Oceans

Shark conservation is at risk in Costa Rica

In Costa Rica, it’s now up to the government to decide the future of endangered hammerhead sharks. If the government halted the export of all hammerhead shark products in the next year, it could stave off extinction of these amazing creatures. That’s the recommendation of Costa Rica’s Scientific Advisory Council for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. The Convention is an international agreement to prevent trade from threatening the survival of wild animals and plants. Of the nearly 100 species of sharks and rays in Costa Rica, 15% are in danger of extinction due to overfishing and environmental destruction or degradation. Hammerhead sharks were listed as an endangered species in 2014 and have lost up to 90% of their population. In response, the Scientific Advisory Council recommended in April 2017 that Costa Rica should prohibit export of hammerhead products for at least one year, or until the country reduces hammerhead fishing and the health of the species improves. The role of the fishing industry Shortly after the ­­­­­ Scientific Advisory Council made its recommendation, the Costa Rican government issued an executive decree. The Costa Rican Institute of Fishing and Aquaculture (Incopesca) and the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock were given authority over the export of products made from threatened or endangered sharks. However, both government agencies favor the fishing industry over marine conservation, according to Mario Espinoza Mendieta, researcher from the University of Costa Rica and member of the Convention’s scientific council. “This dynamic tips the balance in favor of the production sector,” Espinoza said. Incopesca’s Board of Directors represent various fishing interests across the country—a position that does not always align with the protection and sustainable use of marine resources, according to Espinoza. Recently, Incopesca was questioned because it failed to prosecute shrimping boats that were illegally fishing in protected waters. Shark commerce While exporting shark products is permitted within the regulations established by the Convention, shark finning—the practice of cutting fins and throwing the shark back into the ocean—is illegal in Costa Rica. Considered a delicacy in some Asian countries, shark fins are often valued at upwards of $100 per kilo. Last February, a Costa Rican court issued the first felony criminal sentence for shark finning against a Taiwanese businesswoman who was found in a port with illegally harvested shark fins. Using international law, AIDA and Conservation International worked with Costa Rica’s Public Prosecutor to help resolve the case. A responsible decision The governments of Colombia and Ecuador have developed campaigns to protect hammerhead sharks. But in Costa Rica, Incopesca is responsible for the future of the species and will hopefully take the Scientific Advisory Council’s recommendations into account. Because the hammerhead’s numbers are so low, it may only take one bad decision to cause their extinction. Other species, including the gray shark, are also at risk from the fishing industry. If Costa Rica wants to preserve its natural wealth for the future, it should set an example of preservation by putting principles of sustainability over economic gain.

Chilean chum: How eating salmon in the US hurts Patagonia’s coastal wildlife

After two years of vegetarianism, the Texan in me decided that an entirely plant-based diet was not going to work. The experience, however, taught me to consume meat ethically. Wherever possible, I now choose organic and sustainable “farm to table” meat and poultry. But when it comes to my favorite seafood—salmon— “farm to table” can take on a whole new meaning. Salmon is one of the most popular seafoods in the United States, and over a third of all salmon in the U.S. comes from Chilean salmon farms, which raise the carnivorous fish in off-shore enclosures along the Patagonian coast. Although salmon is healthy—it’s loaded with omega-3 fatty acids and B-vitamins—increased U.S. demand for salmon is having an unhealthy impact on Chile’s environment. These farms endanger delicate coastal ecosystems, contribute to oceanic pollution, and threaten marine life along the pristine Magallanes shoreline. Chile is the second largest global exporter of the fish, and salmon farming is one of the country’s largest industries. Today, that industry is growing. There are already over 100 salmon farms operating in the Magallanes and, as of March 2017, plans for 342 more were in the works. Driving this expansion is a booming worldwide salmon market. But even though the U.S. boasts a salmon industry of its own and wild-caught Alaskan salmon is considered some of the best in the world, U.S. consumers ate over 144,000 tons of farmed Chilean salmon in 2016, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. A fishy situation While fish farms are one solution to the many problems associated with overfishing, Chile’s unregulated salmon industry has serious environmental side-effects. These salmon farms disrupt their environments because overpopulated waterways create anaerobic conditions that deprive the local wildlife of oxygen. Often treated with excessive amounts antibiotics and pesticides, uneaten salmon feed and salmon feces also pollute coastal seafloors and introduce chemicals into the environment. Because they are not native to the southern hemisphere, salmon that escape their pens can disrupt local food chains. Salmon also frequently die in their enclosures, and the decomposing fish raise levels of ammonia in the water. Although research is still underway, scientists speculate that higher concentrations of ammonia, along with El Niño weather patterns and warming oceans caused by climate change, may be responsible for Chile’s recent “red tides.” These toxic red algae blooms kill coastal wildlife by the millions, inundating Chilean shores with dead fish (including salmon), birds, and whales. To fight back against this destructive industry and the harmful impacts of globalized seafood trade, AIDA filed a claim with the Chilean government expressing concern that salmon farms are harming local ecosystems. “We want to improve the way things are being done by aiming for sustainable development that will not ruin the fragile ecological balance of the Patagonian seas,” AIDA attorney Florencia Ortúzar said. AIDA also recently began a petition asking that Chile investigate the damage caused by salmon farming in the Magallanes and sanction those responsible. You can sign the petition here. New migration routes Today, the U.S. salmon industry practices catch and release: it is known for producing high quality fish, yet 80 percent of Alaskan wild salmon is traded away. So why does the U.S. produce some of the world’s best salmon, but consume some of the world’s most environmentally harmful fish? The answer, in short, is globalization. Filleting and de-boning salmon is a process too delicate to mechanize as in other meat industries. Because labor is cheaper in Asia, U.S. salmon is shipped to processing plants in China, which then re-distribute the processed fish across the region. While some of that salmon makes it back across the Pacific, the U.S. market is flooded with cheaper farmed salmon from around the world. Now, Chile’s industry “is facing competition from Canada and Norway,” according to trade analysis group Datamyne. After expressing concerns over high levels of antibiotics in Chilean fish, U.S. retail giant Costco decided in 2015 to stock Norwegian salmon instead, further muddying the waters in the U.S. salmon trade. To make matters worse, a study by conservation nonprofit Oceana concluded that nearly 43% of “wild” salmon sold in the United States was misidentified. While it is difficult to tell whether farmed salmon is mislabeled as “wild” during trade or once it shows up on the menu, lax labeling laws in the U.S. make it difficult to tell exactly where that salmon steak came from. So for seafood lovers like me, there may be few good options for eating salmon sustainably, besides taking up fly fishing. But for the sake of protecting Chile’s coastal wildlife, maybe it’s time U.S. consumers make their voice heard. If we’re going to import salmon from Chile, we should at least demand the country regulate its farms to be more environmentally friendly. Maybe it’s also time the U.S. salmon industry started keeping its catch in its own boat. Sign the petition to protect Patagonia’s Magallanes coastline here.

Calling on Chile to protect Patagonia from the risks of the salmon industry

More than half of the salmon farms in Chile’s Magallanes Region are depleting oxygen from sensitive marine waters, suffocating marine life. Civil society organizations filed an administrative complaint and a petition calling on the government to investigate and punish farm operators, and to enforce existing regulations. Santiago, Chile. Civil society organizations filed a complaint today asking the Superintendent of the Environment to investigate damages caused by salmon farms in the Magallanes Region of Southern Patagonia, and to sanction the companies responsible. According to government reports, salmon farms in the area are depleting the water of oxygen, causing a serious threat to marine life. The organizations also launched a citizen’s petition to support the formal complaint. “Salmon farming concessions have been approved in Magallanes without a detailed assessment of the impacts the industry may have on the region,” said Florencia Ortúzar, an attorney with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense. “The damages are already occurring: a report by the Comptroller General of the Republic found that, between 2013 and 2015, more than half of the salmon farms in Magallanes created anaerobic conditions, gravely threatening marine life.” Chile is the world’s second largest producer of salmon. The industry, which developed on coasts further north, has now entered the Magallanes region in the southermost tip of the country. The pristine waters there are highly vulnerable to human activity. Magallanes has the largest number of protected natural areas in the country; it shelters such protected species as the blue whale, the sperm whale, the Magellanic penguin, the elephant seal, the leatherback sea turtle, the southern dolphin, and the Chilean dolphin. “Salmon farms are cultivating more fish than the ecosystem can withstand. They are filling sensitive waters with chemicals and antibiotics,” said Francisco Campos-Lopez, director of #RealChile. “Those chemicals, combined with the feces of the animals, cause a dangerous lack of oxygen in the waters, endangering sea life.”    NOTE: More information available at aida-americas.org/salmonfarms Press contacts: Florencia Ortúzar, AIDA Attorney, +56 9 7335 3135, [email protected]  

Protecting Patagonian Seas from Salmon Farms

AIDA statement on the death of thousands of fish in Costa Rica

The recent mass die-off of anchovy—a species on which birds, marine mammals, and other fish depend for nutrition—must be analyzed in detail. Upon finding the cause, an integrated solution must be implemented at the national and regional levels. San José, Costa Rica. On February 15, thousands of anchovy washed onto the beaches of Puntarenas, two kilometers from the gulf of Nicoya. Experts from the National University of Costa Rica have ruled out algae-producing toxins and a red ride—which occurs from excessive proliferation of microalgae—as possible causes. At this point, authorities do not know why the fish died. The anchovy is a species that contributes greatly to the balance of the marine environment. Many species of birds and marine mammals, as well as other fish, depend on the anchovy as a vital source of nutritients and protein. Responding to the incident, Gladys Martínez, attorney with AIDA’s Marine Biodiversity and Coastal Protection Program, said: “It is vital that we analyze in detail the factors that may have caused this mass anchovy die-off. We have to determine what is affecting them and prevent a similar situation from happening again. Once the cause is found, a solution must be implemented that takes into account all components of the marine environment. “In addition, it is important that Costa Rica work both nationally and regionally on a comprehensive solution. Anchovy is a common species in the region and, although not highly migratory, it does move over short distances, warranting the involvement of surrounding nations as well.” Press contact: Gladys Martínez, AIDA, [email protected], +506 8321 4263

Costa Rican court issues first criminal sanction against shark finning

In a historic decision, a Puntarenas court convicted a businesswoman for shark finning. The woman had brought shark fins to port separated from the body, a practice illegal in Costa Rica, with intentions of selling them abroad. The Public Prosecutor’s indictment was supported by civil society organizations that argued her actions violated national and international laws protecting marine life.   Puntarenas, Costa Rica. On February 7, the Trial Court of Puntarenas imposed a six-month prison sentence on a Taiwanese businesswoman for illegally trading in shark fins. The woman had brought to port shark fins detached from the animals body and gathered together with a wire, a process know as finning. She had intended to sell the fins abroad. This ruling is the first time the practice, illegal under national and international law, has been punished in Costa Rica. “We are pleased that, from the power of the Judiciary, Costa Rica has sent a clear signal that its priority is to protect the country’s sustainability. The response to the finning was appropriate, and responsible fishermen and environmental authorities will applaud it as such. At Conservation International, we reiterate our commitment to sustainable fisheries, transparent management of marine resources, and control of the country’s environmental regulations,” said Marco Quesada, director of the Costa Rica Program of Conservation International (CI). In 2011, justice failed in favor of the businesswoman. That decision was rebutted by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which obtained a second trial in which the crime was finally punished. The final sentence indicates that the businesswoman is responsible “for the crime of ordering the removal of the shark fin without the respective body, to the detriment of the natural resources” of Costa Rica. “This is a truly historic sentence, as it’s the first time there has been a criminal conviction for shark finning. We applaud the efforts of the Public Prosecutor’s Office to enforce the national laws and international commitments of Costa Rica. We hope this case will be a precedent that helps prevent this practice from happening again,” said Gladys Martínez, attorney with the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA). AIDA and CI assisted in the resolution of the case, which dates from 2011, by advising the Public Prosecutor’s Office on arguments of international law. According to Costa Rican law, shark fins must arrive to port naturally attached to the shark’s body. In cases such as this one, the fins are removed and the body tossed back to sea so the fishing boats can hold as many fins as possible.   “Shark finning is a crime punishable in Costa Rica by articles 139 and 40 of the Fisheries and Aquaculture Law. In addition, Costa Rica has ratified various international treaties that oblige it to protect the environment. These obligations include the protection, conservation and sustainable use of marine resources,” reads the document provided by both organizations to the Public Prosecutor’s Office for use during the trial. Press contacts: Gladys Martínez, AIDA, [email protected], +506 8321 4263 Marco Quesada, CI, [email protected] +506 2253-0500 ext. 129/IP 5484

Chile’s Salmon Farms: Sustainability is Impossible

By Florencia Ortúzar Chile is the second largest producer of salmon in the world. For more than 20 years, the industry has put profit above environmental protection. In the absence of government regulation, large-scale salmon farms release contaminating chemicals and create oceanic dead zones. They hurt other species and harm the people and communities that depend on the ocean for sustenance. The situation is bad, but it could get worse as the industry looks to expand into new areas of pristine waters. Bad Practices Salmon farming in Chile will never be sustainable because it requires much more protein to operate than it generates. Salmon are carnivorous. To produce one kilo of salmon you need about five kilos of wild fish for feed. Years of bad business practices and lack of government regulation have resulted in serious environmental damage, which has, in turn, brought grave social consequences to those who depend on seafood for their livelihoods. On the Big Island of Chiloé, for example, seaweed and shellfish gatherers, artisanal fishermen and people who work in plants that process wild-caught fish are experiencing massive unemployment. This social crisis is a direct result of the environmental catastrophe caused in large part by the salmon industry, which has extensive operations in the area. In Chile, developers must present declarations or environmental impact studies that examine their project’s potential to harm nature. Despite the great risk to ecosystems, salmon farms are supported by mere affidavits, and not by studies that would allow for the identification and proper handling of potential negative impacts. The result is thousands of salmon hatcheries. Each one consists of floating cages that, without sufficient spacing or adequate sanitation, house thousands of salmon crammed into small spaces (half the space allowed in Europe). Although it seems difficult to believe, and despite the law saying otherwise, in Chile no studies have been done on the ability of the ocean, lakes, and rivers to accommodate the number of salmon that are grown. These captive salmon are fed pellets that contain a mix of wild fishmeal, pesticides, dyes, fungicides, and chemicals used to speed growth.  A majority of these pellets are not consumed and simply fall to the seabed.  Additionally, each salmon is injected with an exorbitant quantity of antibiotics (up to 5,000 times more than used in Norway). Finally, the waste generated by the fish, which contains chemicals, also accumulates on the ocean floor. More than 20 years of these practices have caused dead zones in the ocean where life is no longer possible. Another serious problem with the industry is that salmon often escape from their cages. According to a report by the NGO Terram, escaped salmon in Chile represent 1.5 percent of the total production, equivalent to more than 9,000 tons per year. Some studies report that this percentage could reach as high as five percent. Although by law farms must have recapture plans, they rarely succeed. Salmon are an aggressive fish. When free, they compete with native fish for food and shelter, and transmit disease. Crisis in the Sea In May, Chile’s coasts were devastated by an unprecedented red tide, believed to be the country’s worst recent environmental crisis. The natural phenomenon, characterized by an excessive increase in microalgae, resulted in the beaching of whales, squid, sardines and even birds. Captive salmon were also affected and the industry suffered huge losses: thousands of tons of salmon carcasses rotted in floating cages. The death rate was such that the national maritime authority authorized the release of 9,000 tons of dead salmon into the sea. According to the salmon industry and the government, the red tide was caused by El Niño, which was aggravated by global warming. However, some scientists have said that the salmon industry is largely to blame for submitting the ocean to their bad practices for so many years. Patagonia Without Salmon Farming! Not only has the salmon industry not learned from its mistakes, but it is also looking to expand into new, uncontaminated waters. It’s happening in the Patagonia regions of Magallanes and Aysen, where approximately 3,100 applications for salmon farms are awaiting approval. Farms were even proposed for places declared as priority conservation sites. Together with our allies, AIDA is working to ensure salmon farming and other industries comply with environmental standards. But there’s something you can do too, as citizens and consumers. Vote with your pocketbook. By purchasing only sustainable seafood products, you can help prevent the creation of more dead zones in our oceans. 

Celebrating hope for oceans

By Gladys Martínez This month I’m celebrating my tenth anniversary with AIDA. For a decade now, I’ve been working for environmental justice and realizing one of my lifelong dreams: defending that which has no voice. In all this time, my best clients have been the oceans and their coasts. Experience has taught me that life depends on the oceans. That’s why I was happy to spend my anniversary working to create a new treaty to protect life in the high seas. The high seas are considered international waters, and because they belong to no country, there is no legal protection for the plants and animals that call them home. A treaty that provided that protection would give a second chance to the oceans and to those who most depend on them: all of us. Time for reflection Throughout my career as an environmental attorney, I’ve worked to limit the negative impacts of illegal and excessive fishing. On behalf of AIDA, and in alliance with our partner organizations, I’ve used international law to promote sustainable fishing and the conservation of wetlands, mangroves, and coral reefs.  During the last several years I’ve had the honor of working beside Sandra Moguel, AIDA’s marine attorney in Mexico.  Because of Sandra’s dedication and leadership, we’ve been able to preserve Mexico’s ocean, coastline and the communites threatened by short-sighted development. Sandra recently moved on from AIDA to work with our partners at the Mexican Center for Environmental Law (CEMDA), as Director of their Southeast Regional Office. Though I, and all of us at AIDA, will miss having her by our side, her new position fills me with great hope for Mexico, and the fight to defend the country’s rich environmental heritage. Sandra’s work to protect Mexico’s coastal wetlands, rivers, and oceans will not soon be forgotten. We will build upon her successes and continue the fight to preserve our region’s waters and defend the communities that depend upon them. A new hope That fight took me most recently to New York City, with the High Seas Alliance, to assist in the development of the high seas treaty. This year I’ve participated in two sessions of the treaty’s Preparatory Committee, alongside State representatives and civil society. We aim to complete the agreement within two years. It will be implemented under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. As a representative of AIDA, the only Latin American organization involved in the treaty’s planning meetings, I’m working to ensure the high seas recieve the same protections as the national waters we’ve fought so long to defend. The high seas treaty is a truly collaborative effort that holds great hope for the protection of our planet’s international waters. Responsible to my region  As a Costa Rican, I feel a responsibility to care for the natural heritage of Latin America. I also believe in the importance of creating marine reserves in international waters. Doing so would reduce the pressure of fishing on marine resources, create a more balanced environment, and ease the stress ecosystems and their inhabitants face when adapting to climate change. The international waters that surround our region are blessed with many areas of great importance to the high seas, known as “ecologically significant areas.” They are: The Costa Rican Dome. Located in the Pacific Ocean, the Dome is constantly changing location depending on the wind and ocean currents. It houses breeding, feeding, and birthing zones for tuna, blue whales, sharks, dolphins, sea turtles, and many other species. The White Shark Café. Located in the international waters of the Pacific Ocean, between the Baja California Peninsula and Hawaii, the area is a key meeting place for white sharks, a species in great danger, which gather there after leaving the coasts of Mexico and Florida. The Sala y Gomez and Nazca Ridges. Stretching for more than 3,000 kilometers through the southeast Pacific, the ridges extend beyond Chilean waters, where they are protected by the State. Offshore sections remain unprotected, despite the fact that they contain some of the highest levels of marine biodiversity in the world. The ridges shelter blue whales, leatherback sea turtles, swordfish, and Chilean mackerel, among other species. Most of the underwater mountains are still found in their natural state, making protection paramount. The Atlantic Equatorial Fracture Zone. Located between Brazil and the Guinea Basin, this fracture zone belongs to no country. It is a source of food and energy for different species of fish (among them yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna, and swordfish), as well as for green and leatherback sea turtles. Protecting the high seas is vital to providing a safe space for the feeding, breeding, and growth of many important marine species. As I look forward to another 10 years, my dream remains the same as it ever was: working to protect these great creatures and the waters they call home; giving them a voice; and advocating for the preservation of our region’s greatest natural treasures.

Mexico protects loggerhead turtles from the Don Diego mine

AIDA celebrates SEMARNAT’s decision to deny the environmental authorization of a marine phosphate mine proposed for Ulloa Bay, Baja California Sur. They found the measures the operating company presented to safeguard sea turtles are based on inconsistent information. Mexico City, Mexico. The Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) placed the protection of the loggerhead turtle, a threatened species, above the economic benefit of the Don Diego marine phosphate mine, proposed for Ulloa Bay in Baja California Sur. The environmental authority denied the authorization of the project proposed by Exploraciones Oceánicas after finding that the measures presented by the company for protecting loggerheads are based on inconsistent information. The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) applauds SEMARNAT’s decision, which states that the economic benefits of the project “cannot prevail over the protection of the natural resources of Ulloa Bay,” especially when some of those, like the loggerhead turtle (Caretta Caretta), “are threatened species subject to strict standards of protection.” According to the Secretariat, it’s not easy to harmonize the safeguarding of sea turtle populations with an activity “that adds to existing anthropogenic pressure (resulting from human activity) in the area and increases the risk of extinction of the species, which is internationally recognized” (pg. 232 of SEMARNAT’s decision). AIDA presented arguments to SEMARNAT about the international obligations that Mexico would breach upon authorizing the project, as well as the insufficient information with which the company evaluated the environmental impact of the mine on marine ecosystems, and on which mitigation measures were based. According to the Secretariat, Exploraciones Oceánicas proposed a program for the monitoring of sea turtles that could better be described as one of “rescue,” which is not based on quantitative data of the loggerhead habitat. In addition, the company did not present prevention and mitigation measures to guarantee the availability of sufficient food, and its model for restoration of the seabed—which it seeks to dredge to extract phosphate—does not take into account the particular characteristics of Ulloa Bay (pgs. 225 and 226). SEMARNAT relied upon international standards to deny Don Diego’s environmental authorization. They drew upon Mexico’s obligations to protect its marine environment and to use the best possible scientific information in the protection of sea turtles, contained, respectively, in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (CONVEMAR) and the Inter- American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles (CIT). More information 10 Things You Should Know About Don Diego

10 Things You Should Know About Don Diego

1. Don Diego is a proposed marine mining project in Mexico. Marine mining is a process used to extract metals or minerals from the seabed. The Don Diego proposal calls for dredging seven million tons of phosphate sand from the seabed 19 kilometers off the coast of Baja California Sur.[1] Leftover materials – excess or waste – that are not of interest would be returned to the sea.[2]   2. If created, it would be the first phosphate mine of its type, using this technique, in the region.   This makes it impossible to accurately predict the damage that it could do or the measures that could be taken to protect against it.[3] Other countries, such as Namibia and New Zealand, [4] have rejected similar projects due to the severity of their potential impacts. Exploraciones Oceánicas, the company in charge of the project, does not have adequate experience in this area,[5] nor does the Mexican government have the experience to implement and monitor it properly. Even with this uncertainty, the company has not provided a financial guarantee to ensure compliance with the plan for managing, monitoring and supervising Don Diego.   3. It would alter the marine ecosystem.   The collection of phosphate sand from the sea, and the deposition of waste, would create sediment that blocks light from entering, in turn affecting marine photosynthesis.[6] Dredging would destroy the health and habitat of benthic species such as oysters and clams, damaging the food chain and the natural equilibrium of the area.[7] The ecosystem could take years to recover.   4. The mine will not necessarily create greater food security in Mexico.  Phosphate is used in fertilizer, which helps to produce food. The project’s proponents say a marine mine is needed to make up for reduced global phosphate reserves on land.[8] But beginning an operation of this type, without necessarily understanding the technique and its impacts, could cause more harm than good. In addition, extracting phosphate from Mexico’s waters does not guarantee that the phosphate will then be used to meet the demands of agriculture in Mexico, or in the Americas at all.   5. It would put at risk fisheries and the families that depend upon them. The location of the mining project would overlap with fishing concessions.[9] Ulloa Bay produces nearly 8,450 tons per year of commercial species including abalone, clams, squid, shrimp, snail, dogfish, crab, lobster, oyters, octopus, sharks and rays.[10] Fisheries would decline considerably due to the impacts of dredging the seabed.[11] 6. It would impact an ecologically rich and vulnerable area. Ulloa Bay is a unique marine region characterized by its biodiversity and high productivity. The bay is home to a great number of species of interest both to fisheries and to conservationists. In addition, a portion of the project would spread over 20 percent of the Magdalena Bay Region of Marine Importance,[12] a mangrove ecosystem that provides essential environmental services to coastal communities, including mitigation of climate change.   7. It would further endanger the habitat of the loggerhead turtle. Ulloa Bay is a critical habitat for the endangered loggerhead turtle, so much so that the Mexican government previously named it a refuge for the protection of the species.[13] Studies show that heavy noise, such as the mine would generate, would cause drastic changes in behavior and displace turtles from their habitat.[14] In addition, the Interamerican Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles has recently included mining as one of the listed activities threatening the health and habitat of sea turtles.[15]   8. It would destroy a refuge for the grey whale. Each year, the grey whale travels from Alaska to the warm waters of Baja California Sur to give birth to and raise its young.[16] Whales use sound to identify and locate their pod, and to find and capture their food.[17] Don Diego would generate noise, increase traffic and change the marine ecosystem, forever altering what has been for centuries a refuge for migrating whales.[18]   9. Approval of the project would involve a breach of international obligations on the part of the Mexican government. Mexico has obligations under international law to protect its marine ecosystem and the vulnerable species that depend on its health. The precautionary principle should be applied to this case, as there is no scientific certainty about the magnitude and intensity of the environmental damage that could occur. The Mexican government is required to take measures to avoid such damage, including evaluating a no-project alternative, until it proves that harm can be avoided or minimized.   10. The details of the project are confusing and available public information is incomplete. The duration and specific location of the project remain unclear. For example, the project is proposed to last 50 years, but under the Mining Law it could be extended 50 additional years.[19]   [1] Environmental Impact Assessment, Executive Summary of the project “Dragado de arenas fosfáticas negras en el yacimiento de Don Diego”, pp. 4, 5 y 7. Available in Spanish at: http://apps1.semarnat.gob.mx/dgiraDocs/documentos/bcs/resumenes/2015/03BS2015M0008.pdf [2] Todo el proceso es descrito por el promovente,  con mayor énfasis en el Capítulo II de la Manifestación de Impacto Ambiental, pp. 23-42.  [3] Rofomex was a phosphate project in San Juan de la Costa, close to the city of La Paz, Baja California; the mine produced two million tons of phosphate annually, information available at http://www.dredge.com/dred2-10.html , http://defiendelasierra.org/wp-content/uploads/San-Juan-de-la-Costa.pdf y http://mrdata.usgs.gov/mrds/show-mrds.php?dep_id=10048963; however, the project was located on land and was not in Ulloa Bay, see the extact location here. [4] The first marine phosphate mine was proposed in Namibia in 2013, however the project was not approved and a moratorium was subsequently announced on this activity. See: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO1307/S00188/marine-phosphate-mining-cannot-be-sustained-by-namibia.htm and http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/sandpiper-project.html; New Zealand used the precautionary principle to negate permission of an underwater phosphate mine, see: http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/66038589/Chatham-Rock-Phosphate-aghast-mining-consent-refused [5] Website of Exploraciones Océanicas and activity on the NASDAQ stock exchange, which shows the company has never before undertaken a marine phosphate mining project. [6] The phosphate mining industry is considered of the potential sources of nuclear contamination, stemming from elements like Uranium (238U) and Thorium (232Th). The sediments that would be returned to the sea may contain high levels of toxic chemicals, including the presences of these two elements, which would be exposed during the phosphate separation process.  Al-Masri, M., Mamish, S. et al.  (2002).  “The impact of phosphate loading activities on near marine environment: The Syrian Coast.” Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 58 (2002) 35-44. P. 1. [7] Environmental Impact Assessment, Executive Summary of the project “Dragado de arenas fosfáticas negras en el yacimiento de Don Diego,” Chapter VIII, Table VI.3, p. 64, y Chapter V, p. 48. Available in Spanish at: http://apps1.semarnat.gob.mx/dgiraDocs/documentos/bcs/estudios/2015/03BS2015M0008.pdf [8] U.S Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries, January 2015.  Available at: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/phosphate_rock/mcs-2015-phosp.pdf [9] Instituto Nacional de la Pesca Oficio RJL/INAPESACA/DGAIPP/978/2014 [10] CONABIO. Estudio sobre la caracterización socioeconómica y pesquera del Área Golfo de Ulloa, BCS (2010).  Available in Spanish at: http://goo.gl/7An5o5 [11] Environmental Impact Assessment, Executive Summary of the project: “Dragado de arenas fosfáticas negras en el yacimiento de Don Diego,” Chapter VIII, Table VI.3, p. 64. Available in Spanish at: http://apps1.semarnat.gob.mx/dgiraDocs/documentos/bcs/estudios/2015/03BS2015M0008.pdf [12] Instituto Nacional de la Pesca. Oficio RJL/INAPESCA/DGAIPP/757/2014 [13] The Agreement that establishes the Area of Refuge for the Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta Caretta) in Ulloa Bay in Baja California Sur was before the Federal Regulatory Improvement Commission to obtain an approving opinion, December 9, 2014. 2014. Available in Spanish at:  http://www.cofemermir.gob.mx/mir/crLecAnte.asp?submitid=33808 [14] Convention on Biological Diversity. “Sea turtle hearing and sensitivity to acoustic impacts.” Available at: https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/mar/mcbem-2014-01/other/mcbem-2014-01-submission-boem-03-en.pdf, pgs. 3 and 4. [15] Interamerican Convention on the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles, Seventh Conference of Parties, June 24-26, 2015, Mexico City. Resolution CIT-COP7-2015-R3. Available at: http://www.iacseaturtle.org/docs/resolucionesCOP7CIT/CIT-COP7-2015-R3_Cabezona_  Resolucion_ESP_7.15.15_ADOPTADA.pdf [16] Guerrero Ruiz, M., Urbán Ramírez, J. y Rojas Bracho, L. 2006. Las ballenas del golfo de California. Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT). Instituto Nacional de Ecología (INE). 537 pp. [17] Baker C. S. y C. M. Herman. 1984. Aggressive behavior between Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) wintering in Hawaiian waters. Can. J. Zool. 62(10): 1,922-1,937.; Croll, D. A., C. W. Clark, A. Acevedo, B. R. Tershy, S. Flores, J. Gedamke y J. Urbán. 2002. Only male fin whales sing loud songs. Nature 417: 809. [18] Annex 13 is a three page document that does not support the conclusions of the company in the environmental impact assessment. [19] Environmental Impact Assessment, Executive Summary of the project “Dragado de arenas fosfáticas negras en el yacimiento de Don Diego,”  Chapter II, p. 4. Available in Spanish at: http://apps1.semarnat.gob.mx/dgiraDocs/documentos/bcs/estudios/2015/03BS2015M0008.pdf