Voices from the Panel: Global Experts Weigh In on a Just Maritime Transition

The Scientific Imperative: Understanding Our Full Impact

Dr. Anika Frosch, University College London

Dr. Anika Frosch began by challenging a centuries-old perception of the ocean. Citing the 1609 text by Hugo Grotius, she noted how the sea is often viewed as “so limitless that it cannot become a possession of any one.” This outdated thinking, she argued, has allowed for rampant pollution. Dr. Frosch detailed the multifaceted environmental assault from shipping, which goes far beyond carbon dioxide. Emissions of NOx and SOx lead to ocean acidification through acid rain, while exhaust gas cleaning systems (scrubbers) wash acidic discharge directly into shipping lanes and ports.

“The ocean has been working for us,” she stated, explaining that it has absorbed roughly 30% of our carbon emissions and 93% of the excess heat, preventing even more catastrophic climate change. But this service comes at a cost, threatening essential seafood species like shellfish, crabs, and shrimp. Critically, Dr. Frosch highlighted a glaring inequity: “70% of the research that is being done currently is happening in the global north.” This leaves African nations with dangerously little information about how their specific marine ecosystems and species will be impacted, making it nearly impossible to prepare and adapt.

The Roadmap for Change: Ensuring a Just and Equitable Transition

Dr. Domagoj Baresic, University College London

Dr. Domagoj Baresic focused on the immense complexity of the energy transition itself. The central question, he posed, is “how do we define what these fuels are?” The answer will determine who benefits and who is left behind. He outlined the challenges of each potential pathway:

• Green Fuels (Hydrogen-derived): Where will the massive amount of renewable electricity come from? Can Africa tap into its resources to become a producer?

• Blue Fuels (Fossil-based with CCS): Can we be sure the lifecycle emissions are accounted for and that carbon capture and storage is truly sustainable?

• Biofuels: Will their production compete with food crops, threatening food security on the continent?

Dr. Baresic warned that according to global analyses, “we’re not really on track” to decarbonize shipping, and for the Global South, “the story is even redder.” The key challenge and opportunity, he argued, is to structure the transition so that it lifts people up. “How can you tap into that significant potential [in Africa] to produce those fuels,” he asked, “whilst also ensuring that it is done in a just and equitable manner?”

The Diplomatic Frontline: Why Multilateralism Matters

Ms. Kaelen Wills, United Nations Foundation

“Raise your hand if you still believe in multilateralism,” Ms. Kaelen Wills challenged the audience, asserting that while it may be difficult, “multilateralism is not necessarily dead, but it is evolving.” She argued passionately that it remains the most critical platform for developing nations to have their voices heard. As a prime example, she pointed to the WTO Fishery Subsidies Agreement, an “unprecedented” victory where African, Caribbean, and Pacific states successfully embedded environmental justice into a global trade agreement, helping to curb harmful subsidies that decimate communities in West Africa.

Ms. Wills brought the impact of shipping emissions home, noting that in the Gulf of Guinea, “shipping emissions account for 40% of the ambient air pollution in port cities like Lagos.” This directly causes higher rates of asthma, lung disease, and strokes. For her, the fight at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and other forums is essential because “it’s their opportunity to sit toe-to-toe with larger countries that don’t necessarily hear them.”

Putting People First: From Global Policy to Community Health

Ms. Marie Hubatova, Environmental Defense Fund

Ms. Marie Hubatova delivered a powerful call to center community health in the decarbonization debate. She pointed out that most green shipping initiatives are “happening mostly in the global north… and it’s a big mistake.” A true transition, she argued, must deliver tangible co-benefits like cleaner air, cleaner water, and lower noise levels, especially for vulnerable port communities.

She cautioned that not all alternative fuels are a panacea for health. “Biofuels,” she warned, “have pretty much the same air pollution profile as conventional bunker fuels.” We must not solve the climate problem while leaving the air pollution problem intact. However, she ended on a hopeful and actionable note, highlighting a vastly overlooked opportunity: “For the small ones [vessels]… we have a technology, it exists, we can electrify them… and this can be done tomorrow.” These small fishing and transport boats sail under the radar of global policy but have an enormous impact on coastal life. Her closing message was a plea to “put our communities first and make sure they are part of the solution.”

Conclusion: An Integrated Path Forward

Together, these four voices built a compelling case that the path to a healthy ocean and a stable climate is not linear. It requires rigorous science that serves all regions, technology pathways that ensure equity, diplomatic processes that amplify marginalized voices, and an unwavering focus on the health and well-being of the communities on the front lines. The panel discussion was a testament to NABHI’s collaborative approach, proving that the most effective solutions are born from a dialogue that is as diverse and interconnected as the problem itself.