Transcript Susanne F. McDermott: MPAs as management tools in northern

MPAs as management tools in northern boreal ecosystems:
What are our goals and how do we get there?
Susanne F. McDermott1
John V. Olson2, Erik Olsen3, Geir Dahle3 , Dvora Hart4 , Paul
Spencer1 ,Alan Haynie1, William Stockhausen1, Erlend Moksness3,
Tore Johannessen3, Lene Buhl-Mortensen3, Esben Moland
Olsen3, Jan Helge Fosså3
1Alaska
2Alaska
Fisheries Science Center
Regional Office
3 Institute of Marine Research
4 Northeast Fisheries Science Center
Outline
•
•
•
•
Results of two US-Norway MPA workshops
Collaborative research US-Norway
MPA Design strategies
Challenges
– Challenges in northern boreal systems
– Improve “Intertribal” communication between
• Managers
• Scientists
• Stakeholders
• Summary
• Discussion Topics
2
Background
• Rationale: To evaluate MPAs as management tool as part
of the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAF)
• 2009 MPA workshopSeattle (USA)
• 2010 MPA workshop Bergen (Norway)
– Institute of Marine Research (Norway):
• Erik Olsen, Geir Dahle , Erlend Moksness , Tore Johannessen, Lene BuhlMortensen, Esben Moland Olsen, Jan Helge Fosså
– NOAA Alaska Fisheries Science Center/Alaska Regional Office:
• Susanne McDermott, Paul Spencer, Alan Haynie, William Stockhausen, John
Olson, Cindy Tribuzio
– NOAA Northeast Fisheries Science Center
• Dvora Hart, Dave Packer
3
Background contd.
• 2009 Workshop on MPAs
– How to best design MPA network
– When and where are MPAs a good management
tool?
• 2010 Workshop
– Understand status quo of current systems
• Norway
• Alaska
• North East Atlantic coast (George’s bank)
– Can we learn from what we already have in place?
– Set of MPA goals and mechanisms
– Collaborative paper and research
4
Collaborative paper
MPAs as management tools in
northern boreal ecosystems
1.
2.
Review common goals and mechanisms for MPAs
as a management tool
Describe MPA examples in three ecosystems:
1.
2.
3.
Norwegian Sea
North Pacific Ecosystem (Alaska)
North Atlantic (George’s Bank)
Authors:
•
Erik Olsen, Geir Dahle , Dvora Hart , Paul Spencer ,Alan Haynie,
William Stockhausen, Erlend Moksness , Tore Johannessen, Lene
Buhl-Mortensen, Esben Moland Olsen, Jan Helge Fosså, John V.
Olson.
5
What is a Marine Protected
Area?
US Definition
An MPA is any area of the marine environment that has
been reserved by federal, state, territorial, tribal, or local
laws or regulations to provide lasting protection for part
or all of the natural and cultural resources within (official US
definition as of the executive order 13158, under Clinton in 2000).
FAO definition
Any marine geographical area that is afforded greater
protection than the surrounding waters for biodiversity,
conservation, or fisheries management purposes will be
considered an MPA
6
What is a Marine Protected
Area?
• In Practice:
• MPAs are defined areas where natural
and/or cultural resources are given
greater protection than the surrounding
waters.
• Most closed marine areas qualify under
this definition
7
MPA Fun Facts:
Numbers of MPA papers
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
0
Publication Year
Total No. of papers on MPAs published since 1991: 961
Total No. of papers on northern MPAs:
(Web of Science search, Keyword or title contain Marine Protected Area)
54
8
So you want to use MPAs as
management tools?
Define Problem
Determine Goal
Analyze available
knowledge
Determine Management Tool
MPA
Other Tools
(Quota, Effort)
9
So you want to design an MPA?
Generate options
for MPA design
Analyze available
knowledge
Stakeholder input
Define MPA Area
• Feedback
Implement MPA
• Feedback
Monitor Outcomes
Achieve Goal
10
Goals
1. Ecosystem Protection
 Habitat conservation
Minimize negative impact
 Protect biodiversity
 Protect unique habitat /ecosystem
 Protect habitat of vulnerable life stage
11
Goals
2. Improve Fisheries Management
 Manage multispecies fishery
 Reduce exploitation rate
 Recent stock collapse
 Preserve size structure
 Maintain spawning biomass




Increase yield
Increase productivity
Avoid bycatch
Preserve prey
12
It gets complicated…
Goal
Mechanism
Species
Area closure
Characteristics Characteristics
Fishery
Management
1. Habitat
preservation
Avoid all human
impact on habitat
Species prefer certain
habitat types
Small adult movement
Needs to encompass
desired habitat types
Spatial closures need to be
enforced; effort redistribution
effects not large
2. Increase yield
Grow larger
individuals
Enhance recruitment
in exploited areas
Large larval movement
Spillover effect
Small adult movement
Needs to encompass local
population
Rotational closures might
work well
Spatial closures need to be
enforced
Quota/effort management
preferred
3. Protect unique Avoid all human
impact
habitat
Small adult movement
Species dependent on
unique habitat
Spatial closures need to be
enforced
Minimize
exploitation rate
Small adult movement
Large larval movement
Spillover effect
Usually includes areas
with unique
characteristics such as
high biodiversity, unique
physical features or high
recreational value
Needs to encompass large
enough area to ensure
successful local
recruitment
4. Stock
rebuilding
(recent crash)
Spatial closures need to be
enforced
Quota/effort management
preferred
Potential effort reduction
13
Challenges for Northern Boreal Systems
e.g. Norwegian Sea, North Pacific, and North Atlantic Ecosystems
• High abundance - low diversity
– large amount of movement
– Individuals cover large geographic areas throughout life cycle
– Scales of MPAs need to reflect Species’ range
14
Challenges for Northern Boreal Systems
e.g. Norwegian Sea, North Pacific, and North Atlantic Ecosystems
• Remote Areas
– Expensive and hard to study
– Local data often difficult or impossible to obtain
– Cold water, stormy weather=large and expensive platforms
15
Challenges for Northern Boreal Systems
e.g. Norwegian Sea, North Pacific, and North Atlantic Ecosystems
• Highly developed commercial fisheries
• Other natural resources (Oil, Gas industry)
– Stakeholder involvement is high
– Economic impact large
– Potential for controversy
16
Challenges for Northern Boreal Systems
e.g. Norwegian Sea, North Pacific, and North Atlantic ecosystems
• Local Communities
– Small and remote
– High economic and cultural dependency on
Marine Resources
– MPA closure has large impact
17
Photo: Pacific Fishing 2009
Challenges for Northern Boreal Systems
e.g. Norwegian Sea, North Pacific, and North Atlantic Ecosystems
• Complex fisheries management system
– Implementation process for area closures is complex
– Process of achieving closures is lengthy and expensive
• Advantage
– Other management tools are already in place
North Pacific
Fisheries Management Council
•
•
Ministry of Fisheries
and Coastal Affairs
18
MPA Design Process
Generate options
for MPA design
Analyze available
knowledge
Stakeholder input
Define MPA Area
• Feedback
Implement MPA
• Feedback
Monitor Outcomes
Achieve Goal
19
Challenges
Problem Areas
Generate options
for MPA design
Analyze available
knowledge
Stakeholder input
Define MPA Area
Implement MPA
20
Good Communication is
Essential!
21
How can we communicate
better?
•
•
•
•
•
•
Identify your tribe and culture
Identify the other tribes and cultures
Understand the differences
Learn to speak in each others language
Appreciate each others perspective
Respect each others cultural values
22
The Tribes
Stakeholders:
Scientists:
Fishing Industry
Political
pressure
Biologists
Advice
Modelers
Managers
Oil and Gas Industry
Conservation Groups
Economist
Affected Communities
Social Scientists
?
Successful MPA Design
General Public
23
Fishery Scientist Tribe
Modelers
Biologist
24
Fishery Scientist Tribe
Modelers
Biologists
Language
Culture
Mathematics
Synthesizing Data
Uncertainty
Biological Processes
Gather Data
Uncertainty
Happiest When…
Model works and produces
results
Conducting exciting study
(on favorite subject)
Frustrated When…
Advice is ignored
Not enough time for good
analysis
Advice is ignored
Science is expected to be
clear cut
Models used don’t make
biological sense
Fear and worries
Uncertainty not taken into
account
Oversimplification of
complex answers
Unrealistic expectations by
users from scientific results
Failed scientific project
Research considered
25
irrelevant
Scientist Tribe
Economist
Punk Economists
Social Scientist
I am a social scientist Michael. That
means I can’t explain fish physiology or
anything like that, but if you ever want to
know about people I’m your man
26
Scientist Tribe
Economist
Social Scientist
Language
Culture
•Mathematics
•Incentive structure
•Economic gain/loss
•Uncertainty
•Cultural values
•Social Structure
•Outreach to communities
Happiest When…
•Have data and time to conduct
thorough cost benefit analysis
•Getting communities involved in
management
Frustrated When…
•Advice is ignored
•Not enough time to perform
good analysis
•Different tribes don’t listen and
communicate with each other
Fear and worries
•Being asked to back opinions not
based on scientific evidence
• Politics instead of science
influence decisions
•Communities loose
representation in decision
process
•Loosing trust of communities
•Social Science is irrelevant
27
Manager Tribe
Language
Culture
•Clear cut scientific results
•Decision rules (yes vs no)
•Management plans
Happiest When…
•Actions understood by all parties
•Tribes are happy
•Decisions are made based on Science
Frustrated When…
•Lack of communication
•Tribes are ‘in their corners ready to fight not listen’
•Decisions are not based on Science but on politics
Fear and worries
•Wrong goals and wrong decisions lead to management
failure
28
Stakeholder Tribe
Conservationist
Communities
Industry
29
Stakeholder Tribe
Fishing Industry
Language
Culture
•Economic gain
•Sustainability
•fishing and management regulation,
•Clear cut scientific results
Happiest When…
•Enough resources are available long term to make profit
•Confidence that management is accurate and reliable
•Have input in management process
Frustrated When…
•Advice is ignored
•Management decisions based on politics not science
•Government process gets too lengthy and complex
•Feel mistrust from government as to following the law
•Not recognized when making effort to harvest sustainably
Fear and worries
•Uncertainties in management and resource allocation
•Resource collapse
•Economic failure
30
Stakeholder Tribe
Language
Culture
Communities
Conservation Groups
•Marine environment has cultural and
aesthetic value
•Livelihood and culture linked to marine
ecosystem
•Marine environment has cultural and
aesthetic value
•Conservation of resources
•Clear cut scientific results
•Clear cut scientific results
Happiest When…
•Enough resources are available to support
livelihood sustainably
•Confidence that management is reliable and
fair
•Have input in management process
•Environment is protected from
exploitation and human impact
•Ecosystem is healthy
•Have input in management process
Frustrated
When…
•Advice is ignored
•Management decisions influenced by large
industry stakeholders interests
•Advice is ignored
•Management decisions influenced by
large industry stakeholders interests
Fear and worries
•Loose representation in decision process
•Loose lifestyle linked to marine environment
• Politics instead of science influence
decisions
•Livelihood is threatened due to resource
crash
•Loose representation in decision
process
•Politics instead of science influence
decisions
•Resource exploitation is favored over
conservation
31
Tribal Culture Summary
• Language:
– Scientist present results in terms of uncertainty
– Managers and Stakeholders want clear cut results
• Biggest frustration from all
– Advice is ignored
– Decisions based on politics not science
• Motivation (happiness of fear)
– Often different for each tribe
32
How to avoid this…
33
And achieve this!
34
Suggestions
Stakeholders:
Scientists:
Fishing Industry
Political
Advice
pressure
Biologists
Advice
Modelers
Managers
Oil and Gas Industry
Conservation Groups
Economist
Affected Communities
Social Scientists
General Public
Successful MPA Design
35
Discussion Points
• Can we include uncertainty formally into
management process?
• How do we insure that scientific results are relevant
to answer management questions?
• Can scientists provide ‘bottom line’ for successful
closure boundaries, sizes etc?
• How can “political pressure” from stakeholders be
transformed into “constructive advice”?
– Involve Stakeholders in decision and governance process
36
Summary
•
•
•
•
MPA design process is complicated
Developing goals based on science essential
Lots of controversy to be expected
Good communication essential to achieve goal
– Improving our intertribal communication skills
• Managers have to synthesize knowledge and
advice and turn it into wisdom
(Tundi Spring Agardy: Casting off the Chains that Bind us to Ineffective Ocean
Management)
37
Thank You
Acknowledgments:
Institute of Marine Science
Alaska Fisheries Science Center
John V. Olson, Erik Olsen, Geir Dahle , Dvora
Hart , Paul Spencer, Alan Haynie, William
Stockhausen, Erlend Moksness , Tore
Johannessen, Lene Buhl-Mortensen, Esben
Moland Olsen, Jan Helge Fosså, Brian
Garber Yates, Amber Himes, Daniel Ito,
Patricia Livingston, Guy Fleischer, Sarah
Geichas, Peter Munro, Kimberly Rand.
38