Reversing the decline of oceans - coastal habitat destruction

WITHOUT far more serious attention by governments, industry, and communities to the biological limits of the oceans, marine and coastal environments will continue to deteriorate, eroding land-based as well as sea-based economies and threatening the ecological keel of the biosphere. The conundrum of ocean protection is that the marine environment is one of the Earth's great commons, but its most productive zones are under national jurisdictions. Given the direct influence of coastal countries on the oceans, along with the weaknesses of current international law, it will be largely up to the individual nations and local communities to take the specific actions necessary to turn the tide of marine degradation.

The three areas of highest priority for more protective management are fishing, coastal development, and inland sources of pollution. These are the largest causes of degradation, and represent the greatest opportunities for reversal.

The first step is to halt the depletion of fish stocks, in part by re-establishing basic tenets of local fisheries management and conservation that once were observed widely in traditional Pacific Island and coastal cultures, but have been disappearing under the weight of consumer demands, centralized governments, and aggressive competition from foreign fleets.

Many of the traditional tenets of fishery management still are applicable and, with the support of national governments, could provide workable means of restoring vitality to local fisheries. Much of the biological hemorrhage can be stemmed by placing limits or bans on blatantly harmful fishing practices. For example, a fisheries scientist from the Senegal Agricultural Research Institute has proposed that trawlers could increase their long-term catch by using nets with larger mesh size. This would prevent stocks from declining by allowing the smaller fish to escape and reproduce.

Limitations on fishing seasons, size of catch, access to fishing grounds, and the boundaries within which fishing is permitted all can serve to restrict the catch. New Zealand has pioneered the use of no-fishing zones among industrial countries. Within these zones, fish are allowed to mature and reproduce unmolested, leading to increased stocks. Furthermore, no-fishing zones leave the local habitat intact.

In Sierra Leone, for instance, traditional fishers found their catch declining as that of commercial fishers from Europe increased. Because commercial fishers export, while traditional fishers feed local people, it behooved the government to protect the latter's stocks. Sierra Leone established a five-mile fishing zone along the coast where only traditional fishers could fish, and sought to limit overfishing by commercial fishers outside that area. Because the country lacked the resources to patrol the commercial fishing waters, it established an experimental self-policing plan under which one foreign-based company issued the fishing licenses and enforced regulations. Under this experiment, the number of foreign boats dropped from around 170 to 50, and poaching fell off due to constant patrols.

To limit traditional fishing requires a similar form of self-policing with government support. The best examples parallel traditional community-based management. In the Philippines, the government grants local communities 25-year contracts to manage their sections of the coast. With this authority, several communities have restored hundreds of acres of mangroves, established no-fishing zones, and limited catches, with resulting increases in sustainable fish.

The broader issue decision-makers must confront is the proverbial "too many fishers chasing too few fish." The undeniable fact is that national fishing fleets have grown too big for existing stocks. The UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) conservatively estimates that, globally, annual expenditures on fishing amount to $124,000,000,000 in order to catch $70,000,000,000 worth of fish. Governments apparently make up most of the $54,000,000,000 difference with low interest loans, access fees for foreign fishing grounds, and direct subsidies for boats and operations. These subsidies keep more people fishing than the oceans can support.

Open access to fishing grounds contributes to the bloated size of fleets. Without restrictions, people continue to take up fishing well after the maximum sustainable catch has been surpassed in their areas. Once they have invested, fishers only will pull out of an area if they can find new fishing grounds where they can use their equipment; otherwise, they will stick with the overfished grounds until forced out of business. Government subsidies exacerbate this situation, creating a self-perpetuating cycle that leads to the collapse of the fish stocks.

Rather than carrying the industry as a budgetary burden, countries could collect rents for the use of fishing grounds as a part of a larger management strategy to limit access. As in the management of grazing, logging, or mining on public lands, fees are essential to limiting exploitation and compensating the public for the use of commonly held resources. In Australia, for example, rents for the use of fishing grounds have ranged from 11 to 60% of the gross value of the catch, with an average of 30%. Such rents could be adjusted according to the status of the fish stocks, with fees increasing as they become more depleted. This also would serve to streamline the international fishing fleet.

Worldwide, the fiscal and economic benefits of improved management would be on the order of tens of billions of dollars per year. Governments potentially could save some $54,000,000,000 annually by eliminating subsidies and earn another $25,000,000 in rents, with a net budgetary benefit of more than the current gross value of the entire marine catch. Meanwhile, if stocks are allowed to recover, the FAO estimates that fishers could increase their annual catch by as much as 20,000,000 tons, worth about $16,000,000,000. Although this does not take into account the broader adjustments societies would have to undergo to redirect former fishers into other occupations, it conveys the magnitude of economic mismanagement that has contributed to the ecological mismanagement of the oceans.

Besides limiting overfishing, future management needs to take into account the broader effects of fishing on the marine environment. An apparently sustainable yield of one species can harm others or the entire ecosystem. In an attempt to avoid this, the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), which regulates the removal of marine life in the Southern Ocean--except whales and seals that are covered by other treaties--established an ecosystem approach to the management of the continent's fishery. In 1991, the commission set a limit on the catch of krill, the small zoo-plankton that form a vital link in the Antarctic food chain for other fish.

Some environmentalists have questioned the methodology by which the limit (1,500,000 tons per year in the southern Atlantic) was established. Indeed, establishing reasonable quotas may prove difficult, whether for krill, cod, or any other marine life. Researchers from the University of Washington and the University of British Columbia indicate that the notion of "sustainable yield" is an elusive goal because natural fluctuations in fish stocks and illegal fishing are part of the system, but would be hard to account for. Nonetheless, the CCAMLR limit sets an important precedent, by implementing a solution before the problem has become a crisis.

Controlling coastal development

On land, where the main causes of ocean depredation are pollution and habitat destruction, the highest priority of ocean management is to control coastal development. A first step would be to eliminate subsidies such as government-sponsored insurance and funding for ocean-altering roads, dikes, and dams. The Netherlands spends $400,000,000 per year to pump water and repair inland dikes, despite the fact that the Dutch are producing more food than they can use or sell abroad, burdening the country with high payments to farmers to cover their excess production. To save money and begin rehabilitating the coastal ecosystem, the government has made plans to return almost 400,000 acres of farmland (15% of the total converted area) to the sea over the next 25 years. Although the Dutch plan to continue diking and developing the coastal zone, this reversal reflects their growing awareness of the long-range importance of managing the coasts for ecological, as well as economic, purposes.

Natural buffer zones can protect coastal habitats from nearby development. Natural wetlands trap toxins, pathogens, and excess nutrients and sediments as they move sea-ward, while also protecting coastal communities from storms and sea surges. Governments eventually may have to consider restricting or even prohibiting further coastal development altogether, in light of the predicted water level rise of almost two feet over the next 100 years and the increased likelihood of stronger storms from sea.

Where rural communities use coastal habitat, management efforts can moderate their effect on the natural environment. Ecuador has lost nearly 200,000 acres of mangrove forests and salt flats to shrimp ponds over the past 23 years, so it has begun a national program for the management of its coastal resources. This endeavor stemmed from a U.S. Agency for International Development pilot project to slow the rapid degradation of Ecuador's coastal resources while still allowing local communities to benefit from them. For instance, since the shrimp industry is a sizable portion of that nation's exports and economy, the project emphasized training to help shrimp farmers protect the coastal environment while maintaining their livelihoods.

A similar incentive--to give long-term protection to an important sector of the economy--comes from tourism. This incentive has prompted nations from Southeast Asia to Europe to clean up their coastlines and invest in marine protection. In Thailand's Surat Thani Province, the coral reefs in Ban Don Bay attracted an increasing number of tourists in the 1980s, leading the provencial government to crack down on damaging fishing practices and prohibit the destruction of reefs for the construction of hotels. Local governments and organizations also are implementing a coral management plan to control excessively invasive tourism, pollution, and overfishing, as well as to raise public awareness.

Only a tiny proportion of the coastal environment is--or can be--set aside for special care. Nevertheless marine parks, sanctuaries, and other protected areas can single out highly vulnerable ecosystems. Australia made the entire Great Barrier Reef into a park in 1975 and placed it under a single authority. Rather than closing the reef to all but non-intrusive tourism and science, the park authority is responsible for managing the reef for multiple uses. Some areas are completely off-limits to everyone except research scientists, while tourists have access to certain regions, and still others are open to commercial fishing and even to collection of corals.

The theory behind the Great Barrier Reef Park's integrated coastal management system is that there is no way the entire marine environment entirely could be closed to people. Nor, say its administrators, would it work if some parts were sealed off as marine sanctuaries while other areas that affect them were left to uncontrolled use. The Australian system hopes to ensure the long-term viability of the entire ecosystem by coordinating and managing its use. The largest shortcoming of the park's management is pollution from inland sources. Authorities can regulate the release of pollutants directly into the park, but have no control over the pollution flowing from inland.

Thus, the third major priority of oceans management is to reduce the flow of pollution from land. Of all the pollutants entering the oceans worldwide, 33% come via air emissions from land-based sources and 44% via rivers and streams. These diffuse sources pose the stiffest of all ocean protection challenges. Because they also contribute to the deterioration of the immediate human environment, there is strong motivation to control them. Cleanup efforts more likely will succeed if--instead of being treated as separate marine-pollution projects--they are combined with attempts to improve the quality and safety of drinking water, food, and air.

Among the waterborne pollutants reaching the oceans, sewage is a matter of primary concern, not only for the sake of the marine environment, but also for human health. Some 1,700,000,000 people in the developing world do not have ecologically viable ways to dispose of their sewage. Successful treatment can vary from sanitary pit latrines to advanced sewage treatment plants. Water recycling measures, such as those pioneered by Israel, further can reduce the input of excess nutrients into the aquatic environment, while conserving scarce water supplies.

Clean-water legislation--not normally conceived as a response to ocean degradation--is helpful in mitigating it. In industrial countries such as Japan, Germany, and the U.S., manufacturers have reduced the output of pollutants in response to these laws. American farmers have cut back the erosion of soil, which carries fertilizers and pesticides, in response to farm legislation. These efforts to control water pollution help to protect the health of the rivers that pass through farmland, the people who draw drinking water from them downstream, and the coastal waters into which they flow. Similar benefits accrue from clean-air and pesticides laws.

For these sorts of pollution control efforts to succeed, they need broader coordination. It is not enough for coastal waters to be protected from pollution only as an incidental benefit, since coastal ecosystems have unique needs of their own. Among the few efforts that have been made specifically to protect the marine environment from pollution, one of the most advanced is that enacted for the Chesapeake Bay, the largest U.S. bay estuary. It is fed by more than 150 tributary rivers and strams spread over six states and the District of Columbia. Under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1987, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C., agreed to reduce nutrients by 40% by the year 2000, control the discharge of toxins, and increase wetland area.

Although the agreement is an important landmark, the signatories have had mixed success in carrying through. Seagrass area has increased by 57%; the Potomac River (one of the main tributaries) is much cleaner; and phosphorus levels are down by 20%. However, runoff from agriculture has increased; the population in the region continues to grow rapidly; development adjacent to the bay coastline continues; and, as a result, the load of nitrogen nutrients entering the bay continues to expand.

The limited success of the Chesapeake Bay project demonstrates the difficulty of implementing such programs even in a single country. In many other instances, cooperation between neighboring nations is necessary, creating an even greater challenge. Such alliances become more difficult when some of the participating countries are economically disadvantaged.

International efforts at cooperation

The diversity of economic, political, and ethnic backgrounds made the initial formation of a Mediterranean Action Plan a historic achievement. The Mediterranean Regional Sea Program has struggled in its efforts to set pollution standards and time-tables for meeting them, but is notable for having brought together old enemies such as Syria, Israel, and Lebanon, as well as Greece and Turkey, for the sake of their common sea. It also helped to launch the UN Regional Seas Programs, 10 of which have been organized around the world, with more than 120 participating countries. They have focused conservation efforts, public debate, and scientific research on land-based sources of marine pollution, species and habitat protection, and emergency spill and pollution plans.

Under these programs, each region tailors its priorities to specific regional problems. In West and Central Africa, goals include adequate water supplies, prevention of coastal erosion, and re-use of waste-water for agriculture. In the South Pacific, island nations are negotiating controls on ocean dumping, a ban on radioactive waste disposal and storage, and an end to nuclear weapons testing in the area. In the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, eight regional partners are working to improve sewage treatment, protect fisheries resources, and control offshore drilling and hazardous waste transport. To date, that has been the only Regional Seas Program to pass pollution regulations specifically for gas and oil rig platforms harbored at sea.

Despite these successes, the programs have foundered in recent years because of the lack of money for implementation of initial agreements. Additional funding will be needed from the UN, World Bank, or other international sources if these initiatives are to achieve their goals.

One useful mechanism is the Global Environment Facility (GEF), currently funding the Black Sea regional program and a number of other smaller coastal management efforts. Part of the GEF's mission is to protect international waters, including the marine environment, and its funds can help stimulate local and regional programs. International lenders such as the World Bank continue to exert greater influence over coastal waters through their general development lending than with targeted environmental money. Thus, their agriculture, water, urban planning, energy, and other development projects merit consideration not only for their direct human benefits, but in light of the ecological needs of the oceans.

Ultimately, reversing the decline of the oceans will take action percolating from the grassroots to the global level and filtering back down again in the form of international agreements to be given teeth by national laws and local action. The worldwide moratorium on the use of driftnets, for instance, grew out of activism by such groups as Greenpeace, the Bering Sea Fishermen's Association, American Oceans Campaign, and Defenders of Wildlife, among others. The South Pacific Forum advanced the issue by banning the use, possession, and transit of driftnets longer than 1.55 miles in the waters and territory of these island nations--a sizable portion of the Pacific Ocean--and then requesting a UN moratorium on driftnetting. The General Assembly passed its first resolution against driftnetting in 1989, then renewed it in 1990 and 1991, leading to an international moratorium that went into effect on Dec. 31, 1992.

As of that date, Japan, Taiwan, Korea, France, and Italy still were using driftnets in excess of 1.55 miles in length. Japan, Korea, and France have ceased doing so. Taiwan has issued public statements that it would halt the practice, but its ships have been spotted driftnetting off the coast of South Africa. In violation of both the UN and European Community, Italy continues to use six-10-mile driftnets in the Mediterranean. On the whole, however, use of driftnetting has fallen off sharply. The 1,000-1,200 vessels that each once laid 18-25-mile nets in the North Pacific mostly are gone. Driftnetting also has ceased in the South Pacific.

Grassroots organizations are replicating that kind of effort around the world to halt a wide range of environmental offenses, not only specifically for the sake of the oceans, but for related purposes on land. To date, their efforts have been too few and too small to reverse marine degradation. Nevertheless, without their continued efforts, the oceans would stand little chance.

Mankind no longer can afford to act as if the oceans are limitless or unalterable. The marine environment is connected integrally with the human environment and the biosphere, and there are few industries or activities that ultimately do not affect the oceans in one way or another. Poverty, population growth, industrial expansion, and overconsumption intensify those effects. In order to restore the health of the oceans, it is necessary to integrate those actions utilized expressly to protect the marine environment with those being undertaken to achieve sustainable development worldwide.

The complex links between land and sea may make the task of protecting the oceans seem daunting, if not impossible. Yet, it is precisely because of these links--because the oceans touch the lives of all people--that the health of the oceans can not be ignored if mankind is to protect its place on the planet.

COPYRIGHT 1994 Society for the Advancement of Education
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group