Lessons from the Land for Protection in the Sea: The Need for a New Ocean Ethic

Jane Lubchenco with Renee Davis-Born and Brooke Simler

I still suffer from withdrawal. I recently returned from one of the great wild places on Earth, Kruger National Park in South Africa . It took days for me to begin to adjust to being out of the park. The long withdrawal was in sharp contrast to the almost instantaneous transition I experienced upon entering the park. I quickly grew accustomed to consciously (and, as I discovered later, subconsciously) searching for telltale signs of elephants, rhinos, lions, chameleons, baboons, hornbills, rollers and the delightful plethora of other wild creatures that inhabit this spectacular place.

Frequently reinforced by the intense pleasure of observing fascinating behaviors or exotic wildlife, I quickly began to discriminate certain shapes, colors or movement that signaled something distinct from the background of acacias, grasses, marula trees, the occasional baobabs and other fixed features of this landscape. Days were a delicious state of alertness as I reveled in the abundance and diversity of the South African savanna: leopards, Cape buffalo, water monitor lizards, zebra, impala, hammerkop, drongo, duiker and more. The sounds of nocturnal African wildlife, going about the business of foraging, interacting, and surviving, quickly became my evening lullaby. Kruger felt alive, teeming with life and ripe with potential.

Later, upon leaving the park, I found myself still searching the landscape for hippos, secretary birds, bataleur eagles, giraffes, kudu, warthogs, and crocodiles…even though I knew full well my search was in vain. The contrast between inside and outside Kruger was dramatic, visceral, and long lasting.

A delicious habit dies hard but provokes thought and discussion. As I shared these Kruger experiences and their aftermath with my colleagues Renee and Brooke, we realized that the intensity of my withdrawal was strong testimony to the importance of protected areas around the world -- on land and in the oceans. Wild places like Kruger provide not only enriching and inspiring experiences but myriad other benefits. Unless people consciously protect them, wild places and wildlife slowly disappear.

Recognition of this threat of disappearance prompted the establishment of parks on every continent. The concepts of “land conservation” and the “land ethic” articulated in earlier centuries by Teddy Roosevelt, John Muir and Aldo Leopold have been embraced by many to acknowledge the responsibility of humans for good stewardship of the land and protection of the plants, animals and microbes that live together and interact. Parks and wilderness areas are one expression of this land ethic.

As a marine biologist, I am fully aware that this same ethic has not yet been extended to the sea. Protection comparable to that afforded by parks does not exist for most ecosystems and wildlife in the oceans. The need for safe havens for fishes, corals, sponges, tube worms, seaweeds, shrimps and seals has not been obvious to many people. What lessons have we learned from terrestrial parks and their history that might inform our thinking about ocean protection? What is happening in oceans that merits thinking about them in new ways? What might good ocean stewardship look like? What is the equivalent of parks in the ocean? How do these global concerns affect those of us in the Pacific Northwest? I address each of these questions in turn.

LESSONS FROM THE LAND:

KRUGER AND U.S. NATIONAL PARKS

South Africa's Kruger National Park is widely regarded as the shining emerald in the world's crown jewels of national parks. Many consider it one of the most wild, diverse, and spectacular places on Earth. Kruger's huge size and history of science-based management make it unusual. At two million hectares, Kruger is roughly equivalent to Yellowstone, Everglades, and Grand Canyon national parks rolled into one. Kruger boasts some of the richest diversity on the planet. In addition to the spectacular tourist bait, the so-called “Big Five”—elephants, lions, leopards, rhinos, and buffaloes—the park contains an impressive number of described species: 336 species of trees, 49 species of fishes, 34 species of amphibians, 114 reptilian species, 507 bird species, and 147 species of mammals. In addition, there are large numbers of insects, other invertebrates, fungi, lower plants, microbes and other life that are less well known but important nonetheless.

Kruger National Park has not always been this bountiful. In fact, the impetus for protecting the area was a noticeable decline in many animals. By the late 1800s wildlife populations had declined precipitously due to hunting for sport and, to a lesser degree, subsistence. By the turn of the 20 th century, the vast swath of land eventually designated as Kruger National Park was home to less than a dozen elephants and only three black rhinoceros. The white rhinoceros had been locally extirpated.

Citizens, sport hunters, and public officials demanded that areas be protected from hunting, not with the goal of conservation per se, but rather to provide a safe haven for breeding wildlife and to ensure future hunting opportunities. In 1898 President Paul Kruger established the Sabi Game Reserve. In subsequent years South Africans kept a watchful eye on the nascent national park system that was expanding in the United States . In 1926 the South African government passed the National Parks Act, combining the Sabi Game reserve with other protected areas to create Kruger National Park . Today approximately 8,000 elephants, 300 black rhinoceros, and 2,000 white rhinoceros plus an astounding variety of other animals and plants inhabit the park— strong testimony to the protection it has afforded wildlife. Above and beyond the protection of biodiversity, the park provides a wealth of other benefits that derive from the functioning of the intact ecosystems within the park. Kruger's resounding success can be attributed to a combination of foresight, good enforcement, high quality academic scientific research informing park policies, and more recently, a serious commitment to adaptive, ecosystem-based management and attention to benefits provided by the park to all of the people in the country.

Closer to home, the history of U.S. national parks and wilderness areas tells a story not unlike the early days of Kruger. Wanton killing of buffalo, antelope, and other great animals across America in the 1800s sparked the creation of the first national parks. In a recent speech, Theodore Roosevelt IV, descendent of President Theodore Roosevelt, one of our nation's fiercest leaders in the protection of natural areas, captured the sense of the time:

It was the devastation to wildlife on the American plains which President Theodore Roosevelt witnessed during his ranching and hunting days that inspired his own conservation ethos. On a hunting trip to the Badlands in 1883, he found the buffalo herds small and scattered. Just four years later, on another trip, there simply were no bison, no beaver, no antelope, no grizzlies, and no wapiti.

Theodore Roosevelt realized then that we were pushing species beyond their ability to recover—that the yields taken from the land were no longer sustainable and would ultimately hurt our nation. His actions, and those of other concerned citizens—mostly hunters, by the way—helped to turn the tide and preserve places and species for the rest of us.

In 1916, President Woodrow Wilson approved legislation that created the National Park Service. This agency was charged “to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” Building on this land ethic, Congress later passed the Wilderness Act of 1964. This law expands the park concept to wilderness “in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain” and requires that a wilderness area be managed to preserve “its primeval character and influence.” Today the national Wilderness Preservation System encompasses nearly 650 wilderness areas (including some parks) --comprising 106 million acres, an equivalent to nearly 5% of all the land in the U.S. —for the benefit and enjoyment of Americans. Our nation's commitment to the protection of terrestrial areas is clear and strong.

SEA CHANGES: THE NEED FOR BETTER PROTECTION

The need to protect wildlife and habitats on land was recognized during earlier centuries. A comparable need for protection in the oceans is now emerging as three interrelated conclusions are becoming obvious: oceans are important, oceans are threatened, and oceans are not well protected. These conclusions lay the groundwork for a new ocean ethic -- a serious commitment to protecting and restoring the abundance of life in oceans.

Oceans are undoubtedly important, and not just to marine ecologists like me. They cover 70% of our planet and encompass 99% of the inhabitable three-dimensional space for life on Earth. Oceans provide a wealth of benefits in the form of food, fiber, medicines, pharmaceuticals, blueprints for new materials, a storehouse of knowledge, the recycling of nutrients, detoxification of pollutants, partial regulation of the water cycle, partial climate regulation, regulation of gases in the atmosphere and the provision of spectacular places for recreation, tourism, inspiration and enjoyment – essentials we call “ecosystem goods and services.” These goods and services are collectively provided by an impressive diversity of ecosystems: coral reefs, kelp forests, mangroves, salt marshes, mud flats, estuaries, rocky shores, sandy beaches, sea mounts, continental shelves, abyssal plains, open oceans. Each ecosystem harbors a complex assemblage of species that interact with each other and the specific physical and chemical environment of the place. The services are byproducts of the functioning of intact ecosystems. We are only now beginning to appreciate the importance of these different ecosystems, the diversity of their inhabitants, the goods and services they provide – and indeed the importance of oceans in general to our health, prosperity and well-being.

Unfortunately, oceans are under threat. For eons, humans believed that oceans were so vast and bountiful that they were impervious to human influences. Now, however, we are confronted by a multitude of symptoms of serious degradation. Alarm bells are sounding. Globally, the frequency of each of the following has increased significantly over the last century:

•  crashes of important fisheries due to overfishing, bycatch, habitat destruction, disruption of ocean food webs because of removal of top predators, and pollution;

•  destruction of habitat due to coastal zone development, certain fishing practices such as bottom trawling, and aquaculture;

•  appearance of large areas of low or no oxygen (so-called “dead zones”) at the mouths of rivers draining large agricultural areas or concentrated animal feedlot operations, due to nutrient pollution, primarily too much nitrogen from fertilizers and animal wastes;

•  outbreaks of red tides and harmful algal blooms as consequences of nutrient pollution and spread of non-native species by transport in ballast water;

•  bleaching of corals, likely a reflection of increased ocean water temperatures due to global warming;

•  invasions of non-native species due to transport by ballast water in ships, aquaculture, and aquarium trade;

•  appearance of new diseases, possibly associated with global warming; and

•  mass mortalities of marine mammals and invertebrates due to oil spills, introduction of disease, and various kinds of pollution.

The fact that these symptoms are increasing in frequency reflects the increases in a wide variety of land-based and ocean-based human activities, compounded by a lack of understanding that actions in one place can trigger consequences elsewhere. (Who would have thought, for example, that increased use of fertilizers in the Midwest could trigger dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico that are now the size of Massachusetts?) The cumulative effects of these activities are increasingly disrupting ocean ecosystems to the extent that they cannot continue to provide the goods and services that society expects and needs. A broad spectrum of human activities is unintentionally but most definitely changing the chemistry, biology, ecology and physical structure of oceans, especially in coastal areas.

Like the declines of the great herds in the U.S. or in Kruger, we are witnessing serious declines in ocean wildlife. In his recent speech, Theodore Roosevelt IV asserts that humans do not yet appreciate the gravity of our impact to oceans: “We may be seeing the last great buffalo hunt taking place in the world's seas.” The best documentation of this trend comes from economically important species (fisheries) or large and charismatic ones (turtles, for example).

A 1996 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization underscores this change: Forty years ago, only 5% of major marine fisheries were categorized as “fully exploited, over exploited, or depleted;” today nearly 70% of the global fisheries are in these categories. From 5% to 70% in forty years! Successively more and more fisheries are in serious trouble. In U.S. waters, the National Marine Fisheries Service reports that more than one-third of the known fish stocks have declined more than 70% in the last three decades. Of equal concern is the fact that there is not enough information to evaluate the status of around 75% of fished species in U.S. waters. Of the stocks where the status is known, 43% are currently overfished.

Numerous unfished species are also in decline, often as an unintended consequence of fishing activities. Fish, birds, turtles and marine mammals are often captured accidentally, as “bycatch,” and simply tossed back into the sea dead or dying. Global bycatch is estimated at around 60 billion pounds or 25% of the overall global catch. For some species, this unintentional mortality can be devastating. Of the six sea turtles species (green, Kemp's ridley, olive ridley, hawksbill, loggerhead, and leatherback), found in U.S. waters, for example, all are designated as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act.

The conclusion is inescapable: oceans and their wildlife are insufficiently protected. U.S. federal and state governments have recognized the need to protect marine life and ocean water quality. A variety of legislative acts and executive orders have attempted protection, but collectively they are proving to be seriously inadequate. Two examples illustrate this point. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, enacted in 1976 clearly lays out the objective of maintaining catches at a level that will ensure future fishing opportunities, yet that goal has not been achieved. Coastal communities and fishermen around the country and the world are reeling from the consequences of the declines documented above and those happening even more recently.

The Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, passed by Congress in 1972, is intended to protect marine areas for their biodiversity, ecological integrity, and cultural legacy. President Richard Nixon signed the act into law 100 years after our first national park was designated to safeguard unique places on land. Although this act articulates some conservation ideals, the level of ocean protection it calls for is drastically less than what a national park provides on land. At the time the act was passed, Americans viewed pollution and oil spills as the greatest threats to marine life. As a consequence, any new drilling for gas or oil is banned in the national sanctuaries. Other activities such as commercial and recreational fishing and ocean shipping were deemed to be of little threat and were permitted within sanctuary boundaries. In retrospect, the name “sanctuary” is a misnomer. It implies a far greater degree of protection than actually exists. The reality is that only a small fraction of our national marine sanctuaries are in fact fully protected from extractive activities (drilling, mining, and fishing). True refuges are too few.

The contrast between the fraction of area protected on land and in the ocean is striking: Whereas 5% of the U.S. land area is protected, less than four one-hundredths of one percent of U.S. territorial waters is protected. If you consider that U.S. waters represent an area 20% larger than the U.S. land area, the low level of protection is even more striking. More importantly, the rest of the 99.96% of U.S. waters is insufficiently protected and in the process of being seriously degraded.

TIME FOR A NEW OCEAN ETHIC

The current U.S. approach to ocean management is haphazard, piecemeal, and ineffective in the face of declining ocean conditions. The time is ripe for better management strategies that should reflect a new ocean ethic. The goal of this new ethic would be to protect and maintain healthy marine ecosystems – i.e., to protect and restore the abundance and diversity of life and the productivity, diversity and resilience of ecosystems in the oceans. Only when this goal is achieved will healthy, sustainable fisheries be possible. Only when this goal is achieved will vibrant coastal communities be feasible. Only when this goal is achieved will people receive the full range of goods and services that oceans can provide. A new ocean ethic recognizes the intimate dependence of human health, prosperity and well being upon the existence of healthy marine ecosystems. A new ocean ethic acknowledges human responsibility for good stewardship of the oceans and the planet. A new ocean ethic provides adequate protection for habitats and species.

The framing and implementation of this ethic are formidable challenges, especially in the face of a growing population, increased migration to coastal areas, greater demand for ocean resources, the plethora of activities currently degrading oceans, and ongoing global changes such as global warming. Fortunately, a number of relevant dialogues are underway, involving the full range of stakeholders – citizens who care about oceans, those whose livelihood depends on oceans, those who enjoy recreating at the shore or on the water, those who study marine life scientifically, those whose official responsibilities are to formulate ocean policies or implement ocean practices, and those whose primary concern is with ethical and moral issues.

Overarching many of these conversations are two new national commissions on oceans, each of which is currently conducting thoughtful and comprehensive reviews of U.S. practices and policies affecting oceans. Each commission is holding public hearings, raising awareness of ocean issues, seeking advice from experts and considering broad recommendations to the Nation. The Pew Oceans Commission is an independent group of American leaders conducting a national dialogue on the policies needed to restore and protect living marine resources in U.S. waters. Convened in July of 2000, the Pew Oceans Commission is scheduled to deliver its report to the Nation in January 2003. I have the pleasure of serving on the Pew Commission. The Commission on Ocean Policy was established by congressional act. First meeting in September 2001, its final recommendations are expected midway through 2003. It is my hope that both Commissions will rise to the challenge of framing a new ocean ethic and defining the changes necessary to accomplish it, then that citizens and our leaders will help make the necessary changes a reality. Parallel dialogues and actions are needed at the international, regional and local levels as well.

I accepted the invitation to serve on the Pew Oceans Commission because I have personally witnessed the destruction of unbelievably spectacular undersea oases, because I believe that scientific knowledge should be available to guide our understanding of problems and possible solutions, and because I sense that the time is ripe for courageous crafting of innovative solutions.

Clearly a comprehensive suite of changes is in order; no single silver bullet exists. Among the broad sweep of new institutions, mechanisms and tools that are under discussion, those that focus on science-based, ecosystem-based management appear particularly promising. Smart coastal development, reduction of nutrient and other kinds of pollution, more effective fisheries management, ocean zoning, environmentally sustainable aquaculture are all key elements of the new ethic. One specific tool stands out as effective, long-lasting and useful in helping to achielve better protection for ocean ecosystems and wildlife: marine reserves.

ONE STEP TOWARD REALIZING THE OCEAN ETHIC:

MARINE RESERVES

Tools that afford ecosystem-based protection and promote an ocean ethic are within reach. Marine reserves—areas of the sea that are fully protected from extractive, additive and ecologically destructive activities—are being discussed with increasing frequency by scientists, policy makers, resource managers, ocean users, and conservationists as one of the most promising new tools. Sometimes called “ecological reserves,” “fully protected marine reserves," “wilderness areas,” or “no-take areas,” they are the best way to protect habitats and ecosystems, provide havens for biodiversity and, in some cases, help recharge depleted fisheries. Within a reserve, all life is protected through prohibitions on dumping, mining, drilling, fishing and the removal or disturbance of any living or non-living thing, except as necessary for monitoring or research to evaluate reserve effectiveness. These areas may host non-extractive activities such as diving, snorkeling, and education as long as they are not damaging to the wildlife or ecosystem. It is the long lasting and complete protection from damaging activities that enable reserves to offer a unique host of benefits.

The primary objectives of a reserve are to protect habitats, restore populations of species, and ensure the persistence of healthy marine ecosystems in an area. Reserves are not a new concept; some have been in existence for decades. Globally, however, reserves protect less than one one-hundredth of a percent of the ocean surface. Scientists monitoring the performance of reserves throughout the world find dramatic and consistent changes inside reserves. Well-enforced reserves result in relatively large, rapid, and long lasting increases in population sizes, number of species, and productivity of marine plants and animals. Long-term protection from destructive activities allows organisms to survive and accumulate in greater sizes and numbers. Reserves protect habitat against human activities, such as the unintended consequences of destructive fishing gear.

Not surprisingly, animals left undisturbed in a reserve typically grow to larger sizes than animals outside the reserve. The importance of this outcome cannot be overemphasized: large marine fish and invertebrates produce enormous numbers of offspring. Even a small increase in the size of a crab, lobster, sea urchin, anemone, or fish results in a tremendous increase in the number of young produced. A major result of all these biological changes is simply a lot more animals inside and outside the reserve.

Large populations, along with large individuals, may also influence areas outside a reserve. Adults and juveniles from a reserve may swim or crawl into neighboring areas. This is called “spillover.” Larvae or other young produced in a reserve may be carried by currents to ‘seed' surrounding waters. This process is termed “export.” Studies show that spillover and export enable marine reserves to act as source areas that can replenish nearby populations. Reserves can thus function as both parks (protecting species within their boundaries) and natural hatcheries or nurseries (exporting young and adults to areas outside the reserve).

It is likely that reserves will be useful in replenishing some depleted fisheries, but not all. Regardless of this potential, reserves should not be conceived as replacements for adequate fishery management outside the reserve. In fact, reserves and good fishery management should be understood to be complementary to one another. Good fishery management cannot replace reserves – it cannot adequately protect habitats and species from the full spectrum of destructive activities. Likewise, reserves cannot accomplish all of the goals of good fishery management. Both are essential to the ocean ethic.

The creation and protection of diverse, bountiful marine ecosystems makes sense from a stewardship perspective. Why then, if reserves produce such clear and convincing results, are there not more of them? Four reasons seem paramount. (1) Oceans have historically been viewed as open to all. Restrictions on any use are vigorously resisted, with assertions that citizens have the right to use oceans as they always have. (2) The dramatic degradation in oceans (described above and providing rationale for better protection) is not obvious to enough people. (3) Concern about short-term losses (in areas available to be fished) is more strongly voiced than are the merits of long-term benefits (to conservation, fishery improvement, and maintenance of healthy marine ecosystems). (4) Fishery management is in transition, having only recently embraced the concept of ecosystem-based fishery management, and some argue that simply getting fishery management right will suffice.

There is increasing appreciation for the argument that oceans should be viewed and regulated as a public trust. Doing so will require changes. The litany of symptoms of degradation cited above is testimony to the fact that this public trust has been violated, that current uses have resulted in the tragedy of the commons. Setting aside important and unique areas and maintaining the essential functioning of healthy marine ecosystems will be vital components in restoring oceans to function as a public trust.

Not all concepts of land conservation are directly applicable to ocean conservation. Kruger is successful in part because it is huge. Large marine reserves may not be the most effective way to provide conservation and fishery enhancement goals. An international team of marine scientists at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis in Santa Barbara, CA has suggested that the establishment of networks of smaller reserves will be more effective in accomplishing all goals than a single large reserve. A network of marine reserves is a series of reserves within a large ecoregion that are connected via larval dispersal or juvenile or adult migration. Examples of ecoregions include the Gulf of Maine, the Gulf of Mexico, or the California Current System (off Washington, Oregon and California). Within such areas, there are vast numbers of different configurations for networks, all of which could function effectively to protect and restore the ecosystem. Reserves within a network would be linked together through oceanographic processes and the movement of animals and plants.

Creating a network of small or moderately sized reserves can be an effective way of conserving species and replenishing populations, while minimizing the amount of area off-limits to fishing or other extractive uses. Where, how many, and what size these reserves should be demands an examination of the particular area, its organisms and habitats, and the ecological and oceanographic processes occurring there. The reserves should be sized and spaced such that they are small enough to allow animals to travel beyond the reserve boundaries and near enough to allow reserves to replenish each other with larvae, juveniles, and adults. Varying the sizes and spacing of the reserves in a network can protect species with different characteristics. Because of the wide variation in dispersal distances among species, fluctuations in ocean currents, and other factors, one of the most effective strategies for protecting multiple species is to establish a network of reserves of different sizes that are located in habitat areas of interest.

Because any of a number of configurations of reserves within a network could likely function effectively, there is ample opportunity for public choice and involvement in selection the combination of places that will suit a number of different social and economic goals.

THE OCEAN ETHIC IN OREGON

Closer to home, Oregonians are widely known for their strong and sincere commitment to land stewardship. But how does ocean stewardship measure up in Oregon, where management and protection of the terrestrial environment is the cornerstone of the state's culture, and where the coast and ocean are valued as local treasures?

Those of us who live in Oregon recognize it as one of the nation's best-kept secrets. We appreciate our good fortune to possess a dramatic, dynamic, and sparsely populated state—whether in eastern Oregon, in the Willamette Valley, or along the coast. Oregon has made progressive strides in natural resource management, including land-use planning, waste reduction, and protection of our rivers, forests, beaches, deserts, and alpine areas. The land ethic is strong and evident.

Oregonians also have a powerful relationship with the coast and ocean. The state boasts progressive coastal land management through maintenance of beach access, comprehensive plans for managing rocky shores and estuaries, a stellar state park system, and the effective use of urban-growth boundaries. Despite Oregon 's admirable track record with coastal planning and the perception that the coast is both ecologically and economically healthy, the fact is the ocean off Oregon is far from pristine and untouched. Management of Oregon's ocean does not receive the same amount of attention as management of Oregon lands. Consideration of an ocean ethic is indeed timely for Oregon .

Oregon relies on its marine environment for many reasons. Coastal activities such as commercial fishing and tourism are vital to Oregon's economy and coastal communities. According to statistics from the state's economic agencies, commercial fishing and processing of fish and shellfish landed in Oregon generated $147 million in income in 1999. The same year, an estimated $5.5 billion was generated from tourist expenditures in the state. Oregonians understand that the stunning and unspoiled natural environment—including the coast and ocean—is crucially important to the state's draw as a tourist destination.

Oregon 's marine environment is exhibiting signs of crisis. Two issues in particular—fishery declines and invasive species—have dominated the headlines. In 1999 the U.S. Department of Commerce declared a Federal disaster in the West Coast groundfish fishery. Of the groundfish species assessed, nearly half are overfished. The Pacific Fishery Management Council, the regional body charged with managing fisheries in Federal waters (3-200 nautical miles offshore) off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California, recently adopted emergency measures to protect two species of rockfish—bocaccio and darkblotched rockfish. Oregon has also been the victim of many kinds of invasive species. Multiple studies document that over 100 non-native species—including European green crab, Atlantic marsh grass, and the purple varnish clam—have invaded Oregon 's estuaries. These exotic species threaten diversity by competing with native species and altering habitats and ecosystem processes.

Additionally, the ecological legacy of earlier human activities is not clear. For example, in the 1700s and 1800s, Stellar's sea cow and the sea otter were extirpated, with unknown consequences. In the early to mid 1900s, most of the estuarine salt marshes on the Oregon coast were lost through diking or filling. Our coast and ocean may be beautiful, but they are far from pristine.

A number of additional threats are emerging. The 2000 census shows that Oregon's population grew rapidly during the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s. Between 1990 and 1999, the state's population grew from 2,842,321 people to an estimated 3,300,000. At this rate, Oregon is growing twice as fast as the rest of the country. Growth in coastal areas is growing quickly as well. Lincoln County —home of Newport , the Oregon Coast Aquarium, and Oregon State University 's Hatfield Marine Science Center —watched its population grow 73% from 1970 to 2000. Oregon's population is projected to continue increasing at a rate faster than the national average. This growth brings additional demands for development, food production, recreation and transportation of goods. Oceans, including Oregon's state waters, will undoubtedly feel the pressure of these demands.

Oregon has an historic opportunity to make significant advances in addressing existing and potential risks facing its marine environment. In July 2000, Governor John Kitzhaber charged the State of Oregon Ocean Policy Advisory Council (OPAC)—an advisory group established in 1991 to provide coordinated policy advice to the Governor and state agencies—to assess marine reserves and how they might apply to Oregon's coastal and ocean waters. OPAC, representative of Oregon citizens, is making their decision with input from state residents. How Oregon responds to the question of marine reserves will demonstrate the strength of Oregon 's ocean ethic.

Marine reserves have strong potential to help Oregon achieve one of its lauded and progressive statewide goals for planning: Goal 19, Ocean Resources. Goal 19 asserts an Ocean Stewardship Area, within which Oregon has clear economic and ecological interest in the conservation of ocean resources. This area includes the state's Territorial Sea , the continental margin seaward to the toe of the continental slope, and adjacent ocean areas. This mandated goal requires that the State of Oregon “conserve marine resources and ecological functions for the purpose of providing long-term ecological, economic, and social value and benefits to future generations.” The state's ability to realize this goal, which highlights the need for holistic, ecosystem-based management of the ocean, would be greatly enhanced through the use of networks of marine reserves.

Other states are watching. If Oregon —long considered a leader in natural resource stewardship in this country—does not take full advantage of what marine reserves can offer, what can we expect from other states in regards to ocean stewardship? What will this mean for our national commitment to marine reserves… to an ocean ethic?

EMBRACING AN OCEAN ETHIC

A century ago, Americans recognized the threats to spectacular and diverse places and the species inhabiting them, and resolved to protect these areas under the auspices of the National Park and later the Wilderness system. Around the same time, South Africans saw the value of taking a new approach to species recovery and natural resource management by designating what has become Kruger National Park . We are now poised to do the same with the seas.

My fervent hope is that we will be successful. I look forward to the day when you or I could slip below the surface, enter a marine reserve and encounter a spectacular array of huge lingcod, canary rockfish, and dark-blotched rockfish, immense delicate anemones waving their tentacles, colorful tube worms feeding on tiny particles of food, brilliant sponges being fed upon by sea lemon nudibranchs, arborescent bryozoa harboring amphipods and ribbon worms, bright cup corals, ancient sea fans, and a wide array of worms slithering in and out of the sediment or tightly secured to the rock. We could easily become enthralled with the playful antics of harbor seals and sea lions cavorting or feeding, watch the furtive movements and methodical feeding of Dungeness crabs, observe a predaceous sea star stalk giant red sea urchins in slow motion, or marvel at the intricacies of the mating displays of shrimp. Walls of gigantic rock scallops interspersed with yellow, red and green sponges, carpets of meter-long mussels, fields of ethereal sea pens and clouds of darting fishes would be common. Forests of bull kelp would harbor shorter iridescent seaweeds, sea braid, and sea ferns that in turn would be fed upon by gumboot chitons, blue top snails, kelp crabs, and rough keyhole limpets. Algae, invertebrates, fishes, marine mammals and seabirds would appear in dense profusion.

We would be struck with the immediate difference inside and outside the reserve, but also the greater abundance outside compared to earlier days before the reserve existed. We would know that this abundance and diversity of marine organisms signaled a healthy ecosystem that was protecting biodiversity, providing useful knowledge, seeding fisheries, supporting a diverse array of plants, microbes, herbivores, filter feeders, and predators – all essential to the provision of the full range of goods and services. We would be inspired to guarantee adequate protection from possible sources of degradation outside the reserve. We would welcome the existence of adequate upstream and downstream reserves that would function in an effective network to ensure persistence of each reserve. We would be reassured that the legacy of healthy marine ecosystems would continue into the future for the benefit and enjoyment of our chilcren and grandchildren. And, we would appreciate the foresight of those who understood the importance of protecting these treasures. If you agree it is time for a new ocean ethic, help make it a reality.

Online References

National Park Service: http://www.nps.gov/

National Marine Sanctuary Program: http://www.sanctuaries.noaa.gov/

Pew Oceans Commission: http://www.pewoceans.org/

(Including science reports on: Marine Pollution, Aquaculture, Introduced Species and Coastal Sprawl),

Commission on Ocean Policy: http://www.oceancommission.gov/

Pacific Fishery Management Council: http://www.pcouncil.org/

Oregon Ocean-Coastal Management Program:

http://www.lcd.state.or.us/coast/offshore.html

Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans:

http://www.piscoweb.org/ including a new brochure entitled “The Science of Marine Reserves”

Oregon Ocean Policy Advisory Council Marine Protected Areas Working Group:

http://www.oregonocean.org/

National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis: