Constantine Alexander's blog

Joining Forces to Save the Seas: Unprecedented Partnership Has Potential to Transform Ocean Governance and Leverage Billions of Dollars for Ocean Health

Statement from Conservation International on the Global Partnership for Oceans announced by World Bank President Robert Zoellick 

 Following a presentation from World Bank President Robert Zoellick at The Economist World Ocean Summit in Singapore today, Conservation International announced its enthusiastic support of the Global Partnership for Oceans. The partnership, according to Zoellick, will be coalition of governments, international organizations, civil society groups and private interests, joining together to confront widely documented problems of over-fishing, pollution, habitat loss and climate change.

"The bottom line is our lives depend on oceans, but we need to better understand them. We need to adequately value oceans and the benefits they provide, and act on this knowledge. If we don't do this, we and future generations of people will be hurt," said Conservation International Chairman and CEO Peter Seligmann. "I commend Robert Zoellick and the World Bank on taking a critical step to catalyze the funding required by governments, businesses and civil society to secure ocean health for us and our children."

Conservation International has already demonstrated a successful ocean conservation model in the field with its Seascape approach, which aims to establish responsible governance and recovering ocean health at a large scale (hundreds of thousands or millions of square kilometers) through collaboration among governments of bordering nations, stakeholder groups and partner organizations.

"This partnership is timely because oceans are under threat and have not been properly managed. Demand for seafood and other benefits from the oceans are growing while marine ecosystems are declining in health," said Sebastian Troëng, Vice President of Marine Conservation at Conservation International. "Conservation International has talented staff and strong partnerships around the globe, but no organization has the ability to singlehandedly resolve the challenges facing the world’s oceans. Working with the World Bank in this Partnership, we bring together governments, businesses, financial institutions and local communities to support healthy and productive oceans in a way we could not have done alone."

Over the past decade, Conservation International has catalyzed the Eastern Tropical Pacific Seascape (a collaboration between Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia and Ecuador); the Papuan Bird's Head Seascape (Indonesia); the Sulu-Sulawesi Seascape (Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia); and the Abrolhos Seascape (Brazil).

"When the governance situation changes and countries establish marine protected areas, an average there is a 21 percent increase in the diversity, and a 28 percent increase in the size of the organisms inside the reserves relative to unprotected areas nearby," added Troeng. "Those same reserves have seen the tons of fish per square kilometer increase 446 percent on average. And research has shown that communities using marine protected areas have greater incomes, more diversified livelihoods and greater environmental awareness than nearby communities that do not have marine protected areas."

Conservation International is joined in this partnership by a number of developed and developing countries and country groupings, including island nations; non-government organizations and advocacy bodies like Environmental Defense Fund, the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), National Geographic Society, The Nature Conservancy, Oceana, Rare and World Wildlife Fund (WWF); science bodies like the US’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); industry groups like National Fisheries Institute, and the World Ocean Council whose members rely on sustainable seafood supplies or are dependent on ocean resources; international organizations including the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), The Global Environment Facility, Global Ocean Forum, GRID Arendal (Norway), the United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Environment Programme, UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and the World Bank Group.

 

Study IDs new marine protected areas in Madagascar

		The new study allows Madagascar to plan for different marine protected areas -- from strict no-take zones to areas where some fishing will be allowed. Credit: Julie Larsen Maher/WCS

A new study by the University of California, Berkeley, Wildlife Conservation Society, and others uses a new scientific methodology for establishing marine protected areas in Madagascar that offers a "diversified portfolio" of management options – from strict no-take zones to areas that would allow fishing.

The methodology looks at existing information on the country's climate, along with dependence on fisheries and marine resources, and applies three different planning approaches to establish priorities for management along the entirety of Madagascar's west coast.

The diversified portfolio approach to marine conservation greatly increases the likelihood of finding and implementing successful management that fits a country's needs while simplifying the process of picking locations and the most appropriate forms of marine management, the authors say.

Considering the need to develop a management regime for the reefs and mangroves of Madagascar that factors in the impacts of climate change, the methodology recommends a range of conservation areas with strict no-take protection as only one type of management recommendation.

The paper appears in the February 16th issue of the open access journal PLoS One. Authors include: Thomas Allnut, Merrill Baker, and Claire Kremen of the University of California, Berkeley; Tim McClanahan, Caleb McClennen, Andry Rakotomanjaka, and Tantely Tianarisoa of the Wildlife Conservation Society; Erwann Lagabrielle and Serge Andrefouet of the Institut de Recherche pour le Développement; and Reg Watson of the University of British Columbia.

The authors say the process provides a more efficient and comprehensive way to plan on a large scale and found that several marine areas in Madagascar come out as conservation priorities across all methodologies. Specifically, these included reefs in the vicinity of the Barren Islands, the large shallow banks to the northwest and southwest, and the reefs of Juan de Nova.

The study highlights the differences in the country's regional patterns. These include heavy human pressure in the south and areas of high climate variability intermixed with lower vulnerability but high biodiversity in the northwest. Areas of particularly high biodiversity value include the islands, reefs, and bays of the northwest; the fringing reefs of the southwest; and the barrier reefs and islands of the central west coast.

Madagascar is one of the poorest countries on Earth yet has proposed to create over 1 million hectares (3,861 square miles) of protected areas to provide for the long-term conservation of its marine resources.

"It behooves countries, in the face of impending fisheries and climate crises, to plan and implement intelligent management that will increase the resilience of their natural marine resources," said co-author Tim McClanahan of the Wildlife Conservation Society, "This paper will provide a roadmap for Madagascar to plan and manage these resources and the methods should prove affordable and useful for the poorest countries where adaptation to climate change will make marine spatial planning a critical part of a successful response."

Co-author Caleb McClennen, WCS Director for Marine Programs, said: "Creation of protected areas is a key conservation strategy to safeguarding marine resources, but one size doesn't fit all. This study demonstrates the need for a comprehensive portfolio of management solutions from community based coastal fisheries to fully protected marine parks."

This study has been supported partly by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. The MacArthur Foundation supports creative people and effective institutions committed to building a more just, verdant, and peaceful world. In addition to selecting the MacArthur Fellows, the Foundation works to defend human rights, advance global conservation and security, make cities better places, and understand how technology is affecting children and society. 

The Wildlife Conservation Society saves wildlife and wild places worldwide. We do so through science, global conservation, education and the management of the world's largest system of urban wildlife parks, led by the Flagship Bronx Zoo. Together these activities change attitudes toward nature and help people imagine wildlife and humans living in harmony. WCS is committed to this mission because it is essential to the integrity of life on Earth.

Contact: Stephen Sautner
ssautner@wcs.org
718-220-3682
Wildlife Conservation Society

Neurotoxins in shark fins: A human health concern

University of Miami study shows alarming accumulation of BMAA neurotoxins in shark fins, which may pose a serious threat to shark fin consumers

		In a new study by University of Miami marine biologist Neil Hammerschlag and Deborah Mash, M.D., uncover an alarming accumulation of BMAA neurotoxins in shark fins, which may pose a serious threat to shark fin consumers. Credit: Eric Cheng

Sharks are among the most threatened of marine species worldwide due to unsustainable overfishing. Sharks are primarily killed for their fins alone, to fuel the growing demand for shark fin soup, which is an Asia delicacy. A new study by University of Miami (UM) scientists in the journal Marine Drugs has discovered high concentrations of BMAA in shark fins, a neurotoxin linked to neurodegenerative diseases in humans including Alzheimer's and Lou Gehrig Disease (ALS). The study suggests that consumption of shark fin soup and cartilage pills may pose a significant health risk for degenerative brain diseases.

"Shark fins are primarily derived through finning, a practice where by shark fins are removed at sea and the rest of the mutilated animal is thrown back in the water to die," said co-author Dr. Neil Hammerschlag, research assistant professor of Marine Affairs & Policy and director of the RJ Dunlap Marine Conservation Program (RJD) at UM. "Estimates suggest that fins from as many as 70 million sharks end up in soup. As a result, many shark species are on the road to extinction. Because sharks play important roles in maintaining balance in the oceans, not only is shark fin soup injurious to the marine environment, but our study suggests that it is likely harmful to the people who are consuming them."

Seven species of shark were tested for this study: blacknose, blacktip, bonnethead, bull, great hammerhead, lemon, and nurse sharks. Samples were collected from live animals in waters throughout South Florida.

"The concentrations of BMAA in the samples are a cause for concern, not only in shark fin soup, but also in dietary supplements and other forms ingested by humans, " says study co-author Prof. Deborah Mash, Director of the University of Miami Brain Endowment Bank. The Bank supports basic and clinical research and holds one of the world's largest collection of postmortem human brains encompassing a wide range of neurological disorders. In 2009, Prof. Mash and her co-authors published a study in the journal Acta Neurological Scandinavica, demonstrating that patients dying with diagnoses of Alzheimer's Disease and ALS had unusually high levels of BMAA in their brains up to 256 ng/mg, whereas normal healthy aged people had no BMAA, or only trace quantities of the toxin present. "BMAA was first linked to neurodegenerative diseases in Guam, which resulted in the progressive loss of structure and function of neurons."

The shark study found a similar range and even higher BMAA in the fins tested. The new study found levels of between 144 and 1836 ng/mg of BMAA, which overlapped the levels we measured in the brains of Alzheimer's and ALS victims. Surprisingly, this level fits with the BMAA levels in fruit bats examined by Paul Cox, animals which concentrate BMAA from their diet of cycad seeds. He linked ingestion of fruit bats to the severe ALS/Parkinsonism dementia that afflicted many people in Guam.

"Not only does this work provide important information on one probable route of human exposure to BMAA, it may lead to a lowering of the demand for shark fin soup and consumption of shark products, which will aid ocean conservation efforts," added Hammerschlag.

The project was funded through a generous donation from the Herbert W. Hoover Foundation. Established in 1990, the foundation takes a leadership role in supporting unique opportunities that provide solutions to issues related to the community, education, and the environment. Herbert W. Hoover was an early leader in the conservation movement, fighting to protect Biscayne Bay and leading the effort to create Biscayne National Park.

The University of Miami is the largest private research institution in the southeastern United States. The University's mission is to provide quality education, attract and retain outstanding students, support the faculty and their research, and build an endowment for University initiatives.

The Leonard Miller School of Medicine's Department of Neurology, through interdisciplinary collaborations with other medical specialists, and scientists in other disciplines, provides both compassionate quality care for complex neurological disorders and seeks better treatment and prevention mechanisms through cutting-edge research.

Founded in 2009, the R.J. Dunlap Marine Conservation Program is a joint program of the Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Science and the Leonard and Jayne Abess Center for Ecosystem Science and Policy. The Rosenstiel School offers one of largest, most comprehensive marine and atmospheric programs in the nation. The Abess Center encourages innovative interdisciplinary initiatives that bridge the gap between hard science and environmental policy. 

Contact: Barbra Gonzalez
barbgo@rsmas.miami.edu
305-421-4704
University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Science

 

Scientists call for no-take coral sea park

Coral Sea Map

More than 300 eminent scientists from 21 other countries around the world today urged the Australian Federal Government to create the world's largest no-take marine reserve in the Coral Sea.

"Marine reserves are an important tool for managing and restoring ecosystems. They protect brood stocks for sustainable fisheries and rebuild distorted foodwebs. We know how well they work because of the differences that we observe again and again between different marine zones under existing management schemes. Already, the recent rezoning of the Great Barrier Reef has resulted in a doubling of coral trout and other commercially important species" says the Director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, Professor Terry Hughes.

"The Australian Government's draft plan for a marine reserve in the Coral Sea is a significant step forward - but misses a unique opportunity for Australia to demonstrate global leadership in marine stewardship, by declaring the Coral Sea within Australia's EEZ as the world's largest no-take area," according to the statement, signed by more than 300 scientists.

"The Coral Sea adjoins the Great Barrier Reef, and because of its remoteness is one of the most intact oceanic ecosystems in the world. Together the two reserves would constitute the world's largest protected ocean ecosystem – at a time of growing concerns over the widespread loss of megafauna, corals and other marine life closer to shore," says Professor Hugh Possingham, Director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions.

"We believe that an increased level of protection would be of immense benefit to Australia and to the world, at negligible cost. The Coral Sea is one of only a handful of places in the world where a very large oceanic no-take park could be created within a single national jurisdiction," the scientists said.

Their statement identifies six main reasons for extending the level of protection in the proposed marine reserve:

• Most of the shallow coral reefs, cays and sublittoral reefs of the western Queensland Plateau and the seamounts of the southern Coral Sea will not be fully protected in the Government's proposed reserve.
• The reefs of the Coral Sea need more protection: under the current plan only 2 new reefs out of 25 will receive a high level of protection. These reefs are important for recharging the corals of the GBR.
• Deep sea systems and seamounts need greater protection. The area contains Australia's largest deep trough system, which attracts large numbers of feeding and spawning fish, birds and whales.
• Ocean ecosystems need better protection from long-line fishing vessels, which threaten populations of yellowfin tuna, barracuda, sharks, turtles and seabirds.
• Catch-and-release fishing in the Coral Sea should be banned because of the high losses caused by predation and barotrauma, and its impact on shark populations
• It is much more cost-effective to manage a single, large no-take zone with simple boundaries than a variety of differently classified zones .

"A reserve of this scale and level of protection would provide unprecedented refugia for top ocean predators that are fast disappearing elsewhere in the world,", Professor Terry Hughes said.

"Such a reserve will help to improve the resilience of the region's coral reefs to climate change, and provide a globally significant scientific reference site," adds Professor Bob Pressey of CoECRS and James Cook University.

"We believe that our recommendations will have minimal social and economic costs because there is very little current use of the Coral Sea region - but the recommendations will boost Australia's international reputation as a leader in marine protection and as an eco-tourism destination," he adds.

"Fully protecting the Coral Sea will provide a lasting legacy for future generations to enjoy and will reinforce the excellent levels of protection already achieved in the GBR," Professor Hughes said.

A Consensus Statement from the Australian and International Science Community on the proposed Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve

The Australian Government's draft plan for a marine reserve in the Coral Sea is a significant step forward, but it contains a number of short-comings. The draft plan misses a unique opportunity for Australia to demonstrate global leadership in marine stewardship, by declaring the Coral Sea within Australia's EEZ as the world's largest no-take area, to protect its immense environmental and heritage values from the escalating threats of overfishing and climate change.

We believe that an increased level of protection would be of immense benefit to Australia and to the world, at negligible cost. The Coral Sea is one of only a handful of places in the world where a very large oceanic no-take park could be created within a single national jurisdiction. A single large no-take area encompassing Australia's Coral Sea jurisdiction would ensure that the scale of management appropriately matches the biological scale of important ecosystem processes such as dispersal and migration. A very large no-take park immediately adjacent to the GBRMP and its network of highly protected areas would be by far the world's largest protected ocean ecosystem. It would substantially enhance Australia's reputation as a world leader in the stewardship of marine biodiversity, and bolster the World Heritage values of the Great Barrier Reef, which is showing concerning signs of degradation (GBR Outlook Report 2009).

We identify six major issues in the draft plan that need to be addressed:

1. Most of the shallow coral reefs, cays and sublittoral reefs of the western Queensland Plateau and the seamounts of the southern Coral Sea are not included in the proposed no-take zone. Thus the representativeness of the no-take reserve is poor, with inadequate protection for key habitats in the west and south, contrary to the Australian Government's own principles for marine conservation. The draft plan also makes significant concessions to pelagic fishing activities that are inconsistent with achieving the conservation of species affected by these activities. The South Equatorial Current bifurcates in the Coral Sea into the Coral Sea Gyre in the north and the southwards flowing East Australian Current (Young et al 2011), connecting the Coral Sea biota to both the GBR and southern reefs (Bode et al. 2006), as well as creating unique habitats and a genetic break in the north (van Oppen et al. 2008). The western Coral Sea, which is excluded from no-take zoning, has exceptionally high conservation value, because it includes the majority of the reefs and cays of the Queensland Plateau, breeding and calving grounds for humpback whales, nesting grounds for green turtles, foraging grounds for hawksbill turtles, populations of migratory pelagic species and breeding and foraging areas for seabird species, and the only known spawning aggregation site for black marlin (Ceccarelli 2011). Therefore, the proposed marine national park is not effective at representing the diversity of important habitats, environmental gradients, dispersal potential and highly sensitive species.
2. The coral reefs of the Coral Sea need more protection. Only 2 new reefs out of 25 named reefs in the Coral Sea are afforded a high level of protection. Monitoring by SEWPAC showed that of the two existing high-level reserves (Coringa-Herald and Lihou Marine Reserves), Coringa-Herald Marine Reserve has depauperate coral reef communities with low coral cover at present (Ceccarelli et al. 2008). To enhance connectivity in the region, and facilitate dispersal and recovery processes, additional reef habitat needs to be afforded no-take designation. Commercial and sport fishing targeting reef predators in the Coral Sea also has the potential to deleteriously affect the integrity of the small, relatively isolated and highly exposed reefs, which host smaller populations that are more reliant on large-scale dispersal of larvae than the highly interconnected Great Barrier Reef.
3. Deep benthic systems and seamounts need more protection. Neither the Queensland nor the Townsville Troughs are included in the proposed western no-take zone. Together they represent Australia's largest trough system, attracting large aggregations of feeding and spawning pelagic species. The Marion Plateau sub-region, including Marion and Saumarez Reefs, contains a high proportion of endemic species, in particular demersal sponge communities. Southern Coral Sea reef and deep benthic communities are also not represented in the no-take zone, yet they provide potential stepping stones for southwards range expansions of tropical reef species to gain access to climate change refugia (Beger et al. 2011).
4. Pelagic ecosystems need more protection. The southern Coral Sea is a hotspot for apex predators such as yellowfin tuna, barracuda and sharks. Long-lining should be excluded from the entire Coral Sea because of bycatch of non-target species, among which are sharks and rays, turtles and seabirds, including rare and endangered species in many of these groups. Consequently, as with the adjacent Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, long-lining should not be considered a reasonable activity in the proposed Coral Sea marine reserve.
5. Catch and release fishing in the Coral Sea is inadvisable. Catch-and-release fishing on coral reefs, which will be specifically allowed under the proposed plan, is especially problematic because released fish are vulnerable to predation and to high rates of mortality from barotraumas, hook injury and physiological stress. Catch-and-release fishing also poses a threat to sharks, which are a frequent bycatch in recreational reef fisheries. For example, studies on the Great Barrier Reef shows that grey reef sharks in Blue (fishing) zones are reduced by 97% compared to Pink (no-go zones) (Robbins et al. 2006). Recreational fishing for pelagic species in the Coral Sea Conservation Zone from 1989-2009 amounted to only 0.8% of total catch of black, blue and striped marlin, sailfish, and shortbill spearfish that were caught (and released) in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (NSW Dept. of Primary Industries). Therefore, the economic and social cost of extending the Coral Sea no-take zone to the outer GBRMP boundary is negligible.
6. Cost-effective management requires large no-take zones with simple boundaries. A recent study of potential management costs for the Coral Sea (Ban et al. 2011) demonstrated that management costs would increase sharply with subdivision of the Coral Sea into multiple-use zones, compared to a single no-take zone, largely due to the increased need for compliance activities. Cost-effectiveness of management therefore requires that the extensive additional no-take zoning in the western Coral Sea should be made, contiguous with the proposed eastern no-take zone. A reserve of this scale and level of protection would provide unprecedented refugia for top ocean predators that are under serious pressure elsewhere in the world (Game et al. 2009), improve the resilience of the region's coral reefs to climate change, and provide a globally significant scientific reference site. We believe that our recommendations will have minimal social and economic costs due to the low levels of use in the region, will boost Australia's reputation and branding as a leader in marine protection and destination for wild nature tourism, and will provide a lasting legacy for future generations.

References:

• Ban N.C., Adams V., Pressey R.L. & Hicks J. (2011). Promise and problems for estimating management costs of marine protected areas. Conservation Letters, 4, 241-252.
• Beger M., Babcock R., Booth D.J., Bucher D., Condie S.A., Creese B., Cvitanovic C., Dalton S.J., Harrison P., Hoey A., Jordan A., Loder J., Malcolm H., Purcell S.W., Roelfsma C., Sachs P., Smith S.D.A., Sommer B., Stuart-Smith R., Thomson D., Wallace C.C., Zann M. & Pandolfi J.M. (2011). Research challenges to improve the management and conservation of subtropical reefs to tackle climate change threats. Ecological Management & Restoration, 12, e7-e10.
• Bode M., Bode L. & Armsworth P.R. (2006). Larval dispersal reveals regional sources and sinks in the Great Barrier Reef. Mar Ecol Prog Ser, 308, 17-25.
• Ceccarelli D.M. (2011). Australia's Coral Sea: A biophysical profile. In. Report for the Protect our Coral Sea Coalition Australia.
• Ceccarelli D.M., Choat J.H., Ayling A.M., Richards Z.T., van Herwerden L., Ayling A., Ewels G., Hobbs J.P. & Cuff B. (2008). Coringa-Herald National Nature Reserve Marine Survey – 2007. Report by C&R Consulting and James Cook University to the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts Canberra.
• Game E.T., Grantham H.S., Hobday A.J., Pressey R.L., Lombard A.T., Beckley L.E., Gjerde K., Bustamante R., Possingham H.P. & Richardson A.J. (2009). Pelagic protected areas: the missing dimension in ocean conservation. Trends Ecol Evol, 24, 360-369.
• Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (2009) Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report. (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville).
• Robbins, W. M. Hisano, S.R. Connelly, and J.H. Choat (2006). Ongoing collapse of coral-reef shark populations. Current Biology 16: 2314-2319.
• van Oppen M.J.H., Lutz A., De'ath G., Peplow L. & Kininmonth S. (2008). Genetic traces of recent long-distance dispersal in a predominantly self-recruiting coral. PLoS ONE, 3, e3401.
• Young J., David McKinnon A., Ceccarelli D., Brinkman R., Bustamante R., Cappo M., Dichmont C., Doherty P., Furnas M., Gledhill D., Griffiths S., Hutton T., Ridgway K., Smith D., Skewes T., Williams A. & Richardson. (2011) A. Workshop on the ecosystem and fisheries of the Coral Sea: an Australian perspective on research and management. Rev Fish Biol Fish, 1-8.

Contact: Terry Hughes
terry.hughes@jcu.edu.au
61-747-814-000
ARC Centre of Excellence in Coral Reef Studies

 

US Federal agencies must protect America's Pacific Island monuments from illegal fishing now

NOAA and Fish and Wildlife Service now 3 years behind schedule on banning commercial fishing

On February 22, 2012, the Marine Conservation Institute filed a formal petition to the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce, asking them to prohibit commercial fishing in America's sensitive and pristine Pacific Island marine national monuments, a ban that President George W. Bush declared when he established the monuments over three years ago.

In January 2009, President Bush established three marine monuments in the central Pacific and prohibited commercial fishing in them because they are incredibly rich marine ecosystems that have been damaged by commercial fishing and in the past. Collectively, the monuments cover 193,000 square miles, an area larger than the state of California. These are the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument (a collection of isolated coral island possessions), the Rose Atoll Marine National Monument in American Samoa, and the Marianas Trench Marine National Monument. The three monuments wrap around a number of National Wildlife Refuges, most of which existed prior to the creation of the monuments.

William Chandler, Vice President for Government Affairs at Marine Conservation Institute, said, "When President Bush designated these magnificent areas for preservation, he specifically directed that commercial fishing be prohibited in them immediately. But now, over three years later, the fishing ban and associated penalties for illegal fishing within the monuments have yet to be put into place. As a result, and despite evidence of illegal fishing in the monuments, the Coast Guard won't enforce the ban. This is inexplicable. We're just trying to get the Administration to do what the presidential designation documents say. There is simply no justification for delay."

Marine Conservation Institute actively supported the designation of the Pacific Remote Islands National Monument, and remains an advocate for conservation of natural resources within all of the Pacific monuments. Illegal fishing within the monuments threatens these relatively pristine marine ecosystems and their populations of corals, rare reef fish, overfished tuna, sea turtles, whales, and seabirds.

Chandler said, "It is hard to believe a clear directive of the president has gone unimplemented for so long. The responsible federal agencies have had three years to establish fishing rules that ban commercial fishing and leave recreational and indigenous intact, but they have not yet delivered. Without such a ban, these unique ecosystems with their sensitive populations could be damaged by fishermen or their vessels. The world's largest population of giant clams, nesting sea turtles, and areas of tremendous biological diversity are all at risk."

The Marine Conservation Institute is a nonprofit organization dedicated to saving our living oceans. It works with scientists, politicians, government officials and other organizations around the world to protect essential ocean places and the wild species in them. It uses the latest science to identify important marine ecosystems around the world, and then advocate for their protection, for us and future generations.

The Pacific Islands Monuments

On January 6, 2009, President George W. Bush proclaimed the Pacific Remote Islands (PRIM), Rose Atoll, and Marianas Trench to be Marine National Monuments with Presidential Proclamations 8335, 8336 and 8337 (collectively, "the Proclamations"). This designation of the three Pacific Monuments extended protection to nearly 200,000 square miles of unique natural resources and was the largest act of marine conservation in history. The President's designation of the Pacific Monuments recognized their ecological, scientific and cultural importance, biological diversity and other unique characteristics, and the need to protect them.

 

The Proclamations invoke the authority of the Antiquities Act of 1906, which authorizes the President of the United States to designate lands and waters of the United States as National Monuments. Exercising this authority, President Bush established the Pacific Monuments, prohibited commercial fishing, and delegated management authority to the Departments of the Interior and Commerce. Subsequently, FWS and NOAA have affirmed their management authority for the Monuments.

For the PRIM, DOI, through FWS, has responsibility for management of the Monument (including out to 12 nautical miles ("nmi") from the mean low water lines of Baker, Howland, and Jarvis Islands, Johnston, Palmyra, and Wake Atolls, and Kingman Reef) and the National Wildlife Refuges contained therein, pursuant to the Proclamation, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 668dd-668ee) ("National Wildlife Refuge System Act"), and other applicable legal authorities. Commerce, acting through NOAA, has primary management responsibility seaward of 12 to 50 nmi with respect to fishery-related activities pursuant to the Proclamation, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act ("MSA"), and other applicable legal authorities.

For the Rose Atoll Marine National Monument, management responsibility was assigned to the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce. NOAA was assigned primary management responsibility for fishery-related activities in the Monument's marine areas located seaward of the mean low water line of Rose Atoll, pursuant to the MSA and other applicable authority.

For the Marianas Trench Marine National Monument, the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, has responsibility for management of the Monument; except that the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, has primary responsibility for management with respect to fishery-related activities regulated pursuant to the MSA, the Proclamation, and other applicable legal authorities.

• Download The Marine Conservation Institute Petition
• Download Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument Map
• Download Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument Fact Sheet
  

Contact: Bill Chandler
bill.chandler@marine-conservation.org
202-546-5346
Marine Conservation Biology Institute

 

Conservation risk highest off coasts of Canada, Mexico, Peru and New Zealand: UBC research

University of British Columbia researchers have identified conservation "hot spots" around the world where the temptation to profit from overfishing outweighs the appetite for conservation.

Combining economic outlook and fisheries population growth rates for all countries currently reported to fish in the ocean, UBC fisheries researchers William Cheung and Rashid Sumaila developed a conservation risk index to reveal the economic-conservation trade-offs of fishing.

Areas with the highest risk index – those most biologically and economically vulnerable to overfishing – include the northeastern coast of Canada, the Pacific coast of Mexico, the Peruvian coast, the south Pacific (offshore of New Zealand in particular), the southern and southeastern coast of Africa, and the Antarctic region.

"This index gives us a clear guide to determine the appropriate conservation and fisheries management policy for each region," says Cheung, an assistant professor in UBC's Fisheries Centre, who presented his research during a press briefing at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Vancouver, Canada.

"The most vulnerable area may need to be protected with special management approaches – such as marine protected areas, while others may benefit from economic incentives to better manage the ecosystems – such as territorial use rights in fisheries, or TURFs," says Sumaila, professor and director of the UBC Fisheries Centre.

The index can also help conservation managers use scarce resources in a targeted, efficient and effective way to ensure the conservation of seafood and marine ecosystems, Sumaila adds.

"Fishing has a major impact on marine biodiversity, causing the depletion of many species," says Cheung, who grew up in Hong Kong and focused his earlier research on fisheries in the South China Sea – one of the most over-exploited areas in the world's oceans. "I witnessed how overfishing can damage marine ecosystems and the goods and services they provide – but in order to solve the problem, we need an understanding of both biology and economics. Biology determines whether a stock is more vulnerable to fishing, while economics determines how strong the incentive is to overfish the stock now."

The conservation risk index is based on two numbers: the discount rate and intrinsic population growth rate for fisheries. The discount rate for the fisheries is how much a dollar of fish would be worth now if one were to get this dollar one year later – similar to the long-term lending interest rate of central banks. The intrinsic population growth rate is the difference between the birth and death rate.

Cheung and Sumaila used published discount rates of countries that are reported to fish in the ocean and intrinsic growth rates for major exploited fish species to calculate the conservation risk index for each half degree square area of the world's oceans (2500 square-kilometres, roughly the size of Metro Vancouver or three times the size of New York City). The higher the conservation risk index number, the more vulnerable the area is.

Contact: John Corry
john.corry@ubc.ca
604-506-7441
University of British Columbia

Window into world's future oceans unveiled by NF-UBC Nereus team

UBC Fisheries Prof. Villy Christensen

An international team from the Nippon Foundation-University of British Columbia Nereus program has unveiled the first global model of life in the world's oceans, allowing scientists and policymakers to predict – and show through 3D visualizations – the state of life in the oceans of the future.

Combining scientific data from three major factors impacting our oceans – climate change, human activity (including fisheries and river run-off) and food web dynamics (fish eating fish), the Nereus model shows life under the sea from 1960 to 2060. Based on current policies, the model shows a strong decline in the biomass of large fish, while some small fish may actually be increasing.

"Our preliminary results show a global fish biomass of two billion tonnes, confirming earlier estimates taken from regional modeling," says UBC Fisheries Prof. Villy Christensen, who is presenting the research today at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Vancouver, Canada.

"This is the first comprehensive attempt to model life in our global oceans, and will require refining, but we can now show the future impact of choices we are making today, and answer the question: what must we do now to leave healthy oceans and fish to future generations?"

The Nereus model was developed by an international team of scientists in the Nereus – Predicting the Future Ocean program, a joint initiative between the Nippon Foundation and UBC. It is capable of analyzing data from four linked global models – Earth System, Ocean Life, Biodiversity Envelope, and Fisheries Management and Governance – to generate 3D scenarios based on different fisheries management choices and policies.

The Nereus model not only provides a first global view of life in our oceans, but also a predictive view of the future impacts of choices we are making now. The model includes a tool called "The Oracle," where the public can ask questions and the resulting answers illuminate the science lying behind the choices. For example, asking "How will fishing efforts impact future fish stocks?" leads to two scenarios. In one scenario, fishing efforts increase over time and result in dramatic declines in future biomass of large fish. In a second scenario, fishing efforts are gradually reduced, resulting in a slow, gradual recovery.

Yesterday, Professor Christensen announced formal partnerships between the Nippon Foundation-UBC Nereus – Predicting the Future Ocean program and five renowned institutions: Duke University, Princeton University, University of Stockholm, Cambridge University, and the United Nations Environment Program's World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC). Researchers from these institutions also joined Christensen in sharing their perspectives on the future of the world's oceans.

"What makes this partnership so exciting is the breadth and depth of expertise that it focuses on the oceans and our relationship to it," says Prof. Jorge L. Sarmiento, Director of the Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at Princeton University.

"We now have many of the world's best fisheries, climate, conservation, and social scientists working together, and it is only through this kind of interdisciplinary effort that we can begin to understand what humanity will need to do to save our oceans, the seafood we get from it, and the human communities that rely on it," says Sarmiento.

"The Nippon Foundation is pleased to see the first results of this innovative international collaboration," says Mr. Yohei Sasakawa, Chair of The Nippon Foundation. "We hope this unique network of marine science including both social and physical science will change the mindset of global community for the future ocean."

Contact: John Corry
john.corry@ubc.ca
604-506-7441
University of British Columbia

 

Deepwater Horizon disaster could have billion dollar impact

Deepwater Horizon. Credit: US Coast Guard

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in April 2010 will have a large economic impact on the U.S. Gulf fisheries. A new study published in the Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences (CJFAS) says that over 7 years this oil spill could have a $US8.7 billion impact on the economy of the Gulf of Mexico. This includes losses in revenue, profit, and wages, and close to 22 000 jobs could be lost. "Unlike the visually obvious and immediate effects on birds and mammals, the effects of oil on fisheries can be more difficult to detect, though they are no less devastating," says lead author U. Rashid Sumaila. "Oil and hydrocarbons are taken up by plankton and other surface-dwelling species that link to aquatic food chains." This in turn affects the fishing industry.

The Deepwater Horizon, a British Petroleum oil rig, exploded in the Gulf of Mexico on 20 April 2010. By August 2010 it was estimated that it had leaked an estimated 4.9 million barrels of oil (780 million L), making it the largest accidental marine oil spill in US waters. In comparison, the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 amounted to less than 0.5 million barrels. This study estimates the economic impact this spill will have on commercial and recreational fisheries and mariculture in the Gulf of Mexico.

Reference: Sumaila, U.R., Cisneros-Montemayor, A.M., Dyck, A., Huang, L., Cheung, W., Jacquet, J., Kleisner, K., Lam, V., McCrea-Strub, A., Swartz, W., Watson, R., Zeller, D., and Pauly, D. 2012. Impact of the Deepwater Horizon well blowout on the economics of US Gulf fisheries. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 69. doi: 10.1139/F2011-171 

Contact: U. Rashid Sumaila
r.sumaila@fisheries.ub.ca
Canadian Science Publishing (NRC Research Press)

'Wild west' approach to claiming the oceans' genetic resources must end

New international agreements are required to ensure nations benefit equally from medicines, foods and biofuels derived from the ocean's untapped genetic riches, according to a panel of University of British Columbia and European researchers presenting at the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Vancouver on Feb. 17.

"The reservoir of genetic diversity contained in the oceans' microbial life is a huge potential source of natural products and genes with applications in medicine, food development and bio-energy," says Curtis Suttle, an expert on marine virology and microbiology at the University or British Columbia and member of the panel.

"The question is whether they fall under a regime of 'freedom of the high seas' which allows the discoverer to keep what they find, or under a regime of 'the common heritage of mankind' which would require benefits from the use of genetic resources to be equitably shared amongst countries."

Marine genetic resources discovered in coastal waters are subject to bilateral 'benefit sharing' under international agreements currently being ratified. But no such agreements govern the patenting and commercialization of proteins and genes harvested from international waters.

"Marine genetic resources within national jurisdiction are subject to requirements for benefit sharing under the Nagoya Protocol, and it is time to consider a parallel agreement for areas beyond national jurisdiction," says panelist Marjo Vierros with the United Nations University (UNU). The UNU is the academic arm of the United Nations system.

"Any agreement should include mechanisms to support marine scientific research and invention through creative tools such as patent pools, open access programs, and gene libraries. It should also include measures for tracing the geographic origin of organisms, conservation and sustainable use."

More than 5,000 genes derived from marine organisms have already been associated with patent claims. Ten countries own more than 90% of those claims, including 'marine genes'. Three countries own approximately 70%, a pattern similar to the one observed for human and plant crop genes, according to panelist Sophie Arnaud-Haond, from the Institut Francais de Reserche sur la Mer.

The panel--which alincludes UBC marine chemist Raymond Andersen and researchers from Spain and Germany--cites the need to enhance the capacity of developing countries to participate in this research and invention through capacity development and technology transfer.

Contact: Chris Balma
balma@science.ubc.ca
604-202-5047
University of British Columbia

Marine protected areas: changing climate could require change of plans

Marine protected areas (MPAs) may turn out to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. As a result of changing conditions, marine species have been on the move with observed shifts of as much as three kilometres per year over the past 50 years, and forecasts of shifts of as much as 300 kilometres in the coming 50 years.

Decisions on where to put MPAs weren't always made with a changing climate in mind. That has researchers asking how these areas—meant to protect biodiversity—can stand the test of time.

Static MPAs, or limited areas, may not work as ocean conditions change and as species shift their distribution in response to climate change. These changes will require our design and management of these ecologically rich zones to be more flexible, and will require greater collaboration and foresight.

At this week's meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Vancouver, Brad deYoung of Memorial University of Newfoundland will present a review of technological advances in ocean modelling and observing, and show how integration of these new tools and greater collaboration will make MPAs more effective today and in the future.

"While climate change adds to the uncertainty regarding the necessary design and the possible effectiveness of marine protected areas, none of this uncertainty offers real justification for inaction," says deYoung. "Our knowledge, although imperfect, is certainly sufficient to design effective marine protected areas. New modelling and observational tools add substantially to our ocean toolkit."

The AAAS symposium Designing Marine Protected Area Networks Within Changing Global Climate Conditions is taking place today, February 17, from 8:00 to 9:30 a.m., in Room 116 117 of the Vancouver Convention Centre West Building.

The topic was the subject of a special AAAS news briefing for media in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada,  on Thursday, February 16.

deYoung's research is funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).

Contact: Brad deYoung
bdeyoung@mun.ca
709-690-3318
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council