Ocean science and conservation, like any human enterprise, is subject to its fair share of internal messiness from time to time.  As someone whose expertise and experience intersects several discrete domains (coral reefs, sharks, marine protected areas, and policy), I’ve witnessed plenty of dust-ups, arguments, and spats over the years.  And this week’s flurry of discussion instigated by a New York Times editorial on ocean protected areas is just the latest kerfuffle. In his op-ed, Bigger Is Not Better for Conservation, coral reef scientist and California Academy of Sciences curator, Dr Luiz Rocha, argues that large-scale, remote marine reserves are a disservice to ocean conservation.  It’s Dr Rocha’s perspectives, however, that seem more damaging.

Rocha’s argument hinges on four key points:

1. The current tally of big, remote marine reserves is in low-conflict, easy to protect (ie, low-hanging fruit) areas of the ocean where human reliance upon them is negligible and therefore government willingness to protect is strong;
2. There’s nothing worth protecting in these big, remote areas;
3. More important, smaller, near-shore ocean areas with high levels of human use are in dire need of protection;
4. Marine protected areas should be science-based (eg, protected zones should be guided by “sustainable catch limits” of commercially targeted species).

Let’s go one-by-one to see if any of these points hold water. [Note: For the sake of brevity, I’ll be using the acronym MPA frequently in this piece for “marine protected area,” but it will also serve as shorthand for “marine reserve,” “protected area,” “locally managed marine area,” or “marine managed area.”  I recognize that an MPA may not be managed or enforced, but let’s forego that technicality for the moment.]

POINT 1: “Big MPAs are easy and less consequential.”
As of today, there are approximately 20 large-scale protected areas across the ocean (ranging from tens-of-thousands to millions of square kilometers in protected area).  This includes a range from the Marianas Marine National Monument’s 16,400 square kilometers to the 1.15 million square kilometers of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument in Hawai’i.  These MPAs may consist of fully-protected, no-take (no fishing/extraction) designation to protection that still allows multiple uses.  According to the folks at MPA Atlas, there are approximately 15,000 small, coastal MPAs around the world.  Some of these, like Cordelia Banks off the island of Roatan in the Bay of Honduras, encompass only 17 square kilometers.  Many are even smaller.  Totaling all of the massive/remote and small/near-shore MPAs together gets us to approximately 2% of the ocean under some form of protection.

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) World Conservation Congress, held in Hawai’i in September 2016, called for member nations to set aside “30% of each marine habitat” in “highly protected MPAs and other effective area-based conservation measures” by 2030, with the ultimate aim being ”a fully sustainable ocean, at least 30% of which has no extractive activities.”

For rhetorical effect, I’ll reiterate that as of March 23, 2018, only 2% of our global oceans is protected, and 2030 is only twelve years away.

As someone in the MPA biz, I can testify that there are at present a small handful of big, deep-pocketed, international NGOs working on big international MPAs: The Pew Charitable Trusts, Conservation International, Oceana, and National Geographic. These folks have the gravitas, influence, and resources to capture heads of state attention and convene forums necessary to get things done.  You can bitch all you want about the pros and cons, but this is the reality.  Alongside the big NGOs, there are tens-to-hundreds of small to medium-sized NGOs that are working simultaneously on everything from big/remote MPAs to smaller/near-shore MPAs.  Sometimes the big NGOs work in concert with the smaller ones.  Sometime not.  It’s all site dependent.

Having worked on everything from massive MPAs to tiny MPAs over my career, I can say that none of them were “easy wins.”  So-called “low hanging fruit” may represent a unique opportunity in time.  You may have a receptive government or local community that welcomes the process.  It’s always easier to work with the willing than the resistant.  But every MPA effort in which I’ve participated involved strategy, identifying champions, public consultations, negotiations, community organizing, building political will, battling nefarious characters, rebooting strategy, sweating-out votes, and of course finding funds to support all of this.  If there are “easy wins” out there, big or small, I sure would appreciate someone pointing me in that direction.

Protecting big/remote areas or smaller/near-shore areas is not an either/or game.  This is not a binary proposition of doing one or the other.  It’s a yes/also.  We need to protect small, not so small, medium, larger, big, bigger, and massive tracts of the ocean.  We need to protect what is easy to protect, and what is harder to protect.  We must gather every bit of low-hanging fruit, and plan to reach the currently out-of-reach fruit.  MPAs occupy a spectrum or continuum, and we need to be prepared to work with everything along that spectrum.  Some NGOs will have a mandate (and talent) for pursuing big swaths of ocean.  Others are more tuned to work on local needs.  But there is a lot of real estate between the biggest and smallest MPAs for organizations, individuals, and yes, even FUNDERS to find their niche.

POINT 2: “There’s nothing worth protecting.”
This is just wholesale wrong.  What is Rocha considering as “worth” protection?  Certainly, there are species whose entire life cycle may be captured by the boundaries of an MPA.  Other species may only spend a portion of their lives within the boundaries of protection.  Protected areas are designed to factor in these variables.  But not all MPAs are envisioned around biological significance alone.  The Monitor National Marine Sanctuary in North Carolina, the very first marine national monument designated by the United States in 1975, honors the historic significance of the shipwreck of the famed Civil War ironclad, USS Monitor.  Similarly, the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument and the entire Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, including the 110 seamounts, open waters, and all life in that area are considered biocultural resources and linked to the Hawaiian people through environmental kinship.

The ocean as a cultural seascape is vital to Hawaiian identity, their being, and essential dimension to their cognitive understanding of the world.  The ocean waters in Papahānaumokuākea were an ancient pathway for a voyaging sphere that occurred between this region and the main Hawaiian islands for over 400-500 years (ca. AD 1300-1800).  The practice of traditional wayfinding and voyaging—recently popularized in the film Moana and which is one of the most unique living traditions of the world—requires protection of the entire marine environment and open waters, not just the islands and reefs, because it relies on biological signs and natural phenomenon, such as winds, waves, currents, and the presence of marine life and birds at key moments and locations.

At the same time as Papahānaumokuākea was successfully expanded in 2016 by President Obama, the State of Hawai’i also supporting the establishment of small, coastal community-managed makai areas, driven by and for the community.  Yes, both can happen at the same time and using the same human capital, as many of the same people fought for both the small makai areas and the big Papahānaumokuākea effort.

POINT 3: “There are more important, smaller places to protect.”
Importance is relative and subjective.  It is place-driven and context-heavy.  What is important to someone in Brazil, might be less so to someone in Hawai’i.  So instead of casting stones at our neighbors, perhaps we should recognize that there are seriously limited resources, conservation bandwidth, and political will, and try to triage our priorities.  I recognize that the reality is that not all NGOs/organizations like to play-well together.  Furthermore, some places and approaches are simply not tenable due to practical considerations and political and social realities.  Again, this is a reality of modern conservation.  But as I mention above, effective MPAs do not occupy one half of a binary state.  It’s not either small or large.  Remote or near-shore.  Fully managed/enforced or paper parks/un-enforced.  Every single MPA in existence occupies a position somewhere along a continuum of effectiveness.  Even an un-managed, unfunded, and unenforced MPA is a work in progress along that continuum.

POINT 4: “They’re not science-based.”
Science should help inform MPA zoning and designation.  No questions or arguments here.  But the science needed may at times be incomplete or lacking.  Many decisions around the world, particularly in developing nations, on “sustainable catch limits” are not acted upon because data is deficient.  Should we be expected to wait for the science to be decided and settled (whatever that might mean) before action/conservation measures can be activated?  And science is but one arrow in our quiver that we should use to scope, establish, and manage MPAs.  The social sciences and economics are also driving MPA priorities and planning.

Finally…
I find an editorial like Rocha’s to be, quite frankly, dangerous.  Staking-out a claim on one side of a false dichotomy or constructing straw man arguments is the purview of graduate school.  I get it… Rocha would like to see more love shown to near shore/coral reef areas (including where he has worked in Brazil).  But what is the benefit to conservation as a whole to publish these half-baked propositions that large, remote MPAs are a waste of time in the pages of The New York Times and under the banner of an august and internationally recognized organization like the California Academy of Sciences?  We are not currently living in normal times, and this sort of rhetoric plays right into the hands of those keen to see less ocean protection, not more.

For the first time in US history, an administration is rolling back protections on national monuments, both land and sea.  Australia just this week has announced the possibility of cutting in half the protections for the Coral Seas MPA.  Conservation in one place in the ocean is not the enemy of conservation in another place.  And MPAs are not a binary switch of either big or small…  Local or remote…  Fully protected or not.  If we are going to get to the IUCN recommended target of 30% of our oceans under strong protection by 2030, we need to ramp up protections everywhere along the MPA continuum.  Yes/Also should become our mantra!  We must embrace a process of continuous improvement in our MPA work, not display a reflex of undercutting other conservation efforts.  And we need to keep our focus and attention on the real threats to a healthy ocean: over-fishing, illegal fishing, pollution, climate change, and lack of political will for action.

The post Embracing Yes/Also: Marine Protected Areas Are Not An Either/Or Proposition first appeared on Deep Sea News.

Would you want your taxi driver using a paper road map from 1892? Or would you rather he plug in the route on his Google Map iPhone app?

You just got off a 14-hour flight from Australia, you’re exhausted and sore, and counting down the seconds until you can crawl into the soft comfort of your memory foam mattress. You want to get home as fast as possible, and any further delay is unacceptable.

In this scenario, if your taxi driver pulled out a faded historical road map, you would literally shout at him “Are you fucking kidding me? Is this a joke?”. Old maps list wagon trails, not highways, since the modern interstate system wasn’t built until the 1950s. In another scenario, maybe your taxi driver agrees to use Google Maps, but he turns off the traffic settings and also takes away your own smartphone so you can’t see where you’re going. He might be driving down back roads on purpose, choosing to ramp up the mileage and ramp up his final fare to rake in the cash.

Any of these above scenarios would really suck. They’re not cool. You should DEFINITELY not stand for them. You also shouldn’t stand for the gag order (#EPAgag) and grants freeze (#EPAfreeze) that’s happening this week at the EPA – because the results will be sickeningly similar to the above taxi driver scenario.

NPR reports this morning that peer-reviewed research coming out of the EPA may soon face a case-by-case review before it gets cleared for release into the public domain. This is exactly what corporations do when they fund research – do you think tobacco companies would approve studies confirming that cigarettes cause cancer? Nope, they would bury the science and ensures it never sees the light of day – and that’s exactly what the Trump administration wants to happen at the EPA. Climate change facts? Bury them. Gag the scientists. The difference is that corporations don’t fund the science at the EPA – YOU FUND IT, as a taxpayer and US citizen, and you should have a say in how your tax money is spent:

Scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency who want to publish or present their scientific findings likely will need to have their work reviewed on a “case by case basis” before it can be disseminated, according to a spokesman for the agency’s transition team.

Any review would directly contradict the agency’s current scientific integrity policy, which was published in 2012. It prohibits “all EPA employees, including scientists, managers and other Agency leadership from suppressing, altering, or otherwise impeding the timely release of scientific findings or conclusions.”

The EPA funds a stunning amount of stuff that effects your everyday life – the EPA monitors beach health (so you can swim in a seweage-free ocean!), water quality in lakes and rivers (so you can fish there!), air quality (don’t wanna taste smog on your run, right?), and even programs on Native American reservations to help with initiatives like recycling and sustainability.

If you want to know what the EPA funds in your local area, 1) Click here and enter your ZIP code to find your congressional district, and then 2) Go to the EPA search tool and search for grants awarded to your congressional district (you only have to fill out two boxes – your district number and state). The list of EPA search results will show you exactly what type of projects and how much $$ has been allocated to your town in the past few years.

Finally, CALL YOUR CONGRESSPERSON AND SENATORS to let them know that the #EPAfreeze and #EPAgag is NOT OK! All us scientists at Deep-Sea News are steaming mad, and you should be too. Click here to find contact info for your state senator. And click here and type in your ZIP code for your local congressperson in the House of Representatives. Phone calls are the best way to get in touch – inundate their district and DC offices with phone calls. Phone calls are scary for me as a millennial, but then again so is that dodgy taxi driver who wants to take me home using unpaved wagon trails and historical maps. Make a stand, make your voice heard.

———

UPDATE: 1/25/17, 1:42PM PST

To dig into this issue further, I did my own EPA award search. My congressional district (California 41st) has been awarded $26,369,556 in EPA grants over the last ~15 years. Here’s a screenshot of the awards:

To dig in even further, I started reading about the grants and tweeting short summaries of what the EPA had actually funded in my local area:

In my district alone, EPA has funded projects in basic research, terrorist attack prevention, drinking water and air quality #EPAfreeze

— Holly Bik (@hollybik) January 25, 2017

$218k EPA grant went to Fort Mojave Indian Tribe to train staff & implement new environmental protocols https://t.co/VSuUSQWAYQ #EPAfreeze

— Holly Bik (@hollybik) January 25, 2017

Other $15k EPA grant funded research on BBQ smoke (small particles that go airborne when grease sizzzles) https://t.co/8uVykdeyoN #EPAfreeze

— Holly Bik (@hollybik) January 25, 2017

One $15k EPA grant funded research to build a device that lowers pollution/exhaust from your lawnmower https://t.co/iVchR80lxn #EPAfreeze

— Holly Bik (@hollybik) January 25, 2017

A $1.2 million EPA grant went to Big Bear Lake to replace aging water pipes & ensure safe drinking water https://t.co/iVqo3lt6ia #EPAfreeze

— Holly Bik (@hollybik) January 25, 2017

$1.2 million EPA grant even went to “Air Quality Monitoring for Homeland Security” (w/ no other details) https://t.co/cCpdXgG1vi #EPAfreeze

— Holly Bik (@hollybik) January 25, 2017

More serious – $450k EPA grant went to the Luiseno Indian Tribe to fund water pollution control programs https://t.co/Ff9lhpj5df #EPAfreeze

— Holly Bik (@hollybik) January 25, 2017

A $408k EPA grant went to Chemehuevi Indian Tribe for community recycling program & to buy a wood chipper https://t.co/Lfq1K4941N #EPAfreeze

— Holly Bik (@hollybik) January 25, 2017

A $1.5 million EPA grant went to San Diego County to fund research and analysis on SoCal air quality https://t.co/xIYo9XSpk4 #EPAfreeze

— Holly Bik (@hollybik) January 25, 2017

$1.7mill EPA grant to “advance environ literacy & stewardship” for preschool, senior citizens, businesses https://t.co/GIH8SaZ1Su #EPAfreeze

— Holly Bik (@hollybik) January 25, 2017

A $115k EPA grant aimed to reduce vulnerabilities of large drinking water utilities to terrorist attacks https://t.co/Z48XapM2Si #EPAfreeze

— Holly Bik (@hollybik) January 25, 2017

I encourage you to do your own search – what has the EPA funded in YOUR local community?

The post Fight against the #EPAfreeze – Because you don’t want sewage on your beaches, right? first appeared on Deep Sea News.

As the sun rose this morning here in Trinidad and Tobago where I’m conducting field work, I was certain about two facts.  First: Trinidadians and Tobagonians awoke to their morning ritual of doubles and a new reality with regard to their nation’s obligations on the international trade of five species of endangered shark species (Great, Scalloped, and Smooth Hammerhead sharks, Porbeagle sharks, and Oceanic White-tip sharks) as well as all manta ray species.  And secondly: I knew I could still drive this very morning (or any morning) to the public market just outside the Trinidad capital of Port of Spain and find dozens to hundreds of dead hammerhead sharks for sale.

Let’s take a look at the ocean optimism first.  As the direct result of the hard work by individuals and organizations for over a decade, the 16th Conference of the Parties (COP) for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (or familiarly known as CITES) resolved in 2013 that five shark species and all manta rays were to be included in Appendix II.  As of this Sunday morning, September 14, 2014, those new rules came into effect and nations that are party to CITES must now enforce these regulations (more on what’s at stake if nations fail to take these obligations seriously in just a moment).

In the case of shark and ray conservation, the need for a body like CITES is born from the recognition of the self-perpetuating cycle of lack of information and lack of adequate management action for commercially valuable species at the local and regional levels.  This cycle has been acknowledged by many of us within the shark conservation community as the Wheel of Shame.

Although shark fishing occurs around the world, most jurisdictions lack good or reliable data on shark populations (or data is deficient for making informed decisions on sustainability).  Because of this data-poor situation, scientists cannot offer recommendations on stock assessments, catch limits, or other critical fisheries advice.  Governments tend not to prioritize or create fisheries management guidelines in the absence of scientific recommendations.  All the while, shark fishing continues unabated, species depletion continues, and the ecosystem function of having healthy shark populations in our oceans is undermined.  And around we go.

CITES works to help partially control the Wheel of Shame by subjecting international trade in specimens of selected species to certain controls. All import, export, re-export and introduction from the sea of species covered by the Convention has to be authorized through a licensing system. Each Party to the Convention must designate one or more Management Authorities in charge of administering that licensing system and one or more Scientific Authorities to advise them on the effects of trade on the status of the species.

The species covered by CITES are listed in three Appendices, according to the degree of protection they need.  Appendix I, the category with most stringent protection, includes species threatened with extinction.  Appendix II includes species not necessarily threatened with extinction, but in which trade must be controlled in order to avoid utilization incompatible with their survival.  Appendix III contains species that are protected in at least one country, which has asked other CITES Parties for assistance in controlling the trade.

At each COP, the 175-nations (or Parties) submit proposals to list species on the Appendices, remove species from the Appendices, or transfer species from one Appendix to another. Species proposals are discussed and either passed or defeated by consensus or voted upon. Each Party gets one vote. It takes two-thirds of the Parties present and voting to pass a species proposal.

Decisions to propose CITES listing is based on the best available scientific evidence on species biomass, distribution, genomics, ecological connectivity, and known threats and vulnerability to commercial trade. Consideration for CITES listing is, by mandate, to include species not necessarily threatened with extinction, but in which trade must be controlled in order to avoid utilization incompatible with their survival:

CITES RESOLVES that, when considering proposals to amend Appendix I or II, the Parties shall, by virtue of the precautionary approach and in case of uncertainty either as regards the status of a species or the impact of trade on the conservation of a species, act in the best interest of the conservation of the species concerned and adopt measures that are proportionate to the anticipated risks to the species.

Long-time readers may recall that I’ve not always felt so optimistic following a CITES meeting.  COP 15 in Doha saw Blue-fin tuna, polar bears, eight species of shark, and an entire family of red and pink corals get passed over.  Conservation work at this international level is extremely high stakes, tricky, and often (if not regularly) a quagmire of corruption, coercion, and collusion.  I’ve heard too many stories of flamboyant bribery, vote-buying, secret ballots, and eleventh-hour reversals.

Yet despite these challenges, CITES remains one of the most powerful tools in the international conservation arsenal.  Flouting CITES obligations is not a trivial matter for a Party.  And while it’s not as complete a list of shark species that I’d like to see receiving protection, the new CITES restrictions that came into effect today represents the most comprehensive global effort seen in CITES’ 40-year history to give sharks and manta rays a better chance of surviving in the wild.

WHAT DO NEW CITES RULES MEAN IN PRACTICAL TERMS?
The new CITES Appendix II listing for the five sharks and all manta rays has created a new reality to all CITES Parties.  Effective today, Parties wishing to continue international trade in any of these listed species must demonstrate a non-detriment finding in order to be provided permits for international trade.  While the official verbiage gets a bit technical, a non-detriment finding represents a comprehensive stock assessment of the target species that considers an analysis of population status, distribution, populations trajectories, current harvest rates, ecosystem roles and implications, and existing trade data.  In total, a non-detriment finding demonstrates that (in the case of sharks and rays) fishing for and international trade in these species will not cause the collapse or critical depletion of the species nor loss of any ecosystem functions those species provide.  Short of providing a non-detriment finding, Parties may not continue international trade.

Since participation in CITES is voluntary and each Party assumes financial and technical responsibility for their own implementation and compliance, you might think that CITES has little teeth when it comes to infractions or failure to uphold obligations.  In truth, the CITES Secretariat does not monitor international trade but  needs to be informed of an infraction by a Party before action is considered.  And if international trade in the now CITES Appendix II-listed sharks and rays is small, you might think that a Party has little to no risk in letting shark fins or manta gill-rakers slip through their borders.  But consider for a moment the full suite of CITES species a Party may traffic in their international trade, not just sharks and rays.

Infractions from lack of enforcement of any single CITES species regulation can impact all of a Parties trade in CITES species.  The language of the Convention stipulates that infractions can result in, “the recommendations to all Parties to suspend CITES related trade with the offending party.”  This means that a Party not only risks its trade in shark fin through lack of compliance in CITES Appendix II restrictions, but also its lucrative trade in exotic hardwoods like mahogany, rosewood, or ebony.  Then there’s trade in fish, invertebrate, and coral species for the multi-million dollar home aquarium industry.  Or trade in birds, reptiles, or mammals for the pet market.  And Parties also benefit financially by supplying biological specimens for pharmaceutical research.  With CITES regulatory infractions, if you’re in for a penny you’re in for a pound.

But while the new CITES Appendix II listings for sharks and rays are reason for celebration within the conservation community, our work is far from over.  Scroll back up to the top of this post and take another look at the photo.  That dead Scalloped hammerhead shark was photographed in a fish market here in Trinidad yesterday.  It was a juvenile, and it was one of many.  Today’s new CITES rules change NOTHING with regard to domestic fishing, consumption, and trade.  In a place like Trinidad, that local consumption and trade volume is not trivial.  Those endangered hammerheads will be there today, tomorrow, and as long as local and regional management recommendations are lacking.

That’s where working with local fishing communities, regional fisheries management organizations, local governments, and local communities comes into play.  Until local people recognize the importance of healthy sharks to healthy oceans, the unique life histories of sharks that make them particularly vulnerable to overfishing, and that in many cases a shark is worth far more alive than dead to local economies, this scene will continue to play out.  To date, ten nations have stepped forward to demonstrate shark conservation leadership at the local level through the creation of shark sanctuaries.  Coupled with regional fisheries reform measures, and now strengthened by the enhanced protection derived by the new CITES sharks and rays Appendix II rules, we are seeing real reason for cautious ocean optimism.

The post New Obligations and Continuing Challenges in Shark Conservation first appeared on Deep Sea News.

Deep-Sea News is our house. We have invited you here eagerly to participate in the conversation and we encourage you to do so. However, we like to keep our house neat and expect visitors to display a certain level of decorum. We have laid out a simple set of rules that we expect our commenters to adhere to. Otherwise, you will lose your DSN house privileges.  We were of course inspired by a series of interesting comments on our Fukushima posts and a very timely article at ArsTechnica on moderating climate change discussions.  The ArsTechnica commenting policy has greatly influenced our rules below.

1. No posting comments that are off topic. For example, if we post about radiation on the U.S. west coast, comments regarding lack of a Japanese governmental oversight of Fukushima is off topic.
2. No psuedoscience or unsubstantiated claims. Our comments section is not a forum for unscientific views to be expressed. Claims must be backed up with references in the form of credible new sources and scientific literature.
3. No trolling. If your comment is purposely inflammatory with the goal of upsetting others, it will be deleted.  Attacking others of the DSN community will not be tolerated.  Even if your comment has substance, if personal attacks are included it will be deleted.
4. Ad hominem and personal attacks are not permitted. Be tough on ideas not on people.  Ad hominem attacks are “a claim or argument [that] is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument”.  Verbal abuse will result in banishment. “You are wrong” is not a personal attack; “You are wrong because you are an idiot” is.
5. No pornographic, sexually offensive, sexually explicit, or objectifying material. Simple rule. Our judgment applies here.
6. Respect the privacy of others. Do not post other’s private phone numbers, addresses, pictures, etc., without their express permission.
7. No spamming. No commercial-oriented posts, and no flooding with useless content or content designed to engage readers into trolling other sites. This includes extraneous linking to your personal blog, project, or commercial product.
8. No puppet galleries. Each commenter should only have one account. We will not allow “puppet galleries” where a single person makes comments posing as different people.
9. No hijacking the commentary. We want to give everyone the chance to participate, so if your conversation could be published as a historical novel, we will have to cut you off so everyone’s voices can be heard.
10. This is a safe place to correct us. We do our research and try to bring the most up to date, scientifically accurate information possible, but even we make mistakes.  It is safe (with scientifically legitimate proof, see rule #2) to correct us if you believe we have something wrong (like numbers or equations). Likewise, if you see spelling and grammatical errors please feel free to point them out.  We simply ask you to do this in a friendly and respectable manner. 

The post DSN Commenting Policy first appeared on Deep Sea News.

“I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.”

That’s my honest reaction after reading news of Western Australia’s plan to reduce fatal shark attacks through the culling of big sharks near popular beaches. Troy Buswell, Fisheries Minister for Western Australia, remarked,

The drum lines should be effective in catching sharks and it’s my view if we’re catching sharks that are, or are about to be in close proximity to beaches, then by extension we’re making those beaches safer.

Let’s be crystal clear on terminology here. “Big sharks” is code for great white sharks–an IUCN Red Listed (vulnerable species)–that are over three meters (9.8 feet) in length and are the focus of a lot of attention following a string of recent fatalities by sharks in Western Australia. “Culling” is shorthand for the creation of designated zones just offshore popular beach recreation areas where these “big sharks” will be targeted and killed by fishers using baited drum lines. “Popular beaches” are coastal, sandy areas where humans increasingly congregate and enter an ocean ecosystem (that is inhabited by pinchy crabs, stingy jellyfish, and occasionally bitey sharks) for the purposes of recreation. Try as I might however, I can’t decipher Minister Buswell’s use of the word “effective” in describing  a culling strategy.  Perhaps that’s because despite his assertion, culling has zero evidence of actually reducing shark attacks.

My pal Chris Neff, a researcher at the University of Sydney who works at the interface of conservation biology and public policy, has dedicated a career to examining how governments react following attacks by sharks.  After analyzing the net effect of culls and hunts instituted after shark-related fatalities, Chris found that, “these responses are political, symbolically reducing public perceptions of risk rather than the actual risk.”  Chris believes that at the core of this reaction is the pressure on any government to respond after tragic and unexplainable events.  And if I’m an elected official keen to keep my constituents (and taxpayers) convinced that I’m “doing something,” it’s not too hard to follow a line of political reasoning that concludes after a rash of shark attacks that it’s high time to call in Captain Quint.

So, what might it look like if we based our public policy and reactions to shark related fatalities on evidence rather than spectacle?  If we dispense with the “eye for an eye” approach following shark attacks, what strategies are demonstrably more effective at reducing future shark-human interactions? To me, the solace you find in answering that question is predicated on two considerations: 1) the role that you feel government should play in safeguarding its citizens; and, 2) the limits you are prepared to accept for your own responsibility.  For instance, greater public education and awareness tactics (that could include uses of signs and flags to alert the public about marine hazards) are a start and have shown promise in a variety of applications around the world, from alerts to dangerous surf to the presence of stingers or warnings of a recent shark sighting. But at the end of the day, individuals ultimately need to assume  responsibility for their personal choices–and I say this without intent to minimize the tragedy of the loss of lives nor the grieving of families and friends affected by shark attacks in Western Australia.

I don’t know the particular circumstances involved in each incident, so cannot comment on what individuals did or did not do that may have increased their risk profile. But what each of them chose to do was enter a wilderness which, like it or not, has wildlife.

Look, you are statistically more likely to die by being hit by a bus whilst reading this post on your smart phone and absentmindedly stepping off the curb than you are to get chomped by a “big shark.”  But this doesn’t mean that the ocean should be your personal hazard-free zone.  The ocean is wilderness, no less than what you would expect in Alaska’s Denali National Park or Africa’s Serengeti.  When we enter these wilderness areas, we need to accept that there are risks from all the pinchy, stingy, and bitey life.

Accepting personal responsibility for the decisions we make doesn’t absolve our governments from the social compact of looking-out for us.  I still want crossing lights on streets, speed limits on roads, and all the other government-mandated standards and practices that keep my fellow humans from killing me throughout the day.  If I choose to disregard safety precautions to my detriment, then I either get through the experience by the skin of my teeth (and hopefully learn a lesson for next time), or I’m dead.  Either way, why should the government take the blame or feel the onus to act?  In this particular scenario, the Western Australian government concluded that sharks put humans in wilderness at risk.  Not the other way around: that people chose to accept a risk by entering wilderness (once again assuming that adequate warnings or alerts were available to them to make informed decisions).

Western Australia’s decision to position symbolism and perceived action ahead of leadership and evidence will be borne on the backs of an already vulnerable species.   Sadly, Australia could have truly served the world a powerful symbolic message if they instead concluded that culling was unthinkable at a time when every shark matters.

The post Where The Wild Things Are first appeared on Deep Sea News.

Why?

Obama stated, “The bottom line is this: Given our energy needs, in order to sustain economic growth and produce jobs and keep our businesses competitive, we are going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel even as we ramp up production of new sources of renewable, homegrown energy.”  Obama addressed those who will “strongly disagree” with this decision by saying the announcement is part of a broader strategy to move from an economy run on fossil fuel and foreign oil to one that relies on domestic fuels and clean energy. “The only way this transition will succeed is if it strengthens our economy in the short term and long run,” he said. “To fail to recognize this reality would be a mistake.”

So is the the appropriate move forward?  Some believe this was Obama’s move to gain further support for a later comprehensive climate and energy bill, i.e. a political opposed to an energy move.  And indeed the strange union of liberal Democrat Barbara Block of California, whose state was spared, and Exxon both heralding Obama’s policy is so strange my laptop is at risk of bursting into flames as I type this.

But what would appear to be a concession to Republicans has only angered some of them.

Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, chairman of the House Republican Conference, called the announcement a “smokescreen.” “As usual, the devil is in the details,” Pence said. “Only in Washington, D.C., can you ban more areas to oil and gas exploration than you open up, delay the date of your new leases, and claim you’re going to increase production.” House Natural Resources Committee ranking member Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) said the administration “is attempting to pull the wool over our eyes.” “President Obama’s rhetoric conveys support for increasing American oil and natural gas production, while the reality is he’s proposing a plan that will close more areas to drilling than it opens, and the few areas still available won’t be open for years,” Hastings said.

As can be imagined conservation groups are also angered and not just the ones you might expect, e.g. Greenpeace. Oceana, an organization who in my opinion typically proceeds strategically, thoughtfully, and cautiously, is leading a letter campaign stating

Expanding offshore drilling increases threats to marine habitats and creatures and does nothing to curb harmful carbon emissions; in fact, it increases pollutants in our atmosphere and oceans.  Including offshore drilling in climate change legislation is not only a political compromise – it is compromising the future health of our oceans. Help us reach our goal of 25,000 ocean activists to speak up against offshore drilling.

And, well frankly I can’t agree more.

First, I think the move is politically naive.  The behavior of Republicans during healthcare reform is all you need to consider.  This is the group that voted no to everything in healthcare reform, even as parts were borrowed from R-Mitt Romney’s state insurance plan for Massachusetts.  This is the group that stated they would continue to vote no on everything the Democrats proposed.  Republicans would vote no on a bill stating they were Republicans if the Democrats proposed it.  Republicans have no interest in bipartisan progression.  Is opening vast swaths of the oceans worth a few Republican votes that Obama doesn’t even need?  What if it leads to a loss of Democratic votes.

Second, I think the move is environmentally naive.  It does nothing more than continue our reliance on fossil fuels, perpetuating a cycle of behavior that will ultimately warm, acidify, and pollute our oceans.  At local scales, drilling impacts will greatly threaten the life of the seafloor. And that oil won’t only being going into our big SUV’s to hold our fat American assess, it will end up on our protected marine habitats.  Or maybe Chineses asses and Australian reefs

A Chinese-registered ship carrying coal that ran aground off the coast of northeast Australia was leaking oil Sunday near the Great Barrier Reef — the world’s largest coral reef system. The ship, called Shen Neng 1, was carrying about 65,000 tons of coal to China from the port of Gladstone when it ran aground at about 5:10 p.m. Saturday, according to a Queensland state government statement. The vessel was carrying about 950 tons of oil on board and was leaking into the surrounding waters early Sunday, according to the statement. Maritime Safety Queensland has responded to the scene to assess the spill and plan a clean-up. A light aircraft was expected to spray a chemical solution on the oil.

Third, I am not even sure it makes sense economically.

One reason they haven’t is that offshore drilling requires an investment of hundreds of millions of dollars just to find a productive site. Once oil is discovered, offshore rigs used to bring it to the surface cost $1 billion or more. And years would pass before those new rigs could produce their first barrel of oil. Meanwhile, under Obama’s proposal, East Coast states and parts of Alaska would expose valuable shoreline and beach property to the possibility of a disastrous oil spill. Tourism benefits coastal states a lot more than skimpy oil royalties would. Why do you think California opted out of this deal right from the start? America also would be wasting time and money that should be spent on developing alternative energy sources, such as wind, solar, cleaner alternative fuels and, yes, nuclear power. While we fiddle, China solidifies its stature as the green energy innovator of the world.

All this leaves me to believe the Republican party and Exxon have kidnapped Obama and put Sarah Palin in an Obama suit.  And as James Werrell writes, “But while “drill, baby, drill” makes a cute catch-phrase, it’s still a dumb idea, no matter who proposes it.”

The post Oil: From the offshore to onshore, From the deep sea to coral reefs first appeared on Deep Sea News.

The authors rightly suggest that warfare is much more than just an armed,  violent conflict, but includes preparations and postwar activities as well. The three stages include a range of activities including: propaganda, civil defense training, recruiting, training, mobilization, R&D, testing, stockpiling, energy and material consumption, peacekeeping, among many others. Each of the stages comes with both unique and overlapping ecological impacts. Essential is that war requires “immense and concentrated” material and energy flows, habitat destruction and degradation, and “uncontrolled extraction of ‘lootable resources’.”  Given the complexity of war and the ecological impacts of such, warfare ecology is by necessity interdisciplinary (economics, politics, sociology, ecology, evolution, etc.) and span cross both spatial (local to global) and complexity scales (individual to ecosystem).

Case studies of warfare ecology span back to the 30-40’s with British botanists documenting invasive plants in rubble of bombed London.  Testing at the Trinity site in New Mexico in 1947, lead to the field of radiation ecology.  The famous ecologist, Eugene Odum’s long-term investigations originated at the Savannah River Plant built for nuclear weapon production.  Machlis and Hanson spend a significant portion of the paper thoroughly covering specific cases (I urge you to read through the paper).  Interestingly, the authors mention both negative (e.g. tactical oil spills during the first Gulf War impacting wetlands, tidal flats, and seabirds) and positive effects.  Training areas, military bases, demilitarized zones, and buffered zones can protect key habitats and harbor biodiversity.

In the ocean realm, warfare also leaves a mark.  Many of these we have covered here at DSN.  Below are few I came up over the last few months thinking about this excellent article.  I will get the list going. Feel free to post specific cases of those here or other examples in the comments (which I will update the list with). If you have blogged on one of these subject make sure to include a link (I am looking at you fellow ocean bloggers)

1. Dumping of munitions in the deep-sea including small arm and artillery shells, bombs, biological and chemical weapons.
2. Marine invasive species carried in ballast water of military ships
3. Degradation and destruction of marine habitats due to artillery weapons training
4. Degradation and destruction of marine habitats due to nuclear weapons testing.
5. Wartime and postwar sinking of military vessels.  This includes proposed artificial reefs.
6. Altering coastal ecosystems by building military bases and ports.
7. A potential positive is that nuclear weapons testing has provided a tracer in variety of organisms building calcium carbonate skeletons allowing for determination of age and growth.  These also provide signals when utilizing corals to reconstruct climate records.
8. Sonar testing and training effects on marine mammals.

Warfare Ecology in the future? The future will be bright and cheery future where everyone has enough to eat, there is no war, and we are not trashing the ocean. We will need no warfare ecology. Bwahahahaha. Just kidding. Reverse that.  The future holds war and consequences of that course.  Machlis and Hanson provide a framework for the future of warfare ecology.  Their plan includes the development, testing, and refinement a theoretical framework relying heavily on case studies.  More importantly, this theory development includes understanding cascading effects (e.g. refuge movements change land use patterns and concentrate deforestation).  Warfare ecology needs to be strongly tied to policy both military and conservation.  My favorite recommendation is the “swords to plowshares conservation”  in which policy is encouraged where former military sites are repurposed for conservation purposes.  I recommend we can take this one step further encouraging policies and efforts that transition military states, local militias, freedom fighters, feuding clans, etc. into environmental stewards.

1. Development and testing of theory frameworks (including to case studies)organize interdisciplinary

An excellent write up of this paper occured at Conservation Blog
Machlis, G., & Hanson, T. (2008). Warfare Ecology BioScience, 58 (8) DOI: 10.1641/B580809

The post Warfare Ecology first appeared on Deep Sea News.