By Paul Lebowitz

February 20, 2009

The MLPA South Coast Regional Stakeholder Group has participated in its first mapping exercises. Dubbed “Development of Draft MPA Arrays,” over the course of two work sessions my fellow stakeholder representatives and I were asked to “identify possible MPAs in the spirit of inventing without committing.”

It sounds harmless enough, but generated strong feelings. It was no easy thing to sit quietly as MPAs were proposed for the majority of the region’s fishing treasures, for the most part reserving comment until the next step of this process.

I won’t go into the specifics of the MPA proposals other than to address their scope. They were enormous, an outcome that would virtually shut down the Southern California sportfishing lifestyle. It’s a good thing that nightmare scenario has no chance of coming to pass.

Because it is a challenge to understand just how the MPA network required by this state law will be created, even for those immersed in the complexities of the MLPA day in and day out, I asked Melissa Miller-Henson to clarify the purpose and import of the initial mapping exercises. Miller-Henson serves as the MLPA Initiative program manager. As usual, I found her very open to discussion.

That first mapping exercise was meant to get the ideas flowing. “Like any brainstorming session, you start with lots of ideas and maybe one tenth of them are retained and reworked. That’s hard for folks who aren’t used to the process. I heard one individual say a couple of times, ‘I can’t believe this, you have MPAs over the entire coastline.’ They are just ideas. It’s hard not to imagine that most of those aren’t going away,” Miller-Henson explained.

Put another way, it wasn’t designed to be a give and take process – at least not initially. Now that the brainstorming is done, the SCRSG is ready to evaluate the proposals on the table. This is where the collaboration absent to this point comes in. As Miller-Henson said, some MPA proposals will stand out above the rest.

“Essentially, they (the SCRSG work groups) will begin the process saying maybe this is a great idea. These others are not so good, let’s take them off the table. It will be up to each group to decide what strategy to use,” Miller-Henson added.

The deliberations will include consideration of potential socio-economic impacts, of critical importance to those who make their living or recreate on the ocean. Yet Miller-Henson was quick to provide perspective.

“We have to meet primarily biological goals. The act refers to creating an MPA network, to sustaining ecosystems. That’s the focus. As we do that, the secondary consideration has to be how to minimize socio-economic impacts. The Blue Ribbon Task Force reinforced that, the Fish and Game Commission too” Miller-Henson said.

Miller-Henson expects that as MPA proposals are refined, the potential damage to fishing economies will be reduced. That brings us to why it is so vitally important the fishing community remain engaged in the MLPA planning process, regardless of the inevitable difficulties. Back to Miller-Henson.

“It is essential all of the various interests remain involved. MPA proposals can be significantly influenced by each and every person sitting at that table,” Miller-Henson said.

What’s more, the hard-won individual knowledge of the stakeholders will come into play. Miller-Henson used a small, dory-based commercial fishery as an example, family fishermen who can’t stray far from port. I’d have preferred kayak anglers, but it’s of no import. This is. Should an MPA proposal threaten to wipe out a particular user group, SCRSG members can work on a compromise that preserves a fishery, meets the needs of the law, and protects the marine environment. It can be as simple as shifting the boundary of a proposed MPA a mere 1/10th of a minute.

It is not my place to speak for the other SCRSG fishing representatives, so of necessity I’ll take it to a personal level. Miller-Henson’s last comment neatly sums up my motives. I certainly haven’t devoted hundreds of hours to MLPA related meetings for the free lunches. Rather, I hope to provide input that decreases the impact of the MPAs that are coming one way or another, so kayak anglers can continue to paddle out at La Jolla, Dana Pt, Malibu and elsewhere. At this point, active participation in the planning process is the best and only productive way forward.

Finally and obviously, the sheer size of the MPAs proposed during the brainstorming sessions was remarkable and to me, startling. I asked Greg Helms of the Ocean Conservancy for a bit of insight. Although he sits across the aisle firmly in the pro-MPA camp, Helms maintains an upbeat and approachable demeanor. He had this to say:

“It was a starting point, one dimensional by design. We answered the question, which areas are worthy of consideration for inclusion in an MPA,” Helms said. As the process moves forward, Helms said he will consider a host of other interests and values.

“We signed up for a process first and foremost that will involve careful balance between competing interests such as conservation and economic impacts. We hope and expect the process will guide us on what those needs and interests are, and seek harmony to the extent we can get it,” Helms added.