Converging on Marine Reserves

The commercial fishing and conservationist communities have clashed many times over how to protect fishery resources and conserve marine ecosystems while also supporting the economies dependent on the oceans. However, a new twist in the argument is the louder call from both sides for better scientific support for fishery management decisions. Fisheries management approaches often focus on single species protection by limiting the number of days fishermen can work, the types of fishing gear used, and amount and size of caught fish. Challenging these traditional approaches are ecosystem-based management strategies that would establish large marine reserve "no-take" zones, where extractive activities are banned. Scientific support of marine reserve ecosystem approaches reached a crescendo in February with the release of a Scientific Consensus Statement from the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) supporting the marine reserves strategy.1 Based on a three-year review of literature evaluating marine reserve effectiveness, the statement supports the development of a network of small reserves--linked ecologically and physically through larvae dispersion and ocean currents--that border areas open to fisheries. The NCEAS supports the adoption of a theory of marine reserves as the basis for policy: that these networks of marine reserves, completely protected from exploitation, will provide the most benefit for both marine conservation and fisheries production. "[Current] management practices can't take care of ecosystems. Marine reserves are good for bringing back ecosystems," says Jane Lubchenco, professor of zoology at Oregon State University and a co-chair of the team of scientists based at the NCEAS at University of California, Santa Barbara. Although the statement maintains that creating networks of marine reserves is in the best interest of fisheries, it is still threatening to those communities of stakeholders tied economically to the oceans. The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations (PCFFA), a major west coast commercial fishing organization, released a statement in February arguing that all ocean waters deserve full protection--from oil dumping, drilling and other activities. "We appreciate the call of scientists for marine protected areas, but it simply is not enough. We need to protect all of our ocean waters, not just those people want to research or play in, " says PCFFA president Pietro Parravano. There is no doubt about the importance of the fisheries community. According to statistics compiled by the Pew Oceans Commission, fisheries support more than 1.3 million jobs in the United States, and in 1998, commercial fishing brought home 9.2 billion pounds of fish worth $3.1 billion. But at the same time, 98 species of federally managed fish were listed as overfished--that is 43 percent of the managed fisheries where there is information about the stock. Those in favor of protecting large chunks of ocean waters from extraction differentiate between two types of marine conservation areas--marine protected areas (MPAs) and marine reserves, which are subsets of MPAs. MPAs allow extraction of at least some resources and include protected marine areas within the U.S. national park system, marine sanctuaries, and areas designated closed to fishing depleted stocks. However, the focus of the scientists meeting in February was on fully protected marine reserves where all extractive activity is barred and reserves that cover less than 1 percent of U.S. waters. Those most wary about marine reserves are those who have little experience with them, comments Callum Roberts, professor at Harvard University's department of organismic and evolutionary biology, who studies marine reserve success stories, and "the most skeptical people are fishers." Roberts cites several examples of success with reserves, such as a five square kilometer marine reserve off the North Island of New Zealand that was created in the 1970s. A rapid increase was seen in both abundance and weight of exploited species after fishing was banned in the reserve area, with snapper density growing to 40 times that of adjacent areas. He also points to the recovery of the scallop industry after the 1994 closure of the Georges Bank. Although the Bank was not fully protected, closure of the scallop fishing allowed the industry to rebuild the population 14 times within five years inside the protected area versus outside. Supporting Studies Although the first marine reserves were established two decades ago, no comprehensive studies like those of Roberts had been carried out to determine their overall effectiveness in protecting and restoring fish populations. The effort leading to the Scientific Consensus Statement was initiated when a group of marine scientists at the 1997 American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting decided that not enough was known about the science of marine conservation areas to determine if they were sound models on which to base policy. They established the NCEAS team to find gaps in marine science knowledge and review literature to analyze four biological measures for inside versus outside marine reserves--density, biomass, size of organisms, and diversity. They also looked at peer-reviewed science literature about oceans, genetics, ecology, and data from remote sensing. Their syntheses will be published this year in a special issue of Ecological Applications. The results surprised the team. Robert Warner, a professor at the UC-Santa Barbara department of ecology, evolution, and marine biology, comments, "The response has been rapid and positive. This was fairly startling to us," With the establishment of marine reserves, there were quick increases in population density inside and outside of the reserves. Warner adds that the response occurred within two to four years after setting up a reserve, and that size of the reserves didn't matter. A review of 100 established marine reserves showed that inside the reserves, population densities average 91 percent higher, biomass 192 percent higher, average organism size 31 percent higher and species diversity 23 percent higher than before. Warner believes that the key to rebuilding fisheries is that reserves may be seeding not only their own reserves, but also other areas and that these success factors might allow scientists and stakeholders to approach a consensus about how marine reserves may be designed in terms of balancing protection and extraction. Courtesy of Ruedi AebersoldFishing vessels in Seattle Steve Palumbi, professor of organismic and evolutionary biology at Harvard University, points to the challenge of how large reserves need to be and where to put them. Marine reserves have effects outside of their boundaries, with eggs and larvae, juveniles, and adults moving long distances. By using genomic sequencing techniques to look at variations in groups over space, Palumbi estimates the dispersal distances of larvae, finding that dispersal range is on the order of 50-100 km and advocates that marine reserves should be that size. While Palumbi acknowledges the large size, he offers other solutions that include creating networks of smaller reserves that would enhance fisheries at the boundaries and use the higher productivity to stabilize. Fears about fishery decline and extinction often come from the scientific community. Last November, the American Fisheries Society (AFS) published a baseline list of North American marine fish species in its journal, Fisheries, that it says are in danger of becoming extinct.2 The list consists of 82 species and subspecies considered vulnerable, threatened, or endangered in North American waters, as well as 22 considered in similar danger globally. Cod is on that list, as well as Atlantic salmon, Atlantic halibut, some species of sharks, groupers, and other fish. The study used the concept of Distinct Population Segments (DPS) to identify which stock--a group of fish that can be treated as a single unit--could be separated using physical, physiological, ecological, and behavioral factors of analysis. Four risk criteria for determining endangered status were used: rarity, small range and endemics, specialized habitat requirements, and resilience of population to decline. The study found that although most of the stocks listed face more than one of the risk factors, the two most important factors were low reproductive capacity and destruction of habitat. It signaled five habitat areas at high risk: Indian River Lagoon, Florida Keys, Florida Bay, Puget Sound, northern coast of the Gulf of Mexico, and the Gulf of California. The AFS calls the list a starting point. "Since we still don't have adequate information about the population status and the life histories of many marine species, this list should be regarded as a starting point rather than a final version," says John A. Musick, director of the study and a researcher at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. He adds that because it is difficult for species to recover from declines, the AFS has been on the policy attack, urging research and protection, including establishing fully protected marine reserves. The National Academy of Sciences also released a report last November, calling for development of a national system of marine protected areas and advocating more marine reserves in addition to conventional management approaches. Again, the focus is on protecting and managing ecosystems, rather than focusing on individual species, and the study points to growing scientific evidence about marine reserves effectiveness. The report also stresses the difficult management and implementation of such a system, in that it would require participation of national and local stakeholders to make it work, with the first steps being analysis of local conservation needs in specific ecosystems. This protectionist attitude has found its way into federal policy. In May 2000, former President Bill Clinton signed an executive order to strengthen and expand marine protected areas. The order called on relevant agencies such as the Department of Commerce, Department of the Interior, the National Science Foundation, and others to coordinate in scientific assessment and MPA development. The order defined an MPA as "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 therein." In December, Clinton signed another order designating the first MPA, the 3.5-million-acre Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve. However, these moves by the Clinton administration received some reaction, including a January letter to President George W. Bush from James V. Hansen (R-Utah), the new chair of the House Resources Committee, questioning the goals and criteria for establishment of MPAs. And what do the fisheries scientists think about all of this? Even though the concept of a "no-take" zone causes the most worry for people who make their living from the sea, some are supportive, as long as they have input into the design. Zeke Grader, executive director of PCFFA, spoke last July at an oceans meeting organized by the American Geophysical Union and the AAAS, commenting that MPAs are a promise and a threat and that their implementation must take into account the wide range of knowledge about ocean resources, from scientists and those people who work there everyday. "MPA policy and siting should not and cannot be entrusted to political consultants or environmental ... fund raisers." Dave Amber (damber@nasw.org) is a freelance science writer in College Station, Texas. References 1. Statement of Scientific Consensus on Marine Reserves: www.nceas.ucsb.edu/fmt/doc? /frames.html 2. J.A. Musick et al., "Marine, estuarine, and diadromous fish stocks at risk of extinction in North America (exclusive of pacific salmonoids)," Fisheries, 25[11]:6, November 2000. For More Information National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association www.sanctuaries.nos.noaa.gov Marine Protected Areas (MPAs),from the Department of Commerce and the Department of the Interior www.mpa.gov National Academy of Sciences report:Marine Protected Areas: Tools for Sustaining Ocean Ecosystems www.nap.edu/catalog/9994.html

Converging on Marine Reserves

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of