Participants:
Caroline Pomeroy, Chair (University of California, Santa Cruz)
Greg Cailliet, Rapporteur (Moss Landing Marine Laboratories)
Peter Auster (NOAA National Undersea Research Program)
Jim Bohnsack (NMFS, Southeast Fisheries Science Center)
George Darcy (NMFS, Office of Sustainable Fisheries)
Bruce Leaman (International Pacific Halibut Commission)
Milton Love (University of California, Santa Barbara)
Jan Mason (NMFS, Pacific Fisheries Environmental Laboratory)
Rachel Saunders (Center for Marine Conservation)
Wes Silverthorne (NMFS, Southwest Region)
Daniel Suman (University of Miami, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science)
Ed Ueber (Gulf Farallones National Marine Sanctuary)
The establishment of harvest refugia for rockfish (i.e., no-take areas; HRR) necessitates two broad sets of policy decisions: 1) those concerning whether or not to establish them, and 2) those addressing the management of refugia, once they are established (see Tisdell, C. and J. M. Broadus. 1989. Policy issues related to the establishment and management of marine reserves. Coastal Management 17:37-53). These decisions are not only about resource management per se. They also are about the management of people, and therefore require consideration of the social, cultural, economic and political environment in which these decisions are made. In particular, it is important to understand the range of individuals and groups who value these resources, the nature and extent of those values, in what way the establishment of harvest refugia likely will affect these people, and how they might respond. Differences in values, perceptions, and beliefs among groups are likely to lead to fundamentally different responses to the establishment of harvest refugia. By understanding these differences, proponents of refugia can: 1) capitalize on the support and initiative of a group; 2) provide appropriate and more effective communication about the concept of no-take areas; and 3) predict and mitigate opposition to refugia. The direct involvement of these diverse stakeholders throughout the process can bode even better for the outcome of a refugia effort because this provides for ongoing feedback that can contribute to appropriate design and implementation, and invests these groups in the process and the outcome.
Among the questions that should be asked when exploring the social and economic aspects of marine refugia are: 1) What individuals and groups have interest in, or would be affected by, harvest refugia for rockfish; 2) What are the social and economic characteristics of these groups; 3) What are their values, perceptions, beliefs and attitudes regarding rockfish, marine resources, and refugia; 4) What is the nature and extent of their 'use' of the resources; 5) What are the costs and benefits of HRR, in psychological, social and economic terms, to these individuals and groups, as well as to society as a whole; and 6) How do these costs and benefits change, given different harvest refugia alternatives versus the status quo? Answers to these questions can, and should, inform decision-making at all stages -- from conceptualization through evaluation -- in the establishment of rockfish harvest refugia.
Our working group began by asking a general question: Is enough known about rockfish life history and the status of and vulnerability to their fisheries to establish HRRs? The conclusion was that yes, we have sufficient understanding to proceed, and that refugia exemplify a precautionary approach to resource management. However, there was some disagreement as to how refugia should be conceived -- as an experiment in resource management or as a mechanism for protecting and enhancing rockfish resources? Because the efficacy of harvest refugia for rockfish has yet to be ascertained, we concluded that an experimental approach should be taken, rather than proposing refugia as a panacea for declining resources or as a substitute for traditional resource management. Participants cited a lack of marine wilderness areas, which are analogous to terrestrial wilderness areas as established by the Wilderness Act of 1964, through which rockfish might be protected more effectively. Such areas, proposed as experiments in resource management, would provide a reference point to better understand: 1) natural processes in undisturbed systems; and 2) fishery management measures in other areas. The group concluded that it is important ecologically to enhance population health (such as, genetic, habitat and species diversity) and that refugia can have positive socio-economic benefits for diverse groups of people.
A more focused discussion of socio-economic considerations and implementation of HRR included generating support for refugia, gaining a better understanding of risks associated with their establishment and evaluation, and obtaining compliance with and enforcing them.
There was general agreement that if HRR are to be used, the problems they are meant to address (e.g., growing fishing pressure; declining residential rockfish populations; diminishing productivity) must be recognized and the objectives of the proposed HRR clearly defined. Participants differed in their views on the appropriate mechanism and process for establishing HRR. Some said 'just do it,' echoing Ballantine's approach to establishing marine refugia in New Zealand. Others argued for proceeding with caution, citing social, economic and political complexities that, if not recognized and addressed, would lead to failure with efforts to establish and realize the potential benefits of an HRR network.
The ensuing discussion addressed a number of these issues in pursuing an HRR strategy. First, there is a diversity of stakeholders, variously identified as consumptive and non-consumptive users, non-users (i.e., those who value the resource for its existence), and more specifically as commercial and recreational fishermen, scientists, resource managers, and individuals and groups from among the local, regional and national public. Each of these groups has particular values, perceptions and beliefs about the existence and nature of the problem, its importance, whether and how it can be solved, and what might be expected of HRR. Some of the socio-economic considerations that are likely to influence their views on both the problem of conserving rockfish populations and HRR as a solution include ethnic and cultural views of natural resources in general and fishes in particular; socio-economic status; physical proximity to the resource; and economic dependence on it. It is important to understand the diversity and complexity of stakeholders because their support for (or opposition to) HRR will be a function of these characteristics.
It was agreed that stakeholders clearly need to be involved in identifying the reasons for establishing HRR, and in conceptualizing, designing, implementing and evaluating them. Opinion of the working group diverged as to which stakeholders should be involved, when, and how. Discussion of examples of successes and failures in the establishment of marine protected areas along the California coast recognized the many options and arenas for pursuing HRR. Among these options and arenas are federal legislation and the fishery management councils, state legislation and resource management commission action, and citizen (grassroots) action initiatives.
Our group also considered the risks associated with establishing rockfish refugia. There was concern about overselling the refugia concept, thereby creating inappropriate and unreasonable expectations that could lead to erosion of the credibility of the refugia concept and of its proponents. Given the long life cycle of most rockfish species, the results of refugia might not be reasonably evaluated for several years following HRR establishment. At present, the public is likely to expect clear results in the short term. This discrepancy between ecological and socio-economic time horizons could lead to withdrawal of public support and increased opposition to HRR. However, this concern could be addressed (partially if not completely) through concerted efforts to understand and work with the perspectives and expectations of diverse stakeholders. Another concern was that the evaluation of refugia could render inconclusive results. Such an outcome could be due to the actual inefficacy of refugia, or to mitigating circumstances (e.g., unforeseen design flaws, illegal fishing within the closed area, and disturbances from either natural or anthropogenic impacts within the HRR).
The socio-economic considerations related to locating HRR prompted a discussion on design (e.g., distribution and size of HRR, as well as location). Recent experience with the establishment of four marine ecological reserves pursuant to California's Marine Resources Protection Act of 1990 was cited as a cautionary tale. All four reserves, which were established to enhance the state's rockfish resources, are very small, averaging two mi 2 . Two of the reserves comprise inappropriate benthic habitats that provide no benefit to rockfishes, and two are in relatively remote areas where they are less likely to have a noticeable impact than if they were located in more accessible and used areas. In terms of spatial distribution, it was suggested that rockfish harvest refugia be established in multiple areas along the coast. Broad distribution would more likely cover a range of rockfish species and habitats, and would more equitably distribute the costs and benefits among coastal communities. This could help make refugia more appealing to, and supportable by, diverse stakeholders.
Some argued that the process of establishing a network of HRR, including conceptualization, design, implementation and evaluation, should begin as soon as possible, using a plan that can be phased in and expanded over several years. As part of this process, it is critical that the refugia, individually and as a network, be evaluated periodically to determine their effectiveness relative to the objectives articulated clearly from the start.
When discussing compliance with and enforcement of HRR, it was noted that a large proportion of stakeholders would likely comply with rules associated with harvest refugia, and would exert social pressure on others to do the same. Public education about harvest refugia should reinforce compliance and help lessen the need for enforcement. Nonetheless, enforcement will still be necessary and should be considered in the design and implementation process. Planning should carefully consider the range of needs and concerns, resources available, and opportunities for cooperation among local, state, and federal entities in promoting compliance and carrying out enforcement. In connection with this, it was noted that enforcement also pertains to the active involvement of relevant agencies; agency inaction can jeopardize the effectiveness of harvest refugia. Thus, in addition to insuring compliance and facilitating enforcement vis a vis citizens (the public), an HRR strategy must include mechanisms for insuring agency involvement.
Finally, the group also agreed there should be a network among all those involved in the HRR process that considers inter-state and international issues of rockfish resource management and protection through traditional resource management (e.g., gear restrictions, catch limits) as well as refugia. A primary concern was the need to coordinate the development of rockfish harvest refugia efforts among all interested groups to avert conflict with other initiatives (and thus potential loss of resources or support for HRR) and, more positively, to leverage resources to more effectively pursue and achieve the goals related to the establishment of harvest refugia for rockfishes.
