How data can heal our oceans
We have collected more data on our oceans in the past two years than in the history of the planet.
There has been a proliferation of remote and near sensors above, on, and beneath the oceans. New low-cost micro satellites ring the earth and can record what happens below daily. Thousands of tidal buoys follow currents transmitting ocean temperature, salinity, acidity and current speed every minute. Undersea autonomous drones photograph and map the continental shelf and seabed, explore deep sea volcanic vents, and can help discover mineral and rare earth deposits.
The volume, diversity and frequency of data is increasing as the cost of sensors fall, new low-cost satellites are launched, and an emerging drone sector begins to offer new insights into our oceans. In addition, new processing capabilities are enhancing the value we receive from such data on the biological, physical and chemical properties of our oceans.
Yet it is not enough.
We need much more data at higher frequency, quality, and variety to understand our oceans to the degree we already understand the land. Less than 5% of the oceans are comprehensively monitored. We need more data collection capacity to unlock the sustainable development potential of the oceans and protect critical ecosystems.
More data from satellites will help identify illegal fishing activity, track plastic pollution, and detect whales and prevent vessel collisions. More data will help speed the placement of offshore wind and tide farms, improve vessel telematics, develop smart aquaculture, protect urban coastal zones, and enhance coastal tourism.
Unlocking the ocean data market
But we’re not there yet.
This new wave of data innovation is constrained by inadequate data supply, demand, and governance. The supply of existing ocean data is locked by paper records, old formats, proprietary archives, inadequate infrastructure, and scarce ocean data skills and capacity.
The market for ocean observation is driven by science and science isn’t adequately funded.
To unlock future commercial potential, new financing mechanisms are needed to create market demand that will stimulate greater investments in new ocean data collection, innovation and capacity.
Efforts such as the Financial Stability Board’s Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosure have gone some way to raise awareness and create demand for such ocean-related climate risk data.
Much data that is produced is collected by nations, universities and research organizations, NGO’s, and the private sector, but only a small percentage is Open Data and widely available.
Data creates more value when it is widely utilized and well governed. Helping organize to improve data infrastructure, quality, integrity, and availability is a requirement for achieving new ocean data-driven business models and markets. New Ocean Data Governance models, standards, platforms, and skills are urgently needed to stimulate new market demand for innovation and sustainable development.
Whereas historically much ocean data was collected by high-cost government-backed space and oceanographic institutions, many of the new collectors and users of data are from the private sector. As new private providers are emerging, the range of platforms, standards and protocols is also rapidly increasing.
This is not just an environmental or data governance issue but also an economic and equity issue, too.
Many small, low-income island states have large ocean areas to govern. Often, they have very few patrol boats to survey areas that could be the size of Western Europe. Data and new technologies are critical in enabling these countries to fully command their oceans.
As more private operators enter the market, there is a risk that much of this data becomes privatized, placing them out of the reach of many regulators in small island states, the UN, universities, and many other interested parties.
The GAVI model
A new public-private partnership is needed to stimulate market demand for much more Ocean Data that is open, well governed, and widely utilized.
There are models from other sectors where this has been done successfully.
Childhood vaccines is an example where a public-private partnership identified the need and collected data about childhood health conditions across the developing world to stimulate the supply and distribution of much-needed vaccinations.
Pharmaceutical companies held intellectual property of various vaccines and the World Health Organization saw the need for large-scale childhood immunization in many low income areas of the world.
However, it took the innovative public-private partnership of GAVI (Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization) to catalyze the private sector to share their intellectual property. It ensured the right governance to develop early childhood immunization programmes in low-income countries, in partnership with wealthy and poor countries, NGOs, the private sector and strong leadership from a few committed leaders.
An ‘ICANN’ for our oceans?
In order to unleash the full power of ocean data, new distributed models of data collection, linkage and use are needed.
While coastal nations control vast areas of the ocean in their territorial waters, much of the ocean remains international and ungoverned. Here, public and private interests for marine ecology and sustainable development can be mutually satisfied with inclusive governance models that share information and promote commercial interests consistent with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.
One example of an international governance body that balances public and private interest is ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), which was created to ensure the stable operation of the internet for the public good. It has some clear principles, such as ‘net neutrality’ and interoperability of IP addresses to ensure the internet continues being a public service accessible in almost all countries in the world.
As a public-private body, with representatives from the private sector, governments, developers and NGOs, ICANN helps ensures a stable operating environment, and other topics such as standard setting are discussed in several supporting bodies.
Could we see a body such as ICANN being created for Oceanic Data?
What is clear is that no one entity can do this alone.
Our oceans are under severe duress and require our urgent attention before we cross irreversible tipping points. If we are to succeed in time, we need a bold and truly game-changing alliance of public and private actors. They will also need to find innovative models to fund and operate the investment required to fully monitor our oceans.
The technology exists today, but the question is whether we are able to mobilize swiftly enough and act in time.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
Steve Ovett, the famous British middle-distance athlete, won the 800-metres gold medal at the Moscow Olympics of 1980. Just a few days later, he was about to win a 5,000-metres race at London’s Crystal Palace. Known for his burst of acceleration on the home stretch, he had supreme confidence in his ability to out-sprint rivals. With the final 100 metres remaining,
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]Ovett waved to the crowd and raised a hand in triumph. But he had celebrated a bit too early. At the finishing line, Ireland’s John Treacy edged past Ovett. For those few moments, Ovett had lost his sense of reality and ignored the possibility of a negative event.
This analogy works well for the India story and our policy failures , including during the ongoing covid pandemic. While we have never been as well prepared or had significant successes in terms of growth stability as Ovett did in his illustrious running career, we tend to celebrate too early. Indeed, we have done so many times before.
It is as if we’re convinced that India is destined for greater heights, come what may, and so we never run through the finish line. Do we and our policymakers suffer from a collective optimism bias, which, as the Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman once wrote, “may well be the most significant of the cognitive biases”? The optimism bias arises from mistaken beliefs which form expectations that are better than the reality. It makes us underestimate chances of a negative outcome and ignore warnings repeatedly.
The Indian economy had a dream run for five years from 2003-04 to 2007-08, with an average annual growth rate of around 9%. Many believed that India was on its way to clocking consistent double-digit growth and comparisons with China were rife. It was conveniently overlooked that this output expansion had come mainly came from a few sectors: automobiles, telecom and business services.
Indians were made to believe that we could sprint without high-quality education, healthcare, infrastructure or banking sectors, which form the backbone of any stable economy. The plan was to build them as we went along, but then in the euphoria of short-term success, it got lost.
India’s exports of goods grew from $20 billion in 1990-91 to over $310 billion in 2019-20. Looking at these absolute figures it would seem as if India has arrived on the world stage. However, India’s share of global trade has moved up only marginally. Even now, the country accounts for less than 2% of the world’s goods exports.
More importantly, hidden behind this performance was the role played by one sector that should have never made it to India’s list of exports—refined petroleum. The share of refined petroleum exports in India’s goods exports increased from 1.4% in 1996-97 to over 18% in 2011-12.
An import-intensive sector with low labour intensity, exports of refined petroleum zoomed because of the then policy regime of a retail price ceiling on petroleum products in the domestic market. While we have done well in the export of services, our share is still less than 4% of world exports.
India seemed to emerge from the 2008 global financial crisis relatively unscathed. But, a temporary demand push had played a role in the revival—the incomes of many households, both rural and urban, had shot up. Fiscal stimulus to the rural economy and implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission scales had led to the salaries of around 20% of organized-sector employees jumping up. We celebrated, but once again, neither did we resolve the crisis brewing elsewhere in India’s banking sector, nor did we improve our capacity for healthcare or quality education.
Employment saw little economy-wide growth in our boom years. Manufacturing jobs, if anything, shrank. But we continued to celebrate. Youth flocked to low-productivity service-sector jobs, such as those in hotels and restaurants, security and other services. The dependence on such jobs on one hand and high-skilled services on the other was bound to make Indian society more unequal.
And then, there is agriculture, an elephant in the room. If and when farm-sector reforms get implemented, celebrations would once again be premature. The vast majority of India’s farmers have small plots of land, and though these farms are at least as productive as larger ones, net absolute incomes from small plots can only be meagre.
A further rise in farm productivity and consequent increase in supply, if not matched by a demand rise, especially with access to export markets, would result in downward pressure on market prices for farm produce and a further decline in the net incomes of small farmers.
We should learn from what John Treacy did right. He didn’t give up, and pushed for the finish line like it was his only chance at winning. Treacy had years of long-distance practice. The same goes for our economy. A long grind is required to build up its base before we can win and celebrate. And Ovett did not blame anyone for his loss. We play the blame game. Everyone else, right from China and the US to ‘greedy corporates’, seems to be responsible for our failures.
We have lowered absolute poverty levels and had technology-based successes like Aadhaar and digital access to public services. But there are no short cuts to good quality and adequate healthcare and education services. We must remain optimistic but stay firmly away from the optimism bias.
In the end, it is not about how we start, but how we finish. The disastrous second wave of covid and our inability to manage it is a ghastly reminder of this fact.