The Effect of Incremental Reserve Design and Changing Reservation Goals on the Long-Term Efficiency of Reserve Systems

Abstract:  Selecting reserve areas based on percentages, such as 10% or 12% of a bioregion, is common in conservation planning despite widespread admission that such percentages are arbitrary and likely to be inadequate for the conservation of all biodiversity. Reserve systems based on these relatively low percentage targets are likely to require expansion in the future, resulting in the assembly of reserve systems over many years (incremental reserve design). How then will incremental reserve design, such as increasing percentage targets over time, affect the long-term efficiency of marine reserve systems? We used South Australia as a case study to investigate how changing percentage targets affects the contribution of individual planning units to efficient reserve design. Selection frequency counts provided a measure of a planning unit's conservation value. For the majority of planning units, changing targets led to a change in their conservation value indicating, for example, that planning units identified as high-value sites at a low-percentage conservation target may be of lesser importance when targets are increased. Despite the variability in the value of individual planning units at different targets, there was no loss in efficiency from incremental design of reserve systems based on systematic methods compared with purpose-built reserve systems (i.e., the system is assembled in a single iteration). The exception was when incrementally designed systems were based on South Australia's existing marine reserve system—a system developed in an ad hoc method. The result was reserve systems that were less efficient, less compact, and larger in size. This suggests that systematic approaches have an important role for efficient reserve design when there is uncertainty about the target level of reservation .     

Multispecies genetic objectives in spatial conservation planning

Growing threats to biodiversity and global alteration of habitats and species distributions make it increasingly necessary to consider evolutionary patterns in conservation decision making. Yet, there is no clear‐cut guidance on how genetic features can be incorporated into conservation‐planning processes, despite multiple molecular markers and several genetic metrics for each marker type to choose from. Genetic patterns differ between species, but the potential tradeoffs among genetic objectives for multiple species in conservation planning are currently understudied. We compared spatial conservation prioritizations derived from 2 metrics of genetic diversity (nucleotide and haplotype diversity) and 2 metrics of genetic isolation (private haplotypes and local genetic differentiation) in mitochondrial DNA of 5 marine species. We compared outcomes of conservation plans based only on habitat representation with plans based on genetic data and habitat representation. Fewer priority areas were selected for conservation plans based solely on habitat representation than on plans that included habitat and genetic data. All 4 genetic metrics selected approximately similar conservation‐priority areas, which is likely a result of prioritizing genetic patterns across a genetically diverse array of species. Largely, our results suggest that multispecies genetic conservation objectives are vital to creating protected‐area networks that appropriately preserve community‐level evolutionary patterns.     

Striking a Balance between Biodiversity Conservation and Socioeconomic Viability in the Design of Marine Protected Areas

Abstract: The establishment of marine protected areas is often viewed as a conflict between conservation and fishing. We considered consumptive and nonconsumptive interests of multiple stakeholders (i.e., fishers, scuba divers, conservationists, managers, scientists) in the systematic design of a network of marine protected areas along California's central coast in the context of the Marine Life Protection Act Initiative. With advice from managers, administrators, and scientists, a representative group of stakeholders defined biodiversity conservation and socioeconomic goals that accommodated social needs and conserved marine ecosystems, consistent with legal requirements. To satisfy biodiversity goals, we targeted 11 marine habitats across 5 depth zones, areas of high species diversity, and areas containing species of special status. We minimized adverse socioeconomic impacts by minimizing negative effects on fishers. We included fine‐scale fishing data from the recreational and commercial fishing sectors across 24 fisheries. Protected areas designed with consideration of commercial and recreational fisheries reduced potential impact to the fisheries approximately 21% more than protected areas designed without consideration of fishing effort and resulted in a small increase in the total area protected (approximately 3.4%). We incorporated confidential fishing data without revealing the identity of specific fisheries or individual fishing grounds. We sited a portion of the protected areas near land parks, marine laboratories, and scientific monitoring sites to address nonconsumptive socioeconomic goals. Our results show that a stakeholder‐driven design process can use systematic conservation‐planning methods to successfully produce options for network design that satisfy multiple conservation and socioeconomic objectives. Marine protected areas that incorporate multiple stakeholder interests without compromising biodiversity conservation goals are more likely to protect marine ecosystems.     

Strategies for Successful Marine Conservation: Integrating Socioeconomic, Political, and Scientific Factors

Abstract:  As the process of marine-protected-area design and implementation evolves, the incorporation of new tools will advance our ability to create and maintain effective protected areas. We reviewed characteristics and approaches that contribute to successful global marine conservation efforts. One successful characteristic emphasized in most case studies is the importance of incorporating stakeholders at all phases of the process. Clearly defined goals and objectives at all stages of the design process are important for improved communication and standardized expectations of stakeholder groups. The inclusion of available science to guide the size and design of marine protected areas and to guide clear monitoring strategies that assess success at scientific, social, and economic levels is also an important tool in the process. Common shortcomings in marine conservation planning strategies include government instability and resultant limitations to monitoring and enforcement, particularly in developing nations. Transferring knowledge to local community members has also presented challenges in areas where in situ training, local capacity, and existing infrastructure are sparse. Inaccessible, unavailable, or outdated science is often a limitation to conservation projects in developed and developing nations. To develop and maintain successful marine protected areas, it is necessary to acknowledge that each case is unique, to apply tools and lessons learned from other marine protected areas, and to maintain flexibility to adjust to the individual circumstances of the case at hand.     

Effectiveness of Marine Protected Areas in the Philippines for Biodiversity Conservation

Abstract: Quantifying the extent to which existing reserves meet conservation objectives and identifying gaps in coverage are vital to developing systematic protected‐area networks. Despite widespread recognition of the Philippines as a global priority for marine conservation, limited work has been undertaken to evaluate the conservation effectiveness of existing marine protected areas (MPAs). Targets for MPA coverage in the Philippines have been specified in the 1998 Fisheries Code legislation, which calls for 15% of coastal municipal waters (within 15 km of the coastline) to be protected within no‐take MPAs, and the Philippine Marine Sanctuary Strategy (2004), which aims to protect 10% of coral reef area in no‐take MPAs by 2020. We used a newly compiled database of nearly 1000 MPAs to measure progress toward these targets. We evaluated conservation effectiveness of MPAs in two ways. First, we determined the degree to which marine bioregions and conservation priority areas are represented within existing MPAs. Second, we assessed the size and spacing patterns of reserves in terms of best‐practice recommendations. We found that the current extent and distribution of MPAs does not adequately represent biodiversity. At present just 0.5% of municipal waters and 2.7–3.4% of coral reef area in the Philippines are protected in no‐take MPAs. Moreover, 85% of no‐take area is in just two sites; 90% of MPAs are <1 km². Nevertheless, distances between existing MPAs should ensure larval connectivity between them, providing opportunities to develop regional‐scale MPA networks. Despite the considerable success of community‐based approaches to MPA implementation in the Philippines, this strategy will not be sufficient to meet conservation targets, even under a best‐case scenario for future MPA establishment. We recommend that implementation of community‐based MPAs be supplemented by designation of additional large no‐take areas specifically located to address conservation targets.     

Comparing and Integrating Community-Based and Science-Based Approaches to Prioritizing Marine Areas for Protection

Abstract:  We compared and integrated marine protected areas proposed through community and scientific assessments in 2 regions of British Columbia, Canada. The community priorities were identified during individual and group interviews with knowledgeable resource users. The scientific priorities were developed with abiotic and biotic data in Marxan, a decision-support tool. The resulting maps of community-based and science-based priorities were very similar for the inshore areas, which lent credibility to both approaches. The resource users thought the science-based maps were fairly good at highlighting areas important for conservation, but preferred the scenarios that integrated the 2 maps to either constituent map. Incorporating spatial variation in human impacts on the marine areas and commercial fishing, which are both costs of protection, into our Marxan analyses led to scenarios that were different from either constituent map. Our results show the value of integrating community-based and science-based approaches in conservation planning to achieve community acceptance and conservation utility. They also reveal that people's assessments on the basis of their traditional ecological knowledge may serve as a reasonable proxy for scientific approaches in selecting areas of ecological value.     

An Environmental Domain Classification of New Zealand and Its Use as a Tool for Biodiversity Management

Abstract:   Successful biodiversity management, including the selection and subsequent management of protected areas, depends in large measure on classifications showing land areas with similar ecosystem character. In contrast to widely used, qualitative land-classification techniques, we used a numerical classification of explicit spatial layers describing aspects of New Zealand's climate and landforms. We chose input variables for their strong functional links with major physiological processes of trees and high statistical correlations with geographic distributions of individual tree species as determined from previous studies. Higher-level divisions of the resulting classification were dominated by macroclimatic variation associated with change in both latitude and orographic protection provided by New Zealand's main mountain ranges, but variation in landform became more important at finer scales of classification. Classification units showed marked variation in the proportional extent of both indigenous vegetation cover and land set aside for conservation purposes. Indigenous ecosystem remnants of the highest priority for increased protection occurred in warm, lowland domains, particularly in drier environments, where both indigenous cover and protected areas are of minimal geographic extent. Such results underline the considerable potential of an environmental classification to provide a landscape context for systematic conservation management, particularly in environments where the natural ecosystem pattern has been severely modified by human activity.     

Current Status of Marine Protected Areas in Latin America and the Caribbean

Abstract: Marine protected areas (MPAs), including no‐take marine reserves (MRs), play an important role in the conservation of marine biodiversity. We document the status of MPAs and MRs in Latin America and the Caribbean, where little has been reported on the scope of such protection. Our survey of protected area databases, published and unpublished literature, and Internet searches yielded information from 30 countries and 12 overseas territories. At present more than 700 MPAs have been established, covering more than 300,000 km² or 1.5% of the coastal and shelf waters. We report on the status of 3 categories of protection: MPAs (limited take throughout the area), MRs (no‐take throughout the area), and mixed‐use (a limited‐take MPA that contains an MR). The majority of protected areas in Latin America and the Caribbean are MPAs, which allow some or extensive extractive activities throughout the designated area. These 571 sites cover 51,505 km² or 0.3% of coastal and shelf waters. There are 98 MRs covering 16,862 km² or 0.1% of the coastal and shelf waters. Mixed‐use MPAs are the fewest in number (87), but cover the largest area (236,853 km², 1.2%). Across Latin America and the Caribbean, many biogeographic provinces are underrepresented in these protected areas. Large coastal regions remain unprotected, in particular, the southern Pacific and southern Atlantic coasts of South America. Our analysis reveals multiple opportunities to strengthen marine conservation in Latin America and the Caribbean by improving implementation, management, and enforcement of existing MPAs; adding new MPAs and MRs strategically to enhance connectivity and sustainability of existing protection; and establishing new networks of MPAs and MRs or combinations thereof to enhance protection where little currently exists.     

The Consistency of Extinction Risk Classification Protocols

Abstract:  Systematic protocols that use decision rules or scores are seen to improve consistency and transparency in classifying the conservation status of species. When applying these protocols, assessors are typically required to decide on estimates for attributes that are inherently uncertain. Input data and resulting classifications are usually treated as though they are exact and hence without operator error. We investigated the impact of data interpretation on the consistency of protocols of extinction risk classifications and diagnosed causes of discrepancies when they occurred. We tested three widely used systematic classification protocols employed by the World Conservation Union, NatureServe, and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. We provided 18 assessors with identical information for 13 different species to infer estimates for each of the required parameters for the three protocols. The threat classification of several of the species varied from low risk to high risk, depending on who did the assessment. This occurred across the three protocols investigated. Assessors tended to agree on their placement of species in the highest (50–70%) and lowest risk categories (20–40%), but there was poor agreement on which species should be placed in the intermediate categories. Furthermore, the correspondence between the three classification methods was unpredictable, with large variation among assessors. These results highlight the importance of peer review and consensus among multiple assessors in species classifications and the need to be cautious with assessments carried out by a single assessor. Greater consistency among assessors requires wide use of training manuals and formal methods for estimating parameters that allow uncertainties to be represented, carried through chains of calculations, and reported transparently.     

Using community‐level metrics to monitor the effects of marine protected areas on biodiversity

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are used to protect species, communities, and their associated habitats, among other goals. Measuring MPA efficacy can be challenging, however, particularly when considering responses at the community level. We gathered 36 abundance and 14 biomass data sets on fish assemblages and used meta‐analysis to evaluate the ability of 22 distinct community diversity metrics to detect differences in community structure between MPAs and nearby control sites. We also considered the effects of 6 covariates—MPA size and age, MPA size and age interaction, latitude, total species richness, and level of protection—on each metric. Some common metrics, such as species richness and Shannon diversity, did not differ consistently between MPA and control sites, whereas other metrics, such as total abundance and biomass, were consistently different across studies. Metric responses derived from the biomass data sets were more consistent than those based on the abundance data sets, suggesting that community‐level biomass differs more predictably than abundance between MPA and control sites. Covariate analyses indicated that level of protection, latitude, MPA size, and the interaction between MPA size and age affect metric performance. These results highlight a handful of metrics, several of which are little known, that could be used to meet the increasing demand for community‐level indicators of MPA effectiveness.     

Emerging conservation challenges and prospects in an era of offshore hydrocarbon exploration and exploitation

Globally, extensive marine areas important for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem functioning are undergoing exploration and extraction of oil and natural gas resources. Such operations are expanding to previously inaccessible deep waters and other frontier regions, while conservation‐related legislation and planning is often lacking. Conservation challenges arising from offshore hydrocarbon development are wide‐ranging. These challenges include threats to ecosystems and marine species from oil spills, negative impacts on native biodiversity from invasive species colonizing drilling infrastructure, and increased political conflicts that can delay conservation actions. With mounting offshore operations, conservationists need to urgently consider some possible opportunities that could be leveraged for conservation. Leveraging options, as part of multi‐billion dollar marine hydrocarbon operations, include the use of facilities and costly equipment of the deep and ultra‐deep hydrocarbon industry for deep‐sea conservation research and monitoring and establishing new conservation research, practice, and monitoring funds and environmental offsetting schemes. The conservation community, including conservation scientists, should become more involved in the earliest planning and exploration phases and remain involved throughout the operations so as to influence decision making and promote continuous monitoring of biodiversity and ecosystems. A prompt response by conservation professionals to offshore oil and gas developments can mitigate impacts of future decisions and actions of the industry and governments. New environmental decision support tools can be used to explicitly incorporate the impacts of hydrocarbon operations on biodiversity into marine spatial and conservation plans and thus allow for optimum trade‐offs among multiple objectives, costs, and risks.     

Assessing sensitivities of marine areas to stressors based on biological traits

Analysis of the biological traits (e.g., feeding mode and size) that control how organisms interact with their environment has been used to identify environmental drivers of, or impacts on, species and to explain the importance of biodiversity loss. Biological trait analysis (BTA) could also be used within risk-assessment frameworks or in conservation planning if one understands the groups of traits that predict the sensitivity of habitats or communities to specific human activities. Deriving sensitivities from BTA should extend sensitivity predictions to a variety of habitats, especially those in which it would be difficult to conduct experiments (e.g., due to depth or risk to human life) and to scales beyond the norm of most experiments. We used data on epibenthos, collected via video along transects at 27 sites in a relatively pristine region of the seafloor, to determine scales of natural spatial variability of derived sensitivities and the degree to which predictions of sensitivity differed among 3 stressors (extraction of species, sedimentation, and suspended sediments) or were affected by underlying community compositions. We used 3 metrics (weighted abundance, abundance of highly sensitive species, and number of highly sensitive species) to derive sensitivity to these stressors and simulated the ability of these metrics to detect a range of stressor intensities. Regardless of spatial patterns of sensitivities across the sampled area, BTA distinguished differences in sensitivity to different stressors. The BTA also successfully separated differences in community composition from differences in sensitivity to stressors. Conversely, the 3 metrics differed widely in their ability to detect simulated impacts and likely reflect underlying ecological processes, suggesting that use of multiple metrics would be informative for spatial planning and allocating conservation priorities. Our results suggest BTA could be used as a first step in strategic prioritization of protected areas and as an underlying layer for spatial planning.     

Efficient and equitable design of marine protected areas in Fiji through inclusion of stakeholder‐specific objectives in conservation planning

The efficacy of protected areas varies, partly because socioeconomic factors are not sufficiently considered in planning and management. Although integrating socioeconomic factors into systematic conservation planning is increasingly advocated, research is needed to progress from recognition of these factors to incorporating them effectively in spatial prioritization of protected areas. We evaluated 2 key aspects of incorporating socioeconomic factors into spatial prioritization: treatment of socioeconomic factors as costs or objectives and treatment of stakeholders as a single group or multiple groups. Using as a case study the design of a system of no‐take marine protected areas (MPAs) in Kubulau, Fiji, we assessed how these aspects affected the configuration of no‐take MPAs in terms of trade‐offs between biodiversity objectives, fisheries objectives, and equity in catch losses among fisher stakeholder groups. The achievement of fisheries objectives and equity tended to trade‐off concavely with increasing biodiversity objectives, indicating that it is possible to achieve low to mid‐range biodiversity objectives with relatively small losses to fisheries and equity. Importantly, the extent of trade‐offs depended on the method used to incorporate socioeconomic data and was least severe when objectives were set for each fisher stakeholder group explicitly. We found that using different methods to incorporate socioeconomic factors that require similar data and expertise can result in plans with very different impacts on local stakeholders.     

Adaptive Comanagement of a Marine Protected Area Network in Fiji

Adaptive management of natural resources is an iterative process of decision making whereby management strategies are progressively changed or adjusted in response to new information. Despite an increasing focus on the need for adaptive conservation strategies, there remain few applied examples. We describe the 9‐year process of adaptive comanagement of a marine protected area network in Kubulau District, Fiji. In 2011, a review of protected area boundaries and management rules was motivated by the need to enhance management effectiveness and the desire to improve resilience to climate change. Through a series of consultations, with the Wildlife Conservation Society providing scientific input to community decision making, the network of marine protected areas was reconfigured so as to maximize resilience and compliance. Factors identified as contributing to this outcome include well‐defined resource‐access rights; community respect for a flexible system of customary governance; long‐term commitment and presence of comanagement partners; supportive policy environment for comanagement; synthesis of traditional management approaches with systematic monitoring; and district‐wide coordination, which provided a broader spatial context for adaptive‐management decision making. Co‐Manejo Adaptativo de una Red de Áreas Marinas Protegidas en Fiyi     

Constraints of philanthropy on determining the distribution of biodiversity conservation funding

Caught between ongoing habitat destruction and funding shortfalls, conservation organizations are using systematic planning approaches to identify places that offer the highest biodiversity return per dollar invested. However, available tools do not account for the landscape of funding for conservation or quantify the constraints this landscape imposes on conservation outcomes. Using state‐level data on philanthropic giving to and investments in land conservation by a large nonprofit organization, we applied linear regression to evaluate whether the spatial distribution of conservation philanthropy better explained expenditures on conservation than maps of biodiversity priorities, which were derived from a planning process internal to the organization and return on investment (ROI) analyses based on data on species richness, land costs, and existing protected areas. Philanthropic fund raising accounted for considerably more spatial variation in conservation spending (r² = 0.64) than either of the 2 systematic conservation planning approaches (r² = 0.08–0.21). We used results of one of the ROI analyses to evaluate whether increases in flexibility to reallocate funding across space provides conservation gains. Small but plausible “tax” increments of 1–10% on states redistributed to the optimal funding allocation from the ROI analysis could result in gains in endemic species protected of 8.5–80.2%. When such increases in spatial flexibility are not possible, conservation organizations should seek to cultivate increased support for conservation in priority locations. We used lagged correlations of giving to and spending by the organization to evaluate whether investments in habitat protection stimulate future giving to conservation. The most common outcome at the state level was that conservation spending quarters correlated significantly and positively with lagged fund raising quarters. In effect, periods of high fund raising for biodiversity followed (rather than preceded) periods of high expenditure on land conservation projects, identifying one mechanism conservation organizations could explore to seed greater activity in priority locations. Our results demonstrate how limitations on the ability of conservation organizations to reallocate their funding across space can impede organizational effectiveness and elucidate ways conservation planning tools could be more useful if they quantified and incorporated these constraints.     

Bolder science needed now for protected areas

Recognizing that protected areas (PAs) are essential for effective biodiversity conservation action, the Convention on Biological Diversity established ambitious PA targets as part of the 2020 Strategic Plan for Biodiversity. Under the strategic goal to “improve the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems, species, and genetic diversity,” Target 11 aims to put 17% of terrestrial and 10% of marine regions under PA status by 2020. Additionally and crucially, these areas are required to be of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative, and well‐connected and to include “other effective area‐based conservation measures” (OECMs). Whereas the area‐based targets are explicit and measurable, the lack of guidance for what constitutes important and representative; effective; and OECMs is affecting how nations are implementing the target. There is a real risk that Target 11 may be achieved in terms of area while failing the overall strategic goal for which it is established because the areas are poorly located, inadequately managed, or based on unjustifiable inclusion of OECMs. We argue that the conservation science community can help establish ecologically sensible PA targets to help prioritize important biodiversity areas and achieve ecological representation; identify clear, comparable performance metrics of ecological effectiveness so progress toward these targets can be assessed; and identify metrics and report on the contribution OECMs make toward the target. By providing ecologically sensible targets and new performance metrics for measuring the effectiveness of both PAs and OECMs, the science community can actively ensure that the achievement of the required area in Target 11 is not simply an end in itself but generates genuine benefits for biodiversity.     

A habitat‐based approach to predict impacts of marine protected areas on fishers

Although marine protected areas can simultaneously contribute to biodiversity conservation and fisheries management, the global network is biased toward particular ecosystem types because they have been established primarily in an ad hoc fashion. The optimization of trade‐offs between biodiversity benefits and socioeconomic values increases success of protected areas and minimizes enforcement costs in the long run, but it is often neglected in marine spatial planning (MSP). Although the acquisition of spatially explicit socioeconomic data is perceived as a costly or secondary step in MSP, it is critical to account for lost opportunities by people whose activities will be restricted, especially fishers. We developed an easily reproduced habitat‐based approach to estimate the spatial distribution of opportunity cost to fishers in data‐poor regions. We assumed the most accessible areas have higher economic and conservation values than less accessible areas and their designation as no‐take zones represents a loss of fishing opportunities. We estimated potential distribution of fishing resources from bathymetric ranges and benthic habitat distribution and the relative importance of the different resources for each port of total catches, revenues, and stakeholder perception. In our model, we combined different cost layers to produce a comprehensive cost layer so that we could evaluate of trade‐offs. Our approach directly supports conservation planning, can be applied generally, and is expected to facilitate stakeholder input and community acceptance of conservation.     

Beyond Biogeography: a Framework for Involving the Public in Planning of U.S. Marine Protected Areas

Abstract:  Planning of marine protected areas (MPAs) is highlighted in the conservation literature but is not explored in much detail. Many researchers acknowledge the importance of involving the public in MPA planning, but there is limited guidance on how to do this in an effective manner. I present a framework for involving the public in planning of U.S. MPAs. Derived from empirically and theoretically based research on public participation in U.S. natural resource management, this framework is composed of factors that influence the success of participatory processes: active participant involvement, complete information exchange, fair decision making, efficient administration, and positive participant interactions. Processes incorporating these factors will produce decisions that are more likely to be supported by stakeholders, meet management objectives, and fulfill conservation goals. This framework contributes to the MPA social science literature and responds to calls in the conservation literature to increase the use of social science research to inform conservation decision making.     

The Effectiveness of Iberian Protected Areas in Conserving Terrestrial Biodiversity

Abstract:  The Iberian Peninsula harbors about 50% of European plant and terrestrial vertebrate species and more than 30% of European endemic species. Despite the global recognition of its importance, the selection of protected areas has been ad hoc and the effectiveness of such choices has rarely been assessed. We compiled the most comprehensive distributional data set of Iberian terrestrial plant and vertebrate species available to date and used it to assess the degree of species representation within existing protected areas. Existing protected areas in Spain and Portugal reasonably represented the plant and animal species we considered (73–98%). Nevertheless, species of some groups (amphibians, reptiles, birds, and gymnosperms) did not accumulate in protected areas at a rate higher than expected by chance ( p > 0.05). We determined that to conserve all vertebrate and plant species in the Iberian Peninsula, at least 36 additional areas are needed. Selection of additional areas for conservation would be facilitated if such areas coincided with sites of community importance (SCI) designated under the European Commission Habitats Directive. Additional areas required for full representation of the selected plant and animal species all coincide with SCI in Spain. Nevertheless, the degree of coincidence varies between 0.3% and 74.6%, and there is a possibility that important areas for conservation occur outside the SCI. Our results support the view that current SCI can be used for prioritization of areas for conservation, but a systematic reevaluation of conservation priorities in Spain and Portugal would be necessary to ensure that effective conservation of one of European's most important biodiversity regions is achieved.     

Conservation Objectives and Sea‐Surface Temperature Anomalies in the Great Barrier Reef

Abstract: Spatial and temporal dynamics of ecological processes have long been considered important in marine systems, but seldom have conservation objectives been set for them. Climate change makes the consideration of the dynamics of ecological processes in the design of marine protected areas critical. We analyzed sea‐surface temperature (SST) trends and variability in Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) for 25 years and formulated and tested whether three sets of notional conservation objectives were met to illustrate the potential for planning to address climate change. Given mixed and limited evidence that no‐take areas increase resilience to disturbances such as anomalously high temperatures (i.e., temperatures ≥1 °C above weekly mean temperature), our conservation objectives focused on areas less likely to be affected by such events at extents ranging from the entire Great Barrier Reef to the system of no‐take zones and individual no‐take zones. The objective sets were (1) at least 50% of temperature refugia (i.e., pixels that had high‐temperature anomalies <5% or <7% of the time) within no‐take zones, (2) maximum occurrence of high‐temperature anomalies is <10%,< 20%, or <30% of total no‐take area 90% of the time, and (3) coverage of any single no‐take zone by high‐temperature anomalies occurs <5% or <10% of the time. We used satellite imagery from 1985–2009 to measure SST to determine high‐temperature anomalies. SSTs in the Great Barrier Reef increased significantly in some regions, and some of the conservation objectives were met by the park's current zoning plan. Dialogue between conservation scientists and managers is needed to develop appropriate conservation objectives under climate change and strategies to meet them.