Kommentar zum Worm-et-al.-Artikel„Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services“: erschienen im Wissenschaftsmagazin Science, Vol. 314, am 3. November 2006

Folgende Kernbehauptungen bzw. Hypothesen werden in dem Worm-et-al.-Artikel aufgestellt: -Der Verlust an Biodiversität (Artenzahl) in einem Meeresgebiet reduziert tief greifend seine Produktivität und seine Stabilität in Stressperioden, hervorgerufen u.a. durch Überfischung und Klimaänderung. -Die Zahl der kollabierten Arten nimmt zu. Dieser Trend projeziert den Kollaps aller wildlebenden Arten und Bestände, die gegenwärtig befischt werden, auf das Jahr 2048. -Diese Entwicklung ist zum gegenwärtigen Zeitpunkt reversibel, denn das Meer besitzt noch ein großes Potential sich zu regenerieren. Dazu ist aber mehr Umweltschutz notwendig.

Science-based restoration monitoring of coastal habitats, Volume One: A framework for monitoring plans under the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000 (Public Law 160-457)

Executive Summary: The Estuary Restoration Act of 2000 (ERA), Title I of the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000, was created to promote the restoration of habitats along the coast of the United States (including the US protectorates and the Great Lakes). The NOAA National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science was charged with the development of a guidance manual for monitoring plans under this Act. This guidance manual, titled Science-Based Restoration Monitoring of Coastal Habitats, is written in two volumes. It provides technical assistance, outlines necessary steps, and provides useful tools for the development and implementation of sound scientific monitoring of coastal restoration efforts. In addition, this manual offers a means to detect early warnings that the restoration is on track or not, to gauge how well a restoration site is functioning, to coordinate projects and efforts for consistent and successful restoration, and to evaluate the ecological health of specific coastal habitats both before and after project completion (Galatowitsch et al. 1998). The following habitats have been selected for discussion in this manual: water column, rock bottom, coral reefs, oyster reefs, soft bottom, kelp and other macroalgae, rocky shoreline, soft shoreline, submerged aquatic vegetation, marshes, mangrove swamps, deepwater swamps, and riverine forests. The classification of habitats used in this document is generally based on that of Cowardin et al. (1979) in their Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, as called for in the ERA Estuary Habitat Restoration Strategy. This manual is not intended to be a restoration monitoring “cookbook” that provides templates of monitoring plans for specific habitats. The interdependence of a large number of site-specific factors causes habitat types to vary in physical and biological structure within and between regions and geographic locations (Kusler and Kentula 1990). Monitoring approaches used should be tailored to these differences. However, even with the diversity of habitats that may need to be restored and the extreme geographic range across which these habitats occur, there are consistent principles and approaches that form a common basis for effective monitoring. Volume One, titled A Framework for Monitoring Plans under the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000, begins with definitions and background information. Topics such as restoration, restoration monitoring, estuaries, and the role of socioeconomics in restoration are discussed. In addition, the habitats selected for discussion in this manual are briefly described. (PDF contains 116 pages)

Non-governmental organizations and multi-sited marine conservation science: A case study

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are now major players in the realm of environmental conservation. While many environmental NGOs started as national organizations focused around single-species protection, governmental advocacy, and preservation of wilderness, the largest now produce applied conservation science and work with national and international stakeholders to develop conservation solutions that work in tandem with local aspirations. Marine managed areas (MMAs) are increasingly being used as a tool to manage anthropogenic stressors on marine resources and protect marine biodiversity. However, the science of MMA is far from complete. Conservation International (CI) is concluding a 5 year, $12.5 million dollar Marine Management Area Science (MMAS) initiative. There are 45 scientific projects recently completed, with four main “nodes” of research and conservation work: Panama, Fiji, Brazil, and Belize. Research projects have included MMA ecological monitoring, socioeconomic monitoring, cultural roles monitoring, economic valuation studies, and others. MMAS has the goals of conducting marine management area research, building local capacity, and using the results of the research to promote marine conservation policy outcomes at project sites. How science is translated into policy action is a major area of interest for science and technology scholars (Cash and Clark 2001; Haas 2004; Jasanoff et al. 2002). For science to move policy there must be work across “boundaries” (Jasanoff 1987). Boundaries are defined as the “socially constructed and negotiated borders between science and policy, between disciplines, across nations, and across multiple levels” (Cash et al. 2001). Working across the science-policy boundary requires boundary organizations (Guston 1999) with accountability to both sides of the boundary, among other attributes. (Guston 1999; Clark et al. 2002). This paper provides a unique case study illustrating how there are clear advantages to collaborative science. Through the MMAS initiative, CI built accountability into both sides of the science-policy boundary primarily through having scientific projects fed through strong in-country partners and being folded into the work of ongoing conservation processes. This collaborative, boundary-spanning approach led to many advantages, including cost sharing, increased local responsiveness and input, better local capacity building, and laying a foundation for future conservation outcomes. As such, MMAS can provide strong lessons for other organizations planning to get involved in multi-site conservation science. (PDF contains 3 pages)

Challenges in using science-based shoreline setbacks: Examples from South Carolina

Beachfront jurisdictional lines were established by the South Carolina Beachfront Management Act (SC Code §48- 39-250 et seq.) in 1988 to regulate the new construction, repair, or reconstruction of buildings and erosion control structures along the state’s ocean shorelines. Building within the state’s beachfront “setback area” is allowed, but is subject to special regulations. For “standard beaches” (those not influenced by tidal inlets or associated shoals), a baseline is established at the crest of the primary oceanfront sand dune; for “unstabilized inlet zones,” the baseline is drawn at the most landward point of erosion during the past forty years. The parallel setback line is then established landward of the baseline a distance of forty times the long-term average annual erosion rate (not less than twenty feet from the baseline in stable or accreting areas). The positions of the baseline and setback line are updated every 8-10 years using the best available scientific and historical data, including aerial imagery, LiDAR, historical shorelines, beach profiles, and long-term erosion rates. One advantage of science-based setbacks is that, by using actual historical and current shoreline positions and beach profile data, they reflect the general erosion threat to beachfront structures. However, recent experiences with revising the baseline and setback line indicate that significant challenges and management implications also exist. (PDF contains 3 pages)