Background Paper: Issues in Marine Area Governance and Management
In April 1993, the Marine Board of the National Research Council (NRC) sponsored a forum on ocean issues. A broad spectrum of representatives of private industry, public agencies, public interest groups, and the academic ocean policy community were invited to air their views on the need for a national strategy to manage the nation's coastal and ocean resources and space. Based on the proceedings of the forum, the Marine Board requested and received NRC project initiation funds to identify and appraise emerging issues in marine area management. A planning meeting was held in July 1994, which was attended by representatives of interested and active parties in ocean governance and management (see Attachment 1 for list of participants). Based on presentations and discussions at the planning meeting and subsequent comments by the attendees and members of the Committee on Marine Area Governance, the following paper has evolved. It identifies specific issues that need to be addressed in developing the concept and practice of marine area governance and management. This paper is intended to serve as a conceptual framework for an ongoing examination of real-world examples of marine area management projects, with the objective of developing a model for improving ocean governance in the future.
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
The growing national interest in and the appreciation of the ocean and the opportunities to utilize marine resources make it timely to develop a coherent framework to guide the nation's activities in the ocean and coastal regions. New challenges have arisen from changes in national priorities and in the international economic system, including a recognition that good environmental policies make
economic sense, the globalization of markets and opportunities, and a new willingness for government to be a catalyst for technological development and economic growth, as well as a steward of the nation's natural resources.
At the same time, demands on the coastal marine environment have been intensifying through the migration of population to the coasts, the growing importance of the coasts and ocean for aesthetic enjoyment, and mounting pressures to develop ocean resources and space for economic benefits (e.g., commercial fisheries, marine aquaculture, marine energy, and mineral resources). All of these factors have created a sense of urgency about developing a coordinated national system for decision-making in the marine arena.
At present, the United States manages its ocean and coastal space and resources primarily on a sector-by-sector basis. For example, to a large degree, one group of laws, agencies, and regulations govern offshore oil and gas; different laws, agencies, and regulations apply to fisheries; still other single-purpose regimes are responsible for water quality, navigation, marine protected areas, endangered species, and marine mammals. It is, perhaps, ironic that while legal regimes for the management of resources operate on a statute-by-statute basis, each area of interest may at the same time be subject to a plethora of other regulatory management regimes. Except for the modest, but important, marine sanctuaries program and a few emerging state programs, the nation does not have the capability to plan and manage ocean regions on an area-wide, multipurpose, or ecological basis; nor is there an agreed upon process for making trade-offs and resolving conflicts among various interests.
Findings from previous Marine Board examinations of issues associated with the nation's ocean space and resources (NRC, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992; Marine Board 1993) have shown that the absence of a coherent national system of governance for marine resources and uses of ocean space has contributed to economic stagnation and political stalemate in many areas where there are conflicts among competing uses and interests. These studies have also concluded that a more coherent process for governing marine activities and resources would ensure that the nation's ocean ecosystems and living resources were protected and would allow appropriate economic development. In order to achieve these objectives, however, existing and potential conflicts among users of the ocean need to be anticipated and addressed through mechanisms for allocating ocean space and resources fairly and equitably in keeping with national stewardship.
PROJECT DEFINITION AND SCOPE
Marine area governance has two dimensions: a political dimension where ultimate authority and accountability for action resides, both within and among formal and informal mechanisms, i.e., governance; and an analytical, active dimension where problem analysis leads to action and implementation, i.e., management. The two dimensions need to be integrated according to clear national objectives, which
are set forth below. In practice, there is a continuum from the realm of governance to the realm of management. A great many tools are presently deployed in the marine and coastal environment to address one or another aspect of management. But there is no coherent system of governance based on overarching principles.
To fill this need, this forum has attempted to identify principles and goals, as well as the elements of and a process for improving marine area governance. The concepts outlined in this paper are particularly applicable to the marine environment, that is, the zone from high water to the seaward extent of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone.1 The geographic area of concern for this study is the marine environment of the United States, including bays and estuaries, without regard to the jurisdictional authority of the states and the federal government.
The term ''marine management area" as used in this paper refers to an area for which coherent plans are developed and measures taken to govern the uses of the area systematically. Marine management areas include sanctuaries, parks, and regional planning and management programs, such as the Gulf of Mexico program. Other attempts by states to plan for the use of their ocean and coastal areas are also under way. Certain statutes, such as the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, have also established processes with some of the characteristics of marine area management.
Until recently, prohibiting or severely limiting certain activities, such as exploiting energy resources or commercial and/or recreational fishing, in specific ocean areas has been the primary strategy for controlling development. This strategy does not address the growing problem of protecting the environment and mediating among multiple users in a marine area of intense use for diverse activities, such as transportation, energy and mineral resource development, recreation, commercial fishing, and research. There is a growing recognition of the need for coordinated management of these regions and resources in the best interests of present and future generations.
Defining the basic principles and effective processes for the coordinated governance of ocean and coastal areas is a prerequisite to both sound economic investment and effective environmental stewardship. A coordinated system would make a more reasonable, less adversarial approach to resolving conflicts a realistic possibility. The first step toward developing a new model for coordinated governance is to assess current practices.
NEED FOR IMPROVED GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT PROCESSES
A number of federal agencies now exercise jurisdiction over activities in the ocean and coastal regions. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) is responsible for running the marine sanctuary program; for managing fisheries under the National Marine Fisheries Service, which has recently imposed moratoria in areas where resources have been overfished; for implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act; and for coordinating and overseeing state management of coastal areas through the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). Under the CZMA, NOAA can provide grants to states for coastal management, which have been used in some states for ocean management planning. NOAA also shares responsibility with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for overseeing state pollution control programs for nonpoint source pollution.
The EPA has several ongoing regional planning programs that directly address the uses and management of ocean regions, such as the Gulf of Mexico; they are also responsible for designating and managing ocean dump sites. EPA is the lead federal agency for preparing and promoting implementation of the National Estuary Program.
The Minerals Management Service (MMS) is responsible for the management of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) energy and mineral resources, which have been subject to legislatively mandated moratoria that place large areas of the U.S. continental margin off limits to exploration for and development of offshore oil and gas.
The National Park Service has a number of responsibilities for ocean resource management, for example, in the Channel Islands, off California, and in the Florida Keys. The U.S. Coast Guard, another interested party is responsible for enforcing laws and regulations in the oceans. The U.S. Department of State's interests in these issues are focused on the international foundations and implications of the regional management of marine resources and uses. States, international agencies, and other countries also have various responsibilities and interests.
The U.S. Department of Defense operates in a number of ocean areas for purposes of carrying out missions related to national defense (e.g., missile ranges, test areas, exclusion areas near gunnery ranges, and areas set aside for maneuvers). The Maritime Administration in the U.S. Department of Transportation's responsibilities are related to ports and marine transportation and safety.
The single-purpose, overlapping, and uncoordinated laws that generally characterize the present system for managing ocean resources is insensitive to the effects of one resource use on other resources and the environment, fail to assess cumulative impacts, and rarely provide a basis for resolving conflicts. In the absence of an overarching governance system, those seeking to utilize ocean resources and space for economic objectives and those concerned with environmental preservation have often reached a stalemate. The societal and economic costs of solving conflicts on a case-by-case basis and the delays inherent in this approach have been high. A brief overview of the most salient problems follows.
Fragmented Government Responsibility
The fragmentation of authority is both horizontal (between agencies at the same level of government) and vertical (between different levels of government). At the present time, management of the marine environment is carried out at local, state, regional, and national (and, in some cases, international) levels of government. In addition, at any given level of government, various functions are carried out through a wide array of agencies and organizations with only limited or sporadic coordination among them, leading to conflicts and inefficiencies.
For example, a port improvement project may require numerous permits from various authorities with inconsistent or even conflicting requirements. Paradoxically, this fragmentation can mean that important issues receive too little attention because they fall through the cracks of various jurisdictions. Thus, a number of agencies may have partial responsibility for managing a marine habitat, but the overall question of habitat protection may never be addressed. Fragmentation also means that real or potential conflicts, either between governmental requirements or proposed uses, are often not anticipated, and when they emerge, effective means of resolving them are not available.
Unresolved Conflicts over Uses of the Marine Environment
Increased competition over uses of the marine environment often leads to conflicts and stalemate. These conflicts have many different manifestations. One obvious conflict is between the exploitation of resources for immediate gains and the less tangible, longer term gains from preserving the environment and protecting ecosystems. The debate over petroleum development in the marine environment and its possible negative impacts on ecological systems, with their varied economic and social values, is an example of a conflict of this kind.
There are also conflicts among competing economic uses as exemplified by the concerns of fishermen about the effects of oil spills on fisheries stocks. Conflicts have also arisen over the economic utilization of common resources, such as the conflict between recreational and commercial fishermen over increasingly scarce resources.
Resolving these conflicts involves making difficult choices among competing needs and interests and raises serious questions about equity, for present and future generations. Public agencies must determine the appropriate balance between immediate economic needs and future needs. Under the present system, decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, often involving costly and lengthy decision processes. Decision makers have no coherent system based on protecting overall national interests to guide them and ensure that the nation's long-term interests are served.
Deterioration of the Marine Environment
The coastal marine environment is under increasing stress. A contributing factor to the imminent deterioration of the ocean and coastal areas is the intensive utilization of space and resources, such as the fisheries exploitation and habitat alteration caused by development in coastal areas. An additional factor is the continuing release of man-made materials into the marine environment, either wastes or the residual from petroleum or pesticides. In addition, there is growing evidence that, in the future, stresses on marine resources from changes in climate will further limit the resiliency of the natural system to survive the pressures of human utilization.
Lost Values and Opportunities
The enormous value of a healthy, diverse, and productive marine environment and its resources to humans is difficult to assess in quantitative terms. The rich biological diversity of the sea, which in some important ways is richer than the diversity of the terrestrial environment, is intrinsically important. For example, of the 32 recognized animal phyla, 15 can be found exclusively in the sea and only one exclusively on land. Also, the basic biological productivity of the rich areas of the sea rivals the productivity of the most fecund tropical jungle.
Beyond this, the marine environment provides a full range of functions and resources. A recent joint publication by a number of national and international environmental groups (Norse, 1993) lists the following important functions of the marine sphere:
a source of food
a repository of information for medicinal and related biomedical research
a source of a variety of raw materials ranging from algae to minerals
an essential processor of global carbon and other elements
a venue for aesthetic/recreational activities
The seabed provides many opportunities for resource exploitation, most notably for petroleum, and the surface of the sea handles a major portion of commercial traffic, upon which the global economy rests.
MEETING THE NATIONAL INTEREST
An improved system of marine area governance and management will be effective only if it is perceived as defining and protecting the national interest in the marine environment. The national interest is not synonymous with the federal government's interest. It denotes the fundamental values that the nation as a whole has embraced for the protection and use of the marine environment. The national interest transcends the interests of any single agency mission or special interest
group and presupposes a reasonable accommodation among competing interests based on protection of the functioning marine environment.
The complexity and intensity of unresolved conflicts among varying values and economic expectations imposes a number of direct and indirect costs on advancing the national interest. Often the environmental costs are not readily apparent in the short term. For example, the cumulative effects of a series of development activities resulting in substantial habitat alteration may not be obvious until long after the development has taken place.
The national interest in the marine environment can be deduced from a variety of sources and is defined and embodied in national policies for the oceans. Society is made up of groups and individuals with a range of social values and economic expectations. An essential task of marine area governance is to provide mechanisms for identifying and, as much as possible, reconciling these differences.
GOALS AND PRINCIPLES FOR IMPROVED MARINE AREA GOVERNANCE
As human knowledge, values, and needs have changed, so have the demands on institutions of marine governance. The following is a discussion of improved governance of marine areas and how it would benefit society.
The process for allocating benefits and costs should conform to accepted norms of horizontal and vertical equity. Improved governance would create a level playing field for competing stakeholders and users and would be transparent. Equity would extend to future generations.
Some of the greatest failures in marine area management have been failures of sustainability (e.g., depleted fisheries). Sustainable development would provide for the needs of the present without compromising the needs of future generations.
Marine governance systems should produce environmentally sound results with the lowest possible expenditure of financial and other resources. Coordinating existing programs to maximize positive synergistic effects and eliminate duplication would greatly increase program effectiveness.
The increased investment in governance would maximize the discounted net economic value of the flow of goods and services produced from resource allocation.
A marine governance system should produce expected or predictable results on a timely basis. An improved system would be based on a coherent sense of the factors defining the decision-making process and the nature of any uncertainty regarding results.
If authorities and structures for governance and management are clearly demarcated and elucidated, it will be evident who is responsible for particular tasks.
Technologically Achievable Outcomes
Decisions about resource allocation must be supported by existing technology. An improved system of governance would encourage the development and adoption of superior technologies.
Governance systems would be supported by known biological, physical, chemical, and ecological facts and principles while recognizing that cultural and social norms might influence decisions.
Marine governance systems would be seamlessly joined to adjacent terrestrial systems, such as coastal zone management programs and state land use regimes.
ELEMENTS RELATED TO IMPROVED MARINE AREA GOVERNANCE
The following elements are necessary for an improved system of governance.
Sense of Place/Ecology
The appropriate criteria for defining the area around which a system of marine governance ought to be organized are difficult to establish. Factors to be
considered include size, as well as whether political, economic, or environmental features should determine the boundaries. The following organizing concepts may be useful in approaching the problem:
Selectivity. It is not possible to create a more effective system of governance everywhere at once. Priority should be given to areas where the stress of competing uses is highest or areas with unique ecological value.
Ecological Systems. Issues are often defined and stakeholders engaged on the basis of ecological boundaries. Marine governance and management systems are already emerging around ecological systems, such as the Chesapeake Bay, the Gulf of Mexico, Monterey Bay, the Gulost valuf of Maine.
Political Jurisdictions. Because a marine governance system will have to accommodate a variety of existing institutions, both horizontal and vertical, boundaries by cannot be defined by jurisdictions. The transboundary nature of marine concerns and issues can best be addressed by a system that transcends political boundaries.
Marine resources have been exploited by humans since earliest times. In this century, attempts have been growing to manage the use of specific resources, such as fisheries and oil. No system of governance, however, has evolved to ensure the participation of all stakeholders (analogous to governance systems in the terrestrial environment). An essential feature of marine area governance and management must be the "ground-up" participation of all stakeholders in the governance process.
Very few marine issues can be addressed in isolation. Actions that affect one resource necessarily affects other resources. Wise management of a particular resource will require that action be taken in a variety of arenas. The current era of single resource management must give way to an era that allows—and even forces—management schemes that take into account the full spectrum of economic, social, and ecological uses of the marine environment.
Just as the ground-up involvement of stakeholders is only beginning to emerge in the marine context, so is the development of robust structures for governance mechanisms for ensuring their interconnected operation. The current
system is characterized by government programs that administer single resource management at the local, state, or federal level. To expect that these separate programs will disappear and be replaced by a superagency of government endowed with all responsibility and authority in unrealistic, perhaps even undesirable. However, one can imagine substantial improvement by establishing strong links in analysis and decision making from one program to another. In essence, improved connectivity or coordination will help develop a strong governance process for the marine environment.
Integrated Decision Making
In a coordinated institutional setting, where synergies are created through mutually reinforcing decision making across a range of programs, single issue decision making would no longer be feasible. Institutional structures that addressed the full range of issues would require partnerships among the affected agencies.
Even if decision making is integrated, frequent conflicts will still arise. A major objective of the improved arrangement is to resolve conflicts expeditiously. The existence of a coherent and transparent process will, at least, make outcomes somewhat predictable. This predictability in itself, should reduce delays and uncertainties associated with protracted disputes.
Few management systems are once-through exercises. Human values change; scientific understanding increases; threats ebb and flow; and human needs evolve. Improved governance must incorporate adaptive environmental management processes in order to be responsive to constant changes and to make better use of scientific information to protect the environment. Outcome-based monitoring can be an important tool for adaptive management.
PROCESS FOR IMPROVED MARINE AREA GOVERNANCE
Improvements in marine area governance and management will not necessarily entail the creation of new institutions to replace or supplement existing ones. Rather it will be a process that brings together and harmonizes existing programs. The process will be based on the concepts of adaptive environmental management, in general, and integrated coastal management, in particular.
Elements of the Implementation Process
Critical elements of the process include the following:
There must be a clear statement of goals. Bringing different entities together for cooperative management requires a clear understanding of the nature of the problem(s), identification of probable causes, and clear and unambiguous goals.
The geographic (or ecological) management area needs to be carefully delineated, See discussion under "Sense of Place/Ecology" above.
Mechanisms for involving all relevant stakeholders in the governance process need to be designed. Stakeholders include government, public interest organizations, and private parties. The experiences of the National Estuary Program may provide useful models for involving stakeholders.
In most situations, the process should be a joint state-federal effort. In virtually every setting, the state and local interests are as substantial as those of the federal government. In several regions, the states have already exercised leadership in ocean planning and governance. Integrating the management functions of a range of government organizations will be critical.
Systems of marine governance should be designed to foster innovative responses to management needs and opportunities for resource utilization. Robust programs are part of a coherent system are more open to innovation than single-purpose of fragmented programs.
Processes that facilitate the incorporation of scientific information into all aspects of decision making should be established. Good decisions in this sphere, as in many others, need to be based on the most reliable, scientific research. Recognition of the importance of scientific information must be built into the governance process.
Success should be clearly monitored and evaluated. Careful monitoring can also contribute to scientific knowledge. Any process of marine area governance must incorporate monitoring and evaluation systems to assess and report on the state of the environment or targeted resources. These systems will need to be based on standards and parameters that can measure success or failure in reaching agreed upon goals.
Building on Previous Work
The processes of environmental management have been well described by others. This study need not dwell on them or repeat what has already been done. A final report might include a chapter or appendix briefly summarizing and reviewing the relevant literature and describing the general precepts of adaptive environmental management to governance in the marine area.
EXISTING APPROACHES TO MARINE MANAGEMENT
Existing marine management areas include a broad spectrum of coastal and marine areas with attempts as managing resources for sustainable use, safeguarding ecosystem health and biodiversity, and/or providing |a framework for the utilization of resources and space with a minimum of conflict. Marine management areas are not merely marine parks or sanctuaries. They range from small closed areas or harvest refugia, designated to protect specific resources or habitat types or to prohibit specific resource development activities, to extensive coastal and/or marine areas that integrate the management of many species, habitats, and uses in a single plan. The major categories of marine management areas are described in Attachment 2. These categories are clearly not mutually exclusive; many can be and often are used in conjunction with each other.
Alternative Approaches to Marine Management Areas
A fully developed system that meets all of the objectives and contains all of the elements discussed above will necessarily evolve over time in response to actual experience. However, there are opportunities for moving forward now based on the experiences of existing marine management areas. This section sets forth changes that are presently under way and can be used as starting points for developing a model for marine area management.
Special Area Management Program under the CZMA. The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 (as amended) includes a provision allowing for the designation and establishment of special area management programs by the coastal states as part of their coastal zone management (CZM) programs. Relatively minor changes in the legislative language could allow coastal states to undertake initial efforts to implement the governance and management systems described in this paper. Other aspects of the CZMA offer vehicles for ensuring coordination and integration of decision making processes and need to be examined as models for new ocean governance regimes or approaches.
Marine Sanctuaries. The National Marine Sanctuary Program is a unique federal that tool offers many opportunities for improved governance. Although the primary objective of the sanctuaries program is to protect specific marine resources of exceptional value, it does this through a process that allows for the analysis and management of a multiplicity of uses within the identified area of the marine sanctuary. Evaluating a sanctuary program in relation to the objectives and elements identified in this issues paper would be extremely valuable. The question of whether certain management actions within sanctuaries create greater opportunities for improved governance outside of the sanctuary boundaries is of particular interest.
Moratoria for Oil and Gas Leasing and Fishing. Considerable controversy has surrounded the leasing of outer continental shelf (OCS) areas for oil and gas development and limitations on fishing, such as the limitations imposed on striped bass fishing in Maryland in 1995. Moratoria are one strategy for marine management that prohibits certain activities. Benefits have accrued to the environment and/or to certain species from these actions. It would be useful to investigate the benefits and costs associated with using moratoria as tools for managing selected marine activities.
New Approaches to Management of Marine Areas: the National Estuary Program and State Ocean Plans. At least two new approaches to the management of marine areas are at an early stage of development. These are the National Estuary Program and several formalized state ocean planning programs. Both programs were created primarily in response to initiative at the state level. Both operate in clearly defined geographical areas. Both have thus far been developing planning processes to deal with a wide range of issues.
International Institutional Structures. New institutional structures at the international level, as exemplified by the Law of the Sea and the Gulf of Maine initiative, illustrate that the broad outlines of a new approach to marine issues are beginning to emerge. The Convention on the Law of the Sea III came into effect in 1994. This convention assigns responsibility to each nation for exercising governance functions over resources in its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). These examples illustrate that government is already trying to improve governance and that there are opportunities to build on these beginnings.
IMPLEMENTING AND MEASURING SUCCESS
Improved marine governance and management need not involve the creation of new superagencies to assume the responsibilities currently dispersed among a wide range of agencies. However, some mechanism must evolve to link the elements of improved governance that this paper identifies and to oversee their implementation. This may require the development of new institutions (or responsible agents within existing institutions) to carry out relatively limited tasks of coordination or to assign tasks to existing agencies. The following are some of the tasks that may need to be carried out by a single identified agency, at either the federal or state level.
Although detailed, specific planning and analysis might be done by a range of organizations, a commitment must be made to integrating and harmonizing these efforts across the multiplicity of agency functions and shareholder
conflicts. The goal is to identify and implement effective mechanisms for integrating decision making in order to minimize and, wherever possible, resolve conflicts, and to maximize cooperation and sharing of resources to avoid inefficiencies and delays.
Agencies may retain budget autonomy in a traditional sense, but there must be some oversight of priorities in the allocation of funds to ensure that the objectives of the integrated planning process are met.
Monitoring and Evaluation Management
A crucial instrument for improving management is monitoring performance in the field to track whether the objectives and goals of the system have been achieved and to make corrections in the original course, as appropriate and necessary. Criteria should provide appropriate measures for this purpose.
Both the individual agencies participating in an integrated management process and any new coordinating mechanism should be publicly accountable for the results (or lack thereof) in terms of specific objectives and goals.
More and more marine management areas (e.g., marine sanctuaries and marine and coastal parks) are being designated. Other attempts to manage multiple-use marine areas are also under way (e.g., designated national estuaries under EPA's National Estuary Program, areas designated for special management in state coastal plans). However, no overarching national policy has been articulated to guide the long-term marine management of these areas. There is a critical need for guiding principles for governance and management.
Although moratoria can be appropriate and effective responses to specific issues, a more inclusive approach may be needed to manage a complex range of activities in these areas in the best interests of the nation—present and future. An inclusive approach must be guided by principles and policies that reflect the long-term national interests in ocean and coastal regions and resources.
Plan of Action
The Marine Board of the National Research Council will assess and develop guiding principles for the governance and management of marine areas. The
project will be carried out by a committee of experts that will undertake case studies of representative examples of marine management areas and, based on the findings from the case studies, will develop guidelines for improving governance and management of marine areas to both in terms of environmental stewardship and the development of ocean resources. The committee will prepare a published report that will propose models and methods for marine area governance and management to guide federal and state agencies with jurisdiction over ocean areas and uses.
The case studies will be chosen to represent diverse management areas and geographic regions. Case studies should include a marine sanctuary where ecosystem management concerns conflict with recreational use or resource development (e.g., the Florida Keys); an area where a moratorium on energy resource development is in effect to assess the benefits and costs of the moratorium and explore other options for resolving disputes over resource development (e.g., Gulf of Maine); and an ocean area of intense use for various activities, including commercial marine transportation or commercial fisheries, to learn more about the relationship between marine traffic management and marine environmental management (e.g. Southern California).
Each case study will be assessed with regard to (1) the effects of local, state, and federal regulations; (2) ecological and biological issues; (3) the potential for commercial or recreational uses; and (4) the social, cultural, and economic context. Criteria to guide the conduct of case studies of marine management areas are based on the analysis in this issues paper and the deliberations of the committee. Regional perspectives and expertise will be sought through meetings held in the case study areas. Federal agencies with responsibilities for marine management will be asked to designate liaisons to the committee to provide an avenue for the exchange of information and also to lend their expertise.
Following the case studies, the committee will distill lessons learned from the case studies and other activities and develop conclusions and recommendations. Based on these findings, the committee will prepare a published report proposing models for marine area governance and management to guide federal and state agencies with jurisdiction over ocean areas and uses.
Marine Board. 1993. Marine Board Forum: The Future of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. Marine Board, National Academy of Sciences. Unpublished proceedings. April 10, 1993.
National Research Council (NRC). 1989. Our Seabed Frontier. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
NRC. 1990. Interim Report of the Committee on Exclusive Economic Zone Information Needs: Coastal States and Territories. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
NRC. 1991. Interim Report of the Committee on Exclusive Economic Zone Information Needs: Seabed Information Needs of Offshore Industries. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
NRC. 1992. Working Together in the EEZ: Final Report of the Committee on Exclusive Economic Zone Information Needs. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
MARINE MANAGEMENT AREA GOVERNANCE
Planning Meeting July 28–29, 1994 Washington, D.C.
William M. Eichbaum, Co-Leader
World Wildlife Fund
Robert W. Knecht, Co-Leader
College of Marine Studies
University of Delaware
World Wildlife Fund
National Commission on Intermodal Transportation
New York Department of Environmental Conservation
Jeffrey R. Benoit
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Brock B. Bernstein
Darrell D. Brown
Environmental Protection Agency
Richard H. (Rick) Burroughs
Department of Marine Affairs
University of Rhode Island
Department of Community Affairs
Florida Coastal Management Program
Sanctuaries and Reserve Division, NOAA
Natural Resources Defense Council
College of Marine Studies
University of Delaware
Jacob J. Dykstra
Point Judith Fisherman's Cooperative
Charles N. (Bud) Ehler
Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment, NOAA
Center for Marine Conservation
Richard A. Fitch
Offshore Operators Committee
New Orleans, Louisiana
Minerals Management Service
Oregon Ocean Program
Marc J. Hershman
School of Marine Affairs
University of Washington
MARINE MANAGEMENT AREAS
Prepared by Tundi Agardy
World Wildlife Fund
Marine management areas constitute a broad spectrum of coastal and marine areas that are afforded some level of protection for the purpose of managing resources for sustainable use, safeguarding ecosystem function and biodiversity, and/or providing a framework for the use of resources and space with a minimum of conflict. Marine management areas are not merely marine parks or sanctuaries—they range from small closed areas or harvest refugia designated to protect a specific resource or habitat type to extensive coastal zone areas that integrate the management of many species, habitats, and uses in a single, all-encompassing plan. Seven major categories of marine management areas are described below. These categories are clearly not mutually exclusive; they can be and often are used in conjunction with one another.
Category 1: Closed Areas
Closed areas include refugia where harvesting fish or other living marine resources in prohibited; moratoria, areas closed to resource exploration, development, or harvesting; and areas where a certain class of use is restricted for the purpose of ensuring the sustainability of resources or in response to concerns about potential environmental damage. Closed areas differ from sensitive sea areas (Category 4) in that management of a specific type of use is the main objective for establishing a moratorium or designating a site as closed. Closed areas can be and often are temporary or seasonal.
Objective: To allow for replenishment of stocks of renewable resources, such as fish and shellfish, by prohibiting harvest at sites critical to the target species, or, in the case of nonrenewable resources, to protect sites by prohibiting mining and exploration.
Criteria: Closed areas are areas where if specific activities are restricted specifically for the purpose of protecting a stock or population of one or more species or protecting a particular habitat from possible damage.
Examples: Fisheries harvest refugia designated off the coast of California; outer continental shelf (OCS) moratorium areas in U.S. continental shelf waters where oil and gas exploration and development activities have been suspended; ''notake" zones in New Zealand waters.
Category 2: Research and Monitoring Areas
Research and monitoring areas are either experimental controls or sites for environmental monitoring or are protected as in situ natural laboratories to support basic research in ecology, fisheries, oceanography, etc. Research site are managed specifically for the purpose of controlling research variables or allowing for intersite comparisons and can either be independent entities (e.g., long-term ecological research sites) or core areas within multiple use reserves.
Objective: To provide protected areas where certain anthropogenic impacts can be controlled for the purpose of experimental or environmental research.
Criteria: A marine managed area is considered a research area if it is managed specifically for the purpose of protecting the site so that research can be undertaken with a minimum of extrinsic variability.
Examples: Long-term ecological research sites, National Estuarine Research Reserves, core areas within biosphere reserves, scientific research zones in multiple use marine parks (e.g., Great Barrier Reef Marine Park).
Category 3: Marine Sanctuaries and Marine Parks
Marine protected areas, such as marine sanctuaries and traditional marine parks, constitute a broad and complex assemblage of marine management areas. The World Conservation Union formally recognizes 10 classes of marine protected areas, including: strict nature reserves, national parks, natural monuments, wildlife sanctuaries, protected seascapes, resource reserves, natural biotic areas or anthropological reserves, multiple use management areas, biosphere reserves, and world heritage sites. Clearly some of these categories overlap with the seven main categories described here. Nonetheless, the feature common to all marine parks and sanctuaries is that they are established to accommodate particular uses while conserving the coastal or marine ecosystem and its processes. Marine parks and sanctuaries range from seaward extensions of coastal terrestrial parks, to ecosystem-based multiple use marine parks, sanctuaries, and biosphere reserves.
Objective: To protect coastal and marine habitats, conserve ecosystem processes, and allow for the sustainable use of marine resources and space with a minimum of conflict, often for the primary purpose of increasing or maintaining recreational and aesthetic value.
Criteria: A marine management area falls under the heading of marine park, reserve, or sanctuary if it is officially designated as such by local or national authorities.
Examples: National Marine Sanctuaries (e.g., Florida Keys, Stellwagen Bank, U.S.S. Monitor, Gulf of the Farallones, Cordell Bank, Channel Islands, Flower
Garden Banks); Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Australia); Mafia Island Marine Park (Tanzania); El Nido Marine Park (Philippines).
Category 4: Sensitive Sea Areas
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) recognizes sensitive sea areas that need special protection through action by the IMO because of their ecological or socioeconomic significance and their vulnerability to damage by maritime activities. Sensitive sea areas include coral reef areas or temperate sounds where ship transit is prohibited for reasons of safety and environmental sensitivity.
Objective: To safeguard particularly vulnerable habitat types, such as diverse coral reef systems, by declaring areas off-limits for certain types of shipping and boating and resource extraction.
Criteria: A marine management area is considered a sensitive sea area if it is of high biological value, vulnerable, threatened, and officially designated as such by the IMO.
Examples: Portions of the Great Barrier Reef (Australia); eastern Arabian Sea; Bay of Bengal.
Category 5: Regional Seas and Large Marine Ecosystem Areas
Regional seas are formally recognized by the United Nations Environment Programme as enclosed or semi-enclosed seas that fall under the jurisdiction of more than one nation. Regional seas become marine managed areas when bilateral or multilateral agreements are drawn up to control pollution, develop cooperatively protected areas (e.g., transboundary reserves), and allow for joint management of endangered species or commercially important renewable resources. Large marine ecosystems are areas that represent a coherent ecological unit (whether enclosed or semi-enclosed seas or biogeographically distinct oceanic systems) that sometimes form the basis for regional seas agreements.
Objective: To provide a framework for cooperative management of resources, multilateral and transboundary protected areas, and/or joint pollution control in marine areas bounded by more than one coastal nation.
Criteria: A marine management area is deemed a regional sea if an international instrument is developed to codify willingness for joint conservation or management of a semi-enclosed or enclosed marine area.
Examples: Mediterranean Basin (Barcelona Convention); Caribbean Sea (Cartagena Convention).
Category 6: Integrated Management Zones
Integrated management zones include state-administered coastal zone planning areas and exclusive economic zones managed by federal authorities. Management of state or provincial coastal zone areas tends to be coordinated and integrated because these areas usually fall under the purview of a single management authority in each state, whereas federally-managed exclusive economic zones may be administered by many different agencies.
Objective: To coordinate management of ocean space, coastal land use, resource extraction, and other activities that take place in or impact a coastal zone for the purpose of minimizing conflict, maximizing management efficiency, and safeguarding the resource base and ecological processes.
Criteria: A marine management area is considered an integrated management zone if specific legislation and administrative structures exist to coordinate all conservation and resource use activities in the area. Successful integrated management zones will be those for which conservation and management plans are drawn up and implemented by all shareholders willing and able to join in the process.
Examples: state coastal management areas; formal national coastal and ocean plans (outside the United States), exclusive economic zones.
Category 7: High Seas under the Law of the Sea Treaty
Although the high seas technically constitute a global commons and are therefore not a managed marine area, international treaties and codified customary law create a cooperative management regime for states that sign and ratify these agreements.