SciBlogs

Posts Tagged policy

Conflict apparent on the West Coast as marine protection recommendations released Rebecca McLeod Aug 15

1 Comment

I have been watching with interest the developments over on the West Coast as the local community moves closer to becoming the first to implement a regional marine protection framework under the Marine Protected Areas Policy and Implementation Plan.

About a year ago, the West Coast Marine Protection Forum released a consultation document and called for submissions. This document represented a huge effort by a number of different stakeholders, who had been researching, consulting and debating on the issues around this enormous task since 2005. Having taken a year to consider 1300 submissions, the Forum has recently made recommendations to the Ministers of Conservation and Fisheries about the approach to marine protection over an area that extends all the way from Kahurangi in the north, to south of Jackson’s Bay.

The recomended locations for the four MPAs (in red) and additional educational showcase sites (in blue)
The recomended locations for the four MPAs (in red) and additional educational showcase sites (in blue)

Whilst the Forum has successfully managed to agree upon the locations of four marine protected areas (MPAs), they were unable to reach a consensus about the boundaries of these and the levels of marine protection within each. So instead of presenting the Ministers with a decisive and cohesive package of protected areas, they have provided two or three options for each site. These typically consist of an option that is not far removed from that in the consultation document (2009), and then one or two alternative options that are heavily influenced by either the commercial fishing sector or environmental interests. Not surprisingly, the “fishing option” is reduced in size and/or the level of protection (such as allowing some types of fishing to carry on), and the “environmental option” typically incorporates a larger area with a higher proportion of that to be no take marine reserve.

Perhaps the most extreme example of the influence of commercial fishers versus environmentalists is the MPA at Kahurangi. Here, Option A covers an area of 665 km², and extends from the tide line to about 20 km offshore. Option B, which wasn’t presented in the original consultation document, covers 85 km² and extends 5 km offshore. Sorry, but I’m not taking any bets on who influenced Option B.

The Forum has stated that due to the conflicting views both within the Forum and from submitters, they were unable to reach a consensus about the boundaries and protection levels at each site. So it will be very interesting to see how the Ministers respond to such polarized recommendations – surely they have to give a very high weighting to the target of 10% of the New Zealand marine environment being protected?

The commercial fishing sector has apparently argued that without some form of financial compensation for reduced fishing grounds, the industry is in effect giving without receiving any form of gain. The Gifts versus Gains approach was central to making progress by the Guardians of Fiordland’s Fisheries and the Marine Environment, and in my view requires all involved to take a step back and look at the big picture. For the fishers, rather than looking merely at the reduction in fishable area as potential lost income, perhaps they could consider the gains that are likely in terms of improved chances of long term sustainability of fisheries due to the many proven benefits of MPAs for fisheries (such as providing refuge for adults and protected space for juveniles).

Whatever the outcome, there are some very positive aspects to the Forum’s recommendations from a scientific perspective. The first of these, is that the area of the West Coast under marine reserve protection is definitely going to increase. Without a doubt. Currently with a huge 0% (she says sarcastically) of the coastal area in marine reserves, things can only improve from here.

In my opinion, one of the coolest things about the proposed MPAs is their proximity to National Parks. All of the four proposed MPA sites are situated alongside National Parks, and this will provide for a continuum of protection from, in many cases, the tops of mountains, to the depths of the sea. If Option B at the Gorge site is accepted, it will be the first MPA in the country to provide protection from the tide line to the edge of the continental shelf, where underwater canyons abound. Ecologists have increasingly been demonstrating the importance of such connectivity for processes including the movement of energy and animals, and the functioning of lovely healthy ecosystems that extend far beyond the immediate environment. Yes, that reef you’re snorkeling on is vulnerable to the state of the environment up in the hills, and to some extent vice versa.

I could rabbit on about marine protection and the situation on the West Coast for ages… Oh whoops, it seems I already have! But as you may have guessed, this is an area I’m particularly passionate about. Time for you guys to put your two cents in – I look forward to your comments and questions. Anything that gives me an opportunity to write more…

Related Posts:

Community based marine management in practice – the West Coast example

10% by 2010? Yeah right!

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.

One step closer to harvesting kelp Rebecca McLeod Nov 09

3 Comments

On Friday the Fisheries Minister Phil Heatley announced that giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) will be introduced to the Quota Management System (QMS). This decision marks the first step of a process to “manage” the species, which forms extensive forests around much of New Zealand’s coastline. The second step will involve the setting of a Total Allowable Catch limit for the species. I posted a few weeks ago about the scientific arguments against kelp harvesting (“Is it wise to ‘mow’ our kelp forests?”), where kelp specialists Drs Chris Hepburn and Nick Shears gave their responses to the proposal to enter kelp into the QMS.

The Ministry received 26 submissions from stakeholders, most representing large organizations such as the NZ Marine Sciences Society (270+ scientists), the NZ Recreational Fishing Council and multiple iwi. In very general terms, the submissions from those in the fishing industry supported the introduction of the species to the QMS. And the majority of submissions from scientists, environmental and other groups were in agreement with them – perhaps not a huge surprise given that the alternative to QMS introduction was the creation of an open-access fishery! Where these two sides differed in opinion was in size of the future Total Allowable Catch. Industry argued for “a sustainable level”. Nearly everyone else argued that with a complete lack of scientific information, the only guaranteed sustainable level is zero. And the masses raise a very valid point – after all, the overall objective of the QMS is to help ensure the sustainable utilisation of fisheries resources…

Could kelp harvesters like this soon be working along our coasts? Image: http://w3.shorecrest.org

Could kelp harvesters like this soon be working along our coasts? Image: http://w3.shorecrest.org

The Ministry will begin a process of stakeholder consultation early next year before setting Total Allowable Catch limits for attached giant kelp in fisheries management areas 3 (East Coast of the South Island) and 4 (extending out to the Chatham Islands). It will be a very interesting process to observe – given the lack of biomass estimates, location-specific growth rates and knowledge about the ability of kelp to recover from canopy removal, it is difficult to imagine just how the Ministry will go about calculating a “sustainable level of harvest”.

10% by 2010? Yeah Right! Rebecca McLeod Oct 20

2 Comments

In 2005 an ambitious goal was set by the then Ministers of Conservation and Fisheries – 10% of the marine environment around New Zealand would be under some form of protection by 2010. This announcement was met with much celebration by marine scientists and environmentalists throughout the country and the wheels were set in motion to take a regional approach to marine protection. Going off the recent success of the implementation of a network of marine reserves in Fiordland, the Department of Conservation and the Ministry of Fisheries put together a structure under which local groups of stakeholders would propose networks of marine protected areas in their region. These networks would encompass a variety of habitat types (such as estuarine, offshore reefs, soft sediment etc.) and protection measures (marine reserves, zones with specific fishing restrictions etc.). But despite this initial flurry of activity, the Government has been unnervingly quiet on this issue of late. I am aware of two regional proposals – for the sub-Antarctic Islands, and for the West Coast of the South Island – that are currently at the public consultation stage, but yet to be put forward to the Government. Whilst the fact that these proposals are undergoing consultation is evidence that things are happening at a regional level, I am skeptical that the final proposals will move through parliamentary channels in a timely manner. As we race towards 2010, I am left with considerable doubt as to the ability, or will, of the Government to meet the target of 10% by 2010.

Is it wise to ‘mow’ our kelp forests??? Rebecca McLeod Sep 24

2 Comments

Submissions closed on Monday the 21st for a proposal by the Ministry of Fisheries to enter giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) into the Quota Management System. There is demand for giant kelp on the international market, and at least one Canterbury-based business is keen to develop a harvest of live kelp in the near future. On first thoughts, this might seem like a great idea – the kelp can be used for so many things: pharmaceuticals, food products, fertilizers, feed for aquaculture and farm animals… the possible applications appear to be limited only by the imagination.

However, as the story unfolded on Campbell Live on Monday night , it became clear that there are two sides that are clashing over the potential for kelp to be commercially harvested. One side comprises fishermen, scientists and environmentalists who are concerned that harvesting could lead to a loss of kelp forests and the multitude of species that live amongst them. The other side seems to be made up of a small group of entrepreneurs, who can see only benefits when it comes to kelp harvesting. Financial benefits. This is an unusual situation: it isn’t often that environmentalists and fishermen are united in their views. I feel that it is time to inject some science to the debate, to gauge whether the concerns of the objectors are legitimate.

There are currently two MFish proposals that are undergoing public consultation. In the North Island, it has been proposed that drift kelp (that which is floating unattached, or stranded on beaches) be allowed to be collected from all beaches by commercial operators under permit. Whilst such collection certainly has the potential for ecological impact, it is the other proposal that is attracting the most attention from marine scientists – the entry of live growing giant kelp into the Quota Management System, effectively opening the door to commercial harvesting of kelp forests.

Macrocystis kelp growing up through murky water towards the light

Macrocystis kelp growing up through murky water towards the light

In other countries, kelp forests are cut to one metre below the surface either by hand, or using ships equipped with cutting blades. It might seem appropriate then for the practise to be likened to mowing the lawns. Supporters of kelp harvesting here say that giant kelp grows one metre a day, therefore harvesting it will be totally sustainable. But Dr. Chris Hepburn, a marine botanist at Otago University, believes that growth at that rate, in New Zealand at least, is a myth. Despite many years researching Macrocystis growth around the South Island, and publishing on the topic1, he has never come across the original source of that figure, nor measured growth rates anything like it. It is quite likely that the one metre per day figure is an exaggerated value from research in California, where expansive forests are harvested. “Frond elongation rates of 2-10 cm per day are typical for Macrocystis, while maximal growth rates of 40 cm a day may be possible when a kelp frond first grows up through the water column under perfect conditions. Frond rates really have little relevance to how Macrocystis will respond to harvesting – if you chop the top of a frond it stops growing. It’s the rate that a kelp individual can produce new fronds that matters from a harvest recovery perspective.”

Throughout the MFish proposal, references are made to the operation in California, with a suggestion that it provides a model upon which to base any future harvesting here. But is it wise to make comparisons between New Zealand and Californian kelp forests in this way? Dr Nick Shears is a marine ecologist who has recently returned to work in New Zealand from California. Having expertise in kelp forest ecology2, he is in an ideal position to make comparisons between the two. “The giant kelp forests off California are world renowned for their size and productivity – forests span for miles along the coast, grow to depths of 30 m, and individual plants grow up to 60 m in length. In comparison, New Zealand kelp forests are a fraction of the size, the plants grow slower, are smaller and are less dense”. Dr Shears believes that given the differing sizes of kelp forests in California and New Zealand it is difficult to envisage a viable and ecologically sustainable fishery for kelp in New Zealand.

Kelp forests are highly productive, in that they provide a food source and a habitat for a diverse range of marine species, including many fish and invertebrates that form the basis of large commercial, recreational and cultural fisheries. For example, it is thought that crayfish are closely associated with kelp both as adults, and as juveniles, as larvae recruit into the canopy of the forest, and then make their way down the fronds to the seafloor. Blue cod, moki, trumpeter, paua, kina, and greenbone also inhabit kelp forests. Dr Hepburn says that this provision of habitat for other species is a key difference between giant kelp and every other marine species managed under the Quota Management System. “To harvest a habitat is very shortsighted. Imagine a fishery is supported by a coral reef – does it make sense to allow someone to come in and remove the coral for commercial use and risk the fishery? Harvesting Macrocystis risks high value fisheries and ecosystem services provided by the kelp for an unproven product. At this stage it’s a no-brainer – Macrocystis is worth more in the water than spread over paddocks as fertilser, and we simply don’t know enough about how kelp forests will respond to harvesting.”

A multitude of animals live on and among the forest habitat that giant kelp provides

A multitude of animals live on and among the forest habitat that giant kelp provides

Despite the Californian kelp forests having a century-long history of harvesting, questions are now being raised as to the sustainability of the practise. The annual takes reported by the California Department of Fish and Game have regularly exceeded 150,000 tonnes, but have dropped to less than 5,000 tonnes per year since 2006. This sudden decline reflects the major harvester ceasing operation due to a lack of economic viability, which is caused by competition from exporters in Mexico and China. The exit of this harvester from the market will probably be of much relief to environmentalists in the region, who have observed a dramatic reduction in the extent of kelp forests over the last 35 years3. Scientists from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography have identified many environmental pressures that could be causing this decline, including changes in currents linked to the El Niño – Southern Oscillation, increased abundances of sea urchins due to overfishing of their predators, sedimentation, pollution and kelp harvesting. When it comes to kelp forest health, teasing apart the importance of these different factors is proving to be an incredibly difficult task3. One thing is for sure, kelp forests are under pressure, and they are threatened in many places around the globe. In Tasmania, a more than 50% decline in extent of giant kelp over the past 60 years has prompted the State Government to consider listing Macrocystis kelp forests as an endangered habitat type. They are already listed alongside the Great Barrier Reef as a Special Marine Area. Whether kelp has suffered similar declines in New Zealand has not been monitored by scientists, although there is anecdotal evidence of kelp forest loss in the Otago region.

Back in New Zealand, Dr Hepburn has many concerns about what might happen if you harvest kelp. Unlike California, the East Coast of the South Island has a lot of sediment in the water, which acts to limit the amount of sunlight reaching kelp, and frequent storms act to resuspend the sediment into the water column. The growth of Macrocystis kelp is limited by the amount of sunlight1, meaning that in times when there is a lot of sediment in the water, such as following rainfall or a storm, kelp growth rates slow. “My concern is that were a harvesting event to coincide with a period of high sediment load in the water, the kelp would not receive enough light to promote regeneration and the forest would therefore be at risk of dying off.” There is also the issue of the invasive kelp Undaria. This highly opportunistic species may take advantage of a temporary reduction in giant kelp, and out-compete the species. Such a shift in kelp assemblages, would not necessarily correct itself over time. There are a lot of uncertainties about how kelp, and the species associated with the forest habitat it creates, will respond to harvesting, yet surprisingly little research that could help to address these concerns. The only relevant study was conducted in Akaroa Harbour – a wave sheltered environment that is very different from the exposed coastlines along the extent of the proposed harvesting areas. To progress with harvesting along the East Coast of the South Island appears to be incredibly risky, particularly when the size of associated fisheries are considered. Is it wise to risk the multi-million dollar blue cod and crayfish fisheries, for a market that is yet to be tested?

Many prominent marine scientists have voiced their concerns with the Ministry of Fisheries about the current proposal, along with fishermen, environmental groups and iwi. This large, diverse group of objectors is at odds with one small group of supporters, whom stand to benefit financially from a positive outcome. It will certainly be interesting to see the outcome of this process of public consultation – will the Ministry listen to the voices and experience of the opposition and consider the lack of scientific testing of the sustainability of kelp harvesting when they make their decision? Furthermore will the Ministry adhere to their own management objectives – to protect and maintain habitats that are significant for fisheries? It certainly seems to me that there is a lot at stake.

References

1. Hepburn CD, Holborow JD, Wing SR, Frew RD, Hurd CL (2007) Exposure to waves enhances the growth rate and nitrogen status of the giant kelp Macrocystis pyrifera. Marine Ecology Progress Series 339:99-108

2. Salomon AK, Shears NT, Langlois TJ, Babcock RC (2008) Cascading effects of fishing can alter carbon flow through a temperate coastal ecosystem. Ecological Applications 18(8): 1874-1887

3. Dayton PK, Tegner MJ, Edwards PB, Riser KL (1998) Sliding baselines, ghosts, and reduced expectations in kelp forest communities