Ocean Politics and the Future

“Following a period of detailed consideration the Government has today released the Report of the Montara Commission of Inquiry and a draft Government response”

says this week’s press release from the office of Martin Ferguson, Australian Minister for Resources and Energy.

“… the impact on the marine environment was minimal. … We can’t just turn our backs on this industry — it is too important to Australia’s economic and energy security.”

And so it begins. The next stage of our struggle to have the Government of Australia reconise the threats that the oil and gas indusry pose to whales and dolphins.

My blogging history began with my outrage at the oil spill in the Timor Sea. That spill that started with a blowout close to the seabed on August 21st 2009 and lasted for 10 long weeks, as well as revealing the depth of denial that Governments will run to keep powerful industry happy.

The Timor spill was by no means the first, and this Gulf of Mexico spill is  unlikely to be the last.

In fact it has been a busy year for the oil and gas industry in terms of its impacts on our marine environment. Since February 2009 there has been a spill in Ireland, another in Norway, two in the USA and three in Australia. Each has received intense media focus while the oil was flowing, then seemed to mysteriously fade from public and policy makers minds once stopped. I often wonder why? The drama isn't over at that point.

The last few years have witnessed some interesting twists and turns in the international wildlife conservation and protection field. With the outcomes of the  Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) meeting this week, it seem the economics of foreign affairs is winning - that a polar bear skin is worth more to Governments than protecting wildlife where they live.

Several years ago, on a bright cold morning in Kaikoura I took a very memorable whale watching trip with some IWC colleagues. Much optimism filled the air as the snow capped mountains pierced the blue sky and we anticipated the delights of the New Zealand coastline. We were very lucky. It was a special day in every way. We started the journey out to the deep sea-canyon water where the sperm whales are found, escorted by a typically exuberant group of dusky dolphins. We then saw several sperms whales. We watched them quietly whilst they gathered their breath and rested at the surface between dives. Along the way we also saw New Zealand fur seals, albatross and, as we neared the shore on our return, Hector’s dolphins. When the Hector’s dolphins came into view, the captain let the engine idle, allowing the passengers to take in the vista of mountains and sea, birds and marine mammals. Then, as if to make the point, although none needed making, over the PA system he put on the song ‘What a Wonderful World’ by Louis Armstrong . This was a bright and optimistic time. A sense of positive change for whales was palpable.

New Zealander’s (Kiwi’s) are know for their practical approach – the ‘number eight-wire’ mentality – but also for taking a bold principled stance on issues such as disarmament, nuclear power, human rights issues and of course, traditionally, on whaling.

How then, in a matter of a few short years from this memorable day in Kaikoura, where anything seemed possible, do we find ourselves in a situation where the New Zealand government is now countenancing a compromise on whaling. Where has all the passion gone? Is it simple exhaustion? Has the war of attrition with the whaling fraternity finally worn down some of the whales’ staunchest allies?

Some suggest that there is something more sinister at play; that international relations with the USA and Japan are overshadowing the views of the person on the street in New Zealand, that these views are being lost in the mire of trying to help secure a longer-term aboriginal whaling quota for the USA.

But I still hold out some hope that isn’t the case. The Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully said that he is going to ask New Zealanders what they think before NZ officials would be permitted to vote on any deal on whaling – although quite how he is going to do this is yet to be revealed. Does he plan to hold a referendum? It seems unlikely, and rather unnecessary, since polls on the issue demonstrate, irrefutably, that the majority of Kiwi’s are fundamentally opposed to commercial whaling.

The theory of the New Zealand deal makers appears to have its foundations in good intentions. The objective, the proponents argue, is an overall reduction in the number of whales killed. The argument seems to be that we are at a crunch point within the IWC and that a way to make a deal with the whalers, but Japan specifically, must be found, otherwise the whalers will leave the Commission and form regional management bodies that will ‘manage’ whales under regulations that the conservation-minded nations would be unable to influence.

But these threats are not new. In fact, such threats have been echoing around the halls of the IWC meetings for over a decade and there remains a great debate about the political and legal ramifications of such a move by Japan and its allies.

Do the deal makers really believe that the deal that is on the table is ‘do-able’? That the whaling nations can be trusted to act in ‘good faith’? What precedent for good governance of global resources would be set by rewarding endless infringements of the IWC rules by granting coastal quotas?

In talking about a potential compromise on whale killing – even with the objective of reducing the number of whales killed overall (something which is far from guaranteed by the current deal, and most certainly not in the long-term) – the NZ Government has created an expectation that under the right circumstances NZ would vote for a compromise. What this diplomatic shimmy fails to recognise is a point of principle. This principle is fundamental to the people of New Zealand – they do not approve of commercial whaling.

So where to now New Zealand? There is time for recovery from this incongruous position, but the government will need to act quickly and decisively to reassure its public that this administration still believes that protecting whales remains an important part of what it means to be a Kiwi.

Meanwhile, whales go about their business in all corners of the oceans.

And I think to myself…. What a Wonderful World.

Of all the post Copenhagen wraps up, George Monbiot pretty much sums up my feelings about the outcomes of the Copenhagen meeting, but others also remind me that there is still some hope.

Unlike many, I am not so worried not to have achieved the much sought ‘legally binding agreement’ at this meeting. It’s a lot to secure from so many Governments in such a short space of time.

I am a fan of global process. I am believer in the power and purpose of civil society. I am confident that the UN holds an important role in our future (when it overcomes the bureaucratic problems of the present). And, I know that when Governments want to, and the right negotiators are in the room, they can fundamentally change the way the world is structured.

What an amazing week it has been in Australian politics. Poised as we were for pre-Copenhagen Emissions Trading legislation to be passed, a leadership spill in the opposition Liberal Party (centre-right) and their subsequent radical and swift retreat from climate change policy caused the second defeat of the legislation in the Senate, and a trigger for the Government to call a double dissolution election. Mere hours ago, the Government announced that it will bring the legislation back for a third attempt in February, but this will be after the Copenhagen meeting.

I know it is cliché, but I honestly could not think of a better title for this post.

SkyTruth
obtained these new photographs, apparently taken from a nearby vessel
shortly after the fire was extinguished. The photos clearly show the
severe damage sustained by the Montara oil platform and the attached
West Atlas drill rig. These photos are from an anonymous source, so
their integrity can't vouch for, but they closely resemble this
post-fire photo taken by media in the same period and so seem to be
legitimate. WDCS join SkyTruth in thanking the photographer who took
these shots and is allowing us to make them available to the public. 

In the past few hours the news has spread through Australian and International media that the spill has been plugged. The company has said that a small fire remains on the rig, but ostensibly the immediate disaster is contained ... but it is far, far from over.

Oil and its toxic impacts will remain in the region for years to come. The animals who call this place home will be living with their impacts in their food chains and in themselves for an unknown amount of time.

As I write this I am reminded of news that came to the fore many years after the Exxon disaster had fallen from conscious minds.

Orca were photographed in oil after the 1989 ‘Exxon Valdez’ oil spill, but preliminary damage assessments did not definitively link mortalities to the spill and could not evaluate recovery.

2 separate orca populations were monitories 5 yr prior to and for 16 yr after the spill. The two populations suffered losses of 33 and 41%, respectively, in the year following the spill. Sixteen years after 1989, the first populations had not recovered to pre-spill numbers and its rate of increase was significantly less than that of other resident pods that were not associated with the spill. The second population, which lost 9 members following the spill, continued to decline. Although there may be other contributing factors, the loss of important individuals, including reproductive-age females, accelerated this population’s trajectory toward extinction.

The synchronous losses of unprecedented numbers of orca from 2 ecologically and genetically separate groups and the absence of other obvious perturbations strengthens the link between the mortalities and lack of recovery, and the ‘Exxon Valdez’ oil spill.

(Source: Matkin C, Saulitis E, Ellis G, Olesiuk P and Rice S, Ongoing population-level impacts on killer whales Orcinus orca following the ‘Exxon Valdez’ oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska, Marine Ecologic Progress Series, 356:269-281, 2008)

Much has transpired since the last blog entry. The spill, of course, continues to flow out into the marine environment and atmosphere (not forgetting that light crude and gas are both leaking), the Government’s rapid assessment has reported significant number of animals within the slick ... oh, and now the rig is on fire!

The company which runs the well, PTTEP Australasia, has told the media that the fire broke out as it made another attempt to plug a leak deep underwater at the Montara rig. Thankfully, no workers were onboard the rig when the fire started and workers on the West Triton relief rig, stationed 1.2 miles (2km) away, were safe from the enormous blaze.

By anyone’s standards this is now a major environmental disaster, and politicians are baying for blood. At the same time there has been another hit to the reputation of the oil and gas industry, with confirmation of a second gas leak in the Timor Sea. Without doubt the next week will focus on who is to blame, and less attention will be focused on the enormity of the tragedy.

But other more probing questions have also started to work their way in the quiet background of public discourse.

Ten weeks into the uncontrolled and continuing oil and gas spill from the Montara wellhead, with anywhere from 10 to 20 million litres of oil spilled into the ocean, the Rapid Assessment of the Impacts of the Montara Oil Leak on Birds, Cetaceans and Marine Reptiles has positively identified at least 4 species of cetaceans - 462 individuals (along with 23 species of birds, 2 species of turtles and 4 species of sea snakes).

Andrew Crook, on Crikey.com, has asked will Timor Sea oil slick be curtains for bluefin tuna? Good question really, given the tuna's status is already precarious after decades of over fishing and the spill is in the bluefin spawning grounds. Perhaps his question will spark some further investigation in other areas of the media

The impacts for most marine life in this region are likely to be huge, and on this note WDCS has once again made a public comment into the media sphere “We strongly concur with the assessment recommendations a four-five year minimum time frame for the long term monitoring of the impact to cetacean behavior and populations numbers as a result of the spill, and in truth we believe it should be more like a decade. The Monitoring Plan is silent on the duration of commitment the Government has secured from industry. For all we can determine, they may monitor for a year and then walk away. A renegotiated plan must extend monitoring for at least ten years.” Dr Mike Bossley, WDCS Australasian Managing Director.

“We still don’t see the commitment we expect from the Australian Government. If they were serious about mitigating the threats of oil spills they would immediately freeze all new oil and gas exploration applications; develop much stronger conditions and controls over all oil and gas rig and shipping activities including contingency plans before approvals are given; and identify and fully protect all whale and dolphin critical habitats in a network of marine sanctuaries before any oil and gas acreage is released again” Dr Bossley concluded.

As we drag ourselves towards the bad news that week 11 will certainly hold, it is difficult to stay optimistic about this sad an sorry affair. But, to end this blog with some heart, the wonderful campaigners with the Wilderness Society in Australia staged an oil spill protest on Friday 30th October. Volunteers gathered in a colorful action to protest against the oil spill and campaign for greater protection of our the marine life in this region (which we Australians call The Kimberly). Thank you TWS!

Today dawned with an argument raging in the media about the failed attempts to cap the leak. There is no doubt in my mind that the industry want this leak stopped and I am sure that every attempt is being made to do so.

For my focus, every day that the spill continues brings more bad news for the species and ecosystems of this part of the world. It also brings disheartening news about how seriously this is being treated by the Australian Government

Last week the Government and industry released their joint West Atlas Monitoring Programme (15 October 2009) - six weeks after the spill started. Hooray we thought – now we can see the plan to recover some lost ground.

Saddly, even a cursory read of document reveals how much baseline information has to be gathered. The question immediately comes to mind - why was this not collected before the drilling began?

But, what remains the biggest thorn in the sideis that Government seems content to continue a line of denial about the scope of the impact.

Within the document are unsubstantiated statements that impacts of the oil spill on whales and dolphins 'remain unlikely'. The document claims that experts have been consulted, so why then does WDCS need to remind policy makers that marine animals can ingest oil-derived toxic compounds either directly from the water or with their food. That poisonous vapor can also be inhaled by whales and dolphins and especially when the volatile components evaporate into the air from freshly spilled oil.

With anywhere from 10 to 20 million litres of oil spilled into the ocean it is a good bet that there will be chronic longer-term effects of oil entering the food-chain potentially affecting the whole system. Much of this will happen far from sight and if whales or dolphins are killed or otherwise affected - days, months and years into the future - we are unlikely to be witness to this.

None of this information is particularly ground breaking nor new. We have know most of this information for a few decades.
Dolphins have been filmed moving through the slick. We know that many other species call this region home.

It is time that the Australian Government woke up to the full reality of this situation and imposed much stronger conditions and controls over all oil and gas rig and shipping activities in Australian waters.

And, doesn’t it seem sensible to know what is present first … before you decide the level of risk that you might destroying something?