up and everybody’s actually able to have access to all the resources that you had exclusive rights to.

Mike: Yeah. Yeah.

Angelique: So it’s particularly important and I think the other part that’s worth highlighting is as SIDS work on having the sustainable blue economies, having that legal certainty itself is important, right? Because you need to know where your limits are. your outer limits of your exclusive economic zones are. You need to also know how you undertake your marine spatial planning processes, right? Because now you’ll have legal certainty as to your, corners. you almost, do not feel a need to plan for a different scenario, with, shrinking spaces, which also means competing use of marine space.

Mike: So, to a concerned outside observer who may hear you talk about investment of industry, they may be concerned of perhaps the risk of simply repeating the exploitation and ecological destruction that can come with industry that is largely driving the climate crisis, the ecological crisis. What would you say to that concern? How would you respond to that?

Angelique: I think it’s a fair concern and I think one of the things that as small island developing states and, we’ve seen it a lot of this coming out very strongly and particular from the Pacific, is also this stewardship that the SIDS that islands have had for a very long time of our ocean spaces. We see ourselves as responsible custodians of our ocean space because we understand that it is foundational to everything. When we think about development or increased economic activity, it is always within a…within an understanding that resources are limited. There’s no, there’s no exploiting to no end. And, many of, many small island developing states, especially in the Pacific, have lived millennia as stewarding these areas. For us, at least as SIDS, we’re very conscious when it comes to welcoming and approaching development and not as a…it’s not, a sort of something we, think about doing. Like we just have to do it because of the fragile environment which within which we live.

Mike: And additionally, debt for nature swaps are, they’re not seen as a panacea and they attract like a, fair amount of criticism. I assume you know what some of the criticisms are. What would your response to those be? Perhaps you can talk about the way that The Seychelles has done this a bit differently, such as in 2015 where the Seychelles government did a, what’s called a deep consultation process that took years. Maybe you can talk about how this type of process distinguishes itself from some of those concerns of debt for nature swaps.

Angelique: Yeah. Thanks for that. I think number one is debt for nature swaps have come out as, what can we call them? I will call it what it is, right? It is an attempt to tinker at the edges of a systematic problem. So, I think the first thing to recognize is many small island developing states because of our characteristics, our curative characteristics means that we need to import everything almost and we also don’t generate a huge amount of revenue because we only have two pillars, more or less, right? So inevitably what that means in order to sustain many of our needs is we need to take out debt and to compound the issue. Because of our small populations, we often find ourselves being rated as high, high-income categories. The Seychelles, for example, with a hundred thousand people, is classified as a high income country. And as much as you’ll enjoy luxury destination, the majority of people in the Seychelles would not consider themselves high income individuals. But what that means for the country though is that you cannot borrow at concessionary rates, which means that there’s a high interest rate when it comes to debt. And then to, I think just to also add another sort of visual to this. If you are building a port and the port costs a hundred dollars, for example, if you have a hundred people, everyone pays a dollar. If you have five people, everyone pays $20. So the cost of development on each individual is actually very high. And as since we’ve had to, and as the Seychelles, certainly we’ve had to start thinking about what do we do, especially in a world that is unforgiving when it comes to debt.

Mike: Yeah.

Angelique: Especially if you are punished for risk perceptions that you have no idea what it’s really about other than you’re a developing country. And that’s when, and Seychelles, if, when you hear the story of the debt for nature swap, like Seychelles debt for nature swaps are difficult things. It takes a long time, it takes a lot of human resources within your ministries to sort out and things like that. But we were classified as a high income country. We needed to find ways to meet our development needs. We did turn to a debt for Nature Swap and there’s a lot of criticism about debts for Nature Swap. And I always like to remind everyone that, and I remind everyone because I’m really keen for somebody to come up with a solution, remind everyone that debt for nature swaps are tinkering with the edges, right? There’s a systematic problem and no one is providing a solution to the systematic problem. So, people need to find ways to essentially survive. And one of the ways that’s come up is taking advantage of the debt situation through debt for nature swaps, through trying to find a way of using the debt to also provide this, conservation outcomes as well. The Seychelles, yes, embarked on a debt for nature swap journey. I think it started back in 2014, maybe as early as 2012. The first signal that the government made was in 2012 when it announced that it was willing to protect 30% of its exclusive economic zone. That’s your first signal to the world that you’re committed to conservation. We then concluded the debt for nature swap about 20 November, 2015. And, in order to, and responding directly to your question about the criticism and how Seychelles dealt with, its indeed one of the critiques of debt for nature swaps is that it’s dispossess people because of the conservation outcomes. There’s a lot of tensions and friction that arises with other users of the ocean. We did undertake a very robust, marine spatial planning process, which involved, many years of consultations and many meetings. And I think, it’s always worth, something that I certainly learned a lot about is, different stakeholders need different types of meetings, right? If you’re a fisher will not, one fisher will not necessarily take a day out to, to sit through a workshop. Also, you will have to pay for their time if they’re taking a day out to sit in a workshop, because that’s a day lost of income. But also the best they, they’re not really workshopy people. They don’t like to speak in workshops anyway, and the best time to meet them is actually on Sunday afternoon after they’ve divided up the money in the community and that’s when you go and hear from them and what their views are and how those views are collected. So that was a very, deliberate, marine spatial planning process. Of course there is no way to make everyone happy. And there had to be trade-offs that were made, right? Because we, as we were trying to identify the 30% marine conservation areas as well as other sustainable use that would be allowed. I think the beauty of The Seychelles though is we have a socialist history. Which often means that we understand the greater, the greater requirements of the collective. So, where we do have a culture that is more rooted in understanding collective good, even if it means individual sacrifice. And I see the marine spatial planning process as something that was very participatory, very inclusive, but we cannot negate that we were all looking at this from the collective good. And here, I don’t mean, just sort of conservation outcomes for conservation. For conservation’s sake, but actually the benefits that conservation would bring as a result of those.

Mike: Thank you very much for detailing that. I… cognizant of time…I do want to ask you, because you’ve mentioned you were working on the Global Plastic Treaty as well as the BBNJ, you were the lead negotiator for SIDS for the Global Plastic Treaty in Geneva. And you publicly described this process as frustrating. So, what would you have liked to have seen done differently by states involved in this process?

Angelique: Okay, so number one, I would like to have seen many things done differently in this process, not just by states. There were, it’s a very hard negotiation, I think the one thing we need to acknowledge is the state of the world right now. And I think, certainly one of my roles as lead ocean negotiator, especially when you’re in the final round of negotiations, is to ground everybody and lay out the politics, and the political landscape that we’re operating in. It was not good before we arrived, to the plastic negotiation, it deteriorated by the time we left. So what I would have liked to see done differently by states, I think is just a…it’s this, is a very difficult conversation, difficult issue that we were trying to address. But a recognition, that we have a duty to do no harm, especially coming out, and I know the I-C-J-A-O talks about it in the context of climate, but the duty to do no harm is not limited to climate. It is linked, it is fundamentally linked to climate, but there are other ways in which we do harm, and plastic pollution in terms of that. Its transboundary nature is very much one of those ways. And I…It’s, there was really a lack of responsibility. And I will say by all, I think as somebody from The Seychelles that doesn’t produce plastic, we have, I have the sort of moral authority here, to say by all, it wasn’t, I will not be in a position to single out any country that wasn’t caught in its own contradictions as it relates to whether it was plastic production or targets or even, you cannot, I think, be genuine to have ambitious, plastic pollution reduction goals or goals to address or end it without willing to put finance on the table either. And I think a lot of countries, and they all, of them, vary to a certain degree about how their contradictions didn’t allow them to make bold moves within the negotiations did mean that we obviously all left with the status quo. And I think it’s, the other thing I’d say is that it’s a very difficult negotiations when there are many countries that can live without this treaty.

Mike: Yeah. I understand that you have yet to go into the next round of negotiations for the latest iteration of the BBNJ Treaty. So, you know, as much as you can mention, what are some of the questions you’re looking to resolve with that? One that I am particularly interested in is this whole shall not undermine clause. We’ve covered this before.

Mike:  Indeed. We had a conversation with Elizabeth Mendenhall about this last year. The Shall Not Undermine Clause as Mendenhall explained means the Global Ocean Biodiversity Protection Treaty (which means biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction) cannot make rules that reduce the authority or contradict decisions of international oceans management bodies like the International Seabed Authority or regional fisheries management organizations, it can’t create rules that would weaken their decisions. Mendenhall argued this made the treaty a bit toothless.

Mike: And I am just super curious to hear what you have to say about that.

Angelique: Yeah, shall not undermine. It’s in the agreement. So, I think you know words for folks listening. So we have the BBNJ agreement. We’re now very close to ratification. Just today, Cabo Verde, deposited its instrument, which takes us to 54, I believe. We need to get to 60 for it to enter into force. Now, yes, it has this whole ‘shall not undermine’ it is the, shall not undermine questions are on the agenda at this meeting. And admittedly this isn’t a treaty type negotiation. We’re currently working on very sort of institutional frameworks, very infrastructure type elements of the agreement, making sure the committees are functional and so on. And one of the things I think is, I can say, is the shall undermine is not being currently being overly politicized in the way that it was in the negotiation. There is certainly a lot of openness around coordination. At least, people, countries have delegations have, shown their flexibility with wanting secretariats to be able to talk to each other and think like that. I think the tricky part, and we’ll see how tricky it gets, because negotiations are far from over on this, the tricky part is about. How formal do you want cooperation to be? To ensure that there is no undermining? And what I mean by that is, we are exploring whether there should be memorandums of understanding between regimes so that they don’t undermine each other. But a lot of that is going to be driven by how parties operate. And I think the interesting thing with the BBNJ agreement, especially in its early days when it doesn’t have universal, it doesn’t yet have universal participation, is what will happen when the parties, and as SIDS, we are now 20/22 of the 54 parties, when parties make decisions under BBNJ and you expect it to take footing in the other regime because there’s a, the provision that we will do our best to translate the things we agreed in BBNJ and other regimes. We might have a whole different group of countries in that regime. Because we don’t yet have universal participation. So, it’ll be very interesting to see how those things develop and whether countries are going to be willing to be transparent. So, for transparent about what happens in different regimes. So, for example, will the other bodies, the other regimes, be able to report to the BBNJ how, whether it is or is not supporting the objectives of the BBNJ? And these are the types of things that we’re currently discussing. just like reporting lines and whether they should be reporting or whether we’re going to make it as opaque as possible. So, we’ll never know that countries are actually not taking their responsibility in the other regimes. So that’s the every right now, there’s some very tough conversations right now and especially for small island developing states, as there’s a lot of pushback on our representation in different groups. But so far, the discussion on not undermine has been far more pleasant.

Mike: Angelique, thank you so much for speaking with me today and for your insight. It’s been a pleasure.

Angelique: Thank you so much, and thanks for having me here.

Mike: If you want to read more on the ICJ advisory opinion or listen to the episodes referenced in this podcast, please see the links in the show notes. As always, if you’re enjoying the Mongabay Newscast or any of our podcast content and you want to help us. Out. We encourage you to spread the word about the work we’re doing by telling a friend and leaving a review. Word of mouth is definitely the best way to help expand our reach, but you can also support us by becoming a monthly sponsor via our Patreon Page at patreon.com/mongabay. We are a nonprofit news outlet, so pledging a dollar per month makes a big difference and it helps us offset production costs. If you’re a fan of our audio reports from Nature’s Frontline, go to patreon.com/mongabay to learn more and support the Mongabay Newscast. You can also read our news and inspiration from Nature’s frontline at mongabay.com, or you can follow us on social media. Find Mongabay on LinkedIn at Mongabay News, and on Instagram, Threads, Bluesky Mastodon, Facebook and TikTok, where our handle is @Mongabay or on YouTube at Mongabay/TV.

Thanks as always for listening.