Download Oceans in Peril - Worldwatch Institute

WO R L DWAT C H R E P O RT
174
Oceans in Peril
Protecting Marine
Biodiversity
m i c h e l l e a l l s o p p, r i c h a r d pa g e ,
pau l j o h n s t o n , a n d d av i d s a n t i l l o
W O R L D WAT C H R E P O R T
1 74
Oceans in Peril
Protecting Marine
Biodiversity
miche l le al lsopp, r ichard page,
paul johnston, and dav id sant il lo
Greenpeace Research Laboratories, University of Exeter, UK
l i s a m a s t n y, e d i t o r
w o r l d wat c h i n s t i t u t e , wa s h i n g t o n , d c
© Worldwatch Institute, 2007
Published: September 2007
ISBN: 978-1-878071-81-1
Library of Congress Control Number: 2007935003
Printed on paper that is 50 percent recycled, 30 percent
post-consumer waste, process chlorine free.
The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily
represent those of the Worldwatch Institute; of its directors, officers, or staff;
or of its funding organizations.
On the cover: Bycatch on an Irish trawler.
Photograph © Lyle Rosbotham
Reprint and copyright information for one-time academic use of this material is available
by contacting Customer Service, Copyright Clearance Center, at +1 978-750-8400 (phone) or
+1 978-750-4744 (fax), or by writing to CCC, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Nonacademic and commercial users should contact the Worldwatch Institute’s Business
Development Department by fax at +1 202-296-7365 or by email at [email protected].
Table of Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
The Diversity of the Oceans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Dangers of Fishery Depletions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Changing Climate, Changing Seas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Polluting the Marine Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Freedom for the Seas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Figures, Tables, and Sidebars
Figure 1. Global Fish Harvest, Marine Capture and Aquaculture, 1950–2005 . . . . . . . . . . 13
Figure 2. Status of World Fish Stocks, 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 1. Level of Protection of Critical Marine Ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Sidebar 1. Effects of Climate Change on Arctic Marine Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Sidebar 2. Impact of Climate Change on Antarctic Krill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Sidebar 3. Recent Major Oil Spills and Their Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to extend special thanks to Sari Tolvanen, Karen Sack, Jim Wickens, Oliver
Knowles, Sebastián Losada, Daniel Mittler, Martin Attrill, and Mark Everard for their contributions to and/or review of this work. Jennifer Jacquet with the Sea Around Us Project in British
Columbia also provided helpful comments on an early draft of this report.
At Worldwatch, many thanks go to Senior Editor Lisa Mastny for her efforts in whittling down
the extensive text to the target length. Art Director Lyle Rosbotham lent his expert touch to the
design and layout and worked closely with Greenpeace staff to select the diverse photos of marine
life. Others at Worldwatch who provided valuable input or feedback include Courtney Berner,
Bob Engelman, Brian Halweil, Darcey Rakestraw, Patricia Shyne, and Julia Tier.
About the Authors
Michelle Allsopp is a research consultant based at the Greenpeace Research Laboratories, located
within the School of Biosciences at the University of Exeter, UK. Michelle obtained her PhD in
biomedicine from the University of Exeter and Postgraduate Medical School of the Royal Devon
and Exeter Hospital in 1991. She has since written and published numerous reports for Greenpeace over a period of more than 10 years, including recent reviews on the global distribution and
impacts of marine litter, on persistent organic pollutants in marine wildlife, and on the science of
ocean fertilization.
Richard Page graduated in ecology from Kings College, London in 1983. He has worked for
Greenpeace for the past 14 years, mainly on ocean protection issues. Richard has a longstanding
interest in the protection of whales and other cetaceans and is currently responsible for coordinating Greenpeace’s work to secure a global network of fully protected marine reserves.
Paul Johnston is principal scientist at the Greenpeace Research Laboratories and head of the
Science Unit for Greenpeace International. He obtained his PhD from the University of London in
1984 for research into the aquatic toxicity of selenium. Paul now has 20 years experience in providing scientific advice to Greenpeace offices around the world, has published extensively on environmental pollution, marine ecosystem protection, and sustainability, and has contributed to
numerous expert groups and committees, including the recently concluded GESAMP Working
Group on sources of oil to the marine environment.
David Santillo is a senior scientist with the Greenpeace Research Laboratories, with more than
10 years experience in providing analytical support and scientific advice to Greenpeace offices
worldwide. David is a marine and freshwater biologist who obtained his PhD from the University
of London in 1993 for research into nutrient uptake by oceanic plankton. Aside from publishing
papers and reports on a range of science and science policy issues, David has represented Greenpeace at various international treaties aimed at protecting the oceans over many years, including
more than a decade as an observer within the London Convention.
4
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
Preface
A
nyone familiar with the state of the
world’s oceans would have a hard
time feeling optimistic. From coral
reefs overwhelmed by coastal
runoff to tiny but ecologically vital plankton
that are suffering from climate change, the
diversity of sea life is fading. Just as nutritionists are discovering how healthy and beneficial
seafood really is, we face a growing shortage of
this once-bountiful food source.
Yet we continue to invest in wasteful and
shortsighted fishing techniques. Destructive
bottom trawling not only catches tons of
unwanted species, it also destroys deep-water
coral reefs and other rich habitats that nurture
the fish we do want to catch. Fishing subsidies
are so bloated that roughly a third of the global
fleet is considered unnecessary. And as nearshore fish populations collapse, fleets are forced
to probe farther and deeper to find their targets.
The good news is that there is a way out of
this predicament. By treating the oceans with
more respect and by using them more wisely,
we can obtain more from these life-supporting
waters while also maintaining healthy and
diverse marine ecosystems. This is a key message of this latest Worldwatch report, Oceans
in Peril: Protecting Marine Biodiversity.
This surprising conclusion, reached by the
report’s authors—a team of scientists with
Greenpeace Research Laboratories in the
United Kingdom—complements work that
Worldwatch’s own food and agriculture team
has undertaken over the last decade. Through
our research and analysis, most recently in
Catch of the Day (2006) and Happier Meals
(2005), we have sought to illustrate that feed-
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
ing ourselves doesn’t have to come at the
expense of a healthy environment.
Just as meat that originates in a factory farm
is different from meat that comes from animals
raised on pasture, the differences between
“good” and “bad” seafood are many. For example, fish farming that focuses on large, carnivorous species like salmon and tuna consumes
many times more fish in the form of feed than
it yields for human consumption. Alternatively, raising fish that is low in the food chain,
such as clams, scallops, and other mollusks,
can provide healthy seafood without any feeds.
As this paper demonstrates, scientists, activists, and the fishing industry itself are already
showing what a shift in perspective—and in
governmental policies—can mean for the
oceans. Consider marine reserves, just one element of a new “ecosystem approach” to managing the seas that is critical to protecting the
oceans for future generations. These reserves,
which make swaths of the oceans off-limits to
damaging human activities, can protect whole
ecosystems and enable fish and other species to
recover and flourish. But currently, only about
0.1 percent of the oceans is fully protected.
“Current presumptions that favor freedom
to fish and freedom of the seas will need to be
replaced with the new concept of freedom for
the seas,” write the authors of Oceans in Peril.
The freedom they speak of is essentially freedom from human exploitation—from nets,
dredges, trawlers, hooks, and knives—and the
freedom to heal from past overuses. It’s a simple change in perception, but the ramifications
couldn’t be more important.
—Brian Halweil, Worldwatch Institute
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
5
Summary
U
niquely among the universe’s
known planets, the Earth is a sphere
dominated by watery oceans. They
cover 70 percent of its surface and
are home to a myriad of amazing and beautiful
creatures. Life almost certainly originated in
the oceans, yet the biological diversity of
marine habitats is threatened by the activities
of one largely land-based species: us. The activities through which humans threaten marine
life include overfishing, use of destructive fishing methods, pollution, and commercial aquaculture. In addition, climate change and the
related acidification of the oceans is already
having an impact on some marine ecosystems.
Essential to solving these problems will be
more equitable and sustainable management
of the oceans as well as stronger protection of
marine ecosystems through a well-enforced
network of marine reserves.
Presently, 76 percent of the world’s fish
stocks are fully exploited or overexploited,
and many species have been severely depleted,
largely due to our growing appetite for seafood. Current fisheries management regimes
contribute to the widespread market-driven
degradation of the oceans by failing to implement and enforce adequate protective measures. Many policymakers and scientists now
agree that we must adopt a radical new
approach to managing the seas—one that is
precautionary in nature and has the protection
of the whole marine ecosystem as its primary
objective. This “ecosystem approach” is vital if
we are to ensure the health of our oceans for
future generations.
An ecosystem approach promotes both conservation and the sustainable use of marine
6
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
resources in an equitable way. It is a holistic
approach that considers environmental protection and marine management together, rather
than as two separate and mutually exclusive
goals. Paramount to the application of this
approach is the establishment of networks of
fully protected marine reserves—in essence,
“national parks” of the sea. These provide protection of whole ecosystems and enable biodiversity to both recover and flourish. They also
benefit fisheries by allowing for spillover of fish
and larvae or eggs from the reserve into adjacent fishing grounds.
Outside of the reserves, an ecosystem
approach requires the sustainable management
of fisheries and other resources. Demands on
marine resources must be managed within the
limits of what the ecosystem can provide indefinitely, rather than being allowed to expand
as demographic and market forces dictate. An
ecosystem approach requires protection at the
level of the whole ecosystem. This is radically
different from the current practice, where most
fisheries management measures focus simply
on single species and do not consider the role
of these species in the wider ecosystem.
An ecosystem approach is also precautionary in nature, meaning that a lack of knowledge
should not excuse decision-makers from taking action, but rather lead them to err on the
side of caution. The burden of proof must be
placed on those who want to undertake activities, such as fishing or coastal development, to
show that these activities will not harm the
marine environment. In other words, current
presumptions that favor freedom to fish and
freedom of the seas will need to be replaced
with the new concept of freedom for the seas.
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
The Diversity
of the Oceans
F
ar from being watery voids, the Earth’s
oceans are home to a rich and colorful
variety of life. They cover 70 percent
of the planet’s surface and provide
shelter and food for some 210,000 known
species.1 * Of the 33 animal phyla that exist
worldwide, 32 occur in the sea, 15 are exclusively marine, and 5 are nearly so.2 In contrast,
only one phylum occurs exclusively on land.
The most diverse marine ecosystems, such
as coral reefs, may have levels of species diversity similar to the richest terrestrial ecosystems,
such as lowland tropical rain forests.3 This
diversity is distributed among differing habitats including the deep sea, the open ocean,
and specialized coastal ecosystems such as
coral reefs, mangroves, and seagrasses.
The Deep Sea
The deep sea, averaging 3.2 kilometers in
depth, comprises nearly all of the oceans’ extent
except for the shallow continental shelves next
to the Earth’s landmasses.4† Despite its darkness, near-freezing temperatures, and scarce
energetic supplies, it supports a surprisingly
high diversity of life.5 About 50 percent of the
deep-sea floor is an abyssal plain, mainly of
mud flats, on which are superimposed trenches
and other features that provide habitat for
creatures ranging from sea stars, sponges, and
jellyfish to some 2,650 known species of bottom-dwelling deep-sea fish.6 Deep-sea sediments are home to an even higher diversity
of small animals, including worms, mollusks,
*Endnotes are grouped by section and begin on page 38.
†Units of measure throughout this report are metric
unless common usage dictates otherwise.
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
crustaceans, and tiny single-celled organisms
known as Foraminifera.7 Estimates of the total
number of undescribed species in the deep sea
range from 500,000 to as high as 10 million.8
Undersea mountains rising to 1,000 meters
or more above the sea floor appear to host a
particularly wide diversity of deep-sea life.
However, animal life has only been studied on
some 230 of the estimated 50,000 seamounts
worldwide.9 Because enhanced currents carry
a flow of food particles to the mounts, they
tend to be dominated by filter or suspension
feeders, including visually striking corals,
anemones, and sponges.10 Other invertebrates
present include crustaceans, mollusks, sea
urchins, brittle stars, sea stars, and bristle
worms.11 Many fish species are also associated
with seamounts, some of which form huge
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
Crab on sponge,
Davidson Seamount,
Pacific Ocean.
© NOAA and MBARI/Greenpeace
7
The Diversity of the Oceans
aggregations; one study described 263 different
species on seamounts near New Caledonia.12
Migratory tuna, marine mammals, and seabirds frequently congregate over the features as
well.13 In total, 2,700 species are known to
A dense bed of
hydrothermal mussels and shrimp
clusters around an
undersea volcano
near Champagne
vent in the western
Pacific.
Pacific Ring of Fire 2004
Expedition. NOAA Office of Ocean
Exploration; Dr. Bob Embley, NOAA
PMEL, Chief Scientist
8
occur in and around these “underwater
oases.” 14
New species have been found on nearly
every seamount studied. In a study off southern Tasmania, between 24 and 43 percent of
the invertebrate species collected were new to
science.15 Some seamount studies also report
high rates of endemism, or species found
nowhere else on Earth. On two seamount
chains in the Pacific off Chile, 44 percent of
fishes and 52 percent of bottom-dwelling
invertebrates were endemic, as were 31–36
percent of species in seamounts south of New
Caledonia.16 Because of their endemism, slow
growth, and long life (from about 70 to hundreds of years), many seamount species are
especially vulnerable to depletion.17
Seamounts have faced intensive pressure
from trawl fisheries—which can scour the
ocean floor with giant nets—since the 1960s.18
Stocks of pelagic armorhead over Pacific
seamounts northwest of Hawaii have been
depleted to the point of commercial extinction
in less than 20 years, and stocks of orange
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
roughy have been depleted on seamounts
around Australia and New Zealand.19 A study
off southern Tasmania found that heavily
fished seamounts had 46 percent fewer species
per sample than unfished seamounts, and considerably less total biomass.20 Trawling impacts
on local reefs were also dramatic, with the
coral substrate and associated community
largely removed from the heavily fished areas.
High biological diversity is also a feature
of hydrothermal vents on the sea bottom.21
Such vents, which gush hot water into the
cold, deep ocean, are concentrated mainly
along the Mid-Oceanic Ridge system, a 60,000kilometer seam of geological activity.22 Hundreds, if not thousands, of vent sites may exist
along the ridges, but only an estimated 10
percent of the system has been explored for
hydrothermal activity.23
In 1977, scientists discovered that the vents
were populated with an extraordinary array
of animal life, despite their seemingly hostile
environment. The fluid from vents is hot (up
to 407 degrees Celsius), without oxygen, often
very acidic, and enriched with hydrogen sulfide, methane, and various metals.24 Yet more
than 550 different species have been found at
the 100-some vent sites studied so far.25 Vent
animals are unique in that they do not rely
ultimately on sunlight as an energy source, but
rather on chemosynthetic bacteria that live off
the hydrogen sulfide in the vent fluids.26
At any given vent site, the diversity of
species may be relatively low, but the abundance of animals is generally high. While most
vent diversity is attributed to small, inconspicuous animals, the sites tend to be dominated
by a few large and visually striking species,
such as tube worms, vent clams, and the blind
vent shrimp.27 Enormous densities of a giant
clam-like organism and a giant mussel have
been found near vents of the eastern Pacific.28
Vent environments also support among the
highest levels of microbial diversity on the
planet, as well as several species of fish.29
The more-accessible hydrothermal vents
are potentially threatened by human activities
such as submarine-based tourism, scientific
research, and seabed mining.30 One specialized
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
The Diversity of the Oceans
deep-sea submersible, scheduled for use in
2009, is capable of reaching depths of 1,700
meters and will dredge the seafloor for copper,
gold, and zinc.31 However, scientific research
may pose a greater threat to some of the
most-visited vent sites due to concentrated
sampling and other practices.32
This and other “bioprospecting”—the
exploration of biodiversity for scientific and
commercial purposes—poses a growing threat
to the marine environment.33 Many plants,
animals, and microorganisms contain unique
biochemicals that could be useful in the health,
pharmacology, and chemicals sectors. While
most marine bioprospecting has taken place
in shallower waters, scientists are beginning to
appreciate the valuable resources of the deep
ocean, and there is currently no legal regime to
regulate such activities.
The Open Ocean
As in the deep sea, the abundance and diversity
of biological communities in the open ocean—
away from the coast or seafloor—is only
beginning to be understood. In this zone,
biodiversity is highest at the intermediate
latitudes, with optimal habitats characterized
by warm, oxygen-rich waters. Open-ocean
features that favor high biodiversity include
oceanic “fronts” where cold and warm water
collide and “upwellings” where deep, dense,
cooler, and usually nutrient-rich water moves
toward the ocean surface, supporting phytoplankton growth. One 125,000-square-kilometer oceanic front off the coast of Baja in the
Pacific Ocean has supported very high landings
of swordfish and striped marlin over the past
35 years, and is also frequented by blue whales.34
Upwelling systems, meanwhile, sustain a large
proportion of the world’s fisheries.35
Drift algae, which float on the sea surface
in occasional clumps, as elongated lines, or as
expansive mats spanning several kilometers,
form another important open-ocean habitat.
They provide vital support for at least 280
species of fish, four turtle species, many invertebrates, and several seabirds.36 But in some
areas, drift algae are under threat from commercial harvesting for food, livestock fodder,
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
fertilizer, and medicine, as well as from pollution, commercial fishing, and vessel traffic.37
The Coastal Zone
Shallow coastal waters, nurtured by plentiful
sunlight and warm temperatures, are home
to some of the richest marine ecosystems,
including coral reefs, mangrove forests, and
seagrass beds.
Coral reefs cover an estimated 284,300
square kilometers of oceans, occur in more
than 100 countries, and comprise roughly a
third of tropical coastlines.38 They can form
very thick limestone structures, among them
island atolls and the 2,000-kilometer-long
Great Barrier Reef off Australia.39 The ability
of corals to construct these massive frameworks sets them apart from all other marine
ecosystems.40
Because coral reefs are the most biologically
diverse oceanic ecosystems, they have been
called “rainforests of the sea.” 41 As many as
100,000 reef species have been named and
described, though estimates range as high as
1 to 3 million.42 Centers of particularly high
diversity are the southern Caribbean Sea and
the tropical Indo-West Pacific Ocean, where
the most biologically rich reefs house as many
as 600 coral species alone.43 Most corals derive
at least some of their nutrition from photosynthesis by algae that live within them. Other
reef-dwelling species include sponges, jellyfish,
worm-like animals, crustaceans, mollusks, sea
cucumbers, and sea squirts.44
An estimated 4,000 to 4,500 fish species
inhabit the world’s coral reefs—more than a
quarter of all marine fish species.45 Sea turtles
and certain seabirds and marine mammals
are also associated with reef environments.48
And new reef species are still being discovered.
Recent research off the coast of Indonesia’s
Papua Province found more than 50 species
that are likely new to science, including 24 fish
and 20 corals.47 Among the fish discovered
were two species of bottom-dwelling sharks
that use their pectoral fins to “walk” across the
seafloor. Scientists are now working with the
Indonesian government to protect the area
from commercial fishing and destructive fishO C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
9
The Diversity of the Oceans
ing practices.
Globally, reef fisheries provide food and
livelihood for tens of millions of people in the
tropics and subtropics.48 Of the estimated 30
million small-scale fishers in the developing
world, most depend to some extent on coral
reefs for harvesting fish, mussels, crustaceans,
sea cucumbers, seaweeds, and other products.49
In some regions, people harvest a large diversity of reef species: for example, some 209
species are taken at Bolinao in the Philippines,
250 in the Tigak Islands of Papua New Guinea,
and 300 around Guam.50 A growing threat to
reefs is the booming commercial fisheries
trade, which supplies export markets, the
restaurant and hotel industries, and the livefish trade of Southeast Asia.51 In total, reefassociated fisheries account for at least 10
percent of world marine fishery landings.52
Coral reefs also help to shelter beaches and
coastlines from storm surges and wave action.
Anecdotal evidence and satellite photography
both suggest that reefs provided valuable protection from the impacts of the December
2004 Indian Ocean tsunami: in Sri Lanka,
some of the most severe damage occurred
along coastlines that had suffered heavy reef
mining and damage.53 Reefs also support
extensive recreational and tourist activities.
And reef organisms themselves have proven
useful in pharmaceutical development—
providing an HIV treatment, a painkiller, and
inputs to cancer drug research.54
Yet coral reefs are in serious decline globally.
As of 2004, an estimated 20 percent of the
world’s reefs had been destroyed, showing no
immediate signs of recovery; 24 percent were
under imminent risk of collapse through
human pressures; and 26 percent were under
longer-term threat of collapse.55 Problems
include a decline in coral cover and biodiversity, coupled in some areas, such as the Caribbean and southern Florida, with a shift toward
fleshy seaweed-dominated ecosystems.56
The greatest immediate threats to reefs
are overfishing and pollution from poor landmanagement practices. In 1999, a global survey
of over 300 coral reefs in 31 countries reported
that overfishing had occurred on most reefs,
10
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
reducing key fish and invertebrate species to
low levels.57 Some 50 reef fish species are now
listed as “threatened,” most due to exploitation,
and in many areas it is now rare to see a fish
over 10 centimeters long.58 Overfishing can
remove species that perform critical functions
for reef maintenance, and may explain the
massive outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish
on the Great Barrier Reef since the 1960s,
as species that prey upon the starfish were
depleted.59 Intensified urbanization and agriculture, meanwhile, can increase the run-off of
sediments and nutrients to reefs, reducing light
penetration and/or oxygen levels and smothering corals.60 In a study in Indonesia, reefs subject to such pollution stresses showed a 30 to
60 percent reduction in species diversity.61
Other threats to reefs include coral mining
and removal, coral disease, and, increasingly,
coral “bleaching” as sea temperatures rise.62
Coral mining for building materials has caused
extensive reef degradation in parts of the
Pacific, leading to declines in coral cover, diversity, and fish; reefs mined before the mid-1970s
have shown little recovery.63 Many live corals,
fish, and invertebrates are also collected for
sale to aquarium lovers in the United States,
Europe, and Japan.64 Fishers often use cyanide
to stun and collect the creatures, leading to
serial depletion of large reef fishes and the
death of other species.65 Meanwhile, the number of new coral diseases and disease outbreaks
has increased dramatically since the 1990s,
affecting more than 150 species in the Caribbean and Indo-Pacific alone.66 In the Caribbean, two of the most dominant reef-building
corals have largely disappeared as a result of
outbreaks of white band and white pox diseases. Increased disease, in turn, may be due
to greater seaweed growth, elevated nutrient
concentrations on reefs, or physical debilitation of corals following repeated bleaching
events.67 (See pp. 19–20 for a discussion of
coral bleaching.)
Other rich coastal ecosystems under threat
are the world’s mangrove forests, located just
north and south of the Equator. Mangroves
grow in the intertidal zone between land and
sea and support numerous species as well as
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
The Diversity of the Oceans
protecting coastlines from storms. Yet despite
their importance, an estimated 35 percent of
the original area of mangrove forests has been
lost in the last two decades alone.68 Total loss
is estimated at more than 50 percent, with
mangroves now occupying only 25 percent of
tropical coastlines, down from 75 percent
historically.69 Of the approximately 175,000
square kilometers of mangrove forests that
remain, about a quarter are in Indonesia and
another 20 percent are in Brazil, Nigeria, and
Australia.70
A total of 69 mangrove species has been
documented worldwide, with the highest
diversity occurring in Southeast Asia.71 Mangrove forests support extensive populations of
birds, fish, crustaceans, microbes, and fungi,
as well as reptiles and mammals.72 As many as
117 fish species were recorded in the Matang
mangrove waters of Malaysia, 260 in Vietnamese mangroves, and 400 in the Sundarban
mangrove forest of Bangladesh.73 Mangroves
also support several endangered species, such
as the milky stork, crab-eating frog, and leaf
monkey in Southeast Asia; manatees in Florida; Bengal tigers in India and Bangladesh; and
rare orchids in Singapore.74
In addition to being important habitats,
mangroves help stabilize coastlines and reduce
erosion. In Phang Nga province in Thailand,
the presence of mangrove forests significantly
mitigated the impact of the 2004 tsunami.75
In Bangladesh, China, and Vietnam, mangroves have been planted to prevent storm
damage.76 Mangroves also maintain water
quality in coastal zones by trapping sediments,
organic material, and nutrients—an activity
that can help the functioning of nearby coral
reefs.77 Loss of mangroves can cause inland
saltwater intrusion and deterioration of
groundwater quality.78
Mangroves provide a rich source of nutrients for the many invertebrates and fish that
inhabit them.79 They also export food that
supports near-shore species such as shrimps
and prawns.80 Although few fish are permanent residents, many marine species use mangroves as nursery areas or predation refuges for
larvae and juveniles.81 A recent study of manw w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
groves in the Caribbean showed that where
coral reefs were connected with mangrove
habitat, the abundance of several commercially
important species more than doubled compared to reefs that were not near mangroves.82
The study also suggested that the
largest herbivorous
fish in the Atlantic,
the rainbow parrotfish, may have suffered local extinction
due to loss of mangrove habitat.
Coastal communities in many developing countries are
very dependent upon
mangrove ecosystems for sustainable
harvests of fish,
crabs, shellfish, and
non-seafood products such as wood,
livestock fodder, and
medicinal plants.83
At a commercial
level, mangroves
support many valuable fisheries species,
including an estimated 80 percent of all marine species of commercial or recreational value in Florida. In Fiji
and India, roughly 60 percent of commercially
important coastal fish are directly associated
with mangrove habitats.84 Research in the Gulf
of Mexico and in parts of Asia suggests that
greater mangrove cover is associated with
higher catches of shellfish and fish than mangrove-poor areas.85
Large-scale mangrove destruction is a relatively recent phenomenon, as forests are converted for aquaculture, industrial forestry, and
agricultural, industrial, and tourist facilities.86
In many cases, mangroves have been considered wastelands by governments and planners
whose approach has been to drain them and
fill them in.87 In addition, large areas of forests
have been destroyed to make room for shallow,
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
Crystal-clear waters
and unique coral
reefs have made
the Red Sea one of
the world’s prime
diving destinations.
Yet reefs like
Samadai in Egypt’s
Tondoba Bay, above,
are threatened by
overfishing, pollution, and uncontrolled coastal development.
© Greenpeace/Marco Care
11
The Diversity of the Oceans
dyked ponds for shrimp farming.88 The recent
massive losses of mangrove forests have
resulted in the release of large quantities of
stored carbon, contributing to human-induced
climate change.89
A Mediterranean
rainbow wrasse
swimming over
a seagrass bed in
the Mediterranean
Sea off Turkey.
A final key area of marine biodiversity
under threat is seagrass beds. Seagrasses grow
submerged in shallow marine and estuarine
environments along most continental coastlines and represent some 60 species of underwater flowering plants.90 They vary in structure
from the tiny 2–3 centimeter rounded leaves of
sea vine in Brazil’s tropical waters to the straplike, four-meter-long blades of eelgrass in the
Sea of Japan.91 Because seagrasses are highly
productive and provide physically complex
environments, they support a large variety
of species, including sponges, sea anemones,
corals, worm-like animals, crustaceans, mollusks, sea squirts, fishes, turtles, and certain
waterfowl and wading birds.92 Seagrass beds
also provide a critical food source for two
© Greenpeace/Roger Grace
12
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
threatened marine mammals, the manatee
and dugong.93 In addition, seagrass detritus
may represent an important food input to
coastal fisheries.94
Like coral reefs and mangroves, seagrass
beds serve to stabilize shorelines and reduce
wave impacts.95 Because of their interlacing
rhizome/root mat, they have been reported
to remain intact even through high wind and
wave action during hurricanes in the Caribbean.96 In Phang Nga province in Thailand,
the presence of seagrass beds was reported to
have significantly mitigated the impact of the
2004 tsunami.97 Seagrass beds also provide
food, shelter, and nursery habitat for many
marine species, including juveniles of exploited
fish and shellfish.98 (In fact, most commercially valuable species appear to be seasonal or
temporary seagrass residents.) Seagrasses are
also thought to function as important nurseries for many coral reef fishes. For example,
a recent study showed that seagrass beds in
some areas of the Caribbean provided key
nursery habitat for the threatened Indo-Pacific
humphead wrasse.99
Increasing coastal development over the
past several decades has led to seagrass losses
throughout the world. Over the last decade, a
total loss of 290,000 hectares has been documented, though the true figure may be above
1.2 million hectares.100 Several reports have
associated the loss of seagrass habitat with
declining fish catches.101 Threats include
dredging operations, reduced water clarity
from nutrient and sediment inputs, and pollution. At Laguna Madre, Texas, increased turbidity from continuous maintenance dredging
caused the loss of 14,000 hectares of seagrasses
by hindering plant growth.102 Other dangers
include boat propellers and the dragging of
fishing nets and dredges across beds to collect
shellfish. Rising sea temperatures could also
alter seagrass growth rates and other physiological functions.103 In many cases, seagrass
declines have been linked to multiple stresses,
but only in a few places are measures being
implemented to address these threats.104
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
Dangers of
Fishery Depletions
O
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
Figure 1. Global Fish Harvest, Marine Capture and
Aquaculture, 1950–2005
200
200
Source: FAO
Source: FAO
150
150
Million
Tons
Million
Tons
ver the past century, the everincreasing demand for seafood
has had powerful implications for
marine species and ocean ecosystems. The adoption of more powerful boats,
freezer trawlers, acoustic fish finders, and other
advanced technologies has led to a massive
increase in global fishing effort.1 As near-shore
fish stocks have declined, fishers have extended
their range from the continental shelves to
more distant, deepwater habitats.2
According to the United Nations Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO), fishers worldwide harvested nearly 158 million tons of fish
in 2005, a sevenfold increase over 1950. Marine
capture accounted for about 60 percent of the
total, and fish farming, or aquaculture,
accounted for the remainder.3 (See Figure 1.)
About three quarters of fish production is for
direct human consumption, with the rest going
to fishmeal, fish oil, and other products.4
The growth in the global fish catch has led
to declines in the status of many marine fish
stocks. In 2005, at least 76 percent of stocks
were considered either fully exploited, overexploited, or depleted.5 (See Figure 2.) Areas
with the highest shares of overexploited or
depleted stocks include the southeast and
northeast Atlantic, southeast Pacific, and, for
tuna and tuna-like species, areas of the Atlantic
and Indian oceans.6 In most cases, overfishing
has been the primary cause for the declines,
though in some cases environmental conditions have also contributed.7
Catch records reveal that between 1950 and
2000, fishery “collapse”—a sustained period
of very low catches following a period of high
catches—occurred in 366 out of 1,519 fisheries,
Aquaculture
Aquaculture
100
100
50
50
Marine Capture
Marine Capture
0
1950
0
1950
1960
1960
1970
1970
1980
1980
1990
1990
2000
2000
Figure 2. Status of World Fish Stocks, 2005
Source: FAO
Source: FAO
Recovering 1
Recovering 1
7
7
Depleted
Depleted
Overexploited
Overexploited
Fully
Exploited
Fully
Exploited
Moderately
Exploited
Moderately
Exploited
Under
Exploited
Under
Exploited
0
0
17
17
52
52
20
20
3
3
10
10
20
20
O C E A N S
30
30
Percent
Percent
I N
P E R I L
40
40
50
50
13
60
60
Dangers of Fishery Depletions
A longline fisherman
prepares his hooks
in the port of
Argostoli, on the
Greek island of
Kefalonia in the
Mediterranean Sea.
© Greenpeace/Jeremy SuttonHibbert
14
or nearly one in four.8 Smaller fisheries and
stocks, as well as bottom-dwelling species, were
the most vulnerable. Perhaps the best-known
collapse involved the Atlantic cod fishery off
Newfoundland.9 The decline began in the
1960s, and stocks
finally collapsed in
1991.10 A moratorium imposed in
1992 closed the fishery to commercial
fleets, causing a loss
of at least 20,000
jobs and severely
damaging Newfoundland’s economy.11 The fishery
remains closed and
there is little sign of
recovery of offshore
cod in the area.12
Losses of predatory fish may be
a good indicator
of changes in the
oceans overall. In
2003, an analysis
of 31 species in
the north Atlantic
revealed that over
the past 50 years,
the amount of predatory fish—including
cod, dogfish, herring, mackerel, and salmon—
had declined by approximately two thirds.13
Another study from 2005 found that the abundance of large, predatory, open-ocean fish, such
as tuna, swordfish, and marlin, had declined
by an estimated 90 percent since 1952.14 (Tuna
and billfish showed a loss in species diversity
of 10 to 50 percent in all oceans.15) Other
marine species that have undergone large-scale
declines due to fishing pressure include many
sharks, rays, and skates; sea cucumbers; white
abalone; and deep-sea fish such as the roundnose grenadier and spiny eel.16
Aggregated globally, there has been a measurable decline in the mean “trophic level” of
fisheries catches—the position a species holds
within the food web.17 Fishers are gradually
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
removing the larger, longer-lived predatory
fish and are subsequently targeting smaller,
shorter-lived fish that are lower down the web.
Research indicates that “fishing down the
marine food web” is happening on a global
scale.18 Near Newfoundland, as the average
trophic level dropped sharply between 1957
and 2000, the average size of fish caught also
declined by a meter.19
The ecological impacts of overfishing predatory fish are bound to be widespread and possibly difficult to reverse.20 The direct impact is
a loss in abundance of the target species, as
occurred with Atlantic cod. In addition, selectively removing the larger, faster-growing fish
could alter the genetic diversity of a population
and hence its survival capabilities.21 From a
marine diversity perspective, the practice of
fishing down the food web will reduce the
number and length of pathways that link fishes
with other organisms, resulting in a simplified
web. A less-diverse food web may make it
harder for predators to compensate for environmental fluctuations—for instance, by
switching prey if their main food source
declines in abundance due to climatic and
other changes.
Although fishery collapses may be reversible, the time to recovery may be considerably
longer than was previously thought. An assessment of 90 fish stocks that had suffered prolonged declines showed that even 15 years
after the reductions, many bottom-dwelling
fish showed little if any recovery—particularly
those species typically caught using highly
destructive trawling methods.22 Greater recovery was only evident in species like herring
and sprat, which tend to mature early in life
and are caught using more selective fishing
techniques.
The practice of bottom trawling has been
likened to forest clearcutting.23 As fishers drag
heavy nets and other gear across the sea floor,
this causes massive collateral damage to corals
and other features that offer protection and
habitat for many creatures.24 Bottom trawling
has caused substantial damage to deep-water
corals off the coasts of Europe and North
America and on seamounts near Australia and
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
Dangers of Fishery Depletions
New Zealand.25 In regions off Norway and
the United Kingdom, photographs show giant
trawl scars up to four kilometers long, including some in areas where 4,500-year-old reefs
exist. Off Atlantic Florida, an estimated 90–99
percent of Oculina reef habitat has been
reduced to rubble.26
Bottom trawling kills seabed lifeforms by
crushing them, by burying them under sediment, and by exposing them to predators. In
the North Sea, skates and rays, which have a
high age at maturity and are slow to reproduce,
have disappeared from large areas due to
intensive bottom-trawl fisheries.27 Bycatch—
the incidental catch of non-target species—
from bottom-trawling fisheries is also high. A
study on bottom-trawl discards in the Mediterranean from 1995–98 reported that 39 to 49
percent of the catch was discarded dead or
dying back into the sea.28 In another study in
the Mediterranean, bottom-trawling catches
comprised 115 species that were kept for the
market and 309 that were discarded.29 On average, discards accounted for one third of the
catch by weight.
Although many deep-sea fisheries lie within
the control of coastal nations, management of
these stocks has been particularly poor, with
little attention to the impacts of heavy trawling
gear on habitat.30 Meanwhile, the search for
new stocks has extended into the high seas—
areas beyond national jurisdiction—where
there is little or no management and little
information on the impact of bottom trawling
on habitats. In 2001, just 11 countries were
responsible for 95 percent of the reported highseas bottom-trawl catch: Denmark/Faroe
Islands, Estonia, Iceland, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Russia,
and Spain.31
Industrial fishing, or the targeting of wild
fish for conversion into fishmeal or fish oil, is
another growing activity that is likely unsustainable. Since its beginnings in the 1950s,
industrial fishing has been linked to the decline
and collapse of several populations of small
open-ocean fish, including mackerel and herring stocks in the North Sea and anchovy off
the coast of Peru in the 1970s, and capelin
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
stocks in the Barents Sea in the 1980s.32
Industrially fished species are low in marine
food webs and are therefore important food
resources for many predatory fish, seabirds,
and marine mammals. Consequently, loss of
these stocks may have adverse impacts on
these predators. For example, overfishing
induced the collapse of the Norwegian springspawning herring stock in the late 1960s, and
the population has struggled to recover. When
stocks were at their lowest between 1969 and
1987, this severely affected the breeding success
of Atlantic puffins in the Norwegian Sea due to
a reduction in food supply. Fledgling success of
chicks was less than 50 percent in all but three
seasons, and in most years completely failed.33
Currently, more than a third of the fish used
to make fishmeal worldwide goes into producing feeds for aquaculture.34 Aquaculture—the
farming of seaweed, shellfish, crustaceans, or
fish in freshwater or marine environments—
has been practiced for up to 4,000 years. But
over the past three decades, it has undergone
a rapid expansion, particularly as ocean fish
stocks have declined.35 What was once a lowinput method of maintaining animals for food,
decoration, or recreation has developed into an
intensive, high-input industry.36 It is now the
fastest-growing animal-food production sector
in the world, providing over 40 percent of all
fish consumed.37
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
Yellowfin tuna awaiting the morning
auction at the fish
market in Honolulu,
Hawaii. Stocks of
the tuna are destined
to be critically low
within three years if
fishing of the species
continues unabated.
© Greenpeace/Alex Hofford
15
Dangers of Fishery Depletions
While aquaculture as a whole adds to the
world’s fish supply, the farming of certain
types of marine fish and shrimp results in a net
loss.38 This is because in some intensive aquaculture systems, the weight of fishmeal inputs
(i.e., ground-up wild fish) is greater than the
weight of farmed fish produced.39 Producing
carnivorous fish such as marine finfish, eel,
marine shrimp, salmon, and trout requires
between 2.5 to 5 times as much fishmeal (by
weight) as output of fish.40 For tuna caught
and fattened in ranches, the weight of wild
fish used in production is about 20 times the
weight of tuna produced.41 And to meet its
feed demands, the European salmon-farming
industry requires a marine support area equivalent to an estimated 90 percent of the primary
fisheries production of the North Sea; as a
result, the industry relies heavily on fishmeal
imports from South America.42
As it expands, the aquaculture industry cannot rely indefinitely on finite stocks of wildcaught fish.43 A study of six industrially fished
species used for aquaculture feed found that
most of these fisheries did not meet requirements of sustainability.44 It concluded, for
example, that the Chilean jack mackerel was
overfished; the catch limit on horse mackerel
was too high to sustain stocks; the harvest of
blue whiting was unsustainable; and capelin
and sandeel needed to be managed using a
precautionary approach.
Other threats that aquaculture poses to wild
fish populations and marine ecosystems include:
• Depletion of Wild Stocks for Seed.
Marine aquaculture often relies on the capture
of wild juvenile fish or shellfish to supply
stock, rather than using hatcheries to rear
them. In some cases—as with natural shrimp
stocks—this has led to overexploitation.45 The
practice also results in the capture of juveniles
of other species that are discarded and die.
In India and Bangladesh, up to 160 other
shrimp and fish fry are discarded for every
tiger shrimp collected.46
• Habitat Loss.
Aquaculture for tropical shrimp and fish has
led to the destruction of thousands of hectares
of mangroves and coastal wetlands.47 In 1991,
16
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
it was reported that 60 percent of total mangrove loss in the Philippines was due to aquaculture, mainly for shrimp and milkfish.48 In
Thailand, every kilogram of shrimp farmed by
aquaculture facilities developed in mangroves
results in the loss of an estimated 400 grams of
fish and shrimp from fisheries.49
• Effluent Discharge.
Despite occasional benefits to the diversity of
bottom-dwelling species from modest nutrient
effluent flows, at higher levels the added nutrients from aquaculture are more likely to reduce
species numbers.50 Effluent discharges from
shrimp ponds into estuaries can threaten fish
communities and cause changes in plankton
community structure, leading to excessive plant
growth and oxygen depletion.51 In China, significant pollution has been reported in coastal
creeks adjacent to intensive shrimp ponds.52
• Chemical Contamination.
Chemicals and drugs are often added to aquaculture cages and ponds to control pathogens;
when wastewaters are released, these inputs
can contaminate the nearby environment.53
One of the factors that led to the collapse of
the Thai shrimp farming industry in 1988 was
the indiscriminate use of antibiotics, which led
to the development of resistant bacteria strains
that caused disease in the shrimp.54
• Escape of Non-Native Species.
Non-native aquaculture species can spread
disease to, compete with, or predate on native
populations.55 Interbreeding may alter the
genetic make-up of a wild population and
compromise its resilience to natural environmental change.56 In 1973, seaweed species
being farmed in Hawaii escaped and spread
across coral reefs.57 In southern Chile, salmon
and trout escapees may be competing with
native southern hake and mackerel.58 And the
Japanese Pacific oyster, widely used in aquaculture, has now become established on almost
all northern hemisphere coasts.59
• Introduction of Diseases.
Serious epidemics of two diseases in Atlantic
salmon have been linked to movements of fish
for aquaculture and re-stocking.60 Infectious
salmon anemia and sea lice are both widespread problems in European salmon farming
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
Dangers of Fishery Depletions
and have also affected U.S. farms; there is a
danger they could spread to wild salmon.61
The whitespot virus has caused multimilliondollar losses in Asia’s shrimp farming industry
since the early 1990s and has been found more
recently in Latin America and the United
States, where it has caused losses in Texas
shrimp farms and may also be killing wild
crustaceans.62
Many fishing practices can have serious
effects not just on fish, but on other, non-target species. Each year, substantial numbers
of seabirds, marine mammals, and sea turtles
become entangled or hooked accidentally by
fishing gear, and many die as a result.63 To
prevent some of this “bycatch,” the United
Nations, in December 1992, placed a global
moratorium on the use of driftnets longer than
2.5 kilometers—a type of gear that had been
killing large numbers of marine creatures—
on the high seas.64 Yet the problems continue
today with illegally placed driftnets and the use
of a variety of other net types. Longline fishing, the practice of stringing lines of baited
hooks across the ocean and setting them at the
sea surface or on the seabed is also highly damaging.65 Animals are attracted to the fishers’
discards and baits, ingest the hooks, and are
pulled underwater by the weight of the line
and drown.66
Longline fishing fleets kill an estimated
300,000 seabirds a year, including some
100,000 albatrosses as well as petrels, shearwaters, and fulmars.67 In total, longlining is
responsible for the deaths of at least 61 different species of seabirds, 25 of which are listed
as critically endangered, endangered, or vulnerable by the World Conservation Union
(IUCN).68 While some nations have introduced measures to reduce the number of birds
caught, most longline fleets still do not employ
effective mitigation methods.69 Longlining has
also resulted in the incidental take of sea turtles, including an estimated 200,000 loggerheads and 50,000 leatherbacks in 2000 alone.70
Populations of these two species in the Pacific
have declined by 80 to 95 percent in the past 20
years, illustrating the high risk of unmitigated
longlining to species survival.
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
Large numbers of sea turtles are also killed
in shrimp trawl fisheries, particularly in the
Gulf of Mexico, northern Australia, and Orissa
on the east coast of India.71 In the 1980s,
an estimated 50,000 loggerheads and 5,000
Kemp’s ridley sea turtles drowned each year
in the southeastern United States and Gulf of
Mexico fisheries alone.72 As a consequence, the
U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service worked
with the industry to develop the turtle excluder
device (TED), a metal grid fitted at the top or
bottom of a trawl net from which large animals like turtles and sharks can escape.73 TEDS
were required to be fitted into shrimp trawl
nets on U.S. vessels by 1991, but because sea
turtles mature slowly, it may take decades to
see the long-term effects of implementation.74
Moreover, not all fishers comply with the law
in the Gulf of Mexico, and sea turtles as well as
sharks continue to drown in shrimp nets.75
Fishery operations can also kill or seriously
injure marine mammals that are “captured,”
drowned, and then discarded. Researchers estimate the annual bycatch of whales, dolphins,
and porpoises at over 300,000 and put seals
and sea lions in a similar range.76 For several
populations, including the highly endangered
vaquita porpoise in the Gulf of California and
Hector’s dolphin off New Zealand, fisheries
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
In a photo taken
from the International Space Station,
sunglint reveals the
density of aquaculture empoundments
on the coast of
Liaoning Province,
northeast China,
in 2002.
Image Science and Analysis
Laboratory, NASA-Johnson Space
Center (http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/)
17
Dangers of Fishery Depletions
Greenpeace activists
board the factory
trawler Murtosa in
the Barents Sea off
Norway in 2005,
bearing a banner
that reads “Stop
Fish Piracy.” The
Togo-flagged vessel
is fishing for cod
without a quota in
the international
section of the
Barents known as
the “loophole.”
© Greenpeace/Dick Gillberg
pose the single greatest threat to their continued survival.77 Bycatch also contributes to the
poor conservation status of the North Atlantic
right whale, of which only some 350 animals
remain.78 Since 1986, there have been 50 reported deaths of the whales, at least six due to
entanglement, as well as 61 confirmed cases of
entanglement.79 Several populations of whales,
dolphins, and porpoises are likely to be severely
reduced or lost in the next few decades if nothing is done to address incidental capture.80
A significant—and growing—contributor
to both marine bycatch and fisheries depletions is large-scale “illegal, unregulated, and
unreported” (IUU) fishing.81 Operating outside of fisheries management and conservation
rules, IUU fishers “steal” fish from the largely
unregulated high seas as well as from regulated
areas that have little capacity for monitoring,
control, and surveillance.82 It has been estimated that IUU fishing accounts for up to 20
percent of the global catch and is worth $4–9
billion a year.83 * Of this, some $1.25 billion
originates from exploitation of the high seas
and the rest from the exclusive economic
zones (EEZs) of coastal states. Affected regions
include the Southern Ocean as well as coastal
areas of West Africa, the Pacific, and the
Mediterranean.84
IUU fishing results in large part from overcapacity in the world’s fishing fleets, which has
led to increased competition. As industrialized
countries see their own fish stocks decrease
and impose stricter controls in their waters,
fishers find ways to evade the constraints,
including moving their activities to areas
(often in developing countries) where effective
control is absent.85 IUU fishers frequently
operate without a license and fly “flags of convenience” to hide their true origins. These
flags can be bought easily over the Internet
from several countries that ask no questions
about the legality of the purchaser’s fishing
practices.86 Fishers also launder stolen fish by
“transhipping” their catch to reefers at sea
rather than offloading them directly in ports.
IUU fishing is a growing threat to marine
diversity and a serious obstacle to achieving
sustainable fisheries.87 As in the legal fishing
realm, IUU fishers use bottom trawlers and
other methods that cause extensive ecological
damage to marine ecosystems as well as to
the target fish stocks of regions where it takes
place.88 In the case of bycatch, illegal longline
fishing for the Patagonian toothfish is estimated to kill up to 145,000 seabirds annually.89
IUU fishing jeopardizes the livelihoods of local
fishing communities, threatens the food security of coastal countries, and results in significant economic losses.90
*All dollar amounts are expressed in U.S. dollars unless
indicated otherwise.
18
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
Changing Climate,
Changing Seas
H
uman-induced climate change
is predicted to have profound
impacts on the world’s oceans and
on marine life. Since the beginning
of the Industrial Revolution, the concentration
of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth’s atmosphere has increased from an estimated 280
parts per million (ppm) to more than 379
ppm; by comparison, in the 8,000 years preceding industrialization, levels rose by only 20
ppm.1 About two-thirds of human-caused CO2
emissions is related to the burning of fossil
fuels, and the remaining one-third is from
deforestation and other land-use changes. The
result has been an increase in atmospheric
temperatures, with wide-ranging effects on the
Earth’s climate systems.2
Research indicates that the global ocean
has warmed significantly over the past halfcentury and could warm an additional 1–2
degrees Celsius (°C) by the end of this century.3 Many marine organisms already live at
temperatures close to their thermal tolerances,
so even a small degree of warming could have
a negative impact on their physiological functioning and survival.4 Modeling data for
sockeye salmon suggest that elevated water
temperature could impair fish growth and
increase mortality.5 Climate change could
reduce the abundance of many marine species
and increase the likelihood of local, and in
some cases global, extinction.6
Rising sea temperature is thought to be the
primary cause of the many and widespread
episodes of coral “bleaching” worldwide since
1979.7 Reef-building corals have a symbiotic
relationship with algae that live within them
and supply energy from photosynthesis. Small
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
increases of even 1 °C above the summer mean
maximum can cause the partial or total loss
of these algae and their pigments, causing the
coral to turn a brilliant white.8 The bleaching
is often temporary, but it can reduce the reproductive capacity and growth of corals, increase
their susceptibility to disease, and even result
in death.9
Six major cycles of mass coral bleaching,
affecting hundreds or thousands of kilometers
of reefs, have occurred over the past 20 years,
with a pattern of increasing frequency and
intensity.10 Since 1995, most reefs worldwide
have been affected by mass bleaching. The
impacts on corals range from relatively mild
(in the case of seasonal bleaching) to largescale mortality.11 Mortality near 100 percent
was observed in Indonesian and eastern Pacific
reefs following a bleaching event in 1982–83,
and 46 percent mortality was recorded in the
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
Black band disease
advancing from
right to left in coral,
Diploria strigosa,
Islas del Rosario,
Honduras. The incidence and prevalence of the disease
can increase when
corals are stressed
by above-normal
temperatures.
Sven Zea, Universidad Nacional de
Colombia/Marine Photobank
19
Changing Climate, Changing Seas
western Indian Ocean after a 1997–98 event.12
The extent of coral mortality appears to
increase with the intensity of the bleaching
event, which in turn is determined by the size
and duration of the sea-temperature increase.13
In 2001–02, extensive bleaching on
Australia’s Great
Barrier Reef caused
significant coral
mortality in the
hottest patches, but
no damage in cooler
areas.14 In some
cases, other reefdwelling species
that depend on
coral for shelter
and sustenance have
shown little recovery
from severe bleaching events.15
As sea temperatures continue to
rise, the thermal
thresholds of corals
in most areas of the
tropics and subtropics could be exceeded
by 2030 to 2050.16
Unless there is a
change in these thermal tolerances, reef bleaching on a worldwide
scale could become an annual or biannual
event by this period.17
Corals could cope with the rising temperatures in at least two possible ways: acclimatization, whereby their physiology changes so
they are more tolerant of higher temperatures, and adaptation, wherein more-resilient
individuals within a population survive and
increase in numbers.18 Yet there is no evidence that corals will be able to undergo the
necessary changes quickly enough to keep
pace with predicted temperature increases.19
It is possible that more thermally tolerant
species will become more dominant, leading
to a decrease in reef diversity. Even if corals
are not killed outright by more-persistent
Bleached coral on
the Great Barrier
Reef, Australia.
© Greenpeace/Roger Grace
20
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
bleaching, they may fail to reproduce.20
Many of the diverse species that exist within
coral reef ecosystems worldwide are likely to
disappear if corals are removed by rising sea
temperature.21 The loss of reefs would also
affect the estimated tens of millions of people
who rely on reefs for daily sustenance.22 Unfortunately, the global prognosis for reefs is
unlikely to change unless there is an accelerated effort to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse
gas concentrations.23
Many marine fish seek preferred temperatures, and increasing sea temperature is likely
to affect their distribution as well as their
abundance. As the western Mediterranean Sea
has warmed over the last 20 to 30 years, there
have been increases in the abundance of certain
algae, echinoderms, and fish that thrive at high
temperatures. In the polar regions, where fish
have narrow limits of temperature tolerance,
even slight changes could shift their geographical distribution and affect their physiological
performance.24 Research on a Californian gastropod and a Caribbean coral has shown that
both have shifted poleward due to warming.25
A northward shift in the distribution of some
North Sea fish also occurred in response to rising sea temperatures between 1977 and 2001.26
The impacts of sea temperature rise will
likely be complex and unpredictable. For
example, recent warming trends in northwestern Europe have led to earlier spawning of
the mollusk Macoma balthica, but not to earlier spring phytoplankton blooms.27 This has
caused a temporal mismatch between the
mollusk larvae and their food supply. Furthermore, the larvae are now suffering from
increased predation by shrimp whose peak
abundance time has also shifted.
Changes have also been observed in marine
plankton abundance and community structure
in recent decades.28 Phytoplankton (small
plants) and zooplankton (small animals) lie
at the base of the marine food web, providing
food for fish in their larval and adult stages. A
study of plankton in the North Sea concluded
that rising temperatures since the mid-1980s
have modified the plankton community in
a way that may have reduced the survival of
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
Changing Climate, Changing Seas
young cod, exacerbating existing declines
caused by overfishing.29 The warmer environment may also hamper the reproductive success of cod.
Climate variability is known to affect the
replenishment of stocks with juvenile fish, particularly toward the edge of a species’ range.
There is little evidence, however, that worldwide stock declines are linked in any major
way to climate change.30 On the other hand,
there is abundant evidence that overfishing has
resulted in significant declines in many fish
species. Importantly, it has been suggested that
heavily overfished stocks may be more sensitive
to climate variability due to a loss in biological
diversity, resulting in impaired resilience.31
Fishing pressure and climate change could thus
act in concert and reduce exploited fish numbers below a population size from which they
cannot easily recover.32
Also of concern to marine biodiversity is
sea-level rise, caused by the expansion of sea
water as it warms and by the melting of landbased ice. Between 1961 and 2003, the global
sea level has risen by about 1.8 millimeters a
year on average.33 It is projected to keep rising
over the next several decades, though the
amount will depend largely on the degree of
melting at the polar ice caps.34 Presently, thinning of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet appears to
be nearly balanced by thickening of the East
Antarctic Ice Sheet; losses from the Greenland
Ice Sheet, however, are now more than double
previous estimates, or more than 0.5 millimeters per year.35 Even if greenhouse gas concentrations were stabilized immediately, sea level
would continue to rise from thermal expansion, and ice sheets would continue to react to
climate change.36
Sea-level rise could lead to increased erosion
and flooding of coastal areas, and to intrusion
of seawater into estuaries and freshwater aquifers.37 By the 2080s, this could result in the loss
of as much as 22 percent of the world’s coastal
wetlands, affecting wildlife that depends on
these habitats.38 One study found that a projected sea-level rise of half a meter would submerge up to 32 percent of the beach area on
two Caribbean islands that are known nesting
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
sites for four marine turtle species.39 Another
study predicted significant loss of terrestrial
habitat on two low-lying Hawaiian islands,
affecting the endangered Hawaiian monk seal,
the threatened Hawaiian green sea turtle, and
the endangered Laysan finch.40 Rapid sea-level
rise could also effectively “drown “ coral reefs
by reducing penetration of the light required
for coral-dwelling algae to photosynthesize.41
In addition to raising sea levels, it is possible
that climate change could affect the global circulation of ocean water.42 The so-called Great
Ocean Conveyor Belt, driven primarily by temperature and salinity differences, is responsible
for transporting a huge amount of tropical
heat to the north Atlantic via the Gulf Stream.
During the wintertime, this heat is released to
eastward-moving air masses, warming the climate of northern Europe.43 Ocean warming
and the input of freshwater from melting glaciers and sea ice could weaken or switch off the
conveyor belt in the north Atlantic, reducing
this warming effect.44 While the likelihood of
this is unknown, the possibility of an abrupt
change in ocean circulation and impact on climate is very real. 45
Of all the Earth’s regions, the poles have
seen particularly rapid warming, with resulting
impacts on marine habitats and biodiversity.46
In the Arctic, researchers have reported a 40percent reduction in the thickness of sea ice
between 1958 and the 1990s, and a 10–15 percent decrease in the extent of sea-ice coverage
in the spring and summer since the 1950s.47
The mean annual surface temperature in the
region is predicted to increase another 4–7 °C
by the end of the century.48 By this time, the
Arctic Ocean is expected to be predominantly
ice-free in summer.49
This degree of melting will likely have negative consequences within the next few decades
for Arctic animals that depend on the ice,
including fish, birds, seals, whales, and polar
bears.50 (See Sidebar 1, p. 22.) As the warming
moves northward, some species that are
presently abundant will be restricted in their
range, which could have severe impacts on
commercial fisheries, indigenous hunting, and
ecosystem function. The loss in Arctic biodiO C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
21
Changing Climate, Changing Seas
Sidebar 1. Effects of Climate Change on Arctic Marine Wildlife
Fish. Rising sea temperatures may cause changes in metabolic, growth,
and reproductive processes and affect the growth and survival of smaller
organisms on which fish prey. The distribution of Arctic fish will most
likely change, with cod, herring, walleye, pollock, and some flatfish moving
northward and possibly increasing in abundance. Other species including
capelin, polar cod, and Greenland halibut are likely to have a restricted
range and decline in abundance.
Birds. Arctic seabirds are likely to be affected mostly by changes in their
prey. The most sensitive species to climate change are potentially those
with narrow food or habitat requirements, including the ivory gull, which
is closely associated with sea ice. Research suggests there has been an 80
percent decline in the gull’s nesting numbers, possibly due to an altered
wintering habitat. In the Canadian Arctic, increased rates of egg loss and
adult mortality of Brünnich’s Guillemot in the late 1990s have been linked
to the increase in mosquito numbers associated with higher temperatures.
Seals. Ice-living seals depend on sea ice as a birthing, molting, and
resting platform, and some species subsist on ice-associated prey. Sea ice
must be sufficiently stable to rear pups, and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence,
years with little or no sea ice have resulted in almost no production of pups
compared to hundreds of thousands in good sea-ice years. Continuance of
current and projected trends will have dire consequences for the harp and
hooded seals in the region. Other Arctic seals that depend on sea ice are at
similar risk, including ringed, bearded, and spotted seals.
Polar Bears. Climate change and sea-ice retreat will likely bring
declines in polar bear numbers, leading to possible extinction. Most
female polar bears build their dens on land, but the bears depend heavily
on sea ice as their habitat and feeding ground. Earlier break-up of the ice
in spring and later freeze-up in autumn would mean a shorter feeding
period, resulting in reduced fat stores. Females with lower fat stores are
likely to produce fewer cubs and have smaller cubs with lower survival
rates. In Hudson Bay, Canada, break-up is now occurring about 2.5
weeks earlier than it did 30 years ago, and polar bears have been coming
ashore in poorer condition and birth rates have declined. Ice loss could
also reduce the availability of the bear’s main prey, ringed seals, as their
habitat too disappears.
Source: See Endnote 50 for this section.
versity will likely also result in increased susceptibility to disease, pests, and parasites.51
In the southern polar region, records for the
western Antarctic Peninsula indicate a rapid
rise in atmospheric temperature of nearly 3 °C
since 1951, and a concurrent 1 °C rise in summer sea-surface temperatures.52 Warmer temperatures appear to have led to retreats of five
Peninsular ice shelves over the last century,
including the collapse of the Prince Gustav
and parts of the Larsen ice shelves in 1995.53
22
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
The majority of glaciers in the region have
retreated over the past 50 years, and average
retreat rates are accelerating.54
The warming ocean waters, reduction of sea
ice, and increased glacial melting (with its subsequent effects on ocean salinity) could all significantly affect life in the Antarctic. A recent
study at the South Orkney Islands reported
that populations of both Adélie and chinstrap
penguins have declined in the last 26 years in
parallel with regional warming and a significant reduction in the extent of the sea ice on
which Adélie penguins depend.55 These changes
also appear to be having a negative impact on
numbers of Antarctic krill, a key species in the
Southern Ocean food web and an important
food source for the penguins.56 (See Sidebar 2.)
Many bottom-dwelling Antarctic species are
particularly sensitive to temperature variation.
In a 2004 study, researchers found that a mere
1 °C rise in summer sea temperatures impaired
the biological functioning of three species of
mollusk.57 One scallop species, for example
lost the ability to swim. The study concluded
that some populations of Antarctica’s 4,000plus known bottom-dwelling species would
be at risk of decline from a 1–2 °C increase in
summer sea temperatures.
The rising carbon content of the atmosphere is not just contributing to the warming
of the oceans, but is also making them more
acidic. Over the past 200 years, the oceans have
absorbed about half of the human-caused
CO2 emissions, lowering the pH of the ocean
by about 0.1 unit.58 By 2100, it is estimated
that the predicted rise in atmospheric CO2
will cause a further drop in ocean pH of 0.5—
a reduction well outside the range of natural
variation and one that has probably not
been experienced for hundreds of thousands
of years.59
Ocean acidification could have a major
impact on many marine organisms that build
shells and skeletal structures out of calcium
carbonate. These include corals and echinoderms, together with certain crustaceans,
mollusks, and planktonic organisms. These
structures will become more difficult to produce and maintain and may ultimately start to
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
Changing Climate, Changing Seas
disintegrate, since calcium carbonate tends to
dissolve under acidic conditions.60 Acidification is likely to have major ramifications for
the biodiversity and functioning of coral reefs
and associated ecosystems, including sea-
Catch of Antarctic krill from an Australian
research expedition in 2003.
Courtesy Australian Antarctic Division
grasses and mangroves. It could also affect
non-calcifying marine organisms. The respiratory processes of fish and invertebrates could
be impaired and body tissues could become
acidified, leading to decreased reproductive
potential, slower growth, and increased susceptibility to disease.61
A report on ocean acidification by the UK’s
Royal Society concluded that there was no
realistic way to reverse the widespread chemical effects of ocean acidification or the subsequent biological effects.62 It suggested that the
only viable and practical solution to minimize
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
Sidebar 2. Impact of Climate Change on Antarctic Krill
Since the mid-1980s, significantly smaller populations of Antarctic krill
have been observed in the Antarctic Peninsula region. In the productive
southwest Atlantic sector of the Southern Ocean, krill densities decreased
by an estimated 80 percent between 1976 and 2003. The decline was
found to correlate with the extent and duration of sea ice the previous
winter, since the ice provides winter food from ice algae and is needed
for survival and growth of krill larvae.
Antarctic krill also depend on summer phytoplankton blooms as a food
source. However, a study of plankton community structure between 1990
and 1996 at Palmer Station, Antarctica, revealed a shift in the organisms
comprising the plankton to communities less-effectively grazed by the
krill. The change was linked to increased glacial meltwater run-off, which
reduced the surface water salinity. Krill are also believed to favor cold
water, and rising sea temperatures in one of their key spawning and nursery areas could affect populations as well.
Changes in Antarctic krill could have profound implications for the
Southern Ocean food web. Penguins, albatross, seals, and whales are
especially susceptible to krill shortages. Lower krill numbers in the early
1990s may have contributed to decreasing populations of Adélie and chinstrap penguins observed since 1990. In addition, decreasing trends in birth
weight of Antarctic fur seals and macaroni penguins in the early 1990s
were reported, and the contribution (by weight) of krill in the diets of macaroni penguins began to decline significantly. Baleen whales, crabeater,
and fur seals would also likely be affected by reduced krill abundance.
Source: See Endnote 56 for this section.
the long-term consequences of ocean acidification is to reduce CO2 emissions into the
atmosphere. Without significant action to
do this, there could be no place in the future
oceans for many of the species and ecosystems
we know today.
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
23
Polluting the Marine
Environment
A
n ongoing threat to marine life is the
release of polluting substances into
the oceans, including chemicals,
radioactive substances, nutrients,
oil, and marine debris. These substances can
contaminate the marine environment, directly
kill organisms, and undermine ecosystem
integrity.1
In recent years, there has been rising concern about the effects of mercury, PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), and other chemicals
on marine species.2 Synthetic chemicals known
collectively as persistent organic pollutants
(POPs) are toxic, long-lived, and bioaccumulative, meaning that they build up in the tissues
of fish and other animals. They can also travel
long distances from their point of origin.
Various POPs have become subject to international control under the provisions of the
Stockholm Convention agreed to in 2001.3
But others have received relatively little attention despite their known and potential effects
on marine organisms.
One example is the brominated flame retardants (BFRs), compounds added to plastics,
resins, textiles, paints, electronics, and other
products to increase their fire resistance.4
Between 1990 and 2000, global usage of the
chemicals more than doubled from 145,000
tons to 310,000 tons.5 Asia accounts for more
than half of the market demand for the substances, followed by the Americas and Europe.6
BFRs have been shown to contaminate
marine wildlife all over the world. They have
been found in coastal areas, in the deep oceans,
and even in remote Arctic regions.7 They enter
the environment through emissions during
their production and by leaching from fin-
24
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
ished products during use or after disposal.8
Research from seals and pilot whales indicates
that once absorbed, the chemicals may be
passed from mother to young across the placenta as well as through lactational transfer.9
There is also evidence that some of these substances increase in concentration through
marine food chains.10
While relatively little is known about the
toxic effects of BFRs in wildlife and humans,
several of the most worrisome effects may be
on the thyroid and estrogen hormone systems.11 A study on wild grey seal pups reported
that levels of one category of BFRs, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), in their blubber were statistically linked to levels of thyroid
hormones in their blood, in accordance with
the hypothesis that PBDEs are endocrine disruptors.12 Other studies have demonstrated
that some BFRs are toxic to nervous and
immune systems and can alter liver function.13
A study of muscle tissue from skipjack tuna
collected from offshore waters of several countries in 1996–2001 found PDBEs in almost all
samples at levels ranging from less than 0.1
nanograms per gram (ng/g) lipid to 53 ng/g
lipid, indicating very pervasive contamination
of the marine environment.14 Higher levels
were apparent in the northern hemisphere,
possibly reflecting greater usage of the compounds in that region. The study also suggested that some developing countries around
the East China Sea that receive large amounts
of waste electrical equipment are potential
“hotspots” for releasing PBDEs into the marine
environment.
Some studies have indicated a significant
presence of BFRs in seabirds, and the subw w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
Polluting the Marine Environment
stances were also present in three sperm whales
found stranded on the coast of the Netherlands.15 Because the whales feed in deep offshore waters, this implies that the compounds
have even contaminated deep-water oceanic
food webs. PBDEs were also detectable in polar
bears from different regions of the Arctic.16
One study showed a possible PDBE breakdown product, indicating that the bears may
metabolize the compound and that the levels
typically measured may in fact underestimate
their total exposure.17 Some studies show an
increasing trend of PBDE levels in marine
wildlife over time, while others indicate that
levels have stabilized or even decreased in
recent years, possibly as a result of new controls on the substances in some countries.18
Persistent organic pollutants are just one of
the diverse array of pollutants that present
widespread and long-term threats to marine
ecosystems. Another significant, though perhaps more localized, threat is that posed by
artificial radionuclides, substances that have
no natural counterparts, have extremely long
half-lives, and can act as potent carcinogens
and mutagens.19 Nuclear weapons testing,
predominantly between 1954 and 1962, has
been the largest single source of artificial
radionuclides to the oceans due to fallout.
Other sources include operational discharges
from nuclear power facilities, nuclear reprocessing plants, and, historically, the dumping
of radioactive waste at sea.
Presently, the most prominent sources of
radioactive pollution to the oceans are from
nuclear reprocessing plants in the United Kingdom and France.20 In 1998, sediment from the
seabed near the Sellafield plant in the UK was
found to be so contaminated that some argued
it should be classified as nuclear waste.21 The
“footprint” of contamination stretches from
the Irish Sea to Arctic waters, due to the longdistance transport of radionuclides on ocean
currents.22 Despite some removal due to the
natural processes of ocean circulation, the
remobilization of contaminated sediments
from the seabed acts as a continued source of
the radionuclides to waters above.23
One study detected radiocesium concentraw w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
tions in tissue samples of seals and porpoises
along the UK coast at levels 300 times greater
than in seawater.24 The levels of contamination
in the mammals decreased with increasing
distance from Sellafield, indicating that the
plant was the major source of this contamination. For plutonium, although discharges
from Sellafield peaked in the early 1980s, the
presence of the radionuclide in sediment
continues to act as a source to overlying
waters.25 Plutonium was found in seaweed collected from the Irish coastline between 1986
and 1996, as well as in mussels and oysters on
the northeast coast of Ireland between 1988
and 1997.26
Plant nutrients, mainly in the form of
nitrogen or phosphorous, are also important
marine pollutants. They reach coastal waters
from a variety of sources, including agricultural fertilizer run-off, sewage discharges, and
via atmospheric pollution from the burning
of fossil fuels.27 Excess nutrient pollution in
coastal waters can cause increased numbers of
phytoplankton and zooplankton, resulting in
marked changes in species composition. As
these organisms die and sink, they are consumed by microbes either deeper in the water
or at the seabed. The increase in microbe numbers may cause oxygen to be used up in these
areas, leading to breathing difficulties for
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
Looking up an outflow pipe toward the
Sellafield nuclear
power station,
Sellafield, United
Kingdom.
© Greenpeace/Nick Cobbing
25
Polluting the Marine Environment
Crude oil spilled
from the sunken
tanker Prestige
coats the beach of
Barranin, Galicia,
Spain.
fish and other marine animals.28 Fish tend to
vacate these areas as oxygen levels fall, but lessmobile sediment-dwelling animals that cannot
escape may begin to die.29
The process of nutrient overload and subsequent oxygen loss has led to the formation of
vast, oxygen-depleted areas known as “dead
zones.”30 The number of dead zones has risen
every decade since the 1970s, with a recent
estimate of up to 200.31 The largest such zones
(40,000–84,000 square kilometers) are found
in coastal areas of the Baltic Sea, the northern
Gulf of Mexico, and, until recently, the northwestern shelf of the Black Sea. Smaller and
less-frequently occurring dead zones occur in
the northern Adriatic Sea, the southern bight
© Greenpeace/Pedro Armestre
26
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
of the North Sea, and in many U.S. coastal and
estuarine areas, as well as off South America,
China, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand.32
Some of these zones are fleeting whereas others
persist for a large proportion of the year.33
The increasing numbers of dead zones in
coastal regions are associated with declines in
biodiversity and, in the Baltic and Black Seas,
have led to the demise of some bottom fisheries.34 Severe bottom hypoxia linked to nutrient pollution was first recorded around 1950 in
the Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Mexico.35 Accelerated growth of the Gulf of Mexico dead zone
follows the exponential growth of fertilizer use
beginning in the 1950s.36 In the Baltic, there
is clear evidence that excess use of fertilizers
is associated with oxygen-depleted bottom
water.38 Municipal and industrial wastewater
and atmospheric deposition may also be responsible for nutrient pollution in some places.37
Oil spills in the marine environment can
be catastrophic for wildlife and have long-lasting impacts on ecosystem health as well.
While large spills typically make the headlines
because of their dramatic effects, smaller spills
occur every day from ships, offshore drilling
operations, and routine vessel and vehicle
maintenance.39 For example, from 1990 to
1999, there were 513 spills from tankers and
tank barges in U.S. coastal waters of at least
100 gallons (379 liters) in size.40 In the North
Sea, lawful discharges of oil from offshore oil
and gas installations accounted for the overwhelming bulk of oil inputs from this sector.41
While the size of a spill is important, the
amount of damage also depends on other factors including the type of oil spilled, the location of the spill, and weather conditions.42
Oil spills can have devastating impacts on the
environment. Oil-coated shorelines result in
dead or moribund animals, often in large numbers.43 (See Sidebar 3.) Seabirds and marine
mammals are particularly badly affected: coating of feathers or fur can destroy their waterproofing and insulating characteristics, leading
to death from hypothermia. Animals may also
be poisoned by oil ingestion as they try to
clean themselves or if their prey is contaminated. In the long term, continual exposure to
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
Polluting the Marine Environment
low levels of oil can have a significant effect on
the survival and reproductive performance of
seabirds and some sea mammals.44
A highly visible form of marine pollution is
that caused by marine debris. Far from being
just a few pieces of rubbish scattered along
beaches, marine debris has become a pervasive
problem affecting all of the world’s oceans.45 It
is the cause of injury and death to numerous
marine animals, either because they become
entangled in it or because they mistake it for
prey and eat it. At least 267 different species
are known to have suffered from entanglement or ingestion of marine debris, including
many seabirds, turtles, seals, sea lions, whales,
and fish.46
Studies have shown that marine debris is
ubiquitous in the world’s oceans and on its
shorelines, with higher quantities found in
the tropics and mid-latitudes than toward the
poles. Large amounts are also found in shipping lanes, around fishing areas, and in oceanic
convergence zones. Studies report quantities
of larger floating debris generally in the range
of 0 to 10 items per square kilometer, though
higher amounts were reported in the English
Channel (10 to more than 100 items per square
kilometer) and Ambon Bay, Indonesia (more
than 4 items per square meter).47 Floating
“micro” debris of a much smaller size occurs
at high levels even well offshore; in the North
Pacific Gyre, a debris convergence zone,
extrapolation of the data suggests that maximum levels could reach nearly 1 million items
per square kilometer.
On the seafloor, debris has been studied in
several locations in European waters as well
as in the United States, the Caribbean, and
locations in Indonesia. In Europe, the highest
quantity recorded was 101,000 items per
square kilometer, and in Indonesia roughly
690,000 items per square kilometer.48 In surveys of world shorelines, the largest quantities
of marine debris were reported for Indonesia
(up to nearly 30 items per meter of shoreline)
and Sicily (up to 231 items per meter).49
An estimated 80 percent of marine debris is
from land-based sources, with the rest coming
from marine activities.50 The sources fall into
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
Sidebar 3. Recent Major Oil Spills and Their Effects
Exxon Valdez, Alaska, 1989. When the Exxon Valdez oil tanker ran
aground in March 1989, it spilled an estimated 42,000 tons of crude oil
into Alaska’s Prince William Sound, contaminating at least 1,990 kilometers of pristine shoreline. The spill killed an estimated 250,000 birds
almost immediately and had longer-term effects on abundance and distribution. Of marine mammals, an estimated 2,800 sea otters and at least
302 harbor seals were killed directly, and both species showed several
years of delayed recovery in the spill area. Oil contamination was still evident on Alaskan coastlines 10 to 12 years after the spill, and as recently as
2003 in some lower intertidal zones. As late as 2000, some populations
of sea otters had not recovered from the spill.
Prestige, Spain 2002. On November 13, 2002, the oil tanker Prestige
sank 210 kilometers off the coast of Spain, releasing an estimated 63,000
tons of oil along coastlines in northern Spain and southwestern France.
More than 23,000 oiled birds were collected after the spill, and the total
number of affected birds—including common guillemots, razorbills,
Atlantic puffins, northern gannet, and European shags—was estimated at
between 115,000 and 230,000. In Galicia, the most affected beaches lost
up to two thirds of their total species richness. A study of mussels from
the Bay of Biscay in 2003 indicated that exposure to toxic chemicals was
still causing metabolic disturbances.
Lebanon, July 2006. On July 14 and 15, 2006, Israeli military strikes hit
oil storage tanks at Jiyeh power station on the Lebanese coast, resulting
in the release of an estimated 10,000 to 13,000 tons of heavy fuel oil into
the Mediterranean Sea. Cleanup operations were delayed for five weeks
due to the war, during which time the spill spread over some 150 kilometers of Lebanon’s coastline. Much of the spilled oil emulsified and solidified along the shore, clinging to sand, rock, and stone, though the nearby
seabed was also smothered. Initial impacts on marine wildlife included
reports of thousands of fish and other species being found dead on shores
daily. Because Lebanese marine ecosystems have high biodiversity, there is
particular concern about the spill’s impact on vermetid (marine snail) reef
communities. The spill also threatened spawning fish and sea turtles that
nest on the coast.
Philippines, August 2006. A tanker chartered by Petron Corporation
sank in rough seas off the Philippines on August 11, 2006, spilling some
200 tons of oil initially but leaving an additional 1,800 tons on board. The
spill covered some 320 kilometers of coastline in thick sludge, destroyed
coral reefs, and badly damaged 1,000 hectares of marine reserve. An
impact assessment is being undertaken to assess damage to marine sanctuaries and coastal ecosystems, and environmentalists have called on the
Philippine government to hold Petron and its partners accountable for
damages to the environment and people’s livelihoods. Cleanup has been
hampered by slow decisions on the release of funds by the government,
and to date Petron has not offered financial assistance in mitigation.
Source: See Endnote 43 for this section.
four major groups: tourism-related litter at the
coast (including food and beverage packaging,
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
27
Polluting the Marine Environment
A young boy plays
with syringes on a
beach in Lebanon,
surrounded by
garbage and other
debris that has
been washed up
by the tide.
cigarettes, and plastic beach toys); sewagerelated debris (including street litter, condoms,
and syringes washed from storm drains or
sewer overflows); fishing-related debris
(including lines, nets, pots, and strapping
bands from bait boxes); and wastes from ships
and boats (including garbage that is accidentally or deliberately dumped overboard).
Plastics and synthetic materials are the most
common materials found, and these cause the
© Greenpeace/Serji
28
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
most problems for marine animals and birds.
As plastics weather in the ocean, they are broken
up either mechanically or by sunlight into smaller and smaller fragments, and eventually into
pieces the size of grains of sand. These particles
have been found in seabed sediments and suspended in seawater.51 Even such tiny particles
can cause harm to the marine environment, as
small sea creatures ingest them and potentially
concentrate any toxic chemicals present. Plastic
bags are the major debris item found on the
seabed, especially near the coast.52
Derelict fishing gear, six-pack rings, and
bait box bands kill marine mammals, sea turtles, and seabirds by drowning, suffocation,
strangulation, starvation (through reduced
feeding efficiency), and injuries.53 Derelict fishing gear also damages coral reefs when nets or
lines get snagged by the reef and break it off.
And discarded or lost fishing nets and pots
can continue to trap and catch fish even when
they are no longer in use. This phenomenon,
known as “ghost fishing,” can result in the capture of large quantities of marine organisms,
affecting conservation of fish stocks.54 Marine
debris can also act as rafts, possibly carrying
marine animals and plants long distances to
areas where they are non-native.
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
Freedom for the Seas
G
iven the many threats to the world’s
marine environments, fundamental
changes need to be made in the
way our oceans are managed. While
governments have adopted a wide range of
well-meaning oceans and fisheries regulations,
many of these have been ineffective because
they are either too weak or poorly enforced.1
Moreover, most fisheries management has
been based on consideration of single species
rather that the whole ecosystem of which they
are part. When limits are imposed, these have
tended to be in the form of catch quotas, temporary area closures, and limits on fishing
effort. But fisheries management has generally
fallen far short of adequate protection for
wider marine ecosystems.2
What is needed to fill the present void in
regulation is an integrated, precautionary, and
ecosystem approach to promote both the conservation and sustainable management of the
marine environment. In other words, current
presumptions that favor freedom to pursue
fishing and freedom of the seas will need to be
replaced with the new concept of freedom for
the seas.3
A Global Network of Marine Reserves
From a conservation perspective, safeguarding
ocean life means protecting not just a single
species, but the full variety of species and their
habitats, as well as the complex interactions
between species that make up an ecosystem.
This can be done most effectively by establishing fully protected marine reserves—effectively,
“national parks” of the sea.
Marine reserves offer the highest level of
environmental protection of all marine pro-
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
tected areas (MPAs).4 They are areas of the sea
that are closed to all extractive uses, such as
commercial fishing and mining, as well as to
disposal activities. (Less-harmful uses, such as
recreational boating, passage of shipping, and,
in specific cases, small-scale, non-destructive
fishing, may be permitted up to certain levels,
though many reserves contain core zones where
no human activity is allowed at all.) As such,
marine reserves promote the sustainable use of
living resources in an equitable way that is
underpinned by the precautionary principle.5
Currently, more than 4,000 MPAs exist
worldwide, almost all of which are small-scale
and coastal.6 There is an urgent need, however,
for a global network of fully protected reserves
that also includes protection of the high seas,
or areas beyond national jurisdiction.7 This is
necessary to safeguard against overfishing, illegal fishing, and other expanding human activiO C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
A clown fish seeks
shelter in a sea
anemone in the
Apo Island Marine
Reserve, the
Philippines.
© Greenpeace/Gavin Newman
29
Freedom for the Seas
ties in the deep sea and open ocean.8 In 2003,
the World Parks Congress, an intergovernmental body that meets once a decade to set the
agenda for protected areas, recommended that
at least 20 to 30 percent of all ocean habitats be
Hawksbill turtle
in the Apo Island
Marine Reserve,
the Philippines.
included in a network of marine reserves.9
Others have called for an even more precautionary approach, suggesting that up to 50 percent of the sea should be protected to conserve
viable marine populations, support fisheries
management, secure ecosystem processes, and
assure sufficient ecological connectivity.10
Despite the urgent need to provide such
coverage, it has taken some 30 years to achieve
the current level of ocean protection of roughly
1 percent (compared with more than 12 percent on land).11 Of this, only about 0.1 percent
is fully protected, and many critical ocean
ecosystems, including coral reefs, seamounts,
and hydrothermal vents, remain vulnerable.12
(See Table 1.) Because of the associated functions of coral reefs, mangroves, and seagrass
beds, scientists have suggested that connected
corridors of these key coastal habitats be protected together.13
Marine reserves can result in long-lasting and
often rapid increases in the abundance, size,
diversity, and productivity of marine organisms.14 Areas of the Great Barrier Reef that had
been reserves for 12–13 years showed significant
© Greenpeace/Gavin Newman
30
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
increases in the abundance of coral trout, the
major target of hook-and-line fisheries in the
region, compared to pre-reserve abundance.15
Similarly, reefs in East Africa that had been
protected for several years had higher richness
and abundance of certain commercially
important species compared to fished areas.16
Marine reserves can also benefit fisheries
in surrounding waters as a result of spillover
of fish, larvae, and eggs across reserve boundaries.17 At the Soufriere Marine Management
Area in St. Lucia, after three years of protection, the biomass of commercial fish species
had tripled within the closed reserves. After
five years, in areas outside the reserves, biomass
had doubled and average catches had increased
46 to 90 percent depending on the size of trap
used.18 Marine reserves in the Red Sea, established in 1995, saw a similar result: after only
five years of protection, the catch per unit of
effort of a surrounding fishery had increased
by more than 60 percent.19
Marine reserves can address the problems
of ecosystem damage in cases where a species
has been depleted by overfishing and, at times,
where a habitat has been damaged through
bottom trawling or other destructive activities.
For instance, they can help to restore lost
predator/prey relationships. Following the
creation of a marine reserve in New Zealand,
an area with over 50 percent bare rock that
was being grazed by sea urchins was restored
to seaweed beds after populations of large fish
and crayfish (predators of the urchins) were
allowed to recover.20
Although marine reserves cannot directly
reverse the impacts of climate change or pollution or severe physical damage, their ecosystems may become more resilient than those of
exploited areas, potentially mitigating some of
the negative consequences.21 A well-designed
global network of reserves could act as a series
of stepping stones, providing refuges for populations whose distribution is being forced to
change as a result of climate change.22 (Ultimately, however, the best way to address worsening climate change, ocean acidification, and
many forms of marine pollution is to prevent
these threats from occurring in the first place,
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
Freedom for the Seas
including by accelerating the transition to
clean, renewable energy.)
To be representative, a global network of
marine reserves should include large-scale
reserves on the high seas as well as a mosaic
of smaller reserves in the coastal zone that are
associated with adjacent, well-managed, sustainable fishing areas.23 A network of smaller
coastal reserves has the advantage of spreading
fishery benefits to nearby communities. If local
fishers feel a sense of ownership for their
marine resources and are invited to participate
in siting of reserves, they are far more likely to
support them.24 Much of the success of the
marine reserves in St. Lucia can be attributed
to the full involvement of various stakeholders
from the planning stages onward.25
A global reserve network should be representative of the broad spectrum of marine life,
including places that are biologically rich, that
support outstanding concentrations of animals
and plants, and that have high numbers of
rare or endemic species.26 It is also critical to
protect areas that are important spawning and
nursery grounds, that are important to airbreathing aquatic animals like seabirds, turtles,
and marine mammals, and that are particularly
threatened or vulnerable to human impacts.
Finally, certain areas on the high seas, such as
upwellings and oceanic convergence zones,
deserve protection because of their high productivity. In cases where the location of such
sites is not fixed, governments may be able to
use satellite technologies to update fleets about
the positions of the designated reserves.27 Temporary and/or moveable reserves could also be
used to protect migrating species like turtles
that follow predictable routes across the oceans,
as well as birds and other animals that risk
being killed as bycatch.28
The concept of fully protected marine
reserves is gaining broader acceptance in both
developing and industrialized countries. In
November 2005, local chiefs of Fiji’s Great Sea
Reef established five MPAs with permanent
no-take “tabu” zones—an important step
toward meeting the nation’s commitment to
protect 30 percent of Fijian waters by 2020.29
And in 2006, U.S. President George W. Bush
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
designated the world’s largest marine conservation area off the coast of Hawaii, encompassing nearly 140,000 square miles (363,000
square kilometers) of U.S. waters, including
relatively undisturbed coral reefs.30 In Europe,
Table 1. Level of Protection of Critical Marine Ecosystems
Coral Reefs
Globally, some 980 MPAs cover 18.7 percent of the
world’s coral reef habitats; however, only 1.4 percent of
these are within fully protected no-take reserves, many of
which suffer from poor management and enforcement.
Researchers suggest that at least 30 percent of all reefs be
designated as no-take areas to ensure long-term protection of exploited fish stocks.
Mangroves
About 9 percent of the world’s mangroves lie within
MPAs, though greater protection is required for effective
mangrove conservation.
Seagrasses
No MPAs have been designated solely for the protection
of seagrasses; however, the grasses have been on lists of
key habitats singled out when sites are recommended for
protection, as with Australia’s Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park.
Seamounts
So far, relatively few seamount sites have been designated
as marine reserves or MPAs.
Hydrothermal In March 2003, the Canadian government legalized the
Vents
Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents MPA southwest of Vancouver as the nation’s first MPA, creating an area where
removal of marine resources is not permitted without
a license and approved research plan. In the northeast
Atlantic off Portugal, WWF worked with the Azores regional
government to have the relatively shallow Lucky Strike and
Menez Gwen vent fields designated as MPAs in 2002.
Sources: See Endnote 12 for this section.
a variety of regional conventions have called
for MPA networks in the Baltic and Mediterranean Seas and the northeast Atlantic, though
implementation has been slow to date.31 Once
adopted, a new marine protection law under
development in the EU may bring greater protection of regional waters.32
At the global level, the 2002 World Summit
on Sustainable Development’s “Plan of Implementation” included an agreement to establish
a global network of MPAs by 2012 as a tool
for ocean conservation and management.33 In
2004, parties to the Convention on Biological
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
31
Freedom for the Seas
Diversity (CBD) also committed to the
establishment of such a network within this
timeframe.34 However, no mechanism for
implementing this exists under the current
framework provided by either the CBD or the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS), the leading international
treaty that governs countries’ rights and duties
in the high seas.
Equitable and Sustainable Management
of the High Seas
One way to provide the necessary mandate to
implement a global marine reserve network—
and to oversee a range of other currently
unregulated activities on the high seas—is to
create a new implementing agreement under
UNCLOS.35 UNCLOS not only offers countries
the right to use the oceans, but also requires
them to take measures to protect and preserve
the marine environment.36 What is needed
to fill the present legal void in regulation is
an integrated, precautionary, and ecosystembased management approach to promote the
conservation and sustainable management of
the marine environment in areas beyond
national jurisdiction.
A new UNCLOS “high-seas agreement”
would provide a formal mandate to protect
high-seas areas for conservation purposes and
could be used to address a variety of existing
gaps in high-seas governance. It could be modeled on the U.N. Fish Stocks Agreement, which
was itself negotiated to implement some of the
Articles of UNCLOS. There are advantages to
developing such an implementing agreement
under UNCLOS, since the treaty’s broad remit
already covers most or all of the activities that
affect marine biodiversity and also provides a
binding dispute settlement mechanism.
Among other things, the agreement could:
• Provide a clear mandate and legal duty to
protect high-seas biodiversity, founded on
ecosystem-based management and the precautionary principle;
• Establish an effective centralized monitoring,
control, and surveillance mechanism for
human activities on the high seas, with
enough legal ‘teeth’ to ensure that these activ32
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
ities comply with international law;
• Provide a clear mandate for the identification,
selection, establishment, and management
of high-seas marine reserves;
• Require that an environmental impact assessment be carried out before approval of any
bioprospecting activities in the high seas; and
• Encourage the sharing of knowledge on highseas biodiversity through the creation of a
publicly available list of species.37
Such an agreement would need to be supplemented by other efforts to address specific
threats to the high seas, from overfishing and
destructive fishing practices to marine pollution and climate change. For instance, only a
few ocean areas have been afforded protection
from the highly damaging practice of bottom
trawling. Several countries, along with marine
scientists and environmental groups, have
been lobbying the United Nations to impose
a moratorium on this activity in the high seas.
A legally binding international agreement
would not only help protect vulnerable marine
ecosystems, but it would permit a ‘time out’
to make proper scientific assessments of these
areas and to develop effective policy solutions.38 In 2005, an advisory body to the U.N.
Secretary General recommended that, “global
fisheries authorities agree to eliminate bottom
trawling on the high seas by 2006 and eliminate bottom trawling globally by 2010.”39
In December 2006, the U.N. General
Assembly agreed that some measures should
be taken to protect vulnerable deep-sea
ecosystems from destructive high-seas bottom
trawling.40 Countries that flag vessels that
trawl in these areas, as well as regional fisheries management organizations with the
competence to manage deep-sea fisheries, are
tasked with regulating this activity to ensure
the protection of vulnerable ecosystems.
Since the adoption of the U.N. resolution,
the regional Convention on the Conservation
of Antarctic Marine Living Resources
(CCAMLR) has adopted what is essentially a
bottom-trawling moratorium in the Southern
Ocean around Antarctica.41 But action on
these measures is still required to ensure adequate protection of deep-sea habitats.
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
Freedom for the Seas
Fair and Sustainable Fisheries
Another key to ensuring viable fish stocks and
protection of marine biodiversity is addressing
the movement toward liberalization in the
international fish trade.42 As part of the recent
“Doha Round” of trade talks in the World
Trade Organization (WTO), several industrialized fish-exporting countries have proposed a
“zero-for-zero” scenario whereby they would
cut their tariffs to zero and expect developing
countries to do the same.43 However, tariffs are
often the last industrial policy instruments left
to developing countries to protect domestic
fishing industries, and many countries in
Africa, the Pacific, and the Caribbean are concerned they will lose their current trade advantages if such liberalization goes ahead.
In a 2003 study, the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) predicted that widespread liberalization of the fisheries trade could lead to overexploitation of fish stocks as well as catch
declines for both exporting and importing
countries.44 It also predicted that tariff reductions would stimulate aquaculture production,
leading to increased competition with fisheries
for wild feed. Trade liberalization can also
open developing-country waters to foreign
export-oriented fleets, causing problems of
overfishing, stock declines, and reduction of
marine biodiversity. Overall, fisheries trade liberalization would likely benefit only a handful
of industrialized, fish-exporting countries and
put increasing pressure on world fish stocks.45
In July 2006, the entire Doha Round of
world trade talks was suspended, and negotiations have resumed only on an informal basis.
This creates an opportunity to move discussions on fish and fish products out of the
WTO and into other multilateral fora where
commercial and trade interests do not dominate and where environmental concerns can
be more closely addressed. These include processes under the U.N. Fish Stocks Agreement,
the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO) “Code of Conduct” for Responsible
Fisheries, and the World Summit on Sustainable Development’s Plan of Implementation.
Until these international instruments are uniw w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
versally adhered to and enforced, it would be
irresponsible for WTO members to engage in
greater liberalization of fish trade.
Governments must also agree to phase out
harmful subsidies that contribute to excess
fishing capacity, overfishing, and unsustainable
fishing practices. Each year, the fishing sector
receives an estimated $30–34 billion in external
support, $20 billion of which goes to boat construction, equipment, fuel, and other operational costs that enable fleets to fish beyond
their capacity.46 Negotiations are currently
under way at the WTO to reform international
rules on fisheries subsidies—marking the first
time that conservation concerns have led to the
launch of a specific trade negotiation.47 If successful, they could lead to a broad prohibition
of harmful subsidies in marine wild-capture
fisheries.48 But some critics, such as Greenpeace, say the U.N. Convention on Biological
Diversity, rather than the WTO, is a more
appropriate forum for such discussions
because it focuses specifically on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity rather
than on trade.49
A related measure is to bring an end to
unfair and unsustainable fisheries agreements
that allow industrialized countries to fish in
developing-country waters. Such distant-water
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
Catch of the day in a
fish market in Galle,
Sri Lanka.
© Michael Renner
33
Freedom for the Seas
access agreements are often in the hands of
private companies that negotiate ‘sweetheart’
deals with sometimes-corrupt governments.50
In the case of tuna fishing in the Pacific, the
amount that foreign fleets pay countries for the
Unwanted bycatch,
including a starfish,
far outweighs the
target catch of
orange roughy from
a deep-sea trawl in
international waters
of the Tasman Sea,
between Australia
and New Zealand.
© Greenpeace/Roger Grace
34
right to fish in their waters (in access fees and
licenses) is a mere 5 percent or less of the estimated $2 billion the fish is worth.51 By negotiating fairer deals, coastal states can manage
their resources in a sustainable way, ensure
continued livelihoods and incomes, and build
the capacity to gain the full economic and
social benefits from their natural resources.
Stronger global effort is also needed to
address illegal, unreported, and unregulated
(IUU) fishing both in coastal waters and on the
high seas. Governments need to close ports and
markets to such fishers and their fish, prosecute companies that support IUU fishing, and
outlaw flags of convenience. Several international agreements already in place, if properly
implemented, would provide comprehensive
and effective measures against IUU fishing,
including the FAO Compliance Agreement, the
U.N. Fish Stocks Agreement, the FAO model
scheme for port control, and the FAO international plan to prevent, deter, and eliminate
IUU fishing. Other solutions include establishing a central monitoring, control, and compliance authority for all vessels active on the high
seas and working with seafood retailers to help
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
them adopt sustainable seafood policies, including full traceability of seafood products.52
Mitigating Bycatch of Seabirds, Turtles,
and Marine Mammals
Tackling IUU fishing could also help address
the serious problem of marine bycatch by
minimizing unregulated and unscrupulous
fishing activities.53 Other measures that have
proven successful in mitigating seabird bycatch
include trailing streamers behind vessels where
the hooks enter the water to scare birds, adding
weights to longlines to accelerate sink rates,
and working to make fishing activities less
visible, such as by setting baited lines at night,
setting them deep underwater through tubes,
and dyeing baits blue.54 Canada, Japan, and
the United States have all adopted mitigation
methods to manage seabird mortality for
some North Pacific longline fisheries; however,
China, Korea, Mexico, Russia, and Taiwan lack
such regulations, and use of mitigation methods is also inconsistent or non-existent in
many Southern Ocean fleets.55
In 1998, the FAO set up an “International
Plan of Action for reducing the incidental
catch of seabirds in longline fisheries,” known
as IPOA-SEABIRDS.56 A voluntary program, it
aims to encourage countries involved in longlining to identify where seabird bycatch is a
problem, to develop a national plan of action
for how to reduce it, and to prescribe appropriate mitigation measures. In addition, in 2006,
the UK’s Royal Society for the Protection of
Birds and BirdLife International created a joint
“Albatross Task Force” to educate longline
fishers on the use of mitigation methods.57
Regional fisheries management organizations
can also play a greater role in addressing
bycatch, though so far only the Commission
for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) has taken comprehensive mitigation action.58 Within the treaty
area, seabird deaths from bycatch declined
from 6,589 in 1997 to only 15 in 2003.
Greater use of mitigation efforts is also
needed to deal with the incidental capture or
entanglement of marine mammals. Acoustic
alarms, which alert animals to the presence of
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
Freedom for the Seas
fishing gear or cause them to swim away, have
been effective in the Gulf of Maine and the
North Pacific.59 And time-area closures—the
temporary closure of fishing grounds during
animal migrations—have been shown to
reduce bycatch of endangered Hector’s dolphins in New Zealand. Other mitigation measures include the use of weights on the tops of
fishing nets that allow small marine mammals
to swim over, releasing live animals from
fishing gear, and modification of fishing gear
or practices.60
Marine mammal bycatch is also being
addressed at the international level, under the
Agreement on the Conservation of Small
Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas, the
Agreement for the International Dolphin Conservation Program for the Eastern Pacific, and
the International Whaling Commission.61 The
Cetacean Bycatch Resource Center, established
in 2002 with the support of WWF, recommends that countries adopt national action
plans to reduce incidental mortality.62 In
December 2005, WWF worked with the Mexican government to eliminate the use of gillnets and shrimp trawls across the range of the
endangered vaquita porpoise.63
In the United States, the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act has set a goal of reaching
near-zero levels of incidental mortality of
marine mammals.64 As a result of innovative
mitigation measures to guarantee “dolphinsafe” tuna—including changes in fishing gear
and net-setting, and hand rescue by divers—
dolphin mortality from the U.S. tuna fishery
dropped from an estimated 133,000 in 1986 to
less than 2,000 in 1998.65 But although recent
mortality should no longer be significant from
a population point of view, dolphin populations have not yet recovered.66 The chronic
effects of prolonged chase and frequent capture may be impairing breeding success.
U.S. bycatch of sea turtles has been addressed in part by mandating the use of turtle
excluder devices (TEDs) in the shrimp trawling industry.67 TEDs have also been implemented in 15 other countries that export
shrimp to the United States. This work has
been conducted by several U.S. government
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
agencies and by the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of
Sea Turtles, an intergovernmental treaty that
provides the legal framework for countries in
the Americas to take actions to benefit sea turtles.68 While TED programs have been cited as
a “success story” of bycatch mitigation, noncompliance still occurs.69 More research is also
needed to develop effective turtle bycatch mitigation techniques for longline fisheries.70
Targeting Seafood Buyers and the
Aquaculture Industry
Because intergovernmental and even national
policies can be difficult to implement, a bottom-up approach—stimulating consumer
market demand for “sustainable seafood”—
can serve as a parallel means to encourage
more responsible fishing practices.71 One
way to do this is by mandating strict seafood
labeling that requires producers to disclose
where and how the fish was caught. In the
United Kingdom, for example, the supermarket chain Waitrose now provides information
on the origins of all seafood sold at its fresh
fish counters.72 The company no longer sells
marlin, sturgeon products, shark, and orange
roughy due to concerns about fishing methods
or sustainability, and has committed to removing all products caught using beam-trawls—a
destructive type of bottom trawl used to target
flatfish and shrimp—from its shelves by the
end of 2007.73
In a move that could have a significant
impact on the seafood market, Wal-Mart, the
world’s largest food retailer, has pledged to sell
only “MSC-certified” wild-caught fresh and frozen fish in North America within 3–5 years.74
The London-based Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), a leading accreditor of sustainable
fisheries, has certified more than 20 fisheries
worldwide and grants its blue eco-label to
more than 600 sustainably sourced seafood
products.75 Even so, as of April 2007, only
around 6 percent (by quantity) of the world’s
wild capture fisheries were engaged in the MSC
program.76 Given that the global demand for
seafood continues to rise, much more can be
done to encourage both producers and conO C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
35
Freedom for the Seas
sumers to support sustainable seafood.
But seafood labeling can be tricky. For
instance, both the fishing industry and governments have promoted farmed fish as a “sustainable” solution to fishery depletions. But most
aquaculture, with the exception of some herbivorous shellfish farms and freshwater herbivorous fish farms, exacerbates the problems of
overfishing due to the use of wild fish for feed.77
To address the negative effects of aquaculture, governments and the industry could
promote farmed fish that can be fed on herbivorous diets and encourage the replacement of
fishmeal and fish oil with vegetable-based
feeds.78 To protect coastal ecosystems such as
wetlands and mangroves, governments can pass
enforceable regulations on the positioning of
aquaculture facilities. Governments could also
eliminate subsidies for ecologically unsound
aquaculture and impose fines to help reduce
escapes by farmed species into the wider environment. Effluent wastes from aquaculture can
be reduced by using integrated systems to efficiently utilize food and water resources, reduce
costs, and increase productivity.79
Combating Marine Pollution
Wide-ranging efforts are also needed to tackle
the myriad sources of marine pollution. The
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic
Pollutants (POPs), which entered into force in
May 2004, requires governments to take measures to eliminate or reduce releases of certain
well-known persistent chemicals, such as dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).80
But the treaty does not apply to any brominated flame retardants, despite their potential
toxicity to marine life (so far, one form of the
chemicals has been proposed for the list and
another is under review for inclusion).81 Several of these substances are being regulated on
a national or regional level in Europe, China,
Japan, and the United States, but global action
will ultimately be needed.82 Unfortunately,
even if many POPs are phased out globally,
they will leave a legacy for years to come as
they continue to leach out from materials and
persist in the environment.
In 1998, members of the Commission for
36
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
the Protection of the Marine Environment
of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR) took a
notable precautionary approach to chemical
pollution by agreeing to stop the discharge,
emission, and loss of all hazardous substances
to the marine environment by 2020.83 Since
then, the list of hazardous substances identified
by OSPAR for priority action has grown from
12 to more than 40, including the most commonly used brominated flame retardants.84
But implementation has been slow, in part
because of parallel efforts to develop stricter
chemicals regulations within Europe. The new
REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of CHemicals) legislation, agreed to in
December 2006, shifts the burden of proof
from governments to industry and requires
companies to substitute for many of the most
hazardous chemicals when safer alternatives
are available.85 Although it remains uncertain
how effective REACH will be in practice (and
whether it provides sufficient tools to meet
OSPAR’s chemical pollution target), it represents a significant step forward.
Alongside its chemicals target, OSPAR
has also adopted a precautionary strategy to
tackle radioactive pollution.86 The agreement
requires progressive and substantial reduction
in discharges, emissions, and losses of radioactive substances to the marine environment
by 2020, with the ultimate target of near-background or near-zero levels. However, implementation has been limited here too by the
ongoing (and, over some periods, increasing)
discharges from nuclear fuel reprocessing
plants, an issue of long-standing disagreement
in northern Europe.87 In the end, real progress
may be achieved only as existing nuclear facilities reach the end of their working lives, rather
than through any radical change in policy or
practice. In the meantime, the legacy of radioactive pollution of marine ecosystems in the
northeast Atlantic will continue to grow.
With regard to oil pollution, in 1995 the
International Maritime Organization agreed
to regulations for a global phase out of singlehulled oil tankers.88 Environmental groups are
now demanding that the industry pay for the
damage caused by accidents through full and
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
Freedom for the Seas
unlimited liability along a chain of responsibilities, from the owners, managers, and operators
of vessels to any charterers or owners of the
cargo. In light of the toxicity of oil spills and
the emerging threats of climate change, however, there is an urgent need to phase out the
use of oil and to move toward clean, renewable
energy. Together with more sustainable farming methods, this would also help lessen nutrient inputs to the coastal marine environment,
helping to slow the expansion of dead zones
and ultimately reversing this trend.89
A variety of global, international, and
national initiatives aim to protect the oceans
from marine debris. The most far reaching of
these, the International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from ships (MARPOL), has been ratified by 122 countries and
includes language calling for a ban on the
dumping of most garbage and all plastic materials from ships at sea.90 There is some evidence that the implementation of MARPOL
has reduced the marine debris problem; however, given that most of this debris originates
on land, even with full global compliance with
the treaty these sources would remain.91
Other measures to address marine debris
include manual clean-up operations, campaigns
to prevent losses due to poor industrial practice, and school and public education programs. Ultimately, however, reducing the
problem of marine debris will require a “zerowaste” strategy that encompasses waste reduction, reuse, and recycling as well as producer
responsibility and eco-friendly design.
The Future
There is still much to learn about the complex
ecology of our oceans. However, enough is
known for the world’s governments and other
stakeholders to take positive action to ensure
that protection of the marine environment is
at the core of their marine policies and activities. Although the state of the Earth’s oceans
has deteriorated rapidly in recent years, there is
also growing scientific evidence that these negative trends could be reversed. The implemen-
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
tation of the ecosystem approach, through the
establishment of networks of large-scale, fully
protected marine reserves and the sustainable
management of surrounding waters, is the key
to restoring the health and vitality of our oceans
and maintaining the livelihoods of the many
coastal communities that depend on them.
Protecting the myriad of marine life—from
the largest whales to the smallest planktonic
creature—is necessary not only for its own
sake, but for ours too. Unless urgent action is
taken, future generations will be denied the
chance to experience or enjoy the benefits of
the life that thrives within the international
waters of Earth’s oceans, the greatest remaining
global commons.
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
A school of jacks
in Apo Island
Marine Reserve,
the Philippines.
© Greenpeace/Gavin Newman
37
Endnotes
The Diversity of the Oceans
1 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),
Global Biodiversity Assessment (Nairobi: 1995); Ronald K.
O’Dor, The Unknown Ocean: The Baseline Report of the
Census of Marine Life Research Program (Washington, DC:
Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education,
2003), p. 25.
2. J.S. Gray, “Marine Biodiversity: Patterns, Threats and
Conservation Needs,” Biodiversity and Conservation, vol. 6
(1997), pp. 153–75.
3. UNEP, op. cit. note 1.
4. UNEP, Ecosystems and Biodiversity in Deep Waters
and High Seas, UNEP Regional Seas Report and Studies
No. 178 (Nairobi: 2006).
5. J.F. Grassle, “Deep-sea Benthic Biodiversity,”
Bioscience, vol. 41, no. 7 (1991), pp. 464–69.
6. UNEP, op. cit. note 4, p. 14; J.D. Gage and P.A. Tyler,
Deep Sea Biology: A Natural History of Organisms at the
Deep-Sea Floor (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press, 2001); 2,650 from J.A. Koslow, A. Williams, and J.R.
Paxton, “How many demersal fish species in the deep sea?
A test of a method to extrapolate from local to global
diversity,” Biodiversity and Conservation, vol. 6 (1997), pp.
1523–32.
7. Gage and Tyler, op. cit. note 6.
8. Gray, op. cit. note 2.
9. A.D. Rogers, “The biology of seamounts,” Advances in
Marine Biology, vol. 30 (1994), pp. 305–50; 230 from Seamounts Online, electronic database, http://seamounts
.sdsc.edu, viewed 1 August 2007; 50,000 from A. Kitchingman and S. Lai, “Inferences on potential seamount
locations from mid-resolution bathymetric data,” in T.
Morato and D. Pauly, eds., Seamounts: Biodiversity and
Fisheries, Fisheries Centre Research Reports, vol. 12, no. 5
(2004).
10. J.A. Koslow et al., “Seamount benthic macrofauna off
southern Tasmania: community structure and impacts of
trawling,” Marine Ecology Progress Series, vol. 213 (2001),
pp. 111–25; K. Stocks, “Seamount invertebrates: composition and vulnerability to fishing,” in Morato and Pauly,
op. cit. note 9.
38
Fock et al., “Biodiversity and species-environment relationships of the demersal fish assemblage at the Great
Meteor Seamount (subtropical NE Atlantic) sampled by
different trawls,” Marine Biology, vol. 141 (2002), pp.
185–99; 263 species from D.M. Tracey et al., “Fish species
composition on seamounts and adjacent slope in New
Zealand waters,” New Zealand Journal of Marine and
Freshwater Research, vol. 38 (2004), pp. 163–82.
13. Stocks, op. cit. note 10.
14. K. Stocks, “Seamounts online: An online resource for
data on the biodiversity of seamounts,” in Morato and
Pauly, op. cit. note 9.
15. Koslow et al., op. cit. note 10.
16. Seamounts have ‘apparently’ high rates of endemism,
as it is not yet possible to know whether the species present do occur elsewhere in the oceans. Stocks, op. cit. note
10, p. 20; New Caledonia from B.R. Richer de Forges, J.A.
Koslow, and G.C.B. Poore, “Diversity and endemism of
the benthic seamount fauna in the southwest Pacific,”
Nature, 22 June 2000, pp. 944–47.
17. Stocks, op. cit. note 10; Koslow et al., op. cit. note 10.
18. P.A. Johnston and D. Santillo, “Conservation of
seamount ecosystems: Application of a marine protected
areas concept,” Archive of Fishery and Marine Research,
vol. 51, nos. 1–3 (2004), pp. 305–19.
19. Ibid.
20. Koslow et al., op. cit. note 10.
21. Gage and Tyler, op. cit. note 6.
22. C.T.S. Little and R.C. Vrijenhoek, “Are hydrothermal
vent animals living fossils?” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol. 18, no. 11 (2003), pp. 582–88.
23. E. Ramirez-Llodra, T.M. Shank, and C.R. German,
“Biodiversity and biogeography of hydrothermal vent
species: Thirty years of discovery and investigations,”
Oceanography, vol. 20, no. 1 (2007), pp. 30-41.
24. Little and Vrijenhoek, op. cit. note 22; Census of
Marine Life, “Extreme Life, Marine Style, Highlights 2006
Ocean Census,” press release (Washington, DC: 10
December 2006).
25. Ramirez-Llodra, Shank, and German, op. cit. note 23.
11. Stocks, op. cit. note 10.
26. Gage and Tyler, op. cit. note 6.
12. Huge aggregations from Rogers, op. cit. note 9; F.
27. Little and Vrijenhoek, op. cit. note 22.
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
Endnotes
28. Gage and Tyler, op. cit. note 6.
29. Microbes from L. Glowka, “Putting marine scientific
research on a sustainable footing at hydrothermal vents,”
Marine Policy, vol. 27: (2003), pp. 303–12; fish from M.
Biscoito et al., “Fishes from the hydrothermal vents and
cold seeps—An update,” Cahiers de Biologie Marine, vol.
43 (2002), pp. 359–62.
30. Glowka, op. cit. note 29.
31. K. Heilman, “Nautilus One Step Closer to Undersea
Mining,” resourceinvestor.com, 4 October 2006, at
www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=24459.
32. Glowka, op. cit. note 29.
33. Greenpeace International, Bioprospecting in the Deep
Sea (Amsterdam: November 2005).
34. D. Malakoff, “New tools reveal treasures at ocean hot
spots,” Science, vol. 304, no. 5674 (2004), pp. 1104–05.
35. J. Paramo et al., “Relationship between abundance
of small pelagic fishes and environmental factors in the
Colombian Carribbean Sea: An analysis based on hydroacoustic information,” Aquatic Living Resources, vol. 16
(2003), pp. 239–45; D. Pauly and V. Christensen, “Primary
production required to sustain global fisheries,” Nature,
16 March 1995, pp. 255–57; T.M. Ward et al., “Pelagic
ecology of a northern boundary current system: effects of
upwelling on the production and distribution of sardine
(Sardinops sagax), anchovy (Engraulis australis) and
southern bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii) in the Great
Austrailian Bight,” Fisheries Oceanography, vol 15, no. 3
(2006), pp. 191–207.
36. World Conservation Union (IUCN), “High Seas
Marine Protected Areas,” Parks, vol. 15, no. 3 (2005), pp.
48–55.
37. Ibid.
38. M.D. Spalding, C. Ravilious, and E.P. Green, World
Atlas of Coral Reefs, prepared at the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) (Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press, 2001).
39. C. Birkeland, “Introduction,” in C. Birkeland, ed., Life
and Death of Coral Reefs (Toronto: Chapman and Hall,
1997), pp. 1–12.
40. UNEP, op. cit. note 1.
41. K.P. Sebens, “Biodiversity of coral reefs: what are we
losing and why?” American Zoologist, vol. 34 (1994), pp.
115–33.
42. Estimate of 100,000 from Spalding, Ravilious, and
Green, op. cit. note 38; 1 to 3 million from W.H. Adey et
al., “Coral reefs: endangered, biodiverse, genetic resources,”
in C. Sheppard, ed., Seas at the Millennium: An Environmental Evaluation. Volume III, Global Issues and Processes
(Oxford, UK: Pergamon, Elsevier Science Ltd., 2000).
43. J.C. Briggs, “Coral reefs: conserving the evolutionary
sources,” Biological Conservation, vol. 126 (2005), pp.
297–305; 600 species from Spalding, Ravilious, and
Green, op. cit. note 38.
44. Spalding, Ravilious, and Green, op. cit. note 38.
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
45. R.F.G. Ormond and C.M. Roberts, “The biodiversity
of coral reefs fishes,” in R.F.G Ormond, J.D. Gage, and
M.V. Angel, eds., Marine Biodiversity: Patterns and
Processes (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,
1997), pp. 216–57.
46. Spalding, Ravilious, and Green, op. cit. note 38.
47. Conservation International, “Scientists Believe Bird’s
Head Seascape Is Richest on Earth,” news feature
(Washington, DC: 18 September 2006).
48. J.W. McManus et al., “Coral reef fishing and coralalgal phase shifts: implications for global reef status,” ICES
Journal of Marine Science, vol. 57 (2000), pp. 572–78.
49. UNEP-WCMC, “In the front line: shoreline protection and other ecosystem services from mangroves and
coral reefs” (Cambridge, UK: 2006); F. Moberg and C.
Folke, “Ecological goods and services of coral reef ecosystems,” Ecological Economics, vol. 29 (1999), pp. 215–33.
50. Birkeland, op. cit. note 39.
51. UNEP-WCMC, op. cit. note 49.
52. Y. Sadovy, “Trouble on the reef: the imperative for
managing vulnerable and valuable fisheries,” Fish and
Fisheries, vol. 6 (2005), pp. 167–85.
53. UNEP, After the Tsunami: Rapid Environmental
Assessment (Nairobi: 2006).
54. UNEP-WCMC, op. cit. note 49; Birkeland, op. cit.
note 39; Moberg and Folke, op. cit. note 49.
55. C. Wilkinson, ed., Status of Coral Reefs of the World
2004. Volume 1 (Townsville MC, Australia: Global Coral
Reef Monitoring Network and Australian Government/Australian Institute of Marine Science, 2004).
56. J.M. Pandolfi et al., “Are U.S. coral reefs on the slippery slope to slime?” Science, 18 March 2005, pp. 1725–26;
D.R. Bellwood et al., “Confronting the coral reef crisis,”
Nature, 24 June 2004, pp. 827–33; A.M. Szmant, “Nutrient
enrichment on coral reefs: Is it a major cause of coral reef
decline? Esturaries, vol. 25, no. 4b (2002), pp. 743–66.
57. G. Hodgson, “A global assessment of human effects
on coral reefs,” Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 38, no. 5
(1999), pp. 345–55.
58. Estimate of 50 fishes by IUCN, per Sadovy, op. cit.
note 52; 10 centimeters from Wilkinson, op. cit. note 55.
59. C.M. Roberts, “Effects of fishing on the ecosystem
structure of coral reefs,” Conservation Biology, vol. 9, no. 5
(1995), pp. 988–95; B.E. Brown, “Disturbances to reefs in
recent times, in Birkeland, op. cit. note 39; J.B.C. Jackson
et al., “Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of
coastal ecosystems,” Science, 27 July 2001, pp. 629–38.
60. Wilkinson, op. cit. note 55; UNEP-WCMC, op. cit.
note 49.
61. E. Edinger et al., “Reef degradation and coral biodiversity in Indonesia: Effects of land-based pollution,
destructive fishing practices and changes over time,”
Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 36, no. 8 (1998), pp. 617–30.
62. Wilkinson, op. cit. note 55; J.M. Pandolfi et al.,
“Global trajectories of the long-term decline of coral reef
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
39
Endnotes
ecosystems,” Science, 15 August 2003, pp. 955–60.
88. Valiela, Bowen, and York, op. cit. note 68.
63. Brown, op. cit. note 59.
89. UNEP-WCMC, op. cit. note 49.
64. C. Wabnitz et al., From Ocean to Aquarium
(Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC, 2003).
90. Some 60 species from E.P. Green and F.T. Short,
World Atlas of Seagrasses, prepared by UNEP-WCMC
(Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2003); R.C.
Phillips and M.J. Durako, “Global status of seagrasses,” in
Sheppard, op. cit. note 42, pp. 1–16.
65. Wilkinson, op. cit. note 55.
66. Ibid.
67. M.M. Nugues et al., “Algal contact as a trigger for
coral disease,” Ecology Letters, vol. 7 (2004), pp. 919–23;
J.F. Bruno et al., “Nutrient enrichment can increase the
severity of coral diseases,” Ecology Letters, vol. 6 (2003),
pp. 1056–61; Szmant, op. cit. note 56.
68. I. Valiela, J.L. Bowen, and J.K. York, “Mangrove forests: One of the world’s threatened major tropical environments,” Bioscience, vol. 51, no. 10 (2001), pp. 807–15.
69. P. Rönnbäck, “The ecological basis for economic value
of seafood production supported by mangrove ecosystems,” Ecological Economics, vol. 29 (1999), pp. 235–52.
70. Valiela, Bowen, and York, op. cit. note 68.
71. C.D. Field, “Mangroves,” in Sheppard, op. cit. note 42,
pp. 17–30.
92. Phillips and Durako, op. cit. note 90.
93. Green and Short, op. cit. note 90.
94. E.L. Jackson et al., “The importance of seagrass beds
as a habitat for fishery species,” in Oceanography and
Marine Biology: An Annual Review, vol. 39 (2001), pp.
269–303.
95. M.W. Beck et al., “The identification, conservation,
and management of estuarine and marine nurseries for
fish and invertebrates,” Bioscience, vol. 51, no. 8 (2001),
pp. 633–41.
96. Phillips and Durako, op. cit. note 90.
97. UNEP, op. cit. note 53.
72. Ibid.
98. Jackson et al., op. cit. note 94.
73. M.S. Islam and M. Haque, “The mangrove-based
coastal and nearshore fisheries of Bangladesh: ecology,
exploitation and management,” Reviews in Fish Biology
and Fisheries, vol. 14 (2004), pp. 153–80; Rönnbäck, op.
cit. note 69.
99. M. Dorenbosch et al., “Seagrass beds and mangroves
as potential nurseries for the threatened Indo-Pacific
humpback wrasse, Cheilinus undulatus and Caribbean
rainbow parrotfish, Scarus guacamai,” Biological Conservation, vol. 129 (2006), pp. 277–82.
74. Valiela, Bowen, and York, op. cit. note 68; Field, op.
cit. note 71.
100. Phillips and Durako, op. cit. note 90.
75. UNEP, op. cit. note 53.
101. Jackson et al., op. cit. note 94; Phillips and Durako,
op. cit. note 90.
76. Rönnbäck, op. cit. note 69.
102. Phillips and Durako, op. cit. note 90.
77. Ibid.
103. F.T. Short and H.A. Neckles, “The effects of global
climate change on seagrasses,” Aquatic Botany, vol. 63
(1999), pp. 169–96.
78. UNEP-WCMC, op. cit. note 49.
79. Field, op. cit. note 71; Rönnbäck, op. cit. note 69.
80. Valiela, Bowen, and York, op. cit. note 68.
81. Field, op. cit. note 71; Rönnbäck, op. cit. note 69;
Islam and Haque, op. cit. note 73.
82. P.J. Mumby, “Mangroves enhance the biomass of
coral reef fish communities in the Caribbean,” Nature, 5
February 2004, pp. 533–36.
83. Rönnbäck, op. cit. note 69; UNEP-WCMC, op. cit.
note 49.
84. Rönnbäck, op. cit. note 69.
85. K. Kathiresan and N. Rajendran, “Fishery resources
and economic gain in three mangrove areas on the southeast coast of India,” Fisheries Management and Ecology,
vol. 9 (2002), pp. 277–83; E. Baran and J. Hambrey,
“Mangrove conservation and coastal management in
Southeast Asia: What impact on fishery resources? Marine
Pollution Bulletin, vol. 37, no. 8–12 (1998), pp. 431–40.
40
91. Green and Short, op. cit. note 90.
104. Green and Short, op. cit. note 90.
Dangers of Fishery Depletions
1. D. Pauly et al., “Towards sustainability in world fisheries,” Nature, vol. 418 (2002), pp. 689–95.
2. Near-shore stocks from C.M. Roberts, K. Mason, and
J.P. Hawkins, Roadmap to Recovery: A Global Network of
Marine Reserves (Amsterdam: Greenpeace International,
2006); deep water from J.A. Koslow et al., “Continental
slope and deep-sea fisheries: implications for a fragile
ecosystem,” ICES Journal of Marine Science, vol. 57
(2000), pp. 548–57.
3. Figure 1 from U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), FISHSTAT database, viewed 26 July 2007.
4. FAO, The State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture
2006 (Rome: 2007), pp. 3–4.
5. Estimate of 76 percent and Figure 2 from Ibid., p. 29.
86. Valiela, Bowen, and York, op. cit. note 68.
6. Ibid., pp. 32–33.
87. Field, op. cit. note 71.
7. FAO, The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
Endnotes
2004 (Rome: 2004).
20. Myers and Worm, op. cit. note 14.
8. C. Mullon, P. Fréon, and P. Cury, “The dynamics of
collapse in world fisheries,” Fish and Fisheries, vol. 6
(2005), pp. 111–20.
21. Ibid; Pauly et al., op. cit. note 1.
9. W.H. Lear, “History of fisheries in the Northwest
Atlantic: The 500 year perspective,” Journal of Northwest
Atlantic Fisheries Science, vol. 23 (1998), pp. 41–73.
10. R.L. Haedrich and S.M. Barnes, “Changes over time
of the size structure in an exploited shelf fish community,” Fisheries Research, vol. 31 (1997), pp. 22–39; R.A.
Myers et al., “The collapse of cod in Eastern Canada: the
evidence from tagging data,” ICES Journal of Marine
Science, vol. 53 (1996), pp. 629–40; R.A. Myers, J.A.
Hutchings, and N.J. Barrowman, “Hypothesis for the
decline of cod in the North Atlantic,” Marine Ecology
Progress Series, vol. 138 (1996), pp. 293–308.
11. W.E. Schrank, “The Newfoundland fishery: Ten years
after the moratorium,” Marine Policy, vol. 29 (2005), pp.
407–20; R. Hilborn et al., “State of the World’s Fisheries,”
Annual Review of Environment and Resources, vol. 28
(2003), pp. 359–99.
12. Schrank, op. cit. note 11.
13. V. Christensen et al., “Hundred-year decline of North
Atlantic predatory fishes,” Fish and Fisheries, vol. 4 (2003),
pp. 1–24.
14. R.A. Myers and B. Worm, “Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities,” Nature, vol. 423
(2003), pp. 280–83.
15. B. Worm et al., “Global patterns of predator diversity
in the open oceans,” Science, vol. 309 (2005), pp. 1365–69.
16. J.K. Baum et al., “Collapse and conservation of shark
populations in the Northwest Atlantic,” Science, vol. 299
(2003), pp. 389–92; K. Brander, “Disappearance of common skate Raia batis from Irish Sea,” Nature, vol. 290
(1981), pp. 48–49; J.M. Casey and R.A. Myers, “Near
extinction of a large widely distributed fish,” Science, vol.
281 (1998), pp. 690–92; M.H. Hasan, “Destruction of a
Holothuria scabra population by overfishing at Abu
Rhamada Island in the Red Sea,” Marine Environmental
Research, vol. 60 (2005), pp. 489–511; A.J. Hobday, M.J.
Tegner, and P.L. Haaker, “Over-exploitation of a broadcast
spawning marine invertebrate: decline of the white
abalone,” Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, vol. 10
(2001), pp. 493–514; J.A. Devine, K.D. Baker, and R.L.
Haedrich, “Deep-sea fishes qualify as endangered,”
Nature, vol. 439 (2006), p. 29.
17. D. Pauly and R. Watson, “Counting the last fish,”
Scientific American, vol. 289, no. 1 (2003), pp. 34–39; D.
Pauly and R. Watson, “Background and interpretation of
the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity,”
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences, vol. 360 (2005), pp. 415–23; Myers and Worm,
op. cit. note 14.
18. D. Pauly and M-L. Palomares, “Fishing down marine
food web: It is far more pervasive than we thought,” Bulletin of Marine Science, vol. 76, no. 2 (2005), pp. 197–211.
19. Pauly and Watson, “Counting the last fish,” op. cit.
note 17.
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
22. A. Hutchings, “Collapse and recovery of marine fishes,” Nature, vol. 406 (2000), pp. 882–85.
23. L. Watling and E.A. Norse, “Disturbance of the
seabed by mobile fishing gear: A comparison to forest
clearcutting,” Conservation Biology, vol. 12, no. 6 (1998),
pp. 1180–97.
24. Deep Sea Conservation Coalition, High-Seas Bottom
Trawl Red Herrings: Debunking Claims of Sustainability,
prepared by the Marine Conservation Biology Institute
(Bellevue, WA: April 2005).
25. S. Roberts and M. Hirshfiel, “Deep-sea corals: out of
sight, but no longer out of mind,” Frontiers in Ecology
and the Environment, vol. 2, no. 3 (2004), pp. 123–30.
26. Ibid.
27. W.J. Wolff, “The south-eastern North Sea: Losses of
vertebrate fauna during the past 2000 years,” Biological
Conservation, vol. 95 (2000), pp. 209–17.
28. A. Machias et al., “Bottom trawl discards in the
northeastern Mediterranean,” Fisheries Research, vol. 53
(2001), pp. 181–95.
29. P. Sánchez, M. Demestre, and P. Martín,
“Characterisation of the discards generated by bottom
trawling in the northwestern Mediterranean,” Fisheries
Research, vol. 67 (2004), pp. 71–80.
30. M. McGarvin, Deep-water Fishing: Time to Stop the
Destruction (Amsterdam: Greenpeace International,
2005).
31. Ibid.
32. Greenpeace, “From Fish to Fodder,” at
http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/cbio/fodder.html,
1997, viewed 26 July 2007.
33. T. Anker-Nilssen, R.T. Barrett, and J.K. Krasnov,
“Long- and short-term responses of seabirds in the
Norwegian and Barents Seas to changes in stocks of prey
fish, in Forage Fishes in Marine Ecosystems, (Fairbanks:
University of Alaska, 1997), pp. 683–98.
34. One third from R.L. Naylor et al., “Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies,” Nature, 29 June 2000, pp.
1017–23.
35. G.K. Iwama, “Interactions between aquaculture and
the environment,” Critical Reviews in Environmental
Control, vol. 21, no. 2 (1991), pp. 177–216.
36. W.K. Hershberger, “Genetic changes in marine aquaculture species and the potential impacts on natural populations,” in R.R. Stickney and J.P. McVey, eds., Responsible Marine Aquaculture (Wallingford, UK: CABI
Publishing, 2002), pp. 221–31.
37. FAO, op. cit. note 4.
38. Naylor et al., op. cit. note 34; R.L. Naylor et al.,
“Nature’s subsidies to shrimp and salmon farming,”
Science, 30 October 1998, pp. 883–84.
39. Ibid.
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
41
Endnotes
40. Naylor et al., op. cit. note 38.
56. Hershberger, op. cit. note 36.
41. J.P. Volpe, “Dollars without sense: The bait for bigmoney tuna ranching around the world,” Bioscience, vol.
55, no. 4 (2005), pp. 301–02.
57. R.L. Naylor, S.L. Williams, and D.R. Strong, “Aquaculture—A gateway for exotic species,” Science, 23
November 2001, pp. 1655–56.
42. Naylor et al., op. cit. note 38.
58. D. Soto, F. Jara, and C. Moreno, “Escaped salmon in
the inner seas, southern Chile: facing ecological and social
conflicts,” Ecological Applications, vol. 11, no. 6 (2001),
pp. 1750–62.
43. Naylor et al., op. cit. note 34.
44. Scottish Wildlife Trust, WWF Scotland, and Royal
Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) Scotland,
Feeding the Fish: Sustainable Fish Feed and Scottish Aquaculture, prepared by Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management Ltd. (Lymington, Hampshire, UK: August 2004).
45. M.S. Islam, W.A. Wahad, and M. Tanaka, “Seed supply
for coastal brackish water shrimp farming: Environmental impacts and sustainability,” Marine Pollution Bulletin,
vol. 48 (2004), pp. 7–11; M.S. Islam and M. Haque, “The
mangrove-based coastal and nearshore fisheries of
Bangladesh: ecology, exploitation and management,”
Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, vol.14 (2004), pp.
153–80.
46. Islam, Wahad, and Tanaka, op. cit. note 45.
47. M.C.M Beveridge, L.G. Ross, and J.A. Stewart, “The
development of mariculture and its implications for biodiversity,” in R.F.G. Ormond, J.D. Gage and M.V. Angel,
eds., Marine Biodiversity: Patterns and Processes (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 372–93.
48. Ibid.
49. Naylor et al., op. cit. note 34.
50. Iwama, op. cit. note 35.
51. N. Singkran and S. Sudara, “Effects of changing environments of mangrove creeks on fish communitites at
Trat Bay, Thailand,” Environmental Management, vol. 35,
no. 1 (2005), pp. 45–55; S. Gräslund and B-E. Bengtsson,
“Chemicals and biological products used in south-east
Asian shrimp farming, and their potential impact on the
environment—A review,” The Science of the Total
Environment, vol. 280 (2001), pp. 93–131.
52. X. Biao, D. Zhuhong, and W. Xiaorong, “Impact of
the intensive shrimp farming on the water quality of the
adjacent coastal creeks from Eastern China,” Marine
Pollution Bulletin, vol. 48, pp. 543–53.
53. See, for example: A. Ervik et al., “Impact of administering antibacterial agents on wild fish and blue mussels
Mytilus edulis in the vicinity of fish farms,” Diseases of
Aquatic Organisms, vol. 18 (1994), pp. 45–51; D.G. Capone
et al., “Antibacterial residues in marine sediments and
invertebrates following chemotherapy in aquaculture,”
Aquaculture, vol. 145, nos. 1-4 (1996), pp. 55–75; Gräslund
and Bengtsson, op. cit. note 51; C.D. Miranda and R.
Zemelman, “Bacterial resistance to oxytetracycline in
Chilean salmon farming,” Aquaculture, vol. 212 (2002),
pp. 31–47.
54. K. Holmström et al., “Antibiotic use in shrimp farming and implications for environmental impacts and
human health,” International Journal of Food Science and
Technology, vol. 38 (2003), pp. 255-266.
55. Beveridge, Ross, and Stewart, op. cit. note 47.
42
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
59. Naylor, Williams, and Strong, op. cit. note 57.
60. Naylor et al., op. cit. note 34.
61. Naylor, Williams, and Strong, op. cit. note 57.
62. Naylor et al., op. cit. note 34.
63. S.J. Hall, The Effects of Fishing on Marine Ecosystems
and Communities (Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science Ltd.,
1999), pp. 16–47; M.A. Hall, D.L. Alverson, and K.I.
Metuzals, “By-catch: problems and solutions,” Marine
Pollution Bulletin, vol. 41, no. 1-6 (2000), pp. 204–19.
64. United Nations General Assembly, “Resolution
46/215: Large-scale pelagic drift-net fishing and its
impact on the living marine resources of the world’s
oceans and seas” (New York: 20 December 1991).
65. E. Gilman, N. Brothers, and D.R. Kobayashi, “Principles and approaches to abate seabird by-catch in longline
fisheries,” Fish and Fisheries, vol. 6 (2005), pp. 35–49.
66. G.B. Baker and B.S. Wise, “The impact of pelagic
longline fishing on the flesh-footed shearwater Puffinus
carneipes in Eastern Australia,” Biological Conservation,
vol. 126 (2005), pp. 306–16.
67. Ibid.; N.P. Brothers, J. Cooper, and S. Løkkeborg, The
Incidental Catch of Seabirds by Longline Fisheries:
Worldwide Review and Technical Guidelines for Mitigation,
FAO Fisheries Circular No. 937 (Rome, FAO), 1999);
BirdLife International, “Fisheries Organisations Failing to
Safeguard the World’s Albatrosses,” press release (Cambridge, UK: 7 March 2005); E.J. Belda and A. Sánchez,
“Seabird mortality on longline fisheries in the western
Mediterranean: Factors affecting bycatch and proposed
mitigating measures,” Biological Conservation, vol. 98
(2001), pp. 357–63.
68. Brothers, Cooper, and Løkkeborg, op. cit. note 67.
69. Gilman, Brothers, and Kobayashi, op. cit. note 65.
70. R.L. Lewison, S.A. Freeman, and L.B. Crowder,
“Quantifying the effects of fisheries on threatened species:
The impact of pelagic longlines on loggerhead and
leatherback sea turtles,” Ecology Letters, vol. 7 (2004), pp.
22–31; FAO, A Global Assessment of Fisheries Bycatch and
Discards, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 339 (Rome: 1996).
71. M.C. Pinedo and T. Polacheck, “Sea turtle by-catch in
pelagic longline sets off southern Brazil,” Biological Conservation, vol. 119 (2004), pp. 335–39.
72. FAO, op. cit. note 70.
73. R.L. Lewison, L.B. Crowder, and D.J. Shaver, “The
impact of turtle excluder devices and fisheries closures on
loggerhead and Kemp’s ridley strandings in the western
Gulf of Mexico,” Conservation Biology, vol. 17, no. 4
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
Endnotes
(2003), pp. 1089–97.
89. Brothers, Cooper, and Løkkeborg op. cit. note 67.
74. FAO, op. cit. note 70.
90. Greenpeace International, Witnessing the Plunder:
How Illegal Fish…, op. cit. note 84.
75. Caribbean Conservation Corporation and Sea Turtle
Survival League, “Sea turtles threats and conservation,”
2003, at www.cccturtle.org/sea-turtle-information.php?
page=threats.
76. A.J. Read, P. Drinker, and S. Northridge, “Bycatch of
marine mammals in U.S. and global fisheries,” Conservation Biology, vol. 20, no. 1 (2006), pp. 163–69.
77. C. D’Agrosa, C.E. Lennert-Cody, and O. Vidal,
“Vaquita bycatch in Mexico’s artisanal gillnet fisheries:
Driving a small population to extinction,” Conservation
Biology, vol. 14, no. 4 (2000), pp. 1110—19; E. Slooten et
al., “A new abundance estimate for Maui’s dolphin: What
does it mean for managing this critically endangered
species,” Biological Conservation, vol. 128 (2006), pp.
576–81; R.R. Reeves et al. and the Cetacean Specialist
Group, “Dolphins, whales, and porpoises: 2003–2010 conservation action plan for the world’s cetaceans” (Gland,
Switzerland: IUCN Species Survival Commission, 2003).
78. S.D. Kraus et al., “North Atlantic right whales in crisis,” Science, 22 July 2005, pp. 561–62.
79. Because entangled whales usually sink after death,
these figures are likely an underestimate. H. Caswell, M.
Fujiwara, and S. Brault, “Declining survival probability
threatens the North Atlantic right whale,” Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 96 (1999), pp.
3308–13.
80. A.J. Read and A.A. Rosenberg, “Draft international
strategy for reducing incidental mortality of cetaceans in
fisheries,” Cetacean Bycatch Resource Center, April 2002,
at www.cetaceanbycatch.org/intlstrategy.cfm.
81. BirdLife International, op. cit. note 67.
82. Greenpeace International, Black Holes in Deep Ocean
Space: Closing the Legal Voids in High Seas Biodiversity
Protection (Amsterdam: November 2005); Greenpeace
International, Witnessing the Plunder: A Report of the MV
Greenpeace Expedition to Investigate Pirate Fishing in West
Africa (Amsterdam: November 2001).
83. High Seas Task Force, Closing the Net: Stopping Illegal
Fishing on the High Seas, March 2006, at www.high-seas
.org/docs/HSTFfinal/HSTFFINAL_web.pdf.
Changing Climate, Changing Seas
1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
Working Group I: The Physical Basis of Climate Change,
Technical Summary (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007), at http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-re
port.html.
2. IPCC, Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and
Vulnerability (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press, 2001), at www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/
index.htm.
3. Ibid.; IPCC, op. cit. note 1.
4. C.D.G. Harley et al., “The impacts of climate change
in coastal marine systems,” Ecology Letters, vol. 9 (2006),
pp. 228–41.
5. J.M. Roessig et al., “Effects of global climate change
on marine and estuarine fishes and fisheries,” Reviews in
Fish Biology and Fisheries, vol. 14 (2004), pp. 251–75.
6. Harley et al., op. cit. note 4.
7. A.D. Barton and K.S. Casey, “Climatological context
for large-scale coral bleaching,” Coral Reefs, vol. 24 (2005),
pp. 536–54.
8. A.E. Douglas, “Coral bleaching—How and why?”
Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 46, no. 4 (2003), pp. 385–92.
9. O. Hoegh-Guldberg, “Climate change, coral bleaching
and the future of the world’s coral reefs,” Marine and
Freshwater Ecology, vol. 50 (1999), pp. 839–66; J.K. Reaser,
R. Pomerance, and P.O. Thomas, “Coral bleaching and
global climate change: scientific findings and policy recommendations,” Conservation Biology, vol. 14, no. 5
(2000), pp. 1500–11.
10. O. Hoegh-Guldberg, “Low coral cover in a high-CO2
world,” Journal of Geophysical Research, 24 August 2005.
11. Douglas, op. cit. note 8.
12. Hoegh-Guldberg, op. cit. note 10; Hoegh-Guldberg,
op. cit. note 9.
13. Hoegh-Guldberg, op. cit. note 9.
84. Greenpeace International, Witnessing the Plunder:
How Illegal Fish from West African Waters Finds Its Way to
The EU Ports and Markets (Amsterdam: 2006); Greenpeace International, Plundering the Pacific (Amsterdam:
2006); Greenpeace International, Where Have All the
Tuna Gone? (Amsterdam: 2006).
14. L. Hughes, “Climate change and Australia: Trends,
projections and impacts,” Austral Ecology, vol. 28 (2003),
pp. 423–43.
85. Greenpeace International, Witnessing the Plunder: A
Report…, op. cit. note 82.
17. S.D. Donner et al., “Global assessment of coral
bleaching and required rates of adaptation under climate
change,” Global Change Biology, vol. 11 (2005), pp.
2251–65.
86. See www.flagsofconvenience.com.
87. Environmental Justice Foundation, Pirates and
Profiteers: How Pirate Fishing Fleets Are Robbing People
and Oceans (London: 2005).
88. Greenpeace International, Witnessing the Plunder:
How Illegal Fish…, op. cit. note 84.
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
15. Roessig et al., op. cit. note 5.
16. Hoegh-Guldberg, op. cit. note 10.
18. Hoegh-Guldberg, op. cit. note 9.
19. Donner et al., op. cit. note 17; P. Jokiel and E.K.
Brown, “Global warming, regional trends and inshore
environmental conditions influence coral bleaching in
Hawaii,” Global Change Biology, vol. 10 (2004), pp. 1627–41.
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
43
Endnotes
20. Hoegh-Guldberg, op. cit. note 10.
21. Ibid.
22. J.W. McManus et al., “Coral reef fishing and coralalgal phase shifts: Implications for global reef status, ICES
Journal of Marine Science, vol. 57 (2000), pp. 572–78.
23. Donner et al., op. cit. note 17.
24. Roessig et al., op. cit. note 5.
25. Harley et al., op. cit. note 4.
26. A.L. Perry et al., “Climate change and distribution
shifts in marine fishes,” Science, vol. 308, no. 5730 (2005),
pp. 1912–15.
45. G. Weller, “Summary and Synthesis of the ACIA,” in
Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA), ACIA Scientific Report (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Universiry Press,
November 2005).
46. Ibid.
47. IPCC, op. cit. note 2.
48. Weller, op. cit. note 45.
49. V. Smetacek and S. Nicol, “Polar ocean ecosystems in
a changing world,” Nature, vol. 437 (2005), pp. 362–68.
32. Harley et al., op. cit. note 4.
50. Sidebar 1 from the following sources: fish and seals
from H. Loeng, “Marine Systems,” in Weller, op. cit. note
45; birds from H.G. Gilcreast and M.L. Mallory, “Declines
in abundance and distribution of the ivory gull (Pagophila eburnean) in Arctic Canada,” Biological Conservation, vol. 121 (2005), pp. 303–09 and from A.J. Gaston,
J.M. Hipfner, and D. Campbell, “Heat and mosquitoes
cause breeding failures and adult mortality in an Arcticnesting seabird,” Ibis (British Ornithologists’ Union), vol.
144 (2002), pp. 185–91; polar bears from Weller, op. cit.
note 45, from A.E. Derocher, N.J. Lunn, and I. Stirling,
“Polar bears in a warming climate,” Integrative and Comparative Biology, vol. 44 (2004), pp. 163–76, and from
Loeng, op. cit. this note.
33. IPCC, op. cit. note 1.
51. Weller, op. cit. note 45.
34. Ibid; IPCC, op. cit. note 2.
52. M.P. Meredith and J.C. King, “Rapid climate change
in the ocean west of the Antarctic Peninsula during the
second half of the 20th century,” Geophysical Research
Letters, vol. 32 (2005); Smetacek and Nicol, op. cit. note
49.
27. Harley et al., op. cit. note 4.
28. G.C. Hays, A.J. Richardson, and C. Robinson,
“Climate change and marine plankton,” Trends in Ecology
and Evolution, vol. 20, no. 6 (2005), pp. 337–44.
29. G. Beaugrand et al., “Plankton effect on cod recruitment in the North Sea,” Nature, 11 December 2003, pp.
661–64.
30. B. Worm and R.A. Myers, “Managing fisheries in a
changing climate,” Nature, 6 May 2004, p. 15.
31. Ibid.
35. R.B. Alley et al., “Ice sheet and sea-level changes,”
Science, 21 October 2005, pp. 456–61; J.A. Dowdeswell,
“The Greenland Ice Sheet and Global Sea-level Rise,”
Science, 17 February 2006, pp. 963–64.
36. IPCC, op. cit. note 2.
37. Ibid.; P.P. Wong, “Where have all the beaches gone?
Coastal erosion in the tropics,” Singapore Journal of
Tropical Geography, vol. 24, no. 1 (2003), pp. 111–32.
38. IPCC, op. cit. note 2.
39. M.R. Fish et al., “Predicting the impact of sea-level
rise on Caribbean sea turtle nesting habitat,” Conservation
Biology, vol. 19, no. 2 (2005), pp. 482–91.
40. J.D. Baker, C.L. Littnan, and D.W. Johnston, “Potential effects of sea level rise on the terrestrial habitats of
endangered and endemic megafauna in the Northwestern
Hawaiian Islands,” Endangered Species Research, vol. 4
(2006), pp. 1–10.
41. N. Knowlton, “The future of coral reefs,” Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 98, no. 10 (2001),
pp. 5419–25.
42. S. Rahmstorf, “Ocean circulation and climate during
the past 120,000 years,” Nature, 12 September 2002, pp.
207–14.
43. W.S. Broecker, “Thermohaline circulation, the
Achilles heel of our climate system: Will man-made CO2
upset the current balance?” Science, vol. 278, no. 5343
(1997), pp. 1582–88.
44. S. Rahmstorf, “The thermohaline ocean circulation:
44
A system with dangerous thresholds,” Climate Change,
vol. 46 (2000), pp. 247–56; IPCC, op. cit. note 1.
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
53. IPCC, op. cit. note 1.
54. Meredith and King, op. cit. note 52.
55. J. Forcada et al., “Contrasting population changes in
sympatric penguin species in association with climate
warming,” Global Change Biology, vol. 12 (2006), pp.
411–23.
56. Sidebar 2 from the following sources: smaller populations from V. Loeb et al., “Effects of sea-ice extent and
krill or salp dominance on the Antarctic food web,”
Nature, 26 June 1997, pp. 897–900; 80 percent from A.
Atkinson et al., “Long-term decline in krill stock and
increase in salps within the Southern Ocean,” Nature, 4
November 2004, pp. 100–03; glacial runoff from M.A.
Moline et al., “Alteration of the food web along the
Antarctic Peninsula in response to a regional warming
trend,” Global Change Biology, vol. 10 (2004), pp.
1973–80; rising temperatures from Meredith and King,
op. cit. note 52; links to penguin declines from W.R.
Fraser and E.E. Hofmann, “A predator’s perspective on
causal links between climate change, physical forcing
and ecosystem response,” Marine Ecology Progress Series,
vol. 265 (2003), pp. 1–15; effects on other animals from
Smetacek and Nicol, op. cit. note 49.
57. L.S. Peck, K.E. Webb, and D.M. Bailey, “Extreme
sensitivity of biological function to temperature in
Antarctic marine species,” Functional Ecology, vol. 18
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
Endnotes
(2004), pp. 625–30.
mental Research Institute, 2004).
58. The Royal Society, Ocean Acidification Due to
Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (London: 30 June
2005).
10. See, for example, S. Burreau et al., “Comparison of
biomagnification of PBDEs in food chains from the Baltic
Sea and the Northern Atlantic Sea,” Organohalogen Compounds, vol. 47 (2000), pp. 253–55; Vorkamp et al., op.
cit. note 9; B. Johnson-Restrepo et al., “Polybrominated
diphenyl ethers and polychlorinated biphenyls in a
marine foodweb of coastal Florida,” Environmental
Science and Technology, vol. 39 (2005), pp. 8243–50;
Covaci et al., op. cit. note 7; S. Morris et al., “Distribution
and fate of HBCD and TBBPA brominated flame retardants in North Sea estuaries and aquatic food webs,”
Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 38 (2004), pp.
5497–504.
59. Ibid.
60. Ibid.; S.C. Doney, “The dangers of ocean acidification,” Scientific American, vol. 294, no. 3 (2006), pp.
58–65.
61. The Royal Society, op. cit. note 58.
62. Ibid.
Polluting the Marine Environment
1. P. Johnston et al., Report on the World’s Oceans (Exeter, UK: Greenpeace Research Laboratories, May 1998).
2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Mercury Levels
in Commercial Fish and Shellfish,” www.cfsan.fda.gov/
~frf/sea-mehg.html, updated February 2006; Environmental Defense/Oceans Alive, “PCBs in Fish and Shellfish,” www.oceansalive.org/eat.cfm?subnav=pcbs, viewed
1 August 2007.
3. Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic
Pollutants (POPS) Web site, at www.pops.int.
4. D. Ueno et al., “Global pollution monitoring of polybrominated diphenyl ethers using skipjack tuna as a
bioindicator,” Environmental Science and Technology, vol.
38 (2004), pp. 2312–16.
5. M. Alaee et al., “An overview of commercially used
brominated flame retardants, their applications, their
use patterns in different countries/regions and possible
modes of release,” Environment International, vol. 29
(2003), pp. 683–89.
6. L.S. Birnbaum and D.F. Staskal, “Brominated flame
retardants: Cause for concern?” Environmental Health
Perspectives, vol. 112, no. 1 (2004), pp. 9–17.
7. See, for example, C.A. de Wit, “An overview of brominated flame retardants in the environment,” Chemosphere,
vol. 46 (2002), pp. 583–624; R.J. Law et al., “Levels and
trends of polybrominated diphenylethers and other brominated flame retardants in wildlife,” Environment International, vol. 29 (2003), pp. 757–70; C.A. de Wit, M.
Alaee, and D.C.G. Muir, “Levels and trends of brominated
flame retardants in the Arctic,” Chemosphere, vol. 64, no. 2
(2006), pp. 209–33; R.J. Law et al., “Levels and trends of
brominated flame retardants in the European environment,” Chemosphere, vol. 64, no. 2 (2006), pp. 187–208; A.
Covaci et al., “Hexabromocyclodecanes (HBCDs) in the
environment and humans: A review,” Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 40, no. 12 (2006), pp. 3679–88.
8. Covaci et al., op. cit. note 7; de Wit, op. cit. note 7.
9. Seals from J. She et al., “PBDEs in the San Francisco
Bay area: Measurements in harbour seal blubber and
human breast adipose tissue,” Chemosphere, vol. 46
(2002), pp. 697–707; whales from K. Vorkamp et al.,
Screening of “New” Contaminants in the Marine Environment of Greenland and the Faroe Islands, NERI Technical
Report No. 525 (Roskilde, Denmark: National Environw w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
11. P.O. Darnerud, “Toxic effects of brominated flame
retardants in man and wildlife,” Environment International, vol. 29 (2003), pp. 841–53; J. Legler and A.
Brouwer, “Are brominated flame retardants endocrine
disruptors?” Environment International, vol. 29 (2003),
pp. 879–85.
12. A.J. Hall, O.I. Kalantzi, and G.O. Thomas, “Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in grey seals during their
first year of life—Are they thyroid hormone endocrine
disrupters?” Environmental Pollution, vol. 126 (2003), pp.
29–37.
13. Darnerud, op. cit. note 11; de Wit, op. cit. note 7; H.
Viberg et al., “Neonatal exposure to higher brominated
diphenyl ethers, hepta, octa-, or nonabromodiphenyl
ether, impairs spontaneous behaviour and learning and
memory functions of adult mice,” Toxicological Sciences,
vol. 92, no. 1 (2006), pp. 211–18; Y. Tada et al., “Flame
retardant tetrabromobisphenol A induced hepatic
changes in ICR male mice,” Environmental Toxicology and
Pharmacology, vol. 23, no. 2 (2007), pp. 174–78.
14. Ueno et al., op. cit. note 4.
15. Vorkamp et al., op. cit. note 9; de Wit, Alaee, and
Muir, op. cit. note 7; Law et al., “Levels and trends of
brominated…,” op. cit. note 7.
16. D.C.G. Muir et al., “Brominated flame retardants in
polar bears (Ursus maritimus) from Alaska, the Canadian
Arctic, East Greenland, and Svalbard,” Environmental
Science and Technology, vol. 40 (2006), pp. 449–55.
17. de Wit, Alaee, and Muir, op. cit. note 7.
18. Increasing trend from the following: J. Bytingsvik et
al., “Spatial and temporal trends of BFRs in Atlantic cod
and Polar cod in the North-East Atlantic,” Organohalogen
Compounds, vol. 66 (2004), pp. 3918–22; She et al., op.
cit. note 9; Law et al., “Levels and trends of polybrominated…,” op. cit. note 7. Stabilized or decreased from U.
Sellström et al., “Temporal trend studies on tetra- and
pentabrominated diphenyl ethers and hexabromocyclododecane in guillemot egg from the Baltic Sea,”
Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 37, no. 24
(2003), pp. 5496–501, and from N. Kajiwara et al., “Polybrominated diphenyl ethers and organochlorines in
archived Northern Fur Seal samples from the Pacific coast
of Japan,” Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 38,
no. 14 (2004), pp. 3804–09.
19. P. Johnston et al., “Sustainability of human activities
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
45
Endnotes
on marine ecosystems,” in C. Sheppard, ed. Seas at the
Millennium: An Environmental Evaluation. Volume III,
Global Issues and Processes (London: Pergamon, Elsevier
Science Ltd., 2000); L.G. Cockerham and M.B. Cockerham, “Environmental Ionising Radiation,” in L.G. Cockerham and B.S. Shane, eds., Basic Environmental Toxicology (Boca Raton: CRC Press, 1995), pp. 1–261.
20. Johnston et al., op. cit. note 19.
21. Greenpeace UK, “Nuclear re-action,” 10 August 1999,
available at www.greenpeace.org.uk.
22. I. Osvath et al., “Mapping of the distribution of 137 Cs
in Irish Sea sediments,” Journal of Radioanalytical and
Nuclear Chemistry, vol. 248, no. 3 (2001), pp. 735–39; A.
Aarkrog, H. Dahlgard, and S.P. Nielsen, “Environmental
radioactive contamination in Greenland: A 35 years retrospect,” The Science of the Total Environment, vol. 245
(2000), pp. 233–48; P.J. Kershaw, D. McCubbin, and K.S.
Leonard, “Continuing contamination of north Atlantic
and Arctic waters by Sellafield radionuclides,” The Science
of the Total Environment, vol. 237/238 (1999), pp. 119–32.
23. D. McCubbin et al., “Distribution of Technetium-99
in subtidal sediments of the Irish Sea,” Continental Shelf
Research, vol. 26 (2006), pp. 458–73.
24. W.S. Watson et al., “Radionuclides in seals and porpoises in coastal waters around the UK,” The Science of
the Total Environment, vol. 234 (1999), pp. 1–13.
25. Kershaw, McCubbin, and Leonard, op. cit. note 22.
26. T.P. Ryan et al., “Plutonium and americium in fish,
shellfish and seaweed in the Irish environment and their
contribution to dose,” Journal of Environmental
Radioactivity, vol. 44 (1999), pp. 349–69.
27. N. Rabalais, R.E. Turner, and W.J. Wiseman, “Gulf of
Mexico hypoxia, a.k.a. ‘the dead zone,’” Annual Review of
Ecology and Systematics, vol. 33 (2002), pp. 235–63.
28. W.K. Dodds, “Nutrients and the ‘dead zone’: The
link between nutrient ratios and dissolved oxygen in the
northern Gulf of Mexico,” Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment, vol. 4, no. 4 (2006), pp. 211–17; D. Ferber,
“Dead zone fix not a dead issue,” Science, 10 September
2004, p. 1557; J. Raloff, “Dead waters: Massive oxygenstarved zones are developing along the world’s coasts,”
Science News, vol. 165, no. 23 (2004), p. 360.
29. Raloff, op. cit. note 28; E. Bonsdorff, C. Rönnberg,
and K. Aarnio, “Some ecological properties in relation
to eutrophication in the Baltic Sea,” Hydrobiologia, vol.
475/476 (2002), pp. 371–77.
30. R.J. Diaz, “Overview of hypoxia around the world,”
Journal of Environmental Quality, vol. 30, no. 2 (2001),
pp. 275–81.
31. U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP), “Further
Rise in Number of Marine ‘Dead Zones,’” press release
(Nairobi: 19 October 2006).
32. Rabalias, Turner, and Wiseman, op. cit. note 27.
33. UNEP, op. cit. note 31; Rabalias, Turner, and
Wiseman, op. cit. note 27.
34. Diaz, op. cit. note 30.
46
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
35. K. Karlson, R. Rosenberg, and E. Bonsdorff,
“Temporal and spatial large-scale effects of eutrophication and oxygen deficiency on benthic fauna in Scandinavian and Baltic waters—A review,” Oceanography and
Marine Biology: An Annual Review, vol. 40 (2002), pp.
427–89; Rabalias, Turner, and Wiseman, op. cit. note 27.
36. Rabalias, Turner, and Wiseman, op. cit. note 27.
37. Karlson, Rosenberg, and Bonsdorff, op. cit. note 35.
38. Rabalias, Turner, and Wiseman, op. cit. note 27.
39. Greenpeace, “Oil Spills – Philippines, Indian Ocean
and Lebanon,” 2006, at www.greenpeace.org/international/
news/recent-oil-spills.
40. National Research Council, “Understanding inputs,
fates, and effects in detail,” in Oil in the Sea III: Inputs,
Fates and Effects (Washington, DC: The National
Aademies Press, 2003).
41. OSPAR Commission for the Protection of the Marine
Environment of the North-East Atlantic, “Meeting of the
OSPAR Commission, Reykjavik, 28 June–2 July 2004,”
Cooperation with the Bonn Agreement, presented by the
Secretariat.
42. Greenpeace, op. cit. note 39.
43. Sidebar 3 from the following sources. Exxon Valdez
from: C.H. Petersen, “The ‘Exxon Valdez’ oil spill in
Alaska: acute, indirect and chronic effects on the ecosystem,” Advances in Marine Biology, vol. 39 (2001), pp.
3–103; C.H. Petersen et al., “Long-term ecosystem
response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill,” Science, 19
December 2003, pp. 2082–86; National Research Council,
op. cit. note 40; J.W. Short et al., “Estimate of oil persisting on the beaches of Prince William Sound 12 years after
the Exxon Valdez oil spill,” Environmental Science and
Technology, vol. 38 (2004), pp. 19–25; G.V. Irvine, D.H.
Mann, and J.W. Short, “Persistence of 10-year old Exxon
Valdez oil on Gulf of Alaska beaches. The importance of
boulder-armouring,” Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 52,
no. 9 (2006), pp. 1011–22; J.W. Short et al., “Vertical distribution and probability of encountering intertidal
Exxon Valdez oil on shorelines of three embayments
within Prince William Sound Alaska,” Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 40, no. 12 (2006), pp. 3723–29;
and J.L. Bodkin et al., “Sea otter population status and
the process of recovery from the 1989 ‘Exxon Valdez’ oil
spill,” Marine Ecology Progress Series. vol. 241 (2002), pp.
237–53. Prestige from: C. Morales-Caselles et al., “Ecotoxicity of sediments contaminated by the oil spill associated
with the tanker ‘Prestige’ using juveniles of fish (Sparus
aurata),” Archives of Enviromental Contamination and
Toxicology, vol. 51 (2006), pp. 652–60; M.D. Garza-Gil, A.
Prada-Blanco, and X.V. Rodríguez, “Estimating the shortterm economic damages from the Prestige oil spill in the
Galician fisheries and tourism,” Ecological Economics, vol.
58 (2006), pp. 842–49; J.D. García Pérez, “Early sociopolitical and environmental consequences of the Prestige
oil spill in Galicia,” Disasters, vol. 27, no. 3 (2003), pp.
207–23; I. Zuberogoita et al., “Short-term effects of the
prestige oil spill on the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus),” Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 52, no. 10 (2006), pp.
1176–81; A. Martínez-Abraín et al., “Sex-specific mortality of European shags after the Prestige oil spill: Demow w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
Endnotes
graphic implications for the recovery of colonies,” Marine
Ecology Progress Series, vol. 318 (2006), pp. 271–76; R. De
la Huz et al., “Biological impacts of oil pollution and
cleaning in the intertidal zone of exposed sandy beaches:
preliminary study of ‘Prestige’ oil spill,” Estuarine,
Coastal and Shelf Science, vol. 65 (2005), pp. 19–29; and I.
Marigómez et al., “Cell and tissue biomarkers in mussel,
and histopathology in hake and anchovy from Bay of
Biscay after the Prestige oil spill (Monitoring Campaign
2003),” Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 53, no. 5-7 (2006),
pp. 287–304. Lebanon from: Regional Marine Pollution
Emergency Response Centre for the Mediterranean Sea
(REMPEC), “Sitrep 5. Spill in Lebanon, 07/08/2006,”
“Sitrep 8. Spill in Lebanon, 14/08/2006,” “Sitrep 12. Spill
in Lebanon, 25/08/2006,” and “Sitrep 15. Spill in Lebanon,
28/09/2006,” all at www.rempec.org/news.asp; Greenpeace
International, Witnessing War: A Preliminary Post Conflict
Environmental Assessment by Greenpeace (Amsterdam:
October 2006); Greenpeace International, “Greenpeace
Exposes Suffocating Oil Slick on the Seabed Off the Lebanese Coast,” press release (Amsterdam: 22 August 2006);
World Conservation Union (IUCN), “Mediterranean
environment affected by armed conflict,” 2006, at
www.iucn.org/places/medoffice/noticias/armed_conflict
.html; and R. Steiner, Lebanon Oil Spill Rapid Assessment
and Response Mission. Final Report (Beirut: IUCN, IUCN
Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social
Policy, and Green Line Association, 11 September 2006).
Philippines from: Greenpeace, op. cit. note 39; Greenpeace Southeast Asia, “Greenpeace Returns Barrel of
Bunker Oil from Guimaras Back to Petron,” press release
(Manila: 11 October 2006).
44. National Research Council, op. cit. note 40.
45. For a detailed review, see M. Allsopp et al., Plastic
Debris in the World’s Oceans (Amsterdam: Greenpeace
International, November 2006).
46. D.W. Laist, “Impacts of marine debris: Entanglement
of marine life in marine debris including a comprehensive list of species with entanglement and ingestion
records,” in J.M. Coe and D.B. Rogers, eds., Marine
Debris. Sources, Impacts, Solutions (New York: SpringerVerlag, 1997), pp. 99–140.
47. English Channel from D.K.A. Barnes and P. Milner,
“Drifting plastic and its consequences for sessile organism
dispersal in the Atlantic Ocean,” Marine Biology, vol. 146
(2006), pp. 815–25; Indonesia from P. Uneputty and S.M.
Evans, “The impact of plastic debris on the biota of tidal
flats in Ambon Bay (Eastern Indonesia),” Marine Environmental Research, vol. 44, no. 3 (1997), pp. 233–42.
48. Europe from F. Galgani et al., “Litter on the sea floor
along European coasts,” Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 40,
no. 6 (2000), pp. 516–27; Indonesia from Uneputty and
Evans, op. cit. note 47.
49. Indonesia from N.G. Willoughby, H. Sangkoyo, and
B.O. Lakaseru, “Beach litter: An increasing and changing
problem for Indonesia,” Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 34,
no. 6 (1997), pp. 469–78; Sicily from Barnes and Milner,
op. cit. note 47.
50. S.B. Sheavly, “Marine debris—An overview of a critical issue for our oceans,” presented at the Sixth Meeting
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
of the UN Open-ended Informal Consultative Processes
on Oceans & the Law of the Sea, 6–10 June 2005, at
www.un.org/Depts/los/consultative_process/documents/
6_sheavly.pdf.
51. R.C. Thompson et al., “Lost at sea: Where is all the
plastic?” Science, 7 May 2004, p. 838.
52. F. Galgani et al., “Distribution and abundance of
debris on the continental shelf of the North-Western
Mediterranean,” Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 30, no.
11 (1996), pp. 713–17; M. Thiel et al., “Floating marine
debris in coastal waters of the SE-Pacific (Chile),” Marine
Pollution Bulletin, vol. 46 (2003), pp. 224–31; Willoughby,
Sangkoyo, and Lakaseru, op. cit. note 49.
53. R.C. Boland and M.J. Donohue, “Marine debris accumulation in the nearshore marine habitat of the endangered Hawaiian monk seal, Monachus schauinslandi
1999–2001,” Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 46 (2003), pp.
1385–94; B. Page et al., “Entanglement of Australian sea
lions and New Zealand furseals in lost fishing gear and
other marine debris before and after government and
industry attempts toreduce the problem,” Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 49 (2004), pp. 33–42; Laist, op. cit. note
46. J. Tomás et al., “Marine debris ingestion in loggerhead
sea turtles, Caretta caretta, from the Western Mediterranean,” Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 44 (2002), pp.
211–16; L. Bugoni, L. Krause, and V. Petry, “Marine debris
and human impacts on sea turtles in Southern Brazil,”
Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 42, no. 12 (2001), pp.
1330–34; K.A. Bjorndal, A.B. Bolten, and C.J. Lagueux,
“Ingestion of marine debris by juvenile sea turtles in
coastal Florida habitats,” Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol.
28, no. 3 (1994), pp. 154–58; L.B. Spear, D.G. Ainley, and
C.A. Ribic, “Incidence of plastic in seabirds from the
Tropical Pacific, 1984-91: Relation with distribution of
species, sex, age, season, year and body weight,” Marine
Environmental Research, vol. 40, no. 2 (1995), pp. 123-146.
54. T. Matsuoka, T. Nakashima, and N. Nagasawa, “A
review of ghost fishing: Scientific approaches to evaluation and solutions,” Fisheries Science, vol. 71 (2005), pp.
691–702; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Turning
the Tide on Trash. A Learning Guide on Marine Debris
(Washington, DC: 1992).
Freedom for the Seas
1. Bunny McDiarmid, Martini Gotje, and Karen Sack,
NAFO Case Study (Amsterdam: Greenpeace International, June 2005; Greenpeace International, Freedom for
the Seas for Now and for the Future (Amsterdam: May
2005).
2. Greenpeace International, Black Holes in Deep Ocean
Space: Closing the Legal Voids in High Seas Biodiversity
Protection (Amsterdam: November 2005); P. Johnston et
al., “Elements of an holistic approach to marine protection and environmental management: What is an ecosystem approach? (in prep 2007).
3. Greenpeace International, op. cit. note 1.
4. Greenpeace International, Marine Reserves for the
Mediterranean Sea (Amsterdam: 2006); C.M. Roberts, K.
Mason, and J.P. Hawkins, Roadmap to Recovery: A Global
Network of Marine Reserves (Amsterdam: Greenpeace
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
47
Endnotes
International, 2006).
5. Johnston et al., op. cit. note 2.
6. World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC),
cited in S. Belfiore, B. Cicin-Sain, and C. Ehler, Incorporating Marine Protected Areas into Integrated Coastal and
Ocean Management: Principles and Guidelines (Gland,
Switzerland: World Commission on Protected Areas,
World Conservation Union (IUCN), 2004), p. vii.
7. IUCN, Establishing Marine Protected Area Networks:
Making It Happen (Gland, Switzerland: April 2007).
8. Roberts, Mason, and Hawkins, op. cit. note 4.
9. World Parks Congress 2003, “Recommendation 22.
Building a Global System of Marine and Coastal
Protected Area Networks,” at www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/
wpc2003/pdfs/outputs/recommendations/approved/
english/html/r22.htm.
10. F.R. Gell and C.M. Roberts, “Benefits beyond boundaries: The fisheries effects of marine reserves,” Trends in
Ecology and Evolution, vol.18, no. 9 (2003); Roberts,
Mason, and Hawkins, op. cit. note 4.
11. IUCN, “Marine Summit Calls for Dramatic Increase
in Ocean Protection,” press release (Gland, Switzerland:
13 April 2007).
12. Estimate of 0.1 percent from “Global targets for
MPA designations will not be met; experts respond,”
MPA News, November 2005. Table 1 from the following
sources: global review from C. Mora et al., “Coral reefs
and the global network of marine protected areas,”
Science, 23 June 2006, pp. 1750–51; 30 percent from T.P.
Hughes et al., “Climate change, human impacts, and the
resilience of coral reefs,” Science, 15 August 2003, pp.
929–33; 9 percent from United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP), Ecosystems and Biodiversity in Deep
Waters and High Seas, UNEP Regional Seas Report and
Studies No. 178 (Nairobi: 2006); UNEP-WCMC, In the
Front Line: Shoreline Protection and Other Ecosystem
Services from Mangroves and Coral Reefs (Cambridge,
UK: 2006); seagrasses from E.P. Green and F.T. Short,
World Atlas of Seagrasses, prepared by the UNEP-WCMC
(Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2003);
seamounts from P.A. Johnston and D. Santillo, “Conservation of seamount ecosystems: application of a marine
protected areas concept,” Archive of Fishery and Marine
Research, vol. 51, nos. 1–3 (2004), pp. 305–19; vents from
L. Glowka, “Putting marine scientific research on a sustainable footing at hydrothermal vents,” Marine Policy,
vol. 27: (2003), pp. 303–12, from Fisheries and Oceans
Canada, “Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents Marine
Protected Area”, at www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/mpa/
Endeavour_e.htm, and from WWF, “Oases on the Ocean
Floor,” news feature (Gland, Switzerland: 19 June 2002).
13. P.J. Mumby, “Mangroves enhance the biomass of
coral reef fish communities in the Caribbean,” Nature, 5
February 2004, pp. 533–36.
14. B.S. Halpern, “The impact of marine reserves: do
reserves work and does reserve size matter?” Ecological
Applications, vol. 13, no. 1 (2003), pp. 117–37; National
Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, “Scientific
Consensus Statement on Marine Reserves and Marine
48
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
Protected Areas,” 17 February 2001, at www.jiwlp.com/
contents/Marine_Reserves_Report.htm.
15. D.H. Williamson, G.R. Russ, and A.M. Ayling, “Notake marine reserves increase abundance and biomass of
reef fish on inshore fringing reefs of the Great Barrier
Reef,” Environmental Conservation, vol. 31, no. 2 (2004),
pp. 149–59.
16. T.R. McClanahan and R. Arthur, “The effect of
marine reserves and habitat on populations of East
African coral reefs,” Ecological Applications, vol. 11, no. 2
(2001), pp. 559–69.
17. G.R. Russ, A.C. Alcala, and A.P. Maypa, “Spillover
from marine reserves: The case of Naso vlamingii at Apo
Island, the Philippines,” Marine Ecology Progress Series,
vol. 264 (2003), pp. 15–20; B. Kaunda-Arara and G.A.
Rose, “Effects of marine reef National Parks on fishery
CPUE in coastal Kenya,” Biological Conservation, vol. 118
(2004), pp. 1–13.
18. Y. Renard, Case of the Soufriere Marine Management
Area (SMMA), St. Lucia, CANARI Technical Report
No. 1285 (Laventille, Trinidad, West Indies: Carribbean
Natural Resources Institute, 2001); C.M. Roberts and
J.P. Hawkins, Fully Protected Marine Reserves: A Guide
(Washington, DC: WWF Endangered Seas Campaign
and Environment Department, University of York, 2000);
C.M. Roberts et al., “Effects of marine reserves on adjacent fisheries,” Science, 30 November 2001, pp. 1920–23.
19. N. Galal, R. Ormond, and O. Hassan, “Effect of a
network of no-take reserves in increasing catch per unit
effort and stocks of exploited reef fish at Nabq, South
Sinai, Egypt,” Marine and Freshwater Research, vol. 53,
no. 2 (2002).
20. Marine Conservation Unit, Department of Conservation, Protecting Our Seas—Tiakina a Tangaroa (Wellington, New Zealand: June 2005).
21. Greenpeace International, The Heat is On: The Role
of Marine Reserves in Boosting Ecosystem Resilience to
Climate Change (Amsterdam: 2007); C.D.G. Harley et al.,
“The impacts of climate change in coastal marine systems,” Ecology Letters, vol. 9 (2006), pp. 228–41.
22. “Climate Change and Ocean Warming: Preparing
MPAs for It,” MPA News, March 2005, available at
www.mccn.org.au/article.php/id/451.
23. Roberts, Mason, and Hawkins, op. cit. note 4.
24. Roberts and Hawkins, op. cit. note 18.
25. Renard, op. cit. note 18.
26. M. Beger, G.P. Jones, and P.L. Munday, “Conservation
of coral reef biodiversity: A comparison of reserve selection procedures for corals and fishes,” Biological Conservation, vol. 111 (2003), pp. 53–62; Roberts, Mason, and
Hawkins, op. cit. note 4.
27. E.A. Norse et al., “Place-based ecosystem management in the open ocean,” in E. Norse and L. Crowder,
eds., Marine Conservation Biology: The Science of
Maintaining the Sea’s Biodiversity (Washington, DC:
Island Press, 2005), pp. 302–27.
28. Roberts, Mason, and Hawkins, op. cit. note 4.
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
Endnotes
29. “Fiji Designates Five MPAs as Part of Network,” MPA
News, November 2005, at http://depts.washington.edu/
mpanews/MPA69.htm.
44. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Liberalizing Fisheries Markets, Scope and Effects
(Paris: 2003).
30. U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), “President Sets Aside Largest Marine
Conservation Area on Earth,” press release (Washington,
DC: 15 June 2006).
45. Greenpeace International, op. cit. note 42.
31. Greenpeace International, Marine Reserves for the
Mediterranean Sea (Amsterdam: June 2006); Greenpeace
International, Rescuing the North and Baltic Seas: Marine
Reserves a Key Tool (Amsterdam: July 2004).
32. Water Information System for Europe, “A Marine
Strategy to Save Europe’s Seas and Oceans,” at http://ec
.europa.eu/environment/water/marine/index_en.htm,
viewed 1 August 2007.
33. World Summit on Sustainable Development, Plan of
Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Johannesberg: 2002).
34. Convention on Biological Diversity, “The Kuala
Lumpur Declaration,” agreed to at the Conference of
Parties 7, Kuala Lumpar, Malaysia, 23 February 2004.
35. Greenpeace International, op. cit. note 1.
36. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS) Web site, at www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htm.
37. Greenpeace International, op. cit. note 1; Greenpeace
International, Bioprospecting in the Deep Sea (Amsterdam:
November 2005).
38. M. McGarvin, Deep-water Fishing: Time to Stop the
Destruction (Amsterdam: Greenpeace International, 2005).
39. See D. Melnick et al., Environment and Human WellBring: A Practical Strategy, A Report of the UN Millenium
Project Task Force on Environmental Sustainability
(London: Earthscan, 2005), p. 87.
40. United Nations General Assembly, “Sustainable fisheries, including through the 1995 Agreement for the
Implementation of the Provisions United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling
Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, and related
instruments,” A/RES/61/105 (New York: 6 March 2007),
para. 80–90.
41. Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine
Living Resources, “Interim restrictions on the use of bottom trawling gear in high-seas areas of the Convention
Area for the fishing seasons 2006/07 and 2007/08” (North
Hobart, Tasmania, Australia: 2006).
42. Greenpeace International, Trading Away Our Oceans:
Why Trade Liberalization of Fisheries Must Be Abandoned
(Amsterdam: January 2007).
43. World Trade Organization (WTO), “Liberalization of
trade in fish and fish products. Communication from
Canada, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Singapore and Thailand” (Geneva: 2005); WTO, “Trade liberalization of fish and fish products. Communication from
Canada, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore and
Thailand” (Geneva: 2006).
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
46. U.R. Sumaila and D. Pauly, Catching More Bait: A
Bottom-Up Re-Estimation of Global Fisheries Subsidies,
Second Version, Fisheries Centre Research Reports, vol. 14,
no. 6 (Vancouver, BC: Fisheries Centre, University of
British Columbia, 2006).
47. Oceana, “The Role of the World Trade Organization,”
at www.oceana.org/north-america/what-we-do/stop-over
fishing-subsidies/international-subsidies-action, viewed
1 August 2007.
48. WTO, Negotiating Group on Rules, “Fisheries
Subsidies: Proposed New Disciplines: Proposal from the
United States” (Geneva: 22 March 2007); Oceana, “Top
U.S. Trade Official Calls for WTO Ban on Harmful
Fisheries Subsidies,” press release (Washington, DC: 1
May 2007).
49. Greenpeace International, Deadly Subsidies: How
Government Subsidies Are Destroying the Oceans and Forests and Why the CBD Rather than the WTO Should Stop
This Peverse Use of Public Money (Amsterdam: 2006), p. 55.
50. Greenpeace, “Fair Fisheries,” at http://oceans.green
peace.org/en/our-oceans/fair-fisheries, viewed 26 July
2007.
51. Oxfam New Zealand, Fishing for a Future (Auckland:
October 2006).
52. Greenpeace International, Caught Red-handed:
Daylight Robbery on the High Seas (Amsterdam: May
2006).
53. BirdLife International, “Fisheries Organisations
Failing to Safeguard the World’s Albatrosses,” press release
(Cambridge, UK: 7 March 2005); R. Cuthbert et al., “Atsea distribution of breeding Tristan albatrosses Diomedea
dabbenena and potential interactions with pelagic longline fishing in the South Atlantic Ocean,” Biological
Conservation, vol. 121 (2005), pp. 345–55.
54. S.J. Hall and B.M. Mainprize, “Managing by-catch
and discards: how much progress are we making and how
can we do better?” Fish and Fisheries, vol. 6 (2005), pp.
134–55; G.N. Tuck, T. Polacheck, and C. Bulman, “Spatiotemporal trends of longline fishing effort in the Southern
Ocean and implications for seabird bycatch,” Biological
Conservation, vol. 114 (2003), pp. 1–27.
55. E. Gilman, N. Brothers, and D.R. Kobayashi,
“Principles and approaches to abate seabird by-catch in
longline fisheries,” Fish and Fisheries, vol. 6 (2005), pp.
35–49; Southern Ocean from Tuck, Polacheck, and
Bulman, op. cit. note 54.
56. U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),
“International Plan of Action for Reducing Incidental
Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries” (Rome: 1999).
57. See www.savethealbatross.net.
58. C.J. Small, Regional Fisheries Management Organisations: Their Duties and Performance in Reducing Bycatch of
Albatrosses and Other Species (Cambridge, UK: BirdLife
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
49
Endnotes
International, 2005).
59. A.J. Read, P. Drinker, and S. Northridge, “Bycatch of
marine mammals in U.S. and global fisheries,” Conservation Biology, vol. 20, no. 1 (2006), pp. 163–69; A.J. Read
and A.A. Rosenberg, “Draft international strategy for
reducing incidental mortality of cetaceans in fisheries,”
Cetacean Bycatch Resource Center, April 2002, at
www.cetaceanbycatch.org/intlstrategy.cfm.
60. Read and Rosenberg, op. cit. note 59; Cetacean
Bycatch Resource Center, “Cetacean Bycatch Facts,”
www.cetaceanbycatch.org/status.cfm, viewed 26 July 2007.
61. Read and Rosenberg, op. cit. note 59.
62. Ibid.
63. Katrina Arias, WWF, personal commnication with
Michelle Allsopp, 12 May 2006; WWF, “Vaquita,” 2005, at
http://69.25.138.63/about_wwf/what_we_do/species/our_
solutions/endangered_species/cetaceans/vaquita/index.cfm.
64. U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/mmpa.
65. NOAA, “Commerce Department Implements
Regulations to Reduce Dolphin Mortality in the Eastern
Tropical Pacific Ocean,” press release (Washington, DC: 4
January 2000).
66. M.A. Hall, D.L. Alverson, and K.I. Metuzals, “Bycatch: problems and solutions,” Marine Pollution Bulletin,
vol. 41, no. 1-6 (2000), pp. 204–19.
67. NOAA Fisheries, “Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDS),”
2006, at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/teds.htm.
68. Ibid.; Inter-American Convention for the Protection
and Conservation of Sea Turtles (ICCAT) Web site, at
www.iacseaturtle.org.
69. R.L. Lewison, L.B. Crowder, and D.J. Shaver, “The
impact of turtle excluder devices and fisheries closures on
loggerhead and Kemp’s ridley strandings in the western
Gulf of Mexico,” Conservation Biology, vol. 17, no. 4
(2003), pp. 1089–97.
70. International Technical Expert Workshop on Marine
Turtle Bycatch in Longline Fisheries, Seattle, Washington,
11–13 February 2003; R.L. Lewison, S.A. Freeman, and
L.B. Crowder, “Quantifying the effects of fisheries on
threatened species: The impact of pelagic longlines on
loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles,” Ecology Letters,
vol. 7 (2004), pp. 22–31.
71. B. Halweil, Catch of the Day: Choosing Seafood for
Healthier Oceans, Worldwatch Paper 172 (Washington,
DC: Worldwatch Institute, November 2006).
72. John Lewis Partnership, “Waitrose Nets First Place,”
The Gazette, 23 March 2007.
73. Ibid.; Greenpeace UK, A Recipe for Change: Supermarkets Repond to the Challenge of Sourcing Sustainable
Seafood (London: October 2006).
74. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., “Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Introduces New Label to Distinguish Sustainable Seafood,”
press release (Bentonville, AR: 31 August 2006).
75. Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), “2006–2007. A
50
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
Snapshot of the MSC’s Recent Progress,” at www.msc.org/
assets/docs/fishery_certification/MSC_fisheries_06-07.pdf.
76. Ibid.
77. Greenpeace UK, op. cit. note 73.
78. R.L. Naylor et al., “Effect of aquaculture on world fish
supplies,” Nature, 29 June 2000, pp. 1017–23; Pure Salmon
Campaign Web site, www.puresalmon.org.
79. Naylor et al., op. cit. note 78.
80. Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic
Pollutants (POPs) Web site, www.pops.int.
81. M. Alaee et al., “An overview of commercially used
brominated flame retardants, their applications, their
use patterns in different countries/regions and possible
modes of release,” Environment International, vol. 29
(2003), pp. 683–89; “Summary of the second meeting of
the review committee of the Stockholm Convention on
persistent organic pollutants,” Earth Negotiations Bulletin,
13 November 2006.
82. Europe from “Directive 2003/11/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 6 February 2003.
Amending for the 24th time Council Directive
76/769/EEC relating to restrictions on the marketing and
use of certain dangerous substances and preparations
(pentabromodiphenyl ether, octabromodiphenyl ether,”
Official Journal of the European Union, 15 February 2003,
from “Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on the restriction
of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical
and electronic equipment,” Official Journal of the European Union, 13 February 2003, and from Bromine Science
and Environmental Forum, “Legislation—Regulatory
Overview in Europe,” www.bsef.com/regulation/national/
index.php?/regulation/national/national.php, viewed 26
July 2007; China from “Administration on the Control of
Pollution Caused by Electronic Information Products,” at
www.chinarohs.com/docs.html; Japan from K. Vorkamp
et al., Screening of “New” Contaminants in the Marine
Environment of Greenland and the Faroe Islands, NERI
Technical Report No. 525 (Roskilde, Denmark: National
Environmental Research Institute, 2004); United States
from C.A. de Wit, M. Alaee, and D.C.G. Muir, “Levels and
trends of brominated flame retardants in the Arctic,”
Chemosphere, vol. 64, no. 2 (2006), pp. 209–33.
83. OSPAR Commission for the Protection of the Marine
Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR),
“OSPAR Strategy with Regard to Hazardous Substances”
(London: 1998); OSPAR, “Sintra Statement (Sintra,
Portugal: 23 July 1998), at www.ospar.org/eng/html/md/
sintra.htm.
84. OSPAR, “The OSPAR List of Chemicals for Priority
Action (Update 2006)” (London: 2006).
85. “Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and
Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC
and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as
Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Direcw w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
Endnotes
tives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and
2000/21/EC,” Official Journal of the European Union, 30
December 2006.
between nutrient ratios and dissolved oxygen in the
northern Gulf of Mexico,” Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment, vol. 4, no. 4 (2006), pp. 211–17.
86. OSPAR, “OSPAR Radioactive Substances Strategy”
(London: 1998).
90. IMO, “International Convention for the prevention
of pollution from ships, 1973, as modified by the protocol
of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78),” 2002, at
www.imo.org/Conventions/contents.asp?doc_id=678&
topic_id=258].
87. OSPAR, “2003 Progress Report on the More Detailed
Implementation of the Radioactive Substances Strategy”
(London: 2003).
88. International Maritime Organization (IMO), “Tanker
safety—Preventing Accidental Pollution,” at www.imo
.org/Safety/mainframe.asp?topic_id=155, viewed 26 July
2007.
89. W.K. Dodds, “Nutrients and the ‘dead zone’: The link
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
91. S.B. Sheavly, “Marine debris—An overview of a critical issue for our oceans,” preented at the Sixth Meeting
of the UN Open-ended Informal Consultative Processes
on Oceans & the Law of the Sea, 6–10 June 2005, at
www.un.org/Depts/los/consultative_process/consultative
_process.htm.
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
51
Index
A
acidification of oceans, 6, 22–23, 30
Adriatic Sea, 26
Africa, 18, 30, 33
Albatross Task Force, 34
Antarctica, 21–23, 32
aquaculture industry, see also commercial fishing
ecosystem approach, 35–36
feed considerations, 5, 33, 36
fishery depletion and, 13, 15–16
mangrove forests and, 11
threats to marine life, 6
Arctic Ocean, 21
Atlantic Ocean
climate changes and, 21
ecological approach and, 36
fishery depletions, 13, 18
mangrove forests, 11
Australia
fishery depletions, 17
Great Barrier Reef, 9–10, 20, 30
mangrove forests, 11
pollution and, 26
seamounts, 8, 14–15
B
Baltic Sea, 26, 35
Bangladesh, 11
Barents Sea, 15, 18
BFRs (brominated flame retardants), 24–25
bioaccumulative pollutants, 24
bioprospecting, 9
bird species, diversity of, see also
seabirds
climate changes and, 22
in mangrove forests, 11
pollution and, 24–25
in seagrass beds, 12
BirdLife International, 34
Black Sea, 26
bottom trawling
destructive nature of, 5, 8, 12,
14–15
52
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
ecological approach and, 35
IUU fishing, 18
Brazil, 11–12
Bush, George W., 31
bycatch, 17–18, 34–35
C
California, 20
Canada, 14, 22, 34
carbon dioxide emissions, 12, 19, 22
Caribbean Sea
biodiversity in, 9–12
climate changes and, 20–21
ecological approach in, 33
pollution in, 27
CBD (Convention on Biological
Diversity), 31–32
CCAMLR, 32, 34
Cetacean Bycatch Resource Center,
35
chemical contamination, 16, 24, 36
Chile, 8, 16
China
ecological approach and, 34, 36
fishery depletions, 16–17
mangrove forests, 11
pollution and, 26
climate change
changing seas and, 19–23
ecological approach to, 32
impact of, 6
mangrove forests and, 12
marine reserves and, 30
coastal zone
biodiversity of, 9–12
ecological approach to, 36
pollution and, 25
commercial fishing, see also aquaculture industry
destructive methods, 6
ecological approach, 33–36
in Indonesia, 9–10
marine reserves and, 30
pollution from, 28
Southeast Asia, 10
threat to drift algae, 9
coral bleaching, 10, 19–20
coral reefs
biodiversity in, 7, 9, 11–12
bottom trawling and, 5, 8
climate changes and, 10, 19–21
level of protection, 31
crustaceans
in coral reefs, 10
in deep sea, 7
farming, 15
in mangrove forests, 11
ocean acidification and, 22
in open ocean, 9
in seagrass beds, 12
cyanide, 10
D
dead zones, 26
deep sea
biodiversity in, 7–9
bottom trawling, 14–15
IUU fishing, 18
marine reserves and, 31
sustainable management of, 32,
35–36
Denmark, 15
disease
seaweed and, 10, 16
spread of, 16–18
distant-water access agreements,
33–34
Doha Round (WTO), 33
dolphins, 17–18, 35
drift algae, 9
dugong, 12
E
East China Sea, 24
ecosystem approach
with aquaculture industry, 35–36
benefits, 6
for bycatch, 34–35
for commercial fishing, 33–34
for marine pollution, 36–37
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
Index
for marine reserves, 5–6, 29–32
mitigating bycatch, 34–35
of sustainable management, 32
EEZs (exclusive economic zones), 18
effluent discharge, 16, 36
Egypt, 11
endangered species, 11–12
endemism, 8
English Channel, 27
entanglement, 17, 27, 34–35
erosion, 11, 21
Estonia, 15
Europe
climate changes and, 20–21
ecological approach and, 31, 36
fishery depletions and, 14, 16
pollution and, 24, 27
Exxon Valdez tanker, 27
F
FAO (U.N. Food and Agriculture
Organization) agreement,
13, 33–34
fish farming, see aquaculture
fish species, diversity of
climate changes and, 19–20, 22
in coral reefs, 9–10
fishery depletions and, 13–18
in mangrove forests, 11
in seagrass beds, 12
fish stocks
ecological approach, 31–34
IUU fishing, 18
pollution and, 28
status, 6, 13–15
U.N. Fish Stocks Agreement,
32–34
fishery depletions, 13–18
Florida, 10–11, 15
France, 25
fungi in mangrove forests, 11
G
Galicia, 26
ghost fishing, 28
Great Barrier Reef (Australia),
9–10, 20, 30
Great Ocean Conveyor Belt, 21
Greece, 14
Greenland Ice Sheet, 21
Greenpeace, 5, 18, 33
Guam, 10
Gulf of California, 17
Gulf of Maine, 35
Gulf of Mexico, 11, 17, 26
Gulf Stream, 21
H
Hawaii, 8, 15–16, 21, 31
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
Iceland, 15
India, 11, 17
Indian Ocean, 10, 13, 20
Indonesia, 9–11, 19, 27
Indo-Pacific Ocean, 9–10, 12
industrial fishing, 15
Inter-American Convention for the
Protection and Conservation
of Sea Turtles, 35
International Maritime
Organization, 36
International Whaling
Commission, 35
invertebrates
coral reefs and, 10
in deep sea, 7–8
in mangrove forests, 11
in open ocean, 9
IPOA-SEABIRDS, 34
Ireland, 25
IUCN (World Conservation
Union), 17
IUU fishing, 18, 34
marine mammals
along coral reefs, 9
along seamounts, 8
bycatch, 17, 34–35
industrially fished species, 15
marine reserves and, 31
pollution and, 26
marine reserves, 5–6, 29–32, 37
Marine Stewardship Council
(MSC), 35
MARPOL, 37
medicine, commercial harvesting
for, 9–10
Mediterranean Sea, 12, 14–15, 18,
20, 27, 31
Mexico, 34
microbes
in mangrove forests, 11
pollution and, 25–26
Mid-Oceanic Ridge system, 8
mining, seabed, 8, 10
mollusks
in coastal zone, 9
in deep sea, 7
ocean acidification and, 22
rising sea temperatures, 20
in seagrass beds, 12
MPAs (marine protected areas),
29, 31
J
N
Japan
ecological approach and, 34, 36
fishery depletion and, 15–16
pollution and, 26
jellyfish, 7, 9
lactational transfer, 24
Latvia, 15
Lebanon, 27–28
Lithuania, 15
longline fishing, 14, 17–18, 34
New Caledonia, 8
New Zealand
biodiversity in, 8
ecological approach in, 30, 35
fishery depletions, 15, 17
pollution and, 26
Newfoundland (Canada), 14
Nigeria, 11
North Pacific Gyre, 27
North Sea
climate changes and, 20–21
ecological approach, 35
fishery depletions, 15–16
pollution and, 26
Norway, 15
M
O
mackerel, 14–16
Malaysia, 11
manatees, 11–12
mangrove forests, 9–12, 16, 31
marine debris, 27–28
marine ecosystems
in coastal zone, 9–12
in deep sea, 7–9
IUU fishing, 18
in open ocean, 9
pollution and, 6, 24–28
OECD (Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and
Development), 33
oil spills, 26–27, 36–37
open ocean
biodiversity in, 9
industrial fishing, 15
OSPAR Commission, 36
overfishing
coral reefs and, 10–11
ecological approach to, 32
Honduras, 19
hurricanes, 12
hydrothermal vents, 8–9, 31
hypothermia, 26
I
K
Korea, 34
L
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
53
Index
fishery depletions, 14–16
rising sea temperatures and, 21
as threat to marine life, 6
P
Pacific Ocean
coral reefs, 10, 19
deep-sea species, 7–8
ecological approach in, 33, 35
as EEZ, 18
fishery depletions, 13, 17
open ocean species, 9
Papua New Guinea, 10
PBDEs (polybrominated diphenyl
ethers), 24–25
PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), 36
Peru, 15
pH values of oceans, 22
Philippines
biodiversity in, 10
fishery depletion, 16
marine reserves, 29, 37
pollution and, 27
photosynthesis, coral reefs, 9, 19, 21
plankton, 20, 22
poisons, 10, 26–27
polar bears, 22
pollution
coral reefs and, 10–11
drift algae and, 9
ecosystem approach, 36–37
effluent discharge, 16, 36
marine life and, 6, 24–28
marine reserves and, 30
seagrass beds and, 12
POPs (persistent organic pollutants), 24, 36
porpoises, 17–18, 25, 35
Portugal, 15
Prestige tanker, 27
R
radioactive substances, 24–25
rainforests of the sea, see coral reefs
rays, 14–15
REACH legislation, 36
Red Sea, 11, 30
Royal Society for the Protection
of Birds, 34
Russia, 15, 34
S
salmon, 14, 16–17
scientific research, 8–9
sea levels, rise in, 21
Sea of Japan, 12
sea temperatures, rising, 10, 19–21
seabed mining, 8, 10
54
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
seabirds
along coral reefs, 9
bycatch, 17, 34–35
drift algae, 9
industrially fished species, 15
marine reserves and, 31
pollution and, 24–26
on seamounts, 8
seagrass beds
bottom trawling and, 5
in coastal zone, 9
depicted, 12
level of protection, 31
in Thailand, 11
threat to, 12
seals, 22, 24–25
seamounts, 7–8, 14–15, 31
seaweed, 10, 15–16
sediments, 7, 10–12, 15
sharks, 9, 14
shellfish, 11, 15
shrimp farming, 12, 15–17
Singapore, 11
skates, 14–15
South America, 16, 26
South Orkney Islands, 22
Southeast Asia, 10–11
Southern Ocean
climate changes and, 22
ecological approach in, 32, 34
fishery depletions and, 18
Spain, 15
sponges
in coastal zone, 9
in deep sea, 7
in seagrass beds, 12
Sri Lanka, 10, 33
St. Lucia, 30–31
Stockholm Convention, 24, 36
sustainable management of high
seas, 32, 35–36
swordfish, 9, 14
T
Taiwan, 34
Tasmania, 8
TED (turtle excluder device), 17, 35
temperatures, see sea temperatures
Texas, 12
Thailand, 11, 16
tourism, 8, 10, 27
tsunamis, 10
tuna
ecological approach, 34
overfishing of, 13–16
pollution and, 24
seamounts and, 8
Turkey, 12
turtles
bycatch of, 17, 34–35
climate changes and, 21
coral reefs and, 9
marine reserves and, 30–31
in open ocean, 9
pollution and, 27–28
seagrass beds and, 12
U
United Kingdom, 15, 25, 34–35
United Nations
on bycatch, 17
Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD), 33
ecological approach of, 32–33
Fish Stocks Agreement, 32–34
Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO), 13,
33–34
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 32
United States, see also specific
states, 10, 16–17, 27, 35–36
upwelling systems, 9
U.S. Marine Mammal Protection
Act, 35
U.S. National Marine Fisheries
Service, 17
V
Vietnam, 11
W
Waitrose supermarket chain, 35
Wal-Mart, 35
water quality, 11
wave action, 10, 12
West Antarctic Ice Sheet, 21
whales
climate changes and, 21, 23
ecological approach, 35
fishery depletion and, 17–18
in open ocean, 9
pollution and, 24–25
World Conservation Union
(IUCN), 17
World Parks Congress, 30
World Summit on Sustainable
Development, 31–33
worms, 7, 9, 12
WTO (World Trade Organization),
33
WWF, 31, 35
Z
zero-for-zero tariffs, 33
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
Other Worldwatch Reports
Worldwatch Reports provide in-depth, quantitative, and qualitative analysis of the major issues
affecting prospects for a sustainable society. The Reports are written by members of the
Worldwatch Institute research staff or outside specialists and are reviewed by experts unaffiliated
with Worldwatch. They are used as concise and authoritative references by governments,
nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and educational institutions worldwide.
On Climate Change, Energy, and Materials
169: Mainstreaming Renewable Energy in the 21st Century, 2004
160: Reading the Weathervane: Climate Policy From Rio to Johannesburg, 2002
157: Hydrogen Futures: Toward a Sustainable Energy System, 2001
151: Micropower: The Next Electrical Era, 2000
149: Paper Cuts: Recovering the Paper Landscape, 1999
144: Mind Over Matter: Recasting the Role of Materials in Our Lives, 1998
138: Rising Sun, Gathering Winds: Policies To Stabilize the Climate and Strengthen Economies, 1997
On Ecological and Human Health
165: Winged Messengers: The Decline of Birds, 2003
153: Why Poison Ourselves: A Precautionary Approach to Synthetic Chemicals, 2000
148: Nature’s Cornucopia: Our Stakes in Plant Diversity, 1999
145: Safeguarding the Health of Oceans, 1999
142: Rocking the Boat: Conserving Fisheries and Protecting Jobs, 1998
141: Losing Strands in the Web of Life: Vertebrate Declines and the Conservation of Biological Diversity, 1998
140: Taking a Stand: Cultivating a New Relationship With the World’s Forests, 1998
On Economics, Institutions, and Security
173: Beyond Disasters: Creating Opportunities for Peace, 2007
168: Venture Capitalism for a Tropical Forest: Cocoa in the Mata Atlântica, 2003
167: Sustainable Development for the Second World: Ukraine and the Nations in Transition, 2003
166: Purchasing Power: Harnessing Institutional Procurement for People and the Planet, 2003
164: Invoking the Spirit: Religion and Spirituality in the Quest for a Sustainable World, 2002
162: The Anatomy of Resource Wars, 2002
159: Traveling Light: New Paths for International Tourism, 2001
158: Unnatural Disasters, 2001
On Food, Water, Population, and Urbanization
172: Catch of the Day: Choosing Seafood for Healthier Oceans, 2006
171: Happer Meals: Rethinking the Global Meat Industry, 2005
170: Liquid Assets: The Critical Need to Safeguard Freshwater Ecosytems, 2005
163: Home Grown: The Case for Local Food in a Global Market, 2002
161: Correcting Gender Myopia: Gender Equity, Women’s Welfare, and the Environment, 2002
156: City Limits: Putting the Brakes on Sprawl, 2001
154: Deep Trouble: The Hidden Threat of Groundwater Pollution, 2000
150: Underfed and Overfed: The Global Epidemic of Malnutrition, 2000
147: Reinventing Cities for People and the Planet, 1999
To order any of the above titles or to see a complete list of Reports,
visit www.worldwatch.org/taxonomy/term/40
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
55
About Worldwatch
The Worldwatch Institute is an independent research organization that works for an environmentally sustainable and socially just society, in which the needs of all people are met without threatening the health of the natural environment or the well-being of future generations. By providing
compelling, accessible, and fact-based analysis of critical global issues, Worldwatch informs people
around the world about the complex interactions among people, nature, and economies.
Worldwatch focuses on the underlying causes of and practical solutions to the world’s problems,
in order to inspire people to demand new policies, investment patterns, and lifestyle choices.
Support for the Institute is provided by the Blue Moon Fund, the German Government, the
Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund, The Goldman Environmental Prize, the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, the Steven C. Leuthold Family Foundation, the Marianists of the USA, the Norwegian Royal
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the V. Kann Rasmussen Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, The
Shared Earth Foundation, The Shenandoah Foundation, the Sierra Club, the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, the United Nations Population Fund, the United Nations
Environment Programme, the Wallace Genetic Foundation, Inc., the Wallace Global Fund, the
Johanette Wallerstein Institute, and the Winslow Foundation. The Institute also receives financial
support from many individual donors who share our commitment to a more sustainable society.
56
O C E A N S
I N
P E R I L
w w w. w o r l d w a t c h . o r g
WO R L DWAT C H R E P O RT
174
Oceans in Peril
Protecting Marine Biodiversity
The oceans cover 70 percent of the Earth’s surface and are home to a myriad
of amazing and beautiful creatures. Yet the biological diversity of marine
habitats is threatened by the activities of one largely land-based species: us.
The activities through which humans threaten marine life include overfishing,
use of destructive fishing methods, pollution, and commercial aquaculture.
In addition, climate change and the related acidification of the oceans is
already having an impact on some marine ecosystems.
Essential to solving these problems will be more equitable and sustainable
management of the oceans as well as stronger protection of marine ecosystems
through a well-enforced network of marine reserves. Presently, 76 percent of
the world’s fish stocks are fully exploited or overexploited, and many species
have been severely depleted. Current fisheries management regimes contribute
to the widespread market-driven degradation of the oceans by failing to
implement and enforce adequate protective measures.
Many policymakers and scientists now agree that we must adopt a radical
new approach to managing the seas—one that is precautionary in nature and
has the protection of the whole marine ecosystem as its primary objective.
This “ecosystem approach” is vital if we are to ensure the health of our
oceans for future generations. Protecting the diversity of marine life—from
the largest whales to the smallest planktonic creature—is necessary not only
for its own sake, but for ours too.
WWW.WORLDWATCH.ORG