Torbay rMCZ report

Securing the benefits of the Marine Conservation Zone Network: A case study of Torbay rMCZ

A draft report to The Wildlife Trusts

Dr Steve Fletcher, Dr Sian Rees, Sarah Gall, Laura Friedrich, Dr Lynda Rodwell Centre for Marine and Coastal Policy Research Marine Institute Plymouth University Drake Circus Plymouth PL4 8AA

1.1.1 Executive Summary There is clear evidence that no change to the current management regime of the Torbay rMCZ (‘do nothing’) will result in a reduction of ecosystem services provided by the site.

This reduction is likely to affect all categories of ecosystem service identified in the TEEB classification except ‘other wild harvesting’, ‘aquaculture’ and ‘research’. There is clear evidence that the existing ecosystem services derived from the Torbay rMCZ make a contribution to the local economy including through underpinning fisheries, aquaculture, recreation, research and the aesthetic benefits that attract tourists (amongst others). The economic loss associated with a deterioration of these services under the ‘do nothing’ scenario will depend upon the rate of change of the underpinning ecosystem processes, but we have estimated that commercial fishing activities currently occurring within and around the rMCZ generate approximately £960,805yr-1 in landings and recreational activities within the rMCZ generate approximately a further £1,579,080 yr-1. It would be expected that this economic value would be reduced under a ‘do nothing’ management scenario.

The existing Torbay rMCZ ecosystem services also contribute to national and international commitments, including climate regulation and pollution control. An expression of the economic value of these services can be derived, such as through calculating the market value of sequestered carbon or the cost of alternative pollution control measures.

Although detailed economic value estimates are unavailable, it is likely that the contribution of these ecosystem services will be reduced under a ‘do nothing’ scenario.

Under an assumed MCZ designation at Torbay, three management scenarios were examined to identify the likely changes to the availability of ecosystem services. The scenarios were ‘recover’, ‘maintain’ and ‘improve’ the ENG features at the site, in which realistic management measures were assumed to have been instigated proportionate to each scenario. The results showed that overall ecosystem service availability improved under all three scenarios of MCZ designation when compared to non-designation (do nothing). Not all ecosystem services responded in the same way to each MCZ management scenario. For example, the cuttle fish fishery was predicted to improve under the recover and maintain scenarios, but due to the potentially restrictive management measures needed under the improve scenario, there would be short term

disadvantage followed by long term benefit. Longer term benefits were also identified for bottom trawling activities.

The dominant implications of MCZ designation on specific ecosystem service availability in Torbay were either to secure the level of exiting ecosystem service availability, or to enhance it. Maintaining the ecosystem services currently provided by the site safeguards its existing economic (and other non-economic) values to society. Through introducing management measures that promote enhanced availability of ecosystem services at the site, it is highly likely that the economic value of the ecosystem services provided by the site will also increase.

1.1.2 Torbay rMCZ The Torbay rMCZ is situated in South Devon and is part of an area that is often described as the ‘English Riviera’. Local towns include Torquay, Babbacombe, Paignton and the fishing port of Brixham. It is an area that is popular to live, particularly for retirement.

Torbay is also a well-known tourist destination with the award winning beaches a major draw and a variety of opportunities for marine leisure and recreation that includes reef and wreck diving and angling sites, opportunities for bird and dolphin watching, canoeing, coastal walks, sailing and sea cliff climbing. Torbay is known to attract in excess of 3 million visitors per year (Torbay Development Agency).Torbay is also an area that provides economic opportunities. Tourism is the dominant economic sector and Brixham is the largest fishing port in England and Wales in terms of volume and value of catch. The natural beauty of Torbay is already recognised by several conservation designations, particularly the rocky reef habitats and infralittoral sea caves which are currently candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC) under the EU Habitats Directive. The designation of an MCZ in Torbay that prevents deterioration and maintains the ENG features and also enables the recovery of the seagrass beds and muddy habitats will potentially, at a local level, provide benefits for the delivery of all beneficial ecosystem services, particularly those associated with leisure and tourism and fishing. Commercial fishing activities occurring within and around the rMCZ generate approximately £960,805yr-1 in landings and recreational activities within the rMCZ generate approximately a further £1,579,080 yr-1. At a national and international level the ENG features in Torbay contribute towards the broader processes primary and secondary

production, food web dynamics, formation of species habitat and biogeochemical cycling that support wider human well-being.

1.1.3 Torbay MCZ - site description Torbay rMCZ falls within the Finding Sanctuary Regional Project area in the Western English Channel (Figure 1), totalling 19.9 km2 and extending to depths of up to 30 m. Its boundaries approximately follow those of the Lyme Bay and Torbay cSAC which has been proposed for the protection of the Annex I habitats of ‘Reefs’ and ‘Submerged or Partially Submerged Sea Caves’. The rMCZ has been recommended for two reasons and is split into two zones, one for the protection of ENG benthic species and habitats, which are not protected by the cSAC, and another for the protection of seabirds and cetaceans.

Figure 1: Torbay rMCZ site map (source: Lieberknecht et al. 2011)

The rMCZ intersects an area of higher than average benthic and habitat diversity (as mapped by national data layers Defra contract MB102 (Langmead et al., 2011). It is also

an important area due to its Zostera marina seagrass beds, rocky reefs, sea caves and birds. The seagrass beds were estimated to cover an area of 80 hectares in 2006 (TCCT, 2006) and provide an important nursery and feeding habitat for species of commercial importance such as cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis). Torbay has been identified as an important spawning location for cuttlefish, with the seagrass beds providing spawning habitat and an estimated 50,000 cuttlefish entering the fishery each year (Bloor, in prep.).

Broadsands has an important wintering bird roost and is the second most important site for wintering diver and grebe populations in the south west (Lieberknecht et al., 2011).

The Finding Sanctuary Local Group also identified that the area is important as a breeding area and nursery ground for commercial fish species. The site was recommended for inclusion in the MCZ network due to the specific habitats and species listed in Table 1.

Table 1: Feature types and habitat types proposed for designation within rMCZ Torbay (source: Finding Sanctuary Marine Conservation Zone Project Final Recommendations 2011)

Feature Type

Feature Name

Draft Conservation Objectives

Broad-scale Habitats

Subtidal mud

Recover

Intertidal coarse sediment

Maintain

Intertidal mixed sediment

Maintain

Intertidal mud

Maintain

Intertidal sand and muddy sand

Maintain

Low energy intertidal rock

Maintain

Moderate energy intertidal rock

Maintain

Intertidal under boulder communities

Maintain

Sabellaria alveolata reefs

Maintain

Seagrass beds

Recover

Long snouted seahorse (Hippocampus guttulatus)

Maintain

Native oyster (Ostrea edulis)

Maintain

Peacock’s tail seaweed (Padina pavonica)

Maintain

Sea snail (Paludinella littorina)

Maintain

Black throated diver (Gavia arctica)

Maintain

Great northern diver (Gavia immer)

Maintain

Habitats FOCI

Species FOCI

Non-ENG features

Great crested grebe (Podiceps cristatus)

Maintain

Blacked necked grebe (Podiceps nigricollis)

Maintain

Red necked grebe (Podiceps grisegena)

Maintain

Slavonian grebe (Podiceps auritus)

Maintain

Guillemot (Uria aalge)

Maintain

Harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena)

Maintain

In terms of the wider ecological importance of Torbay the area has been described as ‘the jewel in south Devon’s crown for marine wildlife’ (Hiscock et al., 1998). This accolade is in reference to species that inhabit damp, shady, shore locations, particularly the limestone rock at Princess Pier and also the littoral sea grass beds (Zostera marina) at Torre Abbey Sands.

1.1.4 Beneficial ecosystem processes and services within Torbay rMCZ Figure 2 models the links between the ENG features within Torbay rMCZ and the core ecosystem processes, beneficial ecosystem processes, and beneficial ecosystem services provided. It also links these to activities occurring within the rMCZ area which have then (where possible) been valued. Key processes and services have then been identified as those with the greatest number of contributing ENG features (those with the thickest lines or greatest number of incoming links). The beneficial ecosystem service of climate regulation has also been selected as key process due to the strength of recent research into the links between seagrass beds and carbon sequestration.

The Torbay model is the most complex of the case study sites due to the amount and variety of ENG features. All beneficial ecosystem processes are supported by the ENG features. However, the most links from referenced material are between the ENG features and the beneficial ecosystem processes of primary and secondary production, food web dynamics, formation of species habitat and biogeochemical cycling are the key beneficial ecosystem process within this rMCZ, facilitated primarily by production, nutrient cycling and ecological interactions which stem from the various ENG features within the area.

Formation of species habitat appears to be the biggest driver of fisheries, which are identified as a beneficial ecosystem service for this rMCZ, along with other wild

harvesting, environmental resilience and nature & hazard protection. Along with the contribution to broad scale processes identified above, the local activities identified that directly benefit from the ecosystem services delivery are static and mobile gear fisheries, aquaculture, charter boats, recreational diving, sea angling and nature watching (Figure 9).

Figure 9: Model of the ENG Features within Torbay rMCZ and the Core Ecosystem Processes, Beneficial Ecosystem Processes and Beneficial Ecosystem Services they provide. Associated activities are also linked and approximate valuations given. Links between processes are derived from Fletcher et al. (2012). No link does not signify no relationship between ENG features and the delivery of ecosystem services or processes, only that there is currently no supporting literature.

1.1.4.1 Review of beneficial ecosystem processes The key beneficial ecosystem processes identified in Figure 9 above have been considered in more detail, and a summary of each is provided below.

Primary production: the Torbay rMCZ includes a range of habitat types including intertidal soft sediment and rocky shores, subtidal sediment, rocky reef and seagrass beds, all of which contribute to primary production. Intertidal sediment facilitates the transfer of energy from primary producers up the food chain, especially in muddy sediments which have a higher abundance of microphytobenthos than sandy sediments and where surface biofilm is known to sustain all primary production during daylight hours (Macintyre et al., 1996; Guarini et al., 2000; Herlory et al., 2005; expert opinion, cited in Fletcher et al., 2012). Infralittoral rock is also important, supporting kelp Laminaria hyperborean communities within Torbay, which are important principal primary producers responsible for producing nearly 75 % of all carbon fixed (Jones et al., 2000). In the circalittoral, primary production is driven by phytoplankton in the surrounding water masses facilitating the transfer of energy to higher trophic level organisms (Jones et al., 2000), and subtidal sediment provides a sink for primary production. Research has indicated that the amount of primary production occurring in these systems is dependent on the assimilation of organic matter occurring following algal blooms (Denis & Desroy, 2008). Seagrass Zostera marina beds cover 0.90 km2 (4.5 %) of the total rMCZ area and are known to be important for primary production with recorded annual production rates of between 69 g C m-2yr-1 (Borum & Wium-Andersen, 1980) and 814 g C m-2yr-1 (Borum & WiumAndersen, 1984).

Secondary production: The different habitats within the Torbay rMCZ also contribute to secondary production. The intertidal soft sediments providing year round habitats and crucial feeding grounds for species of commercial importance and wading birds (Bale et al., 2007). The rocky intertidal area is also of importance, with these habitats found to hold up to 14 times more secondary biomass than sedimentary shores (Ricciardi & Bourget, 1999). Torbay is a fairly sheltered cove from the prevailing weather fronts which will limit the supply of particulate organic matter which is known to increase with the degree of exposure to wave action (Ricciardi & Bourget,

1999). Subtidally a large proportion of the biomass is epifauna, with species of starfish, brittlestar, crab, sponge and tunicate known to be particularly abundant in such areas (Jones et al., 2000). Rapid turnover of Zostera marina leaves and of the epiphytic algae on the leaf surfaces means that large amounts of seagrass primary production is transferred to consumers (Cebriรกn et al. 1997).

Food web dynamics: The variety of habitats found within the Torbay rMCZ support a range of species. Intertidal and subtidal sediments are key for the provision of feeding habitat for wading birds, wildfowl (Evans et al., 1998) and fish species such as sole Solea solea, dab Limanda limanda, flounder Platichthys flesus, plaice Pleuronectes platessa and sea bass Dicentrarchus labrax who feed on a range of species including polychaetes and crustaceans (Snelgrove, 1999; Jones et al., 2000).

Seagrass beds are important foraging sites both for temporary and permanent resident species, including those of fishery value, due primarily to the high density of potential faunal prey items present (Jackson, 2001).

Formation of species habitat: In the Torbay rMCZ, intertertidal coarse sediment is important for biota such as commercial shellfish species (Burd et al., 2008), whilst intertidal muddy sediments provide feeding grounds for wading birds (Bale et al., 2007), and rocky shores provide habitat for intertidal fish, crustaceans, shrimp, anemones, epifauna and macroalgae as well as protection from wave exposure and desiccation (Crothers, 1987; Jones et al., 2000). Intertidal rock is of particular importance in the UK as it is the meeting point between species with a northern and a southern range (Hill et al., 1998). Intertidal under boulder communities are particularly diverse, providing shade, moisture and shelter as well as a refuge from predators (Hill et al., 2010). Infralittoral and circalittoral rock provides firm substrate to which epibenthic species can attach (Jones et al., 2000) supports the kelp L. hyperborean communities within Torbay which provide habitat for a range of other organisms such as urchins, chitons and meiofauna (Jones et al., 2000). In the subtidal, formation of species habitat is strongly influenced by sediment type, with particle size distribution, organic content and chemical composition of importance to species distribution. Stability is provided by the presence of species such as Lanice conchilega (Van Hoey et al., 2008), and habitat complexity is increased where

benthic fauna are diverse and abundant due to the presence of tubes and burrows (Paramour & Frid, 2006). The presence of additional habitat types on soft sediment such as ross worm Sabellaria spinulosa reefs within the rMCZ increases habitat complexity, providing microhabitat for colonisation by other organisms (Caline et al., 1992 cited in Hill et al., 2010). These reefs have been described as important ecosystem engineers as their structure adds topographic complexity and high levels of biodiversity to low relief, low diversity soft sediment areas (Dubois et al., 2006).

Seagrass is also considered an ecosystem engineer, increasing the structural complexity of habitats and causing modification to the abiotic environment through the alteration of water flow. This increases the retention of particles and accretion of sediment within the seagrass bed, resulting in increased species richness and abundance (Edgar et al., 1994; Heck et al., 1995; Bostrom & Bonsdorff, 1997).

Seagrass act as a permanent habitat for some species but also as a temporary nursery, feeding area or refuge from predation (Jackson et al. 2001). Hirst & Attril (2008) showed even small patches of Z. marina within Torbay had a greater biodiversity than the surrounding sediment, and concluded that it had an influence on biodiversity regardless of the size of the patch. Seagrass beds are also thought to act as nursery areas, and support a diverse range of species including the longsnouted seahorse Hippocampus guttulatus (Kitsos et al., 2008; Curtis & Vincent 2005) and cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis). Cuttlefish eggs and mussel spat have both been observed on seagrass shoots and leaf blades respectively, in Torbay (Bloor, in prep; Evans, 2011).

Biogeochemical cycling: Different habitats within the rMCZ play different roles in biogeochemical cycling. Intertidal rock is important for carbon cycling, producing large amounts of dissolved carbon, which is taken up by bacteria and invertebrates, or removed by the sea, allowing it to enter subtidal sediments (Jones et al., 2000).

They also facilitate the removal of nitrate from coastal waters due to the presence of microbial biofilm (Magalhaes et al., 2003), and benthic macroalgae associated with them plays an important role in biogeochemical reactivity (Macintyre et al., 1996).

Intertidal soft sediment is also important for nutrient cycling and the production of dissolved organic carbon (expert opinion cited in Fletcher et al., 2012). Subtidally,

the key processes of nitrification, carbon cycling and sulphur cycling occur, making these important components of carbon, nitrogen and sulphur cycling between the oceans, land and atmosphere (Burdige et al., 2006; Al-Raei et al., 2009). These are all important processes for the functioning of the Torbay rMCZ and on a local level as nitrogen and phosphorous remineralisation facilitates the availability of nutrients for primary producers in the water column (Burdige et al., 2006), and they are also key contributors to regional and global biogeochemical cycling.

Climate Regulation: The presence of seagrass beds within rMCZ Torbay further increases its role in carbon and nutrient cycling. Seagrasses ability to baffle water currents and stabilize sediments results in organic matter and nutrients become stored within the accreting sediments, sequestering C, N and P, while the remaining organic material is recycled or exported (Kennedy & Björk 2009, Nellemann et al.

2009). A value for both the traded and non-traded cost of carbon can be assigned to the role of sea grass beds in sequestering carbon in the Torbay area (Table 1).

Table 1: Value of traded and non-traded carbon assigned to the role of sea grass beds in sequestering carbon in the Torbay area

Zostera marina C burial t.ha-1.yr-1 Estimated seagrass extent in Torbay (N.B. not an accurate measure of actual area) ha

Torbay 0.52 ( Cebrián et al 1997) 80 41.6

Annual seagrass C sequestration t.yr-1 Carbon traded value 2012* (£7 - £18/t) (DECC 2011) Carbon Non-Traded Value** 2012 (£28-£85/t) (DECC 2011)

£291.2 – £748.8 yr-1 £1164.8 - £3536 yr-1

*The carbon traded value represents the price of carbon on the EU Emission Trading System ** The non-carbon traded value represents the marginal abatement costs for strategies for climate change. The valuation is used in policy appraisals

1.1.4.2 Review of key beneficial ecosystem services The key beneficial ecosystem services identified in Figure 9 above have been considered in more detail, and a summary of each is provided below.

Fisheries: Both static and mobile gear fisheries exist in the rMCZ Torbay area, making it an important area for fisheries. The value in landings derived from the Torbay MCZ are demonstrated in Table 2. Potting fleets target cuttlefish, crab, lobster, prawns and whelks, and trawling and scallop dredging also occur in the rMCZ area although this is restricted to vessels fitted with inshore Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) and a gentlemen’s agreement exists where fishermen have agreed not to trawl or dredge over the seagrass beds. The cuttlefish and crab fisheries are considered to be locally important. Lobster and prawn catches are lower, although prawns are also targeted for bait and the extent of their harvest is unknown as it is not generally declared as landings. Collectively landing from the Torbay MCZ contribute approximately £960,805 yr-1 to the landing value at local ports (Table 2).

From an ecological perspective the range of habitats found within Torbay rMCZ support local fisheries. Intertidal, infralittoral and circalittoral rock areas provide habitat and feeding grounds for species of commercial importance, and intertidal rock provides a source of larval plankton (expert opinion cited in Fletcher et al., 2012). The subtidal sediments present are often used as nursery areas for commercial species, and offshore sand and gravel habitats have also been identified as internationally important for fish and shellfish fisheries (UK Biodiversity Partnership, 2010). Seagrass beds worldwide are important in supporting commercially valuable fishery species (Jackson, 2001). In Torbay, the seagrass beds are known to be important spawning grounds for common cuttlefish, Sepia officinalis populations, for which there is an important local fishery, with recent estimates equating the value of these spawning habitats to approximately ÂŁ150,000 (Bloor, in prep.). Within the English Channel seagrass beds have also been found to be important habitats for many other commercially exploited species (including Bream, wrasse, bass, prawns, spider crab, mullet and various flat fish and rays which are thought to make use of enriched bare sediments in the proximity of the seagrass (Jackson 2003).

Other wild harvesting: Non-commercial wild harvesting of razor clams is known to occur in this rMCZ in the intertidal Torre Abbey Sands area, and prawns are also

targeted for use as bait (although the amount landed is minimal, with a value of £305 per year, Table 2). Divers are also known to collect scallops from within the rMCZ area although the extent of this is unknown.

Aquaculture: Aquaculture is currently restricted to a rope mussel farm situated between Fishcombe Cove and Elberry which has substantial expansion plans. The Mussel farm generates £234,000 in landings per year (Table 2).

Environmental Resilience: Intertidal rock is important as a natural form of protection from erosion by wave action for the Torbay coastline and is thought to be robust in ecological terms due to its ability to recover from anthropogenic impacts through the input of propagules from unaffected areas (Hill et al., 1998). Recovery of rocky habitats takes longer than recovery of sedimentary habitats however, with studies showing that infralittoral rocky habitats recover to within 1 % of baseline values within 20 years of a disturbance (Pinnegar & Polunin, 2004). Resilience is greater in subtidal sedimentary habitats as they are more susceptible to disturbance than other habitats and are consequently better able to recover when disturbance does occur (Bishop et al., 2006). Mud habitats are also thought to contribute to climatic environmental resilience (expert opinion, cited in Fletcher et al., 2012).

Nature & hazard protection: Intertidal sediment plays an important role in coastal protection, and it is thought that intertidal boulders also afford a degree of protection through the formation of a physical barrier which dissipates wave energy and therefore reduces erosion. Seagrass leaves baffle water currents and attenuate waves, reducing erosion and promoting sediment accretion, at the same time roots and rhizomes of the seagrass beds bind sediment (Madsen et al. 2001). As such seagrass may not only stabilise sediments but in some cases have been shown to provide shoreline stabilisation and protection from erosion (Cabaço et al., 2008).

Although there appear to be no reports in the literature of studies which provide quantitative estimates of the financial cost equivalent of seagrasses’ coastal protection services, with coastal erosion estimated at causing losses of up to £10 billion of economic assets over the coming decades (POST 2009), this service should be considered important, especially given the tourist value of adjacent beaches.

Nature Watching /Tourism: The beneficial ecosystem service of Tourism was not demonstrated as a link between the ENG features and beneficial ecosystem services owing to the fact that there is little published literature on the relationship between marine ecological features and tourism. However it is well known that tourism is the dominant industrial sector in Torbay and is closely related to the other sectors in the vicinity such as retail, nature watching and recreation (Torbay Development Agency).

The Torbay Government has developed the Torbay Economic Regeneration Strategy which aims to facilitate economic regeneration in area based on its current strengths and the natural advantages of the area (Torbay Development Agency). During the summer months the local population swells from 130,000 to 200,000 (figures for 2006), and tourism is closely linked to the attractiveness of the beaches, access to the water from harbours and the wider opportunities for marine leisure and recreation e.g. sailing.

Local club diving and independent angling are particularly popular activities in this rMCZ, and with numerous boat and beach access points throughout Torbay these activities make use of the natural marine resources that stem from wider biological diversity in the region. Torbay provides a relatively sheltered cove from the prevailing weather fronts which allows year round access to both shore and reef sites including Morris Rouge, Orestone, Goodrington sands and Brixham Breakwater.

Non club diving and angling activities are supported by a dive business industry which offer services to divers including gear and training and a charter boat industry whose skippers take sea anglers/divers (who are not using their own boats) to suitable sites. Values that are associated with these recreation activities at sites within the MCZ are ÂŁ1,579,080 per year in combined turnover (dive businesses and charter boat) and expenditure (anglers and divers).

Torbay Coast and Countryside Trust is a local organisation whose role is to ‘to protect land, conserve nature and strengthen the bonds between people and the natural world of Torbay’. The Trust is essentially a land management organisation with expertise in education outreach. Education centres that have a marine focus that are run by the Trust include Berry Head National Nature Reserve and the Seashore Centre at Goodrington (www.countryside-trust.org.uk).

Table 2: Value of activities occurring within rMCZ Torbay (calculated from spatial activity data) Beneficial ecosystem service (TEEB) Fisheries

Activity

Value

Cuttlefish

£125,000 yr landing value Estimate based on the percentage contribution of the Torbay trap fishery to total landings at Brixham (3 %), (Brigden, 2010) -1 £281,250 – £873,750 yr Total landing value estimate based on 14 boats operating within the rMCZ area for 0.250.75% of their fishing time based on an average of £70-1 80,000 yr per boat (S. Clark, pers. comm.)

-1 £305 yr landing value (D. Flint, pers. comm.)

-1 £2000 yr landing value (Finding Sanctuary, Irish Seas Conservation Zones, Net Gain & Balanced Seas, 2012) -1 £11,000 yr landing value (Finding Sanctuary, Irish Seas Conservation Zones, Net Gain & Balanced Seas, 2012) -1 £11,000 yr landing value (Finding Sanctuary, Irish Seas Conservation Zones, Net Gain & Balanced Seas, 2012) No valuation data available as the amount taken is unrecorded

Crab and Lobster

Prawns Fish – nets and lines

Fish – bottom trawl

Scallops

Other Wild Harvesting

Aquaculture

Natural Hazard Protection Regulation of Pollution Climate regulation

Environmental Resilience

Razor clams Diver caught scallops (recreational) Mussels

Coastal protection

Valuation confidence* -1

-1

£234,000 yr landing value -1 Predicted £312,000 yr due to extension (S. Clark, pers. comm.)

No valuation data available

Valuation Accuracy

1

Overestimate

1

Overestimate

2

Accuracy unknown

2

Accuracy unknown

2

Accuracy unknown

2

Accuracy unknown

3

High valuation confidence

3

Overestimate as extent of seabed 80ha is thought to be an overestimate (E Jackson personal comment)

No valuation data available Seagrass – carbon sequestration

-1

£291 -748 yr carbon traded value (DECC 2011) -1 £1164 – £3536 yr carbon non -traded value (DECC 2011)

No valuation data available

Nature Watching

Sport/Recreation Sport/Recreation Medicines

Berry Head also see values for charter boast operators Charter Boat Diving Dive Business Angling

Research & Education Tourism

See recreation values

No data available from Torbay coast and countryside for visitor numbers to Berry Head -1

£7,580 yr turnover (Rees 2010) -1 £274,210 yr expenditure from club divers (Rees 2010) -1 £351,936 yr turnover (Rees 2010) -1 £945,354 yr expenditure (Rees 2010) £223,246 in research grants since 2010 to Plymouth University No values available though there is some contribution towards regional tourism values No valuation data available

3

Underestimate

3

Underestimate

3 3

High valuation confidence Underestimate

3

Underestimate

Spiritual and cultural wellbeing Aesthetic No valuation data available benefits *The valuation accuracy is based on the provenance of the valuation data where 1= wider values for Torbay with no indication of extent of the activity within the MCZ, 2= Valuations derived from peer reviewed literature, grey literature, expert knowledge or modelled data for the MCZ with no supporting GIS, 3= Valuations derived from peer reviewed literature, grey literature, expert knowledge or modelled data for the MCZ with supporting GIS.

1.1.4.3 Changes in the delivery in ecosystem services under potential management scenarios Table 8 below presents the potential change in the delivery of the beneficial ecosystem services and beneficial ecosystem processes in the MCZ are under four management scenarios.

Table 1 The change in delivery of beneficial ecosystem services in Torbay in relation to scenarios for management of activities in the MCZ. Beneficial ecosystem service (TEEB)

Fisheries Cuttlefish

Fisheries – Crab, Lobster and Prawn and nets and line

Change in delivery of the beneficial ecosystem service resulting from management scenarios

Do nothing

Recover ENG features to favourable condition

Maintain ENG features to favourable condition

Improve condition of ENG features

Further loss of seagrass beds will reduce the available habitat for cuttlefish spawning which may have future impacts on the associated fishery.

+ Recovery targets set for subtidal mud and seagrass beds may have benefits for cuttlefish and the associated fishery as cuttlefish are known to lay their eggs on these features (make sure referenced in text above)

+ Once recovery is set maintenance of subtidal mud and seagrass beds combined with wider fishery effort management measures within the MCZ could potentially enhance the wider cuttlefish fishery.

-/+ A set aside area for cuttlefish spawning to mitigate against the effects of removal of cuttlefish eggs that have been laid on pots could have an impact on fishing effort in the short term but with potential for better future landings.

-

+

=

-/+

Any decline in quality of the ENG features may have future impacts on the associated fisheries

Recovery of seagrass and subtidal mud may have potential benefits providing habitat for these commercial species

Maintenance of ENG features combined with fishery effort management measures will help maintain the current value of the fishery

Improvement of the quality and/or extent of ENG features combined with fisheries management measures (e.g. no take zones or temporal closures) may provide an opportunity for greater returns.

However there is the possibility of initial short-term financial losses if grounds are closed

Beneficial ecosystem service (TEEB)

Change in delivery of the beneficial ecosystem service resulting from management scenarios

Do nothing

Recover ENG features to favourable condition

Maintain ENG features to favourable condition

Improve condition of ENG features

Fish – bottom trawl and Scallops

There is currently a gentlemen’s agreement between local fishermen not to trawl over the seagrass habitat in Torbay although areas have recently been damaged (REF Martin’s paper). Any decline in the quality of the ENG features may have future impacts on the associated fisheries

-/+ Recovery of seagrass and subtidal mud will depend on the removal of benthic trawls. There is the possibility of initial short-term financial losses if grounds are closed though the future positive benefits for wider fisheries are linked to recovery of seagrass habiatats

-/+ Maintenance of ENG features will require effort controls or removal of benthic trawls over sensitive ENG features. Spillover from the MCZ may provide future benefits for this fishery though. there is the possibility of initial shortterm financial losses if grounds are closed

-/+ Improvement of ENG features will require effort controls or removal of benthic trawls over sensitive ENG features. Spillover from the MCZ may provide future benefits for this fishery though there is the possibility of initial short-term financial losses if grounds are closed

Other Wild Harvesting Razor clams Diver caught scallops (recreational)

=

=

=

=

The is a small amount of wild harvesting though not thought to cause any impact

The is a small amount of wild harvesting though not thought to cause any impact

The is a small amount of wild harvesting though not thought to cause any impact

The is a small amount of wild harvesting though not thought to cause any impact

= There would be no positive or negative impacts for the rope mussel farm

= The environmental impact of the mussel farm would need to be monitored in line with recovery of ENG features. No financial losses or gains associated with this MCZ

= The environmental impact of the mussel farm would need to be monitored in line with recovery of ENG features. No financial losses or gains associated with this MCZ

= The environmental impact of the mussel farm would need to be monitored in line with recovery of ENG features. No financial losses or gains associated with this MCZ

Aquaculture (Rope mussel farm)

Beneficial ecosystem service (TEEB)

Climate regulation (beneficial ecosystem process)

Natural Hazard Protection Coastal protection)

Regulation of Pollution

Environmental Resilience

Change in delivery of the beneficial ecosystem service resulting from management scenarios

Do nothing

Recover ENG features to favourable condition

Maintain ENG features to favourable condition

Improve condition of ENG features

-

+

=

+

Decline or reduction of seagrass beds could potentially reduce the capacity of the feature to sequester carbon

Recovery of seagrass beds could potentially increase the amount of carbon sequestered

Improvement of seagrass beds could potentially increase the amount of carbon sequestered

-

+

Maintenance of seagrass beds will provide for the carbon sequestration at ‘maintenance’ levels. The extent to which seagrass beds currently contribute to the reduction of urban flooding is unknown =

Decline or reduction of seagrass beds could potentially destabilise the sediment and increase wave energy and the risk of flooding of low lying areas

Recovery of seagrass beds could potentially stabilise the sediment and reduce wave energy. The extent to which the risk of urban flooding may be reduced is unknown

Maintenance of seagrass beds will provide for the stabilisation of sediment at ‘maintenance’ current levels. The extent to which seagrass beds currently contribute to the reduction of urban flooding is unknown

Improvement of seagrass beds could potentially stabilise the sediment and reduce wave energy.

The extent to which the risk of urban flooding may be reduced is unknown

Decline in the quality or extent of ENG features may change the ability of the ecosystem to regulate of pollution . This may have impacts on the quality of the local marine environment and wider pollution regulation processes.

-

+ Seagrass beds are known to have a capacity to regulate pollution in a marine area. Recovery of seagrass beds within this MCZ could potentially increase the capacity to regulate pollution though the localise effect is unknown. +

= Maintenance of all ENG features will enable this area to continue to provide for the regulation of pollution at current levels

+ Improvement of all ENG features may improve the capacity of this area to regulate pollution

=

+

Decline in the quality or extent of ENG features may cause the ecosystem to become less resilient to both natural perturbations and human impacts

Recovery of sea grass beds may improve the resilience of the habitat to both natural perturbations and human impacts

Maintenance of all ENG features will enable this area to continue to contribute towards wider environmental resilience

Improvement of all ENG features will potentially enable the ecosystem to become more resilient to change

+

Beneficial ecosystem service (TEEB)

Change in delivery of the beneficial ecosystem service resulting from management scenarios

Do nothing

Recover ENG features to favourable condition

Maintain ENG features to favourable condition

Improve condition of ENG features

-

+

=

+

Decline of seagrass beds and mud habitats and wider ENG features will potentially decrease food availability for sea birds and cetaceans that are of interest to nature watchers

Recovery of seagrass beds and mud habitats will potentially increase food availability for sea birds and cetaceans that are of interest to nature watchers

Maintenance of all ENG features will potentially maintain nature watching in this area at its current capacity

Improvement of all ENG features will potentially increase the attractiveness of the area to tourists and provide opportunities for enterprise

-

+

+

+

Decline in ENG features will have negative impact on the quality of dive and angling sites

Recovery of seagrass beds and mud habitats will potentially provide nursery habitat for fish which are caught by recreational anglers

Nature Watching

Sport/Recreation (Charter boat, Diving, Dive businesses and angling)

Research & Education

+

-

Any decline of ENG features provides potential for research opportunities. The decline of wider ENG features e.g. intertidal rock may have an impact on the natural resources used by the Torbay Coast and Countryside service for education purposes.

Maintenance of all ENG features will Improvement of all ENG features may protect reef habitats popular with increase the quality of diving and divers and anglers from further angling opportunities in the area with deterioration caused by a knock on effects for local businesses displacement of fishing activity in the Lyme Bay closed area

+

+

+

Recovery of seagrass beds provides potential for research opportunities and education initiatives

Maintenance of ENG features will continue to provide habitat and food for birds which are the focus of the Berry Head visitors centre and for education initiatives run

by Torbay Coast and Countryside Service

Improvement may potentially increase the desirability of this area for research and education initiatives

Beneficial ecosystem service (TEEB)

Tourism (see also recreation and Nature watching)

Spiritual and cultural well-being

Aesthetic benefits

Change in delivery of the beneficial ecosystem service resulting from management scenarios

Do nothing

Recover ENG features to favourable condition

Maintain ENG features to favourable condition

Improve condition of ENG features

Tourism is currently in decline in the Torbay area. Any decline in the environmental quality may have impacts for this industry.

Management restrictions to control activity on seagrass beds e.g. trampling and anchoring may limit some activities associated with tourism.

= Maintenance of ENG features will continue to contribute to the identity of Torbay being a seaside tourist destination

+ Improvement of ENG features may increase the attractiveness and increase opportunities for enterprise within the tourist industry.

?

Spiritual and cultural wellbeing is linked to all beneficial ecosystem services. Any positive or negative impacts on the environmental quality of the ENG features will impact upon the delivery of this beneficial ecosystem services The extent to which these are linked is unknown

-

=

=

+

Torbay markets itself on the natural environment as a place to live or visit. Any decline in the environmental quality may have impacts on the aesthetic qualities associated with the area

No known changes in aesthetic benefits for recovery of seagrass beds or muds

Maintenance of all ENG features will maintain the current aesthetic qualities of ENG features in Torbay. Aesthetic benefits are linked to spiritual and cultural wellbeing and recreation and tourism benefits

Improvement of all ENG features may improve the current aesthetic qualities of ENG features in Torbay.

Aesthetic benefits are linked to spiritual and cultural wellbeing and recreation and tourism benefits

Key - A negative change in the delivery of the beneficial ecosystem service in relation to management scenario = No change in the delivery of the beneficial ecosystem service in relation to management scenario + A positive change in the delivery of the beneficial ecosystem service in relation to management scenario -/+ A negative initial impact in the delivery of the beneficial ecosystem service in relation to management scenario which may lead to future positive change in the delivery of beneficial ecosystem services

References

Please note that the reference list in this extract is taken from the main report and is incomplete with respect to the Torbay rMCZ case study.

Agardy, T., Bridgewater, P., Crosby, M.P., Day, J., Dayton, P.K., Kenchington, R., Laffoley, D., McConney, P., Murray, P.A., Parks, J.E. and Peau, L. 2003. Dangerous targets?

Unresolved issues and ideological clashes around marine protected areas. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 13: 353-367.

Allen, 2008

Al-Raei, A.M., Bosselmann, K., Böttcher, M.E., Hespeneide, B. and Tauber, F. 2009. Seasonal dynamics of microbial sulfate reduction in temperate intertidal surface sediments: controls by temperature and organic matter. Ocean Dynamics, 59: 351-370.

Aprahamian & Walkerm 2008 Araime, S., Dugan, J.E., Lafferty, K.D., Leslie, H., McArdle, D.A. and Warner, R.R. 2003.

Applying ecological criteria to marine reserve design: a case study from California Channel Islands. Ecological Applications, 13: 170-184.

Attrill, M.J., Austen, M.C., Bayley, D.T.I., Carr, H.L., Downey, K., Fowell, S.C., Gall, S.C., Hattam, C., Holland, L., Jackson, E.L., Langmead, O., Mangi, S., Marshall, C., Munro, C., Rees, S., Rodwell, L., Sheehan, E.V., Stevens, J., Stevens, T.F. and Strong, S. 2011. Lyme Bay – a case-study: measuring recovery of benthic species; assessing potential “spillover” effects and socio-economic changes, 2 years after the closure. Response of the benthos to the zoned exclusion of bottom towed fishing gear and the associated socio-economic effects in Lyme Bay. Final Report 1. June 2011. Report to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs from the University of Plymouth-led consortium. Plymouth: University of Plymouth Enterprise Ltd. Austen, M.C., Malcolm, S.J., Frost, M., Hattam, C., Mangi, S., Stentford, G., Benjamins, S., Burrows, M., Butenschön, M., Duck, C., Johns, D., Merino, G., Mieszkowska, N., Miles, A., Mitchell, I. and Smyth, T. 2011. Marine The UK National Ecosystem Assessment Technical Report. UNEP-WCMC. Balanced Seas 2011. Marine Conservation Zones Project. Final Reccommendations.

Bale, A.J., Stepehns, J.A. and Harris, C.B. 2007. Critical erosion profiles in macro-tidal estuary sediments: Implications for the stability of intertidal mud and the slope of mud banks.

Continental Shelf Research, 27: 2303-2312.

Balmford, A., Rodrigues, A.S.L., Walpole, M., ten Brink, P., Kettunen, M., Braat, L. and de Groot, R. 2008. The Economics of Biodiversity and Ecosystems: Scoping the Science.

Cambridge, UK: European Commission.

Beaumont, N., Townsend, M., Mangi, S. and Austen, M. C. 2006. Marine Biodiversity An economic valuation. Building the evidence base for the Marine Bill. Report produced for Defra by Plymouth Marine Laboratory.

Bennett, B.A. and Attwood, C.G. 1991. Evidence for recovery of a surf-zone fish assemblage following the establishment of a marine reserve on the southern coast of South Africa.

Marine Ecology Progress Series, 75: 173-181.

Bishop, M.J. Peterson, C.H., Sommerson, H.C., Lenihan, H.S., and Grabowski, J.H. 2006.

Deposition and Long-shore transport of Dredge soils to nourish beaches: Impacts on benthic infauna of an ebb-tidal delta. Journal of Coastal Research, 22(3): 530-546.

Blue Gym 2012. The Blue Gym. Researching blue space, health and wellbeing. European Centre for the Environment and Human Health. http://www.bluegym.org.uk/ Boeckner et al., 2009 Borum & Wium-Anderson, 1980 Borum & Wium-Anderson, 1984 Bostrom, C. and Bonsdorff, E. 1997. Community structure and spatial variation of benthic invertebrates associated with Zostera marina (L.) beds in the northern Baltic Sea. Journal of Sea Research, 37: 153-166.

Burd, B.J. Barnes, P.A.G., Wright, C.A. and Thomsom, R.E. 2008. A review of subtidal benthic habitats and invertebrate biota of the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia. Marine Environmental Research, 66: S3-S38.

Burdige, D.J. 2006. Geochemistry of Marine Sediments. Princeton University Press, United States.

Buridge et al., 2006 Caline, B.C., Gruet, Y., Legendre, C, Rhun, J.L., L'Homer, A., Mathieu, R. and Zbinden, R. 1992.

The Sabellariid Reefs in the Bay of Mont Saint-Michel, France; Ecology, Geomorphology, Sedimentology and Geologic Implications. Florida Oceanographic Society, Contributions to Marine Science - Volume 1 Number 1, ed. D.W. Kirtley. Florida Oceanographic Society (Stuart, Fla).

Carr, M.H., Neigel, J.E., Esters, J.A., Andelman, S., Warner, R.R. and Largier, J.L. 2003.

Comparing marine and terrestrial ecosystems: implications for the design of coastal marine reserves. Ecol. Appl. (Suppl), 13: S90-S107.

CBD 1992. Convention on Biological Diversity. Available at: http://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/ cbd-en.pdf [accessed 20.06.2012] CBD 2004. Decision adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its seventh meeting. Convention on Biological Diversity UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/VII/5.

CBD 2010. Global Biodiversity Outlook 3. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal.

CDFG 2005. California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative. Master plan. CDFG, Sacramento.

Chae, D.-R., Wattage, P. and Pascoe, S. 2012. Recreational benefits from a marine protected area: A travel cost analysis of Lundy. Tourism Management, 33: 971-977.

Chapin III, F.S., Zavaleta, E.S., Eviner, V.T., Naylor, R.L., Vitousek, P.M., Reynolds, H.L., Hooper, D.U., Lavorel, S., Sala, O.E., Hobbie, S.E., Mack, M.C. and DĂ­az, S. 2000. Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature, 405(6783): 234-242.

Charting Progress 2 (CP2) Chee, Y. 2004. An ecological perspective on the valuation of ecosystem services. Biological Conservation, 12(4): 549-565.

Clark et al. 2010 Collie et al., 2005 Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farberk, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, Naeem, S., O’Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Suttonkk, P. and van den Belt, M. 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253-260.

Crothers, 1987 Defra 2007. An introductory guide to valuing ecosystem services. London, UK: Defra Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs.

Denis, L. and Desroy, N. 2008. Consequences of spring phytodedritus sedimentation on the benthic compartment along a depth gradient in the Eastern English Channel. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 56: 1844-1854.

Dubois et al., 2003 Dubois, S., Commito, J.A., Olivier, F. and Reriere, C. 2006. Effects of epibionts on Sabellaria alveolata (L.) biogenic reefs and their associated fauna in the Bay of Mont Saint-Michel.

Estuarine and Coastal Shelf Science, 68: 635-646.

EC 1992. Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. Official Journal of the European Communities.

EC 2000. Communication From the Commission on the precautionary principle. Commission of the European Communities COM(2000) 1.

EC 2008. Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). Official Journal of the European Union.

Edgar, G.J., Shaw, C., Watson, G.F. and Hammond, L.S. 1994. Comparisons of species richness, size structure and production of benthos in vegetated and unvegetated habitats in

Western Port, Victoria. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 176: 201226.

Evans, P.R., Ward, R.M., Bone, M. and Leakey, M. 1998. Creation of temperate-climate intertidal mudflats: Factors affecting colonization and use by benthic invertebrates and their bird predators. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 37: 535-545.

Fernandes, L., Day, J., Lewis, A., Slegers, S. Kerrigan, B., Breen, D. Cameron, D., Jago, B., Hall, J., Lowe, D., Innes, J., Tanzer, J., Chadwick, V., Thompson, L., Gorman, K., Simmons, M., Barnett, B., Sampson, K., De’Ath, G., Mapstone, B., Marsh, H., Possingham, H., Ball, I., Ward, T., Dobbs, K., Aumend, J., Slater, D. and Stapleton, K. 2005. Establishing representative no-take areas in the Great Barrier Reef: large-scale implementation of theory on marine protected areas. Conservation Biology, 19: 1733-44.

Finding Sanctuary Marine Conservation Zone Project Final Recommendations 2011 Finnegan, P., Vintro, L.L., Mitchell, P.I., Boust., D., Gouzy, A., Kershaw, P.J., and Lucey, J.A. 2009. Accumulation, solid partitioning and remobilisation of 99Tc in subtidal and intertidal sediments in the Irish Sea. Continental Shelf Research, 29: 1995-2010.

Fletcher, S., Saunders, J., Herbert, R., Roberts, C. and Dawson, K. 2012. Description of the ecosystem services provided by broad-scale habitats and features of conservation importance that are likely to be protected by Marine Protected Areas in the Marine Conservation Zone Project area. Natural England Commissioned Reports, Number 088.

Fortes, 2002 Gell, F.R. and Roberts, C.M. 2002. The Fishery Effects of Marine Reserves and Fishery Closures. Washington, D.C., USA: WWF-US. Gell, F.R. and Roberts, C.M. 2003. Benefits beyond boundaries: the fishery effects of marine reserves. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution, 18(9).

Gheskiere et al., 2005 Gibson, C., Valenti, S.V., Fowler, S.L. and Fordham, S.V. 2006. The Conservation Status of Northeast Atlantic Chondrichthyans Report of the IUCN Shark Specialist Group Northeast Atlantic Regional Red List Workshop VIII. IUCN SSC Shark Specialist Group.

Gleason, M., McCreary, S., Miller-Henson, M., Ugoretz, J., Fox, E., Merrifield, M., McClintock, W., Serpa, P. and Hoffman, K. 2010. Science-based and stakeholder-driven marine protected area network planning: A successful case study from north central California.

Ocean & Coastal Management, 53: 52-68.

Goñi, R., Adlerstein, S., Alvarez-Berastegui, D., Forcada, A., Reñones, O., Criquet, G., Polti, S., Cadiou, G., Valle, C., Lenfant, P., Bonhomme, P., Pérez-Ruzafa, A., Sánchez-Lizaso, J.L., García-Charton, J.A., Bernard, G., Stelzenmüller, V. and Planes, S. 2008. Spillover from six western Mediterranean marine protected areas: evidence from artisanal fisheries.

Marine Ecology Progress Series, 366: 159-174.

Green, A.L., Lokani, P., Sheppard, S., Almany, J., Keu, S., Aitsi, J., Warku Karvon, J., Hamilton, R. and Lipsett-Moore, G. 2007. Scientific design of a resilient network of marine protected areas. Kimbe Bay, West New Britain, Papua New Guinea: The Nature Conservancy Pacific Island Countries Rep No 2/07.

Guarderas, A., Hacker, S.D. and Lubchenco, J. 2008. Current Status of Marine Protected Areas in Latin America and the Caribbean. Conservation Biology, 22(6): 1630-1640.

Guarini, J.M., Blanchard, G.F. and Gros, P. 2000. Quantification of the microphytobenthic primary production in European intertidal mudflats - a modelling approach. Continental Shelf Research, 20: 1771-1788.

Haines-Young, R. and Potschin, M. 2007. The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In: Ecosystem Ecology: A New Synthesis. Cambridge.

Halpern, B.S., Walbridge, S., Selkoe, K.A., Kappel, C.V., Micheli, F., D'Agrosa, C., Bruno, J.F., Casey, K.S., Ebert, C., Fox, H.E., Fujita, R., Heinemann, D., Lenihan, H.S., Madin, E.M.P., Perry, M.T., Selig, E.R., Spalding, M., Steneck, R. and Watson, R. 2008. A Global Map of Human Impact on Marine Ecosystems. Science, 319(5865): 948-952.

Harrison, H.B., Williamson, D.H., Evans, R.D., Almany, G.R., Thorrold, S.R., Russ, G.R., Feldheim, K.A., van Herwerden, L., Planes, S., Srinivasan, M., Berumen, M.L. and Jones, G.P. 2012. Larval export from marine reserves and the recruitment benefit for fish and fisheries. Current biology, 22(11): 1023-1028.

Heck, K.L., Able, K.W., Roman, C.T., and Fahay, M.P. 1995. Composition, abundance, biomass, and production of macrofauna in a New England estuary: comparisons among eelgrass meadows and other nursery habitats. Estuaries, 18: 379-389.

Herlory, O., Blanchard, G.F., Planche, S., Huet, V. and Richard, P. 2005. Does the size of the microphytobenthic biofilm on intertidal muflats depend on the available photosynthetic biomass? Marine Ecology Progress Series, 298: 95-100.

Hill, S., Burrows, M.T. and Hawkins, S.J. 1998. Intertidal reef biotopes: an overview of dynamic and sensitivity characteristics for conservation management of marine SACs. Oban, Scottish Association of Marine Sciences (UK Marine SACs Project).

Hill, J., Pearce, B., Georgiou, L., Pinnion, J. and Gallyot, J. 2010. Meeting the MPA Network Principle of Viability: feature specific recommendations for species and habitats of conservation importance. Report by Marine Ecological Surveys Limited.

Hirst, J.A. and Attrill, M.J. 2008. Small is beautiful: An inverted view of habitat fragmentation in seagrass beds. Eustuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 78: 811-818.

Hiscock, K., Marshall, C., Sewell, J. and Hawkins, S.J. 2006. The structure and functioning of marine ecosystems: an environmental protection and management perspective. Report to English Nature from the Marine Life Information Network (MarLIN). Plymouth: Marine Biological Association of the UK. English Nature Research Reports , ENRR No. 699.

HM Government. 2009. Marine and Coastal Access Act. In: Crown copyright. p. 347.

HM Government. 2011. UK Marine Policy Statement. In: London: Crown copyright. p. 47.

Holt, T.J., Rees, E.I., Hawkins, S.J. and Seed, R., 1998. Biogenic reefs (Volume IX). An overview of dynamic and sensitivity characteristics for conservation management of marine SACs. Scottish Association for Marine Science (UK Marine SACs Project).

Hooper, D.U., Chapin, F.S., Ewel, J.J., Hector, A., Inchausti, P., Lavorel, S., Lawton, J.H., Lodge, D.M., Loreau, M., Naeem, S., Schmid, B., Setälä, H., Symstad, A.J., Vandermeer, J. and Wardle, D.A. 2005. Effects of Biodiversity on Ecosystem Functioning: A Consensus of Current Knowledge. Ecological Monographs, 75(1): 3-35.

Irish Sea Conservation Zones 2011. Final recommendations for Marine Conservation Zones in the the Irish Sea. Warrington.

Irving, 1996 Irving, 2009 ISCZ, 2011 IUCN 2009. Marine protected area network. Hawaii’s western shore, USA. IUCN Marine Protected Areas case studies.

IUCN-WCPA 2008. Establishing Marine Protected Area Networks—Making It Happen.

Washington, D.C.: IUCN-WCPA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and The Nature Conservancy.

Jackson, A. 2008. Leptopsammia pruvoti. Sunset cup coral. Marine Life Information Network: Biology and Sensitivity Key Information Sub-programme. Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. Available at: http://www.marlin.ac.uk [accessed 20.06.2012].

Jones, L.A., Hiscock, K. and Connor, D.W. 2000. Marine habitat reviews. A summary of ecological requirements and sensitivity characteristics for the conservation and management of marine SACs. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.

Kitsos, M.S., Tzomos, T.H., Anagnostopoulou, L. and Koukouras, A. 2008. Diet composition of the seahorses, Hippocampus guttulatus Cuvier, 1829 and Hippocampus hippocampus (L., 1758) (Teleostei, Syngnathidae) in the Aegean Sea. Journal of Fish Biology, 72: 12591267.

Lieberknecht, L.M., Hooper, T.H., Mullier, T.M., Murphy, A., Neilly, M., Carr, H., Haines, R., Lewin, S. and Hughes, E. 2011. Finding Sanctuary final report and recommendations. A report submitted by the Finding Sanctuary stakeholder project to Defra, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, and Natural England. Available at: www.finding-sanctuary.org and The UK National Archives http://tna.europarchive.org/*/http:// www.findingsanctuary.org/ [accessed 20.06.2012].

Macintyre, H.L., Geider, R.J. and Miller D.C. 1996. Microphytobenthos: The ecological role of the ''secret garden'' of unvegetated, shallow-water marine habitats. Estuaries, 19: 186201.

Maddock, 2008;

Magalhaes, C.M., Bordalo, A.A. and Wiebe, W.J. 2003. Intertidal biofilms on rocky substratum can play a major role in estuarine carbon and nutrient dynamics. Mar Ecol-Prog Ser, 258: 275-281.

McArthur, L.C. and Boland, J.W. 2006. The economic contribution of seagrass to secondary production in South Australia. Ecological Modelling, 196: 163-172.

McLeod, E., Salm, R., Green, A. and Almany J. 2009. Designing marine protected area networks to address the impacts of climate change. Frontiers Ecology Environment, 7: 362-370.

McClanahan, T.R., Graham, N.A.J., Calnan, J.M. and MacNeil M.A. 2007. Toward pristine biomass: reef fish recovery in coral reef marine protected areas in Kenya. Ecological applications, 17(4): 1055-1067.

MEA 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being : current state and trends : findings of the Condition and Trends Working Group. Edited by Hassan, R., Scholes, R. and Ash, N., The millennium ecosystem assessment series, v. 1.

Murawski, S.A., Brown, R., Lai, H.L., Rago, P.J. and Hendrickson, L. 2000. Free Content Largescale closed areas as a fishery-management tool in temperate marine systems: the Georges Bank experience. Bulletin of Marine Science, 66(3): 775-798.

National Ecosystem Assessment (NEA), Natural England, 2000; Natural England 2010. Evidence base for designation of Haisborough, Hammond and Winterton Special Area of Conservation Final IA, 20.7.2010.

Natural England-JNCC 2010. Marine Conservation Zone Project. Ecological Network Guidance.

Natural England and Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

Natural England-JNCC 2011. The Marine Conservation Zone Impact Assessment. Factsheet.

Available at http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/MCZ-ia-factsheet_tcm630715. pdf [accessed 18.06.2012].

Navarro & Thompson, 1996 Net Gain 2011. Net Gain Marine Conservation Zone Project Final Recommendations.

Submission to Natural England and JNCC. Hull.

Notarbartolo di Sciara, G. 2007. Guidelines for the establishment and management of Marine Protected Areas for Cetaceans. UNEP(DEPI)MED WG.308/8.

NRC 2000. Marine Protected Areas: tools for sustaining ocean ecosystems. Washington, D.C., USA: National Academy Press.

NRC 2001. Marine Protected Areas: Tools for Sustaining Ocean Ecosystems. Committee on the Evaluation, Design and monitoring of marine reserves and protected areas in the United States. Ocean Studies Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C..

OSPAR 2003. OSPAR Recommendation 2003/3 on a Network of Marine Protected Areas.

Available at http://www.ospar.org/content/content.asp?menu=00700302210000_ 000000_000000 [accessed 18.06.2012].

OSPAR, 2008 Paramour, O. and Frid, C. 2006. Marine Ecosystem Objectives: Further development of objectives for marine habitats. Report for Defra, London.

Pearce, D., Markandya, A. and Barbier, E. 1991. Blueprint for a green economy. London, UK: Earthscan.

Pet-Soede, L., Cesar, H., van Beukering, P., Willsteed, E. and Mous, P.J. 2009. Benefits of Marine Protected Area Networks: An Overview in Support of the Coral Triangle Initiative.

WWF. Phil et al., 2006 Pike, K., Johnson, D., Fletcher, S., Wright, P. and Lee, B. 2010. Social Value of Marine and Coastal Protected Areas in England and Wales. Coastal Management, 38:412-432.

Pinnegar, J.K. and Polunin, N.V.C. 2004. Predicting indirect effects of fishing in Mediterranean rocky littoral communities using a dynamic simulation model. Ecological Modelling, 172: 249-267.

PISCO 2007. The Science of Marine Reserves [2nd Edition, United States Version], Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans. Available at: www.piscoweb.org. [accessed 20.06.2012].

Potschin, M. and Haines-Young, R. 2011. Ecosystem services: Exploring a geographical perspective. Progress in Physical Geography, 35(5): 575-594.

Ragnarsson, S.A. and Raffaelli, D. 1999. Effects of the mussel Mytilus edulis L. on the invertebrate fauna of sediments. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 241: 31-43.

Rees 2010 Rees & Dare, 1993 Rees et al., 2008 Rees, S. E., Rodwell, L. D., Attrill, M.J., Austen, M.C. and Mangi, S.C. 2010. The value of marine biodiversity to the leisure and recreation industry and its application to marine spatial planning. Marine Policy, 34(5): 868-875.

Ricciardi, A. and Bourget, E. 1999. Global patterns of macroinvertebrate biomass in marine intertidal communities. Mar Ecol-Prog Ser, 185: 21-35.

Rice, C. 2010. Marine Protected Area Network Report. On behalf of North Sea maritime cluster.

Roberts, C.M., Halpern, B. Palumbi, S.R. and Warner, R.R. 2001. Designing marine reserve networks: Why small, isolated protected areas are not enough. Conservation Biology In Practice, 2(3): 12-19.

Roberts, C. M., Branch, G., Bustamante, R.H., Castilla, J.C., Dugan, J., Halpern, B.S., Lafferty, K.D., Leslie, H., Lubchenco, J., McArdle, D., Ruckelshaus, M. and Warner R.R. 2003.

Application of Ecological Criteria in Selecting Marine Reserves and Developing Reserve Networks. Ecological Applications, 13(1): 215-228.

Ronnback, P., Kautsky, N., Pihl, L., Troell, M., Sรถderqvist, T. and Wennhage, H. 2007.

Ecosystem goods and services from Swedish coastal habitats: identification, valuation, and implications of ecosystem shifts. Ambio, 36: 534-544.

Rosendo, S., Brown, K., Joubert, A., Jiddawi, N. and Mechisso, M. 2011. A clash of values and approaches: A case study of marine protected area planning in Mozambique. Ocean & Coastal Management, 54(1): 55-65.

Sabantini & Pizzolla, 2008 Salm, R.V., Done, T. and Mcleod, E. 2006. Marine protected area planning in a hanging climate. In: Phinney, J.T., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Kleypas, J., Skirving, W. and Strong, A. (eds.). Coral reefs and climate change: science and management. Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union.

Scott, L.C., Boland, J.W., Edyvane, K.S. and Jones, G.K. 2000. Development of a seagrass-fish habitat model - I: A Seagrass Residency Index for economically important species.

Environmetrics, 11: 541-552.

Smith et al., 2011 Snelgrove, P.V.R. 1999. Getting to the bottom of marine biodiversity: sedimentary habitats.

Ocean bottoms are the most widespread habitat on Earth and support high biodiversity and key ecosystem services. Bioscience, 49(2): 129-138.

Sobel, J. and Dahlgren, C. 2004. Marine Reserves. A Guide to Science, Design and Use. Washington: Island Press.

TEEB 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: The Ecological and Economic Foundations.

Tyler-Walters, 2008 UK Biodiversity Partnership 2010. UK BAP Priority species and habitats. Available at: http://www.ukbap.org.uk [accessed 20.06.2012].

UN 2002. Report of the world summit on sustainable development. United Nations, Para.32(c).

Underwood & Patterson, 2003; UNEP 2006. Marine and coastal ecosystems and human wellbeing: A synthesis report based on the findings of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. UNEP.

UNEP-WCMC 2008. National and Regional Networks of Marine Protected Areas: A Review of Progress. Cambridge: UNEP-WCMC. University of Hull, 2008; Van Hoey, G., Guilini, K., Rabuat, M., Vincx, M. and Degraer, S. 2008. Ecological implications of the presence of the tube-building polychaete Lanice conchilega on soft-bottom benthic ecosystems. Marine Biology, 154: 1432-1793.

Ward, T., Heinemann, D. and Evans, N. 2002. The Role of Marine Reserves as Fisheries Management Tools. Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra.

White, A., Eisma-Osorio, R.-L. and Green, S.J. 2005. Integrated coastal management and marine protected areas: Complementarity in the Philippines. Ocean & Coastal Management, 48: 24.

Wildish & Fader, cited in Tyler-Walters, 2007 World Bank 2008. Valuing Coastal and Marine Ecosystems Services. The World Bank.

Worm, B., Barbier, E.B., Beaumont, N., Duffy, J.E., Folke, C., Halpern, B.S., Jackson, J.B.C., Lotze, H.K., Micheli, F., Palumbi, S.R., Sala, E., Selkoe, K.A., Stachowicz, J.J. and Watson, R. 2006. Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services. Science, 314(5800): 787-790.