Notes from IMCC 2014

Glass ceiling-smashers: women and marine science at IMCC 2014

By Julia Lawson

The four female plenary speakers (L-R): Drs. Patricia Majluf, Amanda Vincent, Emily Darling, and Heather Koldewey (photo courtesy of Dr. Patricia Majluf, via Twitter @panchoveta)

The four female plenary speakers (L-R): Drs. Patricia Majluf, Amanda Vincent, Emily Darling, and Heather Koldewey (photo courtesy of Dr. Patricia Majluf, via Twitter @panchoveta)

It’s been obvious to me since my early days studying marine biology as an undergraduate at Dalhousie University that the field of marine conservation is female-dominated. However, as we reach the upper levels of academia, the number of women thins out. The lack of women reaching high-level positions is not a problem unique to marine science – the glass ceiling is a well-documented issue for women and minorities and is widespread across many different professions.

I was happy to see that this year’s International Marine Conservation Congress made a point of highlighting the role of women in conservation. The majority of the plenary speakers at IMCC were female scientists – including Dr. Patricia Majluf, director of the Centre for Environmental Sustainability at Cayetano Heredia University in Peru; marine ecologist Dr. Emily Darling; and Project Seahorse co-founders Dr. Amanda Vincent and Dr. Heather Koldewey.

The group was a mix of well-established scientists who have managed to shatter the glass ceiling, and up-and-comers like Dr. Darling, who was selected to represent ‘the future of marine conservation.’ She shared her fascinating research, which characterized four life history patterns in scleractinian corals, and how these life history patterns can be used to predict coral reef assemblages under global climate change scenarios. Her poignant and enthusiastic plenary talk invigorated the IMCC audience and indeed provided hope for the future of marine conservation.

However, in order to fully understand the future of marine conservation it is necessary to reflect on where we’ve come from. The Dr. Ransom Myers memorial closing plenary was given by Dr. Elliott Norse, who walked the audience through the history of marine conservation and marine science. He acknowledged essential contributions from female scientists like Dr. Julia Baum, a former doctoral student with Project Seahorse, who is now a professor at the University of Victoria; Dr. Ratana Chuenpagdee, who has her roots at the UBC Fisheries Centre, and is now a professor at Memorial University; and Dr. Jane Lubchenco, who served under Barack Obama as the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator.

Dr. Baum worked closely with Dr. Myers to document to the staggering declines of pelagic sharks in the northwest Atlantic. This research was among the first to draw attention to the plight of sharks, and initiated massive conservation efforts.

Dr. Chuenpagdee drew attention to the impacts of bottom trawls on non-target species and critical bottom habitat. Her research incorporated the views of fishers, managers and scientists to rank the impacts of different fishing gears on habitats and non-target species.

Dr. Lubchenco may be best known as one of the first scientists to recognize the importance of communicating science to the general public. No doubt Dr. Lubchenco’s work caught the eye of President Obama, who appointed her the first female NOAA Administrator in 2009.

This group made it clear that the future of marine conservation looks very different from the past. In the words of Dr. Norse, itès getting "more and more female - and that's a good thing." I applaud IMCC for taking steps to acknowledge the contributions of women in marine conservation, and for bringing together the past and future of marine conservation by carefully selecting an inspiring panel of speakers.

 

Beyond marine protected areas

By Jennifer Selgrath

If you want to save money, you can invest in a blue-chip stock and it might grow. But a financial advisor would suggest that you improve your returns by diversifying your portfolio. We might take a similar, diversified approach to managing fisheries so that they are sustainable.

Just like your savings, the marine ecosystems that fisheries depend on need to be managed in order to ensure a healthy, productive future. But researchers working on small-scale fisheries have most often recommended one tool: marine protected areas, or MPAs. So at IMCC3 in Glasgow this August, my colleague Kyle Gillespie and I organized a symposium to broaden our view of the diverse tools and approaches which can support sustainable small-scale fisheries.

Small-scale fisheries employ about half of the world’s fishers and are critically important for food security. But many are in trouble due to overfishing and ecosystem degradation. MPAs, or no-fishing zones, are the management option that is most frequently recommended for these fisheries. MPAs are an important part of the marine conservation toolbox. Project Seahorse has helped fishing communities establish many MPAs over the years. We also, however, want to make sure that we are making fishing sustainable in the 99% of the ocean that remains “unprotected.”

Our IMCC symposium — Complementing MPAs in the Management of Small Scale Fisheries: Other Tools and Approaches — opened with talks by me, Dr. Marcia Moreno-Baez from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, and Dr. Gabby Ahmadia from WWF. We spoke about our experiences with small-scale fisheries in the Philippines, Mexico, and Indonesia, respectively. The small-scale fisheries in these three countries are quite diverse. For example fishers in Mexico use modern boats that allow them to travel far offshore while the fisheries in the Philippines use boats that are similar to outrigger canoes, keeping them closer to their coastal villages. Our talks included discussions about management tools ranging from modifying fishing nets to increasing membership in sustainably-minded fishers organizations.

After the talks, we held a discussion about successful – and unsuccessful, but interesting – tools and approaches for managing small-scale fisheries. For the discussion, we were joined by researchers who work in many other parts of the world, but who are addressing surprisingly similar challenges. Through our discussion it became clear that there was no tool could act as a magic bullet to make small-scale fisheries sustainable.

But, importantly, our discussions led us to see that there were commonalities in the approaches that worked for many participants. For example, we agreed that it was important to start any conservation program with clearly articulated goals that are integrated with local and scientific knowledge and values. When researchers or resource managers are developing conservation programs to meet these goals, it’s also important to consider the local culture’s relationship to their fishing practices. Communities’ relationships with fisheries include both social and financial arrangements. For example, fishers may prefer fishing with specific gears and such preferences are important to understand.

On a pragmatic note, many researchers found that it was helpful to start with small conservation projects that have a good chance of success. When this happens, fishing communities can see the relationship between the changes that they make to their fisheries and the improvements in biodiversity and/or catches. This helped the communities to trust larger-scale, longer-term management measures whose impact isn’t as immediately obvious. Another bit of advice was that it is important to have regular feedback between research and fishers. This feedback is important, even before we have perfect knowledge. Overall it was a lively discussion that gave all of us a broader understanding of approaches that have a chance of success in making these diverse fisheries sustainable.

Getting on with marine conservation

By Julia Lawson

Dr. Amanda Vincent at IMCC.  Photo: D. Curnick

Dr. Amanda Vincent at IMCC. Photo: D. Curnick

The International Marine Conservation Congress (IMCC) is the biggest global event of its kind, an opportunity to engage with some of the brightest minds in marine science and hear some of the big, inspirational ideas in conservation today. As a graduate student with Project Seahorse, I was excited to attend this year’s event.

To kick off the conference, our own Dr. Amanda Vincent delivered a plenary talk that got the conference delegates buzzing. The thrust of her talk, which will be familiar to Project Seahorse supporters, is that we need to get on with marine conservation even if the science isn’t perfect (while collecting more information as needed). Ocean ecosystems are declining at such a rapid rate that research must always be geared toward action. “Do not end your [conference] talks with ‘we need more research,’” she implored the audience. “Instead, tell me what you’re going to do.”    

Many were inspired by Amanda’s fiery call to action. A number of delegates told me during the conference that they’d begun to rethink the future of their own work, changing the final message in their talks from “we need to gather more data” to “let’s get a move on with what we have.” During Rebecca Weeks and Bob Pressey’s connectivity and marine conservation planning symposium, on the last day of IMCC, several marine ecologists closed their talks by mentioning what they termed “the Amanda Vincent approach” – getting a move on with what data they had in hand. 

As you might expect, approval was not universal.  Some marine conservationists in the audience feared that moving on limited data might create more problems rather than solutions. One person commented that “the ‘just get going approach’ is why we have thousands of poorly designed, ineffective and unenforced marine protected areas.”

Hearing Amanda - and seeing the generally excited response to her talk - made me reflect on what I’ve learned during my time with Project Seahorse. I began my Master’s degree firmly believing that the role of a scientist was to conduct objective research and disseminate that research to decision-makers. I believed at the time that we must avoid activism at all costs as it compromises our scientific integrity. However, during my time with Project Seahorse my views shifted. While I still believe strongly in scientifically grounded advice, I awakened to the reality that everyone has core beliefs on the topic they study, even seemingly objective scientists. The best thing we can do is to be honest about those beliefs — with ourselves and our target audiences — when we share our work.

In the words of Amanda: “you are either an activist or an in-activist.”

Julia Lawson is a graduate student with Project Seahorse.