Preprint volume - SIBM
Preprint volume - SIBM Preprint volume - SIBM
Pre-print Volume – Invited presentation Topic 1: BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION SCIENCE: CONTRIBUTING TO MANAGEMENT K. HISCOCK Marine Biological Association, The Laboratory, Plymouth PL1 2PB, U.K. khis@mba.ac.uk ‘MIND THE GAP’ – SCIENCE THAT INFORMS IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY ON MARINE PROTECTED AREAS 'ATTENZIONE AL 'GAP': LA SCIENZA INTERVIENE NELL'ATTUAZIONE DELLA POLITICA DELLE AREE MARINE PROTETTE Abstract - There is no shortage of policy statements that indicate the need for marine protected areas (MPAs), how they will be identified and by when. However, scientists are often unable to provide the evidence to implement policy statements – there is a gap between the information that policy advisors assume scientists will have and what scientists are actually able to deliver. Those information gaps do not prevent the establishment of MPAs but they do make the process difficult and, in the case of establishing a representative site series, incomplete. The key gaps in Britain at least, are in survey data describing what habitats (as biotopes) and species occur where, in identifying fully which are the rare, scarce and threatened habitats and species, in designing the site series including establishing whether separate MPAs benefit each other, and in interpreting change that occurs when MPAs are established. Key-words: marine protected areas, biodiversity, conservation, research. Introduction - At the 2008 annual SIBM meeting, I outlined the role of marine protected areas for biodiversity conservation and for science using examples from Britain (Hiscock, 2008). This paper draws attention to some of the gaps between what policy-makers might expect scientists to know and what we do not know, and a view on what we need to do to fill the gaps in what we know. ‘The science of marine reserves’ (PISCO, 2007) is a touchstone for advocates of biodiversity conservation and fisheries enhancement, although almost all of the examples come from areas outside of Europe and the majority of success stories are for fish. We need to generate a NE Atlantic and Mediterranean perspective to collecting evidence for the effectiveness of marine reserves for biodiversity conservation and that means new work. What to protect Habitats. Countries that are members of the European Union are required to implement the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora). That Directive aims to contribute to the conservation of biodiversity by requiring Member States to take measures designed to maintain or restore certain natural habitats and wild species at a favourable conservation status. At the time the Habitats Directive was being drafted, the classification that provided a ‘catalogue’ of habitats to select from was the CORINE classification (CORINE biotopes – Technical Handbook, volume 1, p. 73- 109, 19 May 1988, partially updated February 1989) – which was incompletely developed for marine habitats. The ‘certain natural habitats’ for the marine environment are very broad types. Although ‘a blunt instrument’, the Habitats Directive has resulted in the establishment of a large number of MPAs in Europe. We now have a much better developed and precise tool to catalogue habitats (as biotopes) and to use as a starting point to identify habitats that are rare, in decline or 41 st S.I.B.M. CONGRESS Rapallo (GE), 7-11 June 2010 25
Pre-print Volume – Invited presentation Topic 1: BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION SCIENCE: CONTRIBUTING TO MANAGEMENT threatened with decline. The tool that closes the gap between the desire to conserve habitats and having a meaningful classification of marine habitats is the EUNIS classification (Davies et al., 2004). Identifying which of those habitats should be protected especially requires survey information to know where they occur and information on their rarity and likely sensitivity to human activities. Species. There are very few marine species identified in the Habitats Directive for protection and OSPAR (the Oslo and Paris Commissions for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic) lists only seven limited-mobility species that were considered threatened (see www.ospar.org). The IUCN Red List criteria require detailed quantitative data on decline and it is large mobile species that generally make it onto the lists. In the UK, many species that would be considered as ‘worthy’ of conservation action (because they are most likely long-lived, slow growing, reproduce infrequently, have limited dispersal powers and are sensitive to human activities) failed to pass the tests that would make them Biodiversity Action Plan species (see www.ukbap.org.uk) because the criteria used required quantitative information on decline (to be compatible with criteria for terrestrial species) and so ‘data deficient’ became a widely ticked box in assessments. Nevertheless, the criteria for Nationally Important Marine Features (see Hiscock, 2008 for a summary and Connor et al., 2002 for the full report) successfully identified a significant numbers of species. However, the list has not been fully used because of incompleteness and because some of the species listed are considered very obscure and even of dubious taxonomic status. Another tangible tool that policy advisors and sea users can use is a list of rare and scarce species and, for Britain, pragmatic measures have been developed (Sanderson et al., 1996). Design of a series of marine protected areas - The OSPAR Commission (2006) has outlined guidance on design principles for the identification of an ‘ecologically coherent network of MPAs’. Those principles have been adopted and developed to prepare Ecological Network Guidance for the identification of Marine Conservation Zones as a part of a network of MPAs in England under recent legislation in the UK (the Marine and Coastal Access Act, which came into force in November 2009). Those principles in the UK include: • Representativity • Replication • Viability • Adequacy • Connectivity • Protection The idea of designing for connectivity between MPAs is a particularly difficult criterion and its inclusion in marine policy may draw more from the experience of terrestrial ecologists where wildlife corridors are important than from the knowledge that marine systems are very ‘open’ and connectivity through the water column is a general feature. The idea of designing-in connectivity is that separate MPAs will interact with and support each other to create a ‘network’. OSPAR (2006) note that “This [an ecologically coherent network] is particularly important for highly mobile species, such as certain birds, mammals and fish, to safeguard the critical stages and areas of their life cycle (such as breeding, nursery and feeding areas)”. For species with 41 st S.I.B.M. CONGRESS Rapallo (GE), 7-11 June 2010 26
- Page 2 and 3: 41 st Congress of the Società Ital
- Page 4 and 5: Pre-print Volume ROGHI F., PARRAVIC
- Page 6 and 7: Pre-print Volume Topic 3 / Tema 3 I
- Page 8 and 9: Pre-print Volume CARLUCCI R., CAPEZ
- Page 10 and 11: Pre-print Volume PORPORATO E., MANG
- Page 12 and 13: Pre-print Volume SOCAL G., BERNARDI
- Page 14 and 15: Pre-print Volume - Opening keynote
- Page 16 and 17: Pre-print Volume - Opening keynote
- Page 18 and 19: Pre-print Volume - Introductory lec
- Page 20 and 21: Pre-print Volume - Introductory lec
- Page 22 and 23: Pre-print Volume -Lecture Topic 1:
- Page 24 and 25: Pre-print Volume -Lecture Topic 1:
- Page 28 and 29: Pre-print Volume - Invited presenta
- Page 30 and 31: Pre-print Volume - Invited presenta
- Page 32 and 33: Pre-print Volume - Oral presentatio
- Page 34 and 35: Pre-print Volume - Oral presentatio
- Page 36 and 37: Pre-print Volume - Oral presentatio
- Page 38 and 39: Pre-print Volume - Oral presentatio
- Page 40 and 41: Pre-print Volume - Oral presentatio
- Page 42 and 43: Pre-print Volume - Oral presentatio
- Page 44 and 45: Pre-print Volume - Oral presentatio
- Page 46 and 47: Pre-print Volume - Oral presentatio
- Page 48 and 49: Pre-print Volume - Oral presentatio
- Page 50 and 51: Pre-print Volume - Oral presentatio
- Page 52 and 53: Pre-print Volume - Oral presentatio
- Page 54 and 55: Pre-print Volume - Oral presentatio
- Page 56 and 57: Pre-print Volume - Oral presentatio
- Page 58 and 59: Pre-print Volume - Oral presentatio
- Page 60 and 61: Pre-print Volume - Oral presentatio
- Page 62 and 63: Pre-print Volume - Oral presentatio
- Page 64 and 65: Pre-print Volume - Oral presentatio
- Page 66 and 67: Pre-print Volume - Oral presentatio
- Page 68 and 69: Pre-print Volume - Oral presentatio
- Page 70 and 71: Pre-print Volume - Oral presentatio
- Page 72 and 73: Pre-print Volume - Oral presentatio
- Page 74 and 75: Pre-print Volume - Oral presentatio
Pre-print Volume – Invited presentation<br />
Topic 1: BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION SCIENCE: CONTRIBUTING TO MANAGEMENT<br />
threatened with decline. The tool that closes the gap between the desire to conserve<br />
habitats and having a meaningful classification of marine habitats is the EUNIS<br />
classification (Davies et al., 2004). Identifying which of those habitats should be<br />
protected especially requires survey information to know where they occur and<br />
information on their rarity and likely sensitivity to human activities.<br />
Species. There are very few marine species identified in the Habitats Directive for<br />
protection and OSPAR (the Oslo and Paris Commissions for the Protection of the<br />
Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic) lists only seven limited-mobility<br />
species that were considered threatened (see www.ospar.org). The IUCN Red List<br />
criteria require detailed quantitative data on decline and it is large mobile species that<br />
generally make it onto the lists. In the UK, many species that would be considered as<br />
‘worthy’ of conservation action (because they are most likely long-lived, slow<br />
growing, reproduce infrequently, have limited dispersal powers and are sensitive to<br />
human activities) failed to pass the tests that would make them Biodiversity Action<br />
Plan species (see www.ukbap.org.uk) because the criteria used required quantitative<br />
information on decline (to be compatible with criteria for terrestrial species) and so<br />
‘data deficient’ became a widely ticked box in assessments. Nevertheless, the criteria<br />
for Nationally Important Marine Features (see Hiscock, 2008 for a summary and<br />
Connor et al., 2002 for the full report) successfully identified a significant numbers of<br />
species. However, the list has not been fully used because of incompleteness and<br />
because some of the species listed are considered very obscure and even of dubious<br />
taxonomic status. Another tangible tool that policy advisors and sea users can use is a<br />
list of rare and scarce species and, for Britain, pragmatic measures have been<br />
developed (Sanderson et al., 1996).<br />
Design of a series of marine protected areas - The OSPAR Commission (2006) has<br />
outlined guidance on design principles for the identification of an ‘ecologically<br />
coherent network of MPAs’. Those principles have been adopted and developed to<br />
prepare Ecological Network Guidance for the identification of Marine Conservation<br />
Zones as a part of a network of MPAs in England under recent legislation in the UK<br />
(the Marine and Coastal Access Act, which came into force in November 2009). Those<br />
principles in the UK include:<br />
• Representativity<br />
• Replication<br />
• Viability<br />
• Adequacy<br />
• Connectivity<br />
• Protection<br />
The idea of designing for connectivity between MPAs is a particularly difficult<br />
criterion and its inclusion in marine policy may draw more from the experience of<br />
terrestrial ecologists where wildlife corridors are important than from the knowledge<br />
that marine systems are very ‘open’ and connectivity through the water column is a<br />
general feature. The idea of designing-in connectivity is that separate MPAs will<br />
interact with and support each other to create a ‘network’. OSPAR (2006) note that<br />
“This [an ecologically coherent network] is particularly important for highly mobile<br />
species, such as certain birds, mammals and fish, to safeguard the critical stages and<br />
areas of their life cycle (such as breeding, nursery and feeding areas)”. For species with<br />
41 st S.I.B.M. CONGRESS Rapallo (GE), 7-11 June 2010<br />
26