Marine Pollution Bulletin 94 (2015) 168–175
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Marine Pollution Bulletin journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpolbul
Status of management effort in 153 marine protected areas across the English Channel D. Rodríguez-Rodríguez a,⇑, M. Sciberras a,b, N.L. Foster c, M.J. Attrill a,c a
Centre for Marine and Coastal Policy Research, Marine Institute, Plymouth University, Drake Circus, Plymouth, Devon PL4 8AA, UK School of Ocean Sciences, Bangor University, Menai Bridge, Anglesey LL59 5AB, UK c Marine Biology and Ecology Research Centre, Marine Institute, Plymouth University, Drake Circus, Plymouth, Devon PL4 8AA, UK b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Available online 29 March 2015 Keywords: Marine protected area Multiple-use Management effort English Channel Sub-level of protection Conservation outcomes
a b s t r a c t A conceptual framework was developed for assessing the sub-level of protection in 185 multiple-use marine protected areas (MPAs) in the English Channel through a survey on management effort. Data were retrieved from 153 MPAs: 4.56% were assigned low management effort, 83.70% were assigned medium management effort, and 11.76% were assigned high management effort. Overall, French MPAs performed better in terms of management effort than English MPAs and lack of consistency in ratings by different management bodies in England was found. Lack of correlation between management effort and conservation status within an available subset of 13 MPAs suggests that management may not be as influential a factor for the effective conservation of MPAs, especially in marine environments under heavy human pressure such as the English Channel. It is suggested that MPAs in such areas may therefore require an upgrade of their legal level of protection to be effective. Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction MPAs have been primarily advocated for the conservation of marine biodiversity and the cultural features and ecosystem services it provides (Dudley, 2008; Bennett and Dearden, 2014). Several studies have demonstrated the ecological benefits of MPAs (Gubbay, 2006; McClanahan et al., 2006); in particular, highly restrictive no-take marine reserves have been shown to provide higher ecological benefits when compared to multiple-use MPAs (Coleman et al., 2013; Sciberras et al., 2013a; Guidetti et al., 2014). This suggests that there is an important effect of the level of protection on the ecological performance of MPAs (Coleman et al., 2013; Edgar et al., 2014) which may not only compromise effective conservation at the site level, but also the ecological coherence of an MPA network (Sciberras et al., 2013b). In some studies the term ‘level of protection’ has been used to refer to legal protection; i.e. regulations defining no-take vs multipleuse MPAs (Sciberras et al., 2013a; Roberts et al., 2010). Other studies have used ‘level of protection’ to refer to different stages of the protection process, ranging from legal designation to management ⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1752584899. E-mail addresses: [email protected], davidrgrg@yahoo. es (D. Rodríguez-Rodríguez), [email protected] (M. Sciberras), nicola. [email protected] (N.L. Foster), [email protected] (M.J. Attrill). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.02.036 0025-326X/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
through to enforcement (Guidetti et al., 2014). Here, we propose a conceptual framework to discriminate ‘level of (legal) protection’ from ‘sub-level of (managerial) protection’ or ‘management effort’. Whilst legal protection measures, such as the requirement of environmental impact assessments or licensing of particular activities, may help to prevent or limit the impact of some potentially damaging and destructive anthropogenic activities on the marine environment, they are unlikely to provide the full range of ecological benefits that a well-managed MPA provides (Bennett and Dearden, 2014). The Convention on Biological Diversity requires signatory parties to conserve at least 10% of coastal and marine areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services through effectively managed systems of protected areas (CBD, 2010). Active management of MPAs, including regular monitoring and conservation of protected features and enforcement of measures that regulate or eliminate pressures and threats to those features, is considered an essential component of protected area management effectiveness (Hockings et al., 2006). Thus, active management is more likely to result in the ecological (Edgar et al., 2014) and socioeconomic success of MPAs (Bennett and Dearden, 2014). The multi-themed nature of the ‘protected area management effectiveness’ concept (Hockings et al., 2006) makes it necessary to narrow it down for assessment using indicators such as ‘management performance’ or ‘management effort’ (Horigue et al., 2014). However, clear links between ‘management
D. Rodríguez-Rodríguez et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 94 (2015) 168–175
effectiveness’ and biodiversity conservation outcomes of MPAs (e.g. increase in the abundance of a protected species) are difficult to find (Bennett and Dearden, 2014; Horigue et al., 2014). The English Channel is an ecologically sensitive marine area and one of the most heavily used marine areas globally (McClellan et al., 2014; Dauvin, 2012). Provided that diverse coastal and marine socioeconomic sectors can be affected by the designation of MPAs (Bennett and Dearden, 2014; Klein et al., 2008; RodríguezRodríguez et al., 2015a), multiple-use MPAs that allow a diversity of uses of the marine environment are thought to create fewer conflicts between users with competing interests than highly restrictive no-take MPAs (Lester and Halpern, 2008; Sciberras et al., 2013a). Thus, the strategy of the UK and French governments follows an ecosystem approach (CBD, 2004) to the conservation of the marine environment which tries to reconcile nature conservation and socioeconomic development through the designation of multiple-use MPAs (Rodríguez-Rodríguez et al., 2015a). However, the ecological effectiveness of multiple-use MPAs remains contentious, with some studies presenting positive effects of these MPAs over fished areas (Halpern, 2003; Lester and Halpern, 2008; Sciberras et al., 2013a) and other studies showing that multiple-use MPAs or MPA zones are not ecologically discernible from fished areas (Denny and Babcock, 2004; Guidetti et al., 2014; Rife et al., 2013). The high degree of marine and coastal anthropogenic pressure in the English Channel suggests that MPA protection through active management may play an even more important role in the effective conservation of features within
169
multiple-use MPAs in this area (Dauvin, 2012; RodríguezRodríguez et al., 2015b). In this study, a structured questionnaire was circulated among MPA managers in the English Channel area to assess the influence of management effort on the conservation status of multiple-use MPAs. The objectives of this study were to: (1) describe the management effort in the set of multiple-use MPAs in the English Channel; (2) assess the relationship between management effort and biodiversity conservation outcomes of MPAs to explore whether different sub-levels of protection can affect ecological performance of multiple-use MPAs; and (3) analyse the degree of consistency in the management effort ratings of the same MPAs reported by different management bodies. 2. Methods 2.1. Study area This study was carried out in the framework of the INTERREG IV-A project ‘Protected Area Networks Across the Channel Ecosystem’ (PANACHE, 2014). The project area matches the boundary of the OSPAR Marine Region III to the west and was extended to the north-east to fully encompass the French Exclusive Economic Zone (Fig. 1). The study area covers an area of 86 139 km2 and includes 224 MPAs belonging to 12 designation categories (Fig. 2) of which 185 were included in this analysis (Appendix A) after excluding English MPAs without specific management at
Fig. 1. PANACHE project area including boundaries and the different marine protected area designation categories.
170
France
D. Rodríguez-Rodríguez et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 94 (2015) 168–175
Common designations
Parc naturel marin
OSPAR site
Réserve naturelle nationale
Ramsar site
Réserve naturelle régionale Arrêté préfectoral de protection du biotope
Natura 2000 site (SAC & SPA)
The UK Site of Special Scientific Interest Marine Conservation Zone
Parti maritime du domaine relevant du Conservatoire de l'espace littoral et des rivages lacustres Site Patrimoine Mondial Réserve de la Biosphère
Fig. 2. Marine protected area designation categories in use in the English Channel.
the time when the survey was administered: OSPAR sites, Ramsar sites and Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs). All English OSPAR sites and RAMSAR sites in the English Channel are also designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and/or Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and receive protection through the management measures for SACs and/or SPAs (Rodríguez-Rodríguez et al., 2015b). MCZs were not designated at the time when the questionnaire was disseminated, so it was not possible to obtain information about their management status. Additionally, in France three sites were excluded from the survey: one OSPAR site and the Biosphere Reserve and the World Heritage Site in the study area. We considered as ‘marine’ all subtidal and intertidal features up to the mean high watermark level, according to the UK’s national guidance for SACs and SPAs (JNCC, 2007). We then refined the selection of coastal sites according to the clarification given by relevant management organisations in England (Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee - JNCC) and France (Agénce des Aires Marines Protégées, Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle and Ministére de l’Écologie, du Development Durable et de l’Énergie).
and Conservation Authorities (IFCAs) and the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) are two of the management authorities responsible for passing regulations on which extractive activities can occur and where, provide licences for different activities and are ultimately responsible for enforcement (i.e. patrolling sites, issuing fines for breach of regulations) in inshore and offshore Special Areas of Conservation, Sites of Community Importance and Specially Protected Areas, respectively (Rodríguez-Rodríguez et al., 2015b). For each English MPA, the questionnaire was sent out to one representative of each of the main managing organisations for each MPA in the study area: Natural England, the IFCAs (Cornwall IFCA, Devon and Severn IFCA, Southern IFCA, Sussex IFCA, and Kent and Essex IFCA), the JNCC, and the MMO (South Eastern and South Western offices). Individual managers from Natural England and the JNCC were proposed by those organisations’ project partners. People involved in MPAs from IFCAs and the MMO were contacted and they forwarded the questionnaire to MPA managers within their organisations. European Marine Site officers were also surveyed for some marine Natura 2000 sites. In France, the Agence des Aires Marines Protégées is the main managing organisation for inshore and offshore Sites of Community Importance (SCIs), SACs and SPAs, although a variety of other organisations can take part in managing these and other MPA designation categories (Rodríguez-Rodríguez et al., 2015b). For France, we surveyed representatives of the Agence des Aires Marines Protégées for all the French MPAs in the project area, who completed the survey themselves providing agreed responses after consultation with on-site managers. The managing agencies of MPAs from the Channel Islands (Ramsar Management Authority; Environment Guernsey Ltd.; Alderney Wildlife Trust; La Societé Sercquaise) were also surveyed. The managing organisations that were surveyed and their main statutory responsibilities related to MPAs are detailed in Appendix C. An introduction to the PANACHE project and the objectives of the questionnaire (Appendix D) as well as specific guidance notes and definitions related to each of the questions (Appendix E) were also provided. A tiered approach was followed whereby qualitative responses were coded to numerical replies according to increasing levels of ‘management effort’ that we used as a surrogate for ‘sublevel of protection’ of MPAs following the conceptual framework shown in Fig. 3.
2.2. Assessment of management effort
Highest
High management effort
No-take MPAs
Medium management effort
Low management effort High management effort
Multiple-use MPAs
Medium management effort
Low management effort
Level of protection (legal)
Protection afforded
We created a structured questionnaire with closed-ended questions and optional open-ended questions (Appendix B) to provide an assessment of the management effort being undertaken by the relevant MPA managing bodies within the study area. The questionnaire was produced after consulting a number of references: Coyle and Wiggins (2010), DEFRA (2011), Ervin (2003), MarLIN (2014), MMO (2014), Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2010), NOAA (2010), OSPAR (2007), Pomeroy et al. (2004), Staub and Hatziolos (2004), TylerWalters et al. (2001), UK Government (2010). After being piloted, the questionnaire was disseminated via email between June and September 2013 to key staff either involved in providing advice for the management of MPAs or involved in the actual management of MPAs. MPA management in the English side of the study area follows a sectorial approach with different organisations in charge of complementary management competencies at the same site (Rodríguez-Rodríguez et al., 2015b). Natural England and the JNCC provide statutory advice to MPA managing bodies (or landowners in the case of Sites of Special Scientific Interest) on how they should manage the sites in inshore and offshore areas, respectively. The Inshore Fisheries
Lowest
Sub-level of protection (managerial)
Fig. 3. Conceptual framework showing different levels and sub-levels of protection in managed MPAs.
171
D. Rodríguez-Rodríguez et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 94 (2015) 168–175 Table 1 Correspondence between sub-levels of protection and Management Effort Index’s scores, and description of sub-levels of protection. Sub-level of protection
Management Effort Index score
Description
Low
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Marine Pollution Bulletin journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpolbul
Status of management effort in 153 marine protected areas across the English Channel D. Rodríguez-Rodríguez a,⇑, M. Sciberras a,b, N.L. Foster c, M.J. Attrill a,c a
Centre for Marine and Coastal Policy Research, Marine Institute, Plymouth University, Drake Circus, Plymouth, Devon PL4 8AA, UK School of Ocean Sciences, Bangor University, Menai Bridge, Anglesey LL59 5AB, UK c Marine Biology and Ecology Research Centre, Marine Institute, Plymouth University, Drake Circus, Plymouth, Devon PL4 8AA, UK b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Available online 29 March 2015 Keywords: Marine protected area Multiple-use Management effort English Channel Sub-level of protection Conservation outcomes
a b s t r a c t A conceptual framework was developed for assessing the sub-level of protection in 185 multiple-use marine protected areas (MPAs) in the English Channel through a survey on management effort. Data were retrieved from 153 MPAs: 4.56% were assigned low management effort, 83.70% were assigned medium management effort, and 11.76% were assigned high management effort. Overall, French MPAs performed better in terms of management effort than English MPAs and lack of consistency in ratings by different management bodies in England was found. Lack of correlation between management effort and conservation status within an available subset of 13 MPAs suggests that management may not be as influential a factor for the effective conservation of MPAs, especially in marine environments under heavy human pressure such as the English Channel. It is suggested that MPAs in such areas may therefore require an upgrade of their legal level of protection to be effective. Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction MPAs have been primarily advocated for the conservation of marine biodiversity and the cultural features and ecosystem services it provides (Dudley, 2008; Bennett and Dearden, 2014). Several studies have demonstrated the ecological benefits of MPAs (Gubbay, 2006; McClanahan et al., 2006); in particular, highly restrictive no-take marine reserves have been shown to provide higher ecological benefits when compared to multiple-use MPAs (Coleman et al., 2013; Sciberras et al., 2013a; Guidetti et al., 2014). This suggests that there is an important effect of the level of protection on the ecological performance of MPAs (Coleman et al., 2013; Edgar et al., 2014) which may not only compromise effective conservation at the site level, but also the ecological coherence of an MPA network (Sciberras et al., 2013b). In some studies the term ‘level of protection’ has been used to refer to legal protection; i.e. regulations defining no-take vs multipleuse MPAs (Sciberras et al., 2013a; Roberts et al., 2010). Other studies have used ‘level of protection’ to refer to different stages of the protection process, ranging from legal designation to management ⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1752584899. E-mail addresses: [email protected], davidrgrg@yahoo. es (D. Rodríguez-Rodríguez), [email protected] (M. Sciberras), nicola. [email protected] (N.L. Foster), [email protected] (M.J. Attrill). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.02.036 0025-326X/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
through to enforcement (Guidetti et al., 2014). Here, we propose a conceptual framework to discriminate ‘level of (legal) protection’ from ‘sub-level of (managerial) protection’ or ‘management effort’. Whilst legal protection measures, such as the requirement of environmental impact assessments or licensing of particular activities, may help to prevent or limit the impact of some potentially damaging and destructive anthropogenic activities on the marine environment, they are unlikely to provide the full range of ecological benefits that a well-managed MPA provides (Bennett and Dearden, 2014). The Convention on Biological Diversity requires signatory parties to conserve at least 10% of coastal and marine areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services through effectively managed systems of protected areas (CBD, 2010). Active management of MPAs, including regular monitoring and conservation of protected features and enforcement of measures that regulate or eliminate pressures and threats to those features, is considered an essential component of protected area management effectiveness (Hockings et al., 2006). Thus, active management is more likely to result in the ecological (Edgar et al., 2014) and socioeconomic success of MPAs (Bennett and Dearden, 2014). The multi-themed nature of the ‘protected area management effectiveness’ concept (Hockings et al., 2006) makes it necessary to narrow it down for assessment using indicators such as ‘management performance’ or ‘management effort’ (Horigue et al., 2014). However, clear links between ‘management
D. Rodríguez-Rodríguez et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 94 (2015) 168–175
effectiveness’ and biodiversity conservation outcomes of MPAs (e.g. increase in the abundance of a protected species) are difficult to find (Bennett and Dearden, 2014; Horigue et al., 2014). The English Channel is an ecologically sensitive marine area and one of the most heavily used marine areas globally (McClellan et al., 2014; Dauvin, 2012). Provided that diverse coastal and marine socioeconomic sectors can be affected by the designation of MPAs (Bennett and Dearden, 2014; Klein et al., 2008; RodríguezRodríguez et al., 2015a), multiple-use MPAs that allow a diversity of uses of the marine environment are thought to create fewer conflicts between users with competing interests than highly restrictive no-take MPAs (Lester and Halpern, 2008; Sciberras et al., 2013a). Thus, the strategy of the UK and French governments follows an ecosystem approach (CBD, 2004) to the conservation of the marine environment which tries to reconcile nature conservation and socioeconomic development through the designation of multiple-use MPAs (Rodríguez-Rodríguez et al., 2015a). However, the ecological effectiveness of multiple-use MPAs remains contentious, with some studies presenting positive effects of these MPAs over fished areas (Halpern, 2003; Lester and Halpern, 2008; Sciberras et al., 2013a) and other studies showing that multiple-use MPAs or MPA zones are not ecologically discernible from fished areas (Denny and Babcock, 2004; Guidetti et al., 2014; Rife et al., 2013). The high degree of marine and coastal anthropogenic pressure in the English Channel suggests that MPA protection through active management may play an even more important role in the effective conservation of features within
169
multiple-use MPAs in this area (Dauvin, 2012; RodríguezRodríguez et al., 2015b). In this study, a structured questionnaire was circulated among MPA managers in the English Channel area to assess the influence of management effort on the conservation status of multiple-use MPAs. The objectives of this study were to: (1) describe the management effort in the set of multiple-use MPAs in the English Channel; (2) assess the relationship between management effort and biodiversity conservation outcomes of MPAs to explore whether different sub-levels of protection can affect ecological performance of multiple-use MPAs; and (3) analyse the degree of consistency in the management effort ratings of the same MPAs reported by different management bodies. 2. Methods 2.1. Study area This study was carried out in the framework of the INTERREG IV-A project ‘Protected Area Networks Across the Channel Ecosystem’ (PANACHE, 2014). The project area matches the boundary of the OSPAR Marine Region III to the west and was extended to the north-east to fully encompass the French Exclusive Economic Zone (Fig. 1). The study area covers an area of 86 139 km2 and includes 224 MPAs belonging to 12 designation categories (Fig. 2) of which 185 were included in this analysis (Appendix A) after excluding English MPAs without specific management at
Fig. 1. PANACHE project area including boundaries and the different marine protected area designation categories.
170
France
D. Rodríguez-Rodríguez et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 94 (2015) 168–175
Common designations
Parc naturel marin
OSPAR site
Réserve naturelle nationale
Ramsar site
Réserve naturelle régionale Arrêté préfectoral de protection du biotope
Natura 2000 site (SAC & SPA)
The UK Site of Special Scientific Interest Marine Conservation Zone
Parti maritime du domaine relevant du Conservatoire de l'espace littoral et des rivages lacustres Site Patrimoine Mondial Réserve de la Biosphère
Fig. 2. Marine protected area designation categories in use in the English Channel.
the time when the survey was administered: OSPAR sites, Ramsar sites and Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs). All English OSPAR sites and RAMSAR sites in the English Channel are also designated as Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and/or Special Protection Areas (SPAs) and receive protection through the management measures for SACs and/or SPAs (Rodríguez-Rodríguez et al., 2015b). MCZs were not designated at the time when the questionnaire was disseminated, so it was not possible to obtain information about their management status. Additionally, in France three sites were excluded from the survey: one OSPAR site and the Biosphere Reserve and the World Heritage Site in the study area. We considered as ‘marine’ all subtidal and intertidal features up to the mean high watermark level, according to the UK’s national guidance for SACs and SPAs (JNCC, 2007). We then refined the selection of coastal sites according to the clarification given by relevant management organisations in England (Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee - JNCC) and France (Agénce des Aires Marines Protégées, Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle and Ministére de l’Écologie, du Development Durable et de l’Énergie).
and Conservation Authorities (IFCAs) and the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) are two of the management authorities responsible for passing regulations on which extractive activities can occur and where, provide licences for different activities and are ultimately responsible for enforcement (i.e. patrolling sites, issuing fines for breach of regulations) in inshore and offshore Special Areas of Conservation, Sites of Community Importance and Specially Protected Areas, respectively (Rodríguez-Rodríguez et al., 2015b). For each English MPA, the questionnaire was sent out to one representative of each of the main managing organisations for each MPA in the study area: Natural England, the IFCAs (Cornwall IFCA, Devon and Severn IFCA, Southern IFCA, Sussex IFCA, and Kent and Essex IFCA), the JNCC, and the MMO (South Eastern and South Western offices). Individual managers from Natural England and the JNCC were proposed by those organisations’ project partners. People involved in MPAs from IFCAs and the MMO were contacted and they forwarded the questionnaire to MPA managers within their organisations. European Marine Site officers were also surveyed for some marine Natura 2000 sites. In France, the Agence des Aires Marines Protégées is the main managing organisation for inshore and offshore Sites of Community Importance (SCIs), SACs and SPAs, although a variety of other organisations can take part in managing these and other MPA designation categories (Rodríguez-Rodríguez et al., 2015b). For France, we surveyed representatives of the Agence des Aires Marines Protégées for all the French MPAs in the project area, who completed the survey themselves providing agreed responses after consultation with on-site managers. The managing agencies of MPAs from the Channel Islands (Ramsar Management Authority; Environment Guernsey Ltd.; Alderney Wildlife Trust; La Societé Sercquaise) were also surveyed. The managing organisations that were surveyed and their main statutory responsibilities related to MPAs are detailed in Appendix C. An introduction to the PANACHE project and the objectives of the questionnaire (Appendix D) as well as specific guidance notes and definitions related to each of the questions (Appendix E) were also provided. A tiered approach was followed whereby qualitative responses were coded to numerical replies according to increasing levels of ‘management effort’ that we used as a surrogate for ‘sublevel of protection’ of MPAs following the conceptual framework shown in Fig. 3.
2.2. Assessment of management effort
Highest
High management effort
No-take MPAs
Medium management effort
Low management effort High management effort
Multiple-use MPAs
Medium management effort
Low management effort
Level of protection (legal)
Protection afforded
We created a structured questionnaire with closed-ended questions and optional open-ended questions (Appendix B) to provide an assessment of the management effort being undertaken by the relevant MPA managing bodies within the study area. The questionnaire was produced after consulting a number of references: Coyle and Wiggins (2010), DEFRA (2011), Ervin (2003), MarLIN (2014), MMO (2014), Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2010), NOAA (2010), OSPAR (2007), Pomeroy et al. (2004), Staub and Hatziolos (2004), TylerWalters et al. (2001), UK Government (2010). After being piloted, the questionnaire was disseminated via email between June and September 2013 to key staff either involved in providing advice for the management of MPAs or involved in the actual management of MPAs. MPA management in the English side of the study area follows a sectorial approach with different organisations in charge of complementary management competencies at the same site (Rodríguez-Rodríguez et al., 2015b). Natural England and the JNCC provide statutory advice to MPA managing bodies (or landowners in the case of Sites of Special Scientific Interest) on how they should manage the sites in inshore and offshore areas, respectively. The Inshore Fisheries
Lowest
Sub-level of protection (managerial)
Fig. 3. Conceptual framework showing different levels and sub-levels of protection in managed MPAs.
171
D. Rodríguez-Rodríguez et al. / Marine Pollution Bulletin 94 (2015) 168–175 Table 1 Correspondence between sub-levels of protection and Management Effort Index’s scores, and description of sub-levels of protection. Sub-level of protection
Management Effort Index score
Description
Low
