2013: Looking ahead and reaching out

With the start of each new year, many of us re-calibrate our plans, our agendas, our goals.  The resolutions stack up like cordwood and many will get consumed in the fire.  But we look forward, hoping to build on the high points of the past year and sweep the lows into the dustbin of history.  Hopefully, we learn from it all because even in failure or disappointment there are life-affirming lessons.   

2012 was quite a mixed bag for me, as many years can be.  There were some glorious and gratifying highs and crushing lows both professionally and personally.  And as challenging as it can be as we get older, there is room for further enlightenment and change.  Whether it be blind optimism, determination, or naivete, I'm still propelled by the simple motivation that my friend Diana Nyad adheres to: Onward.

For this coming year, I hope to return more to what I do best as a visual storyteller.  There is an audience for what I am able to bring forth, affirmed to me by the support of friends and colleagues and by social media.  But there is also a larger audience that is still in the dark when it comes to conservation and ocean issues.  How do we reach these people?  How do we get them to taste and appreciate the passion and commitment that so many of my colleagues feel, and through that gain an understanding as to the importance of the issues at hand?  That is the challenge for 2013.

Social media is a strange bird.  On the one hand, it is a vehicle through which copious information can be conveyed, shared, and debated - whether through blogs or sites like Facebook and Twitter.  However, there are many times when I find it a bit insular, a club of like-minded individuals keeping morale up and the buzz going.  And that's fine.  We need that to stay motivated. But I keep thinking about that larger audience . . .  

Conservation and ocean issues are a tough sell these days.  With worldwide economic challenges - which have a profound impact on environmental issues, whether we like it or not - the tendency towards focusing on short-term issues and results dominates.  Conservation, while made up of a series of smaller struggles and victories, is a much greater long-term issue and commitment.  It requires forward-thinking, often way beyond our lifetimes, if we are to preserve this spaceship Earth and its finite resources.

That struggle, between looking ahead and dealing with the here and now, confronts us all.  We all must get through our day-to-day lives, pay our bills, put food on the table, and do what we must to get by.  But when we can turn our attention to issues greater than ourselves, we better ourselves as citizens of this planet.  Call it noble or call it simply survival - it is the right thing to do for those generations yet to come.

The health of the oceans, of the environment, is important to me as I see it at the top of the pyramid of challenges facing mankind.  All other causes become immaterial if we lose our life support systems.  So, for 2013, I hope you all are able to continue to fuel your passions and sense of commitment.  Bring it to the largest possible audience and let it be the catalyst that brings enlightenment and forms a new way of thinking about the world we are passing through.

Happiest of New Year's to you all!

Thanksgiving 2012: taking the glass beyond half full

In the U.S. we are preparing to celebrate Thanksgiving this Thursday.  It commemorates a moment when early Pilgrim settlers chose to give thanks for what they had at that moment, even when they knew they still were facing formidable obstacles.  That is the power of optimism coupled with a strong sense of reality.  The glass is half-full but we won't stop until it's over the rim.

Conservation and environmental issues have taken a pretty good beating over the past few years.  Since the two depend so heavily on "the kindness of strangers" (as Blanche DuBois once said) or on a benevolent or generous government, funding and government allocations have diminished as nation after nation endures a prolonged depressed economic situation.

And that can lead to the biggest threat of all: apathy.  The oceans face many perils, the consequences of which may be many years away but, to gain the upper hand, they need to be dealt with sooner rather than later.  Climate change, acidification, overfishing, pollution - they all loom large but they become even more threatening if government officials, policy makers and the everyday individual choose to take their eye off the ball.  Distraction leads to disinterest which leads to apathy.  Only a crisis can snap us out of it but by then it may be too late.

So that is the biggest challenge we face in filling that glass to the rim.  But with that said, we still have a tremendous amount to be thankful for.  We continue to achieve significant victories that speak to our optimistic side and fuel our desire to achieve more.  Whether it be the growth of substantial marine protected areas, more and stronger legislation regarding shark conservation, forward strides in seafood sustainability through better managed ocean harvesting, or technological innovations in alternative energy - each step is bringing us just that much closer to the kind of stewardship of the planet that will help sustain it . . . and us.

Search through the blogosphere, through social media, or simply type in "ocean conservation victories" in Google.  The list is long, it is encouraging, and it reaffirms that what we have done, what we are doing, and what we hope to accomplish is feasible, reasonable, and righteous.

Give thanks today and always.  

ICCAT 2012: gains and losses with no help from Canada

ICCAT, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna, recently convened in Morocco for its annual evaluation of catch limits.  This is a group that for many years seemed to be turning a deaf ear to the calls of conservationists and even its own scientific advisers as to the diminishing bluefin tuna population (read prior posts here & here).  Year after year, catch limits were set way above any recommended number that could potentially provide sustainability.

This year, the ICCAT awoke slightly from its deep, dark slumber and established catch levels that were in line with limits prescribed by marine scientists: maintaining the current level of 13,500 tons annually, along with an improved management and control process.

It still leaves the Atlantic bluefin tuna on a razor's edge with extinction a distinct possibility.  A complete moratorium would be the most sensible environmental solution but the economic influence of the tuna fishing industry makes that a slim possibility - although it could occur if continued observation and management shows that tuna stocks are not improving.

That was the wake up call this time around: that after 30 years of setting catch levels that were considered sufficient, the ICCAT realized that was just not the case.  Now the big concern is whether this new effort will be sufficient to give the bluefin tuna a fighting chance.

The ICCAT also establishes quotas for its member nations with regard to sharks.  This year there was a proposal from the EU to limit catches of shortfin mako and a complete ban on the porbeagle shark.  The poor porbeagle.  This is a shark that has truly been hammered by the shark fishing industry.  Authorities do not question the fact that the population of porbeagle sharks has declined by 90% since the 1960s.  Where once there were ten, there is now only one - and it only took five decades to do it.

Unfortunately, the EU's proposals were tabled due to some political maneuvering by a few dissenting members.  To accommodate some of the dissenters, like Canada, there were rumored discussions about allowing Canada an exemption.  With that, other dissenting members demanded equal treatment which was sufficient to knock the wind out of the sails of the entire proposed platform.

Often when we think of the overfishing of tuna or sharks, many turn to Asian markets as the primary villains.  While it may be true that that is where most of the demand is coming from, we must also consider the nations that support that demand.  At the ICCAT meeting this year, Canada turned out to be a disappointing supporter; one of the pushers supplying the junkie's habit.

The Canadian contingent had actually requested an increase to 2,000 tons in the bluefin tuna catch limit, but they were soundly defeated by the majority.  However, they doubled their efforts when it came to resisting the shark limits, even though the Canadian government is considering listing the porbeagle shark as an endangered species under its Species at Risk Act.

“I think it is fair to say that there was a general feeling across the meeting that [Canada’s tuna proposal] was out of step, that there was very clear scientific advice that said maintain the quotas,” said Amanda Nickson, director of the U.S.-based Pew Environmental Group’s global tuna conservation program.

Basic supply and demand principles work fine for manufactured or grown products.  It can be a seesaw of price vs. demand and demand vs. production, but it works most of the time.  Where it does not work is when you have a finite resource like tuna or sharks.  Demanding consumers and the producers that blindly support that demand with product, both are responsible parties to what could be the collapse of an industry and, sadly, the extinction of important ocean species.  Scientists and conservationists must be relentless in their efforts to halt overfishing of the bluefin tuna, shortfin makos, porbeagle sharks, and many others.

Source: GozoNews.com
Source: The Globe and Mail                       

Children & Nature: Australian writer captures what conservation needs from our youth

Occasionally I will come across an article that needs no journalistic rephrasing, no "spin" or retelling.  It is succinct and delivers a message that must be presented undilluted.

Such is the case with an article I came across in the Opinion section of ABC News (Australia).  Written by educator and naturalist Warren McClaren, it addresss the impact on our children when there is a disconnect between ourselves and nature.

Growing up as I did in suburban Southern California, I can look back on my experiences with nature in a very positive way and I can see the roots of my current passion for preservation and conservation of our natural resources stemming from those early moments.  I was not someone who lived 24/7 in the outdoors, but I came in contact with enough to leave a lasting impact.  And, sadly, that is much more than what many children are experiencing today.

Children are hearing about threats and negative impacts on nature and they are voicing their concern.  And that is good.  But if those feelings exist in a bubble, devoid of the first hand knowledge, can we expect their concerns to carry them into adulthood? 

 Without nature, the little children suffer
Warren McLaren ABC Environment 12 Nov 2012

Most adults climbed trees and played outdoors when they were children. But today's young people don't play outdoors like their parents. It's an omission with grave implications.

We come alive for what we hold near and dear. It's hard to be impassioned for a cause which feels remote.

Charities know this. It's why they bring impoverished third world villagers, or cancer suffers, into our lounge room, via the telly: if they can make us connect with the issue, we are more inclined to support it.

Environmental activists are emboldened to speak up because they perceive they are about to lose something. Something they truly, deeply connect with.

"In wildness is the preservation of the world." With these few words, American philosopher, Henry David Thoreau, succinctly captured humanity's fate. Nature is unruly, untamed. But it is also our future.

Yet we so often talk of 'The Environment' as if it exists elsewhere else, a distant entity that humankind is not connected to. A naughty, wild child, whom we might put in a room and close the door on, for a bit of 'time out'.

We may have disconnected from nature, but we are delusional if we think we can live without it. Ignoring the value and contribution of nature to our well being is, quite literally, life threatening. 

But ignoring is exactly what we're doing. In his seminal 2005 book, Last Child in the Woods, author Richard Louv, gave this ignorance a term: Nature Deficit Disorder. While not a medically recognised condition, there is an ever expanding body of work which supports Louv's central theme: that deprivation of a relationship with nature is fraught with multiple health and welfare issues. For people. And planet. 

There's head-shaking anecdotal evidence of our disconnect with nature, such as the story I was told of kids too scared to play in their own backyard, because they'd heard that insects wee and poo out there.

Scientific corroboration is also abundant. The Children and Nature Network has a collection of research papers, published between 2009 and 2011, which explored benefits to kids from contact with the outdoors. The list of abstracts alone runs to 68 pages.

Research such as Planet Ark's recent examinations (pdf) of Australian childhood interaction with nature today, relative to a generation ago. One of the findings being that, "64 per cent of respondents reported climbing trees when they were children as compared to less than 20 per cent of their children." (pdf) 

The Danish Society for Nature Conservation observed very similar findings in their survey of 2,000 Danes:"59 per cent of grandparents reported visiting a natural setting every day during the summer when they were children, as compared to... just 26 per cent of children today." (pdf) 

Four hundred German and Lithuanian high school students participated in research that found "children's emotional affinity towards nature was a significant predictor of children's willingness for pro-environmental commitment."

A related study in the USA set out to "understand what leads children to continue participating in natural history-oriented professions/education/hobbies as a young adult." The research concluded that a such vocational choice results from "early childhood and is driven by direct, informal and unstructured experiences with nature (from wildlands to vacant lots)."

For many Aussies their introduction to camping and outside adventures began with involvement in Scouts and Guides. Five years ago the international Scout movement celebrated 100 years of life in the great outdoors. But it was a bittersweet centenary. In 2001, Australia had 2,126 Scout Groups, yet by 2011 this had shrunk to just 1,524. A noteworthy decline, coming on the back of a significant modernisation drive within Scouting.

Where did all those budding young Baden Powells go? Inside.

For 98 per cent of Australian children, "watching TV or videos out of school hours remains the most common recreational activity of children aged 5 to 14 years." So revealed the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) in the 2003 study, Children's Participation in Cultural and Leisure Activities.

A follow up report in 2006 noted that "[N]ot only was the participation rate highest for 'watching television, videos or DVDs', on average, children involved spent more time on this activity than on any of the other selected activities." In a study published last year, the ABS reported that whereas a tad over half of all children were playing games online in 2006, by 2009 and this had increased to just shy of 70 per cent. The ABS also noted that 17 per cent of kids 8 to 14 had a computer in their bedroom.

Researchers at the University of Sydney discovered that "Children who spend more time in outdoor sport activities and less time watching TV have better retinal microvascular structure." Retinal blood vessels have been linked to cardiovascular disease risk factors and blood pressure.

A couple of years ago the Australian national depression initiative, Beyond Blue, engaged Associate Professor Mardie Townsend of Deakin University's Faculty of Health, Medicine, Nursing and Behavioural Sciences to investigate any health benefits from including the outdoors in our lives. She observed, "Experiencing nature in an outdoor setting can help tackle not only physical health problems such as obesity and coronary heart disease, but also mental health problems - and there is plenty of evidence to support the claim." Laying out that evidence in her 160-page report.

Drawing on the work of Kurt Hahn, pioneer of experiential learning and the guy behind Outward Bound and the Duke of Edinburgh Award scheme, Expeditionary Learning schools cite as one of their core principles, "direct respectful relationship with the natural world refreshes the human spirit and teaches the important ideas of recurring cycles and cause and effect. Students learn to become stewards of the earth and of future generations."

Developing this early connection with nature is not just some bucolic vision of the 'nuts and berries' crowd. It also has a deep and profound influence on children's intellectual health as well. Richard Louv's book is packed with examples, including the school who educated their kids out amongst local rivers, mountains and forests, "96 per cent of [their] students meet or exceed state standards for math problem-solving—compared to only 65 per cent of eighth graders at comparable middle schools."

I'm not suggesting that everyone need spend 738 days hugging a tree like Julia Hill or Miranda Gibson. There are a host of mainstream opportunities for our children to learn about, and from, the outdoors. There's school endorsed outdoor education experiences, or Stephanie Alexander's Kitchen Garden programs as currently embraced by 267 Australian primary schools. From horticultural therapy to care farming. Or Scouts and Guides. And let's not forget family weekends camping in the bush; or simply get down and dirty, rolling in the grass and watching bees in the backyard or nearby park, with Mum and Dad.

For as William Shakespeare penned, "One touch of nature makes the whole world kin."

Source: ABC News
         

Environmental Leadership: some, but not enough, are looking to the future

On the eve of the U.S. presidential election, I thought I would share a little observation I heard that reinforced my feelings regarding politics and the environment.  I was watching a political talk show the other day and on the discussion panel a conservative and a liberal were going at it regarding climate change.  The conservative, a former congressman, was questioning the validity of the science that supports climate change and the liberal was taking the standard position that the science is overwhelming - the usual standoff, positions and arguments that many of us have heard before.

The conservative than said something very revealing.  He acknowledged that temperatures in the oceans and atmosphere have changed but said, as a sort of counter-argument, that scientists have claimed that if we stopped producing CO2 today, it would take a hundred years for temperatures to cool down by a few degrees.  To which the liberal replied, "And so that is why you suggest that we don't need to do anything?  That it will take a hundred years to see any results?  That's why we should have been doing something decades ago, but we didn't know any better.  But today, we do."

One of the biggest challenges facing the environmental movement is that so much of what needs to be accomplished is long-term in nature.  Sometimes very, very long term.  The benefits of reducing overfishing, of restricting CO2 emissions and cutting back on ocean acidification - these may not be apparent in the short term.  We may not see it within a politician's term in office, we may not see it in our lifetime, or even in our children's lifetime.  Nature has an amazing ability to heal itself when given a chance, when not pushed to the point of no return.  But it can be a slow healing process and we have become a very impatient people.

Mankind seems to be a species that thrives on crisis.  We don't like it, yet time and time again we push ourselves to the edge before we act.  We've done it with our economies, we've done it with political conflict and wars, but we can't do it with the environment.  As Dr. Greg Stone of Conservation International is fond of saying (I heard him re-tell this again at a recent reception saluting the Phoenix Islands Protected Area), earth is a spaceship hurtling through the cosmos at thousands of miles per hour.  It is a spaceship that comes with a life support system that cannot be replenished or resupplied.  What we have is all that we have.

However, while current politicians cajole us with a chicken-in-every-pot promises and ignore the hard issues that won't garner them immediately positive poll numbers, there are some organizations, even government institutions, that are looking at long-term problems like climate change, considering the myriad of implications which lie ahead and taking steps to address them.

The World Ocean Observatory is an online information exchange that runs a series of weekly 5-minute podcasts.  I came across a recent podcast "Who's Thinking Ahead About Climate Change" that noted the efforts of two very different groups, the U.S. Navy and the International Federation of Red Cross/Red Crescent Societies, in acknowledging the current state of climate change and preparing for the consequences.  Accepting the scientific data, they recognize the implications and are preparing to deal with the environmental changes that lie ahead.  Here is the podcast:  Click here.

We demand leadership from our politicians and decision makers, but true leadership goes beyond promises of quick fixes back to the "good old days" of expensive homes, SUVs, and mindless consumption.  It requires decisions that move beyond immediate gratification and look to a future where succeeding generations of earth-bound astronauts will have a life support system that they can depend on.  It's paying it forward on the grandest of scale and the most noble endeavor mankind can undertake.

Source: World Ocean Observatory

Pricing Ecosystem Services: can conservation be achieved through economic values?

Came across an interesting article in UK's The Guardian, What's Wrong With Putting a Price on Nature?, that addressed the concept of placing a price or economic value on the ecosystem services that nature provides.  What is a forest's ability to sequester carbon worth?  How much would it cost to secure land and maintain it's undeveloped state if that helps provide a local source of fresh water?

Trying to place a monetary value on ecology has been around for a while as a concept.  It is often referred to as valuating ecosystem services, and it has been applied in several circumstances that have proved to be successful.  Determining a value of a live shark in related tourism dollars, as opposed to the revenue gained from a caught shark, has been used as a supporting argument for marine protected areas or shark sanctuaries.  And as shark conservation becomes more and more and international regulatory issue, economics plays a greater role in moving policy than does the emotional reaction to shark finning.

The Guardian reported, "Stuart H. M. Butchart, a researcher at BirdLife International, replies that embracing the ecosystem services idea doesn't necessarily mean abandoning the argument that species and habitats have intrinsic value. But making the economic case often 'has more resonance' for decision-makers."

However, pricing ecosystem services has plenty of critics.  There is concern that when economics forces get involved in determining the pluses and minuses of any ecological areas, you can find many of the same abuses that occur in the financial arena.  Undervaluing property, making environmental changes to cut costs that can then have serious environmental consequences, and just the idea that the environment could be turned over to the same free market forces - big corporations, etc. - that caused some of our ecological challenges in the first place.

I don't see it as a concept that can be applied broadly, like some silver bullet to all of the environment's problems.  If it were to be considered at all, it must be on a case-by-case basis.  However, in the realm of international environmental policy, economics can often play just as influential a role as scientific data and intrinsic value.

The article in the Guardian, written by Richard Conniff, is quite in-depth and I would recommend that you take a few minutes and read it.  You might find yourself to be in support of the concept or completely opposed, but at the very least, it must be considered as a strategic tool in some situations for selling conservation to those who may feel threatened by environmental policymaking that is done without a thorough concern for all that have a vested interest - the environment, threatened species, mankind itself and . . . business. 

Source: The Guardian

Nature At The Pols: essay reminds us that nature has no political ties

An essay caught my eye today that I would like to share.  Written by David Yarnold, president and CEO of the National Audubon Society, it is titled "Love of nature not right, left or center, it's common sense." 

It's a simple reminder that nature knows no political affiliation and, outside of Washington DC, there is a large number of people who see that nature is something to be preserve for all people.

David quotes several people from across the country, people who understand that conservation benefits all of us.

Said Lorie [no last name] from Pennsylvania, "Since when did breathing clean fresh air, drinking pure clean water and protecting our precious natural resources and environment become something that only Democrats should value? Too often now I hear key Republicans ridicule people that care deeply about the environment as over-zealous crazies. It makes me feel almost embarrassed to be a Republican." 

Mark from California said, "I sure would like to be hearing candidates even mention the environment during their campaigns. There's a lot of talk about the deficit and the burden it will place on future generations. Think of the burden placed on them if their world is deprived of clean air, clean water and an abundance of wildlife and wild places." 

Certainly we have pressing economic issues to contend with.  However, the challenges facing nature roll on 24/7; nature won't set them aside and wait patiently until we get around to addressing them.

And Nature and all the animals and plants within her domain don't vote.  What would happen if they could? 

Click here to read the essay in the Kennebec Journal.

              

IUCN Green Lists: proposed approach to recognize conservation successes

For those of you who have read this blog with any regularity, you have noticed that every once in a while I will post something that is just for fun, something on the lighter side that perhaps shows nature or the oceans at their very best.  With so many weighty issues to address, every once in a while we all need a break.

And when we see healthy ecosystems or species, rather than be lulled into a false sense that all is well, it is hoped that people will be encouraged that the steps being taken and the steps that need to be taken are bearing fruit. Success stories propel us to do more.

That is the basic philosophy being adopted by the IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature).  This worldwide organization is well-known among conservationists for its Red Lists which list and rate threatened or endangered species and ecosystems.  The Red Lists are helpful in identifying specific plants, animals and ecosystems that deserve our immediate attention.  However, they are negative indicators - what's going wrong - and taken as a whole, one can conclude that the whole world is going to hell in a handbasket.  The IUCN recognizes that we also need success stories and so they are preparing to launch two new programs: a Green List for species and one for managed protected areas.

"The concept of a green list is that it can throw a spotlight on things that are actually working," Trevor Sandwith, director of IUCN's Global Protected Areas program, was quoted by OurAmazingPlanet. "We already have well-managed, protected areas in the world, which no one is recognizing."         

Several national parks or protected areas are being put forth as test cases for the Green List concept.  Columbia's Parques Nacionales Naturales is one; Tayrona National Park, within the Parques area, along Columbia's Caribbean coast is another.  Successfully managed ecosystems and species can serve as models for other nations to observe and follow.

The Green Lists program was proposed at the IUCN's recent World Conservation Congress and the plan is to have a formal program adopted at the next congress to be held in 2016.  It is frustrating that movement on this idea has to be measured so slowly, but it will require the cooperation of all the member nations of the union and that will take time to iron out the details.  In the meantime, it does represent an optimistic, positive-thinking approach which many believe is needed in light of the challenges we face.

"We need to show that conservation is much more than just avoidance of extinction," said Elizabeth Bennett, president of the World Conservation Society (which strongly supports the concept of Green Lists as an important companion to the equally important Red Lists. 

Source: OurAmazingPlanet

Government Conservation Program Costs: who is picking up the tab?

Conservation is more than a philosophy or a moral viewpoint on the preservation of our natural resources.  It is a movement with a strong economic and political infrastructure.  And because of that, it needs support; support to fund government conservation programs, support to fund research and the execution and enforcement of policies and regulations.  What are you willing to contribute?

Indeed, the individual can have a profound effect by their own personal actions regarding preserving nature - from picking up trash to trying to remain as carbon neutral as possible to selecting what types of foods to eat - and the tides of public opinion can influence the directions our government officials will follow.

As reported by Richard Moore for ValleyCentral.com, a large segment of that financial support of government efforts comes from a rather unlikely source - a source that seems both logical and ironic given the condition of many species and ecosystems today.  It is the hunters and fishermen.

According to preliminary results from a survey taken every five years by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the latest results show that hunters and fishermen are paying the majority of the costs for conservation programs in these 50 states.

"...it is the hunter and fisherman that continue to pay the brunt of conservation efforts as nearly 75 percent of the annual income for all 50 state conservation agencies is funded through the purchase of licenses and excise taxes on firearms, archery and angling equipment," Moore reported. 

What was also interesting with the survey results, was the growth of these two groups and the growth of more non-destructive conservation activities like wildlife watching or wildlife photography.  While all three groups have grown, it is the recreational conservation activities that has really blossomed.

Moore noted, "While the number of hunters 16 years and older rose to 13.7 million and fishermen increased to 33.1 million the biggest rise continues to be in wildlife watchers.  In 2011 nearly 71.8 million people fed, photographed or observed wildlife as a pastime spending a staggering $55 billion on these pursuits."  The total expenditures spent by all three groups is a whopping $145 billion.

Taken as a sign that conservation-minded recreational activities represents a greater and growing awareness of the importance of nature and conservation, is it unreasonable to ask that those who would seem to be most committed to conservation should be willing to pony up some of the cost?  Nature needs our emotional and intellectual support and it needs our dollars to help support the government policies and programs that many non-profit conservation groups pressure governments to install.

Fair enough that the hunters and fishermen contribute as some token for whatever negative impacts they may be imposing by their activities.  And sure, it would be grand if every living soul on the planet were to chip in, as with every breath they are all a part of nature.  But for those of us who appreciate nature as a recreational activity - ecotourism, wildlife safaris, photo expeditions, or just plain bird or whale watching - perhaps we should voice our willingness to pay some sort of a fee to support the very safeguards we demand of our elected officials to have in place. 

Just a thought. . .

Source & video: ValleyCentral.com                

The Future of Coral Reefs: all but lost or capable of being saved?

Writing this blog over the course of the past few years, I have touched on a variety of environmental issues and challenges facing a variety of ecosystems, many of which are ocean-related.  I must admit, there are times when I find myself writing about one bad situation after another and begin to think, "Well, we're screwed."  My prescription for those moments of cynicism is to write about something positive, fun or even silly.  Change the mood; take a break; put your head in a better place.

I thought of that when I read Roger Bradbury's New York Times Op-Ed, A World Without Coral Reefs.  Bradbury is an ecologist with the Australian National University and in his writing he took the position that if coral reefs are threatened with extinction in the next 20-30 years, the three main forces that are threatening the reefs - overfishing, ocean acidification, and pollution - cannot be sufficiently arrested in time to make a noticeable difference within that time frame.  Therefore, coral reefs are doomed.

"It's past time to tell the truth about the state of the world’s coral reefs, the nurseries of tropical coastal fish stocks. They have become zombie ecosystems, neither dead nor truly alive in any functional sense, and on a trajectory to collapse within a human generation. There will be remnants here and there, but the global coral reef ecosystem — with its storehouse of biodiversity and fisheries supporting millions of the world’s poor — will cease to be."

Bradbury examines the three main threats and lists some measures of improvement but contends that such progress, whether real or proposed, is incapable of reducing the effects of overfishing, acidification, and pollution enough to make a measurable difference in the ultimate degradation of the coral reefs.  There just isn't enough time but, contends Bradbury, governments, environmentalists, and scientists won't accept the inevitable and continue to cling to hope.

"But by persisting in the false belief that coral reefs have a future, we grossly misallocate the funds needed to cope with the fallout from their collapse. Money isn’t spent to study what to do after the reefs are gone — on what sort of ecosystems will replace coral reefs and what opportunities there will be to nudge these into providing people with food and other useful ecosystem products and services. Nor is money spent to preserve some of the genetic resources of coral reefs by transferring them into systems that are not coral reefs. And money isn’t spent to make the economic structural adjustment that communities and industries that depend on coral reefs urgently need. We have focused too much on the state of the reefs rather than the rate of the processes killing them."

The following day, another op-ed appeared in the New York Times to try and balance the gloom and doom of Bradbury's position.  In Reefs in the Anthropocene - Zombie Ecology?, Andrew Revkin quoted several marine scientists who, while not disputing the direness of Bradbury's reporting, did make the case that all is not necessarily lost.  Revkin quoted John Bruno, marine ecologist with the North Carolina University at Chapel Hill:

"It is scary, but is it true? I don’t think so. I have been called a pathological optimist, but on the other hand, I’ve watched reefs change radically from the dangerous wild places I experienced as a kid in the Florida Keys, to simplified systems with few corals and fewer predators. And this is in just 30 years. 

We have many examples of places where local threats like fishing and pollution have been reduced or reversed and in some cases like the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, with great success.  We also have some — though not many — reefs even in the Caribbean that have a lot of healthy coral and are patrolled by sharks, grouper, snapper, barracuda, and other large carnivores.

The challenge for my generation of scientists is to increase the number of these “quasi-pristine” coral reefs (I’d like to see a tenfold increase) and to halt the decline of the other 90 percent of the world’s reefs.  Are this optimistic goals? Sure.  But the science suggests this is doable and I’m far from ready to give up on reefs."

Revkin also received some feedback from renown marine scientists, conservationist, and author, Carl Safina.  Safina recognizes the extant of the problem and concedes that many reef areas will be permanently altered.  But he also recognizes that there is quantifiable progress taking place and that it is not yet time to throw in the towel.

"Bradbury seems to suggest giving up and spending money on ways to replace the values (for example, fish) that coral reefs have provided. But what would giving up look like? Overfishing is old news, and plenty of people are, in fact, spending money trying to raise fish. Some are making money. Overpopulation: also old news and crucial to everything from water supplies to prospects for peace. One doesn’t need to certify future coral reef destruction to realize that overpopulation is bad for human health and dignity, not to mention a catastrophe for wild living systems. These problems have caused the losses to date and they continue. Warming and acidification are also building. 

But to accept that reefs are doomed implies that the best response is to give up hope, thus give up effort. That means we give up on curbing overfishing and allowing rebuilding (yet these two goals are in fact are increasingly working in many places, specifically because people have not given up, and because letting fish recover can work). It means we give up on controlling pollution (in the U.S., the Clean Water Act brought great improvement to rivers so polluted that they actually caught fire multiple times; developing nations deserve to do no less for themselves). It means we give up on population, whose most effective solving strategy is to teach girls to read and write. 

Giving up, while reefs still flourish in many places, means accepting what is unacceptable, and abandoning work on situations that can likely be improved. It means deciding to be hopeless. It means giving up on the reefs, the fishes, and the people, who need all the combined efforts of those who both know the science best—and who, while life exists, won’t give up. 

The science is clear that reefs are in many places degraded and in serious trouble. But no science has, or likely can, determine that reefs and all their associated non-coral creatures are unequivocally, equally and everywhere, completely doomed to total non-existence. In fact, much science suggests they will persist in some lesser form. Bleak prospects have been part of many dramatic turnarounds, and, who knows, life may, as usual—with our best efforts—find a way."

Bradbury's op-ed is a worthwhile read, sobering as it is.  However, so is Andrew Revkin's as his take serves not just as a Pollyanna, all-things-are-rosy response.  There is a thoughtful counter-argument to the idea that coral reefs are beyond salvation.  The biggest challenge may not be in what we do as much as when we get the worldwide determination to do it.  No one argues with the fact that the clock is ticking.

Source: Roger Bradbury's New York Times Op-Ed
Source: Andrew Revkin's New York Times blog post

World Conservation's Hinge Pin: science group reminds UN of crucial but unspoken issue

Just prior to the start of the United Nations' Rio+20 conference, which concludes this week, one organization boldly reminded the conference's participating nations of the 800-pound gorilla in the room that threatens all areas of environmental and sociological concern: population and consumption.

The IAP, a group consisting of 105 science academies from around the world, issued a position paper and press release warning of the growing threat from population growth (now on its way to 7 billion) and the damaged caused by the consumption of natural resources to meet the demands of that world populace.

"For too long the dual issues of population and consumption have been left off the table due to political and ethical sensitivities.  These are issues that affect us all, developed and developing nations alike, and we must take responsibility for them together.  Policymakers have an extraordinary opportunity to seize the initiative at the international summit in Rio and we hope that they will choose to take the sound, evidence-based advice of their own academies of science as they make decisions that will affect the future of the planet," said Professors Howard Alper and Mohamed Hassan, co-chairs of IAP.

As an ocean advocate, I press the issue of ocean conservation as the ocean plays a fundamental role in the health of the entire planet.  Lose the oceans and we lose it all; game over.  But the reality is that what threatens the oceans, all the activities that mankind exercise which puts the environment at risk, all stem from one critical issue, one that we choose to dance around and not address.  Nature has it's methods to balance the populations of various species, but humans seem to be in a different category; immune to nature's efforts and content to simply use up earth's limited natural resources - land, water, and air - to sustain itself.  

IAP recognizes the delicate nature of the problem.  China's approach to population control has been seen as draconian and smacks of some bleak Orwellian future.  Some conservationists have suggested that the problem will actually correct itself - unfortunately the solution is through mass famine and starvation mixed with civil upheaval and war.  We'll simply begin to kill ourselves off until a sustainable population is reached.

Taking a less dire approach, the IAP has made a series of recommendations to the Rio+20 participants:

• Consideration of population and consumption in all policies, including those related to poverty reduction and economic development, global governance, education, health, gender equality, biodiversity and the environment
• Reduction of levels of damaging types of consumption and the development of more sustainable alternatives, with action critically needed in higher–income countries
• Encouragement of development strategies that help reduce population growth, in particular those that promote education to women and girls
• Provision of access to comprehensive reproductive health and family planning programmes for all.  This issue requires substantial additional resources and policy attention from governments and international donors
• A global shift to a new, green economy through the reduction of levels of damaging types of consumption and the development of more sustainable alternatives
• Development of policies that improve the quality of life of older people and create new opportunities for their continued contribution to society
• Development of urban planning policies that take into account future consumption and demographic trends 

While the results from these international conferences can often be measured and progress can be frustratingly slow, hopefully the Rio+20 conference seriously consider the importance and magnitude of the population and consumption issue and begin to take responsible and humane steps to change the current course mankind is traveling - a path that certainly does not lead us to the promised land.

Source: IAP

Step By Step: Center for Biological Diversity presses forth

Well, let's see what the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) has been up to lately.  This group, either working on its own or in consort with other like-minded groups, often takes a more combative or proactive approach to environmental issues by using the courts to prod government agencies to address some of the many conservation challenges we face.

Good News:

Following the settling of a lawsuit between CBD and it's fellow conservation groups versus the National Marine Fisheries Service, the government agency proposed a new rule for shallow water commercial fishermen, who harvest shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico, requiring them to use Turtle Excluder Devices, or TEDs, in their nets.  Essentially escape hatches for the turtles, TEDs have already been mandated for deeper water but this new rule is a first for shallow water.  The one drawback is that Congress is considering budget cuts that may stymie implementation and enforcement of the ruling.

The dwarf seahorse - at one inch, the smallest seahorse in the United States - is one step closer to mandated protection.  CBD had petitioned the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for greater protection under the Endangered Species Act and the NMFS has announced that the seahorse may indeed be in need of federal protection.  Living in the shallow seagrass beds in the Gulf of Mexico, the dwarf seahorses numbers have been declining, apparently due to harvesting from the aquarium trade and health damage to both the seahorse and its seagrass habitat from BP's Deepwater Horizon oil spill.  

Snakes may not be your cup of tea, but their numbers have not been doing well. Yet only 58 of the approximately 1,400 species receive any federal protection.  The Eastern diamondback rattlesnake has been particularly hard hit as it has seen its natural habitat reduced to a small percentage of what it was several decades ago.  Following a petition drive by the CBD, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has announced a full review to consider whether the rattlesnake requires protection under the Endangered Species Act. 

There are dozens of other new challenges that CBD is getting involved in, from the Keystone Pipeline to Arctic oil drilling to saving woodpecker populations, and much more.  The Center for Biological Diversity's weapon of choice still is the pressure exerted by legal action.  It may be frustrating at times as their lawyers weave their way with the regulatory morass, but the result often can be concrete results.

Source & Photos: Center for Biological Diversity

Bald Eagle: U.S. icon is also a conservation success story

Nations around the globe have their flags that help to give them an identity, a visual rallying point as it were.  They can also have their iconic symbols that can range from buildings to geological formations to plants and animals.  For the United States, it is the bald eagle - a symbol of magnificence and strength.

And as the American expansion rolled across the great nation, the bald eagle, whether deliberately or by accident, was slowly pressured and pushed from one habitat to another until this iconic symbol of one of the most powerful and successful nations on earth was faced with extinction.  Irony abounds.

Chosen as the national bird in 1782 (to the disappointment of statesman Benjamin Franklin who had proposed the turkey), the bald eagle's numbers slowly declined until there were only 417 nesting pairs of eagles in the lower 48 states when the Endangered Species Act was initiated in 1963 (the bald eagle was formally declared endangered under the Act in 1967).  The nation's founding fathers did not have to travel far within the new fledgling states to see a bald eagle, but by the 20th century the birds were typically found only in rugged, remote mountainous areas - further west and north where human populations were scarce as was large scale agriculture.  

Along with large commercial agriculture came the need to control pests and with that came the use of pesticides.  The broad use of DDT contributed to the decline of the bald eagle - as well as many other birds of prey - as the pesticide slowly worked its way up the food chain.  When ingested by bald eagles, it produced weakened eggs and the bird's survival rate plummeted.   

Midwest states, with large population centers and agriculture, were essentially devoid of bald eagles.  The state of Iowa, as an example, did not have a single nest from the early 1900s until the late 70s when one nest was finally sighted.  But now it appears that is all changing.

Iowa's number of nesting pairs numbered around 9,000 in 2006 and they continue to grow.  With the use of DDT discontinued, along with the adoption of other regulatory measures between the United States and Canada, the overall population of bald eagles has continued to rise and it was officially de-listed under the Endangered Species Act in 1997.  Numbers now range over 115,000 in the United States and Canada.

The Iowa Department of Natural Resources carefully monitors the number of nests and nesting pairs, utilizing a program that involves both government officials and volunteers to monitor the nests.  The birds need to be observed but not disturbed in any way, so involved conservation groups and the department keep the exact location of many of the nests under wraps. 

The return of bald eagles to states like Iowa is an example of the overall success nationwide in bringing back the populations of bald eagles back to respectable levels.  It is the iconic symbol of a nation but, more importantly, it is an important member of nature's balanced community and a success story that bears repeating for many animal and plant species from coast to coast. 

Source: The Republic
Source: Wikipedia                     

Africa's Elephants and Water: African governments' dilemma in conserving both

In decades past, Africa was the wild continent, the epitome of nature unleashed. But in recent years it has been seen as a source of human sorrow through wars, drought, and disease. Two recent news articles confronted those images and show the dilemma that African governments currently face.

USA Today reported that poachers are taking a heavy toll on African elephants in supposedly protected reserves like Bouba N'Djida National Park in the Republic of Cameroon. Park rangers are poorly trained and ill equipped to combat the heavily armed poachers that have killed at least half of the park's 400 elephants for their ivory tusks. Northern Cameroon's elephant population represents 80 percent of the total population of savanna elephants in all of Central Africa.

Under pressure from the World Wildlife Fund and the European Union, the government sent in 150 soldiers at the start of the month and while there have been unconfirmed reports of confrontations, the poaching continues. Twenty elephants were reported killed in the first week of March alone.

The demand for ivory is a result of Chinese middlemen that have moved in to corner the market on poached ivory to satisfy a market demand for ivory in China.

USA Today reported, "Growing demand for ivory in China is 'the leading driver behind the illegal trade in ivory today,' said Tom Milliken, an elephant and rhino expert for the wildlife trade monitoring network TRAFFIC. China has a legal ivory market that is supposed to be highly controlled but tons and tons of illegal ivory has made its way there in recent years, said the Zimbabwe-based Milliken, who spoke in a conference call with several World Wildlife Fund officers."

In the meantime, according to an article in allAfrica, much of Africa is wrestling with the challenge of a lack of a predictable water supply. Africa can experience extremes in rainfall from torrential monsoons to severe droughts. Many African nations do not have the infrastructures to capture some of its rainfall so as to provide the people with a more dependable water supply.

Dams and reservoirs are a starting point but these are major construction projects which require the assistance of other nations to help design and build or, at the very least, fund. Part of the problem has been in finding a balance between environmental concerns over what these systems - which would provide need water storage and hydroelectric power - would do to the surrounding countryside versus the needs of the African people.

According to Mike Muller, professor at the Graduate School of Public and Development Management at the South African University of Witwatersrand, "You have a situation in Germany or Switzerland where you have strong environmental lobbyists who feel that dams are an infringement on the natural environment ... And you have situations where ministers will say, 'We cannot talk about storing water because that involves construction, which we cannot support'. Yet African governments know that if they don't store water given our variable climate, we are at the mercy of nature and it's a very cruel nature at times."

"The potential in the Congo could power all of Africa's current electricity needs and the same again, spare," says Muller. "If we start looking at the rest of southern Africa we could probably have replaced two of the huge coal-fired power stations that we're building in South Africa with hydropower, but the environmentalists don't want it, it's really anomalous."

Africa does appear to have one potential partner willing to participate: China. With its ongoing growth, China has an interest in Africa's natural resources and it has the skill and capabilities in building the dam and hydroelectric infrastructure that Africa needs.

"There is a coherence between China's capability as the world's pre-eminent builder of large water infrastructure and its interests in Africa's natural resources, many of which require the development of power, transport and water infrastructure for their successful extraction," says Muller.

So, here is the socio-political dilemma: China could be Africa's shining white knight coming to its aid to provide the necessary infrastructure to better ensure a constant water supply. In turn, China also becomes a strong economic partner. With that relationship in place, what are the chances that African governments that are benefiting from trade with China will be willing to seriously curtail the illegal ivory trade since most of the ivory is going to their new economic ally?

Many western nations want to see Africa preserve its wildlife heritage, but we have also seen the terrible price paid in human suffering when African nations are struck by drought and the famine it can produce. Will China be willing to curtail its demand for ivory as a trade-off for gaining other natural resources that Africa has to offer its industrious neighbor to the east? Will western nations step up and offer solutions for Africa that can meet the challenges of both preserving the environment - including iconic animals like the elephant - and providing a desperately needed consistent water supply for its people?

Where some nations wrestle with ecology versus energy demands in the form of coal and oil, Africa is having to consider something more fundamental: the need for water to survive.

Source: USA Today
Source: allAfrica

Magnuson-Stevens Act: recognized as a rare bipartisan success story

In the United States, for the past several years the national congress - the House of Representatives and the Senate - have been scoring abysmal approval ratings with its citizens in survey after survey and it's primarily due to one facet of today's politics: simply getting along has become a dirty word.

Whether based on political or ideological differences between the two main parties or the need to gain a tactical advantage for an upcoming election, Republicans and Democrats seem dead set opposed to bipartisanship. Where this is all going to ultimately end up is hard to say. However, there was a time when political rancor was momentarily set aside and politicians worked together to produce a piece of legislation that, although not perfect, highlighted the political process at its best: representing the interests of the people, the nation, and its natural resources. Yes, that's right. Natural resources. It was for the benefit of conservation.

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) first came to light in 1976 and was designed to eliminate rampant foreign overfishing in U.S. waters and set initial fishery management policies to ensure the future of U.S. commercial fishing by avoiding overfishing. This foundation of today's national fishery management program received bipartisan support and was noteworthy because while politicians were interested in supporting the commercial fishing interests, they also recognized that overfishing would certainly lead to the industry's demise.

With the ball now set in play, in 1996 politicians from both sides of the isle came together again to support amendments to the bill that actually shifted the focus from simply supporting the fishing industry to conserving sustainable fish populations. Politicians realized that the future of the commercial fishing industry and the conservation of species were forever linked but, in the end, it was the primacy of protecting fish populations that would prove beneficial to both industry and nature.

Finally, in 2006, the Bush administration, in one of its arguably better accomplishments, took the important step of reauthorizing the MSA with the added proviso that it would be science-based research that would determine annual catch limits. While I personally have many bones to pick with the previous administration's attempts to undermine the independent science-based approach with regards to the Environmental Protection Agency and endangered species, this was indeed one of their brighter moments.

“Based on the actions of the fishery management councils, it appears that the U.S. has fundamentally ended overfishing in federally-managed domestic fisheries. This is an enormous achievement, and one that Congress and the Administration clearly intended in its 2007 reauthorization of [the MSA]. ... The Magnuson-Stevens Act is without doubt the premier fisheries law in the world,” Dr. Bill Hogarth, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration assistant administrator for fisheries during the George W. Bush administration, was quoted as saying in a recent Pew Environment Group fact sheet.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act is an organic piece of legislation, continually being tweaked and, hopefully, improved upon either to itself or related legislation - as was the case recently with regards to shark fishing regulations and the need to land any shark whole, not just for its fins. However, to continue with effective, independent science-based decisions on sustainability requires ongoing research, staffing to monitor catches and, most importantly, funding.

So, it will require the continued realization and understanding between legislators of all parties that nature has no interest in our current political rancor or oft times competing economic priorities. And to abuse our natural resources, whether at sea or on land, will only guarantee the future will be bleak and finite for many species. The Magnuson-Stevens Act is a model and a reminder of how a responsible government should act.

Click here to download an MSA fact sheet (PDF).
Source: PEG News Room

Filmmaker's Journal: Being reminded of the resources and support conservation needs

This past week, I was away from the RTSea Blog as I was on the road, traveling to Washington, DC and Columbia, South Carolina.

In Washington, DC, I briefly met with the members of the Pew Environment Group's (PEG) Global Shark Conservation Campaign, headed up by Matt Rand. PEG is an arm of the Pew Charitable Trusts and their focus is on making inroads in national and international policy. Much of what is currently proving to be fruitful in advancing the cause of shark conservation involves this higher political level. PEG's Global Shark Conservation Campaign has been involved in some noteworthy successes of late, particularly the establishment of shark sanctuaries in Palau and Honduras. The group is now looking forward to an upcoming CITES meeting this year and the next United Nations-sponsored FAO meeting wherein they will discuss revitalizing a decade-old "international plan of action." It's at international events like these that policies regarding the protection of sharks in international waters - outside the borders or boundaries of national marine protected areas or sanctuaries - can be hammered out.

From the U.S. capitol, I then moved south - through a tiring, circuitous route of flights - to Columbia, South Carolina to film a corporate video for a major pharmaceutical company. The location was an oncology (cancer) treatment center and I was very impressed by the range of services and the quality of care this facility was providing cancer patients.

In scouting various potential locations within the center for filming, we were shown many of the treatment areas and, at one point, the head of the facility brought out some of the chemotherapy medications that are currently being used. Some of these medications cost as much as $2500 per injection and patients would be receiving these treatments sometimes as often as twice a week.

It made me ponder on one of the challenges that conservation issues face. Mankind invests a considerable amount of effort and expense in treating disease, partly because, if we look at it as "connect the dots," it's a very short and simple connection. Many of us falter when it comes to, say, issues of diet and obesity because there are a few more dots to connect before we see a consequence that has personal impact.

And for many people, conservation is a long series of connecting dots and the immediate or personal consequences begins to feel remote. But the impact(s) of dismissing conservation are very real, as real as any cancer, and while we all certainly need to care for ourselves and others who may be afflicted by disease, we must also be aware that the planet is ailing and if we choose to ignore this one patient, Earth, we could be setting ourselves up for a terminal condition that is beyond a cure.

As we wrapped up filming after two days, I thought of the hundreds of patients that come through this oncology center's doors each day. It was comforting to know that these people had a place to go and that medications were available, albeit costly because of the challenges in manufacturing and the exclusive nature of these medications. Now, if we can get more people to see that conservation needs as dedicated a commitment in effort and resources, we just might be able to prevent the planet and the human species from flatlining.