UK deep‐sea conservation: Progress, lessons learned, and actions for the future

Abstract

Despite a relatively long history of scientific interest fuelled by exploratory research cruises, the UK deep sea has only recently emerged as the subject of targeted and proactive conservation. Enabling legislation over the past 10 years has resulted in the designation of marine protected areas and the implementation of fisheries management areas as spatial conservation tools. This paper reflects on progress and lessons learned, recommending actions for the future. Increased investment has been made to improve the evidence base for deep‐sea conservation, including collaborative research surveys and use of emerging technologies. New open data portals and developments in marine habitat classification systems have been two notable steps to furthering understanding of deep‐sea biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in support of conservation action. There are still extensive gaps in fundamental knowledge of deep‐sea ecosystems and of cause and effect. Costs of new technologies and a limited ability to share data in a timely and efficient manner across sectors are barriers to furthering understanding. In addition, whilst the concepts of natural capital and ecosystem services are considered a useful tool to support the achievement of conservation goals, practical application is challenging. Continued collaborative research efforts and engagement with industry to share knowledge and resources could offer cost‐effective solutions to some of these barriers. Further elaboration of the concepts of natural capital and ecosystem services will aid understanding of the costs and benefits associated with human–environment interactions and support informed decision‐making in conserving the deep sea. Whilst multiple challenges arise for deep‐sea conservation, it is critical to continue ongoing conservation efforts, including exploration and collaboration, and to adopt new conservation strategies that are implemented in a systematic and holistic way and to ensure that these are adaptive to growing economic interest in this marine area.

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

“…When Guideline 4 cannot be applied, capturing a larger proportion of each habitat enhances the likelihood of capturing unknown and therefore unmapped within-habitat variability. Hyrenbach et al, 2000;Belkin et al, 2009;McClain and Hardy, 2010;Harris et al, 2014;Miller and Christodoulou, 2014;O'Leary et al, 2016b;Chaniotis et al, 2020 3b. Include a percentage of each habitat type or feature as indicated by Hyrenbach et al, 2000;UNESCO, 2009;Block et al, 2011;Clark et al, 2011;Reygondeau et al, 2012;Kanaji et al, 2017 Because of the wide-ranging or widely distributed nature of offshore populations, genetic connectivity is possible across very large areas.…”

“…Some countries have also decided to describe special, unique marine areas within their national boundaries using systematic criteria for their identification and definition (Ceccarelli et al, 2018d). The protection of special features was the first principle used in the creation of the UK's offshore MPA network (Chaniotis et al, 2020).…”

“…Global adherence to Guidelines 3 and 4 in the context of MPA design has been assessed by Fischer et al (2019), who found that only 18 of 66 Large Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) contained greater than 10% of the marine geomorphic features and benthic habitats (listed in Table 5) within existing MPAs; hence MPAs in 48 out of 66 LMEs do not comply with the guidelines, even using this 10% requirement, which is at the lower end of the representation range. The OSPAR Convention Guidelines, used to designate deep-water MPAs in the UK's EEZ, include the principle of representation of habitats, and this led to the protection of representative examples of seamounts, canyons, deep-water coral mounds, and other features (Chaniotis et al, 2020). Representation of habitats was also one of three principles (along with comprehensiveness and adequacy) used for the designation of offshore MPAs in the Australian EEZ under the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas Program (ANZECC, 1996; Commonwealth of…”

“…For example, a large portion of the southwest Pacific has defined bioregions, identified with a combination of empirical and modelled data and verified through participatory planning (Beger et al, 2020;Ceccarelli et al, 2021). Bioregions have also been defined in offshore Australian (Department of the Environment and Heritage, 2006), UK (Chaniotis et al, 2020), South African (Livingstone et al, 2018) and Canadian waters (Burt et al, 2018). Multiple national and international seabed mapping projects are underway, including efforts to map the entire seafloor by 2030 (Wölfl et al, 2019); technology innovations promise to deliver increasingly accurate biophysical data (e.g., Zhang et al, 2021).…”

“…In fact, recent research suggests that offshore no-take MPAs can not only promote the recovery of highly mobile species (e.g., tuna) and protect large swathes of habitat, but also enhance fish stocks and help to stabilise catches outside MPA boundaries (Boerder et al, 2017). There is an increasing body of scientific research devoted to understanding the offshore environment (e.g., Schmidt Ocean Institute, 2020); much of this research identifies the need to define design guidelines for offshore networks of MPAs to achieve conservation and other management goals (Leathwick et al, 2008;Ban et al, 2011;Berglund et al, 2012;Chaniotis et al, 2020).…”