Page History

...

 (Note: You can read the details in the text if you like, but most of the actual proposal is included in the Abstract and the Key Proposals sections.)

Proposed Solution regarding Marine Protected Areas

Teams 8 and 9

 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

...

B.            Can be used directly as an educational tool tool

Benefits of Marine Protected Areas:

...

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.

            In areas outside of the 10%, 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 conjuction 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.

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.\[5\]  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.&nbsp; Lecture. _and_ UNEP World Database on Protected Areas. <http<[http://www.unep-wcmc.org/wdpa/]>.
\[5\] 16 United States Code § 1431

...