Cabo Pulmo National Marine Park: a success story and model for Mexican conservation

At the southeastern tip of Baja California, along a dusty coastal dirt road is located the small town of Cabo Pulmo. East of the popular and sometimes wild Cabo San Lucas, Cabo Plumo has a success story of its own: the Cabo Pulmo National Marine Park.

At 27 square miles, the Cabo Pulmo National Marine Park is small; tiny when compared to some of the expansive marine parks or sanctuaries established in the South Pacific and elsewhere. But it is a great example of what can occur when local citizens and conservation organizations come together to re-orient the local economy to support the park.

According to Octavio Aburto Oropeza, a post-doctoral researcher at Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, California, populations of groupers, sharks, and other top predators have begun to flourish once again, after being heavily depleted by the commercial fishing and sportfishing. The park was established in 1995 and in the succeeding years, the overall biomass has increased dramatically. From 1999 to 2009, it saw a 463% improvement. And apex predators like large groupers, tiger sharks, bull sharks, and other reef-dwelling shark species have skyrocketed by over 1,000 percent.

North of the marine park, in the Gulf of California, there are areas that show a definite decline in the number of fish and the overall health of the reef ecosystems, and that is due primarily to overfishing by commercial operations or even local fishermen. Also, a considerable amount of illegal fishing of protected species takes place in the Gulf which has contributed to a not so stellar conservation image for Mexico. Because of this, the Cabo Pulmo National Marine Park serves as a model for the Mexican government to duplicate throughout the Gulf.

However, it wasn't an easy transition for the locals. Having restricted or "no-take" zones initially met with some resistance and there certainly were some economic adjustments that needed to be made. But over time, the shift from commercial fishing activities to tourism and diving successfully took place, as evidenced by the development of several resorts, scuba diving/snorkeling outfitters, and ecotourism operations.

"It's a very good example of how many benefits can be produced by coastal communities once you pick an area and leave it to that point that the recovery ... produces other benefits," said Aburto.

Aburto has recently been studying the return of the Gulf Grouper within the park; the fish reaching sizes twice that (up to 4 feet) of those caught outside of the park. He will soon be turning his focus on whether or not the positive effects of the park are spilling out beyond its borders. In California, with its system of MPAs (marine protected areas), researchers have seen fish populations increase outside of the MPAs' boundaries (boundaries that are totally unknown to the fish themselves). This is one of the benefits that many fishermen, who initially were MPA opponents, have come to realize. Soon, there will be a complete chain of MPAs along the California coast and it is hoped that the spillover effect will help to boost fish populations over a much wider area.

This is something that Octavio Aburto Oropeza would like to see happen in Mexico, throughout the Gulf of California and beyond. "This is very important to show that if we create bigger areas, and maintain or protect them for all these years, the benefits will be huge."

The Cabo Pulmo National Marine Park is a prime example of what can happen when we preserve rather than plunder our ocean resources. Nature has a remarkable resiliency, an ability to recover - if given the chance. There's a lesson to be learned here.

Learn more about the Cabo Pulmo National Marine Park.
Read a Baja Life Magazine article about Cabo Pulmo.
Source: North County Times.

Antarctic Ocean Alliance: coalition to protect fertile seas of the South Pole

It was many decades ago that several leading nations essentially carved up the continent of Antarctica, and so you had nations like the U.S. Russia, Great Britain, and others exploring and studying this hostile, austere, but starkly beautiful landscape. In 1959, the Antarctic Treaty was put into place which effectively demilitarized Antarctica, recognizing its primary value as a scientific laboratory. And in 1991 (made fully effective in 1998), the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty banned all mining and designated Antarctica as a "natural reserve devoted to peace and science."

So much for the protection of the continent. But what about the seas that surround it?

The oceans that surround Antarctica are extremely rich in marine life including krill which is one of the fundamental building blocks of a marine ecosystem. And it has been a source of major commercial fishing for several nations including Russia, Norway, Korea, New Zealand, the UK, and Spain. The Ross Sea, which hugs the Antarctica coast almost equi-distant between South America and Australia, is a particularly fertile ground for commercial fishing. However, as the rest of the world's seas are showing evidence of overfishing, it's only a matter of time for Antarctica to potentially suffer the same fate.

To address the future of the seas of Antarctica, several leading conservation organizations have banded together to promote the Antarctic Ocean Alliance. The Alliance's mission is to establish marine protected areas (MPAs) and no-take reserves around the icy continent, thereby providing the same measure of protection for the oceans as is afforded the land.

The organizations include the Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (ASOC), Oceana, Greenpeace, Mission Blue, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), The Last Ocean, Oceans 5, Forest & Bird, and several others. Famed oceanographer Dr. Sylvia Earle, head of Mission Blue, has been an avid spokesperson for the coalition and its goals (see video below) and through her public promoting and that of the other organizations, it is hoped that there will be a sufficient groundswell of support to help motivate the policymakers.
“As the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) has set a time frame for a representative system of marine protected areas by 2012, there is an unprecedented window of opportunity to establish this network in the oceans around Antarctica as a legacy for future generations,” said the Antarctic Ocean Alliance in a public statement.

Developing Antarctic MPAs would be an ambitious project and the cumulative end result would be the establishment of the largest collection of MPAs on the planet.

Steve Campbell of the Alliance said, "The biggest marine reserve in the world at the moment is about 600,000 sqkm but we know that there are areas around Antarctica which could certainly add up to a lot more than that. We've identified about 19 regions around Antarctica where there could be a marine reserve or marine protected areas set up and this would establish a network of areas all the way around the continent of Antarctica and would be put in place for all time we hope."

The Antarctic Ocean Alliance has produced a brief video that clearly explains the situation and their goals. It shows how, due to commercial overfishing, the Antarctic's seas stand as an oasis surrounded by depleted waters. With the impact of climate change already threatening the continent's ice masses and surrounding ocean temperatures (which has worldwide implications as the world's polar regions act as generators of current, temperature and weather patterns across the globe), it would seem that protecting the marine life which call these chilly waters home would be a positive step. However, getting consensus from nations and being able to effectively enforce the security and integrity of the MPAs could be the greatest challenge.

"The problem at the moment is that as fisheries resources around the world come under more and more pressure, there are going to be more distant water-fishing nations who want to go to the oceans around Antarctica to extract protein," said Campbell. "And they are going to do it either legally or illegally."



Read about the Antarctic Ocean Alliance in Fish Info & Services.
Visit the Antarctic Ocean Alliance website.
Read about the history of Antarctica in Wikipedia.

Marine Protected Area Benefit: study shows drfiting larvae aid fish and fisheries

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are often viewed by commercial and sport fishing interests as a total invasion of the rights of fishermen to harvest bounty from the sea where ever and when ever they can find it. Thought of as a bureaucratic intrusion, compliments of fish-hugging environmentalists, MPAs have actually proven not only to repair and improve the health of the marine ecosystems within their boundaries, but have also shown spillover effects that actually can prove beneficial to sustainable fisheries.

Scientists have known for some time that as fish stocks improve within a marine protected area, the population also begins to improve within the surrounding area. Larger fish establish larger territories, often well outside the boundaries of the MPA (after all, they're not interested in arbitrary borders set by us humans).

Now researchers from Oregon State University have concrete evidence that fish larvae, emanating from within an MPA, can travel distances of over 100 miles and thereby increase stocks of fish well outside of the protected area.

The researchers worked with the MPAs that were established in the late 90's around the big island of Hawaii. Their study focused on the yellow tang, a popular reef fish in the aquarium trade and one whose numbers were declining - not good for commercial interests and certainly not good for the yellow tang. Since the inception of the Hawaiian MPAs, the population of yellow tangs has improved. But there was also seen an increase in numbers many miles outside of the protected areas. Could this be due to a spillover effect from more yellow tangs venturing outside of the protected zone? That would appear to be the case except for one fly in the ointment: yellow tangs are sedentary and settle into an area on the reef not much greater than a half mile in diameter.

To solve the puzzle, the researchers used the same techniques used by police detectives and paternity suit lawyers - DNA. By taking tissue samples from various groups of yellow tangs both within the MPA and beyond, they were able to establish direct relationships with yellow tangs that were as much as 114 miles apart. Only the transportation of larvae, aided by ocean currents, could explain the familial connection.

"This is similar to the type of forensic technology you might see on television, but more advanced," said researcher and lead author of the study, Mark Christie. "We're optimistic it will help us learn a great deal more about fish movements, fishery stocks, and the genetic effects of fishing, including work with steelhead, salmon, rockfish and other species here in the Pacific Northwest."

Oregon State University marine biology professor, Mark Hixon, added, "Tracking the movement of fish larvae in the open ocean isn't the easiest thing in the world to do. It's not like putting a radio collar on a deer. This approach will provide valuable information to help optimize the placement of reserves, identify the boundaries of fishery stocks, and other applications."

One area of concern that grew out of the study was the importance of having good breeding stock by which to provide sufficient and healthy larvae yields. Larger fish are often the target of commercial fishing but these fish have a much greater capacity to produce larvae than smaller ones. Previous studies at the university had shown, as an example, that a single two-foot vermillion rockfish produces more eggs than 17 females that are 14 inches long.

While we continue to establish Marine Protected Areas across the world - some small, some covering many tens of thousands of square miles - the total coverage is but a mere sliver, approximately 1 percent of the world's oceans. And yet, as minuscule as they currently are in size, they have a tremendous impact on the overall health of countless marine species.

Read the Oregon State University news release on EurekAlert!.

Oregon's Proposed Marine Reserves: politics in getting MPAs in the US northwest

Marine Protected Areas, or MPAs, are aquatic reserves that are designed to restrict or prohibit activities deemed harmful to the marine environment. This has typically meant strict regulations on commercial or sport fishing activities but in some cases it has extended further to include other industrial or recreational activities. What is or is not allowed depends on where the reserve is located, its size, and the environmental and economic considerations impacted by the reserve.

Some reserves are quite large, like the South Pacific's multi-national Pacific Oceanscape or Hawaii's Northwestern Islands. Or they can be smaller and localized, like California's central coast marine sanctuaries that include the Channel Islands. But as a global total, marine protect areas cover only a mere one percent of the world's oceans.

The challenge with all MPAs is that they are the end result of a political process, and to deal with that can be as exciting as watching paint dry. Thought-provoking pictures and images and reams of scientific data are all part of the process in considering a marine reserve, but ultimately it boils down to government officials, conservation and environmental interests, and economic interests all trying to hammer out a compromise that the interested or effected parties can live with. And this can be a drawn out process at best.

Along the U.S.'s Oregon coast lies some of the country's most rugged and beautiful coastline and marine ecosystems. Rugged, but just as fragile as any tropical reef system when faced with overfishing, pollution, or any other man-made abuse. The state has been at work to determine the scope of possible MPAs along the Cape Arago area, developing as many as eight different proposals. A recommendation committee has been formed to whittle that number down to just three for public comment.

MPAs follow a process very similar to our legislative process in the U.S. A proposal is put forth, much like a bill, and then it goes to a committee where it is tweaked and amended, then brought forth for public comment, and then ultimately voted on - that's it in a simplified nutshell. Anywhere along the way, it can be derailed by lobby groups or public sentiment and pushed from an internal governmental process to an open ballot initiative, which can be a more drawn out and openly politicized battle.

In 2008, Oregon governor Ted Kulongoski asked the state's Ocean Policy Advisory Council (OPAC) for recommendations for coastal marine reserves. Thus began a lengthy process that included environmental groups and commercial and sport fishing interests. Oregon has several major commercial fishing industries, including salmon and crab, and so the delicate political maneuvering began to reach a suitable compromise. A committee was formed to try and develop proposals that would be at least close to acceptable to all involved.

As reported in the Oregon The World, OPAC committee chair Jim Pex said, "There's a strong political force trying to get as much area in reserves as possible, and a strong force wanting no reserves at all. . . As with any group that is diverse, it takes time to get everyone to move in one direction."

To insure that the process would move forward, the committee adopted several interesting rulings:

• No proposal would be considered that inhibited salmon fishing or crabbing.
• There is no known biological problem that a marine reserve would solve at this time.
• Additionally, funding for ongoing government research would be required to justify the reserve. No funding, no reserve.

Personally, I found these to be some interesting concessions. Once again, an economic consideration (salmon fishing and crabbing) was given a higher priority over the environmental benefit. If it's bad for business then nature will just have to wait. The problem is, as we have seen with other commercial fishing industries, nature doesn't wait; it continues to degrade until the industry collapses due to a decimated fish population.

The second point is a curious one. If the position is to not recognize any biological problem that a marine reserve would solve, then why have the reserve? Or is it a case of getting commercial interests to cooperate by not ascribing any problem specifically to their activities? MPAs have already been shown to increase sealife populations and this has even had a positive effect on commercial fish populations outside of the reserves boundaries. And as I have reported in previous posts, there is a growing issue of increased populations of Humboldt squid all along the eastern Pacific - a situation which possibly could be mitigated by marine reserves which would support an increase in natural predators to the squid (right now, Humboldt squid can pose a serious threat to a multi-million dollar salmon fishery).

In addressing the research funding issue, to insure that there will be continued research to justify any reserve established, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is investigating ways of procuring funding, made difficult in a "no more government spending" climate. Non-governmental funding is being looked into through the use of foundations, trusts, and even federal appropriations.

OPAC is hoping that the final proposals will be brought before the public for comment by the end of the year. The process is an elaborate one and, as we have seen with other U.S. legislation, the end result can be considerably watered down from what was perhaps once envisioned. It certainly is not the "sexy" part of ocean policy but beyond all the fund-raising or issue-raising parties and events, after all the videos and slide presentations, this is what it boils down to: hard-fought negotiations and back room politics.

Hopefully the end result is something that provides the oceans with a real benefit. And, hopefully, mankind learns that by doing that, it too becomes a beneficiary.

Read about Oregon's MPA politics in The World.

Marine Protected Areas: are they the hoped for success?

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and No Take Reserves (NTRs) have been instituted worldwide, from the South China Sea to the North Atlantic to the Mediterranean, as a method to not only preserve marine environments but also provide a means to ensure a reasonable population outside of the zone for commercial fishing. While common sense might dictate that these zones would logically improve the health of a marine environment, there are many challenges in empirically proving it.

While an MPA or an NTR may have a defined boundary, those limits have not been, shall we say, "communicated" to the marine life below the surface and so spatial density, or spillover as it is sometimes called, becomes a critical component. A healthy zone that generates populations of species that extend beyond its borders and provides a reasonable commercial yield, does not do so in a vacuum. There must be a proper flow of incoming influences including plankton, coral, and fish larval stages and other biosystem factors - all of which pay no attention to a zone's arbitrary boundaries.

While preliminary results appear positive, there is a considerable amount of challenging research taking place:

• Studying the impact of political/public use influences on the size (reduction) of a zone versus initial environmental recommendations (preliminary research indicates the negative effect is disproportionately larger than the amount of size reduction).
• Researchers are often challenged by a lack of extensive baseline studies of ecosystems prior to the zone for use in evaluating against post-zone studies.
• Much research needs to be done to document the relationship/effect of multiple MPAs or NTRs and how they interact with each other.

To date there have not been any major negative ecological effects attributed to MPAs and NTRs, but let's hope with more research over time, we will have the body of data to undeniably prove their effectiveness and how we can maximize or improve on that success for both environmental and commercial interests.

Marine Protected Areas: scientists studying the impacts

The continuing efforts to establish marine protected areas (MPA) or reserves worldwide has been an important issue with many conservation and scientific groups for obvious reasons. Activities ranging from overfishing to pollution have needed to be addressed because of the negative impact they have on marine ecosystems and marine life populations. The juggling act has always been in trying to meet the needs or at least compromise with the various stakeholders: commercial fishing, recreational activities, conservationists, scientists, and more.

Challenging as it is, MPAs continue to be established and now a new challenge facing scientists is the careful monitoring of these areas to see what effects - good or bad - the MPA may be having. I was reading interesting information from a SeaWeb.org Marine Science Review (Marine Protected Areas & Reserves #288). Worldwide, there is a considerable amount of research taking place regarding MPAs. Some of the issues they are studying have to do with bio-dispersion - the movement of marine species within a given area. We humans may define an area as "protected" but marine species don't read the fine print and may not stay within safe borders. Depending on the size, sex, and bio-density, a species that moves into harvesting areas, outside an MPA's borders, could be severely impacted. On the other hand, species of less commercial value could profligate within the MPA and perhaps upset the overall ecosystem - one example I read concerned increased populations of parrotfish which consume coral.

While the overall concept of marine protected areas and reserves seems to make environmental sense, scientists are hard at work developing new methodologies and research methods to be able to properly monitor the long term consequences of our efforts to preserve and protect our oceanic resources.