Golden Times: Management Best Practices for Influxes of Sargassum in the Caribbean with a focus on clean-up.

The purpose of this management brief is to enable government officials, coastal managers, beach caretakers and coastal residents to get ahead of the “golden tides” by providing up-to-date information on the recent ‘Sargassum influxes’ (arrival of unprecedented mass quantities of sargassum seaweed) in the Caribbean region; and, importantly, by offering guidance on how best to sustainably manage the seaweed, based on lessons learnt to date. This first brief focuses on the immediate problem of clean-up, after mass strandings of the weed. Others will be developed that focus on potential commercial uses of the weed and on adaptation measures suitable for fishers and other vessel operators. This is all part of the on-going efforts by The University of the West Indies and a number of other institutions in the Wider Caribbean to actively research and understand this new phenomenon and develop solutions.

In 2011, the shores of several Caribbean islands and West African countries were inundated by unprecedented quantities of pelagic Sargassum. Since then, influxes of this golden-brown seaweed have become a recurrent event in both the Caribbean Sea and West Africa, with observers in these regions reporting levels reaching a critical high in 2015. These influxes have given rise to a number of serious socio-ecological and economic concerns, particularly in the hospitality and fisheries sectors.

Abstract

Marine protected areas are a primary strategy for the conservation of marine habitats and species across the globe. In small island developing states, they often exceed their terrestrial counterparts in both number and area. To assess their effectiveness as a conservation measure over time, the accurate and up- to-date representation of marine protected areas through spatial and tabular data is imperative in order to establish baselines. Various regional and global agreements have set specific protection targets and these require spatial reporting on protected areas as an indicator of progress. For the insular Caribbean region, this study considers progress towards global Aichi Target 11 of the Convention on Biological Diversity which is to conserve at least 10% of coastal and marine areas, and progress towards the regional target of the Caribbean Challenge Initiative (CCI) to protect “at least 20% of nearshore marine and coastal habitats”, both aiming for a 2020 deadline. Progress towards these targets differs widely depending on the accuracy of the datasets and the methods used. In an effort to update the current baseline of protection within the insular Caribbean, multiple governments, the Nature Conservancy and the Caribbean Marine Protected Area Management Network and Forum collaborated to develop a single insular Caribbean protected area dataset with accurate boundary information and the best available ecoregional and political boundaries. This study represents the most in-depth and spatially accurate effort to date to determine marine protected area coverage in the insular Caribbean. It is found that some form of marine management has been designated for around 7.1% of our study area in the insular Caribbean; progress towards Aichi Target 11 averaged among sovereign states within the insular Caribbean stands at approximately 3.25% and only three of the 10 participating governments in the CCI have reached their 20% target. Ocean protection was further assessed across the 25 governments and the three marine ecoregions by four different marine zones. Recommendations are made on regional to global cooperation for data sharing and reporting on indicators, highlighting possible directions to fill marine conservation gaps in the insular Caribbean. 

Findings on Marine Turtles
·         Migration routes to and from nesting sites (typically index beaches) are variously known in the Caribbean, increasingly from satellite telemetry and studies of genetics. Without doubt the WWF priority areas are connected to each other, as well as to others in the Caribbean and to the high seas, especially the Sargasso Sea, through their shared responsibility for marine turtles during their different life stages.
·         Nesting habitat for marine turtles in the Caribbean are reasonably well know, although data is continually accruing from existing and new projects that monitor nesting activity. The imperative is to capture and share data in a meaningful way so as to enable comparison between sites and to permit the analysis of population trends.
·         There is a growing focus on in-water monitoring which helps to shed light on foraging sites. A number of parallel efforts by coral reef researchers to monitor ecosystems also provide valuable information on coral reef health and resilience to climate change in the region. While these studies are useful in highlighting overall declines in the coral reef ecosystems upon which marine turtles depend, there was found to be lack of similar efforts to monitor seagrass habitat for marine turtles, or  water  quality  monitoring  in  what  is  a  highly  populated  region  with  increasing  coastal development that generally lacks urban environmental infrastructure.
·         MPAs in the Caribbean have not specifically been designed as a network to protect endangered marine turtles in their different life stages and habitats. There is better coverage of nesting beaches via terrestrial protected areas than of foraging sites in marine protected areas (MPAs), which also reflects the reality of competing interests from fisheries, oil exploration and infrastructure development. Effective MPAs require adequate management capacity, and enhanced enforcement capacity is a top priority need among Caribbean MPAs.
·         Threats to marine turtles are extensive. The most common threats to nesting turtles shared by the priority areas are artificial lighting, beach erosion/accretion and pollution The most common threats to foraging/migrating turtles are fisheries entanglement, bycatch and pollution. Throughout the Caribbean it is evident that financial and human resources are a major challenge for governments, NGOs and communities in taking forward marine turtle conservation efforts.
 
Findings on Sharks
·         Information relevant to sharks in the Caribbean was found to be spread throughout a wide range and a large volume of literature. The disparate sources of shark information include reports from national scientific and fisheries divisions, from regional fisheries management organizations, from multilateral  agencies,  and  from  regional  and  international  academic  institutions.   Only  one publication was found to bring together regional shark information.
·         Consultation with key shark experts indicated that much is still unknown about sharks, even for the more common shallow water species. Still less is known about pelagic sharks and their movements into and through the eco-regions of the Caribbean.
·         Information on sharks was found to be unevenly distributed amongst the priority areas covered in this inventory. More extensive information on sharks was found to exist for non-priority areas of the Caribbean, such as Venezuela and the US, than for the priority areas. The inventory serves to highlight geographical gaps in knowledge about sharks in the Caribbean, for example in relation to Cuban sharks, and these geographical could guide further investigation.
·         Insufficient data exists to determine which shark species are of possible concern in the Caribbean. Also complicating the Indices of relative abundance were found to sometimes provide conflicting information on population trends.
·         Although sharks are highly migratory, information on shark movements in the Caribbean and the Sargasso Sea comes from only a handful of sources.
·         Some landings data exists for shark fisheries and some data exists on the incidental capture of sharks in other fisheries. However, making meaningful comparisons between datasets is a complex and time-consuming task which could be undertaken with a specialist partner such as a regional fisheries management organization or a researcher.
·         There is scope to seek further input on sharks from a number of knowledgeable experts who were willing to contribute but were unavailable for consultation in the timeframe of this inventory.
·         Some of the information that was compiled in the course of the inventory was found to be old and/or limited in its coverage. Expert consultation raised a number of doubts about key references such as IUCN classification of sharks. There is a fundamental need to validate the presence of sharks in the region and assess their population status. Recommended follow-up to this inventory could be key local informant interviews with fishers and relevant local experts in each of the priority areas about shark sightings, catch and bycatch.
·         A key step towards effective management of Caribbean Sharks would be a meeting of regional shark scientists and experts to share data, assess its application to conservation and sustainable use, and to develop a strategy for addressing significant gaps in knowledge. Such a meeting focused on Caribbean sharks has not yet been achieved.
 
Recommendations on GIS
·         Continue GIS data scoping and the collection of existing information from organisations working on similar initiatives. Invest in understanding existing governance frameworks and building partnerships for future collaboration with other regional fisheries management organisations, BINGOs (TNC and ICUN),  Universities  (UWI,  CERMES),  local  and  regional  NGOs  (see  Mahon  et  al.  2013  for  full Caribbean governance review), with a view to developing a data sharing agreement with key partners. This would enable continued sharing of GIS data collected and produced with others practitioners working the region.
·         Construct a Geodatabase that addresses WWF’s strategic priorities in the Caribbean region and which fills gaps in existing GIS information for these priorities. This could provide a valuable spatial synthesis of several types of information relevant to the priority areas.
·         The largest GIS data gap is in relation to sharks. There are a number of studies on sharks (i.e. NOAA fisheries observer boats, Fisheries Division’s datasets) but this data needs to be compiled and GIS data produced, which requires more significant effort than was possible within the scope of this inventory.
·         There are also opportunities to improve GIS data related to marine turtles. Turtle migration is an example of this. There are multiple initiatives by various different turtle conservation organisations and academic institutions that are tracking the migrations of marine turtles in the region, especially by satellite.  GIS data from satellite tracking from various locations in the region exists, but it has never been compiled at the regional level for large scale analysis of marine turtle migration. This task could be usefully undertaken in future, ideally in conjunction with the WIDECAST network.
·         We note that some marine turtle data used in GIS are dynamic rather than static in nature and in the interests of data integrity they would benefit from updating. For example, new information is constantly becoming available from nesting monitoring activities, both new from new projects and the ongoing activities of longer term projects. There have also been discoveries of marine turtle aggregations at foraging sites, providing new data to input to GIS. Threats to marine turtles across the region are emerging and changing, for example in relation to tourism development, and creative approaches to GIS representation of this information could be developed to assist with monitoring impacts on population status and trends.
·         In  the  course  of  this  inventory  we  explored  some  new  approaches  to  mapping  marine  turtle populations   and   trends   with   the   aim   of   assisting   interpretation   and   enhancing   strategy development. The sample maps are based on data from Bonaire and the Guianas only, since comparable datasets were either missing for the other priority areas or could not be provided in the timeframe of the inventory.  There is potential to work further with WWF on the development of new GIS layers that directly feed into the strategy development process.
 

Abstract:

This report presents the findings of an assessment of capacity building needs for the management of marine protected areas (MPAs) in the Caribbean region. A total of 27 MPA sites in 10 countries and territories were included in the assessment, which is an initiative of NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program (CRCP) in partnership with the Caribbean Marine Protected Area Management Network and Forum (CaMPAM). A gap analysis of existing MPA capacity documents revealed a great deal of variation in the purpose, geographic scope, methodology, and nature of capacity information that has been collected to date. As such, a broad-based comparison of existing information was challenging and would likely not provide an accurate analysis. Accordingly, for this assessment a new survey tool was developed based on a modified version of an existing NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program MPA Management Assessment checklist (http://coralreef.noaa.gov/resources/publicationsdata/). This tool, intended to be a guided self-assessment, was used by the consultants in an interview process whereby they read through questions with site managers and then allowed the managers to self-select the answers that they deemed most appropriate for their site’s situation. Each question was followed by a more thorough discussion about why that answer was selected. The regional results demonstrate that the current perceived capacity of sites is greatest in relation to zoning/boundaries, governance, management planning, stakeholder engagement, conflict resolution mechanisms, and outreach and education. Current perceived capacity of sites is lowest in relation to alternative livelihoods, socioeconomic monitoring, and fisheries management.

Priority MPA management capacity needs as identified by managers are:

1. enforcement (10 sites)
2. financing (9 sites)
3. management planning, bio-physical monitoring, socio-economic monitoring (7 sites), and
4. MPA effectiveness evaluation, and outreach and education (6 sites).

Preferred approaches to capacity building at a regional scale are:

1. technical support,
2. training,
3. more staff,
4. learning exchanges, and
5. higher education course.

Individual site results provide more detailed information under the “rationale” narrative sections and can inform users of more specific details of the local situation and capacity strengths, and challenges.