Back to PCFFA Fishermen's News Archive
Even hard-bitten biologists can succumb to the temptations of fads and fashionable ideas. One of the more trendy things these days among marine biologists and many marine conservationists (particularly those who criticize commercial fishing) is the whole concept of “marine reserves,” or more technically, “marine protected areas” (MPAs). These are often thought of as broad areas of the ocean in which there should never again be “commercial exploitation” (usually meaning commercial fishing, but often overlooking other impacts that are worse). Naturally this whole concept, presented that way, sends a lot of people in our industry ballistic because it looks like nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to put us out of business. Sometimes it is just that.
Worse, some ocean sport fishing groups have in the past championed imposing marine protected areas in their favorite coastal regions – but not to protect the marine environment, merely to push commercial fishing boats out so they can fish there themselves. In other words, the concept of marine protected areas has been misused as a reallocation weapon by one fishing sector to push out another. Sport fishing support for MPAs only shifted when it became obvious that the cumulative harvest impact from all those thousands of largely unregulated party boats was going to be far greater than the dozens of well-regulated commercial boats they were trying to push out. Then the environmentalists and other marine protected area advocates started talking about pushing the party boats out too.
Much has happened since we last wrote on this topic in this column in 1999 (see “Marine Protected Areas: Friend or Foe?” in the Feb. 1999 FN, www.pcffa.org/fn-feb99.htm). For instance, on 26 May 2002 President Clinton issued Executive Order No. 13158 (65 Federal Register 34909-34911; also available at: http://mpa.gov/executive_order/execordermpa.pdf), instructing federal agencies to develop a national system of marine protected areas, and a new NOAA Marine Protected Area Center suddenly sprang into being (see http://mpa.gov). A 30-member Marine Protected Area Federal Advisory Committee now meets regularly to craft unified national MPA policies, and various draft policy and implementation guidelines are still out for public comment. Commercial fishermen, however, are nearly absent from these forums.
More recently, specific marine protected areas off limits to most fishing were established off the California Channel Islands, and greatly expanded around the Hawaiian Islands. Whether this is ultimately going to be good or bad for our industry is still open for debate, but in the short-term this certainly means more closures. Both were imposed against the protests of the commercial fishing industry. The Channel Islands process was also so deeply flawed, and fishermen who would be impacted were initially so cut out of the processes, that it left a very bad taste for the whole topic – and also violated several of the important Principles (see below) that PCFFA believes are essential for these types of decisions.
Even more recently, Governor Kulongoski of Oregon proposed designating the entire Oregon State territorial coastline as one large “marine sanctuary” under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.), just like the already existing sanctuaries around California’s Farallones Islands, Monterey Bay and elsewhere. The Oregon Governor’s Ocean Policy Advisory Council (www.oregon.gov/LCD/OPAC/index.shtml) is also debating how to implement a system of marine protected areas that OPAC voted by a slim majority to support years ago, but with every fishing industry representative voting against it. The Oregon proposals are also a response to the federal threat of resumption of massive offshore oil and gas exploitation, a very real threat under the current Bush Administration for the whole west coast. Oil development (but not limited fishing) is prohibited in designated marine sanctuaries – one of the reasons the fishing industry has supported such designations in the past.
Commercial fishermen everywhere are suspicious of these efforts – as well they should be in many cases. However, using marine protected areas as a fisheries habitat conservation tool also has some sound support in science, and (if properly designed and implemented) could be a way to protect and sustain commercial fishing in the long run. Though the conservation promise of marine protected areas does not always pan out, and has been questioned by scientists themselves (including Dr. Ray Hilborn, who called current marine reserves theory “faith based”), there are now several well-done scientific studies which do show that protecting fish nursery areas can increase nearby fishing opportunities in the long-term, though perhaps at the price of short-term restrictions. Thus the whole issue is worth a closer and more objective look.
At present, only 1/4th of one percent of the ocean environment is protected from all the various potential forms of human exploitation. Many ocean scientists say that is just too little to assure stable populations of many species, which – like land animals – are very dependent on often very fragile as well as very limited habitats.
In that context, marine protected areas could (again, if properly designed and implemented) be used to protect essential nursery and rearing areas for juvenile fish so that long-term sustainable breeding populations of these fish can persist in these nurseries. Since most fish are going to eventually wander outside those areas as adults, such reserves may help commercial fishermen, rather than hinder them, by always maintaining a steady adult population for harvest nearby. Used that way, shouldn't fishermen support them?
Marine protected areas as currently designated are also not necessarily no-fishing zones. Fishing may be banned in some, lightly restricted or unrestricted in others, depending on how they are designated, how they are managed and what species or habitats they are intended to protect.
Protections may also vary by species and type of fishery. An MPA to protect bottom coral nursery areas for rockfish, for instance, might make sense for rockfish – but be completely irrelevant for migrating salmon who swim through in three dimensions nowhere near the bottom, would be in the “protected area” for at most a few days of their life-cycle, and are typically harvested with upper-ocean troll gear that has no impact whatsoever on bottom corals. Indeed, the best way to protect ocean salmon runs is to protect the inland watersheds where salmon come from, not in fixed ocean areas they only transit for a short time.
Additionally, MPAs should be protected from other impacts than fishing, including tanker traffic, oil and gas development, ocean aquaculture, estuarine water pollution and deep-sea mining. It does no good to protect an area from fishing when fishing impacts are much less destructive than, say, a major oil spill. There are instances elsewhere in the world where oil tankers have run aground in so-called “marine protected areas” that were never protected from these much more serious and long-lasting ecological threats.
PCFFA has long sought to bring more common sense to the debate as well as point out the pitfalls at either extreme. The one thing that is certain is that we cannot escape the debate itself. The issue of MPAs is clearly upon us, and it is important that our industry develop a rational and science-based position. Just saying “no” or denying the pressure to establish MPAs as a knee-jerk response will not get us anywhere, but only discredit us as reactionary. Likewise a blind endorsement of the no-take MPA concept all over the ocean (20% or more), as some environmental and ocean protection groups are doing, is equally stupid and short-sighted. MPAs in the wrong places for the wrong reasons, just to meet some sort of artificial quota, will not work and will discredit the whole concept as well as cause great and unnecessary economic harm.
A thoughtful middle ground on MPAs, based on the best available science, looking at every proposal on a case-by-case basis on its own merits to see what needs to be protected and how best to protect it, and with a healthy dose of skepticism for both extremes, is probably the best approach. The devil is always in the details, and the supposed benefits of such protections still need to be verified through the best available science.
Everyone knows the horrors caused by rampant overfishing. Many of our brethren have been thrown out of work in New England, in the west coast groundfish fishery, and elsewhere when overfishing is allowed to occur, even encouraged, by short-sighted fishery managers. We are also all painfully aware of the serious problems caused by fish habitat destruction, including the impacts of certain types of fishing gear on rocky bottoms and coral reefs. Numerous reports (both nationally and internationally) have also come to the conclusion that whole chunks of the ocean ecosystem are being overexploited, particularly in nations with far fewer environmental controls than ours.
While some of the concerns expressed by certain marine conservation groups may be overly alarmist, there are still plenty of reasons for fishermen to be concerned about the long-term sustainability of the world’s ocean resources. Unfortunately, the public usually blames the poor fisherman for this plight -- like blaming the victim for the crime -- without looking any deeper.
Uninformed attacks on commercial fishing by concerned citizen groups are often misplaced or simplistic, but reactionary counter-attacks make us all look worse. Hunkering down into a bunker mentality of denial, and then lobbing press releases and lawsuits at each other, also never works. There are plenty of examples showing that denial or intransigence on such public issues only leads to a broad public backlash.
The fact is that economic dislocation caused by the collapse of a fishery always hits fishermen first, longest and hardest. PCFFA has always believed that fishermen, of all people, should therefore be the first to condemn overfishing or fish habitat destruction, and work hardest to prevent it. In that way we continue to earn the public's trust as a user of a public resource – not to mention, helping to protect our futures.
We also believe the fishing industry and the public has a right to demand a science-based approach to creating solutions. We already know what public policy looks like when there is NO science to support it -- we have often been the victims of that approach ourselves.
Several reports by the National Research Council (the science policy review arm of the American Association for the Advancement of Science) have reviewed the scientific evidence for and against marine protected areas at the request of Congress, and concluded that while MPAs could be a useful tool for protecting and enhancing fisheries there are still too many unknowns to demonstrate their effectiveness conclusively. One report, “Sustaining Marine Fisheries,” is available in hardback from the National Academy Press (Box 285, Washington, DC 20055, (800) 624-6242 or from their Web site bookstore at: www.nap.edu/bookstore, looking under “marine protected areas”).
Other recent NRC publications relevant here include “Marine Protected Areas” (2001), and “Effects of Trawling and Dredging on Seafloor Habitat” (2002). All are available from that NRC web site. These scientific reviews should be required reading for anyone taking on this issue.
In summary, our industry should not approach the marine protected area issue with fear and loathing, but as an opportunity to help assure the sustainability of our industry. At present the debate has been carried mostly by various marine conservation organizations and scientists rather than by fishermen themselves. It is time to change that. However, there is no reason we cannot find a common agenda with others on this issue, nor any reason on land or sea why fishermen of all people should not be taking the lead in making marine protected areas as useful a tool as possible -- when appropriate for the protection of the ecosystems we depend upon for our livelihoods. Let's lead the way once again rather than be followers.
If properly structured, and if based on sound biological principles of conservation, marine protected areas are worthy of serious consideration as yet another potential fisheries management tool. This does not mean they are a panacea by any means, nor that they will solve all our conservation problems, nor that all the many other tried and already proven fishery management tools we now use should be abandoned. Far from it. In many cases, particularly on the west coast, the already-existing fishery management tools are serving us well, and there is often no “problem” to “fix” with marine protected areas.
However, if such protections can be objectively shown to be a useful tool through good science, we should probably add them to the tool box – but to be used only if and when such a tool is needed.
In February of 2002, after years of debate, the PCFFA Board of Directors carefully considered the pros and cons of marine protected areas and concluded that each idea should be considered on its own merits, and judged by certain Principles, which the PCFFA Board adopted and which are set forth below. Those Principles are still an effective guideline in this debate and they are offered again here for your consideration.
For more information on the MPA debate, also see the PCFFA website at: www.pcffa.org/MPA.htm. See also the February, 2007 FN article, “MPAs and Marine Reserves: Real Marine Conservation or Ecosystem Protection Fraud?” (www.pcffa.org/fn-feb07.htm).
PCFFA is the west coast's largest organization of commercial fishing families. Zeke Grader is PCFFA's Executive Director, and Glen Spain its Northwest Regional Director. PCFFA's Northwest Regional Office can be reached at: PO Box 11170, Eugene, OR 97440-3370, (541)689-2000 or Fax:(541)689-2500. PCFFA's Southwest Regional Office can be reached at: PO Box 29370, San Francisco, CA 94129-0370, (415)561-5080 or Fax: (415)561-5464. PCFFA's Web site address is: www.pcffa.org and PCFFA can be reached by email at: fish1ifr@aol.com.
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) occur along the coast of California and many other coastal areas of the nation. The sizes, purposes, and regulations on use of these areas vary greatly, as do the terms to describe them. Some, for example, have few restrictions, while others may be complete “no-take” areas. MPAs have garnered much attention recently among researchers and marine advocacy groups as a tool for fishery management, protecting marine habitats, or preserving unique marine ecosystems. While MPAs may offer promise for the conservation and management of marine fisheries and their habitats, much is unknown about what benefit, if any, has been derived from existing MPAs for the conservation and management of marine fish and their habitats (other than in small, localized areas) or what benefit may be derived from the establishment of new MPAs. To date, there has been a great deal of hype, but precious little science.
Although MPAs may offer potential benefits for marine fish resources and their habitats, they may pose a real danger, too, if strict adherence to good science is not maintained regarding their purposes and siting. MPAs, particularly those imposing no-take, could result in vast areas of prime fishing grounds being “locked up,” which could needlessly impact fishery production. Moreover, no-take MPAs may result in heavier fishing or other activities outside of their boundaries, exacerbating rather than resolving fish resource problems. MPAs, by themselves, may also create a false sense of security about fishery resources -- neither fish nor currents respect artificial boundaries.
In California, for example, reserves have been in existence for as long as 39 years, yet little data exists regarding their overall performance. To date no funding has been dedicated to ongoing monitoring of these reserves, even in the developing Channel Islands process. The fishing industry does not support the establishment of any reserve without a structure for assessing its performance and the funding for that assessment, nor of any reserve whose establishment is inconsistent with the principles of this document.
To initiate a rational and science-based discussion on MPAs, mindful of the need to conserve and manage fish resources on a sustainable basis, and to protect marine habitats and ecosystems and the fisheries that depend on these fish resources, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations establishes the following principles:
1. No establishment of an MPA shall inhibit sustainable fisheries within that MPA that have negligible impacts on the habitats or species of concern.
2. MPAs are not a substitute for other forms of fishery management, including seasons, quotas, or gear restrictions, nor shall MPAs be a substitute for prohibitions on pollution, dumping, or the introduction of exotic species.
3. MPAs shall not be used as a tool to reallocate resource use. Creation of any zones for recreational fishing only, or for dive fishing only, must be balanced by creation of zones of comparable value for commercial fishing only.
4. Planning and management for the marine environment must be done on a regional scale, and be catch-based and multiple-use. The planning approach must ensure participation by stakeholders and other interested parties from the beginning. Land use and other non-fishing impacts must also be addressed.
5. Methodologies and criteria for assessing performance of all MPAs must be developed before new MPAs are implemented; this includes funding for performance assessments.
6. The review of the effectiveness of existing MPAs, as well as the siting and establishment of any new MPAs, must include fishing men and women from both the commercial and sport sectors. This is necessary not only because MPAs affect or could affect fishing areas, but more importantly because fishermen have an intimate and working knowledge of the marine environment, including that of many areas of the ocean where there has been no research.
7. A thorough and science-based review needs to take place of all existing marine protected areas along the U.S. Pacific coast to determine their effectiveness for either: a) providing baseline research information; b) protecting critical marine habitats; or c) protecting specific marine fish or organisms. This review should be undertaken by a panel, including marine scientists, appropriate fishery agency representatives, knowledgeable commercial and sport fishermen, and knowledgeable marine conservation representatives, and will include a report with recommendations for each existing MPA and no-fishing zone as to its effectiveness and whether there should be any changes in regulations and boundaries, and whether it should be maintained, reduced, expanded, or eliminated, and why. A similar review must be conducted of the types and effectiveness of MPAs in use in other parts of the world to provide the state, scientists, and the fishing industry guidance on whether new MPAs should be established offshore California and other states and, if so, what their objectives should be, their appropriate size, and types of regulations for their use. It is important to recognize the uniqueness of the U.S. Pacific Coast when developing objectives. Measures that are appropriate in tropical waters may not be appropriate here.
8. If, after thorough review, there is a decision to proceed with revising current MPAs or establishing new ones, the objectives of each MPA must be stated clearly; i.e., whether it is to provide baseline research, protect habitat, or protect specific species, or some combination thereof. Regulations for use of the MPA must be appropriate to the objectives. A reasonable time frame for meeting the MPA’s objectives must be included.
9. The regulation of the types of use to be permitted in each MPA can and should vary depending on the objectives of the MPA, with MPAs established as any one of three or more types, including those to protect habitats, those to protect specific species of marine fish or organisms, and those where take is prohibited.
10. Where no-take MPAs may be established, not only must all types of fishing be prohibited, but so too must any unpermitted scientific collection or any other form of removal from within the boundary of the MPA be prohibited. No dumping or introduction of pollutants shall be permitted in any no-take MPA, and human access shall be greatly restricted in order to maintain the pristine condition of the MPA and its value for baseline research.
11. In the siting of any new MPAs, factors to be considered shall include the uniqueness of the area, its biological productivity/diversity or special habitats, the human impacts on that area (including fishing, other types of aquatic harvesting or collection, pollution, and structural changes such as dumping, artificial reefs, or oil rigs). Siting shall be based solely on the evidence regarding the site itself and without regard to proximity of existing parks, marine sanctuaries, or research institutions.
12. Recent changes in fishery management practices, fishing effort, and gear types used must be included in consideration of any new MPAs so as not to use MPAs to address problems already addressed by existing fisheries management. The entire existing and proposed web of federal and state fisheries regulations applicable to the area must be considered in designing any new MPA.
13. In the establishment of any new MPAs, careful consideration shall be given to what, if any, impacts the establishment may have on fishing, or the use of certain types of fishing gear, what impacts an MPA may have on fishing effort outside the MPA boundary, and what steps can be taken to mitigate any impacts on fishing from the establishment of an MPA. Any such impacts shall be distributed among fishermen in a fair and equitable manner. Every effort shall be made to protect existing fisheries, consistent with the science-based selection of unique or productive areas deserving of some level of protection under MPA status.
14. Where significant reduction in fisheries is an unavoidable consequence of establishment of an MPA consistent with the above guidelines, funding for the compensation of fishermen in proportion with the reduction of the fishery shall be part of the establishment of the MPA.
15. Recognizing a changing ocean environment and the continuing increase in human knowledge of the marine environment, MPAs shall be subject to adaptive management, with regular reviews conducted of their performance while recognizing that regulatory or protective measures may not have immediate results. Reviews should include assessment of non-fishing factors that inhibit the productivity of an MPA, including non-point source pollution problems. Under an adaptive management program, utilizing experts from the fishery agencies, marine researchers, social scientists, and the fishing and conservation community, MPAs should be subject to periodic review of their regulations, boundaries, and whether some existing ones should be eliminated and/or new ones established.
(Revised and adopted by the PCFFA Board -- February 2002)