| |||||||||||||||||||
|  |
Management for spatial and temporal complexity in ocean ecosystems in the 21st centuryorganized by Satie Airame (University of California, Santa Barbara), Larry Crowder (Duke University), Elliott Norse (Marine Conservation Biology Institute), Gail Osherenko (University of California, Santa Barbara) and Oran Young (University of California, Santa Barbara)COMPREHENSIVE OCEAN ZONING: A NEW PARADIGM FOR OCEAN MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES ELLIOTT NORSE, Marine Conservation Biology Institute, Bellevue, WA, USA, elliott@mcbi.org In recent years, dramatic declines in marine biodiversity and fisheries in United States waters marking the closing of the ocean as a frontier have prompted scientists and two national commissions to call for a new strategy: ecosystem-based management. In contrast to management on land, undersea lands are now governed mainly on a sector-by-sector or species-by-species basis. Incremental improvement in management could slow losses somewhat, but a phase shift to a new governance paradigm is needed to stop and reverse them. Ocean zoning is a place-based system of managing human activities that reflects geological, oceanographic, and biological heterogeneity as well as heterogeneity in human interests within the United States’ vast Exclusive Economic Zone. It would replace a system in which different agencies manage different activities in the same places in the sea, causing conflicts among agencies and interests that have led to loss of biodiversity and fishery resources. Under comprehensive ocean zoning, primary management authority of each place is granted to a single authority, thereby reducing inter-sectoral and interagency conflicts. Australia’s Great Barrier Reef Marine Park provides a very successful model for comprehensive zoning that incorporates ecosystem classification, strong priority for conservation, and substantial public input during all phases in the zoning process. EVOLVING PROPERTY RIGHTS, THE PUBLIC TRUST, AND OCEAN ZONING GAIL OSHERENKO and Oran Young, Marine Science Institute (GO) and Bren School of Environmental Science and Management (OY), University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, osherenko@msi.ucsb.edu The greatest difference between marine and terrestrial systems lies not in their biophysical properties but in the governance systems devised to guide human activities on land and in the sea. To make the transition from activity-based to ecosystem-based management in the sea, we must clear up persistent confusion between the role of imperium (authority of governments to make rules and regulations) and dominium (the right of governments to own marine systems as public property). Given the push for privatization in the United States together with initiatives such as individual transferable quotas (ITQs) that apply these ideas to marine resources, fights are likely to erupt repeatedly over the role of “property rights” in the EEZ. The contents of the bundle of public property rights is more limited in the sea than on land, and this fundamental distinction matters in a time of increased claims on the part of private entities over the use of ocean space for wind farms, aquaculture, expanded shipping, and marine protected areas as well as exclusive fishing access. This paper raises searching questions about both the lawfulness and the wisdom of enlarging bundles of property rights over the seabed, the water column, and living and non-living ocean resources. THE GREAT BARRIER REEF: A WORKING EXAMPLE OF ECOSYSTEM-BASED MANAGEMENT AND OCEAN ZONING JON DAY, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, QLD, Australia, j.day@gbrmpa.gov.au In July 2004, a new Zoning Plan for the entire Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (344,000 square km) came into effect. This multiple use Marine Park allows all reasonable activities, including commercial and recreational fishing, in different zones. A comprehensive program of scientific input, community involvement and innovation was used, including the most comprehensive process of community participatory planning for any environmental issue in Australia’s history. The primary aim was to better protect the range of ecosystem biodiversity in the Great Barrier Reef, with a further aim to minimize impacts on all existing users of the Marine Park. “No-take” zones now cover over 33% of the Marine Park, protecting representative examples of all 70 habitat types. The new zoning network ensures the conservation and sustainable use of the resources of the Marine Park, enhances significantly the resilience of the Great Barrier Reef, and assists industry to achieve increased levels of sustainability. In November 2004, the state of Queensland “mirrored” the new zoning in adjacent state waters, providing complementary zoning in virtually all the adjoining state and federal waters. The Great Barrier Reef approach is now recognized as one of the most comprehensive and innovative global advances in systematic marine conservation. THE INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE: LESSONS FROM 30 YEARS OF MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING FANNY DOUVERE and Charles Ehler, UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Programme, Paris, France, F.Douvere@unesco.org Increased development pressures on the marine environment and the potential for multiple use conflicts, arising as a result of the current expansion of offshore wind industry, fishing and aquaculture, dredging, minerals extraction, shipping activities, and meeting international and national commitments to biodiversity conservation, have led to increased interest in sea use planning (marine spatial planning) and ocean zoning as new tools for management. Several European countries, on their own initiative or driven by the European Union Marine Strategy (2005) and Maritime Policy (2006), the Bergen Declaration of the North Sea Conference, and the European Union Recommendation on Integrated Coastal Zone Management (2002), have taken global leadership in implementing sea use planning. The Bergen Declaration specifically invited the OSPAR Commission to investigate possibilities of further international cooperation in developing marine spatial planning as a management tool. Belgium, The Netherlands, and Germany in the North Sea and the United Kingdom in the Irish Sea have already completed preliminary sea use plans and zoning proposals for sea areas within their national jurisdictions. This paper will review the need for sea use planning in the seas of Europe, the policy framework and context, the benefits and costs, and four case studies of sea use planning. MAPPING FORAGING AREAS OF SEABIRDS AT RISK FROM LONGLINE FISHING: A TOOL FOR ASSESSING INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION RESPONSIBILITIES K. DAVID HYRENBACH, John Croxall, Deon Nel, Cleo Small, and Frances Taylor, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA (KDH), British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, Cambridge, United Kingdom (JC), World Wildlife Fund, Stellenbosch, South Africa (DN), BirdLife International Global Seabird Programme, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Sandy, United Kingdom (CS), BirdLife International Seabird Conservation Programme, Stellenbosch, South Africa (FT), khyrenba@duke.edu More than 22 species of globally threatened petrels and albatrosses are killed by longline fishing operations. Seabird bycatch can be greatly reduced through the use of cost-effective mitigation measures. Additionally, as the conservation status of many tubenose seabirds continues to deteriorate, precautionary fishing ground closures could become a widespread management method. Yet these management approaches require critical knowledge about the spatial and temporal overlap of seabird marine ranges with different national and fishery jurisdictions, and about the extent and location of high-use foraging grounds. This geospatial information will help identify conservation responsibilities and target bycatch mitigation efforts in time and space. BirdLife International, in conjunction with researchers around the world, is compiling a database of seabird distribution data to identify the most important foraging areas for threatened species at regional and global scales. Here we describe the results of a pilot study focusing on several species for which we have good knowledge of key foraging areas. To illustrate how this integrated perspective can be used to guide conservation efforts, we relate these seabird distribution data to the extent of Exclusive Economic Zones and to the jurisdictions of Regional Fishery Management Organizations. An electronic copy of the report is available online at www.birdlife.org/action/science/species/seabirds/tracking.html ASSESSING SHALLOW WATER HAWAIIAN REEF FISH STOCKS THROUGH THE USE OF A SPATIALLY HETEROGENEOUS MANAGEMENT REGIME JOSHUA SLADEK NOWLIS, Alan Friedlander, Edward DeMartini, and Eric Brown, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Fisheries, Miami, FL USA (JSN), NOAA/NOS/NCCOS/CCMA-Biogeography Program, Waimanalo, HI, USA (AF), NOAA Fisheries, Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, Honolulu, HI, USA (ED), National Park Service, Kalaupapa NHP, Kalaupapa, HI, USA (EB), Joshua.Nowlis@noaa.gov The Hawaiian Islands provide an ideal laboratory for studying human perturbations to marine environments. The main Hawaiian Islands experience heavy fishing pressure, both commercial and recreational, and coastal development. By contrast, shallow water fishing pressure and coastal development are essentially nonexistent in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands. We assessed the status of many shallow water reef fish stocks by taking advantage of this contrast and of the numerous designated no-take marine reserves, partially protected areas, and open access areas within the main Hawaiian Islands. Diurnal visual fish counts were conducted throughout the archipelago. These data were converted into biomass densities (kg per square meter) using widely available length-weight conversion equations. We assumed that the northwestern Hawaiian Islands had distinct and pristine stocks of fish, and then compared these virgin biomass levels to those measured within the main Hawaiian Islands. Our analyses suggested that numerous shallow water Hawaiian reef fish stocks are depleted, some quite badly, despite existing area closures, gear restrictions, size limits, and catch limits. This work powerfully illustrates the value of large no-take reserves as reference areas, but also highlights the weakness of small no-take reserves and partially protected areas to serve in that capacity. OVERVIEW OF OCEAN MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES: LESSONS FROM FIVE CASE STUDIES SATIE AIRAME, Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, airame@msi.ucsb.edu Ocean management in five regions—Gulf of Maine, Massachusetts, Florida, California, and Alaska—was explored, compared, and contrasted to identify common problems and effective solutions. Generally, activities in the ocean were managed in an uncoordinated patchwork with no cohesive mandate for sustainable use. In many cases, spatial and temporal scales of management were poorly matched to ecological systems. Agencies struggled with multiple, often conflicting, uses and goals. With few exceptions, managers identified collaboration among agencies, and with stakeholders and scientists, as integral to successful management and monitoring. Agencies such as the U.S. National Park Service and the U.S. National Marine Sanctuary Program tended to share management objectives and the level of collaboration was high. The value of collaboration with fisheries agencies was recognized, but fisheries management often proceeded independent of other activities. Several agencies, including the U.S. Minerals Management Service and Department of Defense, coordinated, rather than collaborated, with other agencies in the same region. Major obstacles to cooperation among agencies included conflicts in management goals, lack of shared agency culture, and inability to transfer funds between agencies. To address these concerns, some state governments, including California, Florida, and Massachusetts, developed promising policies for more comprehensive, ecosystem-based ocean management. MANAGEMENT OF SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL COMPLEXITY IN OCEAN ECOSYSTEMS: PANEL DISCUSSION OF CASE STUDIES Management of marine ecosystems must consider and address both spatial and temporal scales of ecological processes to be effective. Several challenges, including the complexity of marine ecosystems, the fragmentation of government, and delayed responses to ecological changes, limit the success of ocean management. Our panelists will explore five case studies in the United States—Gulf of Maine, Massachusetts, Florida, California, and Alaska—each region struggling with the need to balance multiple uses and interests. Overexploitation of targeted species (e.g., Atlantic cod, west coast rockfish, Alaskan pollock) drives major changes in management strategies with substantial economic and social consequences. Several states, including California, Florida, and Massachusetts, recently adopted, or are in the process of developing, comprehensive legislation to guide ocean management and research. The legislation promotes sustainable use and development of ocean resources, incorporating key elements of ecosystem-based management. The policies alone, however, are not likely to be effective unless policy leaders can develop a shared vision and mandate, setting aside competitive struggles for authority. Our panelists will compare and contrast the structure and effectiveness of ocean management in each study region. | |||||||||||||||||
|
|
| Copyright © 2012 Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) Direct questions, comments, and technical problems to the webmaster SCB is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization |