Community-based marine resource management in Solomon Islands: a facilitators guide

This guide was developed to document the process and activities that WorldFish staff have used and adapted as facilitators working with communities interested in marine resource management in Solomon Islands. It draws on the experiences from work conducted with FSPI and MFMR through ACIAR funded projects, with communities that had a primary interest in the management of coral reef fisheries. Since 2011 the process has been trialed and adapted further with communities interested in mangrove ecosystem management (through the MESCAL project). This guide is based on lessons about the process of a community developing, writing and implementing a management plan. This guide does not cover lessons about the outcomes of that management.

The Southeast Bering Sea Ecosystem: implications for marine resource management (Final Report: Southeast Bering Sea Carrying Capacity).

Southeast Bering Sea Carrying Capacity (SEBSCC, 1996–2002) was a NOAA Coastal Ocean Program project that investigated the marine ecosystem of the southeastern Bering Sea. SEBSCC was co-managed by the University of Alaska Fairbanks, NOAA Alaska Fisheries Science Center, and NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory. Project goals were to understand the changing physical environment and its relationship to the biota of the region, to relate that understanding to natural variations in year-class strength of walleye pollock (Theragra chalcogramma), and to improve the flow of ecosystem information to fishery managers. In addition to SEBSCC, the Inner Front study (1997–2000), supported by the National Science Foundation (Prolonged Production and Trophic Transfer to Predators: Processes at the Inner Front of the S.E. Bering Sea), was active in the southeastern Bering Sea from 1997 to 1999. The SEBSCC and Inner Front studies were complementary. SEBSCC focused on the middle and outer shelf. Inner Front worked the middle and inner shelf. Collaboration between investigators in the two programs was strong, and the joint results yielded a substantially increased understanding of the regional ecosystem. SEBSCC focused on four central scientific issues: (1) How does climate variability influence the marine ecosystem of the Bering Sea? (2) What determines the timing, amount, and fate of primary and secondary production? (3) How do oceanographic conditions on the shelf influence distributions of fish and other species? (4) What limits the growth of fish populations on the eastern Bering Sea shelf? Underlying these broad questions was a narrower focus on walleye pollock, particularly a desire to understand ecological factors that affect year-class strength and the ability to predict the potential of a year class at the earliest possible time. The Inner Front program focused on the role of the structural front between the well-mixed waters of the coastal domain and the two-layer system of the middle domain. Of special interest was the potential for prolonged post-spring-bloom production at the front and its role in supporting upper trophic level organisms such as juvenile pollock and seabirds. Of concern to both programs was the role of interannual and longer-term variability in marine climates and their effects on the function of sub-arctic marine ecosystems and their ability to support upper trophic level organisms.

A geo-referenced benthic habitat survey in support of natural resource management: Port Graham Bay, Alaska

The impact of recent changes in climate on the arctic environment and its ecosystems appear to have a dramatic affect on natural populations (National Research Council Committee on the Bering Sea Ecosystem 1996) and pose a serious threat to the continuity of indigenous arctic cultures that are dependent on natural resources for subsistence (Peterson D. L., Johnson 1995). In the northeast Pacific, winter storms have intensified and shifted southward causing fundamental changes in sea surface temperature patterns (Beamish 1993, Francis et al. 1998). Since the mid 1970’s surface waters of the central basin of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) have warmed and freshened with a consequent increase in stratification and reduced winter entrainment of nutrients (Stabeno et al. 2004). Such physical changes in the structure of the ocean can rapidly affect lower trophic levels and indirectly affect fish and marine mammal populations through impacts on their prey (Benson and Trites 2002). Alaskan natives expect continued and perhaps accelerating changes in resources due to global warming (DFO 2006).and want to develop strategies to cope with their changing environment.

Enhancing capacity of fishing communities for resource management

International Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF) undertook capacity development in six locations in five countries (India, Indonesia, Myanmar, Bangladesh and Thailand). Six workshops were undertaken to help communities develop proposals for the conservation and sustainable uses of fisheries resources.

Panel Discussion - Management of Eurasian watermilfoil in the United States using native insects: State regulatory and management issues

While researchers have evaluated the potential of native insect herbivores to manage nonindigenous aquatic plant species such as Eurasian watermilfoil ( Myriophyllum spicatum L.), the practical matters of regulatory compliance and implementation have been neglected. A panel of aquatic nuisance species program managers from three state natural resource management agencies (Minnesota, Vermont and Washington) discussed their regulatory and policy concerns. In addition, one ecological consultant attempting to market one of the native insects to manage Eurasian watermilfoil added his perspective on the special challenges of distributing a native biological control agent for management of Eurasian watermilfoil.

Resource survey of Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary, 1983

Forward: Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary (LKNMS) was designated in 1981 to protect and promote the study, teaching, and wise use of the resources of Looe Key Sanctuary (Plate A). In order to wisely manage this valuable resource, a quantitative resource inventory was funded by the Sanctuary Programs Division (SPD), Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in cooperation with the Southeast Fisheries Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA; the Cooperative Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Studies (CIMAS), University of Miami; the Fisher Island Laboratory, United States Geological Survey; and the St. Petersburg Laboratory, State of Florida Department of Natural Resources. This report is the result of this cooperative effort. The objective of this study was to quantitatively inventory selected resources of LKNMS in order to allow future monitoring of changes in the Sanctuary as a result of human or natural processes. This study, referred to as Phase I, gives a brief summary of past and present uses of the Sanctuary (Chapter 2); and describes general habitat types (Chapter 3), geology and sediment distribution (Chapter 4), coral abundance and distribution (Chapter 5), the growth history of the coral Montastraea annularis (Chapter 6), reef fish abundance and distribution (Chapter 7), and status of selected resources (Chapter 8). An interpretation of the results of the survey are provided for management consideration (Chapter 9). The results are expected to provide fundamental information for applied management, natural history interpretation, and scientific research. Numerous photographs and illustrations were used to supplement the report to make the material presented easier to comprehend (Plate B). We anticipate the information provided will be used by managers, naturalists, and the general public in addition to scientists. Unless otherwise indicated, all photographs were taken at Looe Key Reef by Dr. James A. Bohnsack. The top photograph in Plate 7.8 was taken by Michael C. Schmale. Illustrations were done by Jack Javech, NMFS. Field work was initiated in May 1983 and completed for the most part by October 1983 thanks to the cooperation of numerous people and organizations. In addition to the participating agencies and organizations we thank the Newfound Harbor Marine Institute and the Division of Parks and Recreation, State of Florida Department of Natural Resources for their logistical support. Special thanks goes to Billy Causey, the Sanctuary Manager, for his help, information, and comments. We thank in alphabetical order: Scott Bannerot, Margie Bastian, Bill Becker, Barbara Bohnsack, Grant Beardsley, John Halas, Raymond Hixon, Irene Hooper, Eric Lindblad, and Mike Schmale. We dedicate this effort to the memory of Ray Hixon who participated in the study and who loved Looe Key. (PDF contains 43 pages)

An assessment of co-management potentials in the Lake Victoria fisheries of Kenya

Co-management is a system or a process in which responsibility and authority for the management of common resources is shared between the state, local users of the resources as well as other stakeholders, and where they have the legal authority to administer the resource jointly. Co-management has received increasing attention in recent years as a potential strategy for managing fisheries. This paper presents and discusses results of a survey undertaken in the Kenyan part of Lake Victoria to assess the conditions - behaviour, attitude and characteristics of resource users, as well as community institutions - that can support co-management. It analyses the results of this survey with respect to a series of parameters, identified by Pinkerton (1989), as necessary preconditions for the successful inclusion of communities involvement in resource management. The survey was implemented through a two-stage stratified random sampling technique based on district and beach size strata. A total of 405 fishers, drawn from 25 fish landing beaches, were interviewed using a structured questionnaire. The paper concludes that while Kenya's lake Victoria fishery would appear to qualify for a number of these preconditions, it would appear that it fails to qualify in others. Preconditions in this latter category include the definition of boundaries in fishing grounds, community members' rights to the resource, delegation and legislation of local responsibility and authority. Additional work is required to further elaborate and understand these shortcomings

Addressing and adapting to contemporary coastal management issues in the central Philippines

With arguably the world’s most decentralized coastal governance regime, the Philippines has implemented integrated coastal management (ICM) for over 30 years as one of the most successful frameworks for coastal resource management in the country. Anthropogenic drivers continue to threaten the food security and livelihood of coastal residents; contributing to the destruction of critical marine habitats, which are heavily relied upon for the goods and services they provide. ICM initiatives in the Philippines have utilized a variety of tools, particularly marine protected areas (MPAs), to promote poverty alleviation through food security and sustainable forms of development. From the time marine reserves were first shown to effectively address habitat degradation and decline in reef fishery production (Alcala et al., 2001) over 1,100 locally managed MPAs have been established in the Philippines; yet only 10-20% of these are effectively managed (White et al., 2006; PhilReefs, 2008). In order to increase management effectiveness, biophysical, legal, institutional and social linkages need to be strengthened and “scaled up” to accommodate a more holistic systems approach (Lowry et al., 2009). This summary paper incorporates the preliminary results of five independently conducted studies. Subject areas covered are the social and institutional elements of MPA networks, ecosystem-based management applicability, financial sustainability and the social vulnerability of coastal residents to climate change in the Central Philippines. Each section will provide insight into these focal areas and suggest how management strategies may be adapted to holistically address these contemporary issues. (PDF contains 4 pages)

Five concepts in planning theory useful to coastal management

In recent years coastal resource management has begun to stand as its own discipline. Its multidisciplinary nature gives it access to theory situated in each of the diverse fields which it may encompass, yet management practices often revert to the primary field of the manager. There is a lack of a common set of “coastal” theory from which managers can draw. Seven resource-related issues with which coastal area managers must contend include: coastal habitat conservation, traditional maritime communities and economies, strong development and use pressures, adaptation to sea level rise and climate change, landscape sustainability and resilience, coastal hazards, and emerging energy technologies. The complexity and range of human and environmental interactions at the coast suggest a strong need for a common body of coastal management theory which managers would do well to understand generally. Planning theory, which itself is a synthesis of concepts from multiple fields, contains ideas generally valuable to coastal management. Planning theory can not only provide an example of how to develop a multi- or transdisciplinary set of theory, but may also provide actual theoretical foundation for a coastal theory. In particular we discuss five concepts in the planning theory discourse and present their utility for coastal resource managers. These include “wicked” problems, ecological planning, the epistemology of knowledge communities, the role of the planner/ manager, and collaborative planning. While these theories are known and familiar to some professionals working at the coast, we argue that there is a need for broader understanding amongst the various specialists working in the increasingly identifiable field of coastal resource management. (PDF contains 4 pages)