The Ocean Manifesto
Posted on Thursday, December 17, 2009
under
Commentary,
Environmental Policy,
Fisheries management,
Science news.
2 Comments ·
2 Comments ·
Earlier this month, famed marine archaeologist and author Frank Pope presented a five point plan to save our oceans—The Ocean Manifesto. While all of his points are perfectly legitimate and make for great discussions, I do also find them to be written in a manner that is oversimplified, biased, short-sighted, and somewhat lacking in reasonable supporting arguments.
I fully agree that more marine reserves need to be established in order to protect ocean ecosystems. However, given the open nature of the oceans, it will be very difficult to monitor and protect such reserves on a wide scale. Many countries already have great difficulties doing that for land reserves due to lack of funding and/or political difficulties, and protected areas are protected only on paper. How does Pope suggest we find the funds and trained personnel necessary for such an endeavor? In addition, terrestrial ecosystem boundaries are already difficult to define, and those of marine ecosystems are far more fluid. This essential characteristic will make it difficult to establish "natural" preserve boundaries, the kind that will maximize the effectiveness of the preserves in achieving their purpose.
Pope does not demonstrate any clear cause-and-effect in this point, as he appears to be vaguely referring to the fishing industry, while zoning and controlling access would affect all maritime activity. He also implied that all marine waters are equally diverse, which is untrue—marine diversity is concentrated along shallower coastal waters, which are largely controlled by individual countries. And finally, he seems to be unaware that "restoring" is a very difficult active long term process that requires a high degree of management and comprehensive knowledge of all systems involved.
This point does clarify the previous one by acknowledging that it is referring to fishing. Unfortunately, the fishing industry is not driven simply by the political clout that allows for continuing huge subsidies and overcapacity. It's also driven by an increasing demand for seafood for various reasons, a cultural and economic phenomenon that also needs to be controlled. And does Pope have a blueprint for a global fisheries management plan? On the side, the control of fishing fleets also does significantly reduce the incidence of marine casualties, something that has not gone unnoticed.
A widespread ban would also destroy the livelihoods of thousands of fishermen and others associated with the bottom trawling sector of the global fishing industry. Any sort of ban, complete or partial, would have to take the futures of these men and their families into account. As has been done in North American forestry, I believe it is possible to establish long term adaptive management systems that allow for very controlled bottom trawling; an important component of such management systems is the education of all those involved.
Unfortunately, the use of agricultural fertilizers, as well as that of pesticides and other agricultural chemicals, will continue until we can establish a more sustainable agricultural system on a wide scale. Also, marine pollution is not limited to agricultural chemical and plastics, it also includes oil, various other chemicals, anthropogenic waste products, and many other things. Does Pope have a potential solution as to how to control any and all pollutants worldwide? We must remember that controlling pollution is essential, but restoring pollution-damaged ecosystems is also an important component of "saving the oceans."
It is interesting to note that only the last of these five "lifelines" acknowledges that both marine and terrestrial systems are linked. One important aspect of the environment that Pope seems to have forgotten is that everything is linked through various feedbacks loops and cycles. We cannot hope to "save the oceans" by simply affecting the oceans themselves, we must also act on land, in the air, and underground. Because of this, conservation actions need to have a global coherence if we are to even hope for a hospitable world for future generations.
High-tech geoengineering might one day just be able to return atmospheric carbon dioxide to below 350 parts per million, at which level coral reefs can persist. But long before then the multiplying effects of changing climate and human pressure will have crippled marine ecosystems. For the ocean to survive, we need to throw it five lifelines by doing the following:
1: Establishing marine reserves
Less than 0.01 per cent of the ocean lies within reserves, but reserves do work: they boost biomass and biodiversity and allow ecosystems to grow resilient. Around the British-controlled Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean, for example, the seas are not part of a formal reserve but have effectively been protected since 1965 by the presence of the US base at Diego Garcia; reefs here have been able to recover quickly from bleaching events.
I fully agree that more marine reserves need to be established in order to protect ocean ecosystems. However, given the open nature of the oceans, it will be very difficult to monitor and protect such reserves on a wide scale. Many countries already have great difficulties doing that for land reserves due to lack of funding and/or political difficulties, and protected areas are protected only on paper. How does Pope suggest we find the funds and trained personnel necessary for such an endeavor? In addition, terrestrial ecosystem boundaries are already difficult to define, and those of marine ecosystems are far more fluid. This essential characteristic will make it difficult to establish "natural" preserve boundaries, the kind that will maximize the effectiveness of the preserves in achieving their purpose.
2: Ending the freedom of the seas
Only by zoning and controlling access to the ocean can it be rescued. The present situation has led to a depletion of the ocean’s biomass, something which is as important as biodiversity for the resilience of ecosystems. For instance, 95 per cent of filter-feeders have been removed from the ocean. The North Sea and our estuaries once had clear waters full of oyster beds; restoring even a fraction of these will lead to cleaner water and an increase in sunlight for seabed organisms.
Pope does not demonstrate any clear cause-and-effect in this point, as he appears to be vaguely referring to the fishing industry, while zoning and controlling access would affect all maritime activity. He also implied that all marine waters are equally diverse, which is untrue—marine diversity is concentrated along shallower coastal waters, which are largely controlled by individual countries. And finally, he seems to be unaware that "restoring" is a very difficult active long term process that requires a high degree of management and comprehensive knowledge of all systems involved.
3: Controlling fishing fleets
The fishing industry is destroying essential biodiversity and biomass because of huge subsidies and overcapacity. Ending both will mean more fish in the sea as well as on the plate, while cutting the amount of fuel used to catch them.
This point does clarify the previous one by acknowledging that it is referring to fishing. Unfortunately, the fishing industry is not driven simply by the political clout that allows for continuing huge subsidies and overcapacity. It's also driven by an increasing demand for seafood for various reasons, a cultural and economic phenomenon that also needs to be controlled. And does Pope have a blueprint for a global fisheries management plan? On the side, the control of fishing fleets also does significantly reduce the incidence of marine casualties, something that has not gone unnoticed.
4: Banning bottom trawling
A widespread ban would allow seabed habitats to recover. The hidden complexity of seabed life is a key component of the ocean’s ability to recycle nutrients.
A widespread ban would also destroy the livelihoods of thousands of fishermen and others associated with the bottom trawling sector of the global fishing industry. Any sort of ban, complete or partial, would have to take the futures of these men and their families into account. As has been done in North American forestry, I believe it is possible to establish long term adaptive management systems that allow for very controlled bottom trawling; an important component of such management systems is the education of all those involved.
5: Controlling pollution
Agricultural fertilisers [sic] being washed into rivers are a major cause of the growth in deoxygenated dead zones in coastal waters worldwide, and plastics are pulling poisons into food webs.
Unfortunately, the use of agricultural fertilizers, as well as that of pesticides and other agricultural chemicals, will continue until we can establish a more sustainable agricultural system on a wide scale. Also, marine pollution is not limited to agricultural chemical and plastics, it also includes oil, various other chemicals, anthropogenic waste products, and many other things. Does Pope have a potential solution as to how to control any and all pollutants worldwide? We must remember that controlling pollution is essential, but restoring pollution-damaged ecosystems is also an important component of "saving the oceans."
It is interesting to note that only the last of these five "lifelines" acknowledges that both marine and terrestrial systems are linked. One important aspect of the environment that Pope seems to have forgotten is that everything is linked through various feedbacks loops and cycles. We cannot hope to "save the oceans" by simply affecting the oceans themselves, we must also act on land, in the air, and underground. Because of this, conservation actions need to have a global coherence if we are to even hope for a hospitable world for future generations.
Subscribe to feed
Subscribe to email updates