Statements of consensus from the world's scientists compiled by Dr J Floor Anthoni (2001-..) www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/cons/statement.htm Whenever scientists resort to statements of consensus over concerns about this and that, they usually do not have sufficient scientific facts and understanding, while wishing to wield political influence. In other words, they want to scare people into action. Such consensus statements must therefore be received with the utmost suspicion. Often the many signatories are not experts in the field. On this page we have collected several consensus statements, and time will prove these either right or wrong. This page is updated from time to time.

• 1992: The World's Scientists' Warning to Humanity, signed by 1575 scientists
• Introduction; The environment; The atmosphere; Water resources; Oceans; Soil:, Forests; Living species; Population; What we must do
• 1993: Statement by 58 of the world's scientific academies, in preparation of the Conference on Population and Development in 1994
• The growing world population; Key determinants of population growth; Population growth, resource consumption and the environment; The Earth is finite; Quality of life and the environment; Human reproductive health; Sustainability of the natural world as everyone's responsibility; What science and technology can contribute toward enhancing the human prospect
• 1998: Troubled waters, a call for action. Over 1600 scientists sign a declaration for more marine reserves.
• A consensus reached at the opening of the International Year of the Oceans, 1998. Life in the world’s estuaries, coastal waters, enclosed seas and oceans is increasingly threatened. Marine reserves are the only solution. 20% of the sea requires total protection.
• 2001: Scientific consensus statement on Marine Reserves and Marine Protected Areas.
• The context; The scientific consensus; Conclusion; Signatories: (not included to save time and space); History and purpose of this statement.
• 2003: Scientists' Statement on Protecting the World's Deep-sea Coral and Sponge Ecosystems:
• Concern about deepwater habitats threatened by fishing. www.mcbi.org/DSC_statement/sign.htm
• 2005: Oaxaca declaration on biodiversity: urging for more research and networking.
• Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change.
• 2008: Monaco declaration on the dangers of ocean acidification, and our skeptical review on this web site.
• 2009: Inter-Academic statement on Ocean acidification, signed by 69 scientific academies. InterAcademy Panel.

-- Seafriends home -- conservation -- Revised: 20010630,20010906,20030505,20031211,20051219,20090321,20090718

Much of this damage is irreversible on a scale of centuries or [is] permanent. Other processes appear to pose additional threats. Increasing levels of gases in the atmosphere from human activities, including carbon dioxide  released from fossil fuel burning and from deforestation, may alter climate on a global scale. Predictions of global warming are still uncertain - with projected effects ranging from tolerable to very severe - but potential risks are very great.

Our massive tampering with the world's interdependent web of life - coupled with the environmental damage inflicted by deforestation, species loss, and climate change - could trigger widespread adverse effects, including unpredictable collapses of critical biological systems whose interactions and dynamics we only imperfectly understand. Uncertainty over the extent of these effects cannot excuse complacency or delay in facing the threats.
 
 

Population The earth is finite. Its ability to absorb wastes and destructive effluent is finite. Its ability to provide food and energy is finite. And we are fast approaching many of the earth's limits. Current economic practices that damage the environment, in both developed and underdeveloped nations, cannot be continued without the risk that vital global systems will be damaged beyond repair.

Pressures resulting from unrestrained population growth put demands on the natural world that can overwhelm any efforts to achieve a sustainable future. If we are to halt the destruction of our environment, we must accept limits to that growth. A World Bank estimate indicates that world populations will not stabilize at less than 12.4 billion, while the United Nations concludes that the eventual total could reach 14 billion, a near tripling of today's 5.4 billion. But, even at this moment, one person in five lives in absolute poverty without enough to eat, and one in ten suffers serious malnutrition.

No more than one or a few decades remain before the chance to avert the threats we now confront will be lost and the prospects for humanity immeasurably diminished.
 
 

Warning We, the undersigned, senior members of the world's scientific community, hereby warn all humanity of what lies ahead. A great change in our stewardship of the earth and the life on it is required if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated.

 

What we must do Five inextricably linked areas must be addressed simultaneously:

1. We must bring environmentally damaging activities under control to restore and protect the integrity of the earth's systems we depend on.

We must, for example, move away from fossil fuels to more benign, inexhaustible energy  sources to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the pollution of our air and water. Priority must be given to the development of energy sources matched to Third World needs - small scale and relatively easy to implement.
We must halt deforestation, injury to and loss of agricultural land, and the loss of terrestrial and marine plant and animal species.
2. We must manage resources crucial to human welfare more effectively. We must give high priority to efficient use of energy, water, and other materials, including expansion of conservation and recycling.
3. We must stabilize population. This will be possible only if all nations recognize that it requires improved social and economic conditions, and the adoption of effective, voluntary family planning.
4. We must reduce and eventually eliminate poverty.
5. We must ensure sexual equality, and guarantee women control over their own reproductive decisions.

Action on this recognition is not altruism, but enlightened self-interest: whether industrialized or not, we all have but one lifeboat. No nation can escape from injury when global biological systems are damaged. No nation can escape from conflicts over increasingly scarce resources. In addition, environmental and economic instabilities will cause mass migrations with incalculable consequences for developed and undeveloped nations alike.

Developing nations must realize that environmental damage is one of the greatest threats they face and that attempts to blunt it will be overwhelmed if their populations go unchecked. The greatest peril is to become trapped in spirals of environmental decline, poverty, and unrest, leading to social, economic and environmental collapse.

Success in this global endeavor will require a great reduction in violence and war Resources now devoted to the preparation and conduct of war - amounting to over US$ 1 trillion annually - will be badly needed in the new tasks and should be diverted tot he new challenges.

A new ethic is required - a new attitude toward discharging our responsibility for caring for ourselves and for the earth. We must recognize its fragility. We must no longer allow it to be ravaged. This ethic must motivate a great movement, convincing reluctant leaders and reluctant governments and reluctant peoples themselves to effect the needed changes. The scientists issuing this warning hope that out message will reach and affect people everywhere. We need the help of many.

We require the help of the world community of scientists - natural, social, economic, political.
We require the help of the world's business and industrial leaders.
We require the help of the world's religious leaders.
We require the help of the world's peoples.
We call on all to join us in this task.

[Followed by a list of signatories, including 104 Nobel laureates - a majority of the living recipients of the Prize in the sciences - have signed it so far. These men and women represent 71 countries, including all of the 19 largest economic powers, all of the 12 most populous nations, 12 countries in Africa, 14 in Asia, 19 in Europe, and 12 in Latin America.]

From Paul & Anne Ehrlich: Betrayal of Science and reason,  Island Press, 1996.

[October 1993, Delhi, India]
 

The growing world population The world is in the midst of an unprecedented expansion of human numbers. It took hundreds of thousands of years for our species to reach a population level of 10 million, only 10,000 years ago. This number grew to 100 million people about 2,000 years ago and to 2.5 billion by 1950. Within less than the span of a single lifetime, it has more than doubled to 5.5 billion in 1993.

This accelerated population growth resulted from rapidly lowered death rates (particularly infant mortality rates), combined with sustained high birth rates. Success in reducing death rates is attributable to several factors: increases in food production and distribution, improvements in public health (water and sanitation) and in medical technology (vaccines and antibiotics), along with gains in education and standards of living within many developing nations.

Over the past 30 years, many regions of the world have also dramatically reduced birth rates. Some have already achieved family sizes small enough, if maintained, to result eventually in a halt to population growth. The successes have led to a slowing of the world's rate of population increase. The shift from high to low death and birth rates has been called the 'demographic transition'.

The rate at which the demographic transition progresses world-wide will determine the ultimate level of the human population. The lag between downward shifts of death and birth rates may be many decades or even several generations, and during these periods population growth will continue inexorably. We face the prospect of a further doubling of the population within the next half century. Most of this growth will take place in developing countries.

Consider three hypothetical scenarios for the levels of human population in the century ahead:

• Fertility declines within sixty years from the current rate of 3.3 to a global replacement average of 2.1 children per woman. The current population momentum would lead to at least 11 billion people levelling off at the end of the twenty-first century.
• Fertility reduces to an average of 1.7 children per woman early in the next century. Human population growth would peak at 7.8 billion persons in the middle of the twenty-first century and decline slowly thereafter.
• Fertility declines to no lower than 2.5 children per woman. Global population would grow to 19 billion by the year 2100, and to 28 billion by 2150.

Even with improved economic conditions, nations, regions, and societies will experience different demographic patterns due to varying cultural influences. The value placed upon large families (especially among underprivileged rural populations in less-developed countries that benefit least from the process of development), the assurance of security for the elderly, the ability of women to control reproduction, and the status and rights of women within families and within societies are significant cultural factors affecting family size and the demand for family planning services.

Even with a demand for family planning services, the adequate availability of and access to family planning and other reproductive health services are essential in facilitating slowing of the population growth rate. Also, access to education and the ability of women to determine their own economic security influence their reproductive decisions.
 

Population growth, resource consumption and the environment Throughout history, and especially during the twentieth century, environmental degradation has primarily been a product of our efforts to secure improved standards of food, clothing, shelter, comfort, and recreation for growing numbers of people. The magnitude of the threat to the ecosystem is linked to human population size and resource use per person.

Resource use, waste production, and environmental degradation are accelerated by population growth. They are further exacerbated by consumption habits, certain technological developments, and particular patterns of social organization and resource management.

As human numbers further increase, the potential for irreversible changes of far-reaching magnitude also increases. Indicators of severe environmental stress include the growing loss of biodiversity, increasing greenhouse gas emission, increasing deforestation worldwide, stratospheric ozone depletion, acid rain, loss of topsoil, and shortages of water, food, and fuel wood in many parts of the world.

While both developed and developing countries have contributed to global environmental problems, developed countries with 85 percent of the gross world product and 23 percent of its population account for the largest part of mineral and fossil -fuel consumption, resulting in significant environmental impacts. With current technologies, present levels of consumption by the developed world are likely to lead to serious negative consequences for all countries. This is especially apparent with the increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide and trace gases that have accompanied industrialization, which have the potential for changing global climate and raising sea level.

In both rich and poor countries, local environmental problems arise from direct pollution from energy use and other industrial activities, inappropriate agricultural practices, population concentration, inadequate environmental management, and inattention to environmental goals. When current economic production has been the overriding priority and inadequate attention has been given to environmental protection, local environmental damage has led to serious negative impacts on health and major impediments to future economic growth. Restoring the environment, even where still possible, is far more expensive and time consuming than managing it wisely in the first place; even rich countries have difficulty in affording extensive environmental remediation efforts.

The relationships between human population, economic development, and the natural environment are complex. Examination of local and regional case studies reveals the influence and interaction of many variables. For example, environmental and economic impacts vary with population composition and distribution, and with rural-urban and international migrations. Furthermore, poverty and lack of economic opportunities stimulate faster population growth and increase incentives for environmental degradation by encouraging exploitation of marginal resources.

Both developed and developing countries face a great dilemma in orienting their productive activities in the direction of a more harmonious interaction with nature. This challenge is accentuated by the uneven stages of development. If all people of the world consumed fossil fuels and other natural resources at the rate now characteristic of developed countries (and with current technologies), this would greatly intensify our already unsustainable demands on the biosphere. Yet development is a legitimate expectation of less-developed and transitional countries.
 
 

The Earth is finite The growth of population over the past half century was for a time matched by a similar worldwide increases in utilizable resources. However, in the past decade food production from both the land and sea has declined relative to population growth. The area of agricultural land has shrunk, both through soil erosion and reduced possibilities of irrigation. The availability of water is already a constraint in some countries. These are warnings that the Earth is finite, and that natural systems are being pushed ever closer to their limits.

 
 

Quality of life and the environment Our common goal is improving the quality of life for all people, those living today and succeeding generations, ensuring their social, economic and personal well-being with guarantees of fundamental human rights, and allowing them to live harmoniously with a protected environment.

We believe that this goal can be achieved, provided we are willing to undertake the requisite social change. Given time, political will, and intelligent use of science and technology, human ingenuity can remove many constraints on improving human welfare worldwide, finding substitutes for wasteful practices, and protecting the natural environment.

But the time is short and appropriate policy decisions are urgently needed. The ability of humanity to reap the benefits of its ingenuity depends on its skill in governance and management, and on strategies for dealing with problems such as widespread poverty, increased numbers of aged persons, inadequate health care and limited educational opportunities for large groups of people, limited capital for investment, environmental degradation in every region of the world, and unmet needs for family planning services in both developing and developed countries. In our judgement, humanity's ability to deal successfully with its social, economic, and environmental problems will require the achievement of zero population growth within the lifetime of our children.
 
 

Human reproductive health The timing and spacing of pregnancies are important for the health of the mother, her children and her family. Most maternal deaths are due to unsafe practices in terminating pregnancies, a lack of readily available services for high-risk pregnancies, and women having too many children or having them too early and too late in life.

Millions of people still do not have adequate access to family planning services and suitable contraceptives. Only about one-half of married couples of reproductive age are currently practicing contraception. Yet as the director-general of UNICEF put it, "Family planning could bring more benefits to more people at less cost than any other single technology now available to the human race." Existing contraceptive methods could go far toward alleviating the unmet need if they were available and used in sufficient numbers, through a variety of channels of distribution, sensitively adapted to local needs.

But most contraceptives are for use by women, who consequently bear the risks to health. The development of contraceptives for male use continues to lag. Better contraceptives are needed for both men and women, but developing new contraceptive approaches is slow and financially unattractive to industry. Further work is needed on an ideal spectrum of contraceptive methods that are safe, efficacious, easy to use and deliver, reasonably priced, user-controlled and responsive, appropriate for special populations and age cohorts, reversible, and at least some of which protect against sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS.

Reducing fertility rates, however, cannot be achieved merely by providing more contraceptives. The demand for these services has to be addressed. Even when family planning and other reproductive health services are widely available, the social and economic status of women affects individual decisions to use them. The ability of women to make decisions about family size is greatly affected by gender roles within society and in sexual relationships. Ensuring equal opportunity for women in all aspects of society is crucial.

Thus all reproductive health services must be implemented as a part of broader strategies to raise the quality of human life. They must include the following:

• Efforts to reduce and eliminate gender-based inequalities. Women and men should have equal opportunities and responsibilities in sexual, social, and economic life.
• Provision of convenient family planning and other reproductive health services with a wide variety of safe contraceptive options, irrespective of an individual's ability to pay.
• Encouragement of voluntary approaches to family planning and elimination of unsafe and coercive practices.
• Development policies that address basic needs such as clean water, sanitation, broad primary health care measures and education, and that foster empowerment of the poor and women.

Other factors, such as inappropriate governmental policies, also contribute in nearly every case. Many environmental problems in both rich and poor countries appear to be the result of policies that are misguided even when viewed on short-term economic grounds. If a longer-term view is taken, environmental goals assume an even higher priority.

The prosperity and technology of the industrialized countries give them greater opportunities and greater responsibility for addressing environmental problems worldwide. Their resources make it easier to forestall and to ameliorate local environmental problems. Developed countries need to become more efficient in both resource use and wasteful consumption. If prices, taxes and regulatory policies include environmental costs, consumption habits will be influenced. The industrialized countries need to assist developing countries and communities with funding and expertise in combating both global and local environmental problems. Mobilizing 'technology for environment' should be an integral part of this new ethic of sustainable development.

For all governments it is essential to incorporate environmental goals at the outset in legislation, economic planning, and priority setting; and to provide appropriate incentives for public and private institutions, communities, and individuals to operate in environmentally benign ways. Trade-offs between environmental and economic goals can be reduced through wise policies. For dealing with global environmental problems, all countries of the world need to work collectively through treaties and conventions, as has occurred with such issues as global climate change and biodiversity, and to develop innovative financing mechanisms that facilitate environmental protection.
 
 

What science and technology can contribute toward enhancing the human prospect As scientists cognizant of the history of scientific progress and aware of the potential of science for contributing to human welfare, it is our collective judgement that continuing population growth poses a great risk to humanity. Furthermore, it is not prudent to rely on science and technology alone to solve problems created by rapid population growth, wasteful resource consumption, and poverty.

The natural and social sciences are nevertheless crucial for developing new understanding so that governments and other institutions act more effectively, and for developing new options for limiting population growth, protecting the natural environment, and improving the quality of human life.

Scientists, engineers, and health professionals should study and provide advice on:

• Cultural, social, economic, religious, educational and political factors that affect reproductive behavior, family size, and successful family planning.
• Conditions for human development, including the impediments that result from economic inefficiencies; social inequalities; and ethnic, class or gender biases.
• Global and local environmental change (affecting climate, biodiversity, soils, water, air), its causes (including the roles of poverty, population growth, economic growth, technology, national and international politics), and policies to mitigate its effects.
• Strategies and tools for improving all aspects of education and human resource development, with special attention to women.
• Improved family planning programs, contraceptive options for both sexes, and other reproductive health services, with special attention to needs of women; and improved general primary health care, especially maternal and child health care.
• Transition to economies that provide increased annual welfare with less consumption of energy and materials.
• Improved mechanisms for building indigenous capacity in the natural sciences, engineering, medicine, social sciences, and management in developing countries, including an increased capability of conducting integrated interdisciplinary assessments of societal issues.
• Technologies and strategies for sustainable development (agriculture, energy, resource use, pollution control, materials recycling, environmental management and protection).
• Networks, treaties and conventions that protect the global commons. Strengthened worldwide exchanges of scientists in education, training, and research

From Paul & Anne Ehrlich: Betrayal of Science and reason,  Island Press, 1996.

We, the undersigned marine scientists and conservation biologists, call upon the world’s citizens and governments to recognize that the living sea is in trouble and to take decisive action. We must act quickly to stop further severe, irreversible damage to the sea’s biological diversity and integrity.

Marine ecosystems are home to many phyla that live nowhere else. As vital components of our planet’s life support systems, they protect shorelines from flooding, break down wastes, moderate climate and maintain a breathable atmosphere. Marine species provide a livelihood for millions of people, food, medicines, raw materials and recreation for billions, and are instrinsically important.

Life in the world’s estuaries, coastal waters, enclosed seas and oceans is increasingly threatened by:

1. overexploitation of species
2. physical alteration of ecosystems
3. pollution
4. introduction of alien species
5. global atmospheric change.

 To reverse this trend and avert even more widespread harm to marine species and ecosystems, we urge citizens and governments worldwide to take the following five steps:

1. Identify and provide effective protection to all populations of marine species that are significantly depleted or declining, take all measures necessary to allow their recovery, minimize bycatch, end all subsidies that encourage overfishing and ensure that use of marine species is sustainable in perpetuity.
2. Increase the number and effectiveness of marine protected areas so that 20% of Exclusive Economic Zones and the Highs Seas are protected from threats by the Year 2020.
3. Ameliorate or stop fishing methods that undermine sustainability by harming the habitats of economically valuable marine species and the species they use for food and shelter.
4. Stop physical alternation of terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems that harms the sea, minimize pollution discharged at sea or entering the sea from the land, curtail introduction of alien marine species and prevent further atmospheric changes that threaten marine species ecosystems.
5. Provide sufficient resources to encourage natural and social scientists to undertake marine conservation biology research needed to protect, restore and sustainably use life in the sea.

end of statement

A copy of the statement can also be found at MCBI’s website: www.mcbi.org.

THE CONTEXT

At the 1997 Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), a symposium on marine protected areas reviewed the state of the oceans, raised a number of unresolved critical scientific issues and identified research priorities.  In response, an international team of scientists was convened at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) and charged with developing better scientific understanding of marine protected areas and marine reserves.  Conclusions from the two-and-a-half-year efforts of this working group are in press in a special issue of the journal Ecological Applications. This Scientific Consensus Statement is based upon those results and other research already published elsewhere.  The Statement is a joint effort of the NCEAS scientists and the academic scientists participating in a meeting on marine reserves convened by COMPASS (Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea). This Statement was drafted in response to repeated requests by many fishermen, marine resource managers, governmental officials, conservation activists, interested citizens and others for a succinct, non-technical but scientifically accurate summary of the current scientific knowledge about marine reserves. Additional information on the history of this Statement, NCEAS and COMPASS appears after the Statement.

New Approaches Are Needed
The declining state of the oceans and the collapse of many fisheries have created a critical need for new and more effective management of marine biodiversity, populations of exploited species and overall health of the oceans.  Marine reserves are a highly effective but under-appreciated and under-utilized tool that can help alleviate many of these problems.  At present, less than 1% of United States territorial waters and less than 1% of the world’s oceans are protected in reserves.

What are Marine Reserves?
Marine Reserves (MRVs) are areas of the sea completely protected from all extractive activities.  Within a reserve, all biological resources are protected through prohibitions on fishing and the removal or disturbance of any living or non-living marine resource, except as necessary for monitoring or research to evaluate reserve effectiveness.  Marine reserves are sometimes called “ecological reserves,” “fully-protected marine reserves,” or “no-take areas.”  MRVs are a special category of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs).  MPAs are areas designated to enhance conservation of marine resources.  The actual level of protection within MPAs varies considerably; most allow some extractive activities such as fishing, while prohibiting others such as drilling for oil or gas.  A Network of Marine Reserves is a set of MRVs within a biogeographic region, connected by larval dispersal and juvenile or adult migration.
 

THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS

The first formal marine reserves were established more than two decades ago. Recent analyses of the changes occurring within these MRVs allow us to make the following conclusions:

Ecological effects within reserve boundaries:

• Reserves result in long-lasting and often rapid increases in the abundance, diversity and productivity of marine organisms.
• These changes are due to decreased mortality, decreased habitat destruction and to indirect ecosystem effects.
• Reserves reduce the probability of extinction for marine species resident within them.
• Increased reserve size results in increased benefits, but even small reserves have positive effects.
• Full protection (which usually requires adequate enforcement and public involvement) is critical to achieve this full range of benefits.  Marine protected areas do not provide the same benefits as marine reserves.

Ecological effects outside reserve boundaries: In the few studies that have examined spillover effects, the size and abundance of exploited species increase in areas adjacent to reserves.
 

• There is increasing evidence that reserves replenish populations regionally via larval export.

Ecological effects of reserve networks:
There is increasing evidence that a network of reserves buffers against the vagaries of environmental variability and provides significantly greater protection for marine communities than a single reserve. An effective network needs to

• span large geographic distances and
• encompass a substantial area to protect against catastrophes and
• provide a stable platform for the long-term persistence of marine communities.

• Reserves conserve both fisheries and biodiversity.
• To meet goals for fisheries and biodiversity conservation, reserves must encompass the diversity of marine habitats.
• Reserves are the best way to protect resident species and provide heritage protection to important habitats.
• Reserves must be established and operated in the context of other management tools.
• Reserves need a dedicated program to monitor and evaluate their impacts both within and outside their boundaries.
• Reserves provide a critical benchmark for the evaluation of threats to ocean communities.
• Networks of reserves will be necessary for long-term fishery and conservation benefits.
• Existing scientific information justifies the immediate application of fully protected marine reserves as a central management tool.

HISTORY AND PURPOSE OF THIS STATEMENT
This Statement was drafted in response to repeated requests by many fishermen, marine resource managers, governmental officials, conservation activists, interested citizens and others for a succinct, non-technical but scientifically accurate summary of the current scientific knowledge about marine reserves.

The Statement is based on work conducted primarily by the NCEAS Working Group on Marine Reserves, co-chaired by Jane Lubchenco, Stephen R. Palumbi and Steven D. Gaines.  The National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS - <http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/>) is a scientific institution funded by the National Science Foundation, the State of California and the University of California, Santa Barbara. The mission of NCEAS is to advance the state of ecological knowledge through the search for general patterns and principles and to organize and synthesize ecological information in a manner useful to researchers, resource managers, and policy makers addressing important environmental issues. The Working Group on Marine Reserves (WGMR) was convened in May 1998 following a Symposium on The Science of Marine Protected Areas at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in February 1997.  Products from the Working Group have been published or are in press in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

The initial version of this Scientific Consensus Statement was drafted in August 2000 at a meeting on “The Science and Development of Marine Protected Areas and Fully Protected Marine Reserves along the U.S. West Coast” held in Monterey, California.  The meeting was organized and sponsored by COMPASS (<http://www.CompassOnline.org/>), the Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea, a collaboration among Island Press, SeaWeb, Monterey Bay Aquarium and an independent Board of Scientific Experts.  The mission of COMPASS is to advance and communicate marine conservation science.  Dr. Megan Dethier and Dr. Stephen R. Palumbi coordinated the academic scientist group which drafted the initial Statement at the Monterey COMPASS meeting, following presentations by NCEAS Working Group scientists.

The intended audience for the Statement includes resource users, policymakers, non-governmental organizations, and interested citizens.  Signatories are academic Ph.D. scientists with expertise relevant to reserves.
----------------
For further information about NCEAS, COMPASS, the Statement, a list of scientific products from the NCEAS Working Group on Marine Reserves or to add your name for future use of the Statement, please contact Dr. Patty Debenham pdebenham@nceas.ucsb.edu or Dr. George Leonard gleonard@mbayaq.org.
-----------------
17 Feb 2001; Annual Meeting of the American Association For the Advancement of the Sciences

For information, contact: Patty Debenham (805) 892-2518 or George Leonard (831) 647-6830

National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis
University of California; 735 State Street, Suite 300; Santa Barbara, CA 93101-5504; http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/

Shallow-water coral reefs are sometimes called "the rainforests of the sea" for their extraordinary biological diversity, perhaps the highest anywhere on Earth. However, until quite recently, few people-even marine scientists-knew that the majority of coral species live in colder, darker depths, or that some of these form coral reefs and forests similar to those of shallow waters in appearance, species richness and importance to fisheries. Lophelia coral reefs in cold waters of the Northeast Atlantic have over 1,300 species of invertebrates, and over 850 species of macro- and megafauna were recently found on seamounts in the Tasman and Coral Seas, as many as in a shallow-water coral reef. Because seamounts are essentially undersea islands, many seamount species are endemics-species that occur nowhere else-and are therefore exceptionally vulnerable to extinction. Moreover, marine scientists have observed large numbers of commercially important but increasingly uncommon groupers and redfish among the sheltering structures of deep-sea coral reefs. Finally, because of their longevity, some deep-sea corals can serve as archives of past climate conditions that are important to understanding global climate change. In short, based on current knowledge, deep-sea coral and sponge communities appear to be as important to the biodiversity of the oceans and the sustainability of fisheries as their analogues in shallow tropical seas.

In recent years scientists have discovered deep-sea corals and/or coral reefs in Japan, Tasmania, New Zealand, Alaska, California, Nova Scotia, Maine, North Carolina, Florida, Colombia, Brazil, Norway, Sweden, UK, Ireland and Mauritania. Because research submarines and remotely operated vehicles suitable for studying the deep sea are few and expensive to operate, scientific investigation of these remarkable communities is in its very early stages. But it is increasingly clear that deep-sea corals usually inhabit places where natural disturbance is rare, and where growth and reproduction appear to be exceedingly slow. Deep-sea corals and sponges may live for centuries, making them and the myriad species that depend on them extremely slow to recover from disturbance.
Unfortunately, just as scientists have begun to understand the diversity, importance and vulnerability of deep-sea coral forests and reefs, humans have developed technologies that profoundly disturb them. There is reason for concern about deep-sea oil and gas development, deep-sea mining and global warming, but, at present, the greatest human threat to coral and sponge communities is commercial fishing, especially bottom trawling. Trawlers are vessels that drag large, heavily weighted nets across the seafloor to catch fishes and shrimps. Scientific studies around the world have shown that trawling is devastating to corals and sponges. As trawlers become more technologically sophisticated, and as fishes disappear from shallower areas, trawling is increasingly occurring at depths exceeding 1,000 meters.

It is not too late to save most of the world's deep-sea coral and sponge ecosystems. We commend nations including Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Norway, which have already taken initial steps towards protecting some coral and sponge ecosystems under their jurisdiction. We urge the United Nations and appropriate international bodies to establish a moratorium on bottom trawling on the High Seas. Similarly, we urge individual nations and states to ban bottom trawling to protect deep-sea ecosystems wherever coral forests and reefs are known to occur within their Exclusive Economic Zones. We urge them to prohibit roller and rockhopper trawls and any similar technologies that allow fishermen to trawl on the rough bottoms where deep-sea coral and sponge communities are most likely to occur. We urge them to support research and mapping of vulnerable deep-sea coral and sponge communities. And we urge them to establish effective, representative networks of marine protected areas that include deep-sea coral and sponge communities.

• Biodiversity is our common natural heritage and the foundation for a wide variety of ecosystem services that are crucial to human well-being.
• Irreversible destruction of biodiversity is taking place globally as a result of human activities; there is insufficient political and public attention to its extent and consequences.
• Mechanisms to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity have been developed at local, national and international levels; these need to be supported and considerably expanded.
• Scientific knowledge of biodiversity must be substantially increased, but immediate actions must be taken to better protect biodiversity based on existing knowledge.

Therefore, they call upon governments, policy makers and citizens:

• to integrate biodiversity into the criteria considered in all economic and policy decisions that affect environmental management;
• to launch and support ambitious interdisciplinary research programmes to explore the Earth’s biodiversity, the ecological and socio-economic causes and consequences of its changes, and the best means to conserve and sustainably use it;
• to commit resources to build and greatly expand the capacity, especially in developing countries, to undertake biodiversity research and implement the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.

Climate change is real
There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring1. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)2. This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate.

The existence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is vital to life on Earth – in their absence average temperatures would be about 30 centigrade degrees lower than they are today. But human activities are now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases – including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide – to rise well above pre-industrial levels.

Carbon dioxide levels have increased from 280 ppm in 1750 to over 375 ppm today – higher than any previous levels that can be reliably measured (i.e. in the last 420,000 years). Increasing greenhouse gases are causing temperatures to rise; the Earth’s surface warmed by approximately 0.6 centigrade degrees over the twentieth century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected that the average global surface temperatures will continue to increase to between 1.4 centigrade degrees and 5.8 centigrade degrees above 1990 levels, by 2100.

Reduce the causes of climate change
The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.

Action taken now to reduce significantly the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will lessen the magnitude and rate of climate change. As the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) recognises, a lack of full scientific certainty about some aspects of climate change is not a reason for delaying an immediate response that will, at a reasonable cost, prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.

As nations and economies develop over the next 25 years, world primary energy demand is estimated to increase by almost 60%. Fossil fuels, which are responsible for the majority of carbon dioxide emissions produced by human activities, provide valuable resources for many nations and are projected to provide 85% of this demand (IEA 2004)3.

Minimising the amount of this carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere presents a huge challenge. There are many potentially cost-effective technological options that could contribute to stabilising greenhouse gas concentrations. These are at various stages of research and development. However barriers to their broad deployment still need to be overcome.

Carbon dioxide can remain in the atmosphere for many decades. Even with possible lowered emission rates we will be experiencing the impacts of climate change throughout the 21st century and beyond. Failure to implement significant reductions in net greenhouse gas emissions now, will make the job much harder in the future.

Prepare for the consequences of climate change
Major parts of the climate system respond slowly to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. Even if greenhouse gas emissions were stabilised instantly at today’s levels, the climate would still continue to change as it adapts to the increased emission of recent decades. Further changes in climate are therefore unavoidable. Nations must prepare for them.

The projected changes in climate will have both beneficial and adverse effects at the regional level, for example on water resources, agriculture, natural ecosystems and human health. The larger and faster the changes in climate, the more likely it is that adverse effects will dominate. Increasing temperatures are likely to increase the frequency and severity of weather events such as heat waves and heavy rainfall. Increasing temperatures could lead to large-scale effects such as melting of large ice sheets (with major impacts on low-lying regions throughout the world). The IPCC estimates that the combined effects of ice melting and sea water expansion from ocean warming are projected to cause the global mean sea-level to rise by between 0.1 and 0.9 metres between 1990 and 2100. In Bangladesh alone, a 0.5 metre sea-level rise would place about 6 million people at risk from flooding.

Developing nations that lack the infrastructure or resources to respond to the impacts of climate change will be particularly affected. It is clear that many of the world’s poorest people are likely to suffer the most from climate change. Long-term global efforts to create a more healthy, prosperous and sustainable world may be severely hindered by changes in the climate.
The task of devising and implementing strategies to adapt to the consequences of climate change will require worldwide collaborative inputs from a wide range of experts, including physical and natural scientists, engineers, social scientists, medical scientists, those in the humanities, business leaders and economists.

Conclusion
We urge all nations, in the line with the UNFCCC principles4, to take prompt action to reduce the causes of climate change, adapt to its impacts and ensure that the issue is included in all relevant national and international strategies. As national science academies, we commit to working with governments to help develop and implement the national and international response to the challenge of climate change.
G8 nations have been responsible for much of the past greenhouse gas emissions. As parties to the UNFCCC, G8 nations are committed to showing leadership in addressing climate change and assisting developing nations to meet the challenges of adaptation and mitigation.

We call on world leaders, including those meeting at the Gleneagles G8 Summit in July 2005, to:

• Acknowledge that the threat of climate change is clear and increasing.
• Launch an international study5 to explore scientificallyinformed targets for atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and their associated emissions scenarios, that will enable nations to avoid impacts deemed unacceptable.
• Identify cost-effective steps that can be taken now to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions. Recognise that delayed action will increase the risk of adverse environmental effects and will likely incur a greater cost.
• Work with developing nations to build a scientific and technological capacity best suited to their circumstances, enabling them to develop innovative solutions to mitigate and adapt to the adverse effects of climate change, while explicitly recognising their legitimate development rights.
• Show leadership in developing and deploying clean energy technologies and approaches to energy efficiency, and share this knowledge with all other nations.
• Mobilise the science and technology community to enhance research and development efforts, which can better inform climate change decisions.

We scientists who met in Monaco to review what is known about ocean acidification declare that we are deeply concerned by recent, rapid changes in ocean chemistry and their potential, within decades, to severely affect marine organisms, food webs, biodiversity, and fisheries. To avoid severe and widespread damages, all of which are ultimately driven by increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), we call for policymakers to act quickly to incorporate these concerns into plans to stabilize atmospheric CO2 at a safe level to avoid not only dangerous climate change but also dangerous ocean acidification.

Sub-sections:

• Ocean acidification is underway
• Ocean acidification is already detectable
• Ocean acidification is accelerating and severe damages are imminent
• Ocean acidification will have socioeconomic impacts
• Ocean acidification is rapid, but recovery will be slow
• Ocean acidification can be controlled only by limiting future atmospheric CO2 levels

Therefore, we urge policymakers to launch four types of initiatives:

• to help improve understanding of impacts of ocean acidification by promoting research in this field, which is still in its infancy;
• to help build links between economists and scientists that are needed to evaluate the socioeconomic extent of impacts and costs for action versus inaction;
• to help improve communication between policymakers and scientists so that i) new policies are based on current findings and ii) scientific studies can be widened to include the most policy-relevant questions;
• to prevent severe damages from ocean acidification by developing ambitious, urgent plans to cut emissions drastically.

An example to illustrate the intense effort needed: To stay below an atmospheric CO2 level of about 550 ppm, the current increase in total CO2 emissions of 3% per year must be reversed by 2020. Even steeper reductions will be needed to keep most polar waters from becoming corrosive to the shells of key marine species and to maintain favourable conditions for coral growth. If negotiations at COP-15 in Copenhagen in December 2009 fall short of these objectives, still higher atmospheric CO2 levels will be inevitable.

Headline messages

• Oceans play a critical role in the global carbon cycle by absorbing about a quarter of the CO2 emitted to the atmosphere from human activities; [?]
• The rapid increase in CO2 emissions since the industrial revolution has increased the acidity of the world’s oceans with potentially profound consequences for marine plants and animals especially those that require calcium carbonate to grow and survive, and other species that rely on these for food;
• At current emission rates models suggest that all coral reefs and polar ecosystems will be severely affected by 2050 or potentially even earlier;
• Marine food supplies are likely to be reduced with significant implications for food production and security in regions dependent on fish protein, and human health and wellbeing;
• Ocean acidification is irreversible on timescales of at least tens of thousands of years; [?]
• Even with stabilisation of atmospheric CO2 at 450 ppm, ocean acidification will have profound impacts on many marine systems. Large and rapid reductions of global CO2 emissions are needed globally by at least 50% by 2050. [?]

2. Environmental damage from ocean acidification
Ocean acidification impacts on marine life will depend on the rate and magnitude of changes in ocean chemistry and biological responses. While the ocean chemistry changes are predictable with high certainty, our understanding of the impacts is still developing. Nevertheless, there is strong evidence emerging for a range of biological effects and changes in the marine biogeochemical processes that affect the carbon cycle. The long-term consequences of this are difficult to predict.
Impacts are already being observed in the polar and tropical regions. Coral calcification rates have declined in recent decades, although attributing causes for these impacts among multiple drivers (acidification, warming, pollution, etc.) is a challenge. Fundamental ecological ocean processes will be affected as many marine organisms depend directly or indirectly on calcium carbonate saturated waters and are adapted to current levels of seawater pH for physiological and metabolic processes such as calcification, growth and reproduction. [?] The pH changes expected will exceed the seasonal and regional variations currently experienced naturally. [?]

4.? [headline missing in declaration]
Ocean acidification is a global issue. However, changes in ocean chemistry will be regionally variable with some regions affected more rapidly than others. The high CO2 waters in polar and upwelling regions such as the eastern Pacific and Bering Sea for example, will experience low pH more rapidly than other regions.[cold water absorbs CO2] Tropical waters, such as those around the Great Barrier Reef will also experience rapid declines in the carbonate ions important for coral reef construction. [?] According to recent model projections almost all tropical and sub-tropical coral reefs were surrounded by waters favourable to coral growth before the industrial revolution. [?] If atmospheric CO2 is stabilized at 450 ppm, only a very small fraction (~8%) of existing tropical and subtropical coral reefs will be surrounded by such water, and at 550 ppm, coral reefs may be dissolving globally. [?] Cold water corals are also vulnerable and are likely to be affected before they have even been fully explored. [?] By 2100, it has been estimated that 70% will be in waters unfavourable for growth.
In the polar regions, model projections using current CO2 emission rates suggest that parts of the Southern Ocean will be undersaturated for aragonite by 2050. Aragonite undersaturation is projected for 10% of Arctic waters by around 2020, and by 2060, 80% of waters will be undersaturated for aragonite and calcite. This means the waters will be corrosive to Arctic calcifiers such as pteropods, and bivalves such as clams, which play a key role in Arctic food webs. [?]
The ocean chemistry changes projected will exceed the range of natural variability, which is likely to be too rapid for many species to adapt to. [?] Many coastal animals and groups of phytoplankton and zooplankton may be directly affected with implications for fish, marine mammals and the other groups that depend on them for food. Increased CO2 may be particularly stressful for organisms with high metabolic rates such as squid. [?] The impacts of these changes on oceanic ecosystems and the services they provide, for example in fisheries, coastal protection, tourism, carbon sequestration and climate regulation, cannot yet be estimated accurately but they are potentially large.
Although some species may benefit, most are adapted to current conditions and the impacts on ocean biological diversity and ecosystem functioning will likely be severe. Analysis of past events in Earth’s geologic history suggests that chemical recovery will take tens of thousands of years – while the recovery of ecosystem function and biological diversity can take much longer.

4. Mitigation
Ocean acidification is irreversible during our lifetimes and those of many generations to come. [?] To minimise the risk of these large-scale and long-term changes to the oceans the increase in atmospheric CO2 must be curbed by reducing emissions from human activities. [?]
Recent scenario studies have estimated that stabilisation of atmospheric CO2 concentrations at 550 ppm will produce enough acidification to be disastrous for sensitive oceanic ecosystems in many parts of the world. [?] Even at 450 ppm, more than 10% of the world’s oceans will be impacted including large parts of the Southern, North Pacific, and Arctic oceans. [?]
Mitigation approaches such as adding chemicals to counter the effects of acidification are likely to be expensive, only partly effective and only at a very local scale, and may pose additional unanticipated risks to the marine environment. There has been very little research on the feasibility and impacts of these approaches. Substantial research is needed before these techniques could be applied.

5. Conclusions and recommendations
Ocean acidification is a direct consequence of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. [?] To avoid substantial damage to ocean ecosystems, deep and rapid reductions of global CO2 emissions by at least 50% by 2050, and much more thereafter are needed.

We, the academies of science working through the InterAcademy Panel on International Issues (IAP), call on world leaders to:

• Acknowledge that ocean acidification is a direct and real consequence of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, is already having an effect at current concentrations, and is likely to cause grave harm to important marine ecosystems as CO2 concentrations reach 450 ppm and above; [?]
• Recognise that reducing the build up of CO2 in the atmosphere is the only practicable solution to mitigating ocean acidification; [?]
• Within the context of the UNFCCC negotiations in the run up to Copenhagen 2009, recognise the direct threats posed by increasing atmospheric CO2 emissions to the oceans and therefore society, and take action to mitigate this threat;
• Implement action to reduce global CO2 emissions by at least 50% of 1990 levels by 2050 and continue to reduce them thereafter; [?]
• Reinvigorate action to reduce stressors, such as overfishing and pollution, on marine ecosystems to increase resilience to ocean acidification. [?]

Reader, as you can see, this scare statement is almost entirely based on ignorance and assumptions. Read our chapter on ocean acidification to understand how it works and that fear is highly unjustified, and that properly conducted experiments show the opposite of what is claimed by global warming alarmists. Also read why science needs skeptics. Note how the greatest scientific fraud of our times has come tumbling down as Climategate (search Google).