PacMARA is a non-advocacy charity. We don’t take political sides or promote specific projects. However, our vision and mandate are explicitly pro-science. Without good marine science, we believe that good marine planning decisions cannot be made. In British Columbia, as the pipeline issues heat up, salmon returns fluctuate wildly, climate changes, and human development continues, one would hope that marine ecological science, which looks at how all the pieces fit and function together, would be valued more now than ever. Our resource decisions need to be made on the best available evidence, and the collection of that evidence needs to be ongoing.

Global food security, environmental security, and energy security are gathering for the perfect storm. To face these massive uncertainties and risks, we will need a reliable and trustworthy government, no matter what stripe, that is pro-science. These layoffs are tragically short-sighted. Tell your MPs!

Now is the time to stand up for marine science.

- Jeff Ardron, President of the Board

PS: Standby for more updates on marine science casualties…

PacMARA and COS's Decision Guide profiles a number of tools that are used for MSP.

A study published in the March 5 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) shows for the first time that incorporating multiple stakeholder interests in a comprehensive approach to ocean planning (Marine Spatial Planning or MSP), actually reduces conflict and enhances cultural, conservation, and economic benefits. Using a model of Massachusetts Bay, the authors found that by designing offshore wind farms with multiple ocean users in mind, managers could prevent over $1 million in losses to the incumbent fishery and whale watching sectors, limit impacts on biodiversity conservation, and generate more than $10 billion in extra value to the wind energy sector.

Researchers at UC Santa Barbara’s Bren School of Environmental Science & Management and UCSB’s National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) developed MSP-minded wind farm designs and compared them to “business as usual” designs under traditional energy permitting. “This new study provides clear evidence for the value of doing MSP,” says lead author Crow White, a postdoctoral researcher at Bren. Co-author Ben Halpern, director of UCSB’s Center for Marine Assessment and Planning and research scientist at NCEAS, adds: “It also validates the efforts by Massachusetts to implement their law and strongly supports other states and the Federal government in their efforts to pursue MSP.”

Importantly, the study shows that the value of MSP increases with the size of the planning area. Even small states will benefit substantially, both financially and in avoiding unnecessary conflict, but the states with the largest coastal areas like Florida, California, Hawaii, Texas, and Alaska will benefit enormously, potentially in the trillions of dollars.

By using MSP, policymakers and managers could choose and implement a specific design that reflects society’s relative preferences for particular ocean activities. While they are often left out of economic analyses, tradeoff analysis can include those ocean uses that can only be measured in non-monetary currencies such as biodiversity conservation, recreational person-days, and cultural value. Visualization of these tradeoffs can provide greater transparency for negotiations among existing and emerging ocean uses whose diverse stakeholders may not have previously considered their effects on other sectors.

“Strangers to marine spatial planning may worry that it means getting less from the ocean tomorrow. This study shows how smarts and science can help us all wind up with a little more … forever,” says Les Kaufman, a marine biologist at Boston University and a collaborator on the broader project that includes this study.

Though these results illustrate the possibilities of MSP, the findings are not prescriptive –– this study simply suggests possibilities. Analyses of other ocean activities such as bird conservation, shipping, and liquefied natural gas development could enrich the analysis, as well as could accounting for the indirect benefits of ocean activities, such as employment and coastal waterfront activity. White says, “The more ocean uses are accounted for, the more society will benefit.”

http://www.ia.ucsb.edu/pa/display.aspx?pkey=2661

from wikitravel.org

The three marine reserves—off Cape Perpetua, Cape Falcon, and Cascade Head—will extend three miles from the Oregon coast into the Pacific Ocean, encompassing some 109 square miles, or around 70,000 acres. Prior to the decision, Oregon had just two small pilot protected areas of about 9 square miles that went into full protection earlier this year. With the new additions, around 10 percent of Oregon’s territorial sea will be protected.

“The Governor is very pleased,” said Richard Whitman, Governor John Kitzhaber’s natural resources advisor. “We now have in place the network needed to test out this concept in Oregon,” he said. “We’ll see what the biological and economic effects of the system will be over the next ten years.”

The legislation calls for protected no-take marine reserves (about 3.4 percent) surrounded by buffers of marine protected areas (6 percent). The latter will allow for fishing of species like Dungeness crab and salmon, but trawling, harvesting forage fish, and offshore development will still be prohibited.

“We’re seeing a lot of signs of stress in the marine ecosystem off the Oregon coast,” said Ben Enticknap, the Pacific project manager for the non-governmental organization Oceana, a member of the Mission Blue coalition. “This is a chance to help build an understanding of what it means to have places untouched by human impacts.”

Enticknap has worked on the issue for over six years. He and his colleagues at Oceana identified and mapped Oregon’s important ecological areas and spoke to local communities to garner support. Along with a number of other organizations, Oceana has been “one of the main groups trying to work to advance this concept,” Whitman said, and added that Oregon’s Ocean Policy Advisory Council ultimately recommended the reserves in their current form.

Conservationists hope the marine reserves will help ailing species. Scientists catalogued 32 threatened and endangered species and populations that feed and migrate off the Oregon coast, such as salmon, smelt, humpback whales, and seabirds like the marbled murrelet. Oregon’s waters are home to three overfished species, including the slow-growing yelloweye rockfish, which lives to be over 100 years old. Under current management plans, the yelloweye rockfish population isn’t projected to recover fully until 2084.

Enticknap acknowledged that Oregon’s protected areas won’t be spared the impacts of climate change and ocean acidification, but he hopes that the networks can act as a kind of buffer, increasing the resilience of ecological communities impacted by those broad scale, global changes.

Around the world, no-take marine reserves typically increase the size of local marine life and also result in increased fish stocks. Marine animals nurtured in reserves spill over into adjacent areas, making the entire near-shore ecosystem more healthy and productive. This benefits the environment as well coastal communities who rely on the ocean economically.

Some fishermen are worried that the reserves will impact their livelihoods, though Enticknap pointed out that the 57-2 vote indicates that the “vast majority” of representatives and senators are in favor of the system. “There’s always going to be a vocal minority opposed to conservation,” he said, “but the majority of citizens, local businesses, and even fishermen support this and think it’s the right way to go.”

Whitman added that input from a broad range of stakeholders—from fishermen to recreational users—were considered in designing the reserves and protected areas.

Protections won’t go into effect immediately. The legislation calls for a two-year hiatus during which U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service scientists gather baseline data, funded by a $1.6 million dollar lottery grant. Over two summer field seasons, the scientists will collect data from all three future marine reserve sites, plus some control sites outside of those areas. In the meantime, fishermen can continue with business as usual.

People are happy with the outcome, Enticknap said, though conservationists recognize that the State’s southern coast still lacks protection. Last summer, Oceana conducted surveys of the area’s biodiversity with a remotely operated vehicle, observing corals, sponges and rockfish. Though Enticknap hopes to eventually establish a network of protected areas encompassing the full Oregon coast, he said that, for now, no imminent plans exist to make this goal a reality.

“Oregon values process as much as outcome, that’s a big thing I learned while working on this,” Enticknap said, adding that it’s been a challenge bringing so many people together to support the legislation. “We think the current network is a little thin, but it is going to protect marine habitats and biodiversity,” he said.

The Governor is “absolutely” planning to sign the bill, Whitman said, which should happen soon.

http://www.mission-blue.org/node/71

In his article, Mr Swain says “On the environmental side, the media coverage has been almost entirely about the risks of the pipeline itself. Leaks or bursts could seriously damage any of the 600-odd streams it must cross, many of which are key parts of salmon ecosystems”.  However, he inquires “… what about the saltwater side of this transport system?”.

Mr Swain describes the route to Kitimat as “… 300 km of tricky navigation in waters distinguished by fog, storms, and quite amazing tidal currents.”  He further describes the preparations needed to “… reduce navigational risks to an acceptable minimum …”.   These would include an expanded pilotage system, with new stations at Kitimat and Banks Island, boats to service the tankers, as well as Coast Guard ships to supervise the transits and to respond to emergencies.

An alternative route to Prince Rupert is suggested by Mr Swain which would give a more direct entrance to the Pacific Ocean reducing the probability of a tanker disaster and the investment by the Coast Guard and the Pilotage Authority.

At the end of his piece Mr Swain urges to ask ourselves: “… why Enbridge chose the less safe route, and whether we as taxpayers have to pay the premium for the risks the company has created”.

A full copy of this article can be found here.

**Please note that PacMARA takes no position on the Enbridge’s proposed pipeline issue.

Can the ban on shark finning in North America help systematic conservation planning efforts?

Shark finning is a serious problem as the practice is decimating shark populations around the world. However, the efforts of various non-profits, politicians and governments, and many individuals to ban shark finning have been successful in cities across North America, and the efforts are currently spilling over into Europe.

Shark finning is the act of catching a shark, cutting off all of its fins, and throwing the shark back in the water…still ALIVE. The barbaric procedure is undertaken for a special dish highly desired in Asian countries. Shark fin soup is considered lucky in Asian cultures and holds high status in social circles. It is also a billion dollar industry.

Until recently, shark fin soup could only be afforded by the rich, as the price was extremely high. Now, however, many Asians can afford the dish – meaning millions of people – as China’s population nears 1 billion. So the number of shark fins used for soup has increased drastically; 95% of which are consumed by China.

China has not yet passed legislation to protect sharks from finning, although efforts are underway. Recently, a hard-fought bill banned the possession and sale of shark fins in California, the largest consumer outside of Asia. The legislation was due to a unique collaboration between many NGOs ranging from the Humane Society to Heal the Bay. Individuals, such as food writers and cartoonists, also helped raise public awareness on the issue.

Other governments to ban finning include Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Guam, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, and Chile. Canada is in the process of banning shark fin importation as well, which would stop around 77,000 kilograms from coming into the country per year. Fins and their soup are already illegal in and around Toronto.

Protecting sharks from finning could ignite the public to want Marine Protected Areas in the Oceans. MPAs are hard to sell to the public as they are seen more as an exclusion tool than a protection tool. If MPAs concentrate on protecting sharks within a set of boundaries, than other species found within those boundaries will also be protected. Therefore, managers can use sharks as the fuel to get the public to demand Marine Protected Areas in the Oceans.
This demand for conservation rather than consumption would allow conservation planners to incorporate shark protection into systematic marine conservation planning efforts. An advantage of including sharks in conservation planning is that their distribution is widespread, requiring more area to be considered for protection. If more areas are protected for sharks, then other habitats and species that lie within the boundaries would also be protected.

Do you think that bans on shark finning and on shark fin soup will help systematic conservation planning efforts for our oceans?

- Andrew Lewin, Board Member; and Heather Coleman, Science Advisor

In Photo (from left to right): Norma Serra (PacMARA staff), Dan Farr (Biota Research Ltd), Lief Olson (O2 Planning + Design Inc.), Tim Wilson (Compass Resource Management Ltd), Lindsay McBlane (Parks Canada), (bottom) Trevor Weins (Apropos Information Systems Inc), and Tom Habib (University of Alberta).

They are available in PDF or below, in both English and Spanish:

“Ten Commandments for Marxan in Planning”

1. Decision support tools like Marxan can be very beneficial to planning processes;

2. These tools should only be used when they are needed; i.e. if the problem can be readily solved using conventional approaches, then that is preferable;

3. For spatial planning with many overlapping considerations, the use of decision support tools like Marxan is recommended;

4. When used in planning, Marxan should be driven by the agreed-upon goals and objectives of the planning process;

5. Good planning requires a mix of good science, governance, and communication / engagement with users;

6. Tools like Marxan require proper use of data and cannot be expected to provide solutions to problems for which there are no data.

7. Ultimately, sustainable development and planning is a social decision;

8. Tools like Marxan can assist in providing a pool of solutions and pointing out options that have not been considered before. It can highlight areas of conflict, as well as ‘win-win’ situations.

9. Used properly, Marxan solutions reflect due diligence in making use of available information, including available social and economic data; and

10. Local knowledge / concerns and other considerations (e.g. management practicalities) will mean that zoning decisions will differ in certain ways from those solutions produced by Marxan. In general the boundaries will be straighter with the shapes more regular (e.g. boxes).

“Diez Conclusiones en el uso de Marxan para la Planificación”

1. Herramientas de apoyo a las decisiones como Marxan pueden ser muy beneficiosas para los procesos de planificación;

2. Estas herramientas sólo se deberían utilizar cuando se necesiten; es decir, si el problema se puede resolver utilizando enfoques convencionales, entonces estos son preferibles;

3. La utilización de herramientas para la toma de decisiones como Marxan es recomendable para la planificación espacial con muchas consideraciones sobrepuestas;

4. Es importante que los objetivos y las metas del proceso de planificación sean acordadas previamente para guiar Marxan;

5. Una adecuada planificación requiere buena ciencia, política, y comunicación / inclusión de los usuarios;

6. Herramientas como Marxan requieren un uso adecuado de los datos y no se puede esperar que proporcione soluciones a problemas donde no existen datos;

7. En última instancia, el desarrollo sostenible y la planificación son una decisión social;

8. Herramientas como Marxan pueden proporcionar un grupo de soluciones y señalar opciones que no han sido consideradas con anterioridad. Pueden señalar áreas de conflicto y situaciones con ganancias para ambas partes [‘win-win’ situations].

9. Utilizado adecuadamente, las soluciones de Marxan pueden reflejar el ‘análisis adecuado’ [due diligence] de la información disponible, incluyendo los datos social y económicos; and

10. Los conocimientos y preocupaciones locales, además de otras consideraciones como la practicabilidad de la gestión, pueden generar que las decisiones de zonación locales difieran de las soluciones proporcionadas con Marxan.  En general, en estos casos los bordes de las zonas resultarán más rectos y con formas más regulares, como los cuadrados.

P.O. Box 49002

Victoria, BC, V8P5V8

Canada

Phone: 778-300-1801

Tom Hooper has an MSc in Tropical Marine Ecology from the University of Newcastle and has worked on fisheries projects in Tanzania, Madagascar and Zimbabwe. He spent six years on the Indian Ocean Island of Rodrigues leading a programme of marine research and education that culminated in four MPAs being gazetted in 2007. He was awarded an MBE in 2004 for services to Marine Conservation and he is a trustee of the Marine Education Trust. Between 2007 and 2009, he built a partnership of MPA practitioners across Spain, France, UK and Portugal to form the MAIA project which is being led by the French MPA Agency.