If you are a lover of all things oceanic, unless you have been at sea without any communication to the outside world, you have probably heard of James Cameron's successful dive to Challenger Deep, the lowest point on the seafloor in the Marianas Trench.
But perhaps not. It was a bit surprising and disappointing to see the low level of media coverage the event received. To recap, in a bit of a race with several other submersible operators, James Cameron and his crew, with the support of the National Geographic Society and Rolex, made a successful attempt on March 25th to reach of the bottom of the Marinas Trench at nearly seven miles down. Surrounded by over 8 tons of water pressure per square inch, renown filmmaker and amateur cum serious explorer spent 6 hours on the bottom in the vertical cylinder-shaped, one-man submersible Deepsea Challenger.
Rather than recite the details one more time, you can learn much more from National Geographic's own in-depth coverage on their website.
Man has not reached this depth in over 50 years, since the bathyscaphe Trieste first did it in 1960, and yet the accomplishment garnered minimal reporting in the press. The NBC Evening News made mention of it in the last few minutes of its broadcast and the latest issue of TIME magazine relegated it to a brief column in their Milestones page along with the obituaries. What were they thinking? Is the media perception that of a technological stunt that doesn't really advance the boundaries of science? Did they look at the event as simply Cameron spending some of his millions from successful films like Titanic and Avatar on something that will end up in his next film production?
TIME started their coverage with "Scorcese and Spielberg may never go to Saturn, but on March 25, director James Cameron...took a whole other kind of crazy ride..."
Or was the dive just not sexy enough compared to, say, a five-day journey to the moon funded directly by taxpayer's dollars? Perhaps it's an indication of the times we live in. We're living in somewhat more inward-oriented times, thanks to a struggling economy and daily pressing issues like mortgage payments and the next foreboding trip to the gas pump. Maybe Cameron should have worn a hoodie or recorded the entire dive on an Etch A Sketch. At the very least, it was an opportunity for the media to grasp something beyond the mundane, to stimulate the imagination and say there is something inspiring out there in regions yet to explore - not on some distant planet, but right here beneath the waves of planet Earth.
However, the media perhaps is not totally to blame. The dive itself defused some of its own media hype potential. With the exception of some issues with the hydraulic arms that prevented some rock samples from being taken, the well-planned and executed technology that went into the submersible made the dive seem, dare I say, almost routine. Given that the slightest technical malfunction could have resulted in Cameron being squished like a bug under your shoe, that predictability is by no means a criticism but a compliment to everyone involved. But it does expose the expedition to some of the same attitudes expressed by the public with the last few trips to the moon. The race to the moon was over, the flights were becoming routine and, it seemed, America was moving on.
Add to that the fact that the Marianas Trench is a desolate place, as Cameron described it, reminiscent of Buzz Aldrin's description of the lunar surface as "magnificent desolation." No thriving species, no sea monsters - only, perhaps, the possibility that locations this deep are beyond the limitations of any kind of life. Now, that may not turn out to be the case; bacteria and other small life forms may exist down there. But there initially appear to be no surprises like those found around deep sea thermal vents.
Returning to the Marianas Trench was pitched as an event that would turn our attention to the importance and value of ocean exploration, rather than spending money on moon colonies and trips to Mars. But for some reason it did not catch the attention of the media the way I would have liked to have seen it. The general public was not paying attention like it should. There are benefits to deep sea exploration: benefits in technology and in a greater understanding of the oceans which are now being bombarded with new influences ranging from climate change to pollution to overfishing - all of which will have a profound impact on our lives long before the first man steps on the surface of some far away planet.
Perhaps when James Cameron and National Geographic come out with their planned 3-D documentary of the dives (there are more dives planned), people will be mesmerized by a new aquatic world totally unknown to them. Perhaps, over a tub of popcorn and an overpriced soft drink, they will see there are frontiers that need to be explored not simply "because it's there." Perhaps they will see that our future depends on it.
Source: Nat Geo's DeepseaChallenge.com
A recent study, jointly completed by the UC Davis Bodega Marine Laboratory (BML) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), indicates that the common chemical analysis of oil spills may be inadequate in measuring some of the more subtle effects and the consequences generated, which may not present themselves until years later.
Reported in the latest issue of CA & ES Outlook, a UC Davis publication, the study focused on an oil spill that occurred in San Francisco Bay in 2007 when the container ship Cosco Busan spilled 54,000 gallons of bunker oil after colliding with the Oakland Bay Bridge. Spawning habitats for the largest West Coast population of Pacific Herring were contaminated.
As reported in CA & ES Outlook, "Researchers accessed the health and viability of herring embryos in oiled and unoiled locations. Their findings, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in January, revealed that components of bunker oil accumulated in naturally spawned herring embryos, then interacted with sunlight during low tides to kill the embryos. Bunker oil is a thick fuel oil distilled from crude oil."
While we see the dramatic early effects of oil spills with oil-covered animals, oil slicks and tar balls; and we see the television advertisements from oil companies espousing how areas impacted by spills have now all but returned to normal; we must be aware of the subtle impacts that may not present themselves until much later. Even the tiniest of residual chemicals can have a profound effect on marine animal populations based on how embryos and larvae are impacted. This has the potential to hamper or even destroy coastal marine ecosystems and even commercial fisheries.
"Our research represents a change in the paradigm for oil spill research and detecting oil spill effects in an urbanized estuary," said professor Gary Cherr, BML director and co-author of the study. The general public must be attuned to the ongoing research that can contradict the publicity-seeking and self-serving positions of oil companies that claim areas, like the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, are once again pristine.
The Giant Clam, of the genus Tridacna, is a striking image on any coral reef. Its size, at two feet or more in length,
along with the deep folds in it shell and the vibrant colors of its fleshy mantle make it a standout. And rather than be the danger portrayed in movies, clamping down on the feet of unsuspecting swimmers, the giant clam is an important member of the coral reef community, a filter-feeder that helps to cleanse the surrounding waters to the benefit of all the reef's inhabitants.
In Malaysia, the Tridacna clam has been heavily exploited for decades, either for its meat or shell. And as Malaysia has grown as both a tourist destination and commercial shipping center, water pollution and urban development have taken its toll on the clams and, for the matter, all of the surrounding reefs.
However, the Marine Ecology Research Centre (MERC), affiliated with the Gayana Eco resort on Gaya Island outside of nearby Kota Kinabalu, is taking steps to bring the Tridacna back to its former glory. The Centre has patiently been nurturing Tridacna larvae in a nursery to where they are now ready to 
transplant 500 three-inch juveniles back to the coral reef. Researchers will closely monitor the growth and overall health of the clams in their new environment. If all goes well, they have as many as 2,000 clams in their nursery which could be returned to the reef. “We chose giant clams for our Save the Giants program because they are endangered, slow to grow and important in producing oxygen into the marine ecosystem,” said project director Alvin Wong. “Hopefully, this first batch will make it. We will monitor their progress as we continue to produce more giant clams.”
Additionally, MERC has been cultivating corals for replanting, as many as 1,000, and are prepared to transplant them in and around the reefs at Gaya Island.
Like many other Pacific islands, MERC realizes that much of Malaysia's economic growth is closely tied to tourism. Malaysia is known for beautiful coral reefs that are enjoyed by divers and snorkelers - and that means revenue for the nation and its people. The Centre was awarded the Most Innovative Tourist Attraction Award at the 2008/2009 Malaysia Tourist Awards, so they are not alone in realizing the value of healthy, protected reefs.
The Marine Ecology Research Centre will be educating schools and non-governmental groups on the importance of marine conservation while they continue with their giant clam and coral breeding and transplanting activities. Let's hope they succeed on all counts. The Tridacna clam is an impressive reef invertebrate worth saving.
Source: The Star Online
Making the rounds of many of the news outlets today is some good news offered by the European Union. Earlier this month, meeting in Brussels, the European Commission, siding with the opinions of 27 member nation fishery ministers, proposed amending EU regulations on shark fishing by recommending a total ban on shark finning both within EU waters and by all EU-registered vessels worldwide. Today, the Council of the European Union gave its approval of the measure.
While EU regulations have already prohibited shark finning, the actual execution was riddled with loopholes and special permits, all originally intended to promote commercial shark fishing management. However, monitoring and enforcement was difficult to attain and so, ultimately, a complete ban was deemed best.
As good as this all sounds, in reality it is an incremental step. Properly permitted vessels will still be able to take sharks, but they will be required to land them whole - fins attached. This is a disadvantage to the boat operators as whole shark carcasses will fill up a boat's hold with low value meat compared to the more highly prized shark fin. It could very well prove to be enough of an inducement for many boats to move out of the shark fin business altogether, finding it no longer economically worthwhile.
The proposed ban represents both a move by the EU to better monitor the shark fishing industry and to put the squeeze on what is viewed as an industry that would eventually collapse due to declining shark populations. While Asia is often criticized for its growing market demand for shark fin, it is the EU that happens to be the largest exporter of shark fins worldwide. As an example, according to some reports, the hammerhead shark has all but become extinct in the Mediterranean.
The EU fishery ministers are also seeking support for a measure that would ban the practice of discarding fish that do not meet qualifications or are commercially undesirable. What they are proposing is a major assault on bycatch. In essence, if you caught it, you keep it. And it could ultimately 
force fishing vessels to either utilize any and all approaches that would minimize bycatch (better fishing techniques, nets or hooks) or seek markets for catches that may not be as profitable. As reported by the Associated Press, the European Commission says that up to half of the whitefish and 70 percent of the flatfish caught by fisheries is discarded.
This proposal faces some stiff resistance from several member nations, particularly France and Spain, so time will tell as to whether it succeeds, But for now, the shark fin ban seems to be on track. The proposal awaits a first reading in the European Parliament before being formalized into law.
A positive step in a comprehensive, but complicated, strategy for shark conservation - addressing the dealers of shark fin products by simplifying shark fishery management policy and, in so doing, indirectly hitting them where it hurts most: the bottom line.
Source: Boston News
Source: Courthouse News Service
In the Philippines, the Malampaya Sound is known for its ecological diversity, ranging from coral reefs to sea grasses to mangroves and lowland forests. It is also home to one of the most endangered species of dolphin: the Irrawaddy dolphin. The number of dolphin in the sound has dropped from 79 in 2001 to 42 and scientists believe that if the number dips below 40, the Irrawaddy dolphin population in the sound will collapse.
The Irrawaddy dolphin is a rather cute looking creature; a bit like a small beluga whale with a similar head shape and light grey in color. There are only about 6,000 Irrawaddy dolphins worldwide and it has been listed as "critically endangered" by the IUCN. Because of the Malampaya Sound's biodiversity, commercial and local fisherman have been attracted to the area and the sound is showing the impact of overfishing. No more so than with the plight of the Irrawaddy dolphin which is not commercially sought after but does become ensnared in the longline nets and, being then unable to reach the surface, drowns.
However, there could very well be a positive future for the Irrawaddy dolphin if the indigenous Tagbanua people have anything to say about it. Representatives of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) who have been monitoring the situation and working with local Philippine officials, say that the Tagbanua tribe have both a cultural history that supports protecting the dolphin and employ fishing techniques that could allow the Irrawaddy dolphin's numbers to return.“For them [the Tagbauna people], the dolphins are bearer of good tidings and are also the omen of something bad that will happen like typhoons or calamities, depending on the behavior of the animal,” said Mavic Matillano, who lead a study five years ago on the Irrawaddy dolphin. “That, in a way made the lumad [non-Muslim indigenous peoples in Mindanao] also believe that when you hurt a dolphin, something bad may happen to you.”
The cultural position forms the background for their approach to fishing. The Tagbanua fishermen use specific moon and tide schedules and selective harvesting, regardless of market demands, to avoid overfishing and wasted bycatch (which is the category in which the Irrawaddy dolphin finds itself).
According to the Philippine's Inquirer News, "WWF officials said the most important thing to do right now was to change the fishing practices of the coastal communities there. The group and [WWF author Raoul] Cola pointed to the Tagbanua fishing practices as a model of sustainable practice."“Based on the principle of the interconnection, not only of ecosystems but also of the natural, social and spiritual worlds, these strategies demonstrate that the world view of the users molds their environment and defines the prospect of its sustainability,” said Cola.
The WWF is working with several Philippine agencies to implement commercial fishery management strategies based on the techniques employed by the Tagbanuas. The WWF is working hard to address funding issues, but they are encouraged by that fact that an indigenous Philippine tribe can serve as a model for many local coastal areas, rather than some outside group of "foreigners" imposing their beliefs on local fishermen.
The Irrawaddy dolphin, like other dolphins, is an important apex predator and vital to maintaining a healthy biodiversity in the Malampaya Sound. Let's hope that local wisdom and responsible fishing techniques can spread to ensure the dolphin's future.
Source: Inquirer News
In decades past, Africa was the wild continent, the epitome of nature unleashed. But in recent years it has been seen as a source of human sorrow through wars, drought, and disease. Two recent news articles confronted those images and show the dilemma that African governments currently face.
USA Today reported that poachers are taking a heavy toll on African elephants in supposedly protected reserves like Bouba N'Djida National Park in the Republic of Cameroon. Park rangers are poorly trained and ill equipped to combat the heavily armed poachers that have killed at least half of the park's 400 elephants for their ivory tusks. Northern Cameroon's elephant population represents 80 percent of the total population of savanna elephants in all of Central Africa.
Under pressure from the World Wildlife Fund and the European Union, the government sent in 150 soldiers at the start of the month and while there have been unconfirmed reports of confrontations, the poaching continues. Twenty elephants were reported killed in the first week of March alone.
The demand for ivory is a result of Chinese middlemen that have moved in to corner the market on poached ivory to satisfy a market demand for ivory in China.
USA Today reported, "Growing demand for ivory in China is 'the leading driver behind the illegal trade in ivory today,' said Tom Milliken, an elephant and rhino expert for the wildlife trade monitoring network TRAFFIC. China has a legal ivory market that is supposed to be highly controlled but tons and tons of illegal ivory has made its way there in recent years, said the Zimbabwe-based Milliken, who spoke in a conference call with several World Wildlife Fund officers."
In the meantime, according to an article in allAfrica, much of Africa is wrestling with the challenge of a lack of a predictable water supply. Africa can experience extremes in rainfall from torrential monsoons to severe droughts. Many African nations do not have the infrastructures to capture some of its rainfall so as to provide the people with a more dependable water supply.
Dams and reservoirs are a starting point but these are major construction projects which require the assistance of other nations to help design and build or, at the very least, fund. Part of the problem has been in finding a balance between environmental concerns over what these systems - which would provide need water storage and hydroelectric power - would do to the surrounding countryside versus the needs of the African people.
According to Mike Muller, professor at the Graduate School of Public and Development Management at the South African University of Witwatersrand, "You have a situation in Germany or Switzerland where you have strong environmental lobbyists who feel that dams are an infringement on the natural environment ... And you have situations where ministers will say, 'We cannot talk about storing water because that involves construction, which we cannot support'. Yet African governments know that if they don't store water given our variable climate, we are at the mercy of nature and it's a very cruel nature at times." "The potential in the Congo could power all of Africa's current electricity needs and the same again, spare," says Muller. "If we start looking at the rest of southern Africa we could probably have replaced two of the huge coal-fired power stations that we're building in South Africa with hydropower, but the environmentalists don't want it, it's really anomalous."
Africa does appear to have one potential partner willing to participate: China. With its ongoing growth, China has an interest in Africa's natural resources and it has the skill and capabilities in building the dam and hydroelectric infrastructure that Africa needs.
"There is a coherence between China's capability as the world's pre-eminent builder of large water infrastructure and its interests in Africa's natural resources, many of which require the development of power, transport and water infrastructure for their successful extraction," says Muller.
So, here is the socio-political dilemma: China could be Africa's shining white knight coming to its aid to provide the necessary infrastructure to better ensure a constant water supply. In turn, China also becomes a strong economic partner. With that relationship in place, what are the chances that African governments that are benefiting from trade with China will be willing to seriously curtail the illegal ivory trade since most of the ivory is going to their new economic ally?
Many western nations want to see Africa preserve its wildlife heritage, but we have also seen the terrible price paid in human suffering when African nations are struck by drought and the famine it can produce. Will China be willing to curtail its demand for ivory as a trade-off for gaining other natural resources that Africa has to offer its industrious neighbor to the east? Will western nations step up and offer solutions for Africa that can meet the challenges of both preserving the environment - including iconic animals like the elephant - and providing a desperately needed consistent water supply for its people?
Where some nations wrestle with ecology versus energy demands in the form of coal and oil, Africa is having to consider something more fundamental: the need for water to survive.
Source: USA Today
Source: allAfrica
In the summer of 2009, the BLUE Ocean Film Festival held its inaugural event in Savannah, Georgia. Presenting both ocean-themed films and discussion panels covering a range of ocean conservation and filmmaking topics, it was very well received by an amazing mix of conservationists and media professionals. I was honored to moderate a discussion panel on shark conservation and it was at this event that I got to have my first extended conversations with people like Dr. Sylvia Earle, underwater photographer Brian Skerry, marine scientist Dr. Carl Safina, and many more. For a brief few days, I was in ocean advocacy heaven.
In 2010, a move was made to Monterey, California, and the event grew in scope to become BLUE - A Global Oceans Film & Conservation Event. Once again, great films from leading studios and filmmakers were presented and there were important discussion panels, and 
presentations. In fact, the biggest challenge was trying to be in more than one place at the same time - there was so much going on. Once again, I was honored to chair the discussion panel on shark conservation and was able to have as panelists Peter Knights, executive director of WildAid; Dr. Greg Stone, senior scientist for the oceans at Conservation International, Stefanie Brendl of Hawaiian Shark Encounters; and Laleh Mohajerani, executive director of Iemanya Oceanica. Additionally, I conducted an underwater video workshop which included some remarkable dives in Monterey Bay as the bay was experiencing a massive invasion of Sea Nettle sea jellies that summer.
The executive board of the festival decided to make the festival a bi-annual event and with that extra time to plan an even bigger and better event, BLUE returns to Monterey in 2012, scheduled for September 24-30. Between events, the festival crew has been busy with the BLUE on Tour, a traveling, educational ocean media show that has played to universities and communities from Mexico to Australia.
If you are an experienced underwater filmmaker, I encourage you to submit your films to the festival. There are a wide range of categories for pros and aspiring greats, ranging from theatrical to online shorts and you can submit through the festival's website or through Withoutabox.com, the online service that has come to dominate the film festival submission circuit. The regular deadline for submissions is March 16th but they have an extended deadline, so there's still time.
If you are an avid ocean lover, this is simply an amazing opportunity to not only learn about what is going on in the world of ocean conservation, science, and policy management, but it is also a chance to meet many notable names in a relaxed casual environment as there are social events in the evening that bring all the participants together in both a common cause. . . and a little wine and cheese.
BLUE - A Global Oceans Film & Conservation Event - September 24-30, 2012 in Monterey, California. Passes go on sale May 1st. Film submission's regular deadline is May 16th with an extended deadline to April 6th.
If you love the oceans, if you enjoy ocean films - then this is the place to be.
Source: BLUE website
If you are a lover of all things oceanic, unless you have been at sea without any communication to the outside world, you have probably heard of James Cameron's successful dive to Challenger Deep, the lowest point on the seafloor in the Marianas Trench.
Man has not reached this depth in over 50 years, since the bathyscaphe Trieste first did it in 1960, and yet the accomplishment garnered minimal reporting in the press. The NBC Evening News made mention of it in the last few minutes of its broadcast and the latest issue of TIME magazine relegated it to a brief column in their Milestones page along with the obituaries. What were they thinking? Is the media perception that of a technological stunt that doesn't really advance the boundaries of science? Did they look at the event as simply Cameron spending some of his millions from successful films like Titanic and Avatar on something that will end up in his next film production?
However, the media perhaps is not totally to blame. The dive itself defused some of its own media hype potential. With the exception of some issues with the hydraulic arms that prevented some rock samples from being taken, the well-planned and executed technology that went into the submersible made the dive seem, dare I say, almost routine. Given that the slightest technical malfunction could have resulted in Cameron being squished like a bug under your shoe, that predictability is by no means a criticism but a compliment to everyone involved. But it does expose the expedition to some of the same attitudes expressed by the public with the last few trips to the moon. The race to the moon was over, the flights were becoming routine and, it seemed, America was moving on.
