MARINE PROTECTED AREAS ARE BACK IN THE NEWS

 

I first got involved with the marine protected areas issue a little over 20 years ago, when members of the marine conservation community began to advocate for the creation of a broad network of no-take MPAs; if I recall correctly, they were calling for something like one-quarter or one-third of all U.S. waters to be placed off-limits to fishing, even relatively low-impact fishing such as catch-and-release angling.

At the time, I thought that it was one of the biggest miscues that such conservation groups ever engaged in, as they managed to alienate a large portion of the recreational fishing community, who had previously seen such organizations as allies, and gave some degree of credibility to some of the more radical “anglers’ rights” organizations and fishing industry voices, who opposed needed conservation measures in an effort to maintain higher short-term yields and, in the industry case, short-term profits.

Although such groups were clearly self-serving, and not acting in the long-term interests of either fishermen or fish stocks, they gained a lot of traction because the MPA advocates had a lot of problems explaining why anglers needed to be completely excluded from any particular section of ocean. 

While MPAs are arguably a needed part of the fisheries management toolbox, as there very well may be situations in which the only way to protect an imperiled fish stock is to place a limited area of reef, hard bottom, or sensitive estuary off-limits to everyone, the arbitrary creation of no-fishing zones, that excluded anglers from an equally arbitrary percentage of the ocean, seemed very much like a problem in search of a solution, and made it very easy for the radical anglers’ rights crowd to falsely characterize the marine conservation community as a bunch of environmental extremists who wanted to throw anglers off the water just because they didn’t like the idea of recreational fishing.

That’s when the so-called “Freedom to Fish Act” was drafted and introduced in Congress, in an effort to prevent the creation of no-take MPAs that excluded anglers unless it could be demonstrated that anglers were the cause of the problem that the MPA was supposed to cure, that less-restrictive measures wouldn’t solve that problem, and that angling would again be permitted once that the problem was solved.

Federal Freedom to Fish legislation never went anywhere as a stand-alone bill, although a later amendment to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act did require that any area closure be based on the best scientific information available, include criteria to assess the closure’s conservation benefit, be subject to a timetable for review of the closure’s benefits, and that the closure be based on an assessment of its benefits and impacts, as compared to the benefits and impacts of other management measures. 

Over time, the rift between most saltwater anglers and the conservation community sort-of healed over, with the more responsible angling groups of the time managing to work with the conservation groups to pass the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006.  In doing so, they managed to stave off efforts to weaken the law with the “flexibility” provisions favored by the anti-conservation fishing industry and anglers’ rights contingents. 

Still, while the outright hostility that erupted into the MPA/Freedom to Fish debate healed over, scars remained.  On the angling side, it was kind of like a broken leg set without the aid of a doctor—things were fixed up enough that people could work together again, but the relationship was seriously crippled.  That crippled relationship caused problems down the road, when issues that cried out for cooperation between the angling and conservation communities arose again—red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico might be the best example—but the bad taste left by the MPA effort made it difficult to rebuild the trust that had let the two groups work together, effectively, in earlier times.

Both the fish and the fishermen suffered as a result.

Now, it might be time to wonder whether the conservation community has learned from its past mistakes, or whether it’s again preparing for a trip down the MPA rabbit hole, just as it’s becoming clear that the only way to assure our ability to pass down healthy fish stocks to the next generation is for fishermen and marine conservation groups to work together as closely as humanly possible.

Because MPAs are in the news again, thanks to the introduction of H.R. 8632, the so-called Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act of 2020, which would create marine protected areas that

“prohibit any commercial extractive or destructive human activity in at least 30 percent of the ocean under United States jurisdiction by 2030.”

While the 30 percent figure appears to be, and probably is, arbitrary, the so called “30 by 30” language reflects a global conservation goal, arising out of the Convention on Biological Diversity, to place that amount of the Earth’s lands and waters under meaningful protection over the next decade.

And, in all honesty, it might be a good idea.  As in every other facet of life, the devil will be in the details.  In this case, in how the phrase “commercial extractive or destructive human activity” is going to be interpreted.

The “commercial extractive” part is pretty easy to understand: No oil drilling, no undersea mining, no gill nets, no trawls, no longlines, etc.  I’d be more than happy to see my local section of continental shelf forever free of the threat of seismic surveys and the oil rigs—and spills—that might follow, and if tar balls never start washing up on the beach at Fire Island, I certainly won’t complain.

A lot of anglers might be looking at the seeming ban on commercial fishing, and thinking that their dreams would be answered, too—that H.R. 8632 would essentially represent a long-sought “gamefish bill” for 30 percent of U.S. waters, which would give them exclusive fishing rights in that part of the sea.  But if they’re thinking that way, they may get a very harsh wake-up call when someone finally decides what constitutes “destructive human activity.”

Given that anglers harvest the lion’s share of many coastal fish species, “destructive human activity” could easily be construed to include recreational fishing, too.

While that would certainly be a bad outcome, there are reasons to believe it won’t happen.  Language in H.R. 8632 sets out an MPA policy that, among other things,

“relies on the best available science;

“includes meaningful input from States, local communities, and Native American Tribes…;

“improves access to nature for all people…;

“provides ecological and geographic representation, taking into account that some Fishery Management Councils have taken action to ban the use of all bottom-tending fishing gear and all fishing gear with bycatch rates that adversely affect marine wildlife populations;…

“supports sustainable economic opportunity…;

“evaluates the negative and positive economic impacts…and considers ways to mitigate such negative impacts; [and]

“considers local and regional input in the design and implementation of protected areas, including input from stakeholders, and considers the cultural values, including seafaring and maritime heritage values, of the United States…  [emphasis added, internal numbering omitted]”

On the other hand, if the last four years have taught us anything, it is that an administration has a lot of leeway in how it interprets the scope of its power when engaged in the rulemaking process.  While recent rulemaking has generally supported resource extraction, and was contrary to the public interest in clean air, clean water, and sustainable natural resources, it’s not hard to imagine the pendulum swinging too hard the other way, and some future administration interpreting “destructive human activity” to include trolling for tuna or catching a couple of mahi for the freezer.

And while I can selfishly look at these things from the perspective of a recreational fisherman, the fact remains that not all commercial fishing is equally destructive, and that it’s easy to imagine smaller-scale commercial activities that don’t do any more harm than angling would, so long as landings are kept under control.  Yet a ban on “commercial extraction” would include such low-impact fisheries, too.

Certainly, commercial fishermen feel as if they’re in H.R. 8632’s crosshairs.  About eight hundred commercial fishermen signed a recent letter addressed to Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-NM), Chairman of the House of Representatives’ Committee on Natural Resources, objecting to the bill’s MPA provisions.  While those fishermen made a number of related arguments, the crux of their opposition was that the MPAs that the bill would create would deprive them of fishing grounds and economic benefits for no good reason.  The letter notes that

“In contrast with many international contexts—where MPAs are established to remedy a profoundly broken fisheries management system and a degraded marine environment—U.S. fisheries are overwhelmingly sustainable and successfully managed to Maximum Sustainable Yield.”

There seems to be scientific support for that position.

A paper that appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America about a month ago, titled “A global network of marine protected areas for food,” garnered significant attention when it concluded that closing off just 5 percent more of the ocean in marine protected areas could result in future fish catches increasing by at least 20 percent.  When the House Committee on Natural Resources held a hearing on H.R. 8632 earlier this week, witnesses cited such paper in support of the bill’s MPA provisions.

However, the paper does not make a convincing case for creating more MPAs in United States waters, but seems to support the commercial fishermen’s letter when it notes that

“While it is unlikely that MPAs can significantly increase yield in well-managed fisheries, it is widely agreed that strategically designed MPAs can increase yield in overfished fisheries…Therefore, in regions where fisheries management is lacking, highly protected MPAs may simultaneously improve both fisheries catch and conservation if designed well.  [emphasis added]”

At the Natural Resources Committee hearing, the witnesses disagreed on the need for MPAs in U.S. waters.

Dr. Jane Lubchenko, who headed the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration from 2009-2013, and is currently a Distinguished Professor at the University of Oregon, called MPAs an

“underutilized tool to protect biodiversity, provide safe havens for wildlife, help recover depleted stocks and species, restore the ecological balance within an ecosystem, protect stores of carbon, provide reference areas for evaluating impacts of fishing, and enhance ecosystem resilience—on a permanent basis.”

But even recreational fishermen might have gotten a little nervous if they heard her then say that

“Only Fully Protected or Highly Protected MPAs provide the benefits listed above; Lightly and Minimally Protected Areas simply do not,”

as “Fully Protected” MPAs would certainly exclude anglers, while “Highly Protected” MPAs might also place heavy, and possibly unneeded, burdens on angling.

Once again, it comes down to the question of whether an MPA was arbitrarily created, or whether it was created to serve one or more of the purposes outlined in Dr. Lubchenko’s testimony.  An MPA established to evaluate the impacts of fishing, for example, might necessarily have to exclude anglers, but there is little reason for an MPA created to help recover depleted stocks of Pacific rockfish or deep-water grouper need exclude anglers fishing for billfish 600 feet above the bottom where the protected species reside. 

Yet a “Fully Protected” MPA would make no distinction between harmful and low-impact fishing activity; all would be banned.

Another witness, Dr. Ray Hilborn, a professor at the University of Washington, addressed such distinctions in his testimony, saying

“marine protected areas are simply the wrong tool for adapting to climate change.  There are three primary objectives of the 30x30 proposal; (1) to increase target species production, (2) to protect non-target species and (3) to protect sensitive habitats.  MPAs will either not help or there are better tools.

“Both theory and empirical evidence shows that you cannot increase target species yield with MPAs unless overfishing is wide spread.  Overfishing is rare in the U.S. and we would not expect the MPAs to increase the yield from our fish stocks.  Certainly there are typically more fish in the closed areas than outside, but remember that the fishing effort that was previously inside the MPAs has been moved outside.  The evidence shows that when MPAs are put in place and stocks are well managed, abundance goes up inside the closed area, and goes down outside with no-net gain…

“Certainly, vulnerable marine ecosystems need protection, but many Fishery Management Councils are doing that—and in a way that is science-based and has credibility with industry and other stakeholders.  Moreover, these areas only need protection from mobile bottom contact gear such as trawls and dredges.  There is no need to ban midwater trawling, purse seining, longlining or surface gill nets to protect corals, sponges or sea grasses…”

Clearly, the two scientists come at the issue from different perspectives.  Dr. Lubchenko has spent much of her career as an academic scientist, with much of her research funded by non-governmental organizations, or as a government employee, while Dr. Hilborn, although also an academic who receives significant NGO funding, has many close ties with the fishing industry, receives substantial NGO funding as well, and over the years has examined fisheries issues from a harvest-oriented perspective. 

Yet the fact that the two recognized experts can disagree on the need for MPAs suggests that Congress, and the conservation community, should be reluctant to establish a network of no-take MPAs in U.S. waters. 

MPAs, imposed to address a specific problem, and no more restrictive than necessary to achieve their goals, can be valuable management tools.

But no-take MPAs, imposed arbitrarily merely to achieve an equally arbitrary percentage goal, will alienate both the recreational and the commercial fishing communities, drive wedges between them and marine conservation advocates, and diminish stakeholder support for conservation efforts.

30 by 30 might look good on paper, but in the end, by creating a schism among those who should naturally be allies, it is likely to cause more harm than good.