skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Coral reefs continue to face challenges and occasional glimmers of hope. But they lead a perilous existence, with these important tropical marine ecosystems living on the edge of collapse. As remnants of geological island movements, coral reefs form important barriers to island erosion and other weather- and ocean-related conditions (storms, currents, etc.) while also providing a home for countless numbers of marine species.
Bad News: Toxic Algae Acts Quickly
On the down side, researchers are discovering that algae can not only crowd out corals when their growth explodes due to nitrate-rich pollution (as previously studied worldwide), but algae blooms can also prove to be toxic by reducing oxygen and sunlight. And it can happen with remarkable speed.
Recently, in the Gulf of Oman, scientists were conducting a coral reef study and upon returning to their research area three weeks after an algae bloom, they found the corals seriously impacted. Several species of hard corals, including cauliflower and tabletop hard corals, were completely destroyed.
"We were surprised at the extent and speed at which changes to the coral reef communities were affected," said marine ecologist Andrew Bauman in the BBC News. Scientists have known that climate change in the form of warmer waters can adversely affect the coral, causing "coral bleaching" whereby the coral is severely and often fatally weakened from the loss of the symbiotic zooxanthellae algae that literally lives in the coral tissue.
While warmer temperatures can stress the corals to the extant that coral bleaching occurs, the scientists in the Gulf of Oman now have dramatic evidence of the impact of algae blooms in open water, literally choking the life from the coral - not to mention the impact on other sealife including fish, whose gills can be become clogged with algae particulates.
Good News: Island Nations Work Together
On the more positive side, tropical island nations are becoming more proactive in their efforts to protect their national treasures - the coral reefs. In 2007, the governments of Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, Timor Leste, Papua New Guinea, and the Solomon Islands formed the Coral Triangle Initiative to establish policies to protect their marine reef ecosystems. Realizing the importance of the reef ecosystem not only as a component of a healthy ocean but also of economic importance as a source of food and tourism for developing nations, the Coral Triangle Initiative is a government-led program supported by leading conservation organizations like Conservation International.
In the Indian Ocean, the Maldives - a nation of over 1,100 coral islands - recognizes the economic power of conserving its surrounding coral reefs. The reefs are the lure to worldwide scuba divers, snorkelers, and swimmers, making tourism a major component of the nation's economy. In addition, the need to protect its ecology - in fact, that of the world - is of critical importance to the Maldives. The islands are, at most, just under five feet above sea level. With sea levels rising due to global warming, scientists estimate that the Maldives will be uninhabitable by 2100.
The government has taken steps to both protect its citizens and the environment by instituting a variety of eco-friendly policies including installation of wind turbines, rooftop solar arrays, and phasing out fossil fuel-burning boats and cars. In July, 2010, they also outlawed shark fishing and the sale or export of shark fins. But the government is also reluctantly prudent and developing plans for the relocation of its entire population of 400,000 as sea levels rise.
Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed warned, “Climate change is a global emergency. The world is in danger of going into cardiac arrest, yet we behave as if we've caught a common cold. Today, the Maldives has announced plans to become the world's most eco-friendly country. I can only hope other nations follow suit.”Read about toxic algae in the BBC Earth News.
Read about the Coral Triangle Initiative at Conservation International.
Read about the Maldives at Mother Nature Network.
350. This is a number that has great significance with many climatologists and supporters of positive steps to slow down, if not arrest. global warming. The number 350 stands for the level of carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere, in parts per million, that many scientists believe must be attained if we are to have any control over the issue of climate change - and it needs to be reached sooner than later (we currently stand at around 390ppm and rising).
To help get that message out, to policymakers and the general public, is the mission of 350.org. And to do that, 350.org has in the past staged worldwide events that included everyone from children to students to politicians. Last year they held an International Day of Climate Action that encouraged people of all ages to recognize the need to reduce carbon emissions. It was a grass roots event that saw participation from Sydney to San Francisco, from South Africa to Sweden.
Coming up this Sunday, October 10th, will be the organization's 10/10/10 Global Work Party: A Day to Celebrate Climate Solutions. Once again, across the globe, 350.org has rallied folks at the grass roots level in over 150 countries with thousands of local events taking place, all designed to not only bring awareness to the problem of carbon emissions but to also promote what we can do about it.
According to 350.org, "We’re calling it a Global Work Party, with emphasis on both 'work' and 'party'. In Auckland, New Zealand, they’re having a giant bike fix-up day, to get every bicycle in the city back on the road. In the Maldives, they’re putting up solar panels on the President’s office. In Kampala, Uganda, they're going to plant thousands of trees, and in Bolivia they’re installing solar stoves for a massive carbon neutral picnic."
350.org's goal with this one-day event is not to solve the issue of climate change in one grand sweeping gesture - they are too pragmatic for that. Instead, 10/10/10 Global Work Party is 
designed to send a strong political message to the decision-makers of the world, that people recognize the importance of managing carbon emissions in a demonstrable way and are prepared to do what it takes.
"On 10/10/10 we'll show that we the people can do this--but we need bold energy policies from our political leaders to do it on a scale that truly matters. The goal of the day is not to solve the climate crisis one project at a time, but to send a pointed political message: if we can get to work, you can get to work too--on the legislation and the treaties that will make all our work easier in the long run."
350 parts per million. This is something that needs to be much more than a long-range, near-mythical goal for the world's energy policies. It is a very real objective that must be met quickly, before we find ourselves at a point of no return.
10/10/10. More than just a clever twist of the calendar; it's a day to show your support. Check out the 350.org website to see what events are taking place in your area. There's even still time to start an event of your own for this Sunday.
Visit the 350.org website.
Learn more about 10/10/10 Global Work Party.
Imagine you are a government official, perhaps in charge of your nation's natural ocean resources, and you are considering how best to manage those resources now and in the future. You might consider Marine Managed Areas (MMAs), also known as MPAs (Marine Protected Areas), as a possible solution. These are zones that regulate and manage activities ranging from commercial fishing to recreational activities to tourism, all with the idea of protecting marine life while producing the least amount of disruption to local economies (or perhaps even enhance those economies).
But you need to be sold on the idea; you need information so that you can formulate at least the first step. Turning to the general populace, you find a wealth of personal opinions and anecdotal accounts - in essence, the moral conscience of why it needs to be considered. Turning to the scientific community, you find copious amounts of facts, figures and complex data. You're a smart man but sometimes listening to the scientific experts requires more attention to detail than you can muster. They seem to have the answers but it needs to be more palatable for you and your other policy-making colleagues to begin formulating initiatives that can successfully work their way through the halls of governmental bureaucracy. You need a well-thought out, readable primer.
Science2Action.org is an organization dedicated to providing policy makers with the basic information they need to consider and act on the formation of marine managed areas. Realizing that it takes more than raw emotion or arcane data to generate concrete, quantifiable change, Science To Action works closely with a wide array of research, ocean conservation, and NGO organizations to pool data - to translate it as it were - into easily understandable concepts and solutions, made available through a variety of media formats.
From my experiences meeting and working with scientists and discussing progress in ocean conservation with many activists and officials, this is something that I feel very strongly about. People can make a big difference in their personal choices and actions, but having strong policies, such as the formation of MMAs, that by their very nature recognize the commitment of governments to protect the oceans, is critical to the future of the oceans and to many local and national economies. You can't have one without the other. We may not like how governments operate sometimes, but we must kick them off the couch and get them in the game. And to do that we must give them information that is comprehensive, comprehensible, and compelling.
Science To Action has produced a series of publications - booklets that can easily be read (20 pages) in a brief sitting - that explore the issues related to Marine Managed Areas, explaining why MMAs make sense for both man and the oceans.
Their latest publications:
These three booklets are available in PDF form and can be easily downloaded from their website. This is highly recommended reading for all of us. And as you read through them, imagine you are that government official; imagine you are searching for a reason or reasons to make a case for MMAs.
We need personal commitment but we also need government action. Science2Action.org is helping to put the information in the hands of decision-makers that will produce proactive steps to insure the preservation of vital ocean resources. Check out their website, it's one that I am bookmarking.
After 10 years of study, involving 2,700 scientists from 80 nations, the results from the Census of Marine Life was released today. Ocean animals were cataloged, photographed, tagged and tracked or whatever was needed to be able to get a more accurate picture as to the size and scope of marine life worldwide. And the results are both a source of awe and inspiration and a reason for concern.
Scientists have identified around 250,000 marine species but estimate that the total number is probably closer to one million. The census collated data on nearly 17,000 species of fish but scientists estimates there are another 5,000 yet to be discovered. And that's excluding the oceans vast array of microbes, which are estimated alone to total up to a billion.
Over the study's ten-year period, scientists explored shallow reefs and some of the ocean's deepest canyons, from frigid Arctic waters to warm lagoons. Much was learned and much was realized to be, as yet, undiscovered. One of the cornerstone's of the study's research is the Ocean Biogeographic Information System (OBIS), a central database of observations dating back centuries which forms a baseline of data constructed from 28 million observations and growing by approximately 5 million observations each year.
"The census enlarged the known world. Life astonished us everywhere we looked. In the deep sea we found luxuriant communities despite extreme conditions," said Myriam Sibuet, vice-chair of the study's Steering Committee.
As I had mentioned in a previous post on the Marine Census, the amazing pictures that we will be seeing in the news, magazines, and books in the weeks and months to come will portray an ecosystem that is vibrant with life of all kinds. But we must not think that with this multitude of life that all is well in the seas.
Jesse Asubel, co-founder of the Census, said, "The Census encountered an ocean growing more crowded with commerce and transparent through technology. Setting out to draw baselines of the diversity, distribution, and abundance of species, the first Census of Marine Life documented a changing ocean, richer in diversity, more connected through distribution and movements, more impacted by humans, and yet less explored than we had known."
The Census of Marine Life is a major milestone in ocean biology. Future census studies will add more data and uncover more surprises. There's much we know, much more we need to learn, and all of it we need to conserve and protect.
With the release of the Census' final report, three books will soon be available:
Discoveries of the Census of Marine Life (Cambridge University Press)
Life in the World's Oceans: Diversity, Distribution and Abundance (Blackwell Publishing)
Citizens of the Sea: Wondrous Creatures from the Census of Marine Life (National Geographic)
Read news article on the Census of Marine Life from CNN.com.
Discovery's Tree Hugger blog site and Washington DC's The Hill both ran important news items on several pieces of conservation legislation being stalled in the U.S. Senate, primarily due to the efforts of one Senator Tom Coburn (R.-Okla.). His position was that the five bills, supported by several key Republican colleagues and ranging from issues regarding shark finning to marine mammals to great cats and canids to cranes, were a waste of money.
"The problems that are facing this country are so big and so massive that our attention ought to be focused on those large problems, not on five separate bills that have been proffered for special interest groups," the senator was quoted as saying.
While the current economic situation in the United States, and globally, is without question one of the more pressing issues today and will garner greater priority and attention than longer term environmental issues, the politics of fear combined with the campaign jargon of the moment must not derail responsible policymakers from making decisions that have implications, both environmental and economic, far beyond simply the conservation of a particular species. Maintaining a healthy biodiversity is not just a feel good moral issue, it is one that has concrete implications over a range of industries and worldwide economies.
As noted in Tree Hugger, The Huffington Post described Senator Coburn's actions this way, "Cautious spending is an important value, but so is the defense of animals from cruelty, the rescue of marine creatures injured by human actions, or the protection of wild species from extinction. Coburn has corrupted a laudable principle of fiscal conservatism, and used it to negate and nullify valuable initiatives designed to protect vulnerable species at serious risk."
Read the entire article in Discovery's Tree Hugger.
Read the entire article in The Hill.
Read the entire article in The Huffington Post.
Nature filmmaking is an important form of media arts, particularly in this day and age when environmental issues are becoming more and more the focus of politicians, policymakers and the general public. Nature films are visual literature that typically have a position or point-of-view they wish to express - even the most matter-of-fact presentations are intended to get the viewer to understand something about the film's subject that perhaps they did not know or appreciate before. So, by design they have an agenda.
But with that agenda comes an ethical responsibility toward accuracy and realism. And for the nature documentary filmmaker, who must contend with the logistical realities of the film process combined with the pressures of satisfying the demands of an entertainment media business, this ethical responsibility can sometimes be a challenge.
Shooting In The Wild (Sierra Club Books), written by veteran nature film producer Chris Palmer, takes an in-depth look at the world of wildlife filmmaking to expose the ethical dilemmas faced by filmmakers who manipulate, fabricate, and deceive - all in the name of presenting nature "realistically." The book has been generating a fair amount of media buzz with its recounting of staged animal sequences to coax certain behaviors, use of captive animals from animal farms or zoos, and even animal abuse - all for the sake of "getting the shot." In fact, ironically, while the book condemns over-sensationalism and attempts to establish a foundation for ethical responsibility in nature filmmaking, the majority of the media reporting has focused on the book being a tell-all expose that rips the mask of respectability off the nature filmmaker, showing them to be manipulative charlatans. Well, it makes for a good headline on the evening news, but I think it misses the point of Palmer's book.
The ethics of accuracy and realism exist throughout all forms of expression. We accept that fiction almost by definition is a manipulation or fabrication. And in non-fiction books and films, we accept fabricated dialog or scenes that convey the essence of historical truth. We even tolerate a measure of hyperbole from our leaders in their speeches and their political campaigns. Up to a point. . . and that's where the slippery slope of ethical responsibility versus manipulated fakery rears its head. Can a black and white line be drawn within what is often a subjective gray area?
This is what Palmer discusses in Shooting In The Wild by sighting many examples of nature filmmaking that deviate from precise realism: forced predations, unnaturally-induced animal behaviors, reproduced sounds, and even whether or not the use of music in a nature film is a manipulation of reality.
In describing a filmmaker's staged predation sequence between a king snake and a diamondback rattlesnake (as the intended prey), Palmer writes, "When the king snake ignored the rattlesnake, the filmmaker tried again and again to engage them in combat, with no success. Finally, a crewmate came up with an idea: he put the rattlesnake into an empty mouse cage for a day so it smelled like a mouse. Problem solved - the king snake soon seized and ate the rattler."
As engrossing as it is to read of these cinematic machinations, Palmer is not setting out to give nature filmmakers (or himself for that matter, as an accomplished producer of award-winning films) simply a black eye. Rather, he wants everyone, from viewers to filmmakers to network executives, to consider both the difficulty and importance in trying to find where one draws the line between truth and deception. It is an important topic to debate because nature films are too important of an educational resource to suffer from a lack of credibility with the audience.
As a filmmaker myself, I am continually having to make decisions as to how best to make my point, to fulfill my agenda as it were, without portraying animals in a false or deceptive light. Sometimes the decisions are dictated by the difficulty of the film process. Take sound for instance.
When I film underwater, it is virtually a silent world. Underwater camera housings often have hydrophones (underwater microphones) but the sounds they record are usually just the bubbles emanating from the cameraman's dive gear, which has nothing to do with what's going on in front of the camera. While topside, one can be filming an animal at a great distance, far beyond what the microphone can effectively pick up. So, a soundtrack is compiled after the fact using pre-recorded sounds or ones that are artificially produced. Palmer notes that opening and closing an umbrella can be a substitute sound source for an eagle's wings flapping. I often use sounds of splashing at a community pool for the sounds of sharks breaking the surface. Logistical necessity or deception?
Or what of the lush music scores that accompany many nature films? As a former composer, I greatly appreciate the power of music to support the visual image or the spoken word. We seem to have no qualms about the impact that music can have on the many non-nature films we watch - the ability to make us laugh, cry, or jump out of our seats - but is it right for a nature film? Reality dictates that there are no Aaron Copland-esque refrains heard when we stand before a panoramic view of the Sierras, so is the use of music, as some cynics would say, a manipulation of our feelings? A cheap deception meant to further the filmmaker's agenda? Well, perhaps someone did not get enough hugs as a child.
While the use of sound may not be the most egregious of manipulations, the issue of artificially-induced behaviors certainly is one that can take a filmmaker down the slippery slope. Take, for instance, the practice of baiting or chumming for sharks. Many shark programs have been criticized for favoring sensationalism over reality by providing food stimulus that provokes the shark to act in ways that are not natural, except perhaps in the most extreme and infrequent of situations. The shark's exaggerated behavior is then portrayed as the norm and the stereotypical image of the malevolent predator is, once again, perpetuated.
In my first shark documentary, Island of the Great Shark, I went to great pains to film white sharks acting in as natural of a behavior as possible. Rather than edit together a series of powerful scavenger attacks on floating bait that would present an image of a voracious, aggressive predator continually on the attack; I chose images that made up the vast majority of what actually occurred time and time again, that of a wary and cautious animal that would gracefully move through the water - investigating, curious, but not hell-bent on devouring everything in sight. It was my call to portray these animals based on both what I actually experienced and what I had learned from speaking with recognized shark experts. But it also meant that a portion of my potential audience would be disappointed because I chose not to support the pre-conceived stereotype.
In Shooting In The Wild, Chris Palmer goes beyond listing past sins by nature filmmakers caught up in the struggle to capture images by whatever means necessary (and some, like animal abuse or staged predations, are certainly inexcusable). Palmer broadens the discussion with recommendations that amount to a road map to ethical wildlife filming. One of his recommendations is for filmmakers to work closely with reputable scientists. I couldn't agree more, but it's not always easy to do so.
Programs are typically pitched to networks and that pitch must resonate with executives who are concerned with audience appeal and ratings. And sometimes these program pitches are ideas that were hatched by production company staff members who are not scientifically-trained or oriented at all but know what will catch the attention of the network's program developers. It is then, after they have sold their idea, that they look for someone - a scientist or other subject matter expert - who can provide some credibility to the project. This kind of approach, where one backs into the science, can lend itself to an ethical dilemma for the producer who finds himself stuck between the expectations for what has been sold and what the scientists say is the actual reality. Again, I have seen this many times in shark programs and it has made more than one qualified shark expert leery of working with filmmakers because of some preposterous film premise or because of how they themselves were represented in some prior film.
Palmer writes, "But while a good scientist-filmmaker relationship can be mutually beneficial, it's important to choose partners carefully. Before they begin, the parties need to agree on both the goals of the project and the most ethical way to accomplish them."
Shooting In The Wild is a fascinating book for all the interesting stories that Palmer tells and for his examination and recommendations on the ethical dilemma that nature filmmakers routinely face. I would recommend it to all who appreciate wildlife films - filmmakers, conservationists, and just viewers at large. It serves as a guide for how nature filmmakers should conduct themselves and for what viewers should come to expect from this unique entertainment genre.
There are several news agencies that are picking up on a recently released study that declares that one-fifth of the world's plants are faced with extinction. Animals or large-scale ecosystems seem to catch the attention of the general public more than plants, perhaps because we can relate to an animated polar bear, a wolf, or a shark better than we can to an orchid. And ecosystems catch our attention because their fate is often wrapped up in global implications.
However, plants, as much as they may be taken for granted or ignored altogether, play a significant role in not only the overall health of the planet but to mankind specifically.
Researchers at England's Royal Botanical Gardens at Kew, and the Natural History Museum, along with the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) have analyzed over 4,000 plant species and determined that 22% should be considered threatened with possible extinction, while another 33% could not have their status determined because so little is known about them. Their research forms an important baseline by which future growth or loss can be measured.
With an estimated 380,000 plant species in the world today, what appears to be the greatest threat is habitat loss - areas of land that are being consumed and redirected towards agriculture. Tropical rain forests seem to be the greatest botanical areas at risk.
Now what might assume that the loss of some obscure orchid or weed is not a big deal; that as long as we have plenty of fruits and vegetables, we will be okay. Not so, according to the research. Many medicines have been first derived or can only be derived from plant extracts, and with the loss of botanical environments that can be a loss of an untold number of future medications. Ironically, developing countries, where much of the tropical forests and plant systems are being wiped out, are one of the main benefactors in plant-derived medicines for conditions ranging from malaria to leukemia.
In addition, focusing on plants that serve the greatest numbers of people as food is a limitation that can have profound effects on the very plants we depend on. It is reported that 80% of the calories consumed by the world come from only 12 different plant species. That can cause a precarious limitation in the DNA gene pool of plants which can have a negative impact on those 12 species we so much depend on. Imagine ridding the world of all animals except for cows, pigs, chickens and a few fish and you can see how precarious our situation would become in maintaining a healthy gene pool of feed animals.
The report on the ongoing botanical research comes in advance of next month's United Nations Biodiversity Conference. The future of plants on earth must be an important component of a more holistic approach towards biodiversity, realizing that every plant or animal plays a role and we must consider the implications when any species, plant or animal, is brought to the level of extinction.
Stephen Hopper, professor and director of the the Royal Botanical Gardens said, "We cannot sit back and watch plant species disappear - plants are the basis of all life on Earth, providing clean air, water, food and fuel. All animal and bird life depends on them and so do we. Every breath we take involves interacting with plants. They're what we all depend on."
Read more about it in the Royal Botanical Gardens' KEW News.
Declining shark populations have been reported in many parts of the world - some reductions reaching as much as 80 to 90 percent compared to just a few decades ago. But there are still some important bodies of water where the status of the shark populations is unclear. One of those bodies is the Arabian Gulf (or Persian Gulf, depending on who you talk to).
But that is about to change.
Marine biologist Rima Jabado, from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) University, has begun a study to determine the health and extant of shark populations in the Gulf. As part of her doctoral thesis, she has been interviewing Arab fishermen (over 125 to date) and their anecdotal information combined with in-the-field study will hopefully paint an accurate picture of what shark species are living in the Gulf and what their true numbers are.
Jabado was pleased to find that the fishermen were sympathetic to the need for shark conservation to maintain a healthy marine ecosystem, thereby helping to provide sustainable levels of commercial fisheries. But, as noted in the Gulf News, she also heard their frustration in how to deal with sharks when caught.
"The majority of the fishermen would want to protect sharks and believe in the protection of fish for a sustainable fishery," said Rima. "But if sharks are caught in a fisherman's net, should they be thrown back? Perhaps they should be brought in? [This subject] causes them to debate. Some complain that sharks just make holes in their nets."
In many publications, including this blog, the impact of declining shark populations on marine ecosystems has often been presented as a looming threat. But scientists and commercial fisherman are beginning to see real, tangible evidence.
For its predominantly international audience, the Gulf News cited several examples ranging from Australian reports of octopus - no longer being preyed upon by sharks - exploding in number and devouring the lobster population; to increased numbers of cownose rays along the U.S. Atlantic coast decimating vast beds of bay scallops (sharks, particularly hammerheads, feed on cownose rays).
Hopefully, Jabado's research will provide UAE government officials with hard evidence from which responsible shark conservation policies and fishing regulations can be derived. While the Arab fisherman expressed an interest in shark conservation to insure the future of their fisheries, the catch numbers have not been so flattering. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, UAE's catch alone of sharks averaged between 1,300 and 1,950 tons annually from 1985 to 2000. While that number remained fairly stable through that period, rather than increasing, it certainly is sufficient to cause harm to shark populations in a relatively closed body of water like the Arabian Gulf.
"The state of sharks in the Arabian Gulf is a blank," said Jabado. "Attention should be given to sharks — they're the apex predator and their demise could lead to the collapse of the marine ecosystem."
Let us hope that the Arab nations that border the Gulf will prove to be more long-term in their thinking when it comes to establishing policy that will preserve both sharks and their commercial fishing interests.
Read entire article in the Gulf News.
Marine Protected Areas, or MPAs, are aquatic reserves that are designed to restrict or prohibit activities deemed harmful to the marine environment. This has typically meant strict regulations on commercial or sport fishing activities but in some cases it has extended further to include other industrial or recreational activities. What is or is not allowed depends on where the reserve is located, its size, and the environmental and economic considerations impacted by the reserve.
Some reserves are quite large, like the South Pacific's multi-national Pacific Oceanscape or Hawaii's Northwestern Islands. Or they can be smaller and localized, like California's central coast marine sanctuaries that include the Channel Islands. But as a global total, marine protect areas cover only a mere one percent of the world's oceans.
The challenge with all MPAs is that they are the end result of a political process, and to deal with that can be as exciting as watching paint dry. Thought-provoking pictures and images and reams of scientific data are all part of the process in considering a marine reserve, but ultimately it boils down to government officials, conservation and environmental interests, and economic interests all trying to hammer out a compromise that the interested or effected parties can live with. And this can be a drawn out process at best.
Along the U.S.'s Oregon coast lies some of the country's most rugged and beautiful coastline and marine ecosystems. Rugged, but just as fragile as any tropical reef system when faced with overfishing, pollution, or any other man-made abuse. The state has been at work to determine the scope of possible MPAs along the Cape Arago area, developing as many as eight different proposals. A recommendation committee has been formed to whittle that number down to just three for public comment.
MPAs follow a process very similar to our legislative process in the U.S. A proposal is put forth, much like a bill, and then it goes to a committee where it is tweaked and amended, then brought forth for public comment, and then ultimately voted on - that's it in a simplified nutshell. Anywhere along the way, it can be derailed by lobby groups or public sentiment and pushed from an internal governmental process to an open ballot initiative, which can be a more drawn out and openly politicized battle.
In 2008, Oregon governor Ted Kulongoski asked the state's Ocean Policy Advisory Council (OPAC) for recommendations for coastal marine reserves. Thus began a lengthy process that included environmental groups and commercial and sport fishing interests. Oregon has several major commercial fishing industries, including salmon and crab, and so the delicate political maneuvering began to reach a suitable compromise. A committee was formed to try and develop proposals that would be at least close to acceptable to all involved.
As reported in the Oregon The World, OPAC committee chair Jim Pex said, "There's a strong political force trying to get as much area in reserves as possible, and a strong force wanting no reserves at all. . . As with any group that is diverse, it takes time to get everyone to move in one direction."
To insure that the process would move forward, the committee adopted several interesting rulings:
- No proposal would be considered that inhibited salmon fishing or crabbing.
- There is no known biological problem that a marine reserve would solve at this time.
- Additionally, funding for ongoing government research would be required to justify the reserve. No funding, no reserve.
Personally, I found these to be some interesting concessions. Once again, an economic consideration (salmon fishing and crabbing) was given a higher priority over the environmental benefit. If it's bad for business then nature will just have to wait. The problem is, as we have seen with other commercial fishing industries, nature doesn't wait; it continues to degrade until the industry collapses due to a decimated fish population.
The second point is a curious one. If the position is to not recognize any biological problem that a marine reserve would solve, then why have the reserve? Or is it a case of getting commercial interests to cooperate by not ascribing any problem specifically to their activities? MPAs have already been shown to increase sealife populations and this has even had a positive effect on commercial fish populations outside of the reserves boundaries. And as I have reported in previous posts, there is a growing issue of increased populations of Humboldt squid all along the eastern Pacific - a situation which possibly could be mitigated by marine reserves which would support an increase in natural predators to the squid (right now, Humboldt squid can pose a serious threat to a multi-million dollar salmon fishery).
In addressing the research funding issue, to insure that there will be continued research to justify any reserve established, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is investigating ways of procuring funding, made difficult in a "no more government spending" climate. Non-governmental funding is being looked into through the use of foundations, trusts, and even federal appropriations.
OPAC is hoping that the final proposals will be brought before the public for comment by the end of the year. The process is an elaborate one and, as we have seen with other U.S. legislation, the end result can be considerably watered down from what was perhaps once envisioned. It certainly is not the "sexy" part of ocean policy but beyond all the fund-raising or issue-raising parties and events, after all the videos and slide presentations, this is what it boils down to: hard-fought negotiations and back room politics.
Hopefully the end result is something that provides the oceans with a real benefit. And, hopefully, mankind learns that by doing that, it too becomes a beneficiary.
Read about Oregon's MPA politics in The World.
The Bahamas is known within the shark diving community as one of the top locations for seeing sharks. Tiger sharks, lemon sharks, and Caribbean reef sharks are three of the more common species, along with occasional bull, hammerhead, and nurse sharks. From Stuart Cove's Nassau shark diving operation to the boats that frequent popular Tiger Beach off Grand Bahamas, shark diving has flourished as a tourist activity in relatively shallow water.
But cruising in deep waters is another entire world of sharks, one that has largely remained out of sight from divers and scientists alike. There is much that we do not know about sharks, but with these deep water denizens we know even less. Over half of the documented species of sharks live below 200m (660 ft.) but only a handful have been studied to any appreciable degree.
To help fill that void in knowledge, researchers at the Cape Eleuthera Institute, along with scientists from Florida State and Stony Brooks Universities, are conducting research on several deep water sharks as part of the institute's Shark Conservation and Research Program. Utilizing 
satellite tags supplied by Microwave Telemetry, Inc. (including a new, next-generation of micro-tags more suitable for smaller sharks), the researchers have been quite successful in capturing and tagging 25 sharks from six different species, ranging from a 13-foot bluntnose sixgill shark to a petite sawtail catshark at 18 inches.
According to The Bahamas Weekly.com, Dr. Dean Grubbs of Florida State University was more than pleased. "I have conducted research on deep water sharks in a number of locations around the world including the central Pacific off Hawaii, the temperate western Atlantic off the east coast of the USA and in the Gulf of Mexico. Cape Eleuthera appeared to be an ideal location to expand my research however I never expected the incredible diversity and abundance of species we encountered these last few days. Twenty-five sharks from six different species on only six surveys is an incredible record." said Dr. Grubbs.
Realizing the impact of commercial shark fishing on these important predators and scavengers, in addition to appreciating their role as a component of the islands' tourist economy, the Bahamian government has been proactive in shark conservation, which includes a longline fishing ban in the 1990s, and enthusiastically supports the research taking place involving these deep water species.
"The absence of a commercial fishery of any significance for sharks in The Bahamas, along with a wide variety of marine habitats within close proximity to the facility makes the Cape Eleuthera Institute an ideal location for the pursuit of research into these important species," said the Department of Marine Resources director, Michael Braynen.
Best of success to the Cape Eleuthera Institute. The more light that can be shed on all members of the shark family, the better we will understand how they are woven into the fabric of the ocean ecosystem - not only as pelagic apex predators but as ocean citizens of a mysterious deep water community.
Read the article in The Bahamas Weekly.com.
Coral reefs continue to face challenges and occasional glimmers of hope. But they lead a perilous existence, with these important tropical marine ecosystems living on the edge of collapse. As remnants of geological island movements, coral reefs form important barriers to island erosion and other weather- and ocean-related conditions (storms, currents, etc.) while also providing a home for countless numbers of marine species.
In the Indian Ocean, the Maldives - a nation of over 1,100 coral islands - recognizes the economic power of conserving its surrounding coral reefs. The reefs are the lure to worldwide scuba divers, snorkelers, and swimmers, making tourism a major component of the nation's economy. In addition, the need to protect its ecology - in fact, that of the world - is of critical importance to the Maldives. The islands are, at most, just under five feet above sea level. With sea levels rising due to global warming, scientists estimate that the Maldives will be uninhabitable by 2100.
