Download ppt - COMPARISON AND CONTRASTS BETWEEN FISHERIES REFUGIA AND MARINE PROTECTED AREAS

REVERSING ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION TRENDS IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA AND GULF OF THAILAND

WWW.UNEPSCS.ORG

COMPARISON AND CONTRASTS BETWEEN FISHERIES REFUGIA AND MARINE PROTECTED AREAS

UNEP/GEFRWG-Fisheries


WWW.UNEPSCS.ORG

Fisheries of the South China Sea The riparian countries of the SCS are amongst the world’s top 20 fish producing countries Fisheries statistics rarely reflect production from the small- scale sector Most economically important species fully-fished or over- exploited – evidence of fishing down the marine food chain Trends suggest that production from capture fisheries will decline in the future unless total fishing effort is reduced Problem in reducing effort is that sector is overcapitalised and characterised by high coastal community dependence on fish for food and income


WWW.UNEPSCS.ORG

Role of Fisheries Habitats in Sustaining Fisheries

Regional consensus that SCS habitats play a critical role in sustaining fish stocks, food supply, and incomes

Mangroves Coral Reefs Seagrass Wetlands

Habitats act as refuges for fish during critical stages of their life-cycles - e.g., as larvae, when spawning, and feeding


WWW.UNEPSCS.ORG

Loss of Fisheries Habitats of the South China Sea

Continued decline in the total area of habitats has raised serious concerns for sustainability of fisheries

Estimated Decadal Rates of Habitat Loss:

Seagrass – 30%

Mangroves – 16%

Coral Reefs – 16%

Fishing identified as a key factor in the continued loss of marine habitats and biodiversity in the South China Sea


WWW.UNEPSCS.ORG

Fishing and the Loss of Marine Habitats and Biodiversity

Key characteristics of marine fisheries in Southeast Asia contributing to habitat loss:

Over-capitalisation and over-fishing, particularly in the small-scale sector

Excessively high fishing effort in most inshore areas

High level community dependence on fish for food and income

Use of destructive fishing gear and practices

Need for Development of a Mechanism Aimed at Improving the Management of Fish Stock and

Habitat Linkages

Limited knowledge of fish life-cycle and critical habitat linkages; Low level community acceptance of “protected” area-based

approaches; and Limited practical experience in the integration of fisheries and

environment considerations.


WWW.UNEPSCS.ORG

Barriers to Effective Action Identified by the RWG-Fisheries:

Developing a Mechanism Aimed at Improving the Management of Fish Stock and Habitat Linkages


WWW.UNEPSCS.ORG

The RWG-F recommended that any mechanism developed should:

Focus on maximising the benefit-cost ratio of management interventions for fishing communities;

Promote sustainable use rather than prohibition of fishing;

Focus on fish life-cycle and critical habitat linkages; and be

Relevant at the fishery level, i.e., should be easily understood by fishing communities, local government officials, and provincial level fisheries managers

Development of the Fisheries Refugia Concept


WWW.UNEPSCS.ORG

Fisheries Refugia:Specific areas of significance to the life-cycle of particular speciesShould be defined in space and timeShould NOT be no-take zonesServe to safeguard spawning aggregations, nursery grounds, and migration routes

Fisheries Refugia are “Spatially and geographically defined, marine or coastal areas in which specific management measures are applied to sustain important species [fisheries resources] during critical phases of their life-cycle, for their sustainable use.”


WWW.UNEPSCS.ORG

Stakeholder Consultations on Refugia Concept

Review of Fish Egg and Larvae Data for Refugia

Identification

Technical Workshops on Mapping Known Refugia

Conduct of Regional Training Events on Refugia Science and Management

Intergovernmental Guidelines on Refugia

Development of a Fisheries Refugia Information Portal

Identification of Fisheries Refugia Sites


WWW.UNEPSCS.ORG

14 sites for inclusion in initial system of refugia (green)

9 sites accorded high priority for action once initial set established (blue)

Additional 29 spawning and nursery areas for which further information are required (red)

Sites Identified

Do Marine Protected Areas Qualify as Fisheries Refugia and Vice Versa?


WWW.UNEPSCS.ORG

Marine Protected Areas Fisheries RefugiaSimilarities

and Differences

?

Requires consideration of:Strategic

objectivesCriteria for site

selectionAcceptability to and

impacts on communities

Scientific basis of purported fisheries benefits Use Status

Definitions of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and Fisheries Refugia


WWW.UNEPSCS.ORG

Marine Protected Area Fisheries Refugia

“… any area of the inter-tidal or sub-tidal terrain, together with its overlying water and associated flora, fauna, historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by law or other effective means to protect part or all of the enclosed environment.” <www.iucn.org>

“Spatially and geographically defined, marine or coastal areas in which specific management measures are applied to sustain important species [fisheries resources] during critical phases of their life-cycle, for their sustainable use.”


WWW.UNEPSCS.ORG

Marine Protected Areas Fisheries Refugia

Objectives • Protect biodiversity

• Tourism

• Increased fish production

• Improved management of fish stock and habitat links

• Increased resilience of stocks

Purported Fisheries Benefits

• Enhanced stock in MPA leads to bigger catches outside

• Safeguarding fish in places and at times critical to their life-cycle will reduce growth and recruitment over-fishing

Site Selection Criteria

• Species diversity/richness

• Uniqueness of the site

• Site’s representativeness

• Importance to the life-cycle of economically important spp.

• Likelihood to improve stocks

Use Status • Strict protection-multiple use (typically no-take fisheries zones in SCS)

• Based on sustainable use rather than prohibition of fishing

Acceptability to Communities

• Concern that costs outweigh benefits

• Enforcement is costly

• Objectives and scientific basis well accepted by fishing communities and local officials

Scientific Basis for Purported Fisheries Benefits of MPAs of Concern to the RWG-Fisheries


WWW.UNEPSCS.ORG

Considerable amount of “perceived truth” that marine “protected” areas can simultaneously achieve improvements to biodiversity conservation and enhance catches outside the protected area

Critical that any spatial management sold to fishing communities in terms if improving the state of fisheries achieves just that

Scientific evidence that MPAs do result in improvements to the state of fisheries is marginal at best

Scientific Basis for Purported Fisheries Benefits of MPAs of Concern to the RWG-Fisheries

Little evidence regarding magnitude and extent of the contribution of larvae produced within reserves to recruitment outside reserves Some studies indicate that catch and CPUE may increase in areas immediately adjacent to MPAs but none have looked at effects of displaced fishing effort across the fishery


WWW.UNEPSCS.ORG

Insufficient peer review of studies of MPAs efficacy

e.g., widely cited paper in Science (Roberts et al. 2001) purported to demonstrate how MPAs increase yields outside MPAs – study showed increase within one year of the establishment of the MPA

Impossible? Shouldn’t this require building of abundance over a generation?

Concern with the criteria used for selection of MPA sites


WWW.UNEPSCS.ORG

Selection of MPA sites focuses on biodiversity conservation rather than fisheries

MPA sites sold to communities in terms of fisheries benefits – such benefits are unlikely if role of site in fish

life-cycle not key site selection criteria

Criteria for MPA site selection typically relate to concepts such ecological uniqueness, representativeness and

comprehensiveness

Focus on “No-Take” in the Establishment and Management of MPAs


WWW.UNEPSCS.ORG

Regional experience indicates that prohibition of fishing is a difficult if not futile task

Due to high community dependence on fish, prohibition of fishing typically leads to displacement of fishing effort to

adjacent areas – localised depletions?

MPAs widely understood by key stakeholders (fishing communities, provincial fisheries officers, local government

officials) to be “no-take” areas in which fishing is “prohibited”

Refugia Concept Appears to be a Successful Approach to Addressing Barriers in Fish Stock and

Habitat Management

Objectives focused on links between fish stocks and habitats Science of purported fisheries benefits based on role of

habitats in fish life-cycle Addresses fisheries and habitat issue across the entire

geographical range of fish stocks Promotes sustainable use rather than prohibition of fishing High levels of community acceptance


WWW.UNEPSCS.ORG