A Plan Regarding Marine Protected Areas
Abstract: We assert that the establishment and operation of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) is a viable and effective, albeit incomplete, means of protecting, rebuilding, and sustaining the world's marine resources. In accordance with the goals of Mission 2011, MPAs are an ecosystem-based approach to marine management. MPAs currently in operation unequivocally demonstrate that reductions human impacts allow ecosystems to return to a healthier, more natural state. We will also demonstrate other advantages of MPAs, both alone and relative to other management strategies. Given such benefits, the primary challenge is to expand MPA coverage to a globally significant scale, while at the same time maintaining the support of various stakeholder groups. In this solution, we will first propose a broadly applicable scheme for establishing MPAs, and then discuss some issues regarding their operation.
Key Proposals:
I. Aim to cover 10% of the global oceans with No-Take Reserves within a reasonable time-frame
A. This scale provides a balance between ecological effectiveness and acceptability
1. 20 - 30% may be better, but is increasingly implausible
B. This is comparable to the scale of protected Land Areas
C. To be used in conjunction with other degrees of protection and other management strategies in the remaining area
II. General Principles for Area Selection
A. Must be representative selection of habitats
B. Multiple examples of similar habitats need to be protected
C. Individual Areas can be small, but they must be "networked" larger scales
III. Implementation Logistics
A. International Vision...National and Local Action
1. National mandate must be supported by strong legislation, national budgeting
2. Nations could adapted existing infrastructure from land-based conservation to MPAs
IV. Public Support and Education
A. Use MPAs as a tool to increase ocean literacy and awareness of general public
B. Can be used directly as an educational tool
Benefits of Marine Protected Areas:
One of the best known and longest established MPAs is the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park off the coast of Australia. Studies in no-take areas of the park by Evans and Russ show dramatic increases in the biomass fished species, as compared to fished areas.[1] There are also clear indications of generally improved ecosystem health.[2] There is also evidence of a so-called "spillover effect" whereby the benefits of the MPA extend beyond park boundaries.[3] Ecologically successful implementation of MPAs is well documented scientific literature, and has been shown possible in a wide variety of marine environments.
Marine Protected Areas, and in particular, no-take marine reserves, possess attributes that set them apart from traditional marine management Since they are ecosystem-based, they do not require large amounts of species-specific, qualitative data to be effective, a significant flaw of traditional management. Fundamentally, MPAs are proactive, rather than reactive; they provide a buffer and "insurance policy" against inaccuracies in science and policy. Furthermore, by maintaining or restoring natural systems, MPAs provide a valuable scientific "baseline" or "control" to better judge activities outside of their boundaries. Also well established are the positive role of MPAs in education, tourism, recreation, and critical ecosystem services.
The challenge:
As it stands today, roughly 0.7% of the world ocean is protected in some way (in contrast 11.5% of land areas re protected in some way).[4] THIS IS SIMPLY NOT ENOUGH to have a globally significant impact. Furthermore, the rate at which the MPAs are growing is far lower than the human ability to exploit the oceans. Hence, the challenge is to expand coverage to a more significant level, as quickly as possible, while limiting the impact on human culture and economics.
The Goal and Plan:
A reasonable middle ground will be to aim for 10% coverage of the world oceans with no-take areas. This is comparable to global protected land areas, would likely be enough to make a substantial impact, and could still remain palatable for fishers, etc. The principle behind a conservative goal, is that it is one for which widespread support would be possible with the appropriate motivations. Also, having a well-defined, conservative goal makes it clear that there is no attempt to radically restructure the way the business is carried out on the seas; in contrast, the MPA proposal is designed to preserve and protect the seagoing cultures and ways of life that have existed for many generations. Most important is the acknowledgement that an inflexible attitude toward the creation of MPAs is counterproductive. This 10% target attempts to be sensitive to socio-economic concerns, as well as biological and ecological concerns.[5]
In areas outside of the no-take zones, lesser restrictions will almost certainly be necessary. Traditional management schemes, such as gear restrictions, quotas, or days-at-sea limitations, are all possibilities. In any case, it is important to note that the intent is for MPAs to work in conjunction with other management schemes.
How to Choose Locations for MPAs:
Given the limited coverage area, clear thought must be given to maximizing the influence of each unit. We reiterate that the size of individual sanctuaries is not the most important matter, but rather the global scale of coverage. Within the proposed 10%, a representative sample of habitats and ecosystems should be protected. Furthermore, multiple examples of each habitat should be protected to insure against localized disturbances. Finally, individual MPAs should be located in mutually reinforcing "networks," to maximize their influence.
Although the MPAs in this proposal are intended to protect entire ecosystems, we acknowledge that there are secondary biological or economic situations in which a certain organism is of particular importance. In such cases, an understanding of the relevant biology and ecology can, for example, allow key life stages or migration routes to be protected by careful placement of reserves. A land-based analogy may be the protection of bird nesting sites and reserves for migratory birds, respectively.[6]
Implementation:
In principle, there is nothing wrong with an international approach to marine management. Indeed, if some international organization can provide a "vision" and moral support, it would be extremely beneficial. However, the details of implementation can most effectively be handled on a more local or regional basis. States have the established legislative and financial machinery to mandate and fund the creation of MPAs, something lacked by virtually all current International bodies. Even more practically, there is the sovereignty issue of direct enforcement in territorial waters.
Also consider that many nations have preexisting infrastructure related land-based conservation areas that can be expanded and adapted to meet the needs of running MPAs. Using the United Statesas an example, National Legislation such as the National Marine Sanctuaries Act can be strengthened, to streamline the process for the creation of new MPAs, to explicitly mandate their creation, and to provide for budget appropriations therein.[7] The scope of existing enforcement agencies, such as the National Park Service can be expanded to cover MPAs. Their mandate can be greatly assisted by technological solutions, such as satellite-based remote sensing, etc.
[1] Evans, RD; Russ, GR. "Larger biomass of targeted reef fish in no-take marine reserves on the Great Barrier Reef." Aquatic Conservation. 14 (5) : 505-519.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Russ, GR; Alcala, AC; Maypa, AP. "Spilloverfrom marine reserves: The case of Naso vlamingii at ApoIsland, The Philippines" Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., Vol. 264, pp. 15-20. 2003.
[4] D. Pauly. Lecture. and UNEP World Database on Protected Areas. <http://www.unep-wcmc.org/wdpa/>.
[5] Agardy T., et. al. "Ideological Clashes around marine protected areas." Aquatic Conservation 13(4): 353-367.
[6]Guenette, S; Pitcher, TJ; Walters, CJ. "The Potential of Marine Reserves for the management of northern cod in Newfoundland." Bulletin of Marine Science, 66(3): 831-852, 2000.
[7] 16 United States Code § 1431