Experts caution against ‘ocean nourishment’

The UP Marine Science Institute, the National Center of Excellence in the Marine Sciences, is not in favor of an “Ocean Nourishment Project” (ONP). The project, proposed by Sydney-based Ocean Nourishment Corp. (ONC), is to be conducted in the Sulu Sea. Primarily an experimental measure to arrest global warming, the project involves dumping large amounts of urea into the ocean to stimulate the growth of phytoplankton in the hopes of reducing levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the ocean’s surface layer and in the atmosphere.

The project seems a simple solution to the increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere, which is blamed for creating the greenhouse effect. However, in a statement signed by MSI Director Dr. Maria Lourdes San Diego-McGlone, the institute claims that the proposal carries uncertainties that outweigh its potential benefits.

According to reports, ONC’s project involves releasing 500 tons of urea granules into the sea. The Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) has withheld endorsement of the project to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), citing concerns about the large amount of urea to be used and possible impacts of such large-scale intervention.

MSI cites the fact that “the impacts of large-scale ocean nourishment or artificial fertilization on the environment cannot be predicted at the present time with an acceptable level of certainty.”

MSI agrees that fertilization will increase phytoplankton which could consume carbon dioxide, but the tiny plants also represent organic carbon which will sink to the ocean in amounts difficult to measure or verify. The institute is also concerned about the complex marine food web system that may be disrupted by artificial fertilization. As there are different kinds of plankton, fertilization might increase only one or a few species, such as harmful algae or red tides.

There is also a possibility that an increased phytoplankton biomass will mean more food for the zooplanktons, whose increased food consumption will lead to greater respiration or release of carbon dioxide. MSI reiterates the difficulty of monitoring blooms despite satellites because of the Philippines’ high cloud cover.

MSI contends that these uncertainties are compounded by the fact that “Sulu Sea dynamics are not yet well understood.” The Sulu Sea, it adds, is home to many critical or sensitive habitats including the Tubbataha Reef – a UNESCO World Heritage Site, a Ramsar Wetlands Site, and the first Philippine National Marine Park.

“We are calling on all concerned government agencies (DENR and the Department of Agriculture’s BFAR) to start formulating guidelines to regulate these kinds of endeavor,” the MSI statement says. “This position is also in consonance with the recently released position of the (International Maritime Organization) calling for a moratorium on ocean fertilization experiments and a call for international oversight,” it adds.

The MSI recommends that before conducting such experiments, full environmental impact assessment, including consultations with stakeholders and documentation of previous experiments, should take place.

The MSI challenged the Australian company to first demonstrate the efficacy of such a large-scale project in Australian waters, “such as the Gulf of Carpentaria in their Northern Territories, a tropical sea.”

In a recent newspaper article, former UP Visayas College of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences Dean Dr. Romeo Fortes was quoted as saying that the project would be very beneficial if it succeeded, but urging for caution. The project should be “calculated” and guided by protocols, he said in the report.