Daily Archives: February 25, 2021

February 19, 2021 A U.S. president announced Americas distancing from the most significant climate treaty in history. Sixteen years later, President Donald Trump followed suit. In other words, whiplash is not new to U.S. environmental politics and, for decades, it has been at the center of our treaty-making.

Trump took a page out of President George W. Bushs playbook when he announced in 2017 he was ditching the Paris climate deal. Bush had taken similar action when he refused to move forward with the Kyoto Protocol, the 1990s precursor to the Paris Agreement. On Inauguration Day of this year, President Joe Biden initiated the rejoining of the Paris Agreement. Today it becomes official.

Rejoining the Paris deal, according to John Kerry, the new U.S. envoy on climate change, will allow the U.S. to become a global climate leader. He summarized the administrations core belief about the global climate crisis: It is existential.

But climate change isnt the only existential crisis the world is facing. Biodiversity loss and ocean exploitation, to name just two, are crises happening concurrently with climate change and much of the rest of the world has turned to a number of lesser-known environmental treaties to address these. But, the U.S. government has never signed, has failed to ratify, or still dances around them. America may re-sign the Paris Agreement but it will not be a convincingly green leader on the global stage until it confronts the forgotten environmental treaties it has trapped in limbo, sometimes for decades and the world will suffer more from all the existential crises it faces than if the U.S. led the way.

From Walden Pond to Paris

When I teach college students in my U.S. environmental policy courses, I start with Thoreaus cabin on Walden Pond and end with the Paris Agreement. America popularized the genre of nature writing, came up with national parks, and drafted the first federal endangered species lists nature-saving solutions now adopted by many nations around the world. Yet weve failed to fully embrace the global communitys choice of nature-saving solution: environmental treaties. By hyper-focusing and hyper-villainizing any one former administrations climate legacy, America obscures its past failing as a whole to step into environmental leadership positions.

Few of the non-climate environmental agreements are household names the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Bonn Convention, Law of the Sea but Americas lack of official participation makes it a major holdout on global efforts to stop biodiversity loss, protect migratory animals, and steward our global ocean. While America still sends observers to meetings that further negotiate or expand these treaties, formally speaking, the country of Liechtenstein (estimated population 38,000) currently has a more legitimate voice in global environmental governance than America.

Take the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Paris Agreement-equivalent for the extinction crisis. In 1993, the Clinton Administration signed the treaty, it arrived at the U.S. Senate for ratification, and the Senate did nothing. The documents wait for action in a kind of treaty purgatory, with a sad internet presence, alongside thirty-six others. Consider the Bonn Convention, officially known as the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS). It coordinates transboundary operations that conserve the migratory routes and habitat of mobile species. Canada and Mexico join the U.S. and a handful of other major nations that never signed on to this convention. Its true that America has signed on to a few of CMSs memorandums of understanding, but on a species-by-species basis. Meanwhile, billions of birds continue vanishing from North Americas migratory routes over just one generation, including climate-sensitive seabirds like albatross and petrels.

Lastly, the UN Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS), an agreement that governs human activities in seas and oceans: America was one of its earliest architects in the 1980s, but in the 1990s the treaty followed the similar signed-but-not-ratified fate as the biodiversity agreement. Today, scientists in the U.S. are again helping to design an international legal binding agreement that will address problems resulting from UNCLOSs gaps, notably: how to deal with the overfishing of biodiversity on the high seas, technically called Marine Biodiversity of Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ). After the pandemic subsides, the BBNJ treaty will likely be on the diplomatic table, but scientists are cautious, based on Americas fickle history, that political leaders will formally join, despite the urgent message of ocean exploitation.

Such concrete action would make absolutely clear where America will and will not lead when it comes to environmental problems, from climate change to biodiversity loss to overfishing of the high seas.

There is no shortage of political explanations and diplomatic rationales for Americas historical self-distancing from these agreements. First, the U.S. Senate must advise to ratify treaties by a two-thirds vote. Somesenatorshave long been treaty-averse, witharguments circling that claim treaties risk U.S. sovereignty and its global economic position. Second, the U.S. has in these cases preferred to make progress through soft diplomacy, making handshakes and good neighbors without signing the dotted line.

These political traditions are like our battleships they dont turn on a dime, no matter which party is in power. But from a scientific and historical perspective, a smart approach would be the one that is most comprehensive: confronting all the treaties that are in limbo now, in a transparent way. Such concrete action would make absolutely clear where America will and will not lead when it comes to environmental problems, from climate change to biodiversity loss to overfishing of the high seas.

Reconciling the Past to Move Forward

The lack of clear-eyed and transparent treaty-making has long-term consequences, as seen in another instance where the U.S. has failed in this area: the injustices wrought by not honoring and breaking treaties by the U.S. government against Native Americans. Many Native Americans still have high levels of mistrust for non-tribal government because of this historical trauma and, because of this and many other reasons, often low levels of voter turnout. When Native American communities do engage, they can swing political outcomes. The lack of Native American participation in democratic processes is a lasting bruise on our democracy. As with other injustices, our ability to successfully move forward on this front requires a full recognition of the past.

Americas leaders have a window and opportunity in 2021 to turn this legacy around and make it clear where the country will and where it will not lead on the environment.

Turning the page on Americas environmental story also involves an honest telling of the past. That story is rich in national vision but undeniably fickle when it comes to the hard work arguably the hardest work of saving the whole planet through global cooperation and agreements.

Americas leaders have a window and opportunity in 2021 to turn this legacy around and make it clear where the country will and where it will not lead on the environment. One of President Bidens orders signed on January 27 seeks the U.S. Senates advice on ratifying the Kigali amendment an important amendment to the lesser-known climate treaty, the Montreal Protocol which could reduce the use of climate-warming hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) pollutants. This treaty expansion ratification is possible due to at least some bipartisan agreement, in part because of its potential economic benefits for the U.S.

And further bipartisan environmental agreement in the Senate does exist. The 2020 passage of The Great American Outdoors Act, the largest land conservation legislation in the 21st century, had bipartisan support. Similarly, there may be bipartisan support for the creation of a jobs corps bill that has the same appeal of supporting public lands and rural jobs, while also focusing on the new administrations climate agenda. This kind of bipartisan momentum matters for seeking ratification of green treaties in the Senate.

Be the first to hear about important new environmental stories. Sign up now to receive our newsletter.

If successful, the ratification of an expanded Montreal treaty still stays within the climate action realm the Biden Administration seems most comfortable in at least for now. By ratifying or at least confronting the treaties that have been left in the lurch all these years, the country has the opportunity to show its environmental leadership in a way that is clear about what it does and does not consider existential enough to address meaningfully in concert with other nations.

President Biden says he will host global leaders on Earth Day 2021 for a dialogue about the climate crisis, echoing Kerrys language, that climate change is an existential threat. And just as with the pandemic, Biden said, it requires global cooperation.

With the pandemic, another science-based crisis, America can build trust with other nations with laser focus and moving forward. But for America to become an environmental leader, the country must reckon with its past failings to lead, take stock, and understand that climate change is not the only environmental problem that needs leadership and global cooperation.

Editors note, 2/20/21: Early in the piece, Biodiversity loss and ocean health was updated to Biodiversity loss and ocean exploitation.

Here is the original post:

Opinion: The other environmental treaties the US must confront - Ensia

~~

Japan is poised to propose a reduction of the total allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific saury at the upcoming annual meeting of the North Pacific Fisheries Commission (NPFC), scheduled to take place online from February 23 to 25.

The Pacific saury fishery has been plagued by seriously depleted catches in recent years, calling for conservation measures throughout its range. The NPFC, which provides a forum for international discussion of the long-term management of Pacific saury resources, known as sanma in Japanese, is set to take up the issue.

There is concern, however, that some members of the commission such as China and Taiwan, which have been fishing for Pacific saury mainly on the high seas of the North Pacific, may raise objections to Japans proposal and prevent the NPFC from reaching a consensus.

The NPFC is made up of eight countries and regions. There are the coastal fishing nations of Japan and Russia, the pelagic fishing countries and regions of China, South Korea, Vanuatu and Taiwan, and the United States and Canada as interested countries. Only the United States and Canada do not participate in the Pacific Saury fishery.

The annual meeting was initially scheduled to be held in Sapporo last June 2019, but was postponed owing to the spread of new coronavirus infections. Given that the Pacific saury fishery could begin as early as late April, the timing of the coming NPFC conference comes just before the deadline for concluding resources management negotiations for 2021. The NPFC secretariat has noted that prolonged negotiations could cause the meeting to extend into February 26.

The current fishing limits on Pacific saury are based on an agreement made at the last NPFC meeting in 2019, which addressed management measures for 2020. That agreement set the TAC for the entire distributional range of sanma at 556,250 metric tons, of which the ceiling on high seas catch was limited to a total of 330,000 metric tons. An accord was also reached to allocate the remaining 226,250 tons of allowable catch to fisheries within the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of Japan and Russia.

Japan is set to put forth a proposal for an overall cut in the TAC this time. Lower catches on the high seas, which are allocated 60 percent of the Pacific saury quota, are called for in order to materialize the conservation goals. As it is difficult to seek reduced catch limits on high seas fisheries alone, Tokyo has also determined that a certain level of reduction of the upper limits on catches in the EEZs of Japan and Russia is inevitable.

However, China and Taiwan are both engaged in pelagic fisheries in the North Pacific for Pacific saury, and they may be adverse to any tightening of regulations of fishing on the high seas.

Interests differ between nations such as Japan, that takes Pacific saury primarily in coastal waters around the country, and China and Taiwan, both of which focus their fisheries on the high seas. Regarding the need for reducing the TAC, China and some others took exception to Japans proposal as premature at the 2018 NPFC meeting, resulting in a compromise that delayed introduction of the fishery curbs until a year later, at the 2019 meeting.

In recent years, the actual high seas catch has made up about 80 percent of the total Pacific saury haul. China and Taiwan, and possibly others could call for a change in the way the total quota is apportioned to match the current reality of the Pacific saury fishery.

There are many different views on causes of the poor Pacific saury catch. In addition to the increasing impact from high seas hauls by fishing vessels from China and Taiwan, there are theories pointing to a decline in the Pacific saury stock itself, and shrinkage of the saurys distribution range due to a rise in the population of true sardines that compete for the same food source.

Japans haul of sanma nationwide for 2020, announced in January this year by the National Cooperative Association of Saury Stick-Held Dip Net Fisheries (called Zen-Sanma in the Japanese abbreviation), stood at 29,566 metric tons. This was a decrease of 27 percent from the year before, marking a record low for the second straight year.

Poor Pacific saury catch is not limited to Japan. It is obvious that the overall stock circumstances of the saury have been worsening, with an official of Japans Fisheries Agency noting: All countries and regions concerned may have a common sense of crisis over the situation.

This will be the first virtual annual meeting of the NPFC. The markedly different format brings with it a host of uncertainties concerning the course of the discussion.

Concerns are growing that the poor sanma harvests will affect consumers at the table. Prices of canned Pacific saury have been rising sharply. For example, in early January Maruha Nichiro Corporation, one of Japans major marine products companies, announced that the wholesale price of four kinds of canned saury will be raised 30 yen per can before tax, effective from its April 1 shipments.

Kohei Oishi, executive director of Zen-Sanma, said, Id like to see the NPFC meeting implement sound conservation management measures so that fishermen, food processors, distributors and consumers all come out of this comfortably.

RELATED:

(Read the Sankei Shimbun report in Japanese at this link.)

Author: Akihiro Morita

See the rest here:

Will NPFC Protect Pacific Saury by Cutting Fish Catch? China and Taiwan Might Disagree - JAPAN Forward

Rangers duo Joe Aribo and Leon Balogun will take to the high seas when they report for international duty with Nigeria.

The pair played a starring role in the weekend win over Dundee United as Steven Gerrard's side stand on the brink of the Premiership title.

Aribo scored one and assisted one, while Balogun filled in at right-back in the absence of captain James Tavernier.

They're both expected to report for Nigeria duty next month as the Super Eagles take on Benin and Lesotho in back-to-back Cup of Nations qualifiers.

The latter will see Gernot Rohr's side play in Nigeria's largest city Lagos for the first time in over a decade.

But it's their plans for the short away trip to play Benin in the city of Cotonou that's sure to raise eyebrows at Rangers.

Although there are just 75 miles between the cities, the journey takes up to five hours because of undeveloped roads and Nigeria have now announced they will travel to the game by the unorthodox method of taking a boat across the Gulf of Guinea to the game at the Stade de l'Amitie.

Rohr explained: "We are playing in Lagos for the first time in a very long time. I am very excited for the players.

"We have players like Leon Balogun and Joe Aribo, who were born in Europe and have never seen Lagos. I want them to discover this crazy city with 19 million inhabitants.

"So it's important we have good security and escorts to move around. The traffic in Lagos is terrible. We also need to do some work on the surface of the pitch, like cut the grass which is very much needed.

"For the first match in Benin, we are playing in the city of Cotonou. We will stay in Lagos ahead of the match.

"But because the road is not good between Lagos and Cotonou, we will travel to the match on a boat because the crossing only lasts two hours, instead of many hours on poor roads by coach."

View post:

Joe Aribo and Leon Balogun in Rangers international adventure as Ibrox stars take to the high seas for Nigeria duty - MSN UK

The study attributes these declines to overfishing. The researchers documented a greater than twofold increase in fishing pressure from longline fisheries, for instance, which use lines stretching up to 100km and bearing 1,200 baited hooks. These lines are deployed each day by any one of the thousands of longlining vessels worldwide, snaring sharks in the open ocean either intentionally or as bycatch while targeting other marine life.

The study also found increases in the proportion of sharks being fished beyond sustainable levels. Its particularly worrying that unreported catches werent included in the studys analyses. This means the number of sharks and rays killed by fishing boats is likely to be an underestimate and the actual declines of these species may be even worse. Unlike most species of bony fish, sharks and rays produce few offspring and grow slowly. The rate at which they reproduce is clearly no match for current levels of industrialised fishing.

Immediate and far-reaching action is needed to rebuild these populations. Its clear that the rate of overfishing has outstripped the implementation of fisheries management measures and trade regulations. Since most oceanic sharks and rays are caught in the high seas areas beyond national jurisdictions agreements between fishing nations within management organisations are needed for conservation measures to work.

But, as this new study details, fishery limits imposed by management organisations of regional tuna fisheries bodies tasked with managing oceanic sharks and ray populations have largely failed to follow scientific advice. As recently as November 2020, the EU and US blocked a catch retention ban for North Atlantic shortfin mako sharks, despite scientific evidenceclearly indicating that it was the first rung on a ladder to restoring this population of an endangered species.

To begin the recovery of oceanic shark and ray populations, strict measures to prohibit landings of these species and to minimise their bycatch in other fisheries are needed immediately. This must be coupled with strict enforcement. Reducing the number of sharks and rays caught accidentally will be crucial but challenging, especially for longline fishing, which inadvertently catches lots of different species. This means bans on intentional fishing are unlikely to be effective on their own. One solution would include modifying fishing gear and improving how fishers release sharks and rays after capture, to give them a better chance of survival.

An equally important measure, noted in the current study, would be banning fishing fleets from hotspots of oceanic sharks and rays.Research published in 2019 highlighted where these areas overlap most with fishing vessels. Led by the UN, negotiations are underway for a high seas treaty which would create no-take marine reserves to protect threatened species in the open ocean. This new study should urge the international community to take such action while theres still time.

This article was first published in The Conversation.

The rest is here:

Sharks and rays are in devastating decline a global solution is needed - chinadialogue ocean

Michelle Havlik dives in the Red Sea with an aquatic speaker during a research expedition. (Photo: Michelle Havlik)

First published in the Daily Maverick 168 weekly newspaper.

The oceans have become substantially noisier since the Industrial Revolution. New research has shown how human-made noise negatively affects marine lifeforms, disrupting their behaviour, physiology, reproduction and in extreme cases causes death.

Sound is the sensory cue that travels farthest through the ocean and is used by marine animals, from invertebrates to great whales, to interpret and explore their environment and to interact. Using 40 years of research, an international team of experts led by the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology in Saudi Arabia has shown how detrimental noise pollution is.

In the research, published in early February in the journal Science, they explain that there are natural sounds such as the wind blowing over the ocean, waves breaking, rain or hail falling on to the sea surface, and gas bubbles vibrating, rising, and bursting at the surface. Theres noise from earthquakes, undersea volcanoes, and hydrothermal vent activity. And of course, polar ice breaking up. There are the myriad wonderful sounds animals make: from crabs scraping along and sea urchins foraging to whales and dolphins singing, seals barking and evenfish spawning.

Examples of human sound interference include seismic surveys aimed at detecting the presence of petroleum and gas deposits below the seafloor. The construction and operation of oil and gas infrastructure in the oceans is noisy. Equally bad are offshore windfarms during the construction phase and when the turbines operate.

Vessels, scrapers and finders

Fishing boats use fishfinders to search for schools of fish, and navies use active sonars across a range of frequencies to detect submarines and other targets.

Scientists say that, over the past 50 years, increased shipping has contributed to an estimated 32-fold increase in the low-frequency noise present along major shipping routes. Vessel noise is prominent in many ocean regions, even away from major shipping lanes.

Technology that scrapes the bottom of the ocean whether dredging the seafloor, harvesting minerals, or trawling forfisheries also generates low-frequency noise. Dynamite fishing, designed to stun or kill reef fish for easy collection, remains a major source of blasting noise in Southeast Asia and coastal Africa, and controlled detonation of World War 2 bombs dropped on the sea floor continues to be a major source of disruptive and destructive sound in the North Sea. Explosions of mines, missiles, and bombs during naval warfare or military exercises also represent a source of destructive sound.

On a small scale, even coastal recreational activities such as small motorboats, swimming, scuba diving, surfing, paddling, flying drones, or fireworks contribute, the team said.

In addition, climate change directly affects the temperature, heat content, and stratification of the ocean, with sound travelling faster in warmer oceans.

The research shows the noise can interfere with the natural auditory signal processing by marine animals, which is called masking. The various noises overlap with the frequency band of animals hearing in the same way as we humans cant hear a conversation at a loud party so we start to shout at each other.

The masking of signals disrupts cues of the presence of prey or predators, which may result in the loss of social cohesion and can lead to behavioural changes in marine animals.

Masking and mitigation

Shipping noise has been reported to disrupt travelling, foraging, socialising, communicating, and resting, and leads to increased mortality and reduced ability to learn to avoid predators in future encounters, according to the team. It is possible that some species may adapt, but there are gaps in the data regarding this and it may not be possible for many other species.

There are a limited number of studies testing the effectiveness of mitigation measures, but scientists say human stewardship needs regulatory frameworks designed to manage sound within exclusive economic zones and the high seas, to promote the deployment of available technological solutions.

Even just reducing the speed of ships on major shipping routes in the eastern Mediterranean from 15.6 to 13.8 knots led to an estimated 50% reduction in the broadband noise from these vessels between 2007 and 2013.

Marine construction, particularly for offshore wind farms, is achieving some results with noise-dampening technology. Acoustic barriers such as bubble curtains and noise-abating sleeves have been introduced in some European wind farms.

The teams hope is that the research will prompt national and international policies to regulate marine noise, which the researchers say is the neglected elephant in the room of global ocean change. DM168

This story first appeared in our weekly Daily Maverick 168 newspaper which is available for free to Pick n Pay Smart Shoppers at these Pick n Pay stores.

Link:

Theres so much noise that sea creatures cant hear themselves think - Daily Maverick

It always makes me wonder how sailors in the days long before world-wide travel must have felt when going abroad.

To perhaps have grown up in the back streets of Portsmouth then join the navy and travel to far away places such as Australia must have been mind-blowing.

The top photograph was taken from the bridge of HMS Sussex in 1934 as the ship approached Sydney Harbour bridge.

She served with the Royal Australian Navy from 1934 until 1936 as part of a mutual exchange, with HMAS Australia serving with the Royal Navy.

Standing on 8-inch B gun turret we see four Royal Marine buglers at stand-easy ready to come to attention to announce the ships arrival. Port and starboard we see some of the ships company fallen in for entering harbour.

Ahead of the ship above the jackstaff can be seen Pinchgut Island with the tower of Fort Denison. It was originally a rocky island and a place of punishment for convicts. In the mid-19th century a Martello Tower and fort were built on the outcrop to protect Sydney from seaborne invasion.

The bridge had opened just a couple of years before the the arrival of HMS Sussex, on March 19, 1932.

Somewhere on the high seas HMS Sussex has come to rest to allow sailors to have a swim.

The ships public address system would echo hands to bathe, hands to bathe and all those who could swim took to the water. Perhaps there might have been water a mile deep beneath them.

The person in the top right hand corner is not a Wren but a sailor in a swimming costume in the style of the period.

Geoff Wheeler dropped me a line to say that Fareham Town FC was formed in 1947. It was formed after the amalgamation of Fareham FC, Fareham Brotherhood and Fareham Casuals. Geoffs father Frank, can be seen to the right of the goalkeeper.

Just a dozen years later the heavy boots and shinguards would be done away with for much lighter kit although shin injuries became the norm, even after a kick from lightweight boots.

No doubt the team would have also played a 2-3-5 formation with three half-backs and five forwards. I wish some manager, especially one from the bottom of a league would give this formation a try once again. Im sure it would frighten the opposition to death to see five forwards lined up against them.

A message from the editor, Mark Waldron.You can subscribe here for unlimited access to Portsmouth news online - as well as fewer adverts, access to our digital edition and mobile app.Our trial offer starts at just 2 a month for the first two months.

The rest is here:

What must Landport lads have felt as they sailed into Sydney? | Nostalgia - Portsmouth News

The skipper of a yacht who put out a mayday call last week failed to cancel it after reaching calmer seas, but Maritime New Zealand won't take action against him.

The yacht, Tribe, made a distress call on Wednesday evening, off the east coast of the Coromandel Peninsula, sparking a major search and rescue operation in the area the mayday call was made.

Maritime New Zealand say in eight metre swells, with night falling, the skipper radioed that his yacht was taking on water and was sinking.

"He gave coordinates as well as he could," Maritime NZ says in a statement.

"He had a hand-held VHF radio attached to his clothing but after the broken communications with Maritime Radio, he could no longer use his radio or listen to it.

"He was under high stress, in a very noisy environment, single-handedly struggling to manage his yacht and keep his inexperienced crew member safe in the heavy seas, strong wind, and increasing darkness. He did not hear any of the radio messages to him and the broadcasts to all vessels in the search area."

After he made the mayday call, he was able to sail north using the motor, and after several hours reached calmer seas.

Tribe was eventually discovered in Bream Bay, a few miles out of Whangarei. Both people on board were safe.

Maritime NZ says the skipper's radio was functioning then and he could have cancelled the call.

"The key messages for all boaties are, take two waterproof ways to call for help and if you believe life is in danger you should not hesitate to make a mayday call - delay can be fatal," it says in a statement.

"Another vital piece of equipment recommended by Maritime NZ is a distress beacon, which when activated notifies Rescue Coordination Centre New Zealand of your distress via a global satellite system, and the beacon can be homed onto.

');} else {// replace with your tablet/desktop ad unit id 300x250document.write('

"In this case, the skipper did not seem to sufficiently understand the distress channel, VHF channel 16, which is monitored 24/7 by Maritime NZ's Maritime Radio Service. Maritime NZ has discussed this with him.

"If you make a mayday call and the situation changes for the better, then make another radio call to cancel the mayday. You will be thanked for the cancellation - no one will be critical or angry."

Maritime NZ says if people activated a beacon and are no longer in danger, they should make sure they leave the beacon on until they are contacted by rescuers.

If they turned it off, Maritime NZ will know where the beacon was activated, but have no way of knowing whether they have moved or what has happened.

In this case, the skipper of Tribe had a distress beacon but didn't activate it or it would have started a second search based on the location of the beacon, according to Maritime NZ.

See the original post:

Coromandel sea search used as warning to boaties - The Bay's News First - SunLive