Note from the editor: The field of marine protected areas is benefiting from an ever-expanding library of books and reports on aspects of planning and managing MPAs. As a service, MPA News will offer brief reviews of publications that may be of special interest to subscribers. Although the geographic focus of each of the following publications is limited to the North and South American continents, the usefulness of each will likely stretch beyond that hemispheric bound of study.
Continuing its campaign to develop a nationally representative system of MPAs, the Australian government has announced plans to establish a multi-use marine park around a seamount system that includes one of the southernmost coral reefs in the world.
The proposed protected area, to be called Lord Howe Island Marine Park, would encircle the Lord Howe Island seamount and its associated marine ecological systems, off the coast of the state of New South Wales (NSW). Measuring 3000 sq. km, it would lie within 3 and 12 nautical miles (nm) from the coast of Lord Howe Island, Ball's Pyramid, and their adjacent islands. The zone within 3 nm of the coast is already designated as a state marine park, operated by the NSW government.
Management of one of the most famous marine ecosystems in the world will now include no-take zones, following last month's conclusion of years of negotiations between managers and fishers in the Galápagos Islands.
The Galápagos Marine Reserve, officially created in 1998 but not zoned until now, will be divided into three basic zone types: strict nature reserves, in which only scientists will be allowed; no-take zones, managed for tourism, recreation, and education; and "extraction zones", in which managed fishing will be allowed.
About 20% of the coastline will be no-take zones. Managers made concessions on scheduling the phase-in of some zones, and offered fishers priority for new tourism activity permits as an incentive to leave the fishing sector.
By R.E. Johannes
[Editor's note: This article has been excerpted by MPA News from a contribution by R.E. Johannes, full text forthcoming in Marine and Coastal Protected Areas: A Guide for Planners and Managers [3rd edition], by Rod Salm and John Clark, to be available later this year. MPA News recognizes and appreciates the diversity of perspectives held by MPA experts around the world, and welcomes the use of MPA News for the sharing of these viewpoints. For guidelines, visit our website, at http://www.mpanews.org/.]
The Clinton administration has proposed that the US provide "no-take" status to at least 20% of its coral reefs by 2010 in the interest of protecting the reefs from overfishing. Describing the nation's coral reef system as being "in peril," administration officials voiced their intent to ban fishing on at least one-fifth of US coral reefs and establish sustainable management systems for the remainder.
The US Coral Reef Task Force, created by President Clinton in 1998, delivered the recommendations earlier this month (March) in a National Action Plan. The task force includes officials from 11 federal agencies as well as several state and territorial governments.
Less than 3% of the US' 17,000 sq. km of coral reefs are presently designated as no-take reserves. The task force estimated that 10% of the nation's coral reefs are already degraded beyond recovery, while another two-thirds are under severe environmental stress, with the two main stressors being overfishing and pollution.
Amid the growing recognition of marine protected areas as a useful resource management tool, two things stand out to enable MPAs to achieve their resource management goals. Effective institutions and processes must exist to plan and support the MPAs, and qualified managers and other personnel must be available to oversee them. Without these ingredients, an MPA may well "protect" in name only.
In the last issue of MPA News (December/January), we initiated a discussion on the topic of MPA nomenclature. We reprinted the IUCN's and national definitions for "marine protected area", and provided a list of terms that had previously appeared in the newsletter to describe MPAs. "Ecological reserve", "highly protected zone", and "fish replenishment area" were some of the examples. At the end of the article, we solicited feedback on the topic from readers.
Below is one of the responses we received. We thank our contributors and welcome further responses by e-mail at mpanews [at] u.washington.edu. We look forward to printing more submissions in future issues. (Opinions expressed in the following letter are those of the author, and not necessarily of MPA News.)
An advisory council to the Australian state of Victoria has released a draft recommendation that the state create a system of "highly protected" marine areas (i.e., no-take reserves) to protect fish breeding areas and other key habitats. The draft recommendation, if followed, would increase Victoria's total no-take area from 0.05% of the state's waters to over 6%.
The Environment Conservation Council (ECC) of Victoria offered the recommendation in a draft report, which is now open for public comment. The ECC advises the Victorian government on the use of public lands, with the goal of balancing the competing needs of resource users and the environment.
Specifically, the ECC's draft report names sites suitable for the creation of 12 "Marine National Parks", 11 "Marine Sanctuaries", and 15 smaller "Marine Special Management Areas". [For definitions of each of these terms, please refer to the box at the end of this article.] The Marine National Parks and Marine Sanctuaries would be no-take reserves, and, as recommended by the ECC, would cover 630 km2 of Victoria's marine environment.
The government of the Bahamas has announced a plan to create five no-take reserves in its waters this year -- the first step in a process that could eventually close 20% of the country's marine environment to fishing, according to scientists and NGOs in support of the plan.
Announced on 13 January, the government plan designates five sites for no-take reserve status, based on a ranking of more than 30 candidate areas. The chosen sites, paired with the Bahamas' sole existing no-take reserve, would set aside roughly 4% (800 km2) of the country's marine environment as no-take areas, according to an estimate by the Bahamas Reef Environmental Education Foundation (BREEF), an NGO that initiated the reserve-creation effort. Supporters of the plan, including the science team charged with recommending sites, have encouraged the government to enlarge the nascent network in coming years to comprise one-fifth of Bahamian waters.
The government, represented by the Bahamian Department of Fisheries, has so far set no boundaries for the five reserves, pending consultations with local communities. Details, too, on the reserves' assessment and management of resources have yet to be worked out, though officials expect to rely on local communities to enforce the reserves' fishing ban.
What's in a name? Perhaps more than you bargained for, if you're in the field of MPAs. With practitioners seeming each month to cook up new terms for particular types of marine protected areas, staying up-to-date on the ever-expanding MPA dictionary has become somewhat challenging. Even at MPA News we sometimes can't remember the difference between a marine reserve, marine life reserve, and ecological reserve (or are they all the same...?).
To some extent, political prudence has driven the flourishing of terms describing MPAs. Several MPA experts, for example, have created new terms for "no-take zone" in an effort to put the idea of fish stock recovery in a more positive light for stakeholders, who are often fishermen. Rather than use a term with a potentially negative connotation like "no-take zone", the manager might use a term like "fish replenishment area", which focuses on the idea of rebuilding fish stocks instead of decreasing short-term harvests.
However, some critics have suggested that the growing thicket of terminology may be counterproductive to resource protection. Without a common understanding -- and, ideally, a legal basis -- for what these terms mean, they may end up meaning nothing, or everything. A marine protected area, sanctuary, or park established with no formal definition of these terms could in reality have no protection.