Team 8,9: October 31st
(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
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. (United States Example) National mandate must be supported by strong legislation, national budgeting
2. Organizational structure could be analogous to National Parks on land
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.
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. Lecture. and UNEP World Database on Protected Areas. <http://www.unep-wcmc.org/wdpa/
>.
[5] 16 United States Code § 1431
Team 5: October 29th
We propose creating an international body under the UN- possibly affiliated with the FAO (but which could also be autonomous) that would regulate/manage/enforce the following treaty that is designed to meet our goals. This treaty only includes the requests of Team 2 and our team, so please post/email what regulations you would like included (i.e. does Team 3 want something on pollution or environmental considerations?):
1. How do we enforce international fishing regulations, including what technology could be used and where technology could be used?
a. We need to achieve near full compliance from most countries and create incentives to deter flag hopping.
i. China, US, EU, Japan, Russia, Canada, Brazil, South Africa, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand and other countries with large fishing demand*
ii. Offer economic incentives from our regulatory body: trade restrictions on fish/fishing technology placed upon non-compliant countries; similar or more stringent rules apply to countries who sign but flag hop
b. How do we achieve near-full compliance?
i. Treaty/mandate/charter
1. Countries are responsible for all ships that are registered under their flag
2. Cannot register with a noncompliant country
3. Limit what technology can be used where
a. Info from Team 2
4. Fishing quotas for international waters/polar regions
a. Info from other teams on quota success
5. Each countries regulates compliance of ships under its flag by use of
a. Tracking devices
b. Regulatory officers
6. Each country responsible for regulating/measuring/tracking the biodiversity and biomass within coastal regions
7. Funds from dues to research biodiversity/biomass in international and the polar regions
a. How do we track this? Team 10
ii. Financial officers provided to each signatory by the regulatory body to help them balance the demands of the treaty without damaging the economy
1. Committee of experts that deals with case by case
c. Create a body: International Regulatory Commission for Sustainable Fishing (IRCSF)
i. Either autonomous, like NATO
ii. Or a part of the UN, like WHO or UNICEF (suggested)
1. Maybe under or affiliated with the FAO
Team 6: October 29th
Establishing a law that requires all fishing vessels to have a GPS tracking device on board will make the regulation of fishermen and fishing companies much simpler and more effective. It will allow regulating bodies to know which fleets are in the water and whether or not they are within legal boundaries. For fishermen, it is an simple way to determine which closed areas are in effect. For all fishing vessels currently in operation, the cost of the tracking devices can be subsidized.
Establishing a fish tax will put the cost of depleting fisheries on the consumer. Similar to gasoline tax and cigarette taxes, a fish tax will increase the cost of any fish products sold on the market. Currently there is a very high demand for fish, and if we are to keep a sustainable global fish population, we cannot catch the number of fish needed to meet this demand. An increase in fish prices will not only discourage consumers from buying more fish, thus lowering the demand, but it will make them aware of the crisis in our oceans today.
Issues: poor people now cannot afford fish (but in America there are substitutes)
Other ideas:
*Subsidizing fishing is NOT a solution.
*Fish tax vs. tariffs?
*what if countries aren't allowed to fish in each others waters at all? (make distant water fleets illegal) then the only way to get fish would be through imports and exports, which is easier to regulate than flaghopping
*set international standards for nitrates/phosphates (<-- algae)
Todd: October 28th
Let's start expanding the outline by adding questions and topics that need to be addressed under each section of the outline. If you make changes please sign them with your name and date. Substantial restructing of the outline is probably best left in the hands of the executive committee. Possibly we could also use this page to keep track of work assignments, but I would like to discuss that in class first. The page will look better if it is edited in Wiki Markup language. It's not hard to do. If you would like to alter, object, or otherwise comment on any of these suggestions, please contact me.
Todd Mooring 10/28
Solution Document Outline
- Introduction
- Survey of global fisheries and their significance
- How much fish is caught? Where and what kinds? How important are nonfood uses of fish? How important are nonfish ocean products? Todd Mooring 10/28
- What is the monetary value of these fish/other ocean creatures? How big economically is the fishing industry? How many people work in it? Todd Mooring 10/28
- Attempt to classify world fisheries. Discuss similarities and differences between large high technology fisheries that provide fish to the developed world and the small fisheries of developing countries. Todd Mooring 10/28
- Survey of global fisheries and their significance
- Threats to fisheries
- Fishing activities
- Overexploitation Todd Mooring 10/28
- Bycatch Todd Mooring 10/28
- Other aspects of fishing (trawl damage, ghost fishing) Todd Mooring 10/28
- Pollution
- Climate
- Could non-temperature aspects of climate change impact fish? If so, how? Todd Mooring 10/28
- Assess relative importance of these factors Todd Mooring 10/28
- Fishing activities
- Implications for Humans
- Food security
- Needs to be assessed by region of the world Todd Mooring 10/28
- Economic impact
- Would it be possible to put a dollar value on the loss of global fisheries? Todd Mooring 10/28
- How hurtful have fishery collapses been in the past? Todd Mooring 10/28
- Food security
- Goals and Justification
- (Maybe we should insert the goals here) Todd Mooring 10/28
- What we want and why
- Non-biological considerations when formulating solution
- Economic/social/political issues
- Regional/fishery management solutions---How goals are to be achieved
- The global problem is a collection of local problems
- Regional solutions
- Discuss fishery problems and solutions in various regions of the world
- Solutions by fishery type---solution templates
- Discuss problems and solutions in various kinds of fisheries---large commercial, subsistence, etc.
- Discuss effectiveness of various types of fishery management systems. Some methods are better than others, according to one source. Todd Mooring 10/28
- This section could probably be reorganized Todd Mooring 10/28
- Global and technical aspects of solution
- Climate
- International waters
- Change global fish demand
- Aquaculture
- Specific recommendations/issues not addressed elsewhere
- Need for additional fisheries research
- Conclusion
Team 4: October 26th
As part of Mission 2011's overall solution, we think that to be able to know and track population size, normal age distribution, and predator/prey levels, electronic tags must be used. If the need arises to know biomass of a fishery, but does not need to be specific to a species, then SONAR can be used to find that information. We are working to develop an implementation of the tagging and surveying techniques that we have researched.
Our group will also be able to use GIS data and biomass estimates from ICES [http://www.ices.dk] and FAO [http://www.fao.org/fi/] to identify crashed stocks. We are working on analyzing our data to summarize which stocks are at dangerously low levels
NOTE: We know that this needs to be fleshed out better, but we wanted to get something posted for now.
Todd: October ?
Here is an outline/template for our solution.
Using the Outline
We could create the solution by listing and then answering relevant questions under each of these headings. The topics are listed in what I think would be a rational order for a presentation or paper. The outline could also be a site map for the Web site we will create. Please feel free to send comments to me and/or post them on the wiki.
-Todd Mooring
Solution Document Outline
Introduction
Survey of global fisheries and their significance
Threats to fisheries
Fishing activities
Pollution
Climate
Implications for Humans
Food security
Economic impact
Goals and Justification
What we want and why
Non-biological considerations when formulating solution
Economic/social/political issues
Regional/fishery management solutions---How goals are to be achieved
The global problem is a collection of local problems
Regional solutions
Discuss fishery problems and solutions in various regions of the world
Solutions by fishery type---solution templates
Discuss problems and solutions in various kinds of fisheries---large commercial, subsistence, etc.
Global and technical aspects of solution
Climate
International waters
Change global fish demand
Aquaculture
Specific recommendations/issues not addressed elsewhere
Need for additional fisheries research
Conclusion