13 minute read
Marine Protected Areas
Saving our seas
Are Marine Protected Areas effective in protecting sea life?
BY SANDY NEIL
The UK and EU are creating more and more Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) as they rush to meet a UN goal of protecting 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030. Conservationists, however, argue that most MPAs actually provide little or no protection against human activity. So, are MPAs fit for purpose? Should they be reformed or replaced now that the UK is officially out of the Common Fisheries Policy?
Water covers 70% of the Earth’s surface and a significant 7.66% of that, or 27,761,227km2 to be exact, is comprised of 17,495 Marine Protected Areas or “MPAs”.
They vary in size from the largest MPA in the world, the first Antarctic MPA encompassing 1.55 million km2 in the Ross Sea, to one of the smallest: 0.8 hectares of water surrounding the wreck of the HMS Dartmouth, which sank in the Sound of Mull in 1690.
MPA is a catch-all term, but in essence such areas restrict human activity for a conservation purpose, typically to protect natural or cultural resources. These marine resources are protected by local, state, territorial, native, regional, national, or international authorities, and differ substantially among and between nations.
This variation could be different limitations on development, fishing practices, seasons and catch limits, moorings, and bans on removing or disrupting marine life. Some restrictions include “no-take” zones, which means no fishing of wild stocks is allowed.
One of the most common management systems, as found in the UK, is the MPA network, defined as: “A group of MPAs that interact with one another ecologically and/or socially form a network.”
The UK’s MPA network protects a wide range of marine life, with hundreds of sites covering nearly a quarter of UK waters, and representing a wide spectrum of habitats and species. Within this network there are many types of MPA designation, including Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs), Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) with marine components, Special Protection Areas (SPAs) with marine components, Nature Conservation MPAs, and national MPAs in Scotland.
The number of MPAs continues to grow rapidly in the seas surrounding the UK, as the four governments of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland strive to meet the UN’s ambitious goal of protecting 10% of the world’s oceans by 2020, and then 30% by 2030.
The UK is already beating that target comfortably, creating 371 MPAs since 2013 covering 38% of UK waters; to be exact, 338,049km2 from a total of 885,430km2.
On top of all this, the UK has also created some of the world’s largest MPAs within the 6.8 million square kilometres of ocean it controls around British Overseas Territories. Most notably this includes the 830,000km2 Pitcairn Islands Marine Reserve in the Southern Pacific, for a time the biggest MPA on Earth when it was designated in 2015. In November 2020, a 687,247km2 “no take zone” was designated in the vast ocean around the world’s remotest inhabited island, Tristan Da Cunha. The new MPA is three times the size of Britain. It is the largest no-take zone in the Atlantic, and the fourth largest on the planet.
Last September the Scottish Government designated Europe’s largest MPA, the 107,718km2 West of Scotland MPA, in the deepest parts of Scotland’s seas lying at 2,500m. It provides protection to 14 vulnerable habitats and species, including the leafscale gulper shark, orange roughy and Portuguese dogfish.
In December Scottish ministers created four more inshore MPAs: North-east Lewis, Sea of the
Above: Mairi Gougeon Above right: Thornback ray Right: Fishing trawler Hebrides, Shiant East Bank, and Southern Trench, as well as 12 more Special Protec� on Areas (SPAs) – a variety of MPA protec� ng wild birds – stretching from the Solway Firth to Shetland.
“Scotland’s waters are home to many unique species and these designa� ons ensure our MPA network is fully representa� ve of our marine diversity,” Mairi Gougeon, then the Natural Environment Minister, said when making the announcement (she has since taken up a new role as Public Health Minister).
“Protec� ng Scotland’s marine environment is also crucial for suppor� ng the sustainable recovery of our marine industries, and these designa� ons will form a key element of our Blue Economy Ac� on Plan,” she explained.
As the total now stands, the 230 sites within the Sco� sh MPA network cover 227,622 km2, or 37%, of Scotland’s seas, “…exceeding the proposed interna� onal target to achieve 30% of global MPA coverage by 2030,” Gougeon added. On the surface, MPAs appear to be a success story.
PROTECTION ON PAPER ONLY?
That same month, however, an excoria� ng study ing real protec� on. Without eff ec� ve management, designated MPAs remain by Oceana, the largest interna� onal advocacy mere ‘paper parks’ that provide li� le to no actual protec� on. As the EU and the organiza� on focused solely on ocean conserva� on, UK aim towards a more ambi� ous target of protec� ng 30% of the ocean, a key claimed that 96% of European MPAs con� nue to ques� on remains: how protected are exis� ng European MPAs?” allow destruc� ve ac� vi� es within their boundaries, The study came to an uncomfortable conclusion: “We fi rst examined the raising ques� ons about whether MPAs are fi t for spa� al overlap between the largest network of European MPAs (Natura 2000, purpose. comprising 3,449 MPAs), and 13 human ac� vi� es that represent direct threats
“In the face of intense human pressure on Europe- to marine species and habitats in Europe.” an seas, a network of well-managed MPAs is cri� cal “Our analysis revealed a troubling picture: nearly three-quarters of sites were for marine biodiversity protec� on,” the report says. aff ected by one or more threats, and those not aff ected represented a mere “In 2018, the EU (including, at the � me, the UK) 0.07% of the total area of the Natura 2000 MPA network. At the na� onal level, declared having met interna� onal targets for marine threats were present in more than half of the MPAs in each of the 23 countries conserva� on, by designa� ng more than 10% of its analysed. The most widespread threats were mari� me traffi c and fi shing, waters as MPAs. aff ec� ng 66% and 32% of MPAs, respec� vely. Across the en� re network, MPAs
“However, this declara� on of success ignored the faced an average of two threats, with some sites in Germany, the Netherlands, fact that designa� on is just one step towards achiev- and the UK facing eleven or more threats each.”
The criticism did not end there. “We evaluated management plans from a selection of the largest Natura 2000 MPAs, by country,” the report continues. “Where management plans did exist, they had often been seriously delayed – leaving sites unmanaged for up to 11 years – and 80% of plans were found to be generally incomplete.
“Despite establishing clear conservation objectives, most of the assessed plans were characterised by clear weaknesses that hinder the effectiveness of management: a lack of deadlines for implementing measures; a failure to manage specific features for which sites were designated; a failure to address major threats that put those features at risk (like fishing or dredging); and the absence of provisions for surveillance and monitoring.”
Oceana’s damning report followed another in the same month published by the European Court of Auditors, which slammed European governments for failing to protect their MPAs, finding that only 1% of the 3,000 supposedly protected areas in the Mediterranean banned fishing.
The alarm had been sounded earlier by a 2018 study published in the journal Science, which found destructive trawling was more intense inside official EU marine sanctuaries, and that endangered fish species such as sharks and rays were more common outside them. The analysis exposed “the big lie” behind European marine conservation, experts said, with most MPAs completely open to trawling.
The researchers assessed the activity of fishing vessels thanks to satellite tracking equipment now compulsory on ships. The analysis revealed commercial trawling activity was on average almost 40% higher inside MPAs than in unprotected areas, probably because the protected areas are richer in sea life. Furthermore, endangered and critically endangered fish species such as sharks and rays were five times more abundant outside the MPAs.
“It should be the reverse,” says Prof Boris Worm, at Dalhousie University in Canada, who led the research. “When something is called a protected area, it actually needs to be protected. We know that when areas are actually protected they deliver: species recover, biodiversity increases and fisheries benefit as well, as fish become more abundant and spill outside these areas.
“One problem we have in the EU is that while the conservation policies such as MPAs are a national matter, fisheries are managed by the EU as a whole. That disconnect may drive some of the problem we see here. One hand does not know what the other one is doing.”
Professor Callum Roberts, at the University of York, who was not part of the research, told The Guardian: “This compelling study reveals the big lie behind European marine conservation. To be effective, all MPAs should be protected from trawling and dredging at a minimum, and many of them should prohibit all fishing.”
Despite all these failings, MPAs still bear on planning decisions for new or expanded salmon farms, although there is a lack of clarity over how this should be applied. A recent example is Scottish Sea Farms’ recent proposal for a farm off Wester Ross, against which the Scottish Wildlife Trust has raised an objection.
The company applied to the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) for a licence to site a 12-cage salmon farm close to Horse Island in the Summer Isles, which lies within the Wester Ross MPA.
The Scottish Wildlife Trust argues waste material generated by the farm would damage several fragile protected features within the Wester Ross MPA, including maerl beds, northern feather stars and kelp forests.
Dr Sam Collin, the Scottish Wildlife Trust’s living seas manager said: “We support sustainable aquaculture and we want to see Scotland’s fish farming sector operating in a way that is compatible with a thriving marine environment.
“The site proposed by Scottish Sea Farms is entirely unsuitable due to its proximity to important protected habitats. These plans pose a serious threat to marine wildlife, stores of blue carbon, and the local creel fishing industry.
“Allowing this salmon farm to go ahead when it threatens so many of the features which should be safeguarded by the MPA would set a worrying precedent.”
Responding to the objection, Scottish Sea Farms
said its proposed facility will take full account of the needs of the Wester Ross MPA (see Fish Farmer, November 2021
Scottish Sea Farms’ managing director Jim Gallagher says: “It’s absolutely right that sensitive habitats and species be protected and we’ve taken great care from the outset to ensure there’s no overlap between the proposed farm and priority marine features such as the maerl beds and other marine plants and animals they are home to. Several of our farms are already located in marine protected areas – our nearby farms at Tanera and Fada included – proving that, with responsible and sympathetic farm management, both can co-exist.”
The company adds that when MPAs were first designated in Scotland, in most cases in areas where the marine habitat was deemed to be in good condition, many were at sites where salmon farms were already operating. The current planning application is ongoing.
Scotland’s salmon farmers remain very supportive of MPAs, adds Dr Iain Berrill, head of technical at the Scottish Salmon Producers Organisation (SSPO). “MPAs, like several other types of protected area designations, are taken very seriously by salmon farmers who recognise the importance of, and indeed rely on, the protection of the marine environment,” he says.
“Since their introduction, MPAs have been a consideration in planning applications but they do not, and should not, preclude development in those areas. Salmon farming continues to operate successfully in these areas. In fact, considerable areas of sea (and seabed) where we farm are covered by some level of specific protection.
“Companies ensure that they take due regard for protected areas through pre-application assessment, surveying and monitoring so that they can demonstrate that they are not unduly impacting these designations.
“As soon as the four new MPAs were proposed they became a material consideration in the sector’s planning applications. There is no specific new change now that the MPAs have been formally designated.”
Are MPAs fit for purpose? “Yes, if fully implemented,” says Calum Duncan, Head of Conservation, Scotland at the Marine Conservation Society (MCS).
He adds: “The UK Marine Strategy highlighted that all UK administrations have failed to meet 11 of 15 indicators of Good Environmental Status by the 2020 target. Whilst 37% of Scotland’s seas are currently in the MPA network, probably less than 1% is protected from extractive and destructive activities.”
If MPAs are failing to do their job, should they be reformed or replaced? Duncan says: “They should not be replaced by any means, but their management needs to be transformed. As part of our Ocean Recovery Plan, with our Save Scottish Seas coalition partners, MCS is calling for an independent MPA commission to transform the MPA network in Scotland in order to chart a course to at least 30% of Scotland’s seas being highly protected by 2030, at least a third of which is fully protected.
“Strengthened management of the MPA network, including exclusion of mobile gear from benthic sites, May Cover.indd 4 no-take zones as core protection zones in MPAs, and relocation of aquaculture facilities that impact on priority marine features, migratory salmonid routes and seal haul-out sites, will be crucial as part of the transformation needed for ocean recovery. Sustainable coastal livelihoods rely upon a healthy marine ecosystem. Ocean health is currently a shadow of what it once was and what it could be again with the necessary transformative change.”
The Scottish Wildlife Trust has also developed the Ocean Recovery Plan calling for a strengthened MPA network in Scotland. “In practice the designation itself has limited practical impact until well-designed management measures are in place,” says the Trust’s living seas manager, Dr Sam Collin.
He goes on: “These measures would set out how threatened species and habitats can be protected from potentially damaging activities including fishing. Currently less than half of Scotland’s MPAs have any management measures in place.
“Strengthening Scotland’s network of MPAs offers great potential for allowing our marine environment to recover while supporting sustainable economic activity, and our coastal communities. However, progress on the network has been relatively slow since the adoption of the Marine (Scotland) Act in 2010, which gives the Scottish Government the power to designate protected areas.”
By 2030, the SWT wants at least 30% of Scotland’s seas to be managed under high levels of protection, where only low-impact activities, such as handcaught scallop fishing, are allowed. Within that 30%, it would like to see a significant portion, at least a third, designated as “fully protected”, where no “destructive or extractive” activities can take place at all. Dr Collin says: “There is enough legislation in place in Scotland to deliver an effective and joined-up network of MPAs. We’ve clearly set out how the network can be strengthened through the Ocean Recovery Plan and we hope the Scottish Government will demonstrate a commitment to a healthy marine environment by delivering these measures over the next 10 years.” The Scottish Government said Brexit would not change Scotland’s MPA network. A spokesperson said: “Our MPA network fulfils a range of domestic and international obligations which will remain after EU exit, and helps Scotland to maintain or exceed EU environmental standards.”
For now, it seems, while the MPA system is covering an increasing proportion of coastal waters, the system itself is not set to see major changes any time soon. FF
08/05/2017 12:30:05
Opposite from top: Kelp; Professor Callum Roberts; Dr Sam Collin; Calum Duncan Above: Jim Gallagher Left: Puffin
