Ecosystem-Based Management the Focus of Workshop

by Mike Crowe

As the deadline approaches for submitting a National Ocean Policy, Northeast Regional Ocean Planning planners met for a special workshop to discuss Ecosystem-Based Management. Until the NRPB meeting last November, there had not been a focused discussion of the ecosystem issues many of the participants consider essential to an ocean policy for a new era of industrialized use of the oceans. In addition to the increased use by current stakeholders, new stakeholders and scales of ocean use are expected soon.

Currently, shipping, commercial and recreational fishing, shellfish aquaculture, coastal sand and gravel mining, and oil and gas drilling are high-profile stakeholders. Some of these are expected to ramp up use in the near future. In addition, new users are expected to be major players. They include deep-ocean mining of rare minerals, large-scale finfish aquaculture, large ships, sea floor cables, wind energy and marine protected areas.

Common themes raised by the participants in the EBM meeting included critical interconnectivity of ocean habitat and species, climate change, baseline assessments, trade-offs and bringing the work of the planning body forward into ocean use permitting practices.

Northeast Fisheries Science Center scientist and meeting panelist Dr. Mike Fogarty noted that an array of modeling tools, integrated assessment tools and what he called complicated management tools were available on a new NRPB website. Referring to the importance of ecosystem-based management going forward, and making a play on words that referenced President Clinton on the economy, he said “It’s eco, stupid.”

Panelist and University of Massachusetts/Boston biologist Anamarija Frankic said that her work—to restore oyster beds on Cape Cod on the one hand, and to help people in Zanzibar on the other hand—proved to be a good illustration of the interconnectedness of nature, offering a global perspective while also proving that people can make change at the local level. Local engagement in projects is more important than any academic thesis or published paper, said Frankic.

“We know what is in the ocean now, but we don’t know what was there previously,” said Frankic. She cited the increased volume of oysters being harvested from the sites she helped restore in Wellfleet, Mass., where 2 million oysters were recently harvested. She compared that to the enormous harvests of 150 years ago, which were in the billions. It was suggested that scientists and managers should look at the earlier baselines for their potential of what the oyster resource can be. Oyster bed restoration is considered important for human food, storm surge protection and habitat interconnectivity maintenance.

Panelist Kathy Mills, from the Gulf of Maine Research Institute, said long-term integration of climate change considerations into management strategies will be necessary. As to the uncertainty climate change brings, Mills said, “We have always managed within a certain level of uncertainty. We have to improve data-tracking within these uncertainties.” Regarding stakeholder engagement, Mills said providing opportunities to bring in stakeholders through the NRPB process was a valuable means of dealing with trade-offs. Mills also cited the importance of rapid access to data for management and stakeholders. “We are moving into situations with increased climate change effects where we have no comparative data, analysis or perspective,” said Mills.

Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said there’s a shift in ocean use patterns. Interactions across sectors of human activity—coastal development, water quality, fishing, for example—must be considered, Rosenberg said , as must the trade-offs inherent across sectors. Fisheries, for example, must be examined to see how they are effected by other ecosystem activities. Echoing comments by others, he said climate change issues complicate the effects on all sectors.

“There is a crisis in climate change,” said Rosenberg. He questioned whether there could be proactive change with the current close scrutiny of public spending.

Dr. Michael Fogarty, chief of NEFSC’s Ecosystem Assessment Program, picked up on the topic of connectivity.

“Connectivity is a part of nature’s resilience,” Fogarty said. He used as an example of a disruption of that connectivity the “astonishing number” of dams built on U.S. Atlantic coast rivers since the 1600s, resulting in devastating destruction of habitat and disruption for anadromous fish species that live in salt water and spawn in fresh water. Destruction of marine systems brought down coastal fisheries, he said. “We’ve broken critical strands in this connectivity and it is an example of damage to connectivity and resilience,” said Fogarty.

“We need to monitor the pulse of change. We could be deceiving ourselves by looking at a system over the last 30 years, rather than the last 100 years,” said Fogarty.

Rosenberg said, “If we need to know everything before moving forward, there will be no movement. We need information, but we need to be wary of getting into a precision trap.” Chuckie Green of the Wampanoag tribe referred to the tribal practice of collecting species information and regulating the resource—a practice passed on through the generations. He said the information could be integrated into today’s database.

During the afternoon session the panel was asked if ecosystem-based management has worked anywhere. Fogarty said the Great Barrier Reef off eastern Australia has responded to EBM.

Frankic opened a discussion of the monetization of nature and conflicting values. “Money is not in the natural equation,” she said.

Frankic noted that value may be found in “life itself and ecosystems on a varied scale.” Rosenberg said, “If it is only profit, oil, gas and tourism always win. Management needs to respond to public interests. Generally, management is responding to business interests.”

Fogarty said, “We as a society do prioritize. Protecting whale is not a monetized approach.”

Northeast Regional Ocean Council director Nick Napoli talked about the work done with data over the last year and bringing it to a usable form. He suggested it’s time for the NRPB process could move beyond the data and toward practical applications.

In the last session of the day, the 80 participants were divided into three groups in separate rooms where each participant discussed briefly what they thought was an important point to make.

Those comments included using maps to identify zones of particular concern that may be formalized in the RPB and establish them in the process for the long-term—for example, removing dams to facilitate fish passage and improve important fish spawning areas; creating high-quality data portals that are easily accessible, inexpensive and easy to use; including local people because they have a better understanding of immediate areas; and empowering communities to make decisions because that is where legal actions will happen.

Overall, the group agreed that local involvement was essential to the ocean-planning process, mainly as a method to get things done. As Fogarty said, “Institutional inertia in federal government is incredible.”