Will MPA History Repeat Itself?

[Seacidal]

Seeking Consensus on Designing Marine Protected Areas:
Keeping the Fishing Community Engaged

A community group was formed to consider establishing marine reserves within the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary in southern California.

Membership included representatives from resource agencies, environmental organizations, commercial and recreational fishing interests, and the general public.

While the group agreed on several areas for fishing closures, members could not reach consensus on a specific network design.

Several factors interfered with the group’s effort in attaining agreement resulting in the endeavor subsequently being replaced by a “topdown” approach that lacks the support of the fishing community.

Lessons learned from the project emphasize the need by marine protected area participants to recognize irreconcilable impasses early in the process and to seek solutions to maneuver around them. The importance of keeping the fishing community fully engaged is discussed.

by
MARK HELVEY
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
Long Beach, California, USA

Coastal Management, 32:173–190, 2004

[Seacidal]

If anyone is interested in actually reading this paper, it can be found here.

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/MLPA/pdfs/comments/jg_082806.pdf

It's worth reading.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana

[Mike N]

Interesting, thanks.

MN

[Seacidal]

The observations on past MPA processes is useful in guiding our efforts in the current process.

[undrH2Ohntr]

Very interesting read, that sheds a lot of light on the issues at hand.

I found some points of particular interest:

1. Supporters of MPA's "Stated a desire for maximum closure without apparently accounting for the ambiguous and UNPROVEN benefits to fisheries."
The MRWG was pushing for 30-50% closures.

They just want it closed because they want it closed, and does not affect them or their liveliehood or their interests or their families:mad:

Critics of the MPA's desired 20% "closer to the original size proposed by the commission in 1998."

2. The article noted that it might be better to use or adjust existing fishery management systems:eek::scratch:

Really, you mean that might be an option? We don't have to close the entire ocean down:bang:

Check out this point: " Consequently, migratory species on the 'species of interest' list, including northern anchovy, sardine, and WHITE SEA BASS may be more successfully managed with traditional methods and not reserves."

This is becuase these fish do not remain in the reserves.....key word migratory.

3. The article also notes the socioeconomic consequences of such closures. Since none of the closures affect the supporters of MPA's they just don't care:(

[Nate Baker]

Kind of a late response, but that really was an interesting read, even if it was a tad long.

To me the overriding lessen was that it's unfreakingbelievably complicated putting this process together, and in the end, real compromise and open mindedness is both necessary and difficult to achieve.