Saturday, June 8, 2019

Ocean Day

A little girl speaks to the ocean.
Finalist of the World Oceans Day Photo Competition 2017 / Dragos Dumitrescu, Romania.

From UN


Why Celebrate World Oceans Day?

We celebrate World Oceans Day to remind everyone of the major role the oceans have in everyday life.
They are the lungs of our planet, providing most of the oxygen we breathe.
The purpose of the Day is to inform the public of the impact of human actions on the ocean, develop a worldwide movement of citizens for the ocean, and mobilize and unite the world’s population on a project for the sustainable management of the world's oceans.
They are a major source of food and medicines and a critical part of the biosphere.
In the end, it is a day to celebrate together the beauty, the wealth and the promise of the ocean.

Focus for 2019: Gender and the Ocean


We have an opportunity to explore the gender dimension of humankind’s relationship with the ocean.

This year, we strive to build greater ocean and gender literacy, and to discover possible ways to promote gender equality in ocean-related activities such as marine scientific research, fisheries, labour at sea, migration by sea and human trafficking, as well as policy-making and management.

The importance of gender equality — in particular for the effective conservation and sustainable use of oceans, seas and marine resources — is increasingly recognized.
However, there is very little data and research on these issues, and a concerted action towards gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls is still needed in all ocean-related sectors to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 5.

The UN is hosting a conference in celebration of World Oceans Day.
Storytellers and speakers from around the world will join to share perspectives to build greater ocean and gender literacy and discover possible ways to promote gender equality in ocean-related activities.


The Battle Against Plastic Pollution

This year, the President of the General Assembly launched 'Play It Out', a global campaign against plastic pollution.
Decades of overuse and a surge in single-use plastics has led to a global environmental catastrophe. Today, 13,000,000 tonnes of plastic leak into the ocean every year, what among other damage, kill 100,000 marine animals annually.
While most plastics are expected to remain intact for decades or centuries after use, those that do erode end up as micro-plastics, consumed by fish and other marine wildlife, quickly making their way into the global food chain.

From plastic straws to plastic bags, we all are at the frontline of efforts to #BeatPlasticPollution.

Coordinated By the UN Office of Legal Affairs, the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, the 2019 finalists of the UN WOD Photo Competition will be announced at the UN celebration on Friday, June 7th.
More information on the competition, previous finalists and this year's panel of judges is available on the World Oceans Day Photo Competition website.

Friday, June 7, 2019

Canada’s UN submission will (eventually) draw the last lines on the map

A map showing Northern Canada and the Arctic Ocean.

From The Conversation by Andrea Charron

In May 2019, Canada made a partial submission to the United Nations to recognize an extended continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles in the Arctic Ocean.
This means that Canada will soon have the last lines drawn on the map of Canada.

Canada’s submission was made to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) under Article 76 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

There was surprisingly little fanfare over this extraordinary accomplishment in a week of maritime-related accomplishments that included Canada acceding to an international moratorium to prevent unregulated commercial fishing in the central Arctic Ocean.

As a political scientist, I want to understand the processes used, the states involved and the international organizations and law that guided this extraordinary example of global governance.

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS, is an international treaty that sets out the legal framework for ocean activities and boundaries.
In 2003, the Government of Canada set out to collect the scientific evidence needed to define our extended continental shelf.
But, how do we measure and define land that is hidden deep under water or ice?
This video, from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, outlines how the government measures and defines land that is hidden deep under water or ice.

Shelf’s edge

First, what is the continental shelf? Imagine you are standing on an ocean beach.
You decide to keep walking for as long as you can feel ground beneath your feet.
This ground is the seabed and subsoil, and coastal states have inherent right to explore and exploit the natural resources.

According to UNCLOS, this does not depend upon occupation or an express proclamation; in other words, Canada need not provide any justification.
And if the coastal state can provide evidence that its continental shelf extends beyond 200 nautical miles — the outer continental shelf — Canada can explore and extract mineral and other non-living resources from the seabed and subsoil.

An illustration showing the zones as pertaining to the limits of a state’s jurisdiction.

Canada’s partial submission to the CLCS, which includes written explanations and physical evidence, was led by branches of the federal government: Global Affairs Canada, Geological Survey of Canada and the Canadian Hydrographic Service.

There was also extensive assistance and participation by various Indigenous groups, Canada’s territorial governments, Parks Canada, the Canadian Ice Service, the Canadian Coast Guard, Defence Research and Development Canada and the Department of National Defence.

Collecting information

Collecting data in the Arctic is extremely difficult and costly.
It is only possible to navigate the Arctic in the summer months, and even then, the perennial ice coverage and weather, wind and current conditions pose challenges.

Data collected for Canada’s submission included bathymetric, gravimetric, seismic, areo-gravity and areo-metric information.
Retrieving 800 kg of rock samples and three piston cores involves engineering and scientific feats of marvel, bravery and sheer determination.

Considering Canada had more rock samples from the moon than from the Arctic, it is a reminder of how little is known about the Arctic.
Imagine, therefore, the scientific breakthroughs Canada and the world have yet to discover with this data especially now that government scientists helping with Canada’s submission are now at liberty to publish their findings in academic journals.

This map shows the outer limits of Canada’s continental shelf in the Arctic Ocean.
The map is part of Canada’s submission to the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.
Jonathan Wilkinson, Canada’s minister of fisheries, oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, called this “a major step forward in ensuring Canada’s Arctic sovereignty.”
(Image courtesy of the Government of Canada)

A map from Canada’s UNCLOS submission showing the Lomonosov Ridge.
Source: Government of Canada 

Collaboration and geopolitics

Canada’s submission was aided by collaboration with the governments of Denmark, Sweden (and especially its icebreaker Oden), the U.S.
and Germany.

The Arctic Ocean is surrounded by five coastal states: Canada, Russia, the U.S., Denmark (via Greenland and the Faroe Islands) and Norway.
It was anticipated by all of the Arctic states that Russia, the U.S., Canada and Denmark, by virtue of their adjacent and opposite locations, could have overlapping claims.

 Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ: black line) and Extended Continental Shelves (ECS). Notes: Russian ECS submitted in 2001 not recommended by the UN Commission (CLCS) Norwegian ECS (white arrow) submitted in 2006 recommended by CLCS in 2009 and ‘accepted’ by Norwegian government in 2009. (GAC/DFO/NRCan)

 Arctic EEZ (extract from the GeoGarage platform)

It was expected that all four would collect data from at least some of the same areas of extended continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles.
Russia, Denmark and Canada have all made at least partial submissions to the CLCS which will review the scientific evidence and provide technical feedback regarding the scientific integrity of the data provided.

The CLCS cannot reconcile overlapping claims.
Annex 1 of the CLSC’s rules of procedure notes that “matters regarding disputes which may arise in connection with the establishment of the outer limits of the continental shelf rests with States.”
Establishing boundaries

Canada, Russia, Denmark and the U.S. are expected to continue to negotiate, as they will have the final say in determining the extent of the boundaries.
This means Canada has years to wait before the process is completed, and there are a few caveats to keep in mind.

First, given the highly technical nature of the evidence and the few number of commission members, Canada’s submission is not expected to be fully reviewed by the CLCS for many years.
Canada’s Arctic submission is currently number 84 on the CLCS’ list.

Second, the U.S. is not a party to UNCLOS although it does treat much of it, including Article 76, as customary law (meaning the U.S.
agrees to the outlined principles).
The U.S. has an active Extended Continental Shelf program and the government is collecting data in anticipation of ongoing negotiations.

Third, there is no time crunch for the resources of the extended continental shelf given the distance, cost and difficulties to access them.
Many tend to assume that resources do exist for exploitation, but it could also be that there is nothing of commercial worth available.

Fourth, any resources and activity within the water and airspace beyond 200 nautical miles from the coastal baseline belongs to everyone and is governed by international law.

Finally, there are limitations in UNCLOS on the extent of the continental shelf and Article 82 of UNCLOS provides for a system of revenue sharing by means of payments or contributions in kind with respect to the extraction of non-living resources of the continental shelf lying beyond 200 nautical miles.
Given the small size of the Arctic Ocean, however, most of it is already captured within the Arctic coastal states’ exclusive economic zones.

Canada’s Executive Summary submission is available for anyone to review.
Despite the complexity of the data, the submission is very readable and excellent scholarship.
This reflects the extraordinary work of Canada’s scientists and civil servants, and is an example of global governance working well.

Links :

Thursday, June 6, 2019

'Top Secret' maps reveal the massive Allied effort behind D-Day

Following months of top secret planning, U.S. Army troops wade ashore from a landing craft to Omaha Beach, Normandy, on June 6, 1944: D-Day.
photo by Granger/Album

From National Geographic by Neil Kagan and Stephen Hyslop

 This article is excerpted from Atlas of World War II, published by National Geographic Books. Copyright 2018 

As dawn broke on June 6, 1944, in northern France, the Allies began an invasion in the works for years: D-Day, the start of Operation Overlord that turned the tide against Nazi Germany.

THE ALLIED INVASION of German-occupied France that began in the early hours of June 6, 1944, was long in the making.
By gaining supremacy in the Atlantic in 1943, the Allies had cleared the way for a huge buildup of American troops and equipment in Great Britain.
Between January and June 1944, nine million tons of supplies and 800,000 soldiers crossed the Atlantic from the United States to bolster the invasion, designated Operation Overlord.

Meanwhile, Allied pilots exploited their hard-won superiority over the diminished German Luftwaffe by blasting French railways and bridges to keep their foes from rushing reserves to Normandy when troops landed there.
Anglo-American commanders battle tested in North Africa and Italy, including American Dwight D.
Eisenhower and Bernard Montgomery of the United Kingdom, prepared to lead invasion troops against their old foe, German general Erwin Rommel, assigned to strengthen French coastal defenses while the bulk of the German Army struggled to hold back resurgent Soviets on the Eastern Front.
(See also: Memories of D-Day come alive on the beaches where it happened.)

The German defensive barrier known as the Atlantic Wall included two areas that met the requirements for a massive Allied invasion—beaches that were accessible to landing craft, tanks, and other vehicles and were not too far from British ports or from Germany, the ultimate objective.
Suitable beaches around Calais were only 30 miles from the port of Dover and 200 miles from the German border, but their proximity to the Reich meant that they were well defended.
The other promising landing site—between the fortified ports of Le Havre and Cherbourg in Normandy—was farther from Germany but was chosen because beaches there were less heavily defended.
-map by NG maps-

The German wall

Planning for Operation Overlord began in London more than a year before the invasion took place.
Allied staff officers led by Lt.
Gen.
Frederick Morgan debated where to pierce the Atlantic Wall, German coastal fortifications extending from Norway to the southwest coast of France.
The shortest route to Germany lay across the Strait of Dover (Pas-de-Calais), but landing around Calais meant attacking the strongest sector of the Atlantic Wall.

Morgan and staff decided instead to land on the coast of Normandy, which lay farther from Germany but was less heavily fortified.
Their original plan, drawn up in strict secrecy, called for three divisions to come ashore on a narrow front on D-Day.
But when Eisenhower and Montgomery arrived in London in early 1944 to serve respectively as supreme commander and field commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force destined for Normandy, they altered the invasion plan based on amphibious operations in Italy.
(See also: Excerpt: Rare World War II maps reveal Japan's Pearl Harbor strategy.)

Five divisions would land on D-Day on a broader front, supported by three airborne divisions and followed by an immense influx of men and material.
The huge commitment of landing craft and other resources to Normandy meant that a second invasion of France along the Mediterranean coast, which was meant to coincide with Overlord to prevent Germans in the south from being shifted to Normandy, would instead take place a few months after Overlord unfolded.

 Defending the coast :
Rommel (front row, third from left) inspecting a beach near Calais in April 1944, made sure that obstacles laid there were also installed on the Normandy coast.
His request to defend that coast with armored divisions to meet invaders head-on was denied.
photograph by Prisma by Dukas Presseagentur Gmbh

Germany’s defense

German commanders did not ignore the potential threat to Normandy.
Rommel—in charge of Army Group B under Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt, German commander in chief in the West—laced beaches there with mines as well as obstructions that would force landing craft to disgorge troops at low tide, leaving them more exposed to enemy fire.
Rommel wanted panzer divisions deployed at likely landing sites in Normandy to repulse invaders before they established a beachhead and were reinforced.
“Everything we have must be on the coast,” he insisted.

Rundstedt disagreed, and Hitler decided to hold most German armored forces in reserve under his own control until the invasion took place.
Only one panzer division guarded the Normandy coast beforehand.
An elaborate Allied deception campaign called Operation Bodyguard—which included simulating phantom divisions and feeding false reports to Berlin from German agents under British control—led Hitler to view landings at Normandy as a diversion, which would be followed by a massive Allied thrust across the Strait of Dover.
(See also: The inside story of how three unlikely allies won World War II.)

Dawning of D-Day

The invasion of Normandy was preceded by daring coastal and aerial reconnaissance that yielded detailed charts of the five landing zones: Gold, Juno, Sword, Utah, and Omaha beaches.

Ensign Joseph Vaghi, a beachmaster at Omaha Beach, carried this top secret map to show where troops and equipment would deploy along the coast.
photograph by collection of Joe Vaghi
see full image

Omaha Beach, the largest of the of the D-Day attack zones, was subdivided into areas which were code-named Charlie, Dog (divided into Green, White, and Red sections), Easy (divided into Green and Red sections), and Fox (divided into Green and Red sections).

Foul weather forced Eisenhower to postpone Overlord until June 6.
Two more weeks would pass before the moon and tides were again favorable for paratroopers landing inland before dawn and soldiers landing on the beaches at daybreak.

The decision to proceed on the sixth, during a predicted lull in the storm, caught German commanders by surprise.
But some Allied landing craft and amphibious tanks sank in swells, and men who stayed afloat were seasick.
Nausea mingled with dread as they disembarked under fire.
“Many were hit in the water and drowned,” recalled Sgt.
Bob Slaughter of the U.S.
29th Infantry Regiment.
“There were dead men in the water and live men acting dead, letting the tide take them in.”

Nearly 3,000 Americans were killed or wounded on Omaha Beach, most of them in the first few hours.
As shellfire from Allied warships began silencing enemy gunners on the cliffs, however, soldiers rallied and pushed inland through ravines toward Colleville-sur-Mer.
Americans who landed at Utah Beach faced little resistance, and British and Canadian troops advanced several miles inland from their beaches and withstood a late-day counterattack by the 21st Panzer Division.

When Rommel returned that night to Normandy—after celebrating his wife’s birthday during the storm he thought would preclude an invasion—his worst fears were realized.
He had warned a fellow officer that their only chance was to stop the enemy in the water.
Now nearly 160,000 Allied troops had landed.

A map of Utah Beach, based on aerial photos, was used to plan landings there.
map by Library of Congress (CT002437A)
Expanding the beachhead

Following D-Day, the Allies had to transport troops and supplies to Normandy in vast amounts without access to a deepwater port.
Germans assumed that their foes would require such a port, which lent credence to Allied deceptions portraying the Normandy landings as a diversion, to be followed by a big push aimed at a deeper port like Calais.

While the German 15th Army remained in place around Calais to defend against that anticipated thrust, the Allies reinforced their Normandy beachhead by constructing artificial harbors called mulberries, using components prefabricated in British ports and towed across the English Channel.

Mulberry A, completed off Omaha Beach in mid-June and linked to shore by a pontoon bridge, was wrecked a few days later by one of the worst storms to hit the coast that season.
Mulberry B, constructed off Gold Beach near Arromanches, withstood that storm and helped boost Allied strength in Normandy to one million men by early July.

 Supply Line :
Landing craft disgorge tanks and trucks at Omaha Beach on June 8, 1944, under barrage balloons whose mooring cables deterred enemy aircraft.
photograph by US National Archives

Reinforcements for the troops who landed on D-Day were essential because expanding the beachhead proved even tougher than establishing it on June 6.
Inland from the beaches lay the forbidding bocage, consisting of low fields surrounded by dense hedgerows that sheltered German snipers, machine gunners, and anti-tank units.
Not until June 27 did American troops seize the deepwater port of Cherbourg, which German demolition teams rendered useless until later that year.

Another important objective, heavily defended Caen, was not taken on D-Day, as Montgomery planned, and held out against repeated attacks.
On June 13, the British Seventh Armored Division tried to outflank Caen but was repulsed at Villers-Bocage by elements of the First and Second SS Panzer Divisions.

Allied bombers blasted Caen on July 6, killing many French civilians but few Germans, who withdrew south of the city and resisted tenaciously as Montgomery tried to punch through their defenses.
Although held in check, his forces kept several German armored divisions tied down while American troops prepared to launch Operation Cobra from Saint-Lô, west of Caen, and break out of the beachhead.

High-resolution bottom morphology data acquired using LIDAR as part of the NHDF 2016-2017 project (SHOM and ROLNP) on the Normandy coast show elements of the artificial harbour "Mulberry A" in front of Omaha Beach or breakwaters sunk in front of Utah Beach.
see data.shom.fr

Royal Navy Hydrographic surveyors played an important role in the D-Day landings by collecting bathymetry data to ensure the best landing sites were chosen.
These surveys were performed covertly at night. 
- courtesy of Duncan Mallace -


WWII multibeam shipwreck images / Arromanches
image : Bertrand Sciboz

Construction of temporary artificial Mulberry ports by the Allies.
To support the forces landed on June 6 in Normandy, the Allies built two artificial ports off Omaha Beach and Arromanches, code names Mulberry A (for "American") and B ("British") respectively.
The walkways are protected from the currents by floating metal caissons and 56 purpose-built breakwaters, while huge concrete caissons, designed and transported from England, are laid on the bottom to form dikes and jetties.
A storm destroyed Mulberry A on June 19, but the second port allowed some 2.5 million men, 500,000 vehicles and 4 million tonnes of equipment to land until the end of the Second World War.
Beginning of the end

Although the landings on D-Day were less costly than Allied leaders feared, American forces destined for Omaha Beach paid a dreadful price before securing that sector.
Casualties mounted as invasion forces advanced inland and met with fierce resistance.
Not until late July did they break out, aided by devastating air raids that gouged holes in enemy lines through which armor advanced, including tanks of Patton’s U.S. Third Army.
On August 15, a second Allied invasion designated Operation Dragoon unfolded on the French Mediterranean coast.
Resistance groups took up arms, and some began liberating Paris before Allied troops entered the city in late August.

The offensive in France and the Low Countries coincided with a massive onslaught by the Red Army, whose troops advanced into German-occupied Poland before invading Germany proper by entering East Prussia.
Hitler refused to concede defeat and launched a desperate counterattack at year’s end against the Western Allies, whose advance had stalled as they ran short of supplies and came up against the formidable West Wall (Siegfried Line) along the German border.

The resulting Battle of the Bulge, won in January 1945, delayed their advance across the Rhine until March while vengeful Soviets closed on Berlin.
“We may be destroyed,” Hitler had remarked earlier, “but if we are, we shall drag a world with us—a world in flames.” On April 30, with Berlin in flames and about to fall to the Russians, he committed suicide.
A week later, Germany surrendered unconditionally.

Links :

Wednesday, June 5, 2019

Luxury cruise giant emits 10 times more air pollution than all of Europe’s cars – study



From Transport Environment

Carnival Corporation, the world’s largest luxury cruise operator, emitted nearly 10 times more sulphur oxide (SOX) around European coasts than did all 260 million European cars in 2017, a new analysis by sustainable transport group Transport & Environment reveals.[1]
Royal Caribbean Cruises, the world’s second largest, is second, yet four times worse than the European car fleet.
SOX emissions form sulphate (SO4) aerosols that increase human health risks and contribute to acidification in terrestrial and aquatic environments.[2]

In absolute terms, Spain, Italy and Greece, closely followed by France and Norway, are the European countries most exposed to SOX air pollution from cruise vessels while Barcelona, Palma de Mallorca and Venice are the most impacted European port cities, followed by Civitavecchia (Rome) and Southampton.

These countries are so exposed because they are major tourist destinations, but also because they have less stringent marine sulphur fuel standards which allows cruise ships to burn the dirtiest most sulphurous fuel all along their coastlines

Faig Abbasov, shipping policy manager at T&E, said: “Luxury cruise ships are floating cities powered by some of the dirtiest fuel possible.
Cities are rightly banning dirty diesel cars but they’re giving a free pass to cruise companies that spew out toxic fumes that do immeasurable harm both to those on board and on nearby shores.
This is unacceptable.“


NOX emissions from cruise ships in Europe also heavily impact some cities, equivalent to about 15% of the nitrogen oxides (NOX) emitted by Europe’s passenger car fleet in a year, the report finds.
In Marseille, for example, 57 cruise ships emitted in 2017 almost as much NOX as one-quarter of the city’s 340,000 passenger cars.
Along the coasts of countries such as Norway, Denmark, Greece, Croatia and Malta a handful of cruise ships are also responsible for more NOX than the majority of their domestic car fleet.

Europe should implement a zero-emission port standard as soon as possible, this could then be extended to other ship types.
The report also recommends extending emission control areas (ECAs), currently in place only in the North and Baltic Seas and English Channel, to the rest of the European seas.
Furthermore, the report recommends regulating NOX emissions from existing ships, which are currently exempt from NOx standards applying in emission control areas.

Faig Abbasov concluded: “There are enough mature technologies to clean up cruise ships.
Shore-side electricity can help cut in-port emissions, batteries are a solution for shorter distances and hydrogen technology can power even the biggest cruise ships.
The cruise sector are apparently not willing to make the shift voluntarily, so we need governments to step in and mandate zero emission standards.”

Notes to editor:

[1] There were more than 260 million passenger cars registered in the EU, Norway, Iceland, Montenegro and Greenland in 2017

[2] Sofiev, M. et al., (2018) Cleaner fuels for ships provide public health benefits with climate tradeoffs, Nature Communications, volume 9, Article number: 406 (2018)

Links :

Tuesday, June 4, 2019

This is what sea level rise will do to coastal cities

Sea level rise is already redrawing coastlines around the world.
What happens when the coast retreats through a major city?
We look at how the world map will change in the year 2100, and what coastal cities can do to defend themselves.

From The Verge by Mary Beth Griggs

By the year 2100, swollen seas and rivers will redraw shorelines as climbing temperatures melt ice caps.
In one of the most extreme scenarios, waters globally could rise by as much as eight feet, and even a smaller amount of flooding would inundate low-lying areas of the coast.
In places like New York, which is home to around 8.6 million people, even moderate flooding could drastically impact the city’s population and infrastructure.


The city got a taste of its future after Hurricane Sandy struck New York City in 2012.
Soon afterward, the city announced several resiliency projects, which are all designed to keep water away from New York’s streets.
While inspired (in part) by the dramatic onslaught of a storm, many of these projects are also designed to keep the Big Apple as dry as possible as sea level rise eats away at coasts around the world.

Sea levels are rising due to global warming, and part of the reason for this is ice on land is melting and flowing into the seas.
Tide gauges can measure the rising sea level, but different tide gauges show the sea level is rising at different rates in different places.
Why is this?
Ars looks at why sea level rise is more complicated than filling a bath tub.
How can that happen?
It happens because the Earth's not a bathtub—adding more water doesn't increase ocean levels evenly.
As this video details, there are lots of factors that add a local twist to the overall rise of the oceans. These factors range from the strength of ocean currents to the gravitational pull of large ice fields. The net result is that the US has some areas where ocean levels are actually falling a bit and many others where they're rising even faster than the global average.
While the effects are small, they can make a huge practical difference, determining whether your neighborhood is flooding now, or if you have decades to prepare for problems.
- courtesy of Ars Technica -  

The latest plan involves spending $10 billion to extend part of Lower Manhattan out into the East River, in addition to shelling out hundreds of millions of dollars on other resiliency projects.

Links :