Oceans on the Brink: How We Protect Them Will Determine Our Future

ECHO: Mr. Melzner, you are a marine biologist and have only recently moved to Vienna. Why? And what does a landlocked country like Austria have to do with the sea?

Frank Melzner: [laughs] Most people don’t know that there are more than 25 groups in Vienna working on marine topics or with marine organisms - so it’s a fantastic research environment. And of course, Austria is also closely connected to the seas. Just think: fish! Vacations by the sea! Or the Adriatic lows that determine the weather here. 

Globally, and thus also for landlocked countries, it is of great importance that the oceans act as massive climate buffers. Ninety percent of the excess heat caused by human-induced climate change is stored in the oceans. They also absorb about a quarter of our CO₂ emissions every year. Without the oceans, the landmasses would be much hotter, and the greenhouse effect even stronger. But: They have recently warmed so rapidly and significantly that this is becoming an increasing problem, for them and for us.

ECHO: Can you give some examples that are also relevant to the Alps?

Frank Melzner: Do you remember the fall of 2024? Half of Austria was under water because the Adriatic Sea had heated up so much over the summer, and because warmer air can hold more moisture. There was massive rainfall and flooding. We expect such extreme weather to occur more frequently in the future. In addition to human suffering, this also means enormous economic damage. 

The increasingly warmer water is also altering marine ecosystems. Suddenly, a vacation by the sea is no longer enjoyable when jellyfish multiply rapidly or toxic algal blooms occur. In the Baltic Sea, there are increasingly frequent deaths caused by vibrio bacteria in the water; these could also occur in the Mediterranean. And when snorkeling, the shallow waters of the Mediterranean look increasingly bleak after the frequent heat waves. 

ECHO: You’re researching how animal and plant communities along the coasts are responding to climate change. In Vienna as well?

Frank Melzner: Yes. We will use large tanks in Vienna and along the coast to simulate how different temperatures and CO₂ levels affect the functioning of entire coastal ecosystems. Often, it’s not just the water temperature that matters. Perhaps the seagrass could still survive a heat wave, but if “grazers” - that is, small crabs and snails - die off at the same time, the seagrass can become overgrown with algae and die as well. We want to define thresholds for species communities to provide decision-makers with better arguments regarding when ocean warming leads to drastic changes in coastal ecosystems. The interactions between species in complex communities are extremely important here for making precise predictions about how climate change might affect these vital ecosystems.

ECHO: Haven’t catch quotas brought about improvements?

Frank Melzner: They’re set too high. But that’s not really up for discussion in the EU. There, the fishing lobby is driving policy against all scientific recommendations. At best, we fish according to the principle of “maximum sustainable yield”. In theory, this is supposed to keep species populations constant. But this system only considers and calculates a single species, such as herring, and not its interaction with other species. If herring is overfished, for example, there isn’t enough left for the porpoise - a threatened dolphin species in the Baltic Sea - and its population dwindles as a result. What is needed is ecosystem-based fisheries management that considers herring, porpoises, and other species together. 

Outside national territorial waters, the situation is even worse. Yet large, migratory fish can really only be managed across national borders. Ideally, as a shared heritage of humanity for which we bear joint responsibility.

ECHO: I sense a “but” coming… 

Alice Vadrot: As with all environmental agreements, the question here will be: How do you monitor whether states or companies are adhering to the rules? What sanction mechanisms are in place? How will they be enforced ? And that’s where we’re currently at an extremely critical juncture. Will countries that care about marine and environmental protection still be able to assert themselves? Or is multilateralism eroding because countries, as we’re currently seeing with the U.S., are withdrawing from international agreements?

Conversely, this is also the moment when much can still be shaped. Austria could play a significant role here. In the 1970s, we were deeply committed to preserving the high seas as a common heritage of humanity; we could do the same for the shared heritage of biodiversity.

Frank Melzner: Research clearly shows that this would also be economically beneficial. For example, around large, strictly protected marine areas, fishing yields are on the rise because fish stocks are recovering quickly. 

Alice Vadrot: Although it has not yet been decided whether a marine protected area established under the BBNJ Agreement would also include the seabed, which falls under the jurisdiction of the International Seabed Authority!

We do have the problem that ocean regulation is highly fragmented. The many different legal frameworks lead to contradictions and regulatory gaps that can be exploited by certain states or the industry. From a political science perspective, this is heavily criticized, as the same conflicts of interest between environmental protection and resource extraction are constantly being negotiated, and solutions are rarely reached because individual states or companies exert massive pressure. Unfortunately, the existing legal frameworks are often not yet sufficiently equipped to address this.

ECHO: And that could lead to a marine protected area being designated - and then not being fully protected at all? 

Alice Vadrot: New agreements must not undermine existing law. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea from the 1980s defines the international seabed as the common heritage of humanity, but this refers only to mineral, non-living resources such as manganese nodules. The International Seabed Authority manages these resources for the common good by establishing rules for their exploration and extraction and, ideally, by monitoring them. The idea behind establishing an authority to manage mineral resources on the international seabed was that all states, including landlocked ones, could benefit from them. At the time, it was assumed that the seabed was a desert devoid of life. The ecosystems there were therefore not originally considered in the question of equitable distribution.

When the new BBNJ agreement was discussed, conflicts erupted over the question of whether biodiversity on the international seabed is also part of the common heritage of humanity. Some countries wanted this, while others lobbied strongly against it. Although the first group prevailed, what this specifically means for the distribution of resource profits or marine conservation must first be discussed and then, of course, institutionally implemented. 

I think a lot will depend on whether the EU can assert itself as a strong player. And whether it will then also consistently commit to marine and environmental protection.

ECHO: Are there any developments that give you hope?

Alice Vadrot: I like the proposals to establish seats for the ocean in international negotiations. This is being discussed more and more. Indigenous communities or scientists could then make demands on behalf of the ocean. Especially when it comes to marine conservation, science also acts as a strong voice that is heard. We are currently accrediting the University of Vienna as an observer with the International Seabed Authority and the United Nations Environment Programme so that we have access to all relevant environmental negotiations. Together with countries that are committed to conservation, along with NGOs and civil society, there is still plenty of room to shape the BBNJ.

Frank Melzner: It’s also important to recognize what we’ve already achieved. The ban on whaling, the ban on environmental toxins… And multilateral agreements aren’t always necessary. Even if it sometimes feels like these are just drops in the bucket: the number of restoration projects - for mangroves, seagrass beds, and kelp forests, for example - has been rising exponentially for 30 years. Locally, each of these projects makes a big difference. What always gives me courage is how quickly we see positive effects from conservation measures - positive for all sides. That means every contribution that makes ecosystems more resilient counts. Not just because we have an ethical obligation. Ultimately, it’s also the smart economic decision.