Transcript Slide 1

Delivering for Biodiversity:
Towards the 2008-2010 Marine Biodiversity Implementation Plans
Battleby, 22nd March 2007
Marine Biodiversity:
Priorities for Action
Keith Hiscock
MarLIN Programme
The Marine Biological Association
Plymouth
(Presentation available from: www.marlin.ac.uk/pap)
2006/7 – a ‘busy’ year for marine biodiversity conservation - especially for me!
• As a part of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) review
process, a Marine Priority List Review Group (MPLUG), led by
the Joint Nature Conservation Committee considers a revised
list of Nationally Important Marine Features and Biodiversity
Action Plan Priority Marine Habitats and Species. MBA is
commissioned to co-ordinate preparation of the draft list.*
• Defra opens the consultation on a ‘Marine Bill’ –
participation from Scotland encouraged to help in identifying
issues widely.
• Scottish Executive consults on Coastal and Marine National
Park.
* Hiscock, K., Harris, R. & Lukey, J. 2006. Nationally Important Marine Features and Biodiversity Action Plan Marine Priority
Habitats and Species. Report to the Joint Nature Conservation Committee from the Marine Biological Association. Plymouth:
Marine Biological Association. JNCC Contract F90-01-892. But database updated and candidate species are being moderated.
• Making BAP criteria work for marine conservation.
Presentation: Belfast, 21 May*
• Using the Habitats Directive and developing new
approaches to identify important areas for marine conservation.
Presentation: 1st European Congress of Conservation Biology,
22-26 August 2006 – Eger, Hungary*
• Isle of Arran Lamlash Bay proposal for a No Take Zone makes
progress.
• Research for the WWF-UK Marine Biodiversity Hotspots
report (Published January 2007)**
• Developing a practical approach to marine biodiversity
conservation. Presentation: Coastal Futures, 16 January 2007*
• UK Marine Protected Areas Centre developed. Launch
workshop, 28 February 2007, York (not far from Scotland)
* Available from: www.marlin.ac.uk/pap
** Available from www.wwf.org.uk
The presentation will:
1. ‘Set the scene’ for later discussion by identifying:
• national and international imperatives driving priorities, and
• recent practical actions
2. Give some examples that might inform potentially new
approaches:
• applying Nationally Important Marine Features (NIMF)
and Degree of Threat criteria to identify candidate
biotopes and species – experience from doing it;
• incorporating NIMF and BAP species and habitats into
decision making for marine environmental management
and protection, and
• identifying ‘marine biodiversity hotspots’.
3. Explain my ‘starter list’ of priorities for action (which lead to
‘outcomes for marine biodiversity conservation’).
LBAPS
OSPAR Commission
For the Protection of the
Marine Environment of
the North-East Atlantic
ANNEX V On the Protection and Conservation of the
Ecosystems and Biological Diversity of the Maritime Area
‘New’ tools since the mid 90’s:
The Britain and Ireland biotopes classification (See: www.jncc.gov.uk/page-1584). The European Nature
Information System: http://eunis.eea.europa.eu/habitats.jsp. For a ‘read-across’ between the Britain and
Ireland classification, the EUNIS classification and the Habitats Directive Annex I habitats link from:
http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-3365
‘New’ tools since the mid 90’s:
Identifying sensitivity and ‘threat of significant decline’ (MarLIN
Biology and Sensitivity Key Information for species and biotopes)
www.marlin.ac.uk
Hiscock, K. & Tyler-Walters, H. 2006.
Identifying sensitivity in marine
ecosystems: the MarLIN programme.
Hydrobiologia, 555, 309-320.
In the UK, development of NIMF –
Nationally Important Marine Features,
which are:
• Areas that best represent the range of seascapes, habitats
and species present in the UK – the UK’s marine biodiversity
heritage.
• Seascapes, habitats and species for which we have a
special responsibility in a national, regional or global context.
• Seascapes, habitats and species that have suffered
significant decline in their extent or quality, or are threatened
with such decline, and can thus be defined as being in poor
status.
See: Connor et al. 2002. Rationale and criteria for the identification of nationally important marine nature
conservation features and areas in the UK. Version 02.11. (Available from:
http://www.jncc.gov.uk/PDF/sg341.pdf)
Detailed criteria – ‘forgiving’ of ‘insufficient
information’:
Species
CRITERION 1: Proportional Importance
A high proportion of the populations of a species occurs within the UK. Species are categorised as follows:
Global importance: a high (>25%) proportion of the global population of a species occurs within the UK.
Regional importance: a high (>30%) proportion of the regional (NE Atlantic within the OSPAR area)
population of a species.
CRITERION 2: Rarity
Marine species that are sessile or of restricted mobility are considered nationally rare if distribution is
restricted to eight or less 10km squares (0.5%) within the 3 mile territorial seas limit of UK waters. A
mobile species qualifies as nationally rare if the total population size is known, inferred or suspected to be
fewer than 250 mature individuals. Outside of inshore areas, sparse survey data makes it difficult to apply
quantitative criteria and expert judgement is used.
CRITERION 3: Decline
An observed, estimated, inferred or suspected significant decline (exceeding expected or known natural
fluctuations) in numbers, extent or quality of a marine species in the UK (quality refers to life history
parameters). Decline should be at least 25% in the past 25 years where figures are available.
CRITERION 4: Threat of decline
It is estimated, inferred or suspected that a species will suffer a significant decline in the foreseeable future
as a result of human activity. (Factors included for Biodiversity Action Plans: 1. It is predicted that the
species will decline by 50% in a current 25 year period, or in the next 25 years; 2. The species is
believed to be long-lived (>25 years) with a low recovery potential and if action is not taken to reverse
current trends then the species is likely to become extinct in the next 100 years.)
Defra, 2005. Review of Marine Conservation – Working Group report to Government. PB 9714. London, Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/ewd/rmnc/pdf/rmnc-report-0704.pdf
‘Threat of significant decline’ criteria
Particularly important for fragile species with short-lived
propagules and/or that are long-lived, slow growing and may
recruit infrequently
Northern sea fan. Larva
believed short-lived, settles
very near parent.
Axinellid sponges. Very slowgrowing & long-lived? (No
colonisation new surfaces).
Horse mussels. Very long-lived
larva. Devastated by mobile fishing
gear. Mpa network needed?
Note: whilst marine habitats are well ‘connected’ by the sea –
that only benefits species with planktonic propagules and highly
mobile species. ‘Networks’ of marine protected areas do not
‘work’ for most of the species that qualify under ‘Threat of
significant decline’.
Initial numbers of candidate species
submitted to JNCC from MBA-led review.
Num ber of species w ithin each Taxonom ic group suggested as NIMF Species
Number of species within each Taxonomic group sugested as BAP Priority species
Green Algae, 0
Brow n Algae, 3
Green Algae, 1
Brow n Algae, 12
Red Algae, 22
Other Vertebrates, 5
Sponges, 24
Sea firs, anemones &
corals, 34
Red Algae, 7
Other Vertebrates, 5
Sponges, 0
Sea firs, anemones &
corals, 12
Segmented w orms, 4
Mammals, 29
Segmented w orms, 9
Mammals, 20
Bony Fish , 45
Crustaceans, 22
Crustaceans, 49
Other Invertebrates, 2
Molluscs, 7
Sea squirts, 8
Sea mats, 0
Echinoderms, 15
Echinoderms, 3
Sea mats, 24
Bony Fish , 36
Molluscs, 123
(Sharks, skates and rays to be added)
Other invertebrates, 0
Sea squirts, 0
So, Nationally Important Marine
Features: species and habitats:
provide a ‘touchstone’ for anyone involved in environmental
protection and management as ‘species or habitats to be
protected’.
It is a bonus if the criteria identify species
and habitats that:
we can take action to improve their status (as BAP).
UK Priority Biodiversity Action Plan
Species and Habitats
need ‘action’ at (UK) national, country and local (LBAP) levels
But BAP criteria are sometimes unhelpful
and sometimes fail through ‘insufficient
information’; for instance, habitats:
1 Habitat for which the UK has international obligations
2 Natural & semi-natural habitats at risk (high rate of decline,
rare)
3 Habitats important for assemblages of key species
4.1 Extreme threat and habitat dependant on long-lived, slow
growing and vulnerable species.
4.2 Extreme human activity linked threat and a 50% decline in
the next 25 years is feasible.
4.3 Restricted to isolated locations and threatened with local
extinction.
4.4 Habitat likely to contain rare/scarce threatened species.
4.5 An element of a biotope is threatened with destruction at
least locally.
BAP Species criteria even more prone to
‘Insufficient information’
1 International Threat
2 International responsibility & moderate decline in the UK
3 Marked decline in the UK
4.1 It is predicted that the species will decline by 50% in a
current or next 25 year period.
4.2 Extreme threat and long-lived, low recovery potential;
species is likely to become extinct in the next 100 years.
4.3 Extreme threat, species declining and 'indicator' that
represents an issue causing problems for other spp.
4.4 Extreme threat, once more abundant and widespread and
population now not likely to be viable in the long term.
4.5 Extreme threat and threatened internationally, UK could
become a 'stronghold'.
Incorporating NIMF into decision-making
Expected
Expectedenvironmental
environmentalperturbation(s)
perturbation(s)
Species
Speciesand
andhabitats
habitats
(biotopes)
(biotopes)present
present
Are
Arehabitats,
habitats,communities
communitiesororspecies
specieslikely
likelytotobe
bedamaged
damagedby
bythe
theenvironmental
environmental
perturbations
being
considered?
perturbations being considered?
Seabed
Seabedwildlife
wildlifeintolerance
intoleranceinformation
informationfrom
fromMarLIN
MarLIN
No
No
Yes,
Yes,slightly
slightly
Yes,
Yes,moderately
moderatelyseverely
severely
Yes,
Yes,severely
severely
Will
Willre-growth,
re-growth,re-colonization
re-colonizationororre-establishment
re-establishmentofofviability
viability
occur?
Recoverability
information
occur? Recoverability informationfrom
fromMarLIN
MarLIN
Yes,
Yes,rapidly
rapidly
and
andfully
fully
Not
Notsensitive
sensitive/ /
Not
sensitive*
Not sensitive*
Very
Verylow
low
sensitivity
sensitivity
Yes,
Yes,but
butslowly
slowly
ororincompletely
incompletely
Low
Low
sensitivity
sensitivity
Moderate
Moderate
sensitivity
sensitivity
No,
No,ororvery
veryslowly
slowly
ororincompletely
incompletely
Very
Veryhigh
high/ /high
high
sensitivity
sensitivity
IsIsthe
thehabitat
habitatororspecies
speciesaa‘Nationally
‘NationallyImportant
Important
Marine
MarineFeature’?
Feature’?
No
Noaction
action
required
required
Surveillance
Surveillance
appropriate
appropriate
No
No
Yes
Yes
Action
Actionrequired
requiredtoto
minimize
minimizeimpact
impact
Development
Developmentmay
maynot
not
occur
occuratatproposed
proposedlocation
location
Adapted from: Hiscock, K. & TylerWalters, H. 2006. Identifying sensitivity
in marine ecosystems: the MarLIN
programme. Hydrobiologia, 555, 309320.
But, identifying NIMF and BAP is datahungry
Survey data from the MNCR (19871998) (includes data from Northern
Ireland surveys and BioMar surveys in
Eire)
Survey data from the MBA MarLIN
data access sub-programme.
1999 - 2006
Nationally Important Marine Areas
Criteria for the identification of Important Marine Areas*
• Typicalness
• Naturalness
• Size
• Biological diversity
• Critical area
• Area important for a priority marine feature
“Features that qualify as special features or which are declined or threatened
should contribute to the identification of these areas”.
Encompasses OSPAR criteria: “THREATENED OR DECLINING SPECIES
AND HABITATS/BIOTOPES”. [Include Rarity’ as information on decline is often
lacking.] and IMPORTANT SPECIES AND HABITATS/BIOTOPES. [Refers to
global (‘Proportional importance’) and UK (‘Regional importance’) distribution
and population numbers.] and SENSITIVITY.
* Defra, 2005. Review of Marine Conservation – Working Group report to Government. PB 9714. London,
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlifecountryside/ewd/rmnc/pdf/rmnc-report-0704.pdf
Identifying Nationally Important Marine
Areas – Biodiversity hotspot measures
Marine biodiversity hotspots are areas of high species and
habitat richness that include representative, rare and
threatened features
Measures trialled in the WWF-UK and MBA study:
• Species richness
• Biotope richness
• Candidate NIMF species richness
• Candidate NIMF biotope richness
• Average taxonomic distinctness
• Average biotope distinctness
See: Hiscock, K. & Breckels, M. 2007. Marine Biodiversity Hotspots: identification and protection. Godalming:
WWF UK. Available from: www.wwf.org.uk/marineact.
We do have data and can analyse it to identify, for instance,
biodiversity hotspots – examples here: read the report for
context
1.
2.
1. Species Richness and 2. Average taxonomic distinctness for 6 major phyla.
Red dots represent ‘hot’ areas or high diversity, green dots represent areas of
expected diversity and blue dots show areas with lower than expected diversity.
A starter-list of Priorities for Action
Overcoming ‘Out-of-sight-out-of-mind’
– getting the message across that there is some wonderful
marine life around the Scottish coast and offshore – some of it
rare, threatened and in decline.
www.marlin.ac.uk/learningzone
Overcoming “Insufficient information”
– many species do not qualify as BAP because the science
is not (and will not be) capable of giving necessary
information to inform most recent BAP criteria – will NIMF
species and biotopes fill the gap – and be more meaningful?
Axinella infundibuliformis etc. Firth of Lorn
What is where – how are we going to locate
where are NIMF species and biotopes in
Scotland?
How are we going to locate where are candidate NIMA’s and
what are the ‘problems’ with existing data – more appropriate
survey?
The Firth of Lorn is widely believed to be
a marine biodiversity hotspot
– but there is insufficient data to apply objective criteria
Data is inadequate to undertake
assessment of location of representative
and best examples of features
Firth of
Lorn full
surveys
(not incl.
recent
SAC
status
surveys)
Data sets in danger - in Scotland
Maintaining and improving water quality
Developing a meaningful indicator of ecosystem health
Water Framework Directive:
• High
• Good
• Moderate
• Poor
• Bad
UK Biodiversity
Hotspots
Quality measures –
incorporating presence
of features of marine
natural heritage
importance
– the Water Framework Directive is
very important, but will it measure
and protect important features of
biodiversity?
Descriptive measures are ‘easy’ but quantification and creating
indices encounters problems of ‘uneven’ data sets
See, for instance: Hiscock, K., et al. 2005. Development of a hard substratum benthic invertebrate Water
Framework Directive compliant classification tool. Report to the EA and JNCC from the Marine Biological
Association. Plymouth: Marine Biological Association.
‘Protect the habitat and you’ll protect the
species in it’
- is that the most practical way to go (rather than listing
species on statutes)?
Or/and, is protection needed for named
species
- for instance to achieve protection for commercial or sports
species (e.g. common skate) and ‘souvenir’ species (e.g. fan
mussel)?
Image: Davy Benson
Well, be careful, Serpula vermicularis is
very widespread but reefs are rare
Avoiding ‘co-lateral damage’ – which
route to follow?
How to avoid ‘co-lateral damage’ to NIMF
and other important species and habitats
as a result of extractive activities
? the route to follow – fixed-gear reserves, highly protected
biodiversity reserves (within NIMA’s) etc.:
! Forget “networks” – they do not work for many long-lived,
slow-growing species with infrequent recruitment – they are
not needed for the widely distributed fast colonizing, fast
growing species.
! Protect species where they occur – grasp the opportunity of
local initiatives to have NTZ’s – and create new initiatives.
! Do not wait for grand schemes (‘networks of mpa’s)
! Do not wait for ‘more research’ – use ‘soft intelligence’ now
‘Biosecurity’
– taking action against the real and potential threat of nonnative species to native biodiversity.
Fish and invertebrates killed by a bloom of
the non-native dinoflagellate alga Karenia
mikimotoi (previously Gymnodinium
aureolum) in Killary Harbour in July 2005.
Image: Rohan Holt.
A red tide
Another non-native
species – probably the
next nasty surprise
‘Speaking with authority’
– improving knowledge of activities and
understanding of sectoral ‘cultures’ –
where are the users of the marine
environment ‘coming from’?
‘Speaking with authority’
– maintaining and improving personal knowledge of Scottish
marine ecosystems including of wildlife identification skills.
‘Speaking with authority’
– understanding structure, functioning and ecosystem
processes, including natural fluctuations, intolerance to
factors, recovery potential etc.
From: Hiscock, K., Marshall, C., Sewell, J. & Hawkins S.J. 2007. The
structure and functioning of marine ecosystems: an environmental
protection and management perspective. Report by the Marine
Biological Association. English Nature Research Reports No. 699.
Available from www.marlin.ac.uk/pap
And using that knowledge to inform ‘the
ecosystem approach’
But, beware, for example:
“Services such as resilience and resistance and nutrient cycling
play a fundamental role in the continued delivery of all other
goods and services, but little is known about the
contribution of biodiversity to these services.” Nicola
Beaumont and Melanie Austen in e-conference* on 19 March
2007
* Session III: Biodiversity and ecosystem services - the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment concept from a
European perspective (see: http://forums.ceh.ac.uk:8080/~biostrat)
See: Beaumont N.J., M.C. Austen, J. Atkins, D. Burdon, S. Degraer, T.P. Dentinho, S. Derous, P. Holm, T.
Horton, E. van Ierland, A. H. Marboe, D.J. Starkey, M. Townsend, T. Zarzycki (2007). Identification, Definition
and Quantification of Goods and Services provided by Marine Biodiversity: Implications for the Ecosystem
Approach. Accepted Marine Pollution Bulletin, January 2007.
And, can natural history knowledge stop
‘bonkers conservation’?
“Areas where Sabellaria spinulosa had been lost due to
winter storms appeared to recolonize up to a maximum
thickness of 2.4 cm during the following summer.” (R. Holt,
pers. comm. in Jones 1998).
Image: Ian Reach/Natural England
And finally,
what it’s about:
is keeping it looking like this
(Presentation available from: www.marlin.ac.uk/pap)
Thankyou
Culled slides follow (slides in draft presentation
culled because of time constraints or not strictly
relevant)
Recent practical actions (Directives have
teeth)
4
Habitats
Directive:
UK Special Areas
of Conservation
established (red)
or proposed
(blue) for marine
habitats and
species
Map from a draft WWF-UK report on Biodiversity Hotspots
(The Darwin Mounds possible SAC
is not shown. Additionally, the
following are draft offshore SAC:
Braemer Pockmarks; Dogger Bank;
Haig Fras; North Norfolk
Sandbanks and Saturn reef;
Scanner Pockmark; Stanton Banks;
Wyville Thomson Ridge.
Information derived from
www.jncc.gov.uk/page-1458.)
Other imperatives:
OSPAR Commission
For the Protection of the
Marine Environment of
the North-East Atlantic
ANNEX V
On the Protection and Conservation of the Ecosystems and
Biological Diversity of the Maritime Area
(OSPAR has generated criteria for the identification of marine
protected areas and lists of threatened habitats and species)
(OSPAR has recommended the establishment by 2010 of an
ecologically coherent network of well-managed marine
protected areas )
In June 1992, the Convention of Biological Diversity was
signed by 159 governments at the Earth Summit, which
took place in Rio de Janeiro (it is also referred to as the
Rio Convention.). It entered into force on 29 December
1993 and it was the first treaty to provide a legal
framework for biodiversity conservation. It called for the
creation and enforcement of national strategies and action
plans to conserve, protect and enhance biological
diversity.
Other imperatives:
32. … promote the conservation and management of the
oceans through …:
(c) … the establishment of marine protected areas
consistent with international law and based on scientific
information, including representative networks by 2012 …
(d) … develop national regional and international
programmes for halting the loss of marine biodiversity…
Locating, accessing, validating and making
available unpublished records
(Defra funded)
Part of unpublished 1927 survey
data from Torbay, ‘rescued’ 2005
Realities, not ‘problems’
1. We have a very good seabed biology dataset – but only
extensively for inshore areas.
2. But that dataset is ‘uneven’ (for statistical comparisons of
areas including of ‘quality’) and there remain significant gaps.
3. Using mathematically impressive quantitative sampling for
monitoring change is often an unrealistic expectation
especially for hard substrata – but pragmatic and practical
approaches can ‘tell the story’.
4. ‘Hard’ evidence of change - including change brought about
by human activities – is difficult to come by but experienced
naturalists need to be believed – and their numbers
increased. ‘Soft intelligence’!
5. Policy advisors may have to accept what ecologists CAN do
and not what they would LIKE us to be able to do.