Vaquitas are timid, highly elusive marine mammals located exclusively on Mexico’s Gulf of California. Measuring in at just 1.5 metres, the vaquita is the smallest of all cetacean species and shares many ecological characteristics with the 80 odd whale, dolphin and porpoise species found within the cetacean group. Despite its relatively recent discovery in 1958, ongoing and often unregulated developments in the Gulf of California’s fishing industry have now pushed the vaquita to the brink of extinction. Whilst there has been growing international awareness on the existence of this unique species, a mere 10 individuals remain in the wild. Here are some of the most interesting facts about vaquitas and how you can help with the ongoing conservation efforts.

—

Family: Phocoenidae 

Genus: Phocoena

Species: Phocoena sinus 

IUCN Status: Critically Endangered

Population: Approximately 10 individuals

1. Appearance

The most defining physical characteristics of the vaquita are the dark rings encircling its eyes, as well as the dark patches surrounding the mammal’s lips. These bovine qualities are believed to have awarded the animal its common name of ‘vaquita’, which is the Spanish word for ‘little cow’. The rest of the vaquita’s body is uniquely patterned with various shades of black, white and grey – a trait common amongst marine mammals for the purpose of individual and species recognition. They are distinguishable from porpoises by virtue of their smaller size, stockier build, larger flippers, smaller head, as well as a taller, curvier tail fin. Vaquitas also sport a triangular dorsal fin, taller and wider than that of porpoises, which purportedly allows for thermal regulation in warm waters.

2. Habitat

The non-migratory vaquita has the most limited geographical range of any cetacean species, inhabiting a mere 4000 square kilometres in the Northwestern area of the Gulf of California in Mexico. Remaining individuals are found primarily around the Rocas Consag archipelago, near the town of San Felipe in Baja California, as well as near the Colorado River Delta, a marine habitat of incredible species diversity.

Vaquitas inhabit relatively shallow waters, ordinarily found within 25 kilometres of the shoreline at depths of 10 to 30 metres. Their marine environment is turbid, nutrient-rich and dynamic, with high levels of available prey. The vaquita is also uniquely adapted to live in warm waters, tolerating temperature fluctuations from 14 to 36 degrees Celsius, whereas most porpoise species inhabit waters at a temperature of 20C or below.

3. Behaviour

Vaquitas are non-selective feeders, consuming a wide variety of benthic squids, crabs, fish and crustaceans. A post-mortem examination of a vaquita’s stomach contents revealed that the animal had consumed at least 17 different species of fish.

Similarly to all cetacean species, vaquitas do not have gills and must surface to breathe. However, due to their reserved nature, these creatures are never seen performing the surface acrobatics so characteristic of dolphins, whales and porpoises. Instead, the vaquita hardly disturbs the surface of the water, emerging with a slow, forward-rolling movement. Upon taking a breath, the vaquita will quickly and quietly dive back into the water. Unsurprisingly, vaquitas are also easily frightened by loud noises, such as boat propellors.

Vaquitas have been observed solitarily, in pairs, and in groups of seven to 10 individuals, with groups sometimes found loosely aggregated over an area of several kilometres squared. They are known to echolocate through a series of high-frequency clicks.

4. Ecosystem Services

Despite our limited knowledge on the ecological and behavioural traits of the vaquita, their importance to the marine ecosystem of the Gulf of California is irrefutable. The vaquita is an essential part of the natural food chain within its habitat, existing as both a predator and as prey for top predators such as sharks and killer whales. These gentle creatures serve as a vital mechanism of population control for several species of fish, crustaceans, and cephalopods. The vaquita’s rapidly dwindling population thus threatens the delicate ecological balance of this interdependent food chain.

Female vaquita captured during the VaquitaCPR project in 2017. Photo by VaquitaCPR.

5. Threats

Soon after the vaquita’s discovery in 1958, scientists became aware of the species’ plight. Categorised as ‘Vulnerable’ under the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List in 1986, the vaquita’s classification was rapidly hoisted to ‘Endangered’ in 1990, and ultimately reached ‘Critically Endangered’ by 1996. The primary threat against these timid creatures is the fishing industry’s rampant and unregulated use of gill nets within known vaquita habitat. Instances of incidental bycatch have caused the vaquita to suffer a population decline of approximately 94% between 1997 and 2016.

Gill net fishing is an outdated, barbaric fishing technique that has been utilised in the Gulf of California for decades. Gill nets are walls of netting which are suspended in the water column. The size of the mesh is designed for the head of the fish to fit through, but not the body. As the fish attempts to remove its head from the net, its gills are caught in the mesh and the fish eventually drowns. Within the Gulf of California, this practice is utilised primarily to target shrimp and the totoaba; a critically endangered fish endemic to the region. From its introduction to the Mexican fish market in 1930, high demand for the totoaba resulted in 60 years of overfishing and exploitation. This culminated in the Mexican government listing the totoaba as endangered in 1975, followed by the United States government in 1979. What government officials failed to recognise at the time was the effects of unrestricted, imprudent gill net fishing on the totoaba’s cohabitant, the vaquita.

Vaquitas are extremely vulnerable to gill net fishing, as the six-metre-long nets hang just below the surface and span several kilometres. Given the limited geographical range of these timid creatures, combined with the fact that vaquitas must surface for air, chances of entanglement in these macabre traps are very high. Whilst all sizes of mesh pose a threat to the vaquita those designed for totoaba fishing are particularly fatal as both species are of a similar size. Scientists estimate that one in every five vaquita are caught and drowned by gill nets.

Totoaba fishing has been banned since 1975, and in 1977 the species was included in Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). However, rising demands from China for totoaba swim bladders have resulted in the establishment of an elaborate black market trade for the fish. In China, totoaba swim bladders are considered both a delicacy and a source of healing properties, earning fishermen approximately USD$8000 for each kilogram of totoaba swim bladder. Impoverished communities on the coast of Mexico therefore resort to gill net fishing as a source of income. In a statement given by the president of a fishing cooperatives federation in San Felipe, Ramón Franco Díaz said, “the government still hasn’t given us a solution or an effective way to support our families without going out to fish illegally”. In July of 2021, HKD$3.3 million worth of totoaba fish bladders originating from Mexico were seized in Hong Kong, demonstrating the ineffectiveness of local and International legislation, as well as the continued absence of regulatory measures.

Further complicating the situation is a decision made at the 74th meeting of the Standing Committee of CITES in March of 2022, whereby the committee voted to allow a Mexican aquaculture facility, Earth Ocean Farms, to commence the breeding and trade of captive totoabas. Despite numerous concerns about the decision’s potential effect on the demand of totoaba products, as well as on the effectiveness of regulatory procedures within Mexico, a majority vote of nine to five allowed the motion to pass. 

6. Conservation Efforts

Once scientists uncovered the extent of the vaquita’s population decline, the governments of Mexico and the US began implementing a number of inefficacious measures aimed at protecting the species. In 1972, the US awarded the vaquita protection under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and in 1975 Mexico declared the vaquita to be an endangered animal. But it was not until 1992 that Mexico banned the use of large mesh gill nets specialised for catching totoaba.

In 1993, the Colorado River Biosphere Reserve was established to protect several species of endangered wildlife residing within the Gulf of California, including the vaquita and the totoaba. The reserve covers an area of approximately 10,000 square kilometres and was designed to promote and support sustainable fishing and recreational activities. Nevertheless, due to the high profitability of fishing within the reserve, vessels openly utilising gill nets were welcomed into the area by the Mexican Navy, who were supposedly tasked with enforcing the ban on large gill nets.

In 2005, a “Vaquita Refuge” was created within an area of relatively high vaquita population density, which prohibited all commercial fishing within the allocated space. This was accompanied by the Species Conservation Action Plan for Vaquita (PACE-Vaqita) in 2008, which purportedly constituted a comprehensive conservation strategy for the species. Nevertheless, due to the disarray of management systems within Mexico’s fishing industry, the lack of support from local fishing communities, and the perpetual inadequacy of monitoring and enforcement initiatives, the refuge and accompanying conservation plan failed to safeguard the vaquita’s continued existence. In November of 2021, scientists conducting vaquita population counts in the Gulf reported seeing 117 fishing boats within the vaquita refuge in the span of a single day. Exacerbating the situation is the geographical layout of the Gulf, with tall cliffs and barren islands further hindering the government’s already apathetic surveillance strategies.

When questioned about the lack of enforcement within the Gulf, the chief of public affairs for the Mexican Navy, Rear Admiral José H. Orozco Tocaven, stated that navy officials were required to adapt regulations to account for the needs of fishing communities in the area, and thus permitted up to 65 fishing boats to enter the vaquita refuge at any one time. This leniency, the admiral claimed, resulted from the numerous riots mounted by disgruntled fishermen, who derive their income from the industry. One such incident involved two conservation groups, the Whale Museum and the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, who were granted permission by the Mexican Government to patrol the area and intercept poachers. As violence between local fishermen and conservation organisations escalated, conservationists were forced to switch to simply reporting gill net sightings rather than actively intervening.

Following the failure of the government’s vaquita refuge strategy, and fuelled by recommendations from the International Committee for the Recovery of the Vaquita (CIRVA), the Mexican government implemented a complete and permanent ban on gill net fishing within the Gulf of California in 2016, as well as on night fishing. Yet, as demonstrated by similarly obvious and ineffectual solutions previously implemented by the government, hostility from local fishermen coupled with the lack of enforcement from officials, rendered these legislative measures useless. Due to the harsh climatic conditions of the Mexican coast, fishing is often the primary economic activity of numerous communities residing along the Gulf. Prior to the overexploitation of the totoaba, gill nets were utilised in the area for catching blue shrimp and other legal species of fish. However, as the plight of the totoaba and the vaquita began garnering attention from conservationists, these species were increasingly viewed as a nuisance by local fishermen as a consequence of the fishing restrictions that their vulnerability induced. Prior to 2018, the Mexican Government issued fishermen on the Gulf stipends in an attempt to reduce fishing activities. Yet, the programme effectively ceased when President Andrés Manuel López Obrador took office in December of 2018.

In 2016, WWF Mexico partnered with Mexico’s National Institute of Fisheries (INAPESCA) to establish an international committee dedicated to the development and implementation of vaquita-safe fishing practices and technology. The successful field-test of a light trawler, designed to exclusively catch shrimp, initially sparked optimism as a suitable vaquita-friendly replacement for gill nets. However, the replacement has not been welcomed within fishing communities, as the practice yields less shrimp. The absence of a market for sustainable seafood in Mexico further hinders the promotion of novel fishing practices that limit bycatch, as ethically-sourced seafood is not valued as highly in Mexico when compared to European and Northern American markets. 

In 2017, a drastic step was taken in vaquita conservation with the multimillion dollar VaquitaCPR project. In view of the government’s inability to protect dwindling vaquita populations in the wild, an international team of conservationists, veterinarians, and scientists devised a plan to place half of all wild vaquitas into secure sea pens until stronger conservation measures could be implemented. Two females were initially captured, yet both began exhibiting signs of distress that ultimately resulted in the death of one.

Although conservation through captivity may present itself as the most effective or convenient avenue, wildlife biologist Matthew Podlosky, who participated in the VaquitaCPR project, highlighted a key issue with the approach. Regardless of how feasible or sustainable species captivity is, the primary aim of releasing vaquitas back into their native habitat is implausible without rigorous government reform. Poverty-stricken fishing communities, the profitability of the black market trade, continued demand for totoaba products, and the lack of legislative enforcement greatly hinder conservation efforts, meaning that “even if that vaquita hadn’t died and the capture effort had been successful, the root of the problem would still remain”.

In July of 2021, conservation efforts took a giant leap backwards as the Mexican government renounced the fishing-free vaquita refuge and introduced a sliding scale of enforcement depending on the number of fishing vessels present in the area. The Agricultural and Fisheries Department stated that a count of 20 boats would trigger the deployment of 60% of enforcement personnel, and that a count of 20 to 50 fishing boats would warrant the use of 80% of enforcement resources. Yet, this contradicts previously mentioned statements given by navy officials, who admitted to allowing a maximum of 65 boats to enter the vaquita refuge on a daily basis in an attempt to avoid conflicts with fishermen. In a comment issued by the National Resources Defence Council, senior attorney Zak Smith stated that “Mexico has implicitly telegraphed its intent to allow the vaquita to go extinct by continually embracing inadequate half-measures which have never been effectively implemented or enforced”. 

NGO Spotlight: Viva Vaquita

It is thus clear that the various national and international legislative measures enacted over the past few decades have been entirely inadequate in attempting to save native vaquita populations. Of greater importance are conservation efforts carried out by NGOs and local organisations, who integrate themselves with the communities most affected by the vaquita’s plight in an attempt to find an effective solution. One such organisation is Viva Vaquita, who organises yearly education campaigns, festivals, and conferences to raise public awareness on the vaquita’s potential extinction. They have also implemented education programmes in schools across central California in an attempt to foster concern towards the environment amongst today’s youth. By conducting research expeditions and by sharing accurate resources on the ecological background of vaquitas, as well as on the threats they face, Viva Vaquita contributes greatly to creating a well-informed public who are able to petition governments and fishing industries to end the use of gill net fishing and the trade of unsustainable seafood. With the involvement of local fishing communities in the planning and execution of conservation strategies, perhaps a compromise can be reached in which the interests of both the vaquita and the fishermen of the Gulf can be safeguarded. 

Two vaquitas sighted in the Gulf of California. Photo by Viva Vaquita.

What You Can Do to Help Vaquitas? 

• Opt for sustainable seafood. Although it is difficult nowadays to determine whether your seafood was caught ethically and sustainably, do your research ahead of time and find a few brands that you trust. Alternatively, you can take the opportunity to adopt a plant-based diet. 
• Raise awareness and petition against gill net fishing. Safeguarding the vaquita’s continued existence is largely dependent on banning the use of gill nets in the Gulf of California. Tell your friends, colleagues and neighbours about the vaquita’s plight, and petition your government to ban the import of seafood from Mexico caught with gill nets.
• Support a conservation group. There are numerous NGOs and local organisations that are currently raising awareness on the vaquita’s desperate situation, developing new vaquita-friendly fishing technology, educating local fishing communities, and conducting research on the timid vaquita. Show your support by volunteering or donating to their cause.

The post Endangered Animals Species Spotlight: Vaquitas appeared first on Earth.Org.

Stony Coral Tissue Loss Disease has wreaked havoc on Floridian and Caribbean coral reefs for several years now, with existing threats from global warming and commercial fishing exacerbating the situation further. Nevertheless, conservation work currently undertaken by scientists throughout the United States provides a glimmer of hope for future restoration. With an advanced understanding of coral reproductive habits, and the technological tools to match, several species of corals have been bred in captivity for future out-planting and reef reconstruction. Could lab-grown corals be the key to conservation? 

—

Florida’s Coastal Reef has suffered devastating effects of Stony Coral Tissue Loss Disease  (SCTLD) for several years now, following an outbreak on the coast of Miami-Dade County in 2014.  Due to its high rate of transmission, numerous reefs along the Caribbean have similarly fallen  victim to the infection. Although marine epidemics are rather common, due to extensive water  circulation, the situation at present greatly concerns scientists for its substantial geographic  range, lengthy duration, lack of seasonality, quick progression, high mortality rate and  indiscriminate nature. It first affects the symbiotic algae, or zooxanthellae, living within coral  structures. Thereafter, tissue cells begin to rupture and die.  

Over 96,000 acres, approximately 95%, of the Florida Reef Tract has been affected by the  disease, whilst in the Mexican Caribbean the outbreak has had an impact on more than 30% of all  corals. SCTLD largely targets reef-building corals, such as pillar corals (Dendrogyra cylindrus),  elliptical star corals (Dichocoenia stokesii), and boulder brain corals (Colpophyllia natans), some of  which are already listed as endangered species. Once infected, mortality rates range from  66-100%; some corals suffer substantial tissue erosion without succumbing completely to the  disease, whilst for others, death occurs within a few weeks or months.  

In 2015, attempts to identify the potential causes behind the outbreak commenced with USD$16 million of funding. A collaboration between numerous federal, state, and local agents, NGOs,  universities and community volunteers allowed for an extensive investigation into the possible  pathogenic origin. Numerous sampling and laboratory analyses were conducted on ailing corals,  epidemiological examinations were carried out, and field tests were used to evaluate the  effectiveness of treatment strategies. 

Despite these tremendous efforts, the pathogen has yet to be identified due to the complex  nature of marine environments. There is some evidence suggesting the involvement of a bacterial  agent, as antibiotics seem to reduce the progression of the disease in infected corals.  Nevertheless, it is also possible that bacteria simply acts as a secondary cause of the corals’  illness, having been already weakened by the primary pathogen and made susceptible to bacterial  infection.

The investigation into the exact nature of the outbreak was further exacerbated by the effects of  environmental conditions. As aforementioned, marine epidemics are rather common due to  extensive water circulation. However, the spread of SCTLD from Florida to the Caribbean did not  follow any known oceanographic circulation patterns, thus raising the question of how the disease managed to spread so rapidly and over such a great distance. It has been hypothesised that the release of ballast water from shipping vessels was a potential factor.

Additionally, rising sea temperatures, ocean acidification and sediment run-off from the land have proved fatal to corals for numerous years now. Such environmental hostility inevitably increases corals’ susceptibility to new infections and weakens their immune response. It is thus unclear whether SCTLD is a particularly aggressive infection, or whether corals now simply suffer an increased vulnerability to diseases. 

Since coral disease analysis is a relatively recent endeavour, little data was collected prior to the  outbreak on the microbiome (co-existing bacteria, fungi, algae and other organisms living within coral structures) of healthy corals. It is thus difficult to make a comparison with data collected from affected corals. 

Dead maze coral, photographed August 2018 (source: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission) 

Nevertheless, complications with determining the specific pathogen responsible for the epidemic  have not hindered recovery and rescue operations. Along the Florida Reef Tract, 188 sites have been established for monitoring the state of corals and coral-dependent species. Around 2,341  coral colonies are currently under careful care, with symptomatic corals receiving antibiotic  treatment. Approximately 2,800 corals have been rescued from decaying reefs and placed in  aquaria for safekeeping until they can be returned to the ocean. Since corals are extremely sensitive to their environment, tanks are fitted with UV lamps, local fish, and artificial water currents to mimic their natural habitat, and corals are fed shrimp through pipettes. This has not only prevented mass fatalities, but has also preserved the diversity of species so characteristic of Floridian and Caribbean reefs. Furthermore, research into the immune responses of these captive corals has allowed for the development of well-informed treatment and prevention strategies.  

Most incredibly, 22 sites from across the United States have successfully bred several species of lab-grown stony corals. This achievement is intended to lead to the large-scale propagation of  corals for future restoration of reefs, not only in Florida and the Caribbean, but in waters that have suffered greatly from global warming. Since extensive damage to reefs causes entire coral  colonies to perish, a gap forms between certain species and prevents them from reproducing. Thus, the out-planting of certain stony lab-grown corals can help bridge the gap by establishing the base for new colonies. 

You might also like: How 3D-Printed Tiles Can Help Restore Corals in Hong Kong

Atlantic pillar coral (Dendrogyra cylindrus), bred in August 2020 (source: The Florida Aquarium)

However, researchers are not only breeding the same coral species found naturally along ocean  floors. By studying the genetics of rescued corals, attempts are being made to cross-breed diverse species of corals which could potentially be more resistant to diseases such as SCTLD,  as well as to other threats such as rising sea temperatures. In a press release issued in August  2020, after having successfully bred Atlantic pillar coral (Dendrogyra cylindrus) in their laboratory, The Florida Aquarium stated, “lab-induced spawning allows us to produce more larvae with a  much higher diversity of parents than we ever could from wild spawning.”  

So why is this feat so remarkable? Whilst the captive breeding of marine life has become relatively commonplace within society, the breeding of lab-grown corals is notoriously  difficult. As aforementioned, lab-grown corals are extremely sensitive to their environment, and even more so when it comes to mating. Stimulation of the reproductive cycle requires numerous environmental  conditions to be achieved to an excruciating degree of specificity. Therefore, within the laboratory,  water temperature, currents, tides, hours of sunlight and lunar cycles are controlled using LED lights and computer operating systems. 

In November 2020, the first batch of coral offspring bred at The Florida Aquarium were out planted in Miami-Dade County in an attempt to begin restoration works on the reef. This gave  researchers the chance to observe how well the lab-grown corals integrated into their new environment, and thus to identify appropriate sizes, spacing, quantities and species for differing  parts of the reef. In July 2021, after acclimatising several mountainous star corals (Orbicella  faveolata) to ocean conditions, they were released into Biscayne National Park, which has been greatly affected by SCTLD. 

In addition to restoration through out-planting, these achievements are incredibly important in terms of conservation efforts as well. By breeding species with previously-elusive life cycles, researchers can gain a better understanding of the specific threats posed to these species in the wild and the conservation strategies best suited to them. Such was the case with the ridged cactus coral (Mycetophyllia lamarckiana), after its reproductive cycle was documented for the first time by The Florida Aquarium in April 2020. 

The preservation of a wide range of coral species is extremely important to maintain balance and  stability within marine ecosystems. Although coral reefs cover less than 1% of the world’s ocean floors, around 25% of marine fish species utilise or inhabit coral reefs at some point in their lives. They provide shelter for several animals, protect shorelines against strong storms and flooding,  and support local communities who rely upon the ocean for their livelihood. In southeast Florida  alone, coral reefs are valued at USD$8.5 billion, as they also act as a significant attraction for tourism.  

Given the multitude of adversities suffered by these corals, their resilience and ability to survive despite mounting stress gives researchers great hope for their future. There remain many survivors on infected reefs, including colonies of highly vulnerable species, and restoration efforts  have proven effective thus far. 

By addressing the threats and stressors to corals of which the origins we are aware, we can all do  our part in assisting restoration efforts on reefs. Global actions of great importance include, but  are not limited to: minimising turbidity, sedimentation, and pollution from land-based runoff;  limiting direct physical injury to corals from overfishing, anchors and coastal construction; and  reducing impacts of global warming, such as warming oceans and acidification. As public awareness surrounding the importance of corals has increased substantially in recent years, the  future of reef conservation is looking brighter with each passing day. 

Spawning process of the Ridged Cactus Coral, as documented by The Florida Aquarium in April 2020 (source: The Florida Aquarium).

Featured image by: The Floria Aquarium 

The post Could Lab-Grown Corals be the Key to Conservation? appeared first on Earth.Org.

Despite recurring instances of ecological degradation linked to the oil industry, whether it is from oil pollution or general practices, major corporations seem to evade liability with excessive ease. A harsher spotlight is needed on the fossil fuel sector to ensure a higher standard of environmental protection and ethical practices. 

—

Despite the relatively recent decline of the oil industry, effects of its ecologically dismissive  practices and subsequent oil pollution continue to be felt without sufficient consequences. A push towards environmental responsibility and liability for ecological damage has only just begun, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. 

Over the last few centuries, the global population has become increasingly dependent upon one of Earth’s most finite resources without sufficient regard for the consequences of this growing reliance. It powers the cars we drive, the planes we ride, the buses we chase after, and junk boats we hire out on those hot summer weekends. National economies hinge on its availability, and the  production of plastic, clothes, and technology would cease without it. It has fuelled political conflicts, wars, mass casualties, and severe environmental degradation. Yet, the average Joe filling up his tank with fuel never stops to consider what was sacrificed for the comfort of driving his private, two-seater Porsche. It seems as though our vulnerability to a life without crude oil has provided major oil companies with the perfect excuse to extract this “liquid gold” by any means necessary. This includes immense, irreparable damage to ecosystems and habitats, with drilling sites leaving grave ecological disasters in their wake. All the while an unjustifiable cloak of indemnity drapes over shareholders and CEOs, facilitating their continued evasion of fines, penalties, and imprisonment.  

You may be asking, but isn’t the situation improving? The oil industry is on a steady decline, with  stock values of the four biggest oil and gas companies dropping to less than half of their original  values since 2010. Seven countries around the world are running almost exclusively on renewable energy, with many more following suit. There are currently over five million electric vehicles on the  road, and it is estimated that 58% of global vehicle sales will come from electric models by 2040. 

Whilst these feats of environmental protection are surely reasons to rejoice, we must not turn our  attention away from the fossil fuel industry just yet. Despite usage of crude oil dropping drastically in the past few years, the US continues to consume around 18.9 million barrels of petroleum per day. Saudi Aramco, one of the largest oil companies in the world, is responsible for emitting 59,262 million tonnes of carbon dioxide annually, constituting 4.38% of total global emissions for 2019. Despite previously enacting a referendum to limit oil drilling to an area of 300 hectares, the Yasuni National Park in Ecuador, a UNESCO biosphere, suffered 413 hectares of deforestation in 2018. Even if oil extraction or oil pollltuion were to cease in such an area, extensive soil erosion would prevent the ecosystem from ever fully recovering. 

Widespread greenwashing campaigns produced by oil giants attempt to bury evidence of  environmental malpractice with sizeable donations into green charities and exaggerated claims of eco-friendliness. This effectively deceives those with little understanding of their past and current  offences. A prime example is the lack of awareness surrounding the thousands of oceanic oil pollution and spills that occur in the US each year. Although most are small in scale, such as when petroleum spills during the refuelling of shipping vessels, they still cause damage to wildlife and ecosystems in the surrounding environment.  

You might also like: Mapping the Mauritius Oil Spill

This rampant ecological destruction and oil pollution followed by a lack of accountability and legal ramifications has been ongoing since the beginning of oil excavation. Two infamous examples illustrate this tragic commonplace of ocean environments and developing countries.  

The first involves Texaco, which was bought out by Chevron in 2001. Upon merging, Chevron admitted to Texaco dumping approximately 18.5 billion gallons of toxic water into the Ecuadorian Amazon rainforest between 1964 and 1990. This affected over 800,000 hectares of rainforest.  Drilling sites left behind toxic ponds of thick, oily sediment which continue to run into sources of  freshwater used by Amazonian populations today. Consequently, cancer and disease have become far more widespread among these indigenous communities as a result of the oil pollution. A mere USD$40 million was spent on clean-up and restoration, which is dwarfed by the USD$400 million Chevron spends annually on legal fees in an attempt to evade liability for the events.  Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in Gulf of Mexico in 2010. Source: Wikimedia Commons.

The second surrounds the catastrophic Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010, which is one of the most controversial environmental disasters in history. An explosion at the BP-owned oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico caused over 500 million litres of crude oil to spill into the surrounding ocean. Despite a settlement of USD$20.8 billion between BP and the US government in 2016, clean-up  efforts appeared more concerned with hiding the spill than effectively extracting it from the water.  Dispersants were utilised in unprecedented quantities in an attempt to dilute the oil and prevent it  from reaching shorelines. The resulting diluted oil was shown to be extremely toxic to fish, turtles,  birds, and corals, sinking to the bottom of the ocean in large plumes. Furthermore, the  dispersants used, Corexit 9500A and Corexit 9527A, were found to be the most toxic and least effective of their kind. With board members previously employed by BP and Exxon, it’s no wonder  that Nalco, the dispersant producer, was able to sell millions of dollars of dispersants to BP. 

Nevertheless, the million dollar question remains: How do they evade liability? 

There are several factors at play in the lack of accountability within the oil industry, differing depending on the circumstances. Acts of environmental degradation in developing countries are  most commonly committed not by the parent company itself, but by a subsidiary or shell  company under its control. The parent company is given permission to establish drill sites by  providing unfounded promises of financial compensation, or by simply bribing government  officials. Once sufficient oil has been extracted (in other words, once the land has been stripped  of all its intrinsic value), the subsidiary is simply dissolved. This essentially leaves no trace of  either the subsidiary or the parent company, and thus no one to foot the bill for the damage left  behind. Thereinafter, issues of jurisdiction step in, preventing the legislature of the developing  country from filing a lawsuit against the parent company. Even if the lawsuit were to go to court,  the corporation could avoid paying either by continuously filing appeals against the decision, or  by simply not paying. 

Chevron-Texaco employed this tactic in 2011, where an Ecuadorian court fined the company USD$18 billion for the aforementioned damages to the Amazon. Chevon refused to pay and withdrew  all of their assets from Ecuador. The damages remain unpaid to this day. As former general  counsel of Chevron, Charles James, stated, “We’re going to fight this until hell freezes over, and then we’ll fight it on the ice”.  

However, we must not despair. Environmental protection efforts have received a great gust of  strength in recent years. Groups of conservationists have seen past the greenwashing, beyond  the shield of indemnity, and have decided to challenge both oil giants and the societal norms that  purportedly protect them. In the United Kingdom, the Supreme Court made a landmark ruling in  February 2021, stating that Shell could be sued in an English court for the crimes committed by  its Nigerian subsidiary. Shell was subsequently fined USD$111 million for the ecological mess it  left in Nigeria in 1991, with crude oil pollution causing extensive contamination of soil and freshwater. In  May 2021, the Hague further ordered Shell to reduce its carbon emissions by 45% by 2030. 

Meanwhile, in the United States, nearly two dozen lawsuits have recently been filed against the  biggest players in the oil industry. Several cities and states are accusing these companies of  contributing greatly to the environmental crisis, whilst covering up evidence of their malpractice  and suppressing warnings from scientists as to the effects of their activities. A similar story transpired in France in 2020, with five NGOs and fourteen local authorities accusing Total of defaulting on their claims of improving their environmental protection efforts. Underpinning the case was the French Duty of Vigilance law of 2017, which states that French multinational  corporations are responsible for the actions undertaken by their subsidiaries.  

By sustaining this societal scrutiny of the oil industry, corporations can be held to a higher  standard of responsibility for their actions. With recent landmark rulings and laws regarding the  liability of parent companies for the crimes of their foreign subsidiaries, developing countries may  finally achieve justice for the ecological disasters inflicted upon their land. We must continue to  press for reduced carbon emissions and enforce penalties when targets are not reached. We must regulate oil drilling in developing countries to prevent forced labour, environmental damage, and  financial duress from occurring. Most importantly, we must begin to take a look at our own carbon  footprint and determine how we can help by making a difference locally. 

Featured image by: Eric Kounce/Wikipedia

The post Oil Pollution and Spills: Who Is Responsible? appeared first on Earth.Org.