SciBlogs

Archive February 2010

The role of ecologists in a changing world Rebecca McLeod Feb 25

No Comments

I have always believed that we need to work hard to try and keep things as they are – to keep the environment in a “natural state”. But perhaps as the world we live in begins to change dramatically, so too should my thinking. I recently attended a seminar by Professor Terry Chapin, President Elect of the Ecological Society of America. Professor Chapin told the audience, who were mostly ecologists, that we need to shift our mindset – we need to start thinking of ways that we can modify the landscape to make humans more resilient to a changing climate.

Professor Terry Chapin, President Elect of the Ecological Society of America

Professor Terry Chapin, President Elect of the Ecological Society of America

Whilst public debate continues about the validity of the science in the IPCC reports, animals and plants – apparently oblivious to all the chit chat – are changing their distributions on a massive scale. As the climate warms, butterflies, sea urchins and fishes, to name just a few, are moving further towards the poles. Marine animals are inhabiting deeper depths as water warms, and land plants and animals are living at higher altitudes. Along with these shifts in range come implications for humans – inevitably we will be forced to change the way we fish, hunt, farm, obtain water and interact with our environment.

Professor Chapin has been working in the Alaskan interior, investigating the effects of wildfires on forests and the humans who live among them. Wildfires are naturally occurring in these parts and have been a feature of the region for at least the last 6000 years. But what has changed recently is the frequency and intensity of the fires, with lots of fires breaking out in ever more common hot, dry years. Another shift over the past few decades has been the movement of indigenous people from small, nomadic communities, to larger more permanent towns. Where once, people used to move in response to fires, the fires now have the potential to cause major disruption and threat to communities.

There are two main forest types in the Alaskan back blocks – black spruce, which is fire prone and is associated with permafrost, and broadleaf forest, which is less flammable. After particularly severe fires in black spruce forests, broadleaf forests tend to regenerate. However, in some of the drier regions, it is possible that forest may not regenerate, with the land converting to grassland. And so it seems likely that the Alaskan landscape is likely to change dramatically in the future if the high frequency of wildfires continues. Large scale changes in plant coverage like this will affect numbers and distribution of wild animals such as caribou, which provide an important food source. The indigenous people are strongly linked to the land and the landscape is set to drastically change.

Fire consumes black spruce forest

Fire consumes black spruce forest

Professor Chapin is proposing that Alaskans take an active role in modifying the landscape around them, to protect them from the consequences of wildfires. Maybe this could involve harvesting forests that surround townships to decrease the fire risk. Fighting fires is an expensive business – perhaps large scale changes in landuse could lower the costs.

I have to say that these ideas make me more than a little uncomfortable. Maybe it’s my inner tree-hugger coming out… Surely the ESA aren’t encouraging us to cut down forests?! A quick read of a recent position statement from the society “Ecosystem Management in a Changing Climate” was somewhat comforting.

“Ecosystems are already responding to climate change. Continued warming—some of which is now unavoidable—may impair the ability of many such systems to provide critical resources and services like food, clean water, and carbon sequestration. Buffering against the impacts of climate change will require new strategies to both mitigate the extent of change and adapt to changes that are inevitable. The sooner such strategies are deployed, the more effective they will be in reducing irreversible damage.

Ecosystems can be managed to limit and adapt to both the near- and long-term impacts of climate change. Strategies that focus on restoring and maintaining natural ecosystem function (reducing deforestation, for example) are the most prudent; strategies that drastically alter ecosystems may have significant and unpredictable impacts.”

It seems that the extent to which we should physically modify landscapes (versus allowing changes to occur without intervention) will need to be assessed on a case by case basis. One thing that is certain is that ecologists have a vital role in predicting future ecosystem-level changes, and advising how to make humans more resilient to changing environments. The role of the ecologist is moving beyond describing ecosystems and investigating how they function. Ecologists will increasingly be turned to for guidance on adaptive solutions to climate change.

Community based marine management in practice – the West Coast example Rebecca McLeod Feb 09

1 Comment

The South Island’s West Coast Marine Protection Forum looks set to be the first region to put a marine protected area (MPA) proposal to the Government under the new(ish) MPA Policy and Implementation Plan, with the group recently wrapping up an extensive consultation process. The proposal that was put out for public comment outlined four main sites and five smaller areas for a range of protection measures including marine reserves and fisheries act protected areas, contained within the area from just north of Karamea to just south of Haast. More than 1100 submissions were received, signaling that New Zealanders really care about this relatively remote part of the country.

The proposed network of marine protected areas that was put out for consultation last year

The proposed network of marine protected areas that was put out for public consultation last year

The process has been a lengthy one with the forum, which includes a wide range of stakeholders (fishers, iwi, environmental groups, tourism etc.), being established five years ago. The MPA Policy and Implementation Plan encourages a community-based approach to marine management, and was established following the successful introduction of the Fiordland Marine Management Area by the stakeholder group The Guardians of Fiordland in 2005. The Labour-led Government obviously believed that this community-led initiative was more likely to result in successful MPA introductions than the traditional “top down” approach where the Department of Conservation (DoC) proposed sites for future reserves and often faced intense public opposition.

Whilst I am very supportive of the new approach, I have in the past voiced concerns about the degree to which scientific knowledge of the marine environment will be considered during the decision making process. I was initially quite alarmed to see that the West Coast Forum did not contain any marine scientists. However, a trawl through the minutes of the forum meetings revealed that members did indeed seek advice and briefings from scientists including those from DoC, the Ministry of Fisheries and NIWA. Scientists nationwide were also given the opportunity to comment during the public consultation process. The West Coast forum was established prior to the new policy, and so future regional groups will be required to have at least one scientist on each committee.

Being a remote and wild stretch of coast, it is perhaps not surprising that the level of scientific knowledge and understanding about marine life and ecosystem functioning in this region is not as high as other parts of the country. In days gone, opponents used such knowledge gaps to argue against marine protection. The new system is based on habitat classification, as it is widely accepted that species assemblages are largely predicted by physical features of habitat such as substratum type (sand, reef etc.) and water depth. Such information is relatively easy to obtain, and a spread of MPAs among different habitat types makes protection more inclusive, and provides for species that migrate among different habitat types during their life cycle. The proposal on the West Coast therefore includes, among other habitats, estuaries, coastal and offshore reefs and sand flats.

The West Coast process is far from settled – now that the submissions have been analyzed, the proposal will be modified accordingly prior to being submitted to Minter’s of Fisheries and Conservation for consideration. The members of this forum deserve credit for putting in the years of hard work, debate and consultation. Unfortunately, on a national level we are far from 10% by 2010, but at least things are moving in the right direction.

Science in danger of being diluted in marine reserve decisions Rebecca McLeod Feb 02

3 Comments

In light of recent marine protection developments on the South Island’s West Coast, I have reposted a piece I wrote for the Science Media Centre back in 2008. I will write more soon about the West Coast – I am still trying to figure out the extent to which scientific information guided the decision making process there.

I recently went to a talk by Kim Hill entitled “Is science something we should fear?”

Being a scientist, I thought Kim was joking. Why would the public not value and embrace the knowledge and lessons learned by people that in essence, spend their time trying to better understand and improve the world? It started me thinking about the role that scientists should have in guiding decisions about how we manage our environment, in particular our coastal marine areas.

New Zealand has an excellent reputation for marine conservation, due to initiatives including our quota management system and the growing numbers of marine reserves. The Government is currently developing a framework that will essentially allow locals to decide how they want marine protection measures to proceed around their coasts.

This move is occurring partly in response to very vocal opposition to proposed marine reserves in some parts of the country. The idea is that by involving the community in the decision process, people will have a vested interest in the outcomes, resulting in a higher level of support for the introduced protection measures.

The framework for these local groups will be similar to that of the Fiordland Marine Guardians; a group of “stakeholders” (e.g. fishers, tangata whenua, tourism operators etc.), who proposed a series of conservation measures to be established in the fjords. Following many years of discussion, negotiation, and compromise, the Guardians presented a proposal to Parliament in 2003, and in 2005 the Fiordland Marine Management Act was established. The protection measures include 10 marine reserves, reductions in recreational quota, and restrictions on commercial fishing areas, anchoring etc. These decisions were guided by the expert opinion and knowledge of a marine ecologist from Otago University.

In February 2008 the Department of Conservation and the Ministry of Fisheries released an implementation strategy for this new regional approach to marine management. The document outlines how a forum of up to 14 stakeholders will be appointed in each of the defined regions in NZ. These stakeholders will encompass tangata whenua, commercial fishers, recreational users, conservation groups, tourism operators, aquaculture industry, minerals industry… and scientists.

It will be the task of each forum to reach a consensus on areas to be proposed for marine protection, and make recommendations of what the protection measures should involve. Each of the stakeholders will have equal status in discussions and decision-making. This is the part that concerns me.

Processes that occur in the marine environment and marine ecosystems are inherently complex and can vary significantly over small distances, and also over time. The effectiveness of protection measures are likely to be dependent upon what they consist of, where they are placed, and how big an area they cover.

For example, in the fjords it appears that the new marine reserves are differing in their ability to “recover”. In Doubtful Sound, we have found that changes in crayfish numbers can be related to the amount of food that is available at each location. Near the output of the Manapouri hydroelectric power station, where increased freshwater has led to a decline in mussels and other clams (crayfish food), crayfish are not recovering.

In contrast, in other marine reserves where there is plenty of crayfish food, crayfish numbers are rapidly increasing. This is just one of many examples that demonstrate the success of a marine protected area (MPA) can vary significantly depending on its location, shape and size.

Whilst it is incredibly important to have the support of the local community for MPAs, it is equally, if not more important to get the characteristics of the MPA correct in the first place. Otherwise, it is possible that no amount of protection will lead to “recovery” of the marine ecosystem. To increase the likelihood of designing an MPA that is going to be effective, management recommendations put forward by the regional forums need to critically evaluate all reliable knowledge and data pertaining to the marine environment in question.

And keep in mind that this information will not necessarily come solely from scientists. The extensive local knowledge of other interested parties such as fishers and tangata whenua has a large role to play here too. My point is that debate and negotiation from all interested parties should be based upon the best available knowledge, and where available, data.

To provide advice about how to design effective MPAs, scientists need answers to questions such as: What lives there? How fast do things grow and how much do they move around? Where does the food come from that is supporting the community? Where do the young come from? Are there any ongoing impacts?

It is paramount that decisions regarding the placement and degree of MPAs are based upon such fundamental ecological knowledge, and you would be surprised just how little is known about these processes on a small scale around our coasts. So, to support management recommendations and decisions that will have a high likelihood of success, it is essential that the Government funds fundamental ecological research in our coastal seas.

Earlier I said that I was concerned about scientists being considered as stakeholders in these regional forums. These concerns are due to the fact that when it comes to deciding upon management recommendations, scientists will effectively have one 14th of the vote.

I am concerned that such a small influence will lead to expert scientific advice getting diluted. Ask any scientist that has witnessed or been involved in the process of the creation of an MPA: “was it big enough?” And they will invariably say “NO!” Because more often than not during the consultation and negotiation process, the size of the desirable MPA gets whittled down to a fraction of it’s former self.

The question to these scientists then becomes: “Do you think it will still work?” And that is where many scientists will have doubts. I strongly believe that whilst public consultation is very valuable and necessary, scientific knowledge and advice must not be diluted when it comes to making decisions about the future of marine management in New Zealand.

We are entering exciting times with respect to the marine environment. One hopes that in years to come, all New Zealanders will be able to take a short trip to their local marine reserve, and explore an intact and healthy marine ecosystem.

For this vision to become a reality, scientists need to get involved in their local communities and communicate science effectively, so that the public will begin to appreciate that science is definitely something to value, not fear.