Tag Archives: Marine Protected Areas

What the GBRMPA chair DID NOT say about my coral bleaching article

In April 2016 I submitted an article to The Marine Professional – a publication of the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science & Technology (IMarEST) focusing on the mass bleaching event that had hit the Great Barrier Reef at the time.  In their September 2016 issue, The Marine Professional featured a comment from a reader, in which he stated that he shared the article with Dr. Russell Reichelt – chair of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.  The reader alleged that  Dr Reichlet told him that the article “contains some accurate things mixed with half truths and alarmism”.

A number of  coral reef, marine biology, and climate scientists have been in touch to express their concern about Dr Reichelt’s alleged comments on my article.  After liaising with Dr Reichelt’s office*, I am pleased to be able to set the record straight on what he did – or rather did not say.

*I did contact Dr Reichelt directly, but he replied via his office not directly.

After corresponding with Dr Reichelt’s office to determine where the “half truths and alarmism” were in the article, I have been informed that, whilst Dr Reichelt recalls the article being brought to his attention, he never made any such comments about the article.  In fact, he hadn’t even seen the article to comment on in the first place.  He has since read the piece and agrees that it is factual.

I have not attempted to contact the reader to find outwhere his comment came from.

Below is a copy of the article I submitted to The Marine Professional.   For those who want to see the article after it has been through their editorial process, please see the June 2016 edition of The Marine Professional.

Continue reading What the GBRMPA chair DID NOT say about my coral bleaching article

Where the wild things roam: Dispersal, connectivity, marine protected areas, and my PhD project

 

In my last post I mentioned that I am starting a PhD.  I promised to tell you a little more about what my research will be looking at, so here we go!

The project outline

My research comes very broadly defined already – the work’s raison d’être if you like.  Here it is:

“Movement and dispersal connects marine populations, allowing restoration of depleted local populations by immigrants that renew genetic diversity. Although Canada’s Oceans Act prioritizes ‘linking Canada’s network of marine protected areas (MPA)’, connectivity has not weighed significantly in MPA network design in Canada. This study will optimize regional marine connectivity among protected areas in the Atlantic region by determining optimal locations for new MPAs and evaluating how commercially important species would be representative in the entire MPA network. To model species distribution based on larval dispersal, fishery pressure, and climate change, we will use 3-D ocean circulation models. Then, based on metapopulation theory, we will develop novel spatial network algorithms to optimise the number and spatial connectivity between MPAs under current and future scenarios of climate and fishery pressure that may alter larval supply”.

Sounds complex?  Yep, for me too. Continue reading Where the wild things roam: Dispersal, connectivity, marine protected areas, and my PhD project

On being MIA – and what’s next

Hello my fellow readers

You may have noticed that I have been away for some time.  Some of you have even gotten in contact with me to find out why, and encourage me back – thank you!  Your words of kindness and encouragement were very much appreciated.  I honestly did not mean to disappear for so long, but I did get incredibly busy.  I thought I’d share with you all some of the questions I’ve been asked during my time away – and my responses! Continue reading On being MIA – and what’s next

Oh Canada – what about your ocean?

This is a big post.  It’s about big things.  Important things too.  It deals with Canada – a big country.  Actually by area, it is the second largest country in the world.  It also has a lot of ocean under its jurisdiction.  Take a look at the website of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, a Federal government body, and you will see statements like this:

“The Government of Canada is working to ensure the future health of Canada’s oceans and ocean resources by increasing understanding and protection of our oceans; supporting sustainable economic opportunities; and demonstrating international leadership in oceans management”

Sounds good doesn’t it.  The Canadian Federal Government (which has just changed as of yesterday – see bottom of the post) have a several Acts in place to govern the bit of the ocean they have claimed as theirs.  Great stuff!  Except maybe, as demonstrated in a recently published paper, authored by 19 Canadian scientists including lead-author Megan Bailey (Dalhousie University), “over the past decade decision-making at the federal level appears to have undermined the government’s own mandates for the sustainable management of Canada’s oceansContinue reading Oh Canada – what about your ocean?

Protecting Kenya’s dolphin habitat

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are pretty nifty tools for marine conservation. You take an area, you give it a designations and (hopefully… but the reality can be quite different) you attach some regulations/legislation to remove harmful activities to whatever it is you are trying to protect inside the MPA and make efforts to rebuild and conserve this spot. The situation of picking an area to designate can become trickier when dealing with ocean wanderers – species that move around a lot, and over great distances. It is safe to say that it is politically unfeasible to designate one area big enough to encompass, for example the movement of sea turtles. Instead, sea turtles may find critical habitat – feeding areas or nesting beaches for instance, covered by an MPA. We can’t protect them everywhere, but we can build a case to protect them where we know they hang out in large numbers. Some species are a little less predictable – or we simply don’t know where their critical areas are. Take southern Kenya’s populations of Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops aduncus) for instance. Apparently these critters are the most abundant of the marine mammals in Kenya’s Kisite-Mpunguti MPA. Abundance does not mean we know much about them though. The species is listed as data deficient on the IUCN Red List. Continue reading Protecting Kenya’s dolphin habitat

Canada’s marine protected areas protect…. not very much

Current levels of protection inside Canada’s MPAs [marine protected areas] are inadequate to provide the long-term conservation of marine biodiversity. For the most part, there is little difference between what is allowed inside our MPAs and what occurs outside their boundaries”.

Little difference… that’s a pretty damning statement from the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS), an NGO established in 1963. After all, what is the point of a MPA that offers little to no protection? There are 740 MPAs covering just 1% of Canada’s ocean, far below internationally agreed Aichi targets of 10% (which in itself is far below the minimum recommended by scientists).

Continue reading Canada’s marine protected areas protect…. not very much

No fishing zones for conservation look good on paper, but the reality can be very different

The global implementation of no-take zones, areas in which fishing (both commercial and recreational) is banned, has been a slow process despite scientific recommendations that they are a valuable tool for conservation – and even support fisheries.  The thinking behind no-take zones is simple.  Prevent extraction from a population and that population will increase over time.  There is plenty of evidence showing that no-take zones have higher fish abundance, biomass, and species richness than comparable fished areas, and that the fish inside no-take zones are larger too.  But there is a catch… designating an area ‘no-take’ is, in itself, not enough to ensure protection.  There are all sorts of factors that can influence the ‘success’ of no-take zones, such as placing the area where it they most needed, reducing pollution from external sources, and the level of compliance and/or enforcement.  After all, if people keep fishing inside the no-take zone, it doesn’t really meet the criteria of being no-take.  Inevitably a fished zone will fail to meet expected successes of a no-take. Continue reading No fishing zones for conservation look good on paper, but the reality can be very different

Community-based conservation to rebuild fish stocks

I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t mind being there right now. This is one of the Fijian islands in the Pacific, and the second largest in the group.  As serene as the picture is, not all is serene for the Islanders.  Fishers in Nagigi, a small community based on the south coast of Vanua Levu Island have been noticing that the number of fish and the size of fish have been decreasing, and habitat degrading – a big problem for a community heavily dependent on its marine resources.  This decline isn’t necessarily down to big foreign boats coming in and taking the critters on which they depend.  Instead, overexploitation and habitat destruction seems to arise from the ever-increasing number of locally based fishers.  The source of this claim?  The villagers of Nagigi.

In this paper,  Abigail Golden from Columbia University and fellow researchers explore the idea of setting up a short-term no take marine protected area within Nagigi’s coastal tenure area (known aqoliqoli ).  This idea hasn’t come from the researchers nor from any top-down government as tends to happen in western countries.  Instead the idea has come from the village leaders themselves.  This sort of bottom-up governance is far from unheard of.  The Pacific Islands are small and numerous, and have a long history of small areas of land and coastal waters managed by local communities.  Some have worked well, some have not, and many have come under strain or been lost through both technological developments, increasing population, increasing demands for resources, and cultural change.  Still, a well-managed community based MPA can work well, particularly in these remoter locations, and especially were more rigorous research and recording is absent.  Regardless of where you are in the world, there are a number of vital steps needed for good management.  One involves getting as much information as possible – about the species that are there now, the fishing methods used, an idea of how conditions have changed, and perceptions towards different management methods.  The other involves bringing the local community into the conservation planning in a meaningful way.  So the team went out and conducted two types of surveys – one looking at the species living on the reef at the time, and one talking to some of the villagers themselves. Continue reading Community-based conservation to rebuild fish stocks

Australia’s protected area network fails to adequately protect the world’s most threatened marine fishes

Australia has, compared to some other countries, a fairly extensive network of both marine and terrestrial protected areas.  On the marine side there is of course the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and more recently the implementation of the Commonwealth Marine Reserve network.  The idea behind any marine protected area is to offer long term “conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values”, so one would expect to see some effective protection going on in these areas…right?  Areas chosen, and cared for to ensure they offer conservation value, to do all we can to help keep species going that have suffered population declines because of our actions?  I’m sure many of you won’t be surprised to hear that this isn’t always the case.  Take a look at some of my previous posts over on Google Plushere, here, and here for example.  Unfortunately, as highlighted in a recent study by Karen Devitt, who was based at Charles Darwin University, Australia’s protected areas are inadequate for protecting one of the world’s most threatened marine fishes – the sawfish.

Continue reading Australia’s protected area network fails to adequately protect the world’s most threatened marine fishes

Australia’s protected area network fails to adequately protect the world’s most threatened marine fishes

Australia has, compared to some other countries, a fairly extensive network of both marine and terrestrial protected areas.  On the marine side there is of course the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and more recently the implementation of the Commonwealth Marine Reserve network.  The idea behind any marine protected area is to offer long-term “conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values”, so one would expect to see some effective protection going on in these areas…right?  Areas chosen, and cared for to ensure they offer conservation value, to do all we can to help keep species going that have suffered population declines because of our actions?  I’m sure many of you won’t be surprised to hear that this isn’t always the case.  Take a look at some of my previous posts – here here, and here.  Unfortunately, as highlighted in a recent study by Karen Devitt, who was based at Charles Darwin University at the time of writing, Australia’s protected areas are inadequate for protecting one of the world’s most threatened marine fishes – the sawfish.

There are 5 species of sawfish (Pristidae) in the world.  In a previous study focusing on sawfish, Nick Dulvy and fellow researchers reported that the group, which can occupy marine, brackish, and fresh water habitats at different stages in their life cycle, are probably “the world’s most imperilled marine fishes”.  Three of the five species – smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata), largetooth sawfish (Pristis pristis), and green sawfish (Pristis zijsron) are classified on the IUCN Red List as critically endangered.  The remaining two species – narrow sawfish (Anoxypristis cuspidate), and dwarf sawfish (Pristis clavata) are classified as endangered.   Out of the five species of sawfish, only the smalltooth is not found in Australian waters.  More so, northern Australia is home to “some of the few remaining viable sawfish populations” in the world.  Looking after these guys isn’t just important for the Australian population of sawfish, but for the global population of sawfish.  Northern Australia’s waters is in fact, globally significant.  If northern Australia’s populations decline, then the outlook is extremely bleak for these rather unusual looking fish.

One of the key steps Karen and fellow collaborators undertook was to accurately map the range of each of the sawfish species in Australia.  They had to do this themselves because only very coarse range maps had been produced from limited data.  Sounds silly doesn’t it – a seriously threatened species, and we don’t even really know where it lives.  Understanding ranges is (rather obviously) crucial for implementing effective protected areas for these guys.  After all, a protected area situated over very little or even none of their habitats is rather pointless.  The team managed to obtain a number of records of each species that they could confidently use in their analysis.  They also used the known habitat preference of each of the 4 species and maps of Australia’s land (for the freshwater habitats they use) and sea-scapes to figure out what the most likely ranges of these endangered critters are.  Of the 2,908 records of narrow sawfish, 741 records of green sawfish, 247 records of dwarf sawfish, and 470 of large sawfish, a total of 524 records were taken within a protected area.  The percentage of range protected was also low.  For their inland (freshwater) range, between ~9 and 17% had some protection designation attached.  Their marine ranges fared a little better – around 22 – 44% some protection.

But there is something else to consider.  Not all protected areas afford equal protection.  The IUCN has a range of different categories for both terrestrial and marine protected areas.  In a marine context, at the upper end you have strong protection like areas you can’t extract things from – fishing and mining is banned.  At the lower ends you have sustainable use zones, which allow (hopefully) carefully managed activities to take place.  This can include things like fishing or mining.  When you are dealing with a species – or indeed a group of species like the sawfishes that are living in a very precarious position, ideally you want the protected areas to offer them the strongest protection possible.  Alas this is not so.  Karen and colleagues maps showed that most of the protected areas (terrestrial and marine) that covered the sawfishes ranges were sustainable use zones – zones in which activities known to be a direct threat to sawfish still take place.  What’s more, the team also note that the Commonwealth Marine Reserve network may not be all it is cracked up to be, with the current Australian Government, elected in 2013, suspending the management plans for the network.  In reality, the little protection the sawfish were supposed to be afforded by the network may be significantly eroded.

There was one final issue that the team raised in their paper – that of connectivity.  It is becoming well understood by scientists (if not politicians) that marine protected areas cannot function as single isolated islands.  Many species undertake dispersal at some time or another – the larvae of sessile organisms can travel on currents to new settlement sites, for example.  Some species – like sawfishes – can travel large distances, utilizing different habitats.  An effective marine protected area may very well need to be included inside a network, and that network needs to consider how critters move around, and how in reality seemingly disconnected sites are in fact connected.  Female largetooth and dwarf sawfish for example both pup in estuaries.  Their juveniles live in freshwater and riverine habitats.  It is only when they are older that they head out into the ocean.  These seemingly disparate but essential habitats for the sawfish (and indeed many other species) has not been considered in network design.  The urgency to consider connectivity is heightened by proposals to develop hydroelectric dams in northern Australia, something that has the potential to block migrations of these critters.

In terms of size, Australia’s terrestrial and marine protected areas may be making advances in achieving targets set by the international community, but they are far from achieving any meaningful contribution towards species like sawfishes which so desperately need help.

The paper which was published in Global Ecology and Conservation has been made open access.  You can have a read of it here http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2015.01.007

 

Image: Sawfish (species unknown).  Credit Simon Fraser University – University Communications/Flickr (CC BY 2.0)