coastal zone management

Coastal Zone Management

What is the coastal zone?

• “A strip of land and sea of varying width depending on the nature of the environment and management needs”

• Coastal zones around the world have been degraded due to poor or unplanned development together with a rapidly growing population.

• Impacts have been amplified by climate change.

How humans use marine environments

1. Biological resource harvesting2. Mineral and energy extraction3. Waste disposal4. Biological resource cultivation5. Transportation and communication6. National defence and marine safety7. Urban development8. Tourism and recreation

Misconceptions about the ocean

Misconceptions about the ocean

“The ocean is separate from the continents and largely unaffected by human activity and what happens on land.”

“The oceans have already been explored. There is not much more to discover about the ocean realm and its life.”

“I understand everything I need to know about global warming.”

Coupled social-ecological systems

Ecological Domain Social Domain

Ecosystem-based management• Focuses on diverse ecosystem services• Recognizes the importance of natural boundaries• Requires some level of management integration

among various sectors of human activity• Accounts for cumulative impacts and necessary

tradeoffs among services

What is a healthy

ecosystem?

SCOPING

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

Is the ecosystem healthy?

ECOSYSTEM STATUS• INDICATORS

AND REFERENCE POINTS

• RISK ASSESSMENT

Now what do we do?

SCENARIO ANALYSIS• Evaluate the

likely tradeoffs associated with management alternative (i.e., human well-being)

• Understand the human dimensions of the ecosystem -- beyond commercial revenue

• Develop management strategies that work for people• Meet legal & policy requirements -- & ethical obligations• Identify & understand trade-offs• Maintain & improve the well-being of people

-- in ways that also maintain & improve the integrity of ecosystems

Why Assess Human Well-being?

Marine EBM: The management perspective

• What really is marine EBM?• Is it really different from status quo management?• How should it be properly applied?• How do I ensure EBM plans are implemented?• Is marine EBM good value for money?

Ecosystem-based managementAdaptive environmental assessment and management

Ecosystem approachesIntegrated ecosystem-based management

Adaptive management

Integrated managementEcologically sustainable development

Sustainable development Environmental management systemsIntegrated oceans managementEcosystem approaches to fisheries

Ecosystem-based fisheries management1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s

Coastal zone managementIntegrated coastal zone management

3. Long application of EBM concepts in international law5. No single guide to marine EBMEBM being applied in dozens of countries

Setting the context for marine EBM

1760

1960

1860

Ocean resources are inexhaustible

Key fisheries are inexhaustible.

Major fish populations decline;Traditional fishing communities breakdown; Ecosystems deteriorate.

200 Years

Christensen et al. (2007)

Adapted : Christensen et al.,2008

0

20

40

60

80

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2004

Catc

h (m

illio

n to

nnes

)0


Global Catch Since 1950

Industrialized Fishing Fleets

Pollution

• Artificial radionuclides• Petroleum hydrocarbons • Chlorinated hydrocarbons• Metals• Organotin• Carcinogens• Mutagens• Pesticides• Endocrine disrupters• Acidification• Eutrophication

• Light• Noise• Thermal• Invasive species

• Disease• Visual• Plastic• Sewage• Garbage

Pollution and contaminants


Habitat LossKelp Mangroves Sea grasses Corals

Other biotic communitiesMud flats and estuariesBeaches Dredging, dumping.


The ‘Common Property’ Rubric

Unregulated exploitation

Over-capitalization

Resource misappropriation

e.g., American lobster , 1895, New England, USA

Tragedies ComediesLocal ‘private fish property’ wars

Commoners lose access to the commons

Policy speaks for the fishers & Science speaks for the fish

e.g., Chesapeake Bay oysters, 1900, Maryland, USA

Kennedy and Breisch (1983)

Limitations to current approaches

• Fragmented ocean governance• Maintaining ecosystem elements• Managing diverse impacts• Lack of recognition of connections between:

– Ecosystem structure, functioning and services– Land and the sea– Marine habitats– Species – Diverse stressor– Knowledge and uncertainty

Guerry 2005

What is marine EBM?

Compass 2005

An integrated approach to management that considers the entire ecosystem, including humans with the goal to maintain an ecosystem in a healthy, productive, and resilient condition so that it can provide the services we want and need.

Perspectives on marine EBM

• Humans as ecosystem components• Sustainability• Goals• Sound ecological models and understanding• Complexity and connectedness• Dynamic character of ecosystems• Context and scale• Adaptability and accountability

Ecological Society of America elements of marine EBM

Christensen et al. 1996


• Fisheries should be managed to limit the impacts on the ecosystem to the extent possible

• Ecological relationships between harvested, dependent and associated species should be maintained

• Management should involve cross jurisdictional arrangements if required

• A precautionary approach should be adopted• Governance arrangements should ensure ecosystem

well-being and equity

Reykjavik Declaration of Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem

FAO 2001


• Maintain natural structure and function of ecosystems

• Recognize that human uses and values are central to ecosystem management

• Base management on a shared vision of stakeholders

• Appreciate that all ecosystems are dynamic• Require a commitment of performance

monitoring and management

World Wildlife Fund elements of EBM

WWF 2002


Pikitch et al. (2004)

• EBM is a reversing the order of management priorities to start with the ecosystem rather than the target species

• Overall objective is to sustain healthy marine ecosystems and the fisheries they support.

Guerry 2005• EBM is about perceiving the big picture, recognizing

connections and striving to maintain elements of ecosystems

Management targets are a societal choice

informed by science

but how?

EcologicalRelationships

Societal Preferences

Management Targets

Puget Sound management example

Puget Sound food web model• 66 functional groups (bacteria to orcas) from Central Puget Sound• 15 different fishery types• Direct connections are mainly predator-prey interactions• Strength of connections is a function of diets, consumption rates,

production rates and predator-prey functional responses

Harvey, Williams & Levin 2012 Ecosystems

Effects of seagrass change on mediated groups• Averaged across all mediation strength combinations (strong, moderate, weak)

• Wild, pink salmon groups most sensitive; effect carries to subadults

• Crab, hatchery salmon responses were intermediate

• Herring were least sensitive


Effects of seagrass change on rest of food web


How much seagrass do we want?

Underwater (Marine Life)

Rural Growth

Urban Development

Shorelines

Seagrass

Overwater structure

Sediment Loading

NutrientsShoreline Armor

Herring Crabs

BirdsKiller whales

Salmon

Costs Costs

Rehr, Williams, Tolimieri, Levin 2014 Coastal Management

What is the effect of changes in human activities on seagrass?

What is the effect of changing seagrass on Puget Sound marine life?

What does this all cost?

Rehr, Williams,, Levin 2014 Marine Policy

-2.75

-1.8

-0.85

0.1

1.05

2.

-0.35 -0.25 -0.15 0 0.1 0.25 0.45

Aver

age

Des

irabi

lity

Change is seagrass cover

Levin, Rehr, Norman, & Wiliams

-2.3625

-1.575

-0.7875

0.

0.7875

1.575

-0.35 -0.25 -0.15 0 0.1 0.25 0.45

Aver

age

Des

irabi

lity

Change in seagrass cover

DemocratsRepublicans

• Given the diverse costs and benefits of seagrass restoration, Puget Sound citizens would like to see 10-20% more seagrass

• Normative orientation influences preferred restoration level, and

• Policy makers will now have knowledge of how different constituents view restoration

How much seagrass do we want?

Key ecosystem components

Mediating components

Drivers and pressures

Integrated coastal zone management principles

The European Union adopted eight principles of Integrated coastal zone management in 2002 that stipulate that ICZM should accommodate natural systems as well as human activities, take into account the interests of present and future generations and are adaptable to new insights and developments.

Clark,J.R.Integrated management of coastal zones.FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 327. Rome, FAO. 1992. 167p.

Integrated coastal zone management principles

• A broad ‘holistic’ perspective (thematic and geographic)• A long term perspective (ensure that decisions taken today

do not foreclose options for the future)• Adaptive management during a gradual process (integrated

planning and management is a process that develops and evolves)

• Reflect local specificity• Work with natural processes• Participatory planning• Support & involvement of all relevant administrative bodies• Use of a combination of instruments

National Coastal Zone Management Program

Created by the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 Key program elements:

– Protecting natural resources,– Managing development in high hazard areas,– Giving development priority to coastal-dependent uses,– Providing public access for recreation,– Prioritizing water-dependent uses, and– Coordinating state and federal actions.

National Coastal Zone Management Program

Puerto Rico’s Coastal Management Program was approved by NOAA in 1978 and comprises a network of state agencies led by the Department of Natural and Environmental Resources. The program encompasses 40 statutes.

The Florida Coastal Management Program was approved by NOAA in 1981, with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection serving as the lead agency. A network of eight state agencies and five water management districts together enforce 23 separate statutes.

Driving forces• High rates of population growth;

• Poverty exacerbated by dwindling resources, degraded fisheries habitats and lack of alternative livelihoods;

• Large-scale, quick-profit, commercial enterprises which degrade resources and conflict with interests of the local people;

• Lack of awareness about management for resource sustainability among local people and policy-makers;

• Lack of understanding of the economic contribution of coastal resources to society;

• Lack of serious government follow-up in support and enforcement of conservation programs. FAO 1992.

Why Assess Human Wellbeing?

1. Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary2. NOAA’s National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science3. California State University–Monterey Bay, Seafloor Mapping Lab4. NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service5. The Nature Conservancy6. California Department of Fish and Wildlife7. NOAA’s National Geodetic Survey8. U.S. Geological Survey9. Ocean Exploration Trust10. Ocean Protection Council11. NOAA’s Office of Ocean Exploration12. National Park Service13. University of California Santa Barbara14. Southern California Integrated Ocean Observing System15. Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute16. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management17. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers18. U.S. Department of Homeland Security19. U.S. Department of Commerce20. U.S. Department of Transportation

Agencies represented

Puerto Rico case studies

• Isla Verde• Cataño• Culebra

Isla Verde

Cataño

Culebra

Challenges to EBM implementation

• Large jurisdictions• Fragmented institutional arrangements• Entrenched interests• Unresolved jurisdictional complexity

What research is needed?• Historical ecology and paleoecology approaches to

understand past interactions of humans with coastal environments

• How to integrate data across a range of spatial and temporal scales

• Cumulative impacts of human activities on ecosystem health and human well being

• Systematic assessment of ecosystem services and social/economic interests

• Evaluation of EBM efforts

coastal zone management

Education