Oceans in Peril

WORLDWATCH REPORT 174 Oceans in Peril

Protecting Marine Biodiversity

michelle allsopp, richard page, paul johnston, and david santillo

WORLDWATCH REPORT 174

Oceans in Peril Protecting Marine Biodiversity

michelle allsopp, richard page, paul johnston, and david santillo Greenpeace Research Laboratories, University of Exeter, UK

lisa mastny, editor

worldwatch institute, washington, dc

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 contribu- tions 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 Green- peace 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 coordin- ating 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 Green- peace 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 OCEANS IN PERIL www.worldwatch.org

Preface

nyone familiar with the state of the ing ourselves doesn’t have to come at the world’s oceans would have a hard expense of a healthy environment. A time feeling optimistic. From coral Just as meat that originates in a factory farm reefs overwhelmed by coastal is different from meat that comes from animals runoff to tiny but ecologically vital plankton raised on pasture, the differences between that are suffering from climate change, the “good” and “bad” seafood are many. For exam- diversity of sea life is fading. Just as nutrition- ple, fish farming that focuses on large, carnivo- ists are discovering how healthy and beneficial rous species like salmon and tuna consumes seafood really is, we face a growing shortage of many times more fish in the form of feed than this once-bountiful food source. it yields for human consumption. Alterna- Yet we continue to invest in wasteful and tively, raising fish that is low in the food chain, shortsighted fishing techniques. Destructive such as clams, scallops, and other mollusks, bottom trawling not only catches tons of can provide healthy seafood without any feeds. unwanted species, it also destroys deep-water As this paper demonstrates, scientists, activ- coral reefs and other rich habitats that nurture ists, and the fishing industry itself are already the fish we do want to catch. Fishing subsidies showing what a shift in perspective—and in are so bloated that roughly a third of the global governmental policies—can mean for the fleet is considered unnecessary. And as near- oceans. Consider marine reserves, just one ele- shore fish populations collapse, fleets are forced ment of a new “ecosystem approach” to man- to probe farther and deeper to find their targets. aging the seas that is critical to protecting the The good news is that there is a way out of oceans for future generations. These reserves, this predicament. By treating the oceans with which make swaths of the oceans off-limits to more respect and by using them more wisely, damaging human activities, can protect whole we can obtain more from these life-supporting ecosystems and enable fish and other species to waters while also maintaining healthy and recover and flourish. But currently, only about diverse marine ecosystems. This is a key mes- 0.1 percent of the oceans is fully protected. sage of this latest Worldwatch report, Oceans “Current presumptions that favor freedom in Peril: Protecting Marine Biodiversity. to fish and freedom of the seas will need to be This surprising conclusion, reached by the replaced with the new concept of freedom for report’s authors—a team of scientists with the seas,”write the authors of Oceans in Peril. Greenpeace Research Laboratories in the The freedom they speak of is essentially free- United Kingdom—complements work that dom from human exploitation—from nets, Worldwatch’s own food and agriculture team dredges, trawlers, hooks, and knives—and the has undertaken over the last decade. Through freedom to heal from past overuses. It’s a sim- our research and analysis, most recently in ple change in perception, but the ramifications Catch of the Day (2006) and Happier Meals couldn’t be more important. (2005), we have sought to illustrate that feed- —Brian Halweil, Worldwatch Institute

www.worldwatch.org OCEANS IN PERIL 5

Summary

niquely among the universe’s resources in an equitable way. It is a holistic known planets, the Earth is a sphere approach that considers environmental protec- U dominated by watery oceans. They tion and marine management together, rather cover 70 percent of its surface and than as two separate and mutually exclusive are home to a myriad of amazing and beautiful goals. Paramount to the application of this creatures. Life almost certainly originated in approach is the establishment of networks of the oceans, yet the biological diversity of fully protected marine reserves—in essence, marine habitats is threatened by the activities “national parks” of the sea. These provide proof one largely land-based species: us. The activ- tection of whole ecosystems and enable biodi- ities through which humans threaten marine versity to both recover and flourish. They also life include overfishing, use of destructive fish- benefit fisheries by allowing for spillover of fish ing methods, pollution, and commercial aqua- and larvae or eggs from the reserve into adja- culture. In addition, climate change and the cent fishing grounds. related acidification of the oceans is already Outside of the reserves, an ecosystem having an impact on some marine ecosystems. approach requires the sustainable management Essential to solving these problems will be of fisheries and other resources. Demands on more equitable and sustainable management marine resources must be managed within the of the oceans as well as stronger protection of limits of what the ecosystem can provide indef- marine ecosystems through a well-enforced initely, rather than being allowed to expand network of marine reserves. as demographic and market forces dictate. An Presently, 76 percent of the world’s fish ecosystem approach requires protection at the stocks are fully exploited or overexploited, level of the whole ecosystem. This is radically and many species have been severely depleted, different from the current practice, where most largely due to our growing appetite for sea- fisheries management measures focus simply food. Current fisheries management regimes on single species and do not consider the role contribute to the widespread market-driven of these species in the wider ecosystem. degradation of the oceans by failing to imple- An ecosystem approach is also precaution- ment and enforce adequate protective meas- ary in nature, meaning that a lack of knowledge ures. Many policymakers and scientists now should not excuse decision-makers from tak- agree that we must adopt a radical new ing action, but rather lead them to err on the approach to managing the seas—one that is side of caution. The burden of proof must be precautionary in nature and has the protection placed on those who want to undertake activi- of the whole marine ecosystem as its primary ties, such as fishing or coastal development, to objective. This “ecosystem approach” is vital if show that these activities will not harm the we are to ensure the health of our oceans for marine environment. In other words, current future generations. presumptions that favor freedom to fish and An ecosystem approach promotes both con- freedom of the seas will need to be replaced servation and the sustainable use of marine with the new concept of freedom for the seas.

6 OCEANS IN PERIL www.worldwatch.org

The Diversity of the Oceans

ar from being watery voids, the Earth’s oceans are home to a rich and colorful F 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 Crab on sponge, depth, comprises nearly all of the oceans’ extent crustaceans, and tiny single-celled organisms Davidson Seamount, except for the shallow continental shelves next known as Foraminifera.7 Estimates of the total Pacific Ocean. to the Earth’s landmasses.4† Despite its dark- number of undescribed species in the deep sea © NOAA and MBARI/Greenpeace ness, near-freezing temperatures, and scarce range from 500,000 to as high as 10 million.8 energetic supplies, it supports a surprisingly Undersea mountains rising to 1,000 meters high diversity of life.5 About 50 percent of the or more above the sea floor appear to host a deep-sea floor is an abyssal plain, mainly of particularly wide diversity of deep-sea life. mud flats, on which are superimposed trenches However, animal life has only been studied on and other features that provide habitat for some 230 of the estimated 50,000 seamounts creatures ranging from sea stars, sponges, and worldwide.9 Because enhanced currents carry jellyfish to some 2,650 known species of bot- a flow of food particles to the mounts, they tom-dwelling deep-sea fish.6 Deep-sea sedi- tend to be dominated by filter or suspension ments are home to an even higher diversity feeders, including visually striking corals, of small animals, including worms, mollusks, anemones, and sponges.10 Other invertebrates present include crustaceans, mollusks, sea *Endnotes are grouped by section and begin on page 38. urchins, brittle stars, sea stars, and bristle 11 †Units of measure throughout this report are metric worms. Many fish species are also associated unless common usage dictates otherwise. with seamounts, some of which form huge www.worldwatch.org OCEANS IN PERIL 7

The Diversity of the Oceans

aggregations; one study described 263 different roughy have been depleted on seamounts species on seamounts near New Caledonia.12 around Australia and New Zealand.19 A study Migratory tuna, marine mammals, and sea- off southern Tasmania found that heavily birds frequently congregate over the features as fished seamounts had 46 percent fewer species well.13 In total, 2,700 species are known to 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 60,000- kilometer seam of geological activity.22 Hun- dreds, 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 A dense bed of very acidic, and enriched with hydrogen sul- hydrothermal mus- occur in and around these “underwater fide, methane, and various metals.24 Yet more sels and shrimp oases.”14 than 550 different species have been found at clusters around an 25 undersea volcano New species have been found on nearly the 100-some vent sites studied so far. Vent near Champagne every seamount studied. In a study off south- animals are unique in that they do not rely vent in the western ern Tasmania, between 24 and 43 percent of ultimately on sunlight as an energy source, but Pacific. the invertebrate species collected were new to rather on chemosynthetic bacteria that live off Pacific Ring of Fire 2004 15 26 Expedition. NOAA Office of Ocean science. Some seamount studies also report the hydrogen sulfide in the vent fluids. Exploration; Dr. Bob Embley, NOAA high rates of endemism, or species found At any given vent site, the diversity of PMEL, Chief Scientist nowhere else on Earth. On two seamount species may be relatively low, but the abun- chains in the Pacific off Chile, 44 percent of dance of animals is generally high. While most fishes and 52 percent of bottom-dwelling vent diversity is attributed to small, inconspic- invertebrates were endemic, as were 31–36 uous animals, the sites tend to be dominated percent of species in seamounts south of New by a few large and visually striking species, Caledonia.16 Because of their endemism, slow such as tube worms, vent clams, and the blind growth, and long life (from about 70 to hun- vent shrimp.27 Enormous densities of a giant dreds of years), many seamount species are clam-like organism and a giant mussel have especially vulnerable to depletion.17 been found near vents of the eastern Pacific.28 Seamounts have faced intensive pressure Vent environments also support among the from trawl fisheries—which can scour the highest levels of microbial diversity on the ocean floor with giant nets—since the 1960s.18 planet, as well as several species of fish.29 Stocks of pelagic armorhead over Pacific The more-accessible hydrothermal vents seamounts northwest of Hawaii have been are potentially threatened by human activities depleted to the point of commercial extinction such as submarine-based tourism, scientific in less than 20 years, and stocks of orange research, and seabed mining.30 One specialized

8 OCEANS IN PERIL www.worldwatch.org

The Diversity of the Oceans

deep-sea submersible, scheduled for use in fertilizer, and medicine, as well as from pollu- 2009, is capable of reaching depths of 1,700 tion, commercial fishing, and vessel traffic.37 meters and will dredge the seafloor for copper, gold, and zinc.31 However, scientific research The Coastal Zone may pose a greater threat to some of the Shallow coastal waters, nurtured by plentiful most-visited vent sites due to concentrated sunlight and warm temperatures, are home sampling and other practices.32 to some of the richest marine ecosystems, This and other “bioprospecting”—the including coral reefs, mangrove forests, and exploration of biodiversity for scientific and seagrass beds. commercial purposes—poses a growing threat Coral reefs cover an estimated 284,300 to the marine environment.33 Many plants, square kilometers of oceans, occur in more animals, and microorganisms contain unique than 100 countries, and comprise roughly a biochemicals that could be useful in the health, third of tropical coastlines.38 They can form pharmacology, and chemicals sectors. While very thick limestone structures, among them most marine bioprospecting has taken place island atolls and the 2,000-kilometer-long in shallower waters, scientists are beginning to Great Barrier Reef off Australia.39 The ability appreciate the valuable resources of the deep of corals to construct these massive frame- ocean, and there is currently no legal regime to works sets them apart from all other marine regulate such activities. ecosystems.40 Because coral reefs are the most biologically The Open Ocean diverse oceanic ecosystems, they have been As in the deep sea, the abundance and diversity called “rainforests of the sea.” 41 As many as of biological communities in the open ocean— 100,000 reef species have been named and away from the coast or seafloor—is only described, though estimates range as high as beginning to be understood. In this zone, 1 to 3 million.42 Centers of particularly high biodiversity is highest at the intermediate diversity are the southern Caribbean Sea and latitudes, with optimal habitats characterized the tropical Indo-West Pacific Ocean, where by warm, oxygen-rich waters. Open-ocean the most biologically rich reefs house as many features that favor high biodiversity include as 600 coral species alone.43 Most corals derive oceanic “fronts” where cold and warm water at least some of their nutrition from photosyn- collide and “upwellings” where deep, dense, thesis by algae that live within them. Other cooler, and usually nutrient-rich water moves reef-dwelling species include sponges, jellyfish, toward the ocean surface, supporting phyto- worm-like animals, crustaceans, mollusks, sea plankton growth. One 125,000-square-kilome- cucumbers, and sea squirts.44 ter oceanic front off the coast of Baja in the An estimated 4,000 to 4,500 fish species Pacific Ocean has supported very high landings inhabit the world’s coral reefs—more than a of swordfish and striped marlin over the past quarter of all marine fish species.45 Sea turtles 35 years, and is also frequented by blue whales.34 and certain seabirds and marine mammals Upwelling systems, meanwhile, sustain a large are also associated with reef environments.48 proportion of the world’s fisheries.35 And new reef species are still being discovered. Drift algae, which float on the sea surface Recent research off the coast of Indonesia’s in occasional clumps, as elongated lines, or as Papua Province found more than 50 species expansive mats spanning several kilometers, that are likely new to science, including 24 fish form another important open-ocean habitat. and 20 corals.47 Among the fish discovered They provide vital support for at least 280 were two species of bottom-dwelling sharks species of fish, four turtle species, many inver- that use their pectoral fins to “walk” across the tebrates, and several seabirds.36 But in some seafloor. Scientists are now working with the areas, drift algae are under threat from com- Indonesian government to protect the area mercial harvesting for food, livestock fodder, from commercial fishing and destructive fish- www.worldwatch.org OCEANS IN PERIL 9

The Diversity of the Oceans

ing practices. reducing key fish and invertebrate species to Globally, reef fisheries provide food and low levels.57 Some 50 reef fish species are now livelihood for tens of millions of people in the listed as “threatened,”most due to exploitation, tropics and subtropics.48 Of the estimated 30 and in many areas it is now rare to see a fish million small-scale fishers in the developing over 10 centimeters long.58 Overfishing can world, most depend to some extent on coral remove species that perform critical functions reefs for harvesting fish, mussels, crustaceans, for reef maintenance, and may explain the sea cucumbers, seaweeds, and other products.49 massive outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish In some regions, people harvest a large diver- on the Great Barrier Reef since the 1960s, sity of reef species: for example, some 209 as species that prey upon the starfish were species are taken at Bolinao in the Philippines, depleted.59 Intensified urbanization and agri- 250 in the Tigak Islands of Papua New Guinea, culture, meanwhile, can increase the run-off of and 300 around Guam.50 A growing threat to sediments and nutrients to reefs, reducing light reefs is the booming commercial fisheries penetration and/or oxygen levels and smother- trade, which supplies export markets, the ing corals.60 In a study in Indonesia, reefs sub- restaurant and hotel industries, and the live- ject to such pollution stresses showed a 30 to fish trade of Southeast Asia.51 In total, reef- 60 percent reduction in species diversity.61 associated fisheries account for at least 10 Other threats to reefs include coral mining percent of world marine fishery landings.52 and removal, coral disease, and, increasingly, Coral reefs also help to shelter beaches and coral “bleaching” as sea temperatures rise.62 coastlines from storm surges and wave action. Coral mining for building materials has caused Anecdotal evidence and satellite photography extensive reef degradation in parts of the both suggest that reefs provided valuable pro- Pacific, leading to declines in coral cover, diver- tection from the impacts of the December sity, and fish; reefs mined before the mid-1970s 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami: in Sri Lanka, have shown little recovery.63 Many live corals, some of the most severe damage occurred fish, and invertebrates are also collected for along coastlines that had suffered heavy reef sale to aquarium lovers in the United States, mining and damage.53 Reefs also support Europe, and Japan.64 Fishers often use cyanide extensive recreational and tourist activities. to stun and collect the creatures, leading to And reef organisms themselves have proven serial depletion of large reef fishes and the useful in pharmaceutical development— death of other species.65 Meanwhile, the num- providing an HIV treatment, a painkiller, and ber of new coral diseases and disease outbreaks inputs to cancer drug research.54 has increased dramatically since the 1990s, Yet coral reefs are in serious decline globally. affecting more than 150 species in the Carib- As of 2004, an estimated 20 percent of the bean and Indo-Pacific alone.66 In the Carib- world’s reefs had been destroyed, showing no bean, two of the most dominant reef-building immediate signs of recovery; 24 percent were corals have largely disappeared as a result of under imminent risk of collapse through outbreaks of white band and white pox dis- human pressures; and 26 percent were under eases. Increased disease, in turn, may be due longer-term threat of collapse.55 Problems to greater seaweed growth, elevated nutrient include a decline in coral cover and biodiver- concentrations on reefs, or physical debilita- sity, coupled in some areas, such as the Carib- tion of corals following repeated bleaching bean and southern Florida, with a shift toward events.67 (See pp. 19–20 for a discussion of fleshy seaweed-dominated ecosystems.56 coral bleaching.) The greatest immediate threats to reefs Other rich coastal ecosystems under threat are overfishing and pollution from poor land- are the world’s mangrove forests, located just management practices. In 1999, a global survey north and south of the Equator. Mangroves of over 300 coral reefs in 31 countries reported grow in the intertidal zone between land and that overfishing had occurred on most reefs, sea and support numerous species as well as

10 OCEANS IN PERIL www.worldwatch.org

The Diversity of the Oceans

protecting coastlines from storms. Yet despite groves in the Caribbean showed that where their importance, an estimated 35 percent of coral reefs were connected with mangrove the original area of mangrove forests has been habitat, the abundance of several commercially lost in the last two decades alone.68 Total loss important species more than doubled com- is estimated at more than 50 percent, with pared to reefs that were not near mangroves.82 mangroves now occupying only 25 percent of The study also sug- tropical coastlines, down from 75 percent gested that the historically.69 Of the approximately 175,000 largest herbivorous square kilometers of mangrove forests that fish in the Atlantic, remain, about a quarter are in Indonesia and the rainbow parrot- another 20 percent are in Brazil, Nigeria, and fish, may have suf- Australia.70 fered local extinction A total of 69 mangrove species has been due to loss of man- documented worldwide, with the highest grove habitat. diversity occurring in Southeast Asia.71 Man- Coastal commu- grove forests support extensive populations of nities in many devel- birds, fish, crustaceans, microbes, and fungi, oping countries are as well as reptiles and mammals.72 As many as very dependent upon 117 fish species were recorded in the Matang mangrove ecosys- mangrove waters of Malaysia, 260 in Vietnam- tems for sustainable ese mangroves, and 400 in the Sundarban harvests of fish, mangrove forest of Bangladesh.73 Mangroves crabs, shellfish, and also support several endangered species, such non-seafood prod- as the milky stork, crab-eating frog, and leaf ucts such as wood, monkey in Southeast Asia; manatees in Flor- livestock fodder, and ida; Bengal tigers in India and Bangladesh; and medicinal plants.83 rare orchids in Singapore.74 At a commercial In addition to being important habitats, level, mangroves mangroves help stabilize coastlines and reduce support many valu- erosion. In Phang Nga province in Thailand, able fisheries species, the presence of mangrove forests significantly including an esti- Crystal-clear waters mitigated the impact of the 2004 tsunami.75 mated 80 percent of all marine species of com- and unique coral In Bangladesh, China, and Vietnam, man- mercial or recreational value in Florida. In Fiji reefs have made groves have been planted to prevent storm and India, roughly 60 percent of commercially the Red Sea one of the world’s prime damage.76 Mangroves also maintain water important coastal fish are directly associated diving destinations. quality in coastal zones by trapping sediments, with mangrove habitats.84 Research in the Gulf Yet reefs like organic material, and nutrients—an activity of Mexico and in parts of Asia suggests that Samadai in Egypt’s that can help the functioning of nearby coral greater mangrove cover is associated with Tondoba Bay, above, reefs.77 Loss of mangroves can cause inland higher catches of shellfish and fish than man- are threatened by overfishing, pollu- 85 saltwater intrusion and deterioration of grove-poor areas. tion, and uncon- groundwater quality.78 Large-scale mangrove destruction is a rela- trolled coastal devel- Mangroves provide a rich source of nutri- tively recent phenomenon, as forests are con- opment. ents for the many invertebrates and fish that verted for aquaculture, industrial forestry, and © Greenpeace/Marco Care inhabit them.79 They also export food that agricultural, industrial, and tourist facilities.86 supports near-shore species such as shrimps In many cases, mangroves have been consid- and prawns.80 Although few fish are perma- ered wastelands by governments and planners nent residents, many marine species use man- whose approach has been to drain them and groves as nursery areas or predation refuges for fill them in.87 In addition, large areas of forests larvae and juveniles.81 A recent study of man- have been destroyed to make room for shallow, www.worldwatch.org OCEANS IN PERIL 11

The Diversity of the Oceans

dyked ponds for shrimp farming.88 The recent threatened marine mammals, the manatee massive losses of mangrove forests have and dugong.93 In addition, seagrass detritus resulted in the release of large quantities of may represent an important food input to stored carbon, contributing to human-induced coastal fisheries.94 climate change.89 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 Carib- bean.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 docu- A Mediterranean mented, though the true figure may be above rainbow wrasse A final key area of marine biodiversity 1.2 million hectares.100 Several reports have swimming over under threat is seagrass beds. Seagrasses grow associated the loss of seagrass habitat with a seagrass bed in 101 the Mediterranean submerged in shallow marine and estuarine declining fish catches. Threats include Sea off Turkey. environments along most continental coast- dredging operations, reduced water clarity © Greenpeace/Roger Grace lines and represent some 60 species of under- from nutrient and sediment inputs, and pollu- water flowering plants.90 They vary in structure tion. At Laguna Madre, Texas, increased tur- from the tiny 2–3 centimeter rounded leaves of bidity from continuous maintenance dredging sea vine in Brazil’s tropical waters to the strap- caused the loss of 14,000 hectares of seagrasses like, four-meter-long blades of eelgrass in the by hindering plant growth.102 Other dangers Sea of Japan.91 Because seagrasses are highly include boat propellers and the dragging of productive and provide physically complex fishing nets and dredges across beds to collect environments, they support a large variety shellfish. Rising sea temperatures could also of species, including sponges, sea anemones, alter seagrass growth rates and other physio- corals, worm-like animals, crustaceans, mol- logical functions.103 In many cases, seagrass lusks, sea squirts, fishes, turtles, and certain declines have been linked to multiple stresses, waterfowl and wading birds.92 Seagrass beds but only in a few places are measures being also provide a critical food source for two implemented to address these threats.104

12 OCEANS IN PERIL www.worldwatch.org

Dangers of Fishery Depletions

ver the past century, the ever- increasing demand for seafood Figure 1. Global Fish Harvest, Marine Capture and Aquaculture, 1950–2005 has had powerful implications for O 200 marine species and ocean ecosys- 200 Source: FAO tems. The adoption of more powerful boats, Source: FAO freezer trawlers, acoustic fish finders, and other advanced technologies has led to a massive 150 increase in global fishing effort.1 As near-shore 150 fish stocks have declined, fishers have extended Aquaculture their range from the continental shelves to 100 Aquaculture more distant, deepwater habitats.2 100

According to the United Nations Food and Tons Million Agriculture Organization (FAO), fishers world- Million Tons wide harvested nearly 158 million tons of fish 50 in 2005, a sevenfold increase over 1950. Marine 50 Marine Capture Marine Capture capture accounted for about 60 percent of the total, and fish farming, or aquaculture, 0 accounted for the remainder.3 (See Figure 1.) 19500 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 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 Figure 2. Status of World Fish Stocks, 2005 Source: FAO to declines in the status of many marine fish Recovering 1 Source: FAO stocks. In 2005, at least 76 percent of stocks Recovering 1 were considered either fully exploited, over- Depleted 7 exploited, or depleted.5 (See Figure 2.) Areas Depleted 7 with the highest shares of overexploited or Over- 17 depleted stocks include the southeast and exploitedOver- 17 exploited northeast Atlantic, southeast Pacific, and, for Fully 52 tuna and tuna-like species, areas of the Atlantic ExploitedFully 52 and Indian oceans.6 In most cases, overfishing Exploited Moderately 20 has been the primary cause for the declines, Exploited Moderately 20 though in some cases environmental condi- Exploited tions have also contributed.7 Under 3 ExploitedUnder 3 Catch records reveal that between 1950 and Exploited 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 2000, fishery “collapse”—a sustained period 0 10 20Per 30cent 40 50 60 of very low catches following a period of high Percent catches—occurred in 366 out of 1,519 fisheries, www.worldwatch.org OCEANS IN PERIL 13

Dangers of Fishery Depletions

or nearly one in four.8 Smaller fisheries and removing the larger, longer-lived predatory stocks, as well as bottom-dwelling species, were fish and are subsequently targeting smaller, the most vulnerable. Perhaps the best-known shorter-lived fish that are lower down the web. collapse involved the Atlantic cod fishery off Research indicates that “fishing down the Newfoundland.9 The decline began in the marine food web” is happening on a global 1960s, and stocks scale.18 Near Newfoundland, as the average finally collapsed in trophic level dropped sharply between 1957 1991.10 A morato- and 2000, the average size of fish caught also rium imposed in declined by a meter.19 1992 closed the fish- The ecological impacts of overfishing preda- ery to commercial tory fish are bound to be widespread and pos- fleets, causing a loss sibly difficult to reverse.20 The direct impact is of at least 20,000 a loss in abundance of the target species, as jobs and severely occurred with Atlantic cod. In addition, selec- damaging New- tively removing the larger, faster-growing fish foundland’s econ- could alter the genetic diversity of a population omy.11 The fishery and hence its survival capabilities.21 From a remains closed and marine diversity perspective, the practice of there is little sign of fishing down the food web will reduce the recovery of offshore number and length of pathways that link fishes cod in the area.12 with other organisms, resulting in a simplified Losses of preda- web. A less-diverse food web may make it tory fish may be harder for predators to compensate for envi- a good indicator ronmental fluctuations—for instance, by of changes in the switching prey if their main food source oceans overall. In declines in abundance due to climatic and 2003, an analysis other changes. of 31 species in Although fishery collapses may be rever- the north Atlantic sible, the time to recovery may be considerably revealed that over longer than was previously thought. An assess- A longline fisherman the past 50 years, ment of 90 fish stocks that had suffered pro- prepares his hooks the amount of predatory fish—including longed declines showed that even 15 years in the port of cod, dogfish, herring, mackerel, and salmon— after the reductions, many bottom-dwelling Argostoli, on the had declined by approximately two thirds.13 fish showed little if any recovery—particularly Greek island of Kefalonia in the Another study from 2005 found that the abun- those species typically caught using highly Mediterranean Sea. dance of large, predatory, open-ocean fish, such destructive trawling methods.22 Greater recov- © Greenpeace/Jeremy Sutton- as tuna, swordfish, and marlin, had declined ery was only evident in species like herring Hibbert by an estimated 90 percent since 1952.14 (Tuna and sprat, which tend to mature early in life and billfish showed a loss in species diversity and are caught using more selective fishing of 10 to 50 percent in all oceans.15) Other techniques. marine species that have undergone large-scale The practice of bottom trawling has been declines due to fishing pressure include many likened to forest clearcutting.23 As fishers drag sharks, rays, and skates; sea cucumbers; white heavy nets and other gear across the sea floor, abalone; and deep-sea fish such as the round- this causes massive collateral damage to corals nose grenadier and spiny eel.16 and other features that offer protection and Aggregated globally, there has been a meas- habitat for many creatures.24 Bottom trawling urable decline in the mean “trophic level” of has caused substantial damage to deep-water fisheries catches—the position a species holds corals off the coasts of Europe and North within the food web.17 Fishers are gradually America and on seamounts near Australia and

14 OCEANS IN PERIL www.worldwatch.org

Dangers of Fishery Depletions

New Zealand.25 In regions off Norway and stocks in the Barents Sea in the 1980s.32 the United Kingdom, photographs show giant Industrially fished species are low in marine trawl scars up to four kilometers long, includ- food webs and are therefore important food ing some in areas where 4,500-year-old reefs resources for many predatory fish, seabirds, exist. Off Atlantic Florida, an estimated 90–99 and marine mammals. Consequently, loss of 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 Mediter- ranean 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 29 market and 309 that were discarded. On aver- Yellowfin tuna await- age, discards accounted for one third of the these stocks may have adverse impacts on ing the morning catch by weight. these predators. For example, overfishing auction at the fish Although many deep-sea fisheries lie within induced the collapse of the Norwegian spring- market in Honolulu, Hawaii. Stocks of the control of coastal nations, management of spawning herring stock in the late 1960s, and the tuna are destined these stocks has been particularly poor, with the population has struggled to recover. When to be critically low little attention to the impacts of heavy trawling stocks were at their lowest between 1969 and within three years if gear on habitat.30 Meanwhile, the search for 1987, this severely affected the breeding success fishing of the species continues unabated. new stocks has extended into the high seas— of Atlantic puffins in the Norwegian Sea due to © Greenpeace/Alex Hofford areas beyond national jurisdiction—where a reduction in food supply. Fledgling success of there is little or no management and little chicks was less than 50 percent in all but three information on the impact of bottom trawling seasons, and in most years completely failed.33 on habitats. In 2001, just 11 countries were Currently, more than a third of the fish used responsible for 95 percent of the reported high- to make fishmeal worldwide goes into produc- seas bottom-trawl catch: Denmark/Faroe ing feeds for aquaculture.34 Aquaculture—the Islands, Estonia, Iceland, Japan, Latvia, Lithua- farming of seaweed, shellfish, crustaceans, or nia, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Russia, fish in freshwater or marine environments— and Spain.31 has been practiced for up to 4,000 years. But Industrial fishing, or the targeting of wild over the past three decades, it has undergone fish for conversion into fishmeal or fish oil, is a rapid expansion, particularly as ocean fish another growing activity that is likely unsus- stocks have declined.35 What was once a low- tainable. Since its beginnings in the 1950s, input method of maintaining animals for food, industrial fishing has been linked to the decline decoration, or recreation has developed into an and collapse of several populations of small intensive, high-input industry.36 It is now the open-ocean fish, including mackerel and her- fastest-growing animal-food production sector ring stocks in the North Sea and anchovy off in the world, providing over 40 percent of all the coast of Peru in the 1970s, and capelin fish consumed.37 www.worldwatch.org OCEANS IN PERIL 15

Dangers of Fishery Depletions

While aquaculture as a whole adds to the it was reported that 60 percent of total man- world’s fish supply, the farming of certain grove loss in the Philippines was due to aqua- types of marine fish and shrimp results in a net culture, mainly for shrimp and milkfish.48 In loss.38 This is because in some intensive aqua- Thailand, every kilogram of shrimp farmed by culture systems, the weight of fishmeal inputs aquaculture facilities developed in mangroves (i.e., ground-up wild fish) is greater than the results in the loss of an estimated 400 grams of weight of farmed fish produced.39 Producing fish and shrimp from fisheries.49 carnivorous fish such as marine finfish, eel, • Effluent Discharge. marine shrimp, salmon, and trout requires Despite occasional benefits to the diversity of between 2.5 to 5 times as much fishmeal (by bottom-dwelling species from modest nutrient weight) as output of fish.40 For tuna caught effluent flows, at higher levels the added nutri- and fattened in ranches, the weight of wild ents from aquaculture are more likely to reduce fish used in production is about 20 times the species numbers.50 Effluent discharges from weight of tuna produced.41 And to meet its shrimp ponds into estuaries can threaten fish feed demands, the European salmon-farming communities and cause changes in plankton industry requires a marine support area equiv- community structure, leading to excessive plant alent to an estimated 90 percent of the primary growth and oxygen depletion.51 In China, sig- fisheries production of the North Sea; as a nificant pollution has been reported in coastal result, the industry relies heavily on fishmeal creeks adjacent to intensive shrimp ponds.52 imports from South America.42 • Chemical Contamination. As it expands, the aquaculture industry can- Chemicals and drugs are often added to aqua- not rely indefinitely on finite stocks of wild- culture cages and ponds to control pathogens; caught fish.43 A study of six industrially fished when wastewaters are released, these inputs species used for aquaculture feed found that can contaminate the nearby environment.53 most of these fisheries did not meet require- One of the factors that led to the collapse of ments of sustainability.44 It concluded, for the Thai shrimp farming industry in 1988 was example, that the Chilean jack mackerel was the indiscriminate use of antibiotics, which led overfished; the catch limit on horse mackerel to the development of resistant bacteria strains was too high to sustain stocks; the harvest of that caused disease in the shrimp.54 blue whiting was unsustainable; and capelin • Escape of Non-Native Species. and sandeel needed to be managed using a Non-native aquaculture species can spread precautionary approach. disease to, compete with, or predate on native Other threats that aquaculture poses to wild populations.55 Interbreeding may alter the fish populations and marine ecosystems include: genetic make-up of a wild population and • Depletion of Wild Stocks for Seed. compromise its resilience to natural environ- Marine aquaculture often relies on the capture mental change.56 In 1973, seaweed species of wild juvenile fish or shellfish to supply being farmed in Hawaii escaped and spread stock, rather than using hatcheries to rear across coral reefs.57 In southern Chile, salmon them. In some cases—as with natural shrimp and trout escapees may be competing with stocks—this has led to overexploitation.45 The native southern hake and mackerel.58 And the practice also results in the capture of juveniles Japanese Pacific oyster, widely used in aqua- of other species that are discarded and die. culture, has now become established on almost In India and Bangladesh, up to 160 other all northern hemisphere coasts.59 shrimp and fish fry are discarded for every • Introduction of Diseases. tiger shrimp collected.46 Serious epidemics of two diseases in Atlantic • Habitat Loss. salmon have been linked to movements of fish Aquaculture for tropical shrimp and fish has for aquaculture and re-stocking.60 Infectious led to the destruction of thousands of hectares salmon anemia and sea lice are both wide- of mangroves and coastal wetlands.47 In 1991, spread problems in European salmon farming

16 OCEANS IN PERIL www.worldwatch.org

Dangers of Fishery Depletions

and have also affected U.S. farms; there is a Large numbers of sea turtles are also killed danger they could spread to wild salmon.61 in shrimp trawl fisheries, particularly in the The whitespot virus has caused multimillion- Gulf of Mexico, northern Australia, and Orissa dollar losses in Asia’s shrimp farming industry on the east coast of India.71 In the 1980s, since the early 1990s and has been found more an estimated 50,000 loggerheads and 5,000 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 In a photo taken sea surface or on the seabed is also highly dam- Kemp’s ridley sea turtles drowned each year from the Interna- aging.65 Animals are attracted to the fishers’ in the southeastern United States and Gulf of tional Space Station, discards and baits, ingest the hooks, and are Mexico fisheries alone.72 As a consequence, the sunglint reveals the density of aquacul- pulled underwater by the weight of the line U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service worked ture empoundments and drown.66 with the industry to develop the turtle excluder on the coast of Longline fishing fleets kill an estimated device (TED), a metal grid fitted at the top or Liaoning Province, 300,000 seabirds a year, including some bottom of a trawl net from which large ani- northeast China, in 2002. 100,000 albatrosses as well as petrels, shear- mals like turtles and sharks can escape.73 TEDS Image Science and Analysis waters, and fulmars.67 In total, longlining is were required to be fitted into shrimp trawl Laboratory, NASA-Johnson Space responsible for the deaths of at least 61 differ- nets on U.S. vessels by 1991, but because sea Center (http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/) ent species of seabirds, 25 of which are listed turtles mature slowly, it may take decades to as critically endangered, endangered, or vul- see the long-term effects of implementation.74 nerable by the World Conservation Union Moreover, not all fishers comply with the law (IUCN).68 While some nations have intro- in the Gulf of Mexico, and sea turtles as well as duced measures to reduce the number of birds sharks continue to drown in shrimp nets.75 caught, most longline fleets still do not employ Fishery operations can also kill or seriously effective mitigation methods.69 Longlining has injure marine mammals that are “captured,” also resulted in the incidental take of sea tur- drowned, and then discarded. Researchers esti- tles, including an estimated 200,000 logger- mate the annual bycatch of whales, dolphins, heads and 50,000 leatherbacks in 2000 alone.70 and porpoises at over 300,000 and put seals Populations of these two species in the Pacific and sea lions in a similar range.76 For several have declined by 80 to 95 percent in the past 20 populations, including the highly endangered years, illustrating the high risk of unmitigated vaquita porpoise in the Gulf of California and longlining to species survival. Hector’s dolphin off New Zealand, fisheries www.worldwatch.org OCEANS IN PERIL 17

Dangers of Fishery Depletions

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 over- capacity 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 Greenpeace activists rather than offloading them directly in ports. board the factory pose the single greatest threat to their contin- IUU fishing is a growing threat to marine trawler Murtosa in ued survival.77 Bycatch also contributes to the diversity and a serious obstacle to achieving the Barents Sea off poor conservation status of the North Atlantic sustainable fisheries.87 As in the legal fishing Norway in 2005, right whale, of which only some 350 animals realm, IUU fishers use bottom trawlers and bearing a banner that reads “Stop remain.78 Since 1986, there have been 50 re- other methods that cause extensive ecological Fish Piracy.” The ported deaths of the whales, at least six due to damage to marine ecosystems as well as to Togo-flagged vessel entanglement, as well as 61 confirmed cases of the target fish stocks of regions where it takes is fishing for cod entanglement.79 Several populations of whales, place.88 In the case of bycatch, illegal longline without a quota in the international dolphins, and porpoises are likely to be severely fishing for the Patagonian toothfish is esti- section of the reduced or lost in the next few decades if noth- mated to kill up to 145,000 seabirds annually.89 Barents known as ing is done to address incidental capture.80 IUU fishing jeopardizes the livelihoods of local the “loophole.” A significant—and growing—contributor fishing communities, threatens the food secu- © Greenpeace/Dick Gillberg to both marine bycatch and fisheries deple- rity of coastal countries, and results in signifi- tions is large-scale “illegal, unregulated, and cant economic losses.90

*All dollar amounts are expressed in U.S. dollars unless indicated otherwise.

18 OCEANS IN PERIL www.worldwatch.org

Changing Climate, Changing Seas

uman-induced climate change is predicted to have profound Himpacts 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 pre- ceding industrialization, levels rose by only 20 1 ppm. 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 Black band disease has warmed significantly over the past half- increases of even 1 °C above the summer mean advancing from century and could warm an additional 1–2 maximum can cause the partial or total loss right to left in coral, Diploria strigosa, degrees Celsius (°C) by the end of this cen- of these algae and their pigments, causing the Islas del Rosario, tury.3 Many marine organisms already live at coral to turn a brilliant white.8 The bleaching Honduras. The inci- temperatures close to their thermal tolerances, is often temporary, but it can reduce the repro- dence and preva- so even a small degree of warming could have ductive capacity and growth of corals, increase lence of the disease can increase when a negative impact on their physiological func- their susceptibility to disease, and even result corals are stressed tioning and survival.4 Modeling data for in death.9 by above-normal sockeye salmon suggest that elevated water Six major cycles of mass coral bleaching, temperatures. temperature could impair fish growth and affecting hundreds or thousands of kilometers Sven Zea, Universidad Nacional de Colombia/Marine Photobank increase mortality.5 Climate change could of reefs, have occurred over the past 20 years, reduce the abundance of many marine species with a pattern of increasing frequency and and increase the likelihood of local, and in intensity.10 Since 1995, most reefs worldwide some cases global, extinction.6 have been affected by mass bleaching. The Rising sea temperature is thought to be the impacts on corals range from relatively mild primary cause of the many and widespread (in the case of seasonal bleaching) to large- episodes of coral “bleaching” worldwide since scale mortality.11 Mortality near 100 percent 1979.7 Reef-building corals have a symbiotic was observed in Indonesian and eastern Pacific relationship with algae that live within them reefs following a bleaching event in 1982–83, and supply energy from photosynthesis. Small and 46 percent mortality was recorded in the www.worldwatch.org OCEANS IN PERIL 19

Changing Climate, Changing Seas

western Indian Ocean after a 1997–98 event.12 bleaching, they may fail to reproduce.20 The extent of coral mortality appears to Many of the diverse species that exist within increase with the intensity of the bleaching coral reef ecosystems worldwide are likely to event, which in turn is determined by the size disappear if corals are removed by rising sea and duration of the sea-temperature increase.13 temperature.21 The loss of reefs would also In 2001–02, exten- affect the estimated tens of millions of people sive bleaching on who rely on reefs for daily sustenance.22 Unfor- Australia’s Great tunately, the global prognosis for reefs is Barrier Reef caused unlikely to change unless there is an acceler- significant coral ated effort to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse mortality in the gas concentrations.23 hottest patches, but Many marine fish seek preferred tempera- no damage in cooler tures, and increasing sea temperature is likely areas.14 In some to affect their distribution as well as their cases, other reef- abundance. As the western Mediterranean Sea dwelling species has warmed over the last 20 to 30 years, there that depend on have been increases in the abundance of certain coral for shelter algae, echinoderms, and fish that thrive at high and sustenance have temperatures. In the polar regions, where fish shown little recovery have narrow limits of temperature tolerance, from severe bleach- even slight changes could shift their geographi- ing events.15 cal distribution and affect their physiological As sea tempera- performance.24 Research on a Californian gas- tures continue to tropod and a Caribbean coral has shown that rise, the thermal both have shifted poleward due to warming.25 thresholds of corals A northward shift in the distribution of some in most areas of the North Sea fish also occurred in response to ris- tropics and subtrop- ing sea temperatures between 1977 and 2001.26 ics could be exceeded The impacts of sea temperature rise will by 2030 to 2050.16 likely be complex and unpredictable. For Unless there is a example, recent warming trends in northwest- Bleached coral on change in these ther- ern Europe have led to earlier spawning of the Great Barrier mal tolerances, reef bleaching on a worldwide the mollusk Macoma balthica, but not to ear- Reef, Australia. scale could become an annual or biannual lier spring phytoplankton blooms.27 This has © Greenpeace/Roger Grace event by this period.17 caused a temporal mismatch between the Corals could cope with the rising tempera- mollusk larvae and their food supply. Further- tures in at least two possible ways: acclimati- more, the larvae are now suffering from zation, whereby their physiology changes so increased predation by shrimp whose peak they are more tolerant of higher tempera- abundance time has also shifted. tures, and adaptation, wherein more-resilient Changes have also been observed in marine individuals within a population survive and plankton abundance and community structure increase in numbers.18 Yet there is no evi- in recent decades.28 Phytoplankton (small dence that corals will be able to undergo the plants) and zooplankton (small animals) lie necessary changes quickly enough to keep at the base of the marine food web, providing pace with predicted temperature increases.19 food for fish in their larval and adult stages. A It is possible that more thermally tolerant study of plankton in the North Sea concluded species will become more dominant, leading that rising temperatures since the mid-1980s to a decrease in reef diversity. Even if corals have modified the plankton community in are not killed outright by more-persistent a way that may have reduced the survival of

20 OCEANS IN PERIL www.worldwatch.org

Changing Climate, Changing Seas

young cod, exacerbating existing declines sites for four marine turtle species.39 Another caused by overfishing.29 The warmer environ- study predicted significant loss of terrestrial ment may also hamper the reproductive suc- habitat on two low-lying Hawaiian islands, cess of cod. affecting the endangered Hawaiian monk seal, Climate variability is known to affect the the threatened Hawaiian green sea turtle, and replenishment of stocks with juvenile fish, par- the endangered Laysan finch.40 Rapid sea-level ticularly toward the edge of a species’ range. rise could also effectively “drown “ coral reefs There is little evidence, however, that world- by reducing penetration of the light required wide stock declines are linked in any major for coral-dwelling algae to photosynthesize.41 way to climate change.30 On the other hand, In addition to raising sea levels, it is possible there is abundant evidence that overfishing has that climate change could affect the global cir- resulted in significant declines in many fish culation of ocean water.42 The so-called Great species. Importantly, it has been suggested that Ocean Conveyor Belt, driven primarily by tem- heavily overfished stocks may be more sensitive perature and salinity differences, is responsible to climate variability due to a loss in biological for transporting a huge amount of tropical diversity, resulting in impaired resilience.31 heat to the north Atlantic via the Gulf Stream. Fishing pressure and climate change could thus During the wintertime, this heat is released to act in concert and reduce exploited fish num- eastward-moving air masses, warming the cli- bers below a population size from which they mate of northern Europe.43 Ocean warming cannot easily recover.32 and the input of freshwater from melting gla- Also of concern to marine biodiversity is ciers and sea ice could weaken or switch off the sea-level rise, caused by the expansion of sea conveyor belt in the north Atlantic, reducing water as it warms and by the melting of land- this warming effect.44 While the likelihood of based ice. Between 1961 and 2003, the global this is unknown, the possibility of an abrupt sea level has risen by about 1.8 millimeters a change in ocean circulation and impact on cli- year on average.33 It is projected to keep rising mate is very real. 45 over the next several decades, though the Of all the Earth’s regions, the poles have amount will depend largely on the degree of seen particularly rapid warming, with resulting melting at the polar ice caps.34 Presently, thin- impacts on marine habitats and biodiversity.46 ning of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet appears to In the Arctic, researchers have reported a 40- be nearly balanced by thickening of the East percent reduction in the thickness of sea ice Antarctic Ice Sheet; losses from the Greenland between 1958 and the 1990s, and a 10–15 per- Ice Sheet, however, are now more than double cent decrease in the extent of sea-ice coverage previous estimates, or more than 0.5 millime- in the spring and summer since the 1950s.47 ters per year.35 Even if greenhouse gas concen- The mean annual surface temperature in the trations were stabilized immediately, sea level region is predicted to increase another 4–7 °C would continue to rise from thermal expan- by the end of the century.48 By this time, the sion, and ice sheets would continue to react to Arctic Ocean is expected to be predominantly climate change.36 ice-free in summer.49 Sea-level rise could lead to increased erosion This degree of melting will likely have nega- and flooding of coastal areas, and to intrusion tive consequences within the next few decades of seawater into estuaries and freshwater aqui- for Arctic animals that depend on the ice, fers.37 By the 2080s, this could result in the loss including fish, birds, seals, whales, and polar of as much as 22 percent of the world’s coastal bears.50 (See Sidebar 1, p. 22.) As the warming wetlands, affecting wildlife that depends on moves northward, some species that are these habitats.38 One study found that a pro- presently abundant will be restricted in their jected sea-level rise of half a meter would sub- range, which could have severe impacts on merge up to 32 percent of the beach area on commercial fisheries, indigenous hunting, and two Caribbean islands that are known nesting ecosystem function. The loss in Arctic biodi- www.worldwatch.org OCEANS IN PERIL 21

Changing Climate, Changing Seas

The majority of glaciers in the region have Sidebar 1. Effects of Climate Change on Arctic Marine Wildlife retreated over the past 50 years, and average Fish. Rising sea temperatures may cause changes in metabolic, growth, retreat rates are accelerating.54 and reproductive processes and affect the growth and survival of smaller The warming ocean waters, reduction of sea organisms on which fish prey. The distribution of Arctic fish will most ice, and increased glacial melting (with its sub- likely change, with cod, herring, walleye, pollock, and some flatfish moving sequent effects on ocean salinity) could all sig- northward and possibly increasing in abundance. Other species including niﬁcantly affect life in the Antarctic. A recent capelin, polar cod, and Greenland halibut are likely to have a restricted study at the South Orkney Islands reported range and decline in abundance. that populations of both Adélie and chinstrap Birds. Arctic seabirds are likely to be affected mostly by changes in their penguins have declined in the last 26 years in prey. The most sensitive species to climate change are potentially those parallel with regional warming and a signiﬁ- with narrow food or habitat requirements, including the ivory gull, which cant reduction in the extent of the sea ice on is closely associated with sea ice. Research suggests there has been an 80 55 percent decline in the gull’s nesting numbers, possibly due to an altered which Adélie penguins depend. These changes wintering habitat. In the Canadian Arctic, increased rates of egg loss and also appear to be having a negative impact on adult mortality of Brünnich’s Guillemot in the late 1990s have been linked numbers of Antarctic krill, a key species in the to the increase in mosquito numbers associated with higher temperatures. Southern Ocean food web and an important Seals. Ice-living seals depend on sea ice as a birthing, molting, and food source for the penguins.56 (See Sidebar 2.) resting platform, and some species subsist on ice-associated prey. Sea ice Many bottom-dwelling Antarctic species are must be sufficiently stable to rear pups, and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, particularly sensitive to temperature variation. years with little or no sea ice have resulted in almost no production of pups In a 2004 study, researchers found that a mere compared to hundreds of thousands in good sea-ice years. Continuance of 1 °C rise in summer sea temperatures impaired current and projected trends will have dire consequences for the harp and the biological functioning of three species of hooded seals in the region. Other Arctic seals that depend on sea ice are at mollusk.57 One scallop species, for example similar risk, including ringed, bearded, and spotted seals. lost the ability to swim. The study concluded Polar Bears. Climate change and sea-ice retreat will likely bring that some populations of Antarctica’s 4,000- declines in polar bear numbers, leading to possible extinction. Most plus known bottom-dwelling species would female polar bears build their dens on land, but the bears depend heavily be at risk of decline from a 1–2 °C increase in on sea ice as their habitat and feeding ground. Earlier break-up of the ice summer sea temperatures. 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 The rising carbon content of the atmos- likely to produce fewer cubs and have smaller cubs with lower survival phere is not just contributing to the warming rates. In Hudson Bay, Canada, break-up is now occurring about 2.5 of the oceans, but is also making them more weeks earlier than it did 30 years ago, and polar bears have been coming acidic. Over the past 200 years, the oceans have ashore in poorer condition and birth rates have declined. Ice loss could absorbed about half of the human-caused also reduce the availability of the bear’s main prey, ringed seals, as their CO2 emissions, lowering the pH of the ocean habitat too disappears. by about 0.1 unit.58 By 2100, it is estimated

Source: See Endnote 50 for this section. 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 versity will likely also result in increased sus- variation and one that has probably not ceptibility to disease, pests, and parasites.51 been experienced for hundreds of thousands In the southern polar region, records for the of years.59 western Antarctic Peninsula indicate a rapid Ocean acidification could have a major rise in atmospheric temperature of nearly 3 °C impact on many marine organisms that build since 1951, and a concurrent 1 °C rise in sum- shells and skeletal structures out of calcium mer sea-surface temperatures.52 Warmer tem- carbonate. These include corals and echino- peratures appear to have led to retreats of five derms, together with certain crustaceans, Peninsular ice shelves over the last century, mollusks, and planktonic organisms. These including the collapse of the Prince Gustav structures will become more difficult to pro- and parts of the Larsen ice shelves in 1995.53 duce and maintain and may ultimately start to

22 OCEANS IN PERIL www.worldwatch.org

Changing Climate, Changing Seas

disintegrate, since calcium carbonate tends to dissolve under acidic conditions.60 Acidifica- Sidebar 2. Impact of Climate Change on Antarctic Krill tion is likely to have major ramifications for Since the mid-1980s, significantly smaller populations of Antarctic krill the biodiversity and functioning of coral reefs have been observed in the Antarctic Peninsula region. In the productive and associated ecosystems, including sea- 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. Catch of Antarctic krill from an Australian Changes in Antarctic krill could have profound implications for the research expedition in 2003. Southern Ocean food web. Penguins, albatross, seals, and whales are especially susceptible to krill shortages. Lower krill numbers in the early Courtesy Australian Antarctic Division 1990s may have contributed to decreasing populations of Adélie and chin- grasses and mangroves. It could also affect strap penguins observed since 1990. In addition, decreasing trends in birth non-calcifying marine organisms. The respir- 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 mac- atory processes of fish and invertebrates could aroni penguins began to decline significantly. Baleen whales, crabeater, be impaired and body tissues could become and fur seals would also likely be affected by reduced krill abundance. acidified, leading to decreased reproductive potential, slower growth, and increased suscep- Source: See Endnote 56 for this section. tibility to disease.61 A report on ocean acidification by the UK’s the long-term consequences of ocean acidifi-

Royal Society concluded that there was no cation is to reduce CO2 emissions into the realistic way to reverse the widespread chemi- atmosphere. Without signiﬁcant action to cal effects of ocean acidiﬁcation or the subse- do this, there could be no place in the future quent biological effects.62 It suggested that the oceans for many of the species and ecosystems only viable and practical solution to minimize we know today.

www.worldwatch.org OCEANS IN PERIL 23

Polluting the Marine Environment

n ongoing threat to marine life is the ished products during use or after disposal.8 release of polluting substances into Research from seals and pilot whales indicates Athe oceans, including chemicals, that once absorbed, the chemicals may be radioactive substances, nutrients, passed from mother to young across the pla- oil, and marine debris. These substances can centa as well as through lactational transfer.9 contaminate the marine environment, directly There is also evidence that some of these sub- kill organisms, and undermine ecosystem stances increase in concentration through integrity.1 marine food chains.10 In recent years, there has been rising con- While relatively little is known about the cern about the effects of mercury, PCBs (poly- toxic effects of BFRs in wildlife and humans, chlorinated biphenyls), and other chemicals several of the most worrisome effects may be on marine species.2 Synthetic chemicals known on the thyroid and estrogen hormone sys- collectively as persistent organic pollutants tems.11 A study on wild grey seal pups reported (POPs) are toxic, long-lived, and bioaccumula- that levels of one category of BFRs, polybromi- tive, meaning that they build up in the tissues nated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), in their blub- of fish and other animals. They can also travel ber were statistically linked to levels of thyroid long distances from their point of origin. hormones in their blood, in accordance with Various POPs have become subject to interna- the hypothesis that PBDEs are endocrine dis- tional control under the provisions of the ruptors.12 Other studies have demonstrated Stockholm Convention agreed to in 2001.3 that some BFRs are toxic to nervous and But others have received relatively little atten- immune systems and can alter liver function.13 tion despite their known and potential effects A study of muscle tissue from skipjack tuna on marine organisms. collected from offshore waters of several coun- One example is the brominated flame retar- tries in 1996–2001 found PDBEs in almost all dants (BFRs), compounds added to plastics, samples at levels ranging from less than 0.1 resins, textiles, paints, electronics, and other nanograms per gram (ng/g) lipid to 53 ng/g products to increase their fire resistance.4 lipid, indicating very pervasive contamination Between 1990 and 2000, global usage of the of the marine environment.14 Higher levels chemicals more than doubled from 145,000 were apparent in the northern hemisphere, tons to 310,000 tons.5 Asia accounts for more possibly reflecting greater usage of the com- than half of the market demand for the sub- pounds in that region. The study also sug- stances, followed by the Americas and Europe.6 gested that some developing countries around BFRs have been shown to contaminate the East China Sea that receive large amounts marine wildlife all over the world. They have of waste electrical equipment are potential been found in coastal areas, in the deep oceans, “hotspots” for releasing PBDEs into the marine and even in remote Arctic regions.7 They enter environment. the environment through emissions during Some studies have indicated a significant their production and by leaching from fin- presence of BFRs in seabirds, and the sub-

24 OCEANS IN PERIL www.worldwatch.org

Polluting the Marine Environment

stances were also present in three sperm whales tions in tissue samples of seals and porpoises found stranded on the coast of the Nether- along the UK coast at levels 300 times greater lands.15 Because the whales feed in deep off- than in seawater.24 The levels of contamination shore waters, this implies that the compounds in the mammals decreased with increasing have even contaminated deep-water oceanic distance from Sellafield, indicating that the food webs. PBDEs were also detectable in polar bears from different regions of the Arctic.16 One study showed a possible PDBE break- down 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 Looking up an out- half-lives, and can act as potent carcinogens plant was the major source of this contamin- flow pipe toward the and mutagens.19 Nuclear weapons testing, ation. For plutonium, although discharges Sellafield nuclear predominantly between 1954 and 1962, has from Sellafield peaked in the early 1980s, the power station, Sellafield, United been the largest single source of artificial presence of the radionuclide in sediment Kingdom. radionuclides to the oceans due to fallout. continues to act as a source to overlying © Greenpeace/Nick Cobbing Other sources include operational discharges waters.25 Plutonium was found in seaweed col- from nuclear power facilities, nuclear repro- lected from the Irish coastline between 1986 cessing plants, and, historically, the dumping and 1996, as well as in mussels and oysters on of radioactive waste at sea. the northeast coast of Ireland between 1988 Presently, the most prominent sources of and 1997.26 radioactive pollution to the oceans are from Plant nutrients, mainly in the form of nuclear reprocessing plants in the United King- nitrogen or phosphorous, are also important dom and France.20 In 1998, sediment from the marine pollutants. They reach coastal waters seabed near the Sellafield plant in the UK was from a variety of sources, including agricul- found to be so contaminated that some argued tural fertilizer run-off, sewage discharges, and it should be classified as nuclear waste.21 The via atmospheric pollution from the burning “footprint” of contamination stretches from of fossil fuels.27 Excess nutrient pollution in the Irish Sea to Arctic waters, due to the long- coastal waters can cause increased numbers of distance transport of radionuclides on ocean phytoplankton and zooplankton, resulting in currents.22 Despite some removal due to the marked changes in species composition. As natural processes of ocean circulation, the these organisms die and sink, they are con- remobilization of contaminated sediments sumed by microbes either deeper in the water from the seabed acts as a continued source of or at the seabed. The increase in microbe num- the radionuclides to waters above.23 bers may cause oxygen to be used up in these One study detected radiocesium concentra- areas, leading to breathing difficulties for www.worldwatch.org OCEANS IN PERIL 25

Polluting the Marine Environment

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 Accel- erated 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 Crude oil spilled and gas installations accounted for the over- from the sunken fish and other marine animals.28 Fish tend to whelming bulk of oil inputs from this sector.41 tanker Prestige vacate these areas as oxygen levels fall, but less- While the size of a spill is important, the coats the beach of mobile sediment-dwelling animals that cannot amount of damage also depends on other fac- Barranin, Galicia, Spain. escape may begin to die.29 tors including the type of oil spilled, the loca- 42 © Greenpeace/Pedro Armestre The process of nutrient overload and subse- tion of the spill, and weather conditions. quent oxygen loss has led to the formation of Oil spills can have devastating impacts on the vast, oxygen-depleted areas known as “dead environment. Oil-coated shorelines result in zones.”30 The number of dead zones has risen dead or moribund animals, often in large num- every decade since the 1970s, with a recent bers.43 (See Sidebar 3.) Seabirds and marine estimate of up to 200.31 The largest such zones mammals are particularly badly affected: coat- (40,000–84,000 square kilometers) are found ing of feathers or fur can destroy their water- in coastal areas of the Baltic Sea, the northern proofing and insulating characteristics, leading Gulf of Mexico, and, until recently, the north- to death from hypothermia. Animals may also western shelf of the Black Sea. Smaller and be poisoned by oil ingestion as they try to less-frequently occurring dead zones occur in clean themselves or if their prey is contami- the northern Adriatic Sea, the southern bight nated. In the long term, continual exposure to

26 OCEANS IN PERIL www.worldwatch.org

Polluting the Marine Environment

low levels of oil can have a significant effect on Sidebar 3. Recent Major Oil Spills and Their Effects the survival and reproductive performance of seabirds and some sea mammals.44 Exxon Valdez, Alaska, 1989. When the Exxon Valdez oil tanker ran A highly visible form of marine pollution is aground in March 1989, it spilled an estimated 42,000 tons of crude oil that caused by marine debris. Far from being into Alaska’s Prince William Sound, contaminating at least 1,990 kilometers of pristine shoreline. The spill killed an estimated 250,000 birds just a few pieces of rubbish scattered along almost immediately and had longer-term effects on abundance and distri- beaches, marine debris has become a pervasive bution. Of marine mammals, an estimated 2,800 sea otters and at least 45 problem affecting all of the world’s oceans. It 302 harbor seals were killed directly, and both species showed several is the cause of injury and death to numerous years of delayed recovery in the spill area. Oil contamination was still evi- marine animals, either because they become dent on Alaskan coastlines 10 to 12 years after the spill, and as recently as entangled in it or because they mistake it for 2003 in some lower intertidal zones. As late as 2000, some populations prey and eat it. At least 267 different species of sea otters had not recovered from the spill. are known to have suffered from entangle- Prestige, Spain 2002. On November 13, 2002, the oil tanker Prestige ment or ingestion of marine debris, including sank 210 kilometers off the coast of Spain, releasing an estimated 63,000 many seabirds, turtles, seals, sea lions, whales, tons of oil along coastlines in northern Spain and southwestern France. and fish.46 More than 23,000 oiled birds were collected after the spill, and the total Studies have shown that marine debris is number of affected birds—including common guillemots, razorbills, ubiquitous in the world’s oceans and on its Atlantic puffins, northern gannet, and European shags—was estimated at shorelines, with higher quantities found in 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 tropics and mid-latitudes than toward the the Bay of Biscay in 2003 indicated that exposure to toxic chemicals was poles. Large amounts are also found in ship- still causing metabolic disturbances. ping lanes, around fishing areas, and in oceanic Lebanon, July 2006. On July 14 and 15, 2006, Israeli military strikes hit convergence zones. Studies report quantities oil storage tanks at Jiyeh power station on the Lebanese coast, resulting of larger floating debris generally in the range in the release of an estimated 10,000 to 13,000 tons of heavy fuel oil into of 0 to 10 items per square kilometer, though the Mediterranean Sea. Cleanup operations were delayed for five weeks higher amounts were reported in the English due to the war, during which time the spill spread over some 150 kilome- Channel (10 to more than 100 items per square ters of Lebanon’s coastline. Much of the spilled oil emulsified and solidi- kilometer) and Ambon Bay, Indonesia (more fied along the shore, clinging to sand, rock, and stone, though the nearby than 4 items per square meter).47 Floating seabed was also smothered. Initial impacts on marine wildlife included “micro” debris of a much smaller size occurs reports of thousands of fish and other species being found dead on shores at high levels even well offshore; in the North daily. Because Lebanese marine ecosystems have high biodiversity, there is Pacific Gyre, a debris convergence zone, particular concern about the spill’s impact on vermetid (marine snail) reef communities. The spill also threatened spawning fish and sea turtles that extrapolation of the data suggests that maxi- nest on the coast. mum levels could reach nearly 1 million items Philippines, August 2006. A tanker chartered by Petron Corporation per square kilometer. sank in rough seas off the Philippines on August 11, 2006, spilling some On the seafloor, debris has been studied in 200 tons of oil initially but leaving an additional 1,800 tons on board. The several locations in European waters as well spill covered some 320 kilometers of coastline in thick sludge, destroyed as in the United States, the Caribbean, and coral reefs, and badly damaged 1,000 hectares of marine reserve. An locations in Indonesia. In Europe, the highest impact assessment is being undertaken to assess damage to marine sanc- quantity recorded was 101,000 items per tuaries and coastal ecosystems, and environmentalists have called on the square kilometer, and in Indonesia roughly Philippine government to hold Petron and its partners accountable for 690,000 items per square kilometer.48 In sur- damages to the environment and people’s livelihoods. Cleanup has been veys of world shorelines, the largest quantities hampered by slow decisions on the release of funds by the government, of marine debris were reported for Indonesia and to date Petron has not offered financial assistance in mitigation. (up to nearly 30 items per meter of shoreline) Source: See Endnote 43 for this section. 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 four major groups: tourism-related litter at the from marine activities.50 The sources fall into coast (including food and beverage packaging, www.worldwatch.org OCEANS IN PERIL 27

Polluting the Marine Environment

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 fish- A young boy plays ing gear also damages coral reefs when nets or with syringes on a cigarettes, and plastic beach toys); sewage- lines get snagged by the reef and break it off. beach in Lebanon, related debris (including street litter, condoms, And discarded or lost fishing nets and pots surrounded by garbage and other and syringes washed from storm drains or can continue to trap and catch fish even when debris that has sewer overflows); fishing-related debris they are no longer in use. This phenomenon, been washed up (including lines, nets, pots, and strapping known as “ghost fishing,”can result in the cap- by the tide. bands from bait boxes); and wastes from ships ture of large quantities of marine organisms, © Greenpeace/Serji and boats (including garbage that is acciden- affecting conservation of fish stocks.54 Marine tally or deliberately dumped overboard). debris can also act as rafts, possibly carrying Plastics and synthetic materials are the most marine animals and plants long distances to common materials found, and these cause the areas where they are non-native.

28 OCEANS IN PERIL www.worldwatch.org

Freedom for the Seas

iven the many threats to the world’s marine environments, fundamental Gchanges 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 A clown fish seeks regulation is an integrated, precautionary, and tected areas (MPAs).4 They are areas of the sea shelter in a sea ecosystem approach to promote both the con- that are closed to all extractive uses, such as anemone in the Apo Island Marine servation and sustainable management of the commercial fishing and mining, as well as to Reserve, the marine environment. In other words, current disposal activities. (Less-harmful uses, such as Philippines. presumptions that favor freedom to pursue recreational boating, passage of shipping, and, © Greenpeace/Gavin Newman fishing and freedomof the seas will need to be in specific cases, small-scale, non-destructive replaced with the new concept of freedom for fishing, may be permitted up to certain levels, the seas.3 though many reserves contain core zones where no human activity is allowed at all.) As such, A Global Network of Marine Reserves marine reserves promote the sustainable use of From a conservation perspective, safeguarding living resources in an equitable way that is ocean life means protecting not just a single underpinned by the precautionary principle.5 species, but the full variety of species and their Currently, more than 4,000 MPAs exist habitats, as well as the complex interactions worldwide, almost all of which are small-scale between species that make up an ecosystem. and coastal.6 There is an urgent need, however, This can be done most effectively by establish- for a global network of fully protected reserves ing fully protected marine reserves—effectively, that also includes protection of the high seas, “national parks” of the sea. or areas beyond national jurisdiction.7 This is Marine reserves offer the highest level of necessary to safeguard against overfishing, ille- environmental protection of all marine pro- gal fishing, and other expanding human activi- www.worldwatch.org OCEANS IN PERIL 29

Freedom for the Seas

ties in the deep sea and open ocean.8 In 2003, increases in the abundance of coral trout, the the World Parks Congress, an intergovernmen- major target of hook-and-line fisheries in the tal body that meets once a decade to set the region, compared to pre-reserve abundance.15 agenda for protected areas, recommended that Similarly, reefs in East Africa that had been at least 20 to 30 percent of all ocean habitats be 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 boun- daries.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 Hawksbill turtle of ecosystem damage in cases where a species in the Apo Island included in a network of marine reserves.9 has been depleted by overfishing and, at times, Marine Reserve, Others have called for an even more precau- where a habitat has been damaged through the Philippines. tionary approach, suggesting that up to 50 per- bottom trawling or other destructive activities. © Greenpeace/Gavin Newman cent of the sea should be protected to conserve For instance, they can help to restore lost viable marine populations, support fisheries predator/prey relationships. Following the management, secure ecosystem processes, and creation of a marine reserve in New Zealand, assure sufficient ecological connectivity.10 an area with over 50 percent bare rock that Despite the urgent need to provide such was being grazed by sea urchins was restored coverage, it has taken some 30 years to achieve to seaweed beds after populations of large fish the current level of ocean protection of roughly and crayfish (predators of the urchins) were 1 percent (compared with more than 12 per- allowed to recover.20 cent on land).11 Of this, only about 0.1 percent Although marine reserves cannot directly is fully protected, and many critical ocean reverse the impacts of climate change or pollu- ecosystems, including coral reefs, seamounts, tion or severe physical damage, their ecosys- and hydrothermal vents, remain vulnerable.12 tems may become more resilient than those of (See Table 1.) Because of the associated func- exploited areas, potentially mitigating some of tions of coral reefs, mangroves, and seagrass the negative consequences.21 A well-designed beds, scientists have suggested that connected global network of reserves could act as a series corridors of these key coastal habitats be proof stepping stones, providing refuges for popu- tected together.13 lations whose distribution is being forced to Marine reserves can result in long-lasting and change as a result of climate change.22 (Ulti- often rapid increases in the abundance, size, mately, however, the best way to address wors- diversity, and productivity of marine organ- ening climate change, ocean acidification, and isms.14 Areas of the Great Barrier Reef that had many forms of marine pollution is to prevent been reserves for 12–13 years showed significant these threats from occurring in the first place,

30 OCEANS IN PERIL www.worldwatch.org

Freedom for the Seas

including by accelerating the transition to designated the world’s largest marine conser- clean, renewable energy.) vation area off the coast of Hawaii, encom- To be representative, a global network of passing nearly 140,000 square miles (363,000 marine reserves should include large-scale square kilometers) of U.S. waters, including reserves on the high seas as well as a mosaic relatively undisturbed coral reefs.30 In Europe, of smaller reserves in the coastal zone that are associated with adjacent, well-managed, sustainable fishing areas.23 A network of smaller Table 1. Level of Protection of Critical Marine Ecosystems coastal reserves has the advantage of spreading Coral Reefs Globally, some 980 MPAs cover 18.7 percent of the fishery benefits to nearby communities. If local world’s coral reef habitats; however, only 1.4 percent of fishers feel a sense of ownership for their these are within fully protected no-take reserves, many of marine resources and are invited to participate which suffer from poor management and enforcement. in siting of reserves, they are far more likely to Researchers suggest that at least 30 percent of all reefs be support them.24 Much of the success of the designated as no-take areas to ensure long-term protec- marine reserves in St. Lucia can be attributed tion of exploited fish stocks. to the full involvement of various stakeholders Mangroves About 9 percent of the world’s mangroves lie within from the planning stages onward.25 MPAs, though greater protection is required for effective A global reserve network should be repre- mangrove conservation. sentative of the broad spectrum of marine life, Seagrasses No MPAs have been designated solely for the protection including places that are biologically rich, that of seagrasses; however, the grasses have been on lists of support outstanding concentrations of animals key habitats singled out when sites are recommended for and plants, and that have high numbers of protection, as with Australia’s Great Barrier Reef Marine rare or endemic species.26 It is also critical to Park. protect areas that are important spawning and Seamounts So far, relatively few seamount sites have been designated nursery grounds, that are important to air- as marine reserves or MPAs. breathing aquatic animals like seabirds, turtles, Hydrothermal In March 2003, the Canadian government legalized the and marine mammals, and that are particularly Vents Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents MPA southwest of Van- threatened or vulnerable to human impacts. couver as the nation’s first MPA, creating an area where Finally, certain areas on the high seas, such as removal of marine resources is not permitted without upwellings and oceanic convergence zones, a license and approved research plan. In the northeast deserve protection because of their high pro- Atlantic off Portugal, WWF worked with the Azores regional ductivity. In cases where the location of such government to have the relatively shallow Lucky Strike and sites is not fixed, governments may be able to Menez Gwen vent fields designated as MPAs in 2002. use satellite technologies to update fleets about Sources: See Endnote 12 for this section. the positions of the designated reserves.27 Tem- porary and/or moveable reserves could also be used to protect migrating species like turtles a variety of regional conventions have called that follow predictable routes across the oceans, for MPA networks in the Baltic and Mediter- as well as birds and other animals that risk ranean Seas and the northeast Atlantic, though being killed as bycatch.28 implementation has been slow to date.31 Once The concept of fully protected marine adopted, a new marine protection law under reserves is gaining broader acceptance in both development in the EU may bring greater pro- developing and industrialized countries. In tection of regional waters.32 November 2005, local chiefs of Fiji’s Great Sea At the global level, the 2002 World Summit Reef established five MPAs with permanent on Sustainable Development’s “Plan of Imple- no-take “tabu” zones—an important step mentation” included an agreement to establish toward meeting the nation’s commitment to a global network of MPAs by 2012 as a tool protect 30 percent of Fijian waters by 2020.29 for ocean conservation and management.33 In And in 2006, U.S. President George W. Bush 2004, parties to the Convention on Biological www.worldwatch.org OCEANS IN PERIL 31

Freedom for the Seas

Diversity (CBD) also committed to the ities comply with international law; establishment of such a network within this • Provide a clear mandate for the identification, timeframe.34 However, no mechanism for selection, establishment, and management implementing this exists under the current of high-seas marine reserves; framework provided by either the CBD or the • Require that an environmental impact assess- United Nations Convention on the Law of the ment be carried out before approval of any Sea (UNCLOS), the leading international bioprospecting activities in the high seas; and treaty that governs countries’ rights and duties • Encourage the sharing of knowledge on high- in the high seas. seas biodiversity through the creation of a publicly available list of species.37 Equitable and Sustainable Management Such an agreement would need to be sup- of the High Seas plemented by other efforts to address specific One way to provide the necessary mandate to threats to the high seas, from overfishing and implement a global marine reserve network— destructive fishing practices to marine pollu- and to oversee a range of other currently tion and climate change. For instance, only a unregulated activities on the high seas—is to few ocean areas have been afforded protection create a new implementing agreement under from the highly damaging practice of bottom UNCLOS.35 UNCLOS not only offers countries trawling. Several countries, along with marine the right to use the oceans, but also requires scientists and environmental groups, have them to take measures to protect and preserve been lobbying the United Nations to impose the marine environment.36 What is needed a moratorium on this activity in the high seas. to fill the present legal void in regulation is A legally binding international agreement an integrated, precautionary, and ecosystem- would not only help protect vulnerable marine based management approach to promote the ecosystems, but it would permit a ‘time out’ conservation and sustainable management of to make proper scientific assessments of these the marine environment in areas beyond areas and to develop effective policy solu- national jurisdiction. tions.38 In 2005, an advisory body to the U.N. A new UNCLOS “high-seas agreement” Secretary General recommended that, “global would provide a formal mandate to protect fisheries authorities agree to eliminate bottom high-seas areas for conservation purposes and trawling on the high seas by 2006 and elimi- could be used to address a variety of existing nate bottom trawling globally by 2010.”39 gaps in high-seas governance. It could be mod- In December 2006, the U.N. General eled on the U.N. Fish Stocks Agreement, which Assembly agreed that some measures should was itself negotiated to implement some of the be taken to protect vulnerable deep-sea Articles of UNCLOS. There are advantages to ecosystems from destructive high-seas bottom developing such an implementing agreement trawling.40 Countries that flag vessels that under UNCLOS, since the treaty’s broad remit trawl in these areas, as well as regional fish- already covers most or all of the activities that eries management organizations with the affect marine biodiversity and also provides a competence to manage deep-sea fisheries, are binding dispute settlement mechanism. tasked with regulating this activity to ensure Among other things, the agreement could: the protection of vulnerable ecosystems. • Provide a clear mandate and legal duty to Since the adoption of the U.N. resolution, protect high-seas biodiversity, founded on the regional Convention on the Conservation ecosystem-based management and the pre- of Antarctic Marine Living Resources cautionary principle; (CCAMLR) has adopted what is essentially a • Establish an effective centralized monitoring, bottom-trawling moratorium in the Southern control, and surveillance mechanism for Ocean around Antarctica.41 But action on human activities on the high seas, with these measures is still required to ensure ade- enough legal ‘teeth’ to ensure that these activ- quate protection of deep-sea habitats.

32 OCEANS IN PERIL www.worldwatch.org

Freedom for the Seas

Fair and Sustainable Fisheries versally adhered to and enforced, it would be Another key to ensuring viable fish stocks and irresponsible for WTO members to engage in protection of marine biodiversity is addressing greater liberalization of fish trade. the movement toward liberalization in the Governments must also agree to phase out international fish trade.42 As part of the recent harmful subsidies that contribute to excess “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 con- cerned 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, Catch of the day in a leading to increased competition with fisheries fishing capacity, overfishing, and unsustainable fish market in Galle, for wild feed. Trade liberalization can also fishing practices. Each year, the fishing sector Sri Lanka. open developing-country waters to foreign receives an estimated $30–34 billion in external © Michael Renner export-oriented fleets, causing problems of support, $20 billion of which goes to boat con- overfishing, stock declines, and reduction of struction, equipment, fuel, and other opera- marine biodiversity. Overall, fisheries trade lib- tional costs that enable fleets to fish beyond eralization would likely benefit only a handful their capacity.46 Negotiations are currently of industrialized, fish-exporting countries and under way at the WTO to reform international put increasing pressure on world fish stocks.45 rules on fisheries subsidies—marking the first In July 2006, the entire Doha Round of time that conservation concerns have led to the world trade talks was suspended, and negotia- launch of a specific trade negotiation.47 If suc- tions have resumed only on an informal basis. cessful, they could lead to a broad prohibition This creates an opportunity to move discus- of harmful subsidies in marine wild-capture sions on fish and fish products out of the fisheries.48 But some critics, such as Green- WTO and into other multilateral fora where peace, say the U.N. Convention on Biological commercial and trade interests do not domi- Diversity, rather than the WTO, is a more nate and where environmental concerns can appropriate forum for such discussions be more closely addressed. These include pro- because it focuses specifically on the conserva- cesses under the U.N. Fish Stocks Agreement, tion and sustainable use of biodiversity rather the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization than on trade.49 (FAO) “Code of Conduct” for Responsible A related measure is to bring an end to Fisheries, and the World Summit on Sustain- unfair and unsustainable fisheries agreements able Development’s Plan of Implementation. that allow industrialized countries to fish in Until these international instruments are uni- developing-country waters. Such distant-water www.worldwatch.org OCEANS IN PERIL 33

Freedom for the Seas

access agreements are often in the hands of them adopt sustainable seafood policies, in- private companies that negotiate ‘sweetheart’ cluding full traceability of seafood products.52 deals with sometimes-corrupt governments.50 In the case of tuna fishing in the Pacific, the Mitigating Bycatch of Seabirds, Turtles, amount that foreign fleets pay countries for the 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 meth- Unwanted bycatch, ods is also inconsistent or non-existent in including a starfish, right to fish in their waters (in access fees and many Southern Ocean fleets.55 far outweighs the licenses) is a mere 5 percent or less of the esti- In 1998, the FAO set up an “International target catch of mated $2 billion the fish is worth.51 By negoti- Plan of Action for reducing the incidental orange roughy from a deep-sea trawl in ating fairer deals, coastal states can manage catch of seabirds in longline fisheries,”known international waters their resources in a sustainable way, ensure as IPOA-SEABIRDS.56 A voluntary program, it of the Tasman Sea, continued livelihoods and incomes, and build aims to encourage countries involved in long- between Australia the capacity to gain the full economic and lining to identify where seabird bycatch is a and New Zealand. social benefits from their natural resources. problem, to develop a national plan of action © Greenpeace/Roger Grace Stronger global effort is also needed to for how to reduce it, and to prescribe appropri- address illegal, unreported, and unregulated ate mitigation measures. In addition, in 2006, (IUU) fishing both in coastal waters and on the the UK’s Royal Society for the Protection of high seas. Governments need to close ports and Birds and BirdLife International created a joint markets to such fishers and their fish, prose- “Albatross Task Force” to educate longline cute companies that support IUU fishing, and fishers on the use of mitigation methods.57 outlaw flags of convenience. Several interna- Regional fisheries management organizations tional agreements already in place, if properly can also play a greater role in addressing implemented, would provide comprehensive bycatch, though so far only the Commission and effective measures against IUU fishing, for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Liv- including the FAO Compliance Agreement, the ing Resources (CCAMLR) has taken compre- U.N. Fish Stocks Agreement, the FAO model hensive mitigation action.58 Within the treaty scheme for port control, and the FAO interna- area, seabird deaths from bycatch declined tional plan to prevent, deter, and eliminate from 6,589 in 1997 to only 15 in 2003. IUU fishing. Other solutions include establish- Greater use of mitigation efforts is also ing a central monitoring, control, and compli- needed to deal with the incidental capture or ance authority for all vessels active on the high entanglement of marine mammals. Acoustic seas and working with seafood retailers to help alarms, which alert animals to the presence of

34 OCEANS IN PERIL www.worldwatch.org

Freedom for the Seas

fishing gear or cause them to swim away, have agencies and by the Inter-American Conven- been effective in the Gulf of Maine and the tion for the Protection and Conservation of North Pacific.59 And time-area closures—the Sea Turtles, an intergovernmental treaty that temporary closure of fishing grounds during provides the legal framework for countries in animal migrations—have been shown to the Americas to take actions to benefit sea tur- reduce bycatch of endangered Hector’s dol- tles.68 While TED programs have been cited as phins in New Zealand. Other mitigation meas- a “success story” of bycatch mitigation, non- ures include the use of weights on the tops of compliance still occurs.69 More research is also fishing nets that allow small marine mammals needed to develop effective turtle bycatch miti- to swim over, releasing live animals from gation techniques for longline fisheries.70 fishing gear, and modification of fishing gear or practices.60 Targeting Seafood Buyers and the Marine mammal bycatch is also being Aquaculture Industry addressed at the international level, under the Because intergovernmental and even national Agreement on the Conservation of Small policies can be difficult to implement, a bot- Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas, the tom-up approach—stimulating consumer Agreement for the International Dolphin Con- market demand for “sustainable seafood”— servation Program for the Eastern Pacific, and can serve as a parallel means to encourage the International Whaling Commission.61 The more responsible fishing practices.71 One Cetacean Bycatch Resource Center, established way to do this is by mandating strict seafood in 2002 with the support of WWF, recom- labeling that requires producers to disclose mends that countries adopt national action where and how the fish was caught. In the plans to reduce incidental mortality.62 In United Kingdom, for example, the supermar- December 2005, WWF worked with the Mexi- ket chain Waitrose now provides information can government to eliminate the use of gill- on the origins of all seafood sold at its fresh nets and shrimp trawls across the range of the fish counters.72 The company no longer sells endangered vaquita porpoise.63 marlin, sturgeon products, shark, and orange In the United States, the U.S. Marine Mam- roughy due to concerns about fishing methods mal Protection Act has set a goal of reaching or sustainability, and has committed to remov- near-zero levels of incidental mortality of ing all products caught using beam-trawls—a marine mammals.64 As a result of innovative destructive type of bottom trawl used to target mitigation measures to guarantee “dolphin- flatfish and shrimp—from its shelves by the safe” tuna—including changes in fishing gear end of 2007.73 and net-setting, and hand rescue by divers— In a move that could have a significant dolphin mortality from the U.S. tuna fishery impact on the seafood market, Wal-Mart, the dropped from an estimated 133,000 in 1986 to world’s largest food retailer, has pledged to sell less than 2,000 in 1998.65 But although recent only “MSC-certified” wild-caught fresh and fro- mortality should no longer be significant from zen fish in North America within 3–5 years.74 a population point of view, dolphin popula- The London-based Marine Stewardship Coun- tions have not yet recovered.66 The chronic cil (MSC), a leading accreditor of sustainable effects of prolonged chase and frequent cap- fisheries, has certified more than 20 fisheries ture may be impairing breeding success. worldwide and grants its blue eco-label to U.S. bycatch of sea turtles has been ad- more than 600 sustainably sourced seafood dressed in part by mandating the use of turtle products.75 Even so, as of April 2007, only excluder devices (TEDs) in the shrimp trawl- around 6 percent (by quantity) of the world’s ing industry.67 TEDs have also been imple- wild capture fisheries were engaged in the MSC mented in 15 other countries that export program.76 Given that the global demand for shrimp to the United States. This work has seafood continues to rise, much more can be been conducted by several U.S. government done to encourage both producers and con- www.worldwatch.org OCEANS IN PERIL 35

Freedom for the Seas

sumers to support sustainable seafood. the Protection of the Marine Environment But seafood labeling can be tricky. For of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR) took a instance, both the fishing industry and govern- notable precautionary approach to chemical ments have promoted farmed fish as a “sustain- pollution by agreeing to stop the discharge, able” solution to fishery depletions. But most emission, and loss of all hazardous substances aquaculture, with the exception of some her- to the marine environment by 2020.83 Since bivorous shellfish farms and freshwater herbiv- then, the list of hazardous substances identified orous fish farms, exacerbates the problems of by OSPAR for priority action has grown from overfishing due to the use of wild fish for feed.77 12 to more than 40, including the most com- To address the negative effects of aquacul- monly used brominated flame retardants.84 ture, governments and the industry could But implementation has been slow, in part promote farmed fish that can be fed on herbiv- because of parallel efforts to develop stricter orous diets and encourage the replacement of chemicals regulations within Europe. The new fishmeal and fish oil with vegetable-based REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Author- feeds.78 To protect coastal ecosystems such as isation of CHemicals) legislation, agreed to in wetlands and mangroves, governments can pass December 2006, shifts the burden of proof enforceable regulations on the positioning of from governments to industry and requires aquaculture facilities. Governments could also companies to substitute for many of the most eliminate subsidies for ecologically unsound hazardous chemicals when safer alternatives aquaculture and impose fines to help reduce are available.85 Although it remains uncertain escapes by farmed species into the wider envi- how effective REACH will be in practice (and ronment. Effluent wastes from aquaculture can whether it provides sufficient tools to meet be reduced by using integrated systems to effi- OSPAR’s chemical pollution target), it repre- ciently utilize food and water resources, reduce sents a significant step forward. costs, and increase productivity.79 Alongside its chemicals target, OSPAR has also adopted a precautionary strategy to Combating Marine Pollution tackle radioactive pollution.86 The agreement Wide-ranging efforts are also needed to tackle requires progressive and substantial reduction the myriad sources of marine pollution. The in discharges, emissions, and losses of radio- Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic active substances to the marine environment Pollutants (POPs), which entered into force in by 2020, with the ultimate target of near-back- May 2004, requires governments to take meas- ground or near-zero levels. However, imple- ures to eliminate or reduce releases of certain mentation has been limited here too by the well-known persistent chemicals, such as diox- ongoing (and, over some periods, increasing) ins and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).80 discharges from nuclear fuel reprocessing But the treaty does not apply to any bromi- plants, an issue of long-standing disagreement nated flame retardants, despite their potential in northern Europe.87 In the end, real progress toxicity to marine life (so far, one form of the may be achieved only as existing nuclear facili- chemicals has been proposed for the list and ties reach the end of their working lives, rather another is under review for inclusion).81 Sev- than through any radical change in policy or eral of these substances are being regulated on practice. In the meantime, the legacy of radio- a national or regional level in Europe, China, active pollution of marine ecosystems in the Japan, and the United States, but global action northeast Atlantic will continue to grow. will ultimately be needed.82 Unfortunately, With regard to oil pollution, in 1995 the even if many POPs are phased out globally, International Maritime Organization agreed they will leave a legacy for years to come as to regulations for a global phase out of single- they continue to leach out from materials and hulled oil tankers.88 Environmental groups are persist in the environment. now demanding that the industry pay for the In 1998, members of the Commission for damage caused by accidents through full and

36 OCEANS IN PERIL www.worldwatch.org

Freedom for the Seas

unlimited liability along a chain of responsibil- ities, 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 (MAR- POL), 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 A school of jacks problem of marine debris will require a “zero- tation of the ecosystem approach, through the in Apo Island waste” strategy that encompasses waste reduc- establishment of networks of large-scale, fully Marine Reserve, tion, reuse, and recycling as well as producer protected marine reserves and the sustainable the Philippines. responsibility and eco-friendly design. management of surrounding waters, is the key © Greenpeace/Gavin Newman to restoring the health and vitality of our oceans The Future and maintaining the livelihoods of the many There is still much to learn about the complex coastal communities that depend on them. ecology of our oceans. However, enough is Protecting the myriad of marine life—from known for the world’s governments and other the largest whales to the smallest planktonic stakeholders to take positive action to ensure creature—is necessary not only for its own that protection of the marine environment is sake, but for ours too. Unless urgent action is at the core of their marine policies and activi- taken, future generations will be denied the ties. Although the state of the Earth’s oceans chance to experience or enjoy the benefits of has deteriorated rapidly in recent years, there is the life that thrives within the international also growing scientific evidence that these neg- waters of Earth’s oceans, the greatest remaining ative trends could be reversed. The implemen- global commons.

www.worldwatch.org OCEANS IN PERIL 37

Endnotes

The Diversity of the Oceans Fock et al., “Biodiversity and species-environment relationships of the demersal fish assemblage at the Great 1 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Meteor Seamount (subtropical NE Atlantic) sampled by Global Biodiversity Assessment (Nairobi: 1995); Ronald K. different trawls,” Marine Biology, vol. 141 (2002), pp. O’Dor, The Unknown Ocean: The Baseline Report of the 185–99; 263 species from D.M. Tracey et al., “Fish species Census of Marine Life Research Program (Washington, DC: composition on seamounts and adjacent slope in New Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education, Zealand waters,” New Zealand Journal of Marine and 2003), p. 25. Freshwater Research, vol. 38 (2004), pp. 163–82. 2. J.S. Gray, “Marine Biodiversity: Patterns, Threats and 13. Stocks, op. cit. note 10. Conservation Needs,” Biodiversity and Conservation,vol.6 (1997), pp. 153–75. 14. K. Stocks, “Seamounts online: An online resource for data on the biodiversity of seamounts,” in Morato and 3. UNEP, op. cit. note 1. Pauly, op. cit. note 9. 4. UNEP, Ecosystems and Biodiversity in Deep Waters 15. Koslow et al., op. cit. note 10. and High Seas, UNEP Regional Seas Report and Studies No. 178 (Nairobi: 2006). 16. Seamounts have ‘apparently’ high rates of endemism, as it is not yet possible to know whether the species pres- 5. J.F. Grassle, “Deep-sea Benthic Biodiversity,” ent do occur elsewhere in the oceans. Stocks, op. cit. note Bioscience, vol. 41, no. 7 (1991), pp. 464–69. 10, p. 20; New Caledonia from B.R. Richer de Forges, J.A. 6. UNEP, op. cit. note 4, p. 14; J.D. Gage and P.A. Tyler, Koslow, and G.C.B. Poore, “Diversity and endemism of Deep Sea Biology: A Natural History of Organisms at the the benthic seamount fauna in the southwest Pacific,” Deep-Sea Floor (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Nature, 22 June 2000, pp. 944–47. Press, 2001); 2,650 from J.A. Koslow, A. Williams, and J.R. 17. Stocks, op. cit. note 10; Koslow et al., op. cit. note 10. Paxton, “How many demersal fish species in the deep sea? A test of a method to extrapolate from local to global 18. P.A. Johnston and D. Santillo, “Conservation of diversity,” Biodiversity and Conservation, vol. 6 (1997), pp. seamount ecosystems: Application of a marine protected 1523–32. areas concept,” Archive of Fishery and Marine Research, vol. 51, nos. 1–3 (2004), pp. 305–19. 7. Gage and Tyler, op. cit. note 6. 19. Ibid. 8. Gray, op. cit. note 2. 20. Koslow et al., op. cit. note 10. 9. A.D. Rogers, “The biology of seamounts,” Advances in Marine Biology, vol. 30 (1994), pp. 305–50; 230 from Sea- 21. Gage and Tyler, op. cit. note 6. mounts Online, electronic database, http://seamounts 22. C.T.S. Little and R.C. Vrijenhoek, “Are hydrothermal .sdsc.edu, viewed 1 August 2007; 50,000 from A. Kitch- vent animals living fossils?” Trends in Ecology and Evolu- ingman and S. Lai, “Inferences on potential seamount tion, vol. 18, no. 11 (2003), pp. 582–88. locations from mid-resolution bathymetric data,” in T. Morato and D. Pauly, eds., Seamounts: Biodiversity and 23. E. Ramirez-Llodra, T.M. Shank, and C.R. German, Fisheries, Fisheries Centre Research Reports, vol. 12, no. 5 “Biodiversity and biogeography of hydrothermal vent (2004). species: Thirty years of discovery and investigations,” Oceanography, vol. 20, no. 1 (2007), pp. 30-41. 10. J.A. Koslow et al., “Seamount benthic macrofauna off southern Tasmania: community structure and impacts of 24. Little and Vrijenhoek, op. cit. note 22; Census of trawling,” Marine Ecology Progress Series, vol. 213 (2001), Marine Life, “Extreme Life, Marine Style, Highlights 2006 pp. 111–25; K. Stocks, “Seamount invertebrates: composi- Ocean Census,” press release (Washington, DC: 10 tion and vulnerability to fishing,” in Morato and Pauly, December 2006). op. cit. note 9. 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.

38 OCEANS IN PERIL www.worldwatch.org

Endnotes

28. Gage and Tyler, op. cit. note 6. 45. R.F.G. Ormond and C.M. Roberts, “The biodiversity of coral reefs fishes,” in R.F.G Ormond, J.D. Gage, and 29. Microbes from L. Glowka, “Putting marine scientific M.V. Angel, eds., Marine Biodiversity: Patterns and research on a sustainable footing at hydrothermal vents,” Processes (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, Marine Policy, vol. 27: (2003), pp. 303–12; fish from M. 1997), pp. 216–57. Biscoito et al., “Fishes from the hydrothermal vents and cold seeps—An update,” Cahiers de Biologie Marine, vol. 46. Spalding, Ravilious, and Green, op. cit. note 38. 43 (2002), pp. 359–62. 47. Conservation International, “Scientists Believe Bird’s 30. Glowka, op. cit. note 29. Head Seascape Is Richest on Earth,” news feature (Washington, DC: 18 September 2006). 31. K. Heilman, “Nautilus One Step Closer to Undersea Mining,” resourceinvestor.com, 4 October 2006, at 48. J.W. McManus et al., “Coral reef fishing and coral- www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=24459. algal phase shifts: implications for global reef status,” ICES Journal of Marine Science, vol. 57 (2000), pp. 572–78. 32. Glowka, op. cit. note 29. 49. UNEP-WCMC, “In the front line: shoreline protec- 33. Greenpeace International, Bioprospecting in the Deep tion and other ecosystem services from mangroves and Sea (Amsterdam: November 2005). coral reefs” (Cambridge, UK: 2006); F. Moberg and C. 34. D. Malakoff, “New tools reveal treasures at ocean hot Folke, “Ecological goods and services of coral reef ecosys- spots,” Science, vol. 304, no. 5674 (2004), pp. 1104–05. tems,” Ecological Economics, vol. 29 (1999), pp. 215–33. 35. J. Paramo et al., “Relationship between abundance 50. Birkeland, op. cit. note 39. of small pelagic fishes and environmental factors in the 51. UNEP-WCMC, op. cit. note 49. Colombian Carribbean Sea: An analysis based on hydro- acoustic information,” Aquatic Living Resources, vol. 16 52. Y. Sadovy, “Trouble on the reef: the imperative for (2003), pp. 239–45; D. Pauly and V. Christensen, “Primary managing vulnerable and valuable fisheries,” Fish and production required to sustain global fisheries,” Nature, Fisheries, vol. 6 (2005), pp. 167–85. 16 March 1995, pp. 255–57; T.M. Ward et al., “Pelagic 53. UNEP, After the Tsunami: Rapid Environmental ecology of a northern boundary current system: effects of Assessment (Nairobi: 2006). upwelling on the production and distribution of sardine (Sardinops sagax), anchovy (Engraulis australis) and 54. UNEP-WCMC, op. cit. note 49; Birkeland, op. cit. southern bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii) in the Great note 39; Moberg and Folke, op. cit. note 49. Austrailian Bight,” Fisheries Oceanography, vol 15, no. 3 55. C. Wilkinson, ed., Status of Coral Reefs of the World (2006), pp. 191–207. 2004. Volume 1 (Townsville MC, Australia: Global Coral 36. World Conservation Union (IUCN), “High Seas Reef Monitoring Network and Australian Govern- Marine Protected Areas,” Parks, vol. 15, no. 3 (2005), pp. ment/Australian Institute of Marine Science, 2004). 48–55. 56. J.M. Pandolfi et al., “Are U.S. coral reefs on the slip- 37. Ibid. pery slope to slime?” Science, 18 March 2005, pp. 1725–26; D.R. Bellwood et al., “Confronting the coral reef crisis,” 38. M.D. Spalding, C. Ravilious, and E.P. Green, World Nature, 24 June 2004, pp. 827–33; A.M. Szmant, “Nutrient Atlas of Coral Reefs, prepared at the UNEP World Conser- enrichment on coral reefs: Is it a major cause of coral reef vation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) (Berkeley, CA: decline? Esturaries, vol. 25, no. 4b (2002), pp. 743–66. University of California Press, 2001). 57. G. Hodgson, “A global assessment of human effects 39. C. Birkeland, “Introduction,” in C. Birkeland, ed., Life on coral reefs,” Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 38, no. 5 and Death of Coral Reefs (Toronto: Chapman and Hall, (1999), pp. 345–55. 1997), pp. 1–12. 58. Estimate of 50 fishes by IUCN, per Sadovy, op. cit. 40. UNEP, op. cit. note 1. note 52; 10 centimeters from Wilkinson, op. cit. note 55. 41. K.P. Sebens, “Biodiversity of coral reefs: what are we 59. C.M. Roberts, “Effects of fishing on the ecosystem losing and why?” American Zoologist, vol. 34 (1994), pp. structure of coral reefs,” Conservation Biology, vol. 9, no. 5 115–33. (1995), pp. 988–95; B.E. Brown, “Disturbances to reefs in 42. Estimate of 100,000 from Spalding, Ravilious, and recent times, in Birkeland, op. cit. note 39; J.B.C. Jackson Green, op. cit. note 38; 1 to 3 million from W.H. Adey et et al., “Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of al., “Coral reefs: endangered, biodiverse, genetic resources,” coastal ecosystems,” Science, 27 July 2001, pp. 629–38. in C. Sheppard, ed., Seas at the Millennium: An Environ- 60. Wilkinson, op. cit. note 55; UNEP-WCMC, op. cit. mental Evaluation. Volume III, Global Issues and Processes note 49. (Oxford, UK: Pergamon, Elsevier Science Ltd., 2000). 61. E. Edinger et al., “Reef degradation and coral biodi- 43. J.C. Briggs, “Coral reefs: conserving the evolutionary versity in Indonesia: Effects of land-based pollution, sources,” Biological Conservation, vol. 126 (2005), pp. destructive fishing practices and changes over time,” 297–305; 600 species from Spalding, Ravilious, and Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 36, no. 8 (1998), pp. 617–30. Green, op. cit. note 38. 62. Wilkinson, op. cit. note 55; J.M. Pandolfi et al., 44. Spalding, Ravilious, and Green, op. cit. note 38. “Global trajectories of the long-term decline of coral reef www.worldwatch.org OCEANS IN PERIL 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 90. Some 60 species from E.P. Green and F.T. Short, (Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC, 2003). World Atlas of Seagrasses, prepared by UNEP-WCMC (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2003); R.C. 65. Wilkinson, op. cit. note 55. Phillips and M.J. Durako, “Global status of seagrasses,” in 66. Ibid. Sheppard, op. cit. note 42, pp. 1–16. 67. M.M. Nugues et al., “Algal contact as a trigger for 91. Green and Short, op. cit. note 90. coral disease,” Ecology Letters, vol. 7 (2004), pp. 919–23; 92. Phillips and Durako, op. cit. note 90. J.F. Bruno et al., “Nutrient enrichment can increase the severity of coral diseases,” Ecology Letters, vol. 6 (2003), 93. Green and Short, op. cit. note 90. pp. 1056–61; Szmant, op. cit. note 56. 94. E.L. Jackson et al., “The importance of seagrass beds 68. I. Valiela, J.L. Bowen, and J.K. York, “Mangrove for- as a habitat for fishery species,” in Oceanography and ests: One of the world’s threatened major tropical envi- Marine Biology: An Annual Review, vol. 39 (2001), pp. ronments,” Bioscience, vol. 51, no. 10 (2001), pp. 807–15. 269–303. 69. P. Rönnbäck, “The ecological basis for economic value 95. M.W. Beck et al., “The identification, conservation, of seafood production supported by mangrove ecosys- and management of estuarine and marine nurseries for tems,” Ecological Economics, vol. 29 (1999), pp. 235–52. fish and invertebrates,” Bioscience, vol. 51, no. 8 (2001), pp. 633–41. 70. Valiela, Bowen, and York, op. cit. note 68. 96. Phillips and Durako, op. cit. note 90. 71. C.D. Field, “Mangroves,” in Sheppard, op. cit. note 42, pp. 17–30. 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 99. M. Dorenbosch et al., “Seagrass beds and mangroves coastal and nearshore fisheries of Bangladesh: ecology, as potential nurseries for the threatened Indo-Pacific exploitation and management,” Reviews in Fish Biology humpback wrasse, Cheilinus undulatus and Caribbean and Fisheries, vol. 14 (2004), pp. 153–80; Rönnbäck, op. rainbow parrotfish, Scarus guacamai,” Biological Conser- cit. note 69. vation, vol. 129 (2006), pp. 277–82. 74. Valiela, Bowen, and York, op. cit. note 68; Field, op. 100. Phillips and Durako, op. cit. note 90. cit. note 71. 101. Jackson et al., op. cit. note 94; Phillips and Durako, 75. UNEP, op. cit. note 53. 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 78. UNEP-WCMC, op. cit. note 49. (1999), pp. 169–96. 79. Field, op. cit. note 71; Rönnbäck, op. cit. note 69. 104. Green and Short, op. cit. note 90. 80. Valiela, Bowen, and York, op. cit. note 68. Dangers of Fishery Depletions 81. Field, op. cit. note 71; Rönnbäck, op. cit. note 69; Islam and Haque, op. cit. note 73. 1. D. Pauly et al., “Towards sustainability in world fisheries,” Nature, vol. 418 (2002), pp. 689–95. 82. P.J. Mumby, “Mangroves enhance the biomass of coral reef fish communities in the Caribbean,” Nature,5 2. Near-shore stocks from C.M. Roberts, K. Mason, and February 2004, pp. 533–36. J.P. Hawkins, Roadmap to Recovery: A Global Network of Marine Reserves (Amsterdam: Greenpeace International, 83. Rönnbäck, op. cit. note 69; UNEP-WCMC, op. cit. 2006); deep water from J.A. Koslow et al., “Continental note 49. slope and deep-sea fisheries: implications for a fragile 84. Rönnbäck, op. cit. note 69. ecosystem,” ICES Journal of Marine Science, vol. 57 (2000), pp. 548–57. 85. K. Kathiresan and N. Rajendran, “Fishery resources and economic gain in three mangrove areas on the south- 3. Figure 1 from U.N. Food and Agriculture Organiza- east coast of India,” Fisheries Management and Ecology, tion (FAO), FISHSTAT database, viewed 26 July 2007. vol. 9 (2002), pp. 277–83; E. Baran and J. Hambrey, 4. FAO, The State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture “Mangrove conservation and coastal management in 2006 (Rome: 2007), pp. 3–4. Southeast Asia: What impact on fishery resources? Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 37, no. 8–12 (1998), pp. 431–40. 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

40 OCEANS IN PERIL www.worldwatch.org

Endnotes

2004 (Rome: 2004). 20. Myers and Worm, op. cit. note 14. 8. C. Mullon, P. Fréon, and P. Cury, “The dynamics of 21. Ibid; Pauly et al., op. cit. note 1. collapse in world fisheries,” Fish and Fisheries,vol.6 22. A. Hutchings, “Collapse and recovery of marine fish- (2005), pp. 111–20. es,” Nature, vol. 406 (2000), pp. 882–85. 9. W.H. Lear, “History of fisheries in the Northwest 23. L. Watling and E.A. Norse, “Disturbance of the Atlantic: The 500 year perspective,” Journal of Northwest seabed by mobile fishing gear: A comparison to forest Atlantic Fisheries Science, vol. 23 (1998), pp. 41–73. clearcutting,” Conservation Biology, vol. 12, no. 6 (1998), 10. R.L. Haedrich and S.M. Barnes, “Changes over time pp. 1180–97. of the size structure in an exploited shelf fish communi- 24. Deep Sea Conservation Coalition, High-Seas Bottom ty,” Fisheries Research, vol. 31 (1997), pp. 22–39; R.A. Trawl Red Herrings: Debunking Claims of Sustainability, Myers et al., “The collapse of cod in Eastern Canada: the prepared by the Marine Conservation Biology Institute evidence from tagging data,” ICES Journal of Marine (Bellevue, WA: April 2005). Science, vol. 53 (1996), pp. 629–40; R.A. Myers, J.A. Hutchings, and N.J. Barrowman, “Hypothesis for the 25. S. Roberts and M. Hirshfiel, “Deep-sea corals: out of decline of cod in the North Atlantic,” Marine Ecology sight, but no longer out of mind,” Frontiers in Ecology Progress Series, vol. 138 (1996), pp. 293–308. and the Environment, vol. 2, no. 3 (2004), pp. 123–30. 11. W.E. Schrank, “The Newfoundland fishery: Ten years 26. Ibid. after the moratorium,” Marine Policy, vol. 29 (2005), pp. 27. W.J. Wolff,“The south-eastern North Sea: Losses of 407–20; R. Hilborn et al., “State of the World’s Fisheries,” vertebrate fauna during the past 2000 years,” Biological Annual Review of Environment and Resources, vol. 28 Conservation, vol. 95 (2000), pp. 209–17. (2003), pp. 359–99. 28. A. Machias et al., “Bottom trawl discards in the 12. Schrank, op. cit. note 11. northeastern Mediterranean,” Fisheries Research, vol. 53 13. V. Christensen et al., “Hundred-year decline of North (2001), pp. 181–95. Atlantic predatory fishes,” Fish and Fisheries, vol. 4 (2003), 29. P. Sánchez, M. Demestre, and P. Martín, pp. 1–24. “Characterisation of the discards generated by bottom 14. R.A. Myers and B. Worm, “Rapid worldwide deple- trawling in the northwestern Mediterranean,” Fisheries tion of predatory fish communities,” Nature, vol. 423 Research, vol. 67 (2004), pp. 71–80. (2003), pp. 280–83. 30. M. McGarvin, Deep-water Fishing: Time to Stop the 15. B. Worm et al., “Global patterns of predator diversity Destruction (Amsterdam: Greenpeace International, in the open oceans,” Science, vol. 309 (2005), pp. 1365–69. 2005). 16. J.K. Baum et al., “Collapse and conservation of shark 31. Ibid. populations in the Northwest Atlantic,” Science, vol. 299 32. Greenpeace, “From Fish to Fodder,” at (2003), pp. 389–92; K. Brander, “Disappearance of com- http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/cbio/fodder.html, mon skate Raia batis from Irish Sea,” Nature, vol. 290 1997, viewed 26 July 2007. (1981), pp. 48–49; J.M. Casey and R.A. Myers, “Near extinction of a large widely distributed fish,” Science, vol. 33. T. Anker-Nilssen, R.T. Barrett, and J.K. Krasnov, 281 (1998), pp. 690–92; M.H. Hasan, “Destruction of a “Long- and short-term responses of seabirds in the Holothuria scabra population by overfishing at Abu Norwegian and Barents Seas to changes in stocks of prey Rhamada Island in the Red Sea,” Marine Environmental fish, in Forage Fishes in Marine Ecosystems, (Fairbanks: Research, vol. 60 (2005), pp. 489–511; A.J. Hobday, M.J. University of Alaska, 1997), pp. 683–98. Tegner, and P.L. Haaker, “Over-exploitation of a broadcast 34. One third from R.L. Naylor et al., “Effect of aquacul- spawning marine invertebrate: decline of the white ture on world fish supplies,” Nature, 29 June 2000, pp. abalone,” Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, vol. 10 1017–23. (2001), pp. 493–514; J.A. Devine, K.D. Baker, and R.L. Haedrich, “Deep-sea fishes qualify as endangered,” 35. G.K. Iwama, “Interactions between aquaculture and Nature, vol. 439 (2006), p. 29. the environment,” Critical Reviews in Environmental Control, vol. 21, no. 2 (1991), pp. 177–216. 17. D. Pauly and R. Watson, “Counting the last fish,” Scientific American, vol. 289, no. 1 (2003), pp. 34–39; D. 36. W.K. Hershberger, “Genetic changes in marine aqua- Pauly and R. Watson, “Background and interpretation of culture species and the potential impacts on natural pop- the ‘Marine Trophic Index’ as a measure of biodiversity,” ulations,” in R.R. Stickney and J.P. McVey, eds., Respon- Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological sible Marine Aquaculture (Wallingford, UK: CABI Sciences, vol. 360 (2005), pp. 415–23; Myers and Worm, Publishing, 2002), pp. 221–31. op. cit. note 14. 37. FAO, op. cit. note 4. 18. D. Pauly and M-L. Palomares, “Fishing down marine 38. Naylor et al., op. cit. note 34; R.L. Naylor et al., food web: It is far more pervasive than we thought,” Bul- “Nature’s subsidies to shrimp and salmon farming,” letin of Marine Science, vol. 76, no. 2 (2005), pp. 197–211. Science, 30 October 1998, pp. 883–84. 19. Pauly and Watson, “Counting the last fish,” op. cit. 39. Ibid. note 17. www.worldwatch.org OCEANS IN PERIL 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 big- 57. R.L. Naylor, S.L. Williams, and D.R. Strong, “Aqua- money tuna ranching around the world,” Bioscience, vol. culture—A gateway for exotic species,” Science,23 55, no. 4 (2005), pp. 301–02. 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 43. Naylor et al., op. cit. note 34. conflicts,” Ecological Applications, vol. 11, no. 6 (2001), 44. Scottish Wildlife Trust, WWF Scotland, and Royal pp. 1750–62. Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) Scotland, 59. Naylor, Williams, and Strong, op. cit. note 57. Feeding the Fish: Sustainable Fish Feed and Scottish Aqua- culture, prepared by Poseidon Aquatic Resource Manage- 60. Naylor et al., op. cit. note 34. ment Ltd. (Lymington, Hampshire, UK: August 2004). 61. Naylor, Williams, and Strong, op. cit. note 57. 45. M.S. Islam, W.A. Wahad, and M. Tanaka,“Seed supply 62. Naylor et al., op. cit. note 34. for coastal brackish water shrimp farming: Environmen- tal impacts and sustainability,” Marine Pollution Bulletin, 63. S.J. Hall, The Effects of Fishing on Marine Ecosystems vol. 48 (2004), pp. 7–11; M.S. Islam and M. Haque, “The and Communities (Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science Ltd., mangrove-based coastal and nearshore fisheries of 1999), pp. 16–47; M.A. Hall, D.L. Alverson, and K.I. Bangladesh: ecology, exploitation and management,” Metuzals, “By-catch: problems and solutions,” Marine Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, vol.14 (2004), pp. Pollution Bulletin, vol. 41, no. 1-6 (2000), pp. 204–19. 153–80. 64. United Nations General Assembly, “Resolution 46. Islam, Wahad, and Tanaka, op. cit. note 45. 46/215: Large-scale pelagic drift-net fishing and its impact on the living marine resources of the world’s 47. M.C.M Beveridge, L.G. Ross, and J.A. Stewart, “The oceans and seas” (New York: 20 December 1991). development of mariculture and its implications for biodiversity,” in R.F.G. Ormond, J.D. Gage and M.V. Angel, 65. E. Gilman, N. Brothers, and D.R. Kobayashi, “Princi- eds., Marine Biodiversity: Patterns and Processes (Cam- ples and approaches to abate seabird by-catch in longline bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 372–93. fisheries,” Fish and Fisheries, vol. 6 (2005), pp. 35–49. 48. Ibid. 66. G.B. Baker and B.S. Wise, “The impact of pelagic longline fishing on the flesh-footed shearwater Puffinus 49. Naylor et al., op. cit. note 34. carneipes in Eastern Australia,” Biological Conservation, 50. Iwama, op. cit. note 35. vol. 126 (2005), pp. 306–16. 51. N. Singkran and S. Sudara, “Effects of changing envi- 67. Ibid.; N.P. Brothers, J. Cooper, and S. Løkkeborg, The ronments of mangrove creeks on fish communitites at Incidental Catch of Seabirds by Longline Fisheries: Trat Bay, Thailand,” Environmental Management, vol. 35, Worldwide Review and Technical Guidelines for Mitigation, no. 1 (2005), pp. 45–55; S. Gräslund and B-E. Bengtsson, FAO Fisheries Circular No. 937 (Rome, FAO), 1999); “Chemicals and biological products used in south-east BirdLife International, “Fisheries Organisations Failing to Asian shrimp farming, and their potential impact on the Safeguard the World’s Albatrosses,” press release (Cam- environment—A review,” The Science of the Total bridge, UK: 7 March 2005); E.J. Belda and A. Sánchez, Environment, vol. 280 (2001), pp. 93–131. “Seabird mortality on longline fisheries in the western Mediterranean: Factors affecting bycatch and proposed 52. X. Biao, D. Zhuhong, and W. Xiaorong, “Impact of mitigating measures,” Biological Conservation, vol. 98 the intensive shrimp farming on the water quality of the (2001), pp. 357–63. adjacent coastal creeks from Eastern China,” Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 48, pp. 543–53. 68. Brothers, Cooper, and Løkkeborg, op. cit. note 67. 53. See, for example: A. Ervik et al., “Impact of adminis- 69. Gilman, Brothers, and Kobayashi, op. cit. note 65. tering antibacterial agents on wild fish and blue mussels 70. R.L. Lewison, S.A. Freeman, and L.B. Crowder, Mytilus edulis in the vicinity of fish farms,” Diseases of “Quantifying the effects of fisheries on threatened species: Aquatic Organisms, vol. 18 (1994), pp. 45–51; D.G. Capone The impact of pelagic longlines on loggerhead and et al., “Antibacterial residues in marine sediments and leatherback sea turtles,” Ecology Letters, vol. 7 (2004), pp. invertebrates following chemotherapy in aquaculture,” 22–31; FAO, A Global Assessment of Fisheries Bycatch and Aquaculture, vol. 145, nos. 1-4 (1996), pp. 55–75; Gräslund Discards, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 339 (Rome: 1996). and Bengtsson, op. cit. note 51; C.D. Miranda and R. Zemelman, “Bacterial resistance to oxytetracycline in 71. M.C. Pinedo and T. Polacheck, “Sea turtle by-catch in Chilean salmon farming,” Aquaculture, vol. 212 (2002), pelagic longline sets off southern Brazil,” Biological Con- pp. 31–47. servation, vol. 119 (2004), pp. 335–39. 54. K. Holmström et al., “Antibiotic use in shrimp farm- 72. FAO, op. cit. note 70. ing and implications for environmental impacts and 73. R.L. Lewison, L.B. Crowder, and D.J. Shaver, “The human health,” International Journal of Food Science and impact of turtle excluder devices and fisheries closures on Technology, vol. 38 (2003), pp. 255-266. loggerhead and Kemp’s ridley strandings in the western 55. Beveridge, Ross, and Stewart, op. cit. note 47. Gulf of Mexico,” Conservation Biology, vol. 17, no.4

42 OCEANS IN PERIL www.worldwatch.org

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,” Changing Climate, Changing Seas 2003, at www.cccturtle.org/sea-turtle-information.php? page=threats. 1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Working Group I: The Physical Basis of Climate Change, 76. A.J. Read, P. Drinker, and S. Northridge, “Bycatch of Technical Summary (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer- marine mammals in U.S. and global fisheries,” Conserva- sity Press, 2007), at http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-re tion Biology, vol. 20, no. 1 (2006), pp. 163–69. port.html. 77. C. D’Agrosa, C.E. Lennert-Cody, and O. Vidal, 2. IPCC, Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and “Vaquita bycatch in Mexico’s artisanal gillnet fisheries: Vulnerability (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Driving a small population to extinction,” Conservation Press, 2001), at www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/ Biology, vol. 14, no. 4 (2000), pp. 1110—19; E. Slooten et index.htm. al., “A new abundance estimate for Maui’s dolphin: What does it mean for managing this critically endangered 3. Ibid.; IPCC, op. cit. note 1. species,” Biological Conservation, vol. 128 (2006), pp. 4. C.D.G. Harley et al., “The impacts of climate change 576–81; R.R. Reeves et al. and the Cetacean Specialist in coastal marine systems,” Ecology Letters, vol. 9 (2006), Group, “Dolphins, whales, and porpoises: 2003–2010 con- pp. 228–41. servation action plan for the world’s cetaceans” (Gland, Switzerland: IUCN Species Survival Commission, 2003). 5. J.M. Roessig et al., “Effects of global climate change on marine and estuarine fishes and fisheries,” Reviews in 78. S.D. Kraus et al., “North Atlantic right whales in cri- Fish Biology and Fisheries, vol. 14 (2004), pp. 251–75. sis,” Science, 22 July 2005, pp. 561–62. 6. Harley et al., op. cit. note 4. 79. Because entangled whales usually sink after death, these figures are likely an underestimate. H. Caswell, M. 7. A.D. Barton and K.S. Casey, “Climatological context Fujiwara, and S. Brault, “Declining survival probability for large-scale coral bleaching,” Coral Reefs, vol. 24 (2005), threatens the North Atlantic right whale,” Proceedings of pp. 536–54. the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 96 (1999), pp. 8. A.E. Douglas, “Coral bleaching—How and why?” 3308–13. Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 46, no. 4 (2003), pp. 385–92. 80. A.J. Read and A.A. Rosenberg, “Draft international 9. O. Hoegh-Guldberg, “Climate change, coral bleaching strategy for reducing incidental mortality of cetaceans in and the future of the world’s coral reefs,” Marine and fisheries,” Cetacean Bycatch Resource Center, April 2002, Freshwater Ecology, vol. 50 (1999), pp. 839–66; J.K. Reaser, at www.cetaceanbycatch.org/intlstrategy.cfm. R. Pomerance, and P.O. Thomas, “Coral bleaching and 81. BirdLife International, op. cit. note 67. global climate change: scientific findings and policy recommendations,” Conservation Biology, vol. 14, no. 5 82. Greenpeace International, Black Holes in Deep Ocean (2000), pp. 1500–11. Space: Closing the Legal Voids in High Seas Biodiversity Protection (Amsterdam: November 2005); Greenpeace 10. O. Hoegh-Guldberg, “Low coral cover in a high-CO2 International, Witnessing the Plunder: A Report of the MV world,” Journal of Geophysical Research, 24 August 2005. Greenpeace Expedition to Investigate Pirate Fishing in West 11. Douglas, op. cit. note 8. Africa (Amsterdam: November 2001). 12. Hoegh-Guldberg, op. cit. note 10; Hoegh-Guldberg, 83. High Seas Task Force, Closing the Net: Stopping Illegal op. cit. note 9. Fishing on the High Seas, March 2006, at www.high-seas .org/docs/HSTFfinal/HSTFFINAL_web.pdf. 13. Hoegh-Guldberg, op. cit. note 9. 84. Greenpeace International, Witnessing the Plunder: 14. L. Hughes, “Climate change and Australia: Trends, How Illegal Fish from West African Waters Finds Its Way to projections and impacts,” Austral Ecology, vol. 28 (2003), The EU Ports and Markets (Amsterdam: 2006); Green- pp. 423–43. peace International, Plundering the Pacific (Amsterdam: 15. Roessig et al., op. cit. note 5. 2006); Greenpeace International, Where Have All the Tuna Gone? (Amsterdam: 2006). 16. Hoegh-Guldberg, op. cit. note 10. 85. Greenpeace International, Witnessing the Plunder: A 17. S.D. Donner et al., “Global assessment of coral Report…, op. cit. note 82. bleaching and required rates of adaptation under climate change,” Global Change Biology, vol. 11 (2005), pp. 86. See www.flagsofconvenience.com. 2251–65. 87. Environmental Justice Foundation, Pirates and 18. Hoegh-Guldberg, op. cit. note 9. Profiteers: How Pirate Fishing Fleets Are Robbing People and Oceans (London: 2005). 19. Donner et al., op. cit. note 17; P. Jokiel and E.K. Brown, “Global warming, regional trends and inshore 88. Greenpeace International, Witnessing the Plunder: environmental conditions influence coral bleaching in How Illegal Fish…, op. cit. note 84. Hawaii,” Global Change Biology, vol. 10 (2004), pp. 1627–41. www.worldwatch.org OCEANS IN PERIL 43

Endnotes

20. Hoegh-Guldberg, op. cit. note 10. A system with dangerous thresholds,” Climate Change, vol. 46 (2000), pp. 247–56; IPCC, op. cit. note 1. 21. Ibid. 45. G. Weller, “Summary and Synthesis of the ACIA,” in 22. J.W. McManus et al., “Coral reef fishing and coral- Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA), ACIA Scien- algal phase shifts: Implications for global reef status, ICES tific Report (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Universiry Press, Journal of Marine Science, vol. 57 (2000), pp. 572–78. November 2005). 23. Donner et al., op. cit. note 17. 46. Ibid. 24. Roessig et al., op. cit. note 5. 47. IPCC, op. cit. note 2. 25. Harley et al., op. cit. note 4. 48. Weller, op. cit. note 45. 26. A.L. Perry et al., “Climate change and distribution 49. V. Smetacek and S. Nicol, “Polar ocean ecosystems in shifts in marine fishes,” Science, vol. 308, no. 5730 (2005), a changing world,” Nature, vol. 437 (2005), pp. 362–68. pp. 1912–15. 50. Sidebar 1 from the following sources: fish and seals 27. Harley et al., op. cit. note 4. from H. Loeng, “Marine Systems,” in Weller, op. cit. note 28. G.C. Hays, A.J. Richardson, and C. Robinson, 45; birds from H.G. Gilcreast and M.L. Mallory, “Declines “Climate change and marine plankton,” Trends in Ecology in abundance and distribution of the ivory gull (Pago- and Evolution, vol. 20, no. 6 (2005), pp. 337–44. phila eburnean) in Arctic Canada,” Biological Conserva- tion, vol. 121 (2005), pp. 303–09 and from A.J. Gaston, 29. G. Beaugrand et al., “Plankton effect on cod recruit- J.M. Hipfner, and D. Campbell, “Heat and mosquitoes ment in the North Sea,” Nature, 11 December 2003, pp. cause breeding failures and adult mortality in an Arctic- 661–64. nesting seabird,” Ibis (British Ornithologists’ Union), vol. 30. B. Worm and R.A. Myers, “Managing fisheries in a 144 (2002), pp. 185–91; polar bears from Weller, op. cit. changing climate,” Nature, 6 May 2004, p. 15. note 45, from A.E. Derocher, N.J. Lunn, and I. Stirling, “Polar bears in a warming climate,” Integrative and Com- 31. Ibid. parative Biology, vol. 44 (2004), pp. 163–76, and from 32. Harley et al., op. cit. note 4. 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 35. R.B. Alley et al., “Ice sheet and sea-level changes,” second half of the 20th century,” Geophysical Research Science, 21 October 2005, pp. 456–61; J.A. Dowdeswell, Letters, vol. 32 (2005); Smetacek and Nicol, op. cit. note “The Greenland Ice Sheet and Global Sea-level Rise,” 49. Science, 17 February 2006, pp. 963–64. 53. IPCC, op. cit. note 1. 36. IPCC, op. cit. note 2. 54. Meredith and King, op. cit. note 52. 37. Ibid.; P.P. Wong, “Where have all the beaches gone? Coastal erosion in the tropics,” Singapore Journal of 55. J. Forcada et al., “Contrasting population changes in Tropical Geography, vol. 24, no. 1 (2003), pp. 111–32. sympatric penguin species in association with climate warming,” Global Change Biology, vol. 12 (2006), pp. 38. IPCC, op. cit. note 2. 411–23. 39. M.R. Fish et al., “Predicting the impact of sea-level 56. Sidebar 2 from the following sources: smaller popula- rise on Caribbean sea turtle nesting habitat,” Conservation tions from V. Loeb et al., “Effects of sea-ice extent and Biology, vol. 19, no. 2 (2005), pp. 482–91. krill or salp dominance on the Antarctic food web,” 40. J.D. Baker, C.L. Littnan, and D.W. Johnston, “Poten- Nature, 26 June 1997, pp. 897–900; 80 percent from A. tial effects of sea level rise on the terrestrial habitats of Atkinson et al., “Long-term decline in krill stock and endangered and endemic megafauna in the Northwestern increase in salps within the Southern Ocean,” Nature,4 Hawaiian Islands,” Endangered Species Research, vol. 4 November 2004, pp. 100–03; glacial runoff from M.A. (2006), pp. 1–10. Moline et al., “Alteration of the food web along the Antarctic Peninsula in response to a regional warming 41. N. Knowlton, “The future of coral reefs,” Proceedings trend,” Global Change Biology, vol. 10 (2004), pp. of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 98, no. 10 (2001), 1973–80; rising temperatures from Meredith and King, pp. 5419–25. op. cit. note 52; links to penguin declines from W.R. 42. S. Rahmstorf, “Ocean circulation and climate during Fraser and E.E. Hofmann, “A predator’s perspective on the past 120,000 years,” Nature, 12 September 2002, pp. causal links between climate change, physical forcing 207–14. and ecosystem response,” Marine Ecology Progress Series, vol. 265 (2003), pp. 1–15; effects on other animals from 43. W.S. Broecker, “Thermohaline circulation, the Smetacek and Nicol, op. cit. note 49. Achilles heel of our climate system: Will man-made CO2 upset the current balance?” Science, vol. 278, no. 5343 57. L.S. Peck, K.E. Webb, and D.M. Bailey, “Extreme (1997), pp. 1582–88. sensitivity of biological function to temperature in Antarctic marine species,” Functional Ecology, vol. 18 44. S. Rahmstorf, “The thermohaline ocean circulation:

44 OCEANS IN PERIL www.worldwatch.org

Endnotes

(2004), pp. 625–30. mental Research Institute, 2004). 58. The Royal Society, Ocean Acidification Due to 10. See, for example, S. Burreau et al., “Comparison of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (London: 30 June biomagnification of PBDEs in food chains from the Baltic 2005). Sea and the Northern Atlantic Sea,” Organohalogen Com- pounds, vol. 47 (2000), pp. 253–55; Vorkamp et al.,op. 59. Ibid. cit. note 9; B. Johnson-Restrepo et al., “Polybrominated 60. Ibid.; S.C. Doney, “The dangers of ocean acidifica- diphenyl ethers and polychlorinated biphenyls in a tion,” Scientific American, vol. 294, no. 3 (2006), pp. marine foodweb of coastal Florida,” Environmental 58–65. Science and Technology, vol. 39 (2005), pp. 8243–50; Covaci et al., op. cit. note 7; S. Morris et al., “Distribution 61. The Royal Society, op. cit. note 58. and fate of HBCD and TBBPA brominated flame retar- 62. Ibid. dants in North Sea estuaries and aquatic food webs,” Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 38 (2004), pp. Polluting the Marine Environment 5497–504. 1. P. Johnston et al., Report on the World’s Oceans (Exe- 11. P.O. Darnerud, “Toxic effects of brominated flame ter, UK: Greenpeace Research Laboratories, May 1998). retardants in man and wildlife,” Environment Interna- tional, vol. 29 (2003), pp. 841–53; J. Legler and A. 2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Brouwer, “Are brominated flame retardants endocrine U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Mercury Levels disruptors?” Environment International, vol. 29 (2003), in Commercial Fish and Shellfish,” www.cfsan.fda.gov/ pp. 879–85. ~frf/sea-mehg.html, updated February 2006; Environ- mental Defense/Oceans Alive, “PCBs in Fish and Shell- 12. A.J. Hall, O.I. Kalantzi, and G.O. Thomas, “Polybrom- fish,” www.oceansalive.org/eat.cfm?subnav=pcbs, viewed inated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in grey seals during their 1 August 2007. first year of life—Are they thyroid hormone endocrine disrupters?” Environmental Pollution, vol. 126 (2003), pp. 3. Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic 29–37. Pollutants (POPS) Web site, at www.pops.int. 13. Darnerud, op. cit. note 11; de Wit, op. cit. note 7; H. 4. D. Ueno et al., “Global pollution monitoring of poly- Viberg et al., “Neonatal exposure to higher brominated brominated diphenyl ethers using skipjack tuna as a diphenyl ethers, hepta, octa-, or nonabromodiphenyl bioindicator,” Environmental Science and Technology, vol. ether, impairs spontaneous behaviour and learning and 38 (2004), pp. 2312–16. memory functions of adult mice,” Toxicological Sciences, 5. M. Alaee et al., “An overview of commercially used vol. 92, no. 1 (2006), pp. 211–18; Y. Tada et al., “Flame brominated flame retardants, their applications, their retardant tetrabromobisphenol A induced hepatic use patterns in different countries/regions and possible changes in ICR male mice,” Environmental Toxicology and modes of release,” Environment International, vol. 29 Pharmacology, vol. 23, no. 2 (2007), pp. 174–78. (2003), pp. 683–89. 14. Ueno et al., op. cit. note 4. 6. L.S. Birnbaum and D.F. Staskal, “Brominated flame 15. Vorkamp et al., op. cit. note 9; de Wit, Alaee, and retardants: Cause for concern?” Environmental Health Muir, op. cit. note 7; Law et al., “Levels and trends of Perspectives, vol. 112, no. 1 (2004), pp. 9–17. brominated…,” op. cit. note 7. 7. See, for example, C.A. de Wit, “An overview of bromi- 16. D.C.G. Muir et al., “Brominated flame retardants in nated flame retardants in the environment,” Chemosphere, polar bears (Ursus maritimus) from Alaska, the Canadian vol. 46 (2002), pp. 583–624; R.J. Law et al., “Levels and Arctic, East Greenland, and Svalbard,” Environmental trends of polybrominated diphenylethers and other bro- Science and Technology, vol. 40 (2006), pp. 449–55. minated flame retardants in wildlife,” Environment Inter- national, vol. 29 (2003), pp. 757–70; C.A. de Wit, M. 17. de Wit, Alaee, and Muir, op. cit. note 7. Alaee, and D.C.G. Muir, “Levels and trends of brominated 18. Increasing trend from the following: J. Bytingsvik et flame retardants in the Arctic,” Chemosphere, vol. 64, no. 2 al., “Spatial and temporal trends of BFRs in Atlantic cod (2006), pp. 209–33; R.J. Law et al., “Levels and trends of and Polar cod in the North-East Atlantic,” Organohalogen brominated flame retardants in the European environ- Compounds, vol. 66 (2004), pp. 3918–22; She et al., op. ment,” Chemosphere, vol. 64, no. 2 (2006), pp. 187–208; A. cit. note 9; Law et al., “Levels and trends of polybrominat- Covaci et al., “Hexabromocyclodecanes (HBCDs) in the ed…,” op. cit. note 7. Stabilized or decreased from U. environment and humans: A review,” Environmental Sci- Sellström et al., “Temporal trend studies on tetra- and ence and Technology, vol. 40, no. 12 (2006), pp. 3679–88. pentabrominated diphenyl ethers and hexabromocy- 8. Covaci et al., op. cit. note 7; de Wit, op. cit. note 7. clododecane in guillemot egg from the Baltic Sea,” Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 37, no. 24 9. Seals from J. She et al., “PBDEs in the San Francisco (2003), pp. 5496–501, and from N. Kajiwara et al., “Poly- Bay area: Measurements in harbour seal blubber and brominated diphenyl ethers and organochlorines in human breast adipose tissue,” Chemosphere, vol. 46 archived Northern Fur Seal samples from the Pacific coast (2002), pp. 697–707; whales from K. Vorkamp et al., of Japan,” Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 38, Screening of “New” Contaminants in the Marine Environ- no. 14 (2004), pp. 3804–09. ment of Greenland and the Faroe Islands, NERI Technical Report No. 525 (Roskilde, Denmark: National Environ- 19. P. Johnston et al., “Sustainability of human activities www.worldwatch.org OCEANS IN PERIL 45

Endnotes

on marine ecosystems,” in C. Sheppard, ed. Seas at the 35. K. Karlson, R. Rosenberg, and E. Bonsdorff, Millennium: An Environmental Evaluation. Volume III, “Temporal and spatial large-scale effects of eutrophica- Global Issues and Processes (London: Pergamon, Elsevier tion and oxygen deficiency on benthic fauna in Scandin- Science Ltd., 2000); L.G. Cockerham and M.B. Cocker- avian and Baltic waters—A review,” Oceanography and ham, “Environmental Ionising Radiation,” in L.G. Cock- Marine Biology: An Annual Review, vol. 40 (2002), pp. erham and B.S. Shane, eds., Basic Environmental Toxicol- 427–89; Rabalias, Turner, and Wiseman, op. cit. note 27. ogy (Boca Raton: CRC Press, 1995), pp. 1–261. 36. Rabalias, Turner, and Wiseman, op. cit. note 27. 20. Johnston et al., op. cit. note 19. 37. Karlson, Rosenberg, and Bonsdorff, op. cit. note 35. 21. Greenpeace UK, “Nuclear re-action,” 10 August 1999, 38. Rabalias, Turner, and Wiseman, op. cit. note 27. available at www.greenpeace.org.uk. 39. Greenpeace, “Oil Spills – Philippines, Indian Ocean 22. I. Osvath et al., “Mapping of the distribution of 137Cs and Lebanon,” 2006, at www.greenpeace.org/international/ in Irish Sea sediments,” Journal of Radioanalytical and news/recent-oil-spills. Nuclear Chemistry, vol. 248, no. 3 (2001), pp. 735–39; A. Aarkrog, H. Dahlgard, and S.P. Nielsen, “Environmental 40. National Research Council, “Understanding inputs, radioactive contamination in Greenland: A 35 years retro- fates, and effects in detail,” in Oil in the Sea III: Inputs, spect,” The Science of the Total Environment, vol. 245 Fates and Effects (Washington, DC: The National (2000), pp. 233–48; P.J. Kershaw, D. McCubbin, and K.S. Aademies Press, 2003). Leonard, “Continuing contamination of north Atlantic 41. OSPAR Commission for the Protection of the Marine and Arctic waters by Sellafield radionuclides,” The Science Environment of the North-East Atlantic, “Meeting of the of the Total Environment, vol. 237/238 (1999), pp. 119–32. OSPAR Commission, Reykjavik, 28 June–2 July 2004,” 23. D. McCubbin et al., “Distribution of Technetium-99 Cooperation with the Bonn Agreement, presented by the in subtidal sediments of the Irish Sea,” Continental Shelf Secretariat. Research, vol. 26 (2006), pp. 458–73. 42. Greenpeace, op. cit. note 39. 24. W.S. Watson et al., “Radionuclides in seals and por- 43. Sidebar 3 from the following sources. Exxon Valdez poises in coastal waters around the UK,” The Science of from: C.H. Petersen, “The ‘Exxon Valdez’ oil spill in the Total Environment, vol. 234 (1999), pp. 1–13. Alaska: acute, indirect and chronic effects on the ecosys- 25. Kershaw, McCubbin, and Leonard, op. cit. note 22. tem,” Advances in Marine Biology, vol. 39 (2001), pp. 3–103; C.H. Petersen et al., “Long-term ecosystem 26. T.P. Ryan et al., “Plutonium and americium in fish, response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill,” Science,19 shellfish and seaweed in the Irish environment and their December 2003, pp. 2082–86; National Research Council, contribution to dose,” Journal of Environmental op. cit. note 40; J.W. Short et al., “Estimate of oil persist- Radioactivity, vol. 44 (1999), pp. 349–69. ing on the beaches of Prince William Sound 12 years after 27. N. Rabalais, R.E. Turner, and W.J. Wiseman, “Gulf of the Exxon Valdez oil spill,” Environmental Science and Mexico hypoxia, a.k.a. ‘the dead zone,’” Annual Review of Technology, vol. 38 (2004), pp. 19–25; G.V. Irvine, D.H. Ecology and Systematics, vol. 33 (2002), pp. 235–63. Mann, and J.W. Short, “Persistence of 10-year old Exxon Valdez oil on Gulf of Alaska beaches. The importance of 28. W.K. Dodds, “Nutrients and the ‘dead zone’: The boulder-armouring,” Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 52, link between nutrient ratios and dissolved oxygen in the no. 9 (2006), pp. 1011–22; J.W. Short et al., “Vertical dis- northern Gulf of Mexico,” Frontiers in Ecology and the tribution and probability of encountering intertidal Environment, vol. 4, no. 4 (2006), pp. 211–17; D. Ferber, Exxon Valdez oil on shorelines of three embayments “Dead zone fix not a dead issue,” Science, 10 September within Prince William Sound Alaska,” Environmental Sci- 2004, p. 1557; J. Raloff, “Dead waters: Massive oxygen- ence and Technology, vol. 40, no. 12 (2006), pp. 3723–29; starved zones are developing along the world’s coasts,” and J.L. Bodkin et al., “Sea otter population status and Science News, vol. 165, no. 23 (2004), p. 360. the process of recovery from the 1989 ‘Exxon Valdez’ oil 29. Raloff, op. cit. note 28; E. Bonsdorff, C. Rönnberg, spill,” Marine Ecology Progress Series. vol. 241 (2002), pp. and K. Aarnio, “Some ecological properties in relation 237–53. Prestige from: C. Morales-Caselles et al., “Ecotox- to eutrophication in the Baltic Sea,” Hydrobiologia, vol. icity of sediments contaminated by the oil spill associated 475/476 (2002), pp. 371–77. with the tanker ‘Prestige’ using juveniles of fish (Sparus aurata),” Archives of Enviromental Contamination and 30. R.J. Diaz, “Overview of hypoxia around the world,” Toxicology, vol. 51 (2006), pp. 652–60; M.D. Garza-Gil, A. Journal of Environmental Quality, vol. 30, no. 2 (2001), Prada-Blanco, and X.V. Rodríguez, “Estimating the short- pp. 275–81. term economic damages from the Prestige oil spill in the 31. U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP), “Further Galician fisheries and tourism,” Ecological Economics, vol. Rise in Number of Marine ‘Dead Zones,’” press release 58 (2006), pp. 842–49; J.D. García Pérez, “Early socio- (Nairobi: 19 October 2006). political and environmental consequences of the Prestige oil spill in Galicia,” Disasters, vol. 27, no. 3 (2003), pp. 32. Rabalias, Turner, and Wiseman, op. cit. note 27. 207–23; I. Zuberogoita et al., “Short-term effects of the 33. UNEP, op. cit. note 31; Rabalias, Turner, and prestige oil spill on the peregrine falcon (Falco peregri- Wiseman, op. cit. note 27. nus),” Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 52, no. 10 (2006), pp. 1176–81; A. Martínez-Abraín et al., “Sex-specific mortal- 34. Diaz, op. cit. note 30. ity of European shags after the Prestige oil spill: Demo-

46 OCEANS IN PERIL www.worldwatch.org

Endnotes

graphic implications for the recovery of colonies,” Marine of the UN Open-ended Informal Consultative Processes Ecology Progress Series, vol. 318 (2006), pp. 271–76; R. De on Oceans & the Law of the Sea, 6–10 June 2005, at la Huz et al., “Biological impacts of oil pollution and www.un.org/Depts/los/consultative_process/documents/ cleaning in the intertidal zone of exposed sandy beaches: 6_sheavly.pdf. preliminary study of ‘Prestige’ oil spill,” Estuarine, 51. R.C. Thompson et al., “Lost at sea: Where is all the Coastal and Shelf Science, vol. 65 (2005), pp. 19–29; and I. plastic?” Science, 7 May 2004, p. 838. Marigómez et al., “Cell and tissue biomarkers in mussel, and histopathology in hake and anchovy from Bay of 52. F. Galgani et al., “Distribution and abundance of Biscay after the Prestige oil spill (Monitoring Campaign debris on the continental shelf of the North-Western 2003),” Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 53, no. 5-7 (2006), Mediterranean,” Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 30, no. pp. 287–304. Lebanon from: Regional Marine Pollution 11 (1996), pp. 713–17; M. Thiel et al., “Floating marine Emergency Response Centre for the Mediterranean Sea debris in coastal waters of the SE-Pacific (Chile),” Marine (REMPEC), “Sitrep 5. Spill in Lebanon, 07/08/2006,” Pollution Bulletin, vol. 46 (2003), pp. 224–31; Willoughby, “Sitrep 8. Spill in Lebanon, 14/08/2006,”“Sitrep 12. Spill Sangkoyo, and Lakaseru, op. cit. note 49. in Lebanon, 25/08/2006,” and “Sitrep 15. Spill in Lebanon, 53. R.C. Boland and M.J. Donohue, “Marine debris accu- 28/09/2006,” all at www.rempec.org/news.asp; Greenpeace mulation in the nearshore marine habitat of the endan- International, Witnessing War: A Preliminary Post Conflict gered Hawaiian monk seal, Monachus schauinslandi Environmental Assessment by Greenpeace (Amsterdam: 1999–2001,” Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 46 (2003), pp. October 2006); Greenpeace International, “Greenpeace 1385–94; B. Page et al., “Entanglement of Australian sea Exposes Suffocating Oil Slick on the Seabed Off the Leb- lions and New Zealand furseals in lost fishing gear and anese Coast,” press release (Amsterdam: 22 August 2006); other marine debris before and after government and World Conservation Union (IUCN), “Mediterranean industry attempts toreduce the problem,” Marine Pollu- environment affected by armed conflict,” 2006, at tion Bulletin, vol. 49 (2004), pp. 33–42; Laist, op. cit. note www.iucn.org/places/medoffice/noticias/armed_conflict 46. J. Tomás et al., “Marine debris ingestion in loggerhead .html; and R. Steiner, Lebanon Oil Spill Rapid Assessment sea turtles, Caretta caretta, from the Western Mediter- and Response Mission. Final Report (Beirut: IUCN, IUCN ranean,” Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 44 (2002), pp. Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social 211–16; L. Bugoni, L. Krause, and V. Petry, “Marine debris Policy, and Green Line Association, 11 September 2006). and human impacts on sea turtles in Southern Brazil,” Philippines from: Greenpeace, op. cit. note 39; Green- Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 42, no. 12 (2001), pp. peace Southeast Asia, “Greenpeace Returns Barrel of 1330–34; K.A. Bjorndal, A.B. Bolten, and C.J. Lagueux, Bunker Oil from Guimaras Back to Petron,” press release “Ingestion of marine debris by juvenile sea turtles in (Manila: 11 October 2006). coastal Florida habitats,” Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 44. National Research Council, op. cit. note 40. 28, no. 3 (1994), pp. 154–58; L.B. Spear, D.G. Ainley, and C.A. Ribic, “Incidence of plastic in seabirds from the 45. For a detailed review, see M. Allsopp et al., Plastic Tropical Pacific, 1984-91: Relation with distribution of Debris in the World’s Oceans (Amsterdam: Greenpeace species, sex, age, season, year and body weight,” Marine International, November 2006). Environmental Research, vol. 40, no. 2 (1995), pp. 123-146. 46. D.W. Laist, “Impacts of marine debris: Entanglement 54. T. Matsuoka, T. Nakashima, and N. Nagasawa, “A of marine life in marine debris including a comprehen- review of ghost fishing: Scientific approaches to evalua- sive list of species with entanglement and ingestion tion and solutions,” Fisheries Science, vol. 71 (2005), pp. records,” in J.M. Coe and D.B. Rogers, eds., Marine 691–702; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Turning Debris. Sources, Impacts, Solutions (New York: Springer- the Tide on Trash. A Learning Guide on Marine Debris Verlag, 1997), pp. 99–140. (Washington, DC: 1992). 47. English Channel from D.K.A. Barnes and P. Milner, “Drifting plastic and its consequences for sessile organism Freedom for the Seas dispersal in the Atlantic Ocean,” Marine Biology, vol. 146 1. Bunny McDiarmid, Martini Gotje, and Karen Sack, (2006), pp. 815–25; Indonesia from P. Uneputty and S.M. NAFO Case Study (Amsterdam: Greenpeace Interna- Evans, “The impact of plastic debris on the biota of tidal tional, June 2005; Greenpeace International, Freedom for flats in Ambon Bay (Eastern Indonesia),” Marine Environ- the Seas for Now and for the Future (Amsterdam: May mental Research, vol. 44, no. 3 (1997), pp. 233–42. 2005). 48. Europe from F. Galgani et al., “Litter on the sea floor 2. Greenpeace International, Black Holes in Deep Ocean along European coasts,” Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 40, Space: Closing the Legal Voids in High Seas Biodiversity no. 6 (2000), pp. 516–27; Indonesia from Uneputty and Protection (Amsterdam: November 2005); P. Johnston et Evans, op. cit. note 47. al., “Elements of an holistic approach to marine protec- 49. Indonesia from N.G. Willoughby, H. Sangkoyo, and tion and environmental management: What is an ecosys- B.O. Lakaseru, “Beach litter: An increasing and changing tem approach? (in prep 2007). problem for Indonesia,” Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 34, 3. Greenpeace International, op. cit. note 1. no. 6 (1997), pp. 469–78; Sicily from Barnes and Milner, op. cit. note 47. 4. Greenpeace International, Marine Reserves for the Mediterranean Sea (Amsterdam: 2006); C.M. Roberts, K. 50. S.B. Sheavly, “Marine debris—An overview of a criti- Mason, and J.P. Hawkins, Roadmap to Recovery: A Global cal issue for our oceans,” presented at the Sixth Meeting Network of Marine Reserves (Amsterdam: Greenpeace www.worldwatch.org OCEANS IN PERIL 47

Endnotes

International, 2006). Protected Areas,” 17 February 2001, at www.jiwlp.com/ contents/Marine_Reserves_Report.htm. 5. Johnston et al., op. cit. note 2. 15. D.H. Williamson, G.R. Russ, and A.M. Ayling, “No- 6. World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC), take marine reserves increase abundance and biomass of cited in S. Belfiore, B. Cicin-Sain, and C. Ehler, Incorpor- reef fish on inshore fringing reefs of the Great Barrier ating Marine Protected Areas into Integrated Coastal and Reef,” Environmental Conservation, vol. 31, no. 2 (2004), Ocean Management: Principles and Guidelines (Gland, pp. 149–59. Switzerland: World Commission on Protected Areas, World Conservation Union (IUCN), 2004), p. vii. 16. T.R. McClanahan and R. Arthur, “The effect of marine reserves and habitat on populations of East 7. IUCN, Establishing Marine Protected Area Networks: African coral reefs,” Ecological Applications, vol. 11, no. 2 Making It Happen (Gland, Switzerland: April 2007). (2001), pp. 559–69. 8. Roberts, Mason, and Hawkins, op. cit. note 4. 17. G.R. Russ, A.C. Alcala, and A.P. Maypa, “Spillover 9. World Parks Congress 2003, “Recommendation 22. from marine reserves: The case of Naso vlamingii at Apo Building a Global System of Marine and Coastal Island, the Philippines,” Marine Ecology Progress Series, Protected Area Networks,” at www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/ vol. 264 (2003), pp. 15–20; B. Kaunda-Arara and G.A. wpc2003/pdfs/outputs/recommendations/approved/ Rose, “Effects of marine reef National Parks on fishery english/html/r22.htm. CPUE in coastal Kenya,” Biological Conservation, vol. 118 (2004), pp. 1–13. 10. F.R. Gell and C.M. Roberts, “Benefits beyond bound- aries: The fisheries effects of marine reserves,” Trends in 18. Y. Renard, Case of the Soufriere Marine Management Ecology and Evolution, vol.18, no. 9 (2003); Roberts, Area (SMMA), St. Lucia, CANARI Technical Report Mason, and Hawkins, op. cit. note 4. No. 1285 (Laventille, Trinidad, West Indies: Carribbean Natural Resources Institute, 2001); C.M. Roberts and 11. IUCN, “Marine Summit Calls for Dramatic Increase J.P. Hawkins, Fully Protected Marine Reserves: A Guide in Ocean Protection,” press release (Gland, Switzerland: (Washington, DC: WWF Endangered Seas Campaign 13 April 2007). and Environment Department, University of York, 2000); 12. Estimate of 0.1 percent from “Global targets for C.M. Roberts et al., “Effects of marine reserves on adja- MPA designations will not be met; experts respond,” cent fisheries,” Science, 30 November 2001, pp. 1920–23. MPA News, November 2005. Table 1 from the following 19. N. Galal, R. Ormond, and O. Hassan, “Effect of a sources: global review from C. Mora et al., “Coral reefs network of no-take reserves in increasing catch per unit and the global network of marine protected areas,” effort and stocks of exploited reef fish at Nabq, South Science, 23 June 2006, pp. 1750–51; 30 percent from T.P. Sinai, Egypt,” Marine and Freshwater Research, vol. 53, Hughes et al., “Climate change, human impacts, and the no. 2 (2002). resilience of coral reefs,” Science, 15 August 2003, pp. 929–33; 9 percent from United Nations Environment 20. Marine Conservation Unit, Department of Conser- Programme (UNEP), Ecosystems and Biodiversity in Deep vation, Protecting Our Seas—Tiakina a Tangaroa (Wel- Waters and High Seas, UNEP Regional Seas Report and lington, New Zealand: June 2005). Studies No. 178 (Nairobi: 2006); UNEP-WCMC, In the 21. Greenpeace International, The Heat is On: The Role Front Line: Shoreline Protection and Other Ecosystem of Marine Reserves in Boosting Ecosystem Resilience to Services from Mangroves and Coral Reefs (Cambridge, Climate Change (Amsterdam: 2007); C.D.G. Harley et al., UK: 2006); seagrasses from E.P. Green and F.T. Short, “The impacts of climate change in coastal marine sys- World Atlas of Seagrasses, prepared by the UNEP-WCMC tems,” Ecology Letters, vol. 9 (2006), pp. 228–41. (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2003); seamounts from P.A. Johnston and D. Santillo, “Conser- 22. “Climate Change and Ocean Warming: Preparing vation of seamount ecosystems: application of a marine MPAs for It,” MPA News, March 2005, available at protected areas concept,” Archive of Fishery and Marine www.mccn.org.au/article.php/id/451. Research, vol. 51, nos. 1–3 (2004), pp. 305–19; vents from 23. Roberts, Mason, and Hawkins, op. cit. note 4. L. Glowka, “Putting marine scientific research on a sustainable footing at hydrothermal vents,” Marine Policy, 24. Roberts and Hawkins, op. cit. note 18. vol. 27: (2003), pp. 303–12, from Fisheries and Oceans 25. Renard, op. cit. note 18. Canada, “Endeavour Hydrothermal Vents Marine Protected Area”,at www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/mpa/ 26. M. Beger, G.P. Jones, and P.L. Munday, “Conservation Endeavour_e.htm, and from WWF,“Oases on the Ocean of coral reef biodiversity: A comparison of reserve selec- Floor,” news feature (Gland, Switzerland: 19 June 2002). tion procedures for corals and fishes,” Biological Conser- vation, vol. 111 (2003), pp. 53–62; Roberts, Mason, and 13. P.J. Mumby, “Mangroves enhance the biomass of Hawkins, op. cit. note 4. coral reef fish communities in the Caribbean,” Nature,5 February 2004, pp. 533–36. 27. E.A. Norse et al., “Place-based ecosystem management in the open ocean,” in E. Norse and L. Crowder, 14. B.S. Halpern, “The impact of marine reserves: do eds., Marine Conservation Biology: The Science of reserves work and does reserve size matter?” Ecological Maintaining the Sea’s Biodiversity (Washington, DC: Applications, vol. 13, no. 1 (2003), pp. 117–37; National Island Press, 2005), pp. 302–27. Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, “Scientific Consensus Statement on Marine Reserves and Marine 28. Roberts, Mason, and Hawkins, op. cit. note 4.

48 OCEANS IN PERIL www.worldwatch.org

Endnotes

29. “Fiji Designates Five MPAs as Part of Network,” MPA 44. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Dev- News, November 2005, at http://depts.washington.edu/ elopment, Liberalizing Fisheries Markets, Scope and Effects mpanews/MPA69.htm. (Paris: 2003). 30. U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- 45. Greenpeace International, op. cit. note 42. tion (NOAA), “President Sets Aside Largest Marine 46. U.R. Sumaila and D. Pauly, Catching More Bait: A Conservation Area on Earth,” press release (Washington, Bottom-Up Re-Estimation of Global Fisheries Subsidies, DC: 15 June 2006). Second Version, Fisheries Centre Research Reports, vol. 14, 31. Greenpeace International, Marine Reserves for the no. 6 (Vancouver, BC: Fisheries Centre, University of Mediterranean Sea (Amsterdam: June 2006); Greenpeace British Columbia, 2006). International, Rescuing the North and Baltic Seas: Marine 47. Oceana, “The Role of the World Trade Organization,” Reserves a Key Tool (Amsterdam: July 2004). at www.oceana.org/north-america/what-we-do/stop-over 32. Water Information System for Europe, “A Marine fishing-subsidies/international-subsidies-action, viewed Strategy to Save Europe’s Seas and Oceans,” at http://ec 1 August 2007. .europa.eu/environment/water/marine/index_en.htm, 48. WTO, Negotiating Group on Rules, “Fisheries viewed 1 August 2007. Subsidies: Proposed New Disciplines: Proposal from the 33. World Summit on Sustainable Development, Plan of United States” (Geneva: 22 March 2007); Oceana, “Top Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Dev- U.S. Trade Official Calls for WTO Ban on Harmful elopment (Johannesberg: 2002). Fisheries Subsidies,” press release (Washington, DC: 1 May 2007). 34. Convention on Biological Diversity, “The Kuala Lumpur Declaration,” agreed to at the Conference of 49. Greenpeace International, Deadly Subsidies: How Parties 7, Kuala Lumpar, Malaysia, 23 February 2004. Government Subsidies Are Destroying the Oceans and For- ests and Why the CBD Rather than the WTO Should Stop 35. Greenpeace International, op. cit. note 1. This Peverse Use of Public Money (Amsterdam: 2006), p. 55. 36. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 50. Greenpeace, “Fair Fisheries,” at http://oceans.green (UNCLOS) Web site, at www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htm. peace.org/en/our-oceans/fair-fisheries, viewed 26 July 37. Greenpeace International, op. cit. note 1; Greenpeace 2007. International, Bioprospecting in the Deep Sea (Amsterdam: 51. Oxfam New Zealand, Fishing for a Future (Auckland: November 2005). October 2006). 38. M. McGarvin, Deep-water Fishing: Time to Stop the 52. Greenpeace International, Caught Red-handed: Destruction (Amsterdam: Greenpeace International, 2005). Daylight Robbery on the High Seas (Amsterdam: May 39. See D. Melnick et al., Environment and Human Well- 2006). Bring: A Practical Strategy, A Report of the UN Millenium 53. BirdLife International, “Fisheries Organisations Project Task Force on Environmental Sustainability Failing to Safeguard the World’s Albatrosses,” press release (London: Earthscan, 2005), p. 87. (Cambridge, UK: 7 March 2005); R. Cuthbert et al., “At- 40. United Nations General Assembly, “Sustainable fish- sea distribution of breeding Tristan albatrosses Diomedea eries, including through the 1995 Agreement for the dabbenena and potential interactions with pelagic long- Implementation of the Provisions United Nations line fishing in the South Atlantic Ocean,” Biological Convention on the Law of the Sea December 1982 relat- Conservation, vol. 121 (2005), pp. 345–55. ing to the Conservation and Management of Straddling 54. S.J. Hall and B.M. Mainprize, “Managing by-catch Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, and related and discards: how much progress are we making and how instruments,” A/RES/61/105 (New York: 6 March 2007), can we do better?” Fish and Fisheries, vol. 6 (2005), pp. para. 80–90. 134–55; G.N. Tuck, T. Polacheck, and C. Bulman, “Spatio- 41. Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine temporal trends of longline fishing effort in the Southern Living Resources, “Interim restrictions on the use of bot- Ocean and implications for seabird bycatch,” Biological tom trawling gear in high-seas areas of the Convention Conservation, vol. 114 (2003), pp. 1–27. Area for the fishing seasons 2006/07 and 2007/08” (North 55. E. Gilman, N. Brothers, and D.R. Kobayashi, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia: 2006). “Principles and approaches to abate seabird by-catch in 42. Greenpeace International, Trading Away Our Oceans: longline fisheries,” Fish and Fisheries, vol. 6 (2005), pp. Why Trade Liberalization of Fisheries Must Be Abandoned 35–49; Southern Ocean from Tuck, Polacheck, and (Amsterdam: January 2007). Bulman, op. cit. note 54. 43. World Trade Organization (WTO), “Liberalization of 56. U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), trade in fish and fish products. Communication from “International Plan of Action for Reducing Incidental Canada, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Singa- Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries” (Rome: 1999). pore and Thailand” (Geneva: 2005); WTO, “Trade liberal- 57. See www.savethealbatross.net. ization of fish and fish products. Communication from Canada, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore and 58. C.J. Small, Regional Fisheries Management Organisa- Thailand” (Geneva: 2006). tions: Their Duties and Performance in Reducing Bycatch of Albatrosses and Other Species (Cambridge, UK: BirdLife www.worldwatch.org OCEANS IN PERIL 49

Endnotes

International, 2005). Snapshot of the MSC’s Recent Progress,” at www.msc.org/ assets/docs/fishery_certification/MSC_fisheries_06-07.pdf. 59. A.J. Read, P. Drinker, and S. Northridge, “Bycatch of marine mammals in U.S. and global fisheries,” Conserva- 76. Ibid. tion Biology, vol. 20, no. 1 (2006), pp. 163–69; A.J. Read 77. Greenpeace UK, op. cit. note 73. and A.A. Rosenberg, “Draft international strategy for reducing incidental mortality of cetaceans in fisheries,” 78. R.L. Naylor et al., “Effect of aquaculture on world fish Cetacean Bycatch Resource Center, April 2002, at supplies,” Nature, 29 June 2000, pp. 1017–23; Pure Salmon www.cetaceanbycatch.org/intlstrategy.cfm. Campaign Web site, www.puresalmon.org. 60. Read and Rosenberg, op. cit. note 59; Cetacean 79. Naylor et al., op. cit. note 78. Bycatch Resource Center, “Cetacean Bycatch Facts,” 80. Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic www.cetaceanbycatch.org/status.cfm, viewed 26 July 2007. Pollutants (POPs) Web site, www.pops.int. 61. Read and Rosenberg, op. cit. note 59. 81. M. Alaee et al., “An overview of commercially used 62. Ibid. brominated flame retardants, their applications, their use patterns in different countries/regions and possible 63. Katrina Arias, WWF, personal commnication with modes of release,” Environment International, vol. 29 Michelle Allsopp, 12 May 2006; WWF,“Vaquita,” 2005, at (2003), pp. 683–89; “Summary of the second meeting of http://69.25.138.63/about_wwf/what_we_do/species/our_ the review committee of the Stockholm Convention on solutions/endangered_species/cetaceans/vaquita/index.cfm. persistent organic pollutants,” Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 64. U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, avail- 13 November 2006. able at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/mmpa. 82. Europe from “Directive 2003/11/EC of the European 65. NOAA, “Commerce Department Implements Parliament and of the Council of 6 February 2003. Regulations to Reduce Dolphin Mortality in the Eastern Amending for the 24th time Council Directive Tropical Pacific Ocean,” press release (Washington, DC: 4 76/769/EEC relating to restrictions on the marketing and January 2000). use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (pentabromodiphenyl ether, octabromodiphenyl ether,” 66. M.A. Hall, D.L. Alverson, and K.I. Metuzals, “By- Official Journal of the European Union, 15 February 2003, catch: problems and solutions,” Marine Pollution Bulletin, from “Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament vol. 41, no. 1-6 (2000), pp. 204–19. and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on the restriction 67. NOAA Fisheries, “Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDS),” of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical 2006, at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/turtles/teds.htm. and electronic equipment,” Official Journal of the Euro- pean Union, 13 February 2003, and from Bromine Science 68. Ibid.; Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Environmental Forum, “Legislation—Regulatory and Conservation of Sea Turtles (ICCAT) Web site, at Overview in Europe,” www.bsef.com/regulation/national/ www.iacseaturtle.org. index.php?/regulation/national/national.php, viewed 26 69. R.L. Lewison, L.B. Crowder, and D.J. Shaver, “The July 2007; China from “Administration on the Control of impact of turtle excluder devices and fisheries closures on Pollution Caused by Electronic Information Products,” at loggerhead and Kemp’s ridley strandings in the western www.chinarohs.com/docs.html; Japan from K. Vorkamp Gulf of Mexico,” Conservation Biology, vol. 17, no. 4 et al., Screening of “New” Contaminants in the Marine (2003), pp. 1089–97. Environment of Greenland and the Faroe Islands, NERI Technical Report No. 525 (Roskilde, Denmark: National 70. International Technical Expert Workshop on Marine Environmental Research Institute, 2004); United States Turtle Bycatch in Longline Fisheries, Seattle, Washington, from C.A. de Wit, M. Alaee, and D.C.G. Muir, “Levels and 11–13 February 2003; R.L. Lewison, S.A. Freeman, and trends of brominated flame retardants in the Arctic,” L.B. Crowder, “Quantifying the effects of fisheries on Chemosphere, vol. 64, no. 2 (2006), pp. 209–33. threatened species: The impact of pelagic longlines on loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles,” Ecology Letters, 83. OSPAR Commission for the Protection of the Marine vol. 7 (2004), pp. 22–31. Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR), “OSPAR Strategy with Regard to Hazardous Substances” 71. B. Halweil, Catch of the Day: Choosing Seafood for (London: 1998); OSPAR, “Sintra Statement (Sintra, Healthier Oceans, Worldwatch Paper 172 (Washington, Portugal: 23 July 1998), at www.ospar.org/eng/html/md/ DC: Worldwatch Institute, November 2006). sintra.htm. 72. John Lewis Partnership, “Waitrose Nets First Place,” 84. OSPAR, “The OSPAR List of Chemicals for Priority The Gazette, 23 March 2007. Action (Update 2006)” (London: 2006). 73. Ibid.; Greenpeace UK, A Recipe for Change: Super- 85. “Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European markets Repond to the Challenge of Sourcing Sustainable Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 con- Seafood (London: October 2006). cerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and 74. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., “Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Intro- Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a Euro- duces New Label to Distinguish Sustainable Seafood,” pean Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC press release (Bentonville, AR: 31 August 2006). and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as 75. Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), “2006–2007. A Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Direc-

50 OCEANS IN PERIL www.worldwatch.org

Endnotes

tives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and between nutrient ratios and dissolved oxygen in the 2000/21/EC,” Ofﬁcial Journal of the European Union,30 northern Gulf of Mexico,” Frontiers in Ecology and the December 2006. Environment, vol. 4, no. 4 (2006), pp. 211–17. 86. OSPAR, “OSPAR Radioactive Substances Strategy” 90. IMO, “International Convention for the prevention (London: 1998). of pollution from ships, 1973, as modiﬁed by the protocol of 1978 relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78),” 2002, at 87. OSPAR, “2003 Progress Report on the More Detailed www.imo.org/Conventions/contents.asp?doc_id=678& Implementation of the Radioactive Substances Strategy” topic_id=258]. (London: 2003). 91. S.B. Sheavly, “Marine debris—An overview of a criti- 88. International Maritime Organization (IMO), “Tanker cal issue for our oceans,” preented at the Sixth Meeting safety—Preventing Accidental Pollution,” at www.imo of the UN Open-ended Informal Consultative Processes .org/Safety/mainframe.asp?topic_id=155, viewed 26 July on Oceans & the Law of the Sea, 6–10 June 2005, at 2007. www.un.org/Depts/los/consultative_process/consultative 89. W.K. Dodds, “Nutrients and the ‘dead zone’: The link _process.htm.

www.worldwatch.org OCEANS IN PERIL 51

Index

A ecological approach and, 35 threat to drift algae, 9 acidification of oceans, 6, 22–23, 30 IUU fishing, 18 coral bleaching, 10, 19–20 Adriatic Sea, 26 Brazil, 11–12 coral reefs Africa, 18, 30, 33 Bush, George W., 31 biodiversity in, 7, 9, 11–12 Albatross Task Force, 34 bycatch, 17–18, 34–35 bottom trawling and, 5, 8 Antarctica, 21–23, 32 climate changes and, 10, 19–21 aquaculture industry, see also com- C level of protection, 31 mercial fishing California, 20 crustaceans ecosystem approach, 35–36 Canada, 14, 22, 34 in coral reefs, 10 feed considerations, 5, 33, 36 carbon dioxide emissions, 12, 19, 22 in deep sea, 7 fishery depletion and, 13, 15–16 Caribbean Sea farming, 15 mangrove forests and, 11 biodiversity in, 9–12 in mangrove forests, 11 threats to marine life, 6 climate changes and, 20–21 ocean acidification and, 22 Arctic Ocean, 21 ecological approach in, 33 in open ocean, 9 Atlantic Ocean pollution in, 27 in seagrass beds, 12 climate changes and, 21 CBD (Convention on Biological cyanide, 10 ecological approach and, 36 Diversity), 31–32 fishery depletions, 13, 18 CCAMLR, 32, 34 D mangrove forests, 11 Cetacean Bycatch Resource Center, dead zones, 26 Australia 35 deep sea fishery depletions, 17 chemical contamination, 16, 24, 36 biodiversity in, 7–9 Great Barrier Reef, 9–10, 20, 30 Chile, 8, 16 bottom trawling, 14–15 mangrove forests, 11 China IUU fishing, 18 pollution and, 26 ecological approach and, 34, 36 marine reserves and, 31 seamounts, 8, 14–15 fishery depletions, 16–17 sustainable management of, 32, mangrove forests, 11 35–36 B pollution and, 26 Denmark, 15 Baltic Sea, 26, 35 climate change disease Bangladesh, 11 changing seas and, 19–23 seaweed and, 10, 16 Barents Sea, 15, 18 ecological approach to, 32 spread of, 16–18 BFRs (brominated flame retar- impact of, 6 distant-water access agreements, dants), 24–25 mangrove forests and, 12 33–34 bioaccumulative pollutants, 24 marine reserves and, 30 Doha Round (WTO), 33 bioprospecting, 9 coastal zone dolphins, 17–18, 35 bird species, diversity of, see also biodiversity of, 9–12 drift algae, 9 seabirds ecological approach to, 36 dugong, 12 climate changes and, 22 pollution and, 25 in mangrove forests, 11 commercial fishing, see also aqua- E pollution and, 24–25 culture industry East China Sea, 24 in seagrass beds, 12 destructive methods, 6 ecosystem approach BirdLife International, 34 ecological approach, 33–36 with aquaculture industry, 35–36 Black Sea, 26 in Indonesia, 9–10 benefits, 6 bottom trawling marine reserves and, 30 for bycatch, 34–35 destructive nature of, 5, 8, 12, pollution from, 28 for commercial fishing, 33–34 14–15 Southeast Asia, 10 for marine pollution, 36–37

52 OCEANS IN PERIL www.worldwatch.org

Index

for marine reserves, 5–6, 29–32 Honduras, 19 marine mammals mitigating bycatch, 34–35 hurricanes, 12 along coral reefs, 9 of sustainable management, 32 hydrothermal vents, 8–9, 31 along seamounts, 8 EEZs (exclusive economic zones), 18 hypothermia, 26 bycatch, 17, 34–35 effluent discharge, 16, 36 industrially fished species, 15 Egypt, 11 I marine reserves and, 31 endangered species, 11–12 Iceland, 15 pollution and, 26 endemism, 8 India, 11, 17 marine reserves, 5–6, 29–32, 37 English Channel, 27 Indian Ocean, 10, 13, 20 Marine Stewardship Council entanglement, 17, 27, 34–35 Indonesia, 9–11, 19, 27 (MSC), 35 erosion, 11, 21 Indo-Pacific Ocean, 9–10, 12 MARPOL, 37 Estonia, 15 industrial fishing, 15 medicine, commercial harvesting Europe Inter-American Convention for the for, 9–10 climate changes and, 20–21 Protection and Conservation Mediterranean Sea, 12, 14–15, 18, ecological approach and, 31, 36 of Sea Turtles, 35 20, 27, 31 fishery depletions and, 14, 16 International Maritime Mexico, 34 pollution and, 24, 27 Organization, 36 microbes Exxon Valdez tanker, 27 International Whaling in mangrove forests, 11 Commission, 35 pollution and, 25–26 F invertebrates Mid-Oceanic Ridge system, 8 FAO (U.N. Food and Agriculture coral reefs and, 10 mining, seabed, 8, 10 Organization) agreement, in deep sea, 7–8 mollusks 13, 33–34 in mangrove forests, 11 in coastal zone, 9 fish farming, see aquaculture in open ocean, 9 in deep sea, 7 fish species, diversity of IPOA-SEABIRDS, 34 ocean acidification and, 22 climate changes and, 19–20, 22 Ireland, 25 rising sea temperatures, 20 in coral reefs, 9–10 IUCN (World Conservation in seagrass beds, 12 fishery depletions and, 13–18 Union), 17 MPAs (marine protected areas), in mangrove forests, 11 IUU fishing, 18, 34 29, 31 in seagrass beds, 12 fish stocks J N ecological approach, 31–34 Japan New Caledonia, 8 IUU fishing, 18 ecological approach and, 34, 36 New Zealand pollution and, 28 fishery depletion and, 15–16 biodiversity in, 8 status, 6, 13–15 pollution and, 26 ecological approach in, 30, 35 U.N. Fish Stocks Agreement, jellyfish, 7, 9 fishery depletions, 15, 17 32–34 pollution and, 26 fishery depletions, 13–18 K Newfoundland (Canada), 14 Florida, 10–11, 15 Korea, 34 Nigeria, 11 France, 25 North Pacific Gyre, 27 fungi in mangrove forests, 11 L North Sea lactational transfer, 24 climate changes and, 20–21 G Latvia, 15 ecological approach, 35 Galicia, 26 Lebanon, 27–28 fishery depletions, 15–16 ghost fishing, 28 Lithuania, 15 pollution and, 26 Great Barrier Reef (Australia), longline fishing, 14, 17–18, 34 Norway, 15 9–10, 20, 30 Great Ocean Conveyor Belt, 21 M O Greece, 14 mackerel, 14–16 OECD (Organisation for Economic Greenland Ice Sheet, 21 Malaysia, 11 Co-operation and Greenpeace, 5, 18, 33 manatees, 11–12 Development), 33 Guam, 10 mangrove forests, 9–12, 16, 31 oil spills, 26–27, 36–37 Gulf of California, 17 marine debris, 27–28 open ocean Gulf of Maine, 35 marine ecosystems biodiversity in, 9 Gulf of Mexico, 11, 17, 26 in coastal zone, 9–12 industrial fishing, 15 Gulf Stream, 21 in deep sea, 7–9 OSPAR Commission, 36 IUU fishing, 18 overfishing H in open ocean, 9 coral reefs and, 10–11 Hawaii, 8, 15–16, 21, 31 pollution and, 6, 24–28 ecological approach to, 32 www.worldwatch.org OCEANS IN PERIL 53

Index

fishery depletions, 14–16 seabirds turtles rising sea temperatures and, 21 along coral reefs, 9 bycatch of, 17, 34–35 as threat to marine life, 6 bycatch, 17, 34–35 climate changes and, 21 drift algae, 9 coral reefs and, 9 P industrially fished species, 15 marine reserves and, 30–31 Pacific Ocean marine reserves and, 31 in open ocean, 9 coral reefs, 10, 19 pollution and, 24–26 pollution and, 27–28 deep-sea species, 7–8 on seamounts, 8 seagrass beds and, 12 ecological approach in, 33, 35 seagrass beds as EEZ, 18 bottom trawling and, 5 U fishery depletions, 13, 17 in coastal zone, 9 United Kingdom, 15, 25, 34–35 open ocean species, 9 depicted, 12 United Nations Papua New Guinea, 10 level of protection, 31 on bycatch, 17 PBDEs (polybrominated diphenyl in Thailand, 11 Convention on Biological ethers), 24–25 threat to, 12 Diversity (CBD), 33 PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), 36 seals, 22, 24–25 ecological approach of, 32–33 Peru, 15 seamounts, 7–8, 14–15, 31 Fish Stocks Agreement, 32–34 pH values of oceans, 22 seaweed, 10, 15–16 Food and Agriculture Philippines sediments, 7, 10–12, 15 Organization (FAO), 13, biodiversity in, 10 sharks, 9, 14 33–34 fishery depletion, 16 shellfish, 11, 15 Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 32 marine reserves, 29, 37 shrimp farming, 12, 15–17 United States, see also specific pollution and, 27 Singapore, 11 states, 10, 16–17, 27, 35–36 photosynthesis, coral reefs, 9, 19, 21 skates, 14–15 upwelling systems, 9 plankton, 20, 22 South America, 16, 26 U.S. Marine Mammal Protection poisons, 10, 26–27 South Orkney Islands, 22 Act, 35 polar bears, 22 Southeast Asia, 10–11 U.S. National Marine Fisheries pollution Southern Ocean Service, 17 coral reefs and, 10–11 climate changes and, 22 drift algae and, 9 ecological approach in, 32, 34 V ecosystem approach, 36–37 fishery depletions and, 18 Vietnam, 11 effluent discharge, 16, 36 Spain, 15 marine life and, 6, 24–28 sponges W marine reserves and, 30 in coastal zone, 9 Waitrose supermarket chain, 35 seagrass beds and, 12 in deep sea, 7 Wal-Mart, 35 POPs (persistent organic pollu- in seagrass beds, 12 water quality, 11 tants), 24, 36 Sri Lanka, 10, 33 wave action, 10, 12 porpoises, 17–18, 25, 35 St. Lucia, 30–31 West Antarctic Ice Sheet, 21 Portugal, 15 Stockholm Convention, 24, 36 whales Prestige tanker, 27 sustainable management of high climate changes and, 21, 23 seas, 32, 35–36 ecological approach, 35 R swordfish, 9, 14 fishery depletion and, 17–18 radioactive substances, 24–25 in open ocean, 9 rainforests of the sea, see coral reefs T pollution and, 24–25 rays, 14–15 Taiwan, 34 World Conservation Union REACH legislation, 36 Tasmania, 8 (IUCN), 17 Red Sea, 11, 30 TED (turtle excluder device), 17, 35 World Parks Congress, 30 Royal Society for the Protection temperatures, see sea temperatures World Summit on Sustainable of Birds, 34 Texas, 12 Development, 31–33 Russia, 15, 34 Thailand, 11, 16 worms, 7, 9, 12 tourism, 8, 10, 27 WTO (World Trade Organization), S tsunamis, 10 33 salmon, 14, 16–17 tuna WWF, 31, 35 scientific research, 8–9 ecological approach, 34 sea levels, rise in, 21 overfishing of, 13–16 Z Sea of Japan, 12 pollution and, 24 zero-for-zero tariffs, 33 sea temperatures, rising, 10, 19–21 seamounts and, 8 seabed mining, 8, 10 Turkey, 12

54 OCEANS IN PERIL www.worldwatch.org

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

www.worldwatch.org OCEANS IN PERIL 55

About Worldwatch

The Worldwatch Institute is an independent research organization that works for an environmen- tally sustainable and socially just society, in which the needs of all people are met without threat- ening 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 Founda- tion, 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 OCEANS IN PERIL www.worldwatch.org

WORLDWATCH REPORT 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.