Back to PCFFA Fishermen's News Archive
In the October, 2007 PCFFA column here in Fishermen’s News (see: www.pcffa.org/fn-oct07.htm) we looked at Marine Protected Areas generically, revisiting the policy and the principles PCFFA established some years back regarding MPAs that would help make them meaningful and useful to our industry.
Unfortunately, the reality of such processes is often far different from that ideal. What we thought would be useful in this issue is to look at what’s actually happening on the ground with MPA establishment under California’s highly touted Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA).
The workings of the MLPA process in California is worth examining here because it’s both the first large-scale effort at establishing MPAs in U.S. coastal waters, and it’s also being promoted as a model for the rest of the nation. We thought we’d look behind the press releases to the actual process and implementation, including the failures of that process and mistakes being made that should be avoided.
PCFFA’s involvement with what are called marine “protected” areas spans nearly a decade now. It was in December 1997 when the late Nat Bingham, who headed PCFFA’s conservation efforts, laid out before a state legislative committee a proposal for three types of protected ocean areas – four if marine parks are considered. We say “ocean areas” here, because the idea of designating specific inland waterways for protection had first been suggested over a century before when the Klamath River watershed was proposed as a protected area for conserving Pacific salmon stocks.
The Legislature was holding the hearing following the issuance of a report by Sea Grant’s Deborah McArdle on the California’s chaotic system of protected ocean areas, after the much-deserved veto of legislation that would have created a large exclusive no-fishing zone in the ocean in front of Malibu mansions solely so the wealthy residents there would not have to look out and watch their seafood being caught.
What Bingham put forward, and what subsequently served as the basis for PCFFA’s MPA principles, were three types of areas:
Protected Species. The first type of MPA recommended by Bingham was based on an idea suggested some years before by urchin fishermen to designate certain areas in the ocean as no-take zones specifically for protection of a species or complex of species – in this instance the divers were thinking about “broadcast spawning” and even rotating closures. Keep in mind these were not complete no-take zones, since fishing for other species would still be permitted. This was seen as a management tool for protecting particular resident species or spawning areas. They were not seen as having much if any value for highly migratory species, nor anadromous species where the critical habitat needing protection was in the fish’s natal rivers and streams. The concept of closures for designated species later proved to have merit off New England. Remember, these were not total fishing closures, but only closures for specified species, something like the current Rockfish Conservation Area currently in effect off the Pacific Coast.
Protected Habitats. The second type of MPA recommended was that to protect critical or sensitive habitats – including coral reefs, rocky hard bottom structure and kelp forests. Here again, some fishing and other human activity was allowed, but certain gears, such as bottom trawls or dredges, might be prohibited to protect habitat. For example an area of the coast may have some of its hard bottom habitat put off limits to the use of bottom trawls, while soft bottom habitats, where the seafloor was dynamic – constantly moving and where species had evolved around continual disruption - would be allowed for use of this gear. Some of the recent trawl closures by the Pacific Council in the groundfish fishery to protect essential fish habitat are examples of what Bingham was proposing.
Completely Protected Areas. Finally, a limited number of marine areas were proposed that would be as devoid as possible of all human activity, save for very limited research incursions. These would serve to provide baseline information to measure the impact of human activity on outside marine waters. The area offshore the University of California’s Bodega Marine Laboratory was one such area given as an example, where PCFFA supported such a total ban. These were areas selected for their physical attributes as well as having good water quality (i.e., relatively certain of remaining free from pollution and spills) and where bans on shipping, fishing, recreation and eco-tourism could also be enacted.
Placing MPAs in a management context, Bingham was clear these would only work where sound fishing and stringent anti-pollution and anti-dumping regulations were also in place and, indeed, these MPAs would be of little value without outside protections in place. MPAs, thus were not central to fishery and ocean conservation, but complimentary to broader protection.
PCFFA followed (shortly after Bingham’s death in May 1998) by establishing its MPA principles and working on language to establish the 1999 MLPA legislation. While the MLPA has proven problematic, as we point out below, it was seen then as important for a number of reasons. It set up standards (through unfortunately the proponents insisted on mucking up the simple elegance of what Bingham had put forward) for establishing different types of MPAs, thus helping thwart Malibu-type legislation driven by beachfront owners rather than ecosystem concerns. Under the legislation, MPAs were to be science-based, not politically-based, and fishermen were to be fully involved in the selection process.
The MLPA reflects a lot of compromise, to be sure, given the various parties involved in its crafting - including many with little, if any, experience in ocean conservation or fishery management. What was finally passed and signed, though, was much better that that initially proposed by some of the environmental advocates. The real problem with the MLPA is what has followed since – with the process and what we’re seeing in the initial implementation.
We don’t intend to rehash the issues raised in the February 2007 FN article, “MPAs and Marine Reserves - Real Marine Conservation or Ecosystem Protection Fraud?” (see: www.pcffa.org/fn-feb07.htm) but, rather, look at what has transpired in the past 10 months and listen to the voices of some of those who are directly involved in the process or who have been affected by the MLPA.
It is not our intent here to bash environmental groups, scientists, agencies or some of the private foundations. Nor is it our claim that MPAs have no value, because they can be beneficial in limited instances and appropriate applications, especially when there are complimentary actions taking place in outside ocean waters - from good fishing regulations to strict water quality enforcement.
PCFFA has had a 30 year working relationship with a lot of these environmental organizations to protect estuaries, rivers and watersheds, fighting offshore oil and now the Bush Administration’s lame plan for open ocean aquaculture. The quality of that work has been outstanding. We’ve worked with and rely on many scientists. and also worked closely with many agencies, often to back them up when they’ve had the courage to do the right thing and fighting to get them the funding they need. And the foundations have been generous in helping fund conservation work undertaken by fishermen – much of it critical to our survival.
Our frustration is that with MPAs it seems like every village idiot (we’d consider the President and his Northern Hawaiian declaration here) or batty aunt in the attic has now come out leading the charge for these reserves. The hype and hysteria they have created over a relatively minor conservation tool (in the context of much larger and more important implements) has been frustrating and counterproductive in effectively addressing the protection of our oceans. Indeed, we’re likely to strangle the next ideologue who comes around mouthing moronic phrases like “ocean wilderness,” or that MPAs are “our last, best hope,” or statements that “fishery management doesn’t work” (it can and has). The zealousness of some of these MPA proponents is only exceeded by their ignorance and arrogance.
With Oregon poised to begin under a plan by the Governor to establish its own series of MPAs, after rejecting a proposal for a state-wide ocean sanctuary (which we’d argue would be preferable to MPAs) and other state’s intrigued with by MPAs from the stream of press releases coming out of California about “landmark” protection, let’s do a quick review and hear from some fishermen and others involved in California’s process.
The California Legislature, when it passed the MLPA, provided no appropriation or new money to fund the process. It was, in essence, an unfunded mandate. Unfortunately, just about the time the state was ready to start the MLPA process, California was going through a fiscal meltdown brought on by the ENRON Company and others ramping and gaming the energy markets.
Thus after an initial fitful start, there was a hiatus for a couple years before some private foundation monies were found by MPA advocates to start the process up again. The problem was that the money was mainly for the process to site the MPAs, with little thought for the on-going scientific assessments that would be needed thereafter to determine their effectiveness, if any.
The worst part regarding the financial situation, however, was not that the state didn’t fund implementation of the MLPA initially, nor that private funds had to be used -- raising questions about the potential influence of foundations over the process -- but that money that is badly needed for fisheries enforcement, development of fishery management plans, and needed for enforcement of water rights (i.e., illegal take of water) and water quality is now even more scarce. Indeed, the number of enforcement personnel charged with enforcing water rights and water quality in California is even more paltry than the current number of Fish & Game wardens.
What all this means, in effect, is that there is a far greater likelihood that those areas slated as “off limits for fishing” will instead be polluted, or that species transiting these areas will be placed at far greater risk outside the boundaries of the MPA, today than before.
The question that needs asking when MPAs are proposed is where is the money for the process coming from and, more importantly, where are the funds for the initial assessment, and for the on-going monitoring that will be required to see if the MPA even works. And what about the socio-economic impacts? Certainly these have to be considered when deciding between MPAs and other management measures, as well as be factored into the design of MPAs to begin with.
The other financial question that has to be asked is whether funding an MPA process will impair funds for fishery management, enforcement, and water quality. Unless new funds are allocated for the MPA process -- not simply a reallocation of funds from fishery management, enforcement or water protection -- an MPA process can actually harm ocean protection rather than help it.
Perhaps the primary question to be asked when considering the establishment of MPAs is what is their purpose and what is it they’re trying to protect? While advocates approach MPAs with a great deal of certainty about their need and their benefits, that certainty begins turning to mush under close scrutiny. People need to be clear about what specifically they are attempting to do in an MPA and how that differs from other measures (e.g., regular fishery management). They also have to be clear about what it is they are trying to protect. Neither question has ever really been clearly answered in the California MLPA process, with a long list of contradictory responses to those questions being given.
When further pressed about MPAs and what they are supposed to protect, it is usually clear they are intended to protect against fishing only. While there has been talk about including water quality in the protections for the North Central Coast under California’s MLPA, to date it is only fishing that has been restricted. This seems to be the case most everywhere else as well – only fishing is being restricted.
In the Philippines, for example, a large no-take marine reserve was recently smothered in an oil spill because fishing was the only activity restricted, not oil transport. So much for that “protected marine area.” Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, hailed as the premiere marine protected area in the world, is also suffering from pollution from onshore agriculture. What MPAs are in reality are not true “protected areas,” but just simple no fishing zones. When fishing is not the real problem, as often it is not, these protections are simply meaningless.
Another question that should be asked is why not just use existing fishery management measures to enact area closures if its fish you’re really concerned with. The response, of course, is this is not about fishery management, it’s about “protecting ecosystems.” Yet, the only action usually being restricted to protect these ecosystems is fishing. In California, as well as under federal regulations, fisheries managers are allowed, even directed, to consider ecosystem affects as well. However, that’s apparently not enough for the MPA zealots.
The fact is that MPAs are all about fisheries, since when asked about the benefits of an MPA, all their advocates can say is they may bring about more fish or bigger fish, or broadcast spawning. Interesting, since all of these benefits can be achieved, and in some cases are already being achieved with the normal set of fishery regulation tools.
What we have seen to date, then, among so many MPA proponents is arrogance – thinking they know what’s right, and ignorance – knowing very little about the marine environment or its management workings, combined with a high degree of zealousness and duplicity.
Although not required under the statute, when the MLPA process got started again the Resources Agency thought it’d be best to establish a “Blue Ribbon Panel” to oversee the process. Those selected were to be (with the exception of the oil industry representative), disinterested, neutral third parties – in other words, folks with vast experience in public policy but who knew absolutely nothing about the marine environment. Consider it a kind of council of Solomons.
Apparently somebody had forgotten their history lessons. The idea of disinterested third parties sitting to provide objective judgment sounds good in principle, but in reality what you really end up with is a gaggle of dilettantes. The Chair of the Blue Ribbon Panel actually thought they did a good job -- since everyone was unhappy. Keep in mind that in the law we require Judges (at least now) to have had legal training and experience in practicing law, before being named to the Bench. In this MLPA process, it would have been far better to have had folks that actually understood marine ecosystems and knew the questions to ask.
The Blue Ribbon Panel has since been reconstituted for the North Central Coast (approximately Half Moon Bay to Point Arena) following the establishment of the MPAs for California’s South Central Coast (an area extending from north of Santa Cruz to south of Avila). There was hope the North Coast process would work out better. After all, this is the part of California where fishermen and environmentalists have had a longer collaborative relationship than probably any place else in the country. If they can’t work it out here, where can these differences be worked out? Instead, it may be that the 40-year plus relationship between enviros and fishermen gets broken up right there with the process that has been instituted and the intemperate remarks of some of the environmental group Johnny-come lately types.
PCFFA had envisioned a process where fishermen and scientists could sit down, share their notes – scientists identifying the types of habitat characteristics they were looking for, fishermen sharing their knowledge of these areas and then together selecting those that would be the most suitable to meet the criteria being sought while having the least amount of impact on fishing.
What has instead happened, first for the South Central coast and now we’re beginning to see it for the North Central area, is that the stakeholder group is divided up by interest, and then each interest is asked to submit its own map with proposed areas. There is little or no room for collaboration. Other than eliminating a lot of discussion that would be useful among all of the stakeholders, this process also leaves the one group that knows the coast the best -- the commercial fishermen -- off on their own. This is the way they’ve been marginalized. Their knowledge counts for nothing, and worse, because they’re identified as “industry” stakeholders, their recommendations are dismissed largely out of hand by the Blue Ribbon Panel and subsequently by the Fish & Game Commission.
Unlike the federal MPAs established off the Florida Keys, where fishermen fully participated in a lengthy and deliberative process before any actions were taken, and then taken only after careful consideration of the impacts on fishing, there has been a real rush to put MPAs in off the California coast regardless of the consequences.
The question should be, what is all the hurry for, since there are no threats out there from fishing? Fishing is already under severe restriction in these areas, yet fishing is the only activity these proposed MPAs would restrict. Unfortunately, that question is ignored, leading only to speculation that NGO foundation funders are demanding results from the state and the NGOs. The attitude seems to be “put something in place the sooner the better, preferably as big as possible, and damn the consequences to the fishermen.”
This rush has already led to areas critical to nearshore fishermen along with those for spot prawn fishermen being closed – in some instances effectively putting those people out of the fishing business. The tragedy is that some of the same ecosystem benefits (whatever those were) could have been achieved by selecting other areas (where there was less of a fishing impact), had the process taken the time needed and fishermen’s recommendations been heeded.
Here are some direct quotes from fishermen deeply involved in the California MLPA process:
‘This [MLPA] is a misdirected, shotgun approach to resource management. It has been billed as the end-all, fix all, cure to whatever is or can be a problem on or with the ocean. ……In an environment based in chaos you cannot draw lines in our coastal waters and expect somehow that will protect everything for time immemorial. Sure some species will benefit to a small degree, but without a more wholistic approach we will only change predator-prey relationships and cause undo hardships on all of those people and communities involved.”……………..Half Moon Bay fisherman Duncan MacLean.
“At the most recent Science Advisory Team meeting John Largier (oceanographer) asked this question: ‘Is fishing the only human activity we’re concerned with? What about discharges, oil exploration?’ The answer was that the Fish and Game Commission only has authority over fishing and that oil exploration is already prohibited. John says ‘oil exploration may not always be prohibited. This is the same argument you use when you say that a fish species which is already protected, that it may not always be protected.’”…..San Francisco fisherman Barbara Emley (former Chair of the Gulf of Farallones Sanctuary Advisory Committee).
“There is a general feeling of depression among fishermen that now hangs very heavy over our docks. You can see it and feel it when you talk to these guys. The State’s bullying of fishermen in the MLPA process, the disregard for the conservation contributions of existing fishery management, the deliberate avoidance of true scientific debate over the MPA guidelines, and, as you well know, the not just poor but false socioeconomic information developed by the State -- all have created a feeling among most of the fellows that the State, and even perhaps society, does not value what they do to provide fresh seafood and earn a living. There is a core of fishing folks who will stay with it, and try to adapt, but there are others who seem to me to be just saying ‘this is the last straw...I can't risk my/family’s future when these kinds of management decisions are made so recklessly,’ and are/will give up. I have estimated to my City Council that we will lose another 30 boats over the next couple of years, due directly or indirectly to the MLPA process and the new MPAs. I still stand by that estimate. I wonder if there isn't some kind of poll or interview process that could document this depression? And, of course we now have the Monterey Sanctuary considering even more MPAs out in federal waters…..” Monterey Harbormaster Steve Scheiblauer.
“….[I]t will take time for the effects of the Central Coast MLPA network to be felt and measured reliably -- although the social and economic effects should be detectable long before the ecological effects -- and likely more apparent/readily measured (though there are challenges to teasing apart effects of MPAs versus other factors).”…….. UC Santa Cruz Researcher Carrie Pomeroy.
“I would add that the non-pay and abandoned boat problems caused by things like MLPA is really snowballing here. Got another Gulf Coast shrimper that was a spot prawn trawler when Fish & Game terminated that fishery. He didn’t have any permits for 18 months or something, then got a trap permit he can’t sell/transfer, borrowed money to gear up, but he doesn’t really know how to execute the fishery and has too big a boat for it anyway, so he is in the process of abandoning it. We get to spend $20,000 to acquire the boat, chase him into bankruptcy and pay for demolition so that it doesn't just sink in the harbor. A lot of things like this take years to manifest and I suspect we will see a substantial number of abandoned boats out of the near shore fisheries from the MLPA also. It's not just fishermen that are depressed.”………Morro Bay Harbormaster Rick Algert.
“As everyone knows the first phase of MPAs is in place on the Central Coast, and those of us here in Morro Bay in the commercial fishing industry were certainly not very pleased with the scope and breadth of these MPAs. They have hit particularly hard many of our best salmon tacks, even though it was indicated in the process by several of the SAT members that it would have no scientific value as monitoring salmon is not possible. Of course the nearshore fishermen got hit the worst with a major loss of all the headlands in this area to their fishery. These devastations aside we will list below some unexpected consequences of these MPAs that we, our harbors, and our cities are having to deal with at this very moment:
1. Only sportfishing for finfish is allowed in Morro Bay. The take of any living marine resource other than finfish is not allowed. Our harbor department while working on our next dredge proposal realized this would include no dredging in Morro Bay. After a call to the Dept. of Fish & Game, that was confirmed and they indicated at that time a permit would have to be applied for, and they ‘may’ issue one.
2. A Cal Poly professor while testing bottom paint on panels suspended from a raft in Morro Bay had indicated to the Fish & Game that various animals that adhere naturally to boat bottoms, such as barnacles and mussels, would be attached to these panels. Fish & Game indicated he would need a permit.
3. Although we have not had the chance to inquire because of the restrictions in Nos. 1 and 2 above, we will be inquiring as to whether it will be illegal to clean the bottoms of our boats here in Morro Bay as we expect it must be.
4. Children, and visitors, and people who are used to tossing a crab ring off of our piers can no longer do so as crabs are not finned fish. This also applies to taking mussels off of pilings, or clams, or any other mollusk or crustacean or even a worm.
5. We have many people here in Morro Bay, especially the retired group, that spend their time fishing for perch. The market here pays about $3.00 and these people can make a supplemental income. Their main source of bait is ghost shrimp that are pumped from the various mudflats in the Bay. They are now deprived of their source of bait.
6. Through this MPA process, as my wife and I sat in on nearly every single meeting as members of the stakeholder group for our area, we were told of the collaborative research that would be taking place. As a matter of fact and record collaborative research involving commercial fishermen was ‘guaranteed’ by the Blue Ribbon Task Force. When we indicated to them that collaborative research had been promised us dozens of times over the years and it amounted to nothing more than talk, at that point we were given verbal guarantees that it would take place in all of the research involving these MPAs ‘as that is what this MPA process was all about.” The Dept. of Fish & Game cut the budget in this, the very first step in this MLPA, and the commercial fishing research area was the first cut. We currently have no participation in the research taking place now.
These are a few of the things that come to mind, and there are probably much more with additional thought or asking others for more detail. Dwelling long on this subject gives me a headache.”……..Morro Bay commercial fisherman Jeremiah O’Brien.
“The Oceana rep, who says he eats fish, would ‘like to see the RCA memorialized’ and a ‘no disturbance zone’ from Muir beach to the SF Zoo out to three miles. He not only doesn't want us to fish, he also wants to imprison us in the bay just in case. Maybe he’s silly but it isn’t too hard to look up from him and see where the strings lead. I'm doing the best I can to prove Cassandra wrong, but it’s starting to become a feeding frenzy, and if you're familiar with Greek tragedy, Clytemnestra’s drawing the bath water.” …….John Mellor, Commercial Fisherman.
We recognize that our oceans are in a precarious state. Global warming, pollution, and overfishing that still occurs in many parts of the world are serious threats to our oceans and the planet. Truly something needs to be done and fishermen -- both because of their knowledge and their economic stake in protecting the marine environment -- need to be in the lead with scientists in this fight for ocean and planetary survival.
As we’ve said before, we believe marine protected areas may have some limited conservation benefit for fishermen and the environment, when property placed and managed. But everyone needs to stand back and gain perspective here.
MPAs will work only if there are effective fishing regulations and strong water quality measures in place in all of our ocean waters also, not just these little “green zones” (Baghdad comes to mind) in the ocean. All of us -- fishermen, scientists, agencies, environmental organizations, foundations -- really need to get our priorities in order on the MPA issue.
Yeah, its fine that someone works on MPAs, provided it’s in a thoughtful and deliberative setting, is sensitive to both fishermen and the environment, is clear on what the purpose is and the necessary follow up research is funded. But our energy and resources are needed for the bigger battles -- the ones that will make the difference whether we preserve and rebuild our fisheries, the ones to protect our oceans globally, the ones ultimately to save this fragile planet from past human folly.
To this end, all of our efforts would be better spent ensuring our fishery management succeeds by providing it the funds, the science, and the backing it needs. Our efforts are better spent working to renew and strengthen our 35 year-old Clean Water Act to ensure our waters are fishable and our fish are edible. Our efforts are better spent in developing ways to reduce carbon emissions into the atmosphere – they not only warm the planet but make our oceans more acidic. And, our efforts are better spent developing ways to adjust to and counter the global warming that will occur while we work to curtail its source.
Our biggest frustration with the MPAs process is more than the loss of fishing grounds and curtailed fisheries, it’s the diversion this increasingly bitter skirmish represents from the real and now global fight for true ocean protections, and increasingly for planetary survival.
Glen Spain is the Northwest Regional Director for the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations with offices in Eugene, OR, reachable at PO Box 11170, Eugene, OR 97440-3370, (541)689-2000. Zeke Grader is Executive Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, headquartered in San Francisco, reachable at PO Box 29370, San Francisco, CA 94129-0370, (415)561-5080. PCFFA can be reached by email at: fish1ifr@aol.com, and on the Web at: www.pcffa.org.