Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Marine larval ecology wikipedia , lookup
Demersal fish wikipedia , lookup
Deep sea fish wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on oceans wikipedia , lookup
Marine microorganism wikipedia , lookup
Raised beach wikipedia , lookup
Marine life wikipedia , lookup
Marine debris wikipedia , lookup
Marine habitats wikipedia , lookup
The Marine Mammal Center wikipedia , lookup
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