Underlying each edition of MPA News is a question: namely, what are the challenges that MPA practitioners face in aspects of MPA planning and management, and how are they addressing those challenges? Whether a particular article involves building MPA networks, or addressing an oil spill, or partnering with indigenous populations (to name some topics from this year's issues), the responses from practitioners are enlightening and are woven into the article.
The Australian Government has released a proposal for a network of eight new MPAs for the country's South-west marine region. The network would be substantial: it would cover a total area of 538,000 km2, or roughly 40% of the region's Commonwealth waters, which start 3 nm off the coast. The proposal was released alongside a draft marine bioregional plan for the country's southwestern waters. Both proposals are now open for public comment.
Larger MPAs generally cost less to manage per unit area than smaller ones, and no-take areas are cheaper to manage than multiple-use MPAs, according to a study by an Australian research team, published in the journal Conservation Letters. The study estimated the management costs of two scenarios for a potential MPA in Australia's Coral Sea: one a single large no-take area, the other a multi-use MPA of which nearly one third was no-take.
In the March-April 2011 issue of MPA News, the article "In Colombian MPA, Management Files Suit to Stop Oil Exploration Inside Boundary" misidentified Marion Howard's affiliation with CORALINA, the Colombian government environmental authority for the San Andres Archipelago. Marion Howard is MPA advisor to CORALINA, not MPA coordinator.
As described to MPA News by Takaomi Kaneko and Mitsutaku Makino, both of Japan's Fisheries Research Agency:
In Western-style resource management, specific human activities are usually managed by dedicated agencies. Fisheries, for example, are managed by fisheries agencies. Offshore petroleum is regulated by energy or minerals agencies. Shipping is overseen by transportation agencies, and so forth. Each pairing of agency and industry sector operates in its own management silo, seldom interacting with the other ocean uses on planning or management.
By Tundi Agardy, MEAM Contributing Editor (tundiagardy [at] earthlink.net)
Integration is the cornerstone of EBM. The lack of it is why sectoral management typically fails to stem ecosystem decline - which, in turn, is why most everyone agrees that integration is necessary. But what, exactly, needs to be integrated in order to achieve EBM?
Editor's note: Joe Uravitch served as director of the US National Marine Protected Areas Center from 2000 to 2011. Now retired, he works part-time as a consultant on coastal and marine resource management issues.
By Joseph A. Uravitch
Editor's note: Charles Ehler, president of Ocean Visions (Paris, France), served as marine spatial planning consultant to the Aspen Institute's Commission on Arctic Climate Change and was co-author of UNESCO's guide to marine spatial planning, published in 2009 (www.unesco-ioc-marinesp.be/publications).
On 10 May, Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) is hosting a symposium on how knowledge about food webs can be best integrated into marine EBM. Specifically the symposium is focusing on the movement of stable isotopes through food webs (www.csiro.au/org/Stable-Isotope-Symposium.html).
What are "stable isotopes"? For insights MEAM asked Beth Fulton, who leads the ecosystem modeling group in marine and atmospheric research at CSIRO.