Switchboard, from NRDC › Lisa Speer's Blog

Rio+20: oceans and the "zero draft"

2012-01-10T22:06:34Z

Lisa Speer, Director of the International Oceans Program, New York

I’ve been reviewing the oceans portion of what is called in UN-speak the “zero draft” of the Rio+20 intergovernmental outcome. This is the document governments will be negotiating over the next several months leading up to the Rio + 20 meeting in June. It is far from the final word – we are just at the beginning of the negotiating process – but the draft yields important clues about the direction the process may take, and whether the outcomes will pay more than just lip service to the large and growing threats to our oceans.

As a whole, the 9 short paragraphs comprising the oceans portion of the draft negotiating text are underwhelming. The document describes some of the immense problems facing our oceans – overfishing, pollution, ocean acidification, marine debris -- but contains few hard commitments to actually do something about it.

With one critical exception.

If countries ultimately agree in June, the draft text would commit governments to negotiate a new treaty to protect almost 2/3rds of the world’s oceans, and half the planet’s surface – that is, the ocean beyond national jurisdiction, a zone of international waters that are beyond the control of any one nation, and thus subject to international management.

This area of the ocean supports important fisheries and contains perhaps the largest reservoir of relatively undisturbed biodiversity left on earth. It is truly our last great wilderness.

And yet it is threatened. As coastal waters become overfished, polluted and depleted, human industrial activities have pressed farther and farther out to sea. As we expand out into international waters seeking fish, minerals and other riches, the need for conservation is becoming more urgent. But at present there is no international mechanism to implement even basic conservation and management tools.

For example, Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are a proven and effective means of conserving and protecting marine wildlife, biodiversity, fish populations and vulnerable marine ecosystems like deep sea corals. In the US and many other countries, these marine parks have helped restore depleted fisheries and have provided safe havens for endangered whales, sea turtles, seals and other ocean wildlife. Yet there is no legal mechanism to establish multi-sector protected areas in the oceans beyond national jurisdiction. This is a huge gap that urgently needs filling.

As another example, prior environmental impact assessment is commonly required for waters within national jurisdiction for activities with the potential to have significant adverse effects on the marine environment. (In the US, this requirement has been in place for more than 40 years). In areas beyond national jurisdiction, prior environmental assessment is required for some activities but not others, and standards governing how EIA should be done vary widely between sectors. All activities should be subject to consistent prior assessment requirements. Its just common sense.

Agreement to negotiate a treaty that would allow the creation of marine parks, ensure that damaging activities are assessed before they commence, and implement other reforms would be a major outcome of Rio+20. The test will be whether the language stays in through the coming months of negotiating ahead.

On other subjects, the draft text opens some important doors. There is language calling for a program of action on marine debris, and for a monitoring program on ocean acidification. We will be working to strengthen these and other oceans provisions in the coming months as well.

The Oceans Team here at NRDC will be blogging about other aspects of the zero draft, including provisions on ocean acidification and marine debris. Stay tuned!

Common Sense Rethink for the Oceans

2011-07-06T20:48:50Z

Lisa Speer, Director of the International Oceans Program, New York

“Not only are we already experiencing severe declines in many species to the point of commercial extinction in some cases, and an unparalleled rate of regional extinctions of habitat types (eg mangroves and seagrass meadows), but we now face losing marine species and entire marine ecosystems, such as coral reefs, within a single generation. Unless action is taken now, the consequences of our activities are at a high risk of causing, through the combined effects of climate change, overexploitation, pollution and habitat loss, the next globally significant extinction event in the ocean.”

This alarming conclusion comes from a group of experts convened in April by the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (ISPO) at the University of Oxford. In their recently released report, the group’s conclusions are stark. “We have underestimated the overall risks,” they write. “[T]he whole of marine degradation is greater than the sum of its parts.”

We need a “common sense rethink,” and here’s why: as the report notes, we’re seeing warming, acidification, and now oxygen depletion in the oceans -- three symptoms of carbon cycle disruption that have accompanied most if not all of Earth’s five mass extinctions in the last 600 million years. Meanwhile many other trends—alarming Arctic sea ice melt, massive dead zones, sea level rise, and invasive species, to name a few—are escalating faster than predicted by the International Panel on Climate Change and other experts. As they accelerate, they are propelling dramatic changes in marine species distribution and disrupting food webs.

Add to this the destructive effects of bottom trawl fishing, plastic pollution, shark finning, polluted runoff and other harmful activities, and you have a recipe for impending disaster.

As the environmentalist John Muir wrote, "when we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe." That holds true for the world’s oceans. The ISPO report calls what’s happening “negatively synergistic”: various factors—led by those related to climbing atmospheric CO2—are adding up to more than the sum of their parts, leading to “unparalleled” habitat loss and possible ecosystem collapse.

We need an immediate reduction in CO2 emissions, as the report concludes. Let’s find a way to get it done. But in the meantime, we must make sure the oceans remains as resilient as possible by curbing other harmful human pressures on our seas, such as overfishing, pollution, and habitat destruction, and by establishing marine protected areas.

The ISPO report notes that 64 percent of the ocean lies outside of any nation’s jurisdiction—the High Seas, it’s called, but it is more like the Wild West. If we are to help the oceans, we must get a better management system for this global commons in place, one that requires basic environmental impact assessment for all industrial activities, strong controls on harmful development, and creation of multi-sector marine protected areas. The IPSO report recommends urgent action by the world community to strengthen the rules governing human activities on the high seas in order to better protect these waters.

NRDC has joined with many other organizations urging countries to take action to protect the high seas and the oceans as a whole at the Earth Summit in Rio, 2012.

The good news is that many marine areas showing signs of significant degradation can still recover. But we need to act, and fast.

The Global Problem of Ocean Acidification

2011-06-07T19:04:12Z

Lisa Speer, Director of the International Oceans Program, New York

One year from now, nations from around the world will convene to discuss the future of our planet at the Earth Summit 2012. As NRDC’s President Frances Beinecke says so well, this global meeting must be one of action, and not of lofty promises.

There is precious little time to waste, and the issue of ocean acidification highlights the urgency for action. Carbon dioxide (CO2) from burning fossil fuels is changing the fundamental chemistry of our oceans. CO2 reacts with sea water to form carbonic acid. As atmospheric CO2 has risen, the oceans have become 30% more acidic over the last 150 years. This effect is measurable and undisputed, and affects all of the world’s oceans.

At the Earth Summit, NRDC is calling on the international community to develop, on an urgent basis, an integrated, international program aimed at monitoring the chemical and biological changes resulting from ocean acidification that are likely to have socio-economic consequences. Such a monitoring network is essential to provide coastal nations with the information necessary to prepare for the impacts of ocean acidification on fisheries, corals and marine food webs.

As NRDC’s movie ACID TEST so vividly illustrates, rising ocean acidity reduces the availability of carbonate, a critical component of shell-building. If acidity gets high enough, ocean water becomes corrosive and shells literally dissolve. Unchecked, ocean acidification could affect marine food webs and lead to substantial changes in commercial fish stocks, threatening protein supply and food security for millions of people as well as the multi-billion dollar global fishing industry. By mid-century vast ocean regions may be inhospitable to coral growth and reefs will begin to erode faster than they can grow. Regions dependent on healthy coral reefs for fisheries, tourism, and storm protection will be profoundly impacted.

Currently, there are only approximately 30 monitoring stations capable of measuring ocean acidity, and most of these are in developed countries. There is virtually no monitoring of biological impacts of acidification anywhere in the world. Without better monitoring it will not be possible to identify areas of vulnerability or develop effective mitigation measures and management strategies.

The single most important step we can take to address ocean acidification is to dramatically reduce CO2 emissions. But ocean acidification is already affecting marine life, and States and coastal communities need information that can help them assess risks, plan for impacts and initiate management strategies, including, for example:

Vulnerability Analyses – Based on current research and observations, scientists have identified broad geographic regions and marine species that are vulnerable. High latitudes, regions of upwelling, and coastal estuaries with heavy river input, will experience episodes of corrosive water first. In addition, certain species such as tropical corals and some oysters and other mollusks are particularly sensitive to changes in carbonate chemistry. There may be many other marine animals affected, and a more comprehensive and refined understanding of vulnerabilities is greatly needed.

Early warning systems - Real-time information about ocean chemistry can serve as an early warning system for already affected regions and industries. For example, oyster hatcheries along the west coast of the United States have deployed monitoring systems to alert their operators to episodes of corrosive which are harmful to larval oysters. With the use of these systems, hatchery owners have restored their production by 80% and have rescued their businesses.

Management guidance – Ocean acidification is happening against the backdrop of a rapidly changing ocean. In addition to changes in ocean chemistry, ocean water is getting warmer, oxygen availability is decreasing, and a host of local stressors exacerbate global change. Enhanced ocean observations are critically needed to improve ocean management in a changing world.

The map below illustrates current existing and planned monitoring stations (red circles and yellow triangles). The ovals identify areas likely to experience the impacts of ocean acidification soonest. The entire Arctic Ocean and Southern Ocean are also likely to experience impacts in the near future. Supplementing the existing network is estimated to cost in the neighborhood of $50 million – a small investment that will allow coastal States and communities to plan for the future.

Feely et al., 2009. Red circles represent deployed or planned open-ocean monitoring sites; yellow triangles represent deployed or planned coral reef monitoring sites. Ovals represent areas likely to experience ocean acidification impacts soonest. Arctic and Antarctic marine ecosystems are also likely to experience impacts in the near future.

Arctic Meeting Ends with Mixed Results

2011-05-12T21:56:02Z

Lisa Speer, Director of the International Oceans Program, New York

The meeting of foreign ministers from eight Arctic nations in Greenland has concluded, and the result is a very mixed bag.

On the plus side, the Ministers went a long way toward strengthening the Arctic Council, and establishing it as a much-needed, robust intergovernmental policy making body for the Arctic that includes a unique and highly significant role for the Indigenous peoples of the region.

But unfortunately a strengthened Arctic Council saddled with a weak agenda doesn't get us very far – and that is what we have. We’re left now with a stronger institution that has set an unambitious, slow and tentative agenda, at a time when urgent, proactive and forward-thinking action is called for.

Take addressing the threat of oil spills, for example. The Ministers decided to negotiate a new international treaty on oil spill "preparedness and response.” While important, spill PREVENTION is missing from the mandate.

Sadly and tragically, preparedness and response didn't work terribly well in the Gulf of Mexico, which is perhaps the most well-prepared and robustly equipped region on earth. Imagine a similar disaster taking place in a raging ice storm, under feet of broken sea ice, in winds rivaling a hurricane, or fog that can ground aircraft for days on end, in a region that lacks ports, airports, villages or even roads over vast stretches of coastline.

Under these circumstances, prevention is our best hope. But instead of making it the central element of a new binding oil spill treaty, the topic ended up relegated to a working group that will look at the matter for another two years and develop recommendations or "best practices," code for voluntary measures.

And then there’s integrated conservation planning, which is essential to protect vulnerable Arctic ecosystems from the impacts of the multitude of industrial activities seeking to move into previously frozen areas. The Ministers agreed to a low-level process that will make recommendations “possible consideration" over the next two years. This leisurely, weak and uncertain response to the impending surge of offshore oil, shipping, fishing and other industrial activities is particularly disheartening.

This is especially true as more than 30 leading international scientists from around the Arctic have already identified the most important and vulnerable places in the Arctic that should be considered for conservation – providing a starting point to already move this conservation forward. These places were included in a report from NRDC and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature at the end of April, and represented the first-ever Arctic-wide identification of areas that are concurrently critical to preserving the health of Arctic marine life and increasingly vulnerable to stresses including global warming, loss of sea ice, industrialization, and ocean acidification.

In the coming months the Arctic countries will have opportunities to turn the modest agenda adopted today into opportunities for truly forward-looking conservation action. The world will be watching.

Sec. Clinton goes to the Arctic: Must lead international community in protecting melting frontier

2011-05-09T18:29:24Z

Lisa Speer, Director of the International Oceans Program, New York

Last week Science reported that the observed effects of climate change in the Arctic are much more extensive and rapid than scientists predicted, adding a heightened urgency to a major meeting of Arctic Foreign Ministers, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, that will take place later this week in Nuuk, Greenland.

As the Arctic as we know it continues on its accelerating trajectory to oblivion, we’re looking for the group to agree to take action to protect the unique and vulnerable environment, wildlife and peoples of this fragile region.

Right now it doesn’t look promising. Much of the debate in the runup to the Nuuk meeting has centered on things like who gets to observe the meetings of the Arctic Council (an international body consisting of the 8 Arctic nations and Indigenous peoples) and which country will host the Council’s permanent offices. While important, decisions on these issues seem a bit like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic -- they don’t begin to address the huge problems facing the Arctic at the scale required.

The Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet. As the ocean heats up, the Arctic ice cap is melting, imperiling ocean wildlife – much of it endangered – that lives there, such as walrus, narwhal, polar bears, ice seals, arctic birds, polar cod and other creatures that depend on sea ice for feeding, breeding, raising their young and other life functions. This threatens not only marine wildlife and ocean ecosystems, but the nutritional and cultural sustenance of Arctic Indigenous peoples’ communities that rim the Arctic Ocean.

Melting ice also means that new offshore oil development, tanker traffic, fishing and shipping is rapidly becoming possible in parts of this extraordinarily fragile environment that were previously frozen and impassable. Almost a fifth of the world’s remaining undiscovered oil and gas is thought to lie north of the Arctic Circle, much of it offshore. Some of the world’s richest fisheries occur in the subarctic, and as the fish move northward in response to ocean warming, fishermen will inevitably follow. And there is increasing interest from the shipping industry in routes through the Arctic from Asia to Europe for oil, natural gas and commercial goods.

But this region is completely unprepared for the coming industrial onslaught; if industry is allowed to rush ahead without thoughtful planning, there will be no turning back.

There are no mandatory international standards for oil and gas development, no international mechanism to set quotas or otherwise manage fishing in most of the Arctic, and no Arctic-specific shipping requirements, although negotiations to establish a polar shipping code are underway. Vast stretches of the Arctic coastline lack basic infrastructure like roads, ports or airports, let alone spill response facilities. Raging storms, heaving sea ice, sub-zero temperatures, months of darkness, and weather that can ground aircraft for days or weeks, all make effective spill containment and cleanup difficult if not impossible. A disaster like the BP blowout in the Gulf of Mexico last year would be catastrophic here. Prevention is our only hope, yet it is not even an area of focus for the Nuuk meeting.

The most important thing we can do for the Arctic is aggressively curb CO2 emissions. But even if we reduced CO2 emissions tomorrow, warming already in the system will continue to melt the ice, threatening ice-adapted animals and facilitating massive new industrial development. We have a short window of opportunity to get out in front of this development to protect important and vulnerable ecosystems before industries become entrenched.

Because industrial activities in one country’s waters can easily affect others’, action is essential at the international level. A blowout or tanker disaster off Russia, for example, could easily affect Arctic Alaska, and overfishing in international waters of the Arctic Ocean could damage fish stocks in the waters of the five surrounding Arctic nations.

NRDC and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature recently released the first-ever Arctic-wide identification of areas that are concurrently critical to preserving the health of Arctic marine life and increasingly vulnerable to stresses including global warming, loss of sea ice, industrialization, and ocean acidification. This report identified most vulnerable areas in the Arctic that should be considered for protection as ice melts and industry movies in, based on the analysis of more than 30 leading international scientists from around the Arctic and leaders of indigenous Arctic communities. These places provide a starting point for conservation planning.

The Arctic is the last ocean frontier on our planet. We have the opportunity to get it right here. But we need a plan. And we need it fast.

The Nuuk meeting of the Arctic Foreign Ministers presents an opportunity to seize the moment to protect the exquisitely fragile Arctic marine environment and the people that depend on it. This is not the time for low level, leisurely discussions. We hope Secretary Clinton will lead the way to establish a robust, high level and rapid process to conserve and manage the arctic marine environment as it faces the profound challenges ahead.

On Thin Ice: Report identifies 13 vulnerable Arctic places as ice melts, industry moves in

2011-04-27T13:27:08Z

Lisa Speer, Director of the International Oceans Program, New York

Off the shores of St. Lawrence Island in the frigid Bering Sea, Pacific walruses use their sensitive whiskers to find food: shrimp, crabs, soft corals, and mollusks that thrive in Arctic currents. They use their long tusks to “haul out” on packed ice, where they rest and warm up. But as sea ice melts at record rates due to climate change, it’s likely to affect the walruses’ ability to hunt and survive. They’re not alone – a wide variety of Arctic animals are already struggling with the impacts of climate change and ocean acidification. And now another threat is looming: expanding industry.

As once firmly frozen Arctic ice melts, industries such as shipping, oil and gas development, and commercial fishing are eager to move in to areas that were previously inaccessible, seeking new resources and profits. Doing so poses definite threats to wildlife – including many endangered or threatened species – and the environment on which many of the four million people who live in the Arctic depend for survival and cultural health. But currently there are few international controls in place to protect sensitive marine areas and ensure industrial activities are conducted safely.

That’s why today NRDC released a report with the International Union for Conservation of Nature highlighting the most ecologically valuable and vulnerable spots in the Arctic that should be considered for protection. The list represents the findings of an international workshop held at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography last fall, a meeting that included top scientists from around the Arctic and leaders of indigenous Arctic communities.

The report identifies a full 77 areas that merit consideration for protection. Of this list, it also identifies 13 that stand out, ecologically speaking, as especially valuable and/or vulnerable. The 13 priority places identified in the report include: St. Lawrence Island, Bering Strait, and Wrangel Island (off the U,S, and the Russian Federation); the Chukchi Beaufort Coast (U.S.), Beaufort Coast/Cape Bathurst (Canada), Polar Pack Refugium, Lancaster Sound/North Water Polynya, Disko Bay/Store Hellefiskebanke, (off Canada and Greenland) White Sea/Barents Sea Coast, Pechora Sea/Kara Gate, Novaya Zemlya, High Arctic Islands and Shelf, and the Great Siberian Polynya,(off Norway and the Russian Federation).

Of the 13 priority Arctic places identified in the report – three fall under (full or partial) U.S. jurisdiction:

St. Lawrence Island is home to native Yupik people, who have long hunted walrus and other sea life for subsistence. Considered the last stretch of the land bridge that connected North America to Asia— it is also home to plethora of wildlife, including most of the world’s spectacled eiders, a threatened diving duck.

SPECTACLED EIDERS SOUTH OF ST. LAWRENCE ISLAND - (Photo courtesy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)

The Bering Strait region, north of St. Lawrence Island, is where the Arctic and Pacific oceans meet. One of the Arctic’s most productive regions, the Strait is a migratory corridor and key habitat area for whales, seals, over 40 types of birds—and of course, walrus. Offshore drilling or a parade of ships through the Strait could alter the migration patterns of endangered bowhead whales. An oil spill would devastate crucial feeding, breeding and nursery grounds for many species—and there’s no effective way to clean up spills in broken ice.

AERIAL SHOT OF THE BERING STRAIT - (Photo courtesy of NASA)

The Chukchi Beaufort Coast spans the northern side of Alaska. Polar bears den on the ice and the barrier islands each winter and hunt seals on floating ice. Already threatened with extinction as ice melts, a major oil spill would further reduce their chance at survival.

The Arctic is the last remaining ocean frontier on Earth. If we’ve learned anything from our frontier experiences, if we are not exceptionally careful, they will disappear as we know them.

Oil spills, increased pollution, and habitat degradation—real possibilities that come along with the advance of industry—would be particularly damaging in the most vulnerable places identified in today’s report. The Arctic is a shared resource, one beautiful and rich with life, but it’s also unique in its exceptionally slow pace of recovery. Disaster here could mean there is no turning back. The U.S. should lead the international community in making sure they are protected as the ice melts and industry moves in.

New International Treaty Targets Destructive Bottom Trawl Fishing in the Pacific

2011-03-07T14:38:55Z

Lisa Speer, Director of the International Oceans Program, New York

Bottom trawling is hands-down the worst of all possible fishing practices. Weighted nets up to 200 feet long and 40 feet wide are dragged indiscriminately along the ocean floor, laying waste to everything in its path, regardless of whether it's commercially marketable. Uncontrolled bottom trawling can devastate ancient deep sea corals, sponge fields and other unique bottom habitat, along with the fish and other deep sea life that inhabit them.

We, who live on land, never see this devastation, but it's not so difficult to imagine: think of clearcutting the ocean floor, mowing down centuries-old coral forests or delicate sponge fields, leaving nothing but rubble behind.

Seamount and coral community before bottom trawling (A) and after (B), with bedrock exposed. Photo, with permission, by CSIRO Marine Research.

But now, there's inspiring news: a group of nations has agreed to a treaty that establishes conservation strategies for the most vulnerable ecosystems in international waters of the North Pacific Ocean. This treaty-which the U.S., Canada, Japan, Russia, China, Korea and Taiwan (Chinese Taipei) have been working toward since 2006-prohibits any new bottom trawling unless its impacts on wonders such as seamounts, corals, and deep sea fish are considered and controlled. As a member of the U.S. delegation to these negotiations, I'm pleased to say it will help protect 16.1 million square miles of the Pacific Ocean and the life that makes it home. And importantly, the treaty also creates the North Pacific Fisheries Commission, to implement and enforce the new rules.

This treaty couldn't come soon enough. The world's corals and other ocean floor habitats are in serious trouble. Ninety percent of the world's reefs will be threatened within the next 20 years, according to a new report from the World Resources Institute. And bottom trawlers are now capable of reaching farther and deeper than ever before, dragging at depths up to 5,000 feet below the surface, where organisms-many of which are still undiscovered and may hold medical secrets-are often slow to grow and recover.

A yellow rockfish in red tree coral, which is threatened by bottom trawling. Image courtesy of Davidson Seamount Exploration 2002, NOAA/OER

The new treaty is not perfect. It contains weaker requirements than we would like on assessing, monitoring and controlling impacts, leaves an enormous potential loophole in the form of "scientific" or "experimental" fishing," and leaves several very large areas in the southern portion of the North Pacific where bottom trawling will remain completely unregulated.

Having said that, this treaty is an important step toward reducing bottom trawling's damage to the North Pacific - if it is rigorously implemented and enforced. That's crucial in international waters, also known as the high seas, which account for half of the planet's surface, but suffer from poor management.

Currently, the high seas are regulated by a patchwork of international fisheries management organizations that haven't been able to do enough for fragile ecosystems. The new treaty, which still must be ratified, aims to begin to correct that, at least in the North Pacific when it comes to this devastating fishing practice. NRDC has long pressed the United Nations General Assembly and other authorities to stop unregulated bottom trawling, and we welcome the change that this treaty represents. We believe it signals a new wave of concern for our hidden ocean environments, one that's going forward and building momentum.

We will have lots of work to do in the coming months and years to see that this new agreement is properly implemented and enforced, and to fill the gaps it left. But this treaty marks a start, and has moved us one step closer to a brighter future for our children and our grandchildren worldwide - a future where the mysteries of our seas can continue to amaze and inspire imagination, and where its bounties will support livelihoods for years to come.

Learn more about destructive bottom trawling, and what NRDC's doing to stop it, here.

And for more about the build up to the new North Pacific Fisheries Commission, click here.

Preserving the wonder of the seas for our kids as the oil keeps gushing

2010-06-03T17:38:53Z

Lisa Speer, Director of the International Oceans Program, New York

The largest oil disaster in American history continues to gush and grow in the Gulf of Mexico. With adults everywhere feeling helpless and horrified, as a mother I can’t help but wonder how our children nationwide are feeling.

After all, oceans have always been places of wonder and imagination. They are full of mysterious creatures – from the beautiful to the bizarre – deep below the surface. To see them smothered in oil is heartbreaking.

That’s why – especially with the United Nations’ annual World Oceans Day approaching next week (June 8) – I wanted to share something positive with anyone out there with kids who love the sea (whether it’s for the sandcastles or the sharks). Or really, for anyone in need of a little break from dealing with the horrifying disaster in the Gulf.

OCEANS ARE TALKING.org features original MUSIC by Sam Lardner designed to teach kids ages 5-13 and their families about the problems facing the world's oceans and what we need to do to CHANGE. Its an inspiration in these dark days, and can empower our kids that they can help give our oceans a healthy future.

Check it out. And if they’re moved – you might even send a letter to Congress together here, telling them America’s children deserve a future of clean energy that can’t spill or run out.

Arctic Drilling: 6 months is not enough

2010-05-27T20:02:03Z

Lisa Speer, Director of the International Oceans Program, New York

My colleague Chuck Clusen posted a blog yesterday on the many reasons why offshore drilling in Alaska’s Arctic is a terrible idea. Today we learned that President has postponed drilling there for 6 months, pending the issuance of a report by the newly created Presidential commission on the Gulf disaster. Given the huge uncertainties and many challenges posed by the Arctic’s poorly understood but unforgiving marine environment, this doesn’t come close to being enough of a delay.

The Arctic Ocean is among the least studied areas on the planet. Basic biological information is lacking for many species, and our understanding of ecological relationships and how they are changing as the ice melts and the ocean warms is rudimentary at best. The dearth of scientific information led Commerce Secretary Gary Locke to ban commercial fishing in federal Arctic waters last August. The ban, supported by fishermen in Alaska, will remain in effect until researchers gather sufficient information on fish and the Arctic marine environment to prevent adverse impacts of commercial fishing.

In contrast, until today it has been full steam ahead with oil development, in the same poorly understood, highly fragile environment. How is it that Interior Secretary Salazar seems to know enough to allow potentially catastrophic oil development, but Secretary Locke doesn’t think commercial fishing can be safely done given the information available?

It doesn’t compute.

Back in September, NOAA sharply criticized Interior’s analysis of the consequences of drilling in the Arctic, and expressed serious concerns about the potential impact of oil development on fisheries, marine habitats and coastal communities. It accused DOI of “greatly understating” the challenges posed by Arctic conditions to effective response, and pointed to several recent studies highlighting the lack of preparedness.

President Obama needs to put the Arctic off-limits to offshore oil unless and until we can be assured it can be done safely and in a way that will not further damage an environment already under extreme stress. We cannot do that until we have a better grip on what happened in the Gulf, on whether it is possible to respond to an oil spill offshore under the challenging conditions of the Arctic, and until we have a much better understanding of the ecology, species and sensitivities of the Arctic marine environment. It will take years – five years at least -- to fill these gaps.

MMS split a start, but not a solution

2010-05-11T20:08:53Z

Lisa Speer, Director of the International Oceans Program, New York

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar today proposed the first of what we hope will be a long string of reforms aimed at strengthening the regulations of oil industry operations and curtailing the industry’s cozy relationship with the federal government agency responsible for overseeing its operations.

The Minerals Management Service, or MMS, has long suffered from a built-in conflict of interest between promoting --and regulating-- offshore oil and gas development. Salazar’s announcement that he intends to split off the safety and environmental enforcement aspect of the agency’s work is a welcome start, but this alone does not solve the inherent conflict between the drive to develop and the government’s responsibility to promote and protect other livelihoods and the environment.

NRDC would like to see much more than a bureaucratic restructuring. For one thing, other federal agencies with stewardship responsibilities over oceans, fish and wildlife need to be given a much stronger role in making decisions on where and how drilling activity occurs in the Outer Continental Shelf occurs and under what conditions.

We will be blogging on needed reforms as we learn more about the announcement.

Oil & Dispersants Spell Trouble for Florida’s Coral Reefs

2010-05-06T21:07:09Z

Lisa Speer, Director of the International Oceans Program, New York

When an oil spill happens, the first thing many people think of are the beaches, wetlands, birds and other life along the shore. And the impacts of oil on that life can be huge and devastating. While dispersing the oil with chemicals may help reduce shoreline impacts, it’s a trade-off that still comes at a great cost.

That’s because dispersants don’t make oil go away – they merely shift the oil and its impacts away from the surface and into the water and the sea floor, where they can cause less visible but equally devastating damage. Oiled fish, dolphins, whales, turtles, shrimp, clams, oysters and other marine life aren’t as easy to photograph, but they too suffer and die, an invisible toll impossible to measure.

As the spill heads toward Florida I am beginning to worry more about the trade off between protecting the shore and protecting the ocean. While it may have been the right decision to reduce the impacts on Louisiana’s vastly productive and important wetlands by using dispersants, that decision may come back to haunt us in Florida.

There are a few reasons for this. First, transferring the oil from the surface into the water means that its trajectory will be driven more by currents than wind. The Loop Current will pick that oil up, and like a conveyer belt transport it directly to Florida, and perhaps beyond.

Second, dispersed oil often forms form a mousse-like toxic soup below the surface, which may end up as in Louisiana threatening sensitive shallow water coastal habitats like Florida’s extensive seagrass beds.

And third, one of the marine treasures of the nation – the coral ecosystems in and around the Florida Keys – are especially vulnerable to this lethal soup. A 2007 study found that both chemical dispersants and dispersed oil are often much more toxic to corals than oil itself. Dispersants and dispersed oil can result in extensive mortality that manifests itself over months and years.

The Florida Keys coral reef tract is the third largest in the world, covering over 2,800 square nautical miles in and around the Florida Keys. These reefs are already under tremendous stress from overfishing, pollution, warming water temperatures and ocean acidification. According to EPA, we may lose most of the coral reefs in the world by the next century as a result. The very last thing Florida’s reefs need is to get hit by a toxic soup of dispersed oil and chemicals.

Using dispersants to protect shorelines in Florida’s case could end up spelling disaster for its reefs and seagrass beds, which are already under great stress. On the other hand allowing the oil to reach shore is a horrible alternative. It’s a terrible Catch 22, one that again points up the need for greater safety and a move away from dirty energy.

Something good can still come out this tragedy – we can learn from our mistakes, and we can make sure this never happens again. That’s why President Obama must impose a moratorium on all new offshore oil drilling activities, and our nation must turn our full attention toward clean, renewable energy that can’t spill or run out. The Senate has a chance to pass clean energy legislation this year – join me in telling Washington we want to learn from this tough lesson and get on the path to a cleaner, safer energy future. Take action here.

Video from HSH the Prince of Monaco at the U.N. during Climate Week

2009-09-23T23:42:26Z

Lisa Speer, Director of the International Oceans Program, New York

NRDC President Frances Beinecke and I did a press conference at the United Nations yesterday with HSH Prince Albert II of Monaco and others to highlight the impacts of global warming on the Arctic and the urgent need to both reduce CO2 emissions AND create new mechanisms to manage fishing, shipping and other industrial activities rapidly emerging in the region.

HSH the Prince also spoke eloquently to the General Assembly about the need to international action - watch his speech below:

The U.S. Should Sign the Law of the Sea Treaty

2009-06-08T19:54:36Z

Lisa Speer, Director of the International Oceans Program, New York

Today is World Oceans Day - and in Washington, the U.S. Senate is in the midst of deciding whether or not to sign on to the United Nations Law of the Sea treaty, which would expand protections for our planet's oceans.

NRDC is urging Americans to sign this letter to President Obama to tell him we want our country at the table while the world determines how to use, manage and protect the oceans.

The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOS) establishes the international legal foundation for the conservation and sustainable use of the world's oceans, which cover more than 70% of the earth's surface. The Convention was concluded in 1982 and came into force in 1994. To date, 158 countries and the European Commission have joined the treaty.

The United States remains the primary industrial nation that has not.

The Convention defines the basic rights and obligations governing uses of the sea. Among other things, it requires cooperation in the conservation of marine resources in international waters, and requires nations to protect and preserve the marine environment.

There is a remarkable constellation of varied interests that want to see the U.S. sign on to the Law of the Sea, including the offshore oil and gas industry, the U.S. Navy, shipping and shipbuilding, the Departments of Defense and State, commercial fishing groups, and many members of the US Senate from both sides of the aisle. These industries and government interests support U.S. joining the convention because its provisions help protect vital U.S. economic and military interests.

A relatively small number of Senators oppose joining the treaty because they fear it would erode US sovereignty and otherwise prove detrimental to our national interests. This couldn't be further from the truth. Signing brings us to the table and gives us a voice in the international community about what we want to see happen with our seas. These Senators have signaled their intention to prolong the debate over the Convention and use valuable floor time in an effort to further postpone Senate action. That's why Presidential leadership is so critical. We need President Obama to press the Senate to approve the treaty quickly.

Join me this World Oceans Day in telling President Obama you want the U.S. to have a say in what happens to our seas.

Managing a melting Arctic

2009-04-29T14:20:05Z

Lisa Speer, Director of the International Oceans Program, New York

As I type, NRDC Global Leadership Council member Larry Lunt and Belgian explorer Alain Hubert, co-founder of the International Polar Foundation, are trekking across Greenland's Humboldt Glacier, getting a firsthand glimpse of the area of the world showing the most obvious and advanced signs of global warming.

The Arctic ice cap is melting. Summer Arctic sea ice fell in 2007 to the lowest level since satellite measurements began in 1979, and scientists now predict that the Arctic may become ice-free in summer as early as 2013. This will have dramatic impacts on the entire ice-based marine food web, from plankton to polar bears, and on the Arctic peoples who rely on these animals. Larry and Alain will likely see signs of these and other profound changes on their travels.

On top of melting sea ice and warming ocean temperatures, additional impacts are likely from new or expanded industrial activity - fishing, shipping, oil and gas development, cruise ship tourism - made possible by the retreat of the ice.

The first order of business is to get our climate house in order, and agree on dramatic reductions in CO2 emissions. NRDC is fully engaged in working with the international community to reach an agreement at the December United Nations climate meeting in Copenhagen. There is a unique opportunity for the U.S. to help lead the world to a strong global agreement. We have our work cut out for us this year, but NRDC is committed to working with the new administration and Congress to move as quickly as we can domestically to help progress internationally.

But even if such an agreement were reached tomorrow, warming already in the system will continue to propel many of the changes in the arctic already under way, including new industrial development.

Managing human activity in the region itself in a way that maximizes the resilience of Arctic ecosystems in the face of all these changes is the Arctic trek that I'm on. I will blog periodically about this topic, and hope you will join in the conversation.