Look, protection
works when
it's real.
We do not have an
ocean knowledge
problem.
We have an
implementation
problem.
The science is clear.
The solutions,
they're known.
Outcomes are
actually
predictable.
The real question
is whether we are
willing to follow
through.
This is the How
to Protect the
Ocean podcast,
your weekly ocean
news update.
If you care about
being informed on
the ocean every
weekday, hit that
follow
button so you
don't miss
tomorrow's
episode.
Across fisheries,
climate
adaptation,
pollution
control, and the
high seas
governance, one
pattern keeps
repeating.
Policies work
when they are
implemented
fully.
They fail when
they are
symbolic.
But the key
question is here
is why do strong
ocean policies
succeed in some
places and
collapse
in others?
Let's be honest,
the science is
not the
weak link.
Across ocean
issues, the
evidence
is strong.
Overfishing
reduces biomass
and destabilizes
food webs.
We know this.
Reducing fishing
pressure allows
stock recovery.
We know this too.
Reducing
pollution
improves coastal
water quality.
That's known.
Cutting
greenhouse gas
emissions slows
ocean warming.
Is this all
familiar to you?
Habitat restoration
increases
biodiversity and
resilience.
These are not
controversial
conclusions.
They are
repeatedly
confirmed in
peer-reviewed
literature.
The bottleneck is
not knowledge.
It's execution.
Here's a clear
example of
fisheries
recovery.
Where cash limits
are science-based
and enforced,
fish stocks
rebuild, biomass
increases,
long-term
yields stabilize.
An example is the
U.S. Fisheries
under the
Magnuson-Stevenson
Act.
Since that act
has been enacted,
a lot of
fisheries have
been recovered
and sustainably
managed.
We have sardines
and anchovies on
the west coast
that have
actually helped
these populations
stabilize.
We've been able
to see a recovery
in these types of
species
over time.
A lot of other
fisheries in the
U.S. are well
managed using the
Magnuson-Stevenson
Act.
But if those
policies are
rolled back, we
start to see the
fisheries
stocks slip.
And where quotas
are ignored or
politically
inflated, stocks
decline, recruitment
collapses,
and economic
instability
follows.
A clear example
is the tuna
fishing industry
in Europe,
especially in the
Mediterranean.
In the movie End
of the Line,
there was a clear
example of how
quotas are not
followed.
The scientists
and researchers
came up with a
minimum
viable yield.
So essentially,
if you only
caught this many,
it was 30,000
tons or whatever
it might be.
I don't remember
the exact
numbers.
If you caught
30,000 tons, then
that population
would be able to
stabilize.
It would be able
to be sustainable
and you'd be able
to catch another
30,000 tons
next year.
And that
population
wouldn't decline.
It would be able
to recover.
Right away, the
government
officials that
went to the
negotiation table
doubled that
to 60,000 because
they knew that
the people they
were going to
negotiate with,
the fisheries
societies or the
fishery unions,
weren't going to
take 30,000.
They wanted more.
So they started
with 60,000.
They ended up
with 90,000.
Every time's the
amount of tons of
fish that they
were going to
catch from
the minimal
yield, right?
The minimal
viable
population.
It doesn't make
sense to draw
back quotas.
So where quotas
are ignored or
politically
inflated, stocks
decline,
recruitment
collapses,
economic
instability
follows.
The lesson is
pretty simple.
Pollution works
when compliance
is mandatory and
monitored.
Let's look at
pollution
control.
The evidence is
pretty clear in
regions where
wastewater
treatment and
nutrient runoff
controls
were implemented.
Coastal dead
zone, coastal
dead zone shrank,
harmful algal
blooms decreased
and water quality
improve.
The recovery of
parts of the
Baltic Sea and
improvements in
sections of the
Chesapeake
Bay show that
nutrient
management can
reverse
degradation
trends.
In places where
agricultural
runoff remains
unregulated, you
get hypoxic zones
that expand.
You get fisheries
that suffer and
coastal economies
that
absorb the cost.
Again,
implementation
determines
outcome.
If you look
clearly the
Florida water
quality system
and the way they
manage it is
absolutely
horrible and
they've been
paying for it
year after year
after year.
We've seen
red ties.
We've seen
cyanobacteria
blooms.
We've seen a lot
of other things
we've seen like
this algae that
is or these down
to flagellates
that are on the
bottom of the
ocean that just
kind of come up
that gets stirred
up by fish
and they give
them like this
crazy neurological
disease all
because there are
there's runoff,
right?
There's nutrient
runoff that's
allowed because
these industries
are allowed to
use their best
practices in
reducing the
amount of
nutrients that go
into lakes and
streams.
But those lakes
and streams get
abundance of
nutrients that
goes into the
ocean along
the
coastal system.
You get the right
winds, you get
the right
dinoflagellates
and you can get a
red tide or you
can get some kind
of cyanobacteria,
algal matte, just
like just awful
event and it just
smothers
everything and it
makes
everything die.
And we've seen
that over and
over again.
And again,
implementation
determines the
outcome, right?
You have to
implement the
policies that you
have to put
forward.
You can't just
keep rolling back
on policies,
which we're
seeing in many
countries,
including
the U.S.,
especially
recently.
Let's look at
climate
adaptation and
coastal
resilience.
Healthy ecosystems buffer
climate impacts.
It's pretty simple.
We've gone over
in past episodes
mangroves,
reduced storm
surge, seagrass,
meadows,
stabilized
sediment, coral
reefs dissipate
wave energy.
And when they all
work together,
you have a stable
coastline where
these ecosystems
are protected and
restored.
Coastal erosion slows.
Fisheries and
nurseries
recover.
Carbon sequestration
increases once
you have these
habitats
stabilized.
Where development
overrides
ecosystem
protection, you
get the
shorelines that
erode faster.
Infrastructure costs rise.
Insurance risks
escalate.
Climate
adaptation is not
abstract.
It's just
operational.
Now let's look at
the high seas
governance.
International
agreements can
establish
framework.
The high seas
treaty is
establishing that
framework.
But the
frameworks do not
reduce fishing
pressure by
themselves.
Satellite monitoring can
detect
violations, but
detection does
not
prosecute itself.
Transparency
improves
accountability, but
accountability requires
political will.
Across every
ocean issue this
month, one
pattern repeats.
Tools exist.
Data exists.
Legal structure exists.
Follow
through varies.
And why are we
getting this
symbolic policy
that keeps
persisting?
Symbolic
protection is
politically
easier.
Announcing
targets generates
headlines.
It's nice
and easy.
Another political
party gets,
whoever's in
charge gets
its kudos.
It's high fives.
Ratifying
treaties signals
leadership.
Designating zones
looks ambitious.
But full
implementation is
actually harder.
It requires
funding.
It requires
enforcement.
It requires
confronting
economic
interests.
It requires
sustained
political
commitment beyond
election cycles.
That's something
we don't
see often.
But what real
protection looks
like is it has to
be measurable.
You can see it in
rebounding fish
biomass, improved
water quality
metrics, reduced
illegal
fishing effort,
stabilized
coastal erosion
rates, and
increased
ecosystem
complexity.
Real protection
produces data.
Symbolic
protection,
symbolic
protection
produces
announcements.
We want to go
beyond the
announcements.
We want to get
down into
the data.
We want to get
down into the
evaluations of
how a marine
protected area,
how a coastline,
how
habitats are doing.
We want to see
how
they're doing.
And we need data
to do that.
But we need to
make sure that
everything is
enforced to
actually evaluate
these systems.
We got to go
beyond just the
politics of it
all to say, hey,
we're going to
sign on to this
climate
agreement.
Or we're going to
sign, we're going
to ratify the
high seas treaty,
which most
countries
haven't done.
Only 60 have.
Hopefully we'll
get more.
We've been able
to ratify it, but
if the countries
that need to
ratify it, don't
ratify and don't
follow it and
don't actually
hold their own
country
accountable to
it, it's not
really
going to work.
But don't worry.
That's what we're
here to do with
the How to
Protect the Ocean
podcast.
If you want clear
science based
ocean reporting
every weekday,
follow this show
so you don't miss
tomorrow's
episode.
Let's just have
the final
thoughts on this.
We do not need
new slogans.
We need follow
through.
That's really
what it comes
down to.
The ocean does
not negotiate.
It just happens.
It responds to
physics, biology
and extraction
pressure.
You go in and
fish in an area
for long enough,
it's going to
just dissipate.
It's going to be
degraded.
It's just simple
as that.
That's just what
happens.
We can't get away
from it.
You can say it as
much as you want.
That's not going
to affect
the an area.
It's going to
affect the area.
You can drill oil
and be like,
yeah, there's not
going to be any
spills, but the
spills happen and
the ocean
reacts to it.
Right.
All the ocean
species, all the
water, the
quality, you try
and disperse it
and hide it.
You're going to
get the chemicals
that disperse it
all around the
ocean and it's
going to be
highly impacted,
especially with
like a big spill,
like the BP
oil spill.
Right.
We see it
all the time.
You can say as
much as you want
to say, hey, the
ocean is not
going to be
affected,
but it is.
And it has been
for so, so long.
So reduced
pressure
ecosystems
recover, maintain
pressure and
they'll decline
like we're doing
right now.
That pattern is
consistent
between
fisheries,
pollution,
climate stress
and governance.
Protection works
well when
it's real.
Real means
funded, real
means enforced,
real means
monitored and
real means
sustained.
Anything less is
just temporary.
The future of the
ocean will not be
determined by
what we promise
it will be
determined by
what we
implement.
This whole week
we've been going
over enforcement
and protections
and what we need,
the high
seas treaty.
And it's really
important that we
protect
this ocean.
It's not, it's
like the only
ocean we have.
I know it's
large, but it's
the only ocean we
have and it's
hitting its
capacity in what
it can take.
So I would love
to hear your
feedback on what
you think can
work or what
you've seen that
works or what
you've seen that
you're
frustrated with.
Let me know if go
to
speakupforblue.com
forward slash
feedback.
All one word
speakupforblue.com
forward slash
feedback.
Let me know how
you feel.
You can leave a
voicemail or you
can write
something down.
I would love to
hear it because
this is the start
of a conversation
that I would like
to have with you
each and
every one.
And I would love
to hear what you
have to say.
So thank you so
much for joining
me on today's
episode of the
How to Protect
the Ocean
podcast.
Have a great day.
We'll talk to you
next time and
happy
conservation.