Carlos Duarte, oceanographer, professor of Marine Sciences at the King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, was recently in Cala Clara, in Mallorca, where he was surprised by the abundance of large rockfish, octopuses, crabs and marine plants such as posidonia. Duarte talks about what he calls “the covid generation of marine life”, born in a period when human pressure on sea fauna would have led to reproductive success and facilitated their recovery. The observation of juvenile specimens of several species of sharks, such as white sharks, in waters close to the beaches, would be some demonstrations of this generation of specimens that was born when man “disappeared” or, at least , lowered the pressure momentarily. “Covid is leaving a mark on a recovery episode in marine life that can have long-term effects”, he says.
Would this recovery be taking place in Spain, in the whole world?
Not only in Spain, but throughout the Mediterranean and throughout North America. News of this recovery and the abundance of sharks and other species are coming in from all over the world, but they are being reported as local phenomena and no one is connecting the news. It would require an effort to take samples, slaughter animals, see how old they are and analyze them. But the most plausible hypothesis is that it has been the result of the respite given by covid.
Is it your impression? Is it a recovery only during the confinement stage?
It is not just my impression, I connect what is known from social networks and media around the world with similar observations. There are hundreds of evidences of reduced human pressure and increased reproduction of marine animals. Keep in mind that confinement affected a maximum of 60% of the human population in 2020.
What would be the long-term impact of this hiatus?
No one has done a study on what the long-term consequences have been. In science we work from hypothesis, and hypotheses are based on some observations, and this generates what can be knowledge. What we are now appreciating are observations that could encourage a systematic study to verify all of this. It is a hypothesis that is based on all the data we compiled in 2020.
Some witnesses speak of more presence of sharks or turtles…
In the United States, the greatest abundance of sharks in history is being reported, or sea turtles where there was no memory of them being there. We receive news of more presence of sharks or dolphins. No one has formulated the hypothesis that all this is part of a global phenomenon that is based on the 2020 data.
And sea turtles?
During the anthropopause there has been a recovery of the habitat that was being lost, this is what we are seeing. We will see the response of the turtles when they burrow in 30 years, when the hatchlings born during the anthropopause reach reproductive maturity and return to the beaches where they were born to burrow.
Which species could have had a more important recovery?
Those with habitats in coastal areas, rockfish, coastal invertebrates, underwater meadows or oceanic species that temporarily use the coastal area. I believe that that break would have affected population dynamics. In contrast, open-ocean species will not have noticed any change because oceanic maritime trade at that stage was little reduced.
In that confinement, the fauna was able to reproduce more calmly.
This is documented. At Gahirmatha Beach in India, home to the world’s most endangered sea turtle, the olive ridley, the number of hatchlings in 2020 was between 100 and 1,000 times higher than those ‘they had previously observed, as it is a very frequented area with passing vehicles that destroyed the nests. That there was no one on that beach for months was key. These turtles I’m talking about can have a longevity of 80 or 90 years. We are talking about something similar to the baby boom in our generation, which took place in the post-World War II period.
In terms of structural measures for the recovery of marine life, where should they go?
It is key here that the Kunming-Montreal Global Framework for Diversity be approved in December 2022, which sets the goals of the Diversity Convention for the decade. It was agreed to protect 30% of marine waters by 2030. Now we have only 8.5% protected, and we had to reach 10% by 2020, which we did not do. Another agreement was the commitment to recover 30% of degraded habitats by 2020, something that the Nature of Europe law, approved by a narrow margin, does not achieve.
It was a complex arrangement…
And the European Union, which was the most ambitious promoter group in Montreal, when it agreed to this law in the European Parliament to consolidate it, only dared to pass it with 20%, and not with 30%
Disappointed?
I note that eight months after the Montreal agreement, Europe has already lowered its ambition, and despite this it has taken a lot to pass the law. We have a global mandate and commitment to restore 30% of degraded habitats.
Do marine protected areas serve?
They are an effective protection instrument, but it is passive: you protect the spaces from major impacts and you wait for nature to recover on its own. Instead, restoration is an active measure to speed up efforts to protect marine protected areas. We have a global framework to recover biodiversity. Another thing is that we fulfill them, because in these conferences goals are set for decades and these last two decades we have been very far from the goals. In 2020, only 5% of the targets to stop the loss of biodiversity agreed in Aichi (Japan) were met, and now we see that the European Union has lowered its promises.
