Review of Greenpeace Conference - 23 June 1997

Introduction

To mark the 5-year review of Earth Summit held in New York, Greenpeace held a one day conference on the ecology and exploitation of the Atlantic Frontier. Both the oil and fishing industries have set out to exploit the deepwaters off the west of the British Isles, in an area which scientists have described as possessing Europe's richest biodiversity and which has been compared with that of a tropical rainforest.

Greenpeace brought together scientists and NGOs concerned with various elements of the biodiversity in the area, ie cetaceans, fish, corals, other benthic life, birds. The aim of the conference was to provide an opportunity for a wider debate on the oil development of the Atlantic Frontier than the British government had provided prior to licensing the area.

Greenpeace released a new report on the gold rush for 'ancient deepwater' fish in the Atlantic Frontier at the conference (1).

Attended by Britain's leading deepwater scientists, environmental groups, representatives of the major oil companies with licenses in the area, fishing industry, politicians, students and members of the public, the conference provided a unique opportunity for delegates to discuss the future of the Atlantic Frontier.

Report of the Meeting

Dr John Gordon of the Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS), showed how the deep sea environment is not uniform, as some people once thought. He described important features such as the Wyville-Thompson Ridge where the water temperatures are very different on either side. Little is known about the biology of the various deepwater fish species and sampling that has been done is very biased to the gears used. Trawls for instance have only been able to be carried out in suitable areas..

Dr John Lambshead, of the Natural History Museum, illustrated how distinct benthic species of nematodes and polychaetes can be in the North Atlantic, with an impressive collector's curve suggesting the diversity of species is equivalent to that of a rainforest. He highlighted the common theme of the morning presentations: that little is known about what species are in the deep ocean, their range or the processes that control biodiversity and therefore there really can be no proper monitoring or certainty about how to conserve the biodiversity. An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), would first have to identify and name all the species that are present in each area, which vary from one small area to another, before it would be possible to begin to assess any potential impact from oil development in the area.

Mark Tasker of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), highlighted the vast difference in our knowledge about what lives above the water line, such as seabirds, and what mainly lives below the water line, such as the blue and humpback whales. As well as describing which species of whales have been detected in the Atlantic Frontier region, he played whale conversations that had been recorded during recent investigations. These recordings brought to life what Chris Clark of Cornell University recently described as "like going into the woods on a spring morning and hearing all the birdsong."

A common theme throughout the morning session was that the deeper and smaller the species, the greater the inadequacy of what is known about them. Scientists regularly have to use remote grabs or 1cm core samples of the seabed which is effectively a useless tool to give a broader picture to what is there. It was concluded later in the day that scientists base their knowledge of the ecology of deepwater macrofauna (about 1/2 cm) on a surveyed area of just two square kilometres, in the meiofauna (1mm or less) on 5 square metres!

Greenpeace had asked the UK Offshore Operators' Association (UKOOA) to provide a speaker to debate with Greenpeace UK Executive Director, Peter Melchett, on whether or not the Atlantic Frontier should be developed. UKOOA failed to find a speaker to represent them, and asked Professor Cliff Johnston, an oil industry scientist, to address the debate. Whilst invites were issued to several representatives from the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), responsible for issuing licenses for oil exploration, all invitations were declined.

The debate was largely dominated by a lively session over the biology and distribution of deepwater coral, Lophelia pertusa., which is found in the same deepwater environment in which the oil companies are exploring.

Dr John Gage of SAMS said: "We know too little about its ecology, we know far too little about its real distribution on the seabed, whether it exists as continuous belts or in a fragmented type of distribution. We are ignorant about its potential sensitivities to all kinds of chemical contaminants". Here again, it is only now, at this late stage, that scientists are being asked by the oil industry and government to conduct studies in the Atlantic Frontier about the biology of this slow growing, long-lived deepwater coral.

Dr Alex Rogers of the Marine Biological Association of the UK commented that they had "taken a count of the species that are associated with Lophelia reefs, from just three studies, and ... came up with a figure of over 840 species." He went on to say that "this operation on the Atlantic Frontier is one of the first operations of its type, and oil potentially lies under many of the margins of the continents around the world, and we also have the further threat in the future of manganese crust mining, and manganese nodule mining. So this really is the first of some major exploitation of deep sea habitats, and I think we should bear that in mind."

Professor Cliff Johnston remarked that "if a company [oil] finds what is likely to be Lophelia, then it should take some actions. What are these actions? They should depend on what is known about the risk ... because we certainly would want to know more about it [Lophelia] when we're talking about different drilling practice, different muds, different interpretations of mud dispersion models etcetera from drilling operations."

Many scientists stressed the great diversity and fragility of life in and around the deep ocean. Others argued about the meaning of diversity, and of biodiversity.

The key-note speaker, Dr Sylvia Earle, wasn't able to personally address the conference as her daughter's baby was ten days overdue. The night before the conference she faxed a three page message (2) which was read out by Dr Sian Pullen of the Worldwide Fund for Nature.

Dr Earle wrote: "Biodiversity of the planet, the theme of this meeting - is at risk. Fish and other marine creatures are still regarded mostly as commodities, not as wildlife that serves humankind best by being what they are naturally vital components of our life support system."

She went on to say: "There is a widely held view that the sea is so vast and life so abundant and resilient that we can get away with taking immense quantities of living creatures out of the sea and dumping in immense quantities of what we do not want nearby. Nature has recently been delivering a resounding wake-up call, however. Unless actions are taken soon, we may forever miss the chance to restore many species and systems that are now under unprecedented stress."

Context

Whilst the current rush for oil in the Atlantic Frontier was the culmination of a project initiated as long ago as the early 1970s, scientists expressed concern that they are only now being asked to conduct research to find out more about what is out there. Dr John Gage raised the obvious question: "Why on Earth wasn't this research done then?"

Questions were also raised to what would be the most appropriate vulnerable indicator to use to monitor impacts from oil exploration. Would it be one of the top predators, like deepwater sharks, or some of the smaller inhabitants like nematodes? What we shouldn't lose sight of is the broader impact on this marine environment, and also on the Earth's climate, of exploiting the area for fossil fuels.

The risks of exploiting the Atlantic Frontier for oil could only just begin to be guessed pending further study. Scientists are being asked to conduct environmental assessments whilst the successful bidders in the 17th round explore and drill for oil. In effect they have been left to pick up the crumbs from the table. Perhaps an appropriate analogy of the UK Government's own policy would be asking scientists to study the biodiversity of a rainforest whilst following the logging industry into the forest! Privately, many in the scientific community are clearly unhappy with the environmental monitoring being implemented whilst the oil companies explore for oil.

Whilst the afternoon session was well attended by representatives of the oil industry, remarkably only one spoke from the floor and he spoke not as an oil man but as a "diver" and wanted more structures dumped off the coast of Scotland to improve the diving. The oil industry seemed quite content to leave the debate to the scientists and environmental groups. Why the silence, when they had every opportunity to confront Greenpeace about it's campaign to stop them developing the Atlantic Frontier? Much of the intended positive debate between the oil companies and Greenpeace took place outside the conference auditorium - over the lunch and tea breaks!

1. 'Is deepwater a dead-end?' is also available from Phil Aikman (0171 241 0198) back to text

2. Dr Sylvia Earle's message to Denizens of the Deep back to text