Global Ocean Governance in Crisis: A Civitology Treaty to Save Our Seas

1. Introduction

The Earth’s oceans—covering roughly 361 million square kilometers and constituting 97% of our planet’s livable habitat—are in a state of mounting peril. Over 3 billion people rely on marine ecosystems for their primary source of protein; coral reefs alone support a quarter of marine species at some stage of their lives. Yet, scientific findings show 50% of coral reefs have disappeared in the last 30 years, and in certain regions, reef-building corals have declined by over 80% due to mass bleaching events, pollution, and destructive fishing.

Meanwhile, the established international framework for ocean governance—featuring the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), MARPOL, and various regional agreements—has fallen short of preventing overfishing, marine biodiversity loss, and escalating maritime conflicts. Plastic pollution, climate change, and ocean acidification compound these threats, creating a perfect storm that threatens global stability and the future of life in the seas. Although a recent milestone treaty, the High Seas Treaty (BBNJ) of 2023, holds promise, it remains unratified by enough states to enter into force and excludes key issues such as security, some aspects of fisheries, and deep-sea resource management.

In parallel, the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework includes a “30×30” pledge—protecting 30% of land and ocean areas by 2030. This target has inspired many nations to scale up Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). Yet, only about 8–8.4% of the global ocean is currently designated as protected (with roughly 2.8% strongly protected as no-take), and progress is uneven and rife with “paper parks” that lack enforcement. Projections suggest we will fall far short of the 30% target by 2030 unless we adopt more robust governance and accountability. This shortfall poses not just an ecological calamity but an imminent threat to global security—as dwindling fish populations and competing maritime claims could spark conflicts in flashpoints like the South China Sea and the Arctic.

This paper integrates three prior analyses into a single, twice-as-comprehensive call for a Civitology Treaty for the Oceans—a unified framework that would go beyond the patchwork of existing treaties and truly align with the urgency of our era. It begins by dissecting the failures of current agreements, outlines two distinct timelines (2025 vs. 2045) to illustrate the stark consequences of delay, and compares the 30×30 approach against an all-encompassing ocean treaty anchored in Civitology—a philosophy emphasizing civilizational longevity, planetary stewardship, and just global governance.

2. Existing Ocean Governance: Achievements and Failures

2.1 UNCLOS: A Vital Foundation, Yet Outdated

Ratified by 168 parties (excluding the United States, which remains a signatory but not a ratifier), the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) dates back to 1982 and became effective in 1994. It clarified maritime zones—territorial seas, Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) up to 200 nautical miles, and high seas regulations. UNCLOS also outlined environmental duties for nations to “prevent, reduce, and control pollution” and sustain marine life.

However, multiple analyses have exposed endemic non-compliance. One study (cited in UNCLOS debate materials) indicated over one-third of signatories were significantly breaching provisions, undermining the treaty’s integrity. Enforcement hinges on individual state action or complaint-driven tribunals. While the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and arbitration panels exist, major powers can simply refuse to recognize adverse rulings—for instance, China’s dismissal of the 2016 South China Sea decision.

Moreover, UNCLOS predates scientific awareness of ocean acidification, high-seas biodiversity hotspots, and climate-induced migrations of marine species. Consequently, it lacks direct mechanisms for addressing:

Deep-Sea Mining: Only a skeletal framework is provided via the International Seabed Authority (ISA), which faces pressure to authorize under-studied, potentially destructive mining in abyssal plains.
Climate Change: No direct references to mitigating greenhouse gas emissions or handling acidification’s lethal effects on corals and shellfish.
Plastic and Land-based Pollution: The treaty only outlines broad obligations, leaving specifics to separate protocols or national implementation.

Conclusion: UNCLOS remains essential but is outpaced by 21st-century realities.

2.2 MARPOL: Targeted Successes, Limited Scope

The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) (1973/78) significantly reduced marine pollution from vessels. Oil spills above 700 metric tons decreased from a peak average of around 25 major spills per year in the 1970s to under 2 major spills annually today, thanks to stricter tanker designs and disposal rules. Nevertheless, MARPOL addresses only:

Vessel-source pollution (oil, chemicals, sewage, garbage).
Greenhouse gas emissions from ships only minimally (Annex VI remains limited in scope).
No coverage of land-based waste (where an estimated 80% of ocean plastics originate).

Hence, large-scale plastic discharges—8 to 11 million metric tons of plastic entering the ocean each year—remain effectively unchecked. Similarly, MARPOL cannot regulate nutrient run-off from agriculture, nor does it reduce illegal fishing, which is the domain of separate laws and RFMOs. The result is an incomplete patchwork where shipping pollution is partially controlled, but far greater threats continue unabated.

2.3 Regional and Sectoral Agreements: Fragmentation

Alongside UNCLOS and MARPOL, dozens of regional treaties (e.g., Barcelona Convention, OSPAR, Nairobi Convention) and sectoral bodies (e.g., International Whaling Commission (IWC), Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs)) also regulate portions of ocean use. Some have had real success:

The IWC’s 1986 moratorium on commercial whaling allowed a partial recovery of certain whale populations (e.g., humpbacks rebounded from near-extinction).
OSPAR reduced some pollution in the North-East Atlantic.

However, these frameworks are largely disconnected. Each focuses on a single threat (pollution, fishing, whaling) or a specific region, often with weak enforcement. Overfishing is rampant in many RFMOs; for instance, the Mediterranean sees over 60% of its fish populations overfished. The net outcome is a mosaic of rules failing to address cumulative impacts across species, regions, and industries.

2.4 The High Seas Treaty (BBNJ): Bold Step, Yet Narrow

In 2023, after nearly a decade of negotiations, states adopted a Treaty on Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ)—popularly called the High Seas Treaty. Once ratified by at least 60 countries, it will:

Permit creation of high-seas MPAs,
Standardize environmental impact assessments for activities on the open ocean,
Promote benefit-sharing of marine genetic resources.

Praised as an “historic breakthrough,” the High Seas Treaty still excludes direct governance of fisheries (left to RFMOs), offers no direct conflict-resolution mechanism for militarization, and requires robust cooperation from UNCLOS parties to work. It is an indispensable but incomplete tool—likely insufficient alone to reverse biodiversity loss or reduce tensions over resources.

3. The 30x30 Pledge: Ambition vs. Reality

3.1 Defining 30x30

Under the 2022 Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, nearly 200 nations committed to protect at least 30% of the planet’s land and ocean by 2030—the so-called 30x30 target (Target 3). Specifically for oceans, 30x30 envisions an expanded network of MPAs and Other Effective area-based Conservation Measures (OECMs) that cover important habitats and respect indigenous rights.

3.2 Current Progress: 8%–8.4% Protected

According to the Protected Planet Report (2024) and Marine Protection Atlas data:

8–8.4% of the global ocean is under some form of protection, up from 1% in the early 2000s.
Only 2.8% is strongly protected (e.g., no-take zones), with ~5.2% featuring partial restrictions that allow certain extractive uses.
Some 31 countries or territories claim to have protected over 30% of their marine waters. However, many are remote overseas territories (e.g., UK’s Pitcairn Islands, US’s Pacific Remote Islands) or small island states, yielding large MPAs in sparse areas.

To meet 30%, experts estimate we must designate an additional 70–78 million km² of ocean as MPAs by 2030, roughly three times the entire land area of India. At the current pace (one to two million km² of new MPAs per year), the 30% target is out of reach.

3.3 Structural Weaknesses of 30x30

Voluntary and Fragmented: 30x30 is not a legally binding treaty but a policy aspiration under the CBD. Each nation implements it independently, with no global enforcement.
Risk of “Paper Parks”: Many MPAs lack management plans or bans on destructive activities—bottom trawling occurs in numerous “protected” zones.
Coverage Bias: Nations often protect remote or uninhabited waters to meet area targets while leaving heavily exploited coastal regions unprotected.
Climate Stress: MPAs alone cannot fix ocean acidification or warming-induced bleaching, which kill corals even in no-take reserves.
Potential Conflicts: Rapidly declaring 30% of waters off-limits—especially in disputed regions—could escalate tensions if communities or neighboring states feel excluded.

Conclusion: 30x30 is a vital rallying cry, but without a unifying enforcement mechanism and synergy with global policies on fishing, pollution, and climate, it risks becoming a superficial milestone.

4. Two Divergent Timelines: Acting by 2025 vs. Waiting Until 2045

To highlight the cost of delayed action, we contrast two scenarios for adopting a new global ocean treaty grounded in Civitology.

4.1 Timeline A: Bold Action by 2025

2023–2024:
- A “Global Ocean Summit” convenes, leveraging BBNJ momentum.
- Diplomats, scientists, indigenous representatives, and NGOs draft a Civitology Treaty for the Oceans, focusing on integrated enforcement, conflict resolution, and climate adaptation.
2025:
- The Civitology Treaty enters force after rapid ratifications by major powers.
- A UN Ocean Authority (under the treaty) begins coordinating shipping, fisheries, and deep-sea mining regimes.
- Immediate moratorium on deep-sea mining; mandatory phases for single-use plastic reductions.
- The treaty mandates 30% MPA coverage by 2030—backed by an International Ocean Court to address non-compliance.
2026–2030:
- Global Ocean Guard formed—a multinational maritime force with authority to board vessels on the high seas, seize illegal fishing boats, and ensure new MPAs are respected.
- Nations implement advanced satellite surveillance and require AIS tracking for all fishing vessels.
- Joint funding (e.g., an Ocean Trust Fund) supports developing countries in meeting the 30% target equitably, with compensation for artisanal fishers and capacity-building.
- Early signs of marine life recovery appear—rebounding whale populations, healthier coral reefs in newly protected zones, reduced plastic entering oceans.
2030–2040:
- High-seas MPAs expand to cover critical biodiversity hotspots (Sargasso Sea, Mascarene Plateau, Emperor Seamounts).
- Global plastic influx falls dramatically due to international producer liability and microplastic regulations.
- Illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing drops as sanctions and interdiction become routine.
- Maritime boundary disputes (e.g., certain South China Sea flashpoints) cool down thanks to neutral dispute tribunals.
Beyond 2040:
- Vibrant coral reefs, stabilized plankton levels, and recovering apex predators.
- With less resource stress and fair conflict resolution, naval standoffs are minimized.
- The ocean becomes a global commons sustained for future generations—a major success story in planetary governance.

4.2 Timeline B: Delay Until 2045

2023–2035:
- Fragmented governance persists. The BBNJ Treaty is ratified slowly; high-seas MPA designations are patchy.
- Deep-sea mining licenses proliferate, damaging unknown seabed ecosystems. Plastic pollution and microplastics double.
- Overfishing intensifies, with apex predators like sharks plummeting by 60–70% in certain oceans.
- Conflicts over fishing rights erupt near West Africa, South America, and Southeast Asia.
2035–2040:
- Coral reefs suffer mass bleaching events, losing an additional 30–40% of cover. The entire Great Barrier Reef approaches “functional collapse.”
- Phytoplankton biomass sees continued declines (~1% per year, cumulatively ~40–50% since 1950). Oxygen levels dip in multiple marine regions, causing mass mortality.
- Resource-driven geopolitical tension escalates in the Arctic (as sea ice melts) and the South China Sea. Incidents of naval conflict rise.
2040–2045:
- Global leaders scramble for a “rescue treaty” amid ocean ecosystem breakdown—food security crises and maritime flashpoints.
- Whale populations are decimated (certain species near extinction), and entire fisheries collapse, fueling massive unemployment in coastal regions.
- An emergency Civitology-style treaty is finally drafted, but reversing decades of unbridled exploitation requires extraordinary funds and centuries to restore lost biodiversity.
Post-2045:
- Widespread coral reef extinction, severely reduced fish populations, and heavily militarized oceans.
- Attempts at geoengineering or forced restocking proceed amid ecological instability, uncertain outcomes, and massive socioeconomic upheaval.

Conclusion: A 20-year delay from 2025 to 2045 could lock in catastrophic marine ecosystem failures and heighten conflict over scarce resources, with partial recovery taking generations—if possible at all.

5. The Civitology Treaty: A Comprehensive Solution

Civitology is a conceptual framework emphasizing civilization’s long-term survival, ecological harmony, and cooperative global governance. When applied to the oceans, it yields an integrated approach that unifies environmental protection, conflict resolution, and equitable resource management.

5.1 Key Pillars of the Civitology Treaty

Centralized, Science-Driven Global Governance
- A single UN Ocean Authority to oversee all oceanic sectors (shipping, fisheries, seabed mining, conservation).
- Consolidates or coordinates existing bodies (IMO, ISA, RFMOs) for consistent, enforceable regulations.
- Requires scientific and indigenous consultation before major decisions (e.g., establishing MPAs or allowing certain fisheries).
Long-Term Preservation and 30% Minimum
- Codifies 30x30 (or higher) as a binding global standard, requiring true no-take or highly protected zones.
- Mandates restoration goals for degraded habitats, from coral reefs to mangroves and seagrasses.
- Addresses climate adaptation (e.g., shifting species ranges, future “climate refugia” in ocean planning).
Equitable and Enforceable Protections
- Creates a Global Ocean Guard—an international enforcement arm with the power to board vessels on the high seas, seize illegal operators, and impose sanctions.
- Establishes an International Ocean Court to hear cases of non-compliance or oceanic crimes, bridging gaps in UNCLOS jurisdiction.
- Capacity-building fund for developing states, financed by wealthier nations and possibly levies on industries like distant-water fishing or seabed resource extraction.
Banning and Moratoriums on Destructive Practices
- Deep-sea mining moratorium for at least 50–100 years or until robust science proves minimal harm.
- Comprehensive plastic pollution treaty under the Civitology umbrella, including mandatory reductions, extended producer responsibility, and robust recycling.
- Zero tolerance for IUU fishing; destructive gear (like bottom trawls in vulnerable habitats) strictly banned.
- Demilitarized or “peace park” provisions in contested maritime zones to reduce the risk of accidental conflict.
Recognition of Marine Animal and Ecosystem Rights
- Grants legal personhood or recognized rights to charismatic and keystone marine fauna—whales, sharks, sea turtles—and critical ecosystems (e.g., coral reefs, deep-sea vents).
- Creates ombuds/offices that can represent these ecosystems in legal disputes, ensuring that exploitation must pass ethical and legal scrutiny.

5.2 Advantages Over 30x30 Alone

Dimension	30x30 Alone	Civitology Treaty
Legal Force	Non-binding goal under CBD	Binding international agreement with compulsory obligations and oversight
Enforcement	Decentralized, reliant on national agencies	Central enforcement (UN Ocean Authority, Global Ocean Guard, Ocean Court)
Coverage	Focus mainly on achieving area-based targets	Embraces entire ocean governance—fishing, shipping, climate synergy
Conflict Prevention	Indirect, might reduce resource tensions	Direct conflict resolution provisions (peace parks, demilitarized areas, tribunals)
Equity	Dependent on voluntary support	Structured financing & capacity-building for developing states
Scope of Impact	Risk of patchy “paper parks”	High ecological ambition, robust protective standards, + integrated management

6. Data-Driven Arguments for Urgency

Below are key data points illustrating the ocean crisis and the potential of a Civitology Treaty:

Coral Reef Loss: Over the past 30 years, we have lost around 50% of global corals, with 14% lost just between 2009 and 2018. Coral bleaching events tied to temperature spikes have become five times more frequent since the 1970s. Without rapid action, warming of 2°C could decimate >90% of remaining coral reefs.
Phytoplankton Decline: Studies report ~40% decline in phytoplankton biomass since 1950, representing a fundamental threat to oceanic food webs and oxygen production.
Fish Populations: The FAO warns 35% of global fish populations are overfished (above maximum biological sustainability), up from 10% in the 1970s. Some apex predators (sharks, tunas) have declined by 60–70% in select oceans.
Ocean Acidification: The oceans have absorbed about 28% of anthropogenic CO₂, lowering surface pH from ~8.2 to 8.1, a 26% increase in acidity. This rate of change is unprecedented in at least 26,000 years.
Plastic Pollution: 8–11 million metric tons of plastics enter the ocean annually, projected to triple by 2040 without radical intervention. Microplastics pervade the marine food chain, with unknown long-term health impacts.
Deep-Sea Mining Risks: The ISA has issued over 30 exploration contracts covering ~1.3 million km² of the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans. Mining could destroy fragile abyssal habitats—many species found nowhere else—before we even discover them.
Economic and Security Implications: Over $2.5 trillion in global GDP per year is linked to ocean goods/services. Resource disputes can trigger confrontations, evidenced by repeated vessel clashes in the South China Sea and rising tensions as Arctic sea lanes open.
Cost of Inaction: The World Bank and others estimate ocean mismanagement could result in losses of $400–900 billion a year by mid-century due to collapsing fisheries, coastal damage, and conflict. Conversely, sustainable ocean policies yield $5 in benefits for every $1 invested.

These figures starkly reveal how the status quo is untenable—and the difference that unified, enforceable measures could make.

7. Conclusion: A Call to Policy Makers and World Leaders

Humanity’s relationship with the ocean stands at a pivotal juncture. The existing treaties—UNCLOS, MARPOL, various regional accords—have each contributed incremental successes but remain insufficiently integrated or enforced to avert ongoing crises. The High Seas Treaty (BBNJ) heralds progress for areas beyond national jurisdiction but does not address the full spectrum of ocean governance. Meanwhile, the aspirational 30x30 pledge, though vital, risks partial or illusory success if not backed by robust enforcement, funding, and synergy with broader marine management.

A Civitology Treaty for the Oceans offers a more potent remedy:

Centralized enforcement via a UN Ocean Authority and a Global Ocean Guard,
Binding dispute resolution to defuse hotspots from the Arctic to the South China Sea,
Moratoria on destructive practices (deep-sea mining, destructive fishing),
Codification of 30x30 as a minimum standard with guaranteed ecological quality,
Equitable financing and capacity-building to empower all nations to comply and benefit.

World leaders and policy makers must decide which path to take. If we wait until 2045, the damage may be irreversible: mass extinctions of corals, whales, and key fish species; large-scale resource conflicts; and an ocean that can no longer regulate our climate or feed humanity. By contrast, seizing the 2025 window to integrate existing frameworks, anchor the 30x30 target in hard law, and install strong enforcement could restore ocean vitality and ensure peace.

The stakes are colossal: the difference between thriving coral reefs supporting hundreds of millions of livelihoods, or vast marine deserts incapable of replenishing life; the difference between maritime harmony, or conflict-laden seas policed by might rather than right. Ultimately, the ocean’s fate shapes the fate of civilization. As the proverb goes, “we do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.” Nowhere is this more urgent than with our seas.

Therefore, this paper concludes with an urgent appeal:

Convene a 2025 Global Ocean Summit dedicated to forging a Civitology Treaty, uniting world powers, small island states, scientists, indigenous voices, and civil society.
Embed 30x30 in a legally binding enforcement structure, ensuring MPAs are truly protected.
Institute robust conflict resolution, so that the ocean unites rather than divides nations.
Ban or strictly regulate the most harmful practices—deep-sea mining, large-scale plastic dumping, destructive fishing gear.
Recognize the intrinsic rights of marine animals and ecosystems, ensuring they are safeguarded in perpetuity.

By adopting these steps, humanity can transition from a fragmented approach to a holistic, peace-driven, and equitable system of ocean governance. Let this be our generation’s grand project—to save the Blue Planet for all future generations.

More about Civitology

Select References and Data Sources

UNCLOS effectiveness debate: UNCLOS Debate (uncclosdebate.org)
MARPOL pollution data: International Maritime Organization; Marine Policy Journal
BBNJ (High Seas) Treaty text and analysis: UN official press releases, Greenpeace International
Coral reef losses and climate impacts: Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, IPCC reports
Phytoplankton decline: Nature (2010) study on 40% loss since 1950
Fish overexploitation: FAO State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (2022); ~35% stocks overfished
Plastic pollution: Earth Day Fact Sheet (8–11 million tons/year entering oceans), forecast to triple by 2040 (Pew Charitable Trusts)
Deep-sea mining: ISA website, official exploration contracts
Marine conflict hotspots: Global Conflict Tracker, TRENDS Research & Advisory—Arctic militarization, South China Sea disputes
Economic analysis: World Bank’s “Sunken Billions Revisited,” High-Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy
Civitology conceptual framework**: original research papers on “Civilizational Governance” and “Oneness Journal” editorials

By: [Bharat Luthra / 08-04-2025]

(All numerical references and data points are drawn from the best available public reports, peer-reviewed articles, and official treaty documents. Discrepancies in coverage percentages or plastic tonnage reflect different methodologies but converge on the conclusion that urgent, comprehensive action is essential.)

Bharat Luthra Journal

Tuesday, April 8, 2025