Marine protected areas (MPAs) are a common fisheries management tool that relies on the assumption that species protected within a spatially-explicit area are allowed to recover and later “spill over” the boundaries of the MPA where they may be harvested. By fully protecting an MPA, species inside will grow and reproduce a steady supply of “spilled over” fish to be harvested. But how large of an area should you protect at a minimum to offer this benefit?
Summary: Beating the Microbead: How private environmental governance has influenced the regulatory process of banning microbeads in the UK
Jon Day shares key lessons learned from stakeholder engagement efforts during the Representative Areas Program in the Great Barrier Reef, which was a key part of the comprehensive rezoning of the entire Marine Park between 1999 and 2003. As a result of this planning process, the total area of no-take zones increased from less than 5% to over one-third of the Marine Park, highlighting in large part the importance of effectively engaging stakeholders. Some of this accrued wisdom includes:
Not all MPAs are created equal, in terms of biodiversity conservation. Many MPAs allow extractive uses like fishing or oil prospecting, while other “no-take” MPAs prohibit such uses. Some MPAs are isolated from other protected sites, while others utilize network effects to increase larval dispersal and survival of protected species. With the current Convention on Biological Diversity target of protecting 10% of marine and coastal areas by 2020, can size alone determine if an MPA is living up to its name? No.
Designing well-connected marine reserves for climate-change resilience with low socio-economic costs
The theory behind networks of marine reserves is that they allow protected pathways for species to grow and maintain populations through their lifecycle - from where individuals begin their lives (typically as planktonic larvae) to where they disperse and live later as adults. Individual reserves - patches of protected habitat - are linked together, often by oceanic currents, with organisms moving between the reserves. Connections between marine reserves in a common area can be explored with graph theory: visualizing ecological networks much like a concept map.
The authors describe a method of collaborative fisheries management offering both fine temporal- and spatial-scale resolution which was trialed in Alaska’s Aleutian Islands walleye pollock fishery. In this fishery, scientists, locals, and industry are highly-engaged and already involved in a co-management process set forth by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council.
If you start it, they may not come: Why some stakeholders did not participate in a marine spatial planning process
Using the recent ocean planning process in the US Northeast, this paper assesses the perspectives of stakeholders who did not participate in a marine spatial planning (MSP) process. Since it is more challenging to find and survey stakeholders who did not participate in a process than ones who did, the authors chose a smaller study area – Massachusetts Bay – to examine.
Has having to figure out if you want to do management (EBM), integrated coastal zone management (ICZM), area based management (ABM), whole domain management (WDM), or marine spatial planning (MSP) got you down?
You are in luck. A paper recently published in MarXiv for policy makers, managers, and students provides a short history of ocean management, its conceptual foundations, modern frameworks for it, and numerous real world examples of how these concepts and frameworks are being applied.