Transcript Improving the basis for MPA planning

INCOFISH WP5
Improving the basis for MPA
planning
WP5 – Improving the basis for MPA planning
Objectives
Improving the basis for MPA planning with emphasis on sizing and
placement of MPAs, and reconciling fishery and biodiversity
objectives.
• D5.1 Review of the similarities and differences of planning,
stakeholder involvement and effectiveness of selected MPAs.
• D5.2 Analysis of size and placement of selected MPAs using
spatial ecosystem models provided by WP4.
• D5.3 Conceptual model for MPA planning in offshore continental
shelf waters.
• D5.4 WP5 report.
• D5.5 Five publications.
WP5 – Improving the basis for MPA planning
D 5.1 Review of MPA Effectiveness
Case Study Regions:
Northern Gulf of California, Campeche Bank - Gulf of Mexico,
East China Sea, North Sea
WP5 – Improving the basis for MPA planning
Northern Gulf of California
Upper Gulf of California and Colorado River Biosphere Reserve:
Size: 9348km2 Established: 1993 MPA Type: Biosphere Reserve
Protection: Ban on all commercial fishing in core, except limited traditional practices.
Limited fishing allowed in buffer zone.
Vaquita Conservation Refuge:
Size: 1264km2 Established: 2005 MPA Type: Biodiversity Conservation
Protection: Exclusion of gears with high risk of vaquita bycatch.
Shallow Water Shrimp Trawl Exclusion:
Size: ???km2 Established: 1993 MPA Type: Fisheries Management
Protection: Prohibition of shrimp trawling.
WP5 – Improving the basis for MPA planning
Campeche Bank
Términos Lagoon Flora and Fauna Protected Area:
Size: 7061km2 Established:1994 MPA Type: Biodiversity conservation
Protection: Limited controls on fishing, no modification to the water flow.
Shallow Water Shrimp Trawl Exclusion:
Size: ???km2 Established: 1993 MPA Type: Fisheries management
Protection: Prohibition of shrimp trawling.
Proposed Red Grouper Management Area:
Size:
Established:
MPA Type:
Protection:
WP5 – Improving the basis for MPA planning
East China Sea
Nanji Island National Nature Reserve:
Size: 201km2 Established: 1990 MPA Type: Biodiversity conservation
Protection: Zoned protection.
Xiamen Rare Marine Species Nature Reserve:
Size: 33km2 Established: 2000 MPA Type: Biodiversity conservation
Protection: Zoned protection.
Dongtan Chongming Nature Reserve:
Size: 242km2 Established: 1998: MPA Type: Biodiversity conservation/fishery mgt
Protection: Zoned protection
WP5 – Improving the basis for MPA planning
North Sea
Moray Firth Special Area of Conservation:
Size: 151km2 Established: 1996/2005 MPA Type: Biodiversity conservation
Protection: No specific activities banned, relevant authorities obliged to protect well
being of focal species and habitats
Plaice Box:
Size: 38 000km2 Established: 1989 MPA Type: Fisheries management
Protection: Vessel, catch and gear restrictions.
Sandeel Box:
Size: 18 000km2 Established: 2000 MPA Type: Fisheries Management
Protection: Exclusion of industrial fishery vessels.
WP5 – Improving the basis for MPA planning
WP5 – Improving the basis for MPA planning
D 5.1 Review of MPA Effectiveness
• MPAs show great similarities in objectives and application across a
diverse range of marine ecosystems and political settings.
• Limited and sporadic monitoring and assessment critically
compromises the ability to determine MPA effects.
• There is only limited evidence for biodiversity conservation benefits
and no evidence for improved fishery yields from the case studies.
• Non-compliance is widespread and compromises MPA success.
• MPAs are established reactively rather than as true networks.
WP5 – Improving the basis for MPA planning
D 5.1 Review of MPA Effectiveness
• There is only limited use of MPAs for biodiversity conservation and
fisheries management.
• Static MPAs are vulnerable to spatiotemporal variation in species
distribution.
• Resource use rules within MPAs strongly influence success.
• Political undermining of MPA designation occurs.
• Socio-political considerations are as important to MPA success as
biophysical considerations.
WP5 – Improving the basis for MPA planning
D 5.2 Analysis of size and placement of selected MPAs
using spatial ecosystem models
Case Study Regions:
Northern Gulf of California, Campeche Bank, Gulf of Mexico,
East China Sea, North Sea, Benguela – Namibia, Gulf of Thailand
WP5 – Improving the basis for MPA planning
D 5.2 Analysis of size and placement of selected MPAs
using spatial ecosystem models
• Work just about to commence following the completion of the
Ecosystem models. Ready next week……..
• Simulation of existing and proposed MPAs in each ecosystem
• Comparison of MPAs for biodiversity conservation and fisheries
management.
• Single species population models.
» Sedentary species
» Mobile Species
» Are Bad MPAs any good?
WP5 – Improving the basis for MPA planning
Interaction of MPAs and traditional management
•Are MPAs part of ‘optimal’ management?
•How large Should MPAs be?
WP5 – Improving the basis for MPA planning
YPR Model
•Minimum basic Yield-Per-Recruit (YPR) model
Based on abalone Haliotis laevigata
Sedentary species with fully mixed larval dispersal
•Protecting reproductive output
Spawning Stock Biomass-Per-Recruit (SSBPR)
Egg production-Per-Recruit (EPR)
•Long term constant maximum recruitment if:
reproductive output >30% unexploited reproductive output
Model Assumptions
•Increasing relative fecundity with age
•Undersize Gear Induced Mortality (UGIM)
•(Age dependant natural mortality)
WP5 – Improving the basis for MPA planning
Policy Scenarios
•Vary management controls to maximise YPR while
protecting 30% of unexploited reproductive output
•Management Controls
Proportion of area protected
Minimum landing size (mm)
(Fishing mortality (F) / Effort)
WP5 – Improving the basis for MPA planning
F = 1.0
UGIM = 0
YPR (g)
1
3
0.9
0.8
2.5
0.7
0.6
2
0.5
1.5
0.4
0.3
1
0.2
0.5
0.1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Minimum Landing Size (mm)
60
0
WP5 – Improving the basis for MPA planning
1
F = 1.0
SSBPR (g)
UGIM = 0
40
0.8
30
0.6
20
0.4
10
0.2
0
0
20
40
Minimum Landing Size (mm)
60
0
WP5 – Improving the basis for MPA planning
1
F = 1.0 M = 0.2
YPR (g)
1
F = 1.0 M = 0.2
SSBPR (g)
3
0.8
2.5
0.6
2
1.5
0.4
40
0.8
30
0.6
20
0.4
1
0
0
10
0.2
0.2
0.5
20
40
Minimum Landing Size (mm)
60
0
0
0
20
40
Minimum Landing Size (mm)
60
0
WP5 – Improving the basis for MPA planning
1
F = 1.0 UGIM = 0
YPR (g)
1
F = 1.0 UGIM = 0
SSBPR (g)
3
0.8
2.5
0.6
2
1.5
0.4
40
0.8
30
0.6
20
0.4
1
0
0
10
0.2
0.2
0.5
20
40
Minimum Landing Size (mm)
60
0
0
0
20
40
Minimum Landing Size (mm)
60
0
WP5 – Improving the basis for MPA planning
F = 1.0
UGIM = 0
YPR (g)
1
3
0.9
0.8
2.5
0.7
0.6
2
0.5
1.5
0.4
0.3
1
0.2
0.5
0.1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Minimum Landing Size (mm)
60
0
WP5 – Improving the basis for MPA planning
F = 1.0
UGIM = 0
YPR (g)
1
3
0.9
0.8
2.5
0.7
0.6
2
0.5
1.5
0.4
0.3
1
0.2
0.5
0.1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Minimum Landing Size (mm)
60
0
WP5 – Improving the basis for MPA planning
F = 1.0 UGIM = 0.25F
YPR (g)
1
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
0
10
20
30
40
Minimum Landing Size (mm)
50
60
0
WP5 – Improving the basis for MPA planning
F = 1.0
UGIM = 0.75F
YPR (g)
1
0.3
0.9
0.8
0.25
0.7
0.6
0.2
0.5
0.15
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.05
0.1
0
0
10
20
30
40
Minimum Landing Size (mm)
50
60
WP5 – Improving the basis for MPA planning
MPA Coverage for ‘Optimal’ Management
F(yr-1)
0.4
1.0
1.6
UGIM = 0
SSBPR >30%
X
X
X
UGIM = 0
EPR >30%
X
X
X
UGIM = 0.25F
SSBPR >30%
10%
25%
30%
UGIM =0.75F
SSBPR >30%
25%
30%
30%
WP5 – Improving the basis for MPA planning
The role of MPAs for protecting mobile
dispersing species.
• How do extent of mobility and required MPA
size interact?
• Does the distance of larval dispersal affect the
conclusions?
WP5 – Improving the basis for MPA planning
Dynamic Model
• Age structured population model
Beverton-Holt stock recruitment function
Term for relative fecundity
• 1-d diffusion dispersal model
Varying levels of mobility ‘D’
Larvae either fully mixed or non-dispersing
‘Looped’ model space
• ‘Gravity’ based fishing model
Max effort applied to areas with highest exploitable biomass
WP5 – Improving the basis for MPA planning
Scenarios
• Examined the response of yield to varying:
F, D and % MPA
• Single large or several small MPAs
scenarios run with 1, 2 or 8 MPAs
WP5 – Improving the basis for MPA planning
Diffusion Dispersal Plots
1
 x 2 / 4 Dt
P ( x, t ) 
e
4Dt
t = 365 , D as specified
WP5 – Improving the basis for MPA planning
WP5 – Improving the basis for MPA planning
Yield Plots – Mixed larval pool
WP5 – Improving the basis for MPA planning
Single Large or Several Small?
D = 0.001
F =0.6yr-1
D = 0.1
WP5 – Improving the basis for MPA planning
Outputs
Papers:
Le Quesne, Shepherd & Hawkins (in press) A comparison of no-take zones and
traditional fishery manaagement tools for managing site attached species with a mixed larval pool.
Fish and Fisheries.
Hui, Xu, Jun, Le Quesne, Sweeting & Polunin (final draft) An overview of spatial
management and marine protected areas in the East China Sea. Conservation Biology?
Le Quesne & Codling (draft) The role of no-take zones as a fishery management tool for
mobile dispersing species.
Zetina-Rejón MJ, Arreguín-Sánchez F & Crúz-Escalona VH (draft) An integral trophic
model of two interdependent ecosystems at the southern Gulf of Mexico.
Lercari, D., Arreguín-Sánchez, F. (draft) Deriving viable harvesting strategies from Mass
balance trophic models to contribute to multispecies management in the northern Gulf of California.
Le Quesne (draft) Are bad marine protected areas any good, or just a new way of making
old mistakes?
Reports:
Review of similarities and differences of planning, operation, stakeholder involvement
and effectiveness of selected MPAs. Deliverable 5.1.
WP5 – Improving the basis for MPA planning
Outputs
Conference Presentations:
International Conference on Coastal Ecosystems: Towards an integrated knowledge
for an ecosystem approach, Campeche, México, 2006.
Zetina-Rejón MJ, Arreguín-Sánchez F, & Crúz-Escalona VH. Towards an integration of the Campeche bank
ecosystem dynamics for ecosystem-based fisheries management.
Le Quesne WJF, Shepherd JG, & Hawkins SJ. The implications to management of the relationship between the
spatial extent of MPAs, and management regime outside of MPAs.
41st European Marine Biology Symposium, Cork, Ireland, 2006
Lercari D & Arreguín-Sánchez F. Temporal and spatial ecosystem scenarios towards conservation and exploitation
conciliation in the northern Gulf of California.
Le Quesne WJF. Using MPAs to control the age groups targeted by a fishery; can yield be increased?
Zetina-Rejón MJ, Arreguín-Sánchez F, & Crúz-Escalona VH. Towards an MPA strategy on the Campeche Bank for
ecosystem-based fisheries management.
European Symposium on Marine Protected Areas as a Tool for Fisheries
Management and Biodiversity Conservation, Murcia, Spain, 2007
At least 6 presentations have been, or will be, submitted by members of WP5.