Building the future of MPAs – lessons from history

Abstract

ABSTRACT1. Marine protected areas (MPAs) have a long history, originating in traditional and cultural initiatives often focused on reserving resources for food security. A handful of 'parks' were established between the 1870s and 1940s and, following World War II, increased awareness of threats to the ocean led to global programmes that started in the 1970-1980s. 2. Initially IUCN became the leader, piloting a science-based 'critical marine habitats' approach, by which MPAs were aimed at conserving the healthiest and most diverse ecosystems, endangered and charismatic species, and high-profile habitats.3. During the 1970s, with the support of WWF, UNESCO, UNEP, and growing national efforts, the MPA concept evolved to include biosphere reserves, marine reserves and sanctuaries, large ocean reserves, and other designations that aimed to reconcile long-term protection with human use.4. From the 1980s, MPAs greatly expanded in number and scope. By the turn of the millennium, MPAs were proliferating, and principles and methodologies were available to guide their establishment and management in a harmonized manner. Zoning for different uses was widespread, but questions were being raised about the efficacy of biodiversity conservation in areas where extractive uses were permitted.5. MPA implementation accelerated once targets were introduced by the Convention on Biological Diversity. Campaigns and fundraising by non-governmental organizations and further national efforts resulted in a rapid increase although, by 2015, less than 4% of ocean surface was protected.6. Current challenges include: (1) understanding the role of MPAs in maintaining ecosystem services, fishery management, climate change adaptation and mitigation, and other emergent problems; (2) more rigorous 7. While MPAs have provided one of the most viable and politically acceptable approaches to marine conservation for 50 years, their role in developing a fully effective marine ecosystems management regime has yet to be fully explored and understood.

On the Use of Maps and Models in Conservation and Resource Management (Warning: Results May Vary)

“…Developments in data collection techniques in the last few decades have increased the types, amount and quality of data that can be collected for marine environmental characterization, particularly in terms of remotely sensed data (Brown et al, 2011;Kachelriess et al, 2014;Lecours et al, 2016b). Despite all the benefits associated with new data collection tools, Wells et al (2016) have warned against an over-dependence on technology, which can create a false feeling of trust in the data (see Section Data Quality) to the detriment of collecting appropriate ground-truthing data to verify the maps. Ground-truthing should always be performed, whether it is to train a model, to validate a final map, or to give an ecological interpretation to patterns in the data.…”

“…While those early critiques may have contributed to encouraging many countries to standardize mapping and decision-making processes (Guarinello et al, 2010;e.g., Buhl-Mortensen et al, 2015), judgment calls are still being made (Lengyel et al, 2008;Levin et al, 2014); the inconsistency in the use of different methods is still considered a challenge for decision-making and the development of robust conservation and management measures (Crossman et al, 2012;Gjerde et al, 2016). The most important outcome of standardization is arguably the comparability of the resulting maps (Howell, 2010;Davies et al, 2015) which enables, for instance, the systematic identification of priority conservation targets based on common criteria (Laffoley and Hiscock, 1993;Edgar et al, 2008), comparisons across geographic areas , and multi-temporal assessments as verification process to ensure that conservation objectives are reached (Bisack and Magnusson, 2016;Wells et al, 2016).…”

“…In the past 25 years, the impacts of anthropogenic pressure on marine environments (e.g., Fraschetti et al, 2010) and a growing awareness of the significance of these ecosystems (Borja, 2014) have steered many nations toward increasing efforts to better manage and protect marine resources (Leslie, 2005;Laffoley et al, 2016;Wells et al, 2016). However, these efforts have not always been effective as they are sometimes based on incomplete or inappropriate data for the targeted environments (Broderick, 2015;Orlikowska et al, 2016), and can also be manipulated by political processes that may induce bias (Edgar et al, 2008;Devillers et al, 2014).…”

Connecting the shifting currents of aquatic science and policy

“…Similarly, ‘marine sanctuaries’ have been applied extensively, particularly in the USA, with great potential for public awareness; nevertheless, Congress gave them no direct regulatory power over fishing. However, despite obvious problems with MPAs, they have great potential to be game‐changers (Wells et al, ). Clearly, the MPA movement has changes to make, but this will ultimately depend on policy improvement, support for science, and too‐often‐lacking public commitment.…”

Incentivizing More Effective Marine Protected Areas with the Global Ocean Refuge System (GLORES)

“…Although, interest in establishing MPAs has grown in past decades, driven in part by the Convention on Biological Diversity's Aichi Target 11 and UN Sustainable Development Goal 14, the global ocean remains minimally protected (Wells et al, 2016b). As of September 2016, there were ∼10,000 MPAs in the world, totaling roughly 2.6% of the ocean (Figure 1, MPAtlas.org), and this total is expected to be close to 6% in the coming year once commitments such as the Ross Sea Marine Protected Area are fully in place.…”