Oceans

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  

Conserving the shared parts of our oceans

By Gladys Martínez, AIDA senior attorney During Semana Santa, my family and I visited the Las Baulas National Marine Park in Guanacaste, Costa Rica. A clearly committed park ranger there told us about the threats sea turtles face when they spawn on the coast, and of the importance of protecting the beaches and avoiding poorly built development projects. But what most caught my attention was the curiosity of my two children, ages three and five, asking how far the turtles had to swim to lay their eggs. “If they get lost, do the baby turtles not get born?” they asked. For most of us, the answer to their question is a mystery. And from that mystery comes the importance of protecting life in the high seas, those international waters that belong to no country and are therefore part of the global commons. What happens in the high seas, far past what we can see and care for from the coast, motivates the 33 NGOS and 193 delegations of the United Nations currently meeting in New York. Over the course of two weeks, they’re working to create a legally binding agreement that conserves marine life in areas beyond any national jurisdiction. The agreement will be implemented under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). AIDA is the only NGO from Latin America that is present at the First Session of the Preparatory Committee, which seeks to create the new treaty within two years. As part of the High Seas Alliance, and with support from the Pew Charitable Trusts, we are working to bring the voice of Latin American civil society to the negotiations.  Alongside other member organizations of the High Seas Alliance, we are advocating for the new treaty to include the following principles: Protection and preservation of the marine environment of the high seas. Cooperation between States to conserve the living resources of the high seas. Use of the best available scientific information in decision-making. Good management of high seas resources, guaranteeing them for present and future generations. Implementation of the precautionary principle, according to which the absence of information cannot constitute an excuse for the failure to protect the ecosystems of the high seas. Management based on large-scale planning that takes into account the interrelation of marine biodiversity. Sustainability and equity in reference to the possibility of using resources to meet the needs of present generations, while protecting the needs of future generations. Special attention should be given to the interests of and benefits to developing countries. Good governance (transparency, public participation and access to review procedures and resources). “Polluter pays,” a principle that implies that States causing pollution must take responsibility for it. Compliance with and respect for the commitments made under UNCLOS. Additionally, we consider it of vital importance that States establish marine protected areas, beyond national jurisdictions, to guarantee the conservation of marine biodiversity. At AIDA, we look with great hope and enthusiasm for the commitments of the States during this first leg of the long road ahead. We know that after these two years of negotiations, we will successfully emerge with a treaty that protects the marine biodiversity that belongs to us all—that rich life that lives in the greatest part of our seas. Thank you for supporting us as we continue to work towards this goal!   

Tools for sustainable fisheries and coastal management

Our oceans are collapsing in every sense of the word.  In the last hundred years, we have overfished and polluted most every treasured and productive marine and coastal ecosystem in reach. Climate change is now causing its own grave set of marine problems. Yet there is hope: success stories that suggest we can turn things around if we act now.  AIDA is committed to making sustainable fisheries a reality and to helping restore and protect coastal waters throughout the Americas. To achieve this, we must help governments strengthen and enforce laws and regulations protecting marine and coastal biodiversity. AIDA’s new publication, “Tools for Sustainable Fisheries and Coastal Management” provides a road-map to tackle this challenging work. This Spanish-language guide explains the many problems plaguing our seas and provides specific legal, scientific and economic tools to more sustainably manage our marine and coastal resources. Government officials and legislators can use this information to develop, improve, and more effectively enforce national marine biodiversity laws and regulations. Read the Executive Summary (in Spanish) Chapter 1. The Oceans and Our Fisheries: the Need for Sustainable Marine Management Chapter 1 analyzes the current condition of the oceans, discussing those factors responsible for the decline in fisheries. Among those most responsible for the decline are overfishing, lack of regulation, and an abuse of technology. The chapter continues with a review of international legal instruments in force that establish obligations for governments to protect and conserve the seas and their biodiversity.  The review concludes that current controls and preventative measures have not been sufficient to reduce harmful impacts on marine resources. Some fish populations are deteriorating so rapidly that new collapses in commercial fisheries may occur in several regions of the world. For this reason, it is up to decision-makers, consumers and the fishing industry to implement more effective control measures (presented in the following chapters) to prevent the same grave situations, provided as examples here. Chapter 2. Planning for Sustainable Fisheries This chapter addresses the issue of fishing regulations, which in most countries comprise an important tool to control the activity but are not the only answer to declining fish stocks. Once the term of fisheries management is defined, the discussion shifts to measures for fishing management and classification, from techniques to controls on inputs or efforts and products or catches. The chapter explores management plans that make use of only one of these measures. It also touches on the content of these plans and their design procedures and some of their outstanding aspects. Also mentioned in the chapter is the need to have regularly updated records of granted fishing permits as a requisite for sustainable management. It concludes that the plight of fish stocks should compel countries to properly organize fishing activities to ensure the recovery and availability of fish for future generations. Chapter 3. Limiting the Overall Fishing Effort Chapter 3 describes and analyzes the current regulatory instruments used to limit the overall fishing effort, including programs to reduce fishing boat licenses, decommission boats, retrain fishermen, and reduce the time nets are cast. The chapter also suggests measures that should be considered in order for these programs to truly accomplish their objectives. Additionally, the chapter provides examples of specific programs to limit the overall fishing effort that were designed and implemented in various countries and can serve as models for parties interested in designing similar programs. Chapter 4. Controlling Catch Levels This chapter looks at the measures implemented to exercise control over fish catches. Among them are the so-called traditional methods such as fishing permits and fees, setting quotas on catches, establishing fishing seasons for certain species (closed seasons) and the minimum size of the specimens of commercial species as well as those under special protection or management. These tools have been applied in various countries to control catches, and the chapter includes examples of where this has happened to provide examples of the many options available. Also described in this chapter are "alternative" methods that countries can implement to control catches and ensure sustainable fishing activities. Of these options, some deserve particular attention. One involves controlling incidental catch, or bycatch, given its importance for conserving marine species. Another involves setting individual fishing quotas (IFQs), the most modern method to control catches. Chapter 5. Controlling Bycatch This chapter examines the phenomenon of bycatch, responsible for much of the deterioration of the world's marine biodiversity. Given that most modern fishing methods do not discriminate between targeted and untargeted species, many resources are lost when captured incidentally as bycatch, including fish, marine mammals and birds, among others. The chapter begins by describing the different types of fishing and the risk each poses to bycatch. Subsequently, the chapter looks at the different existing security measures, including examples of how different countries have faced the problem. It then explains that it is best to opt for a combination of measures that will result in the best possible scenario. Chapter 6. Marine Coastal Planning This chapter examines the tools for coastal planning and management as a method for effectively protecting coastal zones and seas. Coastal zones are particularly vulnerable to jurisdiction conflicts over the use and allocation of coastal marine resources due to the diversity of activities and ecosystems that exist in them.   The chapter also looks at integrated coastal management (ICM) as a continuous and dynamic process between community, science and the state to implement integrated plans for the protection and development of coastal resources. Examples of ICMs are explored in Peru, Belize, Mexico, Colombia, Costa Rica and the European Union. The issue is complemented with ecosystem-based management and examples of the governance of spaces and marine resources in Antarctica and the high sea. The chapter concludes that to effectively and sustainably manage our seas we must integrate the basics of biophysical, social, economic and planning with a long-term vision. Chapter 7. Forms of Marine Protection This chapter explores marine protected areas (MPAs) and their benefits as a conservation tool. It also mentions the MPA categories in relation to protected ecosystems and the classifications of international organizations like UNESCO and the International Union for Conservation of Nature. It then lists the problems and solutions related to the delimitation of the size of the MPAs as well as those related to the actions of control, inspection and surveillance, and to the current and future financing of these areas. As case studies, the treatment of the MPAs in law and public policy are examined in Mexico, Costa Rica and Brazil. The chapter includes measures for the protection of offshore resources by transnational MPAs and ends by addressing the difference between no-fishing zones and fish stocks. Chapter 8. Monitoring, Control and Surveillance of Fishing Activities This chapter explores the monitoring, control and surveillance techniques in different countries. It shows how they are necessary to verify compliance with standards and determine the effectiveness in doing so. Monitoring is important to collect fishing information for making decisions. The chapter also addresses the issue of sanctions. It’s important to have the administrative and criminal legislation necessary to sanction and prevent behaviors that threaten the sustainability of fishing and marine biodiversity, the text reads. The chapter emphasizes the need for coordinating efforts between the different systems of government and/or countries to achieve greater compliance with standards. Chapter 9. Economic Tools and Incentives for Responsible Fishing In this chapter, the main economic tools for responsible fishing are analyzed, which when efficiently designed and applied can promote the protection, restoration, preservation and sustainable use of marine resources. As it is immersed in market dynamics, fishing is especially susceptible to the application of economic instruments and incentives. The chapter discusses three categories of economic instruments: market (fish certification and eco-labeling), fiscal (green taxes, duties and subsidies) and financial (creating funds and loans). For each category, the concept of the tool and its practical application are explained through examples. The last section of the chapter examines other economic incentives such as penalties and fines that seek to promote positive behaviors in the population. The chapter wraps up with a series of recommendations for the effective use of economic tools. These include studying the economic and social reality for setting positive environmental goals and for applying these instruments together with other policy and monitoring tools. Chapter 10.  Aquaculture y Mariculture In Chapter 10, AIDA explains the impacts and health risks associated with aquaculture in the Americas and discusses less harmful, alternative approaches. The chapter includes examples of both successful and unsuccessful projects. We provide detailed information about the damaging impacts of aquaculture on the marine environment, wild species, local economies, and public health. We also discuss the basic requirements needed to reduce harmful impacts from aquaculture activities such as: adequate zoning of projects; regulation of cultivated species; appropriate feeding and waste-elimination techniques; and effective government monitoring and enforcement, among others.  Additionally, we explain novel techniques such as polyculture, land cultivation, and ecological certification, which are being researched as possible alternatives with less human and environmental impacts. Chapter 11. Social and Economic Aspects of Responsible Fishing This chapter focuses on the socio-environmental aspects of the fishing industry, which is crucial for job creation, food security and the potential for overcoming poverty in a large portion of the world population. The chapter begins by analyzing the current state of the sector, and it raises warnings about the poverty and harsh labor conditions of those working in fishing.   The chapter calls for changes in fishing policies to promote real change to the grim conditions in the industry. Different alternatives for action are discussed, and each is illustrated by real experiences from around the world to show their success or failure and the lessons that can be learned from them. Executive SummarY (SPANISH) Read the Full Report (in Spanish) Acknowledgements We thank everyone who in one form or another contibuted their knowledge and expertise to this publication. We especially thank: Rolando Castro, member of the AIDA Board of Directors; Sofía Cortina, Isabel Calle, Samantha Namnum, Gladys Martínez, Sandra Moguel, Florencia Ortúzar, María Giménez, Mónica Ribadeneira, John Kaltenstein and Phil Eager, Haydée Rodríguez, Víctor Quintanilla, Clarissa Castillo, Diego Alvarez, lawyers with expertise on the subject of marine conservation; and all interns who have helped us make this possible.  

How can we save coral reefs?

By Haydée Rodríguez When I tell people I live in Costa Rica, they imagine my home on the beach, facing the ocean, waves rolling in from the endless horizon. In reality, I live in a city like any other, one hour from the Pacific coast and three from the Caribbean. Although my life hasn’t exactly been a tropical vision of paradise, I’ve been in love with the ocean since I was a girl. That love has only deepened the more I came to understand the mysteries of the sea, the services it provides and the marvelous creatures that call it home. Of all the species that live in the sea, corals are among my favorites. Thanks to my career at AIDA, I have been able to both learn a lot about these tiny animals, and work to identify effective ways to protect them. Many people don’t know about the incredible connection we have with corals. It’s a connection that exists even for those of us who don’t have the privilege of living by the sea.  What are corals and what do they do for us?  Although at first glance they look like large rocks, corals are actually living organisms with an exoskeleton. They have a mutualistic relationship with photosynthetic algae called zooxanthellae, which are responsible for their brilliant coloring. The algae use sunlight to produce food and some of the nutrients that the corals need to survive. In exchange, the corals provide the algae with a protected environment. A group of corals forms a reef, a highly biodiverse ecosystem, widely known as the jungle of the sea. Coral reefs provide many benefits to humanity: Reefs are spawning grounds for many varieties of fish—the fish you eat are linked, in one way or another, with a coral reef. Reefs are natural shock absorbers that protect coastal communities from storms and hurricanes. Reefs are tourist destinations that generate important national income: one square kilometer of coral reef provides services valued at up to $600,000 a year, according to the United Nations. The bad news is that these benefits could be lost if we don’t act now to preserve coral reefs. It’s estimated that 60 percent of the world’s coral reefs could disappear by 2030. That would mean that our children may enjoy them for only a brief time, and our grandchildren may know them only from photographs in their science and history books.  What are the threats and how can we help fight them?  Unsustainable fishing methods, such as trawling, which destroys any coral in its path. Before eating or buying seafood, it’s worth asking how it was fished. Becoming responsible consumers is our right and our obligation. We must demand in restaurants and grocery stores products that have been taken from the sea without harming corals or other species of importance. Inadequate tourism practices harm coral reefs. When exploring the wondrous corals reefs, snorkelers and divers must avoid touching or stepping on them at all costs. We must remember that corals are living creatures, which our weight and the equipment we carry into the sea can harm. When we buy souvenirs like necklaces and crafts, we should reject products that use or incorporate corals. We do not need corals to decorate our homes or bodies, but the ocean needs them to maintain its equilibrium. A recent study found that, when they come into contact with the ocean, sunscreens that contain oxybenzone (a chemical compound) could, even in low concentrations, damage the DNA of corals, deforming them and eventually causing death.  We must avoid using this type of product, and instead use safe sunscreens and clothing to protect us from the sun. Here is a list of sunscreens that are safe for corals. The fertilizers used on crops leech into rivers and eventually reach the ocean, severely harming corals by increasing the production of algae, which in large quantities block the sun and prevent corals from receiving nutrients. We must opt for fruits and vegetables grown organically and demand responsible agriculture.   Improving legal protection of coral reefs Another important way of saving coral reefs is by seeking change in our countries. We must urge our governments to improve the laws protecting these sensitive creatures. At AIDA, we have recently published A Guide to International Regulatory Best Practices for Coral Reef Protection. The document contains ideas to strengthen laws and promote the conservation of coral reefs around the world. I invite you to share the guide with decision-makers in your country. Or if you prefer, send me ([email protected]) the contact information of people who may be interested in implementing the recommendations contained within, and I will send them the guide directly. Corals play a more important role in our lives than many of us understand, and their future is in our hands.  We must save coral reefs to ensure that our children and our grandchildren can enjoy the many benefits of these wondrous creatures.

Protecting Sea Turtles in the Gulf of Mexico

By Sandra Moguel Every few years, hundreds of hawksbill and kemp’s ridley turtles glide through the warm, shallow waters of the Veracruz Reef System. There they swim and feed amongst the brightly colored corals, which stretch for miles through the Gulf of Mexico. When the sun goes down, many of the females make their way back to the very beach from which they hatched, to lay the eggs of the next generation. This ritual has happened for centuries, as the migratory turtles move and feed and breed their way through the Gulf and Caribbean waters. But it’s happening less and less. As their critical habitats are threatened by reckless human activities and a changing climate, the population of hawksbill turtles in the region has declined by 95 percent, making them a critically endangered species. The hawksbill (eretmochelys imbricata) and Kemps’ ridley (lepidochelys kempii) turtles are just two of the five neotropical species of sea turtle that spend a portion of their migratory cycles along the coast of Veracruz, Mexico, and within the confines its reefs. Now, these turtles are facing a new threat – the expansion of the Port of Veracruz. To raise awareness of the risk posed to these threatened species, AIDA and the Mexican Center for Environmental Law (CEMDA) on September 22 presented a petition (in Spanish) before the Scientific Committee of the Inter-American Sea Turtle Convention (IAC), under which Mexico has obligations to protect turtles found within its borders. In the petition, we detailed the direct and indirect impacts that the expansion of the Port would have on the various turtle species and their habitat. We also mentioned that in the project’s environmental impact statement, the Veraruz Port Authority stated that the port expansion “will never have a direct effect on protected species.” They therefore failed to present protection measures for sea turtles, particularly the hawksbill, which is listed as threatened under both the Sea Turtle Convention and Mexican law. Our petition before the IAC requests they take measures to understand the threat and urge Mexico to act, including: conduct an investigation on the impacts the port expansion would have on the turtles and their habitat; conduct a site visit; make recommendations for the protection of the species and their habitat; and urge the Mexican government to apply precautionary measures while evaluating potential environmental impacts on the turtles. Also on September 22, alongside CEMDA, we delivered more than 36,000 signatures from a citizens’ petition urging the Secretariat of Environment & Natural Resources to revoke the environmental authorization granted for the Port’s expansion. The petition argues that the expansion project would put in danger two of Mexico’s natural treasures – the Veracruz Reef System and Los Tuxtlas Reserve, a natural protected area from which basaltic rock for the construction would be extracted. The permit has been approved without considering the severe environmental impacts it would have on the unique ecosystems of the region and the creatures that call them home. The Mexican government has thus violated national and international obligations to conserve biodiversity and protect its natural heritage. As long as the Port of Veracruz expansion project threatens sensitive species and ecosystems, we will continue to advocate through national and international bodies to stop it.  Thank you for supporting our work to defend the health and biodiversity of the Veracruz Reef System!

Nearly 37,000 people urge SEMARNAT to protect Mexico’s natural treasures

The Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve and the Veracruz Reef System are at risk from the expansion of the Port of Veracruz, authorized by SEMARNAT. Signatures to protect the important natural sites were collected on a citizens’ petition at change.org/saveveracruz A coalition of organizations has alerted the Scientific Committee of the Inter-American Commission for the Protection of Sea Turtles of the threat the project poses to sea turtles. Yesterday civil society organizations delivered more than 36,000 signatures urging Mexico’s Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) to revoke an environmental permit granted for the extraction of basaltic rock from Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve for the expansion of the Port of Veracruz. The highly successful citizens’ petition was delivered to José Luis Juan Bravo Soto, the Director of Citizen Services at SEMARNAT, and David Gutiérrez Carbonell, the Director General of Conservation Development at CONANP. The authorization granted to the Port Authority of Veracruz by the government in June 2014 would increase the damage the port has historically cause to the surrounding coral reef ecosystem, and put in danger two of the most important natural treasures in Mexico: the Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve and the Veracruz Reef System. The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), the Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental, A.C. (CEMDA) and the organizations Resistencia Organizada por la Conservación Ambiental (La Roca) and the Asamblea Veracruzana de Iniciativas y Defensa Ambiental (LAVIDA) stated in a press conference that the Veracruz Reef System is already in grave danger due to SEMARNAT’s approval, without sufficient technical and scientific information, of a plan to modify the borders of the Veracruz Reef System National Park in order to expand the Port of Veracruz. Permission granted for the extraction of basaltic rock from Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve for construction of the port’s new jetties conflicts with the Reserve’s management program, which expressly prohibits the use of explosives in the area. This region contains one of the last rainforests in Mexico, serves as a natural barrier against hurricanes and tropical storms, provides a refuge to millions of plant and animal species, and is home to many communities.  In addition to actions taken so far, on September 22 AIDA and CEMDA presented a report before the Scientific Committee of the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles (IAC), detailing the direct and indirect impacts that the expansion of the Port of Veracruz would have on sea turtles and their habitat. The Veracruz Reef System is the largest coral ecosystem in the Gulf of Mexico. It works as a natural barrier against waves and storms; in 2010 it protected the city of Veracruz from Hurricane Karl.  It is also home to a large variety of flora and fauna. The coasts of Veracruz, including the reef system, receive at different times of year five species of neotropical sea turtles. The Port Authority said in its environmental impact statement that the project “will never have a direct effect on protected species.” The statement, however, failed to provide protection measures for sea turtles, particularly for the hawksbill turtle, listed as a threatened species under both the Sea Turtle Convention and Mexican law. This species is found in the Veracruz Reef System National Park and has migration routes throughout the Gulf of Mexico. SEMARNAT authorized the expansion project in December 2013, without requiring a special management plan for the conservation of the hawksbill sea turtle. The authorization, therefore, runs contrary to the obligation of the Mexican government to promote the protection, conservation and recovery of sea turtle populations and the habitat on which they depend, particularly spawning and feeding grounds. It does nothing to restrict human activities that could affect the turtles, particularly during periods of breeding and incubation. The Veracruz Reef System was declared a Natural Protected Area in 1992 and was registered, in 2004, as a Wetland of International Importance in accordance with the characteristics established by the Ramsar Convention. The authorization granted by the environmental authority therefore contravenes national and international standards and does not properly consider the cumulative impacts that the project would have on the ecosystem. It also ignores the Mexican government’s responsibility to protect the biodiversity found within its territory, and disregards the National Biodiversity Strategy and provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Sign the petition at: change.org/saveveracruz Photos of the delivery of signatures: http://www.cemda.org.mx/?p=4555

Defending Mexico's marine biodiversity from deep sea mining