Statement from Ocean Elders
Today’s New York Times published an Op-Ed entitled ‘Bigger Is Not Better for Ocean Conservation’ which argues against the protection of large sections of the ocean.
There is no argument here. Protecting small, highly-diverse places in the ocean is vital, but this alone cannot restore and maintain ocean health. The evidence speaks for itself about why safeguarding large areas of the ocean and the biological, physical, and geological systems and processes that they embrace are essential for human prosperity, health, and security. The open ocean provides more than half of the oxygen we breathe, governs climate and weather, shapes planetary chemistry, and is home for most of life on Earth. Recent discoveries confirm that even in the deep sea, thousands of feet under the Antarctic ice, there are life systems as diverse as tropical reefs. We believe that marine protected areas are critical to both the protection and the recovery of marine ecosystems from human impacts, can help restore marine life, and help reduce the impacts of climate change.
Certainly, there is much that can be learned from countries like Cuba that have done a remarkable job of protecting their coastal waters, but the fact remains that there is an urgent need to take action to secure a truly sustainable future for humankind by taking care of much more than the current 4% of the ocean now officially protected.
As never before, momentum is growing among nations to protect large areas of the ocean before vested interests destroy the very systems that drive not only our livelihoods, but fundamentally, our lives. Over the last few months, many countries, including Brazil, Chile, Mexico and the Seychelles, have created marine protected areas that build upon the announcements over the last two years by the Commission on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) to protect the Ross Sea in Antarctica, by former U.S. President Barack Obama to expand the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument in Hawaii, and former U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron to designate fully protected marine reserves in the British Overseas Territories of Ascension Island, the Pitcairn Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. These efforts, among many others, are critical to restoring ecosystems damaged by human activities.
It is also worth noting that the United Nations General Assembly has agreed to begin formal negotiations for a new international treaty to protect the biodiversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction, commonly known as the High Seas which make up almost half of planet Earth. The High Seas play a critical role in the functioning of the entire ocean as well as our atmosphere, climate and terrestrial areas but remain unprotected by law allowing destructive human activities to continue unabated.
We can, and we must, safeguard vital large areas of the ocean that underpin Earth’s life support systems and urgently restore areas damaged by centuries of human degradation. As Dr. Sylvia Earle has said, “the ocean serves as the blue heart of the planet and the question we have to be asking is how much of your heart should be protected?”
I am sure that, as happened in Brazil, where the large majority of researchers and environmentalists got excited, everyone gave the proper support for the creation of these large MPAs. And even the most cetic ones had their minds convinced of the “momentum”, although the Management plan for such areas could be full of frustrating surprises. We believed. Never late to remember that there will be an election by the end of the year, and so, literally everything is possible. Sadly, the changes in the proposed areas occurred as a political negotiation, pending to the Navy needs, that did consider the long term studies. To sum up, neither the Navy has resources to effectively patrol the area, nor the Environmental agency ICMBio. We definitely got two new very Large paper parks. We have a number to show, 25.
Om behalf of all the Brazilians who fought hard for the large, meaningful and very important MPAs, a big THANK YOU for this statement!
I read the Op-Ed of NY Times, the author did not argue against the protection of large sections of the ocean. This is a lie. Please, check this sentence removed from the Op-ED “While these vast expanses of open ocean are important, their protection should not come before coastal waters are secured.”
Also please read this excellent commentary: http://www.deepseanews.com/2018/03/embracing-yes-also-marine-protected-areas-are-not-an-either-or-proposition/
I think it’s not against protecting large areas of ocean, but not to loose sight of the diversity hotspots that are at our doorsteps. Declaring large areas ‘protected’ and then continue with business as usual is not going to safe our oceans. Most of these large areas are hardly controlled and legislation is not enforced. I think the NYT piece warns us against the illusions that are sometimes being generated and that we need to protect both large and small areas.
Protecting the marine life should be our priority.I also appreciate the work the ocean elders and team are doing.Dr. Sylvia A Earle has inspired me alot,Love all u.