Precaution HOME
For centuries, humanity has seen the
sea as an infinite source of food, a boundless sink for pollutants, and a tireless
sustainer of coastal habitats. It isn't. Scientists have mounting evidence of rapidly
accelerating declines in once-abundant populations of cod, haddock, flounder, and scores
of other fish species, as well as mollusks, crustaceans, birds, and plants. They are
alarmed at the rapid rate of destruction of coral reefs, estuaries, and wetlands and the
sinister expansion of vast "dead zones" of water where life has been choked
away. More and more, the harm to marine biodiversity can be traced not to natural events
but to inadequate policies.
The escalating loss of marine life is
bad enough as an ecological problem. But it constitutes an economic crisis as well. Marine
biodiversity is crucial to sustaining commercial fisheries, and in recent years several
major U.S. fisheries have "collapsed"experienced a population decline so sharp
that fishing is no longer commercially viable. One study indicates that 300,000 jobs and
$8 billion in annual revenues have been lost because of overly aggressive fishing
practices alone. Agricultural and urban runoff, oil spills, dredging, trawling, and
coastal development have caused further losses.
Why have lawmakers paid so little
attention to the degradation of the sea? It is a case of out of sight, out of mind. Even
though the "Year of the Ocean" just ended, the aspiration of creating better
ocean governance has already fallen off of the national agenda. Add a general lack of
interest among the media and annual moratoria against offshore oil drilling as a panacea
for ocean pollution, and most policymakers assume there is little need for concern.
This myth is accompanied by another:
that policymakers can do little to safeguard the sea. Actually, a variety of governmental
agencies provide opportunities for action. State fish and game commissions typically have
jurisdiction from shorelines to 3 miles offshore. The Commerce Department regulates
commerce in and through waters from 3 to 12 miles offshore and has authority over
resources from there to the 200-mile line that delineates this country's exclusive
economic zone. The Interior Department oversees oil drilling; the Navy presides over
waters hosting submarines; and the states, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the
Coast Guard regulate pollution. The problem is that these entities do little to protect
marine biodiversity and they rarely work together.
At fault is the decades-old framework
that the state and federal powers use to regulate the sea. It consists of fragmented,
isolated policies that operate at confused cross-purposes. The United States must develop
a new integrated framework-a comprehensive strategy-for protecting marine biodiversity.
The framework should embrace all categories of ecosystems, species, human uses, and
threats; link land and sea; and apply the "precautionary principle" of first
seeking to prevent harm to the oceans rather than attempting to repair harm after it has
been done. Once we have defined the framework, we can then enact specific initiatives that
effectively solve problems.
Better science is also needed to craft
the best policy framework, for our knowledge of the sea is still sparse. Nonetheless, we
can identify the broad threats to the sea, which include overfishing, pollution from a
wide variety of land-based sources, and the destruction of habitat. To paraphrase Albert
Einstein, the thinking needed to correct the problems we now face must be different from
that which has put us here in the first place.
Holes in the regulatory net
Creating comprehensive policies that
wisely conserve all the richness and bounty of the sea requires an informed understanding
of biodiversity. Marine biodiversity describes the web of life that constitutes the sea.
It includes three discrete levels: ecosystems and habitat diversity, species diversity,
and genetic diversity (differences among and within populations). However, the swift
growth in public popularity of the term biodiversity has been accompanied by the incorrect
belief that conserving biodiversity means simply maintaining the number of species. This
is wrong and misleading when translated into policy. This narrow vision focuses inordinate
attention on saving specific endangered species and overlooks the serious depletion of a
wide range of plants and animals that are critical to the food web, not to mention the
loss of habitats critical to the reproduction, growth, and survival of numerous sea
creatures.
Protecting marine biodiversity requires
a different sort of thinking than has occurred so far. Common misperceptions about what is
needed abound, such as a popular view that biodiversity policy ought to focus on the
largest and best-known animals. But just as on land, biodiversity at sea is greatest among
smaller organisms such as diatoms and crustacea, which are crucial to preserving ecosystem
function. Numerous types of plants such as mangrove trees and kelps have equally essential
roles but are often overlooked entirely. We look away from the small, slimy, and ugly, as
well as from the plants, in making marine policy. The new goal must be to consider the
ecological significance of all animals and plants when providing policy protections and to
address the levels of genome, species, and habitat.
Moreover, focusing on saving the last
individual of a species misses the more basic problem of the causes of the decline. We can
do great harm to the system without actually endangering a species, by fundamentally
altering the habitat or the system itself. This much more general impact often goes
unnoticed in most of the current regulatory framework. We need much more holistic and
processoriented thinking.
Fishing down the food chain
Although a new policy framework must
protect the entire spectrum of biodiversity, it also must target egregious practices that
inflict the greatest long-lasting damage to the web of life. One of the worst offenders is
fishing down the food chain in commercial fisheries.
Fisheries policy traditionally strives
to take the maximum quantity of fish from the sea without compromising the species'
ability to replenish itself. However, when this is done across numerous fisheries,
significant deleterious changes take place in fish communities. Statistics indicate that
the world's aggregate catch of fish has grown over time. But a close look at the details
shows that since the 1970s more and more of the catch is composed of the less desirable
species which are used for fish meal or are simply discarded. The catch of many
good-tasting fish such as cod has declined and in some cases even crashed. Several popular
fish populations have crashed off the New England coast this decade and have not since
recovered.
Thus, although the overall take of
biomass from the sea has increased, the market value of total catch has dropped. Why? The
lowvalue fish have increased, precisely because so much effort is aimed at catching the
more valuable predators. A scenario of serial depletion is repeatedly played out: Humans
fish down the food chain, first depleting one valuable species (often a predator) and then
moving on to the next (lower down the food chain). For example, as the cod and haddock
populations are reduced, fishermen increase their take of "trash fish" such as
dogfish and skates. Catch value falls. Worse, the ecosystem's ability to recover is
weakened. Both biodiversity and resilience decline as the balance of predators disappears.
The federal Endangered Species Act
(ESA), which is the only current avenue for salvation of a threatened species, misses the
issue of declining populations and has done very little to prevent habitat destruction.
The ESA is triggered only when a species is almost extinct, something very difficult to
detect in the sea or comparatively rare there because of typical reproductive strategies.
What does happen is that stocks plummet to levels too low for viable fishing. The species
may then survive in scarce numbers, but "commercial extinction" has already
taken place and with it, damage to the food web.
Better approaches are needed to address
the fishing down of the food chain. Horrific declines such as that of white abalone
illustrate the fallacies of the old assumptions. The release of millions of abalone
gametes (eggs and sperm) helps to protect the species against extinction, but adults must
exist in close proximity for fertilization to occur. Patches of relatively immobile
animals must be left intact. Regrettably, these patches are easily observable by fishermen
and tend to be cleaned out, leaving widely dispersed animals that are functionally
sterile.
2:- Protecting Whales from Dangerous Sonar
Following a historic victory, NRDC steps up the campaign at home and abroad to regulate
active sonar systems that harm marine mammals.
Even as evidence of its threat to marine life continues to
mount, the use of deadly military sonar in the world's oceans is spreading.
An NRDC-led coalition of wildlife advocates succeeded in
restricting the U.S. Navy's use of a powerful active sonar system known as SURTASS LFA in
2003. But the fight is hardly over; other nations are developing LFA-type systems of their
own, and sonar testing in coastal waters -- using the same mid-frequency systems that have
been implicated in numerous strandings of whales -- is actually on the rise, putting more
and more marine mammals and fisheries at risk. And the Bush administration is now
appealing the legal victory that compelled the Navy into compromise.
In response, NRDC and its partners have redoubled our
campaign, both at home and abroad, to control the spread of this harmful technology.
Internationally, NRDC has begun to raise awareness of the problem of ocean noise. NRDC and
several other international conservation groups -- together representing millions of
members -- are pressuring international institutions to reduce sonar's harm to whales and
other marine life, and getting results:
Some nations, like Spain, have already
begun to change their sonar practices, prohibiting exercises in certain sensitive areas.
Here at home, NRDC has
continued to support the agreement limiting deployment of the Navy's LFA system, and has
also sent the Navy a demand that it stop testing mid-frequency sonar in ways that
needlessly endanger populations of marine mammals and fish.
Active Sonar: How It Harms
Marine Life
Military active sonar works
like a floodlight, emitting sound waves that sweep across tens or even hundreds of miles
of ocean, revealing objects in their path. But that kind of power requires the use of
extremely loud sound. Each loudspeaker in the LFA system's wide array, for example, can
generate 215 decibels' worth -- sound as intense as that produced by a twin-engine fighter
jet at takeoff. Some mid-frequency sonar systems can put out over 235 decibels, as loud as
a Saturn V rocket at launch. One hundred miles from the LFA system, sound levels can
approach 160 decibels, well beyond the Navy's own safety limits for humans.
Home |
Introduction |
Advantages of technolgy |
Adverse effect of technology and its causes |
Precautions |
Conclusion |