Hunter Considers Scale

By Sheril Kirshenbaum

Hunter Jr, M. L. (2005). “A mesofilter conservation strategy to complement fine and coarse filters.” Conservation Biology 19(4): 1025-1029.

Hunter points out that many species such as invertebrates, fungi, and some plants are often overlooked in traditional ecosystem conservation management. He addresses the need to conserve critical elements of ecosystems by adopting a fine-filter approach. This means thinking about localized habitats such as logs and reefs and processes like fires and floods which are crucial to these finer scale systems. A good example of where this manner of management is occurring would be the Northwest Straits Initiative in the North Pacific. Managers have adopted strategies that incorporate localized actions such as the removal of derelict fishing gear and cleanup of leaching hazardous materials on beaches. Hunter discusses the significance of case-specific information and implementation strategies and recommends complimentary policy action such as green certification and landowner incentive programs.

Arlinghaus – how humans get in the way, and what to do about them

Arlinghaus, R. (2006). “Overcoming human obstacles to conservation of recreational fishery resources, with emphasis on central Europe.” Environmental Conservation 33(1): 46-59.

While this article is focused on recreational fishing in Europe EAF, it makes several points applicable to ecosystem management globally. Perhaps the main point is that the importance of human attitudes and behavior in fisheries management is usually overlooked or undervalued. Here again, as Michael Orbach and others have noted, is a call that EBM is about managing people. These human behaviors lead to many “outside the box” obstacles, that can have damming consequences for resource protection. Arlinghaus does a good job here of explaining where these obstacles arise (they are often ignored or outside the scope of EBM analyses) and potential solutions (the solutions often mirror the EBM playbook).

Hilborn et al. 2005 is used here as a launching point. They note the importance of access, decision making, and spatial scale in influencing management success. Imbedded in Hilborn’s ideas is the concept of simple decision making structures. Arlinghaus notes that in European Recreational Fisheries Management (RFM), small bodies (sometimes fewer than 10 people) are responsible for management decisions of a locally controlled resource. However, Arlinghaus also notes several human-based obstacles that prevent good management above and beyond the three influences identified by Hilborn and friends. Interestingly, several of the proposed solutions to these obstacles precisely mirror EBM “talking points” (e.g., adaptive management, precautionary approach, strong stakeholder involvement)

Of particular note here is that European RFM is largely privately controlled and de-centralized from (or co-managed with) government. So it has aspects that mirror cooperative fisheries that have been set up elsewhere (e.g., the Pacific coast of Mexico). This combination of private property rights and de-centralized management has interesting implications for efficient management. In a different context, Geerat Vermeij (UC Davis) has noted that de-centralized control is a common feature of almost all highly adaptable and successful organisms (as well as sub-organismal systems, such as the immune system). We have applied this concept to our analysis of security policy (see, Sagarin and Taylor, eds. Natural Security, in press, UC Press), taking a dim view of the highly centralized Department of Homeland Security (note how responsive FEMA, which got sucked into this morass, was during Hurricane Katrina). Likewise, Google, according to recent article in Fortune (Lashinsky, A., Chaos by design. The inside story of disorder, disarray, and uncertainty at Google. And why it’s all part of the plan. (They hope.) in Fortune. 2006) is organized this way as well.

So, will what works for millions of organisms and millions of citizens and millions of stockholders in Google work for fish management? Certainly it raises questions about the need for a massive new ocean bureaucracy, but may increase the urgency of pulling NOAA out of the plodding Commerce department in the US. To some extent the Northwest Straits Initiative in Washington State, which was formed as a rejection to Federal efforts to set up a National Marine Sanctuary in the area, follows this de-centralized, small-group model. What Arlinghaus provides here is a clear statement of both the potential benefits and the practical limitations of strong local control. His proposed solutions tend to favor continued local control, but with a role for advice and technical support from a more centralized source that has the ability (and/or the resources) to understand the larger picture.

Alverson asks for help – What is EBM?

Alverson, D. L. (2004). “Searching for ecosystem reality-terms and concepts.” Bulletin of Marine Science 74(3): 639-652.

Here, Dayton Alverson frankly presents his own struggles with understanding the exact meaning of terms used in the ecosystem management debate. He conducts a non-scientific survey by querying 45 of his colleagues with questions about nine statements selected from the NMFS EPAP 1999 Report to Congress. Among the 40 responses he received several notable points emerge. First, there was wide disagreement among these professionals as to the clarity and usefulness of ecosystem terms and statements. Second, respondents leaned more generally towards frustration at the lack of clarity in terms. Third, people were very concerned about this issue as Alverson reports getting many lengthy written addendums to the survey (one was 13 pages). …

It would be interesting to re-run Alverson’s survey (perhaps with the same participants, if he would care to identify them) now that several recent attempts (e.g., the consensus statement) to better define ecosystem based management have been published. The larger question remains, which is, “is defining the terms and procedures enough?” or the converse, “if we have well defined terms and procedures, will we be able to protect marine ecosystems?”.

In this regard, Alverson makes the nice point that we should not expect EBM to be a “panacea” for our ocean problems, but that we should also not blame the failure of single species fisheries management on a failure to adopt EBM. The former point has been made often, but I had not often read the latter. This drives the more direct question, “why have there been so many failures in single-species management” – perhaps a topic for a discussion forum.

Agardy’s networks – bridging gaps?

Agardy, T. (2005). “Global marine conservation policy versus site-level implementation: the mismatch of scales and its implications.” Marine Progress Series 300: 243-248.

Tundi Agardy takes on the issue of scale in EBM as part of the MEPS Theme Section on Politics of EBM, noting several areas where the scale of management actions and the scale of ecosystem problems do not match. She points out that most conservation projects, which occur at the local level, cannot possibly deal with the scale of problems that occur in LMEs and globally. At the same time, a critical point she makes is that generic, large-scale policy making does not fit local needs and often is not adequately supported financially. In one of the most quotable quotes in the EBM debate, she notes, “a mismatch occurs between what is actually happening and what decision makers assume is happening.” This mismatch seems to occur all over the place in conservation planning and probably is exacerbated in EBM examples. We see it between the lofty goals listed in websites for a particular EBM initiative and what is occurring on the water. We see it between the letter of a law and its implementation (see Rosenberg et al. 2006 recent review of stock rebuilding—or lack thereof—despite the mandates of the 1996 MSA).

Agrady uses the development of MPAs as an extended example of scale mis-matches. She argues (probably correctly) that virtually all MPAs are too small to do their job. More precisely, it may be that their scope is too limited (e.g., as long as they are Marine Protected Areas, they won’t be putting upland areas off limits to, say, fertilizer application). MPAs also create responses in the human socio-economic system in which they were created, as Duke Nicholas School economist Marty Smith has pointed out. Agardy brings up the idea of MPA networks as a solution to the ad hoc and incomplete nature of MPAs as they’ve been implemented thus far. MPA networks are not merely networks of reserves, but rather systems planned to address the multiple, interacting impacts to a given habitat. Agardy notes that MPA networks can be designed to address the socio-economic aspects and can operate at a range of hierarchically nested scales.

In reading this piece I was immediately reminded of an argument by World Bank Vice-President Jean-Francois Rischard to create independent “Global Issues Networks” which eschew centralized bureaucratic institutions in favor of networks of localized experts that coalesce around a global problem of urgent need (e.g., global warming, income disparity, clean water availability). Rischard’s idea of “networked governance” driven by Global Issues Networks mirrors both the scale and operation of the MPA networks envisioned by Agardy and others. These type of networks also fit the semi-autonomous organizational structure that Geerat Vermeij says is central to the success of much of the diversity of life (as discussed by me elsewhere in the Knowledge Base).

Agardy acknowledges in the terrestrial world attempts to tackle large conservation issues through systematic action at a range of scales have often been less successful than opportunistic small-scale efforts. However, she notes that marine systems are much different than terrestrial—especially in terms of the common property nature of marine resources—and that these differences point toward large scale and cooperative solutions. Agardy concludes with the nice argument that MPAs provide a sense of place to parts of an ocean that was previously considered fairly homogeneous. She mentions some examples of regional MPA networks (such as those proposed by California’s MLPA) but it would be of particular note here if these have actually made progress on the water – coming full circle to the mismatch between “what is actually happening and what decision makers assume is happening.”

The Next Senate Commerce Committee Markup

By Sheril Kirshenbaum

The next Full Committee Markup in the Senate Commerce Committee will take place on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 at 2:30pm.

Members will consider:

1. S. 2907, the International Fisheries Stewardship and Enforcement Act

This bill would “establish uniform administrative and enforcement procedures and penalties for the enforcement of the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act and similar statutes.”  In was introduced on April 4, 2008 by Senator Daniel Inouye.

2. S. ____, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2008

3. S. ____, the National Sea Grant College Program Amendments Act of 2008

This bill would authorize and amend the National Sea Grant College Program Act.

4. Nominations for Promotion in the United States Coast Guard (PN 1668, PN 1669, PN 1752 and PN 1753)

5. Promotions in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps (PN 169

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)

By Sheril Kirshenbaum

The Coastal Zone Management Act is meant to “preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance the resources of the nation’s coastal zone.”

In 1972, Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) recognizing the importance of “meeting the challenge of continued growth in the coastal zone”. The CZMA provides for management of the nation’s coastal resources, including the Great Lakes, and balances economic development with environmental conservation. It is administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM).  The overall program objectives of CZMA are to “preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance the resources of the nation’s coastal zone.”

Two programs are outlined by the Coastal Zone Management Act: The National Coastal Zone Management Program works to balance competing land and water issues in the coastal zone through 34 coastal programs.  The National Estuarine Research Reserve System aims to provide a greater understanding of estuaries and how humans impact them.

In the last two years, OCRM in partnership with the Coastal States Organization has worked with coastal managers, stakeholders, and federal agency partners engaged to determine what improvements are necessary in future coastal management.  Together, they came up with core principles and options toward drafting a reauthorization of the CZMA.  There are three phases:

1) A discussion paper to identify current issues, constraints and opportunities for coastal management

2) The determination state coastal manager perspectives to define issues and priorities

3) Engagement of the broader coastal community to identify options for improved coastal management
Stakeholder meetings were held in Waltham, MA, Chicago, IL, Atlanta, GA, Honolulu, HI, and San Francisco, CA during the summer of 2007.   Discussions were  also held with key federal agency partners on strategies for better collaboration and coordination.

0n February 14, 2008, Representative Madeline Bordallo introduced H.R. 5451 to reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, and for other purposes. On June 4, 2008, the bill was forwarded by subcommittee to full committee by voice vote.  The reauthorization includes amendments regarding the value of appropriations and updated dates through 2011.  House Natural Resources Chairman Nick Rahall halted the bill before the committee could vote on it June 11, after House Republicans added 180 pages of amendments to expand offshore oil and gas leasing the evening before markup.

Capitol Hill Oceans Week 2008

By Sheril Kirshenbaum

Day 3

Day three of Capitol Hill Oceans Week began with a morning session on climate change.  This panel explored the watershed, titled “From Upstream Adaptation to Ocean Mitigation” and topics included mitigation and adaptation strategies to address different, yet inter-related, climate change impacts on fresh and salt-water ecosystems and the human uses associated with each.  Speakers were Representative Wayne T. Gilchrest, Craig Hooks, the Director of Office of Wetlands, Oceans & Watersheds at the EPA, Dr. Sandra Whitehouse, Executive Director of Coastal States Stewardship Foundation, Billy Frank, Jr., the Chairman of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Dr. Lara Hansen, the Executive Director & Chief Scientist
at EcoAdapt, Lisa Beever, the Director of the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program and James Lanard, the Director of Strategic Planning & Communications at Bluewater Wind.

Panel two was titled “Mitigation Options: Working to Reduce the Effects of Climate Change on the Ocean.”  The subject was the myriad of ways that individuals, communities, government, and industries play important roles in mitigating the effects of climate change.  Panelists will discuss actions that can be taken at each level to help reduce the effects of climate change.  Panelists included Representative Sam Farr, Secretary Mike Chrisman
of the California Resources Agency, Mark Spalding, the Executive Director of The Ocean Foundation, Maria Brown, the Superintendent of the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, Dennis Takahashi-Kelso, the Executive VP of Conservation Programs at The Ocean Conservancy, David M. Kennedy, the Director at NOAA’s Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, and Melinda Marquis, the Science Program Analyist at
NOAA’s Earth Science Research Lab & CIRES at the University of Colorado.

Following the second panel, a luncheon took place in the Senate Hart Office Building where the topic was Successful Ocean Partnerships.  When federal agencies, academia and industry work together, the the visibility of ocean issues increases on the national agenda.  Ocean champion (and my former boss), Senator Bill Nelson gave the keynote address followed by panelists Dr. Melbourne Briscoe, the President & CEO of OceanGeeks, LLC, Dr. Ellen Prager, the Chief Scientist with Aquarius Reef Base, and Dr. Breck Owens, Senior Scientist of Physical Oceanography at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.  The session considered how we will achieve a higher level of coordinated effort across the broad oceanographic community through partnerships. Speakers highlighted ten years of meaningful interagency, community-wide collaboration, including the ocean’s role in global climate change.

Finally, the last panel of CHOW 2008 was titled, “Charting the Course: A Conversation with Ocean Policymakers.”  Representative Madeleine Bordallo gave the keynote address and speakers included Chris Mann, the Senior Officer at the Pew Environment Group of The Pew Charitable Trusts, Eric Webster, the Director of Legislative Affairs at NOAA, Dave Jansen with the House Committee on Natural Resources in the U.S. House of Representatives, Kris Sarri with the Senate Commerce Committee, and Shimere Williams with the House Science and Techology Committee.   They discussed the ocean priorities in the next administration.

Capitol Hill Oceans Week 2008

By Sheril Kirshenbaum

Day 2

The second day of Capitol Hill Oceans Week was packed with interesting sessions and incredible speakers.  The first panel was on coral reef conservation where panelists discussed challenges, opportunities, and innovative solutions.   One of the greatest challenges to managing reefs is coordinating management across levels of government.  Speaking on corals were

Rep. Brian Baird,  Dr. C. Mark Eakin, Coordinator for NOAA’s Coral Reef Watch, Timothy R.E. Keeney, Deputy Assistant Secretary at NOAA, Dr. Sylvia Earle, Explorer in Residence with National Geographic Society, Dr. Lara Hansen, Chief Scientist and Executive Director of EcoAdapt, Dr. Rodney V. Salm, Director of Tropical Marine Conservation at The Nature Conservancy in Asia Pacifict, Nancy Knowlton, Sant Chair of Marine Science Smithsonian Institution, and Billy Causey, Regional Director of the Southeast Region for the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries.  Watch their powerpoints presentations here.  Perhaps the most inspiring moment occurred during the question and answer period when a 12 year old young lady stood up and asked panelists what they were actively doing and what she could do to save the reefs.  She got a variety of answers but no clear solution.

The next panel was on ocean and human health.  President and CEO of the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation, Lori Arguelles, introduced Senator John Kerry for his terrific keynote address.  He demonstrated an understanding of the issues and expressed our collective dependence on oceans.  Panelists included Mary M. Glackin, Deputy Undersecretary for Oceans & Atmosphere at NOAA,  Laura Burton Capps, Senior VP of Communication and Outreach at The Ocean Conservancy, and Lynn Scarlett, Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior.  Panelists discussed how human health and oceans will be impacted during times of climate change.  They emphasized the significance of robust coastal ecosystems.

Session three examined aquaculture, a hot topic on the Hill.  The panel explored the challenges of sustainability and the most environmentally responsible practices.  Panelists discussed how human health and oceans will be impacted during times of climate change.  They emphasized the significance of robust coastal ecosystems.  Session three examined aquaculture, a hot topic on the Hill.  The panel explored the challenges of sustainability and the most environmentally responsible practices.  Panelists included Dr. Michael Sutton, Vice President Monterey Bay Aquarium, José R. Villalón, Director of Aquaculture at World Wildlife Fund, Michael Rubino, manager of NOAA Aquaculture Program, Kenneth M. Leber, Director, Center for Fisheries Enhancement at Mote Marine Laboratory, Becky Goldburg, Senior Scientist at Environmental Defense Fund, Dr. Thierry Chopin, Professor of Marine Biology at the University of New Brunswick, and Neil Anthony Sims, President of Kona Blue.

The day ended with a reception at the Rayburn House Office Building to Celebrate the International Year of the Reef & Partnerships in Coral Reef Conservation

Coastal Bill MarkUp Halted By Last Minute Offshore Drilling Amendments

By Sheril Kirshenbaum

The night before markup, House republicans add over 180 pages of amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Act Reauthorization.

On the evening of June 10, Republicans added over 180 pages of amendments to a coastal management bill that would expand offshore oil and gas leasing.  Instead of going to markup as scheduled the next day, House Natural Resources Chairman Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) pulled the bill saying “I would like to avoid having protecting our nation’s coastlines becoming a partisan issue.”

The Coastal Zone Management Act reauthorization is meant to authorize new grants to help states address climate change, renewable energy and working waterfronts along the U.S. coastline. The bill is one of the only ocean legislation pieces with action this year and according to E&E Daily, Democrats said they “did not have time to review the amendments and wanted to avoid a partisan battle.”

Among the many amendments, one from Rep. Henry Brown proposes to add H.R. 6108 to the act which is a bill introduced by Rep. Sue Myrick (R-N.C) that is nearly identical to legislation from former Resources Chairman Richard Pombo approved last Congress.   The bill would relax bans on offshore oil and gas drilling.  Further, it requires the federal government to share offshore petroleum revenues with states with coastal leasing.

Rahall said he would like to bring the bill back to the committee for a vote “sooner rather than later” by resolving issues with Republicans.

Capitol Hill Oceans Week 2008

By Sheril Kirshenbaum

Day 1

From June 3-5, Hill staffers, members of the research community, and stakeholders from around the United States gathered in Washington DC for Capitol Hill Ocean Week 2008. The three day event discussed current ocean and coastal issues with panelists from Congress, academia, nonprofits and industry. This year’s theme was the effects of climate change on the oceans and session topics ranged from ocean acidification to coral reefs. The week also explored the connections between oceans and human health as well as possible solutions to the threats we now face. CHOW is an annual event where the ocean community shares stories of success and lessons learned. We discuss impending trouble and figure out what legislation may move. The event is coordinated by the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation.

Tuesday began with the keynote address by Dr. Richard W. Spinrad, Assistant Administrator of NOAA in Ocean & Atmospheric Research. You can watch his powerpoint slides on oceans and climate change here. Also speaking was Jim Connaughton, the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality.

The first panel discussed the ocean and climate change considering perspectives of the the science necessary to evaluate impacts. The large panel included Dr. Steve Murawski, Director of Scientific Programs & Chief Science Advisor for NOAA with the National Marine Fisheries Service, Dr. Victoria Fabry, Professor of Biology at California State University, Dr. James Overland, oceanographer at NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, John Ferguson, Research Fishery Biologist with NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service, Dr. Bob Gagosian, President & CEO of the Consortium for Ocean Leadership, and Dr. Caroly A. Shumway, Director of Conservation Science with the Rhode Island Chapter of The Nature Conservancy. Quite a fascinating group! They discussed sea level rise, ocean acidification, coastal habitats and biota, and more.
Click through some of the powerpoints to watch presentations:

Climate Change and the Oceans: What does the State of the Science Tell Us? – Steve Murawski

What Do We Know About the Rapidly Changing Arctic? – Dr. James Overland

The Effects of Climate Variability on Fisheries (Salmon) Resources in the Pacific NW – John Ferguson

Climate Change and Ocean Observing – Dr. Bob Gagosian

Climate Change and Biodiversity – Dr. Caroly A. Shumway
Later in the evening, the National Marine Sanctuaries Foundation presented Leadership Awards to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senator Barbara Mikulski.  This year’s Lifetime Achievement Awards went to Jean-Michel Cousteau and Dr. Sylvia Earle.