With budget woes in every headline and economic concerns touching every household, some say California can no longer afford to be a leader in conservation: we should shutter our state parks, defer action on climate change, and put the breaks on our landmark effort to establish marine protected areas for our oceans.
Former Monterey Bay area Congressman, Leon Panetta’s signature line is that we govern either by leadership or by crisis. If our leaders have vision and are willing to make tough decisions - crisis can be avoided. If not, crisis will drive policy decisions. So while some argue the economic downturn is an excuse to abandon our state’s conservation values, turn back the clock and wait for environmental collapse before taking action; I believe that with leadership, great things can be accomplished even in challenging times.
The Marine Life Protection Act (co-authored by Fred Keeley) is an example of leadership. Based on scientific evidence from around the world demonstrating the effectiveness of marine protected areas (MPAs) – underwater refuges where habitats and sealife can recover and thrive—10 years ago, a bi-partisan California legislature passed our nation’s first law calling for a statewide network of MPAs. We’re now halfway done with this historic effort. Using the state’s budget woes as an excuse, opponents have suggested that we quit midstream.
But with the coast and ocean contributing 369,000 jobs and $22 billion to the State’s economy, per the National Ocean Economic Program’s 2004 figures, marine protection is a critical investment for California. And it’s urgently needed: some sealife populations are in decline, and fishery revenues have dropped by half in the past twenty years.
I agree with those who say more funding is needed for conservation efforts. My son is starting kindergarten this year and I sure wish we had more money for public education as well. But instead of keeping my kid out of school; I am going to volunteer in his classroom. When times are tough we can’t abandon our community values, instead we need to get creative; do more with less, and work together to keep our priorities on track for better times ahead.
Fortunately, that is exactly what is happening with California’s new (and proposed) marine protected areas. Since MPAs were adopted on the Central Coast in 2007, our community has come together to assist with education, monitoring and management. The Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary and the Sanctuary Foundation, our State Parks, museums, academic institutions and local organizations like Save Our Shores have all chipped in. Together, they’re creating signage, hosting interpretive exhibits, training docents, educating school kidsand working to improve compliance. Sportsfishermen are working with scientists to study the effectiveness of the new protected areas. With money tight, a lot of the work is staffed by volunteers, and some of it is funded through private donations.
Next week the California Fish and Game Commission will take action on a second section of the coast–adopting additional MPAs in the area between Año Nuevo and Point Arena. Just like on the Central Coast–partners stand ready to help the state implement its new protections and bridge the gap until the economy recovers. I urge the Commission to exercise bold leadership and focus on long-term success. We can’t afford any less.
Kaitilin Gaffney is the Pacific Ecosystem Protection Program Director for Ocean Conservancy and served on the Marine Life Protection Act’s Regional Stakeholder Group for the Central Coast. She notes that Everglades National Park was established in the middle of the Great Depression.
Comments (6)
Post a comment
Jim Martin Wed, Jul 29, 2009 - 8:40 pm
“We can’t afford any less.” What does that mean? Does that mean we can actually afford to spend more? Do you go into a store to buy an item that costs $1 and you hand the cashier $2 because “you can’t afford any less”?
Either we can afford it or we can’t.
If this extravagant is implemented, it will cost at least $35 million per year.
Can we afford it? Not according to the state legislature.
Did Congress authorize the Sanctuary to pay for state programs? Could you direct me to that specific appropriation?
The MLPA requires a lot more than “creating signage, hosting interpretive exhibits, training docents, educating school kids and working to improve compliance.” It takes enforcement, more wardens, general fund money for the Department of Fish & Game to monitor the MPAs and evaluate them.
All this, and Furlough Fridays, too?
It’s boondoggle programs like this one that have landed the state of California in the poorhouse.
“If not, crisis will drive policy decisions. So while some argue the economic downturn is an excuse to abandon our state’s conservation values, turn back the clock and wait for environmental collapse before taking action; I believe that with leadership, great things can be accomplished even in challenging times.”
You mean, the world will end and time will go backwards if we take a few more years to find the money to properly fund MPAs? You may “believe” that great things can be accomplished, but in the real world bills must be paid, and so I have to ask where all this money is coming from?
When Congress authorized the creation of the Everglades National Park in 1934, they specifically forbid any money being spent on creating for at least another 5 years. Why? BECAUSE THEY COULDN’T AFFORD IT. And it wasn’t for 13 years that proponents gathered the money to fund it.
But it will be a longer time than that before the fishermen forget what a royal backstabbing they got from organizations like the Ocean Conservancy.
Liddy Thu, Jul 30, 2009 - 3:21 pm
“I agree with those who say more funding is needed for conservation efforts. My son is starting kindergarten this year and I sure wish we had more money for public education as well. But instead of keeping my kid out of school; I am going to volunteer in his classroom. When times are tough we can’t abandon our community values, instead we need to get creative; do more with less, and work together to keep our priorities on track for better times ahead.”
So true! Thanks for expressing the way so many of us feel. It’s true, building strawmen (see first comment) IS easier than building community – and a better world for all of us – but that doesn’t mean we should give up. Quite the contrary.
Lauren Gilligan Thu, Jul 30, 2009 - 5:03 pm
We can’t wait any longer to protect our oceans! Marine Protected Areas are a proven tool to safeguard parts of the ocean environment for the future (Dry Tortugas, Fl; Anacapa Island, CA and Gulf of Maine to name a few).
I understand that fishermen have concerns and I work closely with them in my job. Most fisherman I meet are conservationalists and know that by abiding by certain rules and quotas it will secure them fish for the future.
The Central Coast MPAs only restrict 7.5% of the 204 square miles as no take marine reserves. That leaves a lot of room open to fishermen. They are protecting a few key parts of the ocean so the fish can recover. This is exactly what they are planning for the North Central Coast as well.
I think the author said it perfectly, We can’t afford not to protect our oceans! If we wait any longer, the fish could be in even worse shape and Salmon season could never re-open. Dungeness crab fishery is already in peril, we are going to see more closures of fisheries if we don’t get this protection in order soon.
I don’t want to hear this “We can’t afford it” anymore, MPAs are the kind of tools that should be up there with finding renewable energy sources and thinking about our future. The future could be very grim with less and less marine life. Maybe if we could see underwater instead of just the surface of the water, we would be more concerned about the ocean environment.
Sean Cook Thu, Jul 30, 2009 - 5:45 pm
Wonderful article. A big THANK YOU to all the people involved in the MLPA planning process, folks who have been working long and hard to put California on the path to long-term ocean health and prosperity.
I especially like the author’s comments about finding a way to make things work. This is the sort of solution-oriented thinking that will allow the fishermen of tomorrow to have something to cast for! It is absolutely true: we can’t afford not to take immediate steps to preserve some of the abundance we have for future generations of Californians. Setting aside some marine areas as reserves is an investment in our future.
Our rich coastline is a California icon, part of who we are and a big reason why people come here to live or visit—and the money they bring with them is a big part of the local coastal economy. If we treat it right, the ocean is our golden goose, providing a sustainable return over the long haul.
The bottom line is that MPAs just plain work—the science on the need for them, and their effectiveness, is clear. A study just released in Science magazine shows that areas where MPAs have been implemented enjoy larger, healthier fish stocks. In other parts of the world, where conservation is not a priority, fisheries are dreadful. California’s remain relatively healthy thanks to our partially completed system of MPAs. The logical, forward-looking thing to do is finish the job of implementing the MLPA in a smart, science-based, collaborative way.
The budget crisis California faces is going to take some work to solve, but it will be solved. It is a short-term problem. Protecting our valuable ocean resources for future use is a long-term effort, one that shouldn’t be put on hold every time there’s a bump in the road. We need to push ahead and see the process through. Let’s focus on compromise and collaboration to build a better tomorrow for our kids.
Sandra Henn Thu, Jul 30, 2009 - 6:12 pm
I agree with Ms. Gaffney: We can’ afford not to protect our oceans.
Short term thinking is why ocean health has deteriorated. We must begin to think long-term, especially in regard to ocean protection. Oceans have been degraded to the point that they’re making our children ill during ocean-related activities. Imagine what a struggle it must be for species to survive in polluted waters. Ocean protection should not be based on politics. Oceans must be protected at whatever the cost, and it needs to be done now.
Laura Kasa Thu, Jul 30, 2009 - 9:39 pm
We must protect our oceans for the future - everyone has to agree with that. Our health, our food sources, our marine ecosystems depend on it. Many look out at our beautiful blue ocean and think there is nothing to worry about it because it looks fine. It is helpful to have articles like this to remind the public of our responsibility to do the right thing.