Seagrasses are plants related to water plantains and land-grasses. Unlike seaweed, which are types of algae, seagrasses have many of the same parts as land plants. Roots, leaves, seeds etc. They grow in clear, shallow waters around the world and can form large meadows. These meadows absorb wave energy, calming waters and allowing sediment to settle to the bottom. In this way they are ecosystem engineers, creating the calm, clear waters they need in order to photosynthesize and thrive.
As mentioned above, the fronds of seagrasses can absorb wave energy. This takes away energy from waves and slows down costal erosion.The dense fronds are also an excellent food source for many marine herbivores, including dugongs and sea turtles. They also provide shelter for many young fish and other animal species.
Seagrasses absorb carbon dioxide and use it in photosynthesis to produce sugars. Then, because the roots of seagrasses can grow deep underground, this absorbed carbon is locked into the sediment. Because of this, these habitats are significant carbon sinks.
Water pollution like runoff from agriculture can harm these meadows by causing algae blooms. If too much algae covers the fronds of seagrasses, they can lo longer photosynthesize and will die.
Some fishing and mooring practices can also harm meadows by dragging along the bottom and pulling up grasses.
Project seagrass makes use of drone and satellite imagery to identify seagrass habitats, but individuals can contribute significantly to this effort by submitting their own sightings of seagrasses to Seagrass Spotter. This helps to verify the results from satellite imagery, and identifies the species which might be present in an area.
Acclaimed activist Philippe Cousteau and renowned author Deborah Hopkinson team up to offer a story of the powerful difference young people can make in the world. Meet Viv, who has a new home and a new school by the sea, and follow her as she finds her way in a new place and helps bring together a whole community to save the sea turtles of the South Carolina coast.
In Environmental Education
I’m sure many will relate to Viv’s nervousness and feeling lost at the start of the story. I often get a similar feeling when faced with the start of a big, open ended project, and approaching big environmental problems can be just as daunting. This book begins with Viv’s teacher breaking down the project into approachable steps, making this a great book for beginning a project-based unit.
A wonderful aspect of the story is how big a role community has in tackling the problem. Viv is briefly overwhemled when the problem is identified and it becomes clear just how many beach houses are causing it. But we turn a page and Viv’s community comes to the rescue. The class bands together behind the idea, breaking it down into managable parts, before they bring it to the wider community. It is easy to focus on raising awareness or individual action, but taking only these routes can feel ineffectual and lonely. It’s energizing to see Viv and the class inspire direct collective action from the whole community to really solve a problem.
Discussion ideas
Community – At the start of the book Viv is feeling nervous and lost. What other words might describe how Viv was feeling moving to a new place? After all the work with the rest of the class and meeting people living in town, how might Viv feel by the end of the summer? How might the other people in town feel after all that work to help the turtles?
What comes next? – The last step outlined by the teacher is to reflect on what they did and what they might do next. Their community action was a success! But turtles come back to nest on the same beach year after year. What might happen to the hatchlings next year? What could the class do to keep the momentum going?
Activity ideas
Moonlight paintings – The illustrator makes use of the special qualities of watercolour paints to create wonderfully ‘loose’ pictures. The pictures of the moon over water are particularly striking. Experiment with drier and wetter brushwork capture the mood and texture of sand, wakes, and clouds. For the moon and reflections off waves, leave some areas of the page completely blank to keep the brilliant white of the page.
Recognizing achievements – Sometimes recognizing the work you’ve done in the past can help empower you to take on bigger problems. Think of a problem you’ve overcome in the past and write how you followed the action plan the teacher laid out. What was the problem? Did you need to find information or resources to help come up with a solution? What actions did you take? Record and tell the story of your achievement, and what you’d like your next step to be.
Support a local species – Viv’s project is to find a problem and come up with a plan of action. Research animals and plants in your area and see if any of them could use support. Local conservation and environmental charities can be a great resource for this, as many of them with either be monitoring how species are doing or can suggest organizations which do this. For example the UK Bumblebee Conservation Trust collects data from the public to help monitor how bumblebees are doing around the country. Find out what species might be in trouble in your area and come up with a plan of action to support it. You may even be able to arrange a call between your class and a scientist so they can ask questions directly.
Seagrass meadows are one of the least-known habitat types, but they are very important for carbon sequestration and as nurseries for many fish species. In this episode I speak with Project Seagrass to learn more about seagrass habitats, restoration success, and how people can get involved in protecting these marine grasslands.
Discussion about environmental education in Cordova, Alaska. How their programs address the legacy of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. We also talk about their summer camps, which bring together kids from across the Copper River watershed to share experiences and understand how their communities are connected.
Discussion on the film’s successes and failings as a piece of science communication and environmental education. The pitfalls of using the conspiracy framing. Ideas for how teachers might make use of the film and approach the various issues it raises.
Discussion about environmental education in Cordova, Alaska. How the programs at the Prince William Sound Science Centre address the legacy of the Exxon Valdez oil spill. We also talk about their summer programs. Bringing together kids from across the Copper River watershed, and allowing them to share their different experiences with the river and understand the connections between their communities.
Cordova, Alaska and the Prince William Sound Science Centre (PWSSC)
Cordova is a city on Prince William Sound, near the mouth of the copper river in Alaska. It is home to around 2600 people and is also one of the communities most affected by the Exxon Valdez oil spill disaster in 1989. Then, as now, most households in the community have at least one person involved in the fishing industry.
The city is also now home to the Prince William Sound Science Center. A non-profit research institution which monitors the wildlife and ecosystems of the sound, tracks the lingering impacts of of the oil spill, and studies sustainable use of the area’s resources. It is also an educational institution, which uses an innovative combination of formal and informal educational programs to inspire life-long passion for science and raise a society of scientifically and ecologically literate citizens who are prepared to promote strong economies based on the sustainable use of renewable resources.
Community programmes
Sea squirts
1-2 hour programmes open to families with children aged 3-5
Structured drop-in sessions
Theme for the day is often introduced with a story
Stations around the room with instructions for simple activities and related information
Facilitators ask participants questions about what they are doing and noticing
Sessions wrap-up by sharing what happend during the session
If participants are leaving early, staff try to have 1-on-1 chat with before they go
Do kids find the oil spill topic relevant? The Cordova community is still seeing the impact of the spill and the event was a major landmark in the community’s history, so kids hear about it a lot and see the relevance of the topic. More broadly, many people in Alaska are involved in some subsistence activity like fishing, or are also spend a lot of time out in their local environment, so they do value it and want to protect it.
Many families may have members or relatives involved in oil extraction or fisheries industries are a very significnat part of the Alaskan economy. Kids will also be aware of the amount of ship traffic in the waters around ther communities, so the possibility of an oil spill is very present.
The experience of the programme also shows participants a range of job possibilities in ROV operation, design, and engineering.
Students in Yakutat watch the feed of the underwater camera attached to their ROV. Photo by N. Webster
Summer camps
Copper River Stewardship Programme
Focus of the programs on stewardship of the river’s recourses and how coastal activities impact the basin, and upriver activites affect downstream communities.
Brings together kids from across the Copper River watershed for 10 days.
Students from different parts of the river system (the delta and basin regions) have very different connections to the river and its resources.
The program brings the participants to both parts of the river, so they get to take turns being the experts.
Particiants also interact with scientists to learn about the ecosystems.
Experiencing the different environments can, on its own, be eye opening
Participants are exposed to a range of different careers including: wildlife biology, fisheries management, public recreation
Take part in real work on the delta including: vegetation and habitat management, decomissioning 4-wheel trails
“The moment of stepping back and seeing what we had done and know that it would make a difference, was incredible.”
DRT camp participant journal entry
What benefits do you see in bringing together these groups from different areas? Bringing together people with different expereinces and backgrounds means that we bring together different perspectives on the experience. There is a lot of time for reflection in the programme so participants learn a great deal from each other. The range of partner organizations also adds a lot of variety to the experience.
Freshwater monitoring. Copper River stewardship program.
Measuring young fish. Copper River stewardship program.
National Ocean Sciences Bowl (NOSB)
Academic quiz bowl competition with state-wide and national competitions
Teams study all aspects of marine ecology
Alaska Tsunami bowl has the added challenge of requiring a research paper and 15 minute presentation
Discussion with Rosie and Cristina about the 2021 documentary Seaspiracy. We discuss its successes and failings as a piece of science communication or environmental education, including the pitfalls of using the conspiracy framing. We also share a few ideas for how teachers might make use of the film and approach the various issues it raises.
You may want to watch the film first and think about:
Whose views are being represented? Whose are being left out?
How does it compare with other ocean documentaries?
Brings a range of ocean conservation issues to a wider audience
Plastic pollution and ghost fishing gear
Bycatch
Requirement for more robust monitoring
Ethics of hunting whales and dolphins or keeping them captive
Need for regulation and enforcement of sustainable fishing practices
Great visualizations of the scale of the problems and to illustrate ecological concepts
Food chains/Trophic dynamics
Size of trawler nets
Ecological issues are uncovered along an easy to follow narrative arc which carries the viewer along for the ride.
Good reminder that there are always going to be many people who will be encountering issues for the first time.
Not everyone has the time or interest to follow specific discussions, like the origins of marine plastic pollution, or to look into the history of those discussions.
The Bad
Conspiracy framing
“Why am I only hearing about this now?” / “Why is nobody talking about this?”
People in marine conservation are talking about issues like discarded fishing gear and have been for years. As an example the United Nations Environment Programme published a report in 2009 about discarded fishing gear, and international organizations have been taking action on waste dumping in the oceans since the 1970s. That said, the intended target audience for the film may have been those who haven’t heard about the issue before and the many people who don’t follow marine conservation research.
Asking these questions within a conspiracy framing is a problem because it implies there is an active attempt to cover up the issue. This is inaccurate and has the effect of undermining the organizations which have been working to take action on these issues.
“Everyone only talks about plastic straws?” / “Why are they avoiding talking about fishing?”
Again, within the conspiracy framing, these questions imply that there is an active effort to cover up or avoid the issue. If asked outside of a conspiracy framework, these questions become more productive. Public conversation moved on to single-use plastics after the success of programmes like Blue Planet, and viral videos/photos of plastics injuring or being eaten by marine life. Organizations hope to publicize their work by latching onto these active public conversations. This is a product and a pitfall of relying on social media for news and information. The way we use social media tends to create echo chambers where we only hear about a limited range of issues because of our own interests and tendency to follow those with similar views.
Organizations might also have different communications strategies for public, government and business. Public information campaigns tend to focus on how individuals can take action. Fishing gear is not really and issue the public can take direct action on. It requires regulation and/or changes in company behaviours. Single use plastics are much closer to the consumer, so individual action is more feasible, and has proved successful. Bans on plastic straws and bags have led to dramatic declines in their use.
“Follow the money” – not as useful as it sounds
Receiving money from the industry being monitored tells you there is the potential for a problem, it does not indicate there is a problem. Well-run NGOs and charities handle funding in ways which maintain independence of the monitoring organization, so it is possible to do. Implying there is a problem with independence because of funding, without showing that it is actually problematic, has the impact of undermining organizations which have been successfully working on the issues.
The film does a poor job of linking together large and small scales, global and local issues. In the case of plastic pollution, the film chooses to focus on the metric organizations are not using for ‘gotcha’ soundbites. When it was clear that the organizations were talking about microplastics, the film could have taken the route of: discarded fishing equipment is killing wildlife and gradually breaking down into microplastics, the impact of which we are still only learning about. This would have linked large and small scales, and the discussion could have moved on to tackling the issue at every level rather than criticizing organizations for not tackling the specific problem the film maker chose to focus on.
Another nuance is the difference between commercial/industrial fishing, and small-scale fishing. At one point George Monbiot says that our image of fishing as a fisherman on a little boat bobbing along in the water is wrong. His point is that the vast majority of the fish caught are caught by huge industrial fishing ships. This is true, that most fish are caught by these large ships. But the majority of fishers would be considered small scale fishers; they are the small crew of people on a boat bobbing along in the water.(MSC: Large vs small scale fishing)
Social / Environmental Justice
Related to the previous point is that the film does not handle the differential impact of choices well. Most people involved in fishing operate on relatively small scales, meaning that the majority of fishers globally are not engaged the hugely damaging practices highlighted in the film. Additionally, the majority of small-scale fishing catches are directly eaten by humans. Large-scale fishery catches often go towards other uses, such as animal feed, or low-cost canned products.
The film presents a single solution to the problems it highlights, removing fish from our diets. However, not everyone has the ability or willingness to adopt one-size-fits-all solutions. Furthermore, the likely consequence of everyone ceasing to eat fish would be that many small-scale fishers would suffer because most of their catch is sold directly for human consumption. By contrast, large-scale fishing companies already have other markets for their product, for instance as agricultural fertilizers or pet foods.
On the consumer side, many communities depend on fish as an inexpensive or even staple food. For some people cutting out fish means not eating salmon, cod, and tiger prawns. Potentially, as depicted in Seaspiracy, switching to more expensive, plant-based alternatives. For others it means not having tinned tuna or fish fingers and instead eating something else which will be at the same price point. This is a much more limited range of options.
The perfect being the enemy of the good
Throughout the documentary the film maker criticizes organizations for confronting what he argues are smaller issues (single use plastics and microplastics), or for not providing 100% guarantees (dolphin safe labelling). Unfortunately there is little discussion of the progress which has been made on these issues, and no discussion of steps which could be taken to improve the situation.
It is also problematic because the distrust in regulatory bodies and conservation charities it is based on encourages viewers to disengage from those processes. Viewers who might no longer trust sustainability labels may revert to purchasing the cheapest and probably less sustainable options.
You don’t have to do just one thing
The end focus on one solution misses out on an opportunity inform viewers of all the actions they could take which can help. A list or hierarchy of options so that viewers could see actions which they are able to take. The film could also have encouraged viewers to speak with their elected representatives about their concerns. Letting governments and regulatory bodies know that there is support for stronger regulation and enforcement, or even supporting fishing communities in transitioning away from those industries has the potential for huge impact on the problems facing oceans.
Making use of Seaspiracy
Compare documentary styles
Blue Planet 2 vs Seaspiracy
Compare language use, information provided, messages, narratives
BP2: Talks about problems, causes, solutions, work still to be done
Ssp: problems, fear, revulsion, presents single solution
Compare cultural perspectives on the dolphin hunt in Taiji, Japan
A Whale of a Tale, 2018
Behind the Cove, 2015
The Cove, 2009
Fact-checking exercise
The film provides many specific numbers which students can track down
Whose views are being represented? Whose are being left out?
Whose voices to you get to hear? Who gets a film maker’s voiceover summary?
How is power and privilege being exercised?
Check your own biases and assumptions
How do you feel about the issues raised?
Do you agree with points because you know they are supported by evidence or because they feel plausible?
Could you be mistaken in your views on the film’s accuracy?
Outline a better documentary
Students could think of what they would do to improve the documentary
Do they want more emotional resonance? Less?
What other information would they include?
Who else would they want to speak to?
Compare improved documentary outlines and discuss differences in approach
Important to be able to express your opinions and the basis for your opinions
Important to be able to listen to other people’s opinions and be able to see where they are coming from. This exercise is not about arriving at a right/wrong answer or reaching consensus, it is about constructive feedback and empathy.
In Western/European views water is often a barrier to be challenged and crossed
Return of Heart of Tefiti as a metaphor for voyaging to new islands as something central to their culture?
Balances population around islands, less resource pressure
Use of resources
First introduced to problems with coconut groves and poor fishing Moana suggests measures for sustainable food production
Crop rotation is common practice
balances use of nutrients in soil
Pathogens which attack specific plants can build up in soil if same crop is grown year-after-year
Rotating fishing areas to allow populations to recover
Non-magical reasons why resources may be diminishing?
Thrived on island for centuries – soil in easily farmed areas may be depleted
Dependence on single crop may be allowing pathogen to spread
Larger population, fishing pressure might be too high
Managing risk
Father’s understandable response to tragic event early in life leads to extreme risk aversion
Moana never learns to sail and ends up in greater risk because she has not learned how to manage the dangers in sailing.
Does nothing to curb Moana’s desire to explore the ocean, but deprives her of the skills needed to do so with competence
Ocean is very hands-off
Other than when responding to Maui, the Ocean does not directly intervene
Possibly intervenes in extreme risk – Moana being knocked out in the storm
Allows Moana to learn how to sail on her own rather than propelling Moana to her goals
The magic of the Ocean
Not reliant on abundance of coral reefs to create the desire to explore
The way characters relate to the ocean transmits the love of it
Even in the Land of Monsters, part of what makes the scene magical is the perspective on the ocean
The ocean’s draw comes from the vast size, horizon, peace, danger
What the film missed the mark on
Perspective is very human-centric
Presents care of the environment as being for the benefit of humans
Care of nature could have been for its own sake
Focus on expansion
Hesitant about whether the world can support moving to new islands forever
Surely there are only so many islands Maui can pull from the ocean
Other thoughts
Gaia hypothesis
Living things depend on and interact with inorganic parts of the environment, creating a self regulating system. This is similar to the way in which predator-prey relationships form self-regulating systems.
Knowing Nature 