Esben Moland Olsen (Ins?tute of Marine Research Norway)

Transcription

1 Marine Board- ESF Working Group on Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) Posi?on Paper 18 Achieving ecologically coherent MPA networks in Europe: Science needs and priori=es Esben Moland Olsen (Ins?tute of Marine Research Norway)

2 Interdisciplinary Working group Contribu=ng authors: L Fonseca (Brazil), R Goni (Spain), D Johnson (UK), S Katsanevakis (Greece), E Macpherson (Spain), EM Olsen (chair, Norway), D Pelle?er (France), M Rabaut (Belgium), MC Ribeiro (Portugal), P Weaver (UK) and T Zaharia (Romania) Marine Board series editor: Niall McDonough Marine Board publica=on editors: Kate Larkin, Maud Evrard and Aurélien Carbonniere

3 Marine Protected Areas An acknowledged tool for protec?ng marine biodiversity MPA establishment in Europe oxen based on local ini?a?ves and somewhat uncoordinated Connected network of MPAs improved ecological resilience

4 Main Aim how can science contribute? Strengthen the science- based framework to aid stakeholders in planning and implemen?ng MPA networks in Europe

5 Working group strategy Relied heavily on case studies to provide advice for the current European situa?on Consulted various stakeholder en??es e.g. IOC Allowed us to iden?fy specific research gaps and needs for MPA network design, management and assessment

6 A Norwegian case study: lobster reserves including before- data and controls 3.5 MPA established Latitude N Norway Reserve Control Reserve Reserve Control Skagerrak 100 km Oslo Reserve Control relative change in CPUE before MPA Longitude E Lessons learned: Iden?fy and include broader range of stakeholders Quan?fy effects beyond MPA boundaries (connec?vity)

7 Key recommenda=ons

8 1. Establish baselines and monitoring for MPAs and surrounding waters A network of observatories in connec?on with MPAs in Europe Monitoring ac?vi?es should be long- term preferably at least years and have an appropriate spa?al scale A Before- AXer- Control- Impact study design to evaluate whether MPAs work according to the objec?ves, and to inform stakeholders

9 2. Evaluate MPA network connec=vity, gaps and cri=cal components How far does fish move and fish larvae disperse with water currents? Ecological connec?vity remains poorly understood, though oxen listed as MPA network- level goals Within European waters, a beber understanding of the connec?vity of exis?ng protected areas is needed Beyond that, a strategic approach should direct the selec?on of op?mal loca?on and coverage for highly protected sites

10 3. Consider new and emerging issues such as climate resilience To date, the focus has oxen been on the protec?on of exis?ng ecologically important features Management in a rapidly changing world dominated by humans will require adap?ve approaches Policy- makers and managers currently have lible guidance on appropriate ways forward For example, how can MPA design build resilience to climate change?

11 4. Establish realis=c guidance around stakeholder involvement Stakeholder engagement and expecta?ons is a largely cultural ques?on that can vary from place to place To date, social science has been largely post hoc, examining what went wrong Instead social scien?sts should be ac?vely included earlier in the process (design) to produce appropriate guidance This could greatly facilitate MPA designa?on and also compliance

12 5. Develop pilot projects that links marine monitoring with mari=me surveillance MPA results from areas with poor compliance may be difficult to interpret In some cases scien?fic monitoring might be combined with mari?me surveillance, providing cost savings Pilot projects linking these different cultures could increase mutual understanding and improve the success of MPA networks

13 Thank you Contact: European Marine Board Secretariat Niall McDonough: Kate Larkin: Download the publica=on at Advancing marine science in Europe