State of the Oceans....

[SkyViking (Rolf)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

It's not a matter of political will. We will never get anywhere on political will because the politicians and such don't want to change. They have no will to make it. The change must come from the people and they have to be willing to shoulder the greater burden of it, for the time being. To change the politics of the situation, the people have to drive the change.

Yes Carl, that's what I meant. But I don't think it'll come from the people, because the majority of the Earth's population still have much more pressing worries than climate change and ecological destruction. They are trying to feed themselves and their families. It is only us fortunate enough to live in a wealthy democratic society with our comfortable lifestyles that are in a position to even consider these matters. Only when it becomes obvious to nearly everyone in the world, and when it literally affects us all, will we see a change. But by then it will most likely be too late, and therefore I think it'll get a lot worse before technology enables us to ultimately improve the situation maybe 100-200 years from now.

[avandonk]

Thanks for that Stephen. I was in no way having a go at your original post. Our grandchildren are going to say 'what were they thinking?' or more realistically 'they were not really thinking at all!'

The scientific method overcame centuries of ignorance and superstition about three hundred years ago. Some people want to go back to that unfortunate situation if only for selfish reasons of greed and power.

Eternal viligance is the only way to combat this.

Bert

[morls (Stephen)]

Yep. I'm trying to be as objective as possible. The best way I know of achieving this is looking very closely at where the data is coming from. I think it's vital to have the scientific method as a model for these discussions. Peer reviewed data, and all the other principles that serve this model are there for a reason - it takes a bit more work to dig through the information, but this is an issue that gets people very agitated, so I reckon we have to be as meticulous as possible in using valid data and checking sources. If an argument can stand up to scientific process, peer reviewed, then that to me is a good test. Any argument that is not willing to be subject to these criteria cannot be seen as solid or convincing. (in my opinion...)

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by SkyViking

Yes Carl, that's what I meant. But I don't think it'll come from the people, because the majority of the Earth's population still have much more pressing worries than climate change and ecological destruction. They are trying to feed themselves and their families. It is only us fortunate enough to live in a wealthy democratic society with our comfortable lifestyles that are in a position to even consider these matters. Only when it becomes obvious to nearly everyone in the world, and when it literally affects us all, will we see a change. But by then it will most likely be too late, and therefore I think it'll get a lot worse before technology enables us to ultimately improve the situation maybe 100-200 years from now.

The change will have to initially come from those who are most guilty of the mess we're in now....us. The rest of the world will have to be brought along. But if we don't make the first move, you can be rest assured that nothing good will come of our inaction.

Technology is just a tool and won't solve the problems we face. If you don't want to use a tool, you don't. It's who uses that tool that makes the changes...the person behind it.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by morls

Yep. I'm trying to be as objective as possible. The best way I know of achieving this is looking very closely at where the data is coming from. I think it's vital to have the scientific method as a model for these discussions. Peer reviewed data, and all the other principles that serve this model are there for a reason - it takes a bit more work to dig through the information, but this is an issue that gets people very agitated, so I reckon we have to be as meticulous as possible in using valid data and checking sources. If an argument can stand up to scientific process, peer reviewed, then that to me is a good test. Any argument that is not willing to be subject to these criteria cannot be seen as solid or convincing. (in my opinion...)

The problem, Stephen, is we can't wait around for definitive answers to come from peer reviewed literature and arguments amongst academics before we make a decisions as to what to do. If we did, we'd surely go down the gurgler faster than what already are. Some of the answers will come through further research, but not before common sense should tell us that we're not doing our planet any good by stuffing it around like we are. Action should be brought to bear now, but action that is tempered by some common sense and from what we actually know, to the extent that we do know that we're causing some deleterious changes.

[SkyViking (Rolf)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

The change will have to initially come from those who are most guilty of the mess we're in now....us. The rest of the world will have to be brought along. But if we don't make the first move, you can be rest assured that nothing good will come of our inaction.

Technology is just a tool and won't solve the problems we face. If you don't want to use a tool, you don't. It's who uses that tool that makes the changes...the person behind it.

Yes from a moral point of view we, who caused to the problem, should bear the responsibility of solving it. But that's theory, I don't see it happening any time soon. Another issue is that the developing countries, are now pumping out CO2 and pollutants at a rate higher than ever. Look at some of the places in China that are uninhabitable due to toxic waste, mining etc. So such countries also bear some responsibility at the present stage I think. But anyway I'm merely saying how I think all this will play out, not regarding who is responsible or what the ethically correct thing to do might be.
As we saw with the recent farce at the climate summit in Copenhagen, it's a bit of a stalemate. No country want to have imposed limitations on its growth unless all the others agree to the same and these issues are just not being taken seriously enough at the moment. Unfortunately I don't think they will be until it is far too late ie. once the ecosystems are degraded enough that it has a real impact on everyday people's lives all over the world.

Basically I don't think we can curb humanity's basic desire for comfort and improved lifestyle. It has never happened. And so the problem is overpopulation. But that can't really be controlled either I think. Once a nation develops to a certain level it's people tend to have less children, to the point where in some of the developed countries the population is static or even declining at the moment. I think that point will eventually be reached everywhere in the world, but not until the global population has reached some 9-11 billion. So to me technology seems the only solution in the long term, but we won't have the necessary tools until the destruction has already occurred.

[avandonk]

I have only been scared a few times in my life. The first time was when I finally did not understand quantum mechanics in 1969. The second was when my car was out of control sober and drunk. We are ALL damaging our planet. All it needs is less greed to fix things.

Bert

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by morls

Hi Bert,

I agree completely. I'll attach a .pdf from this site:
http://www.iucn.org/?uNewsID=7695

which is the report that prompted the story in the "Age" newspaper I referred to in my first post.

The video from "Frontline" that I posted a link to, was a discussion with 4 panelists. Two of the panelists were involved in the IPSO workshop in April 2011:

- Dr Alex David Rogers, Scientific Director of the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) which convened the workshop at Oxford which produced the "ipso workshop report june 2011" attached.

His references from this report are listed as:

Rogers, A.D. & Laffoley, D.d’A. 2011. International Earth system expert workshop on ocean stresses and impacts. Summary report. IPSO Oxford, 18 pp. (this is the .pdf attached)

Veron, J.E.N., Hoegh‐Guldberg, O., Lenton, T.M., Lough, J.M., Obura, D.O., Pearce‐Kelly, P., Sheppard, C.R.C., Spalding, M., Stafford‐Smith, M.G., Rogers, A.D. 2009 The coral reef crisis: the critical importance of <350ppm CO2. Marine Pollution Bulletin 58: 1428‐1437

Carpenter, K.E., Abrar, M., Aeby, G., Aronson, R.B., Banks, S., Bruckner, A., Chiriboga, A., Cortés, J., Delbeek, J.C., DeVantier, L., Edgar, G.J., Edwards, A.J., Fenner, D., Guzmán, H.M., Hoeksema, B.W., Hodgson, G., Johan, O., Licuanan, W.Y., Livingstone, S.R., Lovell, E.R., Moore, J.A., Obura, D.O., Ochavillo, D., Polidoro, B.A., Precht, W.F., Quibilan, M.C., Reboton, C., Richards, Z.T., Rogers, A.D., Sanciangco, J., Sheppard, A., Sheppard, C., Smith, J., Stuart, S., Turak, E., Veron, J.E.N., Wallace, C.,Weil, E., Wood, E. 2008 One third of reef‐building corals face elevated extinction risk from climate change and local impacts. Science 321: 560‐563.

- Professor Charles R C Sheppard, who was also a participant at the Oxford workshop. He is also listed in one of the references above.

Hmm..? I wonder how Bolt and Jones et al will attack this one ..."Ocean hugging scientists want World domination" I'd imagine

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by SkyViking

Yes from a moral point of view we, who caused to the problem, should bear the responsibility of solving it. But that's theory, I don't see it happening any time soon. Another issue is that the developing countries, are now pumping out CO2 and pollutants at a rate higher than ever. Look at some of the places in China that are uninhabitable due to toxic waste, mining etc. So such countries also bear some responsibility at the present stage I think. But anyway I'm merely saying how I think all this will play out, not regarding who is responsible or what the ethically correct thing to do might be.
As we saw with the recent farce at the climate summit in Copenhagen, it's a bit of a stalemate. No country want to have imposed limitations on its growth unless all the others agree to the same and these issues are just not being taken seriously enough at the moment. Unfortunately I don't think they will be until it is far too late ie. once the ecosystems are degraded enough that it has a real impact on everyday people's lives all over the world.

Basically I don't think we can curb humanity's basic desire for comfort and improved lifestyle. It has never happened. And so the problem is overpopulation. But that can't really be controlled either I think. Once a nation develops to a certain level it's people tend to have less children, to the point where in some of the developed countries the population is static or even declining at the moment. I think that point will eventually be reached everywhere in the world, but not until the global population has reached some 9-11 billion. So to me technology seems the only solution in the long term, but we won't have the necessary tools until the destruction has already occurred.

It still boils down to the people. The change has to start somewhere. It won't start with the governments or corporations. It's in their vested interests to keep the status quo. That's why Copenhagen was a farce. That's why all of those conferences are farces. Once change begins in one place, it will eventually change in the others. The status quo will remain so long as no one does anything about it.

[xelasnave]

Greed and over consumption is the first hurdle on the track to a solution. But it is those two characterists that define our culture. The cultural heros once nominated and given more resourses indulge greed and luxury consumlption.
Sucess needs to be defined by vitue in restraint.
Top Gear is one of the top rated tv shows.
That show telps us a attidude to cars should be they are transport items not toys.
Look at our leaders in any field and don't give respect to those who have let their position enable over indulgence.
Even passing that hurdle we face problems of food security etc but a mind set change must happen.
I know farmers who are so rich you would not know. They are consumption conservative and energy efficient. They still work when you onow they could buy a motor cruiser a plane. ..the money has not gone to their head.
But these type of folk are invisable cause they dress to work and drive someplace to get spare parts and food.
Alex

[morls (Stephen)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

The problem, Stephen, is we can't wait around for definitive answers to come from peer reviewed literature and arguments amongst academics before we make a decisions as to what to do. If we did, we'd surely go down the gurgler faster than what already are. Some of the answers will come through further research, but not before common sense should tell us that we're not doing our planet any good by stuffing it around like we are. Action should be brought to bear now, but action that is tempered by some common sense and from what we actually know, to the extent that we do know that we're causing some deleterious changes.

Hi Carl,

There were recommendations made at the ISPO workshop. I'll quote...

"4. Recommendations from the workshop
The participants of the meeting agreed to the following recommendations based on workshop conclusions.
Technical means to achieve the solutions to many of these problems already exist, but that current societal values prevent humankind from addressing them effectively. Overcoming these barriers is core to the fundamental changes needed to achieve a sustainable and equitable future for the generations to come and which preserves the natural ecosystems of the Earth that we benefit from and enjoy today. This meeting of experts offers the following recommendations to citizens and governments everywhere to transform how we manage, govern and protect the ocean:

 Immediate reduction in CO2 emissions coupled with significantly increased measures for mitigation of atmospheric CO2 and to better manage coastal and marine carbon sinks to avoid additional emissions of greenhouse gases.
o It is a matter of urgency that the ocean is considered as a priority in the deliberations of the IPCC and UNFCCC.

 Urgent actions to restore the structure and function of marine ecosystems, including the coordinated and concerted action in national waters and on the High Seas (the high seas water column and seabed Area beyond national jurisdiction) by states and regional bodies to:
o reduce fishing effort to levels commensurate with long‐term sustainability of fisheries and the marine environment;
o close fisheries that are not demonstrably managed following sustainable principles, or which depend wholly on government subsidies;
o establish a globally comprehensive and representative system of marine protected areas to conserve biodiversity, to build resilience, and to ensure ecologically sustainable fisheries with minimal ecological footprint;
o prevent, reduce and strictly control inputs of substances that are harmful or toxic to marine organisms into the marine environment;
o prevent, reduce and strictly control nutrient inputs into the marine environment through better land & river catchment management and sewage treatment;
o avoid, reduce or at minimum, universally and stringently regulate oil, gas, aggregate and mineral extraction;
o assess, monitor and control other uses of the marine environment such as renewable energy schemes or cable / pipeline installation through comprehensive spatial planning and impact assessments procedures.

 Proper and universal implementation of the precautionary principle by reversing the burden of proof so activities proceed only if they are shown not to harm the ocean singly or in combination with other activities.

 Urgent introduction by the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly of effective governance of the High Seas beyond the jurisdiction of any individual nations. This should include a global body empowered to ensure compliance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and other relevant legal duties and norms and to establish new rules, regulations and procedures where necessary to implement these requirements in an ecosystem‐based and precautionary manner. (See Annex 2 for detailed proposals for a new Global Ocean Compliance Commission GOCC)."

-----------------

They are under no illusions as to the obstacles:
"Technical means to achieve the solutions to many of these problems already exist, but that current societal values prevent humankind from addressing them effectively. Overcoming these barriers is core to the fundamental changes needed to achieve a sustainable and equitable future for the generations to come and which preserves the natural ecosystems of the Earth that we benefit from and enjoy today."

I'm sorry to quote so much, but I'll include the following, a detailed description of the "UN Global Ocean Compliance Commission (GOCC)" they recommended above:
-----------------

"Annex 2. Detailed proposals for a UN Global Ocean Compliance Commission (GOCC).
Based on evidence presented at this meeting, it is recommend that:

1. The burden of proof under UNCLOS [and international customary law and treaties] be reversed to ensure that those utilizing resources or engaging in activities that affect the High Seas (defined as the high seas water column and seabed Area beyond national jurisdiction) must demonstrate that their activities are in compliance with the law.

2. Within the next 6 months, the UN Security Council in conjunction with the General Assembly call on the UN Secretary General to establish a Global Ocean Compliance Commission (GOCC) for the High Seas to address issues such as, but not limited to, highly migratory and straddling species, discrete high seas species, pollution including long‐range/transboundary pollution, illegal fishing, overfishing, marine spatial planning, protected areas and ecosystem conservation and other processes and activities that may adversely affect the High Seas.

3. Powers: The Compliance Commission will set out the regulatory requirements to comply with the provisions of UNCLOS with respect to protection and preservation of the marine environment and the conservation, sustainable and equitable use of high seas biodiversity and resources in accordance with the ecosystem approach and precautionary principle. It will have reference to UNFSA, decisions taken by the CBD, the UNFCCC, the IMO, the ISA, the UN Convention on Desertification, and other relevant bodies, conventions and global commitments.

4. The Commission shall have power to levy mandatory contributions from inter alia, States, High Seas resource users, and registered vessel owners

5. The Commission shall have powers to develop and implement a regime for sharing of benefits of marine genetic resources originating from areas beyond national jurisdiction, building on the access and benefit sharing agreement developed under the CBD and other relevant mechanisms.

6. Secretariat: The Commission will establish a Secretariat to oversee the implementation of and compliance with the regulations established by the Commission.

7. Compliance Fund: The Commission will establish a Compliance Fund. . The fund shall be used to enhance the conservation and equitable use of High Seas resources and biodiversity, and to build the capacity of developing states to participate in the formulation of and to comply with Commission regulations.1

8. Enforcement: The Commission shall be empowered to develop an effective enforcement regime. Such a regime should include powers to levy fines, suspend a States right to flag vessels and/or to suspend the power of an RFMO to regulate fisheries and allocate fish quotas if found in repeated breach of the Commission’s regulations. In furtherance of such a regime, the Commission shall have the power to establish or designate an organization to conduct investigations, initiate judicial proceedings on an expeditious basis, and apply sanctions in respect of violations that are adequate in severity to be effective in securing compliance and discourage violations wherever they occur and deprive offenders of the benefits accruing from their illegal activities. In circumstances where there is no RFMO or the RFMO is suspended, the Commission shall have the power to assume management responsibility or designate another body for that purpose.2

9. Data and Information: The Commission shall have the power to require the provision of data and information3 from any one engaged in high seas activities or resource use that it deems necessary to demonstrate compliance with Commission regulations. The Commission shall have regard to the need to protect commercial and other sensitive information and to maintain such confidentially, as appropriate. The confidentiality of such data must in no way be used to impair the proper functioning of the Commission. Consistent with the above, the Commission shall endeavor to make all data and information freely available.

10. Capacity building and development: The Commission shall have the power to provide financial support and develop programs of training and technical assistance for the purposes of building the capacity of developing states to participate in the formulation of and to comply with Commission regulations.4

1 From Article 21 of the Port State Measures Agreement
2 Based on 1958 High Seas Living Resources Agreement.
3 Based on UNCLOS 217
4 From Article 21 of the Port State Measures Agreement"

---------------

There doesn't seem to be much disagreement or equivocation amongst the experts who attended this workshop. The above seems to me a pretty solid outline of some specific and immediate things that can be done, notwithstanding the obstacles they acknowledged in the preamble to the recommendations.

If people want to look at each of these recommendations and pull them apart, that is a good thing. I think the main thing is that somehow as many people as possible get look at what has been presented by this workshop, and talk about it and form opinions and test them. My own criteria is that anything I take on board should be rigorously tested, based on solid evidence and peer reviewed

I like what they have said of the recommendations:
"This meeting of experts offers the following recommendations to citizens and governments everywhere to transform how we manage, govern and protect the ocean:"

[renormalised (Carl)]

I'll have to read through those, but they seem alright. But there are things that need to be ironed out in them and some things may and will change.

Despite the laudable nature of much of the document, it's still being formulated under the notions of national and transnational governments (e.g. the UN). Apart from what needs to be done in this instance with the oceans, we really need to replace the system we have first with something better before we can fully tackle these problems. Not that we shouldn't make a start...that we should've done already. However, it's going to be hampered by the sociopolitical/economic system we currently have in place. This will be, by necessity, a long term project.

[morls (Stephen)]

Here's a link to an interview on ABC Radio National with Carl Lundin, Head of the Global Marine Program at the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.He co-authored the report released this week.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/s...11/3249087.htm