Introduction

Few people would deny that the health our oceans and coasts has degraded; coral cover, water quality, seagrass cover, and fish stocks are declining at alarming rates. The causes of the decline are far from being completely identified but can be broken down into two general categories: human activities and natural processes. Changes in our ocean environment can be viewed at the local level and from a global perspective. Coral bleaching and sea temperature rise are occurring across the globe and no single activity can be identified as a cause. Issues such as these are broad and require internationally derived scientific research and discussion to narrow the causes and call for action. Other changes such as decreasing fish stocks have more identifiable causes, some of which can be addressed at local and regional levels.

Our link to the ocean is immeasurable; human beings have historically utilized the sea for food, commerce, medicine, tourism, defense and countless other sources. But what we have yet to discover may provide us with some of what could be considered the ocean's most valuable 'treasures,' such a biotechnological advancements, discovery of new species, and medical breakthroughs. As a society, it is our responsibility to sustain all of the ocean's resources for present day and future generations.

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are one tool that resource managers are now using to help protect and conserve our ocean and coastal resources. The concept of marine reserves (one type of MPA) has been discussed for over 25 years with spotty implementation until the last 10 years (National Research Council, 2001). Scientists and managers have determined that to protect, maintain, and increase biodiversity, areas must be designated to restrict further pressures on sensitive and representative habitats. The concept is straightforward: select an area in need of protection and restrict all or some activities that stress it. As simple as it may be to understand the general goal of MPAs; to design, implement, and manage one is much more complex. Strong support for MPAs has increased among user groups, however some continue to question them as an effective management tool. Other stakeholders feel the economic loss to their industry is greater than any benefits that the MPA may provide. Beyond the prospect of the financial consequences, this type of reaction is often in response to a feeling that they are losing their rights; the principle of 'freedom of the seas' is still deeply engrained in many user groups (National Research Council, 2001).

The greatest challenge for marine resource managers is to rally support for the MPA from the local community, which it affects. Graeme Kelleher states in Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas that "without the support and involvement of the local people, the MPA will fail, as has often happened" (1999). Understanding the needs of the community and incorporating their ideologies into the process of MPA development is key to success. Resource managers are privy to studies of why we need protected areas based on research by natural scientists and general observations. Government agencies that manage the areas have the political strength and appropriate authority to enforce restrictions. What may be the missing link to a truly successful approach to marine resource management is a true partnership between the local community and the government agencies. This paper focuses on the role that user groups play in MPAs, successes and failures, and concludes with suggestions on ways to improve their involvement.

Background

On June 4, 2001, Secretary of Commerce Donald L. Evans released a statement regarding Executive Order 13158, Marine Protected Areas. The new Republic "administration decided to retain [the order and] strive to harmonize commercial and recreational activity with conservation"(http://www.doc.gov/). This revived commitment to protecting ocean and coastal resources builds on what former President Bill Clinton initiated in May 2000 when he signed the Executive Order which directs the Department of Commerce, and other federal agencies to "strengthen the management, protection, and conservation of existing marine protected areas and establish new or expanded MPAs [through the creation of] a scientifically based, comprehensive national system of MPAs representing diverse U.S. marine ecosystems" (http://www.mpa.gov). The International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) has defined an MPA as "any area of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying waters and associated flora, fauna, historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by law or other effective means to protect part of all of the enclosed environment (Kelleher, 1999). Under this definition and the one supplied in the Executive Order, many areas can be considered as MPAs. National Marine Sanctuaries, National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, Fishery Management Areas, Marine Reserves, and others are classified as MPAs.

Determining how to classify an MPA is based on 1) the governing agency and 2) the management objectives. The governing agency may have different names they apply to their organization schemes, but the overall objectives are typically universal in principle. The IUCN outlined a categorization based on the primary management objective which defines each category and lists it objectives (National Research Council, 2001). It is summarized as:

Category I: Strict Nature Reserve: Protected area managed mainly for science.
Wilderness Areas: Protected area managed mainly for wilderness protection.

Category II: National Park: Protected area managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation.

Category III: Natural Monument: Protected area managed mainly for conservation of specific natural resources.

Category IV: Habitat/Species Management Area: Protected area managed mainly for conservation through management intervention.

Category V: Protected Landscape/Seascape: Protected area managed mainly for conservation and recreation.

Category VI: Managed Resource Protection Area: Protected area managed mainly for the sustainable use of natural ecosystem.

The MPAs in these categories can be large or small in geographic area, can be multi-use or "no-take," or a combination of all. For example, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary encompasses over 2800 square nautical miles and is a multi-use area (Category V) but contains within its boundaries smaller MPAs with different management objectives. There are 18 Sanctuary Preservation Areas (Category VI), 27 Wildlife Management Areas (Category IV), 2 Ecological Reserves (Category I), and 4 Special Use Areas (Category I) each varying in size and habitat type with specific regulations designed for specific results (http://www.fknms.nos.noaa.gov).

Managing marine resources using MPAs versus a species-specific approach allows managers to view the ecosystem as an interrelated group of processes that affect each other in a complex manner. The difficulty in this lies in the available scientific data; most research has typically focused on monitoring of resources, which provide status and trends (increases and decreases in population or percent cover) instead of the processes by which these systems are being altered (Alina Szmant, personal communication). It is not fully known how human activities impact our environment, but when faced with a management problem, is there time to wait for all of the science to become available? Some managers and conservationists think not, and that acting in a precautionary manner based on what we do have available is the most sensible.

The driving forces behind the creation of MPAs are often environmentalists, scientists, and governmental agencies directed to protect our natural resources. The ecological science indicating the need for the MPA is in the forefront when discussions begin on whether to create it. Seldom, however is an area designated purely on this evidence due to other considerations such as the social and economic impacts, or the desire to gain aesthetic or political gain (Davis,ed., 2001). Other considerations include managing human activities that may otherwise be permitted by law under state or national regulations, which requires multi-agency cooperation when designing and enforcing MPA rules.

Designing, Implementing, and Managing MPAs

The first step in designing any MPA is to determine the principle objective: is it replenishment of a fishery, or keep out combustible motors for habitat protection, or even restrict all activity due to sensitivity and research potential? When developing this objective, the conservation needs of the local and regional communities should be evaluated as well. The community must be involved from the very beginning or there will be no basis on which to support decisions. Reaching out to the locals with findings of decreased fish size or loss of coral cover will be the foundation on which a relationship based on facts and trust will evolve. Government agencies must reciprocate this trust by listening to observations by the local people, and how there needs can be met. What benefits one group and meets their objectives may harm another (Kelleher, 1999). Numerous interest groups have to be identified in the initial stage and be included in all phases of creating an MPA.

Following the establishment of objectives, it is important to inventory the habitat types in the region, and those outside the region that may affect, or be affected by the MPA. Marine environments are fluid; there are few physical boundaries limiting the transport or habitat range of marine organisms. MPA boundaries will not protect species by restricting them to an area and keeping consumers out, but instead protects critical habitat necessary for reproduction, growth, and survival. Strategies in selecting sites include integrating the MPA with overall management strategies for the region that may comprise locations that border terrestrial protected areas. The area must maximize benefits and minimize socioeconomic effects as well as exclude areas that are prone to pollution or commercial development, which could override any protection (National Research Council, 2001).

Some of the criteria to consider when selecting sites are ecology (habitat diversity, endangered or rare species, nursery grounds, feeding grounds, etc.), biogeography (rare or unique features), naturalness (state of being), economic importance (existing or potential), social importance (historical, cultural, aesthetic, etc.), scientific importance, and practicality/feasibility (social acceptance, accessibility, ease of management, etc.) (Kelleher, 1999). The community can provide much of this information through public meetings, questionnaires, and direct requests for public input. Managers must realize the value of local knowledge and not dismiss it in comparison to traditional scientific studies.

An excellent case study in MPA development in currently in the works. A conservation group in Broward County, Florida has begun campaigning for the creation of two MPAs which would close one-fifth of the waters off that county. Public meetings are being held to gather input from user groups regarding this proposed action. Much of the opposition seems to be coming from the recreational fishermen who feel it will affect the retail industry that sells boats and tackle equipment, and does nothing to address the "overall slaughters by big commercial catches." Supporters were also able to voice their opinion as well. Dr. Richard Spieler of Nova Southeastern University doesn't understand why fishermen are protesting; he and his students have been surveying Broward County's shores for some time now and has found very few legal fish to catch. Ultimately, the decision will be up to Florida's Fish and Wildlife Commission if they receive endorsement from the Broward County Commission and the Sheriff's Office, and clear evidence (scientific and socieconomic) indicates the coast has deteriorated to the point there is no other alternative (Flesher, 2001).

Currently, marine reserves (no-take zones) comprise only about 1% of our oceans (within the EEZ). A target of 20% by the year 2020 has been adopted by several government organizations based on independent evaluations by fisheries experts and other natural scientists (http://www.mpa.gov). In evaluating the size of MPAs, we need not think that larger is necessarily better, or that one large site is better than several smaller ones; each has value. Every site must be considered independently and evaluated on the conservation needs, the amount of critical habitat, the level of use, and the efficacy of other management tools, as well as the critical biological components (National Research Council, 2001). Often the need to protect a specific component of a habitat, the habitat itself, or a dweller of the habitat will naturally define the boundaries. Again, at this stage, the stakeholders should help define areas of critical concern; and be welcomed by the governing agencies as experts of local knowledge.

Following consensus of objectives, potential MPA locations, and the number and size of MPAs, a plan outlining all of these should be drafted. The process by which all of this is occurring should be done in the public eye and available for comment and questions at all times. These are often referred to as "living documents" indicating they will succumb to numerous revisions and scrutiny. In this draft plan, zoning options are presented as alternatives developed by committees of stakeholders and reviewed by agency representatives. This type of comprehensive management package will include not only zoning options (i.e., restrictions) of different locales, but objectives relating to scientific research, enforcement, education, public outreach, volunteer programs, and lists short and long term benefits as well as many others. The draft plan will also include an environmental impact statement required under federal regulations.

If time and money are spent in the planning phase, the money saved in the end will well exceed that spent up front. Because stakeholders are involved in developing the management plan, there should be no surprises when it comes up for formal public review, and all user groups should theoretically be represented. During the formal review process, the community is requested to comment on the plan and all aspects regarding all planned actions. After a period of formal review (9 months in the case of the FKNMS), all comments are summarized and considered in completion of the plan. Public meetings are held to discuss key topics brought forward through this public process whereby change can often occur. The public can have substantial influence over what remains in the plan and what is removed. During the development of the plan for the FKNMS, opponents were quite successful in decreasing the area slotted for zoning as "ecological reserves;" the area was decreased from 5.0% to 0.5% in the final plan. The local stakeholders were triumphant in playing influential roles in designing the final plan to better suit their needs. Although successful, many user groups (commercial fishermen in particular) felt that participation in the public review process would not make a difference and that NOAA would ultimately do what they felt best. When the draft plan was released in the Florida Keys, the commercial fishermen revealed their distrust for NOAA despite the information presented to them showing fishery declines and potential benefits of the reserve (National Research Council, 2001). [Note: the decrease in the area of ecological reserves was primarily due to the delay in zoning the Dry Tortugas, which was revisited in 1999-2000. A group comprising 24 members representing key stakeholders was ultimately responsible for developing the supplemental plan for the Tortugas enabling more control by the locals than in the previous plan.]

Implementation of the management plan is the final step in the planning process but it is far from the end. An essential component following implementation is monitoring and evaluation. These steps help evaluate effectiveness of the MPA and determine if goals are being met, in addition to providing information for modifying the MPA and help refine design of future MPAs. Studies will enhance our knowledge of marine ecosystems and allow us to better understand how fishing, for instance effects a system by comparing no-take zones to non-restricted zones. To succeed in monitoring MPAs, regional coordination and mult-agency cooperation is essential. Overlapping jurisdiction is common, and existing programs should be integrated or developed on by all interested groups to better enhance our understanding (National Research Council, 2001). A good example of this coordination exists within the FKNMS's monitoring plan. One objective for the Sanctuary was to monitor differences in population and size of the Florida Spiny Lobster inside and outside the SPAs (Sanctuary Preservation / "no-take" area). The Sanctuary sought out regional experts to determine if any baseline studies existed; and have since worked closely with the Florida Marine Research Institute (a State agency) to monitor the effects.

To reach the desired objectives, a commitment to enforcement must also be made. Although at the outset of initial implementation a learning curve exists, the governing agencies must continue to educate the user groups of and enforce the new regulations. Continued monitoring and enforcement is essential in sustaining cooperation from the public and stakeholders. As with any community and especially in areas of heavy tourism, the users of the area are often transient. A continual effort must exist to inform the public of the area's conservation needs and regulations. One of the ways the FKNMS keeps the public up to date on activities and regulations is through a strong education and public outreach program. There are established projects that exist with the principle goal being to reach out to the public and educate them. Beyond public meetings and press releases, the program sponsors volunteer programs; these volunteers go out on the water and talk to people &endash; they give out brochures and answer questions about the Sanctuary. Efforts to get people involved are continual, and strongly encouraged. Each week, the Sanctuary discusses local issues on a popular radio show, and involves themselves in local events such as kid's carnivals and the annual Underwater Music Festival, as well as giving talks at local schools and community events. The educators encourage people to be self-regulating by instilling the idea of that these areas belong to everyone and it is our ethical responsibility to protect them.

Benefits of Involving the Local Community

If the local people are involved in the process of creating an MPA from the start, the benefits will be reaped by the governing agency, the community itself, and the system proposed for protection. Management of an area cannot begin at the top; if the knowledge of the people is incorporated into the plan, the plan becomes more effective. Including the local community will help increase voluntary compliance, help decrease resource exploitation, and ultimately result in stronger commitment by all stakeholders through an increase in trust. Through increased understanding and communication between the local community and the governing agency, dispute frequency will decrease and integrating conservation efforts into the daily activities of the community becomes easier (Kelleher, 1999). By establishing this type of 'partnership,' the management objectives become a shared responsibility and the community becomes somewhat accountable for their actions in regards to protecting the MPA.

Being innovative and not following the traditional approaches to management could bring about unexpected results. Managers must not be afraid to step up and give honest, open statements about the state of the region and their goal and objectives even if it means revealing that they do not know everything. To reach out to the community for help in understanding their needs and to ask for information on subjects not fully understood is an open and honest method that could work. Kelleher refers to this approach as "creative democratic experimentation" (1999). Agreeing on simple issues from the onset could enhance understanding of larger issues down the road. Approaching the public with technically complex issues and documents will not increase support and could intimidate those stakeholders who find simple facts and figures presented in layman's terms easier to comment on. It is often difficult for scientists to express their findings in a non-technical manner, however doing so could ensure greater support from the people who make their living off the water. Creative ways to break down the communication barriers between the managers, scientists, and the local community should be viewed as an important need. Often people want to "save the environment" or "see the big fish come back," but simply don't understand what the managers are trying to accomplish because of the complex lingo and technical reports presented to them. It can give a feeling of alienation even if the managers and scientists don't see it.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Study after study have shown that our oceans are declining; managers, user groups, and conservationists have seen first hand that our fish stocks are being depleted more rapidly than they can be replenished. With increased technology such as faster boats and more accurate global position systems and fish finders, people are exploiting areas further from shore. Each year, the number of registered boaters in Florida increases and the commercial and recreational fishermen reach greater distances in search of the best fishing grounds. The need to conserve critical habitat and enhance nursery grounds, spawning grounds, and existing habitat is becoming more apparent.

Marine Protected Areas are one tool that it is becoming more widely accepted as an alternative to traditional fisheries management methods. Limiting catch and size of fish have not proven to be truly effective; inaccuracies in mortality rates and stock assessments have at times resulted in poor and untimely management decisions. Another concern with traditional fisheries management is that controlling the catch and size of the fish does nothing to prevent habitat degradation, destructive fishing practices, or limit bycatch. The secondary effects from habitat degradation and bycatch can affect a whole ecosystem and not just the fishery. MPAs can play a big role in increasing fish stocks by protecting areas where they live, grow, and spawn. This approach has shown to be successful in areas such as the "no-take" zones of the FKNMS. Grouper, snapper, lobster, and other commercially valuable marine organisms are protected in these areas and are growing larger which in many species increases their fecundity (ability to produce a greater number of offspring) (personal knowledge). Many of them migrate to other areas allowing for continued gene flow throughout the region and provide continued opportunities for fishermen to use them as traditional resources.

MPAs provide benefit in other areas besides fisheries management; coral reefs are produced by sessile living organisms and provide habitat for many commercially valuable marine animals. Due to their sessile nature, they are vulnerable to physical harm from various sources. Boaters' anchors can dislodge, crack, and damage living corals which can have a rippling effect across the reef through habitat loss, increased turbidity, and removal of reef building organisms. MPAs can provide protection by restricting anchoring in sensitive areas and providing mooring buoys for use by boaters who wish to dive and enjoy the aesthetic beauty of the reef.

The economic benefits of MPAs have been shown in many areas. In the Netherlands Antilles, the government and its citizens worked together over many years to develop the Bonaire National Marine Park that was established in 1979. The stakeholders in the region saw the benefits of conserving the island's coral reefs and associated biota. Because tourism and diving were their strongest industry, they restricted spearfishing and anchoring throughout the 2600 hectacre park. The approach they chose was to charge an entrance fee in order to be self-sufficient and continue with the upkeep, maintenance, enforcement, education, and monitoring. Today, they have over five times the number of visitors to the park, and they are viewed as one of the most successful self-supporting marine parks in the world (http://www.coralreefalliance.org/bonaire/marinepark)

There is strong scientific consensus supporting marine reserves and marine protected areas. In response to a 1997 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the National Center for Ecological produced a statement signed by161 leading marine scientists and experts on marine reserves which had culminated from and two-and-a-half year effort. The document summarized the effects of reserves within the boundaries, and outside the boundaries. Their conclusion was based on the available evidence and stated that "existing scientific information justifies the immediate application of fully protected marine reserves as a central management tool" and "networks of reserves will be necessary for long-term fishery and conservation benefit" as well as many others (http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu).

The benefits of marine reserves are well established, the need for more of them has been documented, but the battle to create them is long from over. Change is difficult especially when it involves personal sacrifice. Grahame Bryon of Jervis Bay Marine Park in Australia stated it accurately when he said "The role of managing a park comes down to managing people, and while generally most people are concerned about the natural environment, they still have a strong commitment to their personal situation. We need to be able to gain information about social and economic issues. Our community support quite often depends upon our ability to maintain social harmony and economic viability" (Davis, ed., 2001). These socioeconomic considerations will determine success or failure; more emphasis should be put on studying how MPAs effect people and our society instead of focusing most of the efforts to natural science.

The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary is approaching its fifth year since implementation of its final management plan, and the staff is preparing for review of the plan by the public and involved agencies. A component of the plan includes a 'science plan' that states the research needed by managers to help them be more effective; it is currently being drafted and reviewed by technical advisory members and the public. What may not be immediately apparent is that this draft 'science plan' includes no established research need of social impacts or socioeconomic impacts. Some components include how anthropogenic activities are impacting the ecosystem, but do not look at how the management system is affecting them. This oversight may not be an oversight at all, but may be instead a way to separate natural science from other types of science. Although studies of people may not seem appropriate in a traditional 'science plan,' it should be included somewhere as a research and monitoring need and be ongoing as the MPA matures and changes.

It takes an astounding management system to look at "the big picture" but this is what is needed. Sustainability should be the goal of marine parks everywhere when viewing their role as part of a global system. The primary objective of a network should be to balance the environmental concerns with societal needs. To achieve this, committees composed of scientists (natural, social, and economic), managers (public, natural resource, policy), and interest groups (commercial and recreations) should be THE integral body that develops each and every plan relating to MPAs. Of course, opposition will always exist and disputes will ensue, but it is better to create a MPA developed from consensus (and not meet every objective) rather than to create one based on a single group's interests that will ultimately fail.

References

Davis, John B., ed., May 2001. MPA News, International News and Analysis on Marine Protected Areas. Vol. 2, No. 10.

Flesher, David, May 20, 2001,Suggested Restrictions Draw Fishermen's Ire. In: Sun-Sentinel.

Kelleher, Graeme, 1999. Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas. World Commission on Protected Areas of IUCN &endash; The World Conservation Union. Best Protected Areas Guidelines Series No. 3.

National Research Council, 2001. Marine Protected Areas: Tools for Sustaining Ocean Ecosystems. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

http://www.coralreefalliance.org/bonairemarinepark

http://www.doc.gov

http://www.fknms.nos.noaa.gov

http://www.mpa.gov

http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu