We Know How to Protect the Ocean. So Why Aren't We Doing It?

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

yield stabilized.

An example is the U.S. fisheries under the Magnus and Stevenson's 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.

Perfect, by any means, and the policy still has to be followed.

But 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 Magnus and Stevenson's

Act.

But if those policies are rolled back, we start to see the fisheries' stock slip.

And where quotas are ignored or politically inflated, stocks decline, recruitment collapses,

and economic instability follows.

The 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.

You 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.

You'd 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.

Three times the amount of tons of fish that they were going to catch.

From the minimal yield, 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.

Regulation works when compliance is mandatory and monitored.

Let's look at pollution control.

The evidence is pretty clear.

The regions where wastewater treatment and nutrient runoff controls were implemented.

Coastal dead zone strength, harmful algal blooms decreased, and water quality improved.

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.

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 this algae 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'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.

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 mat, just awful event, and it just smothers

everything and it makes everything die.

We've seen that over and over again and again, implementation determines the outcome.

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.

Coal growth reduced storm surge, seagrass metal 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 are road faster,

infrastructure costs rise, insurance risks escalate.

Alternate adaptation is not abstract.

It's just operational.

Now let's look at the high seas governance.

International agreements can establish framework.

A 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.

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,

its 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.

Mental 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 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

it, 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 at 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 a long enough, it's going to just dissipate, it's going

to be degradated.

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 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.

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.

We see it all the time.

You can say as much as you want to say, hey, the ocean's not going to be affected, but

it is and it has been for so, so long.

So reduce 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'd love to hear your feedback on what you think and how it works or what you've

seen that works or what you've seen that you're frustrated with.

Let me know and 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 of you 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.