Tag: MMPA

Why the precautionary principle matters for marine mammal conservation

Lindsay Wickman, Postdoctoral Scholar, Oregon State University Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Sciences, Geospatial Ecology of Marine Megafauna Lab

This summer, Rep. Nick Begich of (R-AK), submitted a draft bill that proposes to roll back key features of the 1972 U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The MMPA has been the centerpiece legislation protecting whales, dolphins, sea otters, manatees, polar bears and seals for over 50 years, bringing many species back from the brink of extinction and setting a benchmark that has been replicated worldwide. Among the changes proposed, the draft bill explicitly bars the use of the precautionary principle in marine mammal management. For example, the draft bill includes these changes:

  • changing wording from “has the potential to injure/disturb” to “injures or disturbs” when considering threats that need to be mitigated.
  • instead of managing marine mammal populations to “result in maximum productivity”, the draft bill would manage species at the size “necessary to support the continued survival”.

The draft bill also includes changes to how allowable levels of injury and mortality to marine mammal populations (called a “take”) in the MMPA are calculated. Until now, these take levels were calculated using safety factors that correct for scientific uncertainty and bias. The proposal removes these safety factors, which would essentially increase the number of allowable takes from each population before management intervention is required. The proposed changes also require a much higher burden of proof before populations can be considered “depleted” or “strategic”, which are identifiers that trigger conservation action.

 Proponents of the draft bill say the current MMPA has been too precautionary, unnecessarily increasing burdens on fishers and other resource users. Here, I argue that the precautionary principle is not a subjective judgement that favors marine mammals over people’s livelihoods. Instead, it is a rational decision-making tool, essential for making management decisions when information is uncertain.

A humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) surfaces during a recent research survey. Humpback whales along the U.S. West Coast have increased in abundance since the end of commercial whaling and MMPA protections. Imagery collected under research permit #27426 issued to MMI.

What is the precautionary principle?

In practice, it means that a lack of data or uncertainty in statistical estimates or trends should not be used as an excuse for inaction in the face of a valid threat (Raffensperger and Tickner, 1999). Instead, decision-makers should incorporate “safety factors” that account for limited knowledge or imperfect science. As said by Holt and Talbot (1978), “the magnitude of the safety factor should be proportional to the magnitude of risk.” So, if the goal is to prevent extinction, severely depleted populations may require bigger safety factors than healthy populations.

How does the U.S. MMPA apply the precautionary principle? 

During the first few decades the MMPA, actions to protect marine mammals were primarily reactionary, in response to highly publicized issues like the dolphin-tuna problem (Taylor et al., 2000). Conservation actions were supposed to be triggered when scientists detected a declining trend in a population’s abundance, but obtaining precise estimates of population size is notoriously difficult for marine mammals. The amount of data required to prove a population was declining due to human activities was so high that protection was continually stalled due to uncertainty in statistical trends (e.g., Marine Mammal Commission 1982; Wade 1993; Taylor et al., 2000).

In 1994, the U.S. MMPA was amended, implementing a new way to determine which marine mammal populations were at risk. Instead of requiring a statistical trend in population abundance, the new method calculates the number of sustainable takes without putting the population at risk of decline. The 1994 amendments also explicitly applied the precautionary principle by incorporating safety factors into this calculation of this number of allowable takes, known as the Potential Biological Removal (PBR; Wade 1998), which increases the likelihood that the management goals stated by the MMPA are achieved (Taylor et al., 2000). 

Three reasons why the precautionary principle matters:

1. It accounts for uncertainty and potential bias

Consider air travel for a moment: Given the uncertainty in the amount of time it takes to arrive at the airport (e.g., traffic, parking) and the unknown possibilities for extra delays once there (e.g., security), most travelers shoot for airport arrival times significantly earlier than the flight boards.  However, what if instead of an exact flight time, you are told the plane leaves sometime between 9 and 11 am? Also, although you have some experience travelling, you have never used this particular airport, and you have no idea how long security and check-in might take. Given these hypothetical circumstances, how would you plan your travel?

When applying marine mammal science to management goals, decision-makers must contend with a similarly uncertain set of information. Marine mammals are wide-ranging and spend most of their lives underwater, making them particularly challenging to study. It is impossible to get exact estimates of population size for these animals, and even the best designed research produces abundance estimates with significant levels uncertainty (e.g., Taylor et al., 2000; Taylor et al. 2007). After decades of researching marine mammals, we also still have significant knowledge gaps about their population dynamics, space-use, and behaviors.

Currently, the MMPA accounts for scientific uncertainty by using minimum estimated population size (the lower 20th percentile) when calculating sustainable levels of human takes (Wade 1998; Taylor et al. 2000). This safety factor makes it more likely that calculations of allowable takes are at or below safe levels (Wade 1998; Taylor et al. 2000).

Relating back to the airport example, if you were told your flight could leave between 9 and 11 am, using minimum population size (instead of the maximum or center of the estimate) is analogous to planning for the flight to leave closer to 9 am. However, you still need to add in time for extra factors that may cause other possible delays in addition to the uncertain departure time.

So, in addition to minimum population size, the MMPA also uses another safety factor in its calculation of allowable takes, called the recovery factor (FR). FR scales the number of allowable takes relative to the level of risk to the population and the potential for biased or uncertain information (Wade 1998; Taylor et al. 2000).  A lower FR is given to depleted, high risk populations, while FR can be increased for well-studied populations at lower risk (Wade 1998; Taylor et al. 2000). In the travel analogy, FR is the amount of padding needed to ensure a passenger makes their flight, accounting for potentially unknown security lines and traffic.

2. It incentivizes the public and industry to collect more data to “fine-tune” management

The more experienced you are with a particular airport and the more certain you are of the departure time, the more confident you can be in your travel plans. If you know the plane leaves at 10 am, and security takes 15 minutes, you don’t need to add nearly as much extra travel time as if your travel details were more uncertain.

Importantly, as the scientific knowledge of a population increases, the magnitude of the safety factors in the calculation of allowable mortalities decreases. For example, as the number of surveys of a population increases and an abundance estimate gets more precise, the range of the abundance estimate gets smaller. So, getting a more precise abundance estimate is like changing your uncertain flight time from being between 9 – 11 am, to being between 9:30 – 10 am. While you still have some uncertainty, you can be confident that leaving a little later than originally planned would be ok.

Since better knowledge results in more targeted management, both the public and industry are motivated to invest in continued research. Fine-tuning management means that necessary precautions can be kept, but unnecessary burdens on industries are removed. Ultimately, the strategy of a precautionary approach is to “act now, fine-tune later,” instead of “delay action until we get detailed information.” In addition to potentially delaying urgent action, the latter approach also disincentivizes industry to invest in research or develop solutions. As explained below, delaying conservation due to uncertainty has led to past pitfalls in marine mammal conservation, necessitating the need for a more proactive approach.

3. It prevents unnecessary delays in conservation action

If you had an important flight to catch on Wednesday, but did not know the departure time, would you decide to not go to the airport at all? Would it be worth it to just get to the airport early, or would you wait at home for more information, but at the risk of missing your flight?

The choice to not act at all in the face of uncertain data is inherently risky. For the first couple of decades of the MMPA, managers attempted to prove a population was declining before conservation action could be taken. The problem is, determining population trends of marine mammals with any certainty can take decades (Taylor and Gerrodette, 1993; Wade 1993; Taylor et al., 2000). In the case of some species, by the time scientists have the statistical power to detect a trend, the population could already be in a catastrophic decline. For example, in the case of eastern tropical Pacific dolphins killed as bycatch by the tuna industry during the 1970s, proving their population decline led to a 14-year protection delay from the first abundance estimate of the population (Wade et al., 1994; Taylor et al., 2000).

The purpose of the 1994 MMPA amendments was to correct for these unnecessary delays that required extensive amounts of data (Taylor et al. 2000). Instead of requiring population trend data, the MMPA now uses values that are much easier to obtain — population size and maximum population growth rates (Wade 1998). From these, the number of individuals that can sustainably be removed from the population (PBR) can be calculated. This approach is a much faster and simpler method, allowing for quick action if estimated mortality (e.g., numbers of animals killed or injured) is higher than this calculated threshold (PBR).

Lastly, the precautionary principle assumes that if a threat is valid, it should be considered, even if the effects are not 100% proven yet. This approach is essential for marine mammals, where anthropogenic injuries and mortality are not always easily detected or recorded. In the case of ship strikes and fisheries entanglement, many individuals disappear before their deaths or injuries are recorded (e.g., Cassoff et al., 2011; Pace et al. 2021). Other threats, like the effects of sound and chemical pollution, may require long-term monitoring to fully understand their population-level impacts. By using language like “has the potential to injure,” management can be implemented more proactively, allowing for research to continue, but not at the detriment of population health during the lengthy time it can take to establish statistical certainty.

Final thoughts

The precautionary principle is a way of dealing with the fact that good science can cost precious time. Results rarely give “yes or no” answers and clear-cut solutions. Instead, decision-makers must weigh study design, statistical power, and the precision (i.e., uncertainty) of scientific findings. The precautionary principle provides a framework for how to effectively use science to make decisions, increasing the likelihood that management plans meet their goals.

If this blog makes you concerned about the future of the precautionary principle in the U.S. MMPA:

Did you enjoy this blog? Want to learn more about marine life, research, and conservation? Subscribe to our blog and get a monthly message when we post a new blog. Just add your name and email into the subscribe box below.

References

Cassoff, R.M., Moore, K.M., McLellan, W.A., Barco, S.G., Rotstein, D.S., Moore, M.J. (2011). Lethal entanglement in baleen whales. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms, 96: 175– 185.

Holt, S. J., and L. M. Talbot. (1978). New principles for the conservation of wild living resources. Wildlife Monographs, 59.

Marine Mammal Commission. (1982). Marine Mammal Commission annual report to Congress. Bethesda, Maryland.

Pace, R.M., Williams, R., Kraus, S.D., Knowlton, A.R., Pettis, H.M. (2021). Cryptic mortality of North Atlantic right whales. Conservation Science and Practice, 3: e346.

Raffensperger C, Tickner J, eds. (1999). Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Taylor, B. L., & Gerrodette, T. (1993). The Uses of Statistical Power in Conservation Biology: The Vaquita and Northern Spotted Owl. Conservation Biology, 7(3), 489–500.

Taylor, B. L., Wade, P. R., de Master, D. P., & Barlow, J. (2000). Incorporating uncertainty into management models for marine mammals. Conservation Biology, 14(5), 1243–1252.

Taylor, B. L., Martinez, M., Gerrodette, T., Barlow, J., & Hrovat, Y. N. (2007). Lessons From Monitoring Trends in Abundance of Marine Mammals. Marine Mammal Science, 23(1), 157–175.

Wade, P. R. (1993). Estimation of historical population size of the eastern spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris orientalis). Fishery Bulletin, United States 91:775–787.

Wade, P. R. (1994). Abundance and population dynamics of two eastern Pacific dolphins, Stenella attenuata and Stenella longirostris orientalis. Ph.D. dissertation. Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego.

Wade, P. R. (1998). Calculating limits to the allowable human-caused mortality of cetaceans and pinnipeds. Marine Mammal Science, 14(1), 1–37.

Clicks, buzzes, and rasps: How the MMPA has spurred what we know about beaked whale acoustic repertoire

By Marissa Garcia, PhD Student, Cornell University, Department of Natural Resources and the Environment, K. Lisa Yang Center for Conservation Bioacoustics

In October 1972, the tides turned for U.S. environmental politics: the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) was passed. Its creation ushered in a new flavor of conservation and management. With phrases like “optimum sustainable population” baked into its statutory language, it marked among the first times that ecosystem-based management — an approach which directly calls upon knowledge of ecology to inform action — was required by law (Ray and Potter 2022). Transitioning from reductionist, species-siloed policies, the MMPA instead placed the interdependency of species at the core of ecosystem function and management. 

Beyond deepening the role of science on Capitol Hill, the MMPA’s greatest influence may have been spurred by the language that prohibited “the taking and importation of marine mammals” (16 U.S.C. 1361). Because the word “taking” is multivalent, it carries on its back many interpretations. “Taking” a marine mammal is not limited to intentionally hunting or killing them, or even accidental bycatch. “Taking” also includes carelessly operating a boat when a marine mammal is present, feeding a marine mammal in the wild, or tagging a marine mammal without the appropriate scientific permit. “Taking” a marine mammal can also extend to the fatal consequences caused by noise pollution — not intent, but incident (16 U.S.C. 1362).

The latter circumstances remain reverberant for the U.S. Navy. To comply with the MMPA, they are granted “incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals….[when] engag[ing] in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing)” (87 FR 33113). So, if the sonar activities required for national security exercises adversely impact marine mammals, the Navy has a bit of leeway but is still expected to minimize this impact. To further mitigate this potential harm, the Navy thus invests heavily in marine mammal research. (If you are interested in learning more about how the Navy has influenced the trajectory of oceanographic research more broadly, you may find this book interesting.) 

Beaked whales are an example of a marine mammal we know much about due to the MMPA’s call for research when incidental take occurs. Three decades ago, many beaked whales stranded ashore following a series of U.S. Navy sonar exercises. Since then, the Navy has flooded research dollars toward better understanding beaked whale hearing, vocal behavior, and movements (e.g., Klinck et al. 2012). Through these efforts, a deluge of research charged with developing effective tools to acoustically monitor and conserve beaked whales has emerged.  

These studies have laid the foundation for my Ph.D. research, which is dedicated to the Holistic Assessment of Living marine resources off Oregon (HALO) project. Through both visual and acoustic surveys, the HALO project’s mission is to understand how changes in ocean conditions — driven by global climate change — influence living marine resources in Oregon waters. 

In my research specifically, I aim to learn more about beaked whales off the Oregon coast. Beaked whales represent nearly a fourth of cetacean species alive today, with at least 21 species recorded to date (Roman et al. 2013). Even so, 90% of beaked whales are considered data deficient: we lack enough information about them to confidently describe the state of their populations or decide upon effective conservation action. 

Much remains to be learned about beaked whales, and I aim to do so by eavesdropping on them. By referring to the “acoustic repertoire” of beaked whales — that is, their vocalizations and corresponding behaviors — I aim to tease out their vocalizations from the broader ocean soundscape and understand how their presence in Oregon waters varies over time. 

Beaked whales are notoriously cryptic, elusive to many visual survey efforts like those aboard HALO cruises. In fact, some species have only been identified via carcasses that have washed ashore (Moore and Barlow 2013). Acoustic studies have elucidated ecological information (beaked whales forage at night at seamounts summits; Johnston et al. 2008) and have also introduced promising population-level monitoring efforts (beaked whales have been acoustically detected in areas with a historical scarcity of sightings; Kowarski et al. 2018). Their deep-diving nature often renders them inconspicuous, and they forage at depths between 1,000 and 2,000 m, on dives as long as 90 minutes (Moore and Barlow 2013; Klinck et al. 2012). Their echolocation clicks are produced at frequencies within the hearing range of killer whales, and previous studies have suggested that Blainville’s beaked whales are only vocally active during deep foraging dives and not at the surface, possibly to prevent being acoustically detected by predatory killer whales. Researchers refer to this phenomenon as “acoustic crypsis,” or when vocally-active marine mammals are strategically silent to avoid being found by potential predators (Aguilar de Soto et al. 2012).

We expect to see evidence of Blainville’s beaked whales in Oregon waters, as well as Baird’s, Cuvier’s, Stejneger’s, Hubb’s, and other beaked whale species. Species-specific echolocation clicks were comprehensively described a decade ago in Baumann-Pickering et al. 2013 (Figure 1). While this study laid the groundwork for species-level beaked whale acoustic detection, much more work is still needed to describe their acoustic repertoire with higher resolution detail. For example, though Hubb’s beaked whales live in Oregon waters, their vocal behavior remains scantly defined.

Figure 1: Baird’s, Blainville’s, Cuvier’s, and Stejneger’s beaked whales are among the most comprehensively acoustically described beaked whales inhabiting central Oregon waters, though more work would improve accuracy in species-specific acoustic detection. Credit: Marissa Garcia. Infographic draws upon beaked whale imagery from NOAA Fisheries and spectrograms and acoustical statistics published in Baumann-Pickering et al. 2013.

The HALO project seeks to add a biological dimension to the historical oceanographic studies conducted along the Newport Hydrographic (NH) line ever since the 1960s (Figure 2). Rockhopper acoustic recording units are deployed at sites NH 25, NH 45, and NH 65. The Rockhopper located at site NH 65 is actively recording on the seafloor about 2,800 m below the surface. Because beaked whales tend to be most vocally active at these deep depths, we will first dive into the acoustic data on NH 65, our deepest unit, in hopes of finding beaked whale recordings there.

Figure 2: The HALO project team conducts quarterly visual surveys along the NH line, spanning between NH 25 and NH 65. Rockhopper acoustic recording units continuously record at the NH 25, NH 45, and NH 65 sites. Credit: Leigh Torres.

Beaked whales’ acoustic repertoire can be broadly split into four primary categories: burst pulses (aka “search clicks”), whistles, buzz clicks, and rasps. Beaked whale search clicks, which are regarded as burst pulses when produced in succession, have distinct qualities: their upswept frequency modulation (meaning the frequency gets higher within the click), their long duration especially when compared to other delphinid clicks, and a consistent interpulse interval  which is the time of silence between signals (Baumann-Pickering et al. 2013). Acoustic analysts can identify different species based on how the frequency changes in different burst pulse sequences (Baumann-Pickering et al. 2013; Figure 1). For this reason, when I conduct my HALO analyses, I intend to automatically detect beaked whale species using burst pulses, as they are the best documented beaked whale signal, with unique signatures for each species. 

In the landscape of beaked whale acoustics, the acoustic repertoire of Blainville’s beaked whales (Mesoplodon densirostris) — a species of focus in my HALO analyses — is especially well defined. Blainville’s beaked whale whistles have been recorded up to 900 m deep, representing the deepest whistle recorded for any marine mammal to date in the literature (Aguilar de Soto et al. 2012). While Blainville’s beaked whales only spend 40% of their time at depths below 170 m, two key vocalizations occur at these depths: whistles and rasps. While they remain surprisingly silent near the surface, beaked whales produce whistles and rasps at depths up to 900 m. The beaked whales dive together in synchrony, and right before they separate from each other, they produce the most whistles and rasps, further indicating that these vocalizations are used to enhance foraging success (Aguilar de Soto et al. 2006). As beaked whales transition to foraging on their own, they predominantly produce frequently modulated clicks and buzzes. Beaked whales produce buzzes in the final stages of prey capture to receive up-to-date information about their prey’s location. The buzzes’ high repetition enables the whale to achieve 300+ updates on their intended prey’s location in the last 3 m before seizing their feast (Johnson et al. 2006; Figure 3). 

Figure 3: Blainville’s beaked whales generally have four categories within their acoustic repertoire, including burst pulses, whistles, buzz clicks, and rasps. Credit: Marissa Garcia.

All of this knowledge about beaked whale acoustics can be linked back to the MMPA, which has also achieved broader success. Since the MMPA’s implementation, marine mammal population numbers have risen across the board. For marine mammal populations with sufficient data, approximately 65% of these stocks are increasing and 17% are stable (Roman et al. 2013). 

Nevertheless, perhaps much of the MMPA’s true success lies in the research it has indirectly fueled, by virtue of the required compliance of governmental bodies such as the U.S. Navy. And the response has proven to be a boon to knowledge: if the U.S. Navy has been the benefactor of marine mammal research, beaked whale acoustics has certainly been the beneficiary. We hope the beaked whale acoustic analyses stemming from the HALO Project can further this expanse of what we know.

References

Aguilar de Soto, N., Madsen, P. T., Tyack, P., Arranz, P., Marrero, J., Fais, A., Revelli, E., & Johnson, M. (2012). No shallow talk: Cryptic strategy in the vocal communication of Blainville’s beaked whales. Marine Mammal Science, 28(2), E75–E92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.2011.00495.x

Baumann-Pickering, S., McDonald, M. A., Simonis, A. E., Solsona Berga, A., Merkens, K. P. B., Oleson, E. M., Roch, M. A., Wiggins, S. M., Rankin, S., Yack, T. M., & Hildebrand, J. A. (2013). Species-specific beaked whale echolocation signals. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 134(3), 2293–2301. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4817832

Dawson, S., Barlow, J., & Ljungblad, D. (1998). SOUNDS RECORDED FROM BAIRD’S BEAKED WHALE, BERARDIUS BAIRDIL. Marine Mammal Science, 14(2), 335–344. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-7692.1998.tb00724.x

Johnston, D. W., McDonald, M., Polovina, J., Domokos, R., Wiggins, S., & Hildebrand, J. (2008). Temporal patterns in the acoustic signals of beaked whales at Cross Seamount. Biology Letters (2005), 4(2), 208–211. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2007.0614

Johnson, M., Madsen, P. T., Zimmer, W. M. X., de Soto, N. A., & Tyack, P. L. (2004). Beaked whales echolocate on prey. Proceedings of the Royal Society. B, Biological Sciences, 271(Suppl 6), S383–S386. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2004.0208

Johnson, M., Madsen, P. T., Zimmer, W. M. X., de Soto, N. A., & Tyack, P. L. (2006). Foraging Blainville’s beaked whales (Mesoplodon densirostris) produce distinct click types matched to different phases of echolocation. Journal of Experimental Biology, 209(Pt 24), 5038–5050. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.02596

Klinck, H., Mellinger, D. K., Klinck, K., Bogue, N. M., Luby, J. C., Jump, W. A., Shilling, G. B., Litchendorf, T., Wood, A. S., Schorr, G. S., & Baird, R. W. (2012). Near-real-time acoustic monitoring of beaked whales and other cetaceans using a Seaglider. PloS One, 7(5), e36128. https://doi.org/10.1371/annotation/57ad0b82-87c4-472d-b90b-b9c6f84947f8

Kowarski, K., Delarue, J., Martin, B., O’Brien, J., Meade, R., Ó Cadhla, O., & Berrow, S. (2018). Signals from the deep: Spatial and temporal acoustic occurrence of beaked whales off western Ireland. PloS One, 13(6), e0199431–e0199431. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199431

Madsen, P. T.,  Johnson, M., de Soto, N. A., Zimmer, W. M. X., & Tyack, P. (2005). Biosonar performance of foraging beaked whales (Mesoplodon densirostris). Journal of Experimental Biology, 208(Pt 2), 181–194. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.01327

McCullough, J. L. K., Wren, J. L. K., Oleson, E. M., Allen, A. N., Siders, Z. A., & Norris, E. S. (2021). An Acoustic Survey of Beaked Whales and Kogia spp. in the Mariana Archipelago Using Drifting Recorders. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.664292

Moore, J. E. & Barlow, J. P. (2013). Declining abundance of beaked whales (family Ziphiidae) in the California Current large marine ecosystem. PloS One, 8(1), e52770–e52770. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052770

Ray, G. C. & Potter, F. M. (2011). The Making of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. Aquatic Mammals, 37(4), 522.

Roman, J., Altman, I., Dunphy-Daly, M. M., Campbell, C., Jasny, M., & Read, A. J. (2013). The Marine Mammal Protection Act at 40: status, recovery, and future of U.S. marine mammals. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1286(1), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12040

Managing Oceans: the inner-workings of marine policy

By Alexa Kownacki, Ph.D. Student, OSU Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Geospatial Ecology of Marine Megafauna Lab

When we hear “marine policy” we broadly lump it together with environmental policy. However, marine ecosystems differ greatly from their terrestrial counterparts. We wouldn’t manage a forest like an ocean, nor would we manage an ocean like a forest. Why not? The answer to this question is complex and involves everything from ecology to politics.

Oceans do not have borders; they are fluid and dynamic. Interestingly, by defining marine ecosystems we are applying some kind of borders. But water (and all its natural and unnatural content) flows between these ‘ecosystems’. Marine ecosystems are home to a variety of anthropogenic activities such as transportation and recreation, in addition to an abundance of species that represent the three major domains of biology: Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukarya. Humans are the only creatures who “recognize” the borders that policymakers and policy actors have instilled. A migrating gray whale does not have a passport stamped as it travels from its breeding grounds in Mexican waters to its feeding grounds in the Gulf of Alaska. In contrast, a large cargo ship—or even a small sailing vessel—that crosses those boundaries is subjected to a series of immigration checkpoints. Combining these human and the non-human facets makes marine policy complex and variable.

The eastern Pacific gray whale migration route includes waters off of Mexico, Canada, and the United States. Source: https://www.learner.org/jnorth/tm/gwhale/annual/map.html

Environmental policy of any kind can be challenging. Marine environmental policy adds many more convoluted layers in terms of unknowns; marine ecosystems are understudied relative to terrestrial ecosystems and therefore have less research conducted on how to best manage them. Additionally, there are more hands in the cookie jar, so to speak; more governments and more stakeholders with more opinions (Leslie and McLeod 2007). So, with fewer examples of successful ecosystem-based management in coastal and marine environments and more institutions with varied goals, marine ecosystems become challenging to manage and monitor.

A visual representation of what can happen when there are many groups with different goals: no one can easily get what they want. Image Source: The Brew Monks

With this in mind, it is understandable that there is no official manual on policy development.  There is, however, a broadly standardized process of how to develop, implement, and evaluate environmental policies: 1) recognize a problem 2) propose a solution 3) choose a solution 4) put the solution into effect and 4) monitor the results (Zacharias pp. 16-21). For a policy to be deemed successful, specific criteria must be met, which means that a common policy is necessary for implementation and enforcement. Within the United States, there are a multiple governing bodies that protect the ocean, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the Department of Defense (DoD)—all of which have different mission statements, budgets, and proposals. To create effective environmental policies, collaboration between various groups is imperative. Nevertheless, bringing these groups together, even those within the same nation, requires time, money, and flexibility.

This is not to say that environmental policy for terrestrial systems, but there are fewer moving parts to manage. For example, a forest in the United States would likely not be an international jurisdiction case because the borders are permanent lines and national management does not overlap. However, at a state level, jurisdiction may overlap with potentially conflicting agendas. A critical difference in management strategies is preservation versus conservation. Preservation focuses on protecting nature from use and discourages altering the environment. Conservation, centers on wise-use practices that allow for proper human use of environments such as resource use for economic groups. One environmental group may believe in preservation, while one government agency may believe in conservation, creating friction amongst how the land should be used: timber harvest, public use, private purchasing, etc.

Linear representation of preservation versus conservation versus exploitation. Image Source: Raoof Mostafazadeh

Furthermore, a terrestrial forest has distinct edges with measurable and observable qualities; it possesses intrinsic and extrinsic values that are broadly recognized because humans have been utilizing them for centuries. Intrinsic values are things that people can monetize, such as commercial fisheries or timber harvests whereas extrinsic values are things that are challenging to put an actual price on in terms of biological diversity, such as the enjoyment of nature or the role of species in pest management; extrinsic values generally have a high level of human subjectivity because the context of that “resource” in question varies upon circumstances (White 2013). Humans are more likely to align positively with conservation policies if there are extrinsic benefits to them; therefore, anthropocentric values associated with the resources are protected (Rode et al. 2015). Hence, when creating marine policy, monetary values are often placed on the resources, but marine environments are less well-studied due to lack of accessibility and funding, making any valuation very challenging.

The differences between direct (intrinsic) versus indirect (extrinsic) values to biodiversity that factor into environmental policy. Image Source: Conservationscienceblog.wordpress.com

Assigning a cost or benefit to environmental services is subjective (Dearborn and Kark 2010). What is the benefit to a child seeing an endangered killer whale for the first time? One could argue priceless. In order for conservation measures to be implemented, values—intrinsic and extrinsic—are assigned to the goods and services that the marine environment provides—such as seafood and how the ocean functions as a carbon sink. Based off of the four main criteria used to evaluate policy, the true issue becomes assessing the merit and worth. There is an often-overlooked flaw with policy models: it assumes rational behavior (Zacharias 126). Policy involves relationships and opinions, not only the scientific facts that inform them; this is true in terrestrial and marine environments. People have their own agendas that influence, not only the policies themselves, but the speed at which they are proposed and implemented.

Tourists aboard a whale-watching vessel off of the San Juan Islands, enjoying orca in the wild. Image Source: Seattle Orca Whale Watching

One example of how marine policy evolves is through groups, such as the International Whaling Commission, that gather to discuss such policies while representing many different stakeholders. Some cultures value the whale for food, others for its contributions to the surrounding ecosystems—such as supporting healthy seafood populations. Valuing one over the other goes beyond a monetary value and delves deeper into the cultures, politics, economics, and ethics. Subjectivity is the name of the game in environmental policy, and, in marine environmental policy, there are many factors unaccounted for, that decision-making is incredibly challenging.

Efficacy in terms of the public policy for marine systems presents a challenge because policy happens slowly, as does research. There is no equation that fits all problems because the variables are different and dynamic; they change based on the situation and can be unpredictable. When comparing institutional versus impact effectiveness, they both are hard to measure without concrete goals (Leslie and McLeod 2007). Marine ecosystems are open environments which add an additional hurdle: setting measurable and achievable goals. Terrestrial environments contain resources that more people utilize, more frequently, and therefore have more set goals. Without a problem and potential solution there is no policy. Terrestrial systems have problems that humans recognize. Marine systems have problems that are not as visible to people on a daily basis. Therefore, terrestrial systems have more solutions presented to mitigate problems and more policies enacted.

As marine scientists, we don’t always immediately consider how marine policy impacts our research. In the case of my project, marine policy is something I constantly have to consider. Common bottlenose dolphins are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and inhabit coastal of both the United States and Mexico, including within some Marine Protected Areas (MPA). In addition, some funding for the project comes from NOAA and the DoD. Even on the surface-level it is clear that policy is something we must consider as marine scientists—whether we want to or not. We may do our best to inform policymakers with results and education based on our research, but marine policy requires value-based judgements based on politics, economics, and human objectivity—all of which are challenging to harmonize into a succinct problem with a clear solution.

Two common bottlenose dolphins (coastal ecotype) traveling along the Santa Barbara, CA shoreline. Image Source: Alexa Kownacki

References:

Dearborn, D. C. and Kark, S. 2010. Motivations for Conserving Urban Biodiversity. Conservation Biology, 24: 432-440. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01328.x

Leslie, H. M. and McLeod, K. L. (2007), Confronting the challenges of implementing marine ecosystem‐based management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 5: 540-548. doi:10.1890/060093

Munguia, P., and A. F. Ojanguren. 2015. Bridging the gap in marine and terrestrial studies. Ecosphere 6(2):25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES14-00231.1

Rode, J., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Krause, M., 2015. Motivation crowding by economic payments in conservation policy: a review of the empirical evidence. Ecol. Econ. 117, 270–282 (in this issue).

White, P. S. (2013), Derivation of the Extrinsic Values of Biological Diversity from Its Intrinsic Value and of Both from the First Principles of Evolution. Conservation Biology, 27: 1279-1285. doi:10.1111/cobi.12125

Zacharias, M. 2014. Marine Policy. London: Routledge.