Several years ago World Wildlife Fund (WWF) worked with scientists around the world to identify the most critical areas for preserving biological diversity. As a result of this work theses experts identified over 200 areaswhich we call ecoregions. We call these ecoregions the "Global 200". In theory, if we, the international conservation community, could preserve the biodiversity in these ecoregions, we would be protecting most of the diversity of life on the planet.

Of these Global 200 ecoregions, 61 were marine. And one of these marine ecoregions was the Bering Sea. Why did the international group of experts consider the Bering Sea to be such a globally important area?

Primarily because the Bering Sea is one of the most (if not the most) productive northern marine ecosystems in the world. As many of you know, the sea is home to

•• more than 450 species of fish, mollusks and crustaceans;

•• some 50 species seabirds, and millions of birds which migrate annually from all over the world to nest in various coastal and marine habitats;

•• some 25 marine mammals, many of which occur in high concentrations throughout the ecoregion.

For centuries the Bering Sea's bounty has supported economies around the world, as nations have sought to exploit fur and other resources. In the mid-l9th century, whaling reached its peak as oil and baleen were sought-after commodities.

Today, the Bering Sea accounts for more than half the total seafood catch in the U.S. In Alaska, fisheries provide the second largest number of jobs.

There are many signs that this "Sea of Plenty" is not an endless resource. People around the Bering Sea are concerned about declines in species, and other changes signaling that all in the Bering Sea is not well.

For example,

•• numerous fisheries have collapsed in the last 2 decades, including red king crab and more recently, opilio and snow crabs;

•• herring, capelin and other forage fish important to wildlife have been declining since the mid-1990's;

•• seven of the great whales found in the Bering Sea are listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act;

•• other marine mammals are in decline, such as the northern fur seal; and

•• the sea otter (down by an average of 70 % throughout the Aleutian islands).

Perhaps, no other species has received as much attention and notoriety as the Steller Sea Lion. In the last 30 years the species has declined by 50-80 % throughout its range.

The species was listed as Endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1996.

In 1998, a coalition of environmental groups used the lever of the ESA and another law, the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), as the basis for a lawsuit against the National Marine Fisheries Service. The environmental groups claimed that the NMFS had inadequately failed to protect Steller Sea Lion's "critical habitat", as required by the ESA.

This lawsuit has forced NMFS and other natural resource management agencies to scrutinize the Alaska fishery — in particular the groundfish fishery of the Bering Sea. In a related development, NMFS was required to conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to evaluate the effect of the groundfish fishery on the marine environment (not only on the sea lion itself).

Currently, environmental organizations in Alaska are studying the recently issued Environmental Impact Assessment and are preparing comments. In fact, they are hoping that Russian colleagues will join in the process to submit comments. I know that we will hear more about this later from our colleagues from the US.

The Steller Sea Lion issue is highly controversial and its resolution is currently at the very center of developments in fisheries management and regulations.

One viewpoint (held by the environmental coalition) is that industrial-scale fishing is removing a level of biomass which is unsustainable, and which is removing important food for the sea lion.

Instead of commenting further on this situation, I wanted to outline other concerns held in the conservation community. These are the issues of

•• destruction of ocean bottom habitat by bottom trawling and dredging ;

•• bycatch (of marine mammals, birds, and non-targeted fish);

•• and introduction through ballast water and other means of non native species that compete with indigenous marine species;

There are other important factors are no doubt playing a role in the Bering Sea environment. These are:

•• the extent of the sea ice cover — a critical habitat for many marine mammals — has shrink by 5 % in the last 30 years

•• warmer sea surface temperatures in El Nino years of 1997 and 1998 gave us a preview of the future — we observed unusual algae blooms, massive die-offs of 3 species of seabirds; and low salmon returns in certain areas of the Bering Sea.

Throughout the ecoregion, scientists are finding the presence of contaminants such as Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). POPs are long-lasting, travel long distances, and can interfere with reproduction of humans and wildlife. These contaminants are appearing in wildlife that are far from the source of the pollution. Last year the state of Alaska — working with federal agencies — made the issue of contaminants a priority for action.

These complicated issues require multi-disciplinary, multi-faceted and innovative solutions.

These problems — climate change, the movement of toxic chemicals, conservation of fisheries-are not limited to one country. Although each nation must take responsibility to conserve its natural resources, there are many issues that could be more effectively resolved if we work across the maritime boundary.

Thus, I look forward to the next few days' discussions on how we might work together to conserve the spectacular shared resources of the Bering Sea.

Our future depends on it!

 

 

Earlier in this conference we talked about a variety of problems with declining fish stocks in the Bering Sea and around the world. Indeed, industrial scale fishing has transformed the sea, in many cases, depleting species and destroying habitats. But now, new approaches are being developed that enhance both conservation and fisheries. Around the world, marine protected areas are increasingly being applied as tools to benefit biodiversity conservation while also improving fisheries productivity.

 

In fisheries management, there are a variety of types of marine protected areas. These might include temporary closures to allow for depleted stocks to recuperate.

One type of marine protected area is the fully-protected marine reserves.

Although there is less information from northern marine ecosystems about the effects of marine reserves, there is growing evidence that marine reserves can be extremely beneficial to fishers. Reserves can offer the following benefits:

Reserves can allow for individuals to live longer and grow larger, producing more eggs than smaller fish. Thus in addition to increases in average body size, reserves offer increase population densities.

As number and biomass of fish within a reserve increases, the fish will start to move out of the reserves and into fishing grounds.

For example, some species are very vulnerable to fishing and may be unable to persist even where fishing pressure is light. In such cases, no-take zones offer an important refuge.

Excluding activities such as mining, dredging, trawling, boat groundings, even activities such as scuba diving in certain environments — is important for protected ecosystems and the ecological processes they support.

There is growing evidence that marine reserves allow for the recovery of fish populations. One study — which is still in press — examined 76 reserves that were protected from at least one form of fishing, and looked at reserves that offered a range of levels of protection. The study examined variables such as abundance, total biomass, average body size, and species diversity. Across all of these reserves, it was found that abundance (density) had approximately doubled, biomass increased to 2,5 times that in fished areas; averaged body size increased by one third; an the number of species resent increased by a third.

Here are a few more examples of some results of marine reserves around the world:

•• Edmonds Underwater Park (Washington State, US) after 27 years of protection, the number of rockfish eggs and larvae originating from within the park is 55 times greater than outside the park. For longcod, the figure is 20 times as many. [very small area — only 6,8 ha of seabed and 3,3 ha of intertidal zone — now encompasses 550 m offshore.

•• In Banyuls-Cerbere Marine Reserve (France) after 7 years of protection 18 target species were bigger inside the reserve.

•• In Japan, in the Kyoto Precture Closure after 4 years of protection the proportion of large male snowcrabs rose by 32 % in the closed area.

•• In De Hoope Marine Reserve in South Africa, after on]y 2 years, the experimental catch per unit effort increased by up to 5-fold for 6 out of 10 of the most valuable commercial species.

The benefit I mentioned earlier — the concept of spillover of fish and larvae from a marine reserve into non-protected areas depend on many factors, such as

•• efficacy of protection from fishing;

•• time since reserve creation;

•• intensity of fishing outside the reserve;

•• mobility of the organisms involved;

•• boundary length of the reserves;

•• boundary porosity and diversity of habitat types within the reserve.

The rate of recruitment to new reserves will depend on the size of the source populations, how close they are, and the ability of the recruits to disperse from them.

Fully protected reserves help to restore habitats that have been damaged by fishing. As we have learned more about the sea, it now seems apparent that hundreds of species may be in trouble for every one we know about Fully-protected reserves provide a valuable insurance policy for species' survival.

Establishing marine reserves is not an easy task. In places such as Alaska, especially in light of the Steller sea lion situation — many fishermen have already made concessions or have been asked to give up fishing grounds. In such cases, finding support for new marine reserves will not be a welcome subject. Also, importance to Native coastal residents to continue to hunt and fish for subsistence, must be considered as another factor in determining new conservation areas.

In such cases the best opportunities will arise from community-based initiatives where the user groups themselves see the benefits of creating marine protected areas.

Here, another aspect of creating marine protected areas arises. The process must be open and participatory, to build a strong information base among people who could benefit or would somehow be affected.

While this process can seem slow and extremely complex, without local support, marine protected areas won't have a chance of surviving. In the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, a diverse group of people scientists, conservationist, tour operators, sports fishermen, and commercial fishermen worked for several years together to develop a proposal for a marine reserve within the Sanctuary. It was the fishermen, in fact, who became some of the strongest advocates for creating this reserve.

Today, less than one percent of our oceans are protected. Yet around the world, fisheries are collapsing. Marine Protected Areas offer a sort of insurance policy for safeguarding depleted species (and healthy ones, too) and protecting marine habitat.

The conservation community has a lot of work to do to provide the good news and factual information to the public, to let people know that marine protected areas can be good for biodiversity, for fisheries and for fishermen.