EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Narragansett Bay is considered the “gem” of Rhode Island by many of the state’s inhabitants, and has substantial environmental, economic, social, and cultural importance. However, fragmentation of management strategies, a severely challenged fishing industry, a growing demand of recreational uses and continued pollution issues threaten it. The Bay In March of 2002, the Environmental Council of Rhode Island, a coalition of organizations and individuals that develop, advocate and lobby for environmental protection and enhancement policy, passed a resolution that encourages parties involved with management of Rhode Island’s marine resources to pursue the establishment of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) as one tool for ecosystem management for Rhode Island’s waters (Environmental Council of RI, 2002). MPAs are parts of the ocean that are managed by laws or regulation to protect part or all of the area’s natural and cultural resources, and have become progressively more utilized as a marine management tool worldwide in the past several decades.[1] In fact, there has been increased dialogue among some members of the scientific and managing communities about the possibility of implementing such an area as a management strategy for the Bay.

A growing body of research indicates that these types of areas are most successful when stakeholders are involved in the process from the commencement of the project. This thesis research seeks to add to the dialogue about the possibility of establishing an (MPA) in the Narragansett Bay. It investigates the following questions:

· Do Rhode Island-based scientists involved with marine and Narragansett Bay issues think an MPA is a useful management approach?

· How do legislators perceive the state of Rhode Island’s waters and management strategies? How likely are they to support the establishment of an MPA in the Narragansett Bay?

· How do user-groups of the Narragansett Bay perceive the use of MPAs to manage public waters, specifically the Bay?

· Informed by findings from these major stakeholders, what are reasonable next steps in planning for MPAs?

Using qualitative methods, I conducted fifty-one formal, structured, in-depth interviews. The interview protocols were tailored to each group but had many overlapping questions. The protocols began with general queries regarding perceptions of the health of the Bay and knowledge of Bay issues. Specific questions involved salient issues facing the Bay and management and enforcement matters. Next, I introduced a widely accepted definition of MPAs that was followed with a range of questions on the respondents’ understanding, experience and perceptions regarding MPAs. The protocols also introduced a number of scenarios aimed at identifying sociological, economic and cultural factors that might affect peoples’ attitudes. I also posed detailed questions regarding establishment, management and enforcement considerations.

Almost all interviews were taped and transcribed in-depth, for further analysis and verbatim quotes. Some aspects of the interviews were quantitatively assessed to identify trends and to allow for comparison. The data were coded and analyzed to identify major and minor themes. I also attended relevant workshops and meetings and conducted ancillary interviews to enrich my understanding of the issues.

Most interviewees feel a strong connection with the Bay; however, there is great variation in their level of understanding of the salient issues facing the Bay and in their ability to link individual actions with impacts on the Bay’s health. There is general agreement that the health of the Bay has improved in the past 20 years, but there is also a prevalent feeling of pessimism amongst the three interview groups regarding present and future conditions of the Bay. This feeling is particularly strong within the scientists and user groups when they consider government management of the Bay. In fact, all 3 communities express dissatisfaction with government management and inadequate funding. The communities articulate the biggest issues facing the Bay as being water pollution, fisheries management issues, fragmentation between various management agencies, lack of integrated land and Bay management plans and lack of public awareness about Bay issues. They strongly believe that there is poor communication between the various groups and that the public is not receiving enough appropriate education regarding environmental issues. There is also recognition on the part of the scientists that communication is strained between the scientific and legislative communities, due in part to scientists’ frustration with bureaucracy and politics. The legislators, however, do not readily identify this disconnect. Scientists and user groups also express frustration about the politicization of environmental management - both among scientists that pursue lucrative research and among legislators that cater to their more vocal constituents. Many interviewees are unhappy with the fact that a small number of powerful people in the state have a great deal of influence over important environmental decisions.

The dialogue about creating MPAs is not an emotionally neutral one among any of the groups studied. Although there has been a substantial amount of discussion on the subject, there is little agreement on the definition of an MPA or how one might be implemented in the Bay. All three communities cite preservation of the ecological health of the Bay as the most compelling reason to establish such an area. Overall, the scientific community feels that MPAs are an effective, cutting-edge tool. However, for a Bay MPA, some scientists feel that more work needs to be done to clarify objectives and to gather and organize data to better inform geographical designation. Even so, some interviewees in both the scientific and user group communities feel strongly that an area should be designated soon - while more research is being conducted - in order to be able to begin to monitor the efficacy of such an area.

The user groups and legislators tend immediately to personalize what affect an MPA would have on them. Although most of the user groups acknowledge that MPAs can be useful as a conservation tool, almost half would not want to see MPAs implemented for commercial or fisheries management or the establishment of anything that would restrict public access. In fact, recreational fishing groups took action and introduced a bill into the state government in an attempt to thwart efforts to utilize MPAs in RI. After negotiation with conservation groups, however, the final bill preserves the ability of marine managers to use MPAs as a conservation tool, specifying that public input and review must be included in the process. The General Assembly passed the RI Freedom to Fish and Marine Conservation Act on July 1, 2003.

Over half of the legislators think that an MPA could be useful for varying reasons, but many were reticent to demonstrate enthusiastic support for it without knowing the details of what such an area would entail and the possible economic and access impacts on their constituents. When presented with several scenarios that weigh short-term economic loss against improving environmental health and long-term economic growth, all interviewees would support a long-term endeavor if there were substantial evidence demonstrating the efficacy of such areas.

While I found differences in opinion about the above issues, there is consensus that public participation is vital for the success of MPAs. Ideas vary about the extent to which the public should participate, from involvement in the establishment process to continued participation in evaluation and monitoring. Respondents believe that participation could be an important agent for education and increasing awareness of Bay issues. There are differing opinions about how MPAs should be established, monitored and enforced, but all interviewees agree that the process should be transparent and include open decision-making. Most respondents think that MPAs should be established through legislation or DEM regulation or a combination of the two. Ideas vary on management approaches: some believe that a consensus approach would be most successful, and others believe that management needs to be flexible to changing conditions and priorities. Some feel that an MPA should use community-based management, while others think there should be an official agency responsible. There is some agreement that there should be a combination of enforcement strategies, including using law enforcement officers and community members. Many scientists and legislators cite previous experiences with both successful and failed environmental projects (including MPAs) to emphasize the importance of the public having a role in the process.

The following are recommendations based on my findings from the interviews, background research and the events taking place in Rhode Island regarding MPAs.

There is an active dialogue occurring among different communities in Rhode Island regarding MPAs, but there is a lack of communication between these communities. Designation of a lead agency or organization to spearhead the MPA initiative would serve to organize and centralize the existing research and data so communities could use and share this information. Ideally, this entity would be neutral to ensure that special interests would not be perceived as dominating any dialogue. This entity would be responsible for providing assertive, creative educational and participation opportunities and ensuring well-structured stakeholder inclusion in any establishment process. Although DEM might seem like a logical first choice, many interviewees convey that this agency is financially constrained and understaffed and would not be able to properly execute such an undertaking. Consideration of existing state agencies and organizations and feedback from the interviews demonstrate that RI Sea Grant is a good candidate to head this initiative. Sea Grant has already conducted several workshops and outreach programs in the state and is part of NOAA, which has taken a lead in MPA research nationwide.

Throughout the interviews, dissatisfaction was expressed over the lack of coordination of strategic management strategies for land and Bay management strategies. The Governor’s Narragansett Bay and Watershed Planning Commission plan that calls for a comprehensive strategic management plan that integrates land and Bay management strategies; how the implementation of an MPA, with a well-defined goal, can fit into this more holistic management strategy should be examined.

The academic communities should participate as much as possible, to facilitate further research and data collection. Candidates include Brown University, who has recently instituted a Global Environmental Change Initiative and partnered with Marine Biological Laboratory at Woods Hole, the University of Rhode Island’s marine research community and Rodger Williams University. Academic institutions should be encouraged to produce MPA position papers in an effort to stimulate dialogue and strengthen legislative and public understanding. Student research should be exploited as a way to circumvent government fiscal constraints.

The poor communication between scientific and legislative communities highlights the need for an on-going and consistent dialogue regarding MPAs. A task force or formalized meetings should be set up in order to strengthen understanding and communication and ensure continued interaction between these players.

It is important to consider the particulars of the Bay and stakeholders in order to “Rhode Islandize” the area as much as possible. This includes incorporating outside-of-the-box thinking; for example, explore the possibility of integrating public shellfish aquaculture on the periphery of a reserve. Taking into account the particulars of the Bay would require the input of locals who are most familiar with the environment and promote a two-way sharing of information between the publics and scientific/technical community, thereby maximizing public participation. Active and creative educational approaches, such as community meetings and workshops, the inclusion of weekly MPA news in a column in the Providence Journal and perhaps the continued use of educational theater should also be explored as much as possible.

Further research should include investigation of the impacts of recreational fishing on Bay species, as well as further qualitative research that examines the needs of traditionally marginalized, under-represented or disadvantaged communities.

[1] Examples of tropical MPAs include the Great Barrier Reef, Australia, various designated in the Philippines and Belize; temperate MPAs include the Channel Islands, California and the Gulf of Maine Marine Sanctuary, United States and Canada.