Watching the Oceans

I have been following a spate of recent articles whose topics concerned the world’s oceans and the species in them. One article pointed to a study that showed that nearly ½ of the Great Barrier Reef has been destroyed in the past two decades. That was a depressing piece of news. I had an opportunity to do a few brief dives on the Great Barrier Reef in the early nineties. It was right outside of Cairns, Australia. I remember vividly the clear water and the abundance of fish and other marine species I saw during my four  30 minute dives over a two day period.

Another recent article in the LA Times predicts that seafood species will be much smaller at future harvests but that the price for fish and other seafood will increase and increase substantially.

Basically it said, Seafood lovers will find their favorite “wild caught” menu items will diminish in size by nearly 25 percent over the next fifty years due to human impact on the oceans. 

The article appeared in the journal “Nature Climate Change”, ( see below)  described the drop in species size as ultimately having a huge negative impact on seafood supply and price due to climate change as well as over fishing and pollution……

The headline was pretty grim. 

Global warming will shrink fish sizes, seafood supply, says study….. By Tiffany Hsu

October 1, 2012, 11:19 a.m. | Los Angles Time – Business

It’s not just fish populations shrinking, according to a new study. Fish themselves will be much smaller within a few decades.

Global warming linked to greenhouse-gas emissions will cause the body weight of more than 600 types of marine fish to dwindle up to 24% between 2000 and 2050, according to a report in the journal Nature Climate Change.

Additional factors, such as over fishing and pollution, will only make matters worse.

Ultimately, the changes “are expected to have large implications for trophic interactions, ecosystem functions, fisheries and global protein supply,” according to the study.

Aquatic creatures grow depending on the temperature, oxygen and resources available in water, according to researchers. Fish will struggle to breathe and develop as oceans become warmer and less oxygenated.

Fewer, smaller fish could result in a supply crunch, leading to higher prices of seafood down the line.

The news has not been all bad however, in an October 3, 2012  article The New York Times reported that scientists found some encouragement in their process of creating a new way of monitoring the health of the oceans.

A two-year study broke with traditional methodology and based their approach on the tenet Global Blue Technologies’ close, non-profit partner – the International Foundation for the Conservation of Natural Resources (IFCNR) – has been preaching for better than two decades, namely that humans are “A Part of Nature, Not Apart from Nature.”  

You can see in the article below the study’s co-author is quoted, “People and Nature are not separate any more.” 

New ocean health index scores world 60 out of 100

The U.S. gets a 63. Criteria include economic benefits of coastal waters, along with aesthetics and environmental data. 

August 18, 2012 By Nika Soon-Shiong, Los Angeles Times 

After two years of collecting global data and developing models, scientists have a new, comprehensive way to measure the health of the world’s oceans that recognizes humans as a part of an integrated marine ecosystem.

The scientists’ report, published this week in the journal Nature, gave the oceans an overall score of 60 on a scale of 0 to 100. Among the world’s 133 countries with ocean coastlines, scores ranged from 36 to 86; the United States scored slightly above average at 63.

The ocean health index measures 10 ways that people benefit from the oceans, including food, jobs, ability to sequester carbon from the atmosphere and pure aesthetic value. It also gives credit for clean waters and biodiversity, among other things.

The index score assigned to a particular ocean region reflects the degree of sustainability for each of these factors.

To come up with scores for each country, a group of more than 30 scientists used data from dozens of sources. They got economic data from the United Nations, for instance, and satellite data on ocean temperature, sea ice extent and UV radiation from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The 133 regions were defined as exclusive economic zones that extend from a country’s shore to a boundary 200 nautical miles out to sea.

One way to think about the ocean index score is to compare it to a hospital visit.

“When someone shows up at the ER, there are things people look at: breathing, heartbeat, pulse,” said study coauthor Larry Crowder, science director of the Center for Ocean Solutions at Stanford. The criteria picked for this study are like vital signs for the ocean, he said.

Previous ecosystem assessments focused on ways humans have damaged nature, such as by polluting waterways or driving species to the brink of extinction. For this index, researchers decided to award points for the ways that oceans could sustainably benefit people, even though such benefits might come at the expense of another goal.

For example, an increase in coastal livelihoods and economies might decrease a region’s score for clean waters but still boost the index score overall. By quantifying these trade-offs, the ocean health index can help countries do their own cost-benefit analyses depending on what they value most.

“The old model of trying to save nature by keeping people out simply won’t work,” said study coauthor Steven Katona, managing director of the Ocean Health Index for the nonprofit environmental group Conservation International based in Arlington, Va. “People and nature are not separate anymore.”

One of the biggest questions raised by the study is what to make of a score like 60.

To some, that may sound like an unsatisfactory grade, a D-minus. But project leader Benjamin Halpern, director of the Center for Marine Assessment and Planning at UC Santa Barbara, said that would be the wrong way to look at it.

“There is a lot of room for improvement, but still a lot of success,” he said. “It wasn’t a 10 or 15.”

The index score for the United States suggests, according to the Nature study, that the country could improve its ocean health by supporting tourism businesses that are environmentally friendly; encouraging sustainable fishing practices; and investing in aquaculture to provide jobs and economic benefits to coastal communities.

No matter how I read these and future articles the good news I take away from all of these trends is that our closed system bio-secure sustainable aquaculture system is something the world needs and needs now.