When is a marine protected area network ecologically coherent? A case study from the North‐east Atlantic

Abstract

ABSTRACT1. Creating representative networks of marine protected areas (MPAs) as part of an ecosystem-based management approach is generally advocated to protect the full spectrum of marine ecosystems and vulnerable species. Core objectives for designing MPA networks incorporate issues of scale, size and spacing. Ascertaining when such objectives have been met, and thus when a network can be judged to be ecologically coherent, presents an ongoing challenge. This paper presents a broad-scale approach to assess the degree of ecological coherence within one such network.2. In 2013 an independent ecological coherence assessment was requested by OSPAR, the Regional Seas Convention for the North-east Atlantic, of the ecological coherence of its regional MPA network. As is often the case in the marine environment, the data were not sufficiently comprehensive or spatially inclusive to allow for a thorough assessment for the entire region. Consequently two levels of testing were applied: (1) basic tests applied to the whole OSPAR maritime area; and (2) a more sophisticated second level of tests directed at specific OSPAR regions and subregions for which more complete datasets were available. The former considered major gaps based on basic distribution thresholds and representativity (both biogeographic and bathymetric). The latter focused on broad-scale habitat presence to determine replication, adequacy and connectivity.3. On the basis of these tests it was concluded that while the OSPAR MPA network as a whole is not ecologically coherent, nonetheless significant progress towards global targets, such as protection of 10% of marine and coastal environments under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has been made. Gaps in the distribution of MPAs were identified, particularly under-representation of certain biogeographic provinces and bathymetric zones of depths greater than 75 m including bathyal (200-3000 m) and abyssal (3000-6000 m) depths.4. To address such gaps, a cooperative region by region approach will be required by the OSPAR Parties to identify where positioning new MPAs can enhance ecological coherence. 5. A limitation of the 2013 assessment was that it did not consider which MPAs are designated and managed for the protection of specific features; rather, it assumed that all features that fall within an MPA are protected. With a redevelopment of the OSPAR MPA database underway it is hoped that reporting of such details by Parties will improve, allowing for more specificity in future analyses. However, as the first such assessment of its kind our two-level approach serves as a case study of a pragmatic example of how assessments of ecologically coherent networks might be undertaken using GIS to contribute to systematic conservation planning.

Securing effective and equitable coverage of marine protected areas: The UK's progress towards achieving Convention on Biological Diversity commitments and lessons learned for the way forward

“…At a national level, in addition to obligations under global conventions, the UK is a Contracting Party to the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North‐East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention), with a commitment to establishing an ecologically coherent and well‐managed network of MPAs for the North‐East Atlantic (Johnson et al, ). In common with other European states, the UK has obligations under European Union directives as well as national country‐specific legislation.…”

“…MPA ecological coherence is also under consideration by the Northern Ireland Marine Task Force (Barnard, Burdon, Strong, & Atkins, ). Regional approaches to assessments of representativity and connectedness of MPA networks at broader scales, including The Celtic Seas (Foster et al, ) and OSPAR (Johnson et al, ), note significant progress towards the 10% spatial target but with gaps at increasing spatial scales in terms of qualitative targets.…”

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

“…Although enabling legislation in the UK for MPA designation has been introduced in a piecemeal fashion, MPA network development has followed the same guiding principles as set out by the OSPAR Convention, namely: (i) MPAs should be designated in areas that best represent the range of habitats, species and ecological processes and where MPAs are considered an appropriate conservation tool, with greater proportions of particularly threatened and/or declining features included (the principle of ‘features'); (ii) MPAs should protect examples of the same features across their known biogeographical extent to reflect known sub‐types (the principle of ‘representativity'), (iii) MPA connectedness should be considered, approximated in the absence of dispersal and fine‐scale oceanographic data by ensuring the MPA network is well distributed in space and noting where scientific understanding is further developed that the MPA network should reflect locations where a specific path between identified places is known (e.g. critical areas of a life cycle for a given species) (the principle of ‘connectivity'); (iv) the replication of features in separate MPAs within a given biogeographic area is desirable and that the size of individual MPAs should be determined by the purpose of the MPA and be large enough to maintain the integrity of the feature(s) intending to be protected; and (v) MPAs should be managed to ensure the protection of the features for which they were selected and to support the functioning of an ecologically coherent network (the network principle of ‘management'; adapted from OSPAR, 2006a, 2006b; Johnson et al, ).…”

“…Perhaps one of the most challenging aspects of MPA network design is the adequate incorporation of MPA network connectivity (Johnson et al, 2014) and indeed this may well call for trans-national collaboration (Metaxas, Lacharité, & de Mendonça, 2019), although very few have tested this in practice (e.g. Baco et al, 2016).…”

Building the regional perspective: platforms for success

“…Likewise the LMMA networks support Pacific local communities' actions to sustainably manage and preserve their critical coastal and marine ecosystems. Importantly, regional approaches are able to work towards common criteria, such as those needed to assess ecological coherence and connectivity (Johnson et al, 2014b). Regional structures are also arguably better able to deal with change, especially large-scale changes such as ocean acidification, where parts of a region will be more affected than others, recognizing that such changes are occurring both inside and outside MPAs.…”