Unambiguously defined and recognized seabed protection targets are necessary for successful implementation of MPAs

Vrooman, Jip; Sluis, Christiaan van; Hest, Floris van; Lindeboom, H.J.; Murk, Albertinka J.

doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105056

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…MPAs that only exist on paper are 'paper parks', and do not generate any actual conservation benefits; in fact, they contribute to an unjustified sense of achievement [33]. For example, European MPAs allow for the most destructive form of fishing, bottom trawling, which implies a failure in their stated goal of protecting marine biodiversity [34]. Indeed, European MPAs suffer from an even greater trawling intensity than the surrounding areas [35].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Considering the empowerment of locals and the indigenous communities is key for conservation initiatives, but especially important in bottom-up governance as it offers the opportunity to rely on their local knowledge for the planning, implementation, and management of MPAs [41]. This type of governance can also help minimize the deleterious effects of ill-defined goals and definitions that prevent effective implementation and enforcement [34].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Stakeholder Perceptions Can Distinguish ‘Paper Parks’ from Marine Protected Areas

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While numerous Marine Protected Areas (MPA) have been created in the last decades, their effectiveness must be assessed in the context of the country’s biodiversity conservation policies and must be verified by local observations. Currently, the observations of local stakeholders, such as those from non-governmental organizations (NGOs), academics, government civil servants, journalists, and fishers, are not considered in any MPA database. The Sea Around Us has added observations from local stakeholders to address this gap, adding their perspectives to its reconstructed fisheries catch database, and to at least one MPA in each country’s Exclusive Economic Zone. It is important to pursue and incentivize stakeholder knowledge sharing to achieve a better understanding of the current level of marine protection, as this information is a valuable addition to the existing MPA databases. To address this gap, we demonstrated that personal emails containing a one-question questionnaire about the fishing levels in an MPA are an excellent way to gather data from local stakeholders, and that this works especially well for respondents in NGOs, academia, and governments. Of the stakeholders who replied to our personalized email, 66% provided us with the fishing level of the MPA that we asked for. The paper also presents how to access this information through the Sea Around Us website, which details in anonymized form the most common fishing levels for each selected MPA, as perceived or observed by different local stakeholder groups. This information is a unique and novel addition to a website that is concerned with marine conservation and contributes to a more accurate and inclusive discourse around MPAs. This information also helps to identify the gaps that need to be addressed to turn ‘paper parks’ (i.e., MPAs that are legally designated but not effective) into effective MPAs, which can contribute to climate-resilient ‘blue economies’.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stakeholder Perceptions Can Distinguish ‘Paper Parks’ from Marine Protected Areas

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the current scenario of deterioration of the marine environment, the designation of new protected and important areas for birds or the expansion of existing ones, to include important foraging and wintering areas or connecting the existing ones are required (Gilmour et al., 2022; Sanz‐Aguilar & Lago, 2021). Such proposals to expand the SPAs in the study area are aligned with the objectives advocated by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the European Union (EU) of expanding the protected areas network to recover and protect habitats and species, and thereby achieving the target of 30% of MPAs by 2030 to improve biodiversity as a whole (Davies et al., 2022; Vrooman et al., 2022).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These areas are part of the Natura 2000 network, with Marine SPAs specifically targeting seabird conservation. However, it is widely acknowledged that only a small fraction of MPAs are deemed effective in achieving their conservation objectives (Jones & Long, 2021; Vrooman et al., 2022), primarily due to governance issues, such as the lack of a standardised framework, limited survey data, insufficient financial support or inadequate public engagement (Zeng et al., 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using long‐term data series to design adequate protected areas that ensure the conservation of inconspicuous small petrel species

De la Cruz,

Pereira,

Paiva

et al. 2023

Journal of Applied Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are widely used tools for conservation and management. Their correct delimitation is challenging, especially when the target species are small, elusive and inconspicuous, as little data are generally available to adequately assess their distribution at sea. Therefore, currently designated MPAs may not effectively cover key areas for small seabirds, particularly during migration and wintering seasons. We used ensemble species distribution models (ESDMs) on a 15‐year time‐series data set of at‐sea census along the Atlantic Iberian arc to predict the potential distribution of the smallest European seabird, the European storm‐petrel (Hydrobates pelagicus), and compare it with official marine special protection areas (SPAs). Occurrence of European storm‐petrel was related to shifts in sea surface temperature, and to small distances from the coast over the continental shelf. Most relevant area for the species in the Atlantic Iberian arc was west‐central Portugal to north‐western coast of the Iberian Peninsula, with an additional key area in the Gulf of Cádiz. Both zones host significant SPAs, but they inadequately cover key areas for European storm‐petrels. Our findings support extending marine SPAs in the Atlantic Iberian arc to ensure their effective protection. The distribution of the species expands over the years, varying in both size and location. These changes might be attributed to dynamic oceanographic variables, such as sea surface temperature and biomass of micronekton, which seem to play a significant role in their foraging behaviour. Synthesis and applications. Our study highlights the importance of analysing long time series and ESDMs to design adequate protected areas, which ensure the conservation of small and highly mobile species such as storm petrels. Our results should be considered by decision‐makers to prioritise and update marine protected areas, while incorporating the dynamic nature of the ocean within an ecosystem‐based approach.

show abstract

Unambiguously defined and recognized seabed protection targets are necessary for successful implementation of MPAs

Cited by 2 publications

References 49 publications

Stakeholder Perceptions Can Distinguish ‘Paper Parks’ from Marine Protected Areas

Stakeholder Perceptions Can Distinguish ‘Paper Parks’ from Marine Protected Areas

Using long‐term data series to design adequate protected areas that ensure the conservation of inconspicuous small petrel species

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About