For years, a commonly used tactic for protecting threatened and endangered animals in Puget Sound was to cordon off areas to fishing. More than 100 marine protected areas exist around the Sound to protect shoreline critters and help fish populations such as rockfish recover to healthy numbers.

But protecting Puget Sound is not just about recovering certain species of fish. As the region continues to grow, it is also about protecting the livelihoods and diverse cultures of the people who live there, and balancing their needs with the needs of the natural world.

A team of 91̽»¨ researchers and their collaborators tackled this quandary in a study spanning years and miles, across Puget Sound’s rural towns and urban centers. Through surveys and interviews with residents, tribal members, boaters, and state and federal agency contacts, they found that policies are shifting toward restoration projects that include input from more groups and offer a range of benefits to Puget Sound, including flood control, salmon recovery, recreation and habitat protection.

The researchers published their online in June in the journal Ocean and Coastal Management. They believe this study is the first to document what has been a five- to 10-year policy shift in Puget Sound. Their study provides insights on how future restoration policies can meet the needs of various constituencies in the region.

“Understanding how to manage resources in Puget Sound is going to require understanding how different social groups use and interact with these resources going back many thousands of years,” said study principal investigator and corresponding author , a 91̽»¨professor of marine and environmental affairs and of international studies.

Christie, together with 91̽»¨marine and environmental affairs professor and colleagues, initially focused their study on marine protected areas in Puget Sound. Washington state has a long history of designating areas under different authorities to protect habitats for long-lived rockfish and to create marine reserves for recreational SCUBA diving. A network of marine protected areas across the country also employs this tactic to protect marine ecosystems and endangered species in the ocean.

But the designation of new marine protected areas has largely stalled across the Puget Sound region. As the researchers collected information through questionnaires distributed in public places near 12 of Puget Sound’s marine protected areas, they realized many local residents, boaters and fishers were unaware of the purposes for restricting fishing access in specific areas. Additionally, tribes co-manage fisheries in Puget Sound — a federal treaty right reaffirmed in 1974 through the . They have voiced an expectation to play a leadership role in the decision and process of setting up marine protected areas in line with their legal rights as resource co-managers, and expect clear scientific justification that protected areas are the best tool to protect Puget Sound salmon and other species.

The researchers say marine protected areas likely do play a positive role in some situations in Puget Sound, but that restoration projects that engage more people and reflect multiple interests are likely to take the lead in future years.

“In a sense, the advocates for marine protected areas maybe aren’t willing to meet the bar that the tribes have clearly articulated,” Fluharty said. “The process needs to recognize they are co-managers of the resource, and there has to be very clear scientific justification that marine protected areas are the right tool for the problem.” To recover salmon populations in Puget Sound, for example, requires a broader and more complex effort spanning marine and estuarine waters, as well as habitat protections throughout entire watersheds.

The second half of their study looks at an example of a restoration project that involved various social groups and produced multiple benefits — a potential model for future restoration in Puget Sound. A similar approach has been used for the along Interstate 5 northeast of Olympia, as well as for the Ebey Slough restoration adjacent to I-5 near Marysville.

The (“marsh” in Lushootseed, the traditional language of the Tulalip and other Coast Salish local tribes) was a large-scale, Tulalip Tribes-led effort north of Everett, Washington, to restore the mouth of the Snohomish River — key salmon habitat — by breaching dikes that had for years allowed the area to be used as farmland.

The project lasted two decades and cost nearly $20.5 million, and it is largely seen as a success, mainly because of the negotiating and relationship building among a slew of constituencies.

From their interviews with leadership and technical advisors, the researchers acknowledge that future projects modeled on this example need to cost less and move more quickly, but the basic framework of involving all parties and remembering that diverse social interests and cultures are part of the equation in Puget Sound are key to their success.

“Frankly, if we want successful policy, we need to be attentive to types of work that highlight collaborative, inclusive planning processes, and a shift from policies that are government-led and not as inclusive of human dimensions toward others that are more collaborative,” Christie said.

Other co-authors are Haley Kennard, a 91̽»¨School of Marine and Environmental Affairs graduate and the Washington Sea Grant Marc Hershman Marine Policy Fellow at the Makah Tribe; Richard Pollnac of the University of Rhode Island; Brad Warren of the National Fisheries Conservation Center; and Terry Williams of the Tulalip Tribes.

The research was funded by Washington Sea Grant and the Puget Sound Partnership.

###

For more information, contact Christie at patrickc@uw.edu.

A code of conduct for marine conservation would help prevent human rights violations that might occur during conservation and promote fair, socially responsible decision-making when planning and carrying out actions to protect the ocean. The were published May 15 in the journal Marine Policy.

“The benefit of developing a code of conduct is that we are taking past mistakes and learning from them,” said lead author , a researcher at the 91̽»¨, the University of British Columbia and Stanford University. “We are trying to suggest a way forward and ultimately to increase the success of conservation.”

An international group of academics and practitioners from universities, government agencies and nonprofit organizations convened at the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s ― the world’s largest recurring conservation event ― in Honolulu last year to discuss the need for a marine code of conduct and put together a framework for what such a document would include. This discussion, along with a review of existing conservation policies, is summarized in the new paper.

“Bringing together this broad group of experts is really the first step in a longer process,” Bennett explained. “What we are calling for here is for the development and application of a code of conduct by the entire marine conservation community. This will require some of the key players in marine conservation to step up and support this initiative.”

A number of human rights violations have occurred as byproducts of conservation activities in various parts of the world. In Tanzania, for example, in the government’s attempt to protect the area. In South Africa, areas that were designated for marine protection are cited as examples of “” ― policies or actions that take away resources and rights of small-scale fishing communities.

Part of the problem, the authors say, is that marine conservation is relatively new and it is ramping up quickly to meet to protect 10 percent of the oceans by 2020. Mistakes or negligence can happen under tight deadlines. Additionally, oceans have several unique qualities that make it difficult to navigate conservation work: property rights are not as clearly defined in the sea as on land; jurisdictions are hard to define and rules are hard to enforce; and there are stark differences in opinion over whether to further exploit the ocean’s natural resources or protect them.

It is perhaps the world’s newest “Wild West” scenario.

“The oceans are a busy place these days, with everyone trying to stake their claim with different end goals in mind,” Bennett said. “Dealing with issues around how decisions are made, who is involved and being clear about the rationales for decisions ― and putting that information on the table in a transparent way ― are some fundamental challenges to making marine conservation happen in a good way.”

The paper’s authors lay out a number of social justice, accountability and decision-making principles that could be used for a marine conservation code of conduct. These include topics such as indigenous rights, food and livelihood security, inclusivity and transparency. They also list draft objectives for further development, and they cite examples of good and bad outcomes from conservation activities.

In British Columbia, for example, the of all affected parties. In Hawaii, a marine national monument while protecting the ecosystem’s health and diversity. Lessons learned from these positive examples, and others, can also be used to guide development of an international code of conduct, Bennett said.

The authors plan to discuss their recommendations at several upcoming international ocean meetings, including the in June, the in September and the conference in October. They hope other scientists, policymakers and funders will weigh in on what should be included in such a document, then get to work on drafting a code of conduct.

They expect the final document will be used as a tool to educate and guide the actions of the next generation of conservation practitioners and advocates and, when necessary, as a means to hold groups accountable for their actions.

“The practice of marine conservation always involves trade-offs. This analysis makes it clear that society’s most vulnerable cannot be expected to carry the main burdens of conservation,” said co-lead author , a 91̽»¨professor in the School of Marine and Environmental Affairs and the Jackson School of International Studies. “Without taking into careful consideration the principles of this analysis, conservation will likely fail in the long term and have unintended negative impacts on society and environments.”

The paper’s other co-lead authors are and of the Nippon Foundation-Nereus Program at the University of British Columbia. is another 91̽»¨co-author. The full list of authors is available in the paper.

This work was funded by the Nippon Foundation-Nereus Program and the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Bennett was funded by the Banting and Liber Ero Postdoctoral Fellowship programs. The paper is an output of the OceanCanada Partnership, the Too Big to Ignore Global Partnership for Small-Scale Fisheries Research and the Community Conservation Research Network.

###

For more information, contact Nathan Bennett at Nathan.bennett@ubc.ca.

People must be part of the equation in conservation projects. This will increase local support and the effectiveness of conservation.

That’s the main conclusion of a published online Nov. 29 in the journal Biological Conservation. In it, an international group of scientists recognizes the need to consider humans’ livelihoods, cultural traditions and dependence on natural resources when planning and carrying out conservation projects around the world.

“We really need to think about people as we’re creating conservation initiatives. Forgetting about humans in the conservation recipe is like forgetting yeast in a loaf of bread,” said lead author , a researcher at the 91̽»¨, the University of British Columbia and Stanford University.

ÌýAs the Earth continues to lose species and natural resources, the common approach to conservation has been to emphasize natural science to solve ecological problems, leaving people’s relationships to natural resources out of the discussion. Increasingly, natural scientists and social scientists are partnering to try to consider both the needs of nature and of stakeholders. But for lack of good precedent, funding and will, often conservation organizations and activities don’t fully consider the human dimensions of conservation, the authors found.

“When people are ignored and conservation measures are put in, we see opposition, conflict and often failure,” Bennett said. “These problems require the best available evidence, and that includes having both natural and social scientists at the table.”

This paper follows dozens of studies that point out the need for humans to be considered in environmental management and conservation, but few have articulated the benefits of doing so and exactly how to do this, Bennett explained. This review paper is the first to bring together the entire storyline by listing the practical contributions the variety of social sciences can offer to improve conservation.

“This paper helps us to move beyond statements about the need for this toward actually setting the agenda,” Bennett said.

Two years ago, Bennett convened an international working group to find ways to practically involve more social scientists from fields such as geography, history, anthropology and economics in conservation projects. This paper is one of several outcomes from that working group.ÌýÌýpublished in July 2016 suggests that conservation organizations and funders should put more emphasis on social sciences and explains what an ideal “conservation team” could look like.

“Modern environmental problems require diverse and creative teams to find solutions,” Bennett explained.

This new study calls for action to ensure that we have learned the lessons from past failures and successes of ignoring or considering human dimensions in conservation.

In Thailand, for example, officials set up a series of marine protected areas along the country’s coastline to try to conserve threatened habitats, including coral reefs, mangroves and seagrass meadows. But they didn’t consider the thousands of fishermen and women who live near or inside the marine protected areas and rely on fishing and harvesting for livelihoods and feeding their families. Fishing bans and unfair treatment . In one case, fishermen burned a ranger station in protest.

To add to the divisiveness, big commercial boats still caught fish in these areas because the protection zones were not well enforced.

A recent successful example was the creation of California’s . Local fisheries and communities, along with scientists, fishery managers, government and industry, were all brought to the table and the by most groups involved, Bennett explained.

Similarly, right now in British Columbia , and First Nations leaders are working alongside local and federal governments.

Successful conservation projects happen when both natural and social scientists are working with government, nonprofits, resource managers and local communities to come up with solutions that benefit everyone. This can take more time and resources at the outset, but Bennett and his collaborators argue that social scientists are often in a position to help make this a more efficient process.

“Ignoring the people who live in an area can be a costly mistake for conservation. This is one of those cases where an ounce of prevention can be worth more than a pound of cure,” he said. “Specialists in the social sciences can develop more creative, robust and effective solutions to environmental problems that people are going to get behind.”

, a 91̽»¨professor in the School of Marine and Environmental Affairs, is a co-author on the paper. Other co-authors are from the University of British Columbia, Stanford University, the University of Guelph, the University of Saskatchewan, the American Museum of Natural History in New York, the University of Victoria, the University of Wyoming, the University of Waterloo, the International Union for Conservation of Nature in Switzerland, Oregon State University, Memorial University of Newfoundland, Cornell University, Slippery Rock University, Georgia State University and World Wildlife Fund International.

This study and co-authors were funded by the Canadian Wildlife Federation, the Social Science and Humanities Research Council, the Liber Ero Foundation, Fulbright Canada, the Smith Fellowship Program, the National Science Foundation and a number of other organizations. See the paper for a complete list.

###

For more information, contact Bennett at nathan.bennett@ubc.ca.