Soufriere Marine Management Area

The what?

The Soufriere Marine Management Area, or SMMA for short, is an example of how a fragile coastal environment can be managed. The Soufriere Coast is a stretch of coastline on the west coast of St. Lucia, an island in the Southern Caribbean, approximately 400km north of South America.

St. Lucia (circled, bottom right), in the Caribbean

Source: By Kmusser (Own work, all data from Vector Map.) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

The island of St. Lucia, showing the location of Soufriere

Source: By Burmesedays [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

What is the Soufriere Coast like?

The SMMA organisation describes  Soufriere and the region around it as:

"...a picturesque rural town, located on the southwest coast of the island of St. Lucia. This area is remarkable for the richness and diversity of its landscapes and natural resources, including mountains, rainforest, rivers, active volcanism and coral reefs."

The region has a population of just under 8000, and the area's economy is based on a mix of agriculture (farming), fishing and tourism. Tourism has become more and more important, and the region has many resorts and hotels, many of them focussing on diving and yachting to attract tourists.

Soufriere Town

Source: Bgabel at wikivoyage shared [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC-BY-SA-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

What is fragile about the Soufriere Coast?

St Lucia is home to a number of coral reefs. Coral reefs are important but fragile ecosystems. They are known as the rainforests of the sea. Like rainforests, they are home to many species of plants and animals. Unfortunately, coral reefs are at risk from human activities such as fishing, farming and diving. They are also badly affected by warming seas caused by global warming. A study in 2008 estimated that 50% of the world's coral reefs had been so badly affected by human activity that they could be dead in 40 years.

Coral reef on the Soufriere Coast

Source: By WRI Staff (Reef 247) [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

So what were humans doing to the Soufriere Coast?

In the 1980s and 1990s, it became clear that the coastline was facing a number of problems.

1. The water was becoming less clean (water degradation), putting human health at risk, as well as the coral reefs. Much of this was the result of sewage and waste being dumped directly into the sea.

2. Over-fishing (too many fish being caught) near the shore was reducing the number of fish, harming the fishing industry (no fish = no fishing)  and putting the coral at risk (the fish eat harmful algae from the reef. No fish = more algae).

3. Sedimentation from the land (soil washing into the sea), leading to sediment covering the coral and killing it).

4. Polluted (dirty) beaches.

The damage caused to the beaches and the coral had environmental impacts for plants and animals, but it also had impacts for science - the biodiversity (wide number of plants and animals) of coral reefs makes them key to scientific research - and for tourism.

There were also many conflicts including:

1. Conflicts between commercial dive operators (people making money taking tourists diving) and fishermen over use of the reefs.
2. Conflicts between yacht owners and fishermen when yachts anchored (parked) in fishing areas.
3. Conflicts between fishermen, locals and hotel owners when hotel owners tried to keep access to the beaches for their guests only.

What was the response?   

In 1992, various organisations in St. Lucia, including the National Trust for St. Lucia and the Soufriere Regional Development Foundation (an NGO) got together with the government and USAID to try to:

a. Identify problems and conflicts
b. Map the area and agree on how different sections of coastline should be used
c. Put in place a way of solving conflicts through discussion

This led to the organisations agreeing to tackle four main issues:

1. Controlling the increased yachting along the coast
2. Setting up marine reserves (nature reserves in the sea)
3. Developing fishing
4. Managing pollution

How did they do this?

They zoned the coast. As the map below shows, they divided the coast into different sections, to be used in different ways. The green areas are nature reserves, the pink areas for fishing, the purple areas for yachting and yellow areas to be used by everyone. They also marked particular sites for SCUBA diving (see the key) and for recreation and leisure. This was called the Sourfriere Marine Management Area (SMMA).

A map of the SMMA zoning

Source: allatsea.net

They banned damaging fishing methods and taught the fishermen less damaging fishing techniques. They also provided loans for fishermen to buy boats and equipment so they could fish further out at sea, where they would not damage the coral.

They 'hoovered' up sediment from the corals and they carry out monitoring to check how the coral and fish are doing, and how clean the water is.

Was this successful?

Yes -

• Monitoring has shown improvements, especially when all the groups in the area have been involved in the planning and been kept informed of what is being done and why.
• There is some evidence that more fishing is happening away from the corals and out at sea. 
• Some endangered corals have returned to the coastline.

No -

• There is evidence that less yachts have arrived along the Soufriere coast since the SMMA was introduced. This might have a negative impact on tourism and the economy.
• Some dive sites have become congested as many divers crowd into the designated areas.
• There are problems with compliance (following the rules) as time goes on.

Sources:

CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND PARTICIPATORY PLANNING: THE CASE OF THE SOUFRIERE MARINE MANAGEMENT AREA http://www.smma.org.lc/Public/Case%20Studies/SMMA%20Case%20Study.pdf

Activities within the Soufriere Marine Management Area http://www.oas.org/dsd/IABIN/Component1/ReefFix/StLucia2010/ReefFix%20Workshop.ppt

Marine Protected Areas in St Lucia http://www.oas.org/dsd/Events/english/08.03.10/Sarita%20Williams-%20Marine%20Protected%20Areas%20in%20Saint%20Lucia.ppt

No or yes to Nuclear?

Who thinks nuclear is a bad idea?

Lots of groups think nuclear is a bad idea, particularly environmental groups. Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the Green Party all argue that nuclear power should not be part of the UK's and/or the World's energy mix.

Greenpeace argue that nuclear power is expensive, dangerous and that it takes money away from the development of renewable energy sources.

The Greenpeace campaign ship, 'Rainbow Warrior II'

Source: By Salvatore Barbera from Amsterdam, The Netherlands (Rainbow Warrior On The Bosphorus) [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Friends of the Earth say much the same. They also point out that mining and transporting uranium uses a lot of energy, and this means nuclear energy is not 'carbon neutral' (i.e. it does still add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere). Although they considered changing their position and supporting some nuclear power, because they were so concerned about reducing greenhouse gases, the eventually decided to remain opposed to nuclear power completely.

The Green Party also argues against nuclear. Caroline Lucas, a Green Party MP said,

"If we were to make a serious investment in energy efficiency, properly capitalise a Green Investment Bank that would be allowed to lend immediately, put billions into, for example, a street-by-street insulation programme, or really invest in renewables, we wouldn't need nuclear. "

And who supports it?

Mark Lynas is a journalist and environmental campaigner who believes that nuclear power should be used if it will help reduce greenhouse gases. He has written a lot about global warming and believes that reducing the risk of future global warming should be the focus of developing energy sources in future. You can here him debate his ideas with Jenny Jones, leader of the Green Party, here.

The UK government support using nuclear power in our future energy mix. They believe it will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions AND that it will make energy cheaper. Although they think renewables should be the source of much of our energy, they do not think that we will be able to develop them quickly enough for them to replace fossil fuels and nuclear completely. They also believe it will create jobs in the nuclear industry for UK workers. They have recently given permission for EDF, an energy company, to build a new nuclear reactor at Hinkley Point, in Somerset.

Artists impression of the proposed nuclear plant at Hinkley Point

Source: askjaenergy.org

To add to this, groups that lobby for and support the nuclear industry, such as the Canadian Nuclear Association, argue that even with renewables fully developed, there would still be the need for back up energy and that nuclear is the best option for this. 

 

So, what to think?

 

As you can see, the arguments for and against nuclear power are complex. Deciding on whether nuclear should be part of our future energy mix depends on whether you think renewables can be developed quickly enough, whether they can be used everywhere and on how you view the risks associated with nuclear power. Even the experts disagree, but you should use all you have found out to think about where you stand.

 

 

 

 

Renewable pros and cons

So, about these pros and cons?

Yes. As we said before, to decide what energy sources we should use in the future, we need to know the advantages and disadvantages of each. That way we can decide what would be best - and remember, that is likely to include a mix of energy sources, not just one.

Hydroelectric Power, Hydro or HEP

HEP works by using water stored behind a dam to turn turbines and generate electricity.

A diagram of a HEP plant

Source: By Tomia (Own work) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html), CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) or CC-BY-2.5 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5)], via Wikimedia Commons

HEP is currently the most used renewable source of electricity, producing just over 15.3% of the World's electricity in 2011.

Source: Jonathan Vizcarra, Quantum Day

 Advantages

HEP is clean (no burning fossil fuels), cheap (once the dam is constructed), reliable (electricity can be produced day and night, all year) and it is a technology we are familiar with. The first HEP plant was built in 1895.

Disadvantages

The major disadvantages of HEP are:
1) The social and environmental impacts cause by flooding large areas of land behind a dam.
2) The need for suitable sites.

Wind Power

Wind turbines work by using the wind to turn turbines to generate electricity.

A diagram of a wind turbine

Source: By Tennessee Valley Authority (tva.com) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

In the UK, onshore wind power (i.e. wind farms build on the land, not out to sea) is one of the cheapest sources of renewable energy. Offshore wind farms are becoming more common, as they have less impact on the landscape, but they are harder to build and so are a more expensive option. However, offshore wind may be the best option in areas where there is not a lot of space for large onshore wind farms.

An offshore windfarm in Sweden

Source: By © 2011 by Tomasz Sienicki [user: tsca, mail: tomasz.sienicki at gmail.com] (Photograph by Tomasz Sienicki (Own work)) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC-BY-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

 Advantages

Like HEP, wind power is clean (no burning fossil fuels) and once the wind turbines are built, there are no fuel costs as wind is free!

Disadvantages

The major disadvantages of wind power are:
1) The impact of turbines on the landscape (visual and noise pollution) mean people may not want them located nearby.
2) Turbines only generate energy when the wind is blowing - and this is not always when the energy is needed.
3) To generate the amount of energy produced by a power station takes a lot of space (12 power stations = 30,00 wind turbines according to the UK government).

Solar Power

Solar power is produced using  PV (photovoltaic) cells. These cells are able to convert the sun's light into electricity.

Solar panels can be used on a small scale (for example on the roofs of individual buildings), or on a large scale, in 'solar farms'. In 2013, Abu Dhabi opened the largest ever 'concentrated' solar power plant, which uses mirrors to increase the amount of sun's energy that gets to the PV cells and so the amount of electricity produced.

An example of concentrated solar power, in Spain

Source: By afloresm (SOLUCAR PS10) [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

 Advantages

Solar power, like HEP and wind power, does not produce greenhouse gases and has no fuel cost. It can be used at a variety of scales, from individual homes to large scale farms and as the technology develops, PV cells are becoming cheaper, making solar power more affordable.

Disadvantages

The major disadvantages of solar are:

1) There are obviously places that solar power is better suited to. So far, the biggest solar farms have been built in places with hot, sunny climates (like Abu Dhabi and Spain), that get a lot of sun throughout the year. As the map below shows, some places receive much more solar energy than others.

Map to show solar energy across Europe

SolarGIS © 2011 GeoModel Solar s.r.o. [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

2) Solar panels take up a lot of space - if used in farms, they are best suited to areas that can't be used for other things and where they won't harm natural habitats. There are suggestions to use the tops of roofs to harvest solar energy, as these are often 'wasted' space.

Other Renewable Sources

There are a number of other renewable sources, including wave power, tidal power, biomass and geothermal energy - you can find out about the advantages and disadvantages of these here and here.

So, are renewables the future?

Renewables definitely have to be part of the future - apart from anything else, it seem silly not to use these 'free' sources of energy when people are so worried about energy costs. However, the technologies for many of them will have to be improved if they are to produce enough energy cheaply enough. Also, where they are used needs to be thought about carefully so that they do not have unacceptable social and environmental effects. Whether this can be done quickly enough for us to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels is debatable.

A renewable future?

So we really don't want fossil fuels?

Not in the long run. Although some countries are focussing on using gas (instead of coal or oil) because it is less polluting, the fact is, it still contributes to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and most government organisations, including the EU and the UN and are agreed that this needs to be reduced.

Also, fossil fuels are finite; at some point they will run out, and unless we cut out energy use dramatically, we will need something else to replace them with.

So what about renewables?

That's a good question. There are many people and organisations who think that the future 'energy gap' can be filled with renewable energy sources. They argue investment and research will enable us to 'scale-up' technologies to replace coal, oil and gas.

Are they right?

There has definitely been an increase in the use of renewables for producing electricity across the globe.
Some countries in the world manage to produce over 80% of their electricity from renewable sources. However, all of these are countries blessed with geography that allows them to make massive use of hydroelectric power (HEP).

A HEP dam in Brazil

Source: By Andre Borges Lopes (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

A HEP dam in Norway

Source: Rehro [CC-BY-SA-3.0-de (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/de/deed.en)], via Wikimedia Commons

Other countries have managed to dramatically increase their use of renewables. Portugal is one such example. By focussing on developing wind, wave and solar energy, as well as hydroelectric power, it now generates 45-50% of its energy using renewable sources.

Solar power in Portugal

Source: Ceinturion at the English language Wikipedia [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)], from Wikimedia Commons

Great! What's stopping us?

Well, there are issues. Not everyone is blessed with sunshine, constant winds and waves, steep river valleys and so on. Some places will find it harder than others to make use of renewables.

There are difficulties with storing energy from renewable sources that only generate power some of the time - like wind and solar.

Wind turbines don't generate energy when the wind doesn't blow

Source: Shooter's Bottom wind turbine at dusk (Sharon Loxton) / CC BY-SA 2.0

Also, many renewables are regarded as expensive, and people aren't keen on paying more for their energy.

In addition, each form of renewable energy has its own advantages and disadvantages. These have to be considered before we decide what to use, which is our next job.

Going Nuclear?

Is nuclear the solution to our future energy needs?

It's a good question. Nuclear definitely has some advantages but, like other energy sources, it has disadvantages too. There are groups that are against the use of nuclear energy at all, groups that think we should make much more use of it than we do, and groups that think we should use it as a temporary solution to energy demand and a need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but try to make much more use of renewables in the long run.

So, what are the advantages?

Well, as we talked about before, there is general agreement that the world needs to reduce its global carbon dioxide emissions. Nuclear fuel is not burnt like coal, oil and gas, and using it to make energy does not produce carbon dioxide, and so many people see it as a cleaner energy source.

In addition, nuclear power is a relatively established technology, which currently contributes around 12% of global energy supply. Supporters argue that this makes it a more reliable future energy source than some renewables, that have currently only been used on a small scale, and may not be able to be 'scaled-up' fast enough.

Nuclear energy has other advantages over renewables too. Although it needs to be near a water source (the sea or a large river) It is not reliant on steep river valleys which can be flooded (like HEP, or hydroelectric power), and it can produce energy day and night, whatever the weather, unlike wind or solar power.

HEP requires steep sided valleys

Source: By Normherr (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

But there are disadvantages, right?

Of course. The main disadvantage for nuclear power is the waste it produces. Nuclear waste is radioactive and can be dangerous to humans for thousands of years. This means there are difficulties and costs linked to disposing (getting rid of) this waste and with decommissioning (running down) nuclear power stations after they are no longer useful. There are also concerns that the waste could be used by criminals as a weapon, and so it needs to be kept secure.

Decommissioning Chaplecross nuclear power station, Scotland

Source: M J Richardson [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Low-level waste, stored in Nevada, USA

Source: By Federal Government of the United States (Nevada Test Site Guide, DOE/NV-715) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

There are also risks of accidents. The fires and explosions in the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan, caused by the 2011 tsunami led to Japan shutting down all its nuclear reactors. It also resulted in Germany deciding to phase out its use if nuclear energy. Before that, the Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine in 1986 was the worst nuclear power disaster the world had seen; the area around Chernobyl is still uninhabited. In the UK here have been safety concerns resulting from the Fukushima disaster.

The Chernobyl power plant, still enclosed in a protective 'sarcophagus' to keep it safe

Source: By Piotr Andryszczak (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], via Wikimedia Commons

Linked to this are the concerns the public have about nuclear energy, which mean people are often unhappy about having nuclear power plants close to them. There were protests against nuclear energy in Germany after the Fukushima disaster, and there have been protests about the locations suggested for new nuclear power plants in the UK. 

Because of the the risks discussed above, nuclear energy can cost more than it at first appears to. When thinking about how much nuclear energy costs, the need for secure transport of fuel and waste and for safe waste disposal and decommissioning has to be included.

Finally, the mining of uranium, to provide fuel for nuclear power plants, can damage the environment and produce even more hazardous waste.

Ranger uranium mine, Australia

Source: By Alberto Otero Garcìa from Barcelona, Spain [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

The disadvantages sound pretty serious...

Well, yes, but it is important to remember that nuclear accidents are rare. And there are many deaths each year linked to mining fossil fuels, not to mention the effects of pollution. If nuclear power can reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, these could be cut.

Also, there is a lot of money and effort going into research as to how to make nuclear power safer. One idea that scientists are working on is thorium-powered nuclear reactors. Thorium reactors would be safer and produce much less waste.

So...?

The thing to remember is that all energy sources have advantages and disadvantages. It would be easy to write off nuclear power after Chernobyl and Fukushima, but we need to consider what the alternatives are.

Filling the Energy Gap

So, how are we going to meet the World's energy needs?

Source: bbc.co.uk

As we discussed before, energy demand is on the increase. However, the sources of energy we rely on as a World at the moment - mainly fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas, see the image above)  - have two main problems:

1. Sources of fossil fuels are becoming harder to find and use

2. Fossil fuels produce carbon dioxide when they burnt to create energy, and this carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, thought to be responsible for global warming and climate change.

Why are fossil fuels becoming hard to find?

Fossil fuels are non renewable. They take millions of years to be created by the pressure and heat of the Earth, and we use them at a much faster rate than they could ever be replaced. That means that many of the easy to reach stores of coal, oil and gas have already been mined and drilled. 

Technology is helping humans to discover and use stores of fossil fuels that they couldn't in the past. For example, deepwater oil rigs that drill for oil miles under the sea, or fracking, which manages to get at gas trapped in rocks like shale. However, we have to accept that fossil fuels are finite and they will eventually run out.

How fracking works

Source: bbc.co.uk

And the global warming thing?

Most climate scientists now agree that burning fossil fuels puts carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and that this carbon dioxide traps heat, warming up the Earth and changing the climate. The IPCC has made it clear that if we want to stop the Earth warming too much, that we need to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere. Even though there are some technologies that help reduce the amount of carbon released by burning fossil fuels, none of these is used widely and so it is likely that if we want to reduce carbon dioxide, we will have to reduce our use of fossil fuels.

Anything else?

Well, mining and drilling for coal, oil and gas can damage the landscape and natural habitats. And transporting these fuels, especially oil, can lead to spillages that destroy ecosystems.

Mining oil sands in Canada

Source: By TastyCakes is the photographer, Jamitzky subsequently equalized the colour. [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Cleaning up after the Exxon Valdez oil spill

Source: NOAA

So what can we do instead?

As the graph at the top shows, there are other sources of energy - renewables (which are cleaner and won't run out), hydro (Hydroelectric Power, or HEP - a type of renewable), and nuclear. Even companies like Shell, who have traditionally sold fossil fuels, accept that these other sources are going to be important in the future.

What should we do?

Deciding which energy sources to use in the future will depend on the advantages and disadvantages of each. The disadvantages of fossil fuels have been discussed above, but they have advantages - they are currently easy enough to find, we know how to use them, and compared to some other sources of energy, they are still quite cheap. Nuclear and renewable energies also have advantages and disadvantages, and we will begin to explore these in the following posts.

Exploring Future Energy Demand

What are the predictions about world energy use in the near future?

Source: EIA International Energy Outlook, 2013 

As the above graph shows, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasts that World energy consumption (how much energy the World uses) is going to grow over the coming years. The graph also shows that that growth is going to happen mostly in non-OECD countries. The OECD is a group of 34 of the more developed countries in the world, so we can deduce that much of the growth in demand for energy is going to happen in less-developed countries.

So, why is energy demand going to change?

When thinking about demands on energy in the future, we need to consider the different reasons that demand for energy might grow. There are two main reasons that future energy demands might increase and these are:
1. An increase in global population
2. Increasing development in less developed countries, especially the BRICs and MINTs (those countries predicted to develop fastest)

More people equals greater energy use, right?

Yes, the explanation for number one is fairly obvious. If 10 people use 100 kwh of energy every year, then 20 people will use 200 kwh. More people equals more energy use, which increases the demand for energy and puts pressure on energy supplies.

And the development thing?

A map to show World energy use per person (2003)

Source: Wikipedia

As the map above shows, it is the most developed countries that use the most energy per person. Why? Well, as a country develops, the amount of industry it has increases, and industry uses energy. Also, as a country becomes richer and more developed, people's standard of living improves. They start to acquire things that use energy - cars, refrigerators, TVs etc - and so the amount of energy needed per person increases. This also increases energy demands.

Source: By Shyaulis Andrjus (Own work) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC-BY-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Is there anywhere this has happened?

China and India (the I and the C in BRICs) are probably the best examples - India is expected to build 46 new power plants (places electricity is generated)  in the period 2013-2016, and in the same period China is expected to add another 160 power plants. China is predicted to account for 40% of the growth in energy demand over the next 30 years.