Thriving Oceans

While rummaging through the latest research in Conservation Biology, I came across a publication that caught my attention.   It’s not that the title conveyed a trinket of enlightenment nor promised to do so as I wound my way from introduction to methods to discussion.  In fact, the title evoked an emotional response that was the exact opposite of astonishment.  And by that I merely mean I could (or assumed I could) foresee the results, which is practically a staple in the ocean conservation world when discussing the effects of a burgeoning coastal human population on neighboring marine ecosystems.  In that context, is there anything else that should pop to mind other than overfishing and declining fisheries? 

With the pages rolling it becomes quite apparent that there are a few conservation gems sprinkled throughout the paper and worthy of rehashing, or what a waste of my time in writing and yours in reading this post.   Success of marine protected areas, declining species, and the interconnectedness of species in an ecosystem are the themes/take home messages while the family Scaridae is the star, or victims, of the show. 

Scarids, or parrotfish, included 83 species at the time of my university courses (~90 species as of 2002) and are so named because their fused teeth resemble a parrot-like beak.  And it is this beak that is quite useful for biting off pieces of coral and algal fronds.  The bits are ground down in their massive pharyngeal mills and the algal cells are extracted.  As discussed by the authors, parrotfish fill a critical role in maintaining coral reef systems by controlling filamentous algae and Scleractinian corals, removing detritus, and digging through the surface of the reef thusly redistributing the ground calcareous pieces as sediment.

As Pacific Island populations grow, the demand for coral reef resources including the parrotfishes themselves increases dramatically.  Thus, it is not surprising that the fishing pressures have caused a total parrotfish population decline of 45% from 2004 to 2005 in the Pacific Island study area. But remember I said there were a few conservation gems…well it turns out communities in the Western Solomon Islands have begun to see the frightening trends and instituted management practices and community-based marine protected areas to curb the overfishing (and habitat degradation) problem.  Not only are their livelihoods on the line but the whole coral reef system.

The take home lesson is that community-based marine protected areas do in fact work, and is evident with the following results:

 -Parrotfish numbers/abundance in outside sites were significantly lower than inside community-based marine protected areas (CBMPA) for each size category.

-Large effects between inside and outside CBMPAs were evident in each size category.

-Combined, these findings reinforce the stark difference in abundance across fish size categories between inside and outside the CBMPAs of villages with customary management and an urbanized center.

We now have yet another piece of evidence highlighting the need for marine protected areas to ensure healthy fish populations and coral reefs, as well as a need to conserve for the future health of a growing human population.  However, instilling good ocean management practices is not and an idea we can afford to treat with procrastination.  According to the authors, “There is a negative correlation between effective conservation and human population size (beyond a threshold of more than 1000 people) and between market integration and wealth, which suggests that as rural communities urbanize and monetize in Melanesia, their capacity to conserve resources weakens.”

And this negative correlation is perhaps the most interesting finding and something that sounds quite familiar.  As populations grow and become more economically viable they effectively lose their ecological self-control and ocean husbandry suffers. 

So is this humankind’s innate progression as we become less reliant on the natural course of the environment and aim to control it?  I have definitely seen this trend before…Have you?

ASWANI, S., & SABETIAN, A. (2009). Implications of Urbanization for Artisanal Parrotfish Fisheries in the Western Solomon Islands Conservation Biology DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01377.x
Photo credits: Richard Ling

Press Release from Sea Turtle Restoration Project  (Nov. 5, 2009)-

Sea turtle advocates in California and family shrimp fishers from Florida filed a federal lawsuit today against the U. S. State Department for violations of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for allowing shrimp caught in ways that are deadly to sea turtles to be sold in the United States  The lawsuit filed by the Environmental Law Clinic at Stanford Law School (Palo Alto, CA) on behalf of Turtle Island Restoration Network (Forest Knolls, CA) and the Mayport Village Association (Mayport, FL) claims that the U. S. State Department has failed to properly evaluate and prevent harm to sea turtles from overseas shrimp fleets that sell shrimp to the United States under the ESA’s Turtle-Shrimp Law (Pub. L. 101-162 § 609). It was filed in the U. S. District Court, Northern District of California. See the complaint.

“This is not only a tragedy for sea turtles, which die by the tens of thousands in shrimp nets every year, but is unfair to the U.S. fishers who obey the law and must compete in the U.S. marketplace with shrimp imports,” said Todd Steiner, biologist and executive director of Turtle Island Restoration Network a non-profit organization dedicated to the conservation of sea turtles and their habitat.

“Our Mayport shrimpers are struggling to survive, while foreign fleets get a free pass on the law and flood the market with cheap shrimp,” said Al Millar, representing Mayport Village Civic Association and its small fleet of family shrimpers based in the historic village of Mayport, FL. See www.SaveMayportVillage.net. “We work hard to fish and protect sea turtles but don’t get a break from our own government.”

The lawsuit claims that the State Department has not properly enforced requirements for foreign shrimp vessels to use nets with Turtle Excluder Devices as U. S. fishers are required to do. The lawsuit asks that the foreign shrimp certification process be given additional environmental oversight and review. Recently, shrimp imports from Costa Rica were banned due to failure to protect sea turtles after environmentalists’ complaints, but 15 other nations were certified with little, if any, scrutiny.

“There is a simple, inexpensive, and elegant solution that allows sea turtles to escape drowning in shrimp nets, called a turtle excluder device or TED” said Deborah Sivas, Stanford Law professor, and director of the Environmental Law Clinic, who filed the lawsuit.  “If the State Department can create a reasonable certification program, we can save the lives of thousands of endangered sea turtles while allowing shrimp harvesting to continue.”

Americans consume over 500,000 tons of shrimp annually, and is the top fishery import of the United States, valued at over $3.9 billion last year, according to government figures. This includes trawl-caught wild shrimp and farmed shrimp (which does not capture sea turtles but is environmentally harmful due to pollution of fish ponds and land clearing). About 90 percent of shrimp eaten in the U. S. is imported. See latest U. S. shrimp import data.

Background:
The U. S. Turtle-Shrimp Law was challenged by nations at the World Trade Organization (WTO), claiming to be a violation of the “free-trade” agreement, leading to the famous “Battle of Seattle” protests in 1999 where thousands marched peacefully to protest weak environmental protections in the global trade treaty.  The U.S. Turtle-Shrimp Law was eventually found to comply with the WTO, but poor enforcement has allowed sea turtles around the world to drown in shrimp nets and slide toward extinction. (The movie Battle of Seattle starring Woody Harrelson that dramatized the protests was released in 2008). Read more .

On May 1, 2009, the Department of State certified, pursuant to Section 609 of Public Law 101-162 (”Section 609”), that 15 nations have adopted programs to reduce the incidental capture of sea turtles in their shrimp fisheries comparable to the program in effect in the United States. Belize, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Madagascar, Mexico, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Suriname, and Venezuela. The Department also certified that the fishing environments in 24 other countries and one economy, Hong Kong, do not pose a threat of the incidental taking of sea turtles protected under Section 609. Read more. 

This is the latest U.S. Ocean Policy Report Card (produced by the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative) that I can find.  So I’m left wondering how much we have actually improved over the last 2 years and how we’d we rate ourselves in 2008 and 2009 in terms of progress?   I’m indeed looking for real change, not lip service, and at least a B average for crying out loud.  Well, the recent release of the Interim Report of The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force is spelling out known problems so perhaps more ocean friendly policies can move forward sooner rather than later…

“… biological diversity is in decline due to overfishing, introduction of invasive species, and loss and degradation of essential habitats from coastal development and associated human activities. The introduction of non-native species can carry significant ecological and economic costs. Human and marine ecosystem health are threatened by a range of challenges, including increased levels of exposure to toxins from harmful algal blooms and other sources, and greater contact with infectious agents. Areas in numerous bays, estuaries, gulfs, and the Great Lakes are now consistently low in or lacking oxygen, creating dead zones along our bays and coasts. Unsustainable fishing (e.g., overfishing) remains a serious concern with consequences for marine ecosystems and human communities. In the Arctic, environmental changes are revealing the vulnerability of its ecosystems….”

“I found a cure for the plague of the 20th century, and now I’ve lost it!”  Perhaps it was the connotation of the quote itself or a combination of the fervor in Dr. Robert Campbell’s voice that made it stick in my mind after all these years, but in any case that early 90s Sean Connery flick is ever so applicable.  If you haven’t seen Medicine Man, it follows the quest of a researcher on the verge of a discovery of a cure for cancer in the Amazonian rainforest.  The scientist’s desperate attempt to replicate a serum produced from compounds he originally derived from a flower continues to result in failure.  The climax (spoiler) reveals the cure’s source was not the flower but a species of a rare indigenous ant, whose only known location is lost to the bulldozers and fires of deforestation.

Perhaps not as sexy as the fauna of the Amazon nor as adventurous as Dr. Campbell’s pursuit, scientists studying sea cucumbers in the Egyptian Red Sea are making the same leap for a need of conservation.  In an all too common scenario not limited to rainforests, the marine environment is being overharvested for direct and immediate consumptive values while potentially losing important options values that could be discovered through bioprospecting.

As a result of overfishing of sea cucumbers in the Red Sea, a ban was initiated in 2001 and 2003.  However, the ban did not lift demand and as a result illegal harvesting exploded.  With lackluster recovery of commercially prized species, researchers found a need to tie potential future drug treatments and long-term economic development to survival of the sea cucumbers. 

“Given the importance of economic development in countries such as Egypt and the perceived low conservation value of invertebrates such as sea cucumbers, the linking of these factors to conservation is vital for the maintenance and sustainable exploitation of these animals.”

Researchers collected a total of 22 species and screened 11 of various commercial and non-commercial value for bioactive substances.  Although their results showed no activity against either gram-positive or gram-negative target bacteria, all extracts were active against eukaryotic cell types, were most active against a mammalian carcinoma cell line, had a level of variation suggesting that the extracts contained more than one active compound, and that these compounds act at more than one site.

“The conservation value of a species is often defined not only by its rarity and distinctiveness, but also by its utility. This utility is reflected in its economic value, which can be further refined into its direct,  indirect, and options values. Overexploitation of marine resources for their immediate, direct benefits may be at the expense of future options value of a particular resource.”

Just as a fictionalized cure for cancer was simultaneously found and lost in the Amazonian rainforest for some immediate short-term gains, so too could we easily witness the vanishing of a species like the sea cucumber along with the next great drug discovery.  When you connect the ecological and potential options value, in terms of unique bioactive substances, of a marine species there is no doubt that it overshadows any perceived direct value we assign to them.

And this message of conservation is one that is germane to all nations.

 
LAWRENCE, A., AFIFI, R., AHMED, M., KHALIFA, S., & PAGET, T. (2009). Bioactivity as an Options Value of Sea Cucumbers in the Egyptian Red Sea Conservation Biology DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01294.x
Photo credit: Daniel S.

On October 3rd I had the great opportunity of attending the Wildlife Conservation Expo in San Francisco.  The speakers were not touching on ocean topics (if interested check out my posts on JournOwl.com), but there was an array of conservation groups in attendance that managed to cover marine wildlife.  And a couple of those groups persuaded me to pose for photo ops in support for whales and 350 species threatened by climate change (i.e. polar bears, orcas, penguins, walrus).

The International Fund for Animal Welfare’s program Tails for Whales has me doing exactly what the program set out to do…making a whale tail with my hands.  And what does the photo accomplish?  “By adding your photo you’re becoming part of a worldwide people power movement petitioning governments everywhere to stop whaling.”  So perhaps you may just find my picture in the future U.S. version of the Tails for Whales book and using my voice (or photo) to help end whaling.

The second opportunity for a photo petition came from an organization of which I am a member, The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD).  OK, this might be an ocean site, but I chose to pose with the frog at the delight of the CBD representative.  I was the first to choose the frog at the event, perhaps starting a small trend for the day.

The program is designed:

“To dramatically illustrate why we must reduce carbon dioxide in our atmosphere to no more than 350 parts per million to save the planet from climate catastrophe, we are creating 350 Reasons We Need to Get to 350 - a Web-based photo installation with descriptions of 350 species we may lose to global warming if we don’t act soon and strongly.”

“Your photo will become part of a collection of Center photos that 350.org will deliver to media and world leaders at the United Nations climate conference in Copenhagen this December.”

All in all it just took a few photos to lend support to a couple of worthy conservation organizations so set modesty aside and save those whales!

Sometimes it takes a meal  to get some notice.  And the next time you try to order fish and chips and the basket comes back heavy on potatoes don’t blame the waiter or waitress.  Our ocean gluttony has decimated the popular batter-dipped fish over the last 40 years.  Gluttony is the key word as our fishing practices are less than sustainable to say the least and the result of consuming a species faster than they can reproduce should not surprise any of us. 

The fact is that cod are vanishing, which is why the European Union is calling for sharp cuts to fishing quotas.  But are “sharp” cuts up to 25% in some fishing areas enough to ensure the species fully recovers? I’m not convinced!

Here are a few points to consider:

• In the 1970s more than 250,000 tons of cod were estimated to fill fishing zones in the North Sea, eastern British Channel and Scandinavia’s Skagerrak Strait
• Stocks are now hovering around 50,000 tons, a mere 20% of historical estimates
• “…will seek to cut the catch in some fishing grounds around Britain, France, Spain and much of Scandinavia from 5,700 tons this to 4,250 tons in 2010″
• “The scientific prognosis for most stocks is not encouraging, with many in a worse state than last year,” Britain’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
• “Overfishing off Canada’s maritime provinces exhausted the world’s richest cod grounds and forced the government to impose a fishing moratorium. The collapse wiped out more than 42,000 jobs, and 18 years later the fish have still not returned. Some Canadian scientists believe the collapse of cod stocks off Newfoundland and Nova Scotia changed the marine ecosystem so dramatically that it may be impossible for cod to recover.”
• In the U.S., the two major New England cod fishing waters have witnessed steep declines with catches totaling only 3,868 metric tons in 2007. This is about 19% of historical catches in the 1980s (20,000 tons annually)

Reference: EU officials warn of disappearing cod