Coral in much of the Pacific Ocean, such as these specimens on Australia's Great Barrier Reef, are dying faster than previously thought. (Australian Institute of Marine Science/AP/File)
Bush’s pushes for marine reserves
The president’s ambitious plan would conserve two large swaths of the Pacific.
By Peter N. Spotts | Staff writer/ December 7, 2008 edition
Reporter Peter N. Spotts explains why now might be the best time to start protecting highlands, atolls and sea mounts susceptible to climate change.
Reporter Peter N. Spotts
In its waning weeks, the Bush administration is sorting through options that could lead to the largest marine conservation reserves in United States history.
At issue: Proposals to protect at least one of two vast reaches of ocean that host some of the most pristine coral-reef and under-sea mountain ecosystems in the Pacific. One candidate, a loose cluster of islands and atolls in the central Pacific called the Line Islands, covers a patch of ocean larger than Mexico. The other, a section of the northern Mariana Islands, is larger than Arizona.
The administration has been heavily criticized for its stance on environmental issues such as global warming and for its last-minute efforts to ease some environmental regulations. So its interest in a bold marine-conservation move may seem surprising. But the president “has had a strong interest in the health of the oceans,” says Dennis Heinemann, a senior vice president with Ocean Conservancy, a marine-conservation group in Washington.
In 2006, President Bush established a vast marine reserve along the northwest Hawaiian Islands, the Papahanaumokuakea National Marine Monument. The monument spans an area larger than all of the country’s national parks combined.
It’s unclear at the moment whether the White House will take the same regulatory approach now. Mr. Bush could establish vast no-take zones, perhaps with exceptions to allow indigenous people to fish there. Or, he could merely endorse the concept of preserving these areas and punt the decision to the incoming Obama administration.
Still, hopes are high that Bush will grant full protection to these areas. “The condition of the oceans is degrading, and it’s really been degrading for coral reefs. It’s important to preserve these last few relatively untouched parts of the ocean,” Dr. Heinemann says.
The latest effort builds on the 2006 Hawaii designation, says Jay Nelson, who heads the global ocean legacy program at the Pew Environment Group in Washington. Following that designation, the White House asked federal agencies, nongovernment groups, and the research community for more candidates. These included deep-sea coral networks off the US Southeast Coast and a proposal to establish a string of marine protected areas along the continental shelf from Florida to Belize.
In the end, the Marianas and Line Islands were the last candidates standing.
The islands, atolls, and seamounts that would be conserved are remote. But they may also represent unique opportunities for research. In addition to its reefs, a northern Marianas reserve would include a section of the Marianas Trench, formed by the collision of two plates of the Earth’s crust and home to the deepest spot on the seafloor. The area hosts 19 species of whales and dolphins. Life thrives in the extreme environments around hydrothermal vents. The seascape includes enormous mud volcanoes and pools of boiling sulfur.
The Line Islands, meanwhile, are feeding stations for migratory fish with an unexpected twist on the traditional food pyramid. “It’s an amazing inverted pyramid design,” in which most living organisms sit atop the food chain instead of at the bottom, says Nancy Knowlton, a marine scientist with the Smithsonian Institution Museum of Natural History. Although organisms lower on the food chain are fewer, they reproduce more quickly and so can support a relatively large number of diners. The system gives researchers a good baseline to understand what coral-reef systems used to look like, she says.
The Line Islands also serve as a way station for 21 species of migratory birds and some 19 species of seabird, who come to feed as large fish on a feeding frenzy drive their prey to the surface. “This shows a direct ecological connection between land and sea,” notes William Chandler, vice president for government affairs at the Marine Conservation Biology Institute office in Washington.
The effort is drawing support from the tourist industry, who see the region’s reefs as an asset that needs to be safeguarded, as well as from conservation groups and marine scientists.
But the proposal has generated its share of concerns. Some supporters worry that conservation measures won’t be tight enough.
Meanwhile, locals have expressed concerns that restrictions will be too tight. Indigenous people in American Samoa and the Marianas were concerned they would be banned from fishing and other traditional practices. There are other worries about Washington impinging on undersea mining projects for minerals on the seafloor off the Marianas Trench. These local concerns are being addressed, says James Connaughton, head of the president’s Council on Environmental Quality.
“There are a lot of people who are not quite sure what we might or might not do who are envisioning the worst from their particular perspective,” he says. The assessment team were able to reassure many people that the worst won’t happen.
One concern shared by local fishermen and US Pentagon officials centered on navigation rights through any proposed reserve, particularly around the Marianas. But the president’s directive to assess the potential marine reserve sites reaffirmed these navigation rights.
The White House faces a deadline of Inauguration Day next month for making any decision on the reserves. But many conservationists say they hope a decision comes by the end of the year.
( More stories )
Comments
2. toni knigh | 12.13.08
It is not at all clear from this article exactly what will be done to protect these vast areas… what kind of fishing will be allowed and must there be treaties with other countries to enforce this protection? What controls of dumping garbage and sewage are being proposed? Will those controls apply to all ships crossing those areas?
I’m afraid that I’m becoming cynical about ‘monuments’ without enforcement. The U.S. Navy has been given permission to endanger sea mammals like whales and dolphins by continuing their sonic experiments — will one U.S. department be required to inform ANOTHER agency about the president’s edicts?
3. Tom Fitzgibbon | 12.13.08
Dear John (opinion #1)
Local fisherman can harvest for LOCAL MARKETS in Marine Protected Areas. Commercial fisherman cannot fish in MPAs. Does anyone in the world think that an “enviro-extremist” can cause as much destruction as a commercial fishing fleet? Sounds like opinion 1 is being paid by the commercial fishing industry.
Dear Toni (opinion #2)
What is your point? Do nothing because the US Government is inept and sometimes works at cross purposes? I say support any effort by the US Government to first establish Marine Protected Areas and then enforce fishing regulation in the MPAs. There is no down side, except for the commercial fishing industries.
Why does everyone blame the environmentalists for bringing us the truth about “free resources” running out? Timber, oil, farmland, ocean fishing, mining have huge costs us all. This stuff all runs out when too much is taken. Our free ride is coming to an end.
4. Steele | 12.16.08
It seems like a distraction from Bush’s concurrent repealing of Endangered Species Act protections…
5. amberwaves | 12.17.08
Dear John,
I have been following multiple US MPA initiatives. I don’t claim to have a fully proficient understanding of the NMI people’s concerns. However, Tom’s statement that the loosing community is the fishing community does appear to carry some weight both in the societal sense as becoming destructive outcasts and in the economic sense with lost fishing opportunity.
Undesirable or inconclusive science for these policies is often the case from the perspective of ocean industries. Most of the studies are theoretical and filled with assumptions. Even though many of these assumptions have been trial tested in wildlife ecology studies, their application in the open and fluid marine realm (especially in a defined space and place over the long-term) could certainly be way off the mark. Science is still learning much about population subunits. Where these stocks begin and end is relatively unclear but, can make a big difference for the outcomes of strategies used to manage them. As far as empirical studies go, many places with established no-takes are still waiting for the long-term benefits to fisheries. However, the short-term costs do appear to be evident. See http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/science1.asp for an extensive list of links to scientific studies on MPAs.
Fighting the science is probably a losing battle. However inconclusive or subjective it may seem to the people of the NMIs, it will likely meet the requirement of “best available”. You are probably not surprised to find strung all through the supporting literature for MPAs (especially no takes), the window of opportunity they open for improving science. While I don’t intend to contest this point, I do sympathize for those who are attempting to think critically about science that is behind the agenda and potentially on the agenda.
I am going to make some humble recommendations here in addition to supporting efforts that appear to already be underway in the NMIs. Instead of battling the science, stake your claims in the designation process and strive for a democratic approach to conservation. I sincerely doubt that anyone from the CNMI is against conserving the natural resources there. If this is incorrect, you might as well ignore all of the above and that to follow.
Keep striving to make democracy better! There are many positives to this approach. Afterall, most of the high profile groups you are encountering are there to try to gain your support and I am sure to your dismay get some local knowledge about the resources (where they are used/extracted). Likely the latter tends to come before the former as I suspect most of the ‘change agents’ coming to you have stronger backgrounds in natural science than social science. However, any attempts to barricade or dismiss the ‘democratic process’ as it currently prevails will likely result in a more unfortunate outcome for the locals than the visitors from the mainland. Stay active and informed, see the playing field and line up your goals.
Don’t play defense. Don’t let feel-good conservation goals belittle the Commonwealth’s need and desire to use the resources. Be upfront about your needs and your customs. These things are a mystery to us on the mainland who see two arguments: one of environmentalists and scientists for saving nature and one of a disenfranchised community (we know uses the natural resources there- basic human nature) who disagrees with the science. I suspect this perspective is laden with mis-assumptions (like the lack of a federal conservation program means there is a lack of conservation). Having only that information though, which would you choose? Unfortunetly, for most of the public that is probably as deep as it gets (and that’s assuming awareness of the CNMI people’s contentions with the designation process).
Play offensive for the national team. Express your support for conservation as a community of people close to the resource. Sure, you are the users but, you are also the stewards and protectors. Sure you will have an impact on the the resources, we all do but, what do you already do to minimize it? What do you do conserve those resources? Which ones are most important to you? What traditions do you want to preserve? What changes would you like see in resource use? What amount of funds will you need? Don’t let the process fall short on answering these questions because of a superficial battle over conservation. Line up your goals and play the field.
There are a lot more people on the mainland rooting for you than you think!
6. amberwaves | 12.17.08
Note to John,
I have been following multiple US MPA initiatives. My reason for posting is the dangerous polarization over scientific debates regarding MPAs. While science may not be fully conclusive on matching the ecosystem needs with MPA placements, it certainly supports Tom’s statement that the loosing community is the fishing community. The short-term costs appear to be evident. See http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/science1.asp for an extensive list of links to scientific studies on MPAs. As far as empirical studies go, however, many places with established no-takes are still waiting for the long-term benefits to fisheries. Yes, the threat to fishing communities is real. However, the greatest threat is not the MPA or the science but, people like Tom who spin the science debate into a dangerous polarization of views at a sensitive time. Fishing communities shouldn’t be forced to loose in the pockets and in society and we all owe it to ourselves to admit— it’s not about the science and it’s not about the policy. Science and policy don’t turn sectors of a community into destructive outcasts, it’s the way people put them into practice that do.
I am going to make some recommendations for shifting the focus away from the science debate. Mainly to highlight the real controversy here: the fight for democracy in the NMIs.
Fighting the science is a losing battle. MPAs are policy in the US (Exec Order 1358). However, inconclusive or subjective the science behind MPAs may seem to the people of the NMIs, it will likely meet the requirement of “best available”. You are probably not surprised to find strung all through the supporting literature for MPAs (especially no takes), the window of opportunity they open for improving science. While I don’t intend to contest this point or think we should forestall improvements in science, I do sympathize for those who are attempting to think critically about a science that is behind the agenda and on the agenda. Use your resources wisely and focus on better practices for MPA policy.
Keep striving to make democracy better! Instead of battling the science, stake your claims in the designation process and strive for a democratic approach to conservation. I sincerely doubt that anyone from the CNMI is completely against conserving the natural resources there. Most of the high profile groups you are encountering are there to try to gain your support and I am sure to your dismay get some local knowledge about the resources (where they are used/extracted). It seems with MPA initiatives the latter tends to come before the former as I suspect most of the ‘change agents’ have stronger backgrounds in natural science than social science. However, any attempts to barricade or dismiss the ‘democratic process’ as it currently prevails will likely result in a more unfortunate outcome for the locals than the visitors from the mainland. Stay active and informed, see the playing field and line up your goals.
Don’t play defense. Don’t let feel-good conservation goals belittle the Commonwealth’s need and desire to use the resources. Be upfront about your needs and your customs. These things are a mystery to us on the mainland who see two arguments: one of environmentalists and scientists for saving nature and one of a disenfranchised community who disagrees with the science (and we know you use the natural resources there- basic human nature). I suspect and am perhaps hopeful this perspective is laden with mis-assumptions (like the lack of a federal conservation program means there is a lack of conservation). Having only that information though, which would you choose? Unfortunately, for most of the public that is probably as deep as it gets (and that’s assuming awareness of the CNMI’s contentions with the designation process).
Play offensive for the national team. Express your support for conservation as a community of people close to the resource. Sure, you are the users but, you are also the stewards and protectors. Sure you will have an impact on the resources, we all do but, what do you already do to minimize it? Don’t sell yourselves short here. Small daily considerations can make bigger impacts than one-time front loaded efforts. What do you do to conserve those resources? Which ones are most important to you? What traditions do you want to preserve? What changes would you like see in resource use? What amount of funds will you need? Don’t let the process fall short on answering these questions because of a superficial battle over conservation. Line up your goals and play the field.
There are a lot more people on the mainland rooting for you than you think!
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. John Gourley | 12.08.08
Its one thing to “protect” large expanses of ocean for valid, science-based conservation purposes, but quite another to establish large “no-take” MPA’s under the guise of conservation and then to solicit the blind loyalty of enviro-extremist groups to bolster the credibility of the action. There was absolutely no science used in determining the boundaries of the proposed monument in the Northern Mariana Islands, nor has there been any biological justification for setting aside this much ocean as a ‘no-take’ MPA.
Additionally, the legal vehicle that would be used to designate the national monuments – the Antiquities Act of 1906 – is favored by the enviro-extremists because it completely bypasses the public involvement and review process – it is unilateral federal action.
Designation of a Mariana national monument is easily supported by those who live in the US mainland because it doesn’t directly affect you. However, those of us who live in the Marianas feel that we are being used to further the agenda of US mainland politics. If the Mariana monument is designated, the Pew Environmental Group will be closer to meeting their Ocean Legacy goal of establishing 3 to 5 large ‘no-take’ marine protected areas, President Bush will have his ‘blue legacy’, and the US Government will be able to show US sovereignty in the Western Pacific. In return, the people of the Marianas will ‘pay’ for everything.
As previously inferred, this issue has become highly controversial in the CNMI with the Pew Environment Group pushing the monument issue on the people. We are offended by the arrogant and culturally insensitive monument campaign being run by Pew, and do not support their monument proposal. Even the majority of the CNMI and Guam Government officials DO NOT SUPPORT the monument proposal. See http://www.marianasconservation.org for the level of opposition to this monumental travesty.
The monument proposal is nothing more than US mainland politics directed at a member of the US family that has no political clout in order to permanently take away over 115,000 square miles of our oceans to create a “blue legacy” for President Bush and further the anti-fishing agenda of Pew. Pew dressed it up as a conservation project in an attempt to deceive the people of the CNMI in giving up their CHOICE for the responsible and sustainable use of the natural resources found in their EEZ. The proposed monument issue is an example of political environmentalism at its worse.
John Gourley
Saipan
Northern Mariana Islands, USA