Using science effectively

C H A P T E R

26 Using science effectively: selection, design and management of marine protected areas Keith Hiscock Marine Biological Association of the UK, Plymouth, United Kingdom

Abstract Government ministers and their advisors are given imperatives for the establishment of marine protected areas (MPAs) by various directives, conventions and statutes. Scientists are charged with interpreting the associated goals and objectives into site selection, design and management actions. There are extensive resources in the UK to identify the location of habitats and species, to support decisions about where representative MPAs can best be located and to understand what human activities are most likely to damage threatened habitats and species wherever they occur. However there is muddled thinking about design of an MPA series and especially about issues surrounding ‘connectivity’ where the science that we have needs to be taken more notice of. In the past 25 years or so, since the implementation of the EU Habitats Directive in Britain, scientists who advise policy have had mixed success in making sense of a range of sometimes poorly informed legislative requirements for the establishment of marine protected areas. Although there are now many well thoughtthrough initiatives that can have a positive benefit for threatened habitats and species, science still needs to be used more effectively.

Keywords: Marine protected areas; Science; Management; Habitats directive; OSPAR; MPA network; Marine conservation zones.

Introduction There has been legislation for the establishment of specifically marine protected areas (MPAs) in Britain since the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The first statutory Marine Nature Reserve was established at Lundy in 1987. Lundy was followed by Skomer in 1990 but there were no more reserves created under the 1981 Act. The legislative provisions for those

Marine Protected Areas https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-102698-4.00026-5

507

Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

508

26. Using science effectively: selection, design and management of marine protected areas

MPAs were weak but management plans identified potentially damaging activities that may adversely affect their special features together with the needed management actions. Next, for MPAs, came the EU Habitats Directive in 1992. UK marine scientists had little to do with the identification of what were listed as ‘threatened’ habitats (see European Union, 2007) and species and those of us in the statutory nature conservation agencies charged with identifying possible sites to represent the features that were listed were presented with a problematic situation. Some of the seven marine habitats (‘Coastal lagoons’, ‘Estuaries’ and ‘Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide’) were clearly under threat because of rarity or potentially damaging human activities but others were difficult to interpret (‘Large shallow inlets and bays’; ‘Reefs’; ‘Submerged or partially submerged sea caves’) whilst others seemed not to be significantly threatened in the UK (‘Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all of the time’). During the process of interpreting those broad descriptive categories, scientific advisors in the UK helped to make sense of them by identifying what specific types (for instance of sandbanks) were threatened by human activities. Others ‘slipped through’ that sense-check and, for instance, time is still wasted on checking if ‘favourable conservation status’ is maintained in heavily scoured intertidal sea caves and Sabellaria spp. biogenic reefs (which are naturally highly disturbed and populated by ephemeral species). The provisions of the Habitats Directive were translated into UK law in the ‘Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994’ in respect of England and Wales with later interpretation in ‘The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010’. In Scotland and Northern Ireland, variations of those measures were applied. All such legislation requires careful interpretation by those charged with implementation. A key requirement of the measures implemented is that SACs need to be assessed for ‘favourable conservation status’. If any of the features or sub-features fail designated tests because of lack of management action, the UK may be subject to infraction proceedings. There are gaps in coverage for the protection of habitats and species in the Habitats Directive and there are later directives and conventions that require legislative underpinning including the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, the OSPAR Convention and enhancements to the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 filled some of those gaps by the identification of Marine Conservation Zones in England and Wales. Scotland has its own Act: the Marine (Scotland) Act which enables the identification of Scottish Marine Protected Areas. The imperatives for the establishment of MPAs that are included in those Acts were established to support the goals and objectives within the relevant directives and conventions as well as government policy. Northern Ireland is, again, different legislatively and not detailed here. Using scientific knowledge effectively in achieving such goals and objectives related to the establishment of MPAs is the subject of this article.

Using science effectively? Although experienced scientists should be involved in drafting the words in directives, conventions and statutes together with any later supplements to them, the knowledge that those scientists should have has not always been used. Too often, conservation measures are based on flawed concepts (especially, for marine habitats and species, using terrestrial

Using science effectively?

509

approaches such as concepts of connectivity) and incomplete or out-of-date knowledge such as lists of rare species. Sometimes, it seems, a goal is chosen (perhaps by government ministers or officials) that looks impressive but is ineptly worded and scientifically indefensible. Once those goals and associated objectives are embedded in statutes and guidelines, we are stuck with them.

MPA goals There are high level goals that ‘shape’ objectives and the measures that are intended to achieve those objectives. Here are examples that apply to Britain: • . establishing an ecologically coherent network of well-managed MPAs in the NorthEast Atlantic by 2010. (OSPAR Recommendation 2003/3 adopted by OSPAR 2003: OSPAR 03/17/1, Annex 9.) • . the establishment of marine protected areas consistent with international law and based on scientific information, including representative networks by 2012 .. (World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg 2002.) • . establishing a well-managed and ecologically coherent network of MPAs by 2012 [England]. (Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.) • By 2020, at least .. 10% of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well-connected systems of protected areas. (Convention on Biological Diversity, Aichi Target 11.) The actions to be applied to achieve the above goals should use ‘scientific’ (‘ecological’) criteria for the selection of candidate MPAs. Those criteria are reviewed in Hiscock (2014). A further stage is ‘design’ (how large, how far apart, what shape?). A later stage is to determine the management measures that will be required. The criteria that follow in this section are cited in various directives, conventions, statutes and guidelines for the selection and design of MPAs.

Selection criteria (scientific or ecological) Introduction No one set of scientific or ecological criteria stands out as ‘the one to use’: all have relevant additions and peculiar omissions. Scientific or ecological criteria relevant to marine biodiversity are reviewed and catalogued (as ‘biological valuation criteria’) in Derous et al. (2007) and are listed and, where relevant, synonymised with those criteria in Roff and Zacharias (2011). Some are subject to occasional revision (for instance, OSPAR criteria). The terms used below are based on those originally identified in the OSPAR (the OSlo and PARis Commissions) Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (see OSPAR, 2003 and as revised) but have also taken particular account of those listed in the Convention on Biological Diversity Conference of the Parties (COP Decision 9 IX/20 2008). Sometimes, ‘Representativeness’ or ‘Representativity’ is included in design rather than selection criteria. Scientific or ecological criteria are described below.

510

26. Using science effectively: selection, design and management of marine protected areas

Presence of (or importance for) threatened or declining species and habitats/biotopes (including rarity) This criterion is listed in most sets of selection criteria. Most often, the criterion is linked to ‘Red Lists’ that have used quantitative information on decline to identify species or habitats for protection. Internationally, IUCN maintain their Red Lists of Threatened Species (IUCN, 2017) and Threatened Habitats (Gubbay et al., 2016). Degree of threat was assessed as part of the process to identify Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species and habitats (a UK response to the Convention on Biodiversity, 1992). Being listed as a BAP species or habitat requires quantitative information on occurrence or decline, leading to distorted and incomplete lists: too many ‘worthy’ species and biotopes were ‘data deficient’. New thinking is required especially as regulatory authorities and managers may take those distorted and incomplete lists as the only species and habitats that ‘matter’ to take account of in designation orders and subsequent regulations for MPAs. The BAP lists of marine species and habitats have been slightly adjusted to take account of additional measures (for instance, the OSPAR lists; the Marine and Coastal Access Act) and re-badged to suit new initiatives, and because of devolved administrations having their own initiatives and naming schemes. For instance, the Ecological Network Guidance for Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs) in England and Wales (Natural England and Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 2010) refers to ‘Features of Conservation Importance’ (FOCI): essentially re-badged BAP species and habitats with some additions. For marine species, the quantitative information required to identify Red List categories of species is often only available for well-censused charismatic megafauna and for commercial species. Rarity is different from ‘threatened’ (and some species are naturally rare) but is often used as a surrogate for ‘threatened’. Species can be identified as ‘rare’ or ‘scarce’ by extrapolation of quantitative measures from terrestrial approaches (see Sanderson, 1996), although such criteria do not work for highly mobile species (but see Hiscock et al., 2013). Identifying species that are ‘sensitive’ according to their life history traits (see Hiscock and Tyler-Walters, 2006 and subsequent updates on the MarLIN website) and threatened because of damaging human activities where they occur may be a more meaningful and scientifically sound approach to identifying ‘threatened’ but has yet to be incorporated into listing procedures. For habitats, the exercise to identify Red List marine habitats (Gubbay et al. 2016) revealed extensive data deficiency and the list is unrepresentative. Our knowledge of the life history traits that facilitate sensitivity assessments for low mobility seabed species and the habitats that they dominate or characterise is incomplete. Often, it is the knowledge and experience of marine naturalists that is needed to advise assessments. (A naturalist is someone who undertakes study of natural organisms through observation: what plants and animals do, how they react to each other and their environment, how they are organised into larger groupings like populations and communities.) Not having the information to address criteria may be considered ‘unscientific’ but experienced scientists and naturalists can weigh-up what they know, use knowledge of similar species and, sometime most importantly, use plain common sense to give advice. Rarity or uniqueness ‘Rarity’ is important in its own right as rare species and habitats need to be protected wherever they occur. They are unlikely to be ‘unique’ to a location or endemic around Britain

Using science effectively?

511

although there are species in other parts of the world that are only found in particular isolated locations. The continued presence of rare or scarce species in a location may be protected by a well-managed MPA. The list of rare and scarce species for Great Britain (Sanderson 1996) is out-of-date and uses fairy crude criteria of occurrence. It is remarkable that the list is not kept up-to-date and that the criteria for listing species have not been reviewed and revised. The rare and scarce list is an important touchstone for those charged with identifying where MPAs might be sited and for the protected area regulator or manager who needs to know what are the important resources to protect. Using science effectively for MPA selection and management and for environmental assessments requires a revision of the criteria to identify rarity in species and biotopes and for lists to be kept up-to-date. Presence of ‘important’ species or biotopes This criterion is very relevant with regard to species that support or lead to the presence of a wide range of other species and/or create a particular biotope. It may also be that a species supports particular other species (attached to it, living within it or feeding on it). The criteria for their identification are include: • • • • • • • •

International obligations At risk e.g. in decline Habitats important for assemblages of key species Extreme threat and habitat dependent or long-lived, slow-growing and vulnerable species Extreme human activity linked threat: 50% decline in next 25 years is feasible Restricted to isolated locations and threatened with local extinction Likely to contain rare/scarce/threatened species An element is threatened with destruction, at least locally

‘International obligations’ include that the habitat is one that is listed in directives and conventions: something that has resulted in wasted time and money for habitats that are in fact robust and may even benefit from disturbance. Indeed, it is to the shame of scientists involved in implementing those directives and conventions that they have not moderated their application to exclude habitats that are not threatened. Specific examples of habitats that are not threatened and yet ‘required’ to be protected are: • Some ‘Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all of the time’ (Habitats Directive). The Habitats Directive was compiled before 1992 and our knowledge of what marine habitats were threatened was fairly crude or incomplete. Some sub tidal sediments are important to protect including maerl beds and muddy gravels but highly mobile sandbanks with an impoverished fauna (such as in the Severn Estuary) have been included and monitored but should not have been. (It seems possible that the sandbanks referred to were included because of sand mining for coastal protection in Belgium and the Netherlands and because some are a source of food for diving sea duck.) • Some ‘Reefs’ (Habitats Directive and MCZ FOCI for biogenic reefs). There was a great deal of discussion about what constituted a ‘reef’ and there are many reef habitats that are threatened and/or include rare scarce and sensitive species. Biogenic reefs were a ‘given’ as a qualifying type of reef and yet reefs formed by species of Sabellaria worms

512

26. Using science effectively: selection, design and management of marine protected areas

are widespread, thrive in highly disturbed situations and recover rapidly (see, for instance, Vorberg 2000): they should not have been included. • Some ‘Submerged or partially submerged caves’ (Habitats Directive). In Britain, submerged caves that include unusual communities and species are a rarity but all caves including ones that are heavily scoured and include only ephemeral species have been included in the features listed for protection in SACs. Those scoured caves (for instance, at Flamborough Head) should be removed from designated features and the time and money spent on monitoring them better spent elsewhere. Using science effectively means challenging dogma and removing species and habitats that are not threatened from government tick lists for action. Ecological significance/special importance for life history stages This criterion is especially relevant to highly mobile species such as seals, cetaceans, some fish and some cephalopods that have distinct and identifiable locations where they feed, breed, rest or otherwise aggregate. MPAs that protect seabed habitats may be established in spawning areas, or locations related to breeding or nursery habitats such as seagrass beds. However, moderation is needed. Kelp forests are important nursery habitats but are widespread and common and do not require special protection. Common sense as well as science is often needed. (High natural) biological diversity ‘Biodiversity’ can be measured in terms of the number of habitats (as biotopes) within an area or in terms of numbers of species and, of course, the more different habitats identified, the more different species are likely to be supported in them. Furthermore, they should include not just ‘any’ species but species that are rare, scarce in decline or threatened with decline. If sites are to be identified for their high biological diversity, that selection is likely to be within biogeographically separate areas and different physiographic types, and different major habitat types within those areas. Regions of the coast of Great Britain that have distinctive geomorphological and biological characteristics have been identified for 40 years now: the latest iteration being the Regional Seas identified as part of the ‘Charting Progress’ initiative (Defra, 2010). By selecting MPAs with high biological diversity, a country gets the ‘best bang for its bucks’ but measuring diversity and identifying hotspots has proved difficult mainly because of the unevenness of survey data (see Hiscock and Breckles, 2007). More work could be done to test measures that would identify hotspots of biodiversity (see, for instance, Langmead and Jackson, 2010) but often it is the experienced field biologist (naturalist) who can point to locations with high biological diversity. Representativity Representative of what? Within the different biogeographic units (the Regional Seas in Britain), it will be representative examples of major habitat types (which will encompass physiographically distinct areas). From a practical point-of-view, it would be difficult to identify locations that include examples of all approximately 350 seabed marine biotopes that

Using science effectively?

513

constitute level 4 of the EUNIS (European Union Nature Information System) classification and are present around Britain. It is most likely that level 3, which is about 25 types is more practical. We are fortunate in Britain in that very large amounts of survey data have been brought together and maintained in the Marine Recorder database. That database can be interrogated to obtain an understanding of what proportion of species would be included in a percentage of examples of each Level 3 biotope. Clear thinking and data analysis by Rondonini (2010) for the MCZ process used that scientific information in an effective and informative way. Rondonini found that taking the IUCN target of protecting 12% of a habitat type would result in the representation of 57e72% of the species that it contains. However, there was wide variation between habitat types with 20% of habitat type A1.1 (High energy littoral rock) expected to represent approximately 60% of its species, while 20% of habitat type A6.2 (Deep sea mixed substrata) was expected to contain approximately 80% of its species. Similar exercises could be undertaken in different regional seas to suggest what proportion of each major habitat type in MPAs would represent what proportion of species. The key question is whether converting such quantitative information into targets is meaningful for biodiversity conservation. Selecting MPAs as ‘Representative and preferably the best including rare and threatened habitats and species’ would achieve much more than just multiple sites of any example of each level 3 biotope. Fragility, vulnerability and sensitivity/slow recovery of species and habitats All of these apparently separate criteria are encompassed in assessments of ‘sensitivity’ although ‘vulnerability’ depends on whether a particular potentially damaging activity occurs in an area. The process of assessing degree of sensitivity of species and, through those assessments, of the habitats they dominate or characterise, is now wellestablished but requires information on life history traits (such as growth rate, longevity, reproductive potential and frequency, and dispersal potential) which is often lacking. There is vocabulary to learn. Whereas we used to speak of ‘intolerance’ (to a pressure or activity) as an indication of fragility, we now speak of ‘degree of resistance’. Whereas we used to speak of ‘recovery potential’ we now refer to ‘resilience’. Such changes happen because of the wording of directives and conventions: in this case the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Good work has been done in the British Isles to undertake research and to populate websites with information and procedures via the Marine Life Information Network (MarLIN) and its spin-out, Biotic (see www.marlin.ac.uk). Using science effectively means continuing to add species and biotopes to those sensitivity assessments and keeping existing ones up-to-date. Naturalness Whether or not a site is close to natural (it is unlikely that any are in a pristine state) is difficult to judge. Setting aside issues surrounding possible effects of diffuse pollution and overall depletion of fish stocks, there are seabed habitats that are largely unaffected by human activities. Most are rocky reefs and, with regard to intertidal areas, are remote from rockpooling activities. Other ‘close to natural’ habitats might be those that are protected in some way from damaging human activities. Remoteness is important and the fragile seabed species that colonise the deep muddy habitats in Scottish sea lochs look close to

514

26. Using science effectively: selection, design and management of marine protected areas

natural to an experienced naturalist. Similarly, there are rich communities of long-lived and slow growing species that most likely recruit infrequently on many rock reefs that are nogo areas for mobile fishing gear because their rugged terrain obstructs the fishing gear. Rarely, there are records from the 19th century of the species present at locations that can be resurveyed. However, such comparative studies often prove those locations to have mostly the same species as were present 150 or so years ago (KH, own observations). So, there are locations that are close to natural and the best scientists to judge that are ones with knowledge and experience: naturalists. Whilst naturalness is greatly valued in biodiversity conservation, there will be habitats created or influenced by human activities that host rich communities of species and sometimes rare or scarce species. They include artificial habitats such as jetties and shipwrecks and areas where ‘cultch’ has been laid to attract oyster settlement.

Selection criteria (practical/pragmatic criteria) There have always been practical and pragmatic considerations in selecting areas for protection that range from location next to already-managed terrestrial conservation areas to consideration of socio-economic impacts (negative and positive). OSPAR (2003 as revised) include criteria that I consider practical/pragmatic as: Potential for restoration; Degree of MPA acceptance (by stakeholders); Potential for success of management measures; Potential future damage to the area by human activities; Scientific value (refers to value for research or monitoring). Involving stakeholders in the selection and design process is very important including because some (such as fishermen and naturalists) who will know better than the scientists and policy advisors what is where and what activities might cause damage. However, there is a major dilemma, brought to the fore in the MCZ process. If stakeholders are not involved from the start, they will shout ‘foul’ and complain they are being ignored. If scientists and policy advisors cannot get their initial selection together before bringing in stakeholders, they risk being unprepared (evidence not organised) and in danger of being sidelined. If science is to be used effectively, there needs to be preparation before commercial stakeholders in particular are involved and science needs to be at the forefront of the selection process.

Design criteria ‘Design’ addresses the ‘how many?’, ‘how large?’, ‘how far apart?’ and ‘what shape?’ questions. Design also takes account of practical matters such as incorporating an MPA into or adjacent to existing protected areas or placing boundaries at administrative boundaries (thus making management easier). Designing a set of MPAs and the shape and size of each separate MPA includes concepts that are scientifically ‘difficult’ and often rely on knowledge and experience rather that dogma and prescription. Nevertheless, as illustrated below, too much unscientific dogma has gone unchallenged and prescriptive measures (that inexperienced policy advisors may nevertheless use) are too simplistic to be meaningful. Approaches to design that created rules even though there was no scientific knowledge to underpin those rules came to the fore when the OSPAR goal of an ‘Ecologically coherent network of MPAs’ (Recommendation 2003/3 adopted by OSPAR 2003: OSPAR 03/17/1,

Using science effectively?

515

Annex 9) was pursued during the MCZ process. That goal is repeated in the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. The goal was not well thought through and Ardron (2008) observes ‘the meaning of ecological coherence has not been explicitly defined, and it has not been explained how it can be assessed’. Even as late as 2012, OSPAR had to declare (OSPAR, 2013): ‘no specific definition for the term “ecological coherence” has yet been formally agreed upon internationally and only a few theoretical concepts and practical approaches have been developed for an assessment of the ecological coherence of a network of MPAs.’ Nevertheless, policy advisors struggled on and the criteria that follow are commonly used. Viability/viable area Design of MPAs may incorporate the concept of a ‘minimum viable area’, which refers to the minimum area of a habitat to protect in order to ensure, as far as possible, that it is selfsufficient and therefore will persist over time. Part of that self-sufficiency must be concerned with the requirements of component species. The trouble is that for some species, a minimum viable area may be less than a few square metres (for instance, some cup coral species with short-lived larvae) and others (for instance some bottom-living fish) that may need several square kilometres to forage in. Roberts and Hawkins (2012) recommended, on the basis of distance travelled by relatively mobile fish species, that protected areas ‘should average 10e20 km in their minimum dimension’. But, such variability between the needs of component species may lead to nonsense prescriptions. For instance, a seagrass bed at Skomer, an island in south west Wales, was rejected as a possible MCZ feature because it was smaller than the suggested minimum viable size of 500 m across. The bed was first recorded in 1946, first mapped in 1979 and had been monitored regularly since 1997. During that time the bed had increased both in extent as well as density, which suggests that a ‘small’ bed is indeed viable. Whilst a desk-bound administrator may need quantitative touchstones and decision trees, they should always defer to experienced marine biologists for a final view. The area to be included in and boundaries of an MPA will also take account of practical considerations. Often, the boundary of an MPA will encompass a whole island or island archipelago. It may avoid fishing grounds if those grounds are not of importance for biodiversity conservation. The boundary may stop at an administrative boundary if that location is not critical to the viability of the MPA or to ensuring protection of important features. Connectivity The goals that government ministers need to respond to have, in recent years at least, included imperatives for ‘networks’ and ‘well-connected’ MPAs. The sea is a very good connectivity medium for those species that have high mobility as adults or dispersal stages and does not, generally, have the sort of barriers that exist on land for species. Some mobile marine species, mostly vertebrates, do move (connect) between breeding, nursery, feeding and resting areas. Many/most seabed species ‘connect’ between different locations but that connection is often a very short distance and is not between specific locations (as would be expected in a ‘network’). Whilst OSPAR introduced the goal of ‘an ecologically coherent network’, OSPAR (2007), Principle 9 states: ‘Detailed connectivity issues should be considered only for those species where a specific path between identified places is known (e.g. critical areas of a life cycle)’. If building-in measures of connectivity to determine spacing between separate MPAs had

516

26. Using science effectively: selection, design and management of marine protected areas

been reserved for highly mobile marine species and ‘special’ places in their life cycle, then it could have been retained as a relevant consideration. However, somehow, the idea that ‘networks’ of MPAs can be created for low mobility species has become embedded in directives, conventions and statutes. Before MPA goals included ‘network’ and objectives included the words ‘well-connected’, Kinlan and Gaines (2003) demonstrated that the larvae and propagules of many species go only a very short distance before settling: they do not travel long distances and (if rare or sensitive) the logical conclusion is that they need to be lookedafter where they are. The importance of such findings was re-enforced for BAP species by work undertaken by Jones and Carpenter (2009). Scientific knowledge did not prevent misguided and unscientific attempts to include minimum connectivity distances in guidelines for designing ‘networks’ (see, for instance, the MCZ Ecological Network Guidance: Natural England and Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 2010). For most species, the idea that a ‘network’ of connected MPAs can be designed by taking account of larval longevity and residual current direction is a delusion. There are many papers being published now that track dispersal trajectories and distances although almost entirely for fish species (but see, for instance, Gormley 2015 for Modiolus modiolus). Nevertheless, those papers ‘tell the story’: the dispersal stages of species go a much shorter distance than might be estimated from longevity of dispersal stages and from the strength and direction of residual currents that might be assumed to disperse them. Dispersal distances and directions are often calculated using formulae produced by coastal geomorphologists and based on movement of inert particles: larvae are more ‘clever’ than inert particles. Increasingly, there is evidence that almost all larvae are guided to settle in suitable locations by clues such as the sound of crashing waves, the odour or sounds of settled individuals of their own species or of species that characterise a suitable habitat (see, for instance, Stanley et al., 2012). There seems a desperation to justify the idea of connections and networks. The reader of scientific papers should look carefully at the results of the research and compare them with the headline title of papers. For instance, a paper by Christie et al. (2010) is titled ‘Larval connectivity in an effective network of marine protected areas’ but refers to the value of MPAs in ‘seeding’ the wider marine environment, not to any connection with other MPAs. Some journals seem to encourage sensationalist headlines (or perhaps it is some authors) but scientists should let the truth get in the way of a good headline! I continue to conclude (Hiscock, 2014) that whilst emphasis has been placed in various MPA programmes on designing-in connectivity by placing MPAs a measured minimum or range of distances apart, it is more likely the ‘other side’ of the ‘connectivity coin’ that matters in management for biodiversity conservation. Species with short dispersal distances need to be looked after where they are because the prospects for recovery from some distant MPA are minimal. So, how did conservation scientists and policy advisors fail to take account of poor dispersal capabilities of many marine species and continue to repeat the ‘ecologically coherent network’ mantra? Time, in my view, to wake-up! Replication Designating multiple MPAs with similar characteristics is considered by some as an ‘insurance policy’ e if one site is damaged, the other(s) still exist. More scientifically, multiple sites of the same character enable comparisons to be made of changes occurring and whether there

Management

517

is consistency in those changes across more than one location. If particular features are rare and/or fragile or a country has a large proportion of the world representation of that feature, then multiple sites are also justified. There is no simple formula to identify how many replicates are needed or can be justified. Shape/boundary definition Shape may be dependant mainly on the extent of the habitat being protected e if it is long and thin, the MPA may be long and thin, and so on. Most often, the boundary of the MPA will follow the boundary of the habitat although, in the case of very extensive habitats, a representative area should be identified whilst, in the case of patchy examples of a habitat (rock reefs for instance), a boundary may encompass all of the reefs but will include nonpriority habitats such as sand. Straight line boundaries help with marking and enforcement but are less necessary now than ten years ago because of more sophisticated navigation aids. Often, the boundary will include a buffer zone to protect against poor navigation and ‘sideways’ deployment of fishing gear. There is little science in ‘shape’, just common sense.

Management If we are to avoid ‘paper parks’ (areas designated in name only: see the article by Callum Roberts in the Guardian newspaper on 17th June 2014), then regulation and enforcement is required. In some MPAs (especially those that are primarily for recreation), a ‘light touch’ may be appropriate operating through codes of conduct and voluntary restraint. In MPAs where rare scarce and in-decline species are present in vulnerable habitats, regulation to prevent damaging activities will be needed. Similarly, if there are areas within the MPA that are designated to monitor natural fluctuations or understand better how removing pressures affects wildlife, then no extractive or depositional activities should be permitted there. An MPA may be zoned to permit certain activities in some areas but not in others: the example from the UK’s island of Lundy is shown in Fig. 26.1. What the MPA manager especially needs are goals and objectives laid-out in a management plan that provides a touchstone to check that relevant management measures are put in place. Objectives are statements of measurable outcomes and should be SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound). They also need indicators to identify how close they are to achieving objectives (see Douvere and Ehler, 2011). Although not using a standard hierarchy of goals, objectives and measures, the management plan for the Lundy MPA (Lundy Management Forum, 2017) comes close to the sort of plan that is needed.

‘Designated features’ These are the habitats and species for which the MPA has been designated. ‘Habitats’ are most often the biotopes and groups of biotopes that are included in what were originally BAP habitats and have subsequently been added to and re-badged to support new initiatives and to be applied in different devolved administrations. In the UK there are read-across tables produced by JNCC that link habitat names to the biotopes that constitute them (accessed

518

26. Using science effectively: selection, design and management of marine protected areas 4° 38'W

4° 39'W

4° 40'W

4° 41'W

4° 42'W 51° 13'N

51° 13'N

No Take Zone Boundary of Marine Conservation Zone

of sea life of any kind.* No anchors or diver shotlines within 100m of the Knoll Pins.

North West Point Hen and Chickens

North East Point

51° 12'N

51° 12'N

Long Roost

Gannets’ Rock

General Use Zone

Archaeological Protection Zones Knoll Pins

St James’s Stone

MV Robert

Wall

Gull Rock Wreck

51° 11'N

Jenny’s Cove

allowed (without a licence^). 51° 11'N

Iona II

Halfway Wall Lundy Roads

Quarter Wall Inner Anchorage 51° 10'N

Landing Bay

Recommended anchorages. In the Landing Bay please allow clear access for the ferry.

Rat Island

Refuge Zone Shutter Point

except potting or angling.

Black Rock

51° 09'N

51° 09'N 4° 38'W

4° 40'W

4° 41'W

4° 42'W

FIG. 26.1

Recreational Zone Restrictions as for Refuge Zone but be aware of other water users.

The zoning scheme for the Lundy MPA (Lundy Management Forum, 2017).

Management

519

via http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/MarineHabitatClassification). The habitats to be protected are mostly well-chosen. However, species are selected from the distorted and incomplete lists already referred to and there is great danger that administrators will see those species as the only ones to protect through management measures. Some listed species can benefit from management measures specifically for those species (for instance, native oysters Ostrea edulis, spiny lobsters Palinurus elephas) but many are best protected by protecting their habitat. The site manager needs to know the species and their likely sensitivity to human activities if they are to issue (or deny) permits for collection wherever they occur in a MPA. For instance, staghorn sponges Axinella dissimilis have been shown to be extremely slow growing (see Fowler and Laffoley, 1993) and likely recruit very infrequently. They are not rare and are not listed as BAP species. Nevertheless, their habitat should be protected and collection not allowed. Because of ‘representativity’, only certain MPAs in a series may be identified as sites that are representative of certain features (habitats and species). Those features should be recognised (as designated features) wherever they occur in an MPA. See the next section.

Overlapping MPA types Two main types of MPA may overlap in location: Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs in England and Wales and SACs and Scottish MPAs in Scotland). Care is needed to ensure that the features they have been designated for are combined together into management and that some important habitats do not get forgotten about, where the regulations associated with only one designated type are applied. Such an issue seems to have arisen in, as one example, the Lower Ridge to Innisvouls MCZ in the Isles of Scilly, UK which lies within a SAC established for Reef habitats. Locations there hold the richest and most diverse circalittoral reef communities that I have seen in Britain including many rare, scarce and fragile attached species. The MCZ is designated for ‘Moderate energy intertidal rock’ and ‘spiny lobster’. Regulatory authorities are required/inclined (if they do anything) to introduce regulations only for designated features of the MCZ. You can all see the danger.

Informing management Those charged with managing MPAs need to know the characteristics and likely sensitivities of the habitats and species and of where they occur in their areas. They further need to have an understanding of seasonal change, of natural fluctuations and of how to react to what may be damaging events (for instance, oil spills). In the UK, there are resources nationally that are kept up-to-date and will inform the manager of sensitivity of species and habitats to different human activities: the MarLIN website www.marlin.ac.uk. There is also some information on seasonal and long-term changes in particular species (for instance in the Plymouth Marine Fauna: Marine Biological Association, 1957) e but it is not brought together well. Most importantly, there need to be programmes of monitoring and assessment to inform reporting (for instance of whether ‘favourable conservation status’ is being maintained with regard to biodiversity and of the success or otherwise of regulation). That monitoring needs to feed back into adaptive management.

520

26. Using science effectively: selection, design and management of marine protected areas

FIG. 26.2 Adaptive management cycle. Developed from Salafsky, S., Margoluis, R., Redford, K., 2001. Adaptive management: a tool for conservation practitioners. Biodiversity Support Program, World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC, USA.

Those charged with managing MPAs also need to assess if the measures they have taken are providing benefits according to their objectives (Fig. 26.2). At Lundy, the No Take Zone (NTZ) has been assessed for changes in lobster stocks showing that there are 7.7 times more lobsters inside the NTZ compared with outside (assessed as catch per unit effort) (Wooton et al., 2012). The authors conclude: ‘The observed costs, such as increased injury and shell disease in lobsters, currently appear to be inflicting minimal adverse effects on their host, whilst the observed benefits, such as increased size and abundance, may be exerting positive impacts on both fisheries and conservation’. Strange then that the title of their paper is ‘Increased disease calls for a cost-benefits review of marine reserves’ e beware of sensationalist headlines (again) and read the paper!

Answering questions The main questions that management needs to answer with reference to biodiversity conservation can be summarised as ‘will it matter if . ?” and ‘does it matter that . ?’. Other questions that may be asked about outcomes of management along the lines of ‘What will happen if . ?’. The answers will, if they are available, come from knowledge and experience of not only site managers but, in particular, experienced naturalists. There are many case studies from conservation actions and reports from opportunistic studies that have followed the effects of damaging activities or events. However, there are important questions that may only be answered by experimental studies. For instance, ‘the jury is out’ on whether MPAs in which species diversity is maintained/increased will better ‘resist’ impacts from, for example, climate change and invasive non-native species. The paradigm that they will (see, for instance, Simard et al., 2016) is speculative at best but may be answered by experimental studies (that involve destruction in small areas) within and outside MPAs.

Conclusion

521

What to do next In March 2018, it was considered that 24% of UK waters are in some sort of MPA (from the JNCC website; at the time of writing: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-4549); perhaps 12% that include seabed habitats and species as designated features, the others being designated for highly mobile species. That seems impressive but the key to those MPAs being successful in protecting biodiversity is management including regulation, enforcement and research. Practitioners also need to absorb and keep-up with scientific knowledge. We need to set-aside the flawed (even delusional) criteria and measurements that have been used to determine the location, size and distance apart of MPAs. However, the MPAs that we have around Britain are almost all in locations that are meaningful as representative sites and include rare, scarce and threatened habitats and species. What is needed is a more informed and flexible approach to identifying the habitats and species that are threatened and by what human activities. Each MPA needs those species and habitats clearly identified as present and where they occur. All of them need to be protected and not just for a few features that the site has been designated to represent. Including only species that had sufficient quantitative data to apply IUCN Red List criteria is clearly missing a very large number of species that are rare, scarce, in decline or threatened with decline but that are ‘data deficient’ when criteria come to be applied. In addition to lists of rare and scarce species that are kept up-to-date, species that are sensitive to pressures brought about by human activities need to be catalogued. If those species are present in an MPA, the site manager needs to know what they are and where they are: addressing only ‘designated features’ that have been picked from a flawed list is not good enough. There is, of course, also room for inclusion of species that may not be ‘important’ for biodiversity conservation but that are valued in some other way including because they are food or are appreciated for their intrinsic appeal.

MPAs are not enough MPAs allow for site-based measures to be introduced for the benefit of biodiversity, fish stocks, recreation, education and research. But, all of the benefits of good management within an MPA may be overwhelmed by what is happening in the wider marine environment. MPAs are not protected from diffuse pollution, hydrographic regime shifts, overfishing and nearby construction projects that alter ecological processes. Such activities need to be regulated and licensed to minimise adverse effects on biodiversity wherever they occur.

Conclusion There is good science to support selection, design and management of MPAs. Mistakes have been made in MPA design with regard to prescriptions for distance apart, size and shape that ignored scientific knowledge. There are mistakes that continue to be made in

522

26. Using science effectively: selection, design and management of marine protected areas

spending time and money on protecting and monitoring habitats and species that are not rare or threatened. Scientists and managers will need to continue using the word ‘network’ as it is so widespread in directives, conventions and statutes but, unless the word ‘network’ has been redefined to simply mean a collection, set or series, many so called ‘networks’ are actually ‘sets’ of MPAs. The UK has a large percentage of its seas that are in MPAs and those MPAs encompass habitats and species that are important for biodiversity conservation as well as for the goods and services they provide including, not least, food, recreation, enjoyment and human wellbeing. We now need to ensure that we use and improve the science that we have to manage those MPAs.

References Ardron, J.A., 2008. Three initial OSPAR tests of ecological coherence: heuristics in a data-limited situation. ICES Journal of Marine Science 65, 1527e1533. Christie, M.R., Tissot, B.N., Albins, M.A., Beets, J.P., Jia, Y., Ortiz, D.M., Thompson, S.E., Hixon, M.A., 2010. Larval connectivity in an effective network of marine protected areas. PLoS One 5 (12), e15715. Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), 2010. Charting Progress 2. The State of UK Seas. Defra, London, 166 pp. Access from: http://chartingprogress.defra.gov.uk. Derous, S., Agardy, M.T., Hillewaert, H., Hostens, K., Jamieson, G., Lieberknecht, L., Mees, J., Moulaert, I., Olenin, S., Paelinckx, D., Rabaut, M., Rachor, E., Roff, J.C., Stienen, E.W.M., Van der Wal, J.T., Van Lancker, V., Verfaillie, E., Vincx, M., Weslawski, J.M., Degraer, S., 2007. A concept for biological valuation in the marine environment. Oceanologia 49, 99e128. Douvere, F., Ehler, C.N., 2011. The importance of monitoring and evaluation in adaptive maritime spatial planning. Journal of Coastal Conservation 15, 305e311. European Union, 2007. Guidelines for the Establishment of the Natura 2000 Network in the Marine Environment. Application of the Habitats and Birds Directives. Marine Habitat types definitions. Update of ‘Interpretation Manual of European Union Habitats’. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/ marine/docs/appendix_1_habitat.pdf. Fowler, S., Laffoley, D., 1993. Stability in Mediterranean-Atlantic sessile epifaunal communities at the northern limits of their range. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 172, 109e127. Gormley, K., 2015. Connectivity and dispersal patterns of protected biogenic reefs: implications for the conservation of Modiolus modiolus (L.) in the Irish Sea. PLoS One 10 (12), e0143337. Gubbay, S., Sanders, N., Haynes, T., Janssen, J.A.M., Rodwell, J.R., Nieto, A., García Criado, M., Beal, S., Borg, J., Kennedy, M., Micu, D., Otero, M., Saunders, G., Calix, M., 2016. European Red List of Habitats Part 1. Marine Habitats. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ knowledge/pdf/Marine_EU_red_list_report.pdf. Hiscock, K., Bayley, D., Pade, N., Lacey, C., Cox, E., Enever, R., 2013. Prioritizing action for recovery and conservation of marine species: a case study based on species of conservation importance around England. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 23, 88e110. Hiscock, K., Breckels, M., 2007. Marine Biodiversity Hotspots in the UK: Their Identification and Protection. WWF, Godalming, UK. Hiscock, K., Tyler-Walters, H., 2006. Assessing the sensitivity of seabed species and biotopes - the marine life information network (MarLIN). Hydrobiologia 555, 309e320. Hiscock, K., 2014. Marine Biodiversity Conservation: A Practical Approach. Routledge, London and New York. IUCN, 2017. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2017.3. www.iucnredlist.org. Jones, P.J.S., Carpenter, A., 2009. Crossing the divide: the challenges of designing an ecologically coherent representative network of MPAs for the UK. Marine Policy 33, 737e743. Kinlan, B.P., Gaines, S.D., 2003. Propagule dispersal in marine and terrestrial environments: a community perspective. Ecology 84, 2007e2020. Langmead, O., Jackson, E., 2010. Large scale patterns of marine biodiversity: an evidence-based approach for prioritizing areas for protection. Biologia Marina Mediterranea 17, 11e14.

References

523

Lundy Management Forum, 2017. Lundy Marine Management Plan 2017. Written by Rebecca MacDonald and Revised by Robert Irving. Produced for Natural England by the Landmark Trust, Lundy Island. https://www. landmarktrust.org.uk/globalassets/lundy_marine_management_plan_2017.pdf. Marine Biological Association, 1957. Plymouth Marine Fauna. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association. Available from: www.mba.ac.uk/pmf. Natural England and Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 2010. Marine Conservation Zone Project: Ecological Network Guidance. Natural England and Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, UK. OSPAR, 2003. Guidelines for the Identification and Selection of Marine Protected Areas in the OSPAR Maritime Area (Reference Number: 2003e17). Available from: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/OSPAR_03-17e_ GuidelinesIdentificationMPA.pdf. OSPAR Commission, London. OSPAR, 2007. Background Document to Support the Assessment of whether the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas Is Ecologically Coherent. Available from: https://www.ospar.org/documents?v¼7077. OSPAR Commission, London. OSPAR, 2012 Status Report on the OSPAR Network of Marine Protected Areas, 2013, Publication Number:618/2013, Available from: https://www.ospar.org/ospar-data/p00618_2012_mpa_status%20report.pdf. OSPAR Commission, London. Roberts, C., Hawkins, J.P., 2012. Establishment of Fish Stock Recovery Areas. Policy Department Structural and Cohesion Policies European Parliament. Available from: www.europarl.europa.eu/studies. Roff, J.C., Zacharias, M., 2011. Marine Conservation Ecology. Routledge, London and Washington DC. Rondinini, C., 2010. Meeting the MPA Network Design Principles of Representation and Adequacy: Developing Species-Area Curves for Habitats. JNCC, Peterborough. Salafsky, S., Margoluis, R., Redford, K., 2001. Adaptive management: a tool for conservation practitioners. In: Biodiversity Support Program. World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC, USA. Sanderson, W.G., 1996. Rarity of marine benthic species in Great Britain: development and application of assessment criteria. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 6, 245e256. Simard, F., Laffoley, D., Baxter, J.M. (Eds.), 2016. Marine Protected Areas and Climate Change: Adaptation and Mitigation Synergies, Opportunities and Challenges. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Stanley, J.A., Radford, C.A., Jeffs, A.G., 2012. Location, location, location: finding a suitable home among the noise. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 279, 3622e3631. Vorberg, R., 2000. Effects of shrimp fisheries on reefs of Sabellaria spinulosa (Polychaeta). ICES Journal of Marine Science 57, 1416e1420. Wootton, E.C., Woolmer, A.P., Vogan, C.L., Pope, E.C., Hamilton, K.M., Rowley, A.F., 2012. Increased disease calls for a cost-benefits review of marine reserves. PLoS One 7 (12), e51615.