Using this meeting as an opportunity for networking and given that several fishery experts were present, we conducted a brief survey consisting of three questions about research and information needs for fisheries management (click here to view our questionnaire). Of these questions, we asked participants about the type of research that is presently required on short (<5 years) and long (5-10 years) terms in order to deal with fisheries management effectively. We also inquired about the obstacles that are presently hindering research/assessments that can help improve fisheries management. More than 50% of the attendees (n=20) participated in our survey. Results showed that 80% of those that answered our questions have more than 16 years of experience in fisheries and 58% presently work for a government agency/institution. Establishing baselines and development of fisheries management policy tools were most frequently chosen as the short-term research presently needed. Critical information that is needed for long-term research varied, but the most frequently mentioned was better data collection of species-specific catches and ages. Lack of funding was the obstacle most frequently selected among our participants along with insufficiently trained and skilled personnel.

Sea Grant Puerto Rico would like to thank the CFMC members and attendees for participating in our survey and we will be disseminating this information to National Sea Grant and NOAA. We expect that some of our sponsored research projects will help address these issues of main concern among the fisheries community.

Contributed by J. Seda

Suggested reading:

Barnes, C. and K. W. McFadden. “Marine ecosystem approaches to management: challenges and lessons in the United States.” Marine Policy 32.3 (2008): 387-92. (Free full text in our database)

Dhoray, Shanta and Sonja Sabita Teelucksingh. “The implications of ecosystem dynamics for fisheries management: A case study of selected fisheries in the Gulf of Paria, Trinidad.” Journal of Environmental Management 85.2 (2007): 415-28. (Free full text in our database)

Videos:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Sea Grant Puerto Rico – Efforts for orientating local fishermen about the EEZ (Elusive Economic Zone) in the US Caribbean . (Audio in Spanish only).

Click here to view the embedded video.

The Endless Voyage: Introduction to Oceanography – Focus on fisheries management, mostly on overfishing and maintaining a sustainable use of our marine resources.



Observational and forecast needs most frequently solicited by users include data on coastal winds, waves, currents, inundation, water quality, bathymetry, temperature, salinity, and benthic habitats. Several implementation strategies were presented by Prof. Julio Morell, principal investigator, including the minimization of infrastructure deployment and maintenance (i.e., sparse network of real-time sensors complemented by higher spatial resolution), installing observing assets (e.g., buoys, radars, remote sensing) located in critical representative areas, and developing numerical model assets.

During the assembly, most of the members/participants expressed their concern about installing cameras in specific areas (e.g., beaches) for improving vigilance and safety, installing buoys and developing models for USVI and increasing the resolution of the data provided by the system. A major interest by users is the development of tutorials on how to use and interpret the data provided by the system, which may be directed towards helping specific users (e.g., divers, shipping companies, surfers, coastal managers). UPRSG is currently integrated in the Outreach & Education subcommittee headed by Dr. Yasmín Detrés and will be participating in efforts to educate CaRA users on how to efficiently utilize the online products and services.

The first CariCOOS coastal data buoy, weighing approximately 6,000 pounds, for the US Caribbean region was deployed on June 9, 2009 on the south coast of the Puerto Rico insular shelf break off Caja Muertos Island. The buoy was anchored at a depth of 55 feet. Measurements of wind, air temperature, atmospheric pressure, waves, near-surface water temperature, salinity and ocean currents  throughout the water column are obtained in real-time. Buoys similar to this one will be deployed in the northern coast of Puerto Rico during March 2010 and in a region between St. Croix and St. Thomas sometime during this year.

Photo: CariCOOS coastal data buoy, http://cara.uprm.edu

Contributed by J. Seda

Jackson and Hobbs argue on the importance of the historical perspective on ecosystems and the need for paleoecological and paleoenvironmental studies in understanding “existing and historical ecosystems, determining the circumstances under which they arose, gauging the range of environmental variability they have experienced, and identifying different levels of intervention” (2009:568). These authors are cautious, but firm in their view of the need for a historical analysis of ecosystems, prior to a deliberation on how to restore them.  Their model and recommendations are straightforward; however, they fail to mention the human component. In many cases, historical ecosystems and paleoenvironments show evidence of the human footprint in varying degrees.  Namely, restoration must also consider archaeological and paleoecological factors (which are often worked in tandem) in order to create a more precise view of past ecosystems.

Palmer and Filoso provide a short and precise discussion on ecosystem services and environmental markets, and their role in restoration.  The authors warn the reader on the many interpretations of restoration that are not ecologically sound.  If restoration is defined, in its purest form, as “returning an ecosystem to an undisturbed or historic state”, then one must be cautious with projects that propose the “creation” of a stream or a wetland in an area where there was none in the past. Furthermore, many projects are based on the structural characteristics of the ecosystem (e.g., developing a salt flat or a wooded area), but ecological processes are disregarded.  In addition, the difference between a service and a process are underscored: the former should be based on the scientific analysis of how is the ecosystem performing, while the latter delivers a service, such as “clean water to humans” (2009:575).

Rebuilding Global Fisheries (Worm et al. 2009) provides a worldwide panorama of the status of the stocks and starts, based on many scientific papers and data, with overfishing as the main culprit for its decline.  The article also reviews the status of fisheries science and the assessment of stocks on a global scale. Information on single species predominates, mostly in temperate regions and continental areas, where industrial fishing fleets operate with the most advanced technologies.  The authors acknowledge that, the “information … for small-scale artisanal and recreational fisheries is scarcer, less accessible, and more difficult to interpret. This is because small-scale fisheries are harder to track… ” (2009:581). The lack of enforcement and poor reporting make management difficult for small-scale fisheries, and thus, rebuilding (restoration) continues to be a major challenge. While this study offers important recommendations for the science of restoration and the rebuilding of stocks (“still a poorly understood process”), a poor understanding and treatment of the human factor remains, except for a handful of broad remarks on the socioeconomic factors shaping small-scale and industrial fisheries. Nevertheless, the overall analysis is top-notch and those interested in ecosystem restoration and stock rebuilding should further explore by reading this article.

Contribued by M. Valdés Pizzini

Sea Grant and CIEL

NOAA Restoration Center – http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/restoration/

Society for Ecological Restoration International – http://www.ser.org

Global Restoration Network – http://www.globalrestorationnetwork.org/ecosystems/coastal/

Summary

The implementation of ecosystem management of marine natural resources is considered a challenge despite the overall consensus that it is essential to understand the complexity of these ecosystems at both ecologic and socioeconomic scales. Katherine McFadden and Cassandra Barnes (2009) report on the endeavors made by the United States’ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to execute and modify its strategies to incorporate an active ecosystem approach to management (EAM). Survey responses from nine programs associated with ecosystem science and management within NOAA from eight eco-regions (Northeast US Continental Shelf, Southeast Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, California current, Alaska ecosystem complex, Pacific Islands, Great Lakes, and the Caribbean ecosystem) were analyzed. Initially, NOAA’s efforts began with its participation in the Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force (IEMTF) in 1993. However, the implementation of EAM presented a significant change in the agency’s method of managing marine resources and its collaboration with other organizations. The United States Ocean Action Plan (USOAP) helped renew NOAA’s efforts for EAM with its integration in the 2004 Strategic Plan.

According to McFadden and Barnes (2009), 66 regional activities were identified, with the Gulf of Mexico contributing the largest number of EAM initiatives followed by the Northeast (although this may be due to specific mandates in these particular areas). Most EAM projects began approximately 7 years ago and vary widely in spatial scales. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) was considered the major organization that had the largest number of EAM-related projects and the greatest portion of NOAA’s 2005 total budget for ecosystem-related research (58%). A statistical analysis showed no particular geographic region as the sole focus of NOAA’s efforts for EAM. Collaborative efforts with other non-governmental organizations (NGOs), international organizations, and partnerships reached up to 70%, of which most were within other NOAA divisions and programs.

Survey responses were categorized into successful intents of EAM projects that concentrated on “collaborations, multidisciplinary approaches and identifying common priorities”. Partnerships with different organizations and agencies are considered essential to achieve an ample amount of information needed for better management strategies. Incorporating multiple disciplines from several areas of scientific knowledge (e.g., environmental sciences, psychology, and social sciences) are needed to assess needs and concerns that require alternatives/solutions based on an ecosystem approach. Being able to identify common priorities can help minimize the timeliness in recognizing problems and focus efforts on improving commitments between NOAA and local stakeholders.

The authors acknowledge that not all programs associated with EAM projects responded to this study and is not considered an “entirely comprehensive analysis”. However, the results obtained from this survey provided insight on how ecosystem management is perceived by most of the individuals involved in EAM activities and the extent of NOAA’s progress in executing this type of management as a large multidisciplinary agency.

To read more on this week’s Featured Article, check out our CRA Publication Database.

Dr. Ken Sherman (Director, U.S. Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) Program) – What criteria is used to name a LME?

Click here to view the embedded video.

CRA’s Comment

NOAA’s attitude towards marine resource management has been gradually changing in order to implement an ecosystem approach. However, integrating different forms of science, encouraging collaborations, lack of financial funds, and the need for a “big picture” view have been identified as being major challenges in improving the cooperation and understanding of EAM within NOAA (Barnes and McFadden, 2008)[1]. Interestingly, one of the strategies considered for a successful EAM is establishing collaborations with other organizations, agencies and the local community. CRA’s preliminary assessments of marine resource managers, experts and users in the Caribbean are in agreement for increasing collaborations and partnerships of governmental agencies and local stakeholders (see a detailed report of the scoping session at the 2008 Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute Annual Meeting). We concur entirely with the authors in the sharing of information among partners outside and inside of NOAA, which foments the development of a comprehensive database that can be consistently updated with the latest data (McFadden and Barnes, 2009).

Contributed by J. Seda

NOAA Ecosystems Goal Team – http://ecosystems.noaa.gov/

National Coastal Development Center (Ecosystem Observation Program) – http://www.ncddc.noaa.gov/activities/noaa-ecosystem-approach-to-management

Large Marine Ecosystems of the World (Dr. Ken Sherman) – http://www.lme.noaa.gov/

1. The role and effectiveness of bans, closures and MPAs for species protection
2. Different factors involved in the variability of catches and in recruitment
3. The role of local markets in shaping the structure of catches and selectivity of species and sizes.

Although not directly related to research, there was a concern on the flow of information from the scientists and managers to the fishers. The future construction of a research agenda will depend on the effectiveness of the shared information and the ability to successfully explain these findings to laypersons using complex graphics based on computer models.

Contributed by M. Valdes-Pizzini

Various issues of main concern included:

1.     Lack of tools (e.g., topography maps and models) that would benefit the managers in performing their duties

2.     Accessibility to the most recently updated information in a user-friendly format

3.     Political will as a constant pressure in coastal development

4.     Long-term planning for climate change adaptation (e.g., beach erosion, flash flooding)

5.     How to best guide coastal development based on models and maps that are based on USVI environmental conditions rather than conditions in the US or PR

6.     Lack of human capacity needed to obtain up-to-date information on land use, water quality, etc.

7.     Lack of technical training and expertise to maintain databases and websites

8.     Lack of interconnectivity and sharing of information among divisions in federal departments

9.     Lack of interagency and institutional dissemination of recent information on projects focused on coastal management

10.   Lack of sufficient funds for personnel and projects

Among these concerns, high-priority data needs were mentioned that addressed specific matters:

1.     Up-to-date data on wind, waves and currents throughout the USVI

2.     Watershed and wetland sampling for water quality evaluation

3.     Shoreline mapping

4.     Layered data sets for land-use plans

5.     Tsunami warning system

6.     Identifying inundation zones

7.     Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) habitat imagery including seasonal variations

8.     Accessibility and evaluation of information

9.     Real-time monitoring of water quality and coral reefs

Being able to find, interpret, and apply the data available through the CaRA data website (http://www.caricoos.org) is one of the major difficulties reported by users. In a personal interview with CaRA’s Executive Director, Julio Morell, one of the main tasks that they will be working on this year is the training of coastal managers and mariners on how to access and understand the data that is generated daily by the sensors located at several stations in the waters of USVI and PR.

A stakeholder council meeting was later scheduled on December 9, 2008 at the Embassy Suites Hotel & Casino in San Juan, PR. Dr. Manual Valdes-Pizzini was invited to participate in this conference. The purpose of this assembly mostly focused on stakeholder needs and maintaining collaborative efforts and relations with national and local organizations/programs such as PR/USVI state government, NOAA, National Federation of Regional Associations of Coastal and Ocean Observing (NFRA), IOCARIBE, Interdisciplinary Center for Littoral Studies (CIEL), US Coast Guard Search and Rescue, National Weather Service, and the PR Sea Grant Program.

Contributed by J. Seda

Highlighting the conference, with respect to potential application in the Caribbean, were several presentations that dealt with coral rehabilitation and evaluation of biological stress. This conference and the pre-conference workshop on the US Army Corps of Engineers Coastal Modeling System provided an opportunity to canvass the coastal engineering community with respect to critical research areas in the Caribbean. The questionnaire that we used as a scoping tool is a modification of the four questions that we presented at our GCFI scoping session last November. We based our survey questions on the suggestions for research areas gleaned from an earlier e-mail survey that we conducted in 2006. Of the approximately 150 people attending the conference and workshop, 30 participants were found with experience in the Caribbean and asked to respond to our written survey. Six (6) submitted their response at the conference and an approximately equal number promised to send a response by fax or email. The results are being added to a database for analysis and new results are being included as we receive them.

Contributed by K. Grove

Photo: Beach shoreline at Bahia Honda, Florida Keys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida)

Florida Beach and Shore Preservation Association – http://www.fsbpa.com/

Summary

Using marine protected areas (MPAs) as a management tool for conservation can be effective, especially when local stakeholders, government agencies and communities take an active role in the planning and decision-making processes. Sadly, few efforts have been made for co-management and community involvement in MPAs of developing countries in the Caribbean. Rosa E. Rodríguez-Martínez (2008) revises the history and development of the community-based MPA in Puerto Morelos reef, which was established in 1998 and is located on the northeastern side of the Yucatan Peninsula. The author also discusses her view on the multiple problems encountered by the MPA and presents alternatives that may provide solutions for better co-management of marine resources and serve as an example for MPAs in other countries.

The management program was initially prepared by local stakeholders and the Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, Universidad Nacional Autonóma de México (UNAM). Mostly formal and informal sessions were carried out to discuss and resolve conflict issues concerning the use of Puerto Morelos among the local stakeholders. One of the main concerns from the community when creating the MPA was its unsustainable use; however, some groups focused on prospects for major investments in the area. To better assist the communication among the different groups, an Advisory Council with various representatives from the government and community sectors was established in 2001.

Video: Community involvement in the sustainable use and conservation of Puerto Morelos Reef (March 20, 2008)

Click here to view the embedded video.

Several obstacles brought about by the federal government hindered the ability to efficiently administer and achieve the MPA’s full potential. The sharing of directors with other protected areas, due to lack of funds and personnel, was commonplace and tended to delay the development and implementation of agreements decided by the Council. For several years, the MPA had no federal funding and depended on the financial support of tourist operators and volunteers. Afterward, a user fee was established by federal law to tourists, but delays in its return to Puerto Morelos hampered the adequate implementation of the management program. Insufficient personnel has constantly been a hindrance for the MPA’s success, especially with budget cuts made during 2007. Enforcement of MPA regulations also represents a challenge because of the lack of coordination and cooperation among the governmental, federal, and municipal agencies on the correct measures needed for handling marine and coastal issues. Despite the government’s deficiencies, the Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, UNAM devoted their efforts to the scientific research of the Puerto Morelos reefs, which became part of the permanent monitoring of coral reefs conducted by the Caribbean Coastal Marine Productivity Program (CARICOMP). Presently, it is considered part of a coral reef research initiative financed by the Global Environmental Facility through the World Bank.

Community participation is an important component of the MPA management; however, the problems presented by changes in MPA directors, busy agendas, and few attendees due to a loss of interest by the local stakeholders because of neglected agreements negatively affected the community’s enthusiasm to be involved in the management program. On the other hand, public education and awareness of coral reef conservation are well-supported and essential factors of the MPA’s creation and management. Several educational programs have been implemented throughout the years, but the lack of personnel has withheld the commencement of a 5-year program for community participation in the conservation of natural resources. Projects sponsored by the Programa de Desarrollo Sustentable (PRODERS, Sustainable Development Program) have also been successful in promoting sustainable development in communities surrounding the protected area. The existence of the MPA has also helped to develop a conscious effort by the community to enforce environmental regulations and prevent the development of projects that may threaten their lives and Puerto Morelos reefs.

Rodríguez-Martínez emphasizes the importance of the community’s participation for Puerto Morelos’ development as an MPA while lacking fixed federal funds to support the management program. Although, at present, the federal government has jurisdiction over Puerto Morelos, the local stakeholders continue to partake of the decision-making process. The author suggests that collaborative co-management in the administration of Puerto Morelos is essential for supporting the MPA, rather than solely community-based or centralized management. Agreements among different levels of governmental agencies and joint planning of actions are also considered key factors that should be improved to better manage MPAs. Another suggestion is to make management decisions based on scientific and monitoring data, which should be evaluated frequently with the purpose of quickly detecting and resolving problems. Overall, the author highly encourages the active collaboration of both resource users and local communities to effectively manage and sustain the use of MPAs similar to Puerto Morelos.

To read more on this week’s Featured Article, check out our CRA Publication Database.

CRA’s Comment

UPR-SG considers community involvement an essential component for the effective management and sustainable use of marine resources. Rodríguez-Martínez (2008), based on her personal experience as a participant of the Puerto Morelos management program, strongly suggests the co-management of both government agencies and local stakeholders in order to make better decisions for the MPA. In the case of Puerto Morelos, an advisory council was appointed in order to discuss and resolve conflicts among the local stakeholders. During our visit to a regular meeting of the Caribbean Fisheries Management Council (June 2009), we observed a similar interchange of ideas between non-governmental organizations (NGOs), territory institutions for natural resource management, federal agencies, and commercial fishermen. Bearing this in mind, the CRA project intends to obtain information regarding concerns for research and management of marine resources in the Caribbean from several groups, such as NGOs, governmental agencies, scientists, and local resource users. It is imperative that all parties, whether public or private, contribute to the sustainable use and conservation of our marine resources.

Contributed by J. Seda

Photo: Boats at Puerto Morelos (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parque_Nacional_Arrecife_de_Puerto_Morelos)

National Park – Puerto Morelos Reef (Parque Nacional Arrecife de Puerto Morelos) - http://puertomorelos.conanp.gob.mx/

Information about Puerto Morelos reef from the CaribbeanMPA database (CaMPAM) – http://cep.unep.org/caribbeanmpa/mpa/puerto-morelos

Coral reef targeted research and capacity building for management – http://www.gefcoral.org/

Resource for relevant links associated with Caribbean MPAs (CIEL) - http://amp-pr.org/blog/?page_id=237