Case Study Report: The Deep Ocean

The deep ocean does not immediately spring to mind when wilderness is discussed. The picture is more often of deserts, the tundra, and the polar ice caps. However, this environment fits perfectly the definition of a wilderness used by the US, “an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain” (US Congress, 1964). As A. F. Spilhaus said after the Apollo missions, less is known about it than the moon. The deep ocean is often considered to be that area away from the slope of the continental shelf: the abyssal plain and oceanic ridges and abysses. These lie at varying depths, but all are in the aphotic zone, where no light penetrates, roughly 1km down. This area makes up more than 60% of the earths surface (Kunich, J.C., 2006, p. 9). Alternatively, we could consider the broader definition of the US navy (Department of the Navy, 2006, p. 36), that consider the “deep layer” to be the area below the thermocline, the division between warmer surface waters and the cool, dark ocean below. The depth of the thermocline is generally around 200m. Below it, the ocean is characterised by a nearly constant temperature. Since at this depth light is too dim to support photosynthesis, the ecology of this region has more in common with the abyssal depths below than with the warm, bright waters above. From an economic point of view, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation states “There is no rigorous definition of a deep-water fishery, but in general, they occur in depths of at least 500m” (Food and Agriculture Organisation, 2006)
The extreme nature of this environment has led to it evolving unique ecosystems. Until the mid-1800s it was assumed to be a barren waste, as calculations of the immense pressures at depth led to the belief that no life could exist there. This view has been continually revised, as life has been discovered deeper and deeper. Recently, distinct, specialised ecosystems have been discovered at “whale falls”, the bodies of whales that have sunk to the ocean floor. These are thriving, isolated environments providing an ecological niche for 407 known species, each one lasting over 100 years. It is estimated that there may be 850,000 such locations, on average 12km apart.
Much interest has also been generated recently by the ongoing discoveries at the “black smokers”, deep sea vents that gush hot, chemical-rich water. Much of this interest derives from the way in which these vents overturn the conception that life in the deep ocean is completely dependent on the surface waters in which light is used as energy for photosynthesis. The discovery of extremophile bacteria feeding on the sulphur-rich water, and supporting a complex food chain, has spurred scientific interest in both the origins of life on earth and the possibility of it in similar environments on other planets. Similarly, “cold seeps” produce chemical rich water, but at the same temperature as the surrounding ocean. These support their own wealth of species. (Lawton G., 2005).
It is commonly conceived that coral only exists in warm, shallow waters: however, certain species can survive to 3000m (Squires D.F., 1959). It was believed that they did not form massive reefs, unlike their tropical counterparts. In 2003 the full extent of reefs off the coast of Ireland was determined, some of which are hundreds of metres in length and tens of metres high, 1km below the surface (Pickrell J., 2005).
These specialised environments have served to spur interest in the deep ocean, through their unique and often bizarre appearance. The angler fish, with its bioluminescent lure, is a well known extreme example. However, the perception that all life in the deep ocean is freakish and inedible is wrong, unfortunately from a biodiversity point of view. Certain commonly eaten fish, such as plaice, flounder and sole, live in this environment. The commercial bottom fishing industry has been responsible for a dramatic decline in the population of these species, such that it is estimated that world stocks in 2003 are only 10% of pre-industrial levels (Myers R.A and Worm B., 2003).
This decline is the most pressing example of the impact of man upon the deep ocean.
It is also a contentious issue. On a scientific level, there is no doubt that over fishing is an extremely serious problem, with many deep-sea fish considered endangered (Devine J.A. et al, 2006). Nonetheless, progress has been limited in preventing the continued over-exploitation of this ecosystem. Naively, this does not make sense, as fisheries are a valuable resource, the loss of which would be damaging both economically and socially to many countries. The difficulty lies in the implementation of controls. Politically, it is difficult to restrict people’s earnings, particularly as fishing communities are often poor, isolated and without alternative economic activity. This is compounded by cultural factors focussing fishermen on particular species. For example the Japanese consumption of tuna exceeded 1 million tons in 1996 (FAO, 1996), far exceeding other fish. Similarly, cod is a preferred fish in the United Kingdom, resulting in North Sea stocks being less than a third their recommended minimum. While its habitat is the upper ocean, it is often found deeper, and pressures on stocks may be leading fishermen to look for it in deeper ocean. This has the unintended effect of depleting stocks of other, unwanted fish, caught as “bycatch”.
The economic damage that can result from overfishing is exemplified by the collapse of Newfoundland cod stocks in 1992, leading to a total ban on cod fishing by the Canadian government. This in turn led to the collapse of the 500 year old cod fishing industry, a primary source of income for the region (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005).
As stocks of popular fish have fallen, fishermen have moved to exploit new species. A case that illustrates the unique difficulties involved in utilising resources in a wilderness area like the deep ocean is that of the Orange Roughy. In New Zealand, this deep sea fish was first commercially exploited in the late 1970s. In 1978 the New Zealand government declared a 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Until this time there had been little New Zealand deepwater fishing. New Zealand’s inshore fisheries were under stress and the government encouraged New Zealanders to “think big” and expand into the deepwater. After the declaration of the EEZ, initially most deepwater fishing was done under government-to-government licensing but this was rapidly replaced by foreign vessels on charter to New Zealand companies. Often the arrangement was not much more than a tolling arrangement with the fee going to the company rather than to the government. These were initially described as “joint ventures” but became charter arrangements. In 1983 a quota management system was introduced by the New Zealand government for the EEZ, a system that resulted in the removal of certain legal sustainability constraints. The expectation was that the New Zealand government would buy and sell quota to regulate the size of the catch. Unfortunately, the scientific data required to estimate sustainability was incomplete and not correctly applied.
This dramatic decline can be attributed directly to an effect of the deep water environment. The cold temperatures and restricted food supply of the deep ocean mean that many creatures there have a very low metabolism. The Orange Roughy is an extreme example of this trend, as it reaches maturity only at 20-30 years of age, and may live to 150 years. This slow maturation and a low fecundity mean that it is exceptionally vulnerable to overfishing, something not realised by the New Zealand government in their implementation of the EEZ (Wallace C., Weeber B., 2003).
Fisheries are often cited as an example of the “tragedy of the commons”, an idea summed up by the Greek philosopher Aristotle as “that which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it.” (Jowett B., 1885) The attempt by New Zealand government to allow exploitation of their deep sea resources conceived of those resources as being of shared ownership through the quota system. Naively this would seem enough to prevent overexploitation of the resource, and the resulting destruction of the environment. Unfortunately, the pressure on the fisheries managers, particularly through the subcontracting of fishing, and a lack of balanced scientific evaluation of the impact of the exploitation, meant that in this case the quota system was highly ineffective. The deep sea species proved far more vulnerable than had been assumed, rendering the idea of large-scale sustainable fishing unworkable (Wallace C., Weeber B., 2003).
This problem was exacerbated by the method used to fish the deep ocean, bottom trawling. In this method, large weights and rollers bring nets to the ocean floor; these are then dragged along, sweeping clean the area being fished. This is an ecological catastrophe for the area, particularly in view of the slow metabolism of most deep sea organisms. This method of fishing is not confined to the somewhat niche food of Orange Roughy: common food fishes such as skate, plaice and scampi are all harvested in this way. Recent analysis suggests that this form of fishing is not economically viable without government subsidy; it was calculated that without fuel subsidies of $150 million, the industry would operate at $50 million loss (Brahic C., 2007). That such an ecologically catastrophic method of using the deep ocean should only be sustainable through government subsidy illustrates the problems that exist in the exploitation of the deep ocean. As a common shared resource of the nation, the economic impetus is to generate the maximum income. The best outcome for the nation is to have a sustainable catch; unfortunately the mechanisation of the fishing industry has led to unsustainable catches. This problem originates in the development of “factory ships” and their wide deployment, allowing fishermen to remain at sea for much more extended periods. This led to overfishing, and a fall in catches. Here the socioeconomic difficulty arises. In the interest of sustaining the fishery, exploitation must be dramatically cut to enable stocks to recover; however, such an action necessarily involves economic hardship for all those employed in the expanded fishing industry. As these areas frequently have little alternative employment opportunities, governments are understandably unwilling to place large numbers of people out of work. This means that generally the strictness of quotas are diluted, giving the stocks limited opportunity to recover.
The pressure on fish stocks in the upper ocean has led to a move towards bottom trawling and the associated ecological destruction. As was cited above, the economic viability of this method is in doubt and its sustainability even more dubious. Nonetheless, as the market drives prices higher and governments are unwilling to add to economic pressures in fishing regions it seems likely that the practice will continue.
Fishing is not, however, the only economic activity derived from the deep ocean. Much more significant in terms of the global economy is the modern development of offshore oil drilling. While originally this was only undertaken in shallow waters, it is now carried out in depths of up to 2,500 metres (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, 2006). This triumph of technology has been achieved through a rapid development of innovative new engineering and scientific solutions, and provides a substantial and growing volume of the world’s oil and gas. Throughout the development of this technology, concern has been expressed about its environmental impact. The concerns largely centre on the discharge of wastes, including drilling fluids, drill cuttings and “produced formation water”. Drilling fluids may contain mixtures of hydrocarbons, dangerous to marine life and prone to build up in an ecosystem. Drill cuttings are the ground rock produced by the drilling and mud used to lubricate the drill head; these sediments may cause a plume that may disrupt marine life, as well as containing heavy metals. Finally, produced formation water is water found with the extracted oil. This may be contaminated with many organic compounds, many of them carcinogenic, such as benzene (Sierra Club, 2006).
The industry maintains that it operates according to strict regulatory standards, and that its self-regulation Code of Practice exceeds these. It is certainly true that the vast majority of pollution of the deep sea environment is produced when a well is being drilled, and that efforts are made to control deep sea pollution during operation. (UNEP, 2001)
Assessment of the environmental impact of drilling waste is ongoing, but the consensus appears to be that while it can have major toxic effects on deep marine life, the severity of the effect is strongly dependent on the local conditions. Existing offshore drilling waste treatment guidelines tend to be generic and only consider the properties of the discharge from a platform. Some discharge conditions may be acceptable at one location but not at another (Milligan et al, 2003).
It is informative to compare these two industries exploiting resources of the deep ocean. Fishing is a historic industry supporting coastal communities around the world. The advent of industrialised fishing resulted rapidly in over-exploitation of fish stocks both in shallow and Deep Ocean. The difficulty in controlling the economic and environmental effects of this phenomenon arises from competition between nations and fisheries to maximise exploitation of what is essentially a shared resource, coupled with a difficulty in controlling a rapid expansion of production in a traditional, historic industry. In contrast, offshore oil drilling is a relatively modern phenomenon, carried out by large multinationals. Mineral rights have been historically better defined than fisheries rights, and the development of deep offshore drilling has formalised much of the previously disputed or loosely defined “territorial waters”. Since environmental disruption from offshore drilling has been accused of detrimental effects on fish stocks, an industry already under immense pressure from depletion of its resource has watched closely for any further damage caused by this activity. As these large multinational companies are usually operating in partnership with the national government, if they are not actually a nationalised company, there is significant contractual control over their activities. Since governments have no interest in further damaging the already failing fishing industry, environmental campaigns have been taken seriously. Public concerns about possible contamination of the deep marine food chain by oil drilling have led to significant research on the problem and regulation by governments. The high profitability of oil extraction seems unlikely to diminish, and under these circumstances companies have significant interest in minimising negative perceptions of themselves due to perceived environmental damage. This can be contrasted with the fishing industry, which appears to be in severe danger of overexploiting its resource due to an inability to reduce production significantly enough to allow stocks to recover.