Maybe another reason for the stark difference that I feel is that in this UN conference room there are WINDOWS, and the curtains are slightly OPEN, so that we can see daylight and water. True, it’s a river not an ocean, but it flows into the Atlantic, every now and then a boat goes by, and I can’t help but wonder if on some subconscious level this serves as a reminder that our issues are real and physical, not abstract and conceptual as happens in the area of security. I guess we should be glad that we don’t have nuclear weapons sitting in the room with us or visible from the window while non-proliferation and disarmament are being “debated”. (On the other hand, it would certainly add a sense of purpose and urgency to those negotiations!)

But coming back to oceans, all the fascinating talk still needs to be turned into decisions. The controversial issues on the table still have to be transformed from words into action. There isn’t even consensus on the very urgency of the need to protect marine biodiversity. Some states are claiming that more research is necessary before taking action, as if information gaps are slowing down the ongoing physical threats…! There’s fundamental disagreement on the concept of the common heritage of humankind as a starting point, on the importance of the "precautionary principle", on the need for comprehensive integrated oceans management, and on many other basic issues that speak for themselves if you only look at a map or a picture of our planet. Makes me wonder what planet some of these people live on.

So even though many issues are out in the open, many are not. Unspoken national interests underlie many of the positions here, and reflect the sad truth that many governments are still putting short-term narrow interests ahead of our common collective universal interests of survival and sustainability.