CALIFORNIA (28 Sep 2007) -- Earlier this week, two Stanford faculty members helped launch a system to protect more areas in California that has already generated local controversy. These new parks, however, are located underwater rather than on land, so you might not be able to see them for yourself. Protecting marine resources has always been an extremely complex undertaking. Without scuba divers, snorkelers or submarines, most marine life is practically invisible. Additionally, creating a Yosemite at sea is nearly impossible — terrestrial parks use donated or bought land, but the ocean is considered common property and cannot be treated in the same way. And while forests or plains have distinct boundaries such as mountain ranges or rivers, marine systems are defined by water temperature or currents and so tend to be larger, more homogenous and more interconnected. Thus, marine conservation has always lagged behind terrestrial environmental protection efforts. California, however, is trying to buck this trend. In 1999, the state legislature passed the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA), which authorized the redesign of California's network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). Three years later, the California Department of Fish and Game attempted to designate new MPAs but was thwarted by opposition from commercial and recreational fishing groups. In 2004, the Department partnered with the Resources Legacy Fund Foundation, a Sacramento-based institution that matches privately sourced funding with conservation initiatives. The MLPA process became much more collaborative. A bipartisan Blue Ribbon Task Force and a Scientific Advisory Team were created, and public involvement was orchestrated through a Regional Stakeholder Group, open hearings and online materials. Senior law lecturer Margaret Caldwell sits on the Blue Ribbon Task Force, and Hopkins professor Stephen Palumbi is a member of the Science Advisory Team. The Scientific Advisory Team determined what marine habitats (such as sandy beaches, kelp forests, rocky reefs and others) most needed protection, as well as the optimal MPA size for species of concern. Palumbi's research on the genetics and dispersal patterns of marine larvae led to the Team's recommendation to space MPAs 30 to 60 miles apart, ensuring that each MPA would protect both current inhabitants and future generations. | | Channel Islands, California After more than two years of intensive effort, the Task Force submitted several alternative plans to the California Department of Fish and Game. Earlier this year, 29 MPAs that protect 18 percent of Central Coast waters were approved. This week, the program officially went into effect and has already been met with widespread public response. Many local fishermen have expressed their concerns about the economic consequences of the program, as half of the new MPAs are strictly "no-take zones." This, they assert, may put some fishermen out of business and drive costs up for suppliers and consumers. Some even dispute the positive effects that scientists say MPAs will have on fish stocks. While it is too early to speculate about the ultimate effects of the new MPAs, it seems that even after a lengthy and arduous collaborative process, debate between environmental and economic interests is far from settled. SOURCE - The Stanford DailySCUBA FORUMDISCUSS THIS TOPIC - Dive in and have your say at Scuba Forum |
