Nitrobacter’s Features and Position in the Ecosystem

There are many different species of marine microbes that exist in the water in massive amounts. Among the Nitrite oxidizing bacteria, there are six main types: Nitrotoga, Nitrospira, Nitrolancetus, Nitrospina, Nitrobacter, and Nitrococcus (Han 2). One of the fascinating species of bacteria is Nitrobacter which plays a crucial role in the nutrition of plants. Since this is a nitrifying bacterium, it serves as a simple way to release nitrogen that comes out of plants. Therefore, this paper aims to analyze the essence of the Nitrobacter, its specific characteristics its position in the ecosystem.

Nitrobacter is the most interesting among the other species because it participates in converting nitrite to nitrates. Nitrification happens due to the receiving of nitrates from ammonia by oxidation, and the process goes with the help of the pair of bacteria, which are Nitrobacter and Nitrosomonas (Han 3). First of all, it is crucial to mention the concept of nitrification and the operations that are included there in order. Since the process is happening in the soil, it is a remarkable biological phenomenon that may also influence the other factors connected with nature. The nitrogen cycle is a significant part of the biological processes, and bacteria that exist in the soil take part in the majority of chemical phases that produce atmospheric nitrogen into the new condition.

Overall, Nitrobacter is an integral part of maintaining the diversity of the microorganism in the soil that is provided by its oxidation activity. It plays a critical role in the plants’ nutrition and, as a nitrifying bacterium, makes it possible for the soil to preserve the auspicious condition and maintain its fertility. Thus, due to those reasons, Nitrobacter is an exceptionally fascinating species of Nitrite oxidizing bacteria.

Work Cited

Han, Shun, et al. “Nitrite-oxidizing bacteria community composition and diversity are influenced by fertilizer regimes, but are independent of the soil aggregate in acidic subtropical red soil.” Frontiers in microbiology vol. 9, 2018, pp. 1-12. Web.

Endangered Species Act for Ecosystem Management

Abstract

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is a hallmark policy aimed at species and habitat conservation through practices of regulation and ecosystem management. Since its passing in 1973, the legislation has made significant strides in preserving endangered species and potentially leading to eventual recovery. The policy remains relevant in the modern day by guiding federal agencies and public projects.

However, there are significant problems and loopholes present, such as lack of efforts in species recovery, abuse of the land conservation approach, and socioeconomic impacts which need to be re-examined. It can be expected that competent reforms to incentives, transparency, and strategies employed by the governing body U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This paper seeks to encompass these aspects through research and provide critical analysis of the policy.

Introduction

Ecosystem management has become a vital process for environmental conservation and restoration in the context of political and socioeconomic realities. This approach focuses on ecological sustainability and resource management which attempts to limit the devastating impact of human society on nature and prevent further consequences for future generations. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is one of hallmark and key legislations passed for ecosystem management in the United States. It provides regulations for federal agencies in all sectors to consider conservation of threatened wildlife. Despite the importance and significant impact of ESA, the policy is inherently flawed and remains criticized by experts who emphasize the need for an overhaul of the legislation.

History and Background

The ESA was passed in 1973 under the legal designation 16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq. Led by Nixon’s administration to meet international requirements and improve very inefficient species preservation laws, the ESA became an iconic policy and program for the conservation of threatened and endangered wildlife and flora. The ESA is implemented and enforced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service.

The ESA is continuously updated to keep track of listings of endangered species. Under this policy, any federal agency and many private institutions need to cooperate with the FWS and NOAA to ensure their actions or projects, including any authorization, funding, or participation do not adversely affect any listed species. This includes aspects such as the destruction, transfer, or “taking” (commonly interpreted as habitat destruction) of endangered species or wildlife (the United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2017).

The ESA has always been a political struggle. In 1978, the legislation had its biggest victory when the court upheld a decision to halt the construction of the tremendous dam in the Tennessee Valley Authority project when small fish were identified as endangered.

This led to the amendment of the law which upheld the preservation of species by conservation of land at practically any cost. However, to prevent large projects from being derailed in the future, Congress also made it significantly more difficult to add new species, which was practically halted into the 1980s by the Reagan administration. In 1982, Congress further amended ESA to confirm that listing decisions are made on scientific data while excluding economic analysis and setting time limits (Whitney, 2018).

While Congress attempted to balance the policy in the 1980s, it led to an incidental take permit system which allowed for any federally permitted activity to take place if the agency could demonstrate that the “taking” of land and habitat would not sufficiently reduce the likelihood of survival for the species. The issues came down to a Supreme Court case Babbitt v. Sweet Home in 1995 which focused on the habitat of Northern spotted owl infringing on the business of loggers. Corporate interests argued that harm to the forest was not direct harm to the owl, thus the ESA was exceeding its authority here.

Meanwhile, environmentalists presented research demonstrating that the owl’s survival was dependent on the broad ecosystem which was destroyed by logging activity. The Supreme Court ruled against the loggers, presenting an opinion that the government could not protect the species without protecting the land (Whitney, 2018). These principles continue guiding the ESA to date, especially the designation of critical habitats, which faced severe criticism. However, in the context of ecosystem management, removing species from their natural habitats and separating the wholeness of ecosystems could be both disingenuous and consequential.

Current State of the Endangered Species Act

The ESA continues to function and serve a critical role in ecosystem management in the modern day. The primary objective of an ecosystem-based approach to the management of natural resources is to enhance biological diversity, which is done by recognizing the value and protecting a wide variety of species, communities, and habitats. A program focus on the ecosystem is most effective when individual species are not in such an adverse state that targeted measures are needed instead of comprehensive support. In conservation planning for endangered species, the ecosystem management perspective offered by the ESA offers vital advantages.

First, the needs of species are viewed in the context of surrounding land use rather than limited occupational habitats. A distributed habitat patch strategy rather than general land use can negatively influence the welfare of the species. Thus, resource managers can better evaluate and identify opportunities and limitations to species recovery (Casazza et al., 2016).

The ESA offers or enables opportunities for improvement in comprehensive ecosystem management. This includes using modern technology and analysis for surveying and identifying areas with high biological variety and evaluating resource status. Furthermore, a variety of management strategies are available, such as reconstruction and rehabilitation of ecosystems which has seen great success. Reversal of human impact on land can contribute to the return of ecosystem functioning, species recovery, and other natural and anthropogenic environmental changes. The use of mixed and cooperative management is also practiced under the ESA which seeks to combine human and wildlife co-existence while involving stakeholders interested in conservation (Beaumont, Mongruel, & Hooper, 2017).

The ESA is the beginning, in terms of policy, for natural community preservation, but the issues that come into play are not science-based, but rather socioeconomic, which needs to be addressed as it negatively influences effective ecosystem management. To effectively conserve natural habitats and for the ESA policy to survive, cooperation and innovative procedures must be implemented into the ecosystem management process.

Problems with the Current Approach

While the ESA became iconic for environmental and species preservation, the policy is considered flawed and outdated, with experts calling for a reexamination of the issue. Pundits view it as a mixed success in many areas, although a 40-year period is a short amount of time to confidently analyze the impact on biological life. For example, the ESA is vital to preventing the extinction of endangered species, universally praised for the progress it has made, but, at the same time, it has done very little to promote the recovery and repopulation of this species, leaving them in the endangered category.

A large aspect of this is the strategy which ties species recovery to habitat preservation, essentially setting aside untouched land with the ideology that the species will repopulate on their own. This approach has been critiqued as the process is much more complicated and it is difficult for species to repopulate after losing large portions of their habitat or being moved to a different location (Kettmann, 2013). Various aspects such as exotic species or natural selection in combination with complex ecosystems simply lead to the continuing decline of populations rather than growth that is expected.

The ecosystem management approach which focuses on the preservation of species through land conservation has its problems from a socioeconomic perspective as well. It is estimated that more than 75% of endangered species reside on private land, creating difficulties with conservation efforts (Gebelhoff, 2017). Private landowners are likely to cooperate with conservation efforts fearing restrictions on what can be done on their property.

For example, the presence of an endangered species such as a red-cockaded woodpecker can severely devalue a property. In turn, owners then destroy habitats purposefully in fear, in a practice known as “shoot, shovel, and shut up” (Gebelhoff, 2017, para. 4). Therefore, this is inherently counterproductive to conservation efforts and requires reform in policy regarding incentive structure, involving stakeholders such as private landowners as a critical resource.

Analysis of the Current State

To determine whether the ESA has been effective on a larger scale, the Center for Biological Diversity, a non-profit environmental group, compared data available on species preservation and recovery in accordance with plans established by the federal government. Approximately 110 species were observed based in all 50 states and major taxonomic groups. It was found that the ESA actually met its federal recovery goals at the 90% success rate, with the majority also meeting their time goal or exceeding it by only a couple of years.

Much criticism of that aspect of the policy can be addressed by arguing that approximately 80% of species listed on the endangered list have not yet met their timeline of recovery yet. This means they were included much later after the ESA was enacted and considering that recovery plans can range from 25 to 46 years, the species are only at the beginning of the biological process. As of today, 82 percent of species are on track to meet the established goals (Scheer & Moss, n.d.).

The recent Trump administration has been considered a threat to the ESA. Some policies and amendments proposed are contemplating reducing protections in favor of economic factors, thus clearing the path for a faster approval process of energy projects which usually disrupt habitats of these endangered species. These policy changes are based on the critique that the ESA attempts to regulate land use rather than focus on species preservation, arguing that the legislation is not meant to target property protection.

Nevertheless, scientists argue that this approach would roll back decades of work and subject future protections to endless economic cost-benefit analysis and commodification which inherently caused the crisis. Furthermore, in 1975, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife clarified an aspect of the regulation to include “environmental modification or degradation” which can harm species (Whitney, 2018, para. 5).

In reference to the conservation at any cost approach which was discussed earlier, the lack of economic analysis is also consequential to the current state and future of the ESA policy. Although there have not been such large rulings since the Tennessee Valley Authority, whatever the cost approach does not encourage fiscal responsibility. Unquantifiable costs are troublesome from a political and bureaucratic perspective, with billions of dollars in expenses over decades of operations.

This is further exacerbated by agency expenditures and recovery costs which are poorly tracked. Therefore, the inconsistent economic analysis, combined with the lack of baseline costs or necessary record keeping and assessments, suggests the severely negative economic impact. It creates concern for the sustainability of the policy politically and economically, considering that ecological impacts and species restoration are limited currently (Gordon, 2018). Instead of a radical approach, which halts any project at even a discovery of a single specimen of an endangered species in an area, there needs to be a more thoughtful, analytical, and standardized approach to follow economic analysis for critical habitat designations.

Recommendations and Conclusion

The ESA can be improved in various ways through both policy and programs promoting local participation. While setting aside habitats may benefit some species, others need to remain in their original natural environments. Programs such as encouraging large landowners to participate in restoration, offering artificial habitats, and such can be beneficial. Furthermore, the process of outlining the critical habitat should become more transparent, as it is often debated on the methods of how the habitat perimeter is drawn and whether it is aimed at just survival or actual recovery of the species (Kettmann, 2013).

Greater cooperation among states and the federal government along with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is the main overseer of the ESA, can greatly contribute to practical solutions. Finally, it is necessary to improve the flexibility of the ESA policy which needs to enhance adaptive management aspects without violating the procedure. For example, there are methods to declare a population as experimental to try a new methodology at recovery, something that should be allowed without consistent blocking from the federal court as long as it does not exterminate the species completely and is strongly regulated (Kettman, 2013). With proper safeguards in place, new ecosystem management strategies can be learned, even at the cost of errors, to improve species recovery in the future.

The ESA is a landmark legislation guiding habitat preservation, protecting endangered species, and aspects of ecosystem management and governance. Despite being over 40 years old, the policy continues to remain successful in species protection under the guidance of U.S. FWS and the NMFS and influence other ecologically beneficial legislations such as the ban on DDT. However, the analysis in this report has demonstrated that there are improvements which can be made to the ESA, both at the local and systematic levels.

It is important to consistently amend and modernize the policy as to meet the rising challenges of the modern day and build on the knowledge of existing flaws in ecosystem management that the current law holds. Nevertheless, the ecosystem level of planning and management which is offered by the ESA provides numerous opportunities to address the conservation needs and species protection that the legislation is meant to target.

References

Beaumont, N. J., Mongruel, R., & Hooper, T. (2017). Practical application of the Ecosystem Service Approach (ESA): Lessons learned and recommendations for the future. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 13(3), 68-78. Web.

Casazza, M. L., Overton, C. T., Bui, T. D., Hull, J. M., Albertson, J. D., Bloom, V. K., … Takekawa, J. (2016). Endangered species management and ecosystem restoration: Finding the common ground. Ecology and Society, 21(1), 1-15. Web.

Gebelhoff, R. (2017). . The Washington Post. Web.

Gordon, R. (2018). . Web.

Kettmann, M. (2013). . Smithsonian Magazine. Web.

Scheer, R., & Moss, D. (n.d.). Scientific American. Web.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2017). . Web.

Whitney, K. (2018). . The Washington Post. Web.

Saudi Arabia and International Law on Aquatic Ecosystem

Introduction

There are many convectional, traditional, and customary rules formulated to regulate the utilization of water-related resources of different nations. However, majority are dictated by people’s perceptions towards the issue of sovereignty of states. Applicability of such laws in Saudi Arabia, therefore, means that acts amounting to aquatic pollution would entail illegal acts if they entangle the erosion of territorial integrity of Saudi Arabia. This perception widely holds in the “case of shared freshwater resources where the focus of the equitable use principle is on the balancing of different use interests in the resource and not on the protection of ecological interests” (Brunnée & Toope, 1994, p.45). Nevertheless, in the recent past, numerous developing regimes of aquatic ecosystem international law stand out as departing and extending far beyond the obligations adhered to by traditional approaches.

The modern focus of conservation and protection of aquatic ecosystems in Saudi Arabia predominantly rests on the need for creation of laws that foster the use of international watercourses in a manner that is not only equitable but also reasonable. According to Brunnée and Toope (1994), such an approach entails the “prevention of significant transboundary harm by including more ‘purely’ environmental obligations, such as provisions that require the adoption of a more ecosystem-oriented approach to such protection” (p.49). The ecosystem approach is the heart of the aquatic ecosystem international law formulations binding Saudi Arabia. Its roots are anchored in the United States scientific literature of 1930’s and 40’s and implies looking at the aquatic ecosystem as a single unit, as opposed to a set of interconnected components. As Ehrlich et al (1987) informs, “An ecosystem is the functional unit that includes both biotic (living) and abiotic (non-living) elements” (p.97). EGEL (The Experts Group on Environmental Law), on the other hand, claims that aquatic ecosystem embraces “a system of plants, animals and micro-organisms together with the non-living components of the environment” (Brunnée & Toope, 1994, p.51). For the purposes of discussions in this paper, aquatic ecosystem will be used to mean both fresh and salty water’s living organisms (biotic) and non living organisms (abiotic) that supports the life of the biotic component.

Akin to the setting of the international laws on aquatic life protection and conservation to which Saudi Arabia subscribes is the need to regulate non-navigational human activities. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to identify aquatic ecosystems, which are most vulnerable to deterioration and destruction by human activities. This helps people to apply the international law provisions explicitly on specific cases in an endeavor to make it more effective in monitoring of undue human activities. Nevertheless, this presents a challenge particularly by considering Schwarte and Siegele (2008) insight that “at present, there is no global legal framework, which defines international responsibilities and mechanisms in the identification, creation and protection of Marine Protected Areas beyond national jurisdiction” (p.5). This paper opens a broad space for the interpretation of Saudi Arabian’s obligations and rights as stipulated in the international law that set guidelines and regulations for human interactions with the aquatic ecosystem. In the development of the debate, the paper recognizes that negative interference of the aquatic ecosystem in Saudi Arabia has negative impacts on the dry land. Hence, the conservation and protection of the aquatic biodiversity, as expressed by the international legal policy instruments, is not only necessary for consideration in the international arena, but also amounts to treaties to which Saudi Arabia and the international community need to adhere. In an attempt to shed light on this concern, the paper provides a substantial and comprehensive treatment of regional treaties amounting to international laws on aquatic ecosystems binding Saudi Arabia.

Background

Why enact Saudi Arabia’s aquatic ecosystem conservation and protection strategies in accordance to international law?

Based on estimations, oceans cover about 70 % of the total surface of the earth. Schwarte and Siegele (2008) approximate that this surface has “an average depth of almost 4,000 meters” and further asserts, “It is estimated that more than 90 % of the planet’s living biomass is found there” (p.4). In this line of view, it is also plausible to note that the aquatic ecosystem manages large amounts of pollutants generated both within it and in the dry land. Additionally, apart from supporting apparently almost all life on earth, it buffers and regulates both global temperature and weather. It is also claimed by scientists that aquatic environments such as deep sea beds remains unexploited and holds high potentials for generation of knowledge that may go far in the discovery of medicinal interventions of incurable diseases that have threatened existence of people. Failure to conserve and protect Saudi Arabian’s aquatic ecosystem would thus deprive the state all this benefits.

From a different dimension, Saudi Arabian’s marine life remains highly threatened by wastes disposed by people especially plastic debris. This threat applies also to other nations globally. Schwarte and Siegele (2008) support its existence when they contend that “Plastic and synthetic materials are the most common types of marine debris and many animals have been injured or have died after being entangled in or ingesting these materials” (p.4).These wastes threaten health, productivity biodiversity and self purification of the aquatic environment of Saudi Arabian waters. Other activities such uncontrolled fishing and shipping, also leads to compounded damage to the aquatic life. This amplifies the fear that if Saudi Arabia does not take plausible interventions through embracing appropriate international laws to regulate these human activities, some aquatic species may get lost long before they have been discovered. International laws on aquatic ecosystem recognize the need to regulate shipping activities. Likely dangers posed by shipping to aquatic life ranges from deliberate or accidental oil spillages, noise, discharge of operational wastes of the sea vessels, ballast water, release of unti-fouling paints to chemical residues among other threats. Other activities such as military operations, seismic studies, and exploitation of gases and oils are inherent causes of hearing loss, disruption of mating activities, communication, migration patterns and feeding of whales and dolphins among other ocean biotic species. Laying deep-water cables causes disruptions of the aquatic ecosystem in general. Saudi Arabia has thus found it significant to adopt international laws on aquatic life conservation and protection. Such laws capture various mechanisms and methodologies of regulating aquatic human activities so that they amount to milder effects on aquatic ecosystem.

Literature Review

Public international law on aquatic life protection and conservation binding Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia subscribes to public international laws. These laws prescribe principles and rules that regulate the various relationships existing between states and other organs that are subject to application of international law. Such organs include European communities without negating the United Nations. Ehrlich et al (1987) informs that international public law is “primarily created through states and covers almost all areas of inter-state activities such as trade, diplomacy, postal services, transboundary emissions, and the use of outer space and war” (p.103). Brunnée and Toope (1994) posit, “Public international law governs issues relating to the global environment, control and jurisdiction over territory, human rights and international crime” (p.42). Aquatic environment is perhaps one of the inter-States interconnected environments whose use is subject to international law application. It is critical to note that despite the fact that the international public laws serve the interests of individuals and various interests groups, it primarily confers varying obligations coupled with rights to States only in situations where it is called for. This implies that it is only on limited occasions that Saudi Arabia citizens can base their claims for their rights directly from the international law stipulations.

International law rests on customary law and international treaties. “Treaties are agreements between states and only bind the participating parties” (Schwarte & Siegele, 2008, p.8). Discussing international law as it applies to Saudi Arabia’s aquatic ecosystem is consequently merely an introspection of the related customary law and the proceeds of various international treaties. Essential also to note is that, in the discussion of the international treaties, the terms protocols, covenants, pacts and convections are synonymous. The United Nations charter is perhaps one of the most vastly known international convection, which is more often than not termed as “the constitution of the international community”. Other than this protocol, Schwarte and Siegele (2008) shed light that “there is no hierarchy between different international treaties and therefore conflicts amongst different treaty regimes may be addressed in the treaties themselves but can be subject to often contentious questions of application and interpretation” (p.10). Stemming from this treaties are the regulatory regimes, which directly monitor the compliance of the actions of the signatory member States to the stipulated regulations by the international codes of conducts in relation to their aquatic ecosystem activities.

Saudi Arabia subscribes to Convection’s law and customary law that applies to conservation and protection of aquatic ecosystem deployed in the establishment of the international laws. These two laws are in fact complementary in many aspects. Convections depend on codifications laid out in the customary law. The practices of the nations, including Saudi Arabia, subsequently produce the provisions of the protocols further. In this context, the actions of various states lead to emergence of more rules within the sphere of the customary law. However, as Brunnée and Toope (1994) reckon, “What constitutes currently applicable international law is however often a question of interpretation dependent on political factors operating within the sphere of international relations” (p.47). In addition to provisions of treaties, academic investigations, States’ behaviors, precedence’s of international courts and direct evidences forms persuasive sources and frameworks for international customs adopted by Saudi Arabia.

Application of International law in Saudi Arabia’s aquatic ecosystems conservation and protection

Saudi Arabia recognizes the concerns of the international law on aquatic conservation and protection in her formulation of aquatic ecosystem conservation and protection laws. The international law on aquatic ecosystems channels its efforts to curtailing the human activities that pose threats to the marine organisms both living and non-living. Important treaties and international laws that govern conservation of aquatic environments includes marine mammal protection act (1972) enacted in the US, treaty on fishing and conservation of living resources in the high seas (1966) and the 1997 convection among others. Now, the rest of the paper highlights these treaties and their jurisdictions showing how they relate to the conservation and preservation of aquatic life. In this endeavor, the concept of what is termed as high seas in the international law is essential to scrutinize before proceeding to the global international protocols applicable in Saudi Arabia.

High seas

The study of the implication of the concept of high seas began as early as the seventieth century. Brunné and Toope posit that “by the first half of the 19th century the notion of the high seas as an area exempt from claims to national sovereignty by any State had, with some exceptions, become generally accepted” (1994, p.43). States had no legal obligation under international provisions to intercept other States’ high sea operations in as much as they entailed lawful activities. However, in the modern aquatic international law provisions, lawful activities on the high seas are widely dictated by convections of the United Nations pertaining to high seas (UNCLOS). This convention, under international law on aquatic ecosystems conservation and preservation, is the constitution that provides guidelines for use of world’s oceans. The guidelines embraces navigational rights, scientific research of marine environments, technology transfers, commercial activities such as fishing, gases and oils mining, environmental controls and settlement of disputes likely to arise because of regulation of these activities. In the words of Schwart and Siegele (2008, p.11), the “Convention also sets out the international consensus on the scope and regime for different jurisdictional maritime zones” (p.9). Marine time zones jurisdictions stipulates that coastal states have only legal capacity to practice their sovereign rights to only belts extending 12 nautical miles from their territories. Vessels belonging to foreign states, as a repercussion, have only the rights to get into those belts on innocence “grounds”. On the aspects of utilization of natural resources, scientific research, some economic activities coupled with environmental protection, UNCLOS provides that coastal states have sovereign rights to the extents of 200 nautical miles. Beyond this extent, other states have the right to lay their submarine cables, have freedom of navigation and even over flight. Within the exclusive economic zones, states have the rights to carry out and enforce immigration customs, sanitary and fiscal regulations and laws consistent with that States’ legal provisions.

Saudi Arabia amongst other nations has her own laws that regulate activities of her vessel sailing in aquatic environments. However, the international law sets the jurisdiction applicable to vessels sailing in the high seas. According to the United Nations convections, as confirmed by (Schwart & Siegele, 2008, p.10), “Ships that sail in the high seas remain under the jurisdiction of the State that they fly its flag”. In the interest of regulation of overfishing, the international law on aquatic preservation and conservation as provided for by UNCLOS demand that high water fishing vessels should acquire authorization permit before engaging in the fishing activities in such waters. It is however apparent that under the United Nations convections, “The principle of Flag State jurisdiction is subject to some exceptions” (Schwart & Siegele, 2008, p.11).for instance, in case of piracy, a nation’s ship and or a plane may take an appropriate action against pirate’s vessels and their crews. On a different dimension, the international law as it pertains to restriction of high seas activities, accords Saudi Arabia the right to stop, arrest, and search and or board high sea vessels subject to international agreements or on the grounds of ad hoc. This application of the international law may perhaps be well exemplified by, illegal fishing interceptions such as the arrest of Spanish fishing vessels by Norwegian boats in 2006.

Global international convections

Under international agreements, there are no specific areas and designations tagged as protected aquatic habitats. Additionally, international law does not establish internationally agreed legal frameworks that address eminent threat acerbated by human activities on aquatic environment to designated regions. The global treaties in existence more often indirectly or directly concern themselves with conservation and protection of aquatic environment in general. The following discussion introspect such treaties applicable in Saudi Arabia.

United Nations’ conventions amounting to international laws on sea binding Saudi Arabia

Under provisions of UNCLOS, the marine environment is subdivided in different zones. The provisions spells outs the various responsibilities and rights of differing states in connection to the laid out zones. UNCLOS also postulates that states have general calls to ensure cute protection of marine environment lying both beyond and within national jurisdictions. The convection goes on to provide that states have noble roles to either jointly or individually take strategic measures vital for reduction, prevention and where necessary total control of pollution of the aquatic ecosystem by any source, water vessels, exploitations of sea resources, dumping of both land based and sea based wastes among others. UNCLOS also requires states to take a collaborative approach in management, protection and conservation of aquatic biotic component. This particularly applies where various nations fish in common grounds. In this context, Schwart and Siegele inform that the united nations treaty provides that “ Conservation measures must be designed on the basis of the best scientific evidence available to maintain populations at levels which can produce the maximum sustainable yield and avoid threats to the species associated with or dependent upon harvested species” (2008, p.13). UNCLOS declares sea beds coupled with their sub-soils that are beyond the stipulated states jurisdictions as heritages common for the entire human race. The global human race, through its States, deserves to conserve and protect such heritages collaboratively. “All resource exploration and exploitation activities in this ‘area’ are to be carried out for the benefit of mankind as a whole taking into particular consideration the interests of developing states” (Ehrlich et al, 1987, p.123). Under the international laws, international seabed authority (ISA), whose mandate Saudi Arabia appreciates, was to serve this purpose.

Agreement on fish stocks

Within the spectra of the international laws that regulate the aquatic ecosystems and binding Saudi Arabia, is the 1982 United Nations fish stocks agreement. This law articulates “straddling fish stocks” coupled with “highly migratory fish stocks” management with conservation measures as stipulated in UNCLOS implementation agreement arrived at during the 10th December 1982 convention. In the international law provisions, this law is interpreted consistently with UNCLOS provisions on the manner in which the international community’s needs to interact with aquatic ecosystems. As Koslow (2009) posits, “In areas beyond national jurisdiction fisheries management is to be based on the precautionary approach, i.e. the absence of adequate scientific information must not be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take conservation measures” (p.67). The conservation measures addressed in this law are evident in Saudi Arabia’s aquatic ecosystem conservation and protection strategies. Such measures relates to but not limited to deployment of selective fishing technologies and tool coupled with deployment of management methodologies that are akin to protection of fish species that live within the same ecosystem. Additionally, this law makes provisions and sets conditions that, parties that do not necessarily subscribe or belong to the fisheries agreement must fulfill. It calls such parties to take proactive roles in both conservation and cooperation in protection of vulnerable fish stocks. In this extent, Koslow (2009) reckons that “a State whose vessels fish on the high seas, must also take the necessary measures to ensure that these vessels respect regional conservation regimes” (p.91). The law only permits States to give permits to fishing vessels to which they can only exercise their control. This is necessary since it amounts to a means by which Saudi Arabia can be able to monitor irresponsible conducts extended by the fishing vessels and their crew, which may pose danger to aquatic ecosystem.

International protocols on biodiversity applicable in Saudi Arabia’s laws on conservation and protection of aquatic ecosystems

CBD (convention on biodiversity) is one of the International protocols on biodiversity applicable in Saudi Arabia’s conservation and protection of aquatic ecosystems laws. It serves in facilitating the conservation of the aquatic biodiversity by ensuring the employment of the constituent components of the diversity in a manner that is both sustainable and facilitative of equitable sharing of all the benefits accruing from its utilization. In Saudi Arabia, CBD concerns cuts across all the genetic resources while not negating every aquatic ecosystem species. As Ray and McCormick (2004) posit, the law provides “ that where there is a threat of significant reduction or loss of biological diversity, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to avoid or minimize such a threat” (p.145). Despite the fact that CBD’s are not applicable to areas that are beyond the stipulated zones in the national jurisdictions under the international law per se, the laws hold for States individually in matters of regulation of the human activities, which are a great foe to aquatic biodiversity in the areas such States, are situated. In regions not within the jurisdiction of States, CBD laws hold when applied to activities executed under all the parties’ control. In such contexts, the laws also call for collaborative conservation and protection of aquatic biodiversity by all States to ensure sustainability in the utilization of the biodiversity. Ray and McCormick (2004) add that, “with respect to the marine environment, the CBD is to be implemented consistently with the rights and obligations of States under the law of the sea” (p.151). It is with these concerns that COP (conference of the parties), is vital in the endeavor to implement the concerns of the CBD. The seventh COP laid out the targets critical for development of worldwide network embracing coastal coupled with marine necessary areas of protection before the end of 2012. Under international laws, these critical elements would facilitate enactment of an open-ended ad hoc group.

UNESCO convections

The UNESCO convention of 1972 calls for all states to point out all the sites that are essential for preservation, protection and more importantly for transmission to natural and cultural heritage generations of future across the globe. The WH committee designated global heritage regions, which it deemed of essential value to humanity in terms of their universality. According to McIntyre (2004), such areas included “maritime habitats such as the Great Barrier Reef (Australia) or the Tubbataha Reef Marine Park (Philippines)” (p.6). Though this law binds more than one state, other than just only Saudi Arabia, it only holds for the sites that rest within national demarcations of parties bound by the convection.

The 2001 UNESCO protocols, opposed to WH pacts cover the underwater cultural heritages that lie both outside and within national jurisdictions of States. With regard to Ray and McCormick (2004) “underwater cultural heritage embraces all traces of human existence having a cultural, historical or archaeological character which has been partially or totally under water for at least 100 years” (p.101). In such a provision, ship wreckages situated within Saudi Arabia’s territories becomes part of aquatic abiotic ecosystem vital for conservation and protection since they may attract incredible settlement sites for aquatic biotic component species. UCH pacts provide that “when such objects are found on the sea beds or ocean floors that are beyond areas of national jurisdiction, notifications must go to the Director-General of UNESCO and the Secretary-General of the International Seabed Authority” (McCaffrey, 2001, p.129). Preservation of all cultural aquatic heritages is vital to UCH provisions since they benefit the entire global humanity, not just Saudi Arabia.

The 1997 United Nation’s protocols: their applicability in conservation of Saudi Arabia’s conservation and protection of aquatic ecosystems laws

Saudi Arabia subscribes to the provisions of 1997 protocols of the UN. The 1997 protocols establish legal provisions for non-navigational employment of watercourses belonging to the international community. The pact contains 37 articles, which appear in seven distinct parts, and includes an arbitration annex. As McCaffrey, informs, “Its provenance can be traced to a resolution adopted in 1970 by the UN General Assembly calling upon the ILC to study the law of international watercourses with a view to its progressive development and codification” (2001, p.67). This section dedicates itself to introspection of specific articles that are of global relevance in relation to applicability of 1997 UN convection in the international law of protection and conservation of aquatic ecosystem.

The pacts of the 1997 that address the need for preservation and protection of aquatic ecosystem are available in the articles 20 and 22. As McIntyre (2004) informs, “Article 23 requires that watercourse States take measures to protect and preserve the ‘marine environment’, thereby linking the use and protection of watercourses with protection of the marine environment in a manner consistent with a broad ecosystem approach” (p.6). In particular, article 20 stipulates that all the watercourse States must where necessary either jointly or individually conserve protect and preserve all the international watercourses. As explicitly expressed by the Forty-Ninth Session Report of the International Law Commission, the “international watercourses protection obligation is a specific application of the requirement contained in article 5: watercourse States are to use and develop an international watercourse in a manner that is consistent with adequate protection thereof” (McIntyre, 2004, p.6). Saudi Arabia’s aquatic ecosystem that is necessary for conservation and protection here embraces both non-living and living units that more often operates communally. Under the international law on aquatic ecosystems conservation and protection, article (20) comprises a magnificent basis of sustainable developments. ILC contends, “There is ample precedent for the obligation contained in Article 20 in the practice of States and the work of international organizations” (McIntyre, 2004, p.6). The 1997 convention outlined that preservation obligation in legal terms means specifically that ‘”freshwater ecosystems that are in a ‘pristine or unspoilt condition’, must be maintained as much as possible in their natural state” (McIntyre, 2004, p.7). Article 21 of the convention lays the fundamental of interrelationships between watercourses and flora and fauna of aquatic ecosystems. It is however critical to posit that aquatic ecosystem in Saudi Arabia is more often afflicted by human activities executed near or even far away from the watercourses. Obligations of the States set out in the convection are largely detached from subjects of equitable balancing. However, as Birnie and Boyle puts it, article 21 provides “overriding objective of sustainable development, requiring a balancing of economic and environmental objectives in developing States” (2002, p.315). Saudi Arabia is one of the developing countries referred here.

Article 22 of the 1997 convection is concerned with the curtailing of endeavors to introduce new or rather detrimental and unfriendly alien species to the aquatic ecosystem. The article also introduces the concepts of pollution that are negated in the prior convections. The United Nations convections utilized before omitted inclusions of biological alterations in the legal decision of what amounts to pollutants. Precisely, the article stipulates that “Watercourse States shall take all measures necessary to prevent the introduction of species, alien or new, into an international watercourse which may have effects that are detrimental to the ecosystem of the watercourse resulting to significant harm to other watercourse States” (McIntyre, 2004, p.10). Article 22 holds valid for the regulations that seek to reduce both accidental and deliberate introduction of detrimental alien components into aquatic ecosystem under international law provisions on aquatic ecosystem protection and conservation.

Central to the 1997 United Nations’ protocols and congruent with Saudi Arabia’s endeavors to protect and conserve her aquatic ecosystems are the international rules and regulations. They guide the protection and conservation of fresh water aquatic ecosystem. As claimed by McCaffrey (2001), “the hydrologic scope of the Convention is determined by its definition of the term “international watercourse” (p.53). In nonprofessional interpretation, this implies that the term means international waters. However, according to the provisions of the convection, the meaning is much wider. The 1997 convection makes it clear that fresh watercourses incorporate the aquifer waters (underground water) that in most of the situations than not interact with global waters found on the surface of the earth. The implication of it is that, if Saudi Arabia pollutes her surface water, it would amount to pollution of the aquifer waters and vice versa. Under the articles2, a watercourse is “a system of surface waters and ground waters constituting by virtue of their physical relationship a unitary whole…” (McCaffrey, 2001, p.31). The implication of this definition in relation to Saudi Arabia’s aquatic ecosystem conservation and protection measures is that people need to pay attention to the existing relationships between all components of the vast system of aquifer waters and surface waters that comprise the international waters. Failure to do this, harm on watercourse executed at one section of aquatic ecosystem would be evident to all sections of the vast system. Arguably, going by this definition, no single Saudi Arabia’s designated area can be termed as more vulnerable to destruction compared to others. Destruction channeled to such an area, if at all it existed, is transmitted even to all other areas that would have otherwise being termed a less vulnerable. Inclusion of aquifer water in the discussions of 1997 convection faced criticisms from some nations. In this end, Birnie and Boyle reckon that “ Despite the hydrologic futility of excluding this essential part of a watercourse system from legal regulation, the inclusion of groundwater was cited by two states as a reason for their abstentions from the vote on the Convention” (p.310). In the call to preserve and conserve all the international watercourses, another essential water source of ground water especially in arid area: confined aquifer water, was nowhere in the protocols. This is perhaps significant since Saudi Arabia is in an arid region.

Confined aquifer water, or fossil water does not interact with the waters found on the surface of the earth. Even though, ILC never found it plausible to include fossil water in its articles, it recommended, “States apply the principles contained in its draft articles to this form of groundwater” (Birnie & Boyle p.310). Several queries rise following this exclusion. One of the most vocal queries is whether fossil transboundary waters are subject to international law on aquatic ecosystem conservation and protection fundamental principles of pollution protection and equitable utilization.

Part II of the 1997 convection houses the general principles and introduces what may be termed under international laws on protection and conservation of aquatic ecosystem as the ‘most vital provisions’. This is evident in article 5. The article carries the principles of reasonable and equitable utilization coupled with collective participation. In legal terms, the article lays the foundation of international laws on watercourses. In the article, this is the principle of utilization of international watercourses in reasonable and equitable manner Vis-a viz other nations sharing it. The guidelines provided in the article stipulate that all nations of the world have legal capacity to enjoy all benefit accruing from utilization of international watercourses. The premises of this fact were laid out in the ‘Gab.íkovo-Nagymaros’ case settled by the international court of justice. According to Birnie and Boyle, the court “confirmed the centrality of this principle when it emphasized the importance of operating the project involved in the case ‘in an equitable and reasonable manner’” (2002, p.291). With respect to the provisions of article 5, reasonable and equitable utilization of aquatic ecosystem resources needs be consistent and compliant with provisions of sufficient protection of all watercourses against harms of all forms of degradation including pollution. However, how could two nations determine whether their use of watercourses is both equitable and reasonable comparatively under the provisions of 1997 convection?

Article 6 gives an amicable answer to the above query. It outlines the non-exhaustive factors for deployment in the determination of reasonability and equitability of use of international watercourses between two nations. However, considering provisions of article 9, the decision is predominantly dependent on close cooperation between two nations in question. Article 9 demands that “riparian states exchange data and information concerning the condition of the watercourse on a regular basis” (McCaffrey, 2001, p.61). In this context, one state cannot thus determine its equitability and reasonability of its use of international watercourses in absence of data from its riparian nation with which it shares the resource. Inherent to article 6, there is thus the need for riparian states to consider implementation of equitable and reasonable utilization principles through some joint commission, a common court or even any other free and fair third party. In fact, “ there is no other general principle that can take into account adequately the wide spectrum of factors that may come into play with regard to international watercourses throughout the world” (Ray & McCormick, 2004, p.89). The call is for the nations to establish regimes of monitoring and regulation of equitability and reasonability in use of common resources. Article 8 sets forth an obligation that applies generally to all nations that share international watercourses. The obligations are critical “in order to attain optimal utilization and adequate protection of an international watercourse” (Ray & McCormick, 2004, p.89).

Considering the contexts of Saudi Arabia’s protection and conservation of aquatic ecosystems, the most conspicuous controversies in the application and embracement of the 1997 United Nations protocols are available in article 7. From the outright blush through the article, it is comprehensible for States to subscribe to the provision that, they should not cause harm to each other’s common and shared watercourses. When the application of the articles kicks off in the international waters, for instance high seas, the simplistic understanding of the article attracts other considerations. This is critical especially where a nation may differ in decision of change of use of waters by her repatriate nation. As way of example, it is likely that when an upstream nation begins to use international water for both generation of power and agriculture, the downstream nation would dispute this change of use. It would probably claim that the upstream nation has unreasonably utilized the resource in a manner that has interfered with its long established use of the resource downstream (Risper, 2000, p.47). The question raised in such a situation is how to apply article 7 to resolve this problem based on what each nation considers as reasonable. How would they achieve reconciliation of the dispute be achieved?

The above two questions are the subjects of the arguments against the applicability of article 7 of the 1997 United Nations convection particularly when interrelated with the previsions of article 5. The emerging controversy fueled by attempts to interpret the legal implications of the two articles spreads the controversies even to the interpretation of the concept of “no significant harm” in the endeavors to conserve and protect aquatic ecosystem. The concept of “no significant harm is rooted to 1991 ILC first draft in which it was stipulated that “watercourse States shall utilize an international watercourse in such a way as not to cause appreciable harm to other watercourse States” (Brunnée & Toope, 1994, p.44). However, in the adoption of the first draft later in 1994, more flexibility in the application of the concept was incorporated to include aspects of “due diligence” when it comes to use of international waters. More precisely it was stated that “Watercourse States shall exercise due diligence to utilize an international watercourse in such a way as not to cause significant harm” (McIntyre, 2004, p.9). This ideally meant that the expressed legal obligation was not absolute. Additionally, flexibility was enhanced through alteration of the phrase: “no significant harm” to a more lengthy statement: “ a process aimed at avoiding significant harm as far as possible while reaching an equitable result in each concrete case” (McIntyre, 2004, p.9). After 1994 changes, further textual changes happened in 1997 convection.

Unfortunately, many international scholars deem the changes incorporated in article 7 as widely lacking any substance. For example it is argued by people that, the mere deletion of the phrase “due diligence” and replacement of it with the phrase “take all appropriate measures” (McCaffrey, 2001, p.129) is nothing but a mere paraphrase of the deleted phrase. However, the second phrase highly raised questions among many scholars as to whether it consistently contributes to equitable use of resources between States on the basis of obligations of “no harm” or otherwise. This perhaps is not just a dilemma of legal scholars but was also a matter of concern of the 1997 United Nations convection delegates. Some delegates inclined to the school of no harm while others were inclined to the school of equitable utilization. They later argued that “the basic rule was equitable utilization; at most, any harm to another riparian State should merely be one factor to be taken into account in determining whether the harming state’s use was equitable” (McCaffrey, 2001, p.129). Fortunately, the formula reached at the convection had substance for all delegates who subscribed to either school. In this context, it is perhaps plausible to argue that the provisions of chapter 7 are spatial in their stipulations.

Nevertheless, paragraph two of article seven gives an indication that the rule of equitable utilization has precedence in comparison to the doctrine of no harm. McIntyre supports this line of view by claiming that “The very existence of a second paragraph implicitly acknowledging that harm may be caused without engaging the harming State’s responsibility (liability) supports this conclusion” (2004, p.11). Interpreted differently, paragraph 2 of article 7 gives a perception that riparian nations may tolerate some significant harm. This makes the article to have some mitigating clauses. Article 10 establishes the need to solve disputes between states on the manner of use of international watercourses in accordance to provisions of articles 5 and 7. This implies that any conflict between two nations needs a solution. This should be in accordance with not only provisions of no harm doctrine referred in article 7, but also a “reference to the “package” of articles setting forth the principles of both equitable utilization and “no-harm” (McIntyre, 2004, p.11) needs to be consulted.

Article 10 seeks to ensure that navigational utilization of waters do not have preference over non-navigational uses. However, article 10 contains much more information about this regulation. According to McCaffrey (2001) “paragraph 2 provides that a conflict between different kinds of uses of an international watercourse is to be “resolved with reference to articles 5 to 7, and with special regard to the requirements of vital human needs” (p.99). The implication of the phrase “vital human needs” however attract mixed reactions and in fact dominated numerous UN negotiations. ILC maintain that “In determining ‘vital human needs,’ special attention is to be paid to providing sufficient water to sustain human life, including both drinking water and water required for production of food in order to prevent starvation” (McCaffrey, 2001, p.111). Many people also argue that the concept may introduce vacuums that would enable some nations to argue that their use of watercourses is valid on grounds of provision of vital human needs. However, their use of watercourses may emerge as largely contentious as it may hardly incorporate the aspect of vital human needs. However, it worth noting that the concept is largely based on ILC commentaries and hence it may not introduce serious problems in the interpretation and application of international laws on protection and conservation of aquatic ecosystem in Saudi Arabia.

The above discussion relates to general principles in the application of 1997 united nations convection in relation to how international community needs to interrelate when it comes to utilization of international watercourses and international waters resources. Now, it is perhaps important to consider specific provisions in relation to protection and conservation of aquatic ecosystem as provided by the 1997 convection adhered to by Saudi Arabia. These provisions are in part III of the protocols. As McIntyre (2004) reckons , “Part III of the Convention contains a set of procedures to be followed in relation to a new activity in one State that may have a significant adverse effect on other States sharing an international watercourse” (p.11). This part makes it clear that Saudi Arabia and the international community does not contend to the idea that a nation has the freedom to utilize watercourses within its territory in any manner it wants. Most paramount, Part III, stipulates that the nations that considers to alter how they use watercourses within their territory into a way that would pose significant negative impacts to their riparian nations must inform the nations, referred to as the affected nation by the proposed changes. This must be before the implementation of change. The prone nation should then be given a period of not less than six month to table its responses. If the response is against the proposed change, then the international law as stipulated in Part III of the 1997 United Nations pacts, requires that the two parties establish discussions. These discussions aim at “arriving at an equitable resolution of the situation” (McCaffrey, 2001, p.281). As a legal provision, the discussion process is required to consume at least twelve months. In case the concerned nations fail to settle the dispute this way, then part III provides the need for procedures of article 33 of 1997 convection to come into force.

The concerns of Part IV that contains articles 20, 21, 22, 23and 24 have been addressed from pages 17 to 20. However, tantamount to provisions of article 192 of the 1997 convection that spells the rules and regulations in matters of high sea, article 20 fails to set obligations that aquatic ecosystems deserves protection in case the negligence to do so renders a nation sharing a water course harmed as result of use of the same watercourse by its riparian nation. Aquatic ecosystem also embraces areas that are near or border watercourses. Article 20 consequently, “requires that such land areas be maintained in such a way that the watercourses they border are not harmed by, for example, excessive agricultural runoff or other forms of non-point 15 source pollution” (McIntyre, 2004, p.8). Nevertheless, most probably this is actually not an absolute obligation.

Saudi Arabia laws on protection and conservation of aquatic ecosystem are perhaps available in the section dealing with reduction, prevention and pollution control of aquatic ecosystem in the international laws. These concerns are evident in article 21 in part IV of the 1997 united nation protocols. A standard similar to article194 that address issues of high seas comes in handy in the formulation of provisions of article 21. The article stipulates “…that riparian state must “prevent, reduce and control” pollution of international watercourses” (Scovazzi, 2004, p.7). Unlike article 20, provisions of article 21 are qualified obligations. This implies the calling upon of the application of the article whenever “pollution “may cause significant harm to other watercourse States or to their environment” (McCaffrey, 2001, p.253). Pollution that has the capacity to acerbate harm to aquatic ecosystem of the nation where the pollutants originates is consequently to be handled pursuant to the provision s of article 20. Articles 22 establish principles behind introduction of alien substances into aquatic ecosystem. Article 23 stipulates the regulation on land situated fresh watercourses. Article 24 deals essentially with management. Part V and VI contain clauses on emergency and harmful conditions and miscellaneous provisions consecutively.

Extent of UN protocols to measure up to international laws binding Saudi Arabia

From the most basic perspective, Saudi Arabia’s protection and conservation of aquatic ecosystem laws follow precisely the UN pacts, which in turn profile the international customary laws that regulate the application of principles of the preservation and conservation of aquatic ecosystem. These principles include the prevention and control of significant harm, equitable utilization and calls for placing notification of intended measures. The principles are largely also advocated for by ILC commentaries. The principles established in the convections received minimal diplomatic criticisms making it clear that they amount to international law. Nevertheless, it is essential to note that the concepts of no harm and equitable utilization are still contentious. This perhaps could well be explained by referring to Gab.íkovo-Nagymaros case. The judgment of the world court merely depended on the principle of no harm, apart from where general concerns of environmental harm were brought into picture, in making its judgment even though Hungary relied more on it. Alternatively, the court made its judgment based on principle of equitable utilization as may be seen in the phrase “Hungary’s basic right to an equitable and reasonable sharing of the resources of an international watercourse” (McCaffrey, 2001, p.270). Since international court’s precedence form an essential source of international law, the practicality of application of principle of no harm remains questionable as to whether it is a part of international law principles on aquatic ecosystem protection and conservation.

The principles stipulated in the UN convection and adopted by Saudi Arabia merge with the customary law principles that regulate the relationships of nations in matters of sharing fresh water resources. International customary laws provide that “states must protect the ecosystems of international watercourses” (McCaffrey, 2001, p.312). This is largely consistent with provisions of articles 20 and 21 of the UN protocols of 1997. Modern international treaties appreciate the need to protect and conserve not only water but also all those dry land areas that either affect or have a link with health conditions of aquatic ecosystems. As Scovazzi, (2004) reckons, the customary laws appreciates “it is important not only to prevent, reduce, and control the pollution of international watercourses, but also to preserve riparian “buffer zones” so that freshwater species and the water itself is not degraded by activities on the land” (p.11). Arguably, this is the main context of the UN protocols stipulations embraced by Saudi Arabia.

Recommendations and conclusion

The modern focus of conservation and protection of aquatic ecosystems rests in the need for creation of laws that fosters making use of international watercourses in a manner that is not only equitable but also reasonable. However, the paper hold that acts entailing aquatic pollution would entail illegal acts if it entangles erosion of territorial integrity of Saudi Arabia’s waters. This means that even if Saudi Arabia is accorded rights to use her watercourses within her territory by the international laws, she needs to use in a manner that does not affect negatively the biotic and abiotic constituents of aquatic ecosystem. The paper argues that the Saudi Arabia laws on protection and conservation of aquatic ecosystems are derived from the UN protocols that more often than not reflect the concerns of international customary law, which in turn serves as a vital source of international law. The research paper has presented the 1997 UN convection in terms of how it relates to conservation of the aquatic ecosystem by regulating human activities within the territories of nations sharing the international watercourses. This discussion has not been done blindly without paying attention to earlier agreements such as 1991 (pacts on water resources: Chile and Argentina) and1995 (pacts on SDC: Shared Watercourse Systems in Southern Africa) convections among others which immensely forms substantial contributions to enactment of Saudi Arabia’s laws on protection and conservation of aquatic ecosystem. In this end, the paper considers 1997 convection stipulated principles as an upgrading of the earlier convections. This means that these agreements formed initial points that facilitated holding the 1997 convection that would later give birth to international pacts on conservation and protection of aquatic ecosystem. The treatment of the principles of conservation of aquatic ecosystem has not been only limited to fresh watercourses but also extended to include oceans and high seas. The paper finds this significant since about 70 % of the total surface of the earth is oceans. Fresh water sources, on the other hand, supplies water to seas and oceans, which again provides home for millions of biotic and abiotic organizations that have both food and cultural heritage significances in Saudi Arabia and other nations. Global agreements for protection of marine environment are critical. This is particularly significant bearing in mind that “the current range of permissible regimes, coupled with issues around compliance, enforcement, and ultimately, State sovereignty issues, render such a system unworkable” (Scovazzi, 2004, p.17). Therefore, it calls for the establishment of a single set of international protocols that addresses utilization of the final destination of all global waters: oceans and seas. The principles stipulated in the UN convections merge with the customary law principles that regulate the relations of nations in matters of sharing fresh water resources. In the end, both marine and fresh water aquatic ecosystems in Saudi Arabia would receive equal treatment. This is, in fact, necessary since conserving and protecting either of these, amounts to conservation and protection of the other.

References

Birnie, P., & Boyle, A. (2002). International Law and the Environment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Brunnée, J., & Toope, S. (1994). Environmental Security and Freshwater: A Case for International Ecosystem Law. Yearbook of International Environmental Law, 41(3), 23-97.

Ehrlich, P., Ehrlich, A., & Holden, J. (1987). Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment – An Ecosystem Approach. Natural Resources Journal, 21(6), 97-129.

Koslow, T. (2009). The Silent Deep: The Discovery, Ecology, and Conservation of the Deep Sea. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

McCaffrey, S. (2001). The Law of International Watercourses: Non-Navigational Uses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McIntyre, O. (2004). The Emergence of an Ecosystem, Approach to the Protection of International Watercourses under International Law. RECIEL, 13(1), 1-14.

Ray, G., & McCormick, J. (2004). Coastal-marine conservation: science and policy. Malden, Ma: Blackwell.

Risper, G. (2000). A Case for International Ecosystem Law. Yearbook of International Environmental Law, 7(4), pp 41-54.

Schwarte, C., & Siegele, L. (2008). Marine protected areas on the high seas: An Introductory Guide to Legal Issues Surrounding the Establishment of Marine Protected Areas on the High Seas. Environmental Law and Development, 9(2), 1-43.

Scovazzi, T. (2004). Marine Protected Areas on the High Seas: Some Legal and Policy Considerations. International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 19(1), 1-17.

Human Impact on Ecosystem in Ancient Times

The fact that humanity threatens the planet’s life by aggressively changing the environment to suit its needs is a relatively recent phenomenon that may seem like an exclusively modern issue. However, numerous studies provide evidence that even before the appearance of intelligent humans on Earth, humans’ distant ancestors may have caused the extinction of entire species of animals and plants. In ancient times, societies were not creators and did not co-evolve in their interaction with nature, but instead were destroyers and harmed the ecosystem.

Several primary types of human impact on the ecosystem in ancient times can be distinguished: the soil cover, animal and plant life, and the geological environment. The first is associated with some construction, compaction, trampling of the upper soil horizon, destruction of its profile, and deflation. At the sites of abandoned ancient settlements, the soil cover has a complex structure and largely depends on the use of the territory during human habitation. Archaeological investigations revealed that it was not the invasion of the Mongols in the XIII century that ended the prosperity of Mesopotamia (Williams, 2020). Still, the prolonged agricultural development destroyed the soil. The greatest threat to agriculture was the salinization of dirt and the practice of extensive farming when the owner moved to another plot, re-establishing the irrigation system. As a result, the salt crust covered more comprehensive and larger areas. Moreover, nomadic pastoralism could contribute to pasture soil degradation, primarily due to the high concentration of certain grazing animals per unit area.

Changes in the vegetation cover (mainly forested areas) of the Earth could be related to construction, industrial, domestic, and agricultural influences. In ancient times, wood was used in large quantities for building dwellings, heating, burning coal, making tar, and creating household goods and tools (Williams, 2020). Massive deforestation and plowing led to radical changes in landscapes. The felling of forests could lead to the swamping of territories and later to the shift in the species composition of trees.

For example, many oak groves on the environment of the European continent were cut down already in the early Middle Ages. It should be noted that as early as in Babylon, in the 18th century B.C., a forest protection law was passed, confirming that the problem of ecology has incredibly ancient roots (Williams, 2020). Correspondingly, the accelerated decline in populations of large mammals began about four million years ago due to the appearance of the first humans on the historical scene. The researchers found that the extinction rate of large carnivores correlated with the growth of the brain volume of ancient man and the change in the amount of vegetation in the region but found no connection either with precipitation or with temperature changes (Williams, 2020). The accelerated disappearance of predators is sufficiently explained by direct competition between these animals and pre-modern humans for food. Primitive humans took freshly caught prey from ancient predators like saber-toothed tigers, condemning them to death by starvation.

It can be concluded that significant anthropogenic influence on species diversity began millions of years ago. Primitive man obtained food by hunting and gathering, damaging the environment. Even then, people were cutting down forests to plow fields, domesticated animals, and mass extermination of predators, and pastoralists were changing the atmosphere for grazing. The pace of metamorphosis was uneven in various parts of the Earth, but it was occurring all over the planet. Despite the relatively small human population, agricultural methods were often extensive, resulting in significant losses to the natural environment. As a result, civilizations faced deforestation, lack of water, and unfavorable living conditions after a while. Traces of ancient changes in the natural landscape can still be noticed. They are direct evidence that pre-modern societies did not use the environment more sustainably than modern ones.

Reference

Williams, J. (2020). Humanity, technology, and nature. Icon, 25(2), 8-28.

The Development at Bakers Bay Club and Their Effect to Maine-Ecosystem

Introduction

Man’s activities on earth have seen destruction of environment in several ways. For example, the approval for construction of a golf course in Bahamas saw the destruction of aquatic environment to a large scale. This approval occurred without proper consultation on the dangers it will pose to the Maine ecosystem.

The government of Bahamas mandated Discover Land Company from California to erect a 400-homesite and 75-villa style rental rooms for tourism resort purposes. Additionally, the company was to develop a 180-slip yachting marina, and an 18-hole championship golf course leading to total destruction of aquatic environment. (Klein, 1999, p. 1, 7).

Among the negative effects from this developments, would be thrice increase in population along the already congested six-mile island. On the other hand, the new yachting marina will consume a lot of space to become the biggest in Bahamas.

In a more terrifying note, and perhaps a threat to Maine ecosystem, the government of Bahamas approved this development to be located close to the shoreline, which consisted of a mangrove system and healthy coral reefs.

Although the Discover Land Company had to use modern infrastructure equipments to cater for this frail ecological system, the destruction outweighed the ecological importance of the ecosystem. (Save Guana Cay Reef, 2009, Para. 1).

Vision of Baker’s Bay Club Development

However, as an act of defense, the Discover Land Company, the developer, outlined various conservation measures aimed at protecting the fragile ecosystem. For example, these developers allocated a piece of land for conserving natural habitats. Additionally, they provided a detailed plan for solid waste processing within the ecosystem.

They also outlined a convincing plan about communal access areas including public beaches and meeting places. Furthermore, the Company entailed a plan to preserve 92 acres of land, which will encompass mangrove ecosystem and another 60-acre land to act as a coastal buffer zone.

In order to avoid pollution into water-catchment areas, the golf course will have wastewater gardens and sewage treatment facilities. Imaginatively, the classy housing plan gave beautiful scenery on how houses will form a beautiful landscape within a lawn, which convinced the government of Bahamas. (Sullivan-Sealey, Cushion, Semon, & Constantine, 2005, pp. 1-2).

On the other hand, the government aimed creating plant diversity zone and attracts wildlife for tourism purposes. Critically, the developer’s plans composed both long-term and short-term environmental collisions considering the fact that, the development was bound to take place on a huge land scale conversion. The truth of the matter is that, this was a British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) project and not a government initiated development.

Therefore, Bahamas citizens were bound to suffer most as developers had business mind, which has nothing to do with environmental protection. In particular, there were four areas of concern. Firstly, there was a high probability that, this project will cause chronic eutrophication to communities living near the marine shore. Secondly, there was substantive evidence that, the wetlands will cease to exist in entirety.

Thirdly, contrary to the existing natural biological diversity that acted as home to wildlife, the development was to discourage wildlife and lead to ecological imbalance. Lastly, the development will see further discouragement of marine species cohabiting within the ecosystem. (Sullivan-Sealey, Cushion, Semon, & Constantine, 2005, p.3).

Environmental Status of Guana Cay Reef

Previous developments at the Guana Cay Reef had already caused some serious environmental impacts through the construction of cruise ship resort. This led to destruction of the marine ecosystem of the coral reef even without realization. For example, any further development will increase dumping; alien plants take place of native vegetation, and finally, erosion take place.

Clearly, there has been no proper stewardship of the site so important to the surrounding species and at the same time, acting as home to other species. Due to warring court cases, the BBC abandoned Baker’s Bay Club development comprising of hazardous materials and dangerous infrastructure, which require urgent attention and mitigation.

As a matter of urgency, the newly introduced alien plants in the coral reef and new insects that continue to destroy natural fauna and flora of the marine ecosystem. This is the main reason why, the government of Bahamas need to move in swiftly and reclaim the place. (Dubinsky & Stambler, 1996, pp. 511-526).

Save Guana Cay Reef Association (SGCR)

For along period now, the island has lacked stewardship after the BBC abandoned further development courtesy of a series of court cases, both in Bahamas and Britain. To induce some leadership into the facility, a faction of Guan Cay residents decided to join hands and address this environmental situation.

The group, Save Guan Cay Reef Association (SGCR), sought to handle economic, social and environmental issues that engulfed the whole process of Baker’s Bay club development. The development had led to serious destruction of this marine ecosystem leaving many to ask questions without answers. Nobody seems to understand the intention of both the developer and the Bahamas government. The problem has escalated into a fight between SGCR and the Bahamas government, which mandated the development of the marine ecosystem to BBC.

For six years now, the issue has overridden Bahamas and British courts, while the media continue to air its latest development. At one point, the SGCR has tried to convince courts that, the government did not consult properly and that, the developer might have lied in order to get the contract. Nevertheless, the case ended in November 2009 when the chosen hearing authority-Privy Council, decided to rule contrary to SGCR demands. (Save Guana Cay Reef, 2009, Para. 2-4).

Coincidentally, the partnership between the University of Miami and Baker’s Bay Club on environmental conservation of the Marine ecosystem came to a standstill in 2009. Nevertheless, marine biologists from the University of Miami headed by Dr. Kathleen Sullian-Sealey provided a case study on the impacts of such developments to Maine ecosystem.

Impact of Baker’s Bay Club Development on the Ecosystem

The government of Bahamas gave the mandate to develop Maine ecosystem on grounds of tourism. However, as it came out, the Bahamas government failed to consider serious impacts of such development to the ecosystem.

According to scientists attending Abaco Science Alliance conference, the Bahamas government erred in mandating the development of Baker’s Bay club with no proper sustainable tourism measures. Launched in 2004, the Bahamas government mandated a developer to construct this project on private land near Guana Cay in the north of Bahamas.

However, the project is yet to reach completion due to the recent global economic meltdown. Even so, some business opportunities opened last year (slip marina and adjacent village). The golf course is halfway complete with sewer and waste treatment facilities installed. (Larry, 2010, Para. 1-5).

Environmental conservation was the primary concern of the residents living nearby. Therefore, the developer chose University of Miami to spearhead environmental conservation programs in order to help in mitigating already destroyed places, develop modalities of protecting the ecosystem and oversee the whole development process.

The destruction of this ecosystem began in 2004 when the developer detached invasive species, put up infrastructure projects, brought native vegetation and coastal dunes that totaled to one million dollars and further ten million dollars for infrastructure and mitigation. The project entailed full professionals to manage the ecosystem professionally.

This is why, the University of Miami landed the project aimed at drawing marine scientists into the site. In 2004, Dr. Kathleen became the principal environmental overseer at Baker’s Bay Club in Bahamas. Her main role was to oversee a balanced ecological ecosystem, which gave a glimpse of sustainable development. Previously, she had noted how developers destroy an ecosystem knowingly or unknowingly. (Larry, 2010, Para. 6-13).

However, for Baker’s Bay Club, there was initial ecological assessment before the real development took place. A team of scientist from Florida did inventory experiments, brought in native plants for landscaping, and took the natural plants to the island. Before and after the construction of marina, scientist took water samples to test whether it met Blue Flag Environmental standards (a body that is responsible for safety measures related to water and environment).

To dismay, the developers had removed large amounts of debris and garbage from water to foster ship transport. Additionally, the developers destroyed casuarina tree species and killed wild cats cohabiting at the shoreline. The developers had caused more harm than good because of ignorance. (Larry, 2010, Para. 15-20).

Conclusion

Lack of environmental expertise in Bahamas saw the destruction of ecosystem in the name of constructing tourist resort Baker’s Bay club, which was not friendly to the surrounding inhabitants. Nevertheless, the development of Baker’s Bay club without proper environmental monitoring program saw large-scale destruction of Maine ecosystem. Baker’s Bay club development disseminates the channels to follow before doing any development especially in aquatic areas.

We can create sustainable tourism through long-term planning, stabilization of shorelines, protecting biodiversity and producing clean energy in order to avoid pollution. These and many more procedural mechanisms act as long-term viabilities to anybody who wishes to carry our tourism projects. Moreover, mutual relationship with developers, environmentally minded policy makers and the general understanding of environment are fundamental to a sustainable environment.

Reference List

Dubinsky, Z. & Stambler, N. (1996). Marine pollution and coral reefs. Global Change Biology, 2(1), 511-526.

Klein, R. (1999). Protecting the Aquatic Environment from the Effects of Golf Courses. Web.

Larry, S. (2010). The First Case Study in Sustainable Tourism. Web.

Save Guana Cay Reef. (2009). Say NO to the Development on the North End of Guan Bay, Abaco, Bahamas! Web.

Sullivan-Sealey, K., Cushion, N., Semon, K. & Constantine, S. (2005). Environmental Management Program for Baker’s Bay Club. Great Guana Cay, Abaco, Bahamas. University of Miami. Web.

Invasive Processes’ Impact on Ecosystem’s Biodiversity

First Factor: Biodiversity

The construction of artificial structures, whether sewage treatment plants, factories, plants, or other industrial buildings, negatively affects the ecosystem’s biodiversity. Active development destroys habitats for dozens of species, causing animals and plants in the environment to either migrate or die. As a result, such effects lead to the disruption of biodiversity, which has negative consequences for the entire ecosystem. According to the proposed activity, over the past 500 years of anthropogenic activity, approximately 900 species have become wholly extinct and cannot be recovered naturally. Simultaneously, the rate of extinction has accelerated over the past few decades so that one can expect the extinction of forms of flora and fauna familiar to modern humans in the coming decades. It seems evident that evidence of such changes can be found with an in-depth study of the ecological and trophic relationships within the ecosystem. In particular, special attention should be paid to the dynamics of population waves, the general decline of wildlife in an area, and wild animals entering the urban environment for food and shelter. To inhibit such an effect, each individual can make a valuable contribution. More specifically, this can be realized by planting rare flowers, helping wild animals, creating bird feeders, and consciously using the system’s resources. In addition, clearing natural areas of human trash should also help to conserve biodiversity.

Second Factor: Invasive Species

When it seemed that artificially introducing new animals or plants into an environment could not be a negative factor, it has become known that invasions as an ecological process are a severe problem. More often than not, humans are not consciously introducing new species into the environment, but it can happen by accident. When transport systems are actively developed, the likelihood of unintentional introduction of new seeds, uncharacteristic mammals, or insects into the ecosystem increases. As a result, species will be able to occupy a new niche and compete with native organisms. If the invasive ones prove to be more adaptive, this will bring about the oppression of the native species and radical changes in the ecosystem. It has been shown that over 4,000 plant species and 2,300 animal species have been introduced across the U.S. as a result of active human settlement (NE, 2017).

As a result, each year of alien species control costs the U.S. government $120 billion, and it is clear that with inadequate biodiversity management, these numbers will continue to grow. To observe the processes of artificial transformation of the environment, it is enough to look closely at the relationships of native organisms. For example, if an ecosystem experiences a sudden decline in the numbers of a particular plant species, this may indicate invasive phytophages into the area. The same is characteristic of ocean waters: a change in the classical ratio of chemical elements shows the initiation of eutrophication processes, indicating the introduction of alien species into the system. In general, any observed changes in the environment, which cannot be explained, show a change in the system’s structure. To not disturb the biodiversity of an ecosystem by invasive processes, it is sufficient to monitor your movements between regions closely and visit the websites of local conservation agencies for instructions on how to prevent the introduction of invasive species.

Third Factor: Oceanic Activities

There is also no doubt that anthropogenic impacts are directed at terrestrial environments and aquatic ones. Humankind has been fishing for a long time, which certainly affects the aquatic ecosystem’s physical quality. The negative effect can be expressed both through individual poaching, including catching rare, protected species of fish, and through industrial catches of a vast number of hydrobionts. Thus, in general, fishing depletes fish populations, which certainly affects the health of the aquatic ecosystem. An ocean deprived of harmonic numbers of fish initiates algae and small fish growth, resulting in population shifts. The proposed activity shows that overfishing peaks have only become characteristic of the last twenty years, with this figure exceeding the 60% overfishing mark since 2000. To prove the presence of these effects in the environment, it is enough to study coastal waters’ structure: if there is a decrease in commercial fish, it proves to overfish. Simultaneously, a reduction in the number of species dependent on being caught also proves overfishing. Finally, an individual may buy fish products more responsibly and avoid buying rare and protected species. In addition, any poaching episode can be reported by the individual to the profile agencies

Reference

NE. (2017). NEC. Web.

Impact of the Toxic Substances on Marine Ecosystem

Most of the toxic substances released into the marine waters provide major hindrances to marine ecosystem. Chemicals and most of the effluent from industries act as poisonous substances leading to extensive adverse effects on marine life. Dead zone is a term used to refer to an area within the ocean affected by hypoxic conditions.

The condition of hypoxia is created when algal biomass decompose leading to dissolution of oxygen in the water column. This leads to lower concentrations of oxygen within a big percentage of water columns for several months. The five phases of dead zone formation include nutrient-rich runoff, thermal zones, Algae blooms, organic rain then finally flees (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment).

The images shown reveal how ocean colors change from winter to summer. There are massive blooms of phytoplankton extending from the mouth of Mississippi River towards the Texas coast (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). The dead zones are as a result of river sediments.

The blooms from Mississippi river die and sink to the bottom enabling bacterial composition which eventually deprives the water environment of available oxygen. Such environment makes it difficult for the survival of marine life hence represented by red and orange color symbolizing high concentrations of phytoplankton (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment).

Top Predators are vital in the maintenance of balance amongst sea organisms. Overfishing of large shark species leads to the increased number of rays which are intermediate consumers; these have led to destruction of Scallop fishery (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). Reduction in the sea lions, because of the overfishing of Pollock fish, led to the increased number of increase in whales assassin hence more predation on sea otters. This resulted in the adverse loss of kelp forest habitat (Arnold 207-219).

Fish Level Sustainability Ranking Toxicity
Tuna, Bluefin 4 Avoid Very High mercury level 0.818 ppm
Tuna, yellow fin-pole caught 4 Best High mercury levels 0.354 ppm

Yellow fin-Tuna is available in most of the world’s oceans; it is considered to be in abundance and well managed through farming in ocean friendly ways. While, on the other hand, farming of Bluefin tuna leads to destruction of marine life as well as environment (Arnold 207-219).

According to theorist perspective irrespective of which ontological, epistemological position one adopts at one point, there are some negative impacts to be dealt with due to overfishing of tuna. Some perspectives appear better than others; however, there is a need for thorough research capable of generating debatable results in a conservation perspective. Comparison and condensation always guarantee answer concerning such problems and allow understanding beyond theory (Arnold 207-219).

Exxon Valdez oil spill took place in 1989 and BP oil spill of 2010 were recorded as the largest and most devastating releases of oil with adverse effects on ecology. The 2010 BP oil spill occurred as a result of explosion on the Deep-water Horizon drilling rig owned by Transocean ltd (Witters 4).

The spill had profound social and ecological impact while the1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill impacted ecological, economic, social and cultural sectors negatively. Exxon Valdez, a supertanker carrying crude oil rammed into Bligh Reef causing a spill of over 11 million gallons of crude oil. The impact was that over 250,000 seabirds, 140 bald eagles, approximately 20 whales amongst other sea life were victims of damage (Anchorage 5).

The closure of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWAR) should continue. This is for the purposes of preserving the wide variety of plants and animals present within the coastal plain. The environmental, biological and philosophical quality factors have far much outweighed the economic reasons. The land is estimated to have potential of producing between 11 to 13 billion barrels of oil which was valued to be holding less compared to the giant field at Prudhoe Bay.

Works Cited

Anchorage. 2010. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council 2010, Update on injured resources and services. Web.

Arnold, Waltz. “The effects of prey size, predator size, and sediment composition on the rate of predation of the blue crab”. CallinectessapidusRathbun, on the hard clam, Mercenariamercenaria (Linne). Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 80 (1984): 207-219.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Current State and Trends. 2005. Web.

Witters, David. . 2010. Web.

Amazon Ecosystem Destruction and Consequences

Introduction

Biodiversity is the overall balance of nature, from animals, plants, and their interactions in the environment. Plants and animals contribute to biodiversity, each relying on the biological and natural processes within them. Plants provide a balance through photosynthesis, in which they absorb gases, air, water and release some to the environment. The concentration of plants in an area, like forests, adds to the effectiveness of the biological processes to the environment and its sustainability. According to Elias et al.the Amazon forest provides a wide range of benefits to the environment, the people worldwide, owing to its vast size (par. 3). The forest covers more than 2 million square miles in area. It has more than 16000 tree species, close to 4000 bird species, more than 10 million animal species, and the largest river (Amazon river), with 1100 distributaries. Such an ecosystem is self-sustaining, except for the destruction by human activities. In the last few decades, its obliteration resulted in severe consequences to the environment and all the plants and animals mentioned above (Brink 9). Researchers have penned various issues regarding the Amazon forest but never had enough time to write about it. This research explores the ideas already established by other researchers to analyze the critical consequences of the destruction of Amazon, lists the significant conclusions reached, and concludes by examining the ecosystem’s future situation.

Research Methodologies

The research dug on publications from various sites, like the Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, to find out information about the environmental situation at the Amazon. Amazon Aid Foundation provided elaborations on the effects of the same ecosystem since the efforts to conserve it. Other researchers investigated the steps made when protecting the forest from damage, their success or failures.

The Amazon forest received government protection from human activities until 2012 when stakeholders involved in safeguarding the environment remained complacent. Public outcry was reduced when the policies established to protect the environment gathered force. As a result, more destruction cases were recorded, resulting in large hectares of land being cleared for various human activities. The activities included farming, settlement, and tree logging for sale. Walker denotes that a tipping point was reached when the control measures were no longer adequate to the forces against it (16). With this, one binding effect was the displacement of animals that lived in the forest. With reducing forest size, animals moved to other regions, concentrated within some quota of the remaining forest, and sometimes endangered some.

With the vegetation coverage reducing, the balance in environmental features was disrupted. First, plants act as a cover to absorb heat in an area. They also provide moisture to the environment that cools the regions. Amazon Aid Foundation (n.d) records the changes in the Amazonian areas due to forest reduction over the years. With the disruption in the balance of temperature, other features like rivers and snow reduced. Streams that built distributaries dried up and deprived the significant rivers of the flow to regions they provided water. High temperatures were affecting the formation of rains, the production of crops, and the survival of animals adapted to colder temperatures. According to Azenha et al. the same continued for a long and would render some rivers or animals extinct after a few years (1). Attempts to restore the forest do not yield similar conditions as before, making the return to normalcy tricky.

Results

The damage to the Amazon forest disrupted the ecosystem and endangered people living in the areas. The climate and weather patterns changed from the reduced heat, imbalanced intake and release of gases, soil erosion increased, streams dried, and rainfall patterns changed. The government established policies for some period in Brazil but never bore enough fruits when the people grew complacent. Forces employed in damaging the environment outmatched the ones controlling safeguarding it.

Discussion

The environment is facing many human activities that threaten to damage its existence. Animals and plants provide for a balance of biological processes. The effects are beyond what humans can handle, nor the environment itself. With the adverse effects of climate change, the destruction of the Amazon presents a much bigger problem to address and solve (Walker 18). Laws established to safeguard the environment are not yielding the necessary effects, showing the less determination of the states concerned in keeping to their promise. Additionally, people face various challenges like unemployment, hence the reliance on the forest for farming and logging for wood sale. Finally, environmental education is lacking in most parts of the world, especially people living in forested lands and are engaging in illegal logging activities.

Conclusion

Amazon rainforest is facing severe damage from human activities, which later destroys its biosystem. Reduction of forest cover leads to pollution, drying of rivers, melting of snows, death of animals, displacements, and imbalanced temperatures. Governments never established appropriate policies to ensure a reduction of the practices leading to its destruction. Research from various organizations suggests a worsening situation that needs to be addressed.

Works Cited

Azenha, G. S., et al. Frontiers of Development in the Amazon Riches, Risks, And Resistances. Lexington Books, 2020.

Brink, T. V. Protecting the Amazon Rainforest. North Star Editions, 2020.

“Effects of Deforestation on the Amazon”. Amazon Aid Foundation, n.d, Web.

Elias, F. et al. “”. Ecological Society of America, vol. 101, no.(3). 2019. Web.

Walker, R. T. “”. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, vol. 63 no. (1), 2020. 15-25. Web.

Australia’s Endangered Diverse Marine Ecosystem

Introduction

Australia is one of the most marine-dependent countries in the whole world. Australians demonstrate an ingrained proclivity to settle near the coastal regions. Unsurprisingly, the country’s most developed cities and globally renowned tourist destinations are strategically allocated along the coast. The nation derives food, energy, and other natural resources from the marine waters. Additionally, it relies on the marine environment for recreational activities. However, these benefits are facing intense environmental pressures that pile up at a rate that has convinced many people that Australia is on the verge of losing its diverse marine environment. At the center of this bleak situation is a speedy climate change whose causes and effects –human population growth and overdependence on deteriorating marine ecosystems – are becoming increasingly difficult to mitigate due to governance shortcomings.

Climate Change

Climate Change and population increase are becoming increasingly difficult to perceive distinctly, especially when the question is about the loss of a diverse marine environment. The global human population is growing fast, and lifespan has increased remarkably. This recognizable success, though commendable, comes at a great price. Population pressure has increased waste production in addition to high demand for food, energy, transport, and the marine environment, especially oceans, for recreational use. As Evans et al. (2017) observe, despite Australia having a relatively low population, the vast majority of Australians – 85 percent – live within a 100-kilometer radius of the ocean. Moreover, these residential areas are increasingly becoming urbanized, intensifying pressure on deteriorating marine environments.

Marine diversity loss as a factor of explosive global population growth is epitomized in the increased dependence of Australia’s economy on its oceans. In 2012, the Australian economy extracted $47.2 billion from marine-based industries such as tourism, energy production, and fishing – both for commercial and recreational purposes (Evans et al., 2017). This economic contribution is projected to peak at $100 billion annually by 2025 (Evans et al., 2017). From these figures, it suffices to conclude that the marine environment is one of Australia’s most precious resources. However, the progress is still unimpressive because Australia has lost 80-90% of its native vegetation since European settlement (Hallett et al., 2017). Increased urbanization and industrialization threaten to intensify the conditions that contributed to the heights of climate change hitherto recorded.

Climate change is arguably the biggest threat to Australia’s diverse marine environment. It triggers numerous environmental changes at an alarming rate – a pace too fast for many species to adapt. For example, enduring warming and drought trends have decimated 70 percent of freshwater flows in just five decades (Hallett et al., 2017). Sadly, this speedy water loss is eventually opening a floodgate of more devastating consequences. For example, Hallett et al. (2017) warn that increased evaporation will raise the salinity of estuarine environments, making hypersaline conditions more frequent and severer. Although Hallett et al.’s (2017) study focus on South-west Australia, their warning about the adverse effects of climate change are convincing. They caution that reduced rainfall will extend the closure of periodically open systems, thus hampering the detoxification and cooling of these environments is highly convincing that the marine environment is at risk.

An examination of the implications of climate change on marine ecosystems at the species level produces a bleak picture. It is often tempting to adopt a macro-level approach to environmental issues, but this methodology suffers a serious limitation. It obstructs one’s view, increasing the likelihood of incorrect generalization. To address this specific problem, Gissi et al. (2021) zoomed in on the matter to reveal that climate change intensified local human stressors at the individual species level. For instance, coral reefs continually record a reduced capacity to recover from disturbances because of the cumulative effect of climate-caused bleaching, as well as reduced calcification, increased pollution, nutrients, and sedimentation.

Governance

Australia’s marine migratory species are in danger due to numerous anthropogenic threats. Migration plays an important role in an animal’s quest for survival. Many marine species must migrate to satisfy varying biological and ecological needs. With the changing climatic conditions and the resultant conditions, many animals have to traverse unsafe territories to mate or feed and to find optimal climatic conditions. Convinced that Australia’s marine migratory species are of national significance, Miller et al. (2018) commenced an inquiry that indicted local environmental and management policies of weak integration and lack of breadth that counter-intuitively impede conservation goals. Indeed, protected area legislation and other conservation policies limited by political borders cannot be effective in protecting endangered species travel internationally. Australia risks losing many migratory species, a crucial part of the marine environment, due to chronic policy dysfunction that exposes these organisms to incalculable anthropogenic threats in unprotected areas.

Another indicator that Australia’s diverse marine environment is endangered remains discernible in the general lack of enthusiasm for conservation measures. The vehemence channeled to extracting resources from the oceans is conspicuously lacking when attention shifts to protection. Generally, the impact of activities on marine environments hinges on two principles: avoidance and mitigation. Evans et al. (2017) concede that these measures are rendered ineffective in many cases due to ineffective, or total lack thereof, management. They add that some impacts are challenging to avoid, mitigate, or assess the full impact. Amidst these difficulties and failures, climate change and debris remain the leading causes of residual risks in the marine environment.

Australia is undoubtedly losing its marine treasure due, in part, to poor governance. Many marine protection policies are highly questionable in that they seemingly serve corporate interests instead of pursuing genuine sustainability goals. For example, shark attack deterrent measures have been criticized for being lethal and adversely affecting endangered marine species, including other harmless species like turtles. The shark nets used to reduce potentially dangerous shark species before they reach recreational spaces often attract unintended consequences, such as entangling and killing sharks and non-targeted marine species (Cullen-Knox et al., 2017). Meanwhile, Australia has demonstrated a pattern of appealing to corporate demands and sometimes relents only when it is politically suicidal to adopt specific legislation.

Australia may have no prime marine environment to exploit because of the failure to make marine governance integrated, sustainable, and ethical. It is quite disturbing that existing marine protection legislation measures and implementation strategies are morally questionable and show a proclivity to stoke the fire they are intended to extinguish. Cullen-Knox et al. (2017) accused the government of sanctioning the overexploitation of certain marine species and, in response to public outcry, making rushed decisions that leave the perpetrator free to operate in other locations. These circumstances let Cullen-Knox et al. (2017) argue that the widely used processes for making decisions in the government and consulting stakeholders are outdated and unable to guarantee a participative public policy process.

The lack of a democratized policymaking process can be seen as another danger to marine diversity sustainability. Coastal environments comprise organisms, including native inhabitants. However, they are often rendered insignificant in the pursuit of economic goals conceived by foreigners or investors from other urbanized areas. Marine environments are threatened by a twisted mentality that equates development to concrete structures, thereby reducing nature to a threat worth concurring. If only some coastal inhabitants could have their say, they would prefer the areas conserved as is, in their natural conditions. Unfortunately, this request seems primitive in the 21st century.

Counterarguments

The debate about the implications of climate change on Australia’s marine life is not necessarily pessimistic. Some critics have suggested that while climate change is real, the light in which many scholars and commentators highlight it is exaggeratedly one-sided and ignores the potential benefits of the process. For example, Hallett et al.’s (2017) study predict that decreasing annual flows will reduce scouring and flushing, promoting nutrient retention and internal cycling. Additionally, Gissi et al. (2021) observed that climate change triggered effects that either intensified or mitigated the consequences of human stressors at the trophic and ecosystem levels. These arguments, along with many others, are convincing; however, they are diluted by the negative consequences of climate change that clearly outweigh many associated benefits.

Perhaps the most convincing acquittal of climate change as the precursor to the threats to the diverse marine environment is the lack of comprehensive knowledge regarding the area. In an extensive literature review, Gissi et al. (2021) examined the combined effect of climate change and local human stressors in marine ecosystems. They discovered a gaping knowledge gap and that many studies examining the cumulative effects of climate change on habitats often fail to offer accurate reflection or prediction. However, not all studies in this niche suffer from these limitations. For example, Hallett et al. (2017) conducted an extensive analysis of estuaries of southwestern Australia. Their study primarily relied on observations of the consequences of climate change. Subsequently, they predicted the consequences this changing weather will cause in the future. Interestingly, they also acknowledged that the expected impacts would not exclusively be negative. Taken together, it is believable that climate change will expose marine environments along with ecosystems to unprecedented challenges, some of which are difficult to comprehend in full scope due to limited knowledge.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Australia’s diverse marine environment faces numerous risks due to climate change, whose effects are eluding mitigation and avoidance measures due to poor governance. This paper shows that explosive human population growth has intensified pressure on the oceans, which face additional threats from pollution and global warming. Yet the existing governance systems remain reluctant to adapt to the emerging issues. Climate change poses a great threat at the individual species level by altering conditions to which the organism is accustomed. For migratory marine species, these changes can be life-threatening since they have to traverse unregulated waters in response to biological and ecological needs. Interestingly, some critics believe that cumulative climatic change might not be as bad as mostly depicted because there are some positive benefits associated with the new conditions. These pessimists proceed to fault many scholars advocating for climate change reforms as alarmists who base their convictions on flawed research. Nonetheless, the adverse consequences of climate remain observable and, so far, unsettling, demanding improved policy interventions.

References

Cullen-Knox, C., Haward, M., Jabour, J., Ogier, E., & Tracey, S. R. (2017). The social licence to operate and its role in marine governance: Insights from Australia. Marine Policy, 79, 70-77. Web.

Evans, K., Bax, N., & Smith, D. C. (2017). Australia state of the environment 2016: Marine environment, independent report to the Australian Government Minister for the Environment and Energy. Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy.

Gissi, E., Manea, E., Mazaris, A. D., Fraschetti, S., Almpanidou, V., Bevilacqua, S., & Katsanevakis, S. (2021). Science of the Total Environment, 755, 1-14. Web.

Hallett, C. S., Hobday, A. J., Tweedley, J. R., Thompson, P. A., McMahon, K., & Valesini, F. J. (2018). Regional Environmental Change, 18(5), 1357-1373. Web.

Miller, R. L., Marsh, H., Cottrell, A., & Hamann, M. (2018). Protecting migratory species in the Australian marine environment: A cross-jurisdictional analysis of policy and management plans. Frontiers in Marine Science, 5, 1-13. Web.

Rainforest Ecosystem Services in Indonesia

Existing and Emerging Risks

Risks on the provision of Wood

There are numerous risks associated with the provision of wood as raw materials for publishing, construction and other related services. On the other hand, the construction sector, paper and publishing industry, production of pulp and other related fields gives a clear indication on the importance of wood and other byproducts on the efficiency of growth and development of numerous industries, institutions and states (O’Keohane & Olmstead 2007). This indicates that the risk increases when more trees are used in the construction, publishing and other related economic fields without having a relative increase in plantation (Chazdon 2008).

The conventional use of trees and rainforests is to assist in the production of food through the exchange of carbon dioxide and oxygen. In addition, the trees act as the supporters of the water cycle and the destruction of this result in adverse consequences. Research shows that the fertility level falls from the drying up of the moisture in the soil, evaporation of the effective nutrients, exposure of bacteria and a final wash away from rain and floods. Research indicates that the absorption and retaining of water by trees is an aspect that has been used in the effective completion of the life cycle of water (Turner & Daily 2008).

Risks on Regulating Services

A change in the water cycle and the facilitation of soil erosion leads to the changes in climate. From the above two risks, an intense and long term phenomenon can arise if the felling and usage of trees are not controlled (Kosoy, Corbera & Brown 2008). The production of food and the water cycle is facilitated through the absorption of carbon dioxide and release of oxygen in the atmosphere. This means that the changes in the natural life cycle and habitats cause huge risks in the ecosystem (Luck, Daily & Ehrlich 2003).

Risks on Educational and Cultural Services

There are different manmade effects of climate regulation that affects the ecosystem on a gradual basis. The regulation of temperatures, heat and humidity by individuals mostly in the urban areas acts as a platform for destruction of the natural temperatures and humidity levels. The depletion of rainforests through deforestation and extinction of natural species result in immense outcomes in the education services rendered to different people and institutions. The rainforest acts as an education platform for people due to the existence of different and numerous animal and plant species that coexist for years. Destruction of these areas will produce an equal effect on the education fraternity, especially in research practices.

Factors Leading to Degradation of Ecosystems

There are various existing and emerging risks that affect the ecosystem negatively, thus resulting in a need for immediate action to control these risks. This causes the loss in soil fertility and degradation of the fertility levels (Chazdon 2008). Research shows that the fertility level falls from the drying up of the moisture in the soil and evaporation of the effective nutrients. The drastic change in the natural cycle of water, plants, water table and forests definitely results in the adverse changes and alterations in the ecosystem.

The water bodies, atmosphere and water table changes due to the adverse changes in the ecosystem through forest demolishing and related effects on the water catchment areas. Consequently, the change in the water catchment areas, forests and natural habitats results in loss of animals and some plant species. The Indonesian rainforest acts as one of the numerous areas where there exist effective habitats for more than 80 percent of the different species of animals and plant worldwide (Van Beukering, Cesar & Janssen 2003).

The use of the Indonesian forests as educational grounds acts as one of the risks experienced by the different species. The education fraternity and the forest control departments should ensure that clear guidelines and regulations are provided to the participating students, learners and tutors. Research practitioners provide different forms of risks that are generated because of the excessive and irresponsible felling of trees.

Economic Value

Implementation of Tradeoffs in Provision of Ecosystems

Various tradeoffs can be implemented to control the immense occurrence of risks in the ecosystem and the establishment of the provisioning services. This can be achieved through enacting rules and regulations to govern the intense effects on the natural habitats and the Indonesian rainforest. Thus control in deforestation limits the chances of forest extinction and depletion.

There are alternatives to the climate regulation procedures enacted by people which results in the depletion of forests. This means that the population should focus on establishing and using alternatives means of publication, construction and related fields other than relying on the resources from forests and related natural habitats. Finally, the use of rainforests as educational facilities for different research organizations and institutions should be limited and caution withheld in the provision of knowledge and survival of forests. On the other hand, improved ways of facilitating the allocation of manmade forests and tree planting to cater to the needs of the people should be enhanced in the provision of adequate facilities in development and growth.

Failure in the Market

Provision of wood as the raw material for construction, printing and in the production of other services and products in development and growth can result in market failure. Wood can be termed as readily available due to the availability of numerous acres of forests, but immediate extinction can lead to adverse changes in the ecosystem. The variation in the market on the availability of wood depends on the sources and on the rules and regulations indicated by the governmental directives. Ineffective market prices result from a lack of the required materials (Luck, Daily & Ehrlich 2003).

Market and Government Roles

There are numerous economic benefits that can be associated with the use of the Indonesian rainforest as a source of wood, a regulator of climate and in the educational facilities. The forest is full of hardwood trees that are usually costly and effective for different construction aspects. Consequently, there are readily available softwoods and other perennial plants that can be economically beneficial to the visitors, users and population of the Indonesian government. On the other hand, serious measures should be established in the maintenance and control of the forest and ecosystem.

Conclusion

In conclusion, there are numerous economic benefits that can be associated with the usage of trees from forests as raw materials for economic growth and advancement (Van Beukering, Cesar & Janssen 2003). On the other hand, the Indonesian state should limit the usage of forests, water catchment areas and govern the endangered species in the facilitation of adequate ecosystem. From this study, it is clear that the fear of environmental degradation is the key obstacle in the provision of intense impacts on the forests.

References

Chazdon, RL 2008, Beyond deforestation: restoring forests and ecosystem services on degraded lands, science, vol. 320, no. 5882, pp. 1458-1460.

Kosoy, N, Corbera, E & Brown, K 2008, Participation in payments for ecosystem services: case studies from the Lacandon rainforest, Mexico, Geoforum, Vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 2073-2083.

Luck, GW, Daily, GC & Ehrlich, PR 2003, Population diversity and ecosystem services, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 331-336.

O’Keohane, N & Olmstead, S 2007, Markets and the Environment, Island Press, Washington DC.

Turner, RK, & Daily, GC 2008, The ecosystem services framework and natural capital conservation, Environmental and Resource Economics, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 25-35.

Van Beukering, PJ, Cesar, HS & Janssen, MA 2003, Economic valuation of the Leuser National Park on Sumatra, Indonesia, Ecological economics, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 43-62.