SCIENCE@home

Marine Protected Areas and marine spatial planning for the benefit of marine mammals

P. Evans

Published 2018 in Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom

ABSTRACT

The world’s oceans, that make up more than 70% of the earth’s surface, face a wide range of human pressures (Halpern et al., 2008, 2015). This applies particularly to the coastal zone (Ramesh et al., 2015), where marine mammal communities in almost 50% of the world’s coastal waters are considered at high-risk (Avila et al., 2018). One means of tackling conservation pressures facing marine species has been to establish Marine Protected Areas (Gubbay, 1995; Kelleher et al., 1995; Agardy, 1997; Gjerde & Breide, 2003; Edgar et al., 2014), although, as yet, these apply to only 5% of the world’s seas (UNEP-WCMC, IUCN, 2016). The first Marine Protected Area (MPA) for cetaceans was established in 1971 in Laguna Ojo de Liebre, otherwise known as Scammon’s Lagoon, in Baja California, Mexico to protect the winter breeding grounds of the gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus). Forty years later, there were at least 650 protected areas which included marine mammals (Hoyt, 2011). However, many of these were not established specifically for marine mammals, and have no detailed management measures targeting them. Even when supposedly designated for them (e.g. the Irish Whale & Dolphin Sanctuary), they provide little in the way of specific conservation measures. On the other hand, if implemented properly, they can be effective, as shown for example in the case of the Banks Peninsula Marine Mammal Sanctuary in New Zealand, which appears to have been successful in enabling the local population of the endangered Hector’s dolphin to increase by 6% per annum (Gormley et al., 2012). Although frequently not followed, there have been a number of attempts to provide guidelines for how to make MPAs effective (Kelleher, 1999; Roberts & Hawkins, 2000; Salm & Clark, 2000; Agardy, 2010), including some focused upon MPAs for marine mammals (Reeves, 2000; Hooker & Gerber, 2004; Evans, 2008; Hooker et al., 2011; Hoyt, 2011; Notarbartolo di Sciara et al., 2016). Marine mammal scientists and practitioners are divided over the value of establishing MPAs generally for such a mobile group as cetaceans (see, for example, Reeves, 2000; Evans, 2008; Notarbartolo di Sciara et al., 2016; Wilson, 2016; Hoyt, 2017), and it is often argued that focusing upon the particular anthropogenic pressures/stressors rather than setting boundaries around specific areas may be more effective for those species that do not have discrete identifiable home ranges. The strengths and limitations of each approach are summarized in Table 1. It is likely that conservation can best be achieved by integrating both approaches. Most MPAs are small, and do not encompass the feeding or breeding hotspots (often referred to as ‘critical habitat’) of these highly mobile species. In the past, we have been limited by our lack of knowledge of where these are and the ecological factors shaping their importance, but with more extensive survey effort combined with ever more sophisticated habitat modelling approaches, in some of the more accessible regions at least, this no longer applies (see, for example, Kaschner et al., 2006; Hooker et al., 2011). The need for increasing the size of protected areas to form a network embracing critical habitats has formed the basis of the European Union’s Habitats & Species Directive’s Natura 2000 network of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) across Europe. It is applied to just a few marine mammal species: harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), Atlantic grey seal (Halichoerus grypus), harbour seal (Phoca vitulina), ringed seal (Phoca hispida) and Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus), and there are obvious species that could have been included but are not, for example white-beaked dolphin (Lagenorhynchus albirostris), Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus) and minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata). Member states have been slow to designate SACs, and even where established, very few possess management plans designed to protect those species let alone ones that are fully enforced. Furthermore, there has been no real attempt as yet to develop protective measures in an integrated and cooperative manner across the network, taking account of issues relating to biological connectivity. In most cases, management within MPAs allows for multiple use. This is the case, for example, within the Special Areas of Conservation created under the European Union Habitats & Species Directive. However, this can result in tensions between conservation interests and other marine stakeholders who press to use those areas for their own interests and livelihoods. Corresponding author: P.G.H. Evans Email: peter.evans@bangor.ac.uk

PUBLICATION RECORD

  • Publication year

    2018

  • Venue

    Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom

  • Publication date

    2018-07-25

  • Fields of study

    Biology, Environmental Science

  • Identifiers
    DOI 10.1017/S0025315418000334
  • External record

    Open on Semantic Scholar

  • Source metadata

    Semantic Scholar

CITATION MAP

EXTRACTION MAP

CLAIMS

  • No claims are published for this paper.

CONCEPTS

  • No concepts are published for this paper.

REFERENCES

Showing 1-35 of 35 references · Page 1 of 1

CITED BY

Showing 1-8 of 8 citing papers · Page 1 of 1