Hopp til hovedteksten
Print friendly version

Working Groups

Cross-cutting themes:

  • MPAs within a multi-sectoral context
  • MPAs in the open oceans/high seas and ABNJ

Working Group 1A: How can MPAs play a role in reconciling objectives

Co-Chairs: Jake Rice and Richard Kenchington
Rapporteur: Ellen Sofie Grefsrud

Issues to be address:

  • What is effective ‘reconciliation’?
  • What can/does prevent reconciliation?
  • What is the appropriate or necessary level of reconciliation in various situations? or to what extent can objectives be reconciled?
  • How have/could potential synergies and conflict of interests been accounted for in reconciling (fisheries management and conservation) objectives that have fisheries and conservation impacts, positive and negative?
  • How have/could these objectives been defined/scoped? How have/could these objectives most effectively be reconciled?
  • How have/could stakeholders be identified and engaged?
  • How have/could MPA cost and benefits be distributed equally?
  • How have/could the MPAs be evaluated and how has/can this information feed back into management planning and implementation processes (adaptive management)?

Working Group 1B: How can MPAs play a role in reconciling objectives

Co-Chairs: Tundy Agardy and Chandrika Sharma
Rapporteur: Geir Dahle

Issues consider to be addressed:

  1. How do we define conservation and fisheries management, in the context of needing to protect nature’s services for human well-being? This should be a short, but general discussion, to make sure people’s preconceived notions and assumptions are laid bare, and to be sure we are all starting from the same page, using a common language.
  2. Can fisheries management be reconciled with conservation (can look at how and whether various area-based measures being used in fisheries management meet conservation objectives)? This could be a quick review of different perspectives on the problem, with analysis of what has worked and what hasn’t.
  3. How (and why) socioeconomic and conservation interests can (should) be reconciled (including how efforts can be made to build on community-based initiatives to further conservation and sustainable use of resources). This should be organized into a series of discussions focused on specific tools for reconciling objectives, including MPAs, fisheries reserves, extractive reserves and TURFs, MPA networks, MSP and zoning, and use of PES and other market-based mechanisms.
  4. The summary discussion should focus on What have we learned, and how can we carry these ideas forward?
     

Working Group 2A: What is the role of institutional frameworks and policies

Co-Chairs: Lena Westlund and Ian Bryceson
Rapporteur: Tor Næsje

Institutional and management frameworks for reconciling fisheries management and conservation:
What is the role of institutional frameworks and policies

What are the institutional frameworks and policies that have been found to be appropriate for the use of MPAs and their integration into wider management frameworks, both sectoral (e.g. EAF within fisheries) and inter-sectoral (e.g. EA, MSP, ICZM) coordination. Conversely, what aspects or types of frameworks were found to really hamper this. This discussion should include the policy setting and enabling institutional frameworks, but also aspects of stakeholder participation (ie appropriate frameworks for their participation).

Issues to be addressed:

  • What type of institutional structures (including legal, policy and organisational frameworks) are effective to reconcile fisheries management and conservation?- What are key attributes and conditions of effective institutional arrangements?
    - What types of arrangements are needed at different levels (local, national, regional)?
    - How do effective institutions (organisations) interact/communicate/collaborate and what enabling conditions/frameworks are needed for this to happen?
    - What do we mean by stakeholder participation and how is it ensured?
  • What is the effectiveness of these arrangements or institutions?
    - How is effectiveness defined and how can it be measured?
    - What arrangements are needed to enhance effectiveness? 
  • What has the process been in redesigning or establishing new institutional arrangements to enable better collaboration?
    - What have been the main obstacles?
    - What have constituted opportunities?
  • What are key considerations and incentives in moving towards effective institutional arrangements in the future?
    - What are likely future obstacles and opportunities?
    - Working group conclusions summed up as recommendations for the future

Working Group 2B: What is the role of institutional frameworks and policies

Co-Chairs: Kristina Gjerde and Magnus Ngoile
Rapporteur: Alf Ring Kleiven

Issues to be address:

  • What type of high level institutional structures (ministries, regional offices, steering committees, etc) are effective to reconcile fisheries management and conservation?
  • How do institutions such as ministries interact/communicate/collaborate? or do they?
  • What is the effectiveness of these arrangements or institutions?
  • What has the process been in redesigning or establishing new institutions to enable better collaboration? What have been the main obstacles?
  • What are key considerations and incentives in moving toward better collaboration between institutions?
  • How does reconciliation work within the framework of co-management or a community led structure
  • Are MPA managers across regions sufficiently connected? Are there social and governance networks that assist in improving management?
  • Can South-South governance structures be adapted across cultures?
  • What are the institutional lessons learned? at both the governmental/ministerial level and within local and community structures?

Working Group 3: How can management approaches operationalise reconciliation?

Co-Chairs: Steven Brown and Patrick McConney
Rapporteur: : Esben Moland Olsen

Issues consider to be addressed:

  • Have MPAs with primary fisheries management objectives had positive or negative impacts on biodiversity status and have MPAs with primary conservation objectives had positive or negative effects on fisheries?
  • How can these effects/impacts be optimized or minimized through coordinated/collaborative management approaches?
  • Which management approaches have been effective in achieving reconciliation of fisheries management and conservation in the use of MPAs?
  • What mixes of management tools/measures are proving successful?
  • How are management trade-offs being identified and addressed?
  • Sustainable livelihoods (alternative or supplementary) in relation to MPAs, and especially displacement of users under conditions of poverty
  • Current thinking about MPA networks and scale such as creating transboundary networks (e.g. among small islands)?
  • Sustainable financing for MPAs since fisheries-related uses/or simply excluding them seldom result in revenue streams
  • In what way have multi-sectoral considerations been taken into account in the design and implementation of MPAs to date? Should they be? Which sectors?
  • How can sectoral management approaches (EAF, etc) been integrated into broader management frameworks (ICZM, MSP, etc)? And how can holistic management frameworks be implemented most effectively in sectoral approaches?
  • In what way have these broader management frameworks contributed to reconciling objectives/goals for MPAs? Under which conditions have these frameworks contributed to reconciliation?
  • How can management frameworks address the above issues in an operational context?
  • How has the value of the ecosystem and its goods and services been taken into account in comparison with economic value of copeting sectors?

Suggested issues relevant for the Cross-cutting themes:

MPAs within a multi-sectoral context

  • In what way have multi-sectoral considerations been taken into account in the design and implementation of MPAs to date? Should they be? Which sectors?
  • How can sectoral management approaches (EAF, etc) been integrated into broader management frameworks (ICZM, MSP, etc)? And how can holistic management frameworks be implemented most effectively in sectoral approaches?
  • In what way have these broader management frameworks contributed to reconciling objectives/goals for MPAs? Under which conditions have these frameworks contributed to reconciliation?
  • How can management frameworks address the above issues in an operational context?
  • How has the value of the ecosystem and its goods and services been taken into account in comparison with economic value of copeting sectors?

MPAs in the open oceans/high seas

  • What are the expected effects of MPAs on fisheries management and conservation in the open oceans?
  • What are the challenges of establishing and enforcing MPAs in the open ocean?
  • How can stakeholders be engaged in areas that are far from shore?
  • To whom do the goods and services of open sea ecosystems belong?

 

Registration and payment

Register here for the conference NB! Number of participants will be limited to 120 persons.
Registration fee is NOK 1500 (for students NOK 1000)  and includes coffee breaks, lunches, reception and one dinner.

International Workshop

Bergen, Norway, 29 – 31 March 2011
Hosted by:

Venue: Scandic Hotel and Conference Center, Bergen, Norway

Target audience
The workshop will bring together scientists, fisheries and environmental managers, conservation specialists, as well as stakeholders and policy-makers to explore new findings and approaches regarding ecological, economic and social aspects of integrated MPA.
Geographic scope: global
Convener: Erlend Moksness, IMR
E-mail:
mpafish2011