MSP Aff Core
1AC
Plan
The United States federal government should substantially increase its marine
spatial planning programs to develop marine protected areas.
Inherency
Less than 1% of the global ocean is protected now—any increase is key, and
only the plans use of Marine Spatial Planning provides a comprehensive
strategy to expand marine protected areas
McGrath, 6-17-14
(Matt, Environment correspondent for BBC News, BBC, “Expansion of US
marine protected zone could double world reserves,” 6/17/14,
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27890072, accessed 7/17/14
bh @ ddi)
Ocean campaigners have welcomed the new US plan as an important step. "This
is incredibly significant and shows
global leadership from the US on this issue" said Karen Sack from the Pew Charitable Trusts. "There is an amazing
array of biodiversity around these islands, there are sea mount systems with a lot of deep sea species, all types of marine
mammals." Marine
Protected Areas currently make up around 2.8% of the world's oceans - but Karen
Sack says the areas that have a full ban on fishing, drilling and other activities are much smaller,
which increases the significance of the US move. "Less than 1% of the global ocean is fully
protected," she said. "While this area may be far away from anywhere the designation adds to
the part of the ocean that is protected in this way which is critical."
Obama’s recent expansion of Pacific MPAs is protecting marine biodiversity and
getting other countries on board—the plan is key for congressional funding and
enforcement as well as legitimizing the commitment to expanding protected
areas
Savitz, 6-20-14
(Jackie, Vice President for U.S. Oceans of Oceana, Marine Biologist, Environmental Toxicologist,
and Environmental Policy Analyst, Master’s Degree in Environmental Science from the
University of Maryland, Interview Steve Curwood of Living on Earth, Living on Earth, “U.S. To
Create World’s Biggest Marine Reserve,”
http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=14-P13-00025&segmentID=1, June 20,
2014, accessed 7-17-14 bh@ddi)
CURWOOD: How effective is it to protect
large tracks of ocean in terms of conserving marine species ?
been shown to be very effective. What they find is that you see an increase in
both the number of animals that are in the area and also the diversity—the different types of
species that are present—and diversity, of course, leads to a more stable community. A community
that can be more resilient to impacts, like the impacts of climate change, for example, but the thing
SAVITZ: Well, it’s
that people don't realize is that the protected areas can actually have impacts much further from the protected area than you might
expect. And a really good example of that is, there was a study done in an area called the Dry Tortugas, which is just west of Key
West in Florida, which is a marine protected area. And what they found there was that the entire region benefited, so not just the
area west of Key West, but also all throughout the Florida Keys and even around to the east of the Keys on the way up to Miami.
CURWOOD: Now, there are a number of marine protected reserves around the world, some of them people say are really just lines
on a map and not particularly well enforced; others do better with protecting the species there that they promise to protect. How
does the United States enforce a protected area like this way off in the middle of the Pacific? As much of a third of all fish sold in the
United States is labeled as something other then what it is (photo: Oceana) SAVITZ: That’s a very good question, and a very good
point. Once
an area’s designated for protection the next challenge becomes enforcement. It’s a
big challenge, and people are starting to use things like satellite technology, radar, local knowledge—all kinds of new tools tied
to technology. And I actually think in the next couple of years we’re going to see major advances in
fisheries enforcement. CURWOOD: Now, Secretary of State John Kerry invited a number of other countries
to talk about conservation. What were the most important voices outside the United States that you heard at the
Secretary’s gathering? SAVITZ: You know, Secretary Kerry really did something unprecedented with this conference. At the very
beginning, he opened the conference by saying, “I don't just want to talk. I want to actually get things done.”
It led to a very
long list of commitments that were made by the U.S. government, by President Obama and also
by foreign governments that were here at the conference. A number of countries stood up, especially some
of the island nations like Kiribati and the Bahamas, the Cook Islands, Palau, and they talked about the importance of protecting their
fisheries, and many of them designated extremely large areas of their exclusive economic zones, in some cases their entire exclusive
economic zones as marine protected areas, some of them with very strong restrictions on industrial fishing. And I think when you
add them all up, you start to see a really important trend in protecting areas that can lead to great increases in the long run and
fishery abundance in our ability to feed people protein from the ocean. These are definitely salmon, but where did they come from?
(Photo: Oceana) CURWOOD: Now, President Obama has also announced that he wants a new federal program aimed at stopping
illegal fishing and also seafood fraud. What would such a program like that do? SAVITZ: Well this is a really important issue. As you
know, what you're purchasing when it comes to fish may not actually be what you're getting, and we know this because Oceana did
a study where we looked at 1,300 samples of fish, and only about two thirds of them were what they were marketed to be. And so
the President announced that he'll set up a task force to curb illegal fishing and seafood fraud. And that’s something that Oceana is
very happy to hear, and something that we've been very concerned about for some time. CURWOOD: How big a deal is seafood
fraud, do you think? Jackie Savitz (photo: Oceana) SAVITZ: Well, it depends on how you look at it. From a consumer standpoint, a
third of what you order may not actually be what you're getting. That could have health implications, for example, if you're a woman
of childbearing age and you try to order a low-mercury fish like grouper, but you’re served a high-mercury fish like tilefish, then it
affects your health and potentially you’re baby's health. Similarly if you're a consumer that’s trying to order sustainable seafood and
they serve you something that’s not sustainable, then it's taken away your ability to use your consumer power to promote
sustainable fishing. The other big concern is that illegal fishing is responsible for as much as a third of the fish that are actually
coming in, and that’s a big problem. Dr. Kimberly Warner, Senior Scientist at Oceana examines a piece of fish (photo: Oceana)
CURWOOD: Defined for us what's an illegal fish? SAVITZ: Well, if
someone is fishing in an area where there's no
fishing allowed, like in a marine protected area, or if they're using gear that is not allowed,
such as driftnets which are very harmful to marine life and have been banned in a lot of areas,
or they could be fishing without a permit, or they can be taking more than their limit. So
there's a whole variety of different ways that fish can be caught illegally, and anytime that
happens it undermines the management measures that have been put in place on purpose to
make sure we take just enough fish so that the populations can continue to produce fish for
the future. Now if we set up a traceability system so that all fish that comes into United States
can be traced from boat to plate, we can make it so that there’s QR code, which is one of those codes that you see you
can scan with your phone, and you can scan it, and you should be able to find out everything about that fish—what it is, where it
was caught, when it was caught, what gear was used to catch it, and how it travelled from the boat through the supply chain to your
plate. And you can see some of these QR codes at stores like Whole Foods where they actually sell some of these fish that are being
voluntarily labeled with all this information, and that shows us it can be done. And it can be done throughout the entire fish market.
BioD
Marine biodiversity on the brink of collapse
Butler 13 (Simon Butler, Austrailian Ecosocialist, is a frequent contributor to Climate & Capitalism, and co-author of Too Many
People? Population, Immigration, and the Environmental Crisis. “Oceans on the brink of ecological collapse”
http://climateandcapitalism.com/2013/10/14/oceans-brink-ecological-collapse/ Oct 14 2013)
In late September, many mainstream media outlets gave substantial coverage to the UN’s new report on the climate change crisis,
which said the Earth’s climate is warming faster than at any point in the past 65 million years and that human activity is the cause. It
was disappointing, though not surprising, that news reports dried up after only a few days. But another major scientific study,
released a week later and including even graver warnings of a global environmental catastrophe, was mostly ignored altogether.
The marine scientists that released the State of the Ocean 2013 report on October 3 gave the
starkest of possible warnings about the impact of carbon pollution on the oceans: “We are
entering an unknown territory of marine ecosystem change, and exposing organisms to
intolerable evolutionary pressure. The next mass extinction event may have already begun.
Developed, industrialised human society is living above the carrying capacity of the Earth, and the implications for the ocean, and
thus for all humans, are huge.” Report co-author, Professor Alex
Rogers of SomervilleCollege, Oxford, said on
October 3: “The health of the ocean is spiralling downwards far more rapidly than we had
thought. We are seeing greater change, happening faster, and the effects are more imminent
than previously anticipated. The situation should be of the gravest concern to everyone since
everyone will be affected by changes in the ability of the ocean to support life on Earth.” The
ocean is by far the Earth’s largest carbon sink and has absorbed most of the excess carbon pollution put into the atmosphere from
burning fossil fuels. The
State of the Ocean 2013 report warned that this is making decisive changes
to the ocean itself, causing a “deadly trio of impacts” – acidification, ocean warming and
deoxygenation (a fall in ocean oxygen levels). The report said: “Most, if not all, of the Earth’s five past mass
extinction events have involved at least one of these three main symptoms of global carbon perturbations [or disruptions], all of
which are present in the ocean today.” Fossil records indicate five mass extinction events have taken place in the Earth’s history. The
biggest of these – the end Permian mass extinction – wiped out as much as 95% of marine life about 250 million years ago. Another,
far better known mass extinction event wiped out the dinosaurs about 66 million years ago and is thought to have been caused by a
huge meteor strike. A further big species extinction took place 55 million years ago. Known as the Paleocene/Eocene thermal
maximum (PETM), it was a period of rapid global warming associated with a huge release of greenhouse gases. “Today’s rate of
carbon release,” said the State of the Ocean 2013, “is at least 10 times faster than that which preceded the [PETM].”[1] Ocean
acidification is a sign that the increase in CO2 is surpassing the ocean’s capacity to absorb it. The more acid the ocean becomes, the
bigger threat it poses to marine life – especially sea creatures that form their skeletons or shells from calcium carbonate such as
crustaceans, molluscs, corals and plankton. The
report predicts “extremely serious consequences for ocean
life” if the release of CO2 does not fall, including “the extinction of some species and decline
in biodiversity overall.” Acidification is taking place fastest at higher latitudes, but overall the report says “geological
records indicate that the current acidification is unparalleled in at least the last 300 million years”. Ocean warming is the second
element in the deadly trio. Average ocean temperatures have risen by 0.6°C in the past 100 years. As the ocean gets warmer still, it
will help trigger critical climate tipping points that will warm the entire planet even faster, hurtling it far beyond the climate in which
today’s life has evolved. Ocean warming will accelerate the death spiral of polar sea ice and risks the “increased venting of the
greenhouse gas methane from the Arctic seabed”, the report says. Ongoing
ocean warming will also wreak havoc
on marine life. The report projects the “loss of 60% of present biodiversity of exploited marine
life and invertebrates, including numerous local extinctions.” Each decade, fish are expected
to migrate between 30 kilometres to 130 kilometres towards the poles, and live 3.5 metres
deeper underwater, leading to a 40% fall in fish catch potential in tropical regions. The report says:
“All these changes will have massive economic and food security consequences, not least for the fishing industry and those who
depend on it.” The combined effects of acidification and ocean warming will also seal the fate of the world’s coral reefs, leading to
their “terminal and rapid decline” by 2050. Australia’s Great Barrier Reef and Caribbean Sea reefs will likely “shift from coral
domination to algal domination.” The report says the global target to limit the average temperature rise to 2°C, which was adopted
at the Copenhagen UN climate conference in 2009, “is not sufficient for coral reefs to survive. Lower targets should be urgently
pursued.” Deoxygenation – the third component of the deadly trio – is related to ocean warming and to high levels of nutrient run-
off into the ocean from sewerage and agriculture. The report says overall ocean oxygen levels, which have declined consistently for
the past five decades, could fall by 1% to 7% by 2100. But this figure does not indicate the big rise in the number of low oxygen
“dead zones,” which has doubled every decade since the 1960s. Whereas acidification most impacts upon smaller marine life,
deoxygenation hits larger animals, such as Marlin and Tuna, hardest. The
report cautions that the combined
impact of this deadly trio will “have cascading consequences for marine biology, including
altered food webs dynamics and the expansion of pathogens [causing disease].” It also warns that it
adds to other big problems affecting the ocean, such as chemical pollution and overfishing (up to 70% of the world’s fish stock is
overfished). “We
may already have entered into an extinction period and not yet realised it. What
is certain is that the current carbon perturbations will have huge implications for humans, and
may well be the most important challenge faced since the hominids evolved. The urgent need to
reduce the pressure of all ocean stressors, especially CO2 emissions, is well signposted.” [1] The pace at which carbon was released
during the PETM is under scientific dispute. Until recently, most geologists assumed the process took many thousands of years. But
an October 6 paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Rutgers University geologists Morgan
Schaller and James Wright said the carbon release took place very rapidly, causing the oceans to turn acidic and average
temperatures to rise by 5°C in just 13 years.
Spatial planning key to expand marine protected areas that counter threats to
biodiversity
Fernandes et al 14--Consulting in Marine & Coastal Environmental Resource Management Strategic Marine Planning - Social & Natural Science [Leanne Fernandesb, Glenn Almanyc, Rene
Abesamisd, Elizabeth McLeode, Porfirio M. Aliñof, Alan T. Whiteg, Rod Salmg, John Tanzerh &
Robert L. Presseyi “Designing Marine Reserves for Fisheries Management, Biodiversity
Conservation, and Climate Change Adaptation” Volume 42, Issue 2, 2014 Special Issue:
Establishing a Region-wide System of Marine Protected Areas in the Coral Triangle, pages 143159]RMT
Tropical marine ecosystems have been seriously degraded by local threats in the Coral
Triangle and other regions worldwide, particularly by unsustainable marine resource use (e.g.,
overfishing), destructive activities (e.g., blast fishing, trawling), coastal development, and
pollution (Burke et al. 2011). These threats decrease ecosystem health and productivity,
adversely affect many species (including focal species), and severely under- mine the longterm sustainability of marine resources and the ecosystem services they provide (Cesar,
Burke, and Pet-Soude 2003; Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2009; Burke et al. 2011). Such threats can
also decrease ecosystem resilience to other stressors, including climate change (Salm, Done,
and McLeod 2006). Therefore, it is important to minimize or avoid these threats in marine
reserves, and prioritize areas for protection that are more likely to contribute to ecosystem
health, fisheries productivity, and resilience to climate change. Local threats that originate
within reserve boundaries (e.g., overfishing, destructive activities) can be managed within
reserves, although effective management remains one of the greatest challenges facing
marine conservation and management worldwide, including in the Coral Triangle (White et al.
2014). Other threats that originate beyond reserve boundaries (e.g., runoff of sediments and
nutrients from land) must be addressed by integrating marine reserves within broader
management frameworks (Salm, Done, and McLeod 2006; see below). To optimize protection
of areas that are less likely to be exposed to local threats and therefore likely to contribute
more to biodiversity conservation, fisheries management and climate change adaptation: avoid
placing marine reserves in areas that have been, or are likely to be, impacted by local threats
that cannot be managed effectively (e.g., land based pollution); place marine reserves in areas
that have not been, or are less likely to be, impacted by local threats including areas where
threats (e.g., overfishing and destructive fishing) can be managed effectively, and areas within
or adjacent to other effectively managed marine or terrestrial areas (Russ and Alcala 2004;
IUCN-WCPA 2008).
Overfishing
Squo fishers catch 94% less than nineteenth century – decline in fish stocks is
real and anthropogenic
Roberts, 12 (Callum, marine conservation biologist at the University of York, “Fewer Fish in
the Sea,” The Ocean of Life, May 31, pg. 45, it’s a book, AW)
When Ruth showed me the graph of landings divided by the changing power of the fleet, I
nearly fell off my chair. I had expected a decline but this was near annihilation. A fleet that in
the 1880’s consisted mostly of sail-powered boats open to the elements was far more
successful at wrestling fish from the sea than we are now. For every hour spent fishing today,
in boats bristling with the latest fish finding electronics, fishers land just 6 percent of what
they did 120 years ago. Put another way, fishers today have to work seventeen times harder
to get the same catch as people did in the nineteenth century. The simple reason for this stark
contrast between past and present is that there are fewer fish in the sea. When we broke the
figures down by type of fish, for some the contrast between nineteenth and twenty-first century
was even more extreme. Landings per unit of fishing power are down by thirty-six times for
plaice, over one hundred times for haddock, and a breathtaking five hundred times for
halibut.
Absent the plans reorientation of spatial planning, overfishing is inevitable
because status quo marine zone designation guarantees conflicts of interest and
competition
Ehler and Douvere 9—Charles Ehler is the ocean Visions Consulting Director/International
Program Office (IPO), National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration/Acting Director, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM),
National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Fanny Douvere is the
Coordinator of the Marine Programme at the World Heritage Centre of the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [Charles Ehler and Fanny Douvere, “MARINE
SPATIAL PLANNING A Step-by-Step Approach toward Ecosystem-based Management”,
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission Manual and Guides No. 53, ICAM Dossier No. 6,
UNESCO. 2009, Funded by Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, The David Lucile and Packard
Foundation,WWF-International and the government of Belgium]RMT
Most countries already designate or zone marine space for a number of human activities such
as maritime transportation, oil and gas development, offshore renewable energy, offshore
aquaculture and waste disposal. However, the problem is that usually this is done on a sectorby-sector, case-by-case basis without much consideration of effects either on other human
activities or the marine environment. Consequently, this situation has led to two major types
of conflict: • Conflicts among human uses (user-user conflicts); and • Conflicts between human
uses and the marine environment (user-environment conflicts). MONITOR REVISE PLAN 3
INVOLVE STAKEHOLDERS PROVIDE FINANCING 3 APPLIED RESEARCH A Step-by-Step Approach
toward Ecosystem-based Management – MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING 19 PLANNING CYCLE
These conflicts weaken the ability of the ocean to provide the necessary ecosystem ser vices
upon which humans and all other life on Earth depend. Furthermore, decision-makers in this
situation usually end up only being able to react to events, often when it is already too late,
rather than having the choice to plan and shape actions that could lead to a more desirable
future of the marine environment. By contrast, marine spatial planning is a future-oriented
process. I t can offer you a way to address both these types of conflict and select appropriate
management strategies to maintain and safeguard necessary ecosystem services.
Competition over fish stocks and overfishing leads to global wars
Pomeroy et al ‘07, (Robert, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics/CT Sea
Grant, University of Connecticut, John Parksb, Richard Pollnacc, Tammy Campsond, Emmanuel
Genioe, Cliff Marlessyf, Elizabeth Holleg, Michael Pidoh, Ayut Nissapai, Somsak Boromthanarati,
Nguyen Thu Huej, “Fish wars: Conflict and collaboration in fisheries management in Southeast
Asia,” Marine Policy, Volume 31, Issue 6, November 2007, Pages 645–656,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X07000413)//erg
Conflicts and wars related to the rights over the use of land and water have been important
human issues throughout recorded history. Although many of us are probably more aware of
wars fought over religious freedom, political ideologies and social issues, conflicts over fishing rights and
resources are just as common, if less reported. Since the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) were established in the 1970s,
disputes have become more frequent and more violent than ever before. Due to the establishment of
EEZs, access to the world's oceans has been radically reorganized and the access rights of foreign fishing vessels have been curtailed.
Negotiations, international
fisheries agreements (such as those between European and African countries), and
recourse to an international tribunal have sometimes succeeded in resolving conflicts. More often
than not, however, foreign boats from territorial waters and EEZs or migrant fishermen from other locations in
the country are expelled by force. Vessels are boarded and crew imprisoned. Occasionally,
weapons are used and people are killed. Fights have broken out, for example, between Vietnam and
Cambodia and between the Philippines and China over access to territorial waters. Thousands of Indonesian fishers have been
incarcerated as a result of illegal fishing in Australian waters. While sovereignty issues are generally at the root of such conflicts,
they are
also the manifestation of competition for access to fish stocks, in coastal waters as
much as on the high seas. In addition, the use of flags of convenience serves to exacerbate the
problem. The country where a boat is registered does not necessarily identify its country of origin, and this loophole enables
fishing companies to flout international fishing and labor conventions with impunity. The total number of reported piracy attacks
globally reached 276 in 2005, with the majority of attacks occurring in the waters of Indonesia, Malacca Straits, Bangladesh and
India. This estimate is believed to be low, as many ship-owners and masters hesitate to report incidents of attack. Many of the
pirates are believed to be from rural fishing communities [9]. Such conflicts are not limited to the high seas of Southeast Asia. In fact,
the most pronounced increases in user conflicts and rising levels of social unrest are occurring
within the region's coastal waters where the majority of the fishery users are present. For
example, tensions are being aggravated by conflicts between users of different fishing technologies. The right to use passive fishing
equipment like hand and gill nets, long-lines, and fish traps (typically associated with small-scale fishers) is often contested by those
who use active gear such as trawls and purse seine nets (often associated with industrial fishers). Part of this is because such passive
equipment often gets caught and carried off by trawlers. But more importantly, modern industrial fishing fleets operating in coastal
waters typically use high technology electronics, over-efficient fishing gear and power, and in situ commercial fish processing
equipment.
This level of power and technology may “vacuum”, or monopolize, available fishery
resources, taking all living organisms from coastal waters and leaving nothing behind for
resident and other smaller-scale fishers . Moreover, it is well known in the region that industrial fishing
operations illegally operate within a country's waters, both in the EEZ and near the coasts .
Such competition and differences often ultimately divide small-scale and industrial fishers to
such a degree that they become adversaries . In such cases, industrial fishers, using more modern or productive
fishing gear, will enter and fish in near shore waters used by small-scale fishers, whose gear and boats limit them to these areas.
Often already overfished fisheries, on which the small-scale
fishers depend for food and livelihood, are
further exploited. In India, for example, small-scale fishers have lately been very vociferous in condemning shrimp trawlers
whose fishing methods jeopardize fish stocks. In this type of conflict, where industrial fishers often enjoy the benefits of government
subsidies, negotiating a solution can be very difficult, as it involves working across totally different social and economic sectors. In
other situations, such as in the Philippines and Thailand, such competition is known to regularly lead to violence, and even fatalities
[10] and [11].
Marine spatial planning resolves competition and reinvigorates fish stocks
globally
Pomeroy et al ‘07, (Robert, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics/CT Sea
Grant, University of Connecticut, John Parksb, Richard Pollnacc, Tammy Campsond, Emmanuel
Genioe, Cliff Marlessyf, Elizabeth Holleg, Michael Pidoh, Ayut Nissapai, Somsak Boromthanarati,
Nguyen Thu Huej, “Fish wars: Conflict and collaboration in fisheries management in Southeast
Asia,” Marine Policy, Volume 31, Issue 6, November 2007, Pages 645–656,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X07000413)//erg
Before the last century, the oceans were used mainly for two purposes: marine transportation and fishing. Conflicts between uses
were few and far between, except around some ports. Fisheries
were managed separately from oil and gas
development, which in turn was managed separately from marine navigation, despite real conflicts between and
among these uses. Single-sector management has often failed to resolve conflicts among
users of marine space , rarely dealing explicitly with trade-offs among uses, and even more rarely dealing with conflicts
between the cumulative effects of multiple uses and the marine environment. New uses of marine areas, including wind energy,
ocean energy, offshore aquaculture, and marine tourism, as well as the demand for new marine protected areas, have only
exacerbated the situation. Single-sector management has also tended to reduce and dissipate the effect of enforcement at sea
because of the scope and geographic coverage involved and the environmental conditions, in which monitoring and enforcement
have to operate. In sharp contrast to the land,
little “public policing” of human activities takes place at sea.
As a consequence, marine ecosystems around the world are in trouble. Both the severity and
scale of impact on marine ecosystems from overfishing, habitat loss and fragmentation,
pollution, invasive species and climate change are increasing, with virtually no corner of the
world left untouched.
Awareness is growing that
the ongoing degradation in marine ecosystems is, in
large part, a failure of governance . Many scientists and policy analysts have advocated reforms centred on the idea of
“ecosystem- based management” (EBM). To date, however, a practical method for translating this concept into operational
management practice has not emerged.
One step in that direction is the increasing worldwide interest in
“marine spatial planning”. What Is Marine Spatial Planning? Marine spatial planning (known as maritime
spatial planning, in Europe),
or MSP, is a practical way to create and establish a more rational
organization of the use of marine space and the interactions between its uses, to balance
demands for development with the need to protect marine ecosystems, and to achieve social
and economic objectives for marine regions in an open and planned way. MSP is a public
process of analyzing and allocating the spatial and temporal distribution of human activities
in marine areas to achieve ecological, economic and social goals and objectives that are
usually specified through a political process. Its characteristics include: Ì integrated across
economic sectors and governmental agencies, and among levels of government; Ì strategic
and future-oriented, focused on the long-term; Ì participatory, including stakeholders actively
in the entire process; Ì adaptive, capable of learning by doing; Ìecosystem-based, balancing
ecological, economic, social, and cultural goals and objectives toward sustainable
development and the maintenance of ecosystem services; and Ì place-based or area-based, i.e.,
integrated management of all human activities within a spatially defined MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING: AN IDEA WHOSE TIME HAS
COME area identified through ecological, socio-economic, and jurisdictional considerations. 113 ANNUAL REPORT 2011 It is
important to remember that we
can only plan and manage human activities in marine areas, not marine
can allocate human activities to specific marine areas by
objective, e.g., development or preservation areas, or by specific uses, e.g., offshore energy, offshore
ecosystems or components of ecosystems. We
aquaculture, or sand and gravel mining. Why Is Marine Spatial Planning Needed? Most countries already designate or zone marine
space for a number of human activities, such as maritime transportation, oil and gas development, offshore energy, offshore
aquaculture and waste disposal. However, the
problem is that usually this is done on a sector-by-sector,
case-by-case basis without much consideration of effects either on other human activities or
the marine environment. Consequently , this situation has led to two major types of conflict: Ì
Conflicts among human uses (user-user conflicts); and Ì Conflicts between human uses and
the marine environment (user-nature conflicts). These conflicts weaken the ability of the ocean to
provide the necessary ecosystem services upon which humans and all other life on Earth
depend . Furthermore, decision makers in this situation usually end up only being able to react to events, often when it is already
too late, rather than having the choice to plan and shape actions that could lead to a more desirable future of the marine
environment. By contrast, marine
spatial planning is a future-oriented process. It offers a way to
address both these types of conflict and select appropriate management measures to
maintain and safeguard necessary ecosystem services . MSP focuses on the human use of
marine spaces and places. It is the missing piece that can lead to truly integrated planning
from coastal watersheds to marine ecosystems.
When effectively put into practice, MSP can be used to: Ì Set
priorities - to enable significant inroads to be made into meeting the development objectives of marine areas in an equitable way, it
is necessary to provide a rational basis for setting priorities, and to manage
and direct resources to where and
when they are most needed; Ì Create and stimulate opportunities for new users of marine areas, including ocean energy;
Ì Co-ordinate actions and investments in space and time to ensure positive returns from those investments, both public and private,
and to facilitate complementarity among jurisdictions and institutions; Ì Provide a vision and consistent direction, not only of what is
desirable, but what is possible in marine areas; ÌProtect
nature, which has its own requirements that should
be respected if long-term sustainable development is to be achieved and if large-scale environmental degradation is
to be avoided or minimized; Ì Reduce fragmentation of marine habitats, i.e., when ecosystems are split up due to human activities
and therefore prevented from functioning properly; ÌAvoid duplication of effort by different public agencies and levels of
government in MSP-related activities, including planning, monitoring and permitting; and Ì Achieve higher quality of service at all
levels of government, e.g., by ensuring that permitting of human activities is streamlined when proposed development is consistent
with a comprehensive spatial plan for the marine area.
Solvency
The US is currently behind in its MPA implementation—a change in
management is key to solve biodiversity and overfishing.
ABATE, ’09, (RANDALL S., “Marine Protected Areas as a Mechanism to Promote Marine
Mammal Conservation: International and Comparative Law Lessons for the United States,”
Oregon Law Review, Vol. 88, 255, http://law.famu.edu/download/file/Abate%20%20Oregon%20Law%20Review%20Article.pdf)//erg
The era of “out of sight, out of mind” mismanagement of ocean resources is coming to a slow
and welcome end. The new ecosystem- based era of ocean conservation efforts gives reason
for hope that the status of marine mammal protection will improve in the United States and
internationally. The United States needs to embrace some of the regulatory strategies of
leading countries with respect to the use of MPAs to protect marine mammals and become part of an
international effort for enhanced use of MPAs. MPAs , especially no-take MPAs, are an essential
and underutilized tool to protect marine mammals in the United States . These areas serve functions
that go beyond promoting the sustainability of marine mammal populations.
No-take MPAs protect marine
biodiversity by restricting certain fishing gear and promoting sustainability of fish stocks that
are easily over harvested. No-take MPAs also promote recreation and tourism opportunities as
a result of the richness of marine mammal species found within the area. In addition, MPAs can enhance the
applicability of existing federal statutory schemes, such as the Marine Mammal Protection Act
and the Endangered Species Act. Several failures in existing MPAs have impeded these
mechanisms from achieving more coverage in U.S. waters and more protection of marine mammals. First,
there is a lack of proper management in setting objectives for, monitoring, and enforcing
regulations . Another major flaw has been the lack of a national system of MPAs. This deficiency has resulted in a wide range of
types of and purposes for MPAs, a lack of public involvement in the implementation and management of MPAs, and other
consequences outside the boundaries of MPAs that have the potential to impact the conservation of marine mammals. These
common pitfalls notwithstanding, New Zealand and Spain have taken leadership roles in using MPAs effectively to promote marine
mammal conservation. First, New Zealand and Spain have managed to address marine mammal threats and have
been able
to implement solutions that have helped increase the populations of decimated species. In
addition, both countries have established their MPAs in effective locations and with appropriate
protection levels. Moreover, Spain has been exceptionally successful with monitoring its existing and potential future MPAs,
whereas New Zealand has excelled in implementing a highly effective national system of MPAs. 308 OREGON LAW REVIEW [Vol.
88, 255
Extensive MPA networks throughout the world will have an impact on navigation,
commerce, and fishing . But the crisis facing the world’s oceans has reached the point where
the time has come for a new ocean ethic. A similar turning point occurred in the United States
in the 1970s when industrial pollution practices were reeled in through an arsenal of federal
environmental statutes enacted at that time. When these laws became effective, they had a profound effect on
business, which prompted the development of environmentally sensitive business practices. Similarly, in the ocean context,
countries with some of the largest EEZs in the world—New Zealand, Australia, and Canada—have taken leadership roles in this new
era of ocean management through the use of MPAs and the notion of ecosystem-based management. This ambitious strategy was
not always popular with the affected stakeholders—often causing uproars among them. Ultimately, however, ocean
management adjustments had to be made to ensure the sustainability of the ocean resources
at stake, and these new approaches are the most effective means of addressing this crisis .
The United States also has one of the world’s largest EEZs and it needs to join these nations in
a leadership role to advance this effort. Marine mammals stand to gain tremendously with the increased use of notake MPAs and the corresponding increased focus on regional ecosystem-based management.
No-take MPAs can be
thought of as the antidote to the world’s collective amnesia about baseline biodiversity in the
oceans.
These areas are a scientific benchmark of “normal” conditions against which change can be measured in the larger—and
more exploited—areas of the oceans at large. It is comparable to the practice of setting aside wilderness areas on land—if nothing is
left intact, it is very difficult to detect when significant degradation has occurred.353 Unfortunately,
MPAs lag significantly
behind their terrestrial counterparts in the United States —4.6% of U.S. land is designated as wilderness
areas,354 whereas less than 0.1% of U.S. waters is currently classified as some form of MPA.355 A new regulatory regionalism has
become a viable force in ocean management, driven largely by the context of ecosystem-based 353 Warne, supra note 6, at 81. 354
PEW OCEANS COMM’N, AMERICA’S LIVING OCEANS: CHARTING A COURSE FOR SEA CHANGE, 15 (2003), available at
http://www.sml.cornell.edu/forms/oceans _summary.pdf. 355 See MBNMS Resource Management Issues, supra note 21. 2009]
Marine Protected Areas 309 regulation.
Marine mammals will enjoy optimum protection in U.S. waters,
and beyond, from a coordinated and enhanced use of national networks of MPAs, which will
trigger a greater need for cooperative, regional, and ecosystem-based regulation . Marine
mammals will once again thrive when they are protected by a regulatory system that
acknowledges and supports these species’ relationships with their ecosystems.
Marine Spatial Planning with specific guidelines key to solve biodiversity and
conservation
Agardy et al ’11, (Tundi Agardya, Giuseppe Notarbartolo di Sciarab, Patrick Christie, “Mind
the gap: Addressing the shortcomings of marine protected areas through large scale marine
spatial planning,” Marine Policy, Volume 35, Issue 2, March 2011, Pages 226–232,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X10001740)//erg
Marine protected areas in all their myriad forms are a terrific conservation tool, but planners
should be cautious about shortcomings because failures of MPA planning and management
result in wasted resources, skepticism about MPAs, and lost opportunities. The current situation is
that vast areas of the open ocean are currently unprotected, despite their biogeographic,
ecological and conservation values. Existing protected areas have often failed in their protection
by a combination of factors, including lack of local support and non-compliance with
regulations inside their borders, and ongoing impacts outside their borders. Moreover, most existing
MPA systems do not ensure connectivity among coastal sites, and between coastal and offshore locations crucial to maintaining
populations of mobile species and vital connections between local ecosystems. A paucity of MPAs in
the High Seas suggests that use of the MPA tool in areas beyond national jurisdiction is fraught with difficulty [53]. Several target
and threatened species use areas that are too large to be effectively protected in single reserves; existing
reserves do not
function as networks because they are too far apart and fail to represent important offshore
foraging and breeding grounds; they also fail to recognize important processes originating offshore that provide
linkages between coastal areas. Finally, reserves cannot address the full suite of stressors affecting marine populations and
ecosystems.
A solution is within reach, which could well leverage the attention and money which
has heretofore been spent trying to protect discrete and rather small sites . This solution
requires a larger vision: to develop strategic, comprehensive, coordinated planning efforts for
large ocean and coastal regions . Such an ambitious vision could be supported by robust and
targeted management within discreet areas, e.g. MPAs, marine reserves, and conservation
areas. Such MPAs may individually solve localized, species-specific, or habitat—specific conservation problems, but the sum total
of protected areas within the context of a wider strategic marine plan does much more, potentially driving effective ecosystembased management. One
important tool to deliver such strategic plans is Marine Spatial Planning.
Marine spatial plans that utilize existing information on key areas needing protection, support
sustainable development and management of marine resources overall, and are both adaptive
and tailor management to existing resource use could set in motion much more effective and
efficient management regimes than what we have seen to date. Coordinated, regional plans
are not only necessary because of the large scale over which the dynamics of key ecosystem
processes, resource markets, and governance processes occur, but also likely more efficient
and cost-effective (e.g., [54]). Marine spatial planning does not stand alone, rather it is related to
and will emerge from existing management frameworks and tools. Frameworks such as
integrated coastal management [55] and [56] and ecosystem-based management [57] are
essential to consider and build from [58]. Field management efforts such as the Coral Triangle Initiative, large marine
ecosystem programs [59], [60] and [61], and country-level ecosystem-based management programs [48] provide rich examples from
which to develop lessons. While regional planning is critical, effective implementation of resource management always happens at
the local level in some form. Balancing
the dynamics of regional and local planning and
implementation is essential to success and will evolve distinctly in each context. Comparatively,
empirical studies demonstrate the following factors to be essential to successfully scaling up
management in a manner that considers balancing local and extra-local dynamics: leadership
development, awareness raising, institutional reform, conflict resolution, adaptation, and
ongoing evaluation [49]. To realize the goals, marine spatial planning (MSP) should include, at a
minimum, five elements: 1. Identification of priority areas, using robust analysis of existing information and databases;
2. development of scenarios to help decision-makers and multilateral agencies weigh tradeoffs and choices in creating various sorts of MPA networks that span both coastal regions and open ocean
areas; 3. analysis and evaluation of current legal and institutional frameworks and potential
decision-making governance structures needed for comprehensive ocean zoning; and 4. creation
of regional ocean zoning plans that capitalize on existing protected areas and resource
management, take into account what is known about priority areas for conservation, and
elucidate appropriate areas for the wide range of marine uses. 5. linking of regional ocean
zoning with national and local management efforts in a manner that strengthens all levels of management.
Many question whether a zoning plan for a dynamic ocean environment, and one occurring in a global commons, can be effective, or
even feasible. However, the ability of management agencies to educate and inform, and for users to understand and comply with
regulations, is often underestimated. It is probably wrong to think that marine stakeholders, particularly people who live by the sea
(figuratively as well as literally) cannot comprehend complex spatial management regimes; maritime peoples have abided by
complicated rules of who can do what where and when, and succeeded in doing so for centuries. And modern technology allows
very complex spatial management to be graphically presented in real time—i.e. on the screens of the GPS that many commercial
and recreational users have on their boats today. Vessel monitoring systems (VMS) also allow surveillance today at levels not
possible a decade ago, and is becoming increasing inexpensive and attainable even in poor contexts. Furthermore, MSP is a natural
extension of practices that are already very well developed in many parts of the world, including integrated coastal management
and multi-use MPA management. Skepticism about MSP is fueled by the perception that commons property regimes cannot be
considered as analogous to the mosaic of private and public property that exists on land. Furthermore, important and powerful
actors such as the military or well-financed industries may resist integrated marine spatial planning and the limitation on access that
it may impose [62]. However,
a recent review of ocean zoning efforts undertaken under the rubric of
MSP suggest that a large proportion of coastal countries are overcoming these challenges and
bringing the full suite of stakeholders to the planning table [63 ]. The marine spatial planning
process, coupled to ocean zoning efforts, can create an unprecedented framework for
synthesizing information on the sea’s ecology, resources, ecosystem services, uses and values,
and the threats to all of the above . Any zoning plan that results from analysis of such synthesized information serves
to highlight what is known about marine biodiversity, the efficacy of existing management, and future research needs to enhance
management effectiveness. MSP
provides the opportunity for communities which have given up
fishing grounds for more effective management to be able to capture broader benefits accruing
from effective management of the wider ecosystem. In one-off MPA situations, such communities do not necessarily derive the
benefits from spillover, yet make the sacrifice of giving up fishing areas and spending time enforcing the MPA [36]. MSP planning
processes can also serve to support managers and government officials attempting to reconcile objectives for multiple uses of ocean
space and resources. In addition, MSP
can put adaptive management into practice by establishing
management systems with built in monitoring and legislated periodic amendments to zoning
can ensure that management measures will be maximally effective in adapting to changing
conditions. Marine spatial planning , fully utilizing ocean zoning within which strategically planned
MPAs are embedded, allows MPA shortcomings to be overcome in order to better safeguard
the ocean worldwide and the lives of those who depend upon it.
2AC Core
BioD
Coastal erosion devastates biodiversity—a change in management is key to
prevent extensive marine species destruction
Feagin et al ’05, (Rusty A. Feagin, Douglas J. Sherman, and William E. Grant, “Coastal erosion,
global sea-level rise, and the loss of sand dune plant habitats,” Ecological Society of America,
Volume 3, Issue 7 (September 2005), http://www.esajournals.org/doi/full/10.1890/15409295%282005%29003%5B0359%3ACEGSRA%5D2.0.CO%3B2)//erg
Coastal erosion due to sea-level rise, in concert with human-erected barriers, confined
simulated plants to a small zone at the rear of the research plot, altering the sand dune plant
community's characteristic patterns. Although littoral drift, sediment dynamics, and beach composition may
differentially affect the risks to sand dune habitat at a continental scale (Figure 2a), the landscape-scale GIS output demonstrates
little deviation in the plant community's development as a result of the longshore morphology response to sea-level rise, for 50 m
increments (Figure 2b). Yet the spatial limitations enforced by the barriers led to a differential placement of the community in the
longshore direction, leaving some areas completely barren of dune habitat and others with remnant dune
populations. Strong differences in community pattern development resulted in the cross-shore direction under the three IPCC
scenarios. The low rise scenario (Figure 2c) allowed the plant community to develop fully in 5 years within the research plot area.
Dunes were covered by all stages of succession, including coastal prairie and upland plants. Under the moderate rise scenario (Figure
plants did not grow in the lower section of the gradient due to high stress levels. There was a random distribution of
colonizers across the mid-section of the gradient, yet the community did not develop further due to the high level of
2d),
stress and the lack of permanence in the distribution of the annual colonizers. In the upper section of the gradient, only a few
embryonic dunes had formed, around which the later successional species could coalesce. In these areas, the plant distribution was
not random, as each successional stage depended on prior amelioration of the location by the colonizers in order to survive. The
high rise scenario resulted in a complete breakdown of the successional process, as only colonizers were randomly distributed and
located in the upper section of the gradient in the research plot area (Figure 2e). The random distribution of the annual colonizers,
their ephemeral nature, and their restriction to the thin strip of habitat did not provide the ameliorative force (eg windblocks,
islands of fertility, elevated dune structures) that
was needed for the community to progress to advanced
stages of succession. In terms of the spatial and temporal mechanics of any one focal site, the summation of its adjacent
positively valued sites (facilitative plants) and its adjacent negatively valued sites (stress) produced a number that did not exceed the
threshold for its graduation to the next stage of succession.
Without strong and spatially explicit facilitation to
counterbalance the stress induced by sea-level rise, each adjacent site had no lasting
temporal effect upon this focal site. The successional process became decoupled; the dynamics within the sites at the
upper part of the gradient became spatially isolated and temporally ephemeral. In the lower part of the gradient,
it was
impossible for even the colonizers to survive the stress. The model produced graphical output
which matched quite well with what has already been seen along the Gulf Coast (Figures 1a–
c) and the East Coast of the US ( Roman and Nordstrom 1988); late-succession sand dune species are being lost because
embryonic dunes are not able to form in front of the barriers (Gibeaut et al. 2003), leaving isolated “islands” of plant communities
(Figure 2b) that are spatially removed from other communities, sometimes by considerable distances. In the short term,
money
and time must be spent to restore these communities . In many cases, late-succession species such
as beach panic (Panicum amarum) have very low rates of seed viability, and must therefore be planted during
restoration efforts in order for them to appear (Feagin 2005). The loss of such species is already occurring on Galveston Island,
where sea oats (Uniola paniculata) has disappeared due to a combination of human-induced disturbance and climate change
(Greipsson 2002). In the long term, it may
be critical to maintain propagule dispersal sites with planning
done at a landscape scale in order to maintain populations along the East Coast of the US and
in areas of large-scale development, even for early succession species such as the endangered sea-beach amaranth
(Amaranthus pumilus). The maintenance of the late-succession species is critical, as they are usually the most
important species in the building of dunes, binding of sediments, and reduction of erosion.
Moreover, these perennial species provide cover on the dunes throughout the year; if lost, erosion rates are certain to increase.
Dependent animal species, such as the endangered Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys
kempii) and the endangered Choctawatchee beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus), will be
lost without them. Although our simulations are restricted to the conditions at Galveston Island, the basis for the model
suggests that similar scenarios, with different retreat rates, will occur in the near future, in most dune systems along developed
coastlines experiencing sea-level transgression. Considerable planning needs to be done in order to decide how we want our coasts
to look, as well as to preserve the species that inhabit them.
A small increase in sea-level rise can result in a
large amount of coastal erosion. It may soon be necessary to reassess the importance of sand
dune plant communities, in the same way that coastal wetlands were re-evaluated by the last generation of coastal zone
statutes and laws. As it is our duty to maintain these coastal plant communities alongside our private developments and shoreline
protection structures, we
must publicly consider the impacts of squeezing the sand dune plant
habitat between the land and the sea.
Marine reserves key to bioD
Fernandes et al 14--Consulting in Marine & Coastal Environmental Resource Management Strategic Marine Planning - Social & Natural Science [Leanne Fernandesb, Glenn Almanyc, Rene
Abesamisd, Elizabeth McLeode, Porfirio M. Aliñof, Alan T. Whiteg, Rod Salmg, John Tanzerh &
Robert L. Presseyi “Designing Marine Reserves for Fisheries Management, Biodiversity
Conservation, and Climate Change Adaptation” Volume 42, Issue 2, 2014 Special Issue:
Establishing a Region-wide System of Marine Protected Areas in the Coral Triangle, pages 143159]RMT
Marine reserves (defined here as areas of ocean that are protected from all extractive and
destructive activities) can be an effective tool for reducing local threats, and can contribute to
fisheries management and biodiversity conservation in the face of climate change (Russ 2002;
Lester et al. 2009; McLeod et al. 2009). The benefits of marine reserves include increases in the
diversity, density, biomass, body size, and reproductive potential of many species (particularly
fisheries species) within their boundaries (Lester et al. 2009). Marine reserves also provide
significant conservation and fisheries benefits to other reserves and fished areas through the
export of eggs, larvae, and adults (Halpern, Lester, and Kellner 2010; Harrison et al. 2012;
Hamilton et al. 2013). Marine reserve networks are collections of individual reserves that are
ecologically connected (Dudley 2008; IUCN-WCPA 2008). Such networks can deliver additional
bene- fits through mutual replenishment of individual reserves (e.g., Harrison et al. 2012),
which facilitates recovery after disturbance (McLeod et al. 2009).
Editing guidelines for marine reserve networks is crucial to effectiveness and
can be applied worldwide
Fernandes et al 14--Consulting in Marine & Coastal Environmental Resource Management Strategic Marine Planning - Social & Natural Science [Leanne Fernandesb, Glenn Almanyc, Rene
Abesamisd, Elizabeth McLeode, Porfirio M. Aliñof, Alan T. Whiteg, Rod Salmg, John Tanzerh &
Robert L. Presseyi “Designing Marine Reserves for Fisheries Management, Biodiversity
Conservation, and Climate Change Adaptation” Volume 42, Issue 2, 2014 Special Issue:
Establishing a Region-wide System of Marine Protected Areas in the Coral Triangle, pages 143159]RMT
The design and effective management of ecological networks of marine reserves is critical to
maximize their benefits to fisheries management, biodiversity conservation, and climate
change adaptation (Walmsley and White 2003; McLeod et al. 2009; Gaines et al. 2010). Existing
ecological guidelines for designing marine reserve networks have focused on achieving either
fisheries (e.g., Fogarty and Botsford 2007), biodiversity (e.g., Almany et al. 2009) or climate
change (e.g., McLeod et al. 2012) objectives independently, or fisheries and biodiversity
(Roberts et al. 2003; Gaines et al. 2010) or biodiversity and climate change (McLeod et al. 2009)
objectives combined. While there are many similarities among guidelines for achieving
different objectives, there are some key differences, particularly regarding marine reserve size
and duration of protection (i.e., permanent, long or short term, or periodic closures).
Consequently, marine reserves designed to maximize fisheries benefits are seldom designed to
maximize their contribution to protecting the full range of biodiversity in the face of climate
change (e.g., Hamilton, Potuku, and Montambault 2011). While networks designed to maximize
biodiversity conservation and climate change adaptation are seldom designed to maximize
fisheries benefits (i.e., fisheries issues are often addressed by avoiding conflicting use with
marine reserves, rather than by maximizing production in fished areas: Klein et al. 2010;
Grantham et al. 2013). Thus an integrated set of marine reserve guidelines is needed for
practitioners who wish to maximize benefits for all three objectives simultaneously. Recent
studies have also provided fresh insights into connectivity, vulnerability, and recovery rates of
coral reef and coastal pelagic fish species, and climate and ocean change vulnerability of
tropical marine ecosystems (Jones et al. 2009; McLeod et al. 2012; Hutchings et al. 2012). These
studies necessitate a review of ecological guidelines for marine reserve network design,
particularly regarding their configuration (size, shape, spacing, and location) and duration of
protection. Here, we review ecological considerations for designing marine reserve networks
to achieve fisheries, biodiversity, and climate change objectives, and provide specific
guidelines (summarized in Table 1) regarding how they can be used to achieve all three
objectives simultaneously in tropical marine ecosystems. These guidelines are intended to
contribute to larger planning processes that include implementing marine reserves networks
to complement human uses and values, and align with local legal, political, and institutional
requirements (Knight and Cowling 2007; Christie et al. 2009a). While these guidelines were
developed to support marine protected area (MPA) network design in the Coral Triangle
(White et al. 2014; Walton et al. 2014; Weeks et al. 2014), they can be applied to tropical
marine ecosystems worldwide.
Specific species require specific habitats
Fernandes et al 14--Consulting in Marine & Coastal Environmental Resource Management Strategic Marine Planning - Social & Natural Science [Leanne Fernandesb, Glenn Almanyc, Rene
Abesamisd, Elizabeth McLeode, Porfirio M. Aliñof, Alan T. Whiteg, Rod Salmg, John Tanzerh &
Robert L. Presseyi “Designing Marine Reserves for Fisheries Management, Biodiversity
Conservation, and Climate Change Adaptation” Volume 42, Issue 2, 2014 Special Issue:
Establishing a Region-wide System of Marine Protected Areas in the Coral Triangle, pages 143159]RMT
Different species use different habitats, thus protection of all species (including focal species)
and maintenance of the health, integrity, and resilience of the ecosystem can be achieved if
adequate examples of each major habitat (including each type of coral reef, mangrove, and
seagrass community) are protected within marine reserves (Salm, Done, and McLeod 2006;
McLeod et al. 2009; Gaines et al. 2010). Where focal species include key fisheries species,
functional groups important for maintaining ecological resilience to local and global threats
(e.g., herbivores), and rare and threatened species. To determine how much of each habitat to
protect, it is important to consider that a population can only be maintained if it produces
sufficient eggs and larvae to sustain itself (Botsford, Hastings, and Gaines 2001; Botsford et al.
2009a). This threshold is unknown for most marine populations (Botsford et al. 2009a). Thus,
fisheries ecologists have expressed it as a fraction of unfished stock levels, and examined
empirical evidence to determine a general safe value of that parameter (Botsford et al. 2009a).
Meta-analyses suggest that keeping this threshold above ∼35% of unfished stock levels
ensures adequate replacement over a range of species (Botsford, Hastings, and Gaines 2001;
Fogarty and Botsford 2007; FAO 2011). To approximate the level of protection of this
threshold, ∼35% of the habitats used by focal species should be protected in marine reserves
(Fogarty and Botsford 2007), where habitat protection is a proxy for protecting fisheries
stocks. While lesser levels of habitat protection (but not less than 10%) may be sufficient in
areas with low fishing pressure (Botsford, Hastings, and Gaines 2001; Botsford et al. 2009b),
higher levels (40%) are required where fishing pressure is high to protect species with lower
reproductive output or delayed maturation (e.g., sharks and some groupers: Fogarty and
Botsford 2007). Higher levels of habitat protection may also be required in areas vulnerable
to severe disturbances (e.g., typhoons) and climate change impacts (e.g., Allison et al. 2003).
Therefore, to maximize benefits to fisheries management and biodiversity conservation in the
face of climate change, marine reserves should encompass at least 20–40% of each major
habitat. The recommended percentage will vary, based on fishing pressure and whether there
is effective fisheries management in place outside reserves. If fishing pressure is high and the
only protection offered to fisheries species is in marine reserves, then the proportion of each
major habitat in reserves should be ≥30%. If effective fisheries Category Ecological guidelines
Habitat Representation Represent 20–40% of each major habitat (i.e., each type of coral reef,
mangrove, and seagrass community) in marine reserves, depending on fishing pressure and if
effective fisheries management is in place outside reserves. Risk Spreading Replicate protection
of each major habitat within at least three widely separated marine reserves. Protecting
Critical, Special and Unique Areas Incorporating Connectivity Allowing Time for Recovery
Protect critical areas (e.g., FSAs, nursery, nesting, breeding, and feeding areas) in the life history
of focal species (including key fisheries species, herbivores and rare and threatened species
e.g., turtles, dugong and cetaceans) in permanent or seasonal marine reserves. Protect special
or unique areas (e.g., isolated habitats with unique assemblages and populations, important
habitats for endemic species, and highly diverse areas) in marine reserves. Apply minimum and
variable sizes (e.g., 0.5–1 km and 5–20 km across) to marine reserves, depending on focal
species for protection, how far they move, and if other effective management is in place
outside reserves. Space marine reserves 1–15 km apart, with smaller reserves closer together.
Protect key habitats used by focal species throughout their lives (e.g., for home ranges, nursery
areas and FSAs) in marine reserves, and ensure reserves are spaced to allow for movements
among them (e.g., ontogenetic habitat shifts, spawning migrations). Include whole ecological
units (e.g., offshore reefs) in marine reserves. Use compact marine reserve shapes (e.g.,
squares) rather than elongated ones. Locate more marine reserves upstream if there is a
strong, consistent, unidirectional current. Protect spatially isolated areas or populations (e.g.,
remote atolls separated by >20 kilometers from similar habitats) in marine reserves. Ensure
marine reserves are in place for the long-term (20–40 years), preferably permanently. Short
term (<5 years) or periodically harvested marine reserves should be used in addition to, rather
than instead of, long-term or permanent reserves. (Continued on next pagTable 1 Ecological
guidelines for designing marine reserve networks for fisheries management, biodiversity
conservation, and climate change adaptation (Continued) Category Ecological guidelines
Adapting to Changes in Climate and Ocean Chemistry Minimizing and Avoiding Local Threats
Protect refugia in marine reserves where habitats and species are likely to be more resistant
or resilient to climate and ocean change including: • Areas where habitats and species are
known to have withstood environmental changes (or extremes) in the past (e.g., coral
communities that appear more resilient to high SSTs); • Areas with historically variable SSTs
and ocean carbonate chemistry, where habitats and species are more likely to withstand
changes in those parameters in future; and • Areas adjacent to low-lying inland areas without
infrastructure that coastal habitats (e.g., mangroves, tidal marshes and turtle nesting beaches)
can expand into as sea levels rise. Avoid placing marine reserves in areas that have been, or
are likely to be, impacted by local threats (e.g., land based runoff) that cannot be managed
effectively. Place marine reserves in areas that have not been, or are less likely to be,
impacted by local threats including: • Areas where threats (e.g., overfishing or destructive
fishing) can be managed effectively; and • Areas within or adjacent to other effectively
managed marine or terrestrial areas. Integrate marine reserves within broader spatial
planning and management regimes (e.g., large multiple-use MPAs, EAF, EBM, and ICM).
management is in place outside reserves, or if fishing pressure is low, then a lesser level of
protection (20%) is needed. These recommendations are supported by empirical studies that
show that 20–30% habitat protection in marine reserves can achieve fisheries objectives in
areas with different levels of fishing pressure (e.g., Russ et al. 2008; Russ and Alcala 2010),
which is also the minimum level of habitat protection recommended by IUCN-WCPA (2008).
Distrubances create spillover—the plan is key
Fernandes et al 14--Consulting in Marine & Coastal Environmental Resource Management Strategic Marine Planning - Social & Natural Science [Leanne Fernandesb, Glenn Almanyc, Rene
Abesamisd, Elizabeth McLeode, Porfirio M. Aliñof, Alan T. Whiteg, Rod Salmg, John Tanzerh &
Robert L. Presseyi “Designing Marine Reserves for Fisheries Management, Biodiversity
Conservation, and Climate Change Adaptation” Volume 42, Issue 2, 2014 Special Issue:
Establishing a Region-wide System of Marine Protected Areas in the Coral Triangle, pages 143159]RMT
Risk Spreading Large-scale disturbances can have serious impacts on tropical marine
ecosystems (e.g., coral bleaching and major storms: West and Salm 2003; Villanoy et al. 2012).
Since it is difficult to predict with certainty which areas are most likely to be affected by these
and other disturbances (e.g., ship groundings, oil spills), it is important to protect at least three
examples of each major habitat in marine reserves and spread them out to reduce the chance
that all examples will be adversely impacted by the same disturbance (Salm, Done, and
McLeod 2006; McLeod et al. 2009; see Spacing). Thus if one example of a major habitat is
severely damaged, others may remain to provide the larvae required to replenish the affected
area. Since variations in communities and species within major habitats are often poorly
understood, habitat replication also increases the likelihood that examples of each are
represented within the marine reserve network (McLeod et al. 2009; Gaines et al. 2010).
Incorporating FSA’s both spacially and temporally into MPA’s is the only way to
guarantee
Fernandes et al 14--Consulting in Marine & Coastal Environmental Resource Management Strategic Marine Planning - Social & Natural Science [Leanne Fernandesb, Glenn Almanyc, Rene
Abesamisd, Elizabeth McLeode, Porfirio M. Aliñof, Alan T. Whiteg, Rod Salmg, John Tanzerh &
Robert L. Presseyi “Designing Marine Reserves for Fisheries Management, Biodiversity
Conservation, and Climate Change Adaptation” Volume 42, Issue 2, 2014 Special Issue:
Establishing a Region-wide System of Marine Protected Areas in the Coral Triangle, pages 143159]RMT
Fish spawning aggregations (FSAs) and associated migratory corridors and staging areas
(where fish aggregate prior to and after spawning) are spatially and temporally predictable
and concentrate reproductively active fish in a manner that enhances their vulnerability to
overfishing (Sadovy and Domeier 2005; Domeier 2012; Rhodes et al. 2012). Some fisheries
species and herbivores (e.g., groupers and rabbitfishes) travel long distances to form FSAs for
relatively short periods of time (days or weeks: Domeier 2012). For these species, such
gatherings are the only opportunities to reproduce, and they are crucial to population
maintenance. Some fisheries and herbivorous species (e.g., snappers and parrotfishes) also
group together in feeding or resting areas, or nursery areas where juveniles use different
habitats than adults (e.g., Nagelkerken et al. 2001). Therefore, it is important to protect the
range of habitats that species use throughout their lives in marine reserves (particularly areas
used during critical life history phases: Adams et al. 2011; Gaines et al. 2010; Rhodes et al.
2012), and to ensure that reserves protecting each of these areas are spaced to allow for
movements of focal species among them (see Incorporating Connectivity). If the temporal and
spatial location of these areas is known, they should be protected in permanent or seasonal
marine reserves (Gaines et al. 2010; Rhodes et al. 2012). If the location of these areas is
unknown, or the scale of movement is too large to include in individual marine reserves, they
can be protected within a network of marine reserves in combination with other management
approaches (e.g., seasonal capture and sales restrictions during the spawning season: Sadovy
and Domeier 2005; Rhodes et al. 2012). Rare and threatened species also aggregate and use
habitats that are crucial to the maintenance of their populations (e.g., sea turtle nesting areas,
dugong feeding areas, cetacean migratory corridors, and calving grounds). These areas should
be protected in permanent or seasonal marine reserves (e.g., DPW 2013) in combination with
other management approaches (e.g., hunting regulations and restrictions on the use of nets in
cetacean migratory corridors). Other special and/or unique sites should also be included in
marine reserves to ensure that all examples of biodiversity and ecosystem processes are
protected. They include: isolated habitats that often have unique assemblages and
populations, habitats that are important for endemic species, and areas that are highly
diverse (Jones, Srinivasan, and Almany 2007; McLeod et al. 2009).
Connection between different focal groups and parts of growth allow for better
recruitment, restocking and larvae dispersal
Fernandes et al 14--Consulting in Marine & Coastal Environmental Resource Management Strategic Marine Planning - Social & Natural Science [Leanne Fernandesb, Glenn Almanyc, Rene
Abesamisd, Elizabeth McLeode, Porfirio M. Aliñof, Alan T. Whiteg, Rod Salmg, John Tanzerh &
Robert L. Presseyi “Designing Marine Reserves for Fisheries Management, Biodiversity
Conservation, and Climate Change Adaptation” Volume 42, Issue 2, 2014 Special Issue:
Establishing a Region-wide System of Marine Protected Areas in the Coral Triangle, pages 143159]RMT
Connectivity, the demographic linking of local populations through the dispersal of individuals as larvae, juveniles, or adults (Jones et al. 2009), is a key ecological factor to consider
in marine reserve design, since it has important implications for the persistence of
metapopulations and their recovery from disturbance (Botsford, Micheli, and Hastings 2003;
Almany et al. 2009; McCook et al. 2009). Most coral reef and coastal pelagic fish species have a
bipartite life cycle where larvae are pelagic before settling out of the plankton and forming an
association with coral reefs. These species vary greatly in how far they Connectivity, the
demographic linking of local populations through the dispersal of in- dividuals as larvae,
juveniles, or adults (Jones et al. 2009), is a key ecological factor to consider in marine reserve
design, since it has important implications for the persistence of metapopulations and their
recovery from disturbance (Botsford, Micheli, and Hastings 2003; Almany et al. 2009; McCook
et al. 2009). Most coral reef and coastal pelagic fish species have a bipartite life cycle where
larvae are pelagic before settling out of the plankton and forming an association with coral
reefs. These species vary greatly in how far they move during their life history phases (Palumbi
2004), although larvae of most species have the potential to move much longer distances
(10s–100s of kilometers: Almany et al. 2009; Jones et al. 2009) than adults and juveniles that
tend to be more sedentary (with home ranges <1 m to a few kilometers: Russ 2002).
Exceptions include coral reef species where adults and juveniles exhibit large-scale (10s–100s
of kilometers) ontogenetic shifts in habitat use (i.e., among coral reef, mangrove and seagrass
habitats; e.g., Nagelkerken et al. 2001) or migrations to FSAs (e.g., Rhodes et al., 2012), and
pelagic species that migrate very large distances (100s to 1,000s of kilometers: Palumbi 2004).
When adults and juveniles leave a marine reserve, they become vulnerable to fishing (Kramer
and Chapman 1999; Gaines et al. 2010). However, larvae leaving a reserve can generally
disperse without elevated risk because of their small size and limited exposure to the fishery
(Gaines et al. 2010). Thus movement patterns of coral reef and coastal pelagic fish species at
each stage in their life cycle is an important consideration in designing the configuration of
marine reserve networks (e.g., Kramer and Chapman 1999; Botsford, Micheli, and Hastings
2003; Palumbi 2004). Where movement patterns of focal species are known, this information
can be used to refine reserve size, shape, spacing and location (e.g., IUCN-WCPA 2008) to
maximize benefits to both fisheries and conservation (Palumbi 2004; Jones, Srinivasan, and
Almany 2007; Gaines et al. 2010).
Marine reserves should be made based on export level—this best accounts for
home ranges and larve growth—resulting in greater resilience and fisheries
restocking
Fernandes et al 14--Consulting in Marine & Coastal Environmental Resource Management Strategic Marine Planning - Social & Natural Science [Leanne Fernandesb, Glenn Almanyc, Rene
Abesamisd, Elizabeth McLeode, Porfirio M. Aliñof, Alan T. Whiteg, Rod Salmg, John Tanzerh &
Robert L. Presseyi “Designing Marine Reserves for Fisheries Management, Biodiversity
Conservation, and Climate Change Adaptation” Volume 42, Issue 2, 2014 Special Issue:
Establishing a Region-wide System of Marine Protected Areas in the Coral Triangle, pages 143159]RMT
Size and Shape. For marine reserves to protect biodiversity and contribute to fisheries
enhancement outside their boundaries, they must be able to sustain fisheries species within
their boundaries throughout their juvenile and adult life history phases (Palumbi 2004; IUCNWCPA 2008; Gaines et al. 2010). This allows for the maintenance of spawning stock, by
allowing individuals to grow to maturity, increase in biomass and reproductive potential, and
contribute to stock recruitment and regeneration (Russ 2002). Marine reserve size should
therefore be determined by the rate of export of adults and juveniles (“spillover”) to fished
areas (Gaines et al. 2010). While spillover directly benefits adjacent fisheries, if the reserve is
too small, excess spillover may reduce the density of protected biomass within the reserve
(Kramer and Chapman 1999; Botsford, Micheli, and Hastings 2003; Gaines et al. 2010). This
tradeoff has led to divergent recommendations regarding the size of marine reserves based on
the need to achieve different objectives. For example, from a biodiversity and climate change
perspective, moderate to large reserves (e.g., 4–20 km across) are recommended, because
they enhance population persistence by increasing the protection of larger populations of
more species (Shanks, Grantham, and Carr 2003; McLeod et al. 2009; Gaines et al. 2010). In
contrast, smaller reserves (0.5–1 km across) have been recommended for fisheries
management, since they allow for the export of more adults and larvae to fished areas,
leading to potential increases in recruitment and stock replenishment (Jones, Srinivasan, and
Almany 2007; Lester et al. 2009; Harrison et al. 2012). Such small reserves are common in the
Coral Triangle, where they have provided benefits for some species (e.g., Russ and Alcala 2010;
Hamilton, Potuku, and Montambault 2011). Where movement patterns of focal species are
known, they can be used to refine marine reserve size. Some species (e.g., some groupers,
surgeonfishes, and parrotfishes) have small home ranges (Figure 1) and can be protected
within small marine reserves (<0.5 to 1 km across), while others are more wide ranging (e.g.,
bumphead parrotfish and humphead wrasse) and require medium to large marine reserves
(5–10 or 10–20 km across). Some species move across very large distances and require even
larger marine reserves (10s to 100s of kilometers across) including some snappers, emperors,
jacks, and most sharks. Since pelagic fishes (e.g., tuna and oceanic sharks) can migrate over
1,000s of kilometers ,marine reserves are likely to have limited utility for these species.
Optimal reserve size will also depend on the level of resource use and the efficacy of other
management tools. Where fishing pressure is high and there is no additional effective fisheries
management in place, networks of both small (0.5–1 km across) and moderate to large (5–20
km across) marine reserves will be required to achieve both biodiversity and fisheries
objectives. However if additional effective management is in place for wide ranging species
outside reserves, then networks of small marine reserves can contribute to achieving both
conservation and fisheries objectives (provided that a sufficiently large proportion of the metapopulation is protected overall: see Habitat Representation). Larval dispersal also has
implications for marine reserve size, since the larger the reserve, the more likely larvae will
settle within their natal reserve and the population will be self-sustaining. However, even
small reserves can provide recruitment benefits within and close to their boundaries, because
self-recruitment is common in many coral reef fish species (Jones, Srinivasan, and Almany
2007).
An increase in MPA programs is key to ocean biographic zones and biodiversity
and stopping over-fishing.
Boersma et al ’99, (P. Dee Boersma, Zoology Department, UniTersity of Washington, and
Julia K. Parrish, “Limiting abuse: marine protected areas, a limited solution,” Ecological
Economics, 31 (1999) 287–304, http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0921800999000853/1-s2.0S0921800999000853-main.pdf?_tid=622ea064-0bab-11e4-bba000000aacb362&acdnat=1405379324_76f64a8cb10029d739bc8f43f9da3e49)//erg
Designation of marine protected areas (MPAs) is increasing as humans seek to combat
overexploitation of marine resources and preserve the integrity of the ocean’s unique
biodiversity. At present there are over 1300 MPAs. The primary legal responsibility for the designation of MPAs falls to
individual countries, but protection of the marine environment at large scales is also critical because
ocean circulation does not honor legal boundaries and often exceeds the influence of any one
nation or group of nations. There are many reasons for establishing MPAs; the papers we surveyed principally
referred to scientific, economic, cultural, and ethical factors. Two approaches predominated:
fisheries management and habitat protection. Although the major threat to terrestrial systems is
habitat loss, the major threats to the world’s oceans are fisheries overexploitation, coastal
development, and chemical and biological pollution . MPAs may provide conservation of
formerly exploited species as well as benefits to the fishery through leakage of ‘surplus’ adults
(spillover) and larvae (larval replenishment) across reserve boundaries. Higher order effects, such as
changes in species richness or changes in community structure and function, have only been superficially explored. Because many
MPAs are along coastlines, within shipping lanes, and near human centers of activity, the chance of chemical and biological pollution
is high. Use of MPAs to combat development and pollution is not appropriate, because MPAs
do not have functional
boundaries. The ocean is a living matrix carrying organisms as well as particles and therefore
even relatively environmentally sensitive uses of coastal ecosystems can degrade ecosystem structure
and function via increasing service demands (e.g. nutrient and toxics transformation) and visitation. Whether an MPA is effective is a
function of the initial objectives, the level of enforcement, and its design. Single reserves
need to be large and
networked to accommodate bio-physical patterns of larval dispersal and recruitment. Some
authors have suggested that reserve size needs to be extremely large — 50–90% of total habitat — to
hedge against the uncertainties of overexploitation . On a local scale, marine protected areas can
be effective conservation tools. On a global scale, MPAs can only be effective if they are
substantively representative of all biogeographic zones, single reserves are networked within biogeographic
zones, and the total amount of area reserved per zone is 20% or greater. The current size and placement of protected areas falls far
short of comprehensive or even adequate conservation objectives.
Coral Reefs
MPA size modifications are key to coral reef sustainability—change in
management key to solve
Almany et al ’07, (Glenn R. Almany1,*, Michael L. Berumen1,2, Simon R. Thorrold3, Serge
Planes4, Geoffrey P. Jones1, “Local Replenishment of Coral Reef Fish Populations in a Marine
Reserve,” Science Mag, Science 4 May 2007:
Vol. 316 no. 5825 pp. 742-744, DOI: 10.1126/science.1140597,
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5825/742.full)//erg
Our direct estimate of ∼60% self-recruitment for these two species demonstrates that larvae are capable of returning to a very small
target reef (only 0.3 km2), even after an extended larval duration. Although there is much recent indirect evidence for the limited
dispersal of marine larvae (11), our results, in combination with two previous mark/recapture studies of larval dispersal (12, 13),
suggest that self-recruitment
in marine fish populations may be common and take place on a
smaller scale than previously realized. For example, a recent Caribbean-wide biophysical model of population
connectivity in reef fishes highlighted larval capabilities as a key factor determining levels of
self-recruitment (14). When active larval behavior was introduced in the model within a few days after hatching, selfrecruitment of virtual larvae averaged ∼21% to reef areas delineated by 450 km2. In our study, the proportion of self-recruitment
was three times greater to a reef more than three orders of magnitude smaller. The
observation that parental
habitat is demonstrably of sufficient quality for survival and reproduction provides a
compelling argument for the presence of some degree of self-recruitment in fish populations.
Selection may therefore favor the retention of many larvae, especially if the probability of encountering better adult habitat by
dispersing is low (15) or advantages accrue through local adaptation (16). A
number of mechanisms may be used by
larvae toavoidbeing swept away from natal reefs. Field evidence suggests that reef fish larvae
migrate vertically in the water column to exploit currents at different depths and thereby
avoid dispersal away from spawning locations (17). Larvae are also capable of sustained directional swimming
soon after hatching (18), and possess a range of well-developed sensory systems to locate and orient to reefs, including sight, smell,
the high levels of self-recruitment we detected, ∼40% of juveniles of
both species came from outside the MPA. The reef nearest to Kimbe Island is 10 km away, and reefs in this region
are typically separated by 5 to 20 km. Ecologically important larval exchange must occur between
populations at these scales. Thus, the Kimbe Island MPA is likely to be self-sustaining as well as providing recruitment
and sound (18–21). Despite
subsidies to populations beyond its boundaries. Although levels of retention and connectivity may differ where reefs are closer and
populations are less isolated, the Kimbe Island example sets a new boundary condition for the scale at which self-recruitment can
occur. Ideally, the
size and spacing of marine reserves should be predicated on an understanding
of larval dispersal distances (3–6, 22). The optimal design should be one in which individual
MPAs are large enough so that populations within reserves can sustain themselves, yet small
enough and spaced so that a proportion of larvae produced inside the MPA is exported to
unprotected areas (3, 5, 12). Our study suggests that the spatial scale at which coral reef MPAs can
achieve these dual goals may be relatively small. However, if natal homing and larval retention are common,
some MPAs may fail to deliver substantial recruitment subsidies to locations beyond their
boundaries. We therefore support recent suggestions (23, 24) that MPA networks should be combined with
conventional management strategies to both protect threatened species and ensure the
sustainability of fisheries on coral reefs .
Econ
Now key
Coastal storms are coming and risk massive economic shocks—current funding
goes to artificial mechanisms that will unsustainably increase in price—
sustainable alternatives are politically popular
Ferrario et al 14—Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Dipartimento di Scienze
Biologiche, Geologiche e Ambientali BiGeA, Ravenna 48123, Italy. 2Que´bec-Oce´an, Universite´
Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada G1V 0A6. 3The Nature Conservancy, University of California,
Santa Cruz, California 95060, USA. 4US Geological Survey, Pacific Coastal and Marine Science
Center, Santa Cruz, California 95060, USA. 5Hopkins Marine Station, Stanford University, Pacific
Grove, California 93950, USA. Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed
to M.W.B.[Filippo Ferrario1,2, Michael W. Beck3, Curt D. Storlazzi4, Fiorenza Micheli5, Christine
C. Shepard3 & Laura Airoldi1,5 “The effectiveness of coral reefs for coastal hazard risk reduction
and adaptation”, Received 3 Aug 2013 | Accepted 3 Apr 2014 | Published 13 May 2014]RMT
Nearly 40% of the world’s population lives within 100 km of the coast and that percentage is
increasing1. The growing natural hazards from coastal storms, flooding and rising sea level2
create social, economic and ecological risks of global significance. The United Nations global
report on disaster risk reduction identified that the risks of economic loss associated with
floods and tropical cyclones are increasing across the world3. The proportion of the world’s
Gross Domestic Product annually exposed to tropical cyclones increased from 3.6% in the
1970s to 4.3% in the first decade of the 2000s (ref. 3). Moreover, the impacts associated with
inundation and flooding from sea-level rise and storms are expected to increase substantially.
As a consequence, huge investments are being made in coastal hazard mitigation and
increasingly in climate adaptation, and these investments are often for artificial defence
structures such as seawalls and breakwaters. These costs will increase. For example, the cost
of dikes alone is predicted to increase to US$ 12–71 billion per year by 2100 (ref. 4). In recent
climate negotiations, developed nations pledged US$ 100 billion per year by 2020 to support
mitigation and adaptation in developing countries many of which are tropical and coastal.
Adaptation funds are already starting to flow from these commitments at US$ 1–4 billion per
year5. Governments and businesses are increasingly interested in identifying where naturebased solutions can be used cost effectively as part of the strategy for coastal defence and as
an alternative to investing solely in artificial defences6–9. There is a growing body of evidence
that suggests that nature-based solutions can be effective for risk reduction10–13. This
evidence is clearest for mangroves and marshes10–16. The evidence is less well developed for
coral reefs, and there is not a synthesis of the role of reefs in risk reduction. A clear
assessment of the role and effectiveness of coral reefs for hazard mitigation should inform
investments in coastal defence and could encourage investments to enhance reef resilience.
Understanding the role of coral reefs in coastal protection is critical as some analyses have
suggested that reef structures and associated ecosystem services might collapse unless both
local and global actions are taken to reverse their decline17. In the past, when reefs have
been damaged following extensive coral mining or land reclamation then investments
increased in artificial defences
K2 solve econ
Reef crests and flats substantially reduce wave attenuation—our data isolates a
specific and massive sample size as well as meta analysis.
Ferrario et al 14—Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Dipartimento di Scienze
Biologiche, Geologiche e Ambientali BiGeA, Ravenna 48123, Italy. 2Que´bec-Oce´an, Universite´
Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada G1V 0A6. 3The Nature Conservancy, University of California,
Santa Cruz, California 95060, USA. 4US Geological Survey, Pacific Coastal and Marine Science
Center, Santa Cruz, California 95060, USA. 5Hopkins Marine Station, Stanford University, Pacific
Grove, California 93950, USA. Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed
to M.W.B.[Filippo Ferrario1,2, Michael W. Beck3, Curt D. Storlazzi4, Fiorenza Micheli5, Christine
C. Shepard3 & Laura Airoldi1,5 “The effectiveness of coral reefs for coastal hazard risk reduction
and adaptation”, Received 3 Aug 2013 | Accepted 3 Apr 2014 | Published 13 May 2014]RMT
Wave attenuation. Our systematic literature search identified 255 studies on coral reefs and
wave attenuation. We could extract data for meta-analyses from 27 independent publications
that covered reefs across the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans to quantita- tively estimate
the effectiveness of coral reefs in wave attenuation. We examined available studies on wave
attenuation across three reef environments: the reef crest, reef flat and the whole reef (Fig.
1). The reef flat is the shallow part of the reef that extends outward from the shore. It is often
characterized by reduced water circulation, the accumulation of sediments and periods of
tidal emersion. The reef crest is the seaward edge and often the shallowest part of the reef,
and where wave breaking first occurs. The transition between reef flat and reef crest can often
be gradual. We report the effects of reef crest, reef flat and whole reef separately, because
only a few studies examined wave attenuation across all three environments, and we had to
use data from sometimes different reefs for analyses by environment (Supplementary Table 1
and Supplementary Methods). Reefs significantly reduced wave energy across all three
environments (Fig. 2a and Supplementary Fig. 1a). Reef crests dissipated on average 86% (n
¼10; 95% confidence interval: 74–92%) of the incident wave energy (Fig. 2a). Reef flats
dissipated 65% of the remaining wave energy (n ¼23; 58–71%). The whole reef accounted for
a total wave energy reduction of 97% (n ¼13; 94–98%; Fig. 2a). Reefs significantly reduced
wave height across all three environments (Fig. 2b and Supplementary Fig. 1b). The reef crest
reduced wave height by 64% (n ¼10; 51–74%). The reef flat reduced wave height by 43% (n
¼23; 34–51%; Fig. 2b). The whole reef reduced wave height by 84% (n ¼13; 76–89%; Fig. 2b).
We could extract data on wave type (that is, swell and wind waves) from only a subset of studies
to examine if and how reefs reduced energy by wave type. Wave energy in both swell and wind
wave types was reduced across all three environments (the whole reef, reef crest and reef flat)
although not always significantly even when combined across experiments. Reef crests
significantly dissipated 70% (n ¼4; 43–84%) of the incident swell wave energy, and the whole
reef significantly reduced both wind and swell wave energy (Supplementary Fig. 2). Reef flats
reduced both wind and swell wave energy, but our analysis of existing studies showed a
significant effect only for swell waves (Supplementary Fig. 2). The change in wave energy
across the reef flat was much lower than across the reef crest or whole reef, which makes
detection of individual wind wave effects more difficult. Using data on incident wave energy
from reviewed studies, we also examined the relationship between maximum incident wave
energy and wave energy reduction by reefs reported for each individual experiment
(Supplementary Table 2). The studies included in these analyses reported data recorded during
different meteorological condition (calm to stormy), different seasons and for periods up to 4
consecutive months. Both reef crests and reef flats dissipated disproportionately more wave
energy as incident wave energy increased (Fig. 3). Nonlinear regressions indicated that for
reef crests and reef flats, wave energy reduction reached asymptotes of 91% and 67%,
respectively (Fig. 3). The effects of the whole reef in dissipating wave energy were linear from
small through hurricane-level waves, that is, the reefs reduced a consistent 97% percent of
the incident wave energy (Fig. 4 and Supplementary Fig. 3). After passing over the crest, waves
were attenuated significantly across wider reef flats. However, most of the wave attenuation
happened in the first part of the reef flat; 50% of the reduction in both wave energy and
height occurred within o150 m from the reef crest in the experiments that we analysed (Fig.
5).
Its way cheaper than other methods
Ferrario et al 14—Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Dipartimento di Scienze
Biologiche, Geologiche e Ambientali BiGeA, Ravenna 48123, Italy. 2Que´bec-Oce´an, Universite´
Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada G1V 0A6. 3The Nature Conservancy, University of California,
Santa Cruz, California 95060, USA. 4US Geological Survey, Pacific Coastal and Marine Science
Center, Santa Cruz, California 95060, USA. 5Hopkins Marine Station, Stanford University, Pacific
Grove, California 93950, USA. Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed
to M.W.B.[Filippo Ferrario1,2, Michael W. Beck3, Curt D. Storlazzi4, Fiorenza Micheli5, Christine
C. Shepard3 & Laura Airoldi1,5 “The effectiveness of coral reefs for coastal hazard risk reduction
and adaptation”, Received 3 Aug 2013 | Accepted 3 Apr 2014 | Published 13 May 2014]RMT
Comparing coral reefs to artificial coastal defences. The transmission coefficient, K (that is, the
ratio of the transmitted to the incident significant wave height H t t /H ), of low-crested
detached breakwaters typically ranged from 0.3 to 0.7, which represents a wave height
reduction of 30–70% (refs 21–25). This range is comparable to the one estimated from our
meta-analysis for coral reefs (51–74%); the average wave height reduction for reefs (64%; Fig.
2b) is in the upper range of values reported for artificial structures. i The costs of building
tropical breakwaters ranged between US$ 456 and 188,817 m of US$ 19,791 m 1 1 (Table 1)
with a median project cost (n ¼16). The construction costs of structural coral reef restoration
projects ranged between US$ 20 and 155,000 m 1 with a median project cost of US$ 1,290 m (n
¼13) (Table 2). On average, the costs of the restoration projects were significantly cheaper
than costs of building tropical breakwaters (t-test: t (27) ¼3.762, Po0.001).
Its consistent with the most qualified data and proves consensus
Ferrario et al 14—Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Dipartimento di Scienze
Biologiche, Geologiche e Ambientali BiGeA, Ravenna 48123, Italy. 2Que´bec-Oce´an, Universite´
Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada G1V 0A6. 3The Nature Conservancy, University of California,
Santa Cruz, California 95060, USA. 4US Geological Survey, Pacific Coastal and Marine Science
Center, Santa Cruz, California 95060, USA. 5Hopkins Marine Station, Stanford University, Pacific
Grove, California 93950, USA. Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed
to M.W.B.[Filippo Ferrario1,2, Michael W. Beck3, Curt D. Storlazzi4, Fiorenza Micheli5, Christine
C. Shepard3 & Laura Airoldi1,5 “The effectiveness of coral reefs for coastal hazard risk reduction
and adaptation”, Received 3 Aug 2013 | Accepted 3 Apr 2014 | Published 13 May 2014]RMT
We provide the first quantitative meta-analysis of the role of coral reefs in reducing wave
energy across reefs in the Indian, Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. Combined results across studies
show that coral reefs dissipate 97% of the wave energy that would otherwise impact
shorelines. Most (86%) of the wave energy is dissipated by the reef crest; this relatively high
and narrow geomorphological area is the most critical in providing wave attenuation benefits.
The reef flat dissipates approximately half of the remaining wave energy, most of the wave
energy on the reef flat is dissipated in the first part of the reef flat (that is, the 150 m closest to
the reef crest). This means that even narrow reef flats effectively contribute to wave
attenuation. These results are consistent with both models and observations of coastal
barriers that identified cross-shore bathymetric profile, and in particular the height of the
barrier (for example, reef crest), as the most important variable in coastal defence
considerations 15,26–28 . The depth of reefs, particularly at the shallowest points, is critical in
providing wave attenuation benefits. In order to better quantify these benefits in the future,
much greater emphasis needs to be placed on measuring the depth profile including across
tidal cycles and during events when water levels are raised (for example, storm surge).
Impact
Millions will die—and the US is most vulnerable
Ferrario et al 14—Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Dipartimento di Scienze
Biologiche, Geologiche e Ambientali BiGeA, Ravenna 48123, Italy. 2Que´bec-Oce´an, Universite´
Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada G1V 0A6. 3The Nature Conservancy, University of California,
Santa Cruz, California 95060, USA. 4US Geological Survey, Pacific Coastal and Marine Science
Center, Santa Cruz, California 95060, USA. 5Hopkins Marine Station, Stanford University, Pacific
Grove, California 93950, USA. Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed
to M.W.B.[Filippo Ferrario1,2, Michael W. Beck3, Curt D. Storlazzi4, Fiorenza Micheli5, Christine
C. Shepard3 & Laura Airoldi1,5 “The effectiveness of coral reefs for coastal hazard risk reduction
and adaptation”, Received 3 Aug 2013 | Accepted 3 Apr 2014 | Published 13 May 2014]RMT
Reefs and coastal populations. We estimate that there are up to 197 million people that live
both below 10 m elevation and within 50 km of a reef who may receive risk reduction benefits
from reefs (Fig. 6 and Table 3). If we consider only areas within 10 km of a reef (that is, an 80%
reduction in distance) and below 10 m elevation, there are still some 100 million people who
may receive risk reduction benefits from reefs (Table 3). The countries with the greatest
number of at-risk people who may receive risk reduction benefits from reefs are Indonesia,
India and the Philippines whether we consider distances of 10 or 50 km from reefs. These
three countries alone include B50% of the people globally that live in low exposed areas near
reefs (Table 3). The USA ranks within the top 10 of countries in number of people that may
receive risk reduction benefits from reefs.
Overfishing leads to economic decline and accelerated warming.
Allison et al ’09, (Edward H. Allison1,2, Allison L. Perry1,3, Marie-Caroline Badjeck1,4, W. Neil
Adger5, Katrina Brown2,5, Declan Conway2,5, Ashley S. Halls6, Graham M. Pilling7, John D.
Reynolds8, Neil L. Andrew1 andNicholas K. Dulvy7,8, “Vulnerability of national economies to the
impacts of climate change on fisheries,” Wiley Online Library, 4 FEB 2009, DOI: 10.1111/j.14672979.2008.00310.x, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.14672979.2008.00310.x/abstract)//erg
Anthropogenic global warming has significantly influenced physical and biological processes at global and regional scales. The
observed and anticipated changes in global climate present significant opportunities and
challenges for societies and economies. We compare the vulnerability of 132 national
economies to potential climate change impacts on their capture fisheries using an indicatorbased approach. Countries in Central and Western Africa (e.g. Malawi, Guinea, Senegal, and Uganda), Peru and Colombia in
north-western South America, and four tropical Asian countries (Bangladesh, Cambodia, Pakistan, and Yemen) were identified as
This vulnerability was due to the combined effect of predicted warming , the relative
importance of fisheries to national economies and diets, and limited societal capacity to
most vulnerable.
adapt to potential impacts and opportunities . Many vulnerable countries were also among the world’s least
developed countries whose inhabitants are among the world’s poorest and twice as reliant on fish, which provides 27% of dietary
protein compared to 13% in less vulnerable countries. These countries also produce 20% of the world’s fish exports and are in
greatest need of adaptation planning to maintain or enhance the contribution that fisheries can make to poverty reduction.
Although the precise impacts and direction of climate-driven change for particular fish stocks
and fisheries are uncertain, our analysis suggests they are likely to lead to either increased
economic hardship or missed opportunities for development in countries that depend upon
fisheries but lack the capacity to adapt.
Coastal Defense
REEFS K2 coastal defense
Ferrario et al 14—Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Dipartimento di Scienze
Biologiche, Geologiche e Ambientali BiGeA, Ravenna 48123, Italy. 2Que´bec-Oce´an, Universite´
Laval, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada G1V 0A6. 3The Nature Conservancy, University of California,
Santa Cruz, California 95060, USA. 4US Geological Survey, Pacific Coastal and Marine Science
Center, Santa Cruz, California 95060, USA. 5Hopkins Marine Station, Stanford University, Pacific
Grove, California 93950, USA. Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed
to M.W.B.[Filippo Ferrario1,2, Michael W. Beck3, Curt D. Storlazzi4, Fiorenza Micheli5, Christine
C. Shepard3 & Laura Airoldi1,5 “The effectiveness of coral reefs for coastal hazard risk reduction
and adaptation”, Received 3 Aug 2013 | Accepted 3 Apr 2014 | Published 13 May 2014]RMT
A full benefit:cost analysis of coastal defence alternatives that includes coral reefs is desirable
but not yet possible. For reef restoration and even for breakwaters, there needs to be better
accounting for benefits such as fisheries and recreation. For reef restoration, there needs to
be better accounting for maintenance costs and longer term measures of the success of
restoration efforts. These measures should consider the effects of restored reef depth and
roughness on wave attenuation, reef failure points during highenergy events, and the
recovery time periods and costs after these events. Many gaps remain in designing reef
restoration projects for hazard mitigation, as very few projects have explicitly tried to deliver
benefits for both risk reduction and reef conservation. As living structures, reefs have the
potential for self-repair and thus lower maintenance costs as compared with artificial
structures, but reef restoration is still a comparatively new field. Most measures of reef
restoration projects are limited to just the time period in which a project is constructed (that
is, one funding cycle) particularly in developing countries where most reef restoration occurs.
The addition of ecosystem benefits and considerations of maintenance costs in a full benefit:
cost analysis would likely add to the relative cost effectiveness of reefs for coastal defences.
Disease Impact
Outbreaks cause extinction.
Yule ‘13
(et al; Jeffrey V. Yule – Herbert McElveen Professor of Applied and Natural Sciences At the
School of Biological Sciences, Louisiana Tech University, Published April 2nd – Humanities
2013, 2, 147–159; doi:10.3390/h2020147)
Since the 1940s, humans in industrialized nations have been relatively sheltered from the
threat that infectious disease once posed. Modern antibiotics and antivirals have controlled
pathogens that once devastated human populations, but these drugs often remain effective
only briefly. Unprecedentedly large, dense human populations characteristic of modern
societies coupled with rapid global travel create a situation in which emerging pathogens can
move much more efficiently between hosts. Rates of future human mortality from emerging
infectious diseases may depend on the levels of biodiversity that remain in unpopulated
regions, which suggests that protection from novel infectious disease may be what has been,
until recently, an overlooked benefit of biodiversity. We have assumed that humanity’s future
will unfold in a way that avoids any of a number of global disasters for Homo sapiens sapiens.
An equally reasonable but less optimistic assessment could take exception to that position. A
variety of things could go badly wrong for humanity. Global human N may not stabilize at or
below where it stands now without being pushed there by some form(s) of crisis that result
from humans exceeding global K. As a result, anthropogenic factors from the intentionally
harmful (e.g., warfare) to the unintentionally disastrous (e.g., agricultural practices leading to
topsoil erosion and desertification) could occur singly or in conjunction with one another, with
a variety of natural disasters (e.g., volcanic eruptions, earthquakes), and with disasters that
straddle the boundary of natural and anthropogenic, the sorts of scenarios that otherwise
could have been avoided or their impacts lessened with more forethought (e.g., outbreaks of
infectious disease that move easily through dense human population centers and cannot be
readily treated due to pathogen drug resistance). Although we cannot rule out such
eventualities, speculation about the future of humanity is inherently more interesting if it
proceeds on the assumption that the species will be at least moderately successful beyond the
short- to medium-term. However, it may not, and the potential failure of our species has
considerable biological implications.
Overfishing
A change in fishing practices is key to prevent economic decline, conflicts, and
environmental degradation.
BenDor et al ’09, (Todd, Department of City and Regional Planning, Jürgen Scheffran, Bruce
Hannon, “Ecological and economic sustainability in fishery management: A multi-agent model
for understanding competition and cooperation,” Ecological Economics, Volume 68, Issue 4, 15
February 2009, Pages 1061–1073,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800908003406)//erg
Natural resource scarcity is often an expression of conflicting relationships between humanity
and nature (Farber, 2000). Environmental degradation can undermine the economic and societal
conditions for the well-being of a growing human population, adding to the various stress
factors that contribute to conflict (Homer-Dixon, 1994 and Scheffran, 1999). However, resource scarcity may not
always lead directly to environmental conflicts and a clear correlation may be hard to prove for complex conflict constellations. An
increasing number of environmental agreements demonstrate that, under certain
circumstances, threatened environmental systems can also facilitate cooperation (for instance, see
the International Environmental Agreements Database http://iea.uoregon.edu). In this article, we discuss overfishing in
the world's oceans, a problem that bears considerable conflict potential (Charles, 1992 and Ruseski,
1998), but may also open avenues for cooperation . Understanding these linkages is one of the purposes of this
article. Fisheries represent a significant basis for the world's food production and are a major
income source in many coastal regions. Due to unsustainable fishing practices and rapid
improvements in fishery technology, many fishery resources are declining despite numerous
attempts to improve scientific understanding and management practices (Myers and Worm, 2003).
Here, competitive market structures surrounding fishery stocks often contribute to over-exploitation and collapse. Many instances
of fishery collapses due to overfishing have been recorded (Pauly et al., 2002). One of the most well-known examples has been the
Northern Atlantic Cod (Gadus morhua) fishery off the Eastern coast of Canada ( Hutchings and Myers, 1994 and Myers et al., 1997),
where
declines in fish stocks were met with a moratorium on fishing, thereby leading to a loss
of over 19,000 jobs of fishers and plant workers as well as over 20,000 additional jobs with
the ensuing general economic decline . Here, rural Newfoundland was hit the hardest, as the fisheries
industry had been the largest employer and economic backbone of many communities. To
stay within ecologically sustainable limits, the focus thus far has been on measuring and
controlling fish populations, while increasingly taking into account uncertainties that are
inherent in both ecological and economic systems (Whitmarsh et al., 2000 and Davis and Gartside, 2001). In
order to resolve fishery conflicts, we must better understand the dynamics and interactions of the
combined ecological–economic system, while respecting sustainability criteria both for the
natural sphere (regeneration capacity of fish populations) and the socio-economic sphere (profits, employment, and social
cohesion). Growing attention in fishery policy analysis is being paid to misperceptions and sensitivities surrounding fishery
management (Moxnes, 2004 and Moxnes, 2005). Increasingly, regulated fishing and compulsory cooperation among fishers have
been recognized as potential tools for overcoming the unsustainable results of competitive fishing practices (Roughgarden and
Smith, 1996, Pomeroy and Berkes, 1997 and Eisenack et al., 2006). Co-management of marine resources has been suggested and
implemented in order to increase participation and strengthen compliance with regulatory constraints (Pinkerton, 1989, Kearney,
2002, Mahon et al., 2003 and Jentoft, 2005). However, the need for, and design of, sustainable fishery management policies raises
many questions.
Competition over fish stocks and overfishing leads to global wars
Pomeroy et al ‘07, (Robert, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics/CT Sea
Grant, University of Connecticut, John Parksb, Richard Pollnacc, Tammy Campsond, Emmanuel
Genioe, Cliff Marlessyf, Elizabeth Holleg, Michael Pidoh, Ayut Nissapai, Somsak Boromthanarati,
Nguyen Thu Huej, “Fish wars: Conflict and collaboration in fisheries management in Southeast
Asia,” Marine Policy, Volume 31, Issue 6, November 2007, Pages 645–656,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X07000413)//erg
Conflicts and wars related to the rights over the use of land and water have been important
human issues throughout recorded history. Although many of us are probably more aware of
wars fought over religious freedom, political ideologies and social issues, conflicts over fishing rights and
resources are just as common, if less reported. Since the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) were established in the 1970s,
disputes have become more frequent and more violent than ever before. Due to the establishment of
EEZs, access to the world's oceans has been radically reorganized and the access rights of foreign fishing vessels have been curtailed.
Negotiations, international
fisheries agreements (such as those between European and African countries), and
recourse to an international tribunal have sometimes succeeded in resolving conflicts. More often
fishermen from other locations in
the country are expelled by force. Vessels are boarded and crew imprisoned. Occasionally,
weapons are used and people are killed. Fights have broken out, for example, between Vietnam and
than not, however, foreign boats from territorial waters and EEZs or migrant
Cambodia and between the Philippines and China over access to territorial waters. Thousands of Indonesian fishers have been
incarcerated as a result of illegal fishing in Australian waters. While sovereignty issues are generally at the root of such conflicts,
they are
also the manifestation of competition for access to fish stocks, in coastal waters as
much as on the high seas. In addition, the use of flags of convenience serves to exacerbate the
problem. The country where a boat is registered does not necessarily identify its country of origin, and this loophole enables
fishing companies to flout international fishing and labor conventions with impunity. The total number of reported piracy attacks
globally reached 276 in 2005, with the majority of attacks occurring in the waters of Indonesia, Malacca Straits, Bangladesh and
India. This estimate is believed to be low, as many ship-owners and masters hesitate to report incidents of attack. Many of the
pirates are believed to be from rural fishing communities [9]. Such conflicts are not limited to the high seas of Southeast Asia. In fact,
the most pronounced increases in user conflicts and rising levels of social unrest are occurring
within the region's coastal waters where the majority of the fishery users are present. For
example, tensions are being aggravated by conflicts between users of different fishing technologies. The right to use passive fishing
equipment like hand and gill nets, long-lines, and fish traps (typically associated with small-scale fishers) is often contested by those
who use active gear such as trawls and purse seine nets (often associated with industrial fishers). Part of this is because such passive
equipment often gets caught and carried off by trawlers. But more importantly, modern industrial fishing fleets operating in coastal
waters typically use high technology electronics, over-efficient fishing gear and power, and in situ commercial fish processing
equipment.
This level of power and technology may “vacuum”, or monopolize, available fishery
resources, taking all living organisms from coastal waters and leaving nothing behind for
resident and other smaller-scale fishers . Moreover, it is well known in the region that industrial fishing
operations illegally operate within a country's waters, both in the EEZ and near the coasts .
Such competition and differences often ultimately divide small-scale and industrial fishers to
such a degree that they become adversaries . In such cases, industrial fishers, using more modern or productive
fishing gear, will enter and fish in near shore waters used by small-scale fishers, whose gear and boats limit them to these areas.
Often already overfished fisheries, on which the small-scale
fishers depend for food and livelihood, are
further exploited. In India, for example, small-scale fishers have lately been very vociferous in condemning shrimp trawlers
whose fishing methods jeopardize fish stocks. In this type of conflict, where industrial fishers often enjoy the benefits of government
subsidies, negotiating a solution can be very difficult, as it involves working across totally different social and economic sectors. In
other situations, such as in the Philippines and Thailand, such competition is known to regularly lead to violence, and even fatalities
[10] and [11].
Overfishing means coral reef biodiversity is on the brink—new conservation
methods are key to preventing ecological extinction
Jackson et al ’01, (Jeremy B. C. Jackson1,2,*, Michael X. Kirby3, Wolfgang H. Berger1, Karen
A. Bjorndal4, Louis W. Botsford5, Bruce J. Bourque6, Roger H. Bradbury7, Richard Cooke2, Jon
Erlandson8, James A. Estes9, Terence P. Hughes10, Susan Kidwell11, Carina B. Lange1, Hunter S.
Lenihan12, John M. Pandolfi13, Charles H. Peterson12, Robert S. Steneck14, Mia J. Tegner1,†,
Robert R. Warner15, “Historical Overfishing and the Recent Collapse of Coastal Ecosystems,”
Science Mag, Science 27 July 2001: Vol. 293 no. 5530 pp. 629-637 DOI:
10.1126/science.1059199)//erg
Coral reefs are the most structurally complex and taxonomically diverse marine ecosystems,
providing habitat for tens of thousands of associated fishes and invertebrates (40). Aboriginal fishing
in coral reef environments began at least 35,000 to 40,000 years ago in the western Pacific (41) but appears to have had limited
ecological impact. Recently,
coral reefs have experienced dramatic phase shifts in dominant species
due to intensified human disturbance beginning centuries ago (1) (Fig. 1, C and D). The effects are most pronounced
in the Caribbean (42) but are also apparent on the Great Barrier Reef in Australia despite extensive protection over the past three
decades (43). Large species of branching Acropora corals dominated shallow reefs in the tropical western Atlantic for at least half a
million years (44–46) until the 1980s when they declined dramatically (42, 47) (Fig. 2B and Table 1). Patterns of community
membership and dominance of coral species were also highly predictable (44), so that there is a clear baseline of pristine coral
community composition before human impact. Western Atlantic reef corals suffered sudden, catastrophic mortality in the 1980s
due to overgrowth by macroalgae that exploded in abundance after mass mortality of the superabundant sea urchin Diadema
antillarum that was the last remaining grazer of macroalgae (42, 47). Early fisheries reports suggest that large herbivorous fishes
were already rare before the 20th century (48). However, macroalgae were held in check until the last major herbivore, Diadema,
was lost from the system through disease (42, 47). Corals on the Great Barrier Reef have experienced recurrent mass mortality since
1960 due to spectacular outbreaks of the crown-of-thorns starfish Acanthaster planci that feeds on coral (49). The causes of
outbreaks are controversial, but they are almost certainly new phenomena. There are no early records ofAcanthaster in undisturbed
fossil deposits, in aboriginal folklore, or in accounts of European explorers and fishers. Now, in recent decades, the
frequency
and intensity of outbreaks have exceeded the capability of longer lived species to recover as
outbreaks have become more chronic than episodic (50). One possible explanation for Acanthaster outbreaks is
that overfishing of species that prevy upon larval or juvenile stages of crown-of-thorns starfish is responsible for massive
recruitment of the starfish (51). The highly cryptic, predator-avoiding behavior of juvenile starfish, their formidable antipredator
defenses as subadults and adults, and the reduction of some generalized predatory fishes on the Great Barrier Reef all point to such
a “top-down” explanation.
Commercial and recreational fishing, as well as indirect effects of intensive
trawling for prawns, are likely explanations for decreased abundance of predators of crownof-thorns starfish (52). Massive recruitment of starfish may also be due to “bottom-up” increases in productivity due to
increased runoff of nutrients from the land (53). In either case, the explanation is almost certainly historical and anthropogenic, and
cannot be resolved by recent observations alone.
Expeditions occurred annually to northern Australia from the
Malay Archipelago throughout the 18th and 19th centuries to harvest an estimated 6 million sea cucumbers each season (54).
After European colonization, industrial-scale fishing developed along the Great Barrier Reef and subtropical
east Australian coast in the early to mid–19th century (55). Whales, dugongs, turtles, pearl oysters, and Trochus shell were each
heavily exploited only to rapidly collapse, and all have failed to regain more than a small fraction of their former abundance (55–57).
Fishing of pelagic and reef fishes, sharks, and prawns has continued to the present, although catch per unit effort has declined
greatly (58).
Overfishing leads to conflicts, food insecurity, poverty, and economic decline.
Pomeroy et al ‘07, (Robert, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics/CT Sea
Grant, University of Connecticut, John Parksb, Richard Pollnacc, Tammy Campsond, Emmanuel
Genioe, Cliff Marlessyf, Elizabeth Holleg, Michael Pidoh, Ayut Nissapai, Somsak Boromthanarati,
Nguyen Thu Huej, “Fish wars: Conflict and collaboration in fisheries management in Southeast
Asia,” Marine Policy, Volume 31, Issue 6, November 2007, Pages 645–656,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X07000413)//erg
The result of overfishing and multiple sources of fishing pressure in Southeast Asian coastal
waters is the reduction or collapse of important fishery populations, leading to high levels of
conflict among different users over remaining stocks [12]. A complex, negative feedback cycle is created in this
situation, whereby rapid population growth paralleled by fewer economic opportunities and access
to land increases the number of people living in the coastal zone dependent on fishery
resources and thus the number of fishers. Increased fishing pressure results in fish population
declines and stock collapses and increased resource competition, both between fishers and
scales of fishing operation (e.g., small vs. commercial). The result is reduced income and food
security, increased poverty, and a lower overall standard of living and national welfare. This
in turn drives users to employ more destructive and over-efficient fishing technologies in the
“rush” to catch what remains, thereby further depleting fishery populations . These factors
lead to further increased user competition, and thus higher rates and probabilities of human
conflict , over remaining stocks . This destructive cycle leads to a pattern of self-reinforcing “fish
wars” with deteriorating social and environmental consequences. Decreasing fish stocks combined with
increasing conflict are driving some people out of the fishery. This is leading to increasing unemployment in many rural areas. This
added level of instability is thought to fuel national levels of social unrest and political instability, thereby acting as a powerful and
destabilizing risk factor to regional and global security concerns. As a consequence of this cycle, coastal “fish
wars” over the
remaining and limited in situ populations of important economic and dietary fishery resources are becoming
commonplace in the region. Social tension in the coastal waters of many of the most productive and biologically diverse
ecosystems is being aggravated today by declining or collapsed fishery populations and compounded by conflicts between users of
different fishing technology and between small-scale and industrial fishers. Such
conflicts are not always passive in
nature and armed conflict and violence is increasingly being reported as a common issue in
relation to increased coastal fisheries competition within nation states. Immediately reconciling the
compounding needs for improving the ecological sustainability of fisheries consumption while also improving food security and
reducing resource conflicts has recently begun to be widely acknowledged by the world community. As a priority outcome from the
2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, understanding, resolving, and preventing the spread of this complex and
deteriorating cycle has now become a global priority; see Resolution II, §30 through 32, of the Plan of Implementation of the WSSD
[13]. But the question remains: exactly how do we meet this challenge?
Solvency
MSP’s key
MSPs are key to solve
Pomeroy et al ‘07, (Robert, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics/CT Sea
Grant, University of Connecticut, John Parksb, Richard Pollnacc, Tammy Campsond, Emmanuel
Genioe, Cliff Marlessyf, Elizabeth Holleg, Michael Pidoh, Ayut Nissapai, Somsak Boromthanarati,
Nguyen Thu Huej, “Fish wars: Conflict and collaboration in fisheries management in Southeast
Asia,” Marine Policy, Volume 31, Issue 6, November 2007, Pages 645–656,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X07000413)//erg
Before the last century, the oceans were used mainly for two purposes: marine transportation and fishing. Conflicts between uses
were few and far between, except around some ports. Fisheries
were managed separately from oil and gas
development, which in turn was managed separately from marine navigation, despite real conflicts between and
among these uses. Single-sector management has often failed to resolve conflicts among
users of marine space , rarely dealing explicitly with trade-offs among uses, and even more rarely dealing with conflicts
between the cumulative effects of multiple uses and the marine environment. New uses of marine areas, including wind energy,
ocean energy, offshore aquaculture, and marine tourism, as well as the demand for new marine protected areas, have only
exacerbated the situation. Single-sector management has also tended to reduce and dissipate the effect of enforcement at sea
because of the scope and geographic coverage involved and the environmental conditions, in which monitoring and enforcement
have to operate. In sharp contrast to the land,
little “public policing” of human activities takes place at sea.
As a consequence, marine ecosystems around the world are in trouble.
Both
the severity and
scale of impact on marine ecosystems from overfishing, habitat loss and fragmentation,
pollution, invasive species and climate change are increasing, with virtually no corner of the
world left untouched.
Awareness is growing that
the ongoing degradation in marine ecosystems is, in
large part, a failure of governance . Many scientists and policy analysts have advocated reforms centred on the idea of
“ecosystem- based management” (EBM). To date, however, a practical method for translating this concept into operational
One step in that direction is the increasing worldwide interest in
“marine spatial planning”. What Is Marine Spatial Planning? Marine spatial planning (known as maritime
management practice has not emerged.
spatial planning, in Europe),
or MSP, is a practical way to create and establish a more rational
organization of the use of marine space and the interactions between its uses, to balance
demands for development with the need to protect marine ecosystems, and to achieve social
and economic objectives for marine regions in an open and planned way. MSP is a public
process of analyzing and allocating the spatial and temporal distribution of human activities
in marine areas to achieve ecological, economic and social goals and objectives that are
usually specified through a political process. Its characteristics include: Ì integrated across
economic sectors and governmental agencies, and among levels of government; Ì strategic
and future-oriented, focused on the long-term; Ì participatory, including stakeholders actively
in the entire process; Ì adaptive, capable of learning by doing; Ìecosystem-based, balancing
ecological, economic, social, and cultural goals and objectives toward sustainable
development and the maintenance of ecosystem services; and Ì place-based or area-based, i.e.,
integrated management of all human activities within a spatially defined MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING: AN IDEA WHOSE TIME HAS
COME area identified through ecological, socio-economic, and jurisdictional considerations. 113 ANNUAL REPORT 2011 It is
important to remember that we
can only plan and manage human activities in marine areas, not marine
ecosystems or components of ecosystems. We
can allocate human activities to specific marine areas by
objective, e.g., development or preservation areas, or by specific uses, e.g., offshore energy, offshore
aquaculture, or sand and gravel mining. Why Is Marine Spatial Planning Needed? Most countries already designate or zone marine
space for a number of human activities, such as maritime transportation, oil and gas development, offshore energy, offshore
aquaculture and waste disposal. However, the
problem is that usually this is done on a sector-by-sector,
case-by-case basis without much consideration of effects either on other human activities or
the marine environment. Consequently , this situation has led to two major types of conflict: Ì
Conflicts among human uses (user-user conflicts); and Ì Conflicts between human uses and
the marine environment (user-nature conflicts). These conflicts weaken the ability of the ocean to
provide the necessary ecosystem services upon which humans and all other life on Earth
depend . Furthermore, decision makers in this situation usually end up only being able to react to events, often when it is already
too late, rather than having the choice to plan and shape actions that could lead to a more desirable future of the marine
environment. By contrast, marine
spatial planning is a future-oriented process. It offers a way to
address both these types of conflict and select appropriate management measures to
maintain and safeguard necessary ecosystem services . MSP focuses on the human use of
marine spaces and places. It is the missing piece that can lead to truly integrated planning
from coastal watersheds to marine ecosystems.
When effectively put into practice, MSP can be used to: Ì Set
priorities - to enable significant inroads to be made into meeting the development objectives of marine areas in an equitable way, it
is necessary to provide a rational basis for setting priorities, and to manage
and direct resources to where and
when they are most needed; Ì Create and stimulate opportunities for new users of marine areas, including ocean energy;
Ì Co-ordinate actions and investments in space and time to ensure positive returns from those investments, both public and private,
and to facilitate complementarity among jurisdictions and institutions; Ì Provide a vision and consistent direction, not only of what is
desirable, but what is possible in marine areas; ÌProtect
nature, which has its own requirements that should
be respected if long-term sustainable development is to be achieved and if large-scale environmental degradation is
to be avoided or minimized; Ì Reduce fragmentation of marine habitats, i.e., when ecosystems are split up due to human activities
and therefore prevented from functioning properly; ÌAvoid duplication of effort by different public agencies and levels of
government in MSP-related activities, including planning, monitoring and permitting; and Ì Achieve higher quality of service at all
levels of government, e.g., by ensuring that permitting of human activities is streamlined when proposed development is consistent
with a comprehensive spatial plan for the marine area.
We should do Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) with specific guidelines. Key to
solve biodiversity and conservation (ocean zoning +other stuff)
Agardy et al ’11, (Tundi Agardya, Giuseppe Notarbartolo di Sciarab, Patrick Christie, “Mind
the gap: Addressing the shortcomings of marine protected areas through large scale marine
spatial planning,” Marine Policy, Volume 35, Issue 2, March 2011, Pages 226–232,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X10001740)//erg
Marine protected areas in all their myriad forms are a terrific conservation tool, but planners
should be cautious about shortcomings because failures of MPA planning and management
result in wasted resources, skepticism about MPAs, and lost opportunities. The current situation is
that vast areas of the open ocean are currently unprotected, despite their biogeographic,
ecological and conservation values. Existing protected areas have often failed in their protection
by a combination of factors, including lack of local support and non-compliance with
regulations inside their borders, and ongoing impacts outside their borders. Moreover, most existing
MPA systems do not ensure connectivity among coastal sites, and between coastal and offshore locations crucial to maintaining
populations of mobile species and vital connections between local ecosystems. A paucity of MPAs in
the High Seas suggests that use of the MPA tool in areas beyond national jurisdiction is fraught with difficulty [53]. Several target
and threatened species use areas that are too large to be effectively protected in single reserves; existing
reserves do not
function as networks because they are too far apart and fail to represent important offshore
foraging and breeding grounds; they also fail to recognize important processes originating offshore that provide
linkages between coastal areas. Finally, reserves cannot address the full suite of stressors affecting marine populations and
A solution is within reach, which could well leverage the attention and money which
has heretofore been spent trying to protect discrete and rather small sites . This solution
ecosystems.
requires a larger vision: to develop strategic, comprehensive, coordinated planning efforts for
large ocean and coastal regions . Such an ambitious vision could be supported by robust and
targeted management within discreet areas, e.g. MPAs, marine reserves, and conservation
areas. Such MPAs may individually solve localized, species-specific, or habitat—specific conservation problems, but the sum total
of protected areas within the context of a wider strategic marine plan does much more, potentially driving effective ecosystembased management. One
important tool to deliver such strategic plans is Marine Spatial Planning.
Marine spatial plans that utilize existing information on key areas needing protection, support
sustainable development and management of marine resources overall, and are both adaptive
and tailor management to existing resource use could set in motion much more effective and
efficient management regimes than what we have seen to date. Coordinated, regional plans
are not only necessary because of the large scale over which the dynamics of key ecosystem
processes, resource markets, and governance processes occur, but also likely more efficient
and cost-effective (e.g., [54]). Marine spatial planning does not stand alone, rather it is related to
and will emerge from existing management frameworks and tools. Frameworks such as
integrated coastal management [55] and [56] and ecosystem-based management [57] are
essential to consider and build from [58]. Field management efforts such as the Coral Triangle Initiative, large marine
ecosystem programs [59], [60] and [61], and country-level ecosystem-based management programs [48] provide rich examples from
which to develop lessons. While regional planning is critical, effective implementation of resource management always happens at
the local level in some form. Balancing
the dynamics of regional and local planning and
implementation is essential to success and will evolve distinctly in each context. Comparatively,
empirical studies demonstrate the following factors to be essential to successfully scaling up
management in a manner that considers balancing local and extra-local dynamics: leadership
development, awareness raising, institutional reform, conflict resolution, adaptation, and
ongoing evaluation [49]. To realize the goals, marine spatial planning (MSP) should include, at a
minimum, five elements: 1. Identification of priority areas, using robust analysis of existing information and databases;
2. development of scenarios to help decision-makers and multilateral agencies weigh tradeoffs and choices in creating various sorts of MPA networks that span both coastal regions and open ocean
areas; 3. analysis and evaluation of current legal and institutional frameworks and potential
decision-making governance structures needed for comprehensive ocean zoning; and 4. creation
of regional ocean zoning plans that capitalize on existing protected areas and resource
management, take into account what is known about priority areas for conservation, and
elucidate appropriate areas for the wide range of marine uses. 5. linking of regional ocean
zoning with national and local management efforts in a manner that strengthens all levels of management.
Many question whether a zoning plan for a dynamic ocean environment, and one occurring in a global commons, can be effective, or
even feasible. However, the ability of management agencies to educate and inform, and for users to understand and comply with
regulations, is often underestimated. It is probably wrong to think that marine stakeholders, particularly people who live by the sea
(figuratively as well as literally) cannot comprehend complex spatial management regimes; maritime peoples have abided by
complicated rules of who can do what where and when, and succeeded in doing so for centuries. And modern technology allows
very complex spatial management to be graphically presented in real time—i.e. on the screens of the GPS that many commercial
and recreational users have on their boats today. Vessel monitoring systems (VMS) also allow surveillance today at levels not
possible a decade ago, and is becoming increasing inexpensive and attainable even in poor contexts. Furthermore, MSP is a natural
extension of practices that are already very well developed in many parts of the world, including integrated coastal management
and multi-use MPA management. Skepticism about MSP is fueled by the perception that commons property regimes cannot be
considered as analogous to the mosaic of private and public property that exists on land. Furthermore, important and powerful
actors such as the military or well-financed industries may resist integrated marine spatial planning and the limitation on access that
it may impose [62]. However,
a recent review of ocean zoning efforts undertaken under the rubric of
MSP suggest that a large proportion of coastal countries are overcoming these challenges and
bringing the full suite of stakeholders to the planning table [63 ]. The marine spatial planning
process, coupled to ocean zoning efforts, can create an unprecedented framework for
synthesizing information on the sea’s ecology, resources, ecosystem services, uses and values,
and the threats to all of the above . Any zoning plan that results from analysis of such synthesized information serves
to highlight what is known about marine biodiversity, the efficacy of existing management, and future research needs to enhance
management effectiveness. MSP
provides the opportunity for communities which have given up
fishing grounds for more effective management to be able to capture broader benefits accruing
from effective management of the wider ecosystem. In one-off MPA situations, such communities do not necessarily derive the
benefits from spillover, yet make the sacrifice of giving up fishing areas and spending time enforcing the MPA [36]. MSP planning
processes can also serve to support managers and government officials attempting to reconcile objectives for multiple uses of ocean
space and resources. In addition, MSP
can put adaptive management into practice by establishing
management systems with built in monitoring and legislated periodic amendments to zoning
can ensure that management measures will be maximally effective in adapting to changing
conditions. Marine spatial planning , fully utilizing ocean zoning within which strategically planned
MPAs are embedded, allows MPA shortcomings to be overcome in order to better safeguard
the ocean worldwide and the lives of those who depend upon it.
US Key
The US is currently behind in its MPA implementation—a change in
management is key to solve biodiversity and overfishing.
ABATE, ’09, (RANDALL S., “Marine Protected Areas as a Mechanism to Promote Marine
Mammal Conservation: International and Comparative Law Lessons for the United States,”
Oregon Law Review, Vol. 88, 255, http://law.famu.edu/download/file/Abate%20%20Oregon%20Law%20Review%20Article.pdf)//erg
The era of “out of sight, out of mind” mismanagement of ocean resources is coming to a slow
and welcome end. The new ecosystem- based era of ocean conservation efforts gives reason
for hope that the status of marine mammal protection will improve in the United States and
internationally. The United States needs to embrace some of the regulatory strategies of
leading countries with respect to the use of MPAs to protect marine mammals and become part of an
international effort for enhanced use of MPAs. MPAs , especially no-take MPAs, are an essential
and underutilized tool to protect marine mammals in the United States . These areas serve functions
that go beyond promoting the sustainability of marine mammal populations.
No-take MPAs protect marine
biodiversity by restricting certain fishing gear and promoting sustainability of fish stocks that
are easily over harvested. No-take MPAs also promote recreation and tourism opportunities as
a result of the richness of marine mammal species found within the area. In addition, MPAs can enhance the
applicability of existing federal statutory schemes, such as the Marine Mammal Protection Act
and the Endangered Species Act. Several failures in existing MPAs have impeded these
mechanisms from achieving more coverage in U.S. waters and more protection of marine mammals. First,
there is a lack of proper management in setting objectives for, monitoring, and enforcing
regulations . Another major flaw has been the lack of a national system of MPAs. This deficiency has resulted in a wide range of
types of and purposes for MPAs, a lack of public involvement in the implementation and management of MPAs, and other
consequences outside the boundaries of MPAs that have the potential to impact the conservation of marine mammals. These
common pitfalls notwithstanding, New Zealand and Spain have taken leadership roles in using MPAs effectively to promote marine
mammal conservation. First, New Zealand and Spain have managed to address marine mammal threats and have
been able
to implement solutions that have helped increase the populations of decimated species. In
addition, both countries have established their MPAs in effective locations and with appropriate
protection levels. Moreover, Spain has been exceptionally successful with monitoring its existing and potential future MPAs,
whereas New Zealand has excelled in implementing a highly effective national system of MPAs. 308 OREGON LAW REVIEW [Vol.
88, 255
Extensive MPA networks throughout the world will have an impact on navigation,
commerce, and fishing . But the crisis facing the world’s oceans has reached the point where
the time has come for a new ocean ethic. A similar turning point occurred in the United States
in the 1970s when industrial pollution practices were reeled in through an arsenal of federal
environmental statutes enacted at that time. When these laws became effective, they had a profound effect on
business, which prompted the development of environmentally sensitive business practices. Similarly, in the ocean context,
countries with some of the largest EEZs in the world—New Zealand, Australia, and Canada—have taken leadership roles in this new
era of ocean management through the use of MPAs and the notion of ecosystem-based management. This ambitious strategy was
not always popular with the affected stakeholders—often causing uproars among them. Ultimately, however, ocean
management adjustments had to be made to ensure the sustainability of the ocean resources
at stake, and these new approaches are the most effective means of addressing this crisis .
The United States also has one of the world’s largest EEZs and it needs to join these nations in
a leadership role to advance this effort. Marine mammals stand to gain tremendously with the increased use of notake MPAs and the corresponding increased focus on regional ecosystem-based management.
No-take MPAs can be
thought of as the antidote to the world’s collective amnesia about baseline biodiversity in the
oceans.
These areas are a scientific benchmark of “normal” conditions against which change can be measured in the larger—and
more exploited—areas of the oceans at large. It is comparable to the practice of setting aside wilderness areas on land—if nothing is
left intact, it is very difficult to detect when significant degradation has occurred.353 Unfortunately,
MPAs lag significantly
behind their terrestrial counterparts in the United States —4.6% of U.S. land is designated as wilderness
areas,354 whereas less than 0.1% of U.S. waters is currently classified as some form of MPA.355 A new regulatory regionalism has
become a viable force in ocean management, driven largely by the context of ecosystem-based 353 Warne, supra note 6, at 81. 354
PEW OCEANS COMM’N, AMERICA’S LIVING OCEANS: CHARTING A COURSE FOR SEA CHANGE, 15 (2003), available at
http://www.sml.cornell.edu/forms/oceans _summary.pdf. 355 See MBNMS Resource Management Issues, supra note 21. 2009]
Marine Protected Areas 309 regulation.
Marine mammals will enjoy optimum protection in U.S. waters,
and beyond, from a coordinated and enhanced use of national networks of MPAs, which will
trigger a greater need for cooperative, regional, and ecosystem-based regulation . Marine
mammals will once again thrive when they are protected by a regulatory system that
acknowledges and supports these species’ relationships with their ecosystems.
Policy and government action is specifically key to prevent resource conflicts,
wars, and food insecurity
Pomeroy et al ‘07, (Robert, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics/CT Sea
Grant, University of Connecticut, John Parksb, Richard Pollnacc, Tammy Campsond, Emmanuel
Genioe, Cliff Marlessyf, Elizabeth Holleg, Michael Pidoh, Ayut Nissapai, Somsak Boromthanarati,
Nguyen Thu Huej, “Fish wars: Conflict and collaboration in fisheries management in Southeast
Asia,” Marine Policy, Volume 31, Issue 6, November 2007, Pages 645–656,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X07000413)//erg
Clearly, in order to end this cycle, the appropriate incentives for sustainable resource use must be instituted and complied with by
users. An
overriding question and concern is to what degree this cycle influences or threatens
human security and resource sustainability. Of particular interest is whether new public policy
mechanisms, such as new governance and management arrangements for resource
ownership, access and use, can provide solutions to resolve and manage conflicts over fishery
resources. Policymakers thus need alternative strategies for preventing and resolving these
conflicts before they escalate into greater civil unrest and violence . An early solution was to use scientific
advice on the state of the stock and institute national fisheries management plans through a centralized management agency and
using command-and-control measures. Such solutions offered only partial answers. Recent
management experience
[14] and [15] tells us that where a centralized, command-and-control marine resource
management approach and authority has not been effective in policing or resolving user
conflicts over fisheries extraction, new institutional arrangements, such as the use of
collaborative and community-based management approaches, are showing potential for
intervening on the negative feedback cycle of “ fish wars” by reducing user conflicts while also
addressing fisheries sustainability and food security needs. These new approaches are giving resource users
and local citizens groups a greater voice and more responsibility in resource management. People are empowered and
decisions are brought down to levels more appropriate to the functioning of the resource and
social systems.
Government agencies and institutions are key to provide management and
assistance in order to expand the size of MPA programs and success
Jameson, ’02, (Stephen C, Mark H Tupper, Jonathon M Ridley, “The three screen doors: can
marine “protected” areas be effective?” Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 44, Issue 11,
November 2002, Pages 1177–1183,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X02002588)//erg
The success of MPAs as a management tool will be greatest when communities collectively support the
MPA and government agencies (or in some cases, non-governmental organizations, Jameson and Williams, 2000)
provide the necessary financing, monitoring, enforcement, and technical expertise to ensure
that MPAs reach their management objectives . For example, the Apo Island reserve in the Philippines, often
considered a “poster child” for community-based MPAs, has been successful in enhancing reef fish populations and creating tourism
revenue (Russ and Alcala, 1996 and Russ and Alcala, 1999). The success of the Apo Island reserve stems from the level of community
capacity, which prevented opportunistic poaching from negating MPA benefits. Alternatively, if community capacity is low (e.g., in
the Turks and Caicos Islands), illegal fishing is likely to occur (Rudd et al., 2001). If community capacity is high but institutional
capacity is lacking (such as in Fiji, Cooke et al., 2000), communities may be unable to prevent outsiders
from poaching in their MPAs. Improving MPA institutional capacity is a difficult task. Institutional capacity can
be strengthened to some extent by influxes of funding from a higher governmental level (e.g.,
increased federal assistance to state or territorial resource management agencies). Community capacity, on the other hand, is a
function of the community’s social and cultural history, and it may be difficult to modify on time scales relevant to resource
management––this is especially true in developed nations and their island territories/colonies that depend on their governments
Another obstacle to management success is
the small size of most MPAs ; only 16 km2 on average (McClanahan, 1999). The smaller the MPA relative to
the home range of the species within, the more time those species will spend outside the MPA
and therefore unprotected (Kramer and Chapman, 1999). However, resource users are unlikely to support
MPAs large enough to effectively protect exploited species. Indeed, most MPAs are designed and located
based on socioeconomic and political issues (McClanahan, 1999) and rarely account for the ecology of organisms
to be protected. In summary, the usefulness of appropriately sized, well-managed MPAs is not in
question. What requires closer scrutiny is the institutional and community capacity necessary for effective MPA management to
rather than their own communities for public goods and services.
occur.
We need to have a co-management system where the US gets involved.
Christie and White, ’07, (P. Christie , interdisciplinary marine and coastal research and · A.
T. White, “Best practices for improved governance of coral reef marine protected areas,” Coral
Reefs (2007) 26:1047–1056 DOI 10.1007/s00338-007-0235-9
http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/530/art%253A10.1007%252Fs00338-007-02359.pdf?auth66=1405552426_7d5feafbf6dd1aba77b3d1ea31ad3c46&ext=.pdf)//erg
The fundamental principle of co-management is that it involves resource users and formal
policy makers (e.g., the government) in a process of joint decision-making (Pinker- ton 1989; White et
al. 1994; Christie and White 1997; Pomeroy et al. 2001; Nielsen et al. 2004; Pomeroy and Rivera-Guieb 2006). It is frequently one of
policy makers (and
other enti- ties such as the private sector) have comparable influence and willingness to collaborate (Christie
et al. 2000). Co- management can also be used to strengthen long-standing rights that affect the
allocation of resources and implemen- tation of MPAs (Pinto da Silva 2004).
the outcomes of a community-based process that has matured to the point whereby resource users and
US should completely expand coral reef MPA’s
Christie and White, ’07, (P. Christie , interdisciplinary marine and coastal research and · A.
T. White, “Best practices for improved governance of coral reef marine protected areas,” Coral
Reefs (2007) 26:1047–1056 DOI 10.1007/s00338-007-0235-9
http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/530/art%253A10.1007%252Fs00338-007-02359.pdf?auth66=1405552426_7d5feafbf6dd1aba77b3d1ea31ad3c46&ext=.pdf)//erg
With these cautionary comments in mind, some coun-
tries, like Australia and possibly the United States, have
the will, financial, and institutional capacity to embark on large-scale MPAs and should
pursue their development with the standards of participation, transparency, and equity as
guiding principles . The development of a United States- wide MPA network, to include large areas
such as the Northwest Hawaiian Islands, is important and may succeed if it balances the interests of
conservationists, fishers, and the public. Large-scale efforts should be pursued, but only with care
and appropriate timelines, in developing coun- tries. In conclusion, coral reef MPAs are an important management tool generating considerable scientific and public inter- est. The lessons of the Philippines (Buhat
1994; Wells and White 1995; Christie et al. 2003a) and supporting planning methods (Department of Environment and Natural
Resources et al. 2001; Deguit et al. 2004; White et al. 2006) have broad relevance to other contexts. This
management tool,
if used wisely, has the potential to simultaneously improve coral reef ecological conditions as
well as better the lives of dependent people (Vogt 1997; Russ et al. 2004). Greater research atten- tion
to the inextricably linked socio-ecological systems is needed to identify how people respond
to declining environ- mental conditions and conservation initiatives (Christie et al. 2003c; Mascia et al.
2003; White et al. 2004; Pomeroy et al. 2004, 2005; Scholz et al. 2004; Coastal Conservation and Education Foundation 2005; Wells
2006). In particular, the scaling up of MPAs to ecologically meaningful scales in a manner that does not undermine resource user
commitment and overwhelm institutional capacity is a major challenge requiring research linked with practice.
Consistent and
just enforcement of MPAs represents a major practical challenge (Ostrom 1990; Kaplan 1998; Kuperan
and Sutinen 1998; Honneland 2000; Jentoft 2000). Emergent models such as ecosystem-based management that are reliant on MPA
net- works and zoning schemes require greater empirical ground- ing in governance studies.
K2 Solve Advantages
Key to solve climate change, biodiversity, and survival
McLeod, ’09, (http://www.esajournals.org/doi/full/10.1890/070211)//erg
To address this gap, we propose a list of general recommendations for best practices in MPA
network design (size and shape recommendations) and specific ones that will help managers to
build resilience to climate change into these networks (Table 1). The specific recommendations
include identification and inclusion of key refuges (eg sites resistant to bleaching) that will
survive and provide the larvae needed to reseed areas that succumb to coral bleaching,
pathways of connectivity that link these refuges with damaged areas, and measures to build
redundancy into networks, thereby ameliorating the risk that climate-change impacts will
result in irrevocable biodiversity loss. To address the uncertainty associated with increases in
sea temperatures, we recommend selecting MPAs in a variety of temperature regimes, to
increase the likelihood that some reefs will survive future bleaching events. These
recommendations, combined with existing biophysical principles, allow managers to design
MPA networks that are more likely to survive, despite climate-change impacts. While both
biophysical and social factors must be taken into account in MPA network design, this paper
focuses on the former only.
Inherency
Changing the management system is key to effective MPA’s
Jameson, ’02, (Stephen C, Mark H Tupper, Jonathon M Ridley, “The three screen doors: can
marine “protected” areas be effective?” Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 44, Issue 11,
November 2002, Pages 1177–1183,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X02002588)//erg
The great majority of marine protected areas (MPAs) fail to meet their management
objectives. So MPAs can be effective conservation tools , we recommend two paradigm shifts, the first related
to how they are located and the second related to how they are managed. MPAs are unlikely to be effective if they
are located in areas that are subject to numerous, and often uncontrollable, external stressors
from atmospheric, terrestrial, and oceanic sources, all of which can degrade the environment
and compromise protection. MPA effectiveness is also limited by low institutional and
community capacity for management and inappropriate size with respect to ecological needs.
In particular ,
the check list approach to management does not ensure that key threats are dealt
with, or that management expenditures provide a quantifiable return. We recommend a
business planning approach to MPA management, in which managers focus on the viability of
the management system, i.e., the ability of the MPA to provide ecological goods and services to its target users over the
long term.
Management key—prefer case studies
McClanahan et al ’06,
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982206017015)//erg
Marine protected areas (MPAs) have been widely adopted as the leading tool for coral-reef
conservation, but resource users seldom accept them 1 and 2, and many have failed to produce
tangible conservation benefits [3]. Few studies have objectively and simultaneously examined the types of MPAs that
are most effective in conserving reef resources and the socioeconomic factors responsible for effective conservation 4, 5 and 6. We
simultaneously explored measures of reef and socioeconomic conservation success at four national parks, four comanaged reserves,
and three traditionally managed areas in Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. Underwater visual censuses of key ecological indicators
7 and 8 revealed
that the average size and biomass of fishes were higher in all areas under
traditional management and at one comanaged reserve when compared to nearby
unmanaged areas. Socioeconomic assessments 6, 9 and 10 revealed that this “effective conservation” was
positively related to compliance, visibility of the reserve, and length of time the management
had been in place but negatively related to market integration, wealth, and village population
size. We suggest that in cases where the resources for enforcement are lacking, management regimes that are
designed to meet community goals can achieve greater compliance and subsequent
conservation success than regimes designed primarily for biodiversity conservation.
A2’s
A2: CP
AT: generic CP—specificity in habitat protection is key
Fernandes et al 14--Consulting in Marine & Coastal Environmental Resource Management Strategic Marine Planning - Social & Natural Science [Leanne Fernandesb, Glenn Almanyc, Rene
Abesamisd, Elizabeth McLeode, Porfirio M. Aliñof, Alan T. Whiteg, Rod Salmg, John Tanzerh &
Robert L. Presseyi “Designing Marine Reserves for Fisheries Management, Biodiversity
Conservation, and Climate Change Adaptation” Volume 42, Issue 2, 2014 Special Issue:
Establishing a Region-wide System of Marine Protected Areas in the Coral Triangle, pages 143159]RMT
It is important to note that these recommendations regarding minimum reserve size must be
applied to the specific habitats that focal species use, rather than the overall size of the
reserve (which may include other habitats). For example, for coral reef species, minimum size
recommendations apply to the specific coral reef habitats that they use (e.g., for their home
ranges), rather than other habitat types (e.g., open ocean, seagrass, beds).
A2: T
T-Development
Pure development is bad—destroys ocean habitats of the squo
Boersma et al ’99, (P. Dee Boersma, Zoology Department, UniTersity of Washington, and
Julia K. Parrish, “Limiting abuse: marine protected areas, a limited solution,” Ecological
Economics, 31 (1999) 287–304, http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0921800999000853/1-s2.0S0921800999000853-main.pdf?_tid=622ea064-0bab-11e4-bba000000aacb362&acdnat=1405379324_76f64a8cb10029d739bc8f43f9da3e49)//erg
Many human
activities other than fishing depend, directly or indirectly, on the sea. Peterson and
Lubchenco (1997) define five broad categories of ecosystem services the world’s oceans provide (other
than the extractive value of the world’s fisheries), three of which are concentrated in continental shelf environments: (1)
transformation, detoxification, and sequestration of pollutants, (2) coastal ocean-based recreation, tourism, and retirement, and (3)
coastal land development and valuation. Ironically, each of these services is dependent on the continued health of
the relevant ecosystems we are using to the point of degradation. In fact, we are aware of these services because they add value to
our lifestyles, whether it be sewage removal or increased property value as a function of coastline view potential. Pressure on
coastal environments, either directly through habitat alteration or loss as a consequence of usurpation by humans, or indirectly as a
consequence of the cumulative effects of dense human presence, is increasing. Bryant (1995) estimates that
fully half of
the world’s coastal ecosystems currently sustain a moderate to high risk of developmentrelated threat. Highly developed regions, such as Europe, have an even higher percentage of
threatened coastline (86% at moderate or high risk). Coastlines undergoing development are locally subject to habitat
modification as wetlands are filled or dredged, river courses are channelized, tidelands are diked, beaches are armored, and jetties
and seawalls are built. Other
than the obvious habitat loss, these modifications can produce
geographic ripples as the flow of water, sediment, and nutrients are altered. Of the 1108
coastal marine protected areas assessed by Bryant (1995), 59% occurred in areas currently
sustaining a high risk of degradation due to development-related activities. White (1986) compared
features of reef habitat quality, including total coral, topographic relief, noticeable structural damage, and butterfly fish (an obligate
coral feeder) species richness among Indo-Pacific reef sites of varying protection. Sites with no legal or field protection close to
centers of human habitation suffered the most degradation, becoming unsuitable for sustaining healthy reef communities. As the
human population continues to expand, this trend will not get better.
A2: K’s
Cap/Neolib
The cause of overfishing is the drive for profit
BenDor et al ’09, (Todd, Department of City and Regional Planning, Jürgen Scheffran, Bruce
Hannon, “Ecological and economic sustainability in fishery management: A multi-agent model
for understanding competition and cooperation,” Ecological Economics, Volume 68, Issue 4, 15
February 2009, Pages 1061–1073,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800908003406)//erg
Recent studies have shown that many marine ecosystems are experiencing an accelerating loss
of population and biodiversity. It is apparent that there is a growing disparity between the
available supply of fish and the desire of the growing world population to catch them. Although
studies have begun to question the ecological sustainability of managed fishery systems, they
often omit the corresponding effects on the economic sustainability of fishery industries. This
is particularly important in rural coastal areas where the fishing industry is often a dominant
employer. In this article, we analyze the interactions between economic and ecological
dynamic systems using a multi-agent dynamic model of fishery management. Multiple agents
(fishers) harvest multiple fish species and adapt the amount and allocation of their effort to
their value functions, which are given as net profits of the fish harvest sold for a market price.
This is largely unique in fishery models, since many econometric studies view fishers as
represented by homogenous ‘average’ agents. We introduce and compare two different
decision rules governing the behavior of fishers engaged in a competitive market. We
demonstrate a situation where both behaviors lead to a decline of all fish stocks, as well as
profits for most fishers. As an alternative, we introduce a cooperative approach in which
fisheries jointly set sustainable limits for total harvest and effort that are then distributed to
the fishers according to distribution rules. The simulation reveals that fish stocks and profits
can stabilize at significantly higher levels in the cooperative case, leading to a continuous
accumulation of capital for all fishers. This model demonstrates key aspects of overfishing
conflicts that can be overcome through planned fishing quotas and cooperative market
mechanisms. It also demonstrates a novel approach for simulating the dynamic behavior of
heterogeneous fishers.