Draft US Ocean Policy - A Fresh Start?

Back in June, President Obama issued a memorandum that established an Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, which was designed to review the nation's oceans policy and make recommendations for creating and implementing a new approach to oceans and the Great Lakes. While the cynical response is that such task forces are all style and no substance, it was at least good to see that the Obama Administration thought ocean policy important enough to even consider making changes at a time when its agenda is already packed full with health care reform and climate change. The Task Force issued its draft report yesterday, as reported in the New York Times (a link to the report is included in the story).

The government agency heads and directors who make up the Task Force have produced a promising report. Especially since they recommend that ecosystem-based management should be the "foundational principle for the comprehensive management of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes." It's about time such an approach became commonplace - the idea that you can set catch limits for a fishery without examining the rest of the ecosystem is highly inaccurate. It belongs to an era when doctors endorsed cigarettes in ads.

Since the report is only an interim report, there's time for the public to read and comment on it. If you'd like to comment on, say, how the US shouldn't forget about the Antarctic as it sets its ocean policy priorities, go here.

Pristine Antarctica?

Antarctica's a big, frozen continent with hardly anyone living on it. So it should mostly be free of the pollution that often accompanies human settlements, right? Wrong. Many of the research stations in Antarctica are relatively crowded together - because there's not a lot of ice-free areas on the continent - and they don't adhere to best practices in disposing of their waste. Which means that some rather unwelcome visitors, like e. coli, have contaminated the environment. A recent study published in the journal Polar Research presented some rather sobering data on the extent of the problem. The study's author reports seeing things like untreated sewage being dumped directly into the ocean, despite the fact that national governments agreed to the Environment, or Madrid, Protocol years ago in order to curb just these kinds of abuses.

Some governments are working on the problem, which admittedly is expensive because doing anything in Antarctic is expensive. The colder climate of Antarctica means that pollution lingers longer, for a variety of reasons. Yet Antarctica is valued by researchers for its more pristine environment, so it behooves research programs to spend the money now to protect their magnificent outdoor lab for the future. After all, if it can be made to work in Antarctica, it'll work on the rest of the continents too - maybe researchers can prove to the rest of the world that it's possible to live well and not pollute.

World Oceans Day

Today, Monday June 8, is World Oceans Day. This is the first World Oceans Day that has been officially recognized by the United Nations, although it has been celebrated before. If you work on ocean-related issues, you may be wondering, what exactly are we celebrating today? The depletion of 90% of the world's stocks of large fish, such as tuna and sword fish? Declining fish catches worldwide, which are probably symptomatic of the dramatic overfishing of most of the world's fisheries? Perhaps the prospect of eating jellyfish or swimming in an ocean devoid of life? But before we get too overwhelmed, today is also an opportunity to make others aware of how much humans depend on the ocean. Global oceans don't need us, but we certainly need them. As The Ocean Project points out, the ocean:

• Generates most of the oxygen we breathe;
• Helps feed us;
• Regulates our climate;
• Cleans the water we drink;
• Offers us a pharmacopoeia of potential medicines; and
• Provides limitless inspiration!

There are many proposed approaches for fixing the problems with the ocean, some more controversial than others, but it is evident that current methods are not working. I hope that reading about World Oceans Day doesn't make people feel hopeless, but rather impresses upon people the importance of implementing policies to protect the oceans, even if these policies may have short-term economic or social costs. The long-term benefits of closing a fishery for a few years or forcing businesses to implement stricter pollution controls will be worth it.

Will High Fuel Costs Tamp Down Antarctic Tourism?

Moves to tighten restrictions on the type of fuel oil used by ships traveling through the Antarctic might have a chilling effect (apologies, couldn't resist) on the industry. According to a UK newspaper, some cruise lines would cancel their Antarctic tours if stricter IMO rules take effect. Currently, ships are not allowed to use so-called heavy fuel in the Antarctic (defined as south of 60 degrees latitude), but can carry it on board and use it when outside of the designated area. Marine gas oil is used within the area. This new rule, which would fall under the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) and would enter into force in 2011, will raise fuel costs for tour operators. It appears that larger vessels, those carrying more than 500 passengers, will be the ones most likely to cut out Antarctic cruises due to the higher costs of marine gas oil. A major reason for the ban is that an oil spill of heavy fuel oil would be much more hazardous to the environment than one of marine gas oil.

The sinking of the fairly small cruise ship the Explorer in 2007 made the international community all too aware of the possibility of fuel spills in the aftermath of shipping accidents. A similar incident involving one of the larger cruise vessels would be disastrous if onboard fuel were to leak into surrounding waters. Environmental concerns aside, the chances of rescuing passengers from a ship carrying more than 500 people in the Antarctic are not very good. The weather is too unpredictable and the areas too far from places with rescue capabilities. Overall, having fewer large ships in the Antarctic is probably safer for the environment and for people. Let's hope the rules do indeed take effect.