Transcript
179 © The Ecological Society of America www.frontiersinecology.org Write Back was specifically named controver-sial in media coverage (Lekve1995; Sønstelie and Stenvik 1995),even though it was a RTR conver-sion and not a deepwater disposal.The leader of Greenpeace’s BrentSpar campaign told the Norwegiannewspaper Aftenposten , “it will becompletely unacceptable to go for-ward with dumping of a steel jacketin the North Sea because the depthand fish species are not appropriatefor artificial reefs” (Trond 1995).This language equated RTR withdumping; thus reef creation be-came entangled with disposalrather than being seen as an alter-native to disposal.The controversy spilled into policy-making. Environmentalist and fish-eries organizations, asked to formallycomment on the Odin plan, criticizedit as a pretext for dumping (Green-peace 1995; Norges Fiskerlag 1995; Norges Miljøvernforbund 1995). The Norwegian Ministry of Industry andEnergy named the Brent Spar incidentand resultant treaties as important intheir decision to reject the Odin reef plan. Although recognizing that a trialartificial reef could result in “usefulinformation and knowledge on a con-troversial question”, the NorwegianParliament’s Energy and EnvironmentCommittee decided that the objec-tions were substantial and recom-mended removal (Norway, Innst.S.nr.251, 1995–1996). The politicalmomentum of 1995 made it impossi-ble for the Norwegian Parliament toapprove such a plan.Excluding RTR as a decommis-sioning option continued as OSPARdeveloped artificial reef guidelinesbetween 1996 and 1999 (Jørgensen2012). During debates about theguidelines, some delegations refer-enced the regulations that hadgrown out of the Brent Spar proteststo argue for banning RTR (eg Ger-man Delegation to OSPAR 1996).Their position prevailed; in its finalform, the OSPAR Guidelines on Artificial Reefs in Relation to Living Marine Resources disapproved of reusing offshore structures as reefs.With the upcoming surge in NorthSea removals of steel platforms, theconclusions of Macreadie et al . arerelevant and the authors are to becommended for their review of RTRscience – but science is not alone ininfluencing ocean management poli-cies. Historical events turn policiesin particular directions: because of the Brent Spar protests, RTR wasequated with dumping. As long asthis sentiment remains, no amountof science will change policy. Ex-posing how and why past RTRpolicy decisions were made gives sci-entists like Macreadie et al . astronger case for why these policiesshould be changed in light of theirscience. The OSPAR contractingparties need to be urged to rethinktheir policy of equating RTR withdumping. For science to have greaterpolicy relevance, scientists need tomore firmly embed their science inpolicy history. Dolly Jørgensen Department of Ecology andEnvironmental Science, UmeåUniversity, Umeå, Sweden(
[email protected]) I thank OSPAR and the NorwegianMinistry of Petroleum and Energy forgranting access to their archives, and C Nilsson and EM Hasselquist for comments.Esso Norge. 1995. Letter to Nærings –ogenergidepartementet, Mar 23. Oslo, Norway: Olje –og energideparte-mentet archives, 93/10536-9.German Delegation to OSPAR. 1996.Comments on draft guidelines for theconstruction of artificial reefs. London,UK: OSPAR archives, SEBA.Greenpeace. 1995. Letter to Nærings –ogenergidepartementet. Oslo, Norway:Olje –og energidepartementet archi-ves, 93/10536-30. Jørgensen D. 2012. OSPAR’s exclusion of rigs-to-reefs in the North Sea. OceanCoast Manage 58 : 57–61.Lekve J. 1995. Oljeplattform som kunstigrev. Bergens tidende . Apr 29. Norges Fiskerlag. 1995. Letter to Nærings –og energidepartementet, May 10. Oslo, Norway: Olje –og energideparte-mentet archives, 93/10536-17. Norges Miljøvernforbund. 1995. Letter to Nærings –og energidepartementet, Aug3. Oslo, Norway: Olje –og energi-departementet archives, 93/10536-28.Picken GB and McIntyre AD. 1989. Rigsto reefs in the North Sea. Bull Mar Sci 44 : 782–88.Rice T and Owen P. 1999. Decommission-ing the Brent Spar. London, UK: SponPress.Sønstelie R and Stenvik AO. 1995. Slepestil Norsk fjord. VG . Jun 21.Trond B. 1995. Greenpeace varsleraksjoner: Bråk hvis Odin-plattformsenkes. Aftenposten . Aug 29. doi:10.1890/12.WB.012 Rigs-to-reefs policy: canscience trump publicsentiment? In response to our article ( Front EcolEnviron 2011; 9[8] : 455–61), Jørgen-sen suggested that in regions like the North Sea, rigs-to-reefs (RTR) pro-grams remain at the mercy of poli-tics, and that any scientific supportfor RTR conversions will likely beovershadowed by unfortunate histor-ical events (eg the Brent Spar contro-versy). While we agree that historyand public sentiment can stronglyinfluence policy direction, we aresomewhat more optimistic that goodscience can drive RTR policy devel-opment, even in areas where RTRhas become a virulent term.Despite the hostile political cli-mate surrounding RTR in the NorthSea, recent events in the US state of California indicate that strong his-torical opposition to such programsdoes not necessarily dictate futurepolicy directions. Rigs-to-reefs poli-cies in California have been fiercelycontested for more than a decade,and yet a recent bill to allow RTRconversion was passed with littleopposition in the State House. Thebill (AB2503), which was signed bythen-Governor Arnold Schwarzen-egger on 30 Sep 2010, allows oilcompanies to leave rigs in place if they can demonstrate a net benefitto the environment. The bill wassupported by numerous high-profileenvironmental groups (eg OceanConservancy, The Nature Conser-vancy, Monterey Bay Aquarium,California League of ConservationVoters), some of which were previ-ously opposed to similar RTR bills.So did science play a role in devel-oping California’s RTR policy? Afterall, the previous bill (SB 1) in 2001 180 www.frontiersinecology.org ©The Ecological Society of America Write Back had been vetoed by then-GovernorGray Davis on the basis that “there isno conclusive evidence that con-verted platforms enhance marinespecies or produce net benefits to theenvironment”. The fact that the billwas proposed before results of amajor review study by the CaliforniaOcean Science Trust were published– which was specifically enacted toinform state decisions on the issue –suggests that science was not behindthe policy development.However, nearly a decade of research by Milton Love and col-leagues in California has provided asubstantial body of evidence in sup-port of RTR conversions on ecologi-cal grounds in the region (case study,see our srcinal paper cited above),and we believe the findings of thisresearch were in large part responsi-ble for the recent positive policydecision concerning RTR. Speci-fically, Love et al . (2000) discoveredlarge abundances of commerciallyimportant rockfish species ( Sebastes spp) associated with platforms insouthern California, and although itwas argued the platforms likely con-tributed little to regional populationsbecause of the relatively smallamount of habitat provided (Hol-brook et al . 2000), Love et al . (2006)estimated that just eight platformssupported ~20% of juvenile Sebastes paucispinis recruiting annually in theregion. In this case, the findings pro-vided support for RTR conversion,but more importantly, the researchprovided a scientific assessment of theecological value of rigs as fish habitat.Such assessment allows the ecologicalbenefit (or detriment) of RTR con-versions to be weighed against likelyoutcomes of other decommissioningoptions, and provides tangible guid-ance for policy makers.The Brent Spar controversy re-ferred to by Jørgensen serves as areminder of the importance of soundscientific information for avoidingemotionally driven policy decisions.Although controversy was admit-tedly fueled by media frenzy and pub-lic sentiment, we argue that the issuewas underpinned by a lack of scien-tific information regarding the eco-logical impact of disposal of industrystructures in the deep sea. So littlewas known about this topic (and stillis today) that Shell, the Brent Spar operator, was forced to commissionnumerous ecological studies todemonstrate that the company wasfollowing the Best Practicable En-vironmental Option (ie the bestenvironmental solution given practi-cal limits of safety, feasibility, andcost). These studies reportedly pre-dicted only minor and localizedeffects of the disposal (Shell 2008;but see Wallace and Johnston 1995),assuming thorough pre-cleaning of the facility was undertaken. Yet, theperceived bias of such ad hoc studiesresulted in negative public sentimentand a general lack of acceptance. Weneither support nor oppose the oper-ator’s case in this matter, but suggestthat had a substantial body of inde-pendent scientific research beenavailable at the time, decisionsregarding disposal may have beenconsiderably less controversial.Until environmental research isincorporated at a high level into RTRpolicy development, the solution fordecommissioning best suited forfuture welfare of the environmentmay elude us. Given the long timeperiod needed to evaluate environ-mental costs and benefits of RTRconversion, and the large number of offshore rigs that are due for decom-missioning globally (~85% in thenext 5–10 years), we urge the devel-opment of more long-term researchprograms. Such programs need toaccount for contemporary environ-mental issues, such as the carbonfootprint associated with the decom-missioning options, which wereignored in previous RTR evaluations. Peter I Macreadie * , Ashley M Fowler,and David J Booth School of the Environment, Universityof Technology, Sydney, Australia * (
[email protected]) Holbrook SJ, Ambrose RF, Botsford L, et al .2000. Ecological issues related todecommissionining of California’s off-shore production platforms. Report tothe University of California MarineCouncil by the Select ScientificAdvisory Committee on Decommis-sioning. www.coastalresearchcenter.ucsb.edu/cmi/files/decommreport.pdf.Viewed 28 Mar 2012.Love MS, Caselle JE, and Snook L. 2000.Fish assemblages around seven oil plat-forms in the Santa Barbara Channelarea. Fish Bull 98 : 96–117.Love MS, Schroeder DM, Lenarz W, et al .2006. Potential use of offshore marinestructures in rebuilding an overfishedrockfish species, bocaccio ( Sebastes paucispinis ). Fish Bull 104 : 383–90.Shell. 2008. Brent Spar dossier. London,UK.Wallace H and Johnston P. 1995. BrentSpar or broken spur? Nature 376 : 208. doi:10.1890/12.WB.013
