1 / 9

Doug S Butterworth MARAM (Marine Resource Assessment and Management Group)

SOUTH AFRICA ’ S MPA EXPANSION STRATEGY: DO WE NEED ADDITIONAL MPAs, MOST OF WHICH ARE TO BE NO-FISHERIES-TAKE ZONES?. Doug S Butterworth MARAM (Marine Resource Assessment and Management Group) Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics

fguerrero
Télécharger la présentation

Doug S Butterworth MARAM (Marine Resource Assessment and Management Group)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SOUTH AFRICA’S MPA EXPANSION STRATEGY: DO WE NEED ADDITIONAL MPAs, MOST OF WHICH ARE TO BE NO-FISHERIES-TAKE ZONES? Doug S Butterworth MARAM (Marine Resource Assessment and Management Group) Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics University of Cape Town, Rondebosch 7701, South Africa

  2. NPAESTHE NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS EXPANSION STRATEGY (2008) • 20% EEZ COVERAGE BY 2028 • 15% NO-FISHERIES-TAKE ZONES • OBJECTIVES TO ACHIEVE COST-EFECTIVE: • ECOLOGICAL SUSTAINABILITY • ADAPTION TO CLIMATE CHANGE • SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

  3. CAVEEN et al. REVIEWTHE CONTROVERSY OVER MARINE PROTECTED AREAS – SCIENCE MEETS POLICYCaveen, Polunin, Gray and Stead – Springer, 2015, 162 pp • FIRST MAJOR COMPREHENSIVE GLOBAL REVIEW • CONCLUSIONS: • EVIDENCE FOR BIODIVERSITY BENEFITS COMPELLING • EVIDENCE FOR FISHERIES BENEFITS THIN • TARGETS: • HAVE FLIMSY SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT • LEAD TO MISDIRECTION OF RESEARCH FOCUS

  4. TARGETS • 20% TARGET ORIGINATED FROM RECRUITMENT OVERFISHING CONCERNS WHEN ABUNDANCE LESS THAN 20% OF PRISTINE • IRRELEVANT UNLESS SPECIES IS NEAR SESSILE • CBD DEFINITION OF AN (M)PA • “a geographically defined area which is designated or regulated to achieve specific conservation objectives” • OUR WHOLE EEZ IS ALREADY AN MPA • MEETING INTERNATIONAL TARGETS IS IRRELEVANT • CHANGE THE CRITERION TO COGENT JUSTIFICATION

  5. CURRENT LOCAL PROPOSALSOPERATION PHAKISA • IGNORE PRIMARY CRISIS IN SA FISHERIES • ILLEGAL INSHORE CATCHES (abalone, west coast lobster, linefish) • NEED TIME-AREA CLOSURES TO IMPROVE COMPLIANCE • BETTER ADDRESSED USING LEGISLATION THAT IS LESS CUMBERSOME TO IMPLEMENT • THE MLRA’s FISHERY MANAGEMENT AREAS • SIMILARLY USE FOR EXPERIMENTAL PURPOSES (to enhance data contrast) REQUIRES GREATER FLEXIBILITY

  6. THE INTERNATIONAL PUSH FOR MPAs BY MANY ENGOs– WHY? • STRATEGIC OUTFLANKING INITIATIVE • FISHING INDUSTRIES HAVE DOMINANT INFLUENCE ON FISHERY DEPARTMENTS AND HENCE RFMOs • HENCE FOCUS ON CITES AND UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY WHERE ENVIRONMENT AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS DEPARTMENTS DOMINATE • THE SIMPLISTIC MPA SOUNDBITE AND MOTIVATION WORKS WELL IN SUCH FORA • SOME OF THESE ENGOs ARE MOTIVATED BY A LACK OF FAITH THAT CONVENTIONAL FISHERIES MANAGEMENT CAN BE MADE TO WORK

  7. MPAs – WHAT DOES SOUTH AFRICA NEED TO DO? • DROP THE QUITE RIDICULOUS CONCEPT OF AREA TARGETS • CHANGE TO THE “COGENT JUSTIFICATION” CRITERION • DROP THE ¾ NO-FISHERIES-TAKE OBJECTIVE; APART FROM PERHAPS A FEW LIMITED POSITIVES IN THE NEARSHORE, THESE OFFER ONLY NEGATIVE SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS CONTRARY TO PHAKISA AIMS • MAKE THE PRIMARY FOCUS ONE OF SPACE-TIME CLOSURES TO ASSIST REDUCE THE ILLEGAL FISHING THAT IS WIPING OUT OUR MAJOR INSHORE RESOURCES

  8. MPAs – WHAT DOES SOUTH AFRICA NEED TO DO?THE BOTTOM LINE • THE FISHERIES ASPECTS OF THE NPAES AND PHAKISA MPA PROPOSALS ARE OUTDATED, AND GENERALLY WILL RESULT IN MORE HARM THAN GOOD. DEA NEEDS TO GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD.

  9. Thank you for your attention

More Related