WDC Blog - From the Front Line

For those of us based in Europe these are difficult days. The Euro crisis is not only incapacitating the EU in implementing EU environmental legislation (see the recent web postings on Morgan), but it’s also allowing what may appear to some as ideological attacks against this very same EU law and policy to go unchecked.

In the UK, the Coalition Government has put us on notice that it will not allow EU wildlife legislation to stand in the way of economic development. Gone are the days of the UK’s Prime Minister cuddling huskies and now in comes the might of the Treasury with a flame-thrower to the very protective measures that have brought some respite to our increasingly devastated oceans and wildlife.

We are, to say the least, in shock that the Coalition Government is considering reviewing the implementation of the EU Birds and Habitats Directives in England simply to create less of a burden on new developments. It is almost as if some ideologues are taking this period of uncertainty and austerity to pull down all the legislation that they have felt stood in the way of exploiting the marine environment for the last few decades.

In his Autumn Statement the UK’s Chancellor stated  “If we burden [British businesses] with endless social and environmental goals – however worthy in their own right – then not only will we not achieve those goals, but the businesses will fail, jobs will be lost, and our country will be poorer."

The Chancellor denounced the burden of 'endless social and environmental goals' on industry and went onto say, "we will make sure that gold plating of EU rules on things like Habitats aren’t placing ridiculous costs on British businesses."

The UK’s Habitats Regulations, which implement the EU’s Habitats and Species Directive, were brought into place by a Conservative Government in 1994 and have been a foundation stone on which protection for whales and dolphins and other marine life has depended. The UK is already the most lax implementer of the Directive and any dilution of the current law can only mean more loss of marine habitat and the diminishing number of whales and dolphins around the coast.

But maybe we should have seen this coming. A few weeks ago we saw the Liberal Democrat Minister Chris Huhne give permission for the start of exploratory drilling in the Atlantic Frontier, despite the fact that the EU has suggested that stricter environmental controls should be considered after the spill in the Gulf.

WDCS understands that Defra are now to undertake a review of the Habitat Regulations but we are greatly concerned that this will allow for every Tom, Dick and Harry with a grudge to bear to get their knives into the legislation. At a time when oil companies and other developers are arguing that they should not be facing restrictions, this will be a field day for their lobbyists.

WDCS believes that Defra now have a responsibility to champion the environment and show that the long term value of protecting our marine and natural environment is as important as the short term gains that come from opening up these last few frontiers to exploitation.

Link to the Defra review

2012 is quickly racing towards us. It’s a crucial year because the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development set internationally agreed targets to establish extensive networks of MPAs around the world by 2012.

Whether the 2012 target turns out to be to ambitious will soon become clear as many of the proposed MPAs will need to be on track during 2011 to meet the 2012 deadline.

Daniel Cressey writing in Nature (Vol. 469, No. 7329, 13 January 2011) quotes Tundi Agardy, the lead author of a paper published in Marine Policy (35, 226-232 (2001)) [one of the other authors is a friend of WDCS, Giuseppe Notarbartolo di Sciara],  warning of ‘blind faith’ in the ability of MPAs to stem biodiversity loss.

Agardy is not opposed to MPAs. Indeed it appears that the paper is highly supportive of MPAs, but is critical of policy makers who end up designing MPAs that are too small to be effective and that create an illusion of protection when none is actually occurring. The paper also points out that poor management and the fact that degradation of waters outside an MPA can mean that the MPA is ineffective.

The paper goes onto illustrate the MPA for the vaquita porpoise in the Gulf of California has not been successful because the paper claims that it missed a major area of the species core range.

WDCS is campaigning for MPAs for cetaceans around the world, but some policy makers seem ready to repeat the list of mistakes that Agardy and her colleagues outline. I am concerned that proposals for MPAs that policy makers may accept will be too small and too limited to make a difference.

In the same edition of Nature the lead editorial calls on policy makers to think big when considering protected areas. Whilst the leader looks specifically at terrestrial national parks and the impacts of climate change, it also notes that ‘landscape scale’ conservation initiatives are necessary to adapt to the impacts of climate change where many species will need to be able to move to adapt.

I remain concerned that policy makers may believe that the oceans of the world are ‘big enough’ to allow for such movements and adaptations by cetaceans, but how will small protected areas be flexible enough to accommodate such changes? Only if we look at larger ocean landscape protected areas - that address multiple threats to cetaceans - will we really begin to create the necessary frameworks to manage human impacts and so allow these creatures to flourish in such highly dynamic environments.

 

World Oceans Day, 8 June 2010. Eulogy for the Gulf of México. Let us now remember and celebrate the life of what was one of the most species diverse and productive corners of the world ocean: the now beleaguered Gulf of México, its brilliance long to be stained by the reality and the legacy of one of the world’s largest ever oil spills.

Supposedly now being contained on the north side of the Gulf, the spill was last compared to the size of Luxembourg but that doesn’t account for the three-dimensional penetration of the mile-plus water column.

The human addiction to oil — and corporate greed shouting out in its willingness to take extraordinary risks for profit —has much to answer for.

Of course, the Gulf itself is not dead. But sadly the world will now think of oily destruction whenever they hear “Gulf of Mexico”. How long it will take the Gulf to get back to “normal”?

For now, the bodies pile up: seabirds, turtles, fish, dolphins. The fishing boats lie rusting in the marinas. The beaches are near empty. And all over the world, the people who trusted the can’t-miss blue chip BP with their pensions and investments, will suffer, too. Even the oil workers on other rigs in the Gulf have been choking on the fumes, and many have been evacuated. Spare a thought for those species that have nowhere to go but to try to live, and sooner or later die, in the mess.

Let us now remember this sea of gold. Please remember the gold was never the oil; it was the fish, shrimp, dolphins, whales, the sea itself. This golden sea will long be tarnished.

Let this at least be a warning to those who may become similarly blinded by the promise of false gold beneath the sea, eager and willing to risk our future, and our children’s future. We can’t let it happen again.

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?