MARINE
CONSERVATION ISSUES
PAGE
Note: Major update around Christmas time, so please check back then!

:An ecclectic collection of interesting articles relating to Marine Conservation issues, found by our readers, and sent to us for others to peruse and enjoy. So, SEND US MORE, or take a peek through the arcticle-rich sites recommended below.

Get interested.... Get Informed.... Get INVOLVED!

Sincerely,
Ross Mayhew

Some Good "Hot Topic","Emerging Issues" and General-Topic Arcticle-sites:

*Seaweb : Full of great arcticles, references to more, lots of internal links, etc.
*Emerging issues section of the Marine Conservation Biological Institute site: Great Stuff!!
*Greenpeace:Splendid variety of arcticles and reports, including "related links" featue.

NOTES. :Please note that there are e-mail lists in the first message (and hopefully some of the ones to come!), for you to join if you wish!

Arcticle Index

: British Corals Protected! : a Nov. 5 British high-court decision is forcing the Agles and Saxons to protect marine wildlife out to the 200 mile limit.

: A New Method of Assessing Marine Ecosystems, using Emerging Diseases as Indicators of Change

:Fishing for a sustainable system: An arcticle on Fish Dumping (dead fish, ie)

:Trawling and Dredging impacts- a discussion from both sides of the debate! (Trawing compared to farming and clearcutting, by fishermen and scientists.)

:Oil and Gas Moratorium on George's Bank- (portions of which are applicable to similar situations worldwide.)

:Marine Protected Areas Good News: Deep-Water Coral Reefs Protected off Norway

Human-facilitated Bioinvasion Threatens Marine Biodiversity : Increased worldwide shipping introduces destructive organisms to distant waters.

Pfiesteria piscicida: The Cell From Hell : Bioinvasion hurts economies, as well as ecosystems!!

A New Method of Assessing Marine Ecosystems

> Date: 15 Dec 1998 11:10:19 -0500
> From: "Ries, Kathryn"<kries@ocean.nos.noaa.gov>
> To: <cecgulf@list.cec.org>,
>     "Int.Council" <int.council@atlantic.nos.noaa.gov>
> To: pacifico@list.cec.org; pacifico@cec.org
> From: Mark Spalding on Sun, Dec 13, 1998 2:54 PM
> Subject: Fwd: New method to assess marine ecosystems
> http://www.newswise.com/articles/MARINE.HMS.html
> New Methodology to Assesses Marine Ecosystem Changes and Impacts
> Harvard Medical School
> 12-Dec-98
>
> Contact:
> Bill Schaller
>  schaller@hms.harvard.edu
> 617-432-0441
>
> Researchers at Harvard Medical School have released a report that
> outlines a methodology to assess marine ecosystem changes and
> their impacts on human health, the environment, and the economy.
> The newly developed methodology uses marine-related diseases as
> indicators of change and is intended to assist scientists in
> identifying trends in marine ecosystem decline, investigating it
> causes, and implementing strategies to counter it.
>
> "People need to appreciate the link between the health of our
> waterways and their personal health," explains Paul Epstein, MD,
> MPH, associate director of the Harvard Medical School Center for
> Health and Global Environment and lead author of the report.
> "Diseases are being reported with increasing frequency across a
> wide-range of marine species and habitats. At the same time, we
> also have seen an increase in the number of people who have
> contracted a viral or bacterial illness as a result of eating
> seafood or swimming in affected waters."
>
> The report, "Marine Ecosystems: Emerging Diseases as Indicators> of Change,"

was presented at a Congressional briefing in
> Washington, D.C. on Monday, December 7.
>
> The report culminates a three-year study by the Harvard Health,
> Ecological and Economic Dimensions of Global Change Program
> (HEED). It was funded in part by the National Oceanic and
> Atmospheric Administration's Office of Global Programs and the
> National Aeronautics and Space Agency.
>
> The report is available online ( http://heed.harvard.edu/  ).
> =============================================================
> http://www7.mercurycenter.com/premium/nation/docs/seachange08.htm
> Sea study sounds health warning
> (DEC/08/1998)
> San Jose Mercury News
>
>
> Sea study sounds health warning
>
> As coastal waters deteroriate, humans living nearby become sicker
>
> BY SETH BORENSTEIN
> Mercury News Washington Bureau
>
> WASHINGTON -- A broad new Harvard study of the Atlantic Ocean and
> Gulf of Mexico shows that North American coastal waters are
> getting sicker, and so are some of the people who live near them.
>
> Coastal environmental damage is endangering humans and seriously
> harming the U.S. economy, according to the first-of-its-kind
> study by Harvard Medical School's Center for Health and the
> Global Environment.
>
> >From 1976 to 1996, harmful algae blooms -- a leading indicator
> of health risks for marine animals and people -- increased more
> than fourfold, from 74 to 329. Strandings of whales, dolphins and
> porpoises jumped from nearly zero in 1972 to almost 1,400 in
> 1994. Mass fish kills and disease outbreaks went from nearly
> unheard-of before 1973 to almost 140 such events in 1996.
>
> Frightening jump
>
> But the most frightening jump is in the numbers of human health
> problems traced to waterways. These include everything from the
> mundane swimmer's itch to pfiesteria-induced memory loss to
> cholera. There were two reported incidents in 1966, but 118 in
> 1996, the last year for which comprehensive data is available.
> Much of that increase could be better reporting, one researcher
> conceded.
>
> Still, ticking off these seemingly unrelated ecological messes,
> oceanographer Sylvia Earle said Monday, ``The oceans are in
> trouble, and so are we.''
>
> Researchers hope to use the comprehensive picture of coastal
> conditions provided by the study to categorize the water problems
> and find cures. Scientists who unveiled the report in Washington
> on Monday said they may soon be able to pinpoint where and when
> problems in coastal waters may crop up.
>
> Problems in coastal ocean waters have been linked to rising sea
> surface temperatures and increased nutrient pollution.
>
> ``I see each of those things like a red light here and a red
> light there, flashing, flashing, `Your life support system is in
> trouble,' so are you going to do something about it?'' said
> Earle, explorer-in-residence for the National Geographic Society
> and a researcher at the Smithsonian. ``With all those critters
> in the ocean dying, how far behind are there going to be
> headlines about people? Well, not far.''
>
> JoAnn Burkholder, a professor of aquatic botany at North Carolina
>
> State University and a leading pfiesteria piscicida (algae bloom)
> expert, said, ``Pfiesteria has helped us to understand that when
> we see diseased or dying fish, it's our health that may be
> seriously affected as well.''
>
> The Harvard study calculated that the 1997 pfiesteria outbreak
> cost $60 million in losses to fisheries and tourism,
> hospitalizations of victims and government cleanup efforts.
>
> Until the $350,000 Harvard study, scientists had looked at
> problems in oceans on a piecemeal basis.
>
> The new study was far more broad-based -- mapping problems and
> outbreaks on an epidemiological basis, said the study's chief
> author, Paul Epstein. He is also the associate director for the
> Center for Health and Global Environment at Harvard.
>
> Epstein said that as early as next year, government officials
> could use this research and its World Wide Web-based data (
> http://heed.harvard.edu  ) to forecast algae blooms or fish kills
> by saying conditions are ripe for such events, much like a
> tornado watch.
>
> But government officials say Epstein may be a tad optimistic.
>
> It's a great tool and the Environmental Protection Agency
> eventually wants to make such forecasts, but the Harvard study
> alone isn't enough to allow such warnings, said Jennifer
> Orme-Zavaleta, assistant director at EPA's National Health and
> Environmental Effects Research Lab in Research Triangle Park,
> N.C.
>
> Four of the researchers went to Capitol Hill on Monday to share
> their results with elected officials and to lobby for political
> action on the root causes of coastal environmental problems --
> water temperature and nutrient pollution (from fertilizer runoff
> and carbon-loaded exhaust fumes from the industrial Midwest).
>
> The study ``may help motivate us in policy discussions,'' Epstein
> said Monday. He said it would add weight to efforts to limit
> fossil-fuel use as part of the overall concern about climate
> change.
>
> Water temperatures
>
> Increased water temperatures are ``a major contributor, and it
> is compounding the other stresses,''
> Epstein said.
>
> One of the study's contributors, Rob Quayle, chief of the global
> climate lab for the National Climatic Data Center, said the
> temperature-ecological problem link ``is not a real tight
> probability cause-and-effect thing yet, but it makes sense.''
>
> Lab studies of coral show that a 1-degree temperature increase
> can damage or kill reefs, said James Cervino, a marine biologist
> for the Global Coral Reef Alliance in New York. He said 90
> percent of coral in unusually warmed-up water expels its
> beneficial algae, then either dies or becomes weak and prone to
> smothering from too many nutrients in the water.
> -
> message sent by  infoterra@cedar.univie.ac.at
> to sign onto the list, send an email to
> majordomo@cedar.univie.ac.at
> the message body should read
> subscribe infoterra your@email.address       (note that you must include your e-address!)
> -
>
>
>
> Kathryn Ries         kries@ocean.nos.noaa.gov
> National Ocean Service   http://www.nos.noaa.gov/
>

Links......Arcticle index

Fishing for a sustainable system
 

DUMPING FISH at sea. Grotesquely wasteful, it's part of our relentless
assault on the ocean's ecology. It goes on worldwide. A few years ago a
United Nations agency estimated that as much or more fish is dumped back -
dead - than is actually landed.

It also goes on, apparently relentlessly, in the last cod/haddock/ pollock
fishery still open in Atlantic Canada - off western Nova Scotia and
southern New Brunswick.

The Ecology Action Centre and the Conservation Council of New Brunswick
have traced it out anew in a report based on interviews with fishermen.

They were spurred into action by sharp complaints to their offices over
the summer by fishermen appalled at what they were seeing. In the worst
case, the report says, it's possible that up to a million pounds of fish
were dumped on Georges Bank by draggers within a few days in June.

Since dumping is illegal, and catching someone at it is very difficult,
pinning down amounts is guesswork. It may even be down from the bad old
days of the big trawlers. But as any honest fisherman will tell you - and,
in fact, told this report's author - it's a common practice and a
continuing scandal.

More than a scandal. The latest scientific assessment of the stocks in
this last open groundfish zone is not good - "danger signals" for pollock,
"a decrease in biomass" for haddock, and "uncertainty" for cod.

This raises an alarming question. Is this last groundfish fishery headed
the way of the rest: towards collapse?

If so, here's another question: Why is the management regime that oversaw
the destruction of the groundfish stocks elsewhere in Atlantic Canada
still in place and allowing the same thing to happen again?

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), a large dinosaur that can't
change, insists that nothing is amiss. Deep down, it feels that the only
problem is that fishermen are natural cheaters who are stupidly sabotaging
their own livelihoods. DFO's solution is to get rid of them by creating a
concentrated fishery through individual transferable quotas (ITQs), in
which small fishermen sell out to bigger ones.

Unconscionable fishermen may be part of the problem, but the finger must
always point back to a quota system that not only can't prevent this but
actually encourages it, as some of DFO's own literature admits. Fishermen
don't know what they're going to bring up. If they have no quota for what
they catch, or if something else will bring a better price, the motivation
is to dump and keep fishing for the right size or species.

Of course, DFO can't change because it's too deeply committed to ITQs, at
least in part because some of its designers are admitted right wing
ideologues (a fact that would concern me if I were Fisheries Minister
David Anderson). Besides, in responding to the EAC report, DFO
Scotia-Fundy management chief Peter Partington insisted that the present
system is working slowly but surely and that Canada is being praised for
it internationally.

A peculiar thing to say while the world's top marine scientists, gathered
in Halifax, were describing how the world ocean ecology is being beaten to
a pulp. If Canada is ahead globally, it is only in the technical aspects
of a system that doesn't work globally - at least if preserving the fish
stocks, not bureaucratic and corporate convenience, is the yardstick.

There are those who want to try other things - management by whole ecology
(rather than by individual species), community control over these whole
ecologies, restrictions on dragging, fishing arrangements in which boats
have time or trip limits but bring in all they catch. These are all
admittedly complicated to bring about, all the more when vested interests
are involved.

DFO insists it is being flexible. But whatever it's doing, it's not enough
if the last stocks are also going down. It's time for radical change, not
watered down versions of the same old thing or more wait- and-see.

e-mail: rj.surette@ns.sympatico.ca (columnest)

The Halifax Chronicle-Herald

Links......Arcticle index.

Trawing and Dredging impacts- another viewpoint (but with rebuttals based upon sound ecological principles and logic!)
 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 06:20:57 -0500
From: "Nils E. Stolpe (by way of \"G. H. Lovgren\"
<NMFS_BITES_BIG_TIME@SwedesDock.com>)" <njsha@VOICENET.COM>
To: FISHFOLK@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: Trawling/dredging impacts

The following is an informational release we are distributing in
response to a lecture at the Boston Aquarium last Wednesday and an
anticipated press reception tomorrow morning by Ted Danson and the
American Oceans Campaign. As the quotes in the release indicate, Dr.
Norse's comments caught the attention of a number of people in the
fisheries/oceanography establishment.

I'm in the process of putting a trawling/dredging impact section
together on the New Jersey Fishing website and would greatly appreciate any help with that that you could provide - particularly in the form of links to informational sites, documents I could post, quotes you would provide or the donation of your email address to be stuck on a "For more information, feel free to contact..." page.

Thank you very much,
Nils Stolpe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Fishermen, scientists, environmentalists respond to most recent assault
on traditional fishing gear [See Notes for rebuttal!!]

In a lecture at Boston's New England Aquarium on December 9, marine scientist Elliott Norse tried to draw a parallel between widely used methods of harvesting fish and shellfish from the sea bed and the
logging practice known as clearcutting.

To a background of slides of extinct species like dodo birds, bleeding
whales and factory trawlers of a size not seen in East Coat waters since the 1970s, Dr. Norse attempted to paint a catastrophic picture of the effects that trawls and dredges had on the ocean's bottom communities. Citing the collapse of the Canadian codfish fishery ( an example that he admitted when questioned later could not be attributed to dredge or trawl effects [note: given our current level of knowledge, which is admittedly quite poor!!] ) he projected slides showing that certain bottom communities were indeed changed after being intensively worked by fishing gear. Then he discussed the increased size of the Netherlands' fishing fleet and argued that increased fishing effort would have increased bottom impacts. But, since this was a New England forum, one might logically ask why Dr. Norse didn't cite changes in the New England fishing fleet instead. Perhaps the fact that the New England fleet has been reduced dramatically over the last decade had something to do with his choice of data sets? [note: This and many other downsizing in areas intensively fished in the recent past, are most probably in part (perhaps quite subtantially- we just do not know at present, due to a drastically inadequte research!!) to habitat destruction and large-scale alteration in ecosystems caused by excessive trawing and dragging!!]

Without question, fishing activities do affect the ocean environment.
The consensus in the scientific, environmental and fishing communities
is that some gear does impact some bottom types during some fishing
operations. There isn't, however, anything approaching a consensus on
the effects ) positive or negative ) of those impacts.

According to the experts:

"The relationship between bottom trawling/dredging and fish production isn't well understood. To compare trawling or dredging with clearcutting is inaccurate at best and incendiary at worst." (D.W. Bennett, Executive Director, American Littoral Society)

"In over 40 years of extensively exploring the bottoms of the world's
oceans I haven't seen anything approaching the clearcutting conditions
that I heard described on Wednesday night." (Arne Carr, Senior Marine Biologist, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries and co-author of Sound Underwater Images, the "Bible" of sonar imaging and interpretation)

"The rapid recovery of fisheries after intensive trawling or dredging
occurring over decades [note: WHOA!!! this "rapid recovery" effect is certainly NOT the norm in cold-water regions- have the groundfish in NE North America "rapidly recovered" after moratoriums were placed upon them for years???] logically argues against Dr. Norse's clearcutting comparison. Without question there are some bottom communities that we should be protecting from intensive fishing activities, but our efforts should be focused on identifying them [good point!!!], not in hysterically condemning fishing techniques that have been in use for decades and can without question be part of sustainable fisheries in many areas on many types of ocean bottom. These issues should logically be explored as part of our national agenda leading to sustainable fisheries." (Jack Pearce, Buzzards Bay Marine Lab, North American Editor of Marine Pollution Bulletin and Scientific Editor of Fishery Bulletin)

"Dr. Norse appeared to have left his scientific credibility at the door.
In the area of fishing gear impacts there is no consensus within the
scientific community and he has obviously ignored opinions differing
from his own. The fact that heavily fished areas have produced fish
continuously for generations illustrates the illogical nature of his
views [note: this is an illustration of selective, incomplete information being used to support a viewpoint. Logically, given well-established ecological principles, healthy, largely intact ecosystems will be able to sustain high levels of harvesting of rapidly-reproducing species (witness the enormous quantities of money cowries (Cypraea moneta L) taken in certain areas of the Indian Ocean in the 17th century, to facilitate trade by the Dutch East-Indian Trading Company!! In this case, harvesting was done by extremely non-destructive methods, as is the case in many traditional fisheries. However, modern fishing methods are increasingly destructive, and many ecosystems are being stressed by land-based pollutants and other negative effects of our modern "civilization". As a result, habitats and ecosystems which formerly sustained high levels of exploitation, are no longer able to do so, as they are degraded and destroyed!!]. I hope reason will prevail, and that by having scientists and fishermen working together, more sustainable seafood production will result." (Cliff Goudey, Marine Advisory Leader at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology Sea Grant College Program)

"We've been fishing the same areas with the same gear for years, and
they are still producing scallops [note: a highly adaptible, rapidly-reproducing species, perfectly capable of maintaining high population densities in the face of intense exploitation, which in any case also incidentally produces more food for them, by stirring up the bottom, and killing many non-targeted organisms]. What we're doing isn't any more like clearcutting than growing wheat or corn in the Midwest. [note: This analogy to farming is probably more accurate than fishermen might think: The farmer first DESTROYS the pre-existing ecosystems and alters the habitats that support them (such as wetlands, which are drained). Then, they plant (or in the case of ocean-bottom farming, encourage the growth of, albiet unknowingly!!) a drastically reduced number of species, and agressively supress all others. I know from personal experience, that many areas which are now happily producing scallops, were once substantially different (in the Bay of Fundy, (Maine and E. Canada), for example, many low-lying areas on the ocean bottom, which are partially protected from the effects of the strong tidal currents in the area, were once home to remarkably diverse and productive local ecosytems dominated structurally by sponges and moss-like bryozoans. In recent years, increased scallop trawling intensity in the area (due to unfair restrictions imposed by agreements between large offshore companies and the government!!) has destroyed most of these communities, and the moss-like bryozoans which charactarized them, are increasingly seldom found by trawlers. This is directly analagous to wetland destruction by farmers in many regions, and the result isneutal or perhaps even beneficial for scallops, but dissaterous for species dependant upon the destroyed habitats.] fewer The corn, the wheat and the scallops are continually produced year after year [but many non-targeted populations are heavily affected. An excellent example is a species of very large (up to 2 metres or more) rays, which used to be quite common on George's Bank, but are now perhaps extinct (they have not been seen for years!!). If such an extinction were to take place on land, it would have been the subject of great study, public outcry, etc. The fact remains that we cannot easily see what goes on on the ocean bottom- out of site, out of mind!!!! Another splendid example of this would be the extensive stands of deep-water corals which once graced the canyons and other suitable habitats of the deep continental shelves and slopes all around the world. These are still virtually unstudied, yet are being demolished at an accelerating rate, as large fishing companies trawl deeper and more difficult terrain In New Zealand, century-old Orange Gruppies are being scooped up from coral-covered bottoms at an extremely unsustainable rate,and their coral habitat is being correspondingly destroyed. Deep-water trawling/dragging worldwide is systematically targeting areas of high productivity, which are quite often deep-water coral reefs or banks, whose structural complex, mature ecosystems are in large part responsible for the very productivity which the fishing companies are both seeking, and destroying (most deep-water corals grow very slowly, due to low temperatures and nutrient levels- it will take hundreds and in some cases, thousands of years for trawled deep-water coral communities to recover completely, based on the little that is presently known to science.] ." (Marty Manley, Scallop fisherman, F/V Mary Anne, New Bedford, Massachusetts)

Fishing has involved some degree of bottom disturbance and interference with the behavior of non-targeted species since that time in history when fishermen first moved beyond the subsistence level. Any fishing method allowing a level of harvest beyond the fisherman's personal needs is bound to have some impacts [note: which, in a well-regulated, sustainable fishery, would be MINIMIZED, by a combination of no-trawling zones, and the banning or modification of the more destructive types of gear (such as the new "rock-hopping" gear which is responsible for much recent coral destruction!)]. Commercial fishing, after all, is about supplying consumers by removing fish and shellfish from their natural habitat, and that is going to have an effect on the assemblage of organisms left behind. [note: There are many effects of trawling/dragging, especially on the very large scale that exists in many regions today. These include a) massive destruction of "structural complexity" (corals, kelp and other large algae, large sponges, etc.). This results in a great decrease in niches and "refugia" (hiding places,often for juvenile fish!!) in the local habitat, which correspondingly decreases biodiversity b) problems caused by the clouds of silt raised by mobile gear, c) the killing of non-targeted organisms (unwanted or "incidental" bycatch), by decompression, crushing, burial, exposure to seagulls and other predators, etc., and d) the destruction of mature or "climax" ecosystems, which have far greater biodiversity than the resultant habitats & ecosystems can support- disturbed areas are populated by "oportunistic" or "weedy" species. Even from a purely economical viewpoint, large-scale trawling and dragging do not make any sense, since many of the species most desired (such as cod!) depend upon mature, complex ecosystems for their survival as "commercially viable" populations]

Trawling and dredging are the primary means of harvesting seafood from the world's oceans [note: not really true- longlining, seining, mid-water trawls, wiers, etc., are probably of greater importance]. In many areas they have been in continuous use by generations of fishermen. They are still being used because traditionally fished areas are still producing seafood in a process much more akin to sustainable farming than alarm-inspiring clearcutting of forests. Congress mandated in the Sustainable Fisheries Act that regional management councils assess the impact of these and other fishing activities on critical ocean bottom areas. Each of the councils is in the process of doing that. Commercial fishermen, oceanographic researchers, fisheries managers and the environmental community have all
committed to a balanced and rational examination of these effects. This subject cries out for such an approach, but presentations such as Dr. Norse's unfortunately threaten to contribute more heat than light to the dialogue.

For more information on this subject see the "Trawling/Dredging"
section of the New Jersey Fishing website at http://www.fishingnj.org.

Links......Arcticle index

George's Bank Oil and Gas Moratorium

Brief Background: The George's Bank area, which forms the southern portion of the Gulf of Maine (part of NE USA, and SE Canada), is an immensely productive fisheries region, being nourished by tidal currents from the Bay of Fundy, which has the highest tides in the world, with correspondingly high nutrient loads. It may also be located over signifigant oil and gas deposits, and large resource-extraction companies have been lobbying both governments for the past 2 decades, to be permitted to explore for petrocarbon resources there. In light of the potentialy large economic consequenses of spills, and even "normal" exploration methods, in terms of disruption of the many fish and shellfish stocks on George's Bank, a maoratorium on hydrocarbon exploration was instituted by both governments, which expires in the year 2000. This was extended on the US side of the border, but the Canadian government has not yet decided to do so. They have appointed a Royal Commission to study the issue ("when in doubt, form a committee" mentality!!), and various groups have been invited to submit arguments pro and con. Below is one such submission, and we hope to post at least one other major one in the near future.
 

Below is the submission from the Tuskett River Environmental Protection Association to the Georges bank Panel Review. I thought you might be interested.
 

Submission to Georges Bank Panel

By the Tusket River Environmental Protection Association (TREPA)

Our Association has neither the resources nor expertise to prepare an in-depth, well researched paper. In the absence of Intervenor funding to facilitate adequate research, our Georges Bank Committee has prepared a basic common sense intervention to the lifting of the Moratorium on drilling on Georges Bank. We urge the panel to give serious consideration to this submission and the rationale which substantiates our position.

TREPA is opposed to the lifting of the moratorium for the following reasons:

US Moratorium
 

The rationale used by our neighbours for the renewal of their moratorium is in itself a strong reason for Canada to do the same. In issuing the Directive, President Clinton cited the risk of oil spills and environmental damage. These risks are no less prevalent on the Canadian side of the Hague line. It is not logical to permit oil/gas activities on one side of the line while banned on the other. We do not have the right to impose the potential for risk on our neighbour. Oceans and their habitats do not recognize political boundaries.

Drilling vs. Fishing
 

With the extensive oil and gas exploration and development off Newfoundland, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and on the Scotian shelf, the necessity of lifting the moratorium on Georges Bank at this time cannot be morally or economically justified. At present the dollar value of the fishing resource from the Georges Bank fishery estimated to be $99 million, far exceeds any short or medium term benefit for Nova Scotia from oil/gas activities. With the rapid advance in oil/gas technologies, it is conceivable that in the future it may be possible that oil/gas operations and fishing can safely co-exist. At the present time, however, numerous studies indicate that acute negative impacts on fish larvae are suspected to occur at greater distances from drilling operations than had originally been observed. In addition chronic negative impacts on fish larvae and shoreline based fisheries have not been adequately researched. Further it is our submission that a continued moratorium would provide a window of opportunity to evaluate the fishery downturn and the effects of that collapse on the Georges Bank and shoreline fisheries..

Socio-economic Considerations

The Terms of Reference cite these as major criteria for consideration by the panel. Our definition of socio-economic is very basic: sustainable jobs in a renewable resource industry, such as the fisheries for residents of southwestern Nova Scotia, and the enhancement and/or preservation of their "way of life". In simple terms, employment from exploratory or production drilling including the seismic component will not be increased for SWNS. In the seismic and exploratory drilling phases, supply and logistics would most likely continue to be provided from Halifax eliminating any potential advantage for this end of the province. In the event of a production stage, it is logical that tankers or a pipeline direct to the US eastern seaboard would be the method used to move any gas or oil.

The potential for damage to the Georges Bank fishery by these operations must not be neglected. Any negative impact on or reduction of this fishery?s capacities would seriously affect employment in our coastal communities which, in turn, would severely impact on the quality of life.

The recent increase in spousal abuse and the suicide rate in fishing communities in Nova Scotia is a case in point. This is a grave concern in SWNS and needs no further elaboration.
 
 

Marine Protected Areas

Georges Bank has been described as one of the most biologically productive and diverse marine areas in the world.

In the early nineties, a study recommended the establishment of a marine protected area along the Hague line. With the current US moratorium extended, we submit that this would be a most opportune point in time to open negotiations with our US neighbour toward the goal of establishing a marine protected area on that location. Biodiversity must not be compromised for short term gain, and the lifting of the moratorium will do exactly that.

In addition we submit that consideration be given to the exclusion of all oil/gas exploration in the Bay of Fundy including Browns and German Banks. These are prime fishing locations and are well recognized as fundamental to the long term viability of the fishery resource.

Other issues which should be considered by the panel include:
Global climate change, energy conservation, fossil fuel extraction, and other long term cumulative impacts which may occur from oil industry operations. While these are perhaps beyond the Terms of Reference of your panel and certainly exceed the research parameters of our committee they are none-the-less interlocked with whole question and are fundamental to the long term sustainability of our natural resources.

In conclusion, we urge the panel to recommend the continuation of the moratorium. We solicit this decision on behalf of all Nova Scotians who are concerned for the future of theirgrandchildren.

Links......Arcticle index

Deep-Water Coral Reefs Protected off Norway!-

Just before Christmas the news was released that the Norwegian government has closed the worlds biggest deep water coral reef (known so far) - the "Sula Reef" outside the island Frøya (Mid-Norway) to all trawling activities. I have just heard the news on the radio (and TV) and haven't seen any newspaper articles yet so please forgive me if the following is not quite precise:
 

> A researcher at the Marine Insitute in Bergen, Jan Helge Fosså, stated that more areas might be declared trawling sanctuaries in the future - as the mapping of the reefs get more complete. The Fisheries Ministry has asked the Research Institute to conduct the mapping. Fosså said that he sees the bottom trawling in the reef areas as the most serious threat to biodiversity in Norwegian waters.
>
> The information about the destruction of deep water coral reefs by trawlers was brought to the attention of the Norwegian public by a television report this summer. The pictures showed smashed reefs with pieces of corals spread all over the bottom. The report created a massive demand for protection of the reefs - with the fishermen using gill nets and long lines as the most vociferous. The director of the Fisheries Directorate's department in Mid-Norway, Alf Albriktsen, proposed that "rock hopping" trawling gear should be forbidden.
>
> At that time Fosså commented in a newspaper interview (Fiskaren 1. July) that action had to bee taken without delay - as many reefs had been already seriously damaged. He said the coastal fishermen had directed the scientists to areas where it in earlier times was found a lot of fish, but where the fish now had disappeared. When the areas were researched destroyed reefs where found. Fosså said to Fiskaren that he agreed with the coastal fishermen that the reefs probably are very important habitat for young fish - but that it does not exist firm scientific evidence to prove this notion.
>
> A personal comment to the debate on trawling:
 

> In many fisheries there are several gear alternatives that gives a satisfactory efficiency. In my mind the choice of gear type (and fishing technology in general) are important to the attainment of the social/economic/cultural and ecological objectives of fisheries management. The closing of areas to certain gear types should therefore be a central part of fisheries management.
>
> This is already the case in the Norwegian context. On example is the permanent closure of the spawning area for the Barents Sea cod to trawlers - and the prohibition of the use of purse seining in the cod fisheries. The latter was established back in the1950's.
>
> One thing is for sure: The destruction of coral reefs by trawling is totally unacceptable, and action to stop it should be taken without delay. The trawling sanctuary at the Sula Reef area is a good start.
 

>
> A Happy New Year to all Fishfolks.

Links......Arcticle index.

Human-facilitated Bioinvasion Threatens Marine Biodiversity

By PAISLEY DODDS
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (January 26, 1999 5:11 p.m. EST http://www.nandotimes.com) - Foreign marine life invading waters where they are not normally found has escalated into a multibillion dollar nuisance as fishermen continue to dump exotic species, bacteria and viruses from their boats, biologists warned Tuesday.

The sea life is often found lurking in cargo holds or in ballast water pumped in to stabilize ships during their voyage and then pumped out when they reach their destination.

Once the invaders take hold, they can devour native species, alter food chains and change whole ecosystems, biologists say.

"There are a lot of global marine hitchhikers and now is the time to take action," said Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, who spoke Tuesday at the first international Marine Bioinvasions Conference at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Bioinvasion costs government and industry $123 billion a year to control on land and at sea, according to a study released at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Babbitt said.

In the San Francisco Bay area - where there are more than 250 known exotic invaders - one of the most voracious predators has been the Asian clam introduced in the 1980s.
The mud-dwelling clams feed by filtering out food particles in the water column.

"The clams have been filtering out so much of the water that we haven't seen annual blooms of phytoplankton since the 1980s," said Andy Cohen, a marine biologist for the San Francisco Estuary Institute in Richmond, Calif. That means animals who eat phytoplankton have been stripped of an essential food source, he said.

In New England, a type of Japanese algae is now aggressively taking root along the coast. Meanwhile, an organism from New England - called a comb jelly - was exported to the Black Sea and has decimated an economically important anchovy fishery.

One thing scientists did in the past was introduce predator species to control invaders. But now, fearing new species could further threaten ecosystems, scientists have been developing methods that would stop the invaders before they make it to foreign waters.

Babbitt on Tuesday called for mandatory ballast water exchange programs and urged Congress to work on bioinvasion before it becomes a crisis. Proposals include giving agencies the muscle to enforce what could amount to International regulations,he said.

Ballast exchange programs would require a ship coming from the Mediterranean, for example, to dump its ballast water in the deep seas - at least 200 miles from shore and about 2,000 feet deep - then replace it with deep sea water. The theory is that organisms found in deep sea water have a harder time surviving in water closer to thecoasts, and vice versa.

Links......Arcticle index