 Back to TMR 
Back
to TCMS |
|
Back to TMR
Back
to TCMS |
Staff involved:Nicholas Polunin (Marine Science & Technology), John Pinnegar (CEFAS UK), Marcelo Vasconcellos (Federal University of Rio Grande Brazil), Francisco Arreguin-Sanchez (CICIMAR Mexico), Xu Haigen (Nanjing Institute of Environmental Sciences China) Funding:EU INCO Programme |
Marine Protected Areas as a Management Tool for Conflict Reduction in Coastal Fisheries and Conservation (Incofish WP5)
ProjectBenefits of marine protected Areas (MPAs) to fisheries, biodiversity conservation and precautionary management generally have been strongly advocated (Roberts 1997). At the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg 2002, governments agreed to create networks of MPAs before 2012. In addition, Environment Ministers from North Sea and OSPAR countries have agreed to establish ‘an ecologically coherent network of well managed MPAs, including offshore sites, by 2010.’ However, there is little consensus on what ‘networks of MPAs’ should look like (Sala et al. 2002) and the situations where MPAs will and will not work need to be better defined (FSBI 2001). To date, there are relatively few examples of the use of MPAs to manage major commercial fisheries even where these have been quite well studied such as in the North Sea (Horwood et al. 1998; Horwood 2000) and those MPAs that do exist have been poorly monitored (e.g. Piet & Rijnsdorp 1998) mostly with respect to quite sedentary species. Closures over a range of temporal scales have however been used in the North Sea, targeting particular stocks of very mobile species (see Rogers 1997). The case for MPAs has been substantially built on site-attached species living on tropical reefs and it is in the warmer zones of the world that the concept of small no-take areas has come most successfully to fruition (Roberts & Hawkins 2000). In the case of the design of small MPAs and their impacts on sedentary species living on reefs, Europeans have much to learn from the experiences with MPAs in less developed regions of the world. However, open continental-shelf ecosystems in all regions! of the world are almost unstudied in this regard. Even in the tropics effects on mobile species particularly in open continental-shelf habitats have not been assessed (Polunin 2002) and impacts on fishery yield are scarcely known (Russ 2002). Fishery MPAs should reasonably include critical adult habitat and be sufficiently large to support breeding populations with a stable age structure (NOAA 1990), however modelling of single stocks indicates MPAs incorporating 50-75% of the stock area are needed to optimise yields of mobile species (Guénette & Pitcher 1999). Given the high mobility of most commercially important species in areas such as the North Sea, reproductive output could only increase substantially in MPAs of very large size (e.g. >70,000 km2) (Daan 1993; FSBI 2001). Presumably such sizes of area are also necessary on tropical shelves where the very mobile species that are the target of most large-scale fisheries are concerned. Here the socio-economic consequences of MPAs are potentially more severe for reas! ons of poverty, although MPAs in the broad sense can play roles in resolving conflicts and in other ways. In the case of mobile fishery species, tropical countries have much to learn from the relatively well-studied shelves of European waters. The successful design and implementation of MPAs relies on setting clearly defined objectives and encouraging stakeholder participation in the planning, design and implementation process (Roberts & Hawkins 2000); ‘gaming’ with ecosystem models is one of few means of achieving this. The big gaps for both EU and less-developed regions are in understanding the potential benefits, designs and outcomes in continental-shelf waters, where the classic conflicts have taken place. Beyond single-stock assessments, there is a growing need to consider the future basis for ecosystem-oriented management, and conceptual models are needed that can help decision makers develop coherent and integrated MPA networks. This WP will provide the basis for a productive interchange of data, concepts and operational assessments of existing MPA networks towards the achievement of goals such as those set by the WSSD. SignificanceThe successful design and implementation of MPAs relies on setting clearly defined objectives and encouraging stakeholder participation in the planning, design and implementation process (Roberts & Hawkins 2000); ‘gaming’ with ecosystem models is one of few means of achieving this. The big gaps for both EU and less-developed regions are in understanding the potential benefits, designs and outcomes in continental-shelf waters, where the classic conflicts have taken place. Beyond single-stock assessments, there is a growing need to consider the future basis for ecosystem-oriented management, and conceptual models are needed that can help decision makers develop coherent and integrated MPA networks. This WP will provide the basis for a productive interchange of data, concepts and operational assessments of existing MPA networks towards the achievement of goals such as those set by the WSSD. Future directionsThis project will involve foraging of existing data and modelling because for open continental shelf waters this is the most obvious way of making progressing knowledge. But in due course, a substantial effort towards gathering new empirical data will clearly be necessary. References
|