Advances in marine biology, volume 69

Keywords: Marine protected areas, MPAs, Closed areas, Spatially explicit management, Fisheries management, Marine reserves Advances in Marine Biology, Volume 69 # 2014 Elsevier Ltd... At

Oregon Institute of Marine Biology

Advisory Editorial Board

ANDREW J GOODAY

Southampton Oceanography Centre

SANDRA E SHUMWAY

University of Connecticut

First edition 2014

Copyright © 2014, Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions

This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).

Notices

Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices,

or medical treatment may become necessary.

Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.

To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.

ISBN: 978-0-12-800214-8

ISSN: 0065-2881

For information on all Academic Press publications

visit our website at store.elsevier.com

Richard Appeldoorn

Department of Marine Sciences, University of Puerto Rico, Mayagu¨ez, Puerto Rico Fabio Badalamenti

CNR-IAMC Sede di Castellammare del Golfo, Castellammare del Golfo, Italy

David K.A Barnes

British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, Cambridge, United Kingdom

Bob Kearney

Emeritus Professor in Fisheries Management, Institute for Applied Ecology, University of Canberra, Bruce ACT, Australia

of Puerto Rico, Mayagu¨ez, Puerto Rico

Volume 42, 2002.

Zardus, J D Protobranch bivalves pp 1–65

Mikkelsen, P M Shelled opisthobranchs pp 67–136

Reynolds, P D The Scaphopoda pp 137–236

Harasewych, M G Pleurotomarioidean gastropods pp 237–294

*The full list of contents for volumes 1–37 can be found in volume 38

xv

Volume 43, 2002.

Rohde, K Ecology and biogeography of marine parasites pp 1–86.Ramirez Llodra, E Fecundity and life-history strategies in marine inverte-brates pp 87–170

Brierley, A S and Thomas, D N Ecology of southern ocean pack ice

pp 171–276

Hedley, J D and Mumby, P J Biological and remote sensing perspectives

of pigmentation in coral reef organisms pp 277–317

R D., Richardson, A J., Sims, D.W., Smith, T., Walne, A W andHawkins, S J Long-term oceanographic and ecological research in thewestern English Channel pp 1–105

forcing in the control of horizontal transport of decapod crustacean larvae.

Carolin E Arndt and Kerrie M Swadling Crustacea in Arctic and Antarcticsea ice: Distribution, diet and life history strategies pp 197–315.Volume 52, 2007.

Leys, S P., Mackie, G O and Reiswig, H M The Biology of Glass ges pp 1–145

Spon-Garcia E G The Northern Shrimp (Pandalus borealis) Offshore Fishery inthe Northeast Atlantic pp 147–266

Fraser K P P and Rogers A D Protein Metabolism in Marine Animals:The Underlying Mechanism of Growth pp 267–362

Volume 54, 2008

Bridget S Green Maternal Effects in Fish Populations pp 1–105.Victoria J Wearmouth and David W Sims Sexual Segregation in MarineFish, Reptiles, Birds and Mammals: Behaviour Patterns, Mechanisms andConservation Implications pp 107–170

David W Sims Sieving a Living: A Review of the Biology, Ecology andConservation Status of the Plankton-Feeding Basking Shark CetorhinusMaximus pp 171–220

Charles H Peterson, Kenneth W Able, Christin Frieswyk DeJong, Michael

F Piehler, Charles A Simenstad, and Joy B Zedler Practical Proxies forTidal Marsh Ecosystem Services: Application to Injury and Restoration

pp 221–266

Volume 55, 2008

Annie Mercier and Jean-Francois Hamel Introduction pp 1–6

Annie Mercier and Jean-Francois Hamel Gametogenesis pp 7–72.Annie Mercier and Jean-Francois Hamel Spawning pp 73–168

Annie Mercier and Jean-Francois Hamel Discussion pp 169–194

Philip C Reid, Astrid C Fischer, Emily Lewis-Brown, Michael P.Meredith, Mike Sparrow, Andreas J Andersson, Avan Antia, Nicholas

R Bates, Ulrich Bathmann, Gregory Beaugrand, Holger Brix, StephenDye, Martin Edwards, Tore Furevik, Reidun Gangst, Hjalmar Hatun,Russell R Hopcroft, Mike Kendall, Sabine Kasten, Ralph Keeling,Corinne Le Quere, Fred T Mackenzie, Gill Malin, Cecilie Mauritzen,Jon Olafsson, Charlie Paull, Eric Rignot, Koji Shimada, Meike Vogt,Craig Wallace, Zhaomin Wang and Richard Washington Impacts ofthe Oceans on Climate Change pp 1–150

Elvira S Poloczanska, Colin J Limpus and Graeme C Hays Vulnerability

of Marine Turtles to Climate Change pp 151–212

Nova Mieszkowska, Martin J Genner, Stephen J Hawkins and David W.Sims Effects of Climate Change and Commercial Fishing on AtlanticCod Gadus morhua pp 213–274

Iain C Field, Mark G Meekan, Rik C Buckworth and Corey J A.Bradshaw Susceptibility of Sharks, Rays and Chimaeras to GlobalExtinction pp 275–364

Milagros Penela-Arenaz, Juan Bellas and Elsa Vazquez Effects of thePrestige Oil Spill on the Biota of NW Spain: 5 Years of Learning

pp 365–396

Volume 57, 2010

Geraint A Tarling, Natalie S Ensor, Torsten Fregin, William P Copestake and Peter Fretwell An Introduction to the Biology ofNorthern Krill (Meganyctiphanes norvegica Sars) pp 1–40

Good-all-Tomaso Patarnello, Chiara Papetti and Lorenzo Zane Genetics of NorthernKrill (Meganyctiphanes norvegica Sars) pp 41–58

Geraint A Tarling Population Dynamics of Northern Krill (Meganyctiphanesnorvegica Sars) pp 59–90

John I Spicer and Reinhard Saborowski Physiology and Metabolism ofNorthern Krill (Meganyctiphanes norvegica Sars) pp 91–126

Katrin Schmidt Food and Feeding in Northern Krill (Meganyctiphanesnorvegica Sars) pp 127–172

Friedrich Buchholz and Cornelia Buchholz Growth and Moulting inNorthern Krill (Meganyctiphanes norvegica Sars) pp 173–198

Janine Cuzin-Roudy Reproduction in Northern Krill pp 199–230.Edward Gaten, Konrad Wiese and Magnus L Johnson Laboratory-BasedObservations of Behaviour in Northern Krill (Meganyctiphanes norvegicaSars) pp 231–254

Stein Kaartvedt Diel Vertical Migration Behaviour of the Northern Krill(Meganyctiphanes norvegica Sars) pp 255–276.

Yvan Simard and Michel Harvey Predation on Northern Krill(Meganyctiphanes norvegica Sars) pp 277–306

Volume 58, 2010

A G Glover, A J Gooday, D M Bailey, D S M Billett, P Chevaldonne´,

A Colac¸o, J Copley, D Cuvelier, D Desbruye`res, V Kalogeropoulou,

M Klages, N Lampadariou, C Lejeusne, N C Mestre, G L J Paterson,

T Perez, H Ruhl, J Sarrazin, T Soltwedel, E H Soto, S Thatje,

A Tselepides, S Van Gaever, and A Vanreusel Temporal Change inDeep-Sea Benthic Ecosystems: A Review of the Evidence From RecentTime-Series Studies pp 1–96

Hilario Murua The Biology and Fisheries of European Hake, Merlucciusmerluccius, in the North-East Atlantic pp 97–154

Jacopo Aguzzi and Joan B Company Chronobiology of Deep-WaterDecapod Crustaceans on Continental Margins pp 155–226

Martin A Collins, Paul Brickle, Judith Brown, and Mark Belchier ThePatagonian Toothfish: Biology, Ecology and Fishery pp 227–300

Volume 59, 2011

Charles W Walker, Rebecca J Van Beneden, Annette F Muttray, S AnneB€ottger, Melissa L Kelley, Abraham E Tucker, and W Kelley Thomas.p53 Superfamily Proteins in Marine Bivalve Cancer and Stress Biology

pp 1–36

Martin Wahl, Veijo Jormalainen, Britas Klemens Eriksson, James A Coyer,Markus Molis, Hendrik Schubert, Megan Dethier, Anneli Ehlers, RolfKarez, Inken Kruse, Mark Lenz, Gareth Pearson, Sven Rohde, Sofia

A Wikstr€om, and Jeanine L Olsen Stress Ecology in Fucus: Abiotic,Biotic and Genetic Interactions pp 37–106

Steven R Dudgeon and Janet E Ku¨bler Hydrozoans and the Shape ofThings to Come pp 107–144

Miles Lamare, David Burritt, and Kathryn Lister Ultraviolet Radiation andEchinoderms: Past, Present and Future Perspectives pp 145–187

Keystone Role of Physiology in Marine Climate Change Research.

Klaske J Schippers, Detmer Sipkema, Ronald Osinga, Hauke Smidt, Shirley

A Pomponi, Dirk E Martens and Rene´ H Wijffels Cultivation of ges, Sponge Cells and Symbionts: Achievements and Future Prospects

Spon-pp 273–338

Cathy H Lucas, William M Graham, and Chad Widmer Jellyfish LifeHistories: Role of Polyps in Forming and Maintaining ScyphomedusaPopulations pp 133–196.

T Aran Mooney, Maya Yamato, and Brian K Branstetter Hearing in ceans: From Natural History to Experimental Biology pp 197–246

Susanne P Eriksson, Bodil Hernroth, and Susanne P Baden Stress Biologyand Immunology in Nephrops norvegicus pp 149–200

Adam Powell and Susanne P Eriksson Reproduction: Life Cycle, Larvaeand Larviculture pp 201–246

Anette Ungfors, Ewen Bell, Magnus L Johnson, Daniel Cowing, Nicola C.Dobson, Ralf Bublitz, and Jane Sandell Nephrops Fisheries in EuropeanWaters pp 247–314

Volume 65, 2013

Isobel S.M Bloor, Martin J Attrill, and Emma L Jackson A Review of theFactors Influencing Spawning, Early Life Stage Survival and RecruitmentVariability in the Common Cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis) pp 1–66.Dianna K Padilla and Monique M Savedo A Systematic Review ofPhenotypic Plasticity in Marine Invertebrate and Plant Systems

pp 67–120

crab, Cancer magister pp 121–174.

Volume 66, 2013

Lisa-ann Gershwin, Anthony J Richardson, Kenneth D Winkel, Peter J.Fenner, John Lippmann, Russell Hore, Griselda Avila-Soria, DavidBrewer, Rudy J Kloser, Andy Steven, and Scott Condie Biology andEcology of Irukandji Jellyfish (Cnidaria: Cubozoa) pp 1–86

April M H Blakeslee, Amy E Fowler, and Carolyn L Keogh Marine sions and Parasite Escape: Updates and New Perspectives pp 87–170.Michael P Russell Echinoderm Responses to Variation in Salinity

Inva-pp 171–212

Daniela M Ceccarelli, A David McKinnon, Serge Andre´foue¨t, ValerieAllain, Jock Young, Daniel C Gledhill, Adrian Flynn, Nicholas J Bax,Robin Beaman, Philippe Borsa, Richard Brinkman, Rodrigo H.Bustamante, Robert Campbell, Mike Cappo, Sophie Cravatte, Ste´phanieD’Agata, Catherine M Dichmont, Piers K Dunstan, Ce´cile Dupouy,Graham Edgar, Richard Farman, Miles Furnas, Claire Garrigue, TrevorHutton, Michel Kulbicki, Yves Letourneur, Dhugal Lindsay, ChristopheMenkes, David Mouillot, Valeriano Parravicini, Claude Payri, BernardPelletier, Bertrand Richer de Forges, Ken Ridgway, Martine Rodier,Sarah Samadi, David Schoeman, Tim Skewes, Steven Swearer, LaurentVigliola, Laurent Wantiez, Alan Williams, Ashley Williams, and Anthony

J Richardson The Coral Sea: Physical Environment, Ecosystem Statusand Biodiversity Assets pp 213–290

Volume 67, 2014

Erica A.G Vidal, Roger Villanueva, Jose´ P Andrade, Ian G Gleadall, Jose´Iglesias, Noussithe´ Koueta, Carlos Rosas, Susumu Segawa, Bret Grasse,Rita M Franco-Santos, Caroline B Albertin, Claudia Caamal-Monsreal,Maria E Chimal, Eric Edsinger-Gonzales, Pedro Gallardo, Charles LePabic, Cristina Pascual, Katina Roumbedakis, and James Wood.Cephalopod Culture: Current Status of Main Biological Models andResearch Priorities pp 1–98

Paul G.K Rodhouse, Graham J Pierce, Owen C Nichols, Warwick H.H.Sauer, Alexander I Arkhipkin, Vladimir V Laptikhovsky, Marek R.Lipinski, Jorge E Ramos, Michae¨l Gras, Hideaki Kidokoro, KazuhiroSadayasu, Joa˜o Pereira, Evgenia Lefkaditou, Cristina Pita, Maria Gasalla,Manuel Haimovici, Mitsuo Sakai, and Nicola Downey Environmental

Effects on Cephalopod Population Dynamics: Implications for ment of Fisheries pp 99–234.

Manage-Henk-Jan T Hoving, Jose´ A.A Perez, Kathrin Bolstad, Heather Braid,Aaron B Evans, Dirk Fuchs, Heather Judkins, Jesse T Kelly, Jose´ E.A.R.Marian, Ryuta Nakajima, Uwe Piatkowski, Amanda Reid, MichaelVecchione, and Jose´ C.C Xavier The Study of Deep-Sea Cephalopods

pp 235–362

Jean-Paul Robin, Michael Roberts, Lou Zeidberg, Isobel Bloor, AlmendraRodriguez, Felipe Bricen˜o, Nicola Downey, Maite Mascaro´, MikeNavarro, Angel Guerra, Jennifer Hofmeister, Diogo D Barcellos, SilviaA.P Lourenc¸o, Clyde F.E Roper, Natalie A Moltschaniwskyj, Corey P.Green, and Jennifer Mather Transitions During Cephalopod LifeHistory: The Role of Habitat, Environment, Functional Morphologyand Behaviour pp 363–440

in the Northeast Atlantic and the Mediterranean pp 65–210

THE SEA ADDRESSES AN MPA

You have drawn a shape in my mind

and want me to think myself into it

like an amnesiac gazing

at a photograph of childhood

Must I sing in this garden

while earth’s guts billow and muffle

square miles the sun’s crystalline

music once struck into song?

Thin as the paper I’m written on,

my bones cannot bear the weight of their losses:

pincers shatter, exoskeletons buckle,

swaying worlds vanish

Your harbours are empty; you grow

old beside me, hungering

for a picture of our past you can look into

through a glass-bottomed boat,

as if you were not there, your plastic pollen

not in my every breath You have

drawn a box in my mind

to hold the story of us – it may yet unfold

John Wedgwood Clarke

xxv

Magnus L Johnson*, Jane Sandell†

*Centre for Environmental and Marine Sciences, University of Hull, Scarborough, North Yorkshire, United Kingdom

† Scottish Fishermen’s Organisation, Peterhead, Aberdeenshire, United Kingdom

Conservation will either contribute to solving the problems of the rural people who live day to day with wild animals, or those animals will disappear, Jonathon Adams & Thomas McShane, WWF.

Brockington (2009)

What must be understood about the future land rights in the world is that most of the Earth's remaining natural resources and most of its high biodiversity ecosys- tems are currently occupied by people, most of who are indigenous So whether the ultimate quarry is gold, oil, timber, tin or tigers, human inhabitants are going

to be placed in conflict with other interests And to them it doesn’t really matter much whether the conflict is with an extractive transnational, the World Bank,

a BINGO [Big International NGO] or the Brazilian military; the end result is pretty much the same – loss of livelihood, food security, freedom and culture.

Dowie (2009)

This volume comprises a series of case studies of large marine protected areas(MPAs) around the world We were stimulated to encourage its develop-ment, as is pointed out in the introduction, by the polarised views and oftenadvocacy, as opposed to science, led proposals for large areas that are desig-nated as “protected” We sought authors who would base their studies onevidence from areas where spatial management has delivered very differentoutcomes; areas where it has been relatively successful, such as South Georgia,Hawaii and California, where it has the potential to be successful, such asthe Phoenix Islands Protected Area and those where it has been less effective

or is not meeting the stated aims such as the Great Barrier Reef, the NorthSea and the Mediterranean We have also included a chapter on one of themost recently declared, controversial, possibly illegal and, it seems, leastlikely to offer any significant benefit in its current form; the ChagosArchipelago

Themes that emerge repeatedly in the studies are the lack of scienceunderpinning the development of MPAs, a lack of clear objectives orindicators for monitoring performance, an inability to marry the needfor protection with the level of protection, with the exception of SouthGeorgia, the lack of financial support for enforcement and the lack of

xxvii

established on paper Even one of the staunchest advocates for MPAsrecently admitted that they are failing for the waters around the UnitedKingdom:

None of the 27 conservation zones declared in 2013 have yet received any new protection My students and I have probed Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Marine Management Organisation and various inshore fish- eries and conservation authorities and it seems that virtually no new protection is

on offer.

Roberts (2014)

In many cases, designation is not supported by those who depend uponresources from the MPAs—indigenous peoples who have fished for centu-ries before the arrival of the western conservation ideal These are the peo-ples who really understand the environment through their daily use andcontact with it They are not supporting them, not only because exclusionfrom their traditional grounds, in many cases, threatens rather than enhancestheir way of life but also because of the perverse effects often resulting fromprotection Nor is the MPA approach favoured by fishermen from moredeveloped countries, who see fishery conservation measures, rather thantotal bans, as a more relevant, comprehensible and effective alternative.And as Ray Hilborn points out in the introduction to this volume, dividingthe world into protected and unprotected areas also increases the vulnera-bility of those areas outside MPAs

In addition, it is clear that static MPAs are not able to deal with changes indistributions of species, particularly for highly migratory stocks, and the nat-urally huge fluctuations in numbers over time The “wicked problem” ofnatural resource management on the marine commons is a function ofknown unknowns and diverse desires of stakeholders (Balint et al., 2011).The legislation required to deal with such situations would have to be socomplex that it would be unworkable In fisheries, we need to be seekingsolutions that harness the incredible capacity of human societies to deal withcomplex and ever-changing situations Harnessing this ability requires thedevelopment of management frameworks that recognise the propensities

of human beings and facilitate community management of common poolresources (Ostrom et al., 1999) rather than imposes exclusion

Dowie, M., 2009 Conservation Refugees MIT Press, London.

Ostrom, E., et al., 1999 Revisiting the commons: local lessons, global challenges Science

284 (9), 278–282.

Roberts, C., 2014 England’s marine conservation network is worse than useless The Guardian Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/ 17/england-marine-conservation-zones

of MPAs are diverse, few studies evaluate the success of MPAs against stated objectives.

It is clear that well-enforced MPAs will protect enough fish from exploitation that within reserves abundance increases, fish live to be larger, and measures of diversity are higher What is much more poorly understood is the impacts of reserve establishment on areas outside reserves Theory suggests that when stocks are seriously overfished outside reserves, the yield and abundance outside the reserves may be increased by spillover from the reserve When stocks are not overexploited, reserve establishment will likely decrease the total yield The chapters in this volume explore a broad set of case studies

of MPAs, their objectives and their outcomes.

Keywords: Marine protected areas, MPAs, Closed areas, Spatially explicit management, Fisheries management, Marine reserves

Advances in Marine Biology, Volume 69 # 2014 Elsevier Ltd

1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter is intended to review a bit of history of MPAs and set thestage for the case studies in this volume It is very much a personal perspec-tive and is certainly not intended to be a thorough literature review

1.1 Background history of MPAs

Closed areas have always been a part of fisheries management Traditionalfishing practices in the Western Pacific as documented by Johannes(1978)and others almost always included areas that were closed to protectspawning or juveniles Johannes highlights marine tenure as the underlyingconcept of traditional fisheries management in the Pacific, and later, in hislist of methods used, closures are mentioned as the first and most ubiquitousmethod McClenachan and Kittinger (2013) describe traditional fishingpractices in Hawaii and also found that closed areas were one of the mostcommon elements of fisheries management by the Polynesians

In western fisheries management, too, closed areas have been an integralpart of the toolkit Areas closed to protect such critical habitats as spawning orjuvenile-rearing areas are documented as far back as the nineteenth century(Fishery Board of Scotland, 1895) Management of salmon in Alaska has reliedprimarily on permanently closing most areas to fishing and regulating harvestthrough short-term openings of some specific areas (Clark et al., 2006) How-ever, most other western fisheries management has relied on closing areasfor specific species with specific gears only, while few areas were designated

as permanently closed to all fishing—that is, there were few no-take areas.However, beginning in the 1990s, a movement began to set aside signif-icant areas of the ocean as permanent no-take areas A review of the scientificliterature shows that papers published with ‘marine reserve’ or ‘marineprotected area’ in the title or abstract (Fig 1.1) were rare before the1990s, became more frequent around 2000, and rose to 270 in 2013.The development of the MPA literature in the 1990s and 2000s wasoften supported by major funding from US Foundations and NGOs advo-cating the establishment of MPAs and reflected an increasing concern aboutthe state of marine ecosystems:

In light of the declining catches and failure of many marine fisheries, biologists dissatisfied with the effectiveness of current management practices have recently advocated the use of harvest refuges as a potentially effective strategy for protecting and/or enhancing harvestable stocks.

Carr and Reed (1993)

However, it was not only the perceived failure of the management of marinefisheries that provided impetus for the MPA movement but also a broaderconcern with the state of the oceans in general At the AAAS meeting in

2001, a group of 161 marine scientists released a consensus statement onthe need for marine reserves that began

The declining state of the oceans and the collapse of many fisheries have created a critical need for new and more effective management of marine biodiversity, populations of exploited species and overall health of the oceans Marine reserves are a highly effective but under-appreciated and under-utilized tool that can help alleviate many of these problems.

The idea that MPAs are an effective way to manage fisheries was widelyaccepted For instance, ‘What reserves offer that other management toolscannot is an ability to control fishing rates in a manner that is relatively easy

to enforce and requires relatively little scientific information (Nowlis andFriedlander, 2005)’ Clearly, any tool that is effective and easy, and, best

of all, requiring little scientific information would be irresistible

Between 2007 and 2009, US Foundations and NGOs spent

$250,000,000 per year on marine conservation with much of this supportingresearch on MPAs and advocating for their establishment (CaliforniaEnvironmental Associates, 2012; Fig 4.1) This is the only period wheresuch numbers are available but such funding has been going on since the1990s These efforts have indeed been very successful in many countries.International agreements, through the Convention on Biodiversity,accepted a target of 10% of the ocean to be designated as MPAs by 2020

The United States and Australia in particular declared large areas of theireconomic zones to be so protected In the United States, primarily in Alaskaand in the Western Pacific, over two-thirds of the economic zones werequalified as MPAs because of the prohibition of bottom trawling.

A key characteristic of the MPA movement is that it has largely beendriven by concerns of biodiversity, and that its advocates have come almostexclusively from the marine biology community Little attention has beenpaid, however, to the broader implications of potentially restricting foodproduction and food security or how it might affect people (Hilborn,

2013) Perhaps most worrying, though, is that establishing MPAs seems

to have become an end in itself, the benefits being so self-evident thatany careful statement of objectives or evaluation was clearly unnecessary.This self-evident nature of benefits is clearly reflected in the second sentence

of the 2001 consensus statement: ‘Marine reserves are a highly effective butunder-appreciated and under-utilized tool that can help alleviate many ofthese problems’ The assertion that marine reserves are ‘highly effective (and) can help alleviate many of these problems’ needs to be criticallyassessed, and to do that we need to look at their objectives

1.2 Objectives

Protected areas can provide many benefits to marine ecosystems that caninclude (1) protection of biodiversity, (2) more tourism, (3) more fish pro-duction and better yields, (4) providing reference sites for evaluating humanimpacts and (5) providing a safety net of resources for times of need Thetraditional practices discussed earlier were generally meant to enhance fishproduction and provide a safety net Protecting spawning and/or juvenilehabitat can have clear benefits through preserving the fish stocks and there-fore were commonly included as part of fisheries management systems; theycan be ‘traditional’ or associated with a centralised governmental manage-ment of fish resources

The oceans are indeed under a broad range of threats including climatechange, ocean acidification, pollution, loss of coastal habitat for breedinggrounds, land-based runoff of sediments, overfishing and destructive fishingpractices (Sutherland et al., 2012) MPAs, because they can only addressoverfishing and destructive fishing practices, have their limits as a manage-ment tool The great threats of climate change, ocean acidification,pollution and land-based impacts are immune to MPAs Furthermore,where the MPAs are being established is usually related to the current

A key driver of the MPA movement was the litany of clear fisheries agement failures leading to the collapse of a number of fisheries in the 1990s,most dramatically that of the northern cod (Gadus morhua) fishery ofNewfoundland The fisheries management systems of the 1990s were obvi-ously failing to protect many fish stocks, and the advocates of MPAs suggestedthat fish yields would be improved by their establishment The document

man-‘The Science of Marine Reserves’ (Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies

of Coastal Oceans, 2002) stated that reserves boost the productivity offisheries outside their boundaries and argued that benefits to fisheries would

be maximised if 40% of the total area was closed to fishing

The push for MPAs was centred in the west coast of the United States,where the David and Lucile Packard Foundation provided tens of millions ofdollars in support for research and advocacy Most of the academics who ledthe MPA movement were located on the west coast, the National ScienceFoundation’s National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis(NCEAS) in Santa Barbara provided a nexus for the scientific and advocacywork, and two programmes to establish MPAs were implemented inCalifornia In the first of these programmes, a set of marine reserves inthe Channel Islands of Southern California was established in 2003, and

it was argued that MPAs would provide strong benefits to fisheries Later,

a much more extensive set of reserves was established along the entireCalifornia coast, and I participated in the science advice teams for part ofthat process

By the late 2000s, the arguments had fundamentally changed The ence teams were explicitly told that the establishment of reserves was not

sci-to be considered part of the fisheries management system, but that the MPAswere established primarily for the purpose of biodiversity This reflects,

I believe, a major change in the focus of much of the MPA advocacy ment, at least in those countries that have effective fisheries management sys-tems, and stems from a general recognition that in many countries fisheriesmanagement has changed significantly since the 1990s and that the currentmanagement systems can, and do, effectively protect fish stocks

move-As context for the chapters in this volume, I would like to review what

we now know about the impact of MPAs on a range of objectives includingthe abundance of fish, the functioning of ecosystems and the provision offood security First, I will discuss what we know from models then what

we have learned from empirical analysis

2 MODELS AND THEORY

Models have been used to evaluate the impacts of closed areas on dance and potential fish yield at least since Beverton and Holt’s classic 1957book (Beverton and Holt, 1957) In section 10.2, they explore the impact

abun-on yield and abundance of protecting portiabun-ons of the populatiabun-on from fishing.The subject appeared to lie dormant until the 1990s with the exception ofSluczanowski (1984), who explored rotational harvest strategies using modelssimilar to Beverton and Holt In the 1990s and early 2000s, a substantial num-ber of modelling papers were published including Polacheck (1990),DeMartini (1993), Sumaila (1998), Guenette and Pitcher (1999), Mauryand Gascuel (1999), Dahlgren and Sobel (2000), Jennings (2000), Mangel(2000),Pezzey et al (2000)andStockhausen et al (2000)

Gerber et al (2003)provided a review of 34 models that had been lished They found that all but one were single-species models, mostassumed uniform distribution of larvae between closed and open areas, mostassumed that density dependence happened post-dispersal, most assumed noage structure and sedentary adults and most were deterministic models withpermanent closed areas

pub-Emerging from the models available up to 2003 were four conclusions(Botsford et al., 2003) (1) The effects on yield per recruit of adding reservesare essentially the same as increasing the size limit (2) The effect on yield ofadding reserves is practically the same as decreasing fishing mortality (3)Reserves for preserving biodiversity are most effective for species withlow rates of juvenile and adult movement, while reserves for fishery man-agement are most effective for species with intermediate rates of adult move-ment (4) Larger fractions of coastline in reserves are required for specieswith longer dispersal

The key result in terms of benefiting fisheries yield was that when fishingmortality rates were in the range that produced maximum sustainable yields,there were no fishery benefits When fishing mortality rates were signifi-cantly above those that produce maximum sustainable yields, then fisheriesyields can be improved by protected areas The key missing elements frommodels of up to 2003 were multispecies evaluations, explicit models of fleetmovement and profitability and spatially explicit models that could representhabitat variation

Hilborn et al (2006)provided a spatially explicit model of a coastlinewith vessel movement and consideration of fisheries regulations and

explicit models that could be used to evaluate proposed MPA designs thatincluded site-specific habitat information and a dynamic fleet movementmodel This approach was extended byCostello et al (2010)who includedmultispecies models and explicit larval dispersal models based on models ofoceanic currents and larval behaviour Both the Walters and Costello modelshave the potential for source–sink dynamics—that is where particularlygood habitats generate much of the production of larvae that can thenmigrate to habitats suitable for growth but not for reproduction Thesource–sink dynamics provide a circumstance where even when fishingmortality rates are well regulated outside reserves, fish yields can beimproved by specific patterns of MPA location—specifically by closingthe most productive ‘source’ habitats The historical use of closed areasfor protection of spawning and juvenile rearing was, in essence, the recog-nition of source–sink dynamics.

These more recent models demonstrate several results that are perhapssurprising While it is almost always the case that abundance of fish willincrease inside the reserves if fishing is indeed stopped, depending onhow fisheries are regulated outside the reserves, total abundance may actu-ally decline when reserves are implemented when the displaced effort ends

up overexploiting stocks outside the reserves Much of the early literatureemphasised that MPAs, if properly sized, could provide the same fisherybenefits as catch regulation However, the size has to be exactly tuned tothe dispersal of the fish, and with multiple species, it is usually impossiblefor the reserve(s) to be the right size for each species For species that movelittle, fisheries benefits will be maximised with small reserves, but for highlydispersive species, reserves must be much larger Large reserves essentiallylock up biomass of low-dispersal species and reduce potential fishery yield.Fisheries management tools that are species specific can be much more effec-tive at managing mixed fisheries than no-take areas For instance, Branchand Hilborn (2008)showed that the individual vessel quotas in the BritishColumbia demersal fishery provided incentives for the fishing vessels to bevery site specific in their fishing locations, thereby allowing them to avoidspecies for which there was little quota

A key feature of no-take areas is that they will increase fishing pressureoutside reserves, often called displacement The naı¨ve vision of lots of largefish inside reserves did not consider the consequences of more fishing pres-sure elsewhere and the negative consequences of this displacement A key

question in any reserve design or evaluation is whether the benefits insidereserves are more than offset the negative impacts of extra fishing pressureoutside reserves (Fogarty and Botsford, 2007) When stocks are seriouslyoverfished, the extra pressure outside the reserves appears to be far more thancompensated by the benefits inside reserves, but when stocks are not over-fished, the opposite appears to be the case I believe that the MPA advocacymovement strongly believed that almost all fisheries were overexploited sothat it would be highly likely that the fisheries would benefit from thereserves.

I believe we can say with confidence that the empirical data show thatMPAs will increase the abundance of targeted fish species inside the reserves

if most of the above conditions are met But empirical data are lacking on theimpact of reserve implementation on abundance of fish outside reserves andthe impact of reserves on fisheries yields While there are some individualstudies, there has not yet been a meta-analysis of those impacts, and the dif-ficulties of experimental design may be very hard to overcome If abundancerises both inside and outside reserves, was this due to the MPA spillover orwas there a change in environmental conditions? For instance,Roberts et al

outside, but more inside roughly tripling on the inside and doubling on theoutside However, abundance on the outside and on the inside increased inthe first year, something that could not have been due to increased abun-dance inside and spillover when dealing with fish species that do not matureuntil they are several years old (Hilborn, 2002).

One of the most convincing studies for fishery benefits is found inKerwath et al (2013) who have data not only from inside and outsidereserves and before and after implementation, but also from other, similarsites that are at quite a distance and where no reserves have beenestablished—presumably the best control possible Catch and catch per uniteffort (CPUE) near the MPA increased after MPA establishment, but didnot increase at more distant sites, and unlike the Roberts study, the increase

in outside the reserves was not instantaneous but took several years todevelop

Hamilton et al (2010)presented preliminary evaluations of the ChannelIslands marine reserves established in California, and these results were veryconsistent with models The fisheries outside the reserves are well regulated,and the abundance of target species inside increased after the reserves wereestablished, whereas they decreased outside Their analysis did not computetotal abundance, but it appears that total abundance of target species likelydecreased or stayed the same after reserve establishment This paper only haddata for the first few years after reserve establishment so caution is need ininterpreting the results

4 CONCLUSIONS

Closed areas, both permanent and temporary, are a significant tool inmarine resource management but, before reserves are implemented, objec-tives need to be clearly defined and an evaluation framework established.For those who see MPAs as an end in itself, it is important that they be per-manent But if we consider MPAs as a tool to achieve social objectives, wemust evaluate what has happened against the objectives of the programmeand be prepared to change the MPA design which might involve moving theMPA, or expanding or reducing their size

We need to also consider the cost of implementing, enforcing andmonitoring reserves as opposed to other possible expenditures that can yieldthe same benefits A key lesson from the Marine Life Protection Act in

California and much experience in the developing world is that you mustconsult with user groups (Weible, 2008) This consultation is very expen-sive, the MLPA process in California, for example, costs tens of millions

of dollars Indeed, the State of California alone could not have affordedthe process, and in the end, the many years of meetings, consultation andanalysis were largely funded by the same foundations that had funded theinitial advocacy that led to the passage of the law The programme officer

of the US Foundation told me recently that after reviewing the expenditures

on MPAs, it was clear that the money would have been more effectivelyspent on improving fisheries management

We need to abandon the acceptance of MPAs as an end in itself with thesole objective to increase abundance inside reserves More case studies ofreserves are needed to evaluate the range of objectives and the performance

of the MPAs against those objectives Peter Kareiva and others (Kareiva andMarvier, 2012; Kareiva et al., 2011) have argued that conservation needs tomove beyond protected areas as the central tool and protects biodiversity inareas that people use by working with resource-dependent communities.The vehement rejection of these ideas by many in the conservation commu-nity (Soule, 2013) reflects a divide found in both marine and terrestrialconservation

What follows in this collection is a major step in this direction Thesepapers consider the range of possible objectives and most attempt to evaluatethe performance of the MPAs accordingly

I would like to close this introduction with two quotes that, while morethan a decade old, seem just as relevant today

The rush to implement MPAs has set the stage for paradoxical differences of ions in the marine conservation community The enthusiastic prescription of sim- plistic solutions to marine conservation problems risks polarization of interests and ultimately threatens bona fide progress in marine conservation The blanket assignment and advocacy of empirically unsubstantiated rules of thumb in marine protection creates potentially dangerous targets for conservation science Clarity of definition, systematic testing of assumptions, and adaptive application of diverse MPA management approaches are needed so that the appropriate mix of various management tools can be utilized, depending upon specific goals and conditions Scientists have a professional and ethical duty to map out those paths that are most likely to lead to improved resource management and understanding of the natural world, including the human element, whether or not they are conve- nient, politically correct or publicly magnetic The use of MPAs as a vehicle for pro- moting long-term conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity is in need of focus, and both philosophical and applied tune ups.

opin-Agardy et al (2003)

and evaluation Mistakes will be made, and without planning, monitoring and evaluation, we will not learn what worked, what did not, and why If marine reserves are implemented without case by case evaluation and appropriate mon- itoring programs, there is a risk of unfulfilled expectations, the creation of disincen- tives, and a loss of credibility of what potentially is a valuable management tool.

Hilborn et al (2004)

REFERENCES

Agardy, T., Bridgewater, P., Crosby, M.P., Day, J., Dayton, P.K., Kenchington, R., Laffoley, D., Mcconney, P., Murray, P.A., Parks, J.E., Peau, L., 2003 Dangerous targets? unresolved issues and ideological clashes around marine protected areas Aquat Conserv.

California Environmental Associates, 2012 Charting a Course to Sustainable Fisheries San Francisco California Available at, http://www.packard.org/what-were-learning/ resource/charting-a-course-to-sustainable-fisheries/

Carr, M.H., Reed, D.C., 1993 Conceptual issues relevant to marine harvest refuges— examples from temperate reef fishes Can J Fish Aquat Sci 50, 2019–2028 Clark, J.H., Mcgregor, A., Mecum, R.D., Krasnowski, P., Carroll, A.M., 2006 The com- mercial salmon fishery in Alaska Alaska Fish Res Bull 12, 1–146.

Costello, C., Rassweiler, A., Siegel, D., De Leo, G., Micheli, F., Rosenberg, A., 2010 The value of spatial information in MPA network design Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.

Fishery Board of Scotland, 1895 Fourteenth Annual Report of the Fishery Board of Scotland House of Commons Parliamentary Papers Online ProQuest Information and Learning Company http://www.proquest.com/products-services/House-of-Commons- Parliamentary-Papers.html

Fogarty, M.J., Botsford, L., 2007 Population connectivity and spatial management of marine fisheries Oceanography 20, 112.

Gerber, L.R., Botsford, L.W., Hastings, A., Possingham, H.P., Gaines, S.D., Palumbi, S.R., Andelman, S.J., 2003 Population models for marine reserve design: a retrospective and prospective synthesis Ecol Appl 13, S47–S64.

Guenette, S., Pitcher, T.J., 1999 An age-structured model showing the benefits of marine reserves in controlling overexploitation Fish Res 39, 295–303.

Halpern, B.S., 2003 The impact of marine reserves: do reserves work and does reserve size matter? Ecol Appl 13, S117–S137.

Halpern, B.S., Warner, R.R., 2002 Marine reserves have rapid and lasting effects Ecol Lett.

Hilborn, R., Micheli, F., De Leo, G.A., 2006 Integrating marine protected areas with catch regulation Can J Fish Aquat Sci 63, 642–649.

Jennings, S., 2000 Patterns and prediction of population recovery in marine reserves Rev Fish Biol Fish 10, 209–231.

Johannes, R.E., 1978 Traditional marine conservation methods in Oceania and their demise Annu Rev Ecol Syst 9, 349–364.

Kareiva, P., Marvier, M., 2012 What is conservation science Bioscience 62, 962–969 Kareiva, P., Lalasz, R., Marvier, M., 2011 Conservation in the anthropocene: beyond solitutude and fragility In: Shellenberger, M., Nordhaus, T (Eds.), Love Your Monster: Postenvironmentalism and the Anthropocene Breakthrough Institute, Oakland, CA.

Kerwath, S.E., Winker, H., Gotz, A., Attwood, C.G., 2013 Marine protected area improves yield without disadvantaging fishers Nat Commun 4 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ ncomms3347

Lester, S.E., Halpern, B.S., Grorud-Colvert, K., Lubchenco, J., Ruttenberg, B.I., Gaines, S.D., Airame, S., Warner, R.R., 2009 Biological effects within no-take marine reserves: a global synthesis Mar Ecol Prog Ser 384, 33–46.

Mangel, M., 2000 Irreducible uncertainties, sustainable fisheries and marine reserves Evol Ecol Res 2, 547–557.

Maury, O., Gascuel, D., 1999 SHADYS (‘simulateur halieutique de dynamiques spatiales’), a GIS based numerical model of fisheries Example application: the study of a marine protected area Aquat Living Resour 12, 77–88.

Mcclenachan, L., Kittinger, J.N., 2013 Multicentury trends and the sustainability of coral reef fisheries in Hawai’i and Florida Fish Fish 14, 239–255.

Nowlis, J.S., Friedlander, A., 2005a Marine reserve function and design for fisheries agement In: Norse, E.A., Crowder, Larry B (Eds.), In: Marine Conservation Biology: The Science of Maintaining the Sea’s Biodiversity, vol 22 Island Press, Washington,

Soule, M.E., 2013 The “New Conservation” Conserv Biol 27, 895–897.

Stockhausen, W.T., Lipcius, R.N., Hickey, B.M., 2000 Joint effects of larval dispersal, ulation regulation, marine reserve design, and exploitation on production and recruit- ment in the Caribbean spiny lobster Bull Mar Sci 66, 957–990.

pop-Sumaila, U.R., 1998 Protected marine reserves as fisheries management tools: a economic analysis Fish Res 37, 287–296.

bio-Sutherland, W.J., Aveling, R., Bennun, L., Chapman, E., Clout, M., Coˆte´, I.M., Depledge, M.H., Dicks, L.V., Dobson, A.P., Fellman, L., 2012 A horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2012 Trends Ecol Evol 27, 12–18.

Walters, C.J., Hilborn, R., Parrish, R.H., 2007 An equilibrium model for predicting the efficacy of marine protected areas in coastal environments Can J Fish Aquat Sci.

64, 1009–1018.

Weible, C.M., 2008 Caught in a maelstrom: implementing California marine protected areas Coast Manag 36, 350–373.

The South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands MPA: Protecting

A Biodiverse Oceanic Island Chain Situated in the Flow of the

Antarctic Circumpolar Current

Government of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Government House, Stanley, Falkland Islands

1 Corresponding author: e-mail address: pnt@bas.ac.uk

Contents

1.1 Background and ecological characteristics 16

3.5 Effects on local and foreign fisheries fleets 65

Advances in Marine Biology, Volume 69 # 2014 Elsevier Ltd

or benthic domain.

Keywords: Pelagic protection, Benthic protection, High biodiversity, Fisheries, Antarctic krill, South Georgia, MPA

1 INTRODUCTION TO THE AREA

1.1 Background and ecological characteristics

The Scotia Sea is located in the southwest Atlantic (Figure 2.1) where themarine ecosystem is dominated by the eastward-flowing Antarctic Circum-polar Current (ACC) and waters of the Weddell–Scotia Confluence Theflow of the ACC is constrained by bathymetry, particularly where it passesover the Scotia Arc (Orsi et al., 1995) Topographic steering pushes coldpolar waters to lower latitudes (Murphy et al., 2004; Thorpe et al., 2004,

2007); this also results in associated intense eddy activity and mixing SouthGeorgia and the South Sandwich Islands (SGSSI) lie within the Scotia Sea,

so their marine ecosystems are dominated by the strong advective flow of theACC (seeAtkinson et al., 2001; Murphy et al., 2007afor a description of theecology of the Scotia Sea ecosystem) Much of the Scotia Sea also lies withinthat region that experiences strong seasonality, with seasonally changingirradiance and seasonal sea-ice cover that annually extends northwards inwinter inundating many of the South Sandwich Islands, but rarely reaching

as far north as South Georgia itself Intense summer phytoplankton blooms

probably result from the mixing of micronutrients into surface watersthrough the flow of the ACC over the Scotia Arc (Korb et al., 2004) Thisintense, seasonal production is critical to the Scotia Sea marine system withmuch of it eventually consumed by a range of species including Antarctickrill (Euphausia superba); krill can comprise up to 50% of zooplankton bio-mass at South Georgia (Atkinson et al., 2001) and are themselves a majorprey item for the abundant seabird and marine mammal populations thatuse the Scotia Sea Climate variability has also long been recognised as a fea-ture of the Scotia Sea (e.g.Trathan et al., 2003), which has been linked to the

El Nin˜o-Southern Oscillation (e.g.Trathan et al., 2006a) and the SouthernAnnular Mode (e.g.Murphy et al., 2007b) This variability affects the phys-ical properties of the marine system as well as primary and secondary pro-duction It also affects krill population dynamics and dispersal (Murphy

et al., 2007b), which in turn impacts higher trophic level predator foraging,breeding performance and population dynamics (Trathan et al.,2006a, 2007)

Figure 2.1 The South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands MPA shown in red (dark grey

in the print version), with the eastward-flowing Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) fronts in green (white in the print version): south to north, Southern ACC Boundary, Southern ACC Front, Polar Front, Sub-Antarctic Front Bathymetry data from GEBCO.

Kock, 1992), while significant ecological changes have also occurred inresponse to rapid, regional warming during the latter part of the 20th century(e.g Whitehouse et al., 2008) The combination of historical perturbationtogether with recent, rapid regional change suggests that the Scotia Sea eco-system is likely to show further significant change over the coming decades,which may also result in major ecological shifts.

Today, and despite such concerns for the future, the waters within theSouth Georgia and South Sandwich Islands Maritime Zone (SGSSIMZ)remain among the most productive in the Southern Ocean, supporting a greatdiversity and abundance of wildlife (Trathan et al., 1996), including benthos(Hogg et al., 2011; Rogers et al., 2012), pelagic organisms (Atkinson et al.,2001; Murphy et al., 2007a), and marine predators, including land-based sea-birds and marine mammals (Clarke et al., 2012) The biological diversity andabundance within the waters of the SGSSIMZ also mean that the area con-tinues to be attractive for the commercial harvesting of marine living resources(Agnew, 2004) Consequently, in 2012, the Government of South Georgiaand the South Sandwich Islands (GSGSSI) established a Marine ProtectedArea (MPA) including a number of fishery no-take zones within theSGSSIMZ (Figure 2.1) The management plan for the MPA1 lists in detail

an inventory of species present in the SGSSIMZ

1.2 Fisheries pre-MPA

Fishing for finfish and Antarctic krill has been taking place at South Georgia forover 40 years (Figure 2.2A) Within that period, major changes in manage-ment practices have occurred, including the international agreement to formthe Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources(CCAMLR) in 1982 and the declaration of the SGSSIMZ in 1993 Manage-ment of fisheries prior to these dates was much less conservative and a number

of stocks and species were harvested to very low levels following extensiveindustrial-scale fishing (Kock, 1992), especially by east European fleets

In the SGSSIMZ, there are now legal licenced fisheries (Figure 2.2B) forPatagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides), mackerel icefish (Champsocephalusgunnari) and Antarctic krill, with a small fishery for Antarctic toothfish(Dissostichus mawsoni) at the South Sandwich Islands Fisheries within theSGSSIMZ are currently managed within the international framework of

1

See http://www.sgisland.gs/download/MPA/MPAManagementPlanv2.0.pdf (accessed 25 April 2014).

(Continued )