How Are MEBM Initiatives Governed?
Structures That Enable Key Functions to be Carried Out
Leadership Bodies and Management Teams – Many initiatives have a separate leadership or policy
making body comprised of elected officials or agency heads who have statutory or electoral authority to make
decisions. At times, having this distinct unit helps insulate scientific discussion from the more value-based
decision making. In most places, the leadership body oversees a management team that consists of agency staff who are
more engaged in the day-to-day operations of the initiatives.
Leadership Bodies and Management Teams
-
For example, the
Chesapeake Bay Program is
directed by an Executive Council that includes the governors of the participating states and the EPA
Administrator. The Council is distinct from yet superordinate to a Management Board, consisting of more than
25 staff members from involved federal and state agencies.
-
In the
Trilateral Wadden Sea Cooperation, a
Governmental Council is made up of high-level ministers from each participating nation. The Council meets
every three to four years to provide overarching political leadership for the Cooperation. The Council
oversees the operations of the Wadden Sea Board, a group of government officials that implement the
Strategy, oversee operational and advisory bodies, and secure relations with key stakeholders. A senior
government official appointed by the Council chairs the Board; the position rotates between the three
participating countries.
-
At a much smaller scale, the
Port Orford Ocean Resource
Team is established as a non-profit organization with a governing Board of Directors, which
oversees an administrative staff and is advised by a Community Advisory Board. To address scientific
questions, POORT carries out research partnerships with state agencies, The Nature Conservancy and Oregon
State University.
Advisory Bodies – Most MEBM initiatives use a variety of advisory committees to provide
expertise and advice to the initiative. Many use technical or scientific committees. Some have separate bodies
through which stakeholder groups develop understanding and provide advice. Others provide a mechanism by which tribes
or first nations provide input in an appropriate government-to-government relationship. All help create a process
that generates advice to those with decision making authority.
Advisory Bodies
-
The
Chesapeake Bay Program employs a number of
advisory committees, including a Citizens Advisory Committee, a Science and Technical Advisory Committee and
a Local Government Advisory Committee. All are advisory to the Executive Council and the Management Board.
-
In developing the network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) under the
California
Marine Life Protection Act, a set of five Regional Stakeholder Groups and Science Advisory
Teams evaluated existing MPAs and developed proposals for new areas in their region. These advisory bodies
ultimately provided input to a Blue Ribbon Task Force that made recommendations to the Director of the
California Department of Fish and Game.
-
At the
Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary,
decisions made by the Sanctuary Manager are informed by a stakeholder-based Sanctuary Advisory Committee and
an Intergovernmental Policy Council that involves the Sanctuary, the State of Washington and four area
tribes in a regional forum to exchange information, coordinate policies, and develop recommendations for
resource management within the sanctuary.
Working Groups or Issue Teams – Ultimately, much of the work of the initiatives is carried out
by teams or work groups that typically involve staff from different member groups along with other experts. These
groups often conduct research, develop plan elements or implement projects.
Working Groups or Issue Teams
-
For the
Chesapeake Bay Program, a set of Goal
Implementation Teams implements agency-based and cross-agency programs. These include teams on Sustainable
Fisheries, Vital Habitats, Water Quality, Watersheds, Stewardship, and Partnering/Leadership.
-
Priority Issue Teams are a critical piece of the
Gulf of Mexico
Alliance. PITs have included groups working on Water Quality, Environmental Education, Nutrient
Impacts, Habitat Conservation, Ecosystems Integration/Assessment and Coastal Community Resilience. An
Alliance Coordination Team serves as a bridge between the Alliance’s leadership team and the PITs.
Coordination Team members participate in Priority Issue Team meetings and present updates about progress to
leadership.
Different Scales of Governance
Community-Based – Some MEBM initiatives have developed organically from sub-state, community
sources. These initiatives are ultimately governed by community-level structures, often with agreements that define
their relationships with government agencies.
Community-Based
-
Concerned that Oregon’s state-wide fisheries assessments did not provide adequate information about
local fish stocks, members of the Port Orford fishing community started the
Port
Orford Ocean Resource Team to collect local scientific information to incorporate into local
management strategies.
-
Under Chile’s 1991 Fishing and Aquaculture Law, the fisherman’s union in
Caleta
El Quisco has legal rights to manage and regulate its own Management Exploitation Area (MEA).
To create an MEA, Chilean fishing organizations partner with marine biologists to develop fishery management
plans that are then approved and monitored by the Chilean Fisheries Undersecretary. While national law
enabled the initiative, community interests govern it subject to approval by the federal agency.
State or Provincial – A number of MEBM efforts have been initiated and defined at the state-
or provincial-level. State or provincial law has codified some efforts; others remain gubernatorial priorities or
initiatives.
State or Provincial
-
The
California Ocean Protection Council was
established in 2004 by the California Ocean Protection Act to better coordinate the formerly piece-meal
governance of California coasts and state waters, and to help the state transition to an ecosystem-based
management approach. Current priorities of the Council focus on six areas of work: governance, research and
mapping, ocean and coastal water quality, physical processes and habitat structure, ocean and coastal
ecosystems, and education and outreach.
-
The
Massachusetts Ocean Management Initiative
evolved out of an Ocean Management Task Force, which was launched in 2003 and charged with examining
evolving ocean uses and developing a comprehensive approach to manage ocean resources. The Task Force
released its recommendations in a 2004 report entitled,
Waves of Change. The effort developed the
foundation for mapping and planning activities and passage of the Massachusetts Oceans Act in May 2008. This
state initiative led to the adoption in December 2009 of the nation’s first comprehensive ocean zoning
plan to manage development in state waters.
Regional – Since MEBM initiatives seek to align political boundaries with
ecologically-relevant boundaries, many initiatives are regional in scope. Regional initiatives require collaborative
governance arrangements as they involve multiple state or local jurisdictions.
Regional
-
The
Chesapeake Bay Program is a voluntary regional
partnership between Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington, D. C., and is one of the
longest-standing MEBM efforts in the U.S. While a significant leadership role is played by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, governance of the program requires multi-state agreements and the political
concurrence of multiple governors.
-
Support from governors of the five Gulf Coast states was critical to creation of the
Gulf of Mexico Alliance. By profiling issues associated
with the Gulf of Mexico, the governors hoped that a state-led initiative would bring more federal resources
to the previously overlooked region. While a set of agreements governs the alliance, ultimately its power
flows from the endorsement and commitment of the state governors.
-
Eastern Scotian Shelf Integrated Management Initiative
(ESSIM), a pilot project under Canada’s Ocean Act, seeks to coordinate activity among
stakeholders, federal and provincial officials, and jurisdictional agencies within a 325,000 square
kilometer ecological region. Led by the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the initiative
integrates various ecological and socio-political boundaries.
National – Many MEBM initiatives have been initiated by national governments, are governed by
federal law, and managed by employees from federal agencies. While most incorporate local-level considerations in
management, the national government and its agencies are the ultimate source of authority and direction for the
initiatives.
National
-
The federal government of the Bahamas initiated a partnership to establish the
Bahamas
Marine Reserve Network involving government agencies, NGOs and stakeholders. With the goal of
protecting at least 20% of near-shore marine resources by 2012, so far the effort has proposed locations for
five marine reserves and designated one.
-
While the
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is
subnational in geographic scale, the park was created by a 1975 federal act and is co-managed by the
national and provincial governments. GBRMP has made extensive use of zoning to regulate activity within the
park’s boundaries.
-
U.S. National Marine Sanctuaries (including
Gray’s
Reef, and
Hawaiian Islands Humpback
Whale) are a system of 14 protected areas designated to protect marine areas with significant
natural and cultural features. Each functions under the guidance of the federal law that created them, the
policies of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the input of a regionally-based
sanctuary advisory council that incorporates local objectives and concerns.
Transnational – A number of MEBM initiatives integrate different nations into a management
framework focused on a particular ecological region. They seemingly are the ultimate statement of an ecosystem
approach, since they clearly go beyond political boundaries to focus management on ecological boundaries. On the
other hand, transnational institutions are inherently complex entities to govern.
Transnational
-
Formed by state and provincial agency representatives from the U.S. and Canada, the transboundary Gulf of Maine Council facilitates dialogue about issues of
common concern in the Gulf of Maine ecosystem. The Council was later formalized through an agreement between
the governors and premiers and the U.S. and Canadian national governments.
-
After a successful high-level conference between the ministers of Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands, the Trilateral Wadden Sea Cooperation was formalized in
1982 through a Joint Declaration. The Cooperation provides a forum for the three nations to share information
and harmonize their management approaches.
-
The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living
Resources involves 25 nations who work by consensus to develop fishery regulations in the Southern
Ocean surrounding Antarctica. The Commission is a fairly typical transnational regime in that the governing
policy Commission establishes direction, while the member nations use their individual authority to implement
and enforce regulations.
Different Types of Authorities
Ad Hoc – Some initiatives develop organically, as individuals or organizations seek to take
action. These efforts have no formal authorizing framework but rather rely on agreements made among the parties
regarding goals and operating procedures. While authority is an important resource for changing behavior, it does not
follow that initiatives that lack authority are ineffective. Indeed, in some places, voluntary information-sharing
and coordination arrangements may be just as influential as mandated rules.
Ad Hoc
-
Port Orford Ocean Resource Team operates as an
independent non-profit with no management or regulatory authority. However, the organization developed a
Memorandum of Understanding with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to collaborate on managing a
Community Stewardship Area.
-
The San Juan Initiative was established by
individuals and organizations concerned about marine conservation in Washington state’s San Juan Islands.
Through more than 25 public workshops to engage landowners, real estate and construction industry professionals
and the general public, the initiative assessed the effectiveness of programs aimed at shoreline protection and
developed recommendations to the County Council. The Initiative disbanded in 2009 after their recommendations
were unanimously supported by the Council and endorsed by participating federal and state agencies.
Authorized, Advisory Only – In a number of MEBM initiatives, government laws, officials or
agencies have played an important role in triggering action. However, the initiatives lack regulatory authority and
can only advise or enable the actions of others.
Authorized, Advisory Only
-
National Estuary Programs (such as Albemarle-Pamlico and
Narragansett Bay) operate under a federal charge to work
collaboratively to draft and implement estuary management plans. NEPs do not have regulatory authority, but
instead build partnerships between policy makers, grassroots organizations and stakeholders to help bring in
resources, gather scientific information, and implement management activities on an ecosystem scale.
-
The European Union’s Common Fisheries Policy established a network of seven Regional Advisory Councils,
including the Baltic Sea Regional Advisory Council,
to offer stakeholders’ input on EU fisheries regulations. With no authority to impose its actions on
member nations, the Councils make recommendations that are implemented by member governments. In the case of
the Baltic Sea Council, representatives from the commercial fishing industry make up two-thirds of the Council’s
members.
Authorized, With Authority – A final set of initiatives has been authorized by law or other
policy, and the initiatives have been granted the authority to act on behalf of the governments.
Authorized, With Authority
-
Ecuador’s 1998 “Special Law” established boundaries for the
Galapagos
Marine Reserve and authorized the Galapagos National Park Service to manage and regulate
activity within the reserve. The Special Law also mandates community participation in decisions affecting
the Reserve.
-
The Mexican government granted dive fishermen in
Puerto Peñasco
exclusive rights and management authority over their traditional rock scallop fishing grounds. Fishermen
partnered with the non-profit CEDO (El Centro de Estudios de Desiertos y Océanos) and the University
of Arizona to develop management plans and monitor success.
-
Managers of all National Marine Sanctuaries have the authority to regulate access, fishing and recreational
activity within a Sanctuary’s boundaries. For example, as part of the federal-state co-management
agreement for the
Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission officers carry out the enforcement
of regulations.
This material should be cited as: "Julia Wondolleck and Steven Yaffee, Marine Ecosystem-Based Management in
Practice (Ann Arbor MI: School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, June 2012),
www.snre.umich.edu/ecomgt/mebm."