Meeting on Friday, November 16th

We discussed solutions to the questions of

• Taxes and Quotas
• Education
• International Body

see the progress we made at https://wikis-mit-edu.ezproxy.canberra.edu.au/confluence/display/12DOT000/11.16.07 to prepare for saturday's meeting

11/17/07: I have moved all of the proposals to children pages for each team. Post your solutions there and put a note here that you updated your page. I also put up the proposal that Team 1 emailed out in response to our (Team 4) questions about aquaculture

13 Team 3: Climate Change

    Over the past century or so, the earth has seen a significant rise in average global temperatures. Whether this is primarily a result of anthropogenic influences, or of natural repeating fluctuations in climate, global warming will have a profound effect upon the oceans and should therefore be of great concern to anyone in charge of global fisheries. It is also very likely that global warming will accelerate in the near future due to positive feedback mechanisms. Climate change is somewhat difficult to monitor, and even more so to predict accurately. Despite this, research on current systems as well as research into past global warming events provides us with an idea of what might be expected in future years. By knowing the general trends of climate change, an understanding effect on fisheries can be extrapolated.

    The melting of glacial ice and the thermal expansion of ocean water will cause sea levels to rise. While this is unlikely to have a great effect on most ocean life, there are some cases where the change might be too fast for certain ecosystems to adapt. This could be a particular problem with coral reefs, which might not be able to grow fast enough to counteract the rise in sea level.

   The change in temperature will cause changes in water chemistry, which in turn may have drastic effects on certain species, especially those with low tolerances. Many life processes in animals and plants are dependent on temperature, and could be significantly altered by a rise of even a few degrees in temperature. Higher temperature waters, such as those in the tropics have less primary production in the form of phytoplankton, which almost all fish derive their energy from. Addition of fresh water from melting ice caps decreases the salinity of ocean regions, which can be detritimental to species with low tolerances to changes in salinity.

    As seawater warms, it also loses its ability to dissolve certain gases. One of these is O₂, which is essential to all animals for respiration. Geological records of past global warming events show evidence of severe periods of anoxia on large to global scales. A significant drop in the levels of O₂ would result in result in a decrease of metabolism of animal life. CO₂, however, is not near its saturation levels in the ocean. As CO₂ levels rise, it will be taken in by the ocean where it reacts to form Carbonic acid, thus lowering the pH of the water. Acidic conditions could have detrimental effects on sea life, especially those that depend on significant amount of CaC0₃, such as shellfish.

    The introduction of fresh water from melting ice caps can also affect deep-water thermo-haline currents. Because it lowers the density of water in polar region, it can prevent the sinking of water here, thus weakening or stopping the overturn of the ocean. Historically this has resulted in severe cases that cause a build up of toxins in the ocean, which is linked to mass-extinction events. It is also possible that a similar event could prevent the transport of water from the tropics to the poles, causing a period of rapid climate change.

    The warming of the atmosphere is expected to result in intensified atmospheric pressure gradients. There is already some evidence that this has resulted in increasing storm frequency and intensity in recent years. Atmospheric conditions are largely responsible for surface currents, which transport water in the surface layers of the ocean where most of the biomass resides. Modeling predicts that advection and upwelling will increase as a result of global warming, especially in the eastern boundary currents. Increased advection is generally linked to decreased biomass. Upwelling can often increase the biomass as it provides a source of cold, nutrient-rich water to the surface, but a strong upwelling current can also be disruptive. It is also suggested that global warming could increase thermal stratification, which would decrease upwelling.

    Although predictions can be made about what will happen, no one is sure exactly how global warming will effect the oceans and fish populations. However, the climate is an important factor in the formulation of a plan for fishery management. The climate will not change uniformly over the entire globe. For instance, climate the effects of global warming are likely to be more pronounced in the polar latitudes. Thus our predictions must be formulated specifically for different regions. Due to the importance of climate change to fisheries, we propose that we should set up a system for analyzing data as global warming progresses. Information such as temperature, salinity, pH, gas solubility, biomass, species population, and current strength and direction in order to look for trends that would allow us to better predict the future climate of various regions. Also, more work has to be done, determining quantitatively how fish populations react to climate change. As these quantities are monitored, we should begin to see trends in the progression of climate change.
    Once trends have been determined the plan for fishery conservation would then be modified in order to counteract whatever effects were being caused by the climate change. For instance, with many of the predicted changes, the ecosystem could be able to support a smaller population of fish than it does currently. As soon as this realization comes about, restrictions must be changes to fit the reality of the situation. For this reason we propose using quotas as our main form of restriction. This would allow for the most accurate control over the number of fish we are taking out of the environment, and allow the restrictions to be changed more easily when a new trend in climate change is found. The most important aspect of the plan with respect to climate change is that it has to modifiable, so that we can be constantly improving our approach as we improve our understanding of climate changes effects. If we are to this approach is most likely valid for other aspects of this problem as well. This approach, however, would require a great improvement in our understanding of fish population dynamics. Therefore, it would be prudent to apply other restrictions until this point is reaches.

   We do have some predictions for possible future effects of climate change on certain areas:

• From 2003-2005, the west coast (NCC, Northern California Current) of the United States went through a warming period similar to those related to ENSO (El Nino - Southern Oscillation) events, however, southern waters were in an EN- neutral state. Paleoclimatic data suggest that upwelling in the California current system is positively correlated with temperature over millennial timescales. Furthermore, upwelling along the California coast has increased over the past 30 years, and these increases are expected to continue. It is also fairly certain that advection should increase in the California current. The upwelling could have a beneficial effect on the ecosystem if it is not too strong, but advection would likely have an adverse effect.  Therefore, it is most likely that the populations of fish in this region will be negatively affected by climate change. This would have to be taken into account and stricter enforcements would be needed to produce the same results that would be expected without climate change. However, if the benefits of the upwelling are seen to be outweighing the harm done, these restrictions could probably be relaxed.

• Coastal Fishery off of South America resides at an upwelling zone. This upwelling goes through cycles during ENSO cycles. Mortality rates were highest during EN events. There is a chance that there could be a long toward shift in the climate towards the EN, which would most likely have a negative effect on fish populations. Another evaluation predicts global warming will ultimately lead to longer and weaker ENSO cycles. This occurs via complex interactions between currents and atmospheric circulation. If the first case occurs and the system shifts in the El Nino spectrum, then the fish populations in this region stand to be much lower than would be expected otherwise. This would have to be taken into account and stricter enforcements would be needed to produce the same results that would be expected without climate change. The fisheries in these regions might also take additional hits during el-nine years, so additional protection might be required for these years. If the second case happens, then climate will probably play a much smaller role, and plans can be carried out without too much modification for climate change.

• The deep seas and international waters outside of EEZs (Exclusive Economic Zones) are being increasingly fished; species such as the orange roughy, tuna, and shark are three major targets in these areas. Many such organisms are especially vulnerable to overfishing due to their long reproductive cycles; orange roughy, for example, have been found to live up to 240 years. Much of deep sea life is localized to specific areas called "hot spots," centered around particular conditions including temperature, salinity, and seamounts (mountains submerged in the ocean). This makes deep sea creatures particularly vulnerable to climate change. Also, plankton is the basic food source for many of these creatures, including fish larvae. Plankton must follow ocean currents, and is dependent on certain atmospheric conditions.  It has already been found that increasing ocean temperatures decrease plankton levels through ENSO cycle studies. Combined with the changes in current and composition mentioned earlier, deep water fishing will certainly be threatened by climate change. The uncertainly lies in the timescale and magnitude of climate change, and we need to closely monitor this in order to change specific and general strategies for maintaining deep water fish stocks.

• We support efforts to mitigate human impact on climate change, but recognize that it is outside the scope of the project.

12 Eva - solution outline alternative

0. Define the problem and our goals
I. Management of fisheries
    A. Input Controls
          - who gets to fish
          - restrictions on gear
    B. Output Controls
          - how much fish can be fished (different restrictions depending on the state of the fishery? MSY or not?)
          - what species, gender, size, etc.
          - quotas and bycatch
    C. Technical limits
          - where? (closed areas)
          - when? (closed seasons?)
          - specific limitations due to environmental factors (coastal vs. deep sea) and natural phenomena (El Nino, climate change)
II. Management beyond fisheries
    - maintaining habitat, diversity
    - farmed fish as a substitute
    - creating a market for ecolabeled fish
    - economic steps a country should take
    - governing bodies
    - education and outreach
    - further scientific research

11 Todd

Critique of the Global Treaty Solution Method
There is no global fishery problem, only a globe of local fishery problems. What this means is that a worldwide international organization or treaty, the necessary solution for truly global problems such as global warming or the ozone hole, is not necessarily the best way to save the world's fisheries.

Both global warming and fishery collapse are classic tragedies of the commons. Such problems must be solved at or above the organizational level of the commons in question.
An example may help clarify this point: Suppose the residents of a town share a piece of grazing land. Overgrazing could be prevented by an enforced edict from a state or national official, because the townspeople would have no choice but to follow the order. Or the town could establish its own grazing rules binding on all residents.

What would not be likely to work, however, would be neighborhood or smaller-scale grazing control agreements. There would be no reason for anyone to participate in such a scheme, because it would mean the loss of personal income without really solving the overgrazing problem.
Ultimately, the only commons management system for which it is long-term rational for a commons user to participate in is one encompassing the entire commons.

Now, the fishery application: Unlike climate users, who can only rationally participate in a global climate agreement, fishery users can participate rationally in a management system encompassing only a single fishery. Therefore, the problem of overfishing can be solved at the individual fishery level, not just with a world sustainable fishing agreement.

It is not yet clear to me that such a treaty, let alone a special regulatory organization to administer it, is actually the most efficient way to solve the problem. The reason is that the U.N. lacks coercive power over its subdivisions: Unlike a fishing regulatory law in a nation, a world sustainable fishing policy could not simply be created by the U.N. and forced on the world. Each nation would have to be individually persuaded, most likely by its own citizens or by nation-to-nation diplomacy, to sign onto the agreement. Because any attempt to reform fisheries management will demand considerable politicking on the national and nation-to-nation levels, creating a global treaty does not reduce the amount of work that must be done to solve the problem. But if intranational or nonglobal international action is sufficient to solve the problem, why bother with the international organization?

This is not to say that global action is irrelevant. Fishery resources in the deep ocean must be regulated by some sort of international body, but this does not mean that such a body needs to regulate every marine fishery in the world. The climate aspect of the fisheries issue must also be addressed globally.

A world sustainable fishing treaty could be a uniquely useful contribution if it included terms that required signatories to pressure nonsignatories to join the treaty. But creating such a strong treaty might be so hard in the first place as to still make it a waste of effort.

Most of the world's local fishery problems must be resolved to prevent serious global consequences resulting from a substantially reduced food supply. But top-down pressure from a global governing body is not necessarily required to get them solved. Instead, the "horizontal" pressure of national trade policies, bilateral and (nonglobal) multilateral agreements, and national and international citizen activist groups may be the most viable way to solve the world's fishery problems.

Some Other Ideas

Climate Change
Present and future climate change has implications for almost every aspect of human existence and so must be addressed in our report. But although a global climate solution may be helpful or even necessary to solve the world's fishery problems, our group is hardly able to provide one. Here is a proposal for how the climate issue could be addressed in the solution:

First, briefly summarize the relationship between fisheries issues and climate change. Make sure we get everything covered: Changing water temperatures, ocean acidification, etc. Attempt to estimate how serious of a problem climate is relative to the other problems facing fisheries.

If we find that climate change is a significant problem for the world's fisheries, then we should simply recommend that the global climate problem be solved but that what such a solution should be is outside the scope of this study.

If it turns out that climate change is a relatively insignificant problem, we should state as such but note that a climate solution should be found for other reasons.

Management System Design
Management measures must acknowledge the full complexity of the ecosystem to be managed.
The article "Multispecies and Ecosystem Models in a Management Context" in the book "Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem" cites a number of hypothetical examples of how well-intentioned management measures can fail.

The central reason for these failures is that nature does not respond directly to whatever aspect of human behavior is being regulated under the management measure. A fishing fleet does not do a certain number of horsepower-days of fishing on a fishery, it takes specific fish from the ocean. And if those fish were young, or great in number because of a lucky catch, a fish stock could still be destroyed even if all rules of a reasonable management system were followed perfectly. Other simple management systems, such as total allowable catch limits and closed areas, can fail for similar reasons.

Above all, the world's fisheries must adopt management systems that work. Certain systems are known to work better than others, and this should be taken into account when our group decides what solution to recommend.

In "Performance of Fisheries Management Systems," another article in "Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem" the authors review and update an OECD study on the merits of various fishery management systems. Many popular systems, most notably a total allowable catch limit, are found wanting. The authors urge the use of individual fishing quotas (IFQs) or other schemes which grant fishers the right to take a particular amount of fish. Although other management methods are not useless, they will probably work best when used with individual quotas.

Management Systems Must Have the Support of the Fishers
Fisheries management must be done in consultation with the people directly dependent on the fishery in question, and our solution should state as such. The people who will make the day to day management decisions need to sincerely and respectfully listen to the views of the fishers, even if they do not always follow the fishers' advice. Additionally, the actual enforcement of rules must be done in the least offensive way possible. I have in mind one of the people we met at Gloucester: You could tell how being hostilely stopped and questioned while doing research work in a closed area aggravated him. Excessively heavy-handed, paternalistic, or otherwise insulting management policies are likely to invite attempts to overturn them, and thus contribute nothing to the solving the problem.

 Comments on 11

I believe this essay brings up many good points - the need for support on the local level, as well as the importance of local management. However, I also think it overlooks some bigger problems and successes demonstrated in the past. The fishery problem is a global fisheries problem, as well as a globe of local fishery problems. When one country will not cease fishing out of international waters or waters belonging by law to another country, the problem is not local, but global. When the fishing economy and market tie many different countries together, both developed and developing, the problem is most definitely not local, but global. Because many of the problems leading to a global fishery collapse, in this global age, involve at least more than one country or region, if not all regions at one time, the problem cannot merely be viewed as a collection of local tribulations or a real solution will not be developed. For these reasons, top-down pressure is definitely, in some cases, a required component of the solution. - Claudia

10 Emily

Our UTF, Alison, and our group (Team 7) had discussed the viability of various plans especially in regards to disparities in economic ability to pay. We had thrown around the idea of creating regional caucuses that would be "in charge" of an area of regional water as a collective, so that the more economically stable countries can provide some of the capital in exchange for abidance of rules by the developing countries; ideally, this will pair resources with need so that everyone has a better fish population in general. Furthermore, we felt it addressed the differences in management as required by area. The International group probably has a better idea of the feasibility of this idea, but I just wanted to throw it out there.

9 Emily A. Moberg (Team 7) Nov. 2nd   Riparian Buffers

Importance:

                Riparian buffers provide various important stream functions.

(1)    Leaves that fall into the water provide energy for headwaters (i.e. a food source).

(2)    Branches and roots provide shelter for in-stream organisms.

(3)    Overhead leaf cover shades water and keeps it cool, by as much as 10° in summertime (Great Fishing).

(4)    Roots hold stream banks in place and prevent erosion.

(5)    Vegetation slows water velocity, thus reducing run-off induced erosion and also allows particulates (including many water contaminants) to settle out.

(6)    Soils and root systems filter nutrients and pollutants (especially from agriculture and residential areas) before they reach surface areas from groundwater (Haberstock).

These functions are not only important to the biota that lives in these regions year round, but also to anadromous species that come to spawn. For example, salmon require clean gravel for spawning; if silt settles over the gravel, it not only destroys suitable spawning substrate, but it can also smother eggs and the invertebrates that juveniles feed upon (Haberstock). Haberstock also reports that branches and other woody structures provide places for invertebrate prey to live, as well as structural habitat and varied flow patterns that are important for salmon. The improved water quality provided by riparian buffers and the cooling effect they provide are also critical (Haberstock).

Solution:

Riparian buffers should be established along rivers; the width should be determined based on various criteria as detailed below. To implement this, focus should be placed on education of farmers to take up these measures voluntarily. Governments and agencies that can afford to provide funds to help establish these buffers, offer tax incentives, or to rent land to take it out of production should do so.

The width of the buffer depends on many factors, especially the slope of the land (steeper slopes require wider buffers), the permeability of the soil (less permeable soils require wider buffers because water takes longer to infiltrate), and the presence of overland water sources--like intermittent streams or gullies-which can render small buffers ineffective (Haberstock). The type of vegetation-such as wooded or ground level vegetation--as well as factors such as duff height can influence buffer efficacy (Haberstock). Buffer width is measured from the end of alluvial soils (floodplain edge) (Haberstock). Haberstock also notes that wetlands in these areas should be preserved, because they function more effectively in nitrogen-fixation and retention of contaminants and sediments.

Zone 1: 35 feet

For other width determinations, see the method outlined in Haberstock pages 8-14.

8 Emily A. Moberg (Team 7) Nov. 2nd

DAMS

I.                    Solutions: (I have lots of reasons why dams are a problem, but I didn't include them for reading ease)

For dams that have not yet been built there are many steps that can be taken to minimize the impacts. First, efforts should be extended to maximize energy and water efficiency as much as possible; in the past, increases in technological efficiency, recycling, enforcement of environmental legislation, and industrial minimization of intensive water use resulted in a water consumption rate increase much lower than the population demand pressure (WCD). This can be seen as a cost effective method, considering that large-scale dam projects require an incredible amount of capital and are usually both over budget and are completed late (WCD). However, if a dam is definitively needed, research should be thoroughly conducted to determine the environmental impacts. The World Commission on Dams reports that many of the negative impacts from dam construction resulted from complications that were unforeseen; it predicts that use of environmental impact assessments could significantly lower these effects (WCD). Furthermore, proper placement of dams (such as on tributaries rather than on a main branch) and the use of minimal numbers of dams on a given river (because multiple dams can have cumulative effects, such as the dams leading to the Aral sea, which decreased water flow to such an extent that an increase in salinity and pollutants caused the entire fishery to collapse at a cost of approximately $1.25-2.5 billion per year) should be legislated by governments as these restrictions can minimize the large-scale negative impacts of large dams (WCD). Once these data are collected, the dam planning may begin; in this way, the dam design can take into account such features as gates that allow managed flood releases on a scale that can mitigate effects to the ecosystem. The use of such managed floods in Kenya has been economically favorable by maintaining sectors of the economy that relied upon flows that would have been blocked entirely by damming (WCD). These floods help to release nutrients and sediments and help lessen the impact of the dam overall (WCD). These managed floods should be tailored to a specific river, as flood cycles are highly unique. It is important, however, that all such planning occurs before dam construction, as post-construction mitigation techniques have not been shown to be effective; the WCD reports rates of 20% effectiveness.

In terms of fish passage, fish passes have a very low success rate currently. In Norway, fish passes report a 26% rate of "good efficiency" and 32% of no success at all (WCD). In many parts of the world, fish passes are not used at all. Also, even with fish passes, fish often suffer from a lack of environmental cues (like currents) that help them find their spawning site (WCD). However, properly designed fish passes (specific to each dam and species of intended use) do hold promise; in Pennsylvania, fish passes were ineffective until tailored to the American shad, at which point they became very helpful in shad restoration (Richardson). Fish hatcheries and stocking may also be required to augment populations until the spawning routine is re-established with the dam in place; successful restoration of American shad and striped bass required such measures (Richardson), and these methods are likewise advocated by the WCD. The creation of artificial wetlands around shallow dam can also help mitigate dam impact by providing new habitat (WCD).

For developed countries with large budgets and effective environmental legislation (such as France and the United States) decommissioning dams is a solution for aiding fish in special habitats (especially salmon) (WCD). While short-term effects of dam removal include large-scale sediment flushing, over relatively short time scales fish will return and spawn in those areas. However, dam removal is costly and must be studied beforehand; in many cases, toxins and chemicals can build up behind dams and the effects of these toxins washing downstream can be severe (Francisco).

7 Alex T. Vai, et. al.:  October 31st

Fair Trade Fish (Better Name Pending) 

One of our biggest problems is getting the general public to care about the issue of the oceans in the first place.

We know that there do exist sustainable, well-run fisheries in the world (Alaskan Pollock, for instance).  If sustainable seafood were marketed as such, the consumer would have a concrete way to make an environmental difference, while getting a likely superior product at a comparable price.

A formalized certification and marketing process seems like a logical extension of existing programs, such as the Monterey Bay Aquariums "Seafood Watch List"

Many of you may be aware of the hype surrounding "Fair Trade Coffee" (the namesake), "EnergyStar," or the "Organic Foods" movement.  If similar popular support can be generated regarding sustainable fishing, there would be significant economic pressure to make fisheries more sustainable.  There could be a marketing campaign for people to only buy fish marked with a "Gold Star for Sustainability."

This could also be a boon for corporations seeking to improve their public image (i.e. "We serve only Sustainable Fish").

In terms of the actual "fair trade" portion, if fishermen could receive better prices for high-quality, sustainably caught fish, they would be far more motivated to fish sustainably than through traditional management.  (Consider, for example, the proliferation of environmentally friendly "shade-grown" coffee in Latin America.

Some Challenges: 

Some degree of marketing studies would be needed to see how much of a price increase a consumer is willing to tolerate for sustainability (see Toyota Prius).  However, I contend that a certification process does not necessarily mean higher prices.  I argue that the average consumer would select a sustainable product, if other factors are relatively equal.

I acknowledge that this is plan uniquely targeted at Developed Countries, but also consider that the majority of environmental damage is caused by such countries.

This would require the creation of Representative, Interdisciplinary "Council" to act as a certification body, and the development of standards for "sustainable fisheries."  Note that, such standards already exist in some form in the US, they merely need to be formalized and centralized for maximum effectiveness.

6 Team 8,9: October 31st

 (Note: You can read the details and supporting analysis in the text if you like, but the actual recommendations are included in the Abstract and the Key Proposals sections.)

A Plan Regarding Marine Protected Areas

Abstract:  We assert that the establishment and operation of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) is a viable and effective, albeit incomplete, means of protecting, rebuilding, and sustaining the world's marine resources. In accordance with the goals of Mission 2011, MPAs are an ecosystem-based approach to marine management.  MPAs currently in operation unequivocally demonstrate that reductions human impacts allow ecosystems to return to a healthier, more natural state.  We will also demonstrate other advantages of MPAs, both alone and relative to other management strategies.  Given such benefits, the primary challenge is to expand MPA coverage to a globally significant scale, while at the same time maintaining the support of various stakeholder groups.  In this solution, we will first propose a broadly applicable scheme for establishing MPAs, and then discuss some issues regarding their operation.

Key Proposals:

I.       Aim to cover 10% of the global oceans with No-Take Reserves within a reasonable time-frame

          A.      This scale provides a balance between ecological effectiveness and acceptability

                   1.       20 - 30% may be better, but is increasingly implausible

          B.      This is comparable to the scale of protected Land Areas

          C.      To be used in conjunction with other degrees of protection and other management strategies in the remaining area

II.      General Principles for Area Selection

A.           Must be representative selection of habitats

B.      Multiple examples of similar habitats need to be protected

C.      Individual Areas can be small, but they must be "networked" larger scales

III.     Implementation Logistics

          A.      International Vision...National and Local Action

                   1.       National mandate must be supported by strong legislation, national budgeting

                   2.       Nations could adapted existing infrastructure from land-based conservation to MPAs

IV.     Public Support and Education

A.           Use MPAs as a tool to increase ocean literacy and awareness of general public

B.            Can be used directly as an educational tool

Benefits of Marine Protected Areas:

One of the best known and longest established MPAs is the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park off the coast of Australia.  Studies in no-take areas of the park by Evans and Russ show dramatic increases in the biomass fished species, as compared to fished areas.\[1\]  There are also clear indications of generally improved ecosystem health.\[2\]  There is also evidence of a so-called "spillover effect" whereby the benefits of the MPA extend beyond park boundaries.\[3\]  Ecologically successful implementation of MPAs is well documented scientific literature, and has been shown possible in a wide variety of marine environments.

Marine Protected Areas, and in particular, no-take marine reserves, possess attributes that set them apart from traditional marine management Since they are ecosystem-based, they do not require large amounts of species-specific, qualitative data to be effective, a significant flaw of traditional management.  Fundamentally, MPAs are proactive, rather than reactive; they provide a buffer and "insurance policy" against inaccuracies in science and policy. Furthermore, by maintaining or restoring natural systems, MPAs provide a valuable scientific "baseline" or "control" to better judge activities outside of their boundaries.  Also well established are the positive role of MPAs in education, tourism, recreation, and critical ecosystem services.

The challenge:

As it stands today, roughly 0.7% of the world ocean is protected in some way (in contrast 11.5% of land areas re protected in some way).\[4\]  THIS IS SIMPLY NOT ENOUGH to have a globally significant impact.  Furthermore, the rate at which the MPAs are growing is far lower than the human ability to exploit the oceans.  Hence, the challenge is to expand coverage to a more significant level, as quickly as possible, while limiting the impact on human culture and economics.

The Goal and Plan:

A reasonable middle ground will be to aim for 10% coverage of the world oceans with no-take areas.  This is comparable to global protected land areas, would likely be enough to make a substantial impact, and could still remain palatable for fishers, etc. The principle behind a conservative goal, is that it is one for which widespread support would be possible with the appropriate motivations.  Also, having a well-defined, conservative goal makes it clear that there is no attempt to radically restructure the way the business is carried out on the seas; in contrast, the MPA proposal is designed to preserve and protect the seagoing cultures and ways of life that have existed for many generations. Most important is the acknowledgement that an inflexible attitude toward the creation of MPAs is counterproductive.  This 10% target attempts to be sensitive to socio-economic concerns, as well as biological and ecological concerns.\[5\]

In areas outside of the no-take zones, lesser restrictions will almost certainly be necessary.  Traditional management schemes, such as gear restrictions, quotas, or days-at-sea limitations, are all possibilities.  In any case, it is important to note that the intent is for MPAs to work in conjunction with other management schemes.

How to Choose Locations for MPAs:

Given the limited coverage area, clear thought must be given to maximizing the influence of each unit.  We reiterate that the size of individual sanctuaries is not the most important matter, but rather the global scale of coverage. Within the proposed 10%, a representative sample of habitats and ecosystems should be protected. Furthermore, multiple examples of each habitat should be protected to insure against localized disturbances. Finally, individual MPAs should be located in mutually reinforcing "networks," to maximize their influence.

Although the MPAs in this proposal are intended to protect entire ecosystems, we acknowledge that there are secondary biological or economic situations in which a certain organism is of particular importance.  In such cases, an understanding of the relevant biology and ecology can, for example, allow key life stages or migration routes to be protected by careful placement of reserves.  A land-based analogy may be the protection of bird nesting sites and reserves for migratory birds, respectively.\[6\]

Implementation:

In principle, there is nothing wrong with an international approach to marine management.  Indeed, if some international organization can provide a "vision" and moral support, it would be extremely beneficial.  However, the details of implementation can most effectively be handled on a more local or regional basis.  States have the established legislative and financial machinery to mandate and fund the creation of MPAs, something lacked by virtually all current International bodies.  Even more practically, there is the sovereignty issue of direct enforcement in territorial waters.

Also consider that many nations have preexisting infrastructure related land-based conservation areas that can be expanded and adapted to meet the needs of running MPAs.  Using the United Statesas an example, National Legislation such as the National Marine Sanctuaries Act can be strengthened, to streamline the process for the creation of new MPAs, to explicitly mandate their creation, and to provide for budget appropriations therein.\[7\]  The scope of existing enforcement agencies, such as the National Park Service can be expanded to cover MPAs.  Their mandate can be greatly assisted by technological solutions, such as satellite-based remote sensing, etc.
\\

\[1\] Evans, RD; Russ, GR.  "Larger biomass of targeted reef fish in no-take marine reserves on the Great Barrier Reef." _Aquatic Conservation._  14 (5) : 505-519.
\[2\] _{+}Ibid.+_
\[3\] Russ, GR; Alcala, AC; Maypa, AP. *_"_{*}Spilloverfrom marine reserves: The case of _Naso vlamingii_ at ApoIsland, The Philippines"  Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser., Vol. 264, pp. 15-20. 2003.
\[4\] D. Pauly.&nbsp; Lecture. _and_ UNEP World Database on Protected Areas. <[http://www.unep-wcmc.org/wdpa/]>.
\[5\] Agardy T., et. al.&nbsp; "Ideological Clashes around marine protected areas."&nbsp; Aquatic Conservation 13(4): 353-367.
\[6\]Guenette, S; Pitcher, TJ; Walters, CJ.&nbsp;"The Potential of Marine Reserves for the management of northern cod in Newfoundland."&nbsp; _Bulletin of Marine Science,_ 66(3): 831-852, 2000.
\[7\] 16 United States Code § 1431

5 Team 5: October 29th

We propose creating an international body under the UN- possibly affiliated with the FAO (but which could also be autonomous) that would regulate/manage/enforce the following treaty that is designed to meet our goals. This treaty only includes the requests of Team 2 and our team, so please post/email what regulations you would like included (i.e. does Team 3 want something on pollution or environmental considerations?):

1. How do we enforce international fishing regulations, including what technology could be used and where technology could be used?
    a. We need to achieve near full compliance from most countries and create incentives to deter flag hopping.
         i. China, US, EU, Japan, Russia, Canada, Brazil, South Africa, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand and other countries with large fishing demand*
         ii. Offer economic incentives from our regulatory body: trade restrictions on fish/fishing technology placed upon non-compliant countries; similar or more stringent                 rules apply to countries who sign but flag hop
    b. How do we achieve near-full compliance?
         i. Treaty/mandate/charter
                1. Countries are responsible for all ships that are registered under their flag
                2. Cannot register with a noncompliant country
                3. Limit what technology can be used where
                    a. Info from Team 2      
                4. Fishing quotas for international waters/polar regions
                    a. Info from other teams on quota success
                5. Each countries regulates compliance of ships under its flag by use of
                    a. Tracking devices
                    b. Regulatory officers
                6. Each country responsible for regulating/measuring/tracking the biodiversity and biomass within coastal regions
                7. Funds from dues to research biodiversity/biomass in international and the polar regions
                    a. How do we track this? Team 10
         ii. Financial officers provided to each signatory by the regulatory body to help them balance the demands of the treaty without damaging the economy
                1. Committee of experts that deals with case by case
    c. Create a body: International Regulatory Commission for Sustainable Fishing (IRCSF)
         i. Either autonomous, like NATO
         ii. Or a part of the UN, like WHO or UNICEF (suggested)
                1. Maybe under or affiliated with the FA

A sub-branch of the UN, UNEP, is already designed to do this. Wouldn't it be good if this could be incorporated into UNEP, rather than coming up with a new body? 

4 Team 6: October 29th, Nov. 2

Establishing a law that requires all fishing vessels to have a GPS tracking device on board will make the regulation of fishermen and fishing companies much simpler and more effective. It will allow regulating bodies to know which fleets are in the water and whether or not they are within legal boundaries. For fishermen, it is an simple way to determine which closed areas are in effect, and the device could keep a tally on the amount of fish caught by that particular vessel and how much of the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) has been caught. For all fishing vessels currently in operation, the cost of the tracking devices can be subsidized.

Establishing a fish tax will put the cost of depleting fisheries on the consumer. Similar to gasoline tax and cigarette taxes, a fish tax will increase the cost of any fish products sold on the market. Currently there is a very high demand for fish, and if we are to keep a sustainable global fish population, we cannot catch the number of fish needed to meet this demand. An increase in fish prices will not only discourage consumers from buying more fish, thus lowering the demand, but it will make them aware of the crisis in our oceans today. Though this will make it so the lower class will have difficulty affording fish, in America and other developed countries, there are other protein options available, and fish prices will have little negative effect on public health.

Currently subsidies are costing the governments around the world billions of dollars and only harming the state of fisheries by increasing the fishing effort and making it easier for us to deplete the fishing stock. Money is directed to lower the costs of shipbuilding, to compensate fishermen, and to establish joint fishermen, among other things. Studies show that fishing subsidies for the Distant Water Fleets of developed nations are harming the economy and growth of developing nations. Fishing subsidies should be eliminated and the money should instead be directed to conservation programs.

Developing nations often declare open access to their fisheries in order to attract foreign fishing companies, which try to minimize their costs by flag hopping to waters with the least regulation. Developing nations have little motivation to regulate their fisheries because doing so would only drive away business. Since their ultimate goal is economic growth and development, a solution would have to reach these goals more effectively than open access.
One such solution may be a tiered licensing system. (This can also be applied to developed nations, which also often grant foreign access to their fisheries.) Since a fishing vessel needs a license from a country to fish in its waters, the price of the license could vary depending on the vessel:
*Native fishermen who are not part of a large fishing company and who have limited technology and fish using basic methods should have the lowest license fee.
*Small fleet operators should be charged a moderate license fee.
*In order to discourage a monopoly, large fishing companies with advanced/disruptive fishing gear should be charged a percentage of their profits. Currently developed countries subsidize their Distant Water Fleets so the cost the foreign ships bear is only 1/3 what is offered for compensation to the host country, and this compensation can amount to as little as 1% of the fishing fleet's profits.
The more countries that follow this licensing system, the more each country gains from it, because it means there are fewer fisheries for large companies to exploit. This price discrimination brings in more money from foreign fleets and promotes the developing nation's own fishing industry, and while our goal is to reduce the amount of fish caught, urging countries to take control of their own fisheries instead of letting foreign fleets exploit their resources is the first step.
Another incentive for following this system is an access to the "whitelist" of fishing vessels, so the government can find out which boats use sustainable practices.

Quotas are often used to limit the amount of fish that can be taken out of a fishery, but a side effect of implementing quotas is the amount of bycatch that results from fishermen trying to avoid the penalties of bringing in too much fish. Instead of penalizing fishermen, the regulation should just state that fishermen cannot profit from any fish they catch that is beyond their quota. This extra fish should be collected and sold, instead of being cast back into the sea as dead and decaying fish, and the proceeds should go towards a local fisheries council or the appropriate regional fishery body (http://www.fao.org/fi/body/rfb/chooserfb.htm). Part of this money should fund a program that provides fishermen with representation in government, since a major obstacle in the way of a body that will give fishermen lobbying power is lack of funding. The fishermen will thus be motivated to not throw out their bycatch, but since they cannot make monetary profit off catching beyond the quota, there will be no incentive to overfish either. There needs to be strict supervision when measuring the fish, however, because if the price of fish goes up, a fishing blackmarket could develop.

Further research is undoubtably needed to effectively monitor and evaluate fisheries. The establishment of more research groups dedicated to fisheries management and the state of the global fish stock will attract public attention and help bring awareness to this problem. A key step would be to incorporate local fishermen, many of whom are fishing fewer and fewer days of the year, in the research process through data collection and analysis. Understanding between the fishermen, the scientists, and the policymakers will accelerate the establishment of a sustainable system.

When trying to create awareness about the importance of sustainable fisheries in developed countries, tying this into economic markets might be the best idea: we can create an ecolabel that is stamped onto fish that has been harvested from a fishery with good practices. As of right now there are three groups that put a label on sustainable fish, but the process needs staffing and funding. Also, if producers want to have their fish evaluated and certified, there is a cost barrier that bars out small fishing companies who cannot afford to apply for certification. Since a substantial portion of the fish sold in the U.S. canned tuna, perhaps focusing on labelling tuna that is caught in sustainable fisheries is the first step.

Other ideas:
*set international standards for nitrates/phosphates to evaluate bodies of water and determine which ones need remediation
*set a buffer zone beyond the 200-mile EEZ where no fishing can occur

3 Todd: October 28th

Let's start expanding the outline by adding questions and topics that need to be addressed under each section of the outline. If you make changes please sign them with your name and date. Substantial restructing of the outline is probably best left in the hands of the executive committee. Possibly we could also use this page to keep track of work assignments, but I would like to discuss that in class first. The page will look better if it is edited in Wiki Markup language. It's not hard to do. If you would like to alter, object, or otherwise comment on any of these suggestions, please contact me.
Todd Mooring 10/28

Solution Document Outline

• Introduction
  • Survey of global fisheries and their significance
    • How much fish is caught? Where and what kinds? How important are nonfood uses of fish? How important are nonfish ocean products? Todd Mooring 10/28
    • What is the monetary value of these fish/other ocean creatures? How big economically is the fishing industry? How many people work in it? Todd Mooring 10/28
    • Attempt to classify world fisheries. Discuss similarities and differences between large high technology fisheries that provide fish to the developed world and the small fisheries of developing countries. Todd Mooring 10/28
• Threats to fisheries
  • Fishing activities
    • Overexploitation Todd Mooring 10/28
    • Bycatch Todd Mooring 10/28
    • Other aspects of fishing (trawl damage, ghost fishing) Todd Mooring 10/28
  • Pollution
  • Climate
    • Could non-temperature aspects of climate change impact fish? If so, how? Todd Mooring 10/28
  • Assess relative importance of these factors Todd Mooring 10/28
• Implications for Humans
  • Food security
    • Needs to be assessed by region of the world Todd Mooring 10/28
  • Economic impact
    • Would it be possible to put a dollar value on the loss of global fisheries? Todd Mooring 10/28
    • How hurtful have fishery collapses been in the past? Todd Mooring 10/28
• Goals and Justification
  • (Maybe we should insert the goals here) Todd Mooring 10/28
  • What we want and why
• Non-biological considerations when formulating solution
  • Economic/social/political issues
• Regional/fishery management solutions---How goals are to be achieved
  • The global problem is a collection of local problems
  • Regional solutions
    • Discuss fishery problems and solutions in various regions of the world
  • Solutions by fishery type---solution templates
    • Discuss problems and solutions in various kinds of fisheries---large commercial, subsistence, etc.
  • Discuss effectiveness of various types of fishery management systems. Some methods are better than others, according to one source. Todd Mooring 10/28
  • This section could probably be reorganized Todd Mooring 10/28
• Global and technical aspects of solution
  • Climate
  • International waters
  • Change global fish demand
  • Aquaculture
• Specific recommendations/issues not addressed elsewhere
  • Need for additional fisheries research
• Conclusion

2 Team 4: October 26th

As part of Mission 2011's overall solution, we think that to be able to know and track population size, normal age distribution, and predator/prey levels, electronic tags must be used. If the need arises to know biomass of a fishery, but does not need to be specific to a species, then SONAR can be used to find that information.  We are working to develop an implementation of the tagging and surveying techniques that we have researched.

Our group will also be able to use GIS data and biomass estimates from ICES http://www.ices.dk and FAO http://www.fao.org/fi/ to identify crashed stocks.  We are working on analyzing our data to summarize which stocks are at dangerously low levels

 NOTE: We know that this needs to be fleshed out better, but we wanted to get something posted for now.

Team 4: November 2

We have decided to use a system based on Passive Integrated Transponder tags to measure the effectivness of our final solution. PITs are small (~10mm diameter) glass cylinders that are injected into the fish. PITs are not electronic, giving them a near infinite lifespan. When the tags are read by the antenna, they report a unique ID, allowing us to know exactly which fish we are tracking.

The fish are tagged in a tagging survey (manned by scientists and/or out-of-season fihsermen and/or local harbor watch groups). The fish are caught either by a short, slow-speed bottom trawl (so that the fish are ALIVE when they get onboard) (to get info on the spectrum of fish in a given area) or more species specific techniques (such as handlines, more precise nets, etc) (to get more info on just a few species). As the fish are brought onboard, they are tagged (current automated machines can do 150 fish/minute) and their length/weight is recorded. This data is combined with the ships location (from GPS) and uploaded to a database. (Note: the fish are passed through an antenna first, if they are already tagged then their location/wieght/length is recorded, but they do not get a new tag). After the fish are tagged, they are released back into the water.

Because the range of antennas is severely limited (less than 2 meters), we cannot track the fish while they are at sea. We can, however, put the antennas on commercial fishing ships. As the fish are caught, they are dumped down a chute into a holding tank. The chute includes an antenna, so every tagged fish that is caught will be reported. The tag ID is combined with GPS data so that we can see where each fish is caught.

When the fish arrive at the processing facility (either onbaord for a factory ship or on land for smaller boats), the fish are checked for length and weight. We are not exactly sure how to do this yet, but we are thinking that an automated camera could be used to check the length, and an automatic scale would check the mass. Another antenna would relate the mass/length info to tag id. The weight and length measuring devices would be integrated into the processing equipment, so there would be no effect on the output of the facility.

The data from the processing facility and ship are uploaded to a central database where the info can be analyzed.

These devices currently cost about $4 per tag, but with mass production we expect prices to decline sharply. Note that once the fish are tagged there is no additional human effort to collect data; it is all automated.

1 Todd: October ?

Here is an outline/template for our solution.

Using the Outline

We could create the solution by listing and then answering relevant questions under each of these headings.  The topics are listed in what I think would be a rational order for a presentation or paper.  The outline could also be a site map for the Web site we will create.  Please feel free to send comments to me and/or post them on the wiki. 
-Todd Mooring

Solution Document Outline

Introduction

                Survey of global fisheries and their significance

Threats to fisheries

                Fishing activities

                Pollution

    Climate

Implications for Humans

                Food security

                Economic impact

Goals and Justification

                What we want and why

Non-biological considerations when formulating solution

                Economic/social/political issues

Regional/fishery management solutions---How goals are to be achieved

The global problem is a collection of local problems

                Regional solutions

                                Discuss fishery problems and solutions in various regions of the world

                Solutions by fishery type---solution templates

Discuss problems and solutions in various kinds of fisheries---large commercial, subsistence, etc.

Global and technical aspects of solution

                Climate

                International waters

                Change global fish demand

                Aquaculture

Specific recommendations/issues not addressed elsewhere

                Need for additional fisheries research

Conclusion

TEAM 2 PROPOSED SOLUTION: work in progress

(Please edit as you see fit. This list has already been sent to the regulations group as a preliminary sketch of what we would like to see regulated but by no means is it complete or entirely accurate and will need editing and additions as we learn more.)

IMPROVEMENT IN FISHING TECHNOLOGY (SHORT TERM)

          General Goals:

• • Decrease harmful effects of fishing technology on the environment.
  • Increase selectivity of fish caught both by species and size, to the purpose of drastically reducing bycatch.

          Suggestions:

(Not all of the solutions are compatible but are simply suggestions as some ways in which the aformentioned goals can be met)        

• • Use fishing methods that are more environmentally friendly such as handlining or trapping rather than bottom trawling because trawls stir up sediment (turbidity is harmful to many fish species as well as bivalves), destroy fish habitat, destroy plants and animals that live along the bottom, etc) whereas handlining and other methods do not contact the bottom and thus do not harm the nonliving environment.
  • Rather than trawling or fishing X amount of hours and pulling up the nets to see what and how much has been caught, put sensors on nets that measure tension or width of the net or other factors that can give fishermen an estimation of the amount of fish in the nets so that the quota allowance will not be exceeded resulting in all of the fish over the for example, 500 pound limit are thrown back dead into the ocean.
  • Add nanosensors along the bottom of trawling nets that keep the net a certain fixed height above the ground to prevent damaging the sea floor.  Also, use electrified ticklers to scare fish into the nets rather than the current chains which scrape the sea floor to scare fish into the nets.
  • Create and implementing sonar and other tracking devices to determine size (and from that age if possible) and species before nets are put into the water to limit the amount of bycatch of unwanted species or fish that are too small.
  • Create and implement devices to sort fish before catching based on instinctual defensive responses of other means such as electrofishing using certain frequencies which attract (and even paralyze if desired) fish of certain size and repel others away in order to lower bycatch.
  • Put escape vents in commercial nets to allow the escape of large sea mammals that become trapped inside.
  • Use diamond mesh instead of square mesh because square mesh does not close when towed and thus small fish can get through the mesh which would make net size regulations more effective.

REGULATION OF FISHING TECHNOLOGY (LONG TERM)

 *Regulation should occur before fish are caught rather than after as the most effective way of preventing overfishing. For example, regulation should regulate net drag speed and net mesh size rather than throwing away fish that exceed the pound limit though that too should be in place in a modified form*

• Bottom Trawling should not be allowed in communities deeper than X (More research is needed in classifying sediment type according to depth or extensive underwater terrain maps showing sediment composition so that bottom trawling is absolutely not allowed in deep ocean where recovery is slow but perhaps allowable in very shallow areas that show little or no damage in the succeeding months though bottom trawling should be phased out as newer technology is implemented.)
• Regulate where mobile gear (trawls and other similar fishing methods) and non-mobile gear (such as lines or traps) can be used and cannot be used in conjunction with the mapping of underwater terrain. Mobile gear catches greater volumes of fish, but can be much less selective than non-mobile gear. (However, mobile gear is much more cost effective since more fish can be caught in less time.)
• For mobile gear, we should regulate at what speed nets can be dragged so as to maximize the benefit of increased mesh size. At high speeds, fish that would normally be able to escape from the netting are trapped by the larger fish that are pressed against the end of the net. (Trawling typically occurs at anywhere from 3 knots to 5 knots)
• Setting a minimum mesh size that nets cannot exceed (though more research is needed as to what size this minimum should be for various species.)

----PROBLEMS in the way between current generation fishing technology and next generation technology:

• Next Gen is not currently cost-efficient 
• Next Gen is not currently completely feasible
• Enforcement of regulations in regards to fishing technology is difficult and not cost-effective
• Inertial resistance to change
• Current technology is already efficient at tracking and catching fish (though not selective enough)
• Once catching what we want through selectivity is achieved, more regulations will be need to prevent overfishing of species we want

TEAM 1 POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

Our research has shown that aquaculture is a necessary part of our final solution.  According to a study done in 2003, nearly 31% of all fish sold commercially, comes from Aquaculture.  There are three different types that can be used in various locations all over the world.

Type 1:  Intensive-Man Made Facilities

•   Man Made fish farms, which can be productive in virtually any type of climate
•   Fish are farm from birth until when they are harvested and sold
•   Require much monitoring to maintain health of fish

Type 2:  Extensive-Pond/Lake

•   Farming occurs within a natural or man-made ponds and lakes
•   Fish can be farmed from birth to mature age, then released into wild or farmed until they need to be harvested
•   Facility must be near a source of fresh/running water to prevent disease and interference with local ecosystem

Type 3: Extensive-Open Cage

• Occurs in large cages in the ocean
• Can either be mobile or stationary
• Much care needs to be taken to prevent nutrients from feed from destroying ocean floor
  

All three of these methods can be effectively used in helping the oceans fisheries.  Some ways in which they can help are:

• Helping to rebuild crashed populations (using open cage aquaculture)
• Providing more food for carnivorous fish (farming prey fish so that others have enough food to eat)
• With the new regulations that are proposed, aquaculture can be used to make up for any lost revenue (especially with Tilalpia, Alaskan Salmon, Catfish, Shrimp and Mollusks)
• For overfished populations, aquaculture can help to rebuild the population by either 1) allowing young fish to be released into the wild; or 2) using aquaculture as the only source of the certain fish and prohibiting fishing of the wild fish, so that the population may regrow to a sustainable level.

A few things to consider:

• Aquaculture is already economically viable.
• So far as we can tell, it is the only truly scalable solution as demand grows in the future.
• If predatory fish are farmed, a sufficient number of prey fish will also have to be farmed
• Aquaculture can also be integrated into water treatment (aka multitrophic aquaculture) and thus reduce costs overall

In the end, the solution for aquaculture largely depends on the type of solutions put forth by everyone else.  Once we have decided how much the above solutions will affect the fish trade, we can determine on a larger scale how much aquaculture we will need in our final solution.  For further information, please see our the Team 1 Wiki or contact any of the members of our team.