LE G E N D
The design
Th
d i and
d
g of MPAs in a
monitoring
changing environment
Mi h l Kaiser
Michel
K i
Image: GLOBEC/Glynn Gorick
L and
P lan n ing r egion lim its
Dr aft R egio nal Sea b ound a ries
Statu s o f sites se le cte d fo r th e netw o rk
S pecial Ar ea of C ons erv ation (SA C )
Area of S e arc h (AO S) f or futur e S AC
Ad dition al s ite
0
300 K ilom eter s
What do we want to achieve with
marine protected areas?
• To ensure the maintenance or improvement
of marine biodiversity in the territorial seas
of the UK
• These are NOT fisheries management tools,
but fisheries and other activities may need to
b managed
be
d if they
th impact
i
t upon the
th goall
above
Marine Conservation Zones: the
UK process
Project board (Key Government Stakeholders)
Science Advisory Panel (independent UK academics)
Net Gain
(North Sea)
Irish Sea
Conservation
Zones
Balanced
Seas (South
East)
Finding
Sanctuary
(South
West)
Key guiding criteria
• Chosen on the basis of the ‘Ecological
Network Guidance’ document
•
•
•
•
Representative
R
t ti
Su c e t
Sufficient
Replicated
Connected
Informed by biodiversity, species etc
Irish Sea Conservation Zones
1.Complex shape
2 L t off adjacent
2.Lots
dj
t
administrations
3.Complicates communication
and negotiation
The Marine Conservation Zones
are in addition to existing MPAs
that would include SACs, SPAs,
RAMSAR sites etc.
Broad-scale
habitats
…but this
map is not
perfect
Broad-scale habitats
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Percent protected by MCZs
Percent protected by MPAs
Minimum ENG targets
Features of conservation importance
FOCI
Total area in project
Area (km2) protected
Percentage
No. points in project
0
2.44
7.31
0
0
1.56
0
0
100
63.95
0
100
7
58
18
304
4
0
15
6
57.14
20.69
83.33
1.97
3
5
2
9
Number of points Percentage Replicates
protected
Estuarine Rocky Habitats
Honeycomb worm Reefs
Horse mussel beds
Intertidal Mudflats
Intertidal Underboulder Communities
Mud habitats in deep water
Mud habitats in deep water
Peat and Clay exposures
Seapens and burrowing megafauna
Sheltered muddy gravels
Subtidal mixed muddy sediments
Subtidal mixed muddy sediments
0
0
100
6
6
100
2
1810.39
1810
39
0.1
732.34
5.62
0
330.37
330
37
0.02
230.1
0
0
18.24
18
24
19.6
31.42
0
100
0
6
0
0
3
0
6
0
0
1
0
100
0
0
33 3
33.3
4
3
2
0
1
Subtidal sands and gravels
7646
2837
37.1
40
40
100
9
Features of conservation
importance
…..again
again the map is not
perfect but stakeholders
invited to provide evidence
to improve it
Species
p
features of
conservation importance
…is biased by
y the distribution
of sampling effort, but at least
we are relatively certain about
occurrence
Connectivity
The areas encompass both high
energy and low energy areas
which is important and correlates
with the different habitat types
Other features,
features such as seabird
distribution are probably linked to
key water column processes and
indicate areas of high production
Stakeholders may tend to avoid
these if they coincide with areas
of fisheries or renewable energy
interest……and we can only
designate on the basis of seabed
features
And then there’s the changing climate………
•Most
Most MPAs are located within 12 nm of the coast
on continental shelf areas and in water < 100 m
deep
p
•This makes them subject
j
to changing
g gp
physical
y
parameters which could undermine current
objectives
Some of the issues: life history and bottlenecks
Useful for juvenile
and adult stages if
associated with
habitat/area
For most
species we
don’t know this
f
information
Not useful for eggs and larvae
Some of the issues: design and scale of networks of
spatially managed areas
Network
N
t
k ffor entire
ti
North Sea
Network within the
p p
sub-population
ILLUSTRATIVE ONLY!!!!!!
Some of the issues: connectivity
Key limiting physical factors
Depth
4 °3 0 '
5 4 °0 0 '
5 3 °4 0 '
Wave stress
4 °0 0 '
3 °3 0 '
3 °0 0 '
'
Depth (m)
3-6
6-9
9 - 12
12 - 15
15 - 18
18 - 21
21 - 24
24 - 30
No Data
'
5 3 °2 0 '
4 °0 0 '
3 °3 0 '
3 °0 0 '
5 4 °0 0 '
Wave stress
0 - 0.5
0.5 - 1
1 - 1.5
1.5 - 2
2 - 2.5
2.5 - 3
3 - 3.5
3.5 - 4
4 - 4.5
No Data
5 3 °4 0 '
'
10
4 °3 0 '
4 °3 0 '
4 °0 0 '
0
10
3 °3 0 '
5 3 °2 0 '
20 Kilometers
10
3 °0 0 '
4°30 '
4 °0 0 '
0
10
3 °3 0 '
20 Kilometers
3 °0 0 '
Physical parameter predict and limit carrying capacity
Carrying capacity: how might it change in the future?
Hilmar Hinz
Carrying capacity of nearshore
systems is likely to change over
longer-time scales than are
currently considered in MPA
planning
Long-term changes in NAO and wind forcing
Importance of valid reference areas
Reference
MPA
MPA
Reference
Reference
MPA
Example
E
l ‘C’ iis th
the
rather unusual ‘plaice
box’ outcome
Conclusions
1.
2
2.
3.
4.
Science always has some uncertainty
associated with it.
We need to move
mo e forward
for ard with
ith the best
available advise, ‘no action’ is not an option.
Be clear that uncertainty exists, build in the
capacity for adaptation in the future.
future
If we don’t then we risk getting it badly
wrong and losing stakeholder confidence.
Some issues and critical
knowledge gaps:
This MPA configuration
was based
b
d on minimal
i i l
science, it was an
LE G E N D
optimisation
problem…yet it is now
touted by some as the
0
300
definitive
network!
Land
P la n n in g r e g io n lim its
D r a ft R e g io n a l S e a b o u n d a r ie s
S ta t u s o f s it e s s e le c te d f o r th e n e t w o r k
S p e c ia l A r e a o f C o n s e r v a t io n ( S A C )
A r e a o f S e a r c h ( A O S ) f o r f u tu r e S A C
A d d itio n a l s it e
K ilo m e t e r s