Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Andere mochten auch
Ähnlich wie Iucn2012
Ähnlich wie Iucn2012 (20)
Mehr von objass
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Iucn2012
- 1. Delivery of a UK MPA network Jean-Luc Solandt Senior Biodiversity Policy Officer UK Protected Areas – Natural Solutions 2012
- 2. History of MPAs in UK waters From sites to networks Stakeholder led design of English sites Wales and Scotland Managing UK MPAs
- 3. MPAs have moved on in a generation • 1981 – 3 marine reserves from the Wildlife and Countryside Act • 1994 – 70 marine Special Areas of Conservation (thinking from 1990’s to 2008+ is for networks rather than individual sites) • 2011 – now 96 SACs in UK (5.6% of UK seas) • 3 tiny marine (no take) reserves • New MCZs and national MPAs from 2013 • MSFD 2016 and 2020 interim targets
- 4. UK SAC network – only for 16 marine features 96 SACs (84 inshore) 5.6% of UK seas 30% of Welsh waters 25% of English waters (since 2010) Top down Science review in 2010
- 5. MPA science grows (1990-) Partnership for Interdisciplinary Science for the Conservation of the Oceans (PISCO). Direct policy advocacy work from the scientific community. UK studies show recovery of biodiversity, lobsters and scallops (Isle of Man; Lundy; Arran; Lyme Bay)
- 6. Science & international commitments England – MCZ project 2009-2013 New Marine Conservation Zones will be more prescriptive (objectives and protection levels) With SACs are meant to result in a network Four English regional projects
- 7. MCZs - Peer reviewed scientific guidelines 1. Representivity – from 23 broad-scale habitats, 22 rare/threatened habitats, and 31 low or limited mobility species. 2. Replication – 2 broadscale; 3-5 FOCI in each region 3. Adequacy – 15-41% 4. Viability – 5km minimum MCZ boundary size for broadscale. At least 500m for FOCI. 5. Connectivity – At most, the distances between sites should be 50km. 6. Protection (level) – that ensures the favourable condition of the sites designated features. Reference areas (no take marine reserves) for each feature in each MCZ region. 7. Best available evidence – identified on the best available evidence (now ‘best available science’).
- 10. MCZ management ‘Maintain’ or ‘recover’ objectives Depends on ‘feature sensitivity’ Sites will allow a multitude of different activities in a single site MCZ will have voluntary management If voluntary measures don’t work statutory measures will be considered
- 11. Pressures on MPAs – mostly from fisheries Much MPA management hinges on this debate – to trawl or not to trawl? Trawlermen say: ‘prove trawling is damaging’ Conservationists say: ‘prove it isn’t damaging’ (backed by the Habitats Directive)
- 12. The scallop ‘gyre’ (2005-2010)
- 13. SAC management Wales (2010) scallop order Ban on scallop dredging to 1nm Ban in all SACs Only for king scallops
- 14. Wales will have 3-4 HPMCZs (by 2014)
- 15. Scottish MPAs project 0-200nm Marine (Scotland) Act Scottish Ministers designate MPAs (and develop plans and issue licenses) UK Marine & CA Act Scottish Ministers designate MPAs (and issue licenses and draft plans) with UK SoS sign-off
- 16. Conclusions Since 1981 we’ve come a long way in scale From sites to a draft site network (at least in England) Designation will be limited by industry lobby / evidence base (from 127 draft new sites to about 50) Management at the site level is overly complex (feature based) Questions over offshore NET RESULT = Mostly paper parks, but scale is promising
Hinweis der Redaktion
- Current designated MPAs are few (but not according to other European nations), widely dispersed, and don’t adequately conserve UK offshore features. This is not a coherent network according to OSPAR (that recommends between 10 and 50% protection). Sites increased in English waters in 2010 in order to protect necessary amount of UK reef habitat, that contributes the majority of this habitat to the entire European network. A coherent network should have representative species and habitats covered by the protected areas. Sandbanks, reefs, sea caves, seals, dolphins etc. doesn’t necessarily cut it, as they are too broad, and only seals, dolphins, salmon, eels and otters are the marine species relevant to the legislation that occur in UK waters. BAP species aren’t included. Over 87% of SACs are in the inshore, as this is where there is most biodiversity, but also as this is where domestic fishing regulations make it simpler for member states to manage the most damaging fishing activities. The exception is the Darwin Mounds to the NE of Scotland where UK successfully lobbied EU member states via the CFP to prevent destructive fishing gears on the site. The recently announced Dogger Bank is vulnerable to bottom towed fishing gear according to UK’s statutory nature conservation advisor (JNCC). Wales has had 30% of its waters in EMS for a number of years. Only recently has this resulted in the scallop fishing ban. Other forms of bottom-towed fishing gears, and static gears are permitted in sites. Up until 2010, England had less than 5% of its waters in SACs, now this is 24%. A recent independent review of the science to underpin designation of SACs was found to be sound.
- The science behind setting up a well-managed network of MPAs, and particularly science behind the effectiveness of MPAs has been growing over the past 20 years. This has culminated in a body of scientists and literature serving to influence policy makers. Much of the science behind marine reserve and MPA efficacy has been drawn from studies concentrating on finfish. However, there have been excellent studies carried out in The Isle of Man and The Georges Bank that have showed considerable positive changes to diversity and complexity of 3-dimensional habitat in MPAs that have restricted bottom-towed fishing gears.
- New MCZs will be more prescriptive in saying what is to be protected where, and from which activity. The draft conservation objectives for the sites have been discussed with stakeholders. The comprehensive ecological guidance that provided the ‘rules of designation’ came from peer reviewed document by JNCC and NE. it broke down the ecological criteria into the following: Representivity – from 23 broad-scale habitats, 22 rare/threatened habitats, and 31 low or limited mobility species. Replication – 2 broadscale; 3-5 FOCI Adequacy – 15-41% Viability – 5km minimum MCZ boundary size for broadscale. At least 500m for FOCI. Connectivity – At most, the distances between sites should be 50km. Protection (level) – that ensures the favourable condition of the sites designated features. Reference areas (no take marine reserves) for each feature in each MCZ region. Best available evidence – identified on the best available evidence (now ‘best available science’).
- New MCZs will be more prescriptive in saying what is to be protected where, and from which activity. The draft conservation objectives for the sites have been discussed with stakeholders. The comprehensive ecological guidance that provided the ‘rules of designation’ came from peer reviewed document by JNCC and NE. it broke down the ecological criteria into the following: Representivity – from 23 broad-scale habitats, 22 rare/threatened habitats, and 31 low or limited mobility species. Replication – 2 broadscale; 3-5 FOCI Adequacy – 15-41% Viability – 5km minimum MCZ boundary size for broadscale. At least 500m for FOCI. Connectivity – At most, the distances between sites should be 50km. Protection (level) – that ensures the favourable condition of the sites designated features. Reference areas (no take marine reserves) for each feature in each MCZ region. Best available evidence – identified on the best available evidence (now ‘best available science’).
- Four regional projects that plan ‘Marine Conservation Zones’ up to and beyond 12nm to the midline with other MS or 200nm. 10 stakeholder group meetings always over 1-2 days. Meetings held between April 2010 and September 2011. Project team was assigned manager; MPA planner; 2 mappers; fisheries liaison officers; communications officers and administrators. Meetings were facilitated by professional facilitators. Meetings had sub-groups and local groups to provide detailed resolution of proposals, maps of features, and use. No management measures were discussed for sites before June 2011 for most of the project areas. Therefore most stakeholders ‘assumed the worst’ in their decision making. Initial sites were very much moved during the process. There was a move to reduce and remove sites towards the end of some of the processes. Often the most contentious sites were ignored until late in the day or when meetings had ended. Where ecological targets weren’t met for sites near the end of the process, project staff hurried the process through.
- Finding Sanctuary criticised the process in that they felt the stakeholders should have final say on management measures. However, only draft management measures derived from draft conservation objectives have been achieved by the end of the projects (September 2011). Each project is doing a (socio-economic) impact analysis. This is primarily looking into social and economic cost of each of the 127 potential MCZs. MCS has countered this work in that it focuses on the tangibles, such as monetary costs. Societal benefits of the concept and location of MPAs haven’t been systematically gathered by the project. MCS has used an online tool - your seas your voice – to show the level of societal support for marine reserves and MPAs in specific location. Overall, there is support for these measures from wider UK public. Mixed management approaches and voluntary management of individual MCZs leads to a huge number of questions. Will stakeholders understand what they are allowed to do and where? How will stakeholder distinguish what they can do and can’t do given there are different CFP regulations, SACs and now MCZs? Will MCZs beyond 12nm be respected (given the CFP regulations regulates international fishing in MS waters). Will voluntary management simply lead to compliance by some but not by others? Voluntary management usually requires a collective will on behalf of the sea users to provide some sort of committee / group to discuss management of the site – this would have to be artificially constructed after the site has been designated? If there is poor understanding and respect for the site, the site will not change / recover or show any discernable change since the designation. Will this lack of change weaken the opportunity to demonstrate the effectiveness of well-managed MCZs? Will society, fishers and other marine users in the end understand that the only useful MPA is one where recovery is the target for the condition of the features? Otherwise, wider society and future generations of extractive sea users may assume that this process has been the
- Yet, there continue to be regional and knock-on problems with managing fishing. For example, the UK has a growing fleet of scallop dredgers, as Pecten maximus is non-quota. The season for scalloping is restricted to the winter months, however much of the fleet is nomadic. Where one administration offers controls to the fleet, another may not, that causes knock-on effects to adjacent fishing grounds.
- Appropriate management of potentially damaging fishing does exist, but in all cases, this is on a site by site basis (not a national approach on a feature by feature basis). Apart from the welsh scallop order 2010, which at last controls a damaging activity on a national basis.
- And what of much of the remainder of UK seas. This is where the Scottish MPA process comes in. MCS in Scotland, having helped secure the Marine (Scotland) Act and commitments in it to a network of MPAs after almost ten years campaigning, is also engaging with the Scottish MPA project which extends from 0-200nm, where Scottish MPAs are designated under the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 to 12nm and under the MCAA 2009 from 12-200nm. Scottish Ministers lead on the whole project although UK SoS sign-off is needed 12-200nm. We are encouraged that our Your Seas Your Voice data will be able to contribute to socio-economic impact assessments of Scottish MPA proposals.