STREAM Journal, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp 1-16. July-September 2002

CONTENTS: From resource user to resource manager: a significant change story, by Ruperto Aleroza as told to Jocel Pangilinan and Ronet Santos. Significant change with Cambodian provincial livelihoods study teams, by Bun Hay Chheng, Tan Someth Bunwhat, Mey Chanthou and Bun Puthy. The Community Fisheries Development Office: one year on, by Matt Fox. CFDO open for business, by Louise Mackeson-Sandbach. Stakeholders and institutional involvement in aquaculture management and development, by M. Krishnan and Pratap S. Birthal. Fish seed production for aquaculture in southeast Cambodia: decentralization, the way to go, by Olivier Delahaye Gamucci, Graham C. Mair and Harvey Demaine.

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)

Back to Office Report: Pakistan 30.5 - 3.6.04

This is a report of Mr. Haylor's visit to Pakistan to negotiate a Partnership Agreement, agree a National Co-ordinator for STREAM in Pakistan and begin the process of recruiting a Communications Hub Manager. An agreement was also obtained by him for funds from FAO for supporting the establishment of the Communications Hub and to conduct an Aquatic Resources and Poverty Review and a Country Strategy Paper.(PDF contains 22 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)

Modelling the dynamics of phytoplankton with the needs of the end user in mind

How to regulate phytoplankton growth in water supply reservoirs has continued to occupy managers and strategists for some fifty years or so, now, and mathematical models have always featured in their design and operational constraints. In recent years, rather more sophisticated simulation models have begun to be available and these, ideally, purport to provide the manager with improved forecasting of plankton blooms, the likely species and the sort of decision support that might permit management choices to be selected with increased confidence. This account describes the adaptation and application of one such model, PROTECH (Phytoplankton RespOnses To Environmental CHange) to the problems of plankton growth in reservoirs. This article supposes no background knowledge of the main algal types; neither does it attempt to catalogue the problems that their abundance may cause in lakes and reservoirs.

News from Academy Bay

Donacion Japonesa. Japanese Donation. Nuevo Gerente en la ECCD. New Manager for the CDRS. Un "Rose-breasted Grosbeak" en Galapagos. A Rose-breasted Grosbeak in Galapagos.

Estimation of maximum sustainable yield (MSY) of hilsa (Tenualosa ilisha Ham.) in the Meghna river of Bangladesh

MSY per recruit of Tenualosa ilisha in the Meghna river was predicted as 112 g per recruit at the F(msy)=0.6/yr and at T(c)=0.6/yr. But Y/R=95 g per recruit was obtained at the existing fishing level, F=1.14/yr and at T(c)=0.6/yr. Existing F level was nearly double than the F(msy) level. Fishing pressure should be reduced immediately from F=1.14/yr to F(msy)=0.6/yr. F(msy)=1.14/yr was the same at first capture, T(c)=1.0, 1.2 and 1.4/yr, and MSY could be obtained as 142 g, 162 g and 176 g per recruit respectively. It is easier to change the first capture age (Tc) rather than changing off level. So, hilsa fishery manager may adopt F(msy)=1.14/yr while age at first capture must be increased from T(c)=0.6/yr (3 cm size group) to T(c)=1.4/yr (25 cm size group), by which 1.8 times production could be increased than the present production. MSY also possible to obtain as 201 g and 210 g per recruit at F(msy)=2.0/yr and 4.0/yr at T(c)=1.7/yr and 1.9/yr respectively. Under both the situations, hilsa production could be increased 2 times than the present production. To obtain the MSY=210 g per recruit the fishing level could be increased up to F=4.0/yr at T(c)=1.9/yr (34 cm size group). Economic point of view, hilsa fishery managers may choose to obtain the economic MSY as 201 g per recruit at F(msy)=2.0/yr and T(c)=1.7yr (31 cm size group) in the Meghna river of Bangladesh.