Residual marine protected areas five years on: Are we still favouring ease of establishment over need for protection?

Devillers, Rodolphe; Pressey, Robert L.; Ward, Trevor; Grech, Alana; Kittinger, John N.; Edgar, Graham J.; Watson, Reg

doi:10.1002/aqc.3374

Cited by 23 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We showed that satellite monitoring and perception surveys of various stakeholder groups can support each other in evaluating the performance of MPAs. Thus, it appears that we possess the legal, technical and conceptual tools to protect marine biodiversity via LSMPAs, which work as long as stakeholder involvement is duly considered [105][106][107]. The point is to use these tools.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the Performance of Four Very Large Marine Protected Areas with Different Levels of Protection

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the last decades, several targets for marine conservation were set to counter the effects of increasing fishing pressure, e.g., protecting 10% of the sea by 2020, and establishing large-scale marine protected areas (LSMPAs). Using the ‘reconstructed’ catch data for 1950 to 2018 made available by the Sea Around Us initiative, we show that the declaration of an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in 1983 by the U.S.A. and its protection by the U.S. Coast Guard had a much bigger impact on catches around the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands than the subsequent creation of a LSMPA. This is similar to Pitcairn Islands, a UK territory. Trends differed sharply in the Galapagos and New Caledonia, where neither their EEZ declaration nor the LSMPA (by Ecuador in 1988 and by France in 2014) stopped local fisheries from continuous expansion. Our results also demonstrate that in the studied multizone LSMPAs continued local fishing induces a ‘fishing down’ effect wherein the mean trophic level (TL) declined, especially in the Galapagos, by 0.1 TL per decade. Stakeholders’ responses to a short questionnaire and satellite imagery lent support to these results in that they documented substantial fishing operations and ‘fishing the line’ within and around multizone LSMPAs. In the case of EEZs around less populated or unpopulated islands, banning foreign fishing may reduce catch much more than a subsequent LSMPA declaration. This confirms that EEZs are a tool for coastal countries to protect their marine biodiversity and that allowing fishing in an MPA, while politically convenient, may result in ‘paper parks’ within which fishing can cause the same deleterious effects as in wholly unprotected areas.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the Performance of Four Very Large Marine Protected Areas with Different Levels of Protection

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With the impending finalisation of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, there are calls for a greater spatial protection target of 30% of all land and sea 33 . It is imperative to begin implementing area-based conservation measures in places of high biodiversity value rather than residual areas of limited conservation value 40 . A recent roadmap proposes how the limitations of the Aichi target for site-based conservation can be improved by focusing on outcomes, whereby significant biodiversity sites are “documented, retained, and restored through protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures” 41 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Post-2020 Kunming 30% target can easily protect all endemic sharks and rays in the Western Indian Ocean and more

Cheok

Jabado

Ebert

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sharks and rays are possibly the most threatened Class of marine fishes and their declines can be halted if protected areas are optimised to benefit these species. We identify spatial priorities for all 63 endemic sharks and rays in the marine biodiversity hotspot, the Western Indian Ocean (WIO). Collectively, while the WIO nations currently surpass the 10% Aichi ocean protection target, this amounts to a dismal protection of only 1.57% of each species' distribution range. We show that the entire ranges of all endemics can be achieved by protecting 11% of EEZs of WIO nations, well within reach of the new 30% of oceans by 2030 target. Regional management bodies exist, which if taken advantage of to implement shark and ray management, provide opportunities to implement more efficient management across the region. We recommend key management actions to implement and explicit incentivisation of international cooperation in the post-2020 biodiversity framework.

show abstract

“…Prioritising special features provides some insurance against the declaration of very large offshore MPAs in areas that are of little value to commercial interests (Devillers et al, 2020). In fact, to safeguard against the declaration of large MPAs in areas of little value, this guideline could potentially be adopted firstthe scale of many offshore features and migratory or mobile species ranges makes it highly likely that MPAs designed around Guideline 2 would automatically also be large.…”

Section: Baltar Et Al 2010mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In data-poor systems, it also provides insurance against missing important, but as yet unknown, features (Rodrigues et al, 2004). 2) Guideline 2 (special areas), because this ensures that largescale MPAs will not be placed in areas that are simply of less commercial interest, but actually include features or species that require protection (Devillers et al, 2020). 3) Guideline 3 (% representation of habitats) where bioregions are not defined or Guideline 4 (% representation of bioregions) where there are defined bioregions at an appropriate scale (Fernandes et al, 2009).…”

Section: Prioritising the Guidelinesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Existing very large (>150,000 km 2 ) offshore MPAs were shown to encompass at least 10% of the range of 26.9% of all species assessed worldwide; the remaining 73.1% of species fall short of a target of 10% coverage within these MPAs (Davies et al, 2017). The failure to meet species conservation targets is thought to be because, so far, very large MPAs have been opportunistic and placed mostly in remote areas to avoid interfering with commercial interests, rather than systematically designed to adequately protect the full range of habitats and species found within a given area (Leenhardt et al, 2013;OSCA, 2016;Devillers et al, 2020). The need to design offshore MPA networks according to robust biophysical guidelines is clear (Ban et al, 2014b;Davies et al, 2017;Lewis et al, 2017;IUCN-WCPA, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How to Meet New Global Targets in the Offshore Realms: Biophysical Guidelines for Offshore Networks of No-Take Marine Protected Areas

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Networks of no-take marine protected areas (MPAs), where all extractive activities are prohibited, are the most effective tool to directly protect marine ecosystems from destructive and unsustainable human activities. No-take MPAs and MPA networks have been globally implemented in coastal seas, and their success has been significantly enhanced where science-based biophysical guidelines have informed their design. Increasingly, as human pressure on marine ecosystems is expanding further offshore, governments are establishing offshore MPAs—some very large—or MPA networks. Globally, there are growing calls from scientists, non-government organisations, and national governments to set global conservation targets upwards of 30%. Given that most of the ocean is found either in the high seas or offshore within national Exclusive Economic Zones, large offshore MPAs or networks of MPAs must be a major component of these global targets for ocean protection. However, without adequate design, these offshore MPAs risk being placed to minimise conflict with economic interests, rather than to maximise biodiversity protection. This paper describes detailed biophysical guidelines that managers can use to design effective networks of no-take MPAs in offshore environments. We conducted a systematic review of existing biophysical design guidelines for networks of MPAs in coastal seas, and found consistent elements relating to size, shape, connectivity, timeframes, and representation of biophysical features. However, few of the guidelines are tailored to offshore environments, and few of the large offshore MPAs currently in place were designed systematically. We discuss how the common inshore design guidelines should be revised to be responsive to the characteristics of offshore ecosystems, including giving consideration of issues of scale, data availability, and uncertainty. We propose 10 biophysical guidelines that can be used to systematically design offshore networks of MPAs which will also contribute to the global goal of at least 30% protection globally. Finally, we offer three priority guidelines that reflect the unique conservation needs of offshore ecosystems: emphasising the need for larger MPAs; maximising the inclusion of special features that are known and mapped; and representing minimum percentages of habitats, or, where mapped, bioregions. Ultimately, MPA guidelines need to be embedded within an adaptive management framework, and have the flexibility to respond to emerging knowledge and new challenges.

show abstract

Residual marine protected areas five years on: Are we still favouring ease of establishment over need for protection?

Cited by 23 publications

References 29 publications

Comparing the Performance of Four Very Large Marine Protected Areas with Different Levels of Protection

Comparing the Performance of Four Very Large Marine Protected Areas with Different Levels of Protection

Post-2020 Kunming 30% target can easily protect all endemic sharks and rays in the Western Indian Ocean and more

How to Meet New Global Targets in the Offshore Realms: Biophysical Guidelines for Offshore Networks of No-Take Marine Protected Areas

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About