marine protected area | ConservationBytes.com

Biodiversity needs more than just unwanted leftovers

28 02 2014

The real measure of conservation progress, on land or in the sea, is how much biodiversity we save from threatening processes.

—

A new paper co-authored by Memorial University’s Dr Rodolphe Devillers and an international group of researchers argues that established global marine protected areas are too often a case of all show with no substance and do not adequately protect the most vulnerable areas of the world’s oceans.

“There is a big pressure internationally to expand global MPA coverage from around 3 % of the oceans to 10 %, resulting in a race from countries to protect large and often unused portions of their territorial waters for a minimal political cost,” said Mr. Devillers. “Marine protected areas are the cornerstone of marine conservation, but we are asking whether picking low-hanging fruit really makes a difference in the long-term, or if smaller areas currently under threat should be protected before, or at the same time as, those larger areas that are relatively inaccessible and therefore less used by people.

“We need to stop measuring conservation success in terms of square kilometres,” he added. “The real measure of conservation progress, on land or in the sea, is how much biodiversity we save from threatening processes. Metrics such as square kilometres or percentages of jurisdictions are notoriously unreliable in telling us about the true purpose of protected areas.” Read the rest of this entry »

Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: biodiversity, map, marine, marine protected area, marine reserves, reserve design, selection
Categories : Australia, coasts, conservation, conservation biology, exploitation, fish, fisheries, harvest, marine, marine protected area, MPA, protected area, reserve

More than leftovers: getting marine parks right in Australia

7 08 2011

Image via Wikipedia

A few weeks back I cosigned a ‘statement of concern’ about the proposal for Australia’s South West Marine Region organised by Hugh Possingham. The support has been overwhelming by Australia’s marine science community (see list of supporting scientists below). I’ve reproduced the letter addressed to the Australian government – distribute far and wide if you give more than a shit about the state of our marine environment (and the economies it supports). Basically, the proposed parks are merely a settlement between government and industry where nothing of importance is really being protected. The parks are just the leftovers industry doesn’t want. No way to ensure the long-term viability of our seas.

—

On 5 May 2011 the Australian Government released a draft proposal for a network of marine reserves in the Commonwealth waters of the South West bioregional marine planning region.

Australia’s South West is of global significance for marine life because it is a temperate region with an exceptionally high proportion of endemic species – species found nowhere else in the world.

Important industries, such as tourism and fisheries, depend on healthy marine ecosystems and the services they provide. Networks of protected areas, with large fully protected core zones, are essential to maintain healthy ecosystems over the long-term – complemented by responsible fisheries management¹.

The selection and establishment of marine reserves should rest on a strong scientific foundation. We are greatly concerned that what is currently proposed in the Draft South West Plan is not based on the three core science principles of reserve network design: comprehensiveness, adequacy and representation. These principles have been adopted by Australia for establishing our National Reserve System and are recognized internationally².

Specifically, the draft plan fails on the most basic test of protecting a representative selection of habitats within the bioregions of the south-west. There are no highly protected areas proposed at all in three of the seven marine bioregions lying on the continental shelf³. Overall less than 3.5% of the shelf, where resource use and biodiversity values are most intense, is highly protected. Further, six of the seven highly protected areas that are proposed on the shelf are small (< 20 km in width)⁴ and all are separated by large distances (> 200 km)⁵. The ability of such small isolated areas to maintain connectivity and fulfil the goal of protecting Australia’s marine biodiversity is limited. Read the rest of this entry »

Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: Australia, biodiversity, environment, Hugh Possingham, marine protected area, National Reserve System
Categories : Australia, biogeography, coasts, conservation, conservation biology, coral reefs, ecosystem function, ecosystem services, environmental policy, exploitation, extinction, marine, marine protected area, MPA, protected area, southern Australia

How to predict marine biodiversity

26 07 2011

One of the most important components of conservation ecology is arguably the focus on robust methods to predict ‘biodiversity’. This covers everything from detection issues (whether or not a species is in a particular area), species distribution models (to predict where a species should be given habitat and/or physical attributes), climate change predictions, to reserve design algorithms (to assess whether we are protecting what we think we are protecting).

It might seem a bit strange to the uninitiated that we have to spend so much time trying to figure out what’s there. Surely, one just goes to the area of interest and does a few quick surveys? Wouldn’t that be lovely; the truth is that most species are, in fact, rare, and the massive areas we must usually survey tend to preclude complete coverage. This is why experimental design and statistical techniques are so advanced in our discipline – to account for the probability of missing what’s actually there, and to estimate what should be in areas we haven’t even looked in.

Read the rest of this entry »

Comments : 7 Comments »
Tags: biodiversity, conservation ecology, coral reef, extinction, marine ecology, marine protected area, reserve, surrogate
Categories : conservation, marine, marine protected area, modelling

The few, the loud and the factually challenged

18 06 2011

Here’s a little paraphrased response I received from a colleague who works for a particular agency concerned about the ridiculous politicking and misinformation associated with marine parks proposed for South Australia.

I’ve posted several times before why marine parks are a win for all involved, from the biodiversity it is meant to protect, to the fishers who benefit from the free, public-good resource that they assist in maintaining (see here, here and here). The evidence is clear world-wide: marine parks benefit pretty much everything and everyone.

However, just like the climate change denalists who use every psychological tactic in the book to try to convince people that climate change is a belief when in fact, it is a soundly evidenced phenomenon, there are those Luddites who think that any change in the marine setting fundamentally threatens their way of life.

Here’s what my colleague had to say about some recent ill-informed comments on this blog:

—

I wondered when they would find your blog. In my experience, do not engage. A game of intimidation has started. Read the rest of this entry »

Comments : 5 Comments »
Tags: biodiversity, conservation, denialism, environment, Hugh Possingham, Marine conservation, marine protected area
Categories : Australia, climate change, conservation, fish, fisheries, marine, marine protected area, South Australia

September 2010 Issue of Conservation Letters out

13 10 2010

Conservation Letters‘ fifth issue (September) of Volume 3 is now out. Some good ones here.

A mismatch of scales: challenges in planning for implementation of marine protected areas in the Coral Triangle (Mills et al.)
Climate change: helping nature survive the human response (Turner et al.)
Protecting degraded rainforests: enhancement of forest carbon stocks under REDD+ (Edwards et al.)
The scale of illegal meat importation from Africa to Europe via Paris (Chaber et al.)
Exposure of Africa’s freshwater biodiversity to a changing climate (Thieme et al.)
Predicting willingness-to-sell and its utility for assessing conservation opportunity for expanding protected area networks (Guerrero et al.)
Synchronization and portfolio performance of threatened salmon (Moore et al.)
Land conversion at the protected area’s edge (Kramer & Doran)
Incorporating asymmetric connectivity into spatial decision making for conservation (Beger et al.)

CJA Bradshaw

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: Africa, biodiversity, climate change, conservation biology, conservation letters, Coral Triangle, environment, marine protected area, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation
Categories : bushmeat, climate change, conservation, fish, marine protected area, MPA, water

How to make an effective marine protected area

22 09 2009

Here’s a nice little review from the increasingly impressive Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment which seems to be showcasing a lot of good conservation research lately.

As we know, the world’s oceans are under huge threat, with predictions of 70 % loss of coral reefs by 2050, decline in kelp forests, loss of seagrasses, over-fishing, pollution and a rapidly warming and acidifying physical environment. Given all these stressors, it is absolutely imperative we spend a good deal of time thinking about the right way to impose restrictions on damage to marine areas – the simplest way to do this is via marine protected areas (MPA).

The science of MPA network design has matured over the last 10-20 years such that there is a decent body of literature now on what we need to do (now the policy makers just have to listen – some progress there too, but see also here). McLeod and colleagues in the latest issue of Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment have published a review outlining the best, at least for coral reefs, set of recommendations for MPA network design given available information (paper title: Designing marine protected area networks to address the impacts of climate change). Definitely one for the Potential list.

Here’s what they recommend:

Size

bigger is always better
minimum diameter of an MPA should be 10-20 km to ensure exchange of propagules among protected benthic populations

Shape

simple shapes best (squares, rectangles)
avoid convoluted shapes to minimise edge effects

Representation

protect at least 20-30 % of each habitat

Replication

protect at least 3 examples of each marine habitat

Spread

select MPA in a variety of temperature regimes to avoid risk of all protected reefs succumbing to future climate changes

Critical Areas

protect nursery areas, spawning aggregations, and areas of high species diversity
protect areas demonstrating natural resilience or rapid recovery from previous disturbances

Connectivity

measure connectivity between MPA to ensure replenishment
space maximum distance of 15-20 km apart
include whole ecological units
buffer core areas
protect adjacent areas such as outlying reefs, seagrass beds, mangroves

Ecosystem Function

maintain key functional groups of species (e.g., herbivorous fishes)

Ecosystem Management

embed MPA in broader management frameworks addressing other threats
address and rectify sources of pollution
monitor changes

Of course, this is just a quick-and-dirty list as presented here – I highly recommend reading the review for specifics.

CJA Bradshaw

McLeod, E., Salm, R., Green, A., & Almany, J. (2009). Designing marine protected area networks to address the impacts of climate change Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7 (7), 362-370 DOI: 10.1890/070211