Background:The concept of a Marine Protected Area (MPA) is exceptionally broad and may defined as follows:
"Any area of the coastal zone or open ocean conferred some level of protection for the purpose of management of use of resources or protection of vulnerable or threatened habitats or species." (Agardy 1997) Both among the general population and in the scientific community, it is very difficult to find people who oppose the idea of MPAs in principle. Indeed a recent study conducted by the Ocean Conservancy found that 95% of the comments made during a recent hearing on MPAs in Californiawere supportive of the protection (Hahn 2007).
The specific issue to be addressed in this proposal is that of No-Take Areas, or Marine Reserves. No-Take Reserves are designated areas of the ocean where exploitative or extractive uses are prohibited indefinitely (Guenette, Pitcher, & Walters 2000). Fundamentally, Marine Reserves possess attributes that set them apart from traditional marine management. Well-designed Marine Reserves are proactive, rather than reactive; they act as an "insurance policy" against inaccuracies in science and policy, as well as against natural variability inherent in ecosystems. In another sense, setting aside regions of the ocean is akin to diversely investing one's assets for future growth and improved stability. Since they are ecosystem-based, Marine Reserves do not require large amounts of difficult-to-acquire, quantitative, species-specific data to be effective. At least from a purely scientific and ecological perspective, No-Take Zones are undoubtedly effective at achieving their goals. (PROVIDE HYPERLINK TO "BENEFITS")
One of the major problems with the current application of Marine Reserves is one of scale. As it stands today, roughly 0.7% of the world ocean is protected in some way, and far less is covered by strict No-Take regulations (Pauly 2007) (for comparison, consider that 11.5% of global land area is protected in some way (UNEP 2007)). Furthermore, the rate at the human ability to exploit the oceans is growing far outstrips the overall growth rate of MPAs (Pauly 2007). It should be emphasized that established protected areas and areas of regulation are a reasonable beginning; indeed, existing schemes such as effort and technological restrictions are critical to maximizing the effectiveness of Marine Reserves. But it is most critical to note that what we have today is simply not enough to make a globally significant difference...expansion and continued development is an absolute necessity.
Of course, proper policy is about more than just science; there is a significant and often all-important social component to consider as well. It is precisely the stricter restrictions associated with Marine Reserves that have made their establishment so controversial. There is the mere discussion of closing off areas of the ocean is often enough to put fishermen and other interested parties up in arms (Agardy, et. al. 2003). For any policy to succeed, it must be able to gain a certain measure of public support; in other words, it must be demonstrated that the benefits outweigh the costs on all relevant timescales. At the same time, any plan must consider the mundane, but very real problems of establishment, maintenance, and enforcement.
Hence, the challenge before us is two-fold. The first goal is to, as quickly as possible, expand existing MPAs into a broad, enforceable network of Marine Reserves that cover a significant proportion of the world ocean. But equally important is that a fundamental part of any proposal must be an attempt to maximize its public acceptability. How might this exceedingly delicate balance between ecology and society be achieved? Read On...
(Hyperlink to ACTUAL PROPOSAL)
Benefits of No-Take Zones:
Benefits of No-Take Zones:Ecological Enhancement within the Reserve:
Over several decades of experience, areas where such stricter limitations have been in effect have shown some of the most dramatically positive ecological results of any management scheme. This benefit can be realized through the protection of relatively pristine areas. For example, studies in No-Take areas of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park by Evans and Russ (2004) shows that the biomass of certain fish species has been maintained at levels up to several orders of magnitude higher than in nearby fished areas.
Marine Reserves have also been shown to facilitate the recovery of severely damage ecosystems. For instance, large sections of Georges Bank off the coast of Massachusetts were closed to fishing in 1995. Hermen, Collie, and Valentine (2003) began noting "steady and marked increase...in production" within a few years after the closure. In general, signs of recovery can appear quickly, sometimes within 2-5 years of the establishment of a No-Take Area and tend to persist for as long as protections remain in effect (Gell & Roberts 2003). Furthermore, the benefits of No-Take Zones are inherently ecosystem-based; that is, they are seen generally across a broad taxonomic range of organisms as well as the state of the non-living habitat (Gell & Roberts 2003).
These types of positive ecological results of No-Take zones have been seen around the globe, and are well documented in the scientific literature and well accepted by the scientific community.
_The "Spillover Effect:"_One of the most interesting aspects of Marine Reserves is the so-called "Spillover Effect," by which the improved biomass and diversity within the reserves enhances fisheries and ecosystems outside the reserve. Beginning with the work of Roberts, et. al. (1997), the existence of such an effect has been noted and studies for nearly a decade. In particular, he noted that the dispersal of pelagic larvae from protected areas enhanced the productivity of "downstream" regions and made them more resilient to change. There are numerous documented examples of spillover benefits, from all parts of the world, ranging from the closed area off Cape Canaveral in Florida (Johnson, Funicelli, & Bohnsack 1999) to the examples in the Philippines (Russ, Alcala, & Maypa 2003) and off the coasts of Kenya and Tanzania (McClanahan, Verheij, & Maina 2006).
Providing a Scientific Baseline:
No-Take Reserves have significant value for research in that they provide a control against which the changes outside can be compared. Long-established marine reserves provide a baseline healthy ecosystem that cannot be fully duplicated with other methods such as mathematical modeling. Areas closed due to fisheries declines produce can very important data for establishing the effectiveness of Marine Reserves in facilitating recovery of fisheries and ecosystems (Hermens, Collie, & Valentine 2003).
Direct Human Benefits:
Economics:
Education:
Fishery education is easily promoted through MPAs. Bringing awareness through tourism is a fantastic form of mass education. School age kids can be educated with field trips to the MPA and school age kids is where the future of our oceans lie. In addition to the fact that kids often bring what they learned from school trips home with them. MPAs make it easier to increase public access to information about marine areas. Visitor centers, museums, and tourist boat trips are how knowledge of the fishery problem will become public.
Another major educational benefit is that MPAs are a great resource for collecting research data and excellent areas to set up oceanic laboratories. MPAs are capable of uniting marine research like the Ecological Characterization Project undertaken by the National Marine Protected Areas Center. The information about the project can be found at <http://mpa.gov/pdf/national-system/wcp-eco-character-june9.pdf>. MPAs are capable of great research feats and simply need to be used accordingly.
(Website used for information: <http://mpa.gov/science_analysis/science_analysis.html>) (needs to be properly cited)
A 10% Plan for Marine Reserves:
We propose thatcovering 10% of the world oceans with no-take reserves is a reasonable middle ground between social and scientific concerns. Specifically, we note that this is the most conservative coverage amount that has been shown to result in a considerable ecological benefit. We contend that providing a clear and explicit goal is important in several respects: Firstly, it provides concrete target around which a reasonable and expedient timeline can be structured (Ballatine 1991). Secondly, a well-defined goal provides reassurance that the goal is not to eventually close off the entire ocean (Ibid). In other words, this proposal is a commitment to an "upper bound" unless clear evidence indicates 10% is not enough. In this way, we seek to minimize the impacts of the proposal on human culture and economics, while strongly emphasizing that non-trivial investment today is needed for the sake of the future.
In addition, we acknowledge that such a proposal for Marine Reserves must be part of a broader, global effort for improved sustainability in fisheries and in general. It is essential that Marine Reserves be used in conjunction with more traditional management methods, such as gear restrictions, quotas, etc. (Hyperlink to EXTERNAL SOLUTION PAGES, i.e TECHNOLOGY). Modeling by Guenétte, et. al (2000) has provided strong evidence that substantial benefits can be derived from relatively small closed areas (between 10-20% of the study area), but only as long as they are strategically located and augmented by other management methods. Real-world experience with existing marine reserves has confirmed that the most convincing evidence of large-scale ecological benefit begins to appear when at least 10% of a given ocean area is protected (Gell & Roberts 2003).
As for acceptability, consider that around 11.5% of global surface area currently falls under some type of state-designated protection (UNEP 2006). These data imply that a comparable level of coverage for the oceans is not an unrealistic target. Even considering that the coverage by each country is uneven, there is clear global precedent for conservation, with diverse regions such as Central America, East Asia, Southern Africa, Europe, Australia, and North America all exceeding the global average (UNEP 2006). Given the proper motivation through education, social development programmes, and the like, it is very conceivable that this 10% proposal could become broadly acceptable (Ballantine 1991).
Setting up the Reserves:
Enforcement:
A major challenge in developing Marine Protected areas is the enforceability of the borders that are set. Borders must stay relatively constant, because frequently shifting borders cause confusion among those wanting to fish near the areas. Most violations of Marine Protected Areas are committed close to the borders, so the boats have a chance to leave quickly and dispute that they were ever in the area. New technology can serve as a great help in monitoring Marine Protected Areas. One possibility is to require trackers on individual boats to ensure they do not cross protected borders. Sea or air patrol can pinpoint the locations at which violations occur. There are also simple ways to limit the number of violations of Marine Protected Areas. One is to strive for a balance that avoids too large of a Marine Protected Area that exceeds the capabilities of the work force monitoring it or several small Marine Protected Areas, which increase the length of the perimeters that needs to be monitored. Also, it is important to promote a local sense of support for the Marine Protected Areas. This creates a form of peer surveillance in which fishers outside of the protected areas will help enforce the statutes as well. (Jones, Peter 2004).
Agardy, M. T. (1997). Marine Protected Areas and Ocean Conservation. San Diego,California: Academic Press
Agardy, M.T., Bridgewater, P., Crosby, M. P., Day, J., et. al. (2003) Dangerous targets? Unresolved issues and ideological clashes around marine protected areas. Aquatic Conservation, 13(4), 1-15.
Ballantine, W. J. (1991). Marine Reserves for New Zealand. Warkworth, New Zealand: UniversityofAuckland, Leigh Marine Laboratory.
Evans, R. D., Russ, G. R. (2004). Larger biomass of targeted reef fish in no-take marine reserves on the Great Barrier Reef. Aquatic Conservation, 14(5): 505-519.
Gell, F. R. and Roberts, C. M. (2003). The Fisheries Effects of Marine Reserves and Fisheries Closures. Washington,DC: World Wildlife Fund.
Guenette, S., Pitcher T. J., Walters C. J. (2000). The Potential of Marine Reserves for the management of Northern Cod in Newfoundland. Bulletin of Marine Science_,_ 66(3): 831-852.
Hahn, S. (2007, October 17) Historic new protections could save our shores. Metroactive (Santa Cruz,CA) online edition. <www.metroactive.com/metro/10.17.07/news2-0742.html>.
Hermsen, J. M., Collie, J. S., Valentine, P. C. (2003). Mobilefishing gear reduces benthic megafaunal production on Georges Bank_._ Marine Ecology Progress Series 260: 97-108.
Johnson D. R., Funicelli N. A. , Bohnsack J. A. (1999). Effectiveness of an Existing Estuarine No-Take Fish Sanctuary within the Kennedy Space Center, Florida. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 19(2): 436-453.
McClanahan, T. R., Verheij, E., Maina, J. (2006) Comparing the management effectiveness of a marine park and a multiple-use collaborative fisheries management area in East Africa. Aquatic Conservation 16: 147-165.
Pauly, D. (2007) Lecture. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,MA.
Roberts, C.M, et al. (1997). Effects of Marine Reserves on Adjacent Fisheries. Science 294:1920-1923.
Russ, G. R., Alcala, A. C., Maypa, A.P.(2003).Spillover from marine reserves: The case of Naso vlamingii at ApoIsland, The Philippines. Marine Ecological Progress Series 264: 15-20.
United Nations Environment Program. (2006) UNEP World Database on Protected Areas. Retrieved 11 November 2007. <http://www.unep-wcmc.org/wdpa/>.
Jones, Peter. (2004). Collective Action Problems Posed by No-Take Zones. Remax House, London.