- Email: [email protected]
Marine protected areas in the UK – conservation or recovery?
C H A P T E R
12 Marine protected areas in the UK e conservation or recovery? Peter Tinsley Dorset Wildlife Trust, Dorset, United Kingdom Abstract Ambition in the UK has shifted from early, often unsuccessful efforts at small site conservation to planned networks of MPAs designed to deliver large scale environmental improvement. The UK is in the final stages of creating an ‘ecologically coherent network’ of MPAs in its territorial waters, with close to a quarter of those waters now designated as a form of marine protected area. A stated purpose of the network of MPAs is that it ‘contributes to the conservation or improvement of the marine environment in the UK marine area’ (Marine and Coastal Access Act, 2009). Though the effectiveness of the legislation to designate and manage MPAs has improved and the level of ambition has increased greatly, some policy approaches to both designation and management may reduce the effectiveness of the network to deliver that desired improvement.
Keywords: Marine protected areas; MPA networks; Conservation versus recovery; MPA management.
Introduction In 2017, with the UK MPA network nearing completion, MPAs cover around 23% of UK waters (17% if only counting sites designated for seabed habitats). Set against the Convention on Biological Diversity target of 10% coverage of MPAs (globally) by 2020, this is impressive. A sobering quote from the European Environment Agency (European Environment Agency, 2015), however serves as a reminder that measuring success in square kilometres alone is not enough: . roughly 20 years of establishing networks of MPAs has had no marked positive effect, at European scale, on the conservation objectives, i.e. the conservation status of vulnerable species and habitats
The authors stress that individual, well-managed (their emphasis) MPAs have a decidedly positive effect and work well, if properly implemented. They go on to suggest that, once sufficient sites are designated, in the right places, there are two factors that need attention.
Marine Protected Areas https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102698-4.00012-5
217
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
218
12. Marine protected areas in the UK e conservation or recovery?
• To ensure that individual MPAs are well managed and their conservation objectives properly enforced. Part of this could involve ‘extending protection to all ecosystem features within the borders of some MPAs, rather than focusing on a limited number of features’. • ‘to implement a consistent permanent no-extraction policy across entire MPAs, or parts of them’ e this is rightly recognised as the most controversial, but also likely to be the most effective. The designation and management of MPAs in the UK has developed in a number of ‘waves’, each with greater ambition. The early designations were few in number and of small, inshore, well-studied, high-biodiversity sites. This reflected the terrestrial approach to nature conservation at the time and demonstrated an ambition to preserve the best of what was left. Subsequent phases of designation were increasingly strategic, aiming to develop inclusive and representative networks of protected sites and features, and looking to promote wider recovery rather than just preserving a few valued hotspots. The concept of what an MPA means in terms of management of human activities has also evolved over that time. The current vision for the UK marine environment is ‘lean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas’. It is implicit in this vision that improvement on the current state of the marine environment is necessary, that an element of recovery is required. The following policy examples reflect the ambition for recovery of marine biodiversity in the UK: . conserving and enhancing biological diversity within the UK and contributing to the conservation of global biodiversity UK Biodiversity Action Plan (HMSO, 1994) Biodiversity is protected, conserved and where appropriate recovered and loss has been halted UK High Level Marine Objectives (HM Government, 2009) Protect and preserve the marine environment, prevent its deterioration or, where practicable, restore marine ecosystems in areas where they have been adversely affected Marine Strategy Framework Directive (European Union, 2008) . contributes to the conservation or improvement of the marine environment in the UK marine area Marine and Coastal Access Act (2009) At sea, we will do this by: Reversing the loss of marine biodiversity and, where practicable, restoring it A Green Future: Our 25 year Plan to Improve the Environment (Defra, 2018)
While there are caveats e ‘where appropriate’ and ‘where practicable’ - the theme of recovery and improvement of the marine environment at a national scale is clear. The creation of an ‘ecologically coherent network’ of protected areas is seen as a key element in delivering that vision. As that network is nearing completion, how much, then, is it likely to contribute to the conservation or improvement of the UK marine environment? Will recovery be demonstrated 20 years hence? How did the decisions and shifts in policy and ambition over the last few decades affect the likely effectiveness of today’s MPA network?
History of MPA development in the UK
219
History of MPA development in the UK Voluntary Marine Nature Reserves This first phase of MPA selection/designation, going back to the 1970s, was driven by a growing recognition of the importance of UK marine habitats and their vulnerability, but countered by an official unwillingness to accept there was an issue (Hiscock, 2007). With the wreck of the Torrey Canyon (1967) still fresh in public memory, the increasing popularity and accessibility of SCUBA diving among the public and among marine scientists, led to growing calls for underwater conservation, both because of the ability to observe and study marine habitats (at least in the first few 10s of metres depth) and the opportunity to see for the first time the damage that could be done by practices such as bottom towed fishing gear, especially where fishing effort was spreading to previously untouched areas. Despite this, a 1973 Natural Environment Research Council report (NERC, 1973) concluded that, ‘. there is little evidence that sub-littoral habitats are at present endangered to the extent that would provide scientific justification for the establishment of National Nature Reserves in this environment.’ This effectively ruled out the possibility of granting protection to important nature conservation features below the low water mark. Faced with this intertia, divers and scientists wishing to protect the recently discovered and newly appreciated underwater riches around the island of Lundy in the Bristol Channel put forward a proposal in 1971 for Britain’s first voluntary marine nature reserve (VMNR) to be established around the island. Collecting (of curios such as seafans and sea-urchins, as well as scallops, lobsters and crawfish) by an increasing number of recreational divers was seen as a significant cause for concern at this time. A second VMNR was established around Skomer in 1976, with Purbeck Marine Wildlife Reserve in Dorset being the first VMNR off the mainland coast in 1978. The battle here was establishing the case for any protection of underwater habitats or species. Marine scientists and recreational divers were just starting to appreciate the UK marine environment and, in some cases, documenting new damage. Voluntary Marine Nature Reserves served to highlight the conservation value of a small number of sites and the first were set up in response to a deemed threat from increasing numbers of recreational divers attracted by the newly discovered underwater landscapes.
Marine Nature Reserves (Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981) The adoption of the 1981 Wildlife and Conservation Act (HM Government, 1981) brought with it the first opportunity to designate statutory Marine Nature Reserves (MNRs) for the purpose of: a) conserving marine flora or fauna or geological or physiographical features of special interest in the area; or b) providing, under suitable conditions and control, special opportunities for the study of, and research into, matters relating to marine flora and fauna and the physical conditions in which they live, or for the study of geological and physiographical features of special interest in the area, or both.
220
12. Marine protected areas in the UK e conservation or recovery?
Seven sites around the UK were put forward as the likely first designations. These were all high-diversity, high energy, mostly rocky, inshore sites - biodiversity hotspots well-known to marine biologists and divers. The waters around Lundy and Skomer e the first VMNRs, were included in this list. In many ways, they were the obvious first choices, but they were not chosen to represent the wide variety of habitats that are now known to exist around the UK. One of the criticisms of this first attempt at protecting marine conservation features was that the sites chosen were a ‘scientists’ playground’ and reflected survey effort as much as conservation value. The creation of MNRs proved more difficult than expected and their effectiveness was limited. The process of site selection (as set out in Schedule 12 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act) could be held up or effectively vetoed by objectors (Jones, 1999) and the powers granted to the Statutory Nature Conservation Body (SNCB) (then the Nature Conservancy Council) to protect marine life in Marine Nature Reserves were limited. An illustration of this can be found in the Skomer Marine Nature Reserve Order 1990: Subject to the provision of byelaw 4 in relation to any part of the reserve no person shall, without a permit from the [Nature Conservancy] Council issued for that purpose under byelaw 5 or without a reasonable excuse, intentionally or recklessly e a) b) c) d)
kill, take destroy, molest or disturb any animal or plant in that part, do anything which interferes with the seabed in that part, damage or disturb any object in that part, deposit rubbish in that part.
Taken on its own, this byelaw sounds very effective but ‘byelaw 4’ states: Nothing in these byelaws shall interfere with the exercise of any functions of a relevant authority, any functions conferred by or under an enactment (whenever passed) or any right of any person (whenever vested) including in particular but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, any estate, right, power, privilege, authority or exemption of the crown, or any right of fishery. This significantly diluted the conservation byelaw-making powers granted to the Nature Conservancy Council, leaving it to the relevant authorities, such as the Sea Fisheries Committees, to curb damaging activities, but without any duty to do so. Compare this with the New Zealand Marine Reserves Act 1971. The purpose of marine reserves in the New Zealand Act is similar to the WCA: . for the purpose of preserving, as marine reserves for the scientific study of marine life, areas of New Zealand that contain underwater scenery, natural features, or marine life, of such distinctive quality, or so typical, or beautiful, or unique, that their continued preservation is in the national interest.
But it then goes on to specify the management. (a) they shall be preserved as far as possible in their natural state: (b) the marine life of the reserves shall as far as possible be protected and preserved: (c) the value of the marine reserves as the natural habitat of marine life shall as far as possible be maintained: (d) . the public shall have freedom of access and entry to the reserves, so that they may enjoy in full measure the opportunity to study, observe, and record marine life in its natural habitat.
History of MPA development in the UK
221
In addition, and in stark contrast to WCA, section 3(3) of the New Zealand Marine Reserves Act 1971 explicitly prevents any fishing in a marine reserve, unless expressly permitted and in accordance with conditions imposed at the time of designation. This made it possible (though it was still difficult) for New Zealand’s first marine reserve to be a highly protected ‘no-take’ reserve, providing an undisturbed environment for marine studies at the Leigh Marine Laboratory e an intentional ‘scientists’ playground’. While the purpose of the Marine Reserves Act was preservation, rather than recovery, (probably based on an assumption at the time that the marine environment was not negatively impacted) the rapid recovery that followed designation at Leigh surprised most people and influenced subsequent marine conservation policy in New Zealand. Lundy Island became the UK’s first MNR in 1986 e at roughly 30 km2. Skomer (1.3 km2) followed in 1990 and Strangford Lough (over 15 km2) in 1995, but by then (14 years after the enabling legislation) it had become apparent that the process for designating MNRs was fundamentally flawed and the remaining sites originally listed for MNR designation were ultimately dropped and the process quietly abandoned. At least one VMNR (St Abbs and Eyemouth VMNR) was established in 1984 specifically as a locally acceptable alternative to the proposed MNR designation (Jones, 1999). There was no requirement in the WCA to list the features of interest within a proposed MNR and the act simply required the SNCB to manage the ‘land and water covering it’ for the purposes listed above. Effective protection of the three designated MNRs was dependent on Sea Fisheries Committee byelaws and the Protection of Wrecks Act designations to bring any significant protection to the seabed. At Lundy and Skomer, this involved restrictions on types of fishing, especially mobile fishing, in all or part of the reserves, though not to the extent thought necessary at the time by the Nature Conservancy Council. Codes of conduct covered the activities of visitors. In 2003, Devon Sea Fisheries Committee enacted a byelaw to effectively create a no-take zone within the Lundy MNR e the first in the UK, and still one of very few, though technically, the byelaw could only cover ‘sea fish’ (defined as ‘fish of any kind (excluding migratory salmon and trout) and shellfish, found in the sea’). Looking back, the WCA seems very limiting and it is tempting to think that a more ambitious approach at this time could have made a big difference e in terms of how MPAs are managed and how the public relate to the concept of MPAs. It was introduced at a time when there was little political support for marine conservation and some of the principles adopted then e such as separating fishery management from conservation, persist today.
European Marine Sites (EU Habitats Directive, Birds Directive) In the 1990s, attention in the UK nature conservation bodies shifted away from nationally designated MNRs and focussed on European Marine Sites, particularly Special Areas of Conservation, under the EU Habitats Directive. Both Lundy MNR and Strangford Lough MNR were listed as candidate marine SACs at this time and the Pembrokeshire Marine SAC, encompassing Skomer MNR, was listed in 1997. European Sites had the advantage of international, rather than domestic, protection and the stated ambition here was to contribute some of the best examples of a range of rare or vulnerable marine habitats and species to a European-wide network of protected areas (the Natura 2000 network). Notably, the requirement was to ‘maintain or restore’ marine habitats and populations.
222
12. Marine protected areas in the UK e conservation or recovery?
The range of marine habitats listed in the Habitats Directive is relatively small compared to terrestrial habitats, though the definitions are fairly broad e those that apply to the UK are listed below: Open sea and tidal areas. • • • • • • • •
Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time. Estuaries. Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide. Coastal lagoons. Large shallow inlets and bays. Reefs. Submarine structures made by leaking gases. Submerged or partially submerged sea caves.
Designation of European Marine Sites was much more successful than that of Marine Nature Reserves, arguably because of the requirement to contribute to Natura 2000 and the threat of real sanctions for failing to meet commitments. The site selection process was much more strategic than the MNR process, based on scientific assessment of the presence, extent and quality of the habitats and species listed in the directive. Designation occurred in two main tranches in the UK e see Fig. 12.1. The first, in the mid-1990s, designated the bulk of ‘estuaries’, ‘large shallow inlets and bays’, ‘submerged or partially submerged sea caves’, and ‘mudflats and sandflats not covered by water at low tide’. A decade later, the
FIG. 12.1 Cumulative area of Annexe I seabed habitats within UK marine Special Areas of Conservation. JNCC Natura 2000 summary data spreadsheet Nov 2017.
History of MPA development in the UK
223
UK was deemed to be under-represented for ‘reefs’, ‘sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time’, ‘coastal lagoons’, ‘submarine structures made by leaking gases’ and particularly for offshore sites. This led to a second tranche of SAC designations, considerably increasing the area under designation. Management of European Marine Sites Article 6 of the Habitats Directive determines how European Marine Sites should be managed. Paragraphs 6(1) and 6(2) require that, within Natura 2000, Member States: Take appropriate conservation measures to maintain and restore the habitats and species for which the site has been designated to a favourable conservation status; Avoid damaging activities that could significantly disturb these species or deteriorate the habitats of the protected species or habitat types. Paragraphs 6(3) and 6(4) lay down the procedure to be followed when planning new developments that might affect a Natura 2000 site. Thus: Any plan or project likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall undergo an Appropriate Assessment to determine its implications for the site. The competent authorities can only agree to the plan or project after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned (Article 6.3). In exceptional circumstances, a plan or project may still be allowed to go ahead, in spite of a negative assessment, provided there are no alternative solutions and the plan or project is considered to be justified for imperative reasons of overriding public interest. In such cases the Member State must take appropriate compensatory measures to ensure that the overall coherence of the N2000 Network is protected (Article 6.4). Articles 6(1) and 6(2) refer to the protected features, rather than the site. This has led to a feature-based approach to management in the UK, whereby potentially damaging activities are managed where they are deemed to impact on designated features, not purely because they occur within the boundaries of the SAC. This emphasis on features, rather than the whole site is significant when it comes to management. The Lundy MNR protection, for example, extended to ‘marine flora or fauna or geological or physiographical features of special interest in the area’, where the Lundy SAC protection was limited to reefs, sandbanks, sea-caves and the grey seal. This puts a requirement on those managing the site to understand the distribution, extent and condition of those habitats and species, and their sensitivity and vulnerability to various activities. These can easily become complex and costly responsibilities, especially in the marine environment. This has also meant that activities such as bottomtowed mobile fishing have only been controlled in European Marine Sites where they directly impinge on a protected feature e such as a reef or biogenic reef. Article 6(3), however, refers to the potential impact of activities (plan or project) on the integrity of the site e which recognises that the value of the site might be greater than the sum of its features. These enthusiastic episodes of designation did not at first lead to big changes in the management of these sites. While the designation was more effective in managing developments and new activities, prior to 2012, commercial fishing was treated differently, not as a ‘plan or
224
12. Marine protected areas in the UK e conservation or recovery?
project’, on the grounds that fishing was an existing activity at the time of designation. Even where fishing practices were clearly damaging listed Annexe I protected features, such as the impact of trawling on Modiolus reefs in Strangford Lough SAC, it proved difficult to secure effective management without a serious threat of infraction proceedings (Northern Ireland Audit Office, 2015). In 2012, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, faced a potential legal challenge around Article 6 of the Habitats Directive (Clark et al., 2017). This argued that all fishing in European Marine Sites should be closed and only opened on a case by case basis, following assessment of likely impact on conservation features. This would have been similar to the conditions imposed by section 3(3) of the New Zealand Marine Reserves Act e i.e. a default closure of MPAs to fishing, with the opportunity for permitted fishing, subject to conditions. The responsibility would lie with the fishing industry or regulators to demonstrate that any fishing activity would not have an adverse effect (on the integrity of the site), rather than the SNCBs having to demonstrate harm (to the protected features). In response, Defra launched a wholescale review of the management of fisheries in European Marine Sites. This resulted in a revised approach to fisheries management in European sites (Marine Management Organisation, 2013), with all fishing activities within protected sites being assessed in relation to impacts on protected features and the integrity of the sites. The highest priority ‘red risk’ activity/ feature interactions e those considered universally damaging, were dealt with initially - this resulted in the closure of over 3300 km2 of seabed to the most damaging mobile gear in inshore (inside 6 nm) European Marine sites in England. Assessment of the remaining interactions e in most cases site and feature-specific assessment, proved to be a considerable task for regulators, as well as the SNCBs, who were tasked to provide additional advice and support. Designation of European Marine Sites was much more ambitious and effective than that of Marine Nature Reserves and the site selection process was much more strategic and scienceled. The ambition here was to contribute some of the best examples of a range of habitats to a wider network of protected sites and to manage activities in those sites to ‘maintain or restore’ protected features. A limited subset of marine habitats and species are protected by European Marine Sites, though other features may be protected by association. The decision to adopt feature-based management has created complex and resource intensive management regimes and may not fully protect the integrity of the site. Initial assumptions around the impact of pre-existing fisheries on European Marine Sites have been successfully challenged e 20 years after the first designations, leading to greater restrictions on some types of fishing within protected sites.
Marine Conservation Zones (Marine and Coastal Access Act) The second tranche of marine SAC site selection and designation coincided with the start of the process to identify and designate Marine Conservation Zones (in England and Wales), and Nature Conservation Marine Protected Areas (NCMPAs in Scotland) e nationally important marine protected areas required by the 2009 Marine and Coastal Access Act. The ambition now was to complement the existing (and deemed largely complete) network of Natura 2000 sites, filling in the ecological gaps (such as offshore, sediment habitats) to create a fully representative and ‘ecologically coherent network’ of MPAs around the UK, such that this network ‘contributes to the conservation or improvement of the marine environment in the UK marine area’ (Marine and Coastal Access Act, 2009). This was a significant step up in terms of
History of MPA development in the UK
225
ambition, with network design principles setting out how this network should be developed and protected, including targets for each of the features to be included. Two out of three proposed tranches of MCZ designation have taken place to-date, with the third tranche, expected in 2018, being seen as the opportunity to fill the remaining ecological gaps to complete the network. While the two processes e marine SAC site selection and designation, and Marine Conservation Zone site selection and designation, were happening at the same time, they operated very differently. SAC site selection was based on a small list of habitats (only ‘reefs’ and ‘submarine structures made by leaking gases’ could apply to offshore sites) and species and was mostly science-led, with no opportunity to consider socio-economic factors. By contrast, MCZ site selection was required to consider socio-economic implications and covered a long list of priority species and habitats. One of the ‘ecological network guidance’ principles was ‘representativity’ e i.e. that multiple examples of all broad-scale habitats, as well as the priority habitats and species, be included in the network. This provided the opportunity to fill the significant habitat/feature gaps in the Natura 2000 network (particularly non-reef habitats in deep-water or offshore). Socio-economic considerations Section 117 (7) of the 2009 Marine and Coastal Access Act states: ‘In considering whether it is desirable to designate an area as an MCZ, the appropriate authority may have regard to any economic or social consequences of doing so”. The interpretation of section 117(7) can have a significant impact on how well the final network delivers on the principle of representativity as it could, in effect, rule out the protection of any economically important areas of seabed. This partly echoes the MNR selection process, whereby objecting parties effectively had a veto on site designation. The difference being that, in the 2009 Marine and Coastal Access Act, the appropriate authority must designate Marine Conservation Zones to complete a network of protected sites that ‘contributes to the conservation or improvement of the marine environment in the UK marine area’. The choice is not whether sites are designated, but where. The explanatory notes for section 117(7) make this clear e Subsection (7) allows Ministers to take account of the economic or social consequences of designation. This ensures MCZs may be designated in such a way as to conserve biodiversity and ecosystems whilst minimising any economic and social impacts. Where an area contains features that are rare, threatened or declining, or forms a biodiversity hotspot, greater weight is likely to be attached to ecological considerations. Where there is a choice of alternative areas which are equally suitable on ecological grounds, socio-economic factors could be more significant in deciding which areas may be designated as an MCZ.
To facilitate the inclusion of socio-economic factors and to meet the requirements for consultation, a number of MCZ site selection projects were set up around England. These were ‘stakeholder-centred’ projects, tasked with developing a suite of recommended sites that would fulfil the network criteria while minimising negative economic and social impacts. An iterative process was developed to plan sites in each project area with the understanding that human use and socio-economic value of areas would be considered by the regional stakeholder groups throughout the process (JNCC and Natural England, 2010).
226
12. Marine protected areas in the UK e conservation or recovery?
MCZ site selection and commercial fishing One of the big challenges faced by the MCZ projects was around suitable alternative areas for broadscale habitats to avoid economically important sites such as fishing grounds. With incomplete data for most of the seabed, only the broadest indications were available that a potential alternative site was ‘equally suitable on ecological grounds’. The rationale for using broad-scale habitats as target conservation features in the network was a response to the lack of fine-scale data for most of the UK and to avoid the trap of skewing the designations to the areas where we have the most data. Broad-scale habitat maps for the whole of the UK are available but come with significant caveats. They are based on broad, mostly physical datasets much of which are relatively low confidence modelled data. These broad-scale habitat types are intended to act as surrogates for biodiversity at finer scales to increase the chance that the full range of associated species and habitats will be represented in the network. An MPA network that protects examples of all these broad-scale habitats across their geographic and ecological range will therefore also protect the associated species and biotopes. Ecological Network Guidance (ENG) (JNCC and Natural England, 2010).
If these broad-scale habitats are then sub-sampled with a bias towards lower productivity or lower biodiversity sites (for example, as a consequence of avoiding economically important areas), the resulting network will be poorer in terms of representativity and richness. This means the question of whether two sites are ‘equally suitable on ecological grounds’ needs to take into account more than whether they share a broad-scale habitat type. This is particularly important for those broad-scale habitats that are not already covered in the Natura 2000 network e e.g. non-reef, offshore, sediment dominated. For example, there is a large swathe of ‘subtidal coarse sediment’ e one of the 22 broadscale habitats listed in the ENG e in the English Channel. As this is not a Habitats Directive ‘Annex I’ habitat, this will not be covered by European Marine sites (though these sites may contain ‘subtidal coarse sediment’) and will therefore rely on MCZ/NCMPA designation to meet network representativity targets. ‘Subtidal coarse sediment’ is unlikely to be uniform habitat but is treated as such for the purposes of meeting the criteria of the ENG design principles, which require that at least two sites containing this habitat are protected in each of the regional project areas. The English Channel area spans two MPA project regions e Finding Sanctuary (SW England) and Balanced Seas (SE England). Both MCZ projects recommended sites for ‘sublittoral coarse sediment’, fulfilling the target for this broadscale habitat. Fig. 12.2 shows how these are distributed. There are four relatively large, designated MPAs covering this broad-scale habitat offshore (one, the Wight-Barfleur SAC, is designated for reef habitat), and a number of, as yet undesignated, recommended MCZs. Fishing activity as an indicator of ecological distinctiveness Satellite tracking of predators is increasingly being used to better understand foraging behaviour and to infer the relative importance of different areas to the species in question. Such studies generally are only able to track a small proportion of the population under investigation but can produce valuable data, identifying important feeding grounds, for example.
History of MPA development in the UK
227
FIG. 12.2 Distribution of MPAs designated or recommended for ‘subtidal coarse sediment’ in the English Channel.
Most fishing vessels (all vessels over 15 m since 2014) now routinely transmit position data via AIS (Automatic Identification System). This provides an effective satellite tracking dataset of fishing vessels as foraging predators. Fig. 12.3 shows a map of AIS traces for vessels
FIG. 12.3 Designated and recommended MPAs in the English Channel plotted over AIS traces from vessels identified as fishing vessels from anonymised AIS derived track lines 2011e14, published by MMO under Open Government Licence. AIS trace plotted with opacity of 50% and thickness of 20 m.
228
12. Marine protected areas in the UK e conservation or recovery?
identified as fishing vessels between 2011 and 2014 (for the first week of each month). Individual traces are plotted with low opacity, emphasising areas where tracks are concentrated. While this is not a completely reliable indication of fishing activity, particularly as it mostly represents larger fishing vessels, it is useful for showing where these fishing vessels spend the most time. There is a clear distinction between the central section of the Channel (low fishing vessel activity) and the eastern and western sections, where there are concentrations of fishing vessel activity. The distribution of fishing vessel activity, particularly the general avoidance of the central English Channel section, suggests that the underlying ecology of the Channel is not as uniform as the broadscale habitat map would indicate and particularly, that the central section is likely to be ecologically distinct from the eastern and western sections. This is borne out by a study to map reef habitat in the Channel (Coggan et al., 2009), which identified a bed-load parting zone in the central Channel area, with a net transport of seabed sediments away from this area. This study concluded that this central section is more likely to contain exposed reef habitat (and helped identify the Wight-Barfleur SAC for reef habitat) and suggested that this area is one of ‘low natural productivity’ e both indications of an ecological distinctiveness. An invisible gap in the network? If all or most of the ‘subtidal coarse sediment’ sites are selected from areas which are distinctive in that they are largely avoided by fishing vessels, this is likely to leave an ecological gap in the network. Most of the currently designated MCZs for sediment habitat in the Channel appear to be have been selected to avoid the most frequented fishing grounds. This is most likely a consequence of the site-selection process attempting to minimise economic impact by avoiding designation of important fishing grounds as MPAs and/or a preference for including less impacted sites in the network. The heavily fished sites will likely be the most impacted and contain the most degraded habitat. The ENG states that: Where multiple areas are identified that equally contribute to achieving the network design principles and further ecological considerations, those features which have been less impacted (or are less likely to have been impacted) by human activities should generally be considered a higher priority for MCZ identification than more degraded examples of the same feature
This could be taken as additional justification for excluding these fished areas from the network but the guidance also states. Regardless of current degradation, sites must be selected that best contribute to the ecological objectives of the MPA network.
If the distribution of fishing activity reflects ecological distinctiveness and seabed habitat currently in a degraded state due to historical fishing pressure is capable of recovery, then failure to include examples of the more heavily fished regions of the ‘subtidal coarse sediment’ broad-scale habitat could reduce the representativity of the network and the potential
History of MPA development in the UK
229
of the network to deliver on the MCAA requirement of ‘conservation or improvement of the marine environment in the UK marine area’. Notably, the Balanced Seas MPA project did recommend two subtidal coarse sediment MCZs within areas of greater fishing vessel activity. Neither of these sites were designated in the first two tranches of MCZ designation, but the opportunity is there to designate in tranche 3. Designating areas of economic importance as MPAs is clearly more challenging and controversial, but failing to do so as a general principle could leave ecological gaps in the network and could leave the UK open to the criticism of creating so-called ‘residual MPAs’ e in areas that are less problematical to designate, but of lower ecological and conservation value. The MCZ process, with its aim of minimising socio-economic impacts, could meet its targets but fail, ultimately, to deliver all of the hoped-for benefits, especially in terms of resilience and recovery. The most controversial recommended sites in the English MCZ selection process have been deferred to the third tranche of designation (expected 2018). MCZs were recommended on the basis of the best evidence available at the time, but designation (of sites and features) required confirmation of the presence and extent of features. This threw up a further issue with the use of broad-scale habitats as a proxy for finer-scale biodiversity. After the site selection process was completed, a suite of ecological surveys was commissioned for many of the recommended sites. Not surprisingly, the detailed surveys often disagreed with the broad-scale modelled habitats. In some cases (where the new evidence confirmed the presence of recommended, but not designated, features) this led to features being added to the designation order but often, where the new features were not on the original list of recommended features, the response was not to add newly mapped habitats to the conservation features of the site and thereby contribute to the network, but to remove them, leaving some sites with designated features covering less than 50% of the seabed within them. Further features can still be added to existing sites in tranche 3 of MCZ designation. The aim of MCZ designation and management is much more ambitious than previous rounds of MPA designation in the UK, both in terms of the range of habitats and species to be included (a long list of priority habitats and species, plus all broadscale habitats) and the aim of recovery of the wider marine environment. Management of MCZs is still developing, but is largely feature-based, along the lines of that applied to European Marine Sites. The site selection process, in attempting to minimise any negative economic impact of designation, may have introduced a bias in the selection of some broadscale habitat sites, leaving a gap in the true range of habitats protected. Will the MPA network deliver recovery? If the UK MPA network meets the ecological guidance principles of representativity, replication, adequacy, viability and connectivity, based on the best available evidence, then it should be able to deliver the goal of recovery, subject to one final principle e protection. Designation alone does not confer protection. Management of sites and features within the network must be sufficient to reduce pressures from human activities. The greater the reduction of pressure, the greater the likelihood of recovery. JNCC and Natural England provided advice on the impacts of fishing activities on protected features in MCZs (JNCC and Natural England, 2011), assessing the effectiveness of three different management options: open access, managed access and no access e on the
230
12. Marine protected areas in the UK e conservation or recovery?
FIG. 12.4 Chart showing predicted effectiveness of management options for fishing gear/protected feature interactions for maintain (A) and recover (B) conservation objectives. Data from JNCC and Natural England, 2011. Advice from the Joint Nature Conservtion Committee and Natural England with regards to fisheries impacts on Marine Conservation Zone habitat features
History of MPA development in the UK
231
likelihood of achieving either ‘maintain’ or ‘recover’ conservation objectives for different feature/gear type interactions. These are summarised in the charts below (Fig. 12.4). The most effective way to achieve conservation objectives is through the creation of fully protected marine reserves, closed to extractive and damaging uses. Such MPAs were termed ‘reference sites’ in the MCZ selection process. The MCCA did not specifically legislate for reference sites as a special type of MPA but the ENG required that each broad-scale habitat and priority habitat/species have at least one reference area within each of the four regional MCZ projects. These were intended to be sites where the conservation objective would be ‘return to reference condition’, where all extraction, deposition, or human-derived disturbance is removed or prevented. While a number of mostly small reference sites were put forward by the MCZ projects, none were designated and there is no indication that any will be included in the third tranche of designation. That leaves a very low number of existing, small, highly protected sites, with the rest of the network managed as multi-use sites. The most widespread and most significant pressure on the marine environment other than climate change is commercial fishing. The combination of generally avoiding the designation of MCZs in areas exposed to more intense fishing pressure and the assumption, until the recent revised approach to fisheries management in European Marine Sites, that fishing activities that pre-date the designation of MPAs are generally compatible with MPA objectives, unless proven to cause damage to listed features, has meant that, historically, MPA designation has had relatively little impact on reducing pressure from fishing and would therefore be unlikely to lead to significant ‘improvement of the marine environment in the UK area’. With the revised approach to fisheries in MPAs, that is now beginning to change, with significant areas of inshore waters being closed to the most damaging bottom-contacting mobile fishing gear. The figures sound impressive e 31% of Dorset inshore waters (to 6 nm), for example, are currently closed to mobile gear but again, it is not just the number of square kilometres closed that matters. A closer look at the south-west of England shows a number of new spatial byelaws restricting mobile fishing gear brought in by Cornwall, Devon and Severn and Southern IFCAs, protecting sensitive seabed habitats such as seagrass meadows and reefs. The first thing to notice is that few sites are protected in their entirety, the closures are restricted to the listed features, with a buffer zone, allowing continued access to parts, in some cases, the majority, of the sites. Such feature-based management reduces a protected area to the known extent of its mapped designated features e for example, the mobile gear byelaw for the Chesil Beach and Stennis Ledges MCZ covers 43% of the site. Lyme Bay Statutory Instrument e a de facto site-based management approach A notable exception to this is the area closed by the Lyme Bay Statutory Instrument (SI) e this is a simple, but effective, site-based conservation measure, with a complete ban on all bottom-contacting mobile fishing, established in 2008 with immediate effect. Its boundary almost coincides with the Lyme Bay section of the Lyme Bay and Torbay SAC, which it pre-dates. While the SI provides site-wide protection from mobile gear, the SAC protection, provided through IFCA byelaws, applies only to mapped reef features. Where the sites overlap, the SI provides protection to a non-reef area of about 4.4 km2 that would otherwise be open to mobile gear under feature-based managed access e see Fig. 12.5. The boundary of the SI was based on existing knowledge of the distribution and extent of reef features, drawn to encompass as much of the reef as possible, without including
232
12. Marine protected areas in the UK e conservation or recovery?
FIG. 12.5 Location of the Lyme Bay Statutory Instrument (site-wide closure) in relation to the Lyme Bay and Torbay SAC boundary and IFCA closures.
surrounding sediment habitat e to protect the reefs from historical, well documented damage from mobile fishing gear, while avoiding unnecessary take-up of valuable non-reef fishing ground. Complex boundaries are quite common in MPAs, particularly inshore, for similar reasons. For the part of the Lyme Bay reefs SAC (not including the Torbay section) that lies outside the SI, just over 50% of the site is open to managed access with mobile fishing gear. There is evidence that the additional protection provided by the SI is allowing the recovery of stony reef habitat on previously dredged ground, areas that would otherwise have been considered non-reef habitat e that the functional extent of a feature can be larger than its legal protection under feature-based management (Sheehan et al., 2013). There is pressure to remove the Statutory Instrument on the grounds that it is redundant following the subsequent, near overlapping SAC designation, but its removal under the current regime of feature-based management could allow managed access to the ‘non-reef’ areas which would likely lead to a reduction in overall protection and a reversal of recovery. It is also important to understand how much difference MPA management measures will make in terms of reducing fishing impacts. While there have been some very real conservation gains and many features such as reefs and seagrass beds are protected from future expansions or relocations of fishing activity, recovery or restoration can only be expected where historic, long-term pressures from fishing have been reduced or removed. Overlaying the areas closed to mobile gear (Fig. 12.5) on the map of mobile fishing effort (2010e12 e prior to the recent closures under the revised approach), shows that most of the closed areas
Conclusions
233
FIG. 12.6 Fishing activity intensity (mobile gear) 2010e12 as determined from vessel sightings, plotted over inshore areas closed to mobile gear.
were not historically heavily targeted. While these measures will protect sensitive and valuable seabed from future damage, the reduction in pressure and hence the potential for recovery is not as great as the size of the combined area closed might suggest. While the direct physical damage caused by bottom-contacting mobile fishing gear is now recognised as incompatible with some vulnerable seabed habitats in MPAs, the impacts of fishing per se, such as the removal of target species and bycatch, are considered compatible, as long as fishing is sustainably managed e the only exception being the few, small highlyprotected areas. An unintended consequence of closing an area to mobile gear is often an expansion of static gear fishing, either as a shift in fishing method or as a consequence of reduced gear conflict, which makes it at least theoretically possible that overall fishing pressure in some of these areas could increase, though possibly for different target species.
Conclusions The Wildlife and Countryside Act marked a significant moment in that it led to the first Marine Nature Reserves in the UK, but in some ways, it was a missed opportunity. The weakness of the legislation and particularly the difficulty in dealing with fishing as a damaging activity limited the ambition of the first foray into MPAs and failed to establish the concept of MPAs as nature reserves. Had the WCA been more ambitious and the first small MNRs been fully protected, the subsequent MPA programme could have been very different.
234
12. Marine protected areas in the UK e conservation or recovery?
The power of the European Habitats Directive, both to compel member states to designate their complement of MPAs and to manage activities in them, has proved to be a significant driver in the UK with large areas now designated, but the limited range of marine habitats covered by the Habitats Directive and the feature-led approach to management it has encouraged, have limited its potential effectiveness to promote recovery. The initial failure to treat commercial fishing as a potentially damaging activity limited the impact of European Marine Sites for the first two decades after the 1992 Habitats Directive and the full implications of the revised approach to fisheries management in MPAs have yet to be worked through. The Marine and Coastal Access Act, 2009 offered the opportunity to add a suite of nationally important protected sites to address the shortcomings of the WCA and to fill the gaps in the Natura 2000 network. This led to an ambition to create an ‘ecologically coherent network’ of marine protected areas in UK waters, extending the range of habitats protected to include sediments and other non-reef habitats, particularly offshore and to include representative examples of all broadscale habitats. This network, once complete, is required to contribute to the conservation or improvement of the wider marine environment. A combination of a desire to minimise (negative) economic impact of MCZ designation and an overdependence on broadscale habitat maps to determine areas ‘equally suitable on ecological grounds’ may have resulted in an under-representation of productive, potentially biodiverse offshore sediment sites in the network. The revised approach to fisheries management has led to some very real protection being afforded to (parts of) marine SACs and this was subsequently extended to MCZs, resulting in additional closures in 2017. The effectiveness of the network in promoting recovery is dependent, not just on the combined area designated, or even on the area under protective management, but on how much the change in management has led to a reduction in pressure. That factor is difficult to quantify, but needs to be accounted for when reporting on the success of the network. While MCZs were recommended on the best available evidence at the time, designation of protected features was dependent on good evidence of presence and extent of component features. Many currently designated MCZs have only a subset of the original list of recommended features designated, in some cases covering less than half of the site. The decision to apply feature-based, rather than site-based management to MCZs has left some sites under-protected. The level of ambition for MPAs has increased significantly since the first small sites were designated and the size of the current network is clearly impressive. The UK network is not yet complete, with a third tranche of MCZ designation expected in 2018 in England. Many of the most contentious recommended MCZ sites, particularly those considered likely to have the greatest socio-economic impact (such as the offshore sediment sites in areas of significant fishing activity), have been left to the third tranche and their designation depends on political will. These sites also include some with the greatest potential for recovery (the greatest likely reduction in pressure) and their designation will be necessary to achieve a representative and effective network. Subject to the third tranche of MCZ designation filling the remaining ecological gaps in the network, the likelihood of the network delivering that marked positive effect on the
References
235
conservation status of protected habitats and species could depend on those two factors highlighted at the start of this chapter: extending protection to all ecosystem features within the borders of some MPAs, rather than focusing on a limited number of features
and to implement a consistent permanent no-extraction policy across entire MPAs, or parts of them.
A line in Defra’s 25 year plan (Defra, 2018) signals some hope for the former e ‘Building on current plans to complete our ecologically coherent network of well-managed MPAs, we will move to a whole-site approach to protect sites of greatest biodiversity interest.’ Establishing fully protected sites (or parts of sites), while likely to be very effective, will always be controversial. In some ways that is even more difficult now, having established multi-use MPAs as the norm over the last three decades. There are no specific references to highly protected sites within the Marine and Coastal Access Act, either to include or exclude them from the network, other than in the requirement to report on the effectiveness of the network at six-yearly intervals. That report must include: The number of MCZs designated by the authority in which the following activities are prohibited or significantly restrictedd i. any licensable marine activity; ii. fishing for or taking animals or plants from the sea; This is a good description of a highly protected MPA. The first report is due at the end of 2018 and is unlikely to report a high number of MCZs in this category. It will be a good test of future ambition how this indicator changes over the next reporting period.
References Clark, R., Humphreys, J., Solandt, J.-L., Weller, C., 2017. Dialectics of Nature: The Emergence of Policy on the Management of Commercial Fisheries in English European Marine Sites, pp. 11e17. Client Earth and Marine Conservation Society, 2011. Letter to Marine Management Organisation “Fishing Vessel Licences and the Habitats Directive”. Coggan, R., Diesing, M., Vanstaen, K., 2009. Maping Annex I Reefs in the Central English Channel: Evidence to Support the Selection of Candidate SACs. CEFAS. Defra, 2018. A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment. European Environment Agency, 2015. Marine Protected Areas in Europe e An Overview and Perspectives for the Future. European Union, 2008. Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the council establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). Official Journal of the European Union. Hiscock, K., 2007. A history of marine protected areas in the UK [Online] Available at: http://ukmpas.org/ documents/History_topic_note.pdf. HM Government, 1981. Wildlife and Countryside Act. HM Government, 2009. Our Seas - a Shared Resource. High Level Marine Objectives.
236
12. Marine protected areas in the UK e conservation or recovery?
HMSO, 1994. Biodiversity - the UK Action Plan. JNCC and Natural England, 2010. Ecological Network Guidance. JNCC and Natural England, 2011. Advice from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and Natural England with Regards to Fisheries Impacts on Marine Conservation Zone Habitat Features. Jones, P.S., 1999. Marine Nature Reserves in Britain: Past Lessons, Current Status and Future Issues, pp. 375e396. Marine and Coastal Access Act, 2009. Marine Management Organisation, 2013. Revised Approach to the Management of Commercial Fisheries in European Marine Sites - Overarching Policy and Delivery Document. MMO, 2015a. MMO1066 Anonymised AIS Derived Track Lines 2011. MMO, 2015b. MMO1066 Anonymised AIS Derived Track Lines 2012. MMO, 2016a. Anonymised AIS Derived Track Lines 2013. MMO, 2016b. Anonymised AIS Derived Track Lines 2014. NERC, 1973. Marine Wildlife Conservation. An Assessment of Evidence of a Threat to Marine Wildlife and the Need for Conservation Measures. Natural Environment Research Council, London. Northern Ireland Audit Office, 2015. Protecting Strangford Lough. Sheehan, E., et al., 2016. Storm Impacts on the Seabed in Protected and Fished Areas. Sheehan, E.V., et al., 2013. Drawing lines at the sand: evidence for functional vs. visual reef boundaries in temperate Marine Protected Areas, 76 (1e2), 194e202. Vanstaen, K., Breen, P., 2014. MB0117: Understanding the Distribution and Trends in Inshore Fishing Activities and the Link to Coastal Communities CEFAS.
12 Marine protected areas in the UK e conservation or recovery? Peter Tinsley Dorset Wildlife Trust, Dorset, United Kingdom Abstract Ambition in the UK has shifted from early, often unsuccessful efforts at small site conservation to planned networks of MPAs designed to deliver large scale environmental improvement. The UK is in the final stages of creating an ‘ecologically coherent network’ of MPAs in its territorial waters, with close to a quarter of those waters now designated as a form of marine protected area. A stated purpose of the network of MPAs is that it ‘contributes to the conservation or improvement of the marine environment in the UK marine area’ (Marine and Coastal Access Act, 2009). Though the effectiveness of the legislation to designate and manage MPAs has improved and the level of ambition has increased greatly, some policy approaches to both designation and management may reduce the effectiveness of the network to deliver that desired improvement.
Keywords: Marine protected areas; MPA networks; Conservation versus recovery; MPA management.
Introduction In 2017, with the UK MPA network nearing completion, MPAs cover around 23% of UK waters (17% if only counting sites designated for seabed habitats). Set against the Convention on Biological Diversity target of 10% coverage of MPAs (globally) by 2020, this is impressive. A sobering quote from the European Environment Agency (European Environment Agency, 2015), however serves as a reminder that measuring success in square kilometres alone is not enough: . roughly 20 years of establishing networks of MPAs has had no marked positive effect, at European scale, on the conservation objectives, i.e. the conservation status of vulnerable species and habitats
The authors stress that individual, well-managed (their emphasis) MPAs have a decidedly positive effect and work well, if properly implemented. They go on to suggest that, once sufficient sites are designated, in the right places, there are two factors that need attention.
Marine Protected Areas https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102698-4.00012-5
217
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
218
12. Marine protected areas in the UK e conservation or recovery?
• To ensure that individual MPAs are well managed and their conservation objectives properly enforced. Part of this could involve ‘extending protection to all ecosystem features within the borders of some MPAs, rather than focusing on a limited number of features’. • ‘to implement a consistent permanent no-extraction policy across entire MPAs, or parts of them’ e this is rightly recognised as the most controversial, but also likely to be the most effective. The designation and management of MPAs in the UK has developed in a number of ‘waves’, each with greater ambition. The early designations were few in number and of small, inshore, well-studied, high-biodiversity sites. This reflected the terrestrial approach to nature conservation at the time and demonstrated an ambition to preserve the best of what was left. Subsequent phases of designation were increasingly strategic, aiming to develop inclusive and representative networks of protected sites and features, and looking to promote wider recovery rather than just preserving a few valued hotspots. The concept of what an MPA means in terms of management of human activities has also evolved over that time. The current vision for the UK marine environment is ‘lean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas’. It is implicit in this vision that improvement on the current state of the marine environment is necessary, that an element of recovery is required. The following policy examples reflect the ambition for recovery of marine biodiversity in the UK: . conserving and enhancing biological diversity within the UK and contributing to the conservation of global biodiversity UK Biodiversity Action Plan (HMSO, 1994) Biodiversity is protected, conserved and where appropriate recovered and loss has been halted UK High Level Marine Objectives (HM Government, 2009) Protect and preserve the marine environment, prevent its deterioration or, where practicable, restore marine ecosystems in areas where they have been adversely affected Marine Strategy Framework Directive (European Union, 2008) . contributes to the conservation or improvement of the marine environment in the UK marine area Marine and Coastal Access Act (2009) At sea, we will do this by: Reversing the loss of marine biodiversity and, where practicable, restoring it A Green Future: Our 25 year Plan to Improve the Environment (Defra, 2018)
While there are caveats e ‘where appropriate’ and ‘where practicable’ - the theme of recovery and improvement of the marine environment at a national scale is clear. The creation of an ‘ecologically coherent network’ of protected areas is seen as a key element in delivering that vision. As that network is nearing completion, how much, then, is it likely to contribute to the conservation or improvement of the UK marine environment? Will recovery be demonstrated 20 years hence? How did the decisions and shifts in policy and ambition over the last few decades affect the likely effectiveness of today’s MPA network?
History of MPA development in the UK
219
History of MPA development in the UK Voluntary Marine Nature Reserves This first phase of MPA selection/designation, going back to the 1970s, was driven by a growing recognition of the importance of UK marine habitats and their vulnerability, but countered by an official unwillingness to accept there was an issue (Hiscock, 2007). With the wreck of the Torrey Canyon (1967) still fresh in public memory, the increasing popularity and accessibility of SCUBA diving among the public and among marine scientists, led to growing calls for underwater conservation, both because of the ability to observe and study marine habitats (at least in the first few 10s of metres depth) and the opportunity to see for the first time the damage that could be done by practices such as bottom towed fishing gear, especially where fishing effort was spreading to previously untouched areas. Despite this, a 1973 Natural Environment Research Council report (NERC, 1973) concluded that, ‘. there is little evidence that sub-littoral habitats are at present endangered to the extent that would provide scientific justification for the establishment of National Nature Reserves in this environment.’ This effectively ruled out the possibility of granting protection to important nature conservation features below the low water mark. Faced with this intertia, divers and scientists wishing to protect the recently discovered and newly appreciated underwater riches around the island of Lundy in the Bristol Channel put forward a proposal in 1971 for Britain’s first voluntary marine nature reserve (VMNR) to be established around the island. Collecting (of curios such as seafans and sea-urchins, as well as scallops, lobsters and crawfish) by an increasing number of recreational divers was seen as a significant cause for concern at this time. A second VMNR was established around Skomer in 1976, with Purbeck Marine Wildlife Reserve in Dorset being the first VMNR off the mainland coast in 1978. The battle here was establishing the case for any protection of underwater habitats or species. Marine scientists and recreational divers were just starting to appreciate the UK marine environment and, in some cases, documenting new damage. Voluntary Marine Nature Reserves served to highlight the conservation value of a small number of sites and the first were set up in response to a deemed threat from increasing numbers of recreational divers attracted by the newly discovered underwater landscapes.
Marine Nature Reserves (Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981) The adoption of the 1981 Wildlife and Conservation Act (HM Government, 1981) brought with it the first opportunity to designate statutory Marine Nature Reserves (MNRs) for the purpose of: a) conserving marine flora or fauna or geological or physiographical features of special interest in the area; or b) providing, under suitable conditions and control, special opportunities for the study of, and research into, matters relating to marine flora and fauna and the physical conditions in which they live, or for the study of geological and physiographical features of special interest in the area, or both.
220
12. Marine protected areas in the UK e conservation or recovery?
Seven sites around the UK were put forward as the likely first designations. These were all high-diversity, high energy, mostly rocky, inshore sites - biodiversity hotspots well-known to marine biologists and divers. The waters around Lundy and Skomer e the first VMNRs, were included in this list. In many ways, they were the obvious first choices, but they were not chosen to represent the wide variety of habitats that are now known to exist around the UK. One of the criticisms of this first attempt at protecting marine conservation features was that the sites chosen were a ‘scientists’ playground’ and reflected survey effort as much as conservation value. The creation of MNRs proved more difficult than expected and their effectiveness was limited. The process of site selection (as set out in Schedule 12 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act) could be held up or effectively vetoed by objectors (Jones, 1999) and the powers granted to the Statutory Nature Conservation Body (SNCB) (then the Nature Conservancy Council) to protect marine life in Marine Nature Reserves were limited. An illustration of this can be found in the Skomer Marine Nature Reserve Order 1990: Subject to the provision of byelaw 4 in relation to any part of the reserve no person shall, without a permit from the [Nature Conservancy] Council issued for that purpose under byelaw 5 or without a reasonable excuse, intentionally or recklessly e a) b) c) d)
kill, take destroy, molest or disturb any animal or plant in that part, do anything which interferes with the seabed in that part, damage or disturb any object in that part, deposit rubbish in that part.
Taken on its own, this byelaw sounds very effective but ‘byelaw 4’ states: Nothing in these byelaws shall interfere with the exercise of any functions of a relevant authority, any functions conferred by or under an enactment (whenever passed) or any right of any person (whenever vested) including in particular but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, any estate, right, power, privilege, authority or exemption of the crown, or any right of fishery. This significantly diluted the conservation byelaw-making powers granted to the Nature Conservancy Council, leaving it to the relevant authorities, such as the Sea Fisheries Committees, to curb damaging activities, but without any duty to do so. Compare this with the New Zealand Marine Reserves Act 1971. The purpose of marine reserves in the New Zealand Act is similar to the WCA: . for the purpose of preserving, as marine reserves for the scientific study of marine life, areas of New Zealand that contain underwater scenery, natural features, or marine life, of such distinctive quality, or so typical, or beautiful, or unique, that their continued preservation is in the national interest.
But it then goes on to specify the management. (a) they shall be preserved as far as possible in their natural state: (b) the marine life of the reserves shall as far as possible be protected and preserved: (c) the value of the marine reserves as the natural habitat of marine life shall as far as possible be maintained: (d) . the public shall have freedom of access and entry to the reserves, so that they may enjoy in full measure the opportunity to study, observe, and record marine life in its natural habitat.
History of MPA development in the UK
221
In addition, and in stark contrast to WCA, section 3(3) of the New Zealand Marine Reserves Act 1971 explicitly prevents any fishing in a marine reserve, unless expressly permitted and in accordance with conditions imposed at the time of designation. This made it possible (though it was still difficult) for New Zealand’s first marine reserve to be a highly protected ‘no-take’ reserve, providing an undisturbed environment for marine studies at the Leigh Marine Laboratory e an intentional ‘scientists’ playground’. While the purpose of the Marine Reserves Act was preservation, rather than recovery, (probably based on an assumption at the time that the marine environment was not negatively impacted) the rapid recovery that followed designation at Leigh surprised most people and influenced subsequent marine conservation policy in New Zealand. Lundy Island became the UK’s first MNR in 1986 e at roughly 30 km2. Skomer (1.3 km2) followed in 1990 and Strangford Lough (over 15 km2) in 1995, but by then (14 years after the enabling legislation) it had become apparent that the process for designating MNRs was fundamentally flawed and the remaining sites originally listed for MNR designation were ultimately dropped and the process quietly abandoned. At least one VMNR (St Abbs and Eyemouth VMNR) was established in 1984 specifically as a locally acceptable alternative to the proposed MNR designation (Jones, 1999). There was no requirement in the WCA to list the features of interest within a proposed MNR and the act simply required the SNCB to manage the ‘land and water covering it’ for the purposes listed above. Effective protection of the three designated MNRs was dependent on Sea Fisheries Committee byelaws and the Protection of Wrecks Act designations to bring any significant protection to the seabed. At Lundy and Skomer, this involved restrictions on types of fishing, especially mobile fishing, in all or part of the reserves, though not to the extent thought necessary at the time by the Nature Conservancy Council. Codes of conduct covered the activities of visitors. In 2003, Devon Sea Fisheries Committee enacted a byelaw to effectively create a no-take zone within the Lundy MNR e the first in the UK, and still one of very few, though technically, the byelaw could only cover ‘sea fish’ (defined as ‘fish of any kind (excluding migratory salmon and trout) and shellfish, found in the sea’). Looking back, the WCA seems very limiting and it is tempting to think that a more ambitious approach at this time could have made a big difference e in terms of how MPAs are managed and how the public relate to the concept of MPAs. It was introduced at a time when there was little political support for marine conservation and some of the principles adopted then e such as separating fishery management from conservation, persist today.
European Marine Sites (EU Habitats Directive, Birds Directive) In the 1990s, attention in the UK nature conservation bodies shifted away from nationally designated MNRs and focussed on European Marine Sites, particularly Special Areas of Conservation, under the EU Habitats Directive. Both Lundy MNR and Strangford Lough MNR were listed as candidate marine SACs at this time and the Pembrokeshire Marine SAC, encompassing Skomer MNR, was listed in 1997. European Sites had the advantage of international, rather than domestic, protection and the stated ambition here was to contribute some of the best examples of a range of rare or vulnerable marine habitats and species to a European-wide network of protected areas (the Natura 2000 network). Notably, the requirement was to ‘maintain or restore’ marine habitats and populations.
222
12. Marine protected areas in the UK e conservation or recovery?
The range of marine habitats listed in the Habitats Directive is relatively small compared to terrestrial habitats, though the definitions are fairly broad e those that apply to the UK are listed below: Open sea and tidal areas. • • • • • • • •
Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time. Estuaries. Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide. Coastal lagoons. Large shallow inlets and bays. Reefs. Submarine structures made by leaking gases. Submerged or partially submerged sea caves.
Designation of European Marine Sites was much more successful than that of Marine Nature Reserves, arguably because of the requirement to contribute to Natura 2000 and the threat of real sanctions for failing to meet commitments. The site selection process was much more strategic than the MNR process, based on scientific assessment of the presence, extent and quality of the habitats and species listed in the directive. Designation occurred in two main tranches in the UK e see Fig. 12.1. The first, in the mid-1990s, designated the bulk of ‘estuaries’, ‘large shallow inlets and bays’, ‘submerged or partially submerged sea caves’, and ‘mudflats and sandflats not covered by water at low tide’. A decade later, the
FIG. 12.1 Cumulative area of Annexe I seabed habitats within UK marine Special Areas of Conservation. JNCC Natura 2000 summary data spreadsheet Nov 2017.
History of MPA development in the UK
223
UK was deemed to be under-represented for ‘reefs’, ‘sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time’, ‘coastal lagoons’, ‘submarine structures made by leaking gases’ and particularly for offshore sites. This led to a second tranche of SAC designations, considerably increasing the area under designation. Management of European Marine Sites Article 6 of the Habitats Directive determines how European Marine Sites should be managed. Paragraphs 6(1) and 6(2) require that, within Natura 2000, Member States: Take appropriate conservation measures to maintain and restore the habitats and species for which the site has been designated to a favourable conservation status; Avoid damaging activities that could significantly disturb these species or deteriorate the habitats of the protected species or habitat types. Paragraphs 6(3) and 6(4) lay down the procedure to be followed when planning new developments that might affect a Natura 2000 site. Thus: Any plan or project likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall undergo an Appropriate Assessment to determine its implications for the site. The competent authorities can only agree to the plan or project after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned (Article 6.3). In exceptional circumstances, a plan or project may still be allowed to go ahead, in spite of a negative assessment, provided there are no alternative solutions and the plan or project is considered to be justified for imperative reasons of overriding public interest. In such cases the Member State must take appropriate compensatory measures to ensure that the overall coherence of the N2000 Network is protected (Article 6.4). Articles 6(1) and 6(2) refer to the protected features, rather than the site. This has led to a feature-based approach to management in the UK, whereby potentially damaging activities are managed where they are deemed to impact on designated features, not purely because they occur within the boundaries of the SAC. This emphasis on features, rather than the whole site is significant when it comes to management. The Lundy MNR protection, for example, extended to ‘marine flora or fauna or geological or physiographical features of special interest in the area’, where the Lundy SAC protection was limited to reefs, sandbanks, sea-caves and the grey seal. This puts a requirement on those managing the site to understand the distribution, extent and condition of those habitats and species, and their sensitivity and vulnerability to various activities. These can easily become complex and costly responsibilities, especially in the marine environment. This has also meant that activities such as bottomtowed mobile fishing have only been controlled in European Marine Sites where they directly impinge on a protected feature e such as a reef or biogenic reef. Article 6(3), however, refers to the potential impact of activities (plan or project) on the integrity of the site e which recognises that the value of the site might be greater than the sum of its features. These enthusiastic episodes of designation did not at first lead to big changes in the management of these sites. While the designation was more effective in managing developments and new activities, prior to 2012, commercial fishing was treated differently, not as a ‘plan or
224
12. Marine protected areas in the UK e conservation or recovery?
project’, on the grounds that fishing was an existing activity at the time of designation. Even where fishing practices were clearly damaging listed Annexe I protected features, such as the impact of trawling on Modiolus reefs in Strangford Lough SAC, it proved difficult to secure effective management without a serious threat of infraction proceedings (Northern Ireland Audit Office, 2015). In 2012, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, faced a potential legal challenge around Article 6 of the Habitats Directive (Clark et al., 2017). This argued that all fishing in European Marine Sites should be closed and only opened on a case by case basis, following assessment of likely impact on conservation features. This would have been similar to the conditions imposed by section 3(3) of the New Zealand Marine Reserves Act e i.e. a default closure of MPAs to fishing, with the opportunity for permitted fishing, subject to conditions. The responsibility would lie with the fishing industry or regulators to demonstrate that any fishing activity would not have an adverse effect (on the integrity of the site), rather than the SNCBs having to demonstrate harm (to the protected features). In response, Defra launched a wholescale review of the management of fisheries in European Marine Sites. This resulted in a revised approach to fisheries management in European sites (Marine Management Organisation, 2013), with all fishing activities within protected sites being assessed in relation to impacts on protected features and the integrity of the sites. The highest priority ‘red risk’ activity/ feature interactions e those considered universally damaging, were dealt with initially - this resulted in the closure of over 3300 km2 of seabed to the most damaging mobile gear in inshore (inside 6 nm) European Marine sites in England. Assessment of the remaining interactions e in most cases site and feature-specific assessment, proved to be a considerable task for regulators, as well as the SNCBs, who were tasked to provide additional advice and support. Designation of European Marine Sites was much more ambitious and effective than that of Marine Nature Reserves and the site selection process was much more strategic and scienceled. The ambition here was to contribute some of the best examples of a range of habitats to a wider network of protected sites and to manage activities in those sites to ‘maintain or restore’ protected features. A limited subset of marine habitats and species are protected by European Marine Sites, though other features may be protected by association. The decision to adopt feature-based management has created complex and resource intensive management regimes and may not fully protect the integrity of the site. Initial assumptions around the impact of pre-existing fisheries on European Marine Sites have been successfully challenged e 20 years after the first designations, leading to greater restrictions on some types of fishing within protected sites.
Marine Conservation Zones (Marine and Coastal Access Act) The second tranche of marine SAC site selection and designation coincided with the start of the process to identify and designate Marine Conservation Zones (in England and Wales), and Nature Conservation Marine Protected Areas (NCMPAs in Scotland) e nationally important marine protected areas required by the 2009 Marine and Coastal Access Act. The ambition now was to complement the existing (and deemed largely complete) network of Natura 2000 sites, filling in the ecological gaps (such as offshore, sediment habitats) to create a fully representative and ‘ecologically coherent network’ of MPAs around the UK, such that this network ‘contributes to the conservation or improvement of the marine environment in the UK marine area’ (Marine and Coastal Access Act, 2009). This was a significant step up in terms of
History of MPA development in the UK
225
ambition, with network design principles setting out how this network should be developed and protected, including targets for each of the features to be included. Two out of three proposed tranches of MCZ designation have taken place to-date, with the third tranche, expected in 2018, being seen as the opportunity to fill the remaining ecological gaps to complete the network. While the two processes e marine SAC site selection and designation, and Marine Conservation Zone site selection and designation, were happening at the same time, they operated very differently. SAC site selection was based on a small list of habitats (only ‘reefs’ and ‘submarine structures made by leaking gases’ could apply to offshore sites) and species and was mostly science-led, with no opportunity to consider socio-economic factors. By contrast, MCZ site selection was required to consider socio-economic implications and covered a long list of priority species and habitats. One of the ‘ecological network guidance’ principles was ‘representativity’ e i.e. that multiple examples of all broad-scale habitats, as well as the priority habitats and species, be included in the network. This provided the opportunity to fill the significant habitat/feature gaps in the Natura 2000 network (particularly non-reef habitats in deep-water or offshore). Socio-economic considerations Section 117 (7) of the 2009 Marine and Coastal Access Act states: ‘In considering whether it is desirable to designate an area as an MCZ, the appropriate authority may have regard to any economic or social consequences of doing so”. The interpretation of section 117(7) can have a significant impact on how well the final network delivers on the principle of representativity as it could, in effect, rule out the protection of any economically important areas of seabed. This partly echoes the MNR selection process, whereby objecting parties effectively had a veto on site designation. The difference being that, in the 2009 Marine and Coastal Access Act, the appropriate authority must designate Marine Conservation Zones to complete a network of protected sites that ‘contributes to the conservation or improvement of the marine environment in the UK marine area’. The choice is not whether sites are designated, but where. The explanatory notes for section 117(7) make this clear e Subsection (7) allows Ministers to take account of the economic or social consequences of designation. This ensures MCZs may be designated in such a way as to conserve biodiversity and ecosystems whilst minimising any economic and social impacts. Where an area contains features that are rare, threatened or declining, or forms a biodiversity hotspot, greater weight is likely to be attached to ecological considerations. Where there is a choice of alternative areas which are equally suitable on ecological grounds, socio-economic factors could be more significant in deciding which areas may be designated as an MCZ.
To facilitate the inclusion of socio-economic factors and to meet the requirements for consultation, a number of MCZ site selection projects were set up around England. These were ‘stakeholder-centred’ projects, tasked with developing a suite of recommended sites that would fulfil the network criteria while minimising negative economic and social impacts. An iterative process was developed to plan sites in each project area with the understanding that human use and socio-economic value of areas would be considered by the regional stakeholder groups throughout the process (JNCC and Natural England, 2010).
226
12. Marine protected areas in the UK e conservation or recovery?
MCZ site selection and commercial fishing One of the big challenges faced by the MCZ projects was around suitable alternative areas for broadscale habitats to avoid economically important sites such as fishing grounds. With incomplete data for most of the seabed, only the broadest indications were available that a potential alternative site was ‘equally suitable on ecological grounds’. The rationale for using broad-scale habitats as target conservation features in the network was a response to the lack of fine-scale data for most of the UK and to avoid the trap of skewing the designations to the areas where we have the most data. Broad-scale habitat maps for the whole of the UK are available but come with significant caveats. They are based on broad, mostly physical datasets much of which are relatively low confidence modelled data. These broad-scale habitat types are intended to act as surrogates for biodiversity at finer scales to increase the chance that the full range of associated species and habitats will be represented in the network. An MPA network that protects examples of all these broad-scale habitats across their geographic and ecological range will therefore also protect the associated species and biotopes. Ecological Network Guidance (ENG) (JNCC and Natural England, 2010).
If these broad-scale habitats are then sub-sampled with a bias towards lower productivity or lower biodiversity sites (for example, as a consequence of avoiding economically important areas), the resulting network will be poorer in terms of representativity and richness. This means the question of whether two sites are ‘equally suitable on ecological grounds’ needs to take into account more than whether they share a broad-scale habitat type. This is particularly important for those broad-scale habitats that are not already covered in the Natura 2000 network e e.g. non-reef, offshore, sediment dominated. For example, there is a large swathe of ‘subtidal coarse sediment’ e one of the 22 broadscale habitats listed in the ENG e in the English Channel. As this is not a Habitats Directive ‘Annex I’ habitat, this will not be covered by European Marine sites (though these sites may contain ‘subtidal coarse sediment’) and will therefore rely on MCZ/NCMPA designation to meet network representativity targets. ‘Subtidal coarse sediment’ is unlikely to be uniform habitat but is treated as such for the purposes of meeting the criteria of the ENG design principles, which require that at least two sites containing this habitat are protected in each of the regional project areas. The English Channel area spans two MPA project regions e Finding Sanctuary (SW England) and Balanced Seas (SE England). Both MCZ projects recommended sites for ‘sublittoral coarse sediment’, fulfilling the target for this broadscale habitat. Fig. 12.2 shows how these are distributed. There are four relatively large, designated MPAs covering this broad-scale habitat offshore (one, the Wight-Barfleur SAC, is designated for reef habitat), and a number of, as yet undesignated, recommended MCZs. Fishing activity as an indicator of ecological distinctiveness Satellite tracking of predators is increasingly being used to better understand foraging behaviour and to infer the relative importance of different areas to the species in question. Such studies generally are only able to track a small proportion of the population under investigation but can produce valuable data, identifying important feeding grounds, for example.
History of MPA development in the UK
227
FIG. 12.2 Distribution of MPAs designated or recommended for ‘subtidal coarse sediment’ in the English Channel.
Most fishing vessels (all vessels over 15 m since 2014) now routinely transmit position data via AIS (Automatic Identification System). This provides an effective satellite tracking dataset of fishing vessels as foraging predators. Fig. 12.3 shows a map of AIS traces for vessels
FIG. 12.3 Designated and recommended MPAs in the English Channel plotted over AIS traces from vessels identified as fishing vessels from anonymised AIS derived track lines 2011e14, published by MMO under Open Government Licence. AIS trace plotted with opacity of 50% and thickness of 20 m.
228
12. Marine protected areas in the UK e conservation or recovery?
identified as fishing vessels between 2011 and 2014 (for the first week of each month). Individual traces are plotted with low opacity, emphasising areas where tracks are concentrated. While this is not a completely reliable indication of fishing activity, particularly as it mostly represents larger fishing vessels, it is useful for showing where these fishing vessels spend the most time. There is a clear distinction between the central section of the Channel (low fishing vessel activity) and the eastern and western sections, where there are concentrations of fishing vessel activity. The distribution of fishing vessel activity, particularly the general avoidance of the central English Channel section, suggests that the underlying ecology of the Channel is not as uniform as the broadscale habitat map would indicate and particularly, that the central section is likely to be ecologically distinct from the eastern and western sections. This is borne out by a study to map reef habitat in the Channel (Coggan et al., 2009), which identified a bed-load parting zone in the central Channel area, with a net transport of seabed sediments away from this area. This study concluded that this central section is more likely to contain exposed reef habitat (and helped identify the Wight-Barfleur SAC for reef habitat) and suggested that this area is one of ‘low natural productivity’ e both indications of an ecological distinctiveness. An invisible gap in the network? If all or most of the ‘subtidal coarse sediment’ sites are selected from areas which are distinctive in that they are largely avoided by fishing vessels, this is likely to leave an ecological gap in the network. Most of the currently designated MCZs for sediment habitat in the Channel appear to be have been selected to avoid the most frequented fishing grounds. This is most likely a consequence of the site-selection process attempting to minimise economic impact by avoiding designation of important fishing grounds as MPAs and/or a preference for including less impacted sites in the network. The heavily fished sites will likely be the most impacted and contain the most degraded habitat. The ENG states that: Where multiple areas are identified that equally contribute to achieving the network design principles and further ecological considerations, those features which have been less impacted (or are less likely to have been impacted) by human activities should generally be considered a higher priority for MCZ identification than more degraded examples of the same feature
This could be taken as additional justification for excluding these fished areas from the network but the guidance also states. Regardless of current degradation, sites must be selected that best contribute to the ecological objectives of the MPA network.
If the distribution of fishing activity reflects ecological distinctiveness and seabed habitat currently in a degraded state due to historical fishing pressure is capable of recovery, then failure to include examples of the more heavily fished regions of the ‘subtidal coarse sediment’ broad-scale habitat could reduce the representativity of the network and the potential
History of MPA development in the UK
229
of the network to deliver on the MCAA requirement of ‘conservation or improvement of the marine environment in the UK marine area’. Notably, the Balanced Seas MPA project did recommend two subtidal coarse sediment MCZs within areas of greater fishing vessel activity. Neither of these sites were designated in the first two tranches of MCZ designation, but the opportunity is there to designate in tranche 3. Designating areas of economic importance as MPAs is clearly more challenging and controversial, but failing to do so as a general principle could leave ecological gaps in the network and could leave the UK open to the criticism of creating so-called ‘residual MPAs’ e in areas that are less problematical to designate, but of lower ecological and conservation value. The MCZ process, with its aim of minimising socio-economic impacts, could meet its targets but fail, ultimately, to deliver all of the hoped-for benefits, especially in terms of resilience and recovery. The most controversial recommended sites in the English MCZ selection process have been deferred to the third tranche of designation (expected 2018). MCZs were recommended on the basis of the best evidence available at the time, but designation (of sites and features) required confirmation of the presence and extent of features. This threw up a further issue with the use of broad-scale habitats as a proxy for finer-scale biodiversity. After the site selection process was completed, a suite of ecological surveys was commissioned for many of the recommended sites. Not surprisingly, the detailed surveys often disagreed with the broad-scale modelled habitats. In some cases (where the new evidence confirmed the presence of recommended, but not designated, features) this led to features being added to the designation order but often, where the new features were not on the original list of recommended features, the response was not to add newly mapped habitats to the conservation features of the site and thereby contribute to the network, but to remove them, leaving some sites with designated features covering less than 50% of the seabed within them. Further features can still be added to existing sites in tranche 3 of MCZ designation. The aim of MCZ designation and management is much more ambitious than previous rounds of MPA designation in the UK, both in terms of the range of habitats and species to be included (a long list of priority habitats and species, plus all broadscale habitats) and the aim of recovery of the wider marine environment. Management of MCZs is still developing, but is largely feature-based, along the lines of that applied to European Marine Sites. The site selection process, in attempting to minimise any negative economic impact of designation, may have introduced a bias in the selection of some broadscale habitat sites, leaving a gap in the true range of habitats protected. Will the MPA network deliver recovery? If the UK MPA network meets the ecological guidance principles of representativity, replication, adequacy, viability and connectivity, based on the best available evidence, then it should be able to deliver the goal of recovery, subject to one final principle e protection. Designation alone does not confer protection. Management of sites and features within the network must be sufficient to reduce pressures from human activities. The greater the reduction of pressure, the greater the likelihood of recovery. JNCC and Natural England provided advice on the impacts of fishing activities on protected features in MCZs (JNCC and Natural England, 2011), assessing the effectiveness of three different management options: open access, managed access and no access e on the
230
12. Marine protected areas in the UK e conservation or recovery?
FIG. 12.4 Chart showing predicted effectiveness of management options for fishing gear/protected feature interactions for maintain (A) and recover (B) conservation objectives. Data from JNCC and Natural England, 2011. Advice from the Joint Nature Conservtion Committee and Natural England with regards to fisheries impacts on Marine Conservation Zone habitat features
History of MPA development in the UK
231
likelihood of achieving either ‘maintain’ or ‘recover’ conservation objectives for different feature/gear type interactions. These are summarised in the charts below (Fig. 12.4). The most effective way to achieve conservation objectives is through the creation of fully protected marine reserves, closed to extractive and damaging uses. Such MPAs were termed ‘reference sites’ in the MCZ selection process. The MCCA did not specifically legislate for reference sites as a special type of MPA but the ENG required that each broad-scale habitat and priority habitat/species have at least one reference area within each of the four regional MCZ projects. These were intended to be sites where the conservation objective would be ‘return to reference condition’, where all extraction, deposition, or human-derived disturbance is removed or prevented. While a number of mostly small reference sites were put forward by the MCZ projects, none were designated and there is no indication that any will be included in the third tranche of designation. That leaves a very low number of existing, small, highly protected sites, with the rest of the network managed as multi-use sites. The most widespread and most significant pressure on the marine environment other than climate change is commercial fishing. The combination of generally avoiding the designation of MCZs in areas exposed to more intense fishing pressure and the assumption, until the recent revised approach to fisheries management in European Marine Sites, that fishing activities that pre-date the designation of MPAs are generally compatible with MPA objectives, unless proven to cause damage to listed features, has meant that, historically, MPA designation has had relatively little impact on reducing pressure from fishing and would therefore be unlikely to lead to significant ‘improvement of the marine environment in the UK area’. With the revised approach to fisheries in MPAs, that is now beginning to change, with significant areas of inshore waters being closed to the most damaging bottom-contacting mobile fishing gear. The figures sound impressive e 31% of Dorset inshore waters (to 6 nm), for example, are currently closed to mobile gear but again, it is not just the number of square kilometres closed that matters. A closer look at the south-west of England shows a number of new spatial byelaws restricting mobile fishing gear brought in by Cornwall, Devon and Severn and Southern IFCAs, protecting sensitive seabed habitats such as seagrass meadows and reefs. The first thing to notice is that few sites are protected in their entirety, the closures are restricted to the listed features, with a buffer zone, allowing continued access to parts, in some cases, the majority, of the sites. Such feature-based management reduces a protected area to the known extent of its mapped designated features e for example, the mobile gear byelaw for the Chesil Beach and Stennis Ledges MCZ covers 43% of the site. Lyme Bay Statutory Instrument e a de facto site-based management approach A notable exception to this is the area closed by the Lyme Bay Statutory Instrument (SI) e this is a simple, but effective, site-based conservation measure, with a complete ban on all bottom-contacting mobile fishing, established in 2008 with immediate effect. Its boundary almost coincides with the Lyme Bay section of the Lyme Bay and Torbay SAC, which it pre-dates. While the SI provides site-wide protection from mobile gear, the SAC protection, provided through IFCA byelaws, applies only to mapped reef features. Where the sites overlap, the SI provides protection to a non-reef area of about 4.4 km2 that would otherwise be open to mobile gear under feature-based managed access e see Fig. 12.5. The boundary of the SI was based on existing knowledge of the distribution and extent of reef features, drawn to encompass as much of the reef as possible, without including
232
12. Marine protected areas in the UK e conservation or recovery?
FIG. 12.5 Location of the Lyme Bay Statutory Instrument (site-wide closure) in relation to the Lyme Bay and Torbay SAC boundary and IFCA closures.
surrounding sediment habitat e to protect the reefs from historical, well documented damage from mobile fishing gear, while avoiding unnecessary take-up of valuable non-reef fishing ground. Complex boundaries are quite common in MPAs, particularly inshore, for similar reasons. For the part of the Lyme Bay reefs SAC (not including the Torbay section) that lies outside the SI, just over 50% of the site is open to managed access with mobile fishing gear. There is evidence that the additional protection provided by the SI is allowing the recovery of stony reef habitat on previously dredged ground, areas that would otherwise have been considered non-reef habitat e that the functional extent of a feature can be larger than its legal protection under feature-based management (Sheehan et al., 2013). There is pressure to remove the Statutory Instrument on the grounds that it is redundant following the subsequent, near overlapping SAC designation, but its removal under the current regime of feature-based management could allow managed access to the ‘non-reef’ areas which would likely lead to a reduction in overall protection and a reversal of recovery. It is also important to understand how much difference MPA management measures will make in terms of reducing fishing impacts. While there have been some very real conservation gains and many features such as reefs and seagrass beds are protected from future expansions or relocations of fishing activity, recovery or restoration can only be expected where historic, long-term pressures from fishing have been reduced or removed. Overlaying the areas closed to mobile gear (Fig. 12.5) on the map of mobile fishing effort (2010e12 e prior to the recent closures under the revised approach), shows that most of the closed areas
Conclusions
233
FIG. 12.6 Fishing activity intensity (mobile gear) 2010e12 as determined from vessel sightings, plotted over inshore areas closed to mobile gear.
were not historically heavily targeted. While these measures will protect sensitive and valuable seabed from future damage, the reduction in pressure and hence the potential for recovery is not as great as the size of the combined area closed might suggest. While the direct physical damage caused by bottom-contacting mobile fishing gear is now recognised as incompatible with some vulnerable seabed habitats in MPAs, the impacts of fishing per se, such as the removal of target species and bycatch, are considered compatible, as long as fishing is sustainably managed e the only exception being the few, small highlyprotected areas. An unintended consequence of closing an area to mobile gear is often an expansion of static gear fishing, either as a shift in fishing method or as a consequence of reduced gear conflict, which makes it at least theoretically possible that overall fishing pressure in some of these areas could increase, though possibly for different target species.
Conclusions The Wildlife and Countryside Act marked a significant moment in that it led to the first Marine Nature Reserves in the UK, but in some ways, it was a missed opportunity. The weakness of the legislation and particularly the difficulty in dealing with fishing as a damaging activity limited the ambition of the first foray into MPAs and failed to establish the concept of MPAs as nature reserves. Had the WCA been more ambitious and the first small MNRs been fully protected, the subsequent MPA programme could have been very different.
234
12. Marine protected areas in the UK e conservation or recovery?
The power of the European Habitats Directive, both to compel member states to designate their complement of MPAs and to manage activities in them, has proved to be a significant driver in the UK with large areas now designated, but the limited range of marine habitats covered by the Habitats Directive and the feature-led approach to management it has encouraged, have limited its potential effectiveness to promote recovery. The initial failure to treat commercial fishing as a potentially damaging activity limited the impact of European Marine Sites for the first two decades after the 1992 Habitats Directive and the full implications of the revised approach to fisheries management in MPAs have yet to be worked through. The Marine and Coastal Access Act, 2009 offered the opportunity to add a suite of nationally important protected sites to address the shortcomings of the WCA and to fill the gaps in the Natura 2000 network. This led to an ambition to create an ‘ecologically coherent network’ of marine protected areas in UK waters, extending the range of habitats protected to include sediments and other non-reef habitats, particularly offshore and to include representative examples of all broadscale habitats. This network, once complete, is required to contribute to the conservation or improvement of the wider marine environment. A combination of a desire to minimise (negative) economic impact of MCZ designation and an overdependence on broadscale habitat maps to determine areas ‘equally suitable on ecological grounds’ may have resulted in an under-representation of productive, potentially biodiverse offshore sediment sites in the network. The revised approach to fisheries management has led to some very real protection being afforded to (parts of) marine SACs and this was subsequently extended to MCZs, resulting in additional closures in 2017. The effectiveness of the network in promoting recovery is dependent, not just on the combined area designated, or even on the area under protective management, but on how much the change in management has led to a reduction in pressure. That factor is difficult to quantify, but needs to be accounted for when reporting on the success of the network. While MCZs were recommended on the best available evidence at the time, designation of protected features was dependent on good evidence of presence and extent of component features. Many currently designated MCZs have only a subset of the original list of recommended features designated, in some cases covering less than half of the site. The decision to apply feature-based, rather than site-based management to MCZs has left some sites under-protected. The level of ambition for MPAs has increased significantly since the first small sites were designated and the size of the current network is clearly impressive. The UK network is not yet complete, with a third tranche of MCZ designation expected in 2018 in England. Many of the most contentious recommended MCZ sites, particularly those considered likely to have the greatest socio-economic impact (such as the offshore sediment sites in areas of significant fishing activity), have been left to the third tranche and their designation depends on political will. These sites also include some with the greatest potential for recovery (the greatest likely reduction in pressure) and their designation will be necessary to achieve a representative and effective network. Subject to the third tranche of MCZ designation filling the remaining ecological gaps in the network, the likelihood of the network delivering that marked positive effect on the
References
235
conservation status of protected habitats and species could depend on those two factors highlighted at the start of this chapter: extending protection to all ecosystem features within the borders of some MPAs, rather than focusing on a limited number of features
and to implement a consistent permanent no-extraction policy across entire MPAs, or parts of them.
A line in Defra’s 25 year plan (Defra, 2018) signals some hope for the former e ‘Building on current plans to complete our ecologically coherent network of well-managed MPAs, we will move to a whole-site approach to protect sites of greatest biodiversity interest.’ Establishing fully protected sites (or parts of sites), while likely to be very effective, will always be controversial. In some ways that is even more difficult now, having established multi-use MPAs as the norm over the last three decades. There are no specific references to highly protected sites within the Marine and Coastal Access Act, either to include or exclude them from the network, other than in the requirement to report on the effectiveness of the network at six-yearly intervals. That report must include: The number of MCZs designated by the authority in which the following activities are prohibited or significantly restrictedd i. any licensable marine activity; ii. fishing for or taking animals or plants from the sea; This is a good description of a highly protected MPA. The first report is due at the end of 2018 and is unlikely to report a high number of MCZs in this category. It will be a good test of future ambition how this indicator changes over the next reporting period.
References Clark, R., Humphreys, J., Solandt, J.-L., Weller, C., 2017. Dialectics of Nature: The Emergence of Policy on the Management of Commercial Fisheries in English European Marine Sites, pp. 11e17. Client Earth and Marine Conservation Society, 2011. Letter to Marine Management Organisation “Fishing Vessel Licences and the Habitats Directive”. Coggan, R., Diesing, M., Vanstaen, K., 2009. Maping Annex I Reefs in the Central English Channel: Evidence to Support the Selection of Candidate SACs. CEFAS. Defra, 2018. A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment. European Environment Agency, 2015. Marine Protected Areas in Europe e An Overview and Perspectives for the Future. European Union, 2008. Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the council establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). Official Journal of the European Union. Hiscock, K., 2007. A history of marine protected areas in the UK [Online] Available at: http://ukmpas.org/ documents/History_topic_note.pdf. HM Government, 1981. Wildlife and Countryside Act. HM Government, 2009. Our Seas - a Shared Resource. High Level Marine Objectives.
236
12. Marine protected areas in the UK e conservation or recovery?
HMSO, 1994. Biodiversity - the UK Action Plan. JNCC and Natural England, 2010. Ecological Network Guidance. JNCC and Natural England, 2011. Advice from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and Natural England with Regards to Fisheries Impacts on Marine Conservation Zone Habitat Features. Jones, P.S., 1999. Marine Nature Reserves in Britain: Past Lessons, Current Status and Future Issues, pp. 375e396. Marine and Coastal Access Act, 2009. Marine Management Organisation, 2013. Revised Approach to the Management of Commercial Fisheries in European Marine Sites - Overarching Policy and Delivery Document. MMO, 2015a. MMO1066 Anonymised AIS Derived Track Lines 2011. MMO, 2015b. MMO1066 Anonymised AIS Derived Track Lines 2012. MMO, 2016a. Anonymised AIS Derived Track Lines 2013. MMO, 2016b. Anonymised AIS Derived Track Lines 2014. NERC, 1973. Marine Wildlife Conservation. An Assessment of Evidence of a Threat to Marine Wildlife and the Need for Conservation Measures. Natural Environment Research Council, London. Northern Ireland Audit Office, 2015. Protecting Strangford Lough. Sheehan, E., et al., 2016. Storm Impacts on the Seabed in Protected and Fished Areas. Sheehan, E.V., et al., 2013. Drawing lines at the sand: evidence for functional vs. visual reef boundaries in temperate Marine Protected Areas, 76 (1e2), 194e202. Vanstaen, K., Breen, P., 2014. MB0117: Understanding the Distribution and Trends in Inshore Fishing Activities and the Link to Coastal Communities CEFAS.